63.  In relation to the originate, ἐν τοῦς γενητοῖς, as in the Bodleian ms.  The Benedictine text adopts the common reading γεννητοις, with the note, “Sed discrimen illud parvi momenti.”  If St. Basil wrote γεννητοῖς, he used it in the looser sense of mortal:  in its strict sense of “begotten” it would be singularly out of place here, as the antithesis of the reference to the Son, who is γεννητός, would be spoilt.  In the terminology of theology, so far from being “parvi momenti,” the distinction is vital.  In the earlier Greek philosophy ἀγένητος and ἀγέννητος are both used as nearly synonymous to express unoriginate eternal.  cf. Plat., Phæd. 245 D., ἀρχὴ δὲ ἀγένητόν, with Plat., Tim. 52 A., Τουτων δὲ οὕτως ἐχόντων ὁμολογητέον ἓν μὲν εἶναι τὸ κατὰ ταὐτὰ εἶδος ἔχον ἀγέννητον καὶ ἀνώλεθρον.  And the earliest patristic use similarly meant by γεννητός and ἀγέννητος created and uncreated, as in Ign., Ad Eph. vii., where our Lord is called γεννητὸς καὶ ἀγέννητος, ἐν ἀνθρ ?πω Θεὸς, ἐν θανάτῳ ζωὴ ἀληθινή.  cf. Bp. Lightfoot’s note.  But “such language is not in accordance with later theological definitions, which carefully distinguished between γενητός and γεννητός, between ἀγένητος and ἀγέννητος; so that γενητός, ἀγένητος, respectively denied and affirmed the eternal existence, being equivalent to κτιστός, ἄκτιστος, while γεννητός, ἀγέννητος described certain ontological relations, whether in time or in eternity.  In the later theological language, therefore, the Son was γεννητός even in His Godhead.  See esp. Joann. Damasc., De Fid. Orth. i. 8 (I. p. 135, Lequin), χρὴ γὰρ εἰδέναι ὅτι τὸ ἀγένητον, διὰ τοῦ ἑνὸς ν γραφόμενον, τὸ ἄκτιστον ἢ τὸ μὴ γενόμενον σημαίνει, τὸ δὲ ἀγέννητον, διὰ τῶν δύο νν γραφόμενον, δηλοῖ τὸ μὴ γεννηθέν; whence he draws the conclusion that μόνος ὁ πατὴρ ἀγέννητος and μόνος ὁ υἱ& 232·ς γεννητός.”  Bp. Lightfoot, Ap. Fathers, Pt. II. Vol. II. p. 90, where the history of the worlds is exhaustively discussed.  At the time of the Arian controversy the Catholic disputants were chary of employing these terms, because of the base uses to which their opponents put them; so St. Basil, Contra Eunom. iv. protests against the Arian argument εἰ ἀγέννητος ὁ πατὴρ γεννητὸς δὲ ὁ υἱ& 232·ς, οὐ τῆς αὐτῆς οὐσιας. cf. Ath., De Syn. in this series, p. 475, and De Decretis, on Newman’s confusion of the terms, p. 149 and 169. then, the Spirit is said to be in them “in divers portions and in divers manners,” Heb. i. 1. while in relation to the Father and the Son it is more consistent with true religion to assert Him not to be in but to be with.  For the grace flowing from Him when He dwells in those that are worthy, and carries out His own operations, is well described as existing in those that are able to receive Him.  On the other hand His essential existence before the ages, and His ceaseless abiding with Son and Father, cannot be contemplated without requiring titles expressive of eternal conjunction.  For absolute and real co-existence is predicated in the case of things which are mutually inseparable.  We say, for instance, that heat exists in the hot iron, but in the case of the actual fire it co-exists; and, similarly, that health exists in the body, but that life co-exists with the soul.  It follows that wherever the fellowship is intimate, congenital, συμφυής. and inseparable, the word with is more expressive, suggesting, as it does, the idea of inseparable fellowship.  Where on the other hand the grace flowing from the Spirit naturally comes and goes, it is properly and truly said to exist in, even if on account of the firmness of the recipients’ disposition to good the grace abides with them continually.  Thus whenever we have in mind the Spirit’s proper rank, we contemplate Him as being with the Father and the Son, but when we think of the grace that flows from Him operating on those who participate in it, we say that the Spirit is in us.  And the doxology which we offer “in the Spirit” is not an acknowledgment of His rank; it is rather a confession of our own weakness, while we shew that we are not sufficient to glorify Him of ourselves, but our sufficiency cf. 2 Cor. iii. 5. is in the Holy Spirit.  Enabled in, [or by,] Him we render thanks to our God for the benefits we have received, according to the measure of our purification from evil, as we receive one a larger and another a smaller share of the aid of the Spirit, that we may offer “the sacrifice of praise to God.” Heb. xiii. 15.  According to one use, then, it is thus that we offer our thanksgiving, as the true religion requires, in the Spirit; although it is not quite unobjectionable that any one should testify of himself “the Spirit of God is in me, and I offer glory after being made wise through the grace that flows from Him.”  For to a Paul it is becoming to say “I think also that I have the Spirit of God,” 1 Cor. vii. 40. and again, “that good thing which was committed to thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.” 2 Tim. i. 14.  And of Daniel it is fitting to say that “the Holy Spirit of God is in him,” Dan. iv. 8, lxx. and similarly of men who are like these in virtue.