Against Eunomius

Contents

Reading pages: 1.1 · 1.4–1.9 · 1.10–1.19 · 1.20–2.4 · 2.6–2.16 · 2.17–2.24 · 2.25–2.34 · 3.1–3.6

1. 1.1Basil explains why he writes, names Aetius and Eunomius as the authors of the teaching that the Son is unlike the Father in essence, and exposes Eunomius's pose of writing an 'apology' when no accusers or court can be named.
2. 1.4Basil exposes how Eunomius praises the Fathers' creed and then 'corrects' it, mocks his proof that God is unbegotten, argues that 'Father' is the better name, and begins his account of conceptualization (epinoia).
3. 1.8Basil exposes Eunomius's claim that calling 'unbegotten' God's essence is a debt of piety, showing that the same logic would make every divine name mean the same thing and would apply equally to the Son.
4. 1.9Basil traces Eunomius's argument about privation to Aristotle's Categories and shows that 'unbegotten' belongs with 'incorruptible,' 'invisible,' and 'immortal,' so that his reasoning would prove too much.
5. 1.10Basil explains that no single name expresses God's nature; some names affirm what belongs to God and others deny what does not.
6. 1.11Basil answers Eunomius's argument by elimination that God is 'unbegotten essence,' granting that God's essence is unbegotten but denying that 'unbegotten' is the essence.
7. 1.12Basil rebukes the claim to know God's essence, citing David, Isaiah, and Paul, and challenges the Eunomians to say what even the essence of the earth is.
8. 1.13Basil notes that Moses did not inquire into the essence of the earth and that God did not reveal even his name to the patriarchs, so that claiming to know God's essence is the height of conceit.
9. 1.14Basil argues that God's essence is known only to the Son and the Spirit, that we know God from his activities, and that reading the biblical images of God literally leads to absurd notions of his essence.
10. 1.15Basil argues that 'unbegotten' answers how God is, not what he is, using Luke's genealogy, which names origins rather than essences.
11. 1.16Basil explains 'unbegotten' as the mind's recognition that God's life has no beginning, and exposes Eunomius's use of the word to deny that the Father begets a Son who shares his nature.
12. 1.17Basil shows that if the Father has no comparison or fellowship with the Son, Christ's words that whoever sees him sees the Father would be false.
13. 1.18Basil shows that Eunomius's denial of all comparison between Father and Son overturns the scriptural titles of the Son as seal, image, form of God, radiance, and stamp.
14. 1.19Basil quotes Eunomius's denial that Father and Son share a common essence and explains the sense in which the church does confess one essence and one Godhead with distinct properties.
15. 1.20Basil distinguishes natural order, such as that of a cause to what comes from it, from order by design, and grants that the Father is prior to the Son as cause but not in nature or time.
16. 1.21Basil refutes Eunomius's definition of time as a motion of the stars, citing the days before the stars were made and the day the sun stood still, and defines time as the interval coextensive with the world.
17. 1.22Basil quotes Eunomius's argument that because God is simple the Son cannot be like him, and asks why the Son, who is equally simple, cannot be like the Father.
18. 1.23Basil argues that since the Son, like the Father, is incorporeal and formless, it is pious to compare them.
19. 1.24Basil argues that the Jews drew the right inference that calling God Father means equality, and shows that Eunomius's view of 'Father' as an activity contradicts his claim that the Father is greater.
20. 1.25Basil argues that 'the Father is greater' in John 14:28 refers to the Father as cause and origin of the Son, not to a difference in power, dignity, size, or essence.
21. 1.26Basil exposes the contradiction of calling the Father both 'greater' and 'incomparable,' and argues that belittling the Son removes the knowledge of the Father himself.
22. 1.27Basil concludes Book 1: if the Father is incomparable, the Son would be no different from creatures, contrary to his words 'I and the Father are one,' and Eunomius's argument refutes itself.
23. 2.1Basil introduces Book 2 by quoting Eunomius's claim that the saints call the Son 'offspring' and 'thing made,' and proposes to test every claim against the teaching of the Spirit in Scripture.
24. 2.2Basil denies that any saint called the Son a 'thing made,' and argues that Acts 2:36 ('God made him Lord and Christ') speaks of the incarnate Christ's authority, not of his coming into being.
25. 2.4Basil argues from the names Peter and Paul that names signify distinctive features, not essences, so a difference of names cannot prove a difference of essence between Father and Son.
26. 2.6Basil exposes Eunomius's selective concern about bodily notions of begetting, and argues that 'offspring' is a name never given to the Son in Scripture, which uses 'Son', as the Septuagint translators kept even Hebrew names untranslated out of reverence.
27. 2.8Basil argues that Scripture calls the Lord 'Son' but never 'offspring,' a word used of unformed miscarriages, crops, and the 'offspring of vipers.'
28. 2.9Basil argues that 'offspring' is a relative term, like 'son' or 'friend,' which indicates a relation, not an essence.
29. 2.10Basil shows that if 'offspring' named an essence, all offspring would share one essence and the Son would be the essence of the Father himself.
30. 2.11Basil exposes the sophism in Eunomius's claim that the Son's essence 'was not before its own constitution,' showing that it implies the Son came from nothing and the Father became Father later.
31. 2.12Basil argues that God is eternally Father, so the Son eternally exists, with nothing between them; the Father is prior only as cause.
32. 2.13Basil argues that any interval between Father and Son would make the Son younger than an age or a time, contradicting Scripture that all things, the ages included, came to be through him.
33. 2.14Basil answers Eunomius's dilemma ('God begot the Son either when he was or when he was not') from John 1:1: the Word 'was' in the beginning, beyond which nothing can be conceived, and John's prologue proclaims his eternal begetting.
34. 2.16Basil argues that the mind cannot think beyond the Son, the light of the soul, and offers images of an impassible, timeless begetting: radiance from light, a seal's impression, thoughts arising with the mind.
35. 2.17Basil answers Eunomius's claim that a Son who 'was' before his begetting would be unbegotten: the Son is eternally begotten, and 'eternal' and 'unbegotten' are different notions.
36. 2.18Basil answers Eunomius's claim that the Son was begotten 'not being' by showing that the One who named himself 'He who is' at the burning bush was the Son, called in Scripture both angel and God.
37. 2.19Basil denounces calling the Son 'not being,' a phrase Scripture uses of idols, and shows that the 'superiority' Eunomius grants the Son over his works does not imply a difference of essence from creatures.
38. 2.20Basil rejects Eunomius's redefinition of 'Only-Begotten' as 'begotten and created by the only one,' briefly treats Prov 8:22 ('The Lord created me,' rendered by other translators 'acquired me'), and shows the absurd consequences of calling the Son a mere minister.
39. 2.22Basil answers Eunomius's warning against a 'human' begetting: faith in Father and Son, into whom Christians are baptized, is the heart of the Gospel, and the names indicate a relation, not bodily passion.
40. 2.23Basil argues that the names Father and Son, applied to God, point to the impassible cause, and that Christ himself transfers the name 'Father' from human beings to God.
41. 2.24Basil argues that even if 'Father' were taken figuratively, Scripture's language of begetting points to kinship of nature, not passion; the manner of the begetting is ineffable but must be believed; and Eunomius contradicts himself about names and essences.
42. 2.25Basil quotes Eunomius's dilemma about the Father and Son as 'light' and shows that the opposition he posits between unbegotten and begotten admits no common ground.
43. 2.26Basil shows that Eunomius's reasoning would make the Son's 'light' the opposite of light, that is, darkness, and exposes the logical fallacy that consequents of contraries must themselves be contraries.
44. 2.27Basil argues that Eunomius's formula would deny that the Son is light, life, and power, contrary to Scripture, and explains that darkness, death, and weakness belong to the powers that fell away by choice, not to any essence.
45. 2.28Basil argues that 'unbegotten' and 'begotten' are distinguishing properties of Father and Son within one essence, not opposed essences, so that the one Godhead is known as Father and Son without contrariety.
46. 2.29Basil answers the charge that God would be composite unless 'light' and 'unbegotten' were identical: God is wholly light, life, and goodness, and 'unbegotten' indicates a property, as do the other divine names.
47. 2.30Basil rebuts Eunomius's claim that a 'law of nature' separates the Son's essence from the Father's, arguing that natural law, if anything, makes the offspring akin to the begetter.
48. 2.31Basil shows that Eunomius contradicts himself by calling the Father's essence 'free of all laws' and yet bound by a 'law of nature,' and turns his chain of dignity, activity, and image into a proof that the Son is the image of the Father's essence.
49. 2.32Basil argues that works reveal a maker's power, not his essence, and that if divine power and essence coincide, Eunomius's argument from works proves the likeness, not the unlikeness, of Father, Son, and Spirit.
50. 2.33Basil denounces Eunomius as the first to call the Holy Spirit a 'work,' a blasphemy he uses to argue the Son's inferiority.
51. 2.34Basil concludes Book 2: making the Spirit a creature of the Son alone separates the Spirit from God and lowers the Son, contrary to Scripture, which calls the Spirit both God's and Christ's.
52. 3.1Basil opens Book 3: Eunomius claims the saints taught that the Spirit is third in dignity and order and infers on his own that he is third in nature; Basil answers that rank does not imply a different nature, as the ranks of angels show.
53. 3.4Basil turns from the Spirit's names to his activities: the Spirit makes the heavenly powers firm, perfects human beings, sends the Lord, and fills all things.
54. 3.6Basil answers Eunomius's dilemma (creature, offspring, or unbegotten) by confessing that the manner of the Spirit's being is beyond our knowledge, while giving him the names Scripture gives; he then explains that Amos 4:13 speaks of wind and John 1:3 does not number the Spirit among created things.