§33. He declares falsely that ‘the manner of the generation is to be known from the intrinsic worth of the generator’.

He goes back, for instance, to the begetting being, and from thence takes a survey of the begotten; “for,” says he, “the manner of the generation is to be known from the intrinsic worth of the generator.” Again, we find this bold unqualified generalization of his causing the thought of the inquirer to be dissipated in every possible direction; it is the nature of such general statements, to extend in their meanings to every instance, and allow nothing to escape their sweeping assertion. If then ‘the manner of the generation is to be known from the intrinsic worth of the generator,’ and there are many differences in the worth of generators according to their many classifications112    ᾽Επίνοια is the opposite of ἔννοια, ‘the intuitive idea.’ It means an “afterthought,” and, with the notion of unnecessary addition, a ‘conceit.’ Here it is applied to conventional, or not purely natural difference. See Introduction to Book XIII. for the fuller meaning of ᾽Επίνοια. to be found (for one may be born Jew, Greek, barbarian, Scythian, bond, free), what will be the result? Why, that we must expect to find as many “manners of generation” as there are differences in intrinsic worth amongst the generators; and that their birth will not be fulfilled with all in the same way, but that their nature will vary with the worth of the parent, and that some peculiar manner of birth will be struck out for each, according to these varying estimations. For a certain inalienable worth is to be observed in the individual parent; the distinction, that is, of being better or worse off according as there has fallen to each race, estimation, religion, nationality, power, servitude, wealth, poverty, independence, dependence, or whatever else constitutes the life-long differences of worth. If then “the manner of the generation” is shown by the intrinsic worth of the parent, and there are many differences in worth, we shall inevitably find, if we follow this opinion-monger, that the manners of generation are various too; in fact, this difference of worth will dictate to Nature the manner of the birth.

But if he should not113    μὴ δέχοιτο. This use of the optative, where the subjunctive with ἐαν might have been expected, is one of the few instances in Gregory’s Greek of declension from Classic usage; in the latter, when ει with the optative does denote subjective possibility, it is only when the condition is conceived of as of frequent repetition, e.g. 1 Peter iii. 14. The optative often in this Greek of the fourth century invades the province of the subjunctive. admit that such worth is natural, because they can be put in thought outside the nature of their subject, we will not oppose him. But at all events he will agree to this; that man’s existence is separated by an intrinsic character from that of brutes. Yet the manner of birth in these two cases presents no variation in intrinsic character; nature brings man and the brute into the world in just the same way, i.e. by generation. But if he apprehends this native dignity only in the case of the most proper and supreme existence, let us see what he means then. In our view, the ‘native dignity’ of God consists in godhead itself, wisdom, power, goodness, judgment, justice, strength, mercy, truth, creativeness, domination, invisibility, everlastingness, and every other quality named in the inspired writings to magnify his glory; and we affirm that everyone of them is properly and inalienably found in the Son, recognizing difference only in respect of unoriginateness; and even that we do not exclude the Son from, according to all its meanings. But let no carping critic attack this statement as if we were attempting to exhibit the Very Son as ungenerate; for we hold that one who maintains that is no less impious than an Anomœan. But since the meanings of ‘origin’ are various, and suggest many ideas, there are some of them in which the title ‘unoriginate’ is not inapplicable to the Son114    μὴ ἀπεμφαίνειν. When, for instance, this word has the meaning of ‘deriving existence from no cause whatever,’ then we confess that it is peculiar to the Father; but when the question is about ‘origin’ in its other meanings (since any creature or time or order has an origin), then we attribute the being superior to origin to the Son as well, and we believe that that whereby all things were made is beyond the origin of creation, and the idea of time, and the sequence of order. So He, Who on the ground of His subsistence is not without an origin, possessed in every other view an undoubted unoriginateness; and while the Father is unoriginate and Ungenerate, the Son is unoriginate in the way we have said, though not ungenerate.

What, then, is that native dignity of the Father which he is going to look at in order to infer thereby the ‘manner of the generation.’ “His not being generated, most certainly,” he will reply. If, then, all those names with which we have learnt to magnify God’s glory are useless and meaningless to you, Eunomius, the mere going through the list of such expressions is a gratuitous and superfluous task; none of these other words, you say, expresses the intrinsic worth of the God over all. But if there is a peculiar force fitting our conceptions of the Deity in each of these words, the intrinsic dignities of God must plainly be viewed in connexion with this list, and the likeness of the two beings will be thereby proved; if, that is, the characters inalienable from the beings are an index of the subjects of those characters. The characters of each being are found to be the same; and so the identity on the score of being of the two subjects of these identical dignities is shown most clearly. For if the variation in a single name is to be held to be the index of an alien being, how much more should the identity of these countless names avail to prove community of nature!

What, then, is the reason why the other names should all be neglected, and generation be indicated by the means of one alone? Why do they pronounce this ‘Ungeneracy’ to be the only intrinsic character in the Father, and thrust all the rest aside? It is in order that they may establish their mischievous mode115    See Note on ᾽Αγέννητος, p. 100. of unlikeness of Father and Son, by this contrast as regards the begotten. But we shall find that this attempt of theirs, when we come to test it in its proper place, is equally feeble, unfounded, and nugatory as the preceding attempts.

Still, that all his reasonings point this way, is shown by the sequel, in which he praises himself for having fittingly adopted this method for the proof of his blasphemy, and yet for not having all at once divulged his intention, nor shocked the unprepared hearer with his impiety, before the concatenation of his delusive argument was complete, nor displayed this Ungeneracy as God’s being in the early part of his discourse, nor to weary us with talk about the difference of being. The following are his exact words: “Or was it right, as Basil commands, to begin with the thing to be proved, and to assert incoherently that the Ungeneracy is the being, and to talk about the difference or the sameness of nature?” Upon this he has a long intervening tirade, made up of scoffs and insulting abuse (such being the weapons which this thinker uses to defend his own doctrines), and then he resumes the argument, and turning upon his adversary, fixes upon him, forsooth, the blame of what he is saying, in these words; “For your party, before any others, are guilty of this offence; having partitioned out this same being between Begetter and Begotten; and so the scolding you have given is only a halter not to be eluded which you have woven for your own necks; justice, as might have been expected, records in your own words a verdict against yourselves. Either you first conceive of the beings as sundered, and independent of each other116    ἀνάρχως.; and then bring down one of them, by generation, to the rank of Son, and contend that One who exists independently nevertheless was made by means of the Other existence; and so lay yourselves open to your own reproaches: for to Him whom you imagine as without generation you ascribe a generation by another:—or else you first allow one single causeless being, and then marking this out by an act of causation into Father and Son, you declare that this non-generated being came into existence by means of itself.”

ἄνεισι γοῦν ἐπὶ τὴν γεννήσασαν οὐσίαν καὶ δι' ἐκείνης τὴν γεννηθεῖσαν ἐπισκοπεῖ: « διὰ τὸ τῇ φυσικῇ », φησί, « τοῦ γεννήσαντος ἀξίᾳ δείκνυσθαι τὸν τῆς γεννήσεως τρόπον ». πάλιν τοῦτο ἁπλῶς καὶ ἀδιορίστως παραρριφὲν ἐπὶ πάντα παραπλησίως διαχεῖσθαι παρασκευάζει τοῦ ζητοῦντος τὴν ἔννοιαν. τοιαῦτα γάρ ἐστι καθολικῶς τὰ δογματιζόμενα, ὡς ἐπὶ πάντα φέρεσθαι ταῖς ὑπονοίαις καὶ μηδὲν ὑπεξαιρεῖσθαι τῆς περιληπτικῆς ἀποφάσεως. εἰ οὖν πάντως ὁ τῆς γεννήσεως τρόπος τῇ φυσικῇ τοῦ γεννῶντος ἀξίᾳ γνωρίζεται, πολλαὶ δὲ τῶν τικτόντων αἱ κατὰ τὰς ἀξίας διαφοραὶ καὶ κατὰ πολλὰς ἐπινοίας καταλαμβάνονται (γεννᾶται γὰρ Ἰουδαῖος Ἕλλην βάρβαρος Σκύθης δοῦλος ἐλεύθερος), τί ἐκ τούτων κατασκευάζεται; ὅτι ὅσαι εἰσὶ τῶν γεννώντων κατὰ τὰς φυσικὰς ἀξίας διαφοραί, τοσοῦτοι καὶ τρόποι γεννήσεως κατὰ τὸ εἰκὸς εὑρεθήσονται: ὡς μὴ κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον πληροῦσθαι πᾶσι τὴν γέννησιν, ἀλλὰ ταῖς τῶν γεννώντων ἀξίαις τὰς φύσεις συμμεταβάλλεσθαι καὶ δεῖν ἑκάστῳ τῶν τικτομένων κατὰ τὴν τῶν ἀξιωμάτων διαφορὰν ἰδιάζοντά τινα γεννήσεως τρόπον καινοτομεῖσθαι. πᾶσι γὰρ συμφυεῖς ἀξίαι τινές εἰσι πάντως ἐπιθεωρούμεναι τοῖς καθ' ἕκαστον, διαφέρουσαι δὲ ἀλλήλων πρὸς τὸ κρεῖττον ἢ καταδεέστερον, ὅπως ἂν ἑκάστῳ συμπέσῃ γένος ἀξίωμα θρησκεία πατρὶς δυναστεία δουλεία πλοῦτος πενία τὸ αὐτεξούσιον τὸ ὑποχείριον, πάντα ὅσα τὰς κατὰ τὸν βίον διαφορὰς ἐν ταῖς ἀξίαις ἐργάζεται. εἰ οὖν « τῇ φυσικῇ τοῦ γεννῶντος ἀξίᾳ », καθώς φησιν ὁ Εὐνόμιος, « ὁ τῆς γεννήσεως δείκνυται τρόπος », πολλαὶ δὲ αἱ κατὰ τὰς ἀξίας διαφοραί, πολλοὶ πάντως καὶ οἱ τῆς γεννήσεως τρόποι κατὰ τὸν δογματιστὴν εὑρεθήσονται καὶ ἄλλος ἄλλως ἀποτεχθήσονται, τῆς κατὰ τὰς ἀξίας διαφορᾶς νομοθετούσης τῇ φύσει τὸν τόκον.
Εἰ δὲ μὴ δέχοιτο φυσικὰς εἶναι τὰς τοιαύτας ἀξίας ὡς ἔξω τῆς φύσεως θεωρουμένας, οὐδὲ ἡμεῖς ἀντιλέγομεν. ἐκείνῳ μέντοι πάντως συνθήσεται, ὅτι φυσικῇ τινι πάντως ἀξίᾳ τῆς ἀλόγου ζωῆς ἡ ἀνθρωπίνη κεχώρισται. ἀλλ' ὁ τοῦ τόκου τρόπος οὐδεμίαν ἐν τῇ κατὰ τὴν φυσικὴν ἀξίαν διαφορᾷ τὴν παραλλαγὴν ἔχει, ὁμοιοτρόπως τῆς φύσεως τά τε λογικὰ καὶ τὰ ἄλογα διὰ τῆς γεννήσεως εἰς τὴν ζωὴν παραγούσης. εἰ δὲ ἐπὶ μόνης ἐκείνης τῆς οὐσίας τῆς, ὡς αὐτὸς ὀνομάζει, « κυριωτάτης καὶ ἀνωτάτης » τὸ συμφυὲς ἀξίωμα καταλαμβάνει, ἴδωμεν ὅ τι καὶ νοῶν τοῦτο λέγει. ὡς μὲν γὰρ ὁ ἡμέτερος λόγος, συμφυές ἐστιν ἀξίωμα τῷ θεῷ αὐτὴ ἡ θεότης ἡ σοφία ἡ δύναμις τὸ ἀγαθὸν εἶναι κριτὴν δίκαιον ἰσχυρὸν μακρόθυμον ἀληθινὸν κτίστην ἐξουσιαστὴν ἀόρατον ἀτελεύτητον καὶ εἴ τι ἄλλο τῶν εἰς δοξολογίαν παρὰ τῆς θεοπνεύστου γραφῆς εἰρημένων ἐστίν, ἅπερ πάντα καὶ τῷ μονογενεῖ υἱῷ κυρίως καὶ συμφυῶς ἐνθεωρεῖσθαί φαμεν, ἐν μόνῃ τῇ κατὰ τὸ ἄναρχον ἐννοίᾳ τὴν διαφορὰν ἐπιστάμενοι, καὶ ταύτην οὐ κατὰ πᾶσαν ὑπόνοιαν τοῦ μονογενοῦς ἀποτέμνομεν. μηδεὶς διασπαρασσέτω διὰ συκοφαντίας τὸν λόγον, ὡς ἀγέννητον ἡμῶν ἀποδεικνύειν ἐπιχειρούντων τὸν ἀληθῶς υἱόν: οὐδὲν γὰρ ἔλαττον ἀσεβεῖν τοὺς τὰ τοιαῦτα λέγοντας τῶν τὸ ἀνόμοιον δογματιζόντων διοριζόμεθα. ἀλλ' ἐπειδὴ πολύσημος ὁ τῆς ἀρχῆς λόγος καὶ εἰς πολλὰ ταῖς ὑπονοίαις φερόμενος, ἔστιν ἐν οἷς φαμεν καὶ τῷ μονογενεῖ υἱῷ μὴ ἀπεμφαίνειν τὴν τοῦ ἀνάρχου προσηγορίαν. ὅταν μὲν γὰρ τὸ μὴ ἐξ αἰτίου τινὸς τὴν ὑπόστασιν ἔχειν ἐκ τῆς φωνῆς τοῦ ἀνάρχου νοῆται, τοῦτο μόνου τοῦ πατρὸς ἴδιον ὁμολογοῦμεν τοῦ ἀγεννήτως ὄντος: ὅταν δὲ κατὰ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν ἐπὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς σημαινομένων ἡ ἐξέτασις ᾖ, ἐπειδὴ καὶ κτίσεώς τις ἐπινοεῖται ἀρχὴ καὶ χρόνου καὶ τάξεως, κἂν τούτοις καὶ τῷ μονογενεῖ προσμαρτυροῦμεν τὸ ὑψηλότερον ἀρχῆς εἶναι, ὡς ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν καὶ κτίσεως ἀρχὴν καὶ χρόνου ἔννοιαν καὶ τάξεως ἀκολουθίαν εἶναι πιστεύειν τὸν δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο: ὥστε τὸν τῷ λόγῳ τῆς ὑποστάσεως μὴ ἄναρχον ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις πᾶσιν ὁμολογούμενον ἔχειν τὸ ἄναρχον, καὶ τὸν μὲν πατέρα καὶ ἄναρχον καὶ ἀγέννητον, τὸν δὲ υἱὸν ἄναρχον μὲν κατὰ τὸν εἰρημένον τρόπον, οὐ μὴν καὶ ἀγέννητον.
Εἰς ποῖον οὖν συμφυὲς ἀξίωμα τοῦ πατρὸς βλέπων δι' ἐκείνου τὸν τῆς γεννήσεως τρόπον ἀναλογίζεται; εἰς τὴν ἀγεννησίαν πάντως ἐρεῖ. οὐκοῦν εἰ μὲν πάντα τὰ ὀνόματα, ὅσα εἰς δοξολογίαν τοῦ θεοῦ τῶν ὅλων ἐμάθομεν, ἀργά σοι καὶ ἀσήμαντα λέγομεν, περιττή τίς ἐστι καὶ παρέλκουσα ἡ τῶν τοιούτων φωνῶν ἀπαρίθμησις ἐν ψιλῷ τῷ καταλόγῳ προφερομένη, εἴπερ οὐδεμία τῶν λοιπῶν προσηγοριῶν τὴν φυσικὴν ἀξίαν τοῦ ἐπὶ πάντων παρίστησιν. εἰ δὲ ἑκάστου τῶν λεγομένων ἰδιάζουσά τις ἔννοια καὶ πρέπουσα τῇ περὶ τοῦ θεοῦ ὑπολήψει γνωρίζεται, δηλονότι κατὰ τὸν ἀριθμὸν τῶν ὀνομάτων καὶ αἱ συμφυεῖς ἀξίαι τοῦ θεοῦ θεωροῦνται καὶ διὰ τούτων ἡ τῶν οὐσιῶν ὁμοιότης κατασκευάζεται, εἴπερ τὰ συμφυῆ ταῖς οὐσίαις ἀξιώματα γνωριστικὰ τῶν ὑποκειμένων ἐστί. τῶν δὲ ἀξιωμάτων ἐφ' ἑκατέρου τῶν αὐτῶν φαινομένων, ἡ κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν ταὐτότης τῶν ταῖς αὐταῖς ἀξίαις ὑποκειμένων πραγμάτων σαφῶς ἐπιδείκνυται. εἰ γὰρ ἱκανὴ νομίζεται ἑνὸς ὀνόματος παραλλαγὴ τὸ ξένον τῆς οὐσίας ἐνδείξασθαι, πόσῳ μᾶλλον ἰσχύσει ἡ τῶν μυρίων ὀνομάτων ταὐτότης τὸ κοινὸν παραστῆσαι τῆς φύσεως; τίς οὖν ἡ αἰτία δι' ἣν τὰ μὲν λοιπὰ τῶν ὀνομάτων περιορᾶται, μόνῳ δὲ τῷ ἑνὶ τεκμηριοῦται ἡ γέννησις; καὶ διὰ τί μόνον συμφυὲς ἀξίωμα τὴν « ἀγεννησίαν » ἐπὶ τοῦ πατρὸς δογματίζουσι, τὰ λοιπὰ παρωσάμενοι; ἵνα τῇ πρὸς τὸ γεννητὸν ἀντιδιαστολῇ τὸν τῆς ὁμοιότητος κακουργήσωσι τρόπον, ὅπερ καὶ αὐτὸ κατὰ τὸν προσήκοντα καιρὸν εὐθυνόμενον ἐπίσης τοῖς προειρημένοις ἀδρανές τε καὶ ἀνυπόστατον καὶ ἀντ' οὐδενὸς εὑρεθήσεται.
Ὅτι δὲ εἰς τοῦτο βλέπουσιν αἱ κατασκευαὶ πᾶσαι, τὸ ἐπιφερόμενον δείκνυσιν, ἐν οἷς ἑαυτὸν ἀποδέχεται ὡς προσηκόντως τῇ ὁδῷ ἐκείνῃ πρὸς τὴν κατασκευὴν τῆς βλασφημίας χρησάμενος καὶ οὐκ εὐθὺς ἀπογυμνώσας τοῦ λόγου τὸ βούλημα οὐδὲ πρὸ τοῦ συναρτῆσαι τὴν κατασκευὴν τῆς ἀπάτης ἀγυμνάστοις ἔτι ταῖς ἀκοαῖς προσβαλὼν τὴν ἀσέβειαν οὐδὲ ἐν προοιμίοις τῶν λόγων τὴν ἀγεννησίαν οὐσίαν ἀποφηνάμενος καὶ τὴν τῆς οὐσίας ἑτερότητα διαθρυλήσας, οὑτωσὶ λέγων ταῦτα κατὰ τὴν λέξιν: « ἢ καθὼς νομοθετεῖ Βασίλειος, ἀπ' αὐτῶν ἄρξασθαι τῶν ζητουμένων ἔδει ἀσυναρτήτως τὴν ἀγεννησίαν οὐσίαν λέγοντας καὶ τὴν τῆς οὐσίας ἑτερότητα θρυλεῖν ἢ ταὐτότητα »; περὶ ὧν πολλὰ διὰ μέσου διεξελθὼν ἐν σκώμμασι καὶ λοιδορίαις καὶ ὕβρεσιν (οὕτω γὰρ οἶδεν ὁ σοφὸς ὑπὲρ τῶν ἰδίων δογμάτων διαγωνίζεσθαι) πάλιν ἐπαναλαμβάνει τὸν λόγον καὶ πρὸς τὸν ἀντίπαλον δῆθεν ἀποτεινόμενος κἀκείνῳ τῶν λεγομένων τὴν αἰτίαν ἀνατιθεὶς τοιάδε φησίν: « ἐπεὶ καὶ πρὸ τῶν ἄλλων ὑμεῖς ἔνοχοι τούτοις τοῖς πλημμελήμασιν οἱ τὴν αὐτὴν οὐσίαν τῷ γεννήσαντι καὶ τῷ γεννηθέντι διακληρώσαντες, διὸ καὶ τὴν ἐπὶ τούτοις λοιδορίαν ὥσπερ τινὰ πάγην ἄφυκτον καθ' ἑαυτῶν ἐτεκτήνασθε, τῆς δίκης ὡς εἰκὸς τοῖς ὑμετέροις καθ' ὑμῶν αὐτῶν ἐπιψηφιζούσης. ἤτοι γὰρ ἀνάρχως ἀλλήλων κεχωρίσθαι τὰς οὐσίας ταύτας ὑπολαμβάνοντες, τούτων δὲ τὴν ἑτέραν εἰς υἱοῦ τάξιν διὰ γεννήσεως ἄγοντες καὶ τὸν ἀνάρχως ὄντα ὑπὸ τοῦ ὄντος γενέσθαι διατεινόμενοι τοῖς ἰδίοις ὑπόκεισθε λοιδορήμασιν (ὃν γὰρ ἀγέννητον εἶναι φαντάζεσθε, τούτῳ τὴν παρ' ἑτέρου γέννησιν ἐπιφημίζετε), ἢ μίαν καὶ μόνην ἄναρχον ὁμολογοῦντες οὐσίαν, εἶτα ταύτην εἰς πατέρα καὶ υἱὸν τῇ γεννήσει περιγράφοντες, αὐτὴν παρ' ἑαυτῆς γεγεννῆσθαι τὴν ἀγέννητον οὐσίαν φήσετε ».