Book V.

§1. The fifth book promises to speak of the words contained in the saying of the Apostle Peter, but delays their exposition. He discourses first of the creation, to the effect that, while nothing therein is deserving of worship, yet men, led astray by their ill-informed and feeble intelligence, and marvelling at its beauty, deified the several parts of the universe. And herein he excellently expounds the passage of Isaiah, “I am God, the first.”

It is now, perhaps, time to make enquiry into what is said concerning the words of the Apostle Peter634    γέννημα. This word, in what follows, is sometimes translated simply by the word “product,” where it is not contrasted with ποίημα (the “product of making”), or where the argument depends especially upon its grammatical form (which indicates that the thing denoted is the result of a process), rather than upon the idea of the particular process.    Cf. Ps. xxxiii. 9, and Ps. cxlviii. 5, in LXX. (reading ἐγεννήθησαν).    The words referred to are those in Acts ii. 36., by Eunomius himself, and by our father635    Cf. S. John xvi. 21    The force of λόγος here appears to be nearly equivalent to “idea,” in the sense of an exact expression of the nature of a thing. Gulonius renders it by “ratio.”    S. Basil: the passages discussed are afterwards referred to in detail. concerning the latter. If a detailed examination should extend our discourse to considerable length, the fair-minded reader will no doubt pardon this, and will not blame us for wasting time in words, but lay the blame on him who has given occasion for them. Let me be allowed also to make some brief remarks preliminary to the proposed enquiry: it may be that they too will be found not to be out of keeping with the aim of our discussion.

That no created thing is deserving of man’s worship, the divine word so clearly declares as a law, that such a truth may be learned from almost the whole of the inspired Scripture. Moses, the Tables, the Law, the Prophets that follow, the Gospels, the decrees of the Apostles, all alike forbid the act of reverencing the creation. It would be a lengthy task to set out in order the particular passages which refer to this matter; but though we set out only a few from among the many instances of the inspired testimony, our argument is surely equally convincing, since each of the divine words, albeit the least, has equal force for declaration of the truth. Seeing, then, that our conception of existences is divided into two, the creation and the uncreated Nature, if the present contention of our adversaries should prevail, so that we should say that the Son of God is created, we should be absolutely compelled either to set at naught the proclamation of the Gospel, and to refuse to worship that God the Word Who was in the beginning, on the ground that we must not address worship to the creation, or, if these marvels recorded in the Gospels are too urgent for us, by which we are led to reverence and to worship Him Who is displayed in them, to place, in that case, the created and the Uncreated on the same level of honour; seeing that if, according to our adversaries’ opinion, even the created God is worshipped, though having in His nature no prerogative above the rest of the creation, and if this view should get the upper hand, the doctrines of religion will be entirely transformed to a kind of anarchy and democratic independence. For when men believe that the nature they worship is not one, but have their thoughts turned away to diverse Godheads, there will be none who will stay the conception of the Deity in its progress through creation, but the Divine element, once recognized in creation, will become a stepping-stone to the like conception in the case of that which is next contemplated, and that again for the next in order, and as a result of this inferential process the error will extend to all things, as the first deceit makes its way by contiguous cases even to the very last.

To show that I am not making a random statement beyond what probability admits of, I will cite as a credible testimony in favour of my assertion the error which still prevails among the heathen636    If, that is, they speak of the “generated essence” in contra-distinction to “ungenerate essence” they are precluded from saying that the essence of the Son is that He is begotten, and that the essence of the Father is that He is ungenerate: that which constitutes the essence cannot be made an epithet of the essence.    The argument appears to be this:—The Anomœans assert, on the ground that He is created, that the Son’s essence is τρεπτὸν, liable to change; where there is the possibility of change, the nature must have a capacity of inclining one way or the other, according to the balance of will determining to which side the nature shall incline: and that this is the condition of the angels may be seen from the instance of the fallen angels, whose nature was inclined to evil by their προαίρεσις. It follows that to say the Son is τρεπτὸς implies that He is on a level with the angelic nature, and might fall even as the angels fell.    With the following passage may be compared the parallel account in the Book of Wisdom (ch. xiii.).. Seeing that they, with their untrained and narrow intelligence, were disposed to look with wonder on the beauties of nature, not employing the things they beheld as a leader and guide to the beauty of the Nature that transcends them, they rather made their intelligence halt on arriving at the objects of its apprehension, and marvelled at each part of the creation severally—for this cause they did not stay their conception of the Deity at any single one of the things they beheld, but deemed everything they looked on in creation to be divine. And thus with the Egyptians, as the error developed its force more in respect of intellectual objects, the countless forms of spiritual beings were reckoned to be so many natures of Gods; while with the Babylonians the unerring circuit of the firmament was accounted a God, to whom they also gave the name of Bel. So, too, the foolishness of the heathen deifying individually the seven successive spheres, one bowed down to one, another to another, according to some individual form of error. For as they perceived all these circles moving in mutual relation, seeing that they had gone astray as to the most exalted, they maintained the same error by logical sequence, even to the last of them. And in addition to these, the æther itself, and the atmosphere diffused beneath it, the earth and sea and the subterranean region, and in the earth itself all things which are useful or needful for man’s life,—of all these there was none which they held to be without part or lot in the Divine nature, but they bowed down to each of them, bringing themselves, by means of some one of the objects conspicuous in the creation, into bondage to all the successive parts of the creation, in such a way that, had the act of reverencing the creation been from the beginning even to them a thing evidently unlawful, they would not have been led astray into this deceit of polytheism. Let us look to it, then, lest we too share the same fate,—we who in being taught by Scripture to reverence the true Godhead, were trained to consider all created existence as external to the Divine nature, and to worship and revere that uncreated Nature alone, Whose characteristic and token is that it never either begins to be or ceases to be; since the great Isaiah thus speaks of the Divine nature with reference to these doctrines, in his exalted utterance,—who speaks in the person of the Deity, “I am the first, and hereafter am I, and no God was before Me, and no God shall be after Me637    Gen. i. 28.    Cf. Heb. i. 4, and foll. It is to be noted that Gregory connects πάλιν in v. 6, with εἰσαγάγῃ, not treating it, as the A.V. does, as simply introducing another quotation. This appears from his later reference to the text.    Cf. Is. xli. 4, xliv. 6, xlviii. 12 (LXX.). If the whole passage is intended to be a quotation, it is not made exactly from any one of these; the opening words are from the second passage referred to; and perhaps this is the only portion intended to be a quotation, the second clause being explanatory; the words of the second clause are varied in the repetition immediately afterwards..” For knowing more perfectly than all others the mystery of the religion of the Gospel, this great prophet, who foretold even that marvellous sign concerning the Virgin, and gave us the good tidings638    S. Luke x. 16    Cf. Ps. cii. 25, 26.    εὐαγγελισάμενος of the birth of the Child, and clearly pointed out to us that Name of the Son,—he, in a word, who by the Spirit includes in himself all the truth,—in order that the characteristic of the Divine Nature, whereby we discern that which really is from that which came into being, might be made as plain as possible to all, utters this saying in the person of God: “I am the first, and hereafter am I, and before Me no God hath been, and after Me is none.” Since, then, neither is that God which was before God, nor is that God which is after God, (for that which is after God is the creation, and that which is anterior to God is nothing, and Nothing is not God;—or one should rather say, that which is anterior to God is God in His eternal blessedness, defined in contradistinction to Nothing639    Oehler’s punctuation here seems to be unsatisfactory.    πρὸς οὐδὲν ὁριζόμενος; i.e. before the name of “God” could be applied, as now, in contradistinction to creation, it was applied in contradistinction to nothing, and that distinction was in a sense the definition of God. Or the words may be turned, as Gulonius turns them, “nulla re determinatus,” “with no limitation”—the contradistinction to creation being regarded as a limitation by way of definition.;—since, I say, this inspired utterance was spoken by the mouth of the prophet, we learn by his means the doctrine that the Divine Nature is one, continuous with Itself and indiscerptible, not admitting in Itself priority and posteriority, though it be declared in Trinity, and with no one of the things we contemplate in it more ancient or more recent than another. Since, then, the saying is the saying of God, whether you grant that the words are the words of the Father or of the Son, the orthodox doctrine is equally upheld by either. For if it is the Father that speaks thus, He bears witness to the Son that He is not “after” Himself: for if the Son is God, and whatever is “after” the Father is not God, it is clear that the saying bears witness to the truth that the Son is in the Father, and not after the Father. If, on the other hand, one were to grant that this utterance is of the Son, the phrase, “None hath been before Me,” will be a clear intimation that He Whom we contemplate “in the Beginning640    S. John i. 1” is apprehended together with the eternity of the Beginning. If, then, anything is “after” God, this is discovered, by the passages quoted, to be a creature, and not God: for He says, “That which is after Me is not God641    Taking the whole phrase τὸ μετ᾽ ἐμὲ ον as a loose quotation..”

Περὶ δὲ τῆς Πέτρου τοῦ ἀποστόλου φωνῆς καιρὸς ἂν εἴη φιλοπονώτερον διεξετάσαι τὰ εἰρημένα αὐτῷ τε τῷ Εὐνομίῳ καὶ τῷ ἡμετέρῳ πατρὶ περὶ τούτου. εἰ δὲ εἰς πλῆθος ἐκτείνοι τὸν λόγον ἡ ἀκριβὴς θεωρία, συγγνώσεται πάντως ὁ εὐγνώμων ἀκροατής, οὐχ ἡμᾶς ἀδολεσχεῖν αἰτιώμενος, ἀλλ' ἐπὶ τὸν τὴν ἀφορμὴν δεδωκότα τὴν αἰτίαν ἐπαναφέρων. καί μοι συγκεχωρήσθω βραχέα τινὰ προδιεξελθεῖν τῆς τῶν προκειμένων ἐξετάσεως, οὐδὲ ταῦτα τυχὸν τοῦ σκοποῦ τῶν σπουδαζομένων ἀπᾴδοντα.
Οὐδὲν τῶν διὰ κτίσεως γεγονότων σεβάσμιον εἶναι τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ὁ θεῖος ἐνομοθέτησε λόγος, ὡς ἐκ πάσης μικροῦ δεῖν ἔστι τῆς θεοπνεύστου γραφῆς τὸ τοιοῦτο μαθεῖν. ὁ Μωϋσῆς, αἱ πλάκες, ὁ νόμος, οἱ καθεξῆς προφῆται, τὰ εὐαγγέλια, τῶν ἀποστόλων τὰ δόγματα, πάντες ἐπίσης ἀπαγορεύουσι τὸ πρὸς τὴν κτίσιν βλέπειν. καὶ μακρὸν ἂν εἴη τὰ καθ' ἕκαστον ἐφεξῆς παρατίθεσθαι τῶν εἰς τοῦτο φερόντων: ἀλλὰ κἂν ὀλίγας τῆς θεοπνεύστου γραφῆς μαρτυρίας ἐκ πολλῶν παραθώμεθα, ἐπίσης πάντως ὁ λόγος τὸ ἀξιόπιστον ἔχει, διότι τῶν θείων ἕκαστον εἰς φανέρωσιν ἀληθείας τὸ ἴσον ἔχει, κἂν ἐλάχιστον ᾖ. διχῇ γὰρ διῃρημένης τῆς περὶ τῶν ὄντων ὑπολήψεως, εἴς τε τὴν κτίσιν καὶ εἰς τὴν ἄκτιστον φύσιν, ἐὰν ἐπικρατήσῃ τὸ παρὰ τῶν ἐναντίων νῦν σπουδαζόμενον, ὥστε κτιστὸν εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ λέγειν, ἀνάγκη πᾶσα ἢ ἀθετεῖσθαι τὸ εὐαγγελικὸν κήρυγμα καὶ μὴ προσκυνεῖσθαι τὸν ἐν ἀρχῇ ὄντα λόγον θεὸν διὰ τὸ μὴ δεῖν προσάγειν τὴν λατρείαν τῇ κτίσει, ἢ εἴπερ δυσωποίη τὰ ἐν εὐαγγελίοις θαύματα, δι' ὧν πρὸς τὸ σέβεσθαι καὶ προσκυνεῖν τὸν ἐν ἐκείνοις δηλούμενον ἐναγόμεθα, εἰς ὁμοτιμίαν ἄγειν τὸ κτιστὸν καὶ τὸ ἄκτιστον, εἴπερ κατὰ τὸ δόγμα τῶν ὑπεναντίων καὶ ὁ κτιστὸς προσκυνοῖτο θεός, οὐδεμίαν ἐν τῇ φύσει τὴν προτίμησιν ἔχων τῆς ἄλλης κτίσεως: καὶ εἰ τοῦτο κρατήσειεν, εἰς ἀναρχίαν τινὰ πάντη καὶ δημοκρατικὴν αὐτονομίαν τὰ δόγματα τῆς εὐσεβείας μετενεχθήσεται. ὅταν γὰρ μὴ μίαν εἶναι τὴν προσκυνουμένην φύσιν πιστεύσωσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι, ἀλλ' εἰς διαφόρους θεότητας ταῖς ἐννοίαις ἀπενεχθῶσιν, οὐκ ἔστιν ὃ στήσει τὴν περὶ τὸ θεῖον ὑπόληψιν προϊοῦσαν διὰ τῆς κτίσεως, ἀλλὰ τὸ νομισθὲν ἐν τῇ κτίσει θεῖον ἀφορμὴ πρὸς τὴν ἴσην ὑπόληψιν τῷ μετ' ἐκεῖνο θεωρουμένῳ γενήσεται κἀκεῖνο τῷ ἐφεξῆς, καὶ διὰ πάντων ἐκ τῆς ἀκολουθίας ταύτης ἡ πλάνη διενεχθήσεται, τῆς πρώτης ἀπάτης διὰ τῶν παρακειμένων μέχρι τῶν ἐσχάτων διεξιούσης.
Καὶ ὅτι οὐκ ἔξω τι τοῦ εἰκότος παραστοχάζομαι, ἀξιόπιστον τοῦ λόγου παραστήσομαι μάρτυρα τὴν μέχρι τοῦ νῦν ἐπικρατοῦσαν ἐν τοῖς Ἕλλησι πλάνην. ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ἀπαιδεύτῳ καὶ μικροφυεῖ διανοίᾳ πρὸς τὰ τῆς κτίσεως κάλλη θαυμαστικῶς διετέθησαν, οὐ χειραγωγῷ τε καὶ ὁδηγῷ τῷ θαύματι τῶν φαινομένων πρὸς τὴν τοῦ ὑπερκειμένου κάλλους κατανόησιν συγχρησάμενοι, ἀλλὰ μέχρι τῶν καταλαμβανομένων ἔστησαν ἑαυτῶν τὴν διάνοιαν καὶ ἕκαστον τῆς κτίσεως μέρος ἰδιαζόντως ἐθαύμασαν, διὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐν ἑνί τινι μόνῳ τῶν φαινομένων τὴν περὶ τὸ θεῖον ὑπόληψιν ἔστησαν, ἀλλὰ πᾶν τὸ ἐν τῇ κτίσει βλεπόμενον θεῖον ἐνόμισαν. καὶ οὕτω τοῖς μὲν Αἰγυπτίοις περὶ τὰ νοερὰ πλεῖον ἐνεργηθείσης τῆς πλάνης αἱ μυρίαι τῶν δαιμόνων μορφαὶ εἰς φύσεις θεῶν ἠριθμήθησαν, τοῖς δὲ Βαβυλωνίοις ἡ ἀπλανὴς τοῦ πόλου περιφορὰ θεὸς ἐνομίσθη, ὃν καὶ Βὴλ ὠνόμασαν. οὕτω δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἐφεξῆς ἑπτὰ ἡ Ἑλληνικὴ ματαιότης ἰδιαζόντως θεοποιήσασα ἄλλῳ ἄλλως κατά τινα τῆς ἀπάτης ἰδιάζοντα λόγον ὑπέκυψε. πάντας γὰρ τούτους ἐν ἀλλήλοις ἀναστρεφομένους τοὺς κύκλους κατανοήσαντες, ἐπειδὴ περὶ τὸ ἀκρότατον ἐπλανήθησαν, δι' ἀκολούθου καὶ μέχρι τοῦ ἐσχάτου τὴν αὐτὴν πλάνην συνδιεσώσαντο. καὶ πρὸς τούτοις αὐτόν τε τὸν αἰθέρα καὶ τὸν ὑποκεχυμένον ἀέρα τήν τε γῆν καὶ τὴν θάλασσαν καὶ τὴν ὑποχθόνιον λῆξιν καὶ αὐτῆς δὲ τῆς γῆς ὅσα χρειώδη καὶ ἀναγκαῖα πρὸς τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην ἐστὶ ζωὴν οὐδὲν ὅ τι τῆς θείας ἀπόκληρον εἶναι φύσεως ἐδογμάτισαν, ἀλλ' ἑκάστῳ τούτων ὑπέκυψαν, δι' ἑνός τινος τῶν ἐν τῇ κτίσει προφαινομένων πᾶσιν ἑαυτοὺς τοῖς ἐφεξῆς τῆς κτίσεως μορίοις καταδουλώσαντες, ὡς εἴγε κἀκείνοις ἀθέμιτον ἐξ ἀρχῆς κατεφάνη τὸ πρὸς τὴν κτίσιν βλέπειν, οὐκ ἂν εἰς τὴν πολύθεον ταύτην ἀπάτην ἀπεπλανήθησαν. ὡς ἂν οὖν μὴ ταὐτὰ πάθοιμεν καὶ ἡμεῖς οἱ πρὸς τὴν ἀληθινὴν θεότητα βλέπειν παρὰ τῆς γραφῆς διδασκόμενοι, πᾶν τὸ κτιστὸν ἔξω τῆς θείας φύσεως νοεῖν ἐπαιδεύθημεν, μόνην δὲ τὴν ἄκτιστον φύσιν λατρεύειν τε καὶ σεβάζεσθαι, ἧς χαρακτήρ ἐστι καὶ γνώρισμα τὸ μήτε ἄρχεσθαι τοῦ εἶναί ποτε μήτε παύεσθαι, οὕτως τοῦ μεγάλου Ἠσαΐου διὰ τῆς ὑψηλῆς αὐτοῦ φωνῆς περὶ τῶν δογμάτων τούτων θεολογήσαντος, ὃς ἐκ τοῦ θείου προσώπου φησὶν Ἐγὼ πρῶτος καὶ ἐγὼ μετὰ ταῦτα καὶ ἔμπροσθέν μου θεὸς οὐκ ἐγένετο καὶ μετ' ἐμὲ θεὸς οὐκ ἔσται. πάντων γὰρ μᾶλλον ἀκριβῶς εἰδὼς τὸ τῆς εὐαγγελικῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον ὁ μέγας οὗτος προφήτης ὁ καὶ τὸ παράδοξον ἐκεῖνο σημεῖον ἐπὶ τῆς παρθένου μηνύσας καὶ τοῦ παιδίου τὴν γέννησιν εὐαγγελισάμενος καὶ τὸ τοῦ υἱοῦ ὄνομα ἐκείνῳ σαφῶς παραστήσας, οὗτος τοίνυν ὁ πᾶσαν ἐμπεριειληφὼς διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος ἐν ἑαυτῷ τὴν ἀλήθειαν, ὡς ἂν μάλιστα πᾶσι γένοιτο δῆλος ὁ τῆς θείας φύσεως χαρακτήρ, δι' οὗ τὸ ὄντως ὂν διακρίνομεν ἀπὸ τοῦ γενομένου, τοῦτό φησιν ἐκ προσώπου τοῦ θεοῦ ὅτι Ἐγώ εἰμι πρῶτος καὶ ἐγὼ μετὰ ταῦτα καὶ ἔμπροσθεν ἐμοῦ θεὸς οὐ γέγονε καὶ μετ' ἐμὲ οὐκ ἔσται. ἐπεὶ οὖν οὔτε τὸ πρὸ τοῦ θεοῦ θεὸς οὔτε τὸ μετὰ τὸν θεὸν θεός (τὸ μὲν γὰρ μετὰ τὸν θεὸν κτίσις, τὸ δὲ ἐπέκεινα τοῦ θεοῦ οὐδέν, τὸ δὲ οὐδὲν θεὸς οὐκ ἔστιν, μᾶλλον δὲ τὸ ἐπέκεινα τοῦ θεοῦ αὐτὸς ἐκεῖνος, ἐν τῇ ἀϊδίῳ μακαριότητι πρὸς οὐδὲν ὁριζόμενος), ἐπεὶ οὖν θεοῦ ἡ φωνὴ αὕτη ἡ πνευματικὴ ἐν τῷ προφητικῷ στόματι λαληθεῖσα, δόγμα διὰ τούτου μανθάνομεν ὅτι μία τίς ἐστιν ἡ θεία φύσις συνεχὴς πρὸς ἑαυτὴν καὶ ἀδιάσπαστος, τὸ πρότερον καὶ ὕστερον ἐφ' ἑαυτῆς οὐ προσιεμένη, κἂν ἐν τριάδι κηρύσσηται, οὔτε πρεσβύτερόν τι τῶν ἐν αὐτῇ θεωρουμένων οὔτε μεταγενέστερον ἔχουσα. ἐπεὶ οὖν θεοῦ ἡ φωνή, ἐάν τε τοῦ πατρὸς δῷς εἶναι τὸν λόγον ἐάν τε τοῦ υἱοῦ, ἐπίσης δι' ἑκατέρου τὸ δόγμα τῆς εὐσεβείας κρατύνεται. ἐὰν μὲν γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ταῦτα λέγῃ, μαρτυρεῖ τῷ υἱῷ τὸ μὴ μετ' αὐτὸν εἶναι: εἰ γὰρ θεὸς μὲν ὁ υἱός, πᾶν δὲ τὸ μετὰ τὸν πατέρα θεὸς οὐκ ἔστι, δῆλον ὅτι τὸ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ μὴ μετὰ τὸν πατέρα τὸν υἱὸν εἶναι ὁ λόγος μαρτύρεται: εἴτε τοῦ υἱοῦ δοίη τις εἶναι τὴν φωνὴν ταύτην, τὸ οὐ γέγονεν ἔμπροσθέν μου διδασκαλία σαφὴς ἔσται τῇ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἀϊδιότητι συγκαταλαμβάνεσθαι καὶ τὸν ἐν τῇ ἀρχῇ θεωρούμενον. εἴ τι οὖν μετὰ τὸν θεὸν ἔστι, κτίσις τοῦτο καὶ οὐ θεὸς διὰ τῶν εἰρημένων εὑρίσκεται. τὸ γὰρ μετ' ἐμὲ ὄν, φησί, θεὸς οὐκ ἔστι.