In the creed of Eunomius the Son is God, and it is not in terms denied that He is of one substance with the Father.  But in his doctrinal system there is a practical denial of the Creed; the Son may be styled God, but He is a creature, and therefore, in the strict sense of the term, not God at all, and, at best, a hero or demigod.  The Father, unbegotten, stood alone and supreme; the very idea of “begotten” implied posteriority, inferiority, and unlikeness.  Against this position Basil Adv. Eunom. i. 5. protests.  The arguments of Eunomius, he urges, are tantamount to an adoption of what was probably an Arian formula, “We believe that ingenerateness is the essence of God,” πιστεύομεν τὴν ἀγεννησίαν οὐσίαν εἶνας τοῦ Θεου.  For the word ἀγεννησία cf. Letter ccxxxiv. p. 274. i.e., we believe that the Only-begotten is essentially unlike the Father. Adv. Eunom. i. 4.  This word “unbegotten,” of which Eunomius and his supporters make so much, what is its real value?  Basil admits that it is apparently a convenient term for human intelligence to use; but, he urges, “It is nowhere to be found in Scripture; it is one of the main elements in the Arian blasphemy; it had better be left alone.  The word ‘Father’ implies all that is meant by ‘Unbegotten,’ and has moreover the advantage of suggesting at the same time the idea of the Son.  He Who is essentially Father is alone of no other.  In this being of no other is involved the sense of ‘Unbegotten.’  The title ‘unbegotten’ will not be preferred by us to that of Father, unless we wish to make ourselves wiser than the Saviour, Who said, ‘Go and baptize in the name’ not of the Unbegotten, but ‘of the Father.’” Matt. xxviii. 19.  Adv. Eun. i. 5.  To the Eunomian contention that the word “Unbegotten” is no mere complimentary title, but required by the strictest necessity, in that it involves the confession of what He is, ἐν τῇ τοῦ εῖναι ὅ ἐστιν ὁμολογί& 139·.  Adv. Eunom. i. 8. Basil rejoins that it is only one of many negative terms applied to the Deity, none of which completely expresses the Divine Essence.  “There exists no name which embraces the whole nature of God, and is sufficient to declare it; more names than one, and these of very various kinds, each in accordance with its own proper connotation, give a collective idea which may be dim indeed and poor when compared with the whole, but is enough for us.” Id. i. 10.  The word “unbegotten,” like “immortal,” “invisible,” and the like, expresses only negation.  “Yet essence οὐσία. is not one of the qualities which are absent, but signifies the very being of God; to reckon this in the same category as the non-existent is to the last degree unreasonable.” Id.  Basil “would be quite ready to admit that the essence of God is unbegotten,” but he objects to the statement that the essence and the unbegotten are identical. Id. ii.  It is sometimes supposed that the Catholic theologians have been hair-splitters in the sphere of the inconceivable, and that heresy is the exponent of an amiable and reverent vagueness.  In the Arian controversy it was Arius himself who dogmatically defined with his negative “There was when He was not,” and Eunomius with his “The essence is the unbegotten.”  “What pride!  What conceit!” exclaims Basil.  “The idea of imagining that one has discovered the very essence of God most high!  Assuredly in their magniloquence they quite throw into the shade even Him who said, ‘I will exalt my throne above the stars.’ i.e. Lucifer, cf. Is. xiv. 13.  It is not stars, it is not heaven, that they dare to assail.  It is in the very essence of the God of all the world that they boast that they make their haunt.  Let us question him as to where he acquired comprehension of this essence.  Was it from the common notion that all men share? On κοινὴ ἔννοια, cf. Origen, C. Cels. i. 4.  This does indeed suggest to us that there is a God, but not what God is.  Was it from the teaching of the Spirit?  What teaching?  Where found?  What says great David, to whom God revealed the hidden secrets of His wisdom?  He distinctly asserts the unapproachableness of knowledge of Him in the words, ‘Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.’ Ps. cxxxix. 6.  And Isaiah, who saw the glory of God, what does he tell us concerning the Divine Essence?  In his prophecy about the Christ he says, ‘Who shall declare His generation?’ Is. liii. 8.  And what of Paul, the chosen vessel, in whom Christ spake, who was caught up into the third heaven, who heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful to man to utter?  What teaching has he given us of the essence of God?  When Paul is investigating the special methods of the work of redemption τοὺς μερικοὺς τῆς οἰκονομίας λόγους. he seems to grow dizzy before the mysterious maze which he is contemplating, and utters the well-known words, ‘O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!  How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!’ Rom. xi. 33.  These things are beyond the reach even of those who have attained the measure of Paul’s knowledge.  What then is the conceit of those who announce that they know the essence of God!  I should very much like to ask them what they have to say about the earth whereon they stand, and whereof they are born.  What can they tell us of its ‘essence’?  If they can discourse without hesitation of the nature of lowly subjects which lie beneath our feet, we will believe them when they proffer opinions about things which transcend all human intelligence.  What is the essence of the earth?  How can it be comprehended?  Let them tell us whether reason or sense has reached this point!  If they say sense, by which of the senses is it comprehended?  Sight?  Sight perceives colour.  Touch?  Touch distinguishes hard and soft, hot and cold, and the like; but no idiot would call any of these essence.  I need not mention taste or smell, which apprehend respectively savour and scent.  Hearing perceives sounds and voices, which have no affinity with earth.  They must then say that they have found out the earth’s essence by reason.  What?  In what part of Scripture?  A tradition from what saint? Id. i. 13.