§41. The thing that follows is not the same as the thing that it follows.

He first says, “the attribute of being ungenerate follows the Deity.” By that we understood him to mean that this Ungeneracy is one of the things external to God. Then he says, “Or rather this Ungeneracy is His actual being.” We fail to understand the ‘sequitur’ of this; we notice in fact something very queer and incongruous about it. If Ungeneracy follows God, and yet also constitutes His being, two beings will be attributed to one and the same subject in this view; so that God will be in the same way as He was before and has always been believed to be167    ὡς εἶναι μὲν τὸν Θεὸν κατὰ ταὐτὸν ὡς εἶναί ποτε(infinitive by attraction to preceding) καὶ εἶναι πεπίστευται, but besides that will have another being accompanying, which they style Ungeneracy, quite distinct from Him Whose ‘following’ it is, as our Master puts it. Well, if he commands us to think so, he must pardon our poverty of ideas, in not being able to follow out such subtle speculations.

But if he disowns this view, and does not admit a double being in the Deity, one represented by the godhead, the other by the ungeneracy, let our friend, who is himself neither ‘rash’ nor ‘malignant,’ prevail upon himself not to be over partial to invective while these combats for the truth are being fought, but to explain to us, who are so wanting in culture, how that which follows is not one thing and that which leads another, but how both coalesce into one; for, in spite of what he says in defence of his statement, the absurdity of it remains; and the addition of that handful of words168    ἐυαριθμήτων ῥηματων. But it is possible that the true reading may be εὐρύθμων, alluding to the ‘rhythm’ in the form of abuse with which Eunomius connected his arguments (preceding section). does not correct, as he asserts, the contradiction in it. I have not yet been able to see that any explanation at all is discoverable in them. But we will give what he has written verbatim. “We say, ‘or rather the Ungeneracy is His actual being,’ without meaning to contract into the being169    οὐκ εἰς τὸ εἶναι συναιροῦντες that which we have proved to follow it, but applying ‘follow’ to the title, but is to the being.” Accordingly when these things are taken together, the whole resulting argument would be, that the title Ungenerate follows, because to be Ungenerate is His actual being. But what expounder of this expounding shall we get? He says “without meaning to contract into the being that which we have proved to follow it.” Perhaps some of the guessers of riddles might tell us that by ‘contract into’ he means ‘fastening together.’ But who can see anything intelligible or coherent in the rest? The results of ‘following’ belong, he tells us, not to the being, but to the title. But, most learned sir, what is the title? Is it in discord with the being, or does it not rather coincide with it in the thinking? If the title is inappropriate to the being, then how can the being be represented by the title; but if, as he himself phrases it, the being is fittingly defined by the title of Ungenerate, how can there be any parting of them after that? You make the name of the being follow one thing and the being itself another. And what then is the ‘construction of the entire view?’ “The title Ungenerate follows God, seeing that He Himself is Ungenerate.” He says that there ‘follows’ God, Who is something other than that which is Ungenerate, this very title. Then how can he place the definition of Godhead within the Ungeneracy? Again, he says that this title ‘follows’ God as existing without a previous generation. Who will solve us the mystery of such riddles? ‘Ungenerate’ preceding and then following; first a fittingly attached title of the being, and then following like a stranger! What, too, is the cause or this excessive flutter about this name; he gives to it the whole contents of godhead170    He gives to it the whole contents of godhead. It was the central point in Eunomius’ system that by the ᾽Αγεννησία we can comprehend the Divine Nature; he trusts entirely to the Aristotelian divisions (logical) and sub-divisions. A mere word (γέννητος) was thus allowed to destroy the equality of the Son. It was almost inevitable, therefore, that his opponent, as a defender of the Homoousion, should occasionally fall back so far upon Plato, as to maintain that opposites are joined and are identical with each other, i.e. that γέννησις and ἀγεννησία are not truly opposed to each other. Another method of combating this excessive insistence on the physical and logical was, to bring forward the ethical realities; and this Gregory does constantly throughout this treatise. We are to know God by Wisdom, and Truth, and Righteousness. Only occasionally (as in the next section) does he speak of the ‘eternity’ of God: and here only because Eunomius has obliged him, and in order to show that the idea is made up of two negations, and nothing more.; as if there will be nothing wanting in our adoration, if God be so named; and as if the whole system of our faith will be endangered, if He is not? Now, if a brief statement about this should not be deemed superfluous and irrelevant, we will thus explain the matter.

Εἴρηται τοίνυν « παρέπεσθαι τῷ θεῷ τὸ ἀγέννητον ». ἐκ τοῦ λόγου τούτου τῶν ἔξωθέν τι τῷ θεῷ παρακολουθούντων τὴν ἀγεννησίαν αὐτὸν λέγειν ὑπενοήσαμεν. πάλιν εἴρηται « μᾶλλον δὲ αὐτό ἐστιν οὐσία τὸ ἀγέννητον ». οὐκέτι τούτου συνεῖναι τὴν ἀκολουθίαν ἰσχύσαμεν, πολὺ τὸ ἀπεμφαινόμενον καὶ τὸ ἀλλόκοτον ἐν τοῖς σημαινομένοις κατανοήσαντες. εἰ γὰρ παρέπεται τῷ θεῷ τὸ ἀγέννητον, τὸ δὲ ἀγέννητον οὐσία ἐστί, δύο τινῶν πάντως οὐσιῶν ἔννοιαν ἐν ταὐτῷ κατασκευάζει ὁ λόγος: ὡς εἶναι μὲν τὸν θεὸν κατὰ ταὐτὸν ** ὡς εἶναί ποτε καὶ εἶναι « εἰσαεὶ » πεπίστευται, ἔχειν δὲ παρεπομένην αὐτῷ οὐσίαν ἄλλην, ἣν « ἀγεννησίαν » προσαγορεύουσιν, ἕτερόν τι οὖσαν παρὰ τὸν οὗ ἐστιν ἐπακολούθημα, καθώς φησιν ὁ διδάσκαλος: καὶ εἰ οὕτω ταῦτα κελεύει νοεῖν, συγγνώτω τοῖς ἰδιώταις ἡμῖν, μὴ δυναμένοις τῇ λεπτότητι ταύτῃ τῶν θεωρημάτων ἐφίστασθαι.
Εἰ δὲ ἀποβάλλει τοῦτον τὸν λόγον καὶ οὔ φησι διπλῆν οὐσίαν περὶ τὸν θεὸν λέγειν, τὴν μὲν ἐκ τῆς θεότητος, τὴν δὲ ἐκ τῆς ἀγεννησίας γνωριζομένην, ἑαυτῷ συμβουλευσάτω ὁ μήτε προπετὴς καὶ ἀπόνηρος μὴ πολὺ νέμειν ταῖς λοιδορίαις ἐν τοῖς ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀληθείας ἀγῶσιν, ἀλλὰ διασαφεῖν τοῖς ἀπαιδεύτοις ἡμῖν, πῶς τὸ ἐπακολουθοῦν καὶ τὸ προηγούμενον οὐκ ἄλλο τι καὶ ἄλλο ἐστίν, ἀλλ' ἓν ἀμφότερα γίνεται: καὶ γὰρ ἐν οἷς ὑπερμάχεται νῦν τοῦ λόγου, μένει παραπλησίως τὸ ἄτοπον, καὶ οὐδέν, καθὼς αὐτός φησιν, « ἡ τῶν εὐαριθμήτων ἐκείνων ῥημάτων προσθήκη » διορθοῦται τὸ τῶν εἰρημένων ἀσύμφωνον. τίνα γὰρ ἐν τούτοις ἔστιν εὑρεῖν διδασκαλίαν, οὔπω κατιδεῖν ἠδυνήθην. εἰρήσεται δὲ αὐτὰ τὰ γεγραμμένα παρ' αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ λέξεως. « εἴπομεν », φησί: « μᾶλλον δὲ αὐτό ἐστιν ἀγέννητον, οὐκ εἰς τὸ εἶναι συναιροῦντες τὸ δειχθὲν ἀκολουθεῖν, ἀλλὰ τὸ μὲν Ἀκολουθεῖ τῇ προσηγορίᾳ, τὸ δὲ Ἐστὶ τῇ οὐσίᾳ συναρμόζοντες. ὧν συντεθέντων γένοιτο ἂν πᾶς ὁ λόγος τοιοῦτος, ὅτι ἀκολουθεῖ τὸ ἀγέννητον ὄνομα, ἐπείπερ αὐτό ἐστιν ἀγέννητος ». τίνα τοίνυν ἑρμηνέα τῶν εἰρημένων παραστησόμεθα; « οὐκ εἰς τὸ εἶναι », φησί, « συναιροῦντες τὸ δειχθὲν ἀκολουθεῖν ». ἀλλὰ τὸ μὲν „« συναιροῦντες »” ἴσως ἄν τινες τῶν αἰνιγματιστῶν εἴποιεν ἀντὶ τοῦ ”συνάπτοντες„ αὐτῷ νενοῆσθαι, τῶν δὲ λοιπῶν πῶς ἄν τις ἐπιγνοίη τὸ συνετὸν καὶ ἀκόλουθον; τὸ φανέν, φησίν, ἐκ τῆς ἀκολουθίας οὐ πρὸς τὴν οὐσίαν, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὴν προσηγορίαν οἰκείως ἔχει. ἡ δὲ προσηγορία, ὦ σοφώτατε, τί; πότερον ἀπᾴδει τῆς οὐσίας ἢ σύνδρομός ἐστι κατὰ τὴν ἔννοιαν; εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἀνοικείως ἔχει πρὸς τὴν οὐσίαν τὸ ὄνομα, πῶς ὑπὸ τῆς τοῦ ἀγεννήτου προσηγορίας ἡ οὐσία χαρακτηρίζεται; εἰ δὲ « προσφυῶς », καθὼς αὐτὸς ὀνομάζεις, ὑπὸ τῆς ἀγεννησίας ἡ οὐσία περιλαμβάνεται, πῶς ἐνταῦθα καταμερίζεται; καὶ τὸ μὲν ὄνομα τῆς οὐσίας ἑτέρῳ ἀκολουθεῖ, αὐτὴ δὲ πάλιν ἡ οὐσία ἑτέρῳ. τίς δὲ ἡ σύνθεσις τοῦ παντὸς λόγου; « ἀκολουθεῖ », φησί, τῷ θεῷ « τὸ ἀγέννητον ὄνομα, ἐπείπερ αὐτό ἐστιν ἀγέννητος ». ἄλλο τι ὄντι τῷ θεῷ παρὰ τὸ ἀγέννητον ἀκολουθεῖν τοῦτο λέγει τὸ ὄνομα; καὶ πῶς τὴν θεότητα ἐν τῇ ἀγεννησίᾳ ὁρίζεται; ἀλλ' ἀγεννήτῳ ὄντι τῷ θεῷ ἕπεσθαι πάλιν φησὶ τὸ ἀγέννητον. καὶ τίς ἡμῖν τῶν αἰνιγμάτων τούτων διαλύσει τὸν γρῖφον, ἀγέννητον προηγούμενον καὶ ἀγέννητον ἐφεπόμενον καὶ προσηγορίαν οὐσίας νῦν μὲν προσφυῶς ἐφηρμοσμένην, πάλιν δὲ ὡς ἀλλοτρίαν παρεπομένην; τίς δὲ αὐτῷ καὶ ἡ τοσαύτη περὶ τὸ τῆς ἀγεννησίας ὄνομα πτόησις, ὥστε ἐκείνῳ πᾶσαν ἀνατιθέναι τὴν τῆς θεότητος φύσιν, καὶ εἰ μὲν οὕτως ὀνομασθείη, μηδὲν τῆς εὐσεβείας ἐνδεῖν, εἰ δὲ μή, τὸν πάντα τῆς πίστεως κινδυνεύεσθαι λόγον; καὶ εἰ μὴ περιττόν τις καὶ παρέλκον οἰήσεται τὸ περὶ τούτων βραχέα διαλαβεῖν, οὑτωσὶ τὸν λόγον διαληψόμεθα.