“In a word, if any one wishes to realise the truth of what I am urging, let him ask himself this question; when he wishes to understand anything about God, does he approach the meaning of ‘the unbegotten’?  I for my part see that, just as when we extend our thought over the ages that are yet to come, we say that the life bounded by no limit is without end, so is it when we contemplate in thought the ages of the past, and gaze on the infinity of the life of God as we might into some unfathomable ocean.  We can conceive of no beginning from which He originated:  we perceive that the life of God always transcends the bounds of our intelligence; and so we call that in His life which is without origin, unbegotten. τοῦτο τὸ ἄναρχον τῆς ζωῆς ἀγέννητον προσειρήκαμεν.  The meaning of the unbegotten is the having no origin from without.” Id. i. 16.  As Eunomius made ingenerateness the essence of the Divine, so, with the object of establishing the contrast between Father and Son, he represented the being begotten to indicate the essence of the Son. τὸ γέννημα.  Id. ii. 6.  God, said Eunomius, being ingenerate, could never admit of generation.  This statement, Basil points out, may be understood in either of two ways.  It may mean that ingenerate nature cannot be subjected to generation.  It may mean that ingenerate nature cannot generate.  Eunomius, he says, really means the latter, while he makes converts of the multitude on the lines of the former.  Eunomius makes his real meaning evident by what he adds to his dictum, for, after saying “could never admit of generation,” he goes on, “so as to impart His own proper nature to the begotten.” Id. i. 16.  As in relation to the Father, so now in relation to the Son, Basil objects to the term.  Why “begotten”? γέννημα, i.e., “thing begotten;” the distinction between this substantive and the scriptural adjective μονογενής must be borne in mind.  Where did he get this word?  From what teaching?  From what prophet?  Basil nowhere finds the Son called “begotten” in Scripture. Id. ii. 6.  We read that the Father begat, but nowhere that the Son was a begotten thing.  “Unto us a child is born, LXX., ἐγεννήθη. unto us a Son is given.” Is. ix. 6.  But His name is not begotten thing but “angel of great counsel.” Id. LXX.  If this word had indicated the essence of the Son, no other word would have been revealed by the Spirit. Id. ii. 7.  Why, if God begat, may we not call that which was begotten a thing begotten?  It is a terrible thing for us to coin names for Him to Whom God has given a “name which is above every name.” Phil. ii. 9.  We must not add to or take from what is delivered to us by the Spirit. Id. ii. 8.  Things are not made for names, but names for things. Id. ii. 4.  Eunomius unhappily was led by distinction of name into distinction of being. Id. ii. 3.  If the Son is begotten in the sense in which Eunomius uses the word, He is neither begotten of the essence of God nor begotten from eternity.  Eunomius represents the Son as not of the essence of the Father, because begetting is only to be thought of as a sensual act and idea, and therefore is entirely unthinkable in connexion with the being of God.  “The essence of God does not admit of begetting; no other essence exists for the Son’s begetting; therefore I say that the Son was begotten when non-existent.” Id. ii. 18.  Basil rejoins that no analogy can hold between divine generation or begetting and human generation or begetting.  “Living beings which are subject to death generate through the operation of the senses:  but we must not on this account conceive of God in the same manner; nay, rather shall we be hence guided to the truth that, because corruptible beings operate in this manner, the Incorruptible will operate in an opposite manner.” Id. ii. 23.  “All who have even a limited loyalty to truth ought to dismiss all corporeal similitudes.  They must be very careful not to sully their conceptions of God by material notions.  They must follow the theologies On the distinction between θεολογία and οἰκονομία, cf. p. 7, n. delivered to us by the Holy Ghost.  They must shun questions which are little better than conundrums, and admit of a dangerous double meaning.  Led by the ray that shines forth from light to the contemplation of the divine generation, they must think of a generation worthy of God, without passion, partition, division, or time.  They must conceive of the image of the invisible God not after the analogy of images which are subsequently fashioned by craft to match their archetype, but as of one nature and subsistence with the originating prototype συνυπάρχουσαν καὶ παρυφεστηκυῖαν τῷ πρωτοτύπῳ ὑποστήσαντι.  Expressions of this kind, used even by Basil, may help to explain the earlier Nicene sense of ὑπόστασις.  The Son has, as it were, a parallel hypostasis to that of the Father, Who eternally furnishes this hypostasis.  cf. p. 195, n..… Here the MSS. vary, but the main sense is not affected by the omission of the variant phrase.  This image is not produced by imitation, for the whole nature of the Father is expressed in the Son as on a seal.” Id. ii. 16.  cf. De Sp. Scto. § 15, p. 9, and § 84, p. 40, and notes.  “Do not press me with the questions:  What is the generation?  Of what kind was it?  In what manner could it be effected?  The manner is ineffable, and wholly beyond the scope of our intelligence; but we shall not on this account throw away the foundation of our faith in Father and Son.  If we try to measure everything by our comprehension, and to suppose that what we cannot comprehend by our reasoning is wholly non-existent, farewell to the reward of faith; farewell to the reward of hope!  If we only follow what is clear to our reason, how can we be deemed worthy of the blessings in store for the reward of faith in things not seen”? Id. ii. 24.