The terms, ‘Word’ and ‘effulgence,’ then, are used because He is begotten of the Father without the union of two, or passion, or time, or flux, or separation Greg. Naz., Orat. 36.: and the terms ‘Son’ and ‘impress of the Father’s subsistence,’ because He is perfect and has subsistence ἐνυπόστατον; enhypostatic. See Suicer, Thesaurus, sub voce. and is in all respects similar to the Father, save that the Father is not begotten Greg. Naz., Orat. 23, 37, and 39.: and the term ‘Only-begotten’ Cf. ibid. 23, 36. because He alone was begotten alone of the Father alone. For no other generation is like to the generation of the Son of God, since no other is Son of God. For though the Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father, yet this is not generative in character but processional. This is a different mode of existence, alike incomprehensible and unknown, just as is the generation of the Son. Wherefore all the qualities the Father has are the Son’s, save that the Father is unbegotten Athan., Contra Arian., Orat. 2; Basil, Contra Eunom. iv.; Greg. Naz., Orat. 35., and this exception involves no difference in essence nor dignity ἀξιώματι., but only a different mode of coming into existence Basil, bk. ii. and iv.. We have an analogy in Adam, who was not begotten (for God Himself moulded him), and Seth, who was begotten (for he is Adam’s son), and Eve, who proceeded out of Adam’s rib (for she was not begotten). These do not differ from each other in nature, for they are human beings: but they differ in the mode of coming into existence Greg. Naz., Orat. 36 and 37..