Against Eunomius

those of the living then, or those already dead: he will come just as they saw him ascending into heaven, as the blessed Luke teaches us, that he may render to each according to his works, the heavenly kingdom—that is, the vision of God—to those who have kept their minds pure; but eternal punishment and eternal darkness, that is, alienation from God, to those who are blind. But of his kingdom there shall be no end, nor termination, as says the Man of Desires. To him be glory forever. Amen.

NOTICE

The following fragment is read in Arabic and Latin on page 226 of the book entitled: *Eutychius, Patriarch of Alexandria, vindicated, or a Response to the Origins of John Selden, divided into two parts, of which the first is on the origins of the Alexandrian Church, the second on the origin of the name 'pope'; to which is added a censure on the Oriental History of John Henry Hottinger; all excerpted from Oriental monuments by Abraham Ecchellensis, Maronite of Lebanon. Rome, types of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 1661, in 4to.*

Saint Basil, in the homily on the Commemoration of the Blessed Virgin Mary, regarding the initiation of Saint Peter and his primacy over all other prerogatives, has this to say:

^A Christ, the Lord, to whom be glory, having taken up Peter, the prince of the apostles, and upon him having laid his divine hand, ordained him high priest over the entire inhabited world, and all the disciples, and all the nations that confess Jesus Christ. And when the Lord had laid his hand upon his head, behold, great voices from on high crying out and saying: "Worthy, worthy, worthy is the prince of bishops according to the order of Melchizedek." And he ordained presbyters, bishops, deacons, readers, subdeacons, chanters, and instituted seven orders in the house of God.

A copy of the Arabic codex, in which this homily of Saint Basil is read, transcribed on the island of Rhodes, exists in Paris in the most famous library of Oriental languages belonging to the most illustrious Gilbert Gaulmin, prefect of petitions to the Most Christian King.

NOTICE

My opinion was that there would not be lacking those who might wish to compare the work of Eunomius with the books of Basil; in order that this might be done more easily, I have judged that this little book should be published in this place. But it is worth noting that the Greek and Latin have been taken from the most illustrious and learned man, Johann Albert Fabricius.

THE APOLOGY OF EUNOMIUS THE IMPIOUS, WHICH BASIL THE GREAT CONFUTED

^B [This little book has been written for no other reason than that it might be clear what this writing is like. For the things which he declares concerning God, both that he is unbegotten, and that the Son is begotten, and other things which he drivels, are most impious and outside the faith, and [no other thing is meant, except that the writing be exposed. For the things which he says concerning God, as unbegotten, and the Son as begotten, and other things which he drivels, are most impious and outside of piety, and [original-script column: see facsimile]... can be similar to the begotten. See Epiphanius, heresy 76.

^A Attend, therefore, and take heed, whoever reads these things, lest you be turned aside from the straight path.

1. To traduce and slander certain men with unbridled tongue and senseless mind, knowing them to be the work of wicked and contentious men—this we know is the mark of sensible men, who, along with their own prudence, hold dear the safety of the many, and who, with all eagerness, strive to refute falsehood with proofs. We prayed that we might possess the knowledge of both, so that we might never belong to the former class, and might escape the experience of the latter. But since it did not happen that the end turned out according to our wish, and since a false slander against us has been constructed in many ways and by many means, both through words and deeds—a slander painful to us but harmful to those who believe it, being [spread] by certain wicked men who do not hesitate to say or do anything, and by the simpler sort who measure the truth by the accusations of those who differ, and who, without judgment, accept the slanders against us—we thought it profitable for our own defense, and for the security of what is said without examination, to set forth for you in writing a confession of our own doctrine. If by this means we might both avert the calumny that has already gained ground—that is, to clear away what has been previously spread about and accepted—and for the future, make those wicked men less bold, and make those who are very simple, and easily caught and moved, more certain and more settled, by demonstrating once again to the former how horrible it is to tell lies and assert falsehoods, and to the latter how dangerous it is to believe falsehoods, while at the same time showing the truth that stands with us, and the punishment that is to be feared by both. For association in falsehood works a common punishment for both. ^C

2. Before all else, we ask you who are now to hear us, and those who will encounter this later, not to wish to distinguish truth from falsehood by the multitude ^D, attributing the better part—namely, victory and the testimony of truth—to the greater number, nor to allow your mind to be darkened by yielding to the status or arrogance of anyone; nor, by giving greater weight to the order of those who came before, to stop up your ears against those who come later. Rather, [we ask you] to prefer the teaching of our Savior Jesus Christ to every number of men, to every ambition or contentiousness, to custom, and to kinship, and, to speak briefly, to all things which are wont to cast shadows upon the mind in its judging, and to judge what is said with a favorable disposition toward the truth. For the greatest part in the discerning of truth is the kinship one has with it.

3. Furthermore, we beg that you do not take it amiss ^A that, disregarding pride and fear, we have preferred the indulgence of the coming age—which belongs to the faithful on account of their future state—over the grace and tranquility of the present moment. We judge the threat ordained against the impious to be more to be feared than any earthly affliction or even temporal death itself, and thus we set forth the truth stripped of every veil. For, to speak with the Apostle, the sufferings of the present time are not worthy of the glory which shall one day be revealed. Nor indeed is this whole world worthy to be compared with that advantage and domain which each soul shall receive as a just compensation—since, when one looks to what is to be expected on both sides, both in terms of rewards and of punishment, the present is far surpassed by the things that are hoped for.

4. But ^B lest, while we linger too long on these matters, we draw out our discourse excessively, we turn now to the confession of faith itself, from which it will be prompt and easy for those who wish to know our position to recognize it. It may, perhaps, also be necessary for us, who are speaking on these subjects and are bound to give an account of our own view, not to abandon ourselves rashly to the opinions of the multitude, but to set forth as a kind of plumb line and rule that pious tradition which has prevailed from the Fathers, looking back through time; and then allow everyone to use this as an exact standard of judgment for the assessment of what is said.

5. We believe in one God, ^C the Father Almighty, of whom are all things. And in one only-begotten Son of God, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things. And in one Holy Spirit the Paraclete, in whom the distribution of all grace is given to each of the saints according to the proportion of what is expedient.

6. This, then, is the simpler and common faith ^D for all who care to appear or to be Christians—expressed as a summary, to speak somewhat generally—omitting the rest, of which we judge it superfluous to make mention because they are still outside of controversy. But if we saw it to be necessary for those who have once accepted the words to preserve also the true sense inseparably together with the names, or for those who have written against us a charge of impiety after we have made this profession...

^A they should, by the same necessity, absolve us again from the charges brought against us, with their own minds having been purged, of course, of every wicked suspicion against us. We could indeed have made an immediate end and limit to our words right here, as the same profession guarantees us peace and security. But since it is not enough to induce belief in the truth for those who, out of ill-will or some other vice of judgment, attempt to pervert and corrupt the true meaning (for otherwise Sabellius the Libyan, and Marcellus the Galatian, and Photinus, or anyone else who has raged with the same madness as them, would not have been excluded from holy assemblies and the communion of mysteries, and indeed from ecclesiastical precincts), nor is it sufficient for us to dissolve the charges brought against us, but there is need of some more precise arguments for the unfolding of our meaning; we shall endeavor, as far as we are able, to bring into the light that view which we ourselves hold concerning these matters, either by putting forth the statement first and then later revealing the meaning, or by applying the terms to the underlying concepts—not that this change in order harms the truth, but simply because the same things are sufficient for us both for our own defense and for the refutation of those who have written against us in an attempt to harmonize the words with the aforementioned sentiments: not that this transposition, established by me according to this sequence, might undermine the truth, but that these matters thus treated might suffice for both purposes, namely, that we might both uphold our own apology and refute those who have accused us.

7. ^B Therefore, according to the natural conception and according to the teaching of the Fathers, God is confessed by us, having been made neither by himself nor by another. For each of these is equally impossible; since, in truth, the agent must pre-exist the thing being made, and the thing being made must be ^C second to the agent; nor can the same thing be prior or posterior to itself, nor can anything else be prior to God. For in that case, that other thing would have possessed the dignity of divinity before the second. For the ability to say that something comes into being through another is true and would have place in the case of generated things, and would be rightly attributed to those things which have been made by God. Therefore, if it is demonstrated that neither is he prior to himself, nor is there anything else prior to him, but that he is before all things, the term "unbegotten" follows for him; or rather, he himself is an unbegotten essence. It will perhaps seem ^D superfluous and excessive to some to treat as doubtful those things which are commonly confessed. Yet, for the sake of those who think it is wisdom to fight against manifest things, or for the sake of others who are prepared for finding fault and for slander, it is necessary that we employ a more precise observation.

8. When we say that God is unbegotten, we do not think it ought to be honored merely in name according to human fancy, but that we must pay in truth the most necessary duty of all to God: the confession of what he is. For those things which are said according to fancy, possessing being only in names and in utterance, to words...

^A are naturally dissolved. But God, as he who is God and of those who are silent and who speak, and who are—he, I say, both was and is ingenerate before the nature of things existed. Nor yet is he ingenerate according to privation; for privations of natural things are properly privations, and posterior to the habits themselves. Now, indeed, generation does not naturally belong to God, nor is he called ingenerate for that reason, as if he had previously had some generation of himself and was afterward deprived of it, since this is exceedingly impious, and so impious that if it were to hold, all true thought concerning God and his perfection—nay, the very intellect of those who devise such things—is completely overturned: namely, to say that God is entirely deprived of anything, of those things, clearly, that by their nature are always present to him. For no one of sound mind would say that anyone is deprived of anything from among those things which were never with him. If, indeed, it cannot be received as ingenerate either by thought, or according to privation, as the aforementioned argument has shown, nor in respect of any part—for he is impartible, nor in that sense as if there were in him something having some diversity; for he is simple and incomposite; nor so as if that essence which is called ingenerate were something else existing besides him— ^B for he is partless, neither in him as something else (for he is simple and incomposite), nor besides him as something else (for he is one and alone, he himself is ingenerate); this itself would be the ingenerate essence.

9. Being ingenerate, however, according to the preceding demonstration, he could never admit of generation, so as to impart his own nature to the begotten, and he would thus escape all comparison and communion with that which is begotten. For if anyone were to desire to make this essence common with another thing, or to impart something of this essence to anyone, he would necessarily attempt to do so either according to separation and division, or according to comparison. Whichever of these might be said, the argument will be carried into many absurdities, or rather into blasphemies. For whether it be divided or cut into parts, it can no longer be ingenerate, since it itself becomes that which it was not before through such a division; nay, in this way it cannot be free from corruption, since that partition weakens the whole majesty of incorruptibility. ^C Or whether it should admit of comparison with another, since comparison is not made from things that are incommensurate, the dignity of the essence will be shared. And if this, then also the name, so that by necessity those who are forced into this argument, or who wish to keep the appellation incommensurate, must keep it incommensurate in this way—

^D to oppose metaphysical arguments and subtleties, is the work of Eunomius, who, having been taught by his master Aetius, persuaded himself that he possessed the divine essence fully and perfectly known. "I know and perceive God so clearly as to what he is, that I have obtained such knowledge of him... as not to know even myself better than I know him." Aetius, in Epiphanius, LXXVI, pp. 916 and 889. Eunomius himself, with even greater insolence, in Socrates, IV, [7]: "God knows nothing more about his own essence than we do, nor is it better known to him than to us; but whatever we might know concerning it, this he surely knows; and what he again knows, this you will find to be identically in us." Concerning his own essence, God knows nothing more than we, nor is it even better known to him, but to us it is more obscure, etc.

^A A comparison of a kind might be allowed toward another, since there is no comparison possible from those things which have nothing at all in common; the majesty of the essence would certainly be subject to the lot of participation. If this were truly the case, then the name itself would be common, so that it would necessarily behoove those who are constrained by this reasoning to preserve and protect the appellation as uncommunicable. If, however, they wish to keep the essence itself secure and intact from all participation, or if they attempt to impart any of it to another, it is necessary that they should also bestow something of the appellation, just as they do regarding the essence itself. For their ambition, which assigns to the other party a defect of some gift, will be lame, unless, that is, they do this; and it is added that they do nothing worthy of the majesty of the Word, when they are so subtle in distinguishing the appellation, if indeed the one is greater by name alone, while the other is lesser. But if the law of consequence compels them to attribute the same term to both, let them also bestow that which is more honorable, namely equality, since they cannot find where they might place that preeminence.

10. For they would certainly not say that the essence is common to both, but that they differ in order and in the prerogatives resulting from time, such that one is first and the other is second; since the cause of the preeminence must necessarily precede those who excel, and time is not joined to the essence of God ^B (18), nor is eternity, nor order. For order is secondary to the one who orders, but nothing of those things which are of God is ordered by another. And time is a certain movement of the stars. But the stars have come to be after not only the unbegotten essence, and all intelligible things, but even after the primary bodies. For what need is there even to speak of the ages (æons), when Scripture clearly declares that God exists before the ages, and common reasonings also bear witness? For it is not only impious, but also altogether ridiculous, that those who admit only one to be unbegotten should nevertheless not doubt to claim that either something else existed before it, or that another existed together with it. For if something preexisted, this could justly and deservedly be called unbegotten, not that which was later; or if it could exist together ^C with it, by reason of that society which each has with respect to the other, because one has existed together with the other, and the other has not been without the one; hence that which says God is one thing, and indeed unbegotten, will be overturned and destroyed; which is the same as if, after they have circumscribed the essential nature of both by certain duties which were distributed by lot, they should afterwards introduce a certain agreement between them, and a cause of that agreement.

11. But indeed it is not possible that anything should be present in this essence, such as we say is a species, or mass, and (19) quantity, because God is entirely free from all composition. But if it is neither pious, nor will it ever be possible, to invent any of these and similar things, so that it might pertain to the divine essence, what reason, I ask, will any longer grant that we should liken the begotten to the unbegotten? When a likeness, or comparison, or association, which is according to essence, leaves behind no preeminence or difference, and clearly produces equality, while at the same time declaring it ^D unbegotten alongside that equality.

No one is so senseless and impiously bold as to say that the Son is equal to the Father, when the Lord himself explicitly declares: *The Father who sent me is greater than I.* Nor does one link one of these names with the other, as each draws it to itself and appropriates it, while not admitting any fellowship with the other name in respect of the former. For if he is unbegotten, he is not the Son; if he is the Son, he is not unbegotten. But that the one God of all is unbegotten and incomparable, setting aside many things that could be said, I deem that what has already been said is sufficient for proof.

12. ^B But that the Son is one and unique (for he is only-begotten), having brought forward the testimonies of the holy ones, through which they proclaim him son and begotten and creature, and by the differences of names make manifest also the difference of essence: we could, by this reasoning, refrain from all further care and labor. But on account of those who imagine this generation to be corporeal, and who stumble over the equivocations, it will perhaps be necessary to speak briefly also about these things. We say, therefore, that the Son is "begotten," strictly according to the doctrine of the Scriptures, understanding by "essence" nothing other than what is signified beyond the name itself; but [we say] that he is that very hypostasis which the name itself signifies, so that the appellation confirms the truth of the essence, since the essence is not more truly shown than by the appellation itself. Furthermore, we say that this substance was begotten when it did not exist before its own constitution, but after it was begotten, it existed before all things, by the decree of God the Father.

13. ^C But if this saying appears to anyone to be a rash attempt, let him consider within himself whether this is true or false. If it is the former, such a venture is free from blame in his own judgment, since nothing that is true, when spoken in its proper time and manner, can have blame. But if it is false, it will be necessary, in all certainty, to consider as true that which is contrary to what I have said. And this is that the Son was begotten while he already existed, a thing which cannot but be not only a matter of absurdity or blasphemy, but even the height of folly. For what is, I ask, ^D in need of generation, unless it be transformed into the likeness of some other thing according to the nature of living and inanimate bodies? Which indeed can truly be said to become, since they do not exist as what they are [beforehand], but those things which come to be do not exist [as such before the change]. For seed is not at once a man, nor is a stone a house; but finally, the one becomes a man, and the latter a house. If, however, each of these things, to which it is most pious to compare the generation of the Son, do not exist previously, but finally come to be—for that which already existed is not said to become—what remedy will he find who says that the Son, being [already], was begotten? For if he existed before the generation, he was unbegotten.

14. ^A Verily, the confession holds correctly that nothing besides God is unbegotten. Let them, then, depart from that confession and bring forward some other thing which is unbegotten, or, if they wish to cling to that conviction, let them beware for the future of speaking in such a way—that the Son, since he existed beforehand, was begotten—because the appellation of "son" and "begotten" does not enter into one and the same subject with the appellation of "unbegotten." For a total and extreme confusion of both names and things would arise if, while one essence is in truth and is called unbegotten, another is introduced besides it by discourse, and this is afterwards called begotten; and if the Son has not been begotten according to them, and the Father has not begotten—[they are just] names, if indeed he was not begotten. Unless, perhaps, someone, according to the proverb, curing one evil with a greater one, thinks up an augmentative or transformative generation, without having reasoned that matter out well in addition to all else; for whether he augments something, he would increase it by the addition of something from without. ^B Whence, therefore, could that which was added come, unless we postulate some other thing? But if this be the case, it is necessary to conceive of many things that exist and are unbegotten for the completion of one. Or if the increase is from that which is not, which is better: to confess that all that is not [yet] is begotten by the will of him who brings it forth, or to say that the essence is composite, made of what is and what is not? Or if it were transformed, since there is nothing into which it could be transformed, it will necessarily be transformed into that which is not. And how, I ask, is it not foolish—not to say impious—to say that what is has departed into something that is not? It is, rather, fitting that this excessive folly, or rather insanity, be dismissed and cast aside, and that what is true be accepted with due modesty.

15. ^C Verily, these men see not that they are liable to far more absurdities, nor [should they] justly bring us into the charge of audacity or presumption, but rather accuse themselves of the crime of impiety. But we, remaining in the things that were long ago demonstrated by the holy Fathers, and now by ourselves—namely, that the essence of God does not admit of generation, as it is unbegotten, nor of separation or division, as it is incorruptible; and since no other [essence] can be given for the generation of the Son—we say that the Son was begotten when he did not previously exist; not that we make the essence of the Only-Begotten common with those things that were made from nothing (since that which is not is not an essence), but, while we assign to all things a difference defined by the will of him who made them, we attribute to him such excellence above all others as it is necessary for the Maker to have over his own works. For we confess, according to the blessed John, that all things were made ^D through him, the creative power being co-begotten for him from above, so that he is the only-begotten God of all things that were made after him and through him. For he alone, having been begotten and created by the power of the unbegotten,

^B became the most perfect minister for the whole of creation and for carrying out the decree of the Father.

16. But if it is because he is called Father and Son that we must conceive of generation as human and bodily, and, being led by human generations, must subject God to the names and passions of participation, since God is also a creator, we must—according to the Greek error—subject matter to him for the generation of created things. For a man who begets from his own essence could not create without matter. But if they would reject this, and, caring nothing for the expression of names but preserving the notion that befalls God, would concede that he creates by power alone, how, I ask, could the passion of transubstantiation and participation of essence find a place in God because of the title of Father? For who among those who think rightly, or are of sound mind, can deny that some names have a certain communion only by reason of pronunciation and utterance, but not according to their signification? As "eye," which is said of both man and God: of the former it marks a certain part, but of the latter it sometimes marks aid and the protection of the righteous, and sometimes the knowledge itself of things that are done.

17. Many things, indeed, have a discrepancy when they are pronounced, yet they attain the same signification, such as "being" and "the only true God." Therefore, neither when the Father is named must we immediately conceive in our mind an operation that is common to him with humans, so that we simultaneously imagine in both cases flux or passion, since the one is impassible and the other is accompanied by passion. Nor when the Spirit is named does he immediately have, on that account, a common nature with others that are called spirits. But in all cases we must preserve the analogy ^C suited to the reason and to each nature, and not immediately be indignant when we hear the Son called a creature, as if the equivocation of names made the essence itself entirely common. For he is the offspring and work of the unbegotten and unmade; but heaven and angels, and whatever else is a creature, are works of this work, having come to be through him by the commandment of the Father. For thus the truth of the Scriptures will stand firm—those Scriptures which speak of the Son as both creature and offspring—and we shall not depart from sound reasonings, neither attributing parts to God, nor, for the sake of his own generation, subjecting his essence (nor, for the sake of creation, subjecting matter), from which the difference of names is wont to arise. ^D

18. But if God, while begetting, does not impart anything of his own nature to the begotten after the manner of men—for he is unbegotten—nor, while creating, does he need any matter...

or other power, then the rejection of the creature is altogether ^A irrational. From these and similar points it is shown that one ought neither to endeavor to make the meanings altogether conform to the names, nor, on the other hand, to alter the meanings when the names themselves are altered; but rather, by paying attention to the concepts of the underlying subjects, one should apply the designations accordingly, since the nature of things is not naturally conditioned to follow the words, but the force of the names is naturally conditioned to be applied to the things according to their worth. One might blame no less those who, while convinced that the Son is offspring and creature, contend that there is one unbegotten and uncreated God, and yet, by the addition of the latter terms, and by the similarity of essence, contradict their previous acknowledgments. Those who, if they had any care for the truth, ought to have acknowledged that, since the terms are altered, the essences also are altered. ^B For in this way, and only in this way, would they have preserved the proper order, by rendering the confession appropriate to each of these. But if they take no account of this, they should at least have preserved the consistency of their own logic, and not, while departing from one and the same nature, alienate the appellations from their proper fittingness, since it has been demonstrated by us throughout the preceding argument that names are indicative of essences.

19. Someone might perhaps say, since he is instructed in contradiction, and is as it were sharpened by a whetstone, that if one must attend to the names and through them be led to the concepts of the underlying subjects, we say that as far as the unbegotten and the begotten are concerned, they differ, ^C but as far as light and light, life and life, power and power are concerned, they do not differ, but are of the same nature. To whom we answer, not using a staff for the question instead of an answer, according to the admirer of Diogenes—for cynicism is very far removed from Christianity—but imitating the blessed Paul, who says that one must with much long-suffering instruct those who are in opposition, because the one is unbegotten light, and the other is begotten. Does "light" signify something different when spoken of the unbegotten than when spoken of the begotten, or does it signify one and the same thing in both cases? For if it signifies something different and other, it is manifest that what is composed of one thing and another is also composite. But what is composite is not unbegotten. If, however, it signifies one and the same ^D thing in both, then as much as the unbegotten differs from the begotten, so much must the light differ from the light, and life from life, and power from power. For the same canon and method applies to the solution of all such objections. If, therefore, everything that is said to be indicative of the Father’s essence is equal in the force of its meaning to the unbegotten, because it is partless and incomposite, then by the same logic it is also equal to the generated [Son] in the case of the Only-Begotten. And they say that these are also...

different. Who, I ask, will any longer allow argument to introduce equality of essence, or allow anyone to define preeminence in terms of "greater," when all bulk and all time and such things are removed, and the essence is conceived as simple and single? ^A

20. They seem to me to be those who have dared to compare an essence—superior to every cause and free from all laws—to that which is generated and subject to paternal laws, ^B or else they have not considered at all the nature of the universe, or if they sometimes do, they do not hold judgments about these matters with a pure mind. For since two distinct paths have been devised by us for the discovery of the things being sought: one, according to which we consider the essences themselves and thus call each thing under our scrutiny with a sincere argument; and the other, which is made through the investigation of operations, or when the investigation is made through operations, which we judge from the works already done and completed by them. It is impossible to find a third path that is neither of these and that shows such an equality of essence beyond those already mentioned. For whether one wishes to take the beginning of the inquiry from the essences themselves, the one that is superior—since it does not admit the dominion or any generation of another, and instructs our mind approaching with a love of truth—orders us to repel as far as possible by the law of nature such a comparison to another, and provides an occasion for us to contemplate such an operation as might be convenient for the majesty of the essence. But if someone wishes to form a judgment from the works, and from there be led to the essences: where he finds the Son to be a creature of the Ingenite, and the Paraclete of the Only-Begotten, ^C and once having been instructed from the preeminence of the Only-Begotten concerning the difference of operation, he receives an indubitable demonstration of the diversity of essence also, so that we have no need to name a third; for he who acts by his own power differs very much from him who does something by a paternal nod, and who confesses that he does nothing of himself, and he who is worshipped [differs] from him who worships.

21. If, therefore, they think it is in no way absurd to communicate these same things equally to both, namely essence, operation, power, and name, having completely removed the differences of names and realities, let them clearly declare there to be two unbegotten [beings]. But if this is manifestly impious, come, let them prove, not by that appellation of "likeness" which they use as a kind of veil, but with certain arguments, that which by the confession of all is given over to impiety. But so that we might not appear to be forcing the truth by our own fabrications and arguments in accordance with the blasphemy brought against us ^D and bruited about by many, from the

^A testimony of the Scriptures themselves we shall provide the proof. One is proclaimed God by the Law and the Prophets. This is also confessed by the Savior Himself to be the God of the Only-Begotten. “I am going,” he says, “to my God and your God.” He is the only true God, the only wise, the only good, the only powerful, who alone has immortality. Let no one, I pray, receive these words with a tumultuous and agitated spirit, nor let anyone be troubled in mind. For we have not used this passage in order to abolish the divinity of the Only-Begotten, or His wisdom, or His immortality, or His goodness, but to show the difference regarding the preeminence of the Father. For we confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-Begotten, is God, incorruptible and immortal, wise and good. ^B But we have learned that the Father is the cause of His very constitution, and of all that He is, since He Himself has no cause for His own essence or goodness, inasmuch as He is unbegotten, just as those things previously proposed exhibited the unbegotten to our mind to be considered.

22

23

and without end: since it cannot be that when the works cease, the operation itself does not also cease. For it is a very childish and infantile judgment to call the operation unbegotten and endless, and thus to assert it is one and the same thing with the essence, when no work at all can come to be in an unbegotten and infinite manner. For if anyone affirms this, one of two things will necessarily follow: either that the operation of God is without action, or that the work itself is also unbegotten. If, however, both of these are by common confession absurd, that which remains will be the truth, namely, that since works have a beginning, the operation is also not without a beginning: and since they cease, it also does not lack an end. Therefore, it does not become us to give credence to the opinions of others immediately, before they are properly examined, and so to unite the operation to the essence; but we should consider that this is the truest and most becoming operation to God, namely, will, which is powerful and sufficient for both the essence and the preservation of all things, the prophetic voice itself testifying to this: For *all things whatsoever he willed, he did* (Ps. CXIII, 3). For he does not stand in need of anything for the subsistence of those things which he wills to be, but as soon as he wills, that which he willed also consistently comes into being. ^B

24. Therefore, if the discourse has demonstrated that the will is an operation, but that operation is not essence; and that the Only-Begotten subsists by the will of the Father, not according to essence, but according to operation, which is itself also will: it is necessary that the Son preserve and hold this likeness. Whence now, furthermore, as we are conveniently led forward, it behooves us to grasp also the true reason why he is called image. The blessed Paul himself explained this, saying: *Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: for in him were all things created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible* (Coloss. 1, 15, 16). For this reason he is the image. But all things which were created in him, together with him who is called firstborn, certainly do not signify an unbegotten essence. For the essence is not according to these things. But the operation, through which the Son, in whom are all things, can neither refer the image to the essence, nor can the image bear that likeness by reason of essence, since it is an operation which was unbegotten with God in his presence even before the constitution of the firstborn and of all things which were created through him. For who, I ask, who knows both the Only-Begotten himself, and has also properly understood all things which were made through him, would not confess that by him he perceives the whole power of the Father? Looking toward which [power] the most blessed Paul says not "Through him," but *In him*, and by surely adding "firstborn," so that he, having been taken up along with the others which were made through him, might make this operation of the Father manifest to those who have the strength to contemplate these things. Therefore, we say he is the image, not as comparing a generated thing to the unbegotten (for this is incongruous and indeed impossible for all), but because the Son is only-begotten and prototypical to the Father, the title of Son indicating the essence, but that of Father, the ^D

^A operation of Him who generates. If, however, anyone out of a spirit of contentiousness persists in his own opinions and refuses to weigh with a sound mind the things already said, but violently insists that the title of Father is indicative of essence, he should also make the same term common with the Son, whom he previously made a participant in the same essence; nay rather, let him attribute both titles to both—the title of Son to the Father, and in turn the title of Father to the Son—for the similarity of essence will force those who hold this opinion of them to name them by the same titles.

25. ^B Since these things suffice for us regarding the Only-begotten, it would be logical to speak next of the Paraclete as well, not by following the unexamined opinions of the many, but by preserving in all things the teaching of the saints, from whom having learned Him to be third in dignity and order, we believe Him to be third also according to nature. This is not because dignities change according to the shifting conditions of human politics, nor because the order in creation is exchanged in opposition to the essences, but because it is suited to the nature itself, so that neither that which was first in order is second according to nature, nor yet that which was first by nature falls into a second or third order. Therefore, if this is the best order of the creation of intelligible things, the Holy Spirit being third in ^C order, He could not be first in nature, which is God and the Father. For it would be absurd and superfluous if we were to say that the same person holds the first place at one time and the third at another, and that the One who is worshipped and that in which one worships are one and the same, according to what the Lord says: "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth" (John IV, 24). Nor indeed is He the same as the Only-begotten. For He would not have been numbered after the Son as having an individual hypostasis, the voice of the Savior being sufficient even before this, by which He clearly said that the One who was to be sent for the remembrance and instruction of the apostles was someone different. Nor is He anything else by number besides God, as if He were also some unbegotten being; for one and alone is the Unbegotten, from whom all things have been made. ^D Nor is He anything else besides the Son, a birth; for one and alone is the Only-begotten, our Lord, through whom are all things, according to the Apostle. But He is indeed third both by nature and by order, having come to be by the command of the Father and the operation of the Son, honored in the third rank as first and greater than all things, and the only such work of the Only-begotten—falling short of divinity and creative power, but filled with sanctifying and instructional power. For as for those who have believed the Paraclete to be some operation of God and then count Him among the essences, to refute them now, as being utterly foolish and far removed from the truth, would require long leisure.

26. Verum, ^A lest we burden our hearers or make them less eager by the length of our discourse, we shall briefly comprehend the whole force of what we have said, and declare that the one and only true God of all things is truly unbegotten, without beginning, incomparable, superior to every cause, and the cause of existence to all things that are; who did not form the creation of beings out of some communion with another, nor does He excel all things by order or surpass them by comparison, but rather by an incomparable pre-eminence of essence, power, and authority; who begat and made before all things the only-begotten God, our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things were made, the image and seal of His own power and operation, who is neither equal to Him who begat Him in essence, nor to the Holy Spirit, who was made through Him. For he is lesser than the former, as a work, but greater than the latter, as its maker. And indeed, that he is a creature is testified to by a witness worthy of faith, who received his knowledge from the Lord Himself, namely Peter, when he says: "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made him both Lord and Christ"; and he himself who speaks in the person of the Lord: "The Lord created me in the beginning of his ways." ^B That he in turn created the Holy Spirit is shown by him who says: "One God, of whom are all things, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things"; and by blessed John who said: "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." From which it necessarily follows that one must either call him unbegotten, which is impious, or if he is made, that he was made by him. For we confess that only the Son was begotten by the Father, subordinated in essence and in will: just as the Son himself confesses that he lives because of the Father, and does nothing of himself. Yet we do not call him coessential, nor of like essence, since the former denotes generation and participation of essence, and the latter, equality.

27. Nor is the Father begotten, nor is the Son unbegotten; but we truly confess that what is ^C without end is also truly called his offspring, a submissive Son, a most perfect minister, who for every creation and paternal will offered his own labor, specifically for the composition of all things that exist, for their distribution, for the giving of laws to men, for the economy and all providence: using the Paraclete as a minister for sanctification, ^D for instruction, and for the confirmation of the faithful; who in the last days was born of the holy Virgin, lived holy by human laws, was crucified, died, rose on the third day...

ascended into heaven, and is coming to judge the living and the dead according to a just retribution of faith and works, and who reigns for all ages, the preeminence and monarchy of God being preserved whole and intact in all things forever, ^A the holy Spirit being subject, of course, to Christ along with all things, and the Son Himself being subject to God and the Father, according to the teaching of the blessed Apostle Paul, who says: "For when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." (1 Cor. xv, 28).

Since all these things have been clearly and more fully demonstrated by us in other places, and have now been briefly summarized in a confession to you, we pray that both you who are present here, and all others who share these same mysteries with us, not fearing the reproach of men, nor being deceived by sophistries or led astray by flatteries, will vote in accordance with a true and just judgment on the things said, the better part naturally prevailing among all, and that, having set reason above all those things which harass the mind, you will escape all the snares and nets which have been devised by the devil against men—nets he has practiced using to cause many to flee from the truth, or to catch not a few, namely those who do not prefer what is useful to what is pleasant, ^B or who judge the present as more certain than the future. If, however, it should happen that in some, the worse part prevails (though God forbid that there should be any such trial of this discourse, or that any such thing as I have mentioned should be attempted),—since many are wont to conspire in falsehood, but to disagree in truth, and to value a present condition free from danger, and secular quiet and glory, more than those things which please God and serve the public utility—we hope at least that those who follow us as we teach and admonish them will preserve unshaken and stable the faith for Him who gave it; ^C and that they will joyfully await the judgment of our Savior Jesus Christ, where pride and glory and falsehood are rooted out from the foundation, and where those who stand for judgment are stripped of all power, or reverence, or flattery. Ample safeguards and riches will not be able to raise anyone's head there, even if they were formerly of great estimation among men. For a multitude of famous men will not there be of more account than one pious poor man, so that one can escape the censure of the truth that then weighs all things: for there piety alone will fight, as the just retribution requires of those who judge it profit even to die for its sake now. Christ, however, who formerly held and still holds and distributes the rewards due to the contests, will certainly bestow upon those who have labored in defense of the truth, true liberty and the kingdom of heaven; ^D but to those who, with a perverse mind, have defrauded it of its due honor, He will award inevitable punishments. Let these things be said to you on both sides; and may the end indeed turn out for the better part.

28. There is one God, unbegotten and without beginning, ^A having nothing existing before himself; for nothing can exist before the Unbegotten; nor with him, for there is one and only God, the Unbegotten; nor in him, for he is simple and incomposite. But being one, and being alone, and being always the same, he is the God of all things, and the creator and maker, primarily and in a certain special way of the Only-Begotten, but properly and individually of those things which were made through him. For he both begot, and created, and made the Son himself before all things and before every creature by his own power and operation alone, imparting nothing of his own ^B substance to him who was begotten. For God is incorruptible, and indivisible, and impartible; and he who is incorruptible does not impart of his own essence. Nor did he cause another to subsist like himself; for he alone is unbegotten, but according to the unbegotten essence it is impossible to be begotten. Therefore, he did not use his own essence, but his will alone; nor did he beget according to his own essence, but such as he willed, such he begot. And through this, first of all and greater than all, he made the Holy Spirit, by his own authority and command, ^C but by the operation and power of the Son. After this, he made all the remaining things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, and both corporeal and incorporeal, through the same Son. For there is one God, from whom are all things, according to the Apostle, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things. Thus there is one unbegotten, uncreated, unmade God. And there is one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the offspring of the Unbegotten, but not as one of the things begotten; a creature of the Uncreated, but not as one of the things created; a work of the Unmade, but not as one of the things made; ^D as it has been pronounced by the holy Scripture: "The Lord created me the beginning of his ways, before the ages he founded me; and before all the hills he begets me." And one Holy Spirit, the first and greater than all the works of the Only-Begotten, made at the command of the Father, but by the operation and power of the Son.

EUSTATHIUS' METAPHRASE OF THE HEXAEMERON BOOK I

EUSTATHIUS' LATIN METAPHRASE OF THE HEXAEMERON OF ST. BASIL

^A Eustathius to Syncletica, his sister in Christ, deaconess, greeting.

The religious and at the same time studious spirit of your sisterhood, while it desires to know the fullness of the heavenly Scriptures, investigating all ecclesiastical libraries and their founders through frequent reading, finally arrived at the Hexaemeron of the holy and venerable Bishop Basil, written in the Greek tongue; and while it seeks to commit this to the monuments of the Latin language, it judged that this task should be entrusted to me. But I, considering that you commanded this out of love rather than judgment, was indeed eager to obey your simple commands, stirred by your charity; but I did not dare to promise, when I contemplated my own incompetence. Therefore, distracted by a twofold thought, I did not know what to do: for I feared that if I preferred to refuse, I would piously offend the mind of one who presumed ^D well of me. If I obeyed, I feared I could not perform the office I had undertaken. Since these things were so, I decided to offer my labor faithfully rather than to excuse my speech stubbornly, trusting that if I should displease, you will grant pardon for what you commanded. For you will impute what has happened not to my fault, but to your own judgment: it is enough for me to have performed your commands.

HEXAEMERON BOOK I

1. "In the beginning God created heaven and earth." [He] who is about to narrate the creation of the world took a beginning for his discourse that makes for the decoration of the deeds performed. For the making of heaven and earth is not to be reported as formed spontaneously, as some have opined, but as having received the causes of its own substance from God. What, therefore, is the hearing worthy of the magnitude of the things related, or how ought a mind be instructed for the perception of such things! Surely one who is immune from carnal vices and not at all obscured by worldly sorrows, who is also hardworking and skillful, and observes everything, so that he may be able to draw in the worthy notion of God. But before we discuss the subtlety of words, let us consider who it is that addresses us. For granted that we are unable to reach the height of the historic heart on account of the weakness of our own intellect, yet, the prerogative of the speaker being observed, we shall be led of our own accord to consent to these things which have been said. Moses, therefore, is the editor of this Scripture, that Moses who is reported to have been comely before [g] God even when he was still panting for his mother's breasts, whom the daughter of Pharaoh adopted, and educated liberally with royal magnificence, having applied as teachers to his erudition the philosophers of the Egyptians (Acts VII, 20), who abhorred the pride of tyranny and turned toward the humility of his own people, content [alt-version omitted]