Against Eunomius — Book II

The Christian faith, which was preached to all nations by Christ's disciples according to our Lord's command, does not come from human beings or through human authority, but through our Lord Jesus Christ himself. He is the Word, the Life, the Light, the Truth, God, Wisdom, and everything else that he is by nature. Above all, for this reason he was made in the likeness of human beings and shared our nature, becoming like us in all things except sin. He was like us in all things in that he took upon himself complete humanity with both soul and body, so that our salvation was accomplished through both. He appeared on earth and lived among people, so that human beings would no longer form opinions about the Self-existent One based on their own ideas, turning vague guesses into doctrine. Instead, we are to be convinced that God has truly been manifested in the flesh, and believe that this is the only true mystery of godliness, which was delivered to us by the very Word and God himself, who personally spoke to his apostles. We are to receive the teaching about the transcendent nature of the Deity that is given to us, as it were, through a glass darkly from the older Scriptures—from the Law, the Prophets, and the Wisdom Books—as evidence of the truth fully revealed to us. We reverently accept the meaning of what has been spoken, so as to agree with the faith set forth by the Lord of all the Scriptures. We guard this faith exactly as we received it, word for word, in purity, without any alteration, judging even the slightest deviation from the words delivered to us to be extreme blasphemy and impiety. We believe just as the Lord set forth the faith to his disciples when he said, "Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." This is the word of the mystery by which, through the new birth from above, our nature is transformed from corruptible to incorruptible, being renewed from the old man according to the image of the one who created in the beginning the likeness to the Godhead. In the faith that was delivered by God to the apostles, we allow neither subtraction, alteration, nor addition, knowing with certainty that whoever presumes to pervert the divine utterance through dishonest manipulation is of his father the devil, who abandons the words of truth and speaks on his own, becoming the father of a lie. For whatever is said in any way that does not exactly accord with the truth is certainly false and not true.

The Christian Faith, which in accordance with the command of our Lord has been preached to all nations by His disciples, is neither of men, nor by men, but by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, Who being the Word, the Life, the Light, the Truth, and God, and Wisdom, and all else that He is by nature, for this cause above all was made in the likeness of man, and shared our nature, becoming like us in all things, yet without sin. He was like us in all things, in that He took upon Him manhood in its entirety with soul and body, so that our salvation was accomplished by means of both:– He, I say, appeared on earth and conversed with men Baruch 3:37, that men might no longer have opinions according to their own notions about the Self-existent, formulating into a doctrine the hints that come to them from vague conjectures, but that we might be convinced that God has truly been manifested in the flesh, and believe that to be the only true mystery of godliness 1 Timothy 3:16, which was delivered to us by the very Word and God, Who by Himself spoke to His Apostles, and that we might receive the teaching concerning the transcendent nature of the Deity which is given to us, as it were, through a glass darkly 1 Corinthians 13:12 from the older Scriptures, — from the Law, and the Prophets, and the Sapiential Books, as an evidence of the truth fully revealed to us, reverently accepting the meaning of the things which have been spoken, so as to accord in the faith set forth by the Lord of the whole Scriptures, which faith we guard as we received it, word for word, in purity, without falsification, judging even a slight divergence from the words delivered to us an extreme blasphemy and impiety. We believe, then, even as the Lord set forth the Faith to His Disciples, when He said, Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost Matthew 28:19. This is the word of the mystery whereby through the new birth from above our nature is transformed from the corruptible to the incorruptible, being renewed from the old man, according to the image of Him who created at the beginning the likeness to the Godhead. In the Faith then which was delivered by God to the Apostles we admit neither subtraction, nor alteration, nor addition, knowing assuredly that he who presumes to pervert the Divine utterance by dishonest quibbling, the same is of his father the devil, who leaves the words of truth and speaks of his own, becoming the father of a lie. John 8:44 For whatsoever is said otherwise than in exact accord with the truth is assuredly false and not true.

Since this doctrine is proclaimed by the Truth itself, it follows that anything the inventors of destructive heresies devise to undermine this Divine statement—such as calling the Father Maker and Creator of the Son instead of Father, and the Son a result, a creature, a product instead of Son, and the Holy Spirit the creature of a creature and the product of a product instead of His proper title the Spirit, and whatever else those who fight against God are pleased to say about Him—all such ideas we call a denial and violation of the Godhead revealed to us in this doctrine. For once and for all we have learned from the Lord, through Whom comes the transformation of our nature from mortality to immortality—from Him, I say, we have learned what we ought to look at with the eyes of our understanding—that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We say that it is a terrible and soul-destroying thing to misinterpret these Divine statements and to devise in their place assertions that undermine them—assertions pretending to correct God the Word, Who commanded that we should maintain these statements as part of our faith. For each of these titles understood in its natural sense becomes for Christians a rule of truth and a law of piety. For while there are many other names by which Deity is indicated in the Historical Books, in the Prophets, and in the Law, our Master Christ passes by all these and entrusts to us these titles as better able to bring us to faith about the Self-Existent, declaring that it is enough for us to cling to the title Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in order to reach the understanding of Him Who absolutely exists, Who is one and yet not one. In regard to ousia He is one, which is why the Lord ordained that we should look to one Name, but in regard to the attributes indicative of the hypostases, our belief in Him is distinguished into belief in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. He is divided without separation and united without confusion. For when we hear the title Father we understand the meaning to be this: that the name is not understood with reference to itself alone, but also by its special signification indicates the relation to the Son. For the term Father would have no meaning by itself if Son were not implied by the utterance of the word Father. When, then, we learned the name Father, we were taught at the same time, by the very same title, faith also in the Son. Now since Deity by its very nature is permanently and unchangeably the same in all that pertains to its ousia, and did not at any time fail to be anything that it now is, nor will it at any future time be anything that it now is not, and since He Who is the very Father was named Father by the Word, and since in the Father the Son is implied—since these things are so, we of necessity believe that He Who admits no change or alteration in His nature was always entirely what He is now, or, if there is anything which He was not, that He certainly is not now. Since then He is named Father by the very Word, He certainly always was Father, and is, and will be just as He was. For surely it is not lawful when speaking of the Divine and unimpaired ousia to deny that what is excellent always belonged to It. For if He was not always what He now is, He certainly changed either from the better to the worse or from the worse to the better, and of these assertions the impiety is equal either way, whichever statement is made concerning the Divine nature. But in fact the Deity is incapable of change and alteration. So, then, everything that is excellent and good is always contemplated in the fountain of excellence. But the Only-begotten God, Who is in the bosom of the Father, is excellent and beyond all excellence—notice, He says, Who is in the bosom of the Father, not Who came to be there.

Since then this doctrine is put forth by the Truth itself, it follows that anything which the inventors of pestilent heresies devise besides to subvert this Divine utterance — as, for example, calling the Father Maker and Creator of the Son instead of Father, and the Son a result, a creature, a product, instead of Son, and the Holy Spirit the creature of a creature, and the product of a product, instead of His proper title the Spirit, and whatever those who fight against God are pleased to say of Him — all such fancies we term a denial and violation of the Godhead revealed to us in this doctrine. For once for all we have learned from the Lord, through Whom comes the transformation of our nature from mortality to immortality — from Him, I say, we have learned to what we ought to look with the eyes of our understanding — that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We say that it is a terrible and soul-destroying thing to misinterpret these Divine utterances and to devise in their stead assertions to subvert them — assertions pretending to correct God the Word, Who appointed that we should maintain these statements as part of our faith. For each of these titles understood in its natural sense becomes for Christians a rule of truth and a law of piety. For while there are many other names by which Deity is indicated in the Historical Books, in the Prophets and in the Law, our Master Christ passes by all these and commits to us these titles as better able to bring us to the faith about the Self-Existent, declaring that it suffices us to cling to the title, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in order to attain to the apprehension of Him Who is absolutely Existent, Who is one and yet not one. In regard to essence He is one, wherefore the Lord ordained that we should look to one Name: but in regard to the attributes indicative of the Persons, our belief in Him is distinguished into belief in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; He is divided without separation, and united without confusion. For when we hear the title Father we apprehend the meaning to be this, that the name is not understood with reference to itself alone, but also by its special signification indicates the relation to the Son. For the term Father would have no meaning apart by itself, if Son were not connoted by the utterance of the word Father. When, then, we learned the name Father we were taught at the same time, by the selfsame title, faith also in the Son. Now since Deity by its very nature is permanently and immutably the same in all that pertains to its essence, nor did it at any time fail to be anything that it now is, nor will it at any future time be anything that it now is not, and since He Who is the very Father was named Father by the Word, and since in the Father the Son is implied — since these things are so, we of necessity believe that He Who admits no change or alteration in His nature was always entirely what He is now, or, if there is anything which He was not, that He assuredly is not now. Since then He is named Father by the very Word, He assuredly always was Father, and is and will be even as He was. For surely it is not lawful in speaking of the Divine and unimpaired Essence to deny that what is excellent always belonged to It. For if He was not always what He now is, He certainly changed either from the better to the worse or from the worse to the better, and of these assertions the impiety is equal either way, whichever statement is made concerning the Divine nature. But in fact the Deity is incapable of change and alteration. So, then, everything that is excellent and good is always contemplated in the fountain of excellency. But the Only-begotten God, Who is in the bosom of the Father is excellent, and beyond all excellency:– mark you, He says, Who is in the bosom of the Father, not Who came to be there.

These proofs demonstrate that the Son must be understood as existing eternally in the Father, in whom He is, being Life and Light and Truth and every noble name and concept. To say that the Father ever existed by Himself apart from these attributes is utterly impious and foolish. For if the Son, as Scripture says, is the Power of God, and Wisdom, and Truth, and Light, and Sanctification, and Peace, and Life, and so on, then before the Son existed, according to the heretics' view, these things also did not exist at all. And if these things did not exist, they must certainly imagine the Father's heart to have been empty of such excellences. So in order that the Father might not be thought of as lacking the excellences that are His own, and that the doctrine might not spiral into this absurdity, the right faith concerning the Son is necessarily included in our Lord's statement together with the understanding of the Father's eternity. For this reason He passes over all those names that are used to indicate the surpassing excellence of the Divine nature, and gives us as part of our profession of faith the title of Father as better suited to indicate the truth, being a title which, as has been said, by its relational meaning includes the Son along with itself, while the Son, who is in the Father, always is what He essentially is, as has already been said, because the Deity by its very nature does not admit of increase. For It does not perceive any other good outside of Itself, by participation in which It could gain any addition, but is always unchangeable, neither casting away what It has, nor acquiring what It does not have, for none of Its properties are such as to be cast away. And if there is anything whatsoever blessed, unsullied, true and good, associated with Him and in Him, we see of necessity that the good and holy Spirit must belong to Him, not by way of addition. That Spirit is indisputably a princely Spirit, a life-giving Spirit, the controlling and sanctifying force of all creation, the Spirit that works all in all as He wills. Thus we conceive no gap between the anointed Christ and His anointing, between the King and His sovereignty, between Wisdom and the Spirit of Wisdom, between Truth and the Spirit of Truth, between Power and the Spirit of Power, but just as there is understood from all eternity in the Father the Son, who is Wisdom and Truth, and Counsel, and Might, and Knowledge, and Understanding, so there is also understood in Him the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of Wisdom, and of Truth, and of Counsel, and of Understanding, and all else that the Son is and is called. For this reason we say that to the holy disciples the mystery of godliness was entrusted in a form expressing both unity and distinction—that we should believe in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. For the differentiation of the hypostases makes the distinction of prosopa clear and free from confusion, while the one Name standing at the beginning of the declaration of the Faith clearly explains to us the unity of ousia of the prosopa whom the Faith declares—I mean, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. For by these names we are taught not a difference of physis, but only the special attributes that mark the hypostases, so that we know that neither is the Father the Son, nor the Son the Father, nor the Holy Spirit either the Father or the Son, and we recognize each by the distinctive mark of His personal hypostasis, in limitless perfection, at once understood by Himself and not divided from that with which He is connected.

Well then, it has been demonstrated by these proofs that the Son is from all eternity to be contemplated in the Father, in Whom He is, being Life and Light and Truth, and every noble name and conception — to say that the Father ever existed by Himself apart from these attributes is a piece of the utmost impiety and infatuation. For if the Son, as the Scripture says, is the Power of God, and Wisdom, and Truth, and Light, and Sanctification, and Peace, and Life, and the like, then before the Son existed, according to the view of the heretics, these things also had no existence at all. And if these things had no existence they must certainly conceive the bosom of the Father to have been devoid of such excellences. To the end, then, that the Father might not be conceived as destitute of the excellences which are His own, and that the doctrine might not run wild into this extravagance, the right faith concerning the Son is necessarily included in our Lord's utterance with the contemplation of the eternity of the Father. And for this reason He passes over all those names which are employed to indicate the surpassing excellence of the Divine nature, and delivers to us as part of our profession of faith the title of Father as better suited to indicate the truth, being a title which, as has been said, by its relative sense connotes with itself the Son, while the Son, Who is in the Father, always is what He essentially is, as has been said already, because the Deity by Its very nature does not admit of augmentation. For It does not perceive any other good outside of Itself, by participation in which It could acquire any accession, but is always immutable, neither casting away what It has, nor acquiring what It has not: for none of Its properties are such as to be cast away. And if there is anything whatsoever blessed, unsullied, true and good, associated with Him and in Him, we see of necessity that the good and holy Spirit must belong to Him, not by way of accretion. That Spirit is indisputably a princely Spirit, a quickening Spirit, the controlling and sanctifying force of all creation, the Spirit that works all in all as He wills. 1 Corinthians 12:6 Thus we conceive no gap between the anointed Christ and His anointing, between the King and His sovereignty, between Wisdom and the Spirit of Wisdom, between Truth and the Spirit of Truth, between Power and the Spirit of Power, but as there is contemplated from all eternity in the Father the Son, Who is Wisdom and Truth, and Counsel, and Might, and Knowledge, and Understanding, so there is also contemplated in Him the Holy Spirit, Who is the Spirit of Wisdom, and of Truth, and of Counsel, and of Understanding, and all else that the Son is and is called. For which reason we say that to the holy disciples the mystery of godliness was committed in a form expressing at once union and distinction — that we should believe in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. For the differentiation of the subsistences makes the distinction of Persons clear and free from confusion, while the one Name standing in the forefront of the declaration of the Faith clearly expounds to us the unity of essence of the Persons Whom the Faith declares — I mean, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. For by these appellations we are taught not a difference of nature, but only the special attributes that mark the subsistences, so that we know that neither is the Father the Son, nor the Son the Father, nor the Holy Spirit either the Father or the Son, and recognize each by the distinctive mark of His Personal Subsistence, in illimitable perfection, at once contemplated by Himself and not divided from that with Which He is connected.

What then does that unnameable name mean, concerning which the Lord said, "Baptizing them into the name," and did not add the actual significant term that the name indicates? We understand this: all things that exist in creation are defined by their individual names. When someone speaks of heaven, he directs the listener's understanding to the created object indicated by this name. When someone mentions man or some animal, he immediately impresses upon the listener's mind the form of that creature by mentioning the name. In the same way, all other things are depicted in the heart of the person who receives the designation imposed upon the thing by hearing it. The uncreated Nature alone, which we acknowledge in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, surpasses all significance of names. For this reason, when the Word spoke of the name in delivering the Faith, He did not add what it is—for how could a name be found for that which is above every name? Instead, He gave authority that whatever name our intelligence is enabled to discover through pious effort to indicate the transcendent Nature, that name should be applied equally to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, whether it be the Good or the Incorruptible, or whatever name each may think proper to use to indicate the undefiled Nature of Godhead. By this teaching, the Word seems to me to establish this law for us: that we are to be convinced that the Divine Essence is ineffable and incomprehensible. It is clear that the title of Father does not present to us the Essence, but only indicates the relation to the Son. It follows, then, that if it were possible for human nature to be taught the ousia of God, He who wills all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth would not have withheld knowledge on this matter. But as it is, by saying nothing concerning the Divine Essence, He showed that knowledge of it is beyond our power. When we have learned what we are capable of learning, we stand in no need of knowledge beyond our capacity, since we have in the profession of faith in the doctrine delivered to us what suffices for our salvation. For to learn that He is the absolutely existent, together with whom—by the relational force of the term—the majesty of the Son is also declared, is the fullest teaching of godliness. The Son, as has been said, implies in close union with Himself the Spirit of Life and Truth, since He is Himself Life and Truth.

What then means that unnameable name concerning which the Lord said, Baptizing them into the name, and did not add the actual significant term which the name indicates? We have concerning it this notion, that all things that exist in the creation are defined by means of their several names. Thus whenever a man speaks of heaven he directs the notion of the hearer to the created object indicated by this name, and he who mentions man or some animal, at once by the mention of the name impresses upon the hearer the form of the creature, and in the same way all other things, by means of the names imposed upon them, are depicted in the heart of him who by hearing receives the appellation imposed upon the thing. The uncreated Nature alone, which we acknowledge in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit, surpasses all significance of names. For this cause the Word, when He spoke of the name in delivering the Faith, did not add what it is — for how could a name be found for that which is above every name?– but gave authority that whatever name our intelligence by pious effort be enabled to discover to indicate the transcendent Nature, that name should be applied alike to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, whether it be the Good or the Incorruptible, whatever name each may think proper to be employed to indicate the undefiled Nature of Godhead. And by this deliverance the Word seems to me to lay down for us this law, that we are to be persuaded that the Divine Essence is ineffable and incomprehensible: for it is plain that the title of Father does not present to us the Essence, but only indicates the relation to the Son. It follows, then, that if it were possible for human nature to be taught the essence of God, He Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth 1 Timothy 2:4 would not have suppressed the knowledge upon this matter. But as it is, by saying nothing concerning the Divine Essence, He showed that the knowledge thereof is beyond our power, while when we have learned that of which we are capable, we stand in no need of the knowledge beyond our capacity, as we have in the profession of faith in the doctrine delivered to us what suffices for our salvation. For to learn that He is the absolutely existent, together with Whom, by the relative force of the term, there is also declared the majesty of the Son, is the fullest teaching of godliness; the Son, as has been said, implying in close union with Himself the Spirit of Life and Truth, inasmuch as He is Himself Life and Truth.

These distinctions being thus established, we reject all heretical ideas in the realm of divine doctrines. We believe, just as we were taught by the voice of the Lord, in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, acknowledging together with this faith also the plan of salvation that has been carried out on behalf of humanity by the Lord of creation. For He, being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself and took upon Himself the form of a servant. Being made flesh in the Holy Virgin, He redeemed us from death in which we were held captive, sold under sin. He gave as the ransom for the deliverance of our souls His precious blood, which He poured out by His Cross. Having through Himself made clear for us the path of the resurrection from the dead, He shall come in His own time in the glory of the Father to judge every soul in righteousness, when all who are in the graves shall hear His voice and shall come forth—those who have done good unto the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation. But since the destructive heresy that is now being spread everywhere by Eunomius may, by falling upon the mind of some of the simpler believers and being left without examination, do harm to innocent faith, we are compelled to set forth the creed which they circulate and to strive to expose the harm of their teaching.

These distinctions being thus established, while we anathematize all heretical fancies in the sphere of divine doctrines, we believe, even as we were taught by the voice of the Lord, in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, acknowledging together with this faith also the dispensation that has been set on foot on behalf of men by the Lord of the creation. For He being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant Philippians 2:6, and being incarnate in the Holy Virgin redeemed us from death in which we were held, sold under sin, giving as the ransom for the deliverance of our souls His precious blood which He poured out by His Cross, and having through Himself made clear for us the path of the resurrection from the dead, shall come in His own time in the glory of the Father to judge every soul in righteousness, when all that are in the graves shall hear His voice, and shall come forth, they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation. But that the pernicious heresy that is now being sown broadcast by Eunomius may not, by falling upon the mind of some of the simpler sort and being left without investigation, do harm to guileless faith, we are constrained to set forth the profession which they circulate and to strive to expose the mischief of their teaching.

Now the wording of their doctrine is as follows: We believe in the one and only true God, according to the teaching of the Lord Himself, not honoring Him with a lying title (for He cannot lie), but really existent, one God in nature and in glory, who is without beginning, eternally, without end, alone. Let not the person who claims to believe according to the teaching of the Lord twist the exposition of the faith that was made concerning the Lord of all to suit his own preference, but instead follow the utterance of the truth himself. Since the expression of the Faith includes the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, what agreement does this construction of theirs have with the utterances of the Lord, so that they can refer such a doctrine to the teaching of those utterances? They cannot manage to show where in the Gospels the Lord said that we should believe in the one and only true God—unless they have some new Gospel. For the Gospels which are read in the churches continuously from ancient times to the present day do not contain this saying which tells us that we should believe in or baptize into the one and only true God, as these people say, but in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. But as we were taught by the voice of the Lord, we say this: that the word "one" does not indicate the Father alone, but comprehends in its significance the Son with the Father, since the Lord said, "I and My Father are one." In the same way also the name "God" belongs equally to the Beginning in which the Word was, and to the Word Who was in the Beginning. For the Evangelist tells us that the Word was with God, and the Word was God. So that when Deity is expressed, the Son is included no less than the Father. Moreover, the true cannot be conceived as something alien from and unconnected with the truth. But that the Lord is the Truth no one at all will dispute, unless he is someone estranged from the truth. If, then, the Word is in the One, and is God and Truth, as is proclaimed in the Gospels, on what teaching of the Lord does the person base his doctrine who makes use of these distinctive terms? For the contrast is between "only" and "not only," between "God" and "no God," between "true" and "untrue." If it is with respect to idols that they make their distinction of phrases, we too agree. For the name of deity is given, in an equivocal sense, to the idols of the heathen, seeing that all the gods of the heathen are demons, and in another sense marks the contrast of the one with the many, of the true with the false, of those who are not Gods with Him who is God. But if the contrast is one with the Only-begotten God, let our sages learn that truth has its opposite only in falsehood, and God in one who is not God. But since the Lord Who is the Truth is God, and is in the Father and is one in relation to the Father, there is no room in the true doctrine for these distinctions of phrases. For the person who truly believes in the One sees in the One Him Who is completely united with Him in truth, and deity, and ousia, and life, and wisdom, and in all attributes whatsoever. Or, if he does not see in the One Him Who is all these, it is in nothing that he believes. For without the Son the Father has neither existence nor name, any more than the Powerful exists without Power, or the Wise without Wisdom. For Christ is the Power of God and the Wisdom of God; so that the person who imagines he sees the One God apart from power, truth, wisdom, life, or the true light, either sees nothing at all or else assuredly that which is evil. For the removal of the good attributes becomes a positing and origination of evil.

Now the wording of their doctrine is as follows: We believe in the one and only true God, according to the teaching of the Lord Himself, not honouring Him with a lying title (for He cannot lie), but really existent, one God in nature and in glory, who is without beginning, eternally, without end, alone. Let not him who professes to believe in accordance with the teaching of the Lord pervert the exposition of the faith that was made concerning the Lord of all to suit his own fancy, but himself follow the utterance of the truth. Since then, the expression of the Faith comprehends the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, what agreement has this construction of theirs to show with the utterances of the Lord, so as to refer such a doctrine to the teaching of those utterances? They cannot manage to show where in the Gospels the Lord said that we should believe in the one and only true God: unless they have some new Gospel. For the Gospels which are read in the churches continuously from ancient times to the present day, do not contain this saying which tells us that we should believe in or baptize into the one and only true God, as these people say, but in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. But as we were taught by the voice of the Lord, this we say, that the word one does not indicate the Father alone, but comprehends in its significance the Son with the Father, inasmuch as the Lord said, I and My Father are one. In like manner also the name God belongs equally to the Beginning in which the Word was, and to the Word Who was in the Beginning. For the Evangelist tells us that the Word was with God, and the Word was God. So that when Deity is expressed the Son is included no less than the Father. Moreover, the true cannot be conceived as something alien from and unconnected with the truth. But that the Lord is the Truth no one at all will dispute, unless he be one estranged from the truth. If, then, the Word is in the One, and is God and Truth, as is proclaimed in the Gospels, on what teaching of the Lord does he base his doctrine who makes use of these distinctive terms? For the antithesis is between only and not only, between God and no God, between true and untrue. If it is with respect to idols that they make their distinction of phrases, we too agree. For the name of deity is given, in an equivocal sense, to the idols of the heathen, seeing that all the gods of the heathen are demons, and in another sense marks the contrast of the one with the many, of the true with the false, of those who are not Gods with Him who is God. But if the contrast is one with the Only-begotten God, let our sages learn that truth has its opposite only in falsehood, and God in one who is not God. But inasmuch as the Lord Who is the Truth is God, and is in the Father and is one relatively to the Father, there is no room in the true doctrine for these distinctions of phrases. For he who truly believes in the One sees in the One Him Who is completely united with Him in truth, and deity, and essence, and life, and wisdom, and in all attributes whatsoever: or, if he does not see in the One Him Who is all these it is in nothing that he believes. For without the Son the Father has neither existence nor name, any more than the Powerful without Power, or the Wise without Wisdom. For Christ is the Power of God and the Wisdom of God 1 Corinthians 1:24; so that he who imagines he sees the One God apart from power, truth, wisdom, life, or the true light, either sees nothing at all or else assuredly that which is evil. For the withdrawal of the good attributes becomes a positing and origination of evil.

Not honouring Him, he says, with a lying title, for He cannot lie. I pray that Eunomius may stick to that statement and thereby testify to the truth that God cannot lie. If he would maintain this view—that everything spoken by the Lord is completely free from falsehood—he will naturally be convinced that Christ speaks the truth when He says, "I am in the Father, and the Father in Me." This clearly means each is entirely in the other: the Father is not greater than what is in the Son, nor is the Son less than what is in the Father. Christ also says that the Son should be honored just as the Father is honored, and "He who has seen Me has seen the Father," and "no one knows the Father except the Son." In all these passages, there is no suggestion to those who accept these statements as genuine of any difference in glory, or in ousia, or in anything else, between the Father and the Son.

Not honouring Him, he says, with a lying title, for He cannot lie. By that phrase I pray that Eunomius may abide, and so bear witness to the truth that it cannot lie. For if he would be of this mind, that everything that is uttered by the Lord is far removed from falsehood, he will of course be persuaded that He speaks the truth Who says, I am in the Father, and the Father in Me, — plainly, the One in His entirety, in the Other in His entirety, the Father not superabounding in the Son, the Son not being deficient in the Father — and Who says also that the Son should be honoured as the Father is honoured, and He that has seen Me has seen the Father, and no man knows the Father save the Son, in all which passages there is no hint given to those who receive these declarations as genuine, of any variation of glory, or of essence, or anything else, between the Father and the Son.

He says there is one God, really existent in nature and in glory. Real existence is opposed to unreal existence. Each existing thing is really existent insofar as it actually is. But that which appears or seems to be, yet is not, is not really existent—for example, an appearance in a dream or a man in a picture. These and similar things exist as far as appearance goes, but they do not have real existence. So if they maintain, according to the Jewish opinion, that the Only-begotten God does not exist at all, they are right to attribute real existence to the Father alone. But if they do not deny the existence of the Maker of all things, let them be satisfied not to deprive of real existence the One Who Is, Who in the divine appearance to Moses gave Himself the name of the Existent One when He said, "I am that I am"—just as Eunomius in his later argument agrees, saying that it was He Who appeared to Moses. Then he says that God is one in nature and in glory. Whether God exists without being God by physis (nature), the one who uses these words may perhaps know. But if it is true that whoever is not God by physis is not God at all, let them learn from the great Paul that those who serve those who are not gods do not serve God. But we serve the living and true God, as the Apostle says. And He Whom we serve is Jesus the Christ. For the Apostle Paul even glories in serving Him, saying, "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ." We then, who no longer serve those which by physis are no gods, have come to the knowledge of Him Who by physis is God, to Whom every knee bows of things in heaven and things in earth and things under the earth. But we would not have been His servants had we not believed that this is the living and true God, to Whom every tongue confesses that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

Really existent, he says, one God in nature and in glory. Real existence is opposed to unreal existence. Now each of existing things is really existent in so far as it is; but that which, so far as appearance and suggestion go, seems to be, but is not, this is not really existent, as for example an appearance in a dream or a man in a picture. For these and such like things, though they exist so far as appearance is concerned, have not real existence. If then they maintain, in accordance with the Jewish opinion, that the Only-begotten God does not exist at all, they are right in predicating real existence of the Father alone. But if they do not deny the existence of the Maker of all things, let them be content not to deprive of real existence Him Who is, Who in the Divine appearance to Moses gave Himself the name of Existent, when He said, I am that I am: even as Eunomius in his later argument agrees with this, saying that it was He Who appeared to Moses. Then he says that God is one in nature and in glory. Whether God exists without being by nature God, he who uses these words may perhaps know: but if it be true that he who is not by nature God is not God at all, let them learn from the great Paul that they who serve those who are not Gods do not serve God. But we serve the living and true God, as the Apostle says 1 Thessalonians 1:10: and He Whom we serve is Jesus the Christ. For Him the Apostle Paul even exults in serving, saying, Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ Romans 1:1. We then, who no longer serve them which by nature are no Gods, have come to the knowledge of Him Who by nature is God, to Whom every knee bows of things in heaven and things in earth and things under the earth Philippians 2:10-11. But we should not have been His servants had we not believed that this is the living and true God, to Whom every tongue makes confession that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father Philippians 2:10-11.

God, he says, who is without beginning, eternally, without end, alone. Once again, understand—you simple ones, as Solomon says—his subtlety, so that you are not deceived and fall headlong into denying the Godhead of the Only-begotten Son. That which is without end does not admit death and decay. Likewise, that which is called everlasting is not merely for a time. Therefore, that which is neither everlasting nor without end is surely seen in a nature that is perishable and mortal. Accordingly, someone who attributes unendingness to the one and only God, but does not include the Son in this assertion of unendingness and eternity, maintains by such a statement that the one he contrasts with the eternal and unending is perishable and temporary. But we, even when we are told that God alone has immortality, understand the Son by immortality. For life is immortality, and the Lord is that life, who said, "I am the Life." And if it is said that he dwells in the light that no one can approach, again we have no difficulty understanding that the true Light, unapproachable by falsehood, is the Only-begotten, in whom we learn from the Truth itself that the Father is. Of these views let the reader choose the more devout: whether we are to think of the Only-begotten in a manner worthy of the Godhead, or to call him, as heresy prescribes, perishable and temporary.

God, he says, Who is without beginning, eternally, without end, alone. Once more understand, you simple ones, as Solomon says, his subtlety, lest haply you be deceived and fall headlong into the denial of the Godhead of the Only-begotten Son. That is without end which admits not of death and decay: that, likewise, is called everlasting which is not only for a time. That, therefore, which is neither everlasting nor without end is surely seen in the nature which is perishable and mortal. Accordingly he who predicates unendingness of the one and only God, and does not include the Son in the assertion of unendingness and eternity, maintains by such a proposition, that He Whom he thus contrasts with the eternal and unending is perishable and temporary. But we, even when we are told that God only has immortality 1 Timothy 6:16, understand by immortality the Son. For life is immortality, and the Lord is that life, Who said, I am the Life. And if He be said to dwell in the light that no man can approach unto 1 Timothy 6:16, again we make no difficulty in understanding that the true Light, unapproachable by falsehood, is the Only-begotten, in Whom we learn from the Truth itself that the Father is. Of these opinions let the reader choose the more devout, whether we are to think of the Only-begotten in a manner worthy of the Godhead, or to call Him, as heresy prescribes, perishable and temporary.

We believe in God, he tells us, not separated as regards the ousia wherein He is one, into more than one, or becoming sometimes one and sometimes another, or changing from being what He is, or passing from one ousia to assume the guise of a threefold prosopon: for He is always and absolutely one, remaining uniformly and unchangeably the only God. From these citations the careful reader may well separate first of all the meaningless words inserted into the statement from those which seem to have some sense, and afterwards examine the meaning that can be found in what remains of his statement, to determine whether it is compatible with proper reverence towards Christ.

We believe in God, he tells us, not separated as regards the essence wherein He is one, into more than one, or becoming sometimes one and sometimes another, or changing from being what He is, or passing from one essence to assume the guise of a threefold personality: for He is always and absolutely one, remaining uniformly and unchangeably the only God. From these citations the discreet reader may well separate first of all the idle words inserted in the statement without any meaning from those which appear to have some sense, and afterwards examine the meaning that is discoverable in what remains of his statement, to ascertain whether it is compatible with due reverence towards Christ.

The first of Eunomius's statements is completely divorced from any intelligible meaning, whether good or bad. What sense there is in the words "not separated, as regards the essence wherein He is one, into more than one, or becoming sometimes one and sometimes another, or changing from being what He is," Eunomius himself could not tell us, and I don't think any of his supporters could find even a shadow of meaning in these words. When he speaks of God as "not separated in regard to the essence wherein He is one," he is saying either that God is not separated from His own ousia, or that His own ousia is not divided from Him. This meaningless statement is nothing but a random combination of noise and empty sound. Why should anyone spend time investigating these meaningless expressions? How does anyone remain in existence when separated from his own ousia? How is the ousia of anything divided and displayed separately? How is it possible for someone to depart from that wherein he exists and become another, getting outside himself? But Eunomius adds, "not passing from one essence to assume the guise of three persons: for He is always and absolutely one, remaining uniformly and unchangeably the only God." I think the absence of meaning in his statement is plain to everyone without a word from me. Let anyone argue against this who thinks there is any sense or meaning in what he says. Anyone who has an eye to discern the force of words will decline to involve himself in a struggle with unsubstantial shadows. What force does it have against our doctrine to say "not separated or divided into more than one as regards the essence wherein He is one, or becoming sometimes one and sometimes another, or passing from one essence to assume the guise of three prosopon"—things that are neither said nor believed by Christians nor understood by inference from the truths we confess? Who ever said or heard anyone else say in the Church of God that the Father is either separated or divided as regards His ousia, or becomes sometimes one, sometimes another, coming to be outside Himself, or assumes the guise of three prosopon? These things Eunomius says to himself, not arguing with us but stringing together his own trash, mixing a great deal of absurdity with the impiety of his utterances. We say that it is equally impious and ungodly to call the Lord of creation a created being and to think that the Father, in that He exists, is separated or split up, or departs from Himself, or assumes the guise of three prosopon, like clay or wax molded into various shapes.

The first, then, of the statements cited is completely divorced from any intelligible meaning, good or bad. For what sense there is in the words, not separated, as regards the essence wherein He is one, into more than one, or becoming sometimes one and sometimes another, or changing from being what He is, Eunomius himself could not tell us, and I do not think that any of his allies could find in the words any shadow of meaning. When he speaks of Him as not separated in regard to the essence wherein He is one, he says either that He is not separated from His own essence, or that His own essence is not divided from Him. This unmeaning statement is nothing but a random combination of noise and empty sound. And why should one spend time in the investigation of these meaningless expressions? For how does any one remain in existence when separated from his own essence? Or how is the essence of anything divided and displayed apart? Or how is it possible for one to depart from that wherein he is, and become another, getting outside himself? But he adds, not passing from one essence to assume the guise of three persons: for He is always and absolutely one, remaining uniformly and unchangeably the only God. I think the absence of meaning in his statement is plain to every one without a word from me: against this let any one argue who thinks there is any sense or meaning in what he says: he who has an eye to discern the force of words will decline to involve himself in a struggle with unsubstantial shadows. For what force has it against our doctrine to say not separated or divided into more than one as regards the essence wherein He is one, or becoming sometimes one and sometimes another, or passing from one essence to assume the guise of three persons? — things that are neither said nor believed by Christians nor understood by inference from the truths we confess. For who ever said or heard any one else say in the Church of God, that the Father is either separated or divided as regards His essence, or becomes sometimes one, sometimes another, coming to be outside Himself, or assumes the guise of three persons? These things Eunomius says to himself, not arguing with us but stringing together his own trash, mixing with the impiety of his utterances a great deal of absurdity. For we say that it is equally impious and ungodly to call the Lord of the creation a created being and to think that the Father, in that He is, is separated or split up, or departs from Himself, or assumes the guise of three persons, like clay or wax moulded in various shapes.

Let's examine the words that follow: He is always and absolutely one, remaining uniformly and unchangeably the only God. If he is speaking about the Father, we agree with him, because the Father is most truly one, alone, and always absolutely uniform and unchangeable, never at any time present or future ceasing to be what He is. So if this assertion refers to the Father, he should not argue against the doctrine of godliness, since on this point he agrees with the Church. For whoever confesses that the Father is always and unchangeably the same, being one and only God, holds fast to the word of godliness, provided that in the Father he sees the Son, without whom the Father neither is nor is named. But if he is inventing some other God besides the Father, let him debate with the Jews or with those called Hypsistiani. The difference between them and the Christians is this: they acknowledge that there is a God whom they call the Highest or Almighty, but do not admit that he is Father, while a Christian, if he does not believe in the Father, is no Christian at all.

But let us examine the words that follow: He is always and absolutely one, remaining uniformly and unchangeably the only God. If he is speaking about the Father, we agree with him, for the Father is most truly one, alone and always absolutely uniform and unchangeable, never at any time present or future ceasing to be what He is. If then such an assertion as this has regard to the Father, let him not contend with the doctrine of godliness, inasmuch as on this point he is in harmony with the Church. For he who confesses that the Father is always and unchangeably the same, being one and only God, holds fast the word of godliness, if in the Father he sees the Son, without Whom the Father neither is nor is named. But if he is inventing some other God besides the Father, let him dispute with the Jews or with those who are called Hypsistiani, between whom and the Christians there is this difference, that they acknowledge that there is a God Whom they term the Highest or Almighty, but do not admit that he is Father; while a Christian, if he believe not in the Father, no Christian at all.

Here is what he adds next: Having no sharer, he says, in His Godhead, no divider of His glory, none who has lot in His power, or part in His royal throne, for He is the one and only God, the Almighty, God of Gods, King of Kings, Lord of Lords. I don't know to whom Eunomius is referring when he insists that the Father admits no one to share His Godhead with Himself. If he uses such language about vain idols and the mistaken ideas of those who worship them—just as Paul assures us that there is no agreement between Christ and Belial, and no fellowship between the temple of God and idols—we agree with him. But if by these statements he means to separate the Only-begotten God from the Godhead of the Father, let him know that he is giving us an argument that can be turned against him to refute his own impiety. For either he denies that the Only-begotten God is God at all, so that he may preserve for the Father those divine prerogatives which, according to him, cannot be shared with the Son—and thus he stands convicted as a transgressor by denying the God whom Christians worship—or if he were to grant that the Son is also God, yet not agreeing in physis with the true God, he would necessarily be obliged to acknowledge that he believes in Gods separated from one another by the difference of their natures. Let him choose whichever of these he wants—either to deny the Godhead of the Son, or to introduce into his creed a plurality of Gods. For whichever he chooses, it amounts to the same impiety. For we who are initiated into the mystery of godliness by the divinely inspired words of Scripture do not see a partnership of Godhead between the Father and the Son, but unity, since the Lord has taught us this through His own words when He says, I and the Father are one, and he that has seen Me has seen the Father. For if He were not of the same physis as the Father, how could He either have had in Himself that which was different? Or how could He have shown in Himself that which was unlike, if the foreign and alien physis did not receive the stamp of that which was of a different kind from itself? But he says, nor has He a divider of His glory. In this he speaks according to the truth, even though he does not know what he is saying, for the Son does not divide the glory with the Father, but has the glory of the Father in its entirety, just as the Father has all the glory of the Son. For thus He spoke to the Father: All Mine are Yours and Yours are Mine. Therefore He also says that He will appear on the Judgment Day in the glory of the Father, when He will render to every man according to his works. And by this phrase He shows the unity of physis that exists between them. For just as there is one glory of the sun and another glory of the moon because of the difference between the natures of those luminaries—since if both had the same glory there would not be thought to be any difference in their physis—so He Who foretold of Himself that He would appear in the glory of the Father indicated by the identity of glory their community of physis.

What he adds next after this is as follows:– Having no sharer, he says, in His Godhead, no divider of His glory, none who has lot in His power, or part in His royal throne: for He is the one and only God, the Almighty, God of Gods, King of Kings, Lord of Lords. I know not to whom Eunomius refers when he protests that the Father admits none to share His Godhead with Himself. For if he uses such expressions with reference to vain idols and to the erroneous conceptions of those who worship them (even as Paul assures us that there is no agreement between Christ and Belial, and no fellowship between the temple of God and idols 2 Corinthians 6:15-16) we agree with him. But if by these assertions he means to sever the Only-begotten God from the Godhead of the Father, let him be informed that he is providing us with a dilemma that may be turned against himself to refute his own impiety. For either he denies the Only-begotten God to be God at all, that he may preserve for the Father those prerogatives of deity which (according to him) are incapable of being shared with the Son, and thus is convicted as a transgressor by denying the God Whom Christians worship, or if he were to grant that the Son also is God, yet not agreeing in nature with the true God, he would be necessarily obliged to acknowledge that he maintains Gods sundered from one another by the difference of their natures. Let him choose which of these he will — either to deny the Godhead of the Son, or to introduce into his creed a plurality of Gods. For whichever of these he chooses, it is all one as regards impiety: for we who are initiated into the mystery of godliness by the Divinely inspired words of the Scripture do not see between the Father and the Son a partnership of Godhead, but unity, inasmuch as the Lord has taught us this by His own words, when He says, I and the Father are one, and he that has seen Me has seen the Father. For if He were not of the same nature as the Father, how could He either have had in Himself that which was different John 17:10? Or how could He have shown in Himself that which was unlike, if the foreign and alien nature did not receive the stamp of that which was of a different kind from itself? But he says, nor has He a divider of His glory. Herein he speaks in accordance with the fact, even though he does not know what he is saying: for the Son does not divide the glory with the Father, but has the glory of the Father in its entirety, even as the Father has all the glory of the Son. For thus He spoke to the Father All Mine are Yours and Yours are Mine John 17:10. Wherefore also He says that He will appear on the Judgment Day in the glory of the Father Mark 8:38, when He will render to every man according to his works. And by this phrase He shows the unity of nature that subsists between them. For as there is one glory of the sun and another glory of the moon 1 Corinthians 15:41, because of the difference between the natures of those luminaries (since if both had the same glory there would not be deemed to be any difference in their nature), so He Who foretold of Himself that He would appear in the glory of the Father indicated by the identity of glory their community of nature.

To claim that the Son has no part in his Father's royal throne shows that Eunomius has done an extraordinary amount of research into God's oracles. After all his extreme devotion to the inspired Scriptures, he still hasn't heard "Seek those things which are above, where Christ sits on the right hand of God" (Colossians 3:1), along with many similar passages too numerous to count, which Eunomius has never learned. That's why he denies that the Son is enthroned together with the Father. As for the phrase "not having lot in his power," we should simply ignore it as meaningless rather than refute it as ungodly. It's not easy to figure out from common usage what sense the term "having lot" is supposed to convey. According to Scripture, those who cast lots for the Lord's garment were unwilling to tear it but wanted to give it to whichever one of them the lot favored (John 19:23-24). Those who cast lots among themselves for the coat could perhaps be said to have had lot in it. But in the case of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, their power resides in their nature (physis). The Holy Spirit breathes where he wishes and works all in all as he wills, and the Son, by whom all things were made—visible and invisible, in heaven and on earth—did all things whatsoever he pleased, and gives life to whom he will. The Father put the times in his own power (Acts 1:7), and from his mention of times we conclude that all things done in time are subject to the Father's power. Since it has been demonstrated that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all in a position of power to do what they will, it's impossible to see what sense there can be in the phrase "having lot in his power." For the heir of all things, the maker of the ages, he who shines with the Father's glory and expresses in himself the Father's prosopon, has all things that the Father himself has and possesses all his power—not that the right is transferred from the Father to the Son, but that it remains in the Father and resides in the Son at the same time. For he who is in the Father is clearly in the Father with all his own might, and he who has the Father in himself includes all the power and might of the Father. He has in himself all the Father, not merely a part of him, and whoever has him entirely surely has his power as well. What Eunomius means, then, when he asserts that the Father has no one who has lot in his power, perhaps those who are disciples of his folly can explain. Anyone who knows how to appreciate language confesses that he cannot understand phrases divorced from meaning. The Father, he says, has no one who has lot in his power. Who claims that the Father and Son contend together for power and cast lots to decide the matter? Yet the holy Eunomius comes as mediator between them and by a friendly agreement without lots assigns to the Father the superiority in power.

But to say that the Son has no part in His Father's royal throne argues an extraordinary amount of research into the oracles of God on the part of Eunomius, who, after his extreme devotion to the inspired Scriptures, has not yet heard, Seek those things which are above, where Christ sits on the right hand of God Colossians 3:1, and many similar passages, of which it would not be easy to reckon up the number, but which Eunomius has never learned, and so denies that the Son is enthroned together with the Father. Again the phrase, not having lot in his power, we should rather pass by as unmeaning than confute as ungodly. For what sense is attached to the term having lot is not easy to discover from the common use of the word. Those cast lots, as the Scripture tells us, for the Lord's vesture, who were unwilling to rend His garment, but disposed to make it over to that one of their number in whose favour the lot should decide. John 19:23-24 They then who thus cast lots among themselves for the coat may be said, perhaps, to have had lot in it. But here in the case of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, inasmuch as Their power resides in Their nature (for the Holy Spirit breathes where He lists, and works all in all as He will, and the Son, by Whom all things were made, visible and invisible, in heaven and in earth, did all things whatsoever He pleased, and quickens whom He will, and the Father put the times in His own power Acts 1:7, while from the mention of times we conclude that all things done in time are subject to the power of the Father), if, I say, it has been demonstrated that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit alike are in a position of power to do what They will, it is impossible to see what sense there can be in the phrase having lot in His power. For the heir of all things, the maker of the ages, He Who shines with the Father's glory and expresses in Himself the Father's person, has all things that the Father Himself has, and is possessor of all His power, not that the right is transferred from the Father to the Son, but that it at once remains in the Father and resides in the Son. For He Who is in the Father is manifestly in the Father with all His own might, and He Who has the Father in Himself includes all the power and might of the Father. For He has in Himself all the Father, and not merely a part of Him: and He Who has Him entirely assuredly has His power as well. With what meaning, then, Eunomius asserts that the Father has none who has lot in His power, those perhaps can tell who are disciples of his folly: one who knows how to appreciate language confesses that he cannot understand phrases divorced from meaning. The Father, he says, has none Who has lot in His power. Why, who is there that says that the Father and Son contend together for power and cast lots to decide the matter? But the holy Eunomius comes as mediator between them and by a friendly agreement without lot assigns to the Father the superiority in power.

Notice, I ask you, the absurdity and childishness of this shallow exposition of his articles of faith. What! He who upholds all things by the word of His power, who says what He wills to be done and does what He wills by the very power of that command, He whose power does not lag behind His will and whose will is the measure of His power (for He spoke the word and they were made, He commanded and they were created), He who made all things by Himself and made them exist in Himself, without whom no existing thing either came into being or remains in being—He is the one who waits to obtain His power by some process of distribution! Judge for yourselves, you who hear, whether the man who talks like this is in his right mind. "For He is the one and only God, the Almighty," he says. If by the title of Almighty he means the Father, the language he uses is ours and not strange. But if he means some other God than the Father, let this patron of Jewish doctrines preach circumcision too, if he pleases. For the faith of Christians is directed to the Father. And the Father is all these—Highest, Almighty, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, and in a word, all terms of highest significance are proper to the Father. But all that is the Father's is the Son's also, so that on this understanding we accept this phrase too. But if, leaving the Father aside, he speaks of another Almighty, he is speaking the language of the Jews or following the speculations of Plato—for they say that philosopher also affirms that there exists on high a maker and creator of certain subordinate gods. Therefore, just as in the case of Jewish and Platonic opinions, the one who does not believe in God the Father is not a Christian, even though in his creed he asserts an Almighty God, so Eunomius also falsely pretends to the name of Christian, being in inclination a Jew or asserting the doctrines of the Greeks while putting on the guise of the title borne by Christians. And regarding the next points he asserts, the same account will apply. He says He is God of Gods. We make the declaration our own by adding the name of the Father, knowing that the Father is God of Gods. But all that belongs to the Father certainly belongs also to the Son. And Lord of Lords. The same account will apply to this. And Most High over all the earth. Yes, for whichever of the Three Persons you are thinking of, He is Most High over all the earth, since the oversight of earthly things from on high is exercised alike by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. So too with what follows the words above: Most High in the heavens, Most High in the highest, Heavenly, true in being what He is and continuing so, true in words, true in works. Why, all these things the Christian eye discerns alike in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. If Eunomius does assign them to one only of the Persons acknowledged in the creed, let him dare to call Him not true in words who has said, "I am the Truth," or to call the Spirit of truth not true in words, or let him refuse to give the title of true in works to Him who does righteousness and judgment, or to the Spirit who works all in all as He wills. For if he does not acknowledge that these attributes belong to the Persons delivered to us in the creed, he is absolutely canceling the creed of Christians. For how shall anyone think Him a worthy object of faith who is false in words and untrue in works?

Mark, I pray you, the absurdity and childishness of this grovelling exposition of his articles of faith. What! He Who upholds all things by the word of His power Hebrews 1:3, Who says what He wills to be done, and does what He wills by the very power of that command, He Whose power lags not behind His will and Whose will is the measure of His power (for He spoke the word and they were made, He commanded and they were created), He Who made all things by Himself, and made them consist in Himself, without Whom no existing thing either came into being or remains in being — He it is Who waits to obtain His power by some process of allotment! Judge you who hear whether the man who talks like this is in his senses. For He is the one and only God, the Almighty, he says. If by the title of Almighty he intends the Father, the language he uses is ours, and no strange language: but if he means some other God than the Father, let our patron of Jewish doctrines preach circumcision too, if he pleases. For the Faith of Christians is directed to the Father. And the Father is all these — Highest, Almighty, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, and in a word all terms of highest significance are proper to the Father. But all that is the Father's is the Son's also; so that, on this understanding, we admit this phrase too. But if, leaving the Father, he speaks of another Almighty, he is speaking the language of the Jews or following the speculations of Plato — for they say that that philosopher also affirms that there exists on high a maker and creator of certain subordinate gods. As then in the case of the Jewish and Platonic opinions he who does not believe in God the Father is not a Christian, even though in his creed he asserts an Almighty God, so Eunomius also falsely pretends to the name of Christian, being in inclination a Jew, or asserting the doctrines of the Greeks while putting on the guise of the title borne by Christians. And with regard to the next points he asserts the same account will apply. He says He is God of Gods. We make the declaration our own by adding the name of the Father, knowing that the Father is God of Gods. But all that belongs to the Father certainly belongs also to the Son. And Lord of Lords. The same account will apply to this. And Most High over all the earth. Yes, for whichever of the Three Persons you are thinking of, He is Most High over all the earth, inasmuch as the oversight of earthly things from on high is exercised alike by the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. So, too, with what follows the words above, Most High in the heavens, Most High in the highest, Heavenly, true in being what He is, and so continuing, true in words, true in works. Why, all these things the Christian eye discerns alike in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. If Eunomius does assign them to one only of the Persons acknowledged in the creed, let him dare to call Him not true in words Who has said, I am the Truth, or to call the Spirit of truth not true in words, or let him refuse to give the title of true in works to Him Who does righteousness and judgment, or to the Spirit Who works all in all as He will. For if he does not acknowledge that these attributes belong to the Persons delivered to us in the creed, he is absolutely cancelling the creed of Christians. For how shall any one think Him a worthy object of faith Who is false in words and untrue in works.

But let us move on to what follows. "Above all rule, subjection and authority," he says. This language is ours and belongs properly to the Catholic Church—to believe that the Divine nature is above all rule and has everything that exists in subordination to itself. But the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit constitute the Divine nature. If he assigns this property to the Father alone, and if he affirms that He alone is free from variableness and change, and if he says that He alone is undefiled, the inference we are meant to draw is clear: that He who does not have these characteristics is variable, corruptible, subject to change and decay. This, then, is what Eunomius asserts about the Son and the Holy Spirit. For if he did not hold this opinion concerning the Son and the Spirit, he would not have used this contrast, setting the Father against them. For the rest, brothers, judge whether, with these views, he is not a persecutor of the Christian faith. For who will accept that it is right to consider something worthy of reverence if it varies, changes, and is subject to decay? So then the whole aim of one who frames such notions as these—notions by which he claims that neither the Truth nor the Spirit of Truth is undefiled, unvarying, or unchangeable—is to expel from the Church the belief in the Son and in the Holy Spirit.

But let us proceed to what follows. Above all rule, subjection and authority, he says. This language is ours, and belongs properly to the Catholic Church — to believe that the Divine nature is above all rule, and that it has in subordination to itself everything that can be conceived among existing things. But the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost constitute the Divine nature. If he assigns this property to the Father alone, and if he affirms Him alone to be free from variableness and change, and if he says that He alone is undefiled, the inference that we are meant to draw is plain, namely, that He who has not these characteristics is variable, corruptible, subject to change and decay. This, then, is what Eunomius asserts of the Son and the Holy Spirit: for if he did not hold this opinion concerning the Son and the Spirit, he would not have employed this opposition, contrasting the Father with them. For the rest, brethren, judge whether, with these sentiments, he is not a persecutor of the Christian faith. For who will allow it to be right to deem that a fitting object of reverence which varies, changes, and is subject to decay? So then the whole aim of one who flames such notions as these — notions by which he makes out that neither the Truth nor the Spirit of Truth is undefiled, unvarying, or unchangeable — is to expel from the Church the belief in the Son and in the Holy Spirit.

And now let us examine what he adds to his earlier statements. He says, "Not dividing His own essence by begetting, and being at once begetter and begotten, at the same time Father and Son; for He is incorruptible." Perhaps this is similar to what the prophet says about the ungodly: "They weave a spider's web" (Isaiah 59:5). Just as a spider's web has the appearance of something woven but no substance in that appearance—for whoever touches it touches nothing substantial, as the spider's threads break at a finger's touch—so too is the insubstantial fabric of these empty phrases. "Not dividing His own essence by begetting and being at once begetter and begotten." Should we call his words an argument, or rather a swelling produced by some dropsical inflation? For what does it mean to say "dividing His own essence by begetting, and being at once begetter and begotten"? Who is so confused, who is so insane, as to make the claim that Eunomius thinks he is fighting against? The Church believes that the true Father is truly Father of His own Son, as the Apostle says, not of a Son who is alien to Him. He declares this in one of his letters: "Who spared not His own Son" (Romans 8:32), distinguishing Him by the word "own" from those who are counted worthy of adoption as sons by grace and not by physis. But what does the one who disparages our belief say? "Not dividing His own essence by begetting, or being at once begetter and begotten, at the same time Father and Son; for He is incorruptible." Does someone who hears in the Gospel that the Word was in the beginning, and was God, and that the Word came forth from the Father, then pollute this pure doctrine with such base and filthy ideas, saying He does not divide His essence by begetting? Shame on the abomination of these base and filthy notions! How does the one who speaks this way fail to understand that when God was manifested in flesh, He did not accept the normal conditions of human nature for the formation of His own body, but was born for us as a Child by the Holy Spirit and the power of the Highest? The Virgin was not subject to those conditions, nor was the Spirit diminished, nor was the power of the Highest divided. The Spirit is whole, the power of the Highest remained undiminished, the Child was born in the fullness of our nature, and did not corrupt the incorruption of His mother. Then flesh was born of flesh without carnal passion. Yet Eunomius will not admit that the brightness of the glory comes from the glory itself, since the glory is neither diminished nor divided by begetting the light. Again, a human word is generated from the human mind without division, but God the Word cannot be generated from the Father without the ousia of the Father being divided! Is anyone so foolish as not to see how irrational his position is? "Not dividing," he says, "His own essence by begetting." But whose own essence is divided by begetting? In the case of human beings, essence means human nature; in the case of animals, it means, generically, animal nature, but in the case of cattle, sheep, and all animals, specifically, it is understood according to the distinctions of their kinds. Which of these divides its own essence by the process of generation? Does not the physis always remain undiminished in every animal through the succession of its offspring? Furthermore, a human being in begetting a human being from himself does not divide his nature, but it remains in its fullness both in the one who begets and in the one who is begotten—not split off and transferred from one to the other, nor damaged in the one when it is fully formed in the other, but existing in its entirety in the former and discoverable in its entirety in the latter. Both before begetting his child the man was a rational animal, mortal, capable of intelligence and knowledge, and after begetting a man with such qualities he remains the same. All the distinctive properties of his nature are shown in him. He does not lose his existence as a man by begetting the man who comes from him, but remains after that event what he was before, without causing any diminution of the nature in the one who comes from him by the fact that the man derived from him comes into being.

And now let us see what he adds to his previous statements. Not dividing, he says, His own essence by begetting, and being at once begetter and begotten, at the same time Father and Son; for He is incorruptible. Of such a kind as this, perhaps, is that of which the prophet says, touching the ungodly, They weave a spider's web Isaiah 59:5. For as in the cobweb there is the appearance of something woven, but no substantiality in the appearance — for he who touches it touches nothing substantial, as the spider's threads break with the touch of a finger — just such is the unsubstantial texture of idle phrases. Not dividing His own essence by begetting and being at once begetter and begotten. Ought we to give his words the name of argument, or to call them rather a swelling of humours secreted by some dropsical inflation? For what is the sense of dividing His own essence by begetting, and being at once begetter and begotten? Who is so distracted, who is so demented, as to make the statement against which Eunomius thinks he is doing battle? For the Church believes that the true Father is truly Father of His own Son, as the Apostle says, not of a Son alien from Him. For thus he declares in one of his Epistles, Who spared not His own Son Romans 8:32, distinguishing Him, by the addition of own, from those who are counted worthy of the adoption of sons by grace and not by nature. But what says He who disparages this belief of ours? Not dividing His own essence by begetting, or being at once begetter and begotten, at the same time Father and Son; for He is incorruptible. Does one who hears in the Gospel that the Word was in the beginning, and was God, and that the Word came forth from the Father, so befoul the undefiled doctrine with these base and fetid ideas, saying He does not divide His essence by begetting? Shame on the abomination of these base and filthy notions! How is it that he who speaks thus fails to understand that God when manifested in flesh did not admit for the formation of His own body the conditions of human nature, but was born for us a Child by the Holy Ghost and the power of the Highest; nor was the Virgin subject to those conditions, nor was the Spirit diminished, nor the power of the Highest divided? For the Spirit is entire, the power of the Highest remained undiminished: the Child was born in the fullness of our nature, and did not sully the incorruption of His mother. Then was flesh born of flesh without carnal passion: yet Eunomius will not admit that the brightness of the glory is from the glory itself, since the glory is neither diminished nor divided by begetting the light. Again, the word of man is generated from his mind without division, but God the Word cannot be generated from the Father without the essence of the Father being divided! Is any one so witless as not to perceive the irrational character of his position? Not dividing, quoth he, His own essence by begetting. Why, whose own essence is divided by begetting? For in the case of men essence means human nature: in the case of brutes, it means, generically, brute nature, but in the case of cattle, sheep, and all brute animals, specifically, it is regarded according to the distinctions of their kinds. Which, then, of these divides its own essence by the process of generation? Does not the nature always remain undiminished in the case of every animal by the succession of its posterity? Further a man in begetting a man from himself does not divide his nature, but it remains in its fullness alike in him who begets and in him who is begotten, not split off and transferred from the one to the other, nor mutilated in the one when it is fully formed in the other, but at once existing in its entirety in the former and discoverable in its entirety in the latter. For both before begetting his child the man was a rational animal, mortal, capable of intelligence and knowledge, and also after begetting a man endowed with such qualities: so that in him are shown all the special properties of his nature; as he does not lose his existence as a man by begetting the man derived from him, but remains after that event what he was before without causing any diminution of the nature derived from him by the fact that the man derived from him comes into being.

Well, a human being is begotten of a human being, and the nature of the one who begets is not divided. Yet Eunomius does not admit that the Only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, is truly of the Father—supposedly because he fears that the inviolable nature of the Father would be mutilated by the existence of the Only-begotten. Instead, after saying "not dividing His essence by begetting," he adds, "or being Himself begetter and begotten, or Himself becoming Father and Son," and he thinks that by such loose, disconnected phrases he can undermine the true confession of godliness or provide some support for his own ungodliness. He does not realize that by the very means he uses to construct a reductio ad absurdum, he is discovered to be an advocate of the truth. For we too say that He who has all that belongs to His own Father is all that He is, except for being Father, and that He who has all that belongs to the Son exhibits in Himself the Son in His completeness, except for being Son. So the reductio ad absurdum that Eunomius invents here turns out to be a support of the truth, when we expand the notion to display it more clearly, under the guidance of the Gospel. For if the one who has seen the Son sees the Father, then the Father begot another self—not passing out of Himself, yet appearing in His fullness in Him. So from these considerations, what seemed to have been uttered against godliness is demonstrated to be a support of sound doctrine.

Well, man is begotten of man, and the nature of the begetter is not divided. Yet Eunomius does not admit that the Only-begotten God, Who is in the bosom of the Father, is truly of the Father, for fear forsooth, lest he should mutilate the inviolable nature of the Father by the subsistence of the Only-begotten: but after saying Not dividing His essence by begetting, he adds, Or being Himself begetter and begotten, or Himself becoming Father and Son, and thinks by such loose disjointed phrases to undermine the true confession of godliness or to furnish some support to his own ungodliness, not being aware that by the very means he uses to construct a reductio ad absurdum he is discovered to be an advocate of the truth. For we too say that He who has all that belongs to His own Father is all that He is, save being Father, and that He who has all that belongs to the Son exhibits in Himself the Son in His completeness, save being Son: so that the reductio ad absurdum, which Eunomius here invents, turns out to be a support of the truth, when the notion is expanded by us so as to display it more clearly, under the guidance of the Gospel. For if he that has seen the Son sees the Father then the Father begot another self, not passing out of Himself, and at the same time appearing in His fullness in Him: so that from these considerations that which seemed to have been uttered against godliness is demonstrated to be a support of sound doctrine.

But he says the Father does not divide His own essence by begetting, and is not at once begetter and begotten, at the same time Father and Son, because He is incorruptible. What a powerful conclusion! What do you mean, wise sir? Because He is incorruptible, therefore He does not divide His own essence by begetting the Son, nor does He beget Himself or get begotten of Himself, nor become at the same time His own Father and His own Son because He is incorruptible. It follows then that if anyone is of corruptible nature, he divides his essence by begetting, and is begotten by himself, and begets himself, and is his own father and his own son, because he is not incorruptible. If this is so, then Abraham, because he was corruptible, did not beget Ishmael and Isaac, but begot himself by the bondwoman and by his lawful wife. Or, to take the other absurd tricks of the argument, he divided his essence among the sons who were begotten of him. First, when Hagar bore him a son, he was divided into two sections, and in one of the halves became Ishmael, while in the other he remained half Abraham. Subsequently the remainder of Abraham's essence was again divided and took subsistence in Isaac. Accordingly the fourth part of Abraham's essence was divided into the twin sons of Isaac, so that there was an eighth in each of his grandchildren! How could one subdivide the eighth part, cutting it into small fractions among the twelve Patriarchs, or among the seventy-five souls with whom Jacob went down into Egypt? And why do I talk like this when I really ought to refute the foolishness of such notions by beginning with the first man? For if it is a property of the incorruptible alone not to divide its essence in begetting, and if Adam was corruptible, to whom the word was spoken, Dust you are and unto dust shall you return, then, according to Eunomius' reasoning, he certainly divided his essence, being cut up among those who were begotten of him. Because of the vast number of his posterity, with the slice of his essence in each being necessarily subdivided according to the number of his progeny, the essence of Adam is used up before Abraham began to exist, being dispersed in these tiny and infinitesimal particles among the countless myriads of his descendants. The minute fragment of Adam that has reached Abraham and his descendants by a process of division is no longer discoverable in them as a remnant of his essence, since his nature has already been used up among the countless myriads of those who came before them by its division into infinitesimal fractions. Notice the foolishness of him who understands neither what he says nor what he affirms. For by saying that since He is incorruptible He neither divides His essence nor begets Himself nor becomes His own father, he implicitly lays it down that we must suppose all those things from which he says the incorruptible alone are free to be incidental to generation in the case of everyone who is subject to corruption. Though there are many other considerations capable of proving the emptiness of his argument, I think that what has been said above is sufficient to demonstrate its absurdity. But this has surely been already acknowledged by all who have an eye for logical consistency: when he asserted incorruptibility of the Father alone, he places all things which are considered after the Father in the category of corruptible, by virtue of opposition to the incorruptible, so as to make out that even the Son is not free from corruption. If then he places the Son in opposition to the incorruptible, he not only defines Him to be corruptible, but also asserts of Him all those incidents from which he says only the incorruptible are exempt. For it necessarily follows that if the Father alone neither begets Himself nor is begotten of Himself, everything which is not incorruptible both begets itself and is begotten of itself, and becomes its own father and son, shifting from its own proper essence to each of these relations. For if to be incorruptible belongs to the Father alone, and if not to be the things specified is a special property of the incorruptible, then of course, according to this heretical argument, the Son is not incorruptible, and all these circumstances of course find place about Him: to have His essence divided, to beget Himself and to be begotten by Himself, to become Himself His own father and His own son.

But he says, Not dividing His own essence by begetting, and being at once begetter and begotten, at the same time Father and Son; for He is incorruptible. Most cogent conclusion! What do you mean, most sapient sir? Because He is incorruptible, therefore He does not divide His own essence by begetting the Son: nor does He beget Himself or be begotten of Himself, nor become at the same time His own Father and His own Son because He is incorruptible. It follows then, that if any one is of corruptible nature he divides his essence by begetting, and is begotten by himself, and begets himself, and is his own father and his own son, because he is not incorruptible. If this is so, then Abraham, because he was corruptible, did not beget Ishmael and Isaac, but begot himself by the bondwoman and by his lawful wife or, to take the other mountebank tricks of the argument, he divided his essence among the sons who were begotten of him, and first, when Hagar bore him a son, he was divided into two sections, and in one of the halves became Ishmael, while in the other he remained half Abraham; and subsequently the residue of the essence of Abraham being again divided took subsistence in Isaac. Accordingly the fourth part of the essence of Abraham was divided into the twin sons of Isaac, so that there was an eighth in each of his grandchildren! How could one subdivide the eighth part, cutting it small in fractions among the twelve Patriarchs, or among the threescore and fifteen souls with whom Jacob went down into Egypt? And why do I talk thus when I really ought to confute the folly of such notions by beginning with the first man? For if it is a property of the incorruptible only not to divide its essence in begetting, and if Adam was corruptible, to whom the word was spoken, Dust you are and unto dust shall you return Genesis 3:19, then, according to Eunomius' reasoning, he certainly divided his essence, being cut up among those who were begotten of him, and by reason of the vast number of his posterity (the slice of his essence which is to be found in each being necessarily subdivided according to the number of his progeny), the essence of Adam is used up before Abraham began to subsist, being dispersed in these minute and infinitesimal particles among the countless myriads of his descendants, and the minute fragment of Adam that has reached Abraham and his descendants by a process of division, is no longer discoverable in them as a remnant of his essence, inasmuch as his nature has been already used up among the countless myriads of those who were before them by its division into infinitesimal fractions. Mark the folly of him who understands neither what he says nor whereof he affirms. For by saying Since He is incorruptible He neither divides His essence nor begets Himself nor becomes His own father, he implicitly lays it down that we must suppose all those things from which he affirms that the incorruptible alone are free to be incidental to generation in the case of every one who is subject to corruption. Though there are many other considerations capable of proving the inanity of his argument, I think that what has been said above is sufficient to demonstrate its absurdity. But this has surely been already acknowledged by all who have an eye for logical consistency, that, when he asserted incorruptibility of the Father alone, he places all things which are considered after the Father in the category of corruptible, by virtue of opposition to the incorruptible, so as to make out even the Son not to be free from corruption. If then he places the Son in opposition to the incorruptible, he not only defines Him to be corruptible, but also asserts of Him all those incidents from which he affirms only the incorruptible to be exempt. For it necessarily follows that, if the Father alone neither begets Himself nor is begotten of Himself, everything which is not incorruptible both begets itself and is begotten of itself, and becomes its own father and son, shifting from its own proper essence to each of these relations. For if to be incorruptible belongs to the Father alone, and if not to be the things specified is a special property of the incorruptible, then, of course, according to this heretical argument, the Son is not incorruptible, and all these circumstances of course, find place about Him — to have His essence divided, to beget Himself and to be begotten by Himself, to become Himself His own father and His own son.

Perhaps, however, it's a waste of time to dwell long on such foolish ideas. Let's move on to the next point of his statement. He adds to what he had already said, "Not standing in need, in the act of creation, of matter or parts or natural instruments, for He stands in need of nothing." This proposition, though Eunomius states it somewhat carelessly, we do not reject as inconsistent with godly doctrine. For learning as we do that "He spoke the word and they were made; He commanded and they were created," we know that the Word is the Creator of matter, and by that very act also produces along with matter the qualities of matter, so that for Him the impulse of His almighty will was everything and instead of everything—matter, instrument, place, time, ousia, quality, everything that is conceived in creation. For at one and the same time He willed that what ought to be should exist, and His power, which produced all things that exist, kept pace with His will, turning His will into action. For thus the mighty Moses in the record of creation instructs us about the Divine power, attributing the production of each of the things that appeared in the creation to the words that commanded them to be. For "God said," he tells us, "Let there be light, and there was light," and so on with the rest, without any mention of either matter or any instrumental agency. Accordingly, Eunomius's language on this point is not to be rejected. For God, when creating all things that have their origin through creation, neither needed any matter to work on, nor instruments to help Him in His construction, for the power and wisdom of God has no need of any external assistance. But Christ is the Power of God and the Wisdom of God, by whom all things were made and without whom nothing exists, as John testifies. If, then, all things were made by Him, both visible and invisible, and if His will alone is sufficient to bring about the existence of existing things (for His will is power), Eunomius is expressing our doctrine, though with careless wording. For what instrument and what matter could He who upholds all things by the word of His power need in upholding the constitution of existing things by His almighty word? But if he maintains that what we have believed to be true of the Only-begotten in the case of creation is also true in the case of the Son—in the sense that the Father created Him in the same manner as creation was made by the Son—then we take back our former statement, because such a supposition is a denial of the Godhead of the Only-begotten. For we have learned from the mighty utterance of Paul that it is the distinguishing feature of idolatry to worship and serve the creature rather than the Creator, as well as from David, when he says, "There shall be no new God among you; neither shall you worship any alien God." We use this line and rule to arrive at discernment of the object of worship, so as to be convinced that that alone is God which is neither new nor alien. Since then we have been taught to believe that the Only-begotten God is God, we acknowledge, by our belief that He is God, that He is neither new nor alien. If, then, He is God, He is not new, and if He is not new, He is certainly eternal. Accordingly, neither is the Eternal new, nor is He who is of the Father and in the bosom of the Father and who has the Father in Himself alien from true Deity. Thus he who severs the Son from the physis of the Father either absolutely disallows the worship of the Son, so that he may not worship an alien God, or bows down before an idol, making a creature and not God the object of his worship, and giving to his idol the name of Christ.

Perhaps, however, it is waste of time to linger long over such follies. Let us pass to the next point of his statement. He adds to what he had already said, Not standing in need, in the act of creation, of matter or parts or natural instruments: for He stands in need of nothing. This proposition, though Eunomius states it with a certain looseness of phrase, we yet do not reject as inconsistent with godly doctrine. For learning as we do that He spoke the word and they were made: He commanded and they were created, we know that the Word is the Creator of matter, by that very act also producing with the matter the qualities of matter, so that for Him the impulse of His almighty will was everything and instead of everything, matter, instrument, place, time, essence, quality, everything that is conceived in creation. For at one and the same time did He will that that which ought to be should be, and His power, that produced all things that are, kept pace with His will, turning His will into act. For thus the mighty Moses in the record of creation instructs us about the Divine power, ascribing the production of each of the objects that were manifested in the creation to the words that bade them be. For God said, he tells us, Let there be light, and there was light Genesis 1:3: and so about the rest, without any mention either of matter or of any instrumental agency. Accordingly the language of Eunomius on this point is not to be rejected. For God, when creating all things that have their origin by creation, neither stood in need of any matter on which to operate, nor of instruments to aid Him in His construction: for the power and wisdom of God has no need of any external assistance. But Christ is the Power of God and the Wisdom of God 1 Corinthians 1:24, by Whom all things were made and without Whom is no existent thing, as John testifies. If, then, all things were made by Him, both visible and invisible, and if His will alone suffices to effect the subsistence of existing things (for His will is power), Eunomius utters our doctrine though with a loose mode of expression. For what instrument and what matter could He Who upholds all things by the word of His power need in upholding the constitution of existing things by His almighty word? But if he maintains that what we have believed to be true of the Only-begotten in the case of the creation, is true also in the case of the Son — in the sense that the Father created Him in like manner as the creation was made by the Son — then we retract our former statement, because such a supposition is a denial of the Godhead of the Only-begotten. For we have learned from the mighty utterance of Paul that it is the distinguishing feature of idolatry to worship and serve the creature more than the Creator, as well as from David, when He says There shall no new God be in you: neither shall you worship any alien God. We use this line and rule to arrive at the discernment of the object of worship, so as to be convinced that that alone is God which is neither new nor alien. Since then we have been taught to believe that the Only-begotten God is God, we acknowledge, by our belief that He is God, that He is neither new or alien. If, then, He is God, He is not new, and if He is not new, He is assuredly eternal. Accordingly, neither is the Eternal new, nor is He Who is of the Father and in the bosom of the Father and Who has the Father in Himself alien from true Deity. Thus he who severs the Son from the nature of the Father either absolutely disallows the worship of the Son, that he may not worship an alien God, or bows down before an idol, making a creature and not God the object of his worship, and giving to his idol the name of Christ.

Now the meaning toward which he is tending in his conception of the Only-begotten will become clearer by considering the language he uses about the Only-begotten Himself, which is as follows: "We believe also in the Son of God, the Only-begotten God, the first-born of all creation, very Son, not ungenerate, truly begotten before the worlds, named Son not without being begotten before He existed, coming into being before all creation, not uncreate." I think that simply reading his exposition of his faith is quite enough to make its impiety plain without any investigation on our part. For though he calls Him first-born, yet so that he may not raise any doubt in his readers' minds about His not being created, he immediately adds the words "not uncreate," lest if the natural significance of the term Son were understood by his readers, any pious conception about Him might find place in their minds. This is why after first confessing Him to be Son of God and Only-begotten God, he proceeds at once, by what he adds, to turn the minds of his readers from their devout belief to his heretical notions. For whoever hears the titles Son of God and Only-begotten God is necessarily lifted up to the loftier kind of statements about the Son, led onward by the significance of these terms, since no difference of nature is introduced by the use of the title God and by the significance of the term Son. For how could He who is truly the Son of God and Himself God be conceived as something else differing from the nature of the Father? But so that godly conceptions may not be impressed beforehand on the hearts of his readers by these names, he immediately calls Him the first-born of all creation, named Son, not without being begotten before He existed, coming into being before all creation, not uncreate. Let us linger a little while over his argument, so that this villain may be shown to be holding out his first statements to people merely as bait to induce them to receive the poison that he sugars over with phrases of pious tendency, as if with honey. Who does not know how great the difference in meaning is between the term only-begotten and first-born? For first-born implies brothers, and only-begotten implies that there are no other brothers. Thus the first-born is not only-begotten, for certainly first-born is the first-born among brothers, while he who is only-begotten has no brother—for if he were numbered among brothers he would not be only-begotten. And moreover, whatever the essence of the brothers of the first-born is, the same is the essence of the first-born himself. Nor is this all that is signified by the title, but also that the first-born and those born after him draw their being from the same source, without the first-born contributing at all to the birth of those who come after him—so that this maintains the falsehood of that statement of John which affirms that all things were made by Him. For if He is first-born, He differs from those born after Him only by priority in time, while there must be someone else by whom the power to exist at all is given alike to Him and to the rest. But so that we may not by our objections give any unfair opponent grounds for an insinuation that we do not receive the inspired utterances of Scripture, we will first set before our readers our own view about these titles, and then leave it to their judgment which is better.

Now that this is the meaning to which he tends in his conception concerning the Only-begotten will become more plain by considering the language he employs touching the Only-begotten Himself, which is as follows. We believe also in the Son of God, the Only-begotten God, the first-born of all creation, very Son, not ungenerate, verily begotten before the worlds, named Son not without being begotten before He existed, coming into being before all creation, not uncreate. I think that the mere reading of his exposition of his faith is quite sufficient to render its impiety plain without any investigation on our part. For though he calls Him first-born, yet that he may not raise any doubt in his readers' minds as to His not being created, he immediately adds the words, not uncreate, lest if the natural significance of the term Son were apprehended by his readers, any pious conception concerning Him might find place in their minds. It is for this reason that after at first confessing Him to be Son of God and Only-begotten God, he proceeds at once, by what he adds, to pervert the minds of his readers from their devout belief to his heretical notions. For he who hears the titles Son of God and Only-begotten God is of necessity lifted up to the loftier kind of assertions respecting the Son, led onward by the significance of these terms, inasmuch as no difference of nature is introduced by the use of the title God and by the significance of the term Son. For how could He Who is truly the Son of God and Himself God be conceived as something else differing from the nature of the Father? But that godly conceptions may not by these names be impressed beforehand on the hearts of his readers, he immediately calls Him the first-born of all creation, named Son, not without being begotten before He existed, coming into being before all creation, not uncreate. Let us linger a little while, then, over his argument, that the miscreant may be shown to be holding out his first statements to people merely as a bait to induce them to receive the poison that he sugars over with phrases of a pious tendency, as it were with honey. Who does not know how great is the difference in signification between the term only-begotten and first-born? For first-born implies brethren, and only-begotten implies that there are no other brethren. Thus the first-born is not only-begotten, for certainly first-born is the first-born among brethren, while he who is only-begotten has no brother: for if he were numbered among brethren he would not be only-begotten. And moreover, whatever the essence of the brothers of the first-born is, the same is the essence of the first-born himself. Nor is this all that is signified by the title, but also that the first-born and those born after him draw their being from the same source, without the first-born contributing at all to the birth of those that come after him: so that hereby is maintained the falsehood of that statement of John, which affirms that all things were made by Him. For if He is first-born, He differs from those born after Him only by priority in time, while there must be some one else by Whom the power to be at all is imparted alike to Him and to the rest. But that we may not by our objections give any unfair opponent ground for an insinuation that we do not receive the inspired utterances of Scripture, we will first set before our readers our own view about these titles, and then leave it to their judgment which is the better.

The mighty Paul, knowing that the Only-begotten God, who has the pre-eminence in all things, is the author and cause of all good, testifies to Him that not only was the creation of all existing things accomplished by Him, but also that when the original creation of man had decayed and vanished away (to use Paul's own language), and another new creation was accomplished in Christ, in this too no one else but He took the lead. Rather, He is Himself the first-born of all that new creation of human beings which is brought about by the Gospel. To make our understanding of this clearer, let us divide our argument as follows. The inspired apostle uses this term on four occasions: once as here, calling Him first-born of all creation (Colossians 1:15); another time, the first-born among many brethren (Romans 8:29); again, first-born from the dead; and on another occasion he uses the term absolutely, without combining it with other words, saying, But when again He brings the first-born into the world, He says, And let all the angels of God worship Him (Hebrews 1:6). Accordingly, whatever understanding we have concerning this title in the other combinations, the same we shall consistently apply to the phrase first-born of all creation. For since the title is one and the same, it must be that the meaning conveyed is also one. In what sense then does He become the first-born among many brethren? In what sense does He become the first-born from the dead? Assuredly this is clear: because we are by birth flesh and blood, as the Scripture says, He who for our sakes was born among us and was partaker of flesh and blood, intending to change us from corruption to incorruption by the birth from above (the birth by water and the Spirit), Himself led the way in this birth, drawing down upon the water, by His own baptism, the Holy Spirit. In this way, in all things He became the first-born of those who are spiritually born again, and gave the name of brethren to those who partook in a birth like His own by water and the Spirit. But since it was also fitting that He should implant in our nature the power of rising again from the dead, He becomes the first-fruits of them that slept (1 Corinthians 15:20) and the first-born from the dead (Colossians 1:18), in that He first by His own act loosed the pains of death, so that His new birth from the dead was made a way for us also, since the pains of death, in which we were held, were loosed by the resurrection of the Lord. Thus, just as by having shared in the washing of regeneration He became the first-born among many brethren, and again by having made Himself the first-fruits of the resurrection He obtains the name of the first-born from the dead, so having in all things the pre-eminence, after all old things (as the apostle says) have passed away, He becomes the first-born of the new creation of human beings in Christ by the two-fold regeneration: both that by Holy Baptism and that which is the consequence of the resurrection from the dead, becoming for us in both alike the Prince of Life, the first-fruits, the first-born. This first-born, then, also has brethren, concerning whom He speaks to Mary, saying, Go and tell My brethren, I go to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God. In these words He sums up the whole aim of His dispensation as Man. For human beings revolted from God and served those which by nature were not gods, and though being the children of God became attached to an evil father falsely so called. For this cause the mediator between God and human beings, having assumed the first-fruits of all human nature, sends to His brethren the announcement of Himself not in His divine character, but in that which He shares with us, saying, I am departing in order to make by My own self that true Father, from whom you were separated, to be your Father, and by My own self to make that true God from whom you had revolted to be your God, for by that first-fruits which I have assumed, I am in Myself presenting all humanity to its God and Father.

The mighty Paul, knowing that the Only-begotten God, Who has the pre-eminence in all things, is the author and cause of all good, bears witness to Him that not only was the creation of all existent things wrought by Him, but that when the original creation of man had decayed and vanished away, to use his own language, and another new creation was wrought in Christ, in this too no other than He took the lead, but He is Himself the first-born of all that new creation of men which is effected by the Gospel. And that our view about this may be made clearer let us thus divide our argument. The inspired apostle on four occasions employs this term, once as here, calling Him, first-born of all creation Colossians 1:15, another time, the first-born among many brethren Romans 8:29, again, first-born from the dead, and on another occasion he employs the term absolutely, without combining it with other words, saying, But when again He brings the first-born into the world, He says, And let all the angels of God worship Him Hebrews 1:6. Accordingly whatever view we entertain concerning this title in the other combinations, the same we shall in consistency apply to the phrase first-born of all creation. For since the title is one and the same it must needs be that the meaning conveyed is also one. In what sense then does He become the first-born among many brethren? in what sense does He become the first-born from the dead? Assuredly this is plain, that because we are by birth flesh and blood, as the Scripture says, He Who for our sakes was born among us and was partaker of flesh and blood, purposing to change us from corruption to incorruption by the birth from above, the birth by water and the Spirit, Himself led the way in this birth, drawing down upon the water, by His own baptism, the Holy Spirit; so that in all things He became the first-born of those who are spiritually born again, and gave the name of brethren to those who partook in a birth like to His own by water and the Spirit. But since it was also meet that He should implant in our nature the power of rising again from the dead, He becomes the first-fruits of them that slept 1 Corinthians 15:20 and the first-born from the dead Colossians 1:18, in that He first by His own act loosed the pains of death, so that His new birth from the dead was made a way for us also, since the pains of death, wherein we were held, were loosed by the resurrection of the Lord. Thus, just as by having shared in the washing of regeneration He became the first-born among many brethren, and again by having made Himself the first-fruits of the resurrection, He obtains the name of the first-born from the dead, so having in all things the pre-eminence, after that all old things, as the apostle says, have passed away, He becomes the first-born of the new creation of men in Christ by the two-fold regeneration, alike that by Holy Baptism and that which is the consequence of the resurrection from the dead, becoming for us in both alike the Prince of Life, the first-fruits, the first-born. This first-born, then, has also brethren, concerning whom He speaks to Mary, saying, Go and tell My brethren, I go to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God. In these words He sums up the whole aim of His dispensation as Man. For men revolted from God, and served them which by nature were no gods, and though being the children of God became attached to an evil father falsely so called. For this cause the mediator between God and man having assumed the first-fruits of all human nature, sends to His brethren the announcement of Himself not in His divine character, but in that which He shares with us, saying, I am departing in order to make by My own self that true Father, from whom you were separated, to be your Father, and by My own self to make that true God from whom you had revolted to be your God, for by that first-fruits which I have assumed, I am in Myself presenting all humanity to its God and Father.

Since the first-fruits made the true God to be its God and the good Father to be its Father, this blessing is secured for human nature as a whole. Through the first-fruits, the true God and Father becomes Father and God of all people. Now if the first-fruits is holy, the whole lump is also holy. But where the first-fruits, Christ, is (and the first-fruits is none other than Christ), there also are those who belong to Christ, as the apostle says. In those passages where he mentions the first-born along with other words, he suggests we should understand the phrase in the way I have indicated. But where, without any such addition, he says, "When again He brings the first-born into the world" (Hebrews 1:6), the addition of "again" refers to that manifestation of the Lord of all which will take place at the last day. For just as at the name of Jesus every knee bows, in heaven and on earth and under the earth (Philippians 2:10-11)—although the human name does not belong to the Son in that He is above every name—even so he says that the First-born, who was named this for our sake, is worshipped by all the supramundane creation when He comes again into the world, when He will judge the world with righteousness and the people with equity. Thus the distinct meanings of the titles First-born and Only-begotten are kept separate by the word of godliness, with each name's proper significance preserved. But how can someone who refers the name first-born to the pre-temporal existence of the Son preserve the proper sense of the term Only-begotten? Let the discerning reader consider whether these things agree with one another, when the term first-born necessarily implies brothers, and the term Only-begotten necessarily excludes the notion of brothers. For when Scripture says, "In the beginning was the Word," we understand the Only-begotten to be meant, and when it adds "the Word was made flesh," we thereby receive in our minds the idea of the first-born. In this way the word of godliness remains without confusion, preserving for each name its natural significance, so that in Only-begotten we regard the pre-temporal, and by the first-born of creation we regard the manifestation of the pre-temporal in the flesh.

Since, then, the first-fruits made the true God to be its God, and the good Father to be its Father, the blessing is secured for human nature as a whole, and by means of the first-fruits the true God and Father becomes Father and God of all men. Now if the first-fruits be holy, the lump also is holy. But where the first-fruits, Christ, is (and the first-fruits is none other than Christ), there also are they that are Christ's, as the apostle says. In those passages therefore where he makes mention of the first-born in connection with other words, he suggests that we should understand the phrase in the way which I have indicated: but where, without any such addition, he says, When again He brings the first-born into the world Hebrews 1:6, the addition of again asserts that manifestation of the Lord of all which shall take place at the last day. For as at the name of Jesus every knee does bow, of things in heaven and things in earth and things under the earth Philippians 2:10-11, although the human name does not belong to the Son in that He is above every name, even so He says that the First-born, Who was so named for our sakes, is worshipped by all the supramundane creation, on His coming again into the world, when He shall judge the world with righteousness and the people with equity. Thus the several meanings of the titles First-born and Only begotten are kept distinct by the word of godliness, its respective significance being secured for each name. But how can he who refers the name of first-born to the pre-temporal existence of the Son preserve the proper sense of the term Only-begotten? Let the discerning reader consider whether these things agree with one another, when the term first-born necessarily implies brethren, and the term Only-begotten as necessarily excludes the notion of brethren. For when the Scripture says, In the beginning was the Word, we understand the Only-begotten to be meant, and when it adds the Word was made flesh we thereby receive in our minds the idea of the first-born, and so the word of godliness remains without confusion, preserving to each name its natural significance, so that in Only-begotten we regard the pre-temporal, and by the first-born of creation the manifestation of the pre-temporal in the flesh.

Let us return once more to the precise statement of Eunomius. "We believe also in the Son of God, the only begotten God, the first-born of all creation, very Son, not Ungenerate, verily begotten before the worlds." That he transfers the sense of generation to indicate creation is clear from his expressly calling Him created, when he speaks of Him as coming into being and not uncreate. But to make clear the rash inconsistency and lack of training that appears in these doctrines, let us set aside all expressions of outrage at his obvious blasphemy and use a systematic analysis in discussing this matter. For I think it would be good to consider through careful investigation the exact meaning of the term "generation." That this expression conveys the meaning of existing as the result of some cause is plain to everyone, and I assume there is no need to argue about this point. But since there are different modes of existing as the result of a cause, this difference is what I think should receive thorough explanation in our discussion by means of systematic analysis. Among things which have come into being as the results of some cause, we recognize the following differences. Some are the result of material and art, such as the construction of houses and all other works produced by means of their respective material, where some art gives direction and brings its purpose to its proper goal. Others are the result of material and nature, for nature orders the generation of animals one from another, accomplishing her own work by means of the material existence in the bodies of the parents. Others again are by material efflux. In these the original remains as it was before, and that which flows from it is viewed by itself, as in the case of the sun and its beam, or the lamp and its radiance, or of perfumes and ointments and the quality given off from them. For these, while remaining undiminished in themselves, each have accompanying them the special and distinctive effect which they naturally produce, as the sun has its ray, the lamp its brightness, and perfumes the fragrance which they generate in the air. There is also another kind of generation besides these, where the cause is immaterial and incorporeal, but the generation is sensible and takes place through the instrumentality of the body—I mean the generation of the word by the mind. For the mind, being in itself incorporeal, begets the word by means of sensible instruments. These are the many differences of the term "generation" which we discover in a philosophical examination of them, that is itself, so to speak, the result of generation.

And now let us return once more to the precise statement of Eunomius. We believe also in the Son of God, the only begotten God, the first-born of all creation, very Son, not Ungenerate, verily begotten before the worlds. That he transfers, then, the sense of generation to indicate creation is plain from his expressly calling Him created, when he speaks of Him as coming into being and not uncreate. But that the inconsiderate rashness and want of training which shows itself in the doctrines may be made manifest, let us omit all expressions of indignation at his evident blasphemy, and employ in the discussion of this matter a scientific division. For it would be well, I think, to consider in a somewhat careful investigation the exact meaning of the term generation. That this expression conveys the meaning of existing as the result of some cause is plain to all, and I suppose there is no need to contend about this point: but since there are different modes of existing as the result of a cause, this difference is what I think ought to receive thorough explanation in our discussion by means of scientific division. Of things which have come into being as the results of some cause we recognize the following differences. Some are the result of material and art, as the fabrics of houses and all other works produced by means of their respective material, where some art gives direction and conducts its purpose to its proper aim. Others are the result of material and nature; for nature orders the generation of animals one from another, effecting her own work by means of the material subsistence in the bodies of the parents; others again are by material efflux. In these the original remains as it was before, and that which flows from it is contemplated by itself, as in the case of the sun and its beam, or the lamp and its radiance, or of scents and ointments, and the quality given off from them. For these, while remaining undiminished in themselves, have each accompanying them the special and peculiar effect which they naturally produce, as the sun his ray, the lamp its brightness, and perfumes the fragrance which they engender in the air. There is also another kind of generation besides these, where the cause is immaterial and incorporeal, but the generation is sensible and takes place through the instrumentality of the body; I mean the generation of the word by the mind. For the mind being in itself incorporeal begets the word by means of sensible instruments. So many are the differences of the term generation, which we discover in a philosophic view of them, that is itself, so to speak, the result of generation.

Now that we have distinguished the various modes of generation, it is time to note how the Holy Spirit's gracious arrangement, in delivering the divine mysteries to us, conveys instruction that surpasses reason through methods we can grasp. The inspired teaching uses all the forms of generation that human intelligence recognizes to express God's unspeakable power, yet without including the bodily meanings attached to these words. When it speaks of the creative power, it gives this activity the name of generation because its expression must accommodate our limited capacity. However, it does not convey everything we normally include in creative generation, such as time, place, the provision of matter, the use of instruments, or the purpose in created things. Instead, it sets these aside and declares in lofty and magnificent language God's creation of all existing things when it says, "He spoke the word and they were made, He commanded and they were created." Again, when it explains to us the unspeakable and transcendent existence of the Only-begotten from the Father, since the poverty of human intellect cannot receive teachings that surpass all power of speech and thought, it again borrows our language and calls Him Son—a name our usage assigns to those born from matter and physis. But just as Scripture, when speaking of generation by creation, does not imply in God's case that such generation occurred through any material (affirming that the power of God's will served as material substance, place, time, and all such circumstances), so here too, when using the term Son, it rejects everything else that human nature observes in generation here below—I mean passions and dispositions and the cooperation of time and the necessity of place—and above all, matter, without which natural generation here below does not occur. But when all such material, temporal, and local existence is excluded from the meaning of the term Son, only community of physis remains, and for this reason the title Son declares concerning the Only-begotten the close affinity and genuineness of relationship that mark His manifestation from the Father. And since this kind of generation was not sufficient to give us an adequate understanding of the ineffable mode of subsistence of the Only-begotten, Scripture also uses the third kind of generation to indicate the doctrine of the Son's divinity—namely, that kind which results from material efflux, and speaks of Him as the brightness of glory, the fragrance of ointment, the breath of God, illustrations which in the technical language we have adopted we commonly designate as material efflux.

And now that we have thus distinguished the various modes of generation, it will be time to remark how the benevolent dispensation of the Holy Spirit, in delivering to us the Divine mysteries, imparts that instruction which transcends reason by such methods as we can receive. For the inspired teaching adopts, in order to set forth the unspeakable power of God, all the forms of generation that human intelligence recognizes, yet without including the corporeal senses attaching to the words. For when it speaks of the creative power, it gives to such an energy the name of generation, because its expression must stoop to our low capacity; it does not, however, convey thereby all that we include in creative generation, as time, place, the furnishing of matter, the fitness of instruments, the design in the things that come into being, but it leaves these, and asserts of God in lofty and magnificent language the creation of all existent things, when it says, He spoke the word and they were made, He commanded and they were created. Again when it interprets to us the unspeakable and transcendent existence of the Only-begotten from the Father, as the poverty of human intellect is incapable of receiving doctrines which surpass all power of speech and thought, there too it borrows our language and terms Him Son, — a name which our usage assigns to those who are born of matter and nature. But just as Scripture, when speaking of generation by creation, does not in the case of God imply that such generation took place by means of any material, affirming that the power of God's will served for material substance, place, time and all such circumstances, even so here too, when using the term Son, it rejects both all else that human nature remarks in generation here below — I mean affections and dispositions and the co-operation of time, and the necessity of place — and, above all, matter, without all which natural generation here below does not take place. But when all such material, temporal and local existence is excluded from the sense of the term Son, community of nature alone is left, and for this reason by the title Son is declared, concerning the Only-begotten, the close affinity and genuineness of relationship which mark His manifestation from the Father. And since such a kind of generation was not sufficient to implant in us an adequate notion of the ineffable mode of subsistence of the Only-begotten, Scripture avails itself also of the third kind of generation to indicate the doctrine of the Son's Divinity, — that kind, namely, which is the result of material efflux, and speaks of Him as the brightness of glory Hebrews 1:3, the savour of ointment, the breath of God Wisdom 7:25; illustrations which in the scientific phraseology we have adopted we ordinarily designate as material efflux.

But just as in the examples given, neither the birth of creation nor the meaning of the term Son allows for time, matter, place, or affection, so here too Scripture uses only the illustration of brightness and the others I have mentioned, apart from all material understanding, to show the divine appropriateness of this mode of generation. Scripture shows that we must understand from the meaning of this expression an existence that is both derived from the Father and exists together with the Father. For the image of breath is not meant to convey the idea of dispersal into air from the material substance from which it comes, nor is the image of fragrance meant to express the spreading of the ointment's quality into the air, nor is the image of brightness meant to convey an outflow that happens through rays from the body of the sun. Rather, as has been said in all these cases, this mode of generation indicates only this: that the Son is from the Father and is thought of together with Him, with no gap between the Father and the One who is from the Father. Because the grace of the Holy Spirit, in His great loving-kindness, arranged that the divine truths about the Only-Begotten should reach us from many directions and thus be planted in us, He also added the remaining kind of generation—namely, that of the word from the mind. And here the exalted John shows remarkable foresight. So that the reader would not through carelessness and unworthy thoughts sink down to the common idea of a word and think the Son is merely a voice of the Father, he therefore declares that the Word essentially existed in the first and blessed nature itself, thus proclaiming aloud: In the Beginning was the Word, and with God, and God, and Light, and Life, and all that the Beginning is, the Word was also.

But as in the cases alleged neither the birth of the creation nor the force of the term Son admits time, matter, place, or affection, so here too the Scripture employing only the illustration of effulgence and the others that I have mentioned, apart from all material conception, with regard to the Divine fitness of such a mode of generation, shows that we must understand by the significance of this expression, an existence at once derived from and subsisting with the Father. For neither is the figure of breath intended to convey to us the notion of dispersion into the air from the material from which it is formed, nor is the figure of fragrance designed to express the passing off of the quality of the ointment into the air, nor the figure of effulgence the efflux which takes place by means of the rays from the body of the sun: but as has been said in all cases, by such a mode of generation is indicated this alone, that the Son is of the Father and is conceived of along with Him, no interval intervening between the Father and Him Who is of the Father. For since of His exceeding loving-kindness the grace of the Holy Spirit so ordered that the divine conceptions concerning the Only-begotten should reach us from many quarters, and so be implanted in us, He added also the remaining kind of generation — that, namely, of the word from the mind. And here the sublime John uses remarkable foresight. That the reader might not through inattention and unworthy conceptions sink to the common notion of word, so as to deem the Son to be merely a voice of the Father, he therefore affirms of the Word that He essentially subsisted in the first and blessed nature Itself, thus proclaiming aloud, In the Beginning was the Word, and with God, and God, and Light, and Life, and all that the Beginning is, the Word was also.

Since these kinds of generation—those that arise from some cause and are recognized in our everyday experience—are also used by Holy Scripture to convey its teaching about transcendent mysteries in ways that each of them may reasonably be applied to express divine concepts, we can now examine what Eunomius says to discover in what sense he accepts the meaning of generation. He says: "Very Son, not ungenerate, truly begotten before the worlds." Anyone can quickly notice the violence he does to logical sequence in his distinction, as it is easily recognizable by everyone. Who doesn't know that while the proper opposition is between Father and Son, between generate and ungenerate, he passes over the term Father and sets "ungenerate" in opposition to "Son"? He should have, if he cared about truth, avoided diverting his phrase from the proper sequence of relationship and said instead: "Very Son, not Father." This way, proper regard would have been paid both to piety and to logical consistency, since the physis would not have been torn apart in making the distinction between the hypostases. But in his statement of faith, he has exchanged the true and scriptural use of the term "Father"—entrusted to us by the Word Himself—and speaks of the Ungenerate instead of the Father. He does this so that by separating Him from the close relationship toward the Son that is naturally conceived in the title "Father," he may place Him on a common level with all created objects, which equally stand in opposition to the ungenerate. He says: "Truly begotten before the worlds." Let him say of whom He is begotten. He will answer, of course, "Of the Father," unless he is prepared to shamelessly contradict the truth. But since it is impossible to separate the eternity of the Son from the eternal Father—seeing that the term "Father" by its very meaning implies the Son—for this reason he rejects the title "Father" and shifts his phrase to "ungenerate." The meaning of this latter name has no sort of relation or connection with the Son, and by misleading his readers through substituting one term for the other so they do not contemplate the Son along with the Father, he opens up a path for his sophistry, paving the way of impiety by slipping in the term "ungenerate." Those who, according to the Lord's ordinance, believe in the Father hear the name "Father" and receive the Son along with Him in their thought, as the mind passes from the Son to the Father without treading on an insubstantial vacuum between them. But those who are diverted to the title "ungenerate" instead of "Father" get a bare notion of this name, learning only the fact that He did not at any time come into being, not that He is Father. Still, even with this mode of conception, the faith of those who read with discernment remains free from confusion. The expression "not to come into being" is used in an identical sense of all uncreated nature, and Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equally uncreated. It has always been believed by those who follow the Divine word that all the creation, both sensible and supramundane, derives its existence from the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Whoever has heard that "by the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth" understands "word" not as mere utterance, nor "breath" as mere exhalation, but frames from what is said there the conception of God the Word and of the Spirit of God. Now, to create and to be created are not equivalent. All existing things are divided into that which makes and that which is made, and each is different in physis from the other, so that neither is that which is made uncreated, nor is that which produces the things that are made created. Those who, according to the exposition of the faith given us by our Lord Himself, have believed in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, acknowledge that each of these hypostases is alike unoriginate, and the meaning conveyed by "ungenerate" does no harm to their sound belief. But to those who are dense and imprecise, this term serves as a starting point for deflection from sound doctrine. Not understanding the true force of the term—that "ungenerate" signifies nothing more than not having come into being, and that not coming into being is a common property of all that transcends created nature—they drop their faith in the Father and substitute for "Father" the phrase "ungenerate." Since, as has been said, the personal existence of the Only-Begotten is not implied in this name, they determine that the existence of the Son commenced from some definite beginning in time, affirming—as Eunomius here adds to his previous statements—that He is called Son not without generation preceding His existence.

Since, then, these kinds of generation, those, I mean, which arise as the result of some cause, and are recognized in our every-day experience, are also employed by Holy Scripture to convey its teaching concerning transcendent mysteries in such wise as each of them may reasonably be transferred to the expression of divine conceptions, we may now proceed to examine Eunomius' statement also, to find in what sense he accepts the meaning of generation. Very Son, he says, not ungenerate, verily begotten before the worlds. One may, I think, pass quickly over the violence done to logical sequence in his distinction, as being easily recognizable by all. For who does not know that while the proper opposition is between Father and Son, between generate and ungenerate, he thus passes over the term Father and sets ungenerate in opposition to Son, whereas he ought, if he had any concern for truth, to have avoided diverting his phrase from the due sequence of relationship, and to have said, Very Son, not Father? And in this way due regard would have been paid at once to piety and to logical consistency, as the nature would not have been rent asunder in making the distinction between the persons. But he has exchanged in his statement of his faith the true and scriptural use of the term Father, committed to us by the Word Himself, and speaks of the Ungenerate instead of the Father, in order that by separating Him from that close relationship towards the Son which is naturally conceived of in the title of Father, he may place Him on a common level with all created objects, which equally stand in opposition to the ungenerate. Verily begotten, he says, before the worlds. Let him say of Whom He is begotten. He will answer, of course, Of the Father, unless he is prepared unblushingly to contradict the truth. But since it is impossible to detach the eternity of the Son from the eternal Father, seeing that the term Father by its very signification implies the Son, for this reason it is that he rejects the title Father and shifts his phrase to ungenerate, since the meaning of this latter name has no sort of relation or connection with the Son, and by thus misleading his readers through the substitution of one term for the other, into not contemplating the Son along with the Father, he opens up a path for his sophistry, paving the way of impiety by slipping in the term ungenerate. For they who according to the ordinance of the Lord believe in the Father, when they hear the name of the Father, receive the Son along with Him in their thought, as the mind passes from the Son to the Father, without treading on an unsubstantial vacuum interposed between them. But those who are diverted to the title ungenerate instead of Father, get a bare notion of this name, learning only the fact that He did not at any time come into being, not that He is Father. Still, even with this mode of conception, the faith of those who read with discernment remains free from confusion. For the expression not to come into being is used in an identical sense of all uncreated nature: and Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are equally uncreated. For it has ever been believed by those who follow the Divine word that all the creation, sensible and supramundane, derives its existence from the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. He who has heard that by the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth, neither understands by word mere utterance, nor by breath mere exhalation, but by what is there said frames the conception of God the Word and of the Spirit of God. Now to create and to be created are not equivalent, but all existent things being divided into that which makes and that which is made, each is different in nature from the other, so that neither is that uncreated which is made, nor is that created which effects the production of the things that are made. By those then who, according to the exposition of the faith given us by our Lord Himself, have believed in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, it is acknowledged that each of these Persons is alike unoriginate, and the meaning conveyed by ungenerate does no harm to their sound belief: but to those who are dense and indefinite this term serves as a starting-point for deflection from sound doctrine. For not understanding the true force of the term, that ungenerate signifies nothing more than not having come into being, and that not coming into being is a common property of all that transcends created nature, they drop their faith in the Father, and substitute for Father the phrase ungenerate: and since, as has been said, the Personal existence of the Only-begotten is not connoted in this name, they determine the existence of the Son to have commenced from some definite beginning in time, affirming (what Eunomius here adds to his previous statements) that He is called Son not without generation preceding His existence.

What is this empty wordplay? Does he realize he is speaking about God, Who was in the beginning and is in the Father, and there was never a time when He did not exist? He does not know what he is saying or what he is claiming. Instead, as if he were tracing the family tree of an ordinary human being, he tries to apply to the Lord of all creation language that properly belongs to our earthly nature. For instance, Ishmael did not exist before the generation that brought him into being, and before his birth there was naturally an interval of time. But with the One who is the brightness of glory, before and after have no place. Before the brightness, there was no glory either, because glory and its brightness exist together at the same time. It is impossible in the nature of things for one to be separated from the other, and it is impossible to see the glory by itself before its brightness. Anyone who claims this would be making the glory itself dark and dim if its brightness does not shine out simultaneously. But this is the dishonest method of the heresy: to try, through the concepts and terms used about the Only-Begotten God, to remove Him from His oneness with the Father. For this purpose they say, "Before the generation that brought Him into being, He was not Son." But are not the sons of rams, of whom the prophet speaks, also called sons only after coming into being? The quality that reason observes in the sons of rams—that they are not sons of rams before the generation that brings them into being—this our reverend teacher now attributes to the Maker of the worlds and of all creation, Who has the Eternal Father in Himself and is contemplated in the eternity of the Father, as He Himself says, "I am in the Father, and the Father in Me." Those who cannot detect the deception lurking in his statement and are not trained in any kind of logical thinking follow these illogical statements and accept what comes next as a logical consequence of what preceded. For he says He came into being before all creation, and as if this were not enough to prove his impiety, he has another piece of blasphemy in reserve in the phrase that follows, when he calls the Son not uncreated. In what sense, then, does he call the One who is not uncreated true Son? For if it is fitting to call the One who is not uncreated true Son, then of course the heaven is true Son, since it too is not uncreated. So the sun too is true Son, and everything the creation contains, both small and great, would naturally be entitled to the name of true Son. And in what sense does he call the One who has come into being Only-Begotten? For all things that come into being are undoubtedly brothers to each other, at least as far as their coming into being is concerned. And from whom did He come into being? For surely all things that have ever come into being did so from the Son. For this is what John testified, saying, "All things were made by Him." If the Son also came into being, according to Eunomius' creed, He is certainly ranked among the things that have come into being. If all things that came into being were made by Him, and the Word is one of the things that came into being, who is so slow-witted as not to draw from these premises the absurd conclusion that our new creed-maker claims the Lord of creation was His own work, by saying in so many words that the Lord and Maker of all creation is not uncreated? Let him tell us where he gets this bold assertion. From what inspired utterance? What evangelist, what apostle ever spoke such words as these? What prophet, what lawgiver, what patriarch, what other person among all who were divinely moved by the Holy Spirit, whose words are preserved in writing, ever originated such a statement as this? In the tradition of the faith delivered by the Truth we are taught to believe in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If it were right to believe the Son was created, why did the Truth, in delivering this mystery to us, command us to believe in the Son and not in the creature? And how is it that the inspired Apostle, himself worshiping Christ, declares that those who worship the creature besides the Creator are guilty of idolatry? For if the Son were created, either he would not have worshiped Him, or he would have avoided classifying those who worship the creature as idolaters, lest he himself appear to be an idolater by offering worship to the created. But he knew that the One he worshiped was God over all, for this is how he describes the Son in his Epistle to the Romans. Why then do those who separate the Son from the ousia of the Father and call Him a creature bestow on Him in mockery the fake title of Deity, pointlessly conferring on one alien from true Divinity the name of God, as they might confer it on Bel or Dagon or the Dragon? Therefore, let those who claim He is created acknowledge that He is not God at all, so they may be seen to be nothing but disguised Jews. Or if they confess that one who is created is God, let them not deny that they are idolaters.

What is this vain juggling with words? Is he aware that it is God of Whom he speaks, Who was in the beginning and is in the Father, nor was there any time when He was not? He knows not what he says nor whereof he affirms, but he endeavours, as though he were constructing the pedigree of a mere man, to apply to the Lord of all creation the language which properly belongs to our nature here below. For, to take an example, Ishmael was not before the generation that brought him into being, and before his birth there was of course an interval of time. But with Him Who is the brightness of glory, before and after have no place: for before the brightness, of course neither was there any glory, for concurrently with the existence of the glory there assuredly beams forth its brightness; and it is impossible in the nature of things that one should be severed from the other, nor is it possible to see the glory by itself before its brightness. For he who says thus will make out the glory in itself to be dark and dim, if the brightness from it does not shine out at the same time. But this is the unfair method of the heresy, to endeavour, by the notions and terms employed concerning the Only-begotten God, to displace Him from His oneness with the Father. It is to this end they say, Before the generation that brought Him into being He was not Son: but the sons of rams, of whom the prophet speaks — are not they too called sons after coming into being? That quality, then, which reason notices in the sons of rams, that they are not sons of rams before the generation which brings them into being — this our reverend divine now ascribes to the Maker of the worlds and of all creation, Who has the Eternal Father in Himself, and is contemplated in the eternity of the Father, as He Himself says, I am in the Father, and the Father in Me. Those, however, who are not able to detect the sophistry that lurks in his statement, and are not trained to any sort of logical perception, follow these inconsequent statements and receive what comes next as a logical consequence of what preceded. For he says, coming into being before all creation, and as though this were not enough to prove his impiety, he has a piece of profanity in reserve in the phrase that follows, when he terms the Son not uncreate. In what sense then does he call Him Who is not uncreate very Son? For if it is meet to call Him Who is not uncreate very Son, then of course the heaven is very Son; for it too is not uncreate. So the sun too is very Son, and all that the creation contains, both small and great, are of course entitled to the appellation of very Son. And in what sense does He call Him Who has come into being Only-begotten? For all things that come into being are unquestionably in brotherhood with each other, so far, I mean, as their coming into being is concerned. And from whom did He come into being? For assuredly all things that have ever come into being did so from the Son. For thus did John testify, saying, All things were made by Him. If then the Son also came into being, according to Eunomius' creed, He is certainly ranked in the class of things which have come into being. If then all things that came into being were made by Him, and the Word is one of the things that came into being, who is so dull as not to draw from these premises the absurd conclusion that our new creed-monger makes out the Lord of creation to have been His own work, in saying in so many words that the Lord and Maker of all creation is not uncreate? Let him tell us whence he has this boldness of assertion. From what inspired utterance? What evangelist, what apostle ever uttered such words as these? What prophet, what lawgiver, what patriarch, what other person of all who were divinely moved by the Holy Ghost, whose voices are preserved in writing, ever originated such a statement as this? In the tradition of the faith delivered by the Truth we are taught to believe in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If it were right to believe that the Son was created, how was it that the Truth in delivering to us this mystery bade us believe in the Son, and not in the creature? And how is it that the inspired Apostle, himself adoring Christ, lays it down that they who worship the creature besides the Creator are guilty of idolatry? For, were the Son created, either he would not have worshipped Him, or he would have refrained from classing those who worship the creature along with idolaters, lest he himself should appear to be an idolater, in offering adoration to the created. But he knew that He Whom he adored was God over all Romans 9:5, for so he terms the Son in his Epistle to the Romans. Why then do those who divorce the Son from the essence of the Father, and call Him creature, bestow on Him in mockery the fictitious title of Deity, idly conferring on one alien from true Divinity the name of God, as they might confer it on Bel or Dagon or the Dragon? Let those, therefore, who affirm that He is created, acknowledge that He is not God at all, that they may be seen to be nothing but Jews in disguise, or, if they confess one who is created to be God, let them not deny that they are idolaters.

But of course they bring forward the passage in the book of Proverbs which says, "The Lord created Me as the beginning of His ways, for His works." Now it would require a lengthy discussion to explain fully the real meaning of the passage, but it would still be possible even in a few words to convey the intended thought to well-disposed readers. Some of those who are accurately versed in theology do say this: that the Hebrew text does not read "created," and we ourselves have read in more ancient copies "possessed" instead of "created." Now certainly "possession" in the allegorical language of the Proverbs marks that slave who for our sakes took upon himself the form of a slave. But if anyone should allege in this passage the reading which prevails in the Churches, we do not reject even the expression "created." For this also in allegorical language is intended to connote the slave, since, as the Apostle tells us, all creation is in bondage. Thus we say that this expression, as well as the other, admits of an orthodox interpretation. For he who for our sakes became like as we are was in the last days truly created—he who in the beginning being Word and God afterwards became flesh and man. For the nature of flesh is created, and by partaking in it in all points like as we do, yet without sin, he was created when he became man, and he was created after God, not after man, as the Apostle says, in a new manner and not according to human custom. For we are taught that this new man was created—albeit of the Holy Spirit and of the power of the Highest—whom Paul, the hierophant of unspeakable mysteries, bids us to put on, using two phrases to express the garment that is to be put on, saying in one place, "Put on the new man which after God is created," and in another, "Put on the Lord Jesus Christ." For thus it is that he who said "I am the Way" becomes to us who have put him on the beginning of the ways of salvation, that he may make us the work of his own hands, newly modeling us from the evil mold of sin once more to his own image. He is at once our foundation before the world to come, according to the words of Paul, who says, "Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid," and it is true that before the springs of the waters came forth, before the mountains were settled, before he made the depths, and before all hills, he begets me. For it is possible, according to the usage of the book of Proverbs, for each of these phrases, taken in a figurative sense, to be applied to the Word. For the great David calls righteousness the mountains of God, his judgments deeps, and the teachers in the Churches fountains, saying "Bless God the Lord from the fountains of Israel," and guilelessness he calls hills, as he shows when he speaks of their skipping like lambs. Before these therefore is born in us he who for our sakes was created as man, that of these things also the creation may find place in us. But we may, I think, pass from the discussion of these points, inasmuch as the truth has been sufficiently pointed out in a few words to well-disposed readers; let us proceed to what Eunomius says next.

But of course they bring forward the passage in the book of Proverbs which says, The Lord created Me as the beginning of His ways, for His works. Now it would require a lengthy discussion to explain fully the real meaning of the passage: still it would be possible even in a few words to convey to well-disposed readers the thought intended. Some of those who are accurately versed in theology do say this, that the Hebrew text does not read created, and we have ourselves read in more ancient copies possessed instead of created. Now assuredly possession in the allegorical language of the Proverbs marks that slave Who for our sakes took upon Him the form of a slave Philippians 2:7. But if any one should allege in this passage the reading which prevails in the Churches, we do not reject even the expression created. For this also in allegorical language is intended to connote the slave, since, as the Apostle tells us, all creation is in bondage Romans 8:20-1. Thus we say that this expression, as well as the other, admits of an orthodox interpretation. For He Who for our sakes became like as we are, was in the last days truly created — He Who in the beginning being Word and God afterwards became Flesh and Man. For the nature of flesh is created: and by partaking in it in all points like as we do, yet without sin, He was created when He became man: and He was created after God Ephesians 4:24, not after man, as the Apostle says, in a new manner and not according to human wont. For we are taught that this new man was created — albeit of the Holy Ghost and of the power of the Highest — whom Paul, the hierophant of unspeakable mysteries, bids us to put on, using two phrases to express the garment that is to be put on, saying in one place, Put on the new man which after God is created Ephesians 4:24, and in another, Put on the Lord Jesus Christ Romans 13:14. For thus it is that He, Who said I am the Way, becomes to us who have put Him on the beginning of the ways of salvation, that He may make us the work of His own hands, new modelling us from the evil mould of sin once more to His own image. He is at once our foundation before the world to come, according to the words of Paul, who says, Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid 1 Corinthians 3:11, and it is true that before the springs of the waters came forth, before the mountains were settled, before He made the depths, and before all hills, He begets Me. For it is possible, according to the usage of the Book of Proverbs, for each of these phrases, taken in a tropical sense, to be applied to the Word. For the great David calls righteousness the mountains of God, His judgments deeps, and the teachers in the Churches fountains, saying Bless God the Lord from the fountains of Israel; and guilelessness he calls hills, as he shows when he speaks of their skipping like lambs. Before these therefore is born in us He Who for our sakes was created as man, that of these things also the creation may find place in us. But we may, I think, pass from the discussion of these points, inasmuch as the truth has been sufficiently pointed out in a few words to well-disposed readers; let us proceed to what Eunomius says next.

He says the Son existed in the Beginning, not without beginning. How does this man, who prides himself on his superior insight, understand God's words? He declares that the One who was in the beginning has a beginning himself, yet he fails to realize that if the One who is in the beginning has a beginning, then the Beginning itself must have another beginning. Whatever he says about the beginning, he must necessarily say about the One who was in the beginning, for how can what is in the beginning be separated from the beginning? And how can anyone imagine a "was not" before the "was"? No matter how far back someone pushes their thinking to grasp the beginning, they must certainly understand that the Word who was in the beginning (since it cannot be separated from the beginning in which it exists) never at any point in time either begins or ceases to exist there. Yet no one should be led by my words to divide into two the one beginning we acknowledge. The beginning is certainly one, and in it is discerned, indivisibly, the Word who is completely united to the Father. Anyone who thinks this way will never give heresy an opening to damage their piety with the novel term "ungenerate." But in Eunomius' next statements, his words are like bread heavily mixed with sand. By mixing his heretical opinions with sound doctrines, he makes even what is nutritious inedible because of the gravel he has mixed into it. He calls the Lord living wisdom, operative truth, subsistent power, and life—this far is the nutritious portion. But into these claims he pours the poison of heresy. When he speaks of the life as generate, he makes a reservation by implying opposition to the ungenerate life, and does not affirm that the Son is Life itself. Next he says: As Son of God, quickening the dead, the true light, the light that gives light to every person coming into the world, good, and the giver of good things. All these things he offers like honey to the simple-minded, hiding his deadly drug beneath the sweetness of such terms. For he immediately introduces, right after these statements, his destructive principle in these words: Not sharing with the one who begot him his high estate, not dividing with another the essence of the Father, but becoming through generation glorious, yes, the Lord of glory, and receiving glory from the Father, not sharing his glory with the Father, for the glory of the Almighty cannot be shared, as he has said, "My glory I will not give to another." These are his deadly poisons, which only those who have trained their souls' senses can detect. But the lethal harm of the words is revealed by their conclusion: Receiving glory from the Father, not sharing glory with the Father, for the glory of the Almighty cannot be shared, as he has said, "My glory I will not give to another." Who is this "another" to whom God has said he will not give his glory? The prophet speaks of God's adversary, but Eunomius applies the prophecy to the only-begotten God himself! When the prophet, speaking as God, said "My glory I will not give to another," he added, "nor my praise to graven images." When people were deceived into offering to God's adversary the worship and adoration due to God alone, honoring God's enemy in the forms of graven images, as he appeared in many shapes among people through idols, the One who heals the sick, in pity for humanity's ruin, foretold through the prophet the loving-kindness he would show in later days by abolishing idols, saying: When my truth has been revealed, my glory will no longer be given to another, nor my praise bestowed on graven images, for when people come to know my glory, they will no longer be enslaved to those who by nature are not gods. So everything the prophet says in the Lord's voice about the power of the adversary, this opponent of God, Eunomius applies to the Lord himself, who spoke these words through the prophet! Which of the tyrants is recorded to have been such a persecutor of the faith as this? Who maintained such blasphemy as this—that the One who, as we believe, was manifested in the flesh for our souls' salvation is not truly God, but God's adversary, who carries out his deception against people through idols and graven images? For what was said by the prophet about that adversary, Eunomius transfers to the only-begotten God, without even considering that it is the Only-begotten himself who spoke these words through the prophet, as Eunomius himself later admits when he says, "this is the One who spoke through the prophets."

Existing in the Beginning, he says, not without beginning. In what fashion does he who plumes himself on his superior discernment understand the oracles of God? He declares Him Who was in the beginning Himself to have a beginning: and is not aware that if He Who is in the beginning has a beginning, then the Beginning itself must needs have another beginning. Whatever He says of the beginning he must necessarily confess to be true of Him Who was in the beginning: for how can that which is in the beginning be severed from the beginning? And how can any one imagine a was not as preceding the was? For however far one carries back one's thought to apprehend the beginning, one most certainly understands as one does so that the Word which was in the beginning (inasmuch as It cannot be separated from the beginning in which It is) does not at any point of time either begin or cease its existence therein. Yet let no one be induced by these words of mine to separate into two the one beginning we acknowledge. For the beginning is most assuredly one, wherein is discerned, indivisibly, that Word Who is completely united to the Father. He who thus thinks will never leave heresy a loophole to impair his piety by the novelty of the term ungenerate. But in Eunomius' next propositions his statements are like bread with a large admixture of sand. For by mixing his heretical opinions with sound doctrines, he makes uneatable even that which is in itself nutritious, by the gravel which he has mingled with it. For he calls the Lord living wisdom, operative truth, subsistent power, and life:– so far is the nutritious portion. But into these assertions he instils the poison of heresy. For when he speaks of the life as generate he makes a reservation by the implied opposition to the ungenerate life, and does not affirm the Son to be the very Life. Next he says:– As Son of God, quickening the dead, the true light, the light that lightens every man coming into the world, good, and the bestower of good things. All these things he offers for honey to the simple-minded, concealing his deadly drug under the sweetness of terms like these. For he immediately introduces, on the heels of these statements, his pernicious principle, in the words Not partitioning with Him that begot Him His high estate, not dividing with another the essence of the Father, but becoming by generation glorious, yea, the Lord of glory, and receiving glory from the Father, not sharing His glory with the Father, for the glory of the Almighty is incommunicable, as He has said, 'My glory will I not give to another. Isaiah 42:8 ' These are his deadly poisons, which they alone can discover who have their souls' senses trained so to do: but the mortal mischief of the words is disclosed by their conclusion:– Receiving glory from the Father, not sharing glory with the Father, for the glory of the Almighty is incommunicable, as He has said, 'My glory will I not give to another.' Who is that other to whom God has said that He will not give His glory? The prophet speaks of the adversary of God, and Eunomius refers the prophecy to the only begotten God Himself! For when the prophet, speaking in the person of God, had said, My glory will I not give to another, he added, neither My praise to graven images. For when men were beguiled to offer to the adversary of God the worship and adoration due to God alone, paying homage in the representations of graven images to the enemy of God, who appeared in many shapes among men in the forms furnished by idols, He Who heals them that are sick, in pity for men's ruin, foretold by the prophet the loving-kindness which in the latter days He would show in the abolishing of idols, saying, When My truth shall have been manifested, My glory shall no more be given to another, nor My praise bestowed upon graven images: for men, when they come to know My glory, shall no more be in bondage to them that by nature are no gods. All therefore that the prophet says in the person of the Lord concerning the power of the adversary, this fighter against God, refers to the Lord Himself, Who spoke these words by the prophet! Who among the tyrants is recorded to have been such a persecutor of the faith as this? Who maintained such blasphemy as this, that He Who, as we believe, was manifested in the flesh for the salvation of our souls, is not very God, but the adversary of God, who puts his guile into effect against men by the instrumentality of idols and graven images? For it is what was said of that adversary by the prophet that Eunomius transfers to the only-begotten God, without so much as reflecting that it is the Only-begotten Himself Who spoke these words by the prophet, as Eunomius himself subsequently confesses when he says, this is He Who spoke by the prophets.

Why should I go into this part of the subject in more detail? The words that come before are also tainted with the same profanity—receiving glory from the Father, not sharing glory with the Father, because the glory of the Almighty God is incommunicable. For my part, even if his words referred to Moses who was glorified in the ministry of the Law, I still would not tolerate such a statement, even if we granted that Moses, having no glory from within himself, appeared completely glorious to the Israelites through the favor God bestowed on him. For the very glory that was given to the lawgiver was the glory of none other than God Himself, and this is the glory the Lord in the Gospel commands everyone to seek when He criticizes those who value human glory highly and do not seek the glory that comes from God alone. By commanding them to seek the glory that comes from the only God, He declared that they could obtain what they sought. How then is the glory of the Almighty incommunicable if it is even our duty to ask for the glory that comes from the only God, and if, according to our Lord's word, everyone who asks receives? But someone who says concerning the Brightness of the Father's glory that He has the glory by having received it is in effect saying that the Brightness of the glory is in Itself devoid of glory and needs to receive glory from another in order to finally become the Lord of some glory. How then are we to deal with the utterances of the Truth—one that tells us that He shall be seen in the glory of the Father, and another that says, All things that the Father has are Mine? To whom should the hearer listen? To the one who says that He who is, as the Apostle says, the heir of all things that are in the Father, has no part or share in His Father's glory? Or to Him who declares that all things that the Father has, He Himself also has? Now among all things, glory is surely included. Yet Eunomius says that the glory of the Almighty is incommunicable. This view is not supported by Joel, nor by the mighty Peter, who adopted the language of the prophet in his speech to the Jews. For both the prophet and the apostle say, in the person of God, I will pour out of My Spirit upon all flesh. He then who did not refuse the partaking in His own Spirit to all flesh—how can it be that He does not give His own glory to the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, who has all things that the Father has? Perhaps one should say that Eunomius is here speaking the truth, though not intending it. For the term impart is strictly used in the case of someone who does not have his glory from within, whose possession of it comes from outside and is not part of his own nature. But where one and the same nature is observed in both Persons, He who is by nature everything that the Father is believed to be stands in no need of someone to impart to Him each individual attribute. This should be explained more clearly and precisely. He who has the Father dwelling in Him in His entirety—what need does He have of the Father's glory when none of the attributes contemplated in the Father is withdrawn from Him?

Why should I pursue this part of the subject in more detail? For the words preceding also are tainted with the same profanity — receiving glory from the Father, not sharing glory with the Father, for the glory of the Almighty God is incommunicable. For my own part, even had his words referred to Moses who was glorified in the ministration of the Law, — not even then should I have tolerated such a statement, even if it be conceded that Moses, having no glory from within, appeared completely glorious to the Israelites by the favour bestowed on him from God. For the very glory that was bestowed on the lawgiver was the glory of none other but of God Himself, which glory the Lord in the Gospel bids all to seek, when He blames those who value human glory highly and seek not the glory that comes from God only. For by the fact that He commanded them to seek the glory that comes from the only God, He declared the possibility of their obtaining what they sought. How then is the glory of the Almighty incommunicable, if it is even our duty to ask for the glory that comes from the only God, and if, according to our Lord's word, every one that asks receives? But one who says concerning the Brightness of the Father's glory, that He has the glory by having received it, says in effect that the Brightness of the glory is in Itself devoid of glory, and needs, in order to become Himself at last the Lord of some glory, to receive glory from another. How then are we to dispose of the utterances of the Truth, — one which tells us that He shall be seen in the glory of the Father Mark 8:38, and another which says, All things that the Father has are Mine? To whom ought the hearer to give ear? To him who says, He that is, as the Apostle says, the 'heir of all things Hebrews 1:2 ' that are in the Father, is without part or lot in His Father's glory; or to Him Who declares that all things that the Father has, He Himself has also? Now among the all things, glory surely is included. Yet Eunomius says that the glory of the Almighty is incommunicable. This view Joel does not attest, nor yet the mighty Peter, who adopted, in his speech to the Jews, the language of the prophet. For both the prophet and the apostle say, in the person of God — I will pour out of My Spirit upon all flesh Joel 2:28; Acts 2:17. He then Who did not grudge the partaking in His own Spirit to all flesh — how can it be that He does not impart His own glory to the only-begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father, Who has all things that the Father has? Perhaps one should say that Eunomius is here speaking the truth, though not intending it. For the term impart is strictly used in the case of one who has not his glory from within, whose possession of it is an accession from without, and not part of his own nature: but where one and the same nature is observed in both Persons, He Who is as regards nature all that the Father is believed to be stands in no need of one to impart to Him each several attribute. This it will be well to explain more clearly and precisely. He Who has the Father dwelling in Him in His entirety — what need has He of the Father's glory, when none of the attributes contemplated in the Father is withdrawn from Him?

What, then, is this high estate of the Almighty that Eunomius claims the Son does not share? Let those who are wise in their own eyes and prudent in their own sight utter their earthly opinions—those who, as the prophet says, speak out of the ground. But let us who reverence the Word and are disciples of the Truth, or at least claim to be, not leave even this statement unexamined. We know that among all the names indicating Deity, some express the Divine majesty, used and understood in absolute terms, while others refer to God's activities toward us and all creation. When the Apostle says "Now to the immortal, invisible, only wise God," and similar things, these titles suggest ideas that represent transcendent power to us. But when Scripture speaks of God as gracious, merciful, full of pity, true, good, Lord, Physician, Shepherd, Way, Bread, Fountain, King, Creator, Artificer, Protector, who is over all and through all, who is all in all—these and similar titles declare the operations of Divine loving-kindness in creation. Those who carefully examine the meaning of the term "Almighty" will find that it declares nothing else about Divine power than that activity which controls created things. The operation indicated by the word "Almighty" stands in a certain relation to something. For just as He would not be called a Physician except on account of the sick, nor merciful and gracious except because of one who needs grace and mercy, so He would not be called Almighty if all creation did not need someone to regulate it and keep it in being. Just as He presents Himself as a Physician to those needing healing, so He is Almighty over one who needs to be ruled. And just as the healthy have no need of a physician, it follows that we may rightly say that He whose physis contains within it the principle of unerring and unwavering rectitude does not, like others, need a ruler over Him. Therefore, when we hear the name "Almighty," our understanding is this: God sustains in being all intelligible things as well as all material things. For this reason He sits upon the circle of the earth, for this reason He holds the ends of the earth in His hand, for this reason He measures heaven with the span and measures the waters in the hollow of His hand. For this reason He comprehends in Himself all the intelligible creation, so that all things may remain in existence, controlled by His encompassing power. Let us ask, then: Who is it that works all in all? Who is He who made all things, and without whom nothing that exists came into existence? Who is He in whom all things were created, and in whom all existing things have their continuance? In whom do we live and move and have our being? Who is He who has in Himself all that the Father has? Does what has been said leave us any longer ignorant of Him who is God over all—so titled by Saint Paul—our Lord Jesus Christ, who, as He Himself says, holding in His hand all things that the Father has, surely grasps all things in the all-containing hollow of His hand and is sovereign over what He has grasped, and no one takes from the hand of Him who in His hand holds all things? If, then, He has all things and is sovereign over what He has, why is He who is sovereign over all things something else and not Almighty? If heresy replies that the Father is sovereign over both the Son and the Holy Spirit, let them first show that the Son and the Holy Spirit are of mutable physis, and then over this mutability let them set its ruler, so that through the help given from above, what is so ruled may remain incapable of turning to evil. If, on the other hand, the Divine physis is incapable of evil, unchangeable, unalterable, eternally permanent, to what end does it need a ruler, since it controls all creation and itself, by reason of its immutability, needs no ruler to control it? For this reason, at the name of Christ every knee bows—in heaven, on earth, and under the earth. Surely every knee would not bow this way if it did not recognize in Christ Him who rules it for its own salvation. But to say that the Son came into being by the goodness of the Father is nothing other than to place Him on the same level as the lowest objects of creation. For what is there that did not come to birth through the goodness of Him who made it? To what do we attribute the formation of humanity? To the badness of its Maker, or to His goodness? To what do we attribute the generation of animals, the production of plants and herbs? Nothing came into existence except from the goodness of Him who made it. So a property that reason recognizes as common to all things, Eunomius generously permits to the Eternal Son! But his claims that the Son did not share the Father's ousia or estate—these statements and the rest of his rambling I have already refuted when dealing with his statements about the Father, showing that he has made them recklessly and without any intelligible meaning. For not even in our case, when we are born one from another, is there any division of ousia. The definition expressing ousia remains complete in each person, in the one who begets and in the one who is begotten, admitting no diminution in the one who begets or increase in the one who is begotten. But to speak of division of estate or sovereignty in the case of Him who has all things whatsoever that the Father has carries no meaning, unless it demonstrates the speaker's impiety. It would therefore be pointless to get entangled in such discussions and prolong our treatise to an unreasonable length. Let us move on to what follows.

What, moreover, is the high estate of the Almighty in which Eunomius affirms that the Son has no share? Let those, then, who are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight Isaiah 5:21, utter their groundling opinions — they who, as the prophet says, speak out of the ground Isaiah 29:4. But let us who reverence the Word and are disciples of the Truth, or rather who profess to be so, not leave even this assertion unsifted. We know that of all the names by which Deity is indicated some are expressive of the Divine majesty, employed and understood absolutely, and some are assigned with reference to the operations over us and all creation. For when the Apostle says Now to the immortal, invisible, only wise God, and the like, by these titles he suggests conceptions which represent to us the transcendent power, but when God is spoken of in the Scriptures as gracious, merciful, full of pity, true, good, Lord, Physician, Shepherd, Way, Bread, Fountain, King, Creator, Artificer, Protector, Who is over all and through all, Who is all in all, these and similar titles contain the declaration of the operations of the Divine loving-kindness in the creation. Those then who enquire precisely into the meaning of the term Almighty will find that it declares nothing else concerning the Divine power than that operation which controls created things and is indicated by the word Almighty, stands in a certain relation to something. For as He would not be called a Physician, save on account of the sick, nor merciful and gracious, and the like, save by reason of one who stood in need of grace and mercy, so neither would He be styled Almighty, did not all creation stand in need of one to regulate it and keep it in being. As, then, He presents Himself as a Physician to those who are in need of healing, so He is Almighty over one who has need of being ruled: and just as they that are whole have no need of a physician, so it follows that we may well say that He Whose nature contains in it the principle of unerring and unwavering rectitude does not, like others, need a ruler over Him. Accordingly, when we hear the name Almighty, our conception is this, that God sustains in being all intelligible things as well as all things of a material nature. For this cause He sits upon the circle of the earth, for this cause He holds the ends of the earth in His hand, for this cause He metes out leaven with the span, and measures the waters in the hollow of His hand; for this cause He comprehends in Himself all the intelligible creation, that all things may remain in existence controlled by His encompassing power. Let us enquire, then, Who it is that works all in all. Who is He Who made all things, and without Whom no existing thing does exist? Who is He in Whom all things were created, and in Whom all things that are have their continuance? In Whom do we live and move and have our being? Who is He Who has in Himself all that the Father has? Does what has been said leave us any longer in ignorance of Him Who is God over all Romans 9:5, Who is so entitled by S. Paul — our Lord Jesus Christ, Who, as He Himself says, holding in His hand all things that the Father has, assuredly grasps all things in the all-containing hollow of His hand and is sovereign over what He has grasped, and no man takes from the hand of Him Who in His hand holds all things? If, then, He has all things, and is sovereign over that which He has, why is He Who is thus sovereign over all things something else and not Almighty? If heresy replies that the Father is sovereign over both the Son and the Holy Spirit, let them first show that the Son and the Holy Spirit are of mutable nature, and then over this mutability let them set its ruler, that by the help implanted from above, that which is so overruled may continue incapable of turning to evil. If, on the other hand, the Divine nature is incapable of evil, unchangeable, unalterable, eternally permanent, to what end does it stand in need of a ruler, controlling as it does all creation, and itself by reason of its immutability needing no ruler to control it? For this cause it is that at the name of Christ every knee bows, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth. For assuredly every knee would not thus bow, did it not recognize in Christ Him Who rules it for its own salvation. But to say that the Son came into being by the goodness of the Father is nothing else than to put Him on a level with the meanest objects of creation. For what is there that did not arrive at its birth by the goodness of Him Who made it? To what is the formation of mankind ascribed? To the badness of its Maker, or to His goodness? To what do we ascribe the generation of animals, the production of plants and herbs? There is nothing that did not take its rise from the goodness of Him Who made it. A property, then, which reason discerns to be common to all things, Eunomius is so kind as to allow to the Eternal Son! But that He did not share His essence or His estate with the Father — these assertions and the rest of his verbiage I have refuted in anticipation, when dealing with his statements concerning the Father, and shown that he has hazarded them at random and without any intelligible meaning. For not even in the case of us who are born one of another is there any division of essence. The definition expressive of essence remains in its entirety in each, in him that begets and in him who is begotten, without admitting diminution in him who begets, or augmentation in him who is begotten. But to speak of division of estate or sovereignty in the case of Him Who has all things whatsoever that the Father has, carries with it no meaning, unless it be a demonstration of the propounder's impiety. It would therefore be superfluous to entangle oneself in such discussions, and so to prolong our treatise to an unreasonable length. Let us pass on to what follows.

Glorified, he says, by the Father before the worlds. The word of truth has been demonstrated and confirmed by the testimony of its adversaries. For this is the essence of our faith: that the Son exists from all eternity, being glorified by the Father. "Before the worlds" means the same thing as "from all eternity," since prophecy uses this phrase to express God's eternity when it speaks of Him as the one who exists from before the worlds. If existing before the worlds is beyond all beginning, then the one who gives glory to the Son before the worlds thereby affirms His existence from eternity before that glory. Surely it is not what does not exist, but what does exist, that is glorified. Then he proceeds to plant seeds of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit—not to glorify the Son, but to insult the Holy Spirit. Intending to make the Holy Spirit part of the angelic host, he adds the phrase "glorified eternally by the Spirit and by every rational and created being," so that there is no distinction between the Holy Spirit and everything that comes into being. That is, the Holy Spirit glorifies the Lord in the same sense as all the other existences listed by the prophet: angels and powers, the heaven of heavens, the water above the heavens, and all earthly things—dragons, deeps, fire and hail, snow and vapor, storm wind, mountains and all hills, fruit trees and all cedars, beasts and all cattle, worms and winged birds. If he says that the Holy Spirit glorifies the Lord along with these things, then his God-opposing tongue makes the Holy Spirit Himself one of them.

Glorified, he says, by the Father before the worlds. The word of truth has been demonstrated, confirmed by the testimony of its adversaries. For this is the sum of our faith, that the Son is from all eternity, being glorified by the Father: for before the worlds is the same in sense as from all eternity, seeing that prophecy uses this phrase to set forth to us God's eternity, when it speaks of Him as He that is from before the worlds. If then to exist before the worlds is beyond all beginning, he who confers glory on the Son before the worlds, does thereby assert His existence from eternity before that glory: for surely it is not the non-existent, but the existent which is glorified. Then he proceeds to plant for himself the seeds of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit; not with a view to glorify the Son, but that he may wantonly outrage the Holy Ghost. For with the intention of making out the Holy Spirit to be part of the angelic host, he throws in the phrase glorified eternally by the Spirit, and by every rational and generated being, so that there is no distinction between the Holy Spirit and all that comes into being; if, that is, the Holy Spirit glorifies the Lord in the same sense as all the other existences enumerated by the prophet, angels and powers, and the heaven of heavens, and the water above the heavens, and all the things of earth, dragons, deeps, fire and hail, snow and vapour, wind of the storm, mountains and all hills, fruitful trees and all cedars, beasts and all cattle, worms and feathered fowls. If, then, he says, that along with these the Holy Spirit also glorifies the Lord, surely his God-opposing tongue makes out the Holy Spirit Himself also to be one of them.

The disconnected inconsistencies that come next I think it best to pass over, not because they offer no opportunity for criticism, but because their wording could be used by devout people if separated from its malicious context. If he does occasionally use some expressions favorable to devotion, it is merely held out as bait to simple souls, so that the hook of impiety may be swallowed along with it. For after using language that a member of the Church might use, he adds, "Obedient with regard to the creation and production of all things that exist, obedient with regard to every ministry, not having attained Sonship or Godhead through His obedience, but as a consequence of being Son and being generated as the Only-begotten God, showing Himself obedient in words, obedient in acts." Yet who among those familiar with the oracles of God does not know regarding what point in time the mighty Paul said of Him (and that once for all) that He became obedient? For it was when He came in the form of a servant to accomplish the mystery of redemption by the cross, Who had emptied Himself, Who humbled Himself by assuming the likeness and fashion of a man, being found as man in man's lowly nature—then, I say, He became obedient, even He Who took our infirmities and bore our sicknesses, healing the disobedience of men by His own obedience, so that by His stripes He might heal our wound, and by His own death do away with the common death of all people—then it was that for our sakes He was made obedient, just as He became sin and a curse because of the plan for our behalf, not being so by physis but becoming so in His love for humanity. But by what sacred utterance was He ever taught His list of so many obediences? No, on the contrary every inspired Scripture attests His independent and sovereign power, saying, "He spoke the word and they were made; He commanded and they were created"—for it is clear that the Psalmist says this concerning Him Who upholds all things by the word of His power, Whose authority, by the sole impulse of His will, framed every existence and physis, and all things in creation apprehended by reason or by sight. Where, then, was Eunomius led to ascribe in such manifold ways to the King of the universe the attribute of obedience, speaking of Him as obedient with regard to all the work of creation, obedient with regard to every ministry, obedient in words and in acts? Yet it is clear to everyone that he alone is obedient to another in acts and words who has not yet perfectly achieved in himself the condition of accurate working or unexceptionable speech, but keeping his eye always on his teacher and guide, is trained by his suggestions to exact propriety in deed and word. But to think that Wisdom needs a master and teacher to guide Its attempts at imitation correctly is the dream of Eunomius' imagination, and his alone. And concerning the Father he says that He is faithful in words and faithful in works, while of the Son he does not assert faithfulness in word and deed, but only obedience and not faithfulness, so that his profanity extends impartially through all his statements. But it is perhaps right to pass over in silence the thoughtless foolishness of the assertion placed between those last mentioned, lest some unreflective people should laugh at its absurdity when they ought rather to weep over the perdition of their souls than laugh at the folly of their words. For this wise and careful theologian says that He did not attain to being a Son as the result of His obedience! Mark his insight! With what compelling force does he establish for us that He was not first obedient and afterwards a Son, and that we ought not to think that His obedience came before His generation! Now if he had not added this defining clause, who without it would have been sufficiently foolish and idiotic to imagine that His generation was bestowed on Him by His Father as a reward for the obedience of Him Who before His generation had shown due subjection and obedience? But so that no one may too readily extract material for laughter from these remarks, let each consider that even the foolishness of the words has in it something worthy of tears. For what he intends to establish by these observations is something of this kind: that His obedience is part of His physis, so that not even if He willed it would it be possible for Him not to be obedient.

The disjointed incoherencies which follow next, I think it well to pass over, not because they give no handle at all to censure, but because their language is such as might be used by the devout, if detached from its malignant context. If he does here and there use some expressions favourable to devotion it is just held out as a bait to simple souls, to the end that the hook of impiety may be swallowed along with it. For after employing such language as a member of the Church might use, he subjoins, Obedient with regard to the creation and production of all things that are, obedient with regard to every ministration, not having by His obedience attained Sonship or Godhead, but, as a consequence of being Son and being generated as the Only-begotten God, showing Himself obedient in words, obedient in acts. Yet who of those who are conversant with the oracles of God does not know with regard to what point of time it was said of Him by the mighty Paul, (and that once for all), that He became obedient Philippians 2:8? For it was when He came in the form of a servant to accomplish the mystery of redemption by the cross, Who had emptied Himself, Who humbled Himself by assuming the likeness and fashion of a man, being found as man in man's lowly nature — then, I say, it was that He became obedient, even He Who took our infirmities and bare our sicknesses Matthew 8:17, healing the disobedience of men by His own obedience, that by His stripes He might heal our wound, and by His own death do away with the common death of all men — then it was that for our sakes He was made obedient, even as He became sin 2 Corinthians 5:21 and a curse Galatians 3:13 by reason of the dispensation on our behalf, not being so by nature, but becoming so in His love for man. But by what sacred utterance was He ever taught His list of so many obediences? Nay, on the contrary every inspired Scripture attests His independent and sovereign power, saying, He spoke the word and they were made: He commanded and they were created:– for it is plain that the Psalmist says this concerning Him Who upholds all things by the word of His power Hebrews 1:3, Whose authority, by the sole impulse of His will, framed every existence and nature, and all things in the creation apprehended by reason or by sight. Whence, then, was Eunomius moved to ascribe in such manifold wise to the King of the universe the attribute of obedience, speaking of Him as obedient with regard to all the work of creation, obedient with regard to every ministration, obedient in words and in acts? Yet it is plain to every one, that he alone is obedient to another in acts and words, who has not yet perfectly achieved in himself the condition of accurate working or unexceptionable speech, but keeping his eye ever on his teacher and guide, is trained by his suggestions to exact propriety in deed and word. But to think that Wisdom needs a master and teacher to guide aright Its attempts at imitation, is the dream of Eunomius' fancy, and of his alone. And concerning the Father he says, that He is faithful in words and faithful in works, while of the Son he does not assert faithfulness in word and deed, but only obedience and not faithfulness, so that his profanity extends impartially through all his statements. But it is perhaps right to pass in silence over the inconsiderate folly of the assertion interposed between those last mentioned, lest some unreflecting persons should laugh at its absurdity when they ought rather to weep over the perdition of their souls, than laugh at the folly of their words. For this wise and wary theologian says that He did not attain to being a Son as the result of His obedience! Mark his penetration! With what cogent force does he lay it down for us that He was not first obedient and afterwards a Son, and that we ought not to think that His obedience was prior to His generation! Now if he had not added this defining clause, who without it would have been sufficiently silly and idiotic to fancy that His generation was bestowed on Him by His Father, as a reward of the obedience of Him Who before His generation had showed due subjection and obedience? But that no one may too readily extract matter for laughter from these remarks, let each consider that even the folly of the words has in it something worthy of tears. For what he intends to establish by these observations is something of this kind, that His obedience is part of His nature, so that not even if He willed it would it be possible for Him not to be obedient.

Eunomius says that the Son was so constituted that His physis was adapted to obedience alone, just as a tool that is shaped for a certain form necessarily produces in the material subjected to it the form that the craftsman built into the tool. Such a tool cannot possibly trace a straight line on the surface it marks if its own design is curved, nor can a tool fashioned to draw straight lines produce a circle with its impression. There is no need for any words from us to reveal how great the profanity of this notion is, since the heretical statement itself loudly proclaims its monstrosity. For if He was obedient only because He was made that way, then of course He is not on equal footing even with humanity, since according to this theory, while our soul is self-determining and independent, choosing freely with authority over itself whatever pleases it, He on the contrary exercises, or rather experiences, obedience under the constraint of a compulsory law of His physis, while His physis does not allow Him to disobey, even if He wanted to. For it was as a result of being Son and being begotten that He showed Himself obedient in words and obedient in actions. How brutally stupid this doctrine is! You make the Word obedient to words, and you assume other words prior to Him Who is truly the Word, and another Word of the Beginning is mediator between the Beginning and the Word that was in the Beginning, conveying the decision to Him. And this is not just one, but several words, which Eunomius makes into links of a chain between the Beginning and the Word, and which abuse His obedience as they see fit. But why linger over this idle talk? Anyone can see that even at that time to which Paul refers when he says that He became obedient—and he tells us that He became obedient by becoming for our sakes flesh, and a servant, and a curse, and sin—even then, I say, the Lord of glory, who despised the shame and embraced suffering in the flesh, did not abandon His free will, saying as He does, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up," and again, "No man takes My life from Me; I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." And when those who were armed with swords and clubs drew near to Him on the night before His Passion, He caused them all to go backward by saying "I am He," and again, when the dying thief begged Him to remember him, He showed His universal sovereignty by saying, "Today you will be with Me in Paradise." If then not even in the time of His Passion is He separated from His authority, where can heresy possibly discern the subordination to authority of the King of glory?

For he says that He was so constituted that His nature was adapted to obedience alone, just as among instruments that which is fashioned with regard to a certain figure necessarily produces in that which is subjected to its operation the form which the artificer implanted in the construction of the instrument, and cannot possibly trace a straight line upon that which receives its mark, if its own working is in a curve; nor can the instrument, if fashioned to draw a straight line, produce a circle by its impress. What need is there of any words of ours to reveal how great is the profanity of such a notion, when the heretical utterance of itself proclaims aloud its monstrosity? For if He was obedient for this reason only that He was so made, then of course He is not on an equal footing even with humanity, since on this theory, while our soul is self-determining and independent, choosing as it will with sovereignty over itself that which is pleasing to it, He on the contrary exercises, or rather experiences, obedience under the constraint of a compulsory law of His nature, while His nature suffers Him not to disobey, even if He would. For it was as the result of being Son, and being begotten, that He has thus shown Himself obedient in words and obedient in acts. Alas, for the brutish stupidity of this doctrine! You make the Word obedient to words, and suppose other words prior to Him Who is truly the Word, and another Word of the Beginning is mediator between the Beginning and the Word that was in the Beginning, conveying to Him the decision. And this is not one only: there are several words, which Eunomius makes so many links of the chain between the Beginning and the Word, and which abuse His obedience as they think good. But what need is there to linger over this idle talk? Any one can see that even at that time with reference to which S. Paul says that He became obedient (and he tells us that He became obedient in this wise, namely, by becoming for our sakes flesh, and a servant, and a curse, and sin) — even then, I say, the Lord of glory, Who despised the shame and embraced suffering in the flesh, did not abandon His free will, saying as He does, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up; and again, No man takes My life from Me; I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; and when those who were armed with swords and staves drew near to Him on the night before His Passion, He caused them all to go backward by saying I am He John 18:5-6, and again, when the dying thief besought Him to remember him, He showed His universal sovereignty by saying, Today shall you be with Me in Paradise Luke 23:43. If then not even in the time of His Passion He is separated from His authority, where can heresy possibly discern the subordination to authority of the King of glory?

Again, what is this repeated mediation that he assigns to God with tiresome repetition, calling Him Mediator in doctrines, Mediator in the Law? This is not what we are taught by the exalted words of the Apostle, who says that by nullifying the law of commandments through His own teachings, He is the mediator between God and humanity, declaring this by saying, There is one God, and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. By the distinction implied in the word mediator, he reveals to us the entire purpose of the mystery of godliness. The purpose is this: humanity once rebelled through the wickedness of the enemy and, enslaved to sin, was also estranged from the true Life. After this, the Lord of creation calls His own creation back to Himself and becomes human while remaining God, being both God and human in the completeness of the two distinct natures. Thus humanity was inseparably united to God, with the human being in Christ accomplishing the work of mediation. To this human being, through the first-fruits taken on for us, the whole lump is potentially united. Since a mediator is not a mediator of one, and God is one, not divided among the Persons in Whom we have been taught to believe (for the Godhead in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one), the Lord therefore becomes a mediator once and for all between God and humanity, binding humanity to the Deity through Himself. But even from the concept of a mediator we are taught the godly doctrine contained in the Creed. For the Mediator between God and humanity entered into fellowship with human physis (nature), not by merely being considered a human being but by truly becoming one. In the same way, being truly God, He has not, as Eunomius would have us think, been honored with the bare title of Godhead.

Again, what is the manifold mediation which with wearying iteration he assigns to God, calling Him Mediator in doctrines, Mediator in the Law? It is not thus that we are taught by the lofty utterance of the Apostle, who says that having made void the law of commandments by His own doctrines, He is the mediator between God and man, declaring it by this saying, There is one God, and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus; where by the distinction implied in the word mediator he reveals to us the whole aim of the mystery of godliness. Now the aim is this. Humanity once revolted through the malice of the enemy, and, brought into bondage to sin, was also alienated from the true Life. After this the Lord of the creature calls back to Him His own creature, and becomes Man while still remaining God, being both God and Man in the entirety of the two several natures, and thus humanity was indissolubly united to God, the Man that is in Christ conducting the work of mediation, to Whom, by the first-fruits assumed for us, all the lump is potentially united. Since, then, a mediator is not a mediator of one Galatians 3:20, and God is one, not divided among the Persons in Whom we have been taught to believe (for the Godhead in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost is one), the Lord, therefore, becomes a mediator once for all between God and men, binding man to the Deity by Himself. But even by the idea of a mediator we are taught the godly doctrine enshrined in the Creed. For the Mediator between God and man entered as it were into fellowship with human nature, not by being merely deemed a man, but having truly become so: in like manner also, being very God, He has not, as Eunomius will have us consider, been honoured by the bare title of Godhead.

What he adds to the preceding statements shows the same lack of meaning, or rather the same malicious meaning. For in calling Him Son—whom a little before he had plainly declared to be created—and in calling Him only-begotten God—whom he counted with the rest of things that have come into being by creation—he claims that He is like Him who begot Him only by a special likeness, in a peculiar sense. Therefore, we must first distinguish the different meanings of the term "like," examining how many senses it has in ordinary usage, and then proceed to discuss Eunomius' positions. First, then, all things that deceive our senses are not really identical in physis, but create illusion through some of the accidents of the respective subjects—such as form, color, sound, and the impressions conveyed by taste or smell or touch. While really different in physis, but supposed to be other than they truly are, these things are customarily said to have the relation of likeness. For example, when lifeless material is shaped by art—whether by carving, painting, or modeling—into an imitation of a living creature, the imitation is said to be like the original. For in such a case the physis of the animal is one thing, and that of the material, which deceives the sight by mere color and form, is another. To the same class of likeness belongs the image of the original figure in a mirror, which gives appearances of motion without, however, being identical in physis with its original. In just the same way our hearing may experience the same deception—for instance, when someone imitating the song of the nightingale with his own voice persuades our hearing so that we seem to be listening to the bird. Again, taste is subject to the same illusion when the juice of figs mimics the pleasant taste of honey, for there is a certain resemblance to the sweetness of honey in the juice of the fruit. Likewise, the sense of smell may sometimes be imposed upon by resemblance, when the scent of the herb chamomile, imitating the fragrant apple itself, deceives our perception. And in the same way with touch also, likeness belies the truth in various modes, since a silver or brass coin of equal size and similar weight to a gold one may pass for the gold piece if our sight does not discern the truth.

What he adds to the preceding statements is characterized by the same want of meaning, or rather by the same malignity of meaning. For in calling Him Son Whom, a little before, he had plainly declared to be created, and in calling Him only begotten God Whom he reckoned with the rest of things that have come into being by creation, he affirms that He is like Him that begot Him only by a special likeness, in a peculiar sense. Accordingly, we must first distinguish the significations of the term like, in how many senses it is employed in ordinary use, and afterwards proceed to discuss Eunomius' positions. In the first place, then, all things that beguile our senses, not being really identical in nature, but producing illusion by some of the accidents of the respective subjects, as form, color, sound, and the impressions conveyed by taste or smell or touch, while really different in nature, but supposed to be other than they truly are, these custom declares to have the relation of likeness, as, for example, when the lifeless material is shaped by art, whether carving, painting, or modelling, into an imitation of a living creature, the imitation is said to be like the original. For in such a case the nature of the animal is one thing, and that of the material, which cheats the sight by mere color and form, is another. To the same class of likeness belongs the image of the original figure in a mirror, which gives appearances of motion, without, however, being in nature identical with its original. In just the same way our hearing may experience the same deception, when, for instance, some one, imitating the song of the nightingale with his own voice, persuades our hearing so that we seem to be listening to the bird. Taste, again, is subject to the same illusion, when the juice of figs mimics the pleasant taste of honey: for there is a certain resemblance to the sweetness of honey in the juice of the fruit. So, too, the sense of smell may sometimes be imposed upon by resemblance, when the scent of the herb camomile, imitating the fragrant apple itself, deceives our perception: and in the same way with touch also, likeness belies the truth in various modes, since a silver or brass coin, of equal size and similar weight with a gold one, may pass for the gold piece if our sight does not discern the truth.

We have now given a general description in a few words of the various cases in which objects produce delusions in our senses because they are thought to be different from what they really are. Of course, through more thorough investigation, it would be possible to extend this inquiry to cover all things that are actually different in kind from one another but are nevertheless thought to be like one another because of some accidental resemblance. Can it possibly be this sort of likeness that he is constantly attributing to the Son? Surely he cannot be so deluded as to discover deceptive similarity in Him Who is the Truth. Furthermore, in the inspired Scriptures we are told of another kind of resemblance by the One Who said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. But I do not suppose that Eunomius would recognize this kind of likeness between the Father and the Son, so as to make the Only-begotten God identical with man. We also know of another kind of likeness, which the word describes in Genesis concerning Seth: Adam begot a son in his own likeness, after his image. And if this is the kind of likeness Eunomius is talking about, we do not think his statement should be rejected. For in this case the nature of the two objects that are alike is not different, and the impress and type imply a shared nature. These are our views, or something like them, on the various meanings of like. Let us see, then, with what purpose Eunomius asserts that special likeness of the Son to the Father when he says that He is like the Father with a special likeness, in a peculiar sense, not as Father to Father, for they are not two Fathers. He promises to show us the special likeness of the Son to the Father, and proceeds through his definition to establish the position that we should not think of Him as being like. For by saying He is not like as Father to Father, he makes out that He is not like. And again, when he adds nor as Ungenerate to Ungenerate, he likewise forbids us through this phrase to conceive a likeness in the Son to the Father. And finally, by adding nor as Son to Son, he introduces a third idea by which he completely destroys the meaning of like. This is how he follows up his own statements and conducts his demonstration of likeness by establishing unlikeness. Now let us examine the discernment and honesty he displays in these distinctions. After saying that the Son is like the Father, he qualifies the statement by adding that we should not think that the Son is like the Father as Father to Father. But what person on earth is foolish enough that upon learning the Son is like the Father, they would be led by any course of reasoning to think of the likeness of Father to Father? Nor as Son to Son: here again, the sharpness of the distinction is equally obvious. When he tells us that the Son is like the Father, he adds the further definition that He must not be understood to be like Him in the same way as He would be like another Son. These are the mysteries of Eunomius's solemn doctrines, by which his disciples are made wiser than the rest of the world by learning that the Son, by His likeness to the Father, is not like a Son, for the Son is not the Father; nor is He like as Ungenerate to Ungenerate, for the Son is not ungenerate. But the mystery we have received, when it speaks of the Father, certainly directs us to understand the Father of the Son, and when it names the Son, teaches us to understand the Son of the Father. And until now we never felt the need for these philosophical refinements, as if by the words Father and Son we were being given two Fathers or two Sons, a pair, so to speak, of ungenerate beings.

We have thus generally described in a few words the several cases in which objects, because they are deemed to be different from what they really are, produce delusions in our senses. It is possible, of course, by a more laborious investigation, to extend one's enquiry through all things which are really different in kind one from another, but are nevertheless thought, by virtue of some accidental resemblance, to be like one to the other. Can it possibly be such a form of likeness as this, that he is continually attributing to the Son? Nay, surely he cannot be so infatuated as to discover deceptive similarity in Him Who is the Truth. Again, in the inspired Scriptures, we are told of another kind of resemblance by Him Who said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness Genesis 1:26; but I do not suppose that Eunomius would discern this kind of likeness between the Father and the Son, so as to make out the Only-begotten God to be identical with man. We are also aware of another kind of likeness, of which the word speaks in Genesis concerning Seth — Adam begot a son in his own likeness, after his image Genesis 5:3; and if this is the kind of likeness of which Eunomius speaks, we do not think his statement is to be rejected. For in this case the nature of the two objects which are alike is not different, and the impress and type imply community of nature. These, or such as these, are our views upon the variety of meanings of like. Let us see, then, with what intention Eunomius asserts of the Son that special likeness to the Father, when he says that He is like the Father with a special likeness, in a peculiar sense, not as Father to Father, for they are not two Fathers. He promises to show us the special likeness of the Son to the Father, and proceeds by his definition to establish the position that we ought not to conceive of Him as being like. For by saying, He is not like as Father to Father, he makes out that He is not like; and again when he adds, nor as Ungenerate to Ungenerate, by this phrase, too, he forbids us to conceive a likeness in the Son to the Father; and finally, by subjoining nor as Son to Son, he introduces a third conception, by which he entirely subverts the meaning of like. So it is that he follows up his own statements, and conducts his demonstration of likeness by establishing unlikeness. And now let us examine the discernment and frankness which he displays in these distinctions. After saying that the Son is like the Father, he guards the statement by adding that we ought not to think that the Son is like the Father, as Father to Father. Why, what man on earth is such a fool as, on learning that the Son is like the Father, to be brought by any course of reasoning to think of the likeness of Father to Father? Nor as Son to Son: — here, again, the acuteness of the distinction is equally conspicuous. When he tells us that the Son is like the Father, he adds the further definition that He must not be understood to be like Him in the same way as He would be like another Son. These are the mysteries of the awful doctrines of Eunomius, by which his disciples are made wiser than the rest of the world, by learning that the Son, by His likeness to the Father, is not like a Son, for the Son is not the Father: nor is He like as Ungenerate to Ungenerate, for the Son is not ungenerate. But the mystery which we have received, when it speaks of the Father, certainly bids us understand the Father of the Son, and when it names the Son, teaches us to apprehend the Son of the Father. And until the present time we never felt the need of these philosophic refinements, that by the words Father and Son are suggested two Fathers or two Sons, a pair, so to say, of ungenerate beings.

The purpose of Eunomius' excessive focus on the Ungenerate has been explained many times before, but let me briefly state it again. The term "Father" doesn't indicate any difference in physis from the Son. If Eunomius had stopped his argument there, his impiety would have had no basis, since the natural meaning of the names Father and Son rules out the idea that they are alien in ousia. But instead, by using the terms "generate" and "ungenerate," which stand in contradictory opposition with no middle ground—just like mortal and immortal, rational and irrational, and all other terms that exclude each other by the mutually exclusive nature of their meaning—by using these terms, he gives free rein to his profanity. He treats the relationship between the generate and the ungenerate as having the same kind of difference as that between mortal and immortal. Just as mortal nature is one thing and immortal nature another, and just as the special attributes of the rational and irrational are essentially incompatible, he wants to claim that the physis of the ungenerate is one thing and that of the generate is another. His goal is to show that just as irrational nature has been created subject to the rational, so the generate is by necessity subordinate to the ungenerate. For this reason he attaches the name "Almighty" to the ungenerate, but he doesn't use it to express providential operation, as his argument should have suggested. Instead, he transfers the word's application to arbitrary sovereignty, making the Son a part of the subject and subordinate universe, a fellow-slave with everything else to the One Who controls all with arbitrary and absolute sovereignty. That he uses these argumentative distinctions with this result in mind will be clearly shown from the passage we're examining. After those supposedly wise and carefully considered statements—that He is not like as Father to Father or as Son to Son (though there's no necessity for one father to always be like another father or one son like another son; for instance, if there's a father among the Ethiopians and another among the Scythians, each with a son, the Ethiopian's son is black while the Scythian's is white-skinned with golden hair, yet neither father changes appearance because of the other)—after saying this according to his own fancy, Eunomius adds that He is like as Son to Father. But although such a phrase indicates kinship in physis, as inspired Scripture attests in the case of Seth and Adam, our teacher, with little respect for his intelligent readers, introduces his pointless exposition of the title Son, defining Him as the image and seal of the energy of the Almighty. For he says the Son is the image and seal of the energy of the Almighty. Let whoever has ears to hear first consider this particular point: What is the seal of the energy? Every energy is considered as exertion in the person who displays it, and when his exertion is complete, it has no independent existence. For example, the energy of the runner is the motion of his feet, and when the motion stops there's no longer any energy. The same can be said about every activity—when the exertion of the person engaged in something ceases, the energy also ceases and has no independent existence, either while someone is actively engaged in the exertion he undertakes or when he stops. What then does he tell us this energy is in itself, which is neither ousia, nor image, nor prosopon? So he speaks of the Son as the similitude of the impersonal, and that which is like the non-existent surely has no existence at all. This is what his juggling with idle opinions comes to—belief in nonentity! For that which is like nonentity surely itself is not. O Paul and John and all you others of the band of Apostles and Evangelists, who are they that arm their venomous tongues against your words? Who are they that raise their frog-like croakings against your heavenly thunder? What then says the son of thunder? "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." And what says the one who came after him, that other who had been within the heavenly temple, who in Paradise had been initiated into unspeakable mysteries? "Being the Brightness of His glory, and the express Image of His person" (Hebrews 1:3). What, after these have spoken thus, are the words of our ventriloquist? "The seal of the energy of the Almighty," he says. He makes Him third after the Father, with that non-existent energy mediating between them, or rather shaped at will by non-existence. God the Word, Who was in the beginning, is the seal of the energy—the Only-begotten God, Who is contemplated in the eternity of the Beginning of existing things, Who is in the bosom of the Father, Who sustains all things by the word of His power, the creator of the ages, from Whom and through Whom and in Whom are all things, Who sits upon the circle of the earth and has measured out heaven with a span, Who measures the water in the hollow of His hand (Isaiah 40:12-22), Who holds in His hand all things that exist, Who dwells on high and looks upon lowly things, or rather did look upon them to make all the world His footstool, imprinted by the footmark of the Word—the form of God is the seal of an energy. Is God then an energy, not a prosopon? Surely Paul, when expounding this very truth, says He is the express image not of His energy but of His prosopon. Is the Brightness of His glory a seal of the energy of God? Alas for his impious ignorance! What is there intermediate between God and His own form? And whom does the prosopon employ as mediator with His own express image? And what can be conceived as coming between the glory and its brightness? But while there are such weighty and numerous testimonies proclaiming the greatness of the Lord of creation by those entrusted with proclaiming the Gospel, what sort of language does this forerunner of the final apostasy use concerning Him? What does he say? "As image and seal of all the energy and power of the Almighty," he says. How does he presume to correct the words of the mighty Paul? Paul says that the Son is the Power of God (1 Corinthians 1:24); Eunomius calls Him the seal of a power, not the Power. And then, repeating his expression, what does he add to his previous statement? He calls Him seal of the Father's works and words and counsels. To what works of the Father is He like? He will say, of course, the world and all things in it. But the Gospel has testified that all these things are the works of the Only-begotten. To what works of the Father, then, was He likened? Of what works was He made the seal? What Scripture ever called Him seal of the Father's works? But if anyone should grant Eunomius the right to fashion his words as he desires, even though Scripture doesn't agree with him, let him tell us what works of the Father there are of which he says the Son was made the seal, apart from those wrought by the Son. All things visible and invisible are the work of the Son: the visible includes the whole world and all that's in it; the invisible includes the supramundane creation. What works of the Father, then, remain to be contemplated separately, beyond things visible and invisible, of which he says the Son was made the seal? Will he perhaps, when driven into a corner, return once more to the fetid vomit of heresy and say that the Son is a work of the Father? How then does the Son become the seal of these works when He Himself, as Eunomius says, is the work of the Father? Or does he say that the same Person is both a work and the likeness of a work? Let this be granted: let us suppose he speaks of other works of which he says the Father was the creator, if indeed he intends us to understand likeness by the term seal. But what other words of the Father does Eunomius know, besides that Word Who was ever in the Father, Whom he calls a seal—Him Who is and is called the Word in the absolute, true, and primary sense? And to what counsels can he possibly refer, apart from the Wisdom of God, to which the Wisdom of God is made like in becoming a seal of those counsels? Look at the lack of discrimination and circumspection, at the confused muddle of his statement, how he brings the mystery into ridicule without understanding either what he says or what he's arguing about. For He Who has the Father entirely in Himself, and is Himself entirely in the Father, as Word and Wisdom and Power and Truth, as His express image and brightness—He Himself is all things in the Father and doesn't become the image and seal and likeness of certain other things discerned in the Father prior to Himself.

Now the drift of Eunomius' excessive concern about the Ungenerate has been often explained before; and it shall here be briefly discovered yet again. For as the term Father points to no difference of nature from the Son, his impiety, if he had brought his statement to a close here, would have had no support, seeing that the natural sense of the names Father and Son excludes the idea of their being alien in essence. But as it is, by employing the terms generate and ungenerate, since the contradictory opposition between them admits of no mean, just like that between mortal and immortal, rational and irrational, and all those terms which are opposed to each other by the mutually exclusive nature of their meaning — by the use of these terms, I repeat, he gives free course to his profanity, so as to contemplate as existing in the generate with reference to the ungenerate the same difference which there is between mortal and immortal: and even as the nature of the mortal is one, and that of the immortal another, and as the special attributes of the rational and of the irrational are essentially incompatible, just so he wants to make out that the nature of the ungenerate is one, and that of the generate another, in order to show that as the irrational nature has been created in subjection to the rational, so the generate is by a necessity of its being in a state of subordination to the ungenerate. For which reason he attaches to the ungenerate the name of Almighty, and this he does not apply to express providential operation, as the argument led the way for him in suggesting, but transfers the application of the word to arbitrary sovereignty, so as to make the Son to be a part of the subject and subordinate universe, a fellow-slave with all the rest to Him Who with arbitrary and absolute sovereignty controls all alike. And that it is with an eye to this result that he employs these argumentative distinctions, will be clearly established from the passage before us. For after those sapient and carefully-considered expressions, that He is not like either as Father to Father, or as Son to Son, — and yet there is no necessity that father should invariably be like father or son like son: for suppose there is one father among the Ethiopians, and another among the Scythians, and each of these has a son, the Ethiopian's son black, but the Scythian white-skinned and with hair of a golden tinge, yet none the more because each is a father does the Scythian turn black on the Ethiopian's account, nor does the Ethiopian's body change to white on account of the Scythian — after saying this, however, according to his own fancy, Eunomius subjoins that He is like as Son to Father. But although such a phrase indicates kinship in nature, as the inspired Scripture attests in the case of Seth and Adam, our doctor, with but small respect for his intelligent readers, introduces his idle exposition of the title Son, defining Him to be the image and seal of the energy of the Almighty. For the Son, he says, is the image and seal of the energy of the Almighty. Let him who has ears to hear first, I pray, consider this particular point — What is the seal of the energy? Every energy is contemplated as exertion in the party who exhibits it, and on the completion of his exertion, it has no independent existence. Thus, for example, the energy of the runner is the motion of his feet, and when the motion has stopped there is no longer any energy. So too about every pursuit the same may be said — when the exertion of him who is busied about anything ceases, the energy ceases also, and has no independent existence, either when a person is actively engaged in the exertion he undertakes, or when he ceases from that exertion. What then does he tell us that the energy is in itself, which is neither essence, nor image, nor person? So he speaks of the Son as the similitude of the impersonal, and that which is like the non-existent surely has itself no existence at all. This is what his juggling with idle opinions comes to — belief in nonentity! For that which is like nonentity surely itself is not. O Paul and John and all you others of the band of Apostles and Evangelists, who are they that arm their venomous tongues against your words? Who are they that raise their frog-like croakings against your heavenly thunder? What then says the son of thunder? In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And what says he that came after him, that other who had been within the heavenly temple, who in Paradise had been initiated into mysteries unspeakable? Being, he says, the Brightness of His glory, and the express Image of His person Hebrews 1:3. What, after these have thus spoken, are the words of our ventriloquist? The seal, quoth he, of the energy of the Almighty. He makes Him third after the Father, with that non-existent energy mediating between them, or rather moulded at pleasure by non- existence. God the Word, Who was in the beginning, is the seal of the energy: — the Only-begotten God, Who is contemplated in the eternity of the Beginning of existent things, Who is in the bosom of the Father, Who sustains all things, by the word of His power, the creator of the ages, from Whom and through Whom and in Whom are all things, Who sits upon the circle of the earth, and has meted out heaven with the span, Who measures the water in the hollow of his hand Isaiah 40:12-22, Who holds in His hand all things that are, Who dwells on high and looks upon the things that are lowly, or rather did look upon them to make all the world to be His footstool, imprinted by the footmark of the Word — the form of God is the seal of an energy. Is God then an energy, not a Person? Surely Paul when expounding this very truth says He is the express image, not of His energy, but of His Person. Is the Brightness of His glory a seal of the energy of God? Alas for his impious ignorance! What is there intermediate between God and His own form? And Whom does the Person employ as mediator with His own express image? And what can be conceived as coming between the glory and its brightness? But while there are such weighty and numerous testimonies wherein the greatness of the Lord of the creation is proclaimed by those who were entrusted with the proclamation of the Gospel, what sort of language does this forerunner of the final apostasy hold concerning Him? What says he? As image, he says, and seal of all the energy and power of the Almighty. How does he take upon himself to emend the words of the mighty Paul? Paul says that the Son is the Power of God 1 Corinthians 1:24; Eunomius calls Him the seal of a power, not the Power. And then, repeating his expression, what is it that he adds to his previous statement? He calls Him seal of the Father's works and words and counsels. To what works of the Father is He like? He will say, of course, the world, and all things that are therein. But the Gospel has testified that all these things are the works of the Only-begotten. To what works of the Father, then, was He likened? Of what works was He made the seal? What Scripture ever entitled Him seal of the Father's works? But if any one should grant Eunomius the right to fashion his words at his own will, as he desires, even though Scripture does not agree with him, let him tell us what works of the Father there are of which he says that the Son was made the seal, apart from those that have been wrought by the Son. All things visible and invisible are the work of the Son: in the visible are included the whole world and all that is therein; in the invisible, the supramundane creation. What works of the Father, then, are remaining to be contemplated by themselves, over and above things visible and invisible, whereof he says that the Son was made the seal? Will he perhaps, when driven into a corner, return once more to the fetid vomit of heresy, and say that the Son is a work of the Father? How then does the Son come to be the seal of these works when He Himself, as Eunomius says, is the work of the Father? Or does he say that the same Person is at once a work and the likeness of a work? Let this be granted: let us suppose him to speak of the other works of which he says the Father was the creator, if indeed he intends us to understand likeness by the term seal. But what other words of the Father does Eunomius know, besides that Word Who was ever in the Father, Whom he calls a seal — Him Who is and is called the Word in the absolute, true, and primary sense? And to what counsels can he possibly refer, apart from the Wisdom of God, to which the Wisdom of God is made like, in becoming a seal of those counsels? Look at the want of discrimination and circumspection, at the confused muddle of his statement, how he brings the mystery into ridicule, without understanding either what he says or what he is arguing about. For He Who has the Father in His entirety in Himself, and is Himself in His entirety in the Father, as Word and Wisdom and Power and Truth, as His express image and brightness, Himself is all things in the Father, and does not come to be the image and seal and likeness of certain other things discerned in the Father prior to Himself.

Then Eunomius grants to Him credit for destroying humanity by water in Noah's time, for the rain of fire that fell on Sodom, and for the just punishment of the Egyptians, as if he were making some great concessions to the One who holds the ends of the world in His hand, in whom, as the Apostle says, all things hold together (Colossians 1:17). It is as if Eunomius does not realize that for the One who encompasses all things and guides and directs according to His good pleasure everything that has already happened and everything that will happen, mentioning two or three wonders does not add to His glory so much as leaving out the rest means depriving Him of it or causing its loss. But even if nothing is said about these things, Paul's single statement is enough by itself to point to all of them comprehensively—the single statement that says He is above all, through all, and in all.

Then Eunomius allows to Him the credit of the destruction of men by water in the days of Noah, of the rain of fire that fell upon Sodom, and of the just vengeance upon the Egyptians, as though he were making some great concessions to Him Who holds in His hand the ends of the world, in Whom, as the Apostle says, all things consist Colossians 1:17, as though he were not aware that to Him Who encompasses all things, and guides and sways according to His good pleasure all that has already been and all that will be, the mention of two or three marvels does not mean the addition of glory, so much as the suppression of the rest means its deprivation or loss. But even if no word be said of these, the one utterance of Paul is enough by itself to point to them all inclusively — the one utterance which says that He is above all, and through all, and in all.

Next he says, "He legislates by the command of the Eternal God." Who is the eternal God? And who is he that serves him in giving the Law? This much is clear to everyone: that through Moses, God appointed the Law to those who received it. Now since Eunomius himself acknowledges that it was the only-begotten God who spoke with Moses, how is it that the statement before us puts the Lord of all in Moses' place and attributes the character of the eternal God to the Father alone? By contrasting him with the Eternal in this way, he makes out the only-begotten God, the Maker of the Worlds, to be not eternal. Our studious friend with his excellent memory seems to have forgotten that Paul uses all these same terms about himself, announcing the proclamation of the Gospel among people by the command of God. So what the Apostle says about himself, Eunomius is not ashamed to attribute to the Lord of the prophets and apostles, in order to place the Master on the same level as Paul, his own servant. But why should I drag out my argument by refuting each of these claims in detail, when the too-trusting reader of Eunomius' writings may think their author is saying what Holy Scripture allows him to say, while someone able to examine each statement critically will find them all infected with heretical deception? For the churchman and the heretic alike affirm that the Father judges no one but has committed all judgment to the Son, but they each attach different meanings to this statement. By the same words, the churchman understands supreme authority, while the other maintains service and subjection.

Next he says, He legislates by the command of the Eternal God. Who is the eternal God? And who is He that ministers to Him in the giving of the Law? Thus much is plain to all, that through Moses God appointed the Law to those that received it. Now inasmuch as Eunomius himself acknowledges that it was the only-begotten God Who held converse with Moses, how is it that the assertion before us puts the Lord of all in the place of Moses, and ascribes the character of the eternal God to the Father alone, so as, by thus contrasting Him with the Eternal, to make out the only-begotten God, the Maker of the Worlds, to be not Eternal? Our studious friend with his excellent memory seems to have forgotten that Paul uses all these terms concerning himself, announcing among men the proclamation of the Gospel by the command of God. Thus what the Apostle asserts of himself, that Eunomius is not ashamed to ascribe to the Lord of the prophets and apostles, in order to place the Master on the same level with Paul, His own servant. But why should I lengthen out my argument by confuting in detail each of these assertions, where the too unsuspicious reader of Eunomius' writings may think that their author is saying what Holy Scripture allows him to say, while one who is able to unravel each statement critically will find them one and all infected with heretical knavery. For the Churchman and the heretic alike affirm that the Father judges no man, but has committed all judgment unto the Son, but to this assertion they severally attach different meanings. By the same words the Churchman understands supreme authority, the other maintains subservience and subjection.

To what has already been said, we should add some discussion of the position they use as a kind of foundation for their impiety in their arguments about the Incarnation. Their position is that Christ did not save the whole human being, but only half—that is, the body. Their purpose in this malicious distortion of true doctrine is to demonstrate that the less exalted statements our Lord makes in his humanity should be understood as coming from the Godhead itself. In this way they hope to strengthen their blasphemy by supporting it with the Lord's own words. This is why Eunomius says that he who became human in the last days did not take upon himself the complete human being composed of soul and body. However, after searching through all the inspired and sacred Scripture, I find no such statement claiming that the Creator of all things, during his earthly ministry for humanity, took upon himself only flesh without a soul. Under the pressure of necessity, then, looking to the purpose behind the plan of salvation, to the teachings of the Fathers, and to the inspired Scriptures, I will attempt to refute the impious falsehood being constructed regarding this matter. The Lord came to seek and save what was lost. Now it was not merely the body, but the entire human being, composed of soul and body, that was lost. Indeed, speaking more precisely, the soul was lost before the body. For disobedience is a sin not of the body but of the will, and the will properly belongs to the soul, from which the entire disaster of our nature began, as God's truthful threat testifies in declaring that on the day they ate the forbidden fruit, death would immediately follow the act. Since humanity's condemnation was twofold, death correspondingly deprives each part of our nature of the twofold life operating in the one mortally struck. For bodily death consists in the extinction of sensory perception and the dissolution of the body into its constituent elements. But "the soul that sins," he says, "it shall die" (Ezekiel 18:20). Sin is nothing other than alienation from God, who is the true and only life. Accordingly, the first man lived many hundreds of years after his disobedience, yet God did not lie when he said, "In the day you eat of it you shall surely die." For through his alienation from true life, the sentence of death was confirmed against him that very day, and afterward, much later, Adam's bodily death followed. Therefore, he who came to seek and save what was lost (what the shepherd in the parable calls the sheep) both finds what is lost and carries home on his shoulders the whole sheep, not merely its skin, so that he might make the person of God complete, united to deity in body and soul. Thus he who was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin, left no part of our nature that he did not take upon himself. The soul is not sin, though it can admit sin into itself as a result of being misguided, and this he sanctifies by union with himself to this end: that the whole lump might be holy along with the firstfruits. Therefore, when the angel informed Joseph of the destruction of the Lord's enemies, he said, "They are dead who sought the young child's life" (or soul), and the Lord says to the Jews, "You seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth." By "man" is meant not merely a human body, but what is composed of both soul and body. Again, he says to them, "Are you angry at me because I have made a man completely whole on the Sabbath day?" What he meant by "completely whole" he showed in the other Gospels when he said to the paralyzed man lowered on a mat, "Your sins are forgiven you"—which is healing of the soul—and "Arise and walk"—which concerns the body. In John's Gospel, he freed the soul from its own disease after giving health to the body, saying, "You are made whole; sin no more"—addressing one cured in both soul and body. Paul also speaks this way: "to make in himself of the two one new man" (Ephesians 2:15). He also foretells that at the time of his Passion he would voluntarily separate his soul from his body, saying, "No one takes my soul from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." Indeed, the prophet David also, according to the interpretation of the great Peter, said with foresight of him, "You will not leave my soul in hell, neither will you allow your Holy One to see corruption," while the Apostle Peter explains this saying to mean that his soul was not left in hell, nor did his flesh see corruption. For his Godhead, both before taking flesh and in the flesh and after his Passion, is immutably the same, being at all times what it was by nature and continuing so forever. But in the suffering of his human nature, the Godhead fulfilled the dispensation for our benefit by separating the soul temporarily from the body, yet without itself being separated from either of those elements to which it was once and for all united. By rejoining the elements that had been separated, he gave to all human nature a beginning and example to follow of resurrection from the dead, so that all the corruptible may put on incorruption and all the mortal may put on immortality, our firstfruits having been transformed to the divine nature by union with God. As Peter said, "This same Jesus whom you crucified, God has made both Lord and Christ." We could cite many Scripture passages to support such a position, showing how the Lord, reconciling the world to himself through the humanity of Christ, distributed his work of benevolence to humanity between his soul and his body, willing through his soul and touching them through his body. But it would be unnecessary to burden our argument by examining every detail.

But to what has been already said, ought to be added some notice of that position which they make a kind of foundation of their impiety in their discussions concerning the Incarnation, the position, namely, that not the whole man has been saved by Him, but only the half of man, I mean the body. Their object in such a malignant perversion of the true doctrine, is to show that the less exalted statements, which our Lord utters in His humanity, are to be thought to have issued from the Godhead Itself, that so they may show their blasphemy to have a stronger case, if it is upheld by the actual acknowledgment of the Lord. For this reason it is that Eunomius says, He who in the last days became man did not take upon Himself the man made up of soul and body. But, after searching through all the inspired and sacred Scripture, I do not find any such statement as this, that the Creator of all things, at the time of His ministration here on earth for man, took upon Himself flesh only without a soul. Under stress of necessity, then, looking to the object contemplated by the plan of salvation, to the doctrines of the Fathers, and to the inspired Scriptures, I will endeavour to confute the impious falsehood which is being fabricated with regard to this matter. The Lord came to seek and to save that which was lost. Now it was not the body merely, but the whole man, compacted of soul and body, that was lost: indeed, if we are to speak more exactly, the soul was lost sooner than the body. For disobedience is a sin, not of the body, but of the will: and the will properly belongs to the soul, from which the whole disaster of our nature had its beginning, as the threat of God, that admits of no falsehood, testifies in the declaration that, in the day that they should eat of the forbidden fruit, death without respite would attach to the act. Now since the condemnation of man was twofold, death correspondingly effects in each part of our nature the deprivation of the twofold life that operates in him who is thus mortally stricken. For the death of the body consists in the extinction of the means of sensible perception, and in the dissolution of the body into its kindred elements: but the soul that sins, he says, it shall die Ezekiel 18:20. Now sin is nothing else than alienation from God, Who is the true and only life. Accordingly the first man lived many hundred years after his disobedience, and yet God lied not when He said, In the day that you eat thereof you shall surely die. For by the fact of his alienation from the true life, the sentence of death was ratified against him that self-same day: and after this, at a much later time, there followed also the bodily death of Adam. He therefore Who came for this cause that He might seek and save that which was lost, (that which the shepherd in the parable calls the sheep,) both finds that which is lost, and carries home on His shoulders the whole sheep, not its skin only, that He may make the man of God complete, united to the deity in body and in soul. And thus He Who was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin, left no part of our nature which He did not take upon Himself. Now the soul is not sin though it is capable of admitting sin into it as the result of being ill-advised: and this He sanctifies by union with Himself for this end, that so the lump may be holy along with the first-fruits. Wherefore also the Angel, when informing Joseph of the destruction of the enemies of the Lord, said, They are dead which sought the young Child's life, (or soul): and the Lord says to the Jews, You seek to kill Me, a man that has told you the truth. Now by Man is not meant the body of a man only, but that which is composed of both, soul and body. And again, He says to them, Are you angry at Me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the Sabbath day? And what He meant by every whit whole, He showed in the other Gospels, when He said to the man who was let down on a couch in the midst, Your sins be forgiven you, which is a healing of the soul, and, Arise and walk, which has regard to the body: and in the Gospel of S. John, by liberating the soul also from its own malady after He had given health to the body, where He says, You are made whole, sin no more, thou, that is, who hast been cured in both, I mean in soul and in body. For so too does S. Paul speak, for to make in Himself of two one new man Ephesians 2:15. And so too He foretells that at the time of His Passion He would voluntarily detach His soul from His body, saying, No man takes my soul from Me, but I lay it down of Myself: I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. Yea, the prophet David also, according to the interpretation of the great Peter, said with foresight of Him, You will not leave My soul in hell, neither will You suffer Your Holy One to see corruption, while the Apostle Peter thus expounds the saying, that His soul was not left in hell, neither His flesh did see corruption. For His Godhead, alike before taking flesh and in the flesh and after His Passion, is immutably the same, being at all times what It was by nature, and so continuing forever. But in the suffering of His human nature the Godhead fulfilled the dispensation for our benefit by severing the soul for a season from the body, yet without being Itself separated from either of those elements to which it was once for all united, and by joining again the elements which had been thus parted, so as to give to all human nature a beginning and an example which it should follow of the resurrection from the dead, that all the corruptible may put on incorruption, and all the mortal may put on immortality, our first-fruits having been transformed to the Divine nature by its union with God, as Peter said, This same Jesus Whom you crucified, has God made both Lord and Christ; and we might cite many passages of Scripture to support such a position, showing how the Lord, reconciling the world to Himself by the Humanity of Christ, apportioned His work of benevolence to men between His soul and His body, willing through His soul and touching them through His body. But it would be superfluous to encumber our argument by entering into every detail.

Before moving on to what comes next, I will mention one more text: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." Just as we, through soul and body, become a temple of Him who dwells in us and walks in us, so too the Lord calls their combination a temple, whose destruction means the separation of the soul from the body. And if they cite the passage in the Gospel, "The Word was made flesh," in order to argue that the flesh was taken into the Godhead without the soul, on the grounds that the soul is not explicitly mentioned along with the flesh, let them learn that it is customary for Holy Scripture to refer to the whole by naming only a part. For He who said, "Unto You shall all flesh come," does not mean that the flesh will be presented before the Judge apart from the souls. And when we read in sacred History that Jacob went down into Egypt with seventy-five souls, we understand that the flesh is also intended together with the souls. So then, when the Word became flesh, He took with the flesh the whole of human nature. And therefore it was possible that hunger and thirst, fear and dread, desire and sleep, tears and trouble of spirit, and all such things were in Him. For the Godhead, in its proper nature, admits no such experiences, nor is the flesh by itself subject to them if the soul is not affected together with the body.

Before passing on, however, to what follows, I will further mention the one text, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Just as we, through soul and body, become a temple of Him Who dwells in us and walks in us 2 Corinthians 6:16, even so the Lord terms their combination a temple, of which the destruction signifies the dissolution of the soul from the body. And if they allege the passage in the Gospel, The Word was made flesh, in order to make out that the flesh was taken into the Godhead without the soul, on the ground that the soul is not expressly mentioned along with the flesh, let them learn that it is customary for Holy Scripture to imply the whole by the part. For He that said, Unto You shall all flesh come, does not mean that the flesh will be presented before the Judge apart from the souls: and when we read in sacred History that Jacob went down into Egypt with seventy-five souls we understand the flesh also to be intended together with the souls. So, then, the Word, when He became flesh, took with the flesh the whole of human nature; and hence it was possible that hunger and thirst, fear and dread, desire and sleep, tears and trouble of spirit, and all such things, were in Him. For the Godhead, in its proper nature, admits no such affections, nor is the flesh by itself involved in them, if the soul is not affected co-ordinately with the body.

Here is the paragraph rewritten in clear, modern English:

We've addressed his blasphemy against the Son. Now let's examine what he says about the Holy Spirit. After Him, he says, we believe in the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth. I think it will be obvious to everyone who reads this passage what he's trying to accomplish by distorting the declaration of faith the Lord handed down to us in his statements about the Son and the Father. Although this error has already been exposed, I'll try to explain briefly the purpose of his trickery. Just as he previously avoided using the name Father so he wouldn't have to include the Son in the Father's eternity, and avoided using the title Son so he wouldn't have to acknowledge His natural relationship to the Father, here too he refuses to say Holy Spirit so he won't have to acknowledge His glorious majesty and His complete unity with the Father and the Son. The Scriptures apply both the term Spirit and the term Holy equally to the Father and the Son (for God is a Spirit, and the anointed Lord is the Spirit before our face, and the Lord our God is Holy, and there is one Holy, one Lord Jesus Christ). To prevent his readers from developing any orthodox understanding of the Holy Spirit that would naturally arise from His sharing these glorious titles with the Father and the Son, he deceives foolish listeners by changing the words of the Faith as God set them forth when delivering this mystery, creating a pathway, so to speak, through this sequence for his impiety against the Holy Spirit to enter. If he had said "We believe in the Holy Spirit," and since God is called a Spirit, anyone instructed in divine matters would have responded that if we must believe in the Holy Spirit, and God is called a Spirit, He certainly isn't different in nature from that which receives the same titles in their proper sense. For all things that are indicated not unreally, not metaphorically, but properly and absolutely by the same names, we are necessarily forced to acknowledge that the nature signified by this identity of names is one and the same. For this reason, by suppressing the name the Lord appointed in the formula of faith, he says "We believe in the Comforter." But I've been taught that this very name is also applied by inspired Scripture to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit alike. The Son gives the name Comforter equally to Himself and to the Holy Spirit, and when the Father is said to work comfort, He surely claims the name of Comforter as His own. Certainly He Who does the work of a Comforter doesn't reject the name that belongs to that work. David says to the Father "You, Lord, have helped me and comforted me," and the great Apostle uses the same language when addressing the Father: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who comforts us in all our tribulation." John, in one of his Catholic Epistles, explicitly gives the Son the name of Comforter. Moreover, when the Lord said that another Comforter would be sent to us, speaking of the Spirit, He clearly claimed this title for Himself first. But there are two meanings of the word parakalein: one is to beseech, using respectful words and gestures to persuade the person we're appealing to, to sympathize with us regarding the matters we're presenting; the other is to comfort, to take remedial care for afflictions of body and soul. Holy Scripture affirms that the concept of the Paraclete, in both senses alike, belongs to the Divine nature. Sometimes Paul presents through the word parakalein the healing power of God, as when he says "God, Who comforts those who are cast down, comforted us by the coming of Titus." At other times he uses this word in its other meaning, as when he writes to the Corinthians: "Now we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ's stead, be reconciled to God." Since these things are true, however you understand the title Paraclete when used of the Spirit, you won't in either of its meanings separate Him from His sharing it with the Father and the Son. Accordingly, he hasn't been able, even though he wanted to, to diminish the glory of the Spirit by ascribing to Him the very attribute which Holy Scripture also refers to the Father and to the Son. But by calling Him the Spirit of Truth, Eunomius' own intention, I suppose, was to suggest subjection through this phrase, since Christ is the Truth, and he called Him the Spirit of Truth, as if someone should say that He is a possession and property of the Truth, without realizing that God is called a God of righteousness, and we certainly don't understand by that phrase that God is a possession of righteousness. Therefore, when we hear of the Spirit of Truth, we acquire from that phrase a conception befitting the Deity, being guided to the loftier interpretation by the words that follow it. When the Lord said "The Spirit of Truth," He immediately added "Which proceeds from the Father," a fact which the Lord's voice never asserted about any conceivable thing in creation, nothing visible or invisible, not thrones, principalities, powers, or dominions, nor any other name that is named either in this world or in the world to come. It's plain then that what all creation is excluded from sharing is something special and peculiar to uncreated being. But this man tells us to believe in the Guide of godliness. Then let a person believe in Paul, and Barnabas, and Titus, and Silvanus, and Timothy, and all those through whom we've been led into the way of faith. If we must believe in that which guides us to godliness, along with the Father and the Son, all the prophets and lawgivers and patriarchs, heralds, evangelists, apostles, pastors, and teachers have equal honor with the Holy Spirit, since they've been guides to godliness for those who came after them. "Who came into being," he continues, "by the only God through the Only-begotten." In these words he gathers all his blasphemy into one. Once again he calls the Father the only God, who uses the Only-begotten as an instrument for producing the Spirit. What hint of such an idea did he find in Scripture that he dares make this assertion? From what premises did he arrive at such a blasphemous conclusion? Which Evangelist says it? What apostle? What prophet? On the contrary, every divinely inspired scripture, written by the inspiration of the Spirit, testifies to the Divinity of the Spirit. For example (it's better to prove my point from actual testimonies), those who receive power to become children of God bear witness to the Divinity of the Spirit. Who doesn't know that statement of the Lord which tells us that those born of the Spirit are the children of God? He explicitly attributes the birth of God's children to the Spirit, saying that just as what is born of the flesh is flesh, so what is born of the Spirit is spirit. But all who are born of the Spirit are called the children of God. Likewise, when the Lord by breathing on His disciples had given them the Holy Spirit, John says "Of His fullness have all we received." And the mighty Paul testifies that in Him dwells the fullness of the Godhead. Moreover, regarding the manifestation of the Divine appearance granted to Isaiah through the prophet, when he saw Him who sat on the throne high and lifted up, the older tradition says it was the Father Who appeared to him, but the evangelist John refers the prophecy to our Lord, saying about those Jews who didn't believe the words the prophet spoke concerning the Lord: "These things said Isaiah, when he saw His glory and spoke of Him." But the mighty Paul attributes the same passage to the Holy Spirit in his speech to the Jews at Rome, when he says "Well spoke the Holy Spirit by Isaiah the prophet concerning you, saying, Hearing you shall hear and shall not understand," showing, in my opinion, through Holy Scripture itself that every specially divine vision, every theophany, every word uttered in the Person of God, is to be understood as referring to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. So when David says "they provoked God in the wilderness, and grieved Him in the desert," the apostle refers to the Holy Spirit the insult done by the Israelites to God, in these terms: "Wherefore, as the Holy Spirit says, Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness, when your fathers tempted me," and continues to refer to the Person of the Holy Spirit everything the prophecy refers to God. Those who keep repeating the charge of three Gods against us because we hold these views perhaps haven't yet learned how to count. If the Father and the Son aren't divided into duality (for they are, according to the Lord's words, One, and not Two), and if the Holy Spirit is also one, how can one added to one be divided into the number of three Gods? Isn't it rather obvious that no one can charge us with believing in three Gods without first maintaining in his own doctrine a pair of Gods? For it's by being added to two that one completes the triad of Gods. But what room is there for the

Thus much with regard to his profanity towards the Son. Now let us see what he says about the Holy Spirit. After Him, we believe, he says, on the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth. I think it will be plain to all who come across this passage what object he has in view in thus perverting the declaration of the faith delivered to us by the Lord, in his statements concerning the Son and the Father. Though this absurdity has already been exposed, I will nevertheless endeavour, in few words, to make plain the aim of his knavery. As in the former case, he avoided using the name Father, that so he might not include the Son in the eternity of the Father, so he avoided employing the title Son, that he might not by it suggest His natural affinity to the Father; so here, too, he refrains from saying Holy Spirit, that he may not by this name acknowledge the majesty of His glory, and His complete union with the Father and the Son. For since the appellation of Spirit, and that of Holy, are by the Scriptures equally applied to the Father and the Son (for God is a Spirit, and the anointed Lord is the Spirit before our face, and the Lord our God is Holy, and there is one Holy, one Lord Jesus Christ) lest there should, by the use of these terms, be bred in the minds of his readers some orthodox conception of the Holy Spirit, such as would naturally arise in them from His sharing His glorious appellation with the Father and the Son, for this reason, deluding the ears of the foolish, he changes the words of the Faith as set forth by God in the delivery of this mystery, making a way, so to speak, by this sequence, for the entrance of his impiety against the Holy Spirit. For if he had said, We believe in the Holy Spirit, and God is a Spirit, any one instructed in things divine would have interposed the remark, that if we are to believe in the Holy Spirit, while God is called a Spirit, He is assuredly not distinct in nature from that which receives the same titles in a proper sense. For of all those things which are indicated not unreally, nor metaphorically, but properly and absolutely, by the same names, we are necessarily compelled to acknowledge that the nature also, which is signified by this identity of names, is one and the same. For this reason it is that, suppressing the name appointed by the Lord in the formula of the faith, he says, We believe in the Comforter. But I have been taught that this very name is also applied by the inspired Scripture to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost alike. For the Son gives the name of Comforter equally to Himself and to the Holy Spirit; and the Father, where He is said to work comfort, surely claims as His own the name of Comforter. For assuredly he Who does the work of a Comforter does not disdain the name belonging to the work: for David says to the Father, You, Lord, hast helped me and comforted me, and the great Apostle applies to the Father the same language, when he says, Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who comforts us in all our tribulation 2 Corinthians 1:3-4; and John, in one of his Catholic Epistles, expressly gives to the Son the name of Comforter. Nay, more, the Lord Himself, in saying that another Comforter would be sent us, when speaking of the Spirit, clearly asserted this title of Himself in the first place. But as there are two senses of the word παρακαλεῖν — one to beseech, by words and gestures of respect, to induce him to whom we apply for anything, to feel with us in respect of those things for which we apply — the other to comfort, to take remedial thought for affections of body and soul — the Holy Scripture affirms the conception of the Paraclete, in either sense alike, to belong to the Divine nature. For at one time Paul sets before us by the word παρακαλεῖν the healing power of God, as when he says, God, Who comforts those that are cast down, comforted us by the coming of Titus 2 Corinthians 7:6; and at another time he uses this word in its other meaning, when he says, writing to the Corinthians, Now we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ's stead, be reconciled to God 2 Corinthians 5:20. Now since these things are so, in whatever way you understand the title Paraclete, when used of the Spirit, you will not in either of its significations detach Him from His community in it with the Father and the Son. Accordingly, he has not been able, even though he wished it, to belittle the glory of the Spirit by ascribing to Him the very attribute which Holy Scripture refers also to the Father and to the Son. But in styling Him the Spirit of Truth, Eunomius' own wish, I suppose, was to suggest by this phrase subjection, since Christ is the Truth, and he called Him the Spirit of Truth, as if one should say that He is a possession and chattel of the Truth, without being aware that God is called a God of righteousness; and we certainly do not understand thereby that God is a possession of righteousness. Wherefore also, when we hear of the Spirit of Truth, we acquire by that phrase such a conception as befits the Deity, being guided to the loftier interpretation by the words which follow it. For when the Lord said The Spirit of Truth, He immediately added Which proceeds from the Father, a fact which the voice of the Lord never asserted of any conceivable thing in creation, not of anything visible or invisible, not of thrones, principalities, powers, or dominions, nor of any other name that is named either in this world or in that which is to come. It is plain then that that, from share in which all creation is excluded, is something special and peculiar to uncreated being. But this man bids us believe in the Guide of godliness. Let a man then believe in Paul, and Barnabas, and Titus, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, and all those by whom we have been led into the way of the faith. For if we are to believe in that which guides us to godliness, along with the Father and the Son, all the prophets and lawgivers and patriarchs, heralds, evangelists, apostles, pastors, and teachers, have equal honour with the Holy Spirit, as they have been guides to godliness to those who came after them. Who came into being, he goes on, by the only God through the Only-begotten. In these words he gathers up in one head all his blasphemy. Once more he calls the Father only God, who employs the Only-begotten as an instrument for the production of the Spirit. What shadow of such a notion did he find in Scripture, that he ventures upon this assertion? By deduction from what premises did he bring his profanity to such a conclusion as this? Which of the Evangelists says it? What apostle? What prophet? Nay, on the contrary every scripture divinely inspired, written by the afflatus of the Spirit, attests the Divinity of the Spirit. For example (for it is better to prove my position from the actual testimonies), those who receive power to become children of God bear witness to the Divinity of the Spirit. Who knows not that utterance of the Lord which tells us that they who are born of the Spirit are the children of God? For thus He expressly ascribes the birth of the children of God to the Spirit, saying, that as that which is born of the flesh is flesh, so that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. But as many as are born of the Spirit are called the children of God. So also when the Lord by breathing upon His disciples had imparted to them the Holy Spirit, John says, Of His fullness have all we received. And that in Him dwells the fullness of the Godhead Colossians 2:9, the mighty Paul attests: yea, moreover, through the prophet Isaiah it is attested, as to the manifestation of the Divine appearance vouchsafed to him, when he saw Him that sat on the throne high and lifted up Isaiah 6:1; the older tradition, it is true, says that it was the Father Who appeared to him, but the evangelist John refers the prophecy to our Lord, saying, touching those of the Jews who did not believe the words uttered by the prophet concerning the Lord, These things said Esaias, when he saw His glory and spoke of Him. But the mighty Paul attributes the same passage to the Holy Spirit in his speech made to the Jews at Rome, when he says, Well spoke the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet concerning you, saying, Hearing you shall hear and shall not understand, showing, in my opinion, by Holy Scripture itself, that every specially divine vision, every theophany, every word uttered in the Person of God, is to be understood to refer to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Hence when David says, they provoked God in the wilderness, and grieved Him in the desert, the apostle refers to the Holy Spirit the despite done by the Israelites to God, in these terms: Wherefore, as the Holy Ghost says, Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness; when your fathers tempted me Hebrews 3:7, and goes on to refer all that the prophecy refers to God, to the Person of the Holy Ghost. Those who keep repeating against us the phrase three Gods, because we hold these views, have perhaps not yet learned how to count. For if the Father and the Son are not divided into duality, (for they are, according to the Lord's words, One, and not Two) and if the Holy Ghost is also one, how can one added to one be divided into the number of three Gods? Is it not rather plain that no one can charge us with believing in the number of three Gods, without himself first maintaining in his own doctrine a pair of Gods? For it is by being added to two that the one completes the triad of Gods. But what room is there for the charge of tritheism against those by whom one God is worshipped, the God expressed by the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost?

Let us take up Eunomius' statement in full. He writes: "Having come into being from the only God through the Only-begotten, this Spirit also—" What proof exists for the claim that this Spirit is also one of the things made by the Only-begotten? They will of course say that all things were made by Him, and that the term "all things" includes this Spirit as well. Our response is this: all things were made by Him that were made. Now the things that were made, as Paul tells us, were things visible and invisible, thrones, authorities, dominions, principalities, powers, and among those included under thrones and powers Paul counts the Cherubim and Seraphim—this is how far the term "all things" extends. But Paul said nothing about the Holy Spirit in his list of existing things, since the Holy Spirit is above the physis of things that have come into being. Paul's words indicate to us neither the Spirit's subordination nor His coming into being. Just as the prophet calls the Holy Spirit good, right, and guiding (the word "guiding" indicating the power of control), so the apostle attributes independent authority to the dignity of the Spirit when he states that He works all in all as He wills. Again, the Lord reveals the Spirit's independent power and operation in His conversation with Nicodemus when He says, "The Spirit breathes where He wills." How then does Eunomius go so far as to declare that He is also one of the things that came into being by the Son, condemned to eternal subjection? For he describes Him as made subject once for all, enslaving the guiding and governing Spirit in some kind of subjection I cannot understand. This expression "subjection" has many meanings in Holy Scripture and is understood and used in many different ways. The Psalmist says that even irrational nature is put in subjection, and uses the same term for those who are conquered in war, while the apostle commands servants to be in subjection to their own masters, and requires that those placed over the priesthood should have their children in subjection, since their disorderly conduct brings disgrace upon their fathers, as happened with the sons of Eli the priest. Again, he speaks of the subjection of all people to God, when we all, being united to one another by faith, become one body of the Lord Who is in all—and also of the subjection of the Son to the Father, when the worship given to the Son by all things with one accord, by things in heaven, on earth, and under the earth, brings glory to the Father. As Paul says elsewhere, "To Him every knee shall bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." When this happens, Paul's mighty wisdom declares that the Son, Who is in all, is subject to the Father through the subjection of those in whom He is. What kind of subjection made "once for all" Eunomius claims for the Holy Spirit is impossible to learn from the phrase he has thrown out—whether he means the subjection of irrational creatures, of captives, of servants, of children who are kept in order, or of those who are saved by subjection. For the subjection of people to God is salvation for those who are made subject, according to the prophet's words, who says that his soul is subject to God, since salvation comes from Him through subjection, so that subjection is the means of avoiding destruction. Just as sick people eagerly seek the help of the healing art, so those who need salvation seek subjection. But what kind of life does the Holy Spirit, who gives life to all things, need, that He should obtain salvation for Himself through subjection? Since he asserts this attribute of the Spirit neither on the strength of any divine statement nor as the result of probable arguments, it must be clear to any sensible person that he launches this blasphemy against the Holy Spirit without any warrant whatsoever, supported neither by any scriptural authority nor by any logical reasoning.

Let us however resume Eunomius' statement in its entirety. Having come into being from the only God through the Only-begotten, this Spirit also — What proof is there of the statement that this Spirit also is one of the things that were made by the Only-begotten? They will say of course that all things were made by Him, and that in the term all things this Spirit also is included. Our answer to them shall be this, All things were made by Him, that were made. Now the things that were made, as Paul tells us, were things visible and invisible, thrones, authorities, dominions, principalities, powers, and among those included under the head of thrones and powers are reckoned by Paul the Cherubim and Seraphim: so far does the term all things extend. But of the Holy Spirit, as being above the nature of things that have come into being, Paul said not a word in his enumeration of existing things, not indicating to us by his words either His subordination or His coming into being; but just as the prophet calls the Holy Spirit good, and right, and guiding (indicating by the word guiding the power of control), even so the apostle ascribes independent authority to the dignity of the Spirit, when he affirms that He works all in all as He wills. 1 Corinthians 12:11 Again, the Lord makes manifest the Spirit's independent power and operation in His discourse with Nicodemus, when He says, The Spirit breathes where He wills. How is it then that Eunomius goes so far as to define that He also is one of the things that came into being by the Son, condemned to eternal subjection. For he describes Him as once for all made subject, enthralling the guiding and governing Spirit in I know not what form of subjection. For this expression of subjection has many significations in Holy Scripture, and is understood and used with many varieties of meaning. For the Psalmist says that even irrational nature is put in subjection, and brings under the same term those who are overcome in war, while the apostle bids servants to be in subjection to their own masters Titus 2:9, and that those who are placed over the priesthood should have their children in subjection 1 Timothy 3:4, as their disorderly conduct brings discredit upon their fathers, as in the case of the sons of Eli the priest. Again, he speaks of the subjection of all men to God, when we all, being united to one another by the faith, become one body of the Lord Who is in all, as the subjection of the Son to the Father, when the adoration paid to the Son by all things with one accord, by things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth, redounds to the glory of the Father; as Paul says elsewhere, To Him every knee shall bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. For when this takes place, the mighty wisdom of Paul affirms that the Son, Who is in all, is subject to the Father by virtue of the subjection of those in whom He is. What kind of subjection once for all Eunomius asserts of the Holy Spirit, it is thus impossible to learn from the phrase which he has thrown out — whether he means the subjection of irrational creatures, or of captives, or of servants, or of children who are kept in order, or of those who are saved by subjection. For the subjection of men to God is salvation for those who are so made subject, according to the voice of the prophet, who says that his soul is subject to God, since of Him comes salvation by subjection, so that subjection is the means of averting perdition. As therefore the help of the healing art is sought eagerly by the sick, so is subjection by those who are in need of salvation. But of what life does the Holy Spirit, that quickens all things, stand in need, that by subjection He should obtain salvation for Himself? Since then it is not on the strength of any Divine utterance that he asserts such an attribute of the Spirit, nor yet is it as a consequence of probable arguments that he has launched this blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, it must be plain at all events to sensible men that he vents his impiety against Him without any warrant whatsoever, unsupported as it is by any authority from Scripture or by any logical consequence.

He continues, saying that the Holy Spirit is neither on the same level with the Father, nor counted together with the Father (for there is only one God over all, who is the only Father), nor equal with the Son, because the Son is only-begotten, having no one begotten alongside Him. Now, if he had simply added to what he said before that the Holy Spirit is not the Father of the Son, I would have thought it pointless for him to dwell on something no one ever questioned, forbidding people from forming ideas about the Spirit that not even the most foolish would hold. But since he tries to support his impiety with irrelevant and disconnected statements, thinking that by denying the Holy Spirit is the Father of the Only-begotten he proves the Spirit is subject and subordinate, I have mentioned these words as proof of this man's foolishness, who imagines he is demonstrating the Spirit is subject to the Father on the grounds that the Spirit is not the Father of the Only-begotten. For what forces the conclusion that if He is not Father, He must be subject? If it had been shown that Father and master were terms with identical meanings, it would indeed follow that, since absolute sovereignty was part of the concept of Father, we should affirm the Spirit is subject to Him who surpasses Him in authority. But if Father simply indicates His relation to the Son, and no concept of absolute sovereignty or authority is involved in using the word, how does it follow from the fact that the Spirit is not the Father of the Son that the Spirit is subject to the Father? He says the Spirit is not equal with the Son either. How does he say this? For to exist, and to be unchangeable, and to admit no evil whatsoever, and to remain unalterably in what is good—all this shows no difference in the case of the Son and the Spirit. For the incorruptible physis of the Spirit is as remote from corruption as that of the Son, and in the Spirit, just as in the Son, His essential goodness is absolutely separated from its opposite, and in both alike their perfection in every good requires no addition.

He goes on to add, Neither on the same level with the Father, nor connumerated with the Father (for God over all is one and only Father), nor on an equality with the Son, for the Son is only-begotten, having none begotten with Him. Well, for my own part, if he had only added to his previous statement the remark that the Holy Ghost is not the Father of the Son, I should even then have thought it idle for him to linger over what no one ever doubted, and forbid people to form notions of Him which not even the most witless would entertain. But since he endeavours to establish his impiety by irrelevant and unconnected statements, imagining that by denying the Holy Spirit to be the Father of the Only-begotten he makes out that He is subject and subordinate, I therefore made mention of these words, as a proof of the folly of the man who imagines that he is demonstrating the Spirit to be subject to the Father on the ground that the Spirit is not Father of the Only-begotten. For what compels the conclusion, that if He be not Father, He must be subject? If it had been demonstrated that Father and despot were terms identical in meaning, it would no doubt have followed that, as absolute sovereignty was part of the conception of the Father, we should affirm that the Spirit is subject to Him Who surpassed Him in respect of authority. But if by Father is implied merely His relation to the Son, and no conception of absolute sovereignty or authority is involved by the use of the word, how does it follow, from the fact that the Spirit is not the Father of the Son, that the Spirit is subject to the Father? Nor on an equality with the Son, he says. How comes he to say this? For to be, and to be unchangeable, and to admit no evil whatsoever, and to remain unalterably in that which is good, all this shows no variation in the case of the Son and of the Spirit. For the incorruptible nature of the Spirit is remote from corruption equally with that of the Son, and in the Spirit, just as in the Son, His essential goodness is absolutely apart from its contrary, and in both alike their perfection in every good stands in need of no addition.

Scripture teaches us to affirm all these attributes of the Spirit when it applies to the Spirit the terms good, wise, incorruptible, immortal, and all such elevated concepts and names that are properly applied to Godhead. If the Spirit is inferior in none of these respects, how does Eunomius establish the inequality of the Son and the Spirit? He tells us that the Son is Only-begotten, having no brother begotten with Him. We have already discussed the point that we should not understand the Only-begotten to have brothers in our comments on the phrase "first-born of all creation." But we should not leave unexamined the sense that Eunomius now unfairly attaches to this term. While the Church's teaching declares that in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit there is one power, goodness, ousia, glory, and the like, preserving the distinction of the Persons, this man, when he wants to make the ousia of the Only-begotten common to creation, calls Him the first-born of all creation in respect of His pre-temporal existence. By this expression he declares that all conceivable created things are in brotherhood with the Lord, for surely the first-born is not the first-born of those begotten differently, but of those begotten like Himself. But when he is intent on separating the Spirit from union with the Son, he calls Him Only-begotten, not having any brother begotten with Him—not in order to conceive of Him as without brothers, but so that through this assertion he may establish regarding the Spirit His essential alienation from the Son. It is true that we learn from Holy Scripture not to speak of the Holy Spirit as brother of the Son, but nowhere in the divine Scriptures are we shown that we should not say the Holy Spirit is homogeneous with the Son. For if a life-giving power resides in the Father and the Son, it is also ascribed to the Holy Spirit, according to the words of the Gospel. If one can discern in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit alike the properties of being incorruptible, immutable, admitting no evil, being good, right, guiding, working all in all as He wills, and all similar attributes, how is it possible to infer difference in kind from identity in these respects? Accordingly, the word of godliness agrees in affirming that we should not regard any kind of brotherhood as attaching to the Only-begotten, but to say that the Spirit is not homogeneous with the Son—the upright with the upright, the good with the good, the life-giving with the life-giving—has been clearly demonstrated by logical inference to be a piece of heretical deceit.

Now the inspired Scripture teaches us to affirm all these attributes of the Spirit, when it predicates of the Spirit the terms good, and wise, and incorruptible, and immortal, and all such lofty conceptions and names as are properly applied to Godhead. If then He is inferior in none of these respects, by what means does Eunomius determine the inequality of the Son and the Spirit? For the Son is, he tells us, Only-begotten, having no brother begotten with Him. Well, the point, that we are not to understand the Only-begotten to have brethren, we have already discussed in our comments upon the phrase first-born of all creation. But we ought not to leave unexamined the sense that Eunomius now unfairly attaches to the term. For while the doctrine of the Church declares that in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost there is one power, and goodness, and essence, and glory, and the like, saving the difference of the Persons, this man, when he wishes to make the essence of the Only-begotten common to the creation, calls Him the first-born of all creation in respect of His pre-temporal existence, declaring by this mode of expression that all conceivable objects in creation are in brotherhood with the Lord; for assuredly the first-born is not the first-born of those otherwise begotten, but of those begotten like Himself. But when he is bent upon severing the Spirit from union with the Son, he calls Him Only-begotten, not having any brother begotten with Him, not with the object of conceiving of Him as without brethren, but that by the means of this assertion he may establish touching the Spirit His essential alienation from the Son. It is true that we learn from Holy Scripture not to speak of the Holy Ghost as brother of the Son: but that we are not to say that the Holy Ghost is homogeneous with the Son, is nowhere shown in the divine Scriptures. For if there does reside in the Father and the Son a life-giving power, it is ascribed also to the Holy Spirit, according to the words of the Gospel. If one may discern alike in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit the properties of being incorruptible, immutable, of admitting no evil, of being good, right, guiding, of working all in all as He wills, and all the like attributes, how is it possible by identity in these respects to infer difference in kind? Accordingly the word of godliness agrees in affirming that we ought not to regard any kind of brotherhood as attaching to the Only-begotten; but to say that the Spirit is not homogeneous with the Son, the upright with the upright, the good with the good, the life-giving with the life-giving, this has been clearly demonstrated by logical inference to be a piece of heretical knavery.

Why then is the majesty of the Spirit reduced by arguments like these? There is nothing that could cause him to deviate either by excess or deficiency from concepts that properly belong to the Godhead. Since Holy Scripture attributes all these things equally to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, he cannot tell us where he perceives inequality to exist. But he launches his blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in its bare form, poorly prepared and unsupported by any coherent argument. He says: "Nor yet ranked with any other, for He has gone above all the creatures that came into being through the agency of the Son in mode of being, and physis, and glory, and knowledge, as the first and noblest work of the Only-begotten, the greatest and most glorious." I will leave it to others to ridicule the bad taste and wordiness of his style, since I think it is inappropriate for someone of my age, when dealing with the argument before us, to object to vulgar expression in someone who is guilty of impiety. I will just add this observation to my investigation. If the Spirit has gone above all the creations of the Son (for I will use his own ungrammatical and senseless phrase, or rather, to make things clearer, I will present his idea in my own language), if he transcends all things made by the Son, then the Holy Spirit cannot be ranked with the rest of creation. And if, as Eunomius says, he surpasses them by being born earlier, he must necessarily admit that in the case of the rest of creation, the things that are first in order of production are more valuable than those that come after them. Now the creation of the irrational animals was prior to that of man. Accordingly, he will presumably declare that the irrational physis is more honorable than rational existence. Similarly, according to Eunomius's argument, Cain will be proved superior to Abel because he came before him in time of birth, and the stars will be shown to be lower and less excellent than all the things that grow from the earth, since these last sprang from the earth on the third day, while all the stars are recorded by Moses to have been created on the fourth. Surely no one is such a fool as to conclude that the grass of the earth is more valuable than the wonders of the sky based on its earlier existence in time, or to award the prize to Cain over Abel, or to place below the irrational animals man who came into being later than they did. So there is no sense in our author's claim that the physis of the Holy Spirit is superior to that of the creatures that came into being later, on the grounds that He came into being before they did. Now let us see what he who separates Him from fellowship with the Son is willing to concede to the glory of the Spirit. He says: "For he too, being one, and first and alone, and surpassing all the creations of the Son in ousia and dignity of physis, accomplishing every operation and all teaching according to the good pleasure of the Son, being sent by Him, and receiving from Him, and declaring to those who are instructed, and guiding into truth." He speaks of the Holy Spirit as accomplishing every operation and all teaching. What operation does he mean? Does he mean that which the Father and the Son perform, according to the word of the Lord Himself who is still working man's salvation, or does he mean some other? If His work is that one, He certainly has the same power and physis as the One who works it, and in such a one there can be no difference of kind from Deity. For just as, if anything should perform the functions of fire, shining and warming in exactly the same way, it is certainly fire itself, so if the Spirit does the works of the Father, He must certainly be acknowledged to be of the same physis with Him. If on the other hand He performs something other than our salvation, and displays His operation in a contrary direction, He will thereby be proved to be of a different physis and ousia. But Eunomius's own statement bears witness that the Spirit gives life in the same manner as the Father and the Son. Accordingly, from the identity of operations it necessarily follows that the Spirit is not alien from the physis of the Father and the Son. And we agree with the statement that the Spirit accomplishes the operation and teaching of the Father according to the good pleasure of the Son. For the community of physis gives us assurance that the will of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is one, and thus, if the Holy Spirit wills what seems good to the Son, the community of will clearly points to unity of ousia. But he continues: "being sent by Him, and receiving from Him, and declaring to those who are instructed, and guiding into truth." If he had not previously said what he has concerning the Spirit, the reader would surely have assumed that these words applied to some human teacher. For to receive a mission is the same thing as to be sent, and to have nothing of one's own but to receive from the free favor of the one who gives the mission, and to minister his words to those who are under instruction, and to be a guide into truth for those who are lost. All these things, which Eunomius is kind enough to allow to the Holy Spirit, belong to the present pastors and teachers of the Church—to be sent, to receive, to announce, to teach, to reveal the truth. Now, since he had said above "He is one, and first, and alone, and surpassing all," if he had only stopped there, he would have appeared as a defender of the doctrines of truth. For He who is indivisibly contemplated in the One is most truly One, and first who is in the First, and alone who is in the Only One. For just as the spirit of man that is in him and the man himself are but one man, so also the Spirit of God which is in Him and God Himself would properly be termed One God, and First and Only, being incapable of separation from Him in whom He is. But as things are, with his addition of his profane phrase "surpassing all the creatures of the Son," he produces confused turbulence by assigning to Him who breathes where He wills and works all in all a mere superiority in comparison with the rest of created things.

Why then is the majesty of the Spirit curtailed by such arguments as these? For there is nothing which can be the cause of producing in him deviation by excess or defect from conceptions such as befit the Godhead, nor, since all these are by Holy Scripture predicated equally of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, can he inform us wherein he discerns inequality to exist. But he launches his blasphemy against the Holy Ghost in its naked form, ill-prepared and unsupported by any consecutive argument. Nor yet ranked, he says, with any other: for He has gone above all the creatures that came into being by the instrumentality of the Son in mode of being, and nature, and glory, and knowledge, as the first and noblest work of the Only-begotten, the greatest and most glorious. I will leave, however, to others the task of ridiculing the bad taste and surplusage of his style, thinking as I do that it is unseemly for the gray hairs of age, when dealing with the argument before us, to make vulgarity of expression an objection against one who is guilty of impiety. I will just add to my investigation this remark. If the Spirit has gone above all the creations of the Son, (for I will use his own ungrammatical and senseless phrase, or rather, to make things clearer, I will present his idea in my own language) if he transcends all things wrought by the Son, the Holy Spirit cannot be ranked with the rest of the creation; and if, as Eunomius says, he surpasses them by virtue of priority of birth, he must needs confess, in the case of the rest of creation, that the objects which are first in order of production are more to be esteemed than those which come after them. Now the creation of the irrational animals was prior to that of man. Accordingly he will of course declare that the irrational nature is more honourable than rational existence. So too, according to the argument of Eunomius, Cain will be proved superior to Abel, in that he was before him in time of birth, and so the stars will be shown to be lower and of less excellence than all the things that grow out of the earth; for these last sprang from the earth on the third day, and all the stars are recorded by Moses to have been created on the fourth. Well, surely no one is such a simpleton as to infer that the grass of the earth is more to be esteemed than the marvels of the sky, on the ground of its precedence in time, or to award the meed to Cain over Abel, or to place below the irrational animals man who came into being later than they. So there is no sense in our author's contention that the nature of the Holy Spirit is superior to that of the creatures that came into being subsequently, on the ground that He came into being before they did. And now let us see what he who separates Him from fellowship with the Son is prepared to concede to the glory of the Spirit: For he too, he says, being one, and first and alone, and surpassing all the creations of the Son in essence and dignity of nature, accomplishing every operation and all teaching according to the good pleasure of the Son, being sent by Him, and receiving from Him, and declaring to those who are instructed, and guiding into truth. He speaks of the Holy Ghost as accomplishing every operation and all teaching. What operation? Does he mean that which the Father and the Son execute, according to the word of the Lord Himself Who hitherto works man's salvation, or does he mean some other? For if His work is that named, He has assuredly the same power and nature as Him Who works it, and in such an one difference of kind from Deity can have no place. For just as, if anything should perform the functions of fire, shining and warming in precisely the same way, it is itself certainly fire, so if the Spirit does the works of the Father, He must assuredly be acknowledged to be of the same nature with Him. If on the other hand He operates something else than our salvation, and displays His operation in a contrary direction, He will thereby be proved to be of a different nature and essence. But Eunomius' statement itself bears witness that the Spirit quickens in like manner with the Father and the Son. Accordingly, from the identity of operations it results assuredly that the Spirit is not alien from the nature of the Father and the Son. And to the statement that the Spirit accomplishes the operation and teaching of the Father according to the good pleasure of the Son we assent. For the community of nature gives us warrant that the will of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is one, and thus, if the Holy Spirit wills that which seems good to the Son, the community of will clearly points to unity of essence. But he goes on, being sent by Him, and receiving from Him, and declaring to those who are instructed, and guiding into truth. If he had not previously said what he has concerning the Spirit, the reader would surely have supposed that these words applied to some human teacher. For to receive a mission is the same thing as to be sent, and to have nothing of one's own, but to receive of the free favour of him who gives the mission, and to minister his words to those who are under instruction, and to be a guide into truth for those that are astray. All these things, which Eunomius is good enough to allow to the Holy Spirit, belong to the present pastors and teachers of the Church — to be sent, to receive, to announce, to teach, to suggest the truth. Now, as he had said above He is one, and first, and alone, and surpassing all, had he but stopped there, he would have appeared as a defender of the doctrines of truth. For He Who is indivisibly contemplated in the One is most truly One, and first Who is in the First, and alone Who is in the Only One. For as the spirit of man that is in him, and the man himself, are but one man, so also the Spirit of God which is in Him, and God Himself, would properly be termed One God, and First and Only, being incapable of separation from Him in Whom He is. But as things are, with his addition of his profane phrase, surpassing all the creatures of the Son, he produces turbid confusion by assigning to Him Who breathes where He wills, and works all in all 1 Corinthians 12:6, a mere superiority in comparison with the rest of created things.

Let us now look at what he adds to this idea of "sanctifying the saints." If anyone says this also about the Father and the Son, they will speak truly. For the Holy One makes holy those in whom He dwells, just as the Good One makes people good. And the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are holy and good, as has been shown. "Acting as a guide to those who approach the mystery." This may well be said of Apollos, who watered what Paul planted. For the Apostle plants through his guidance, and Apollos, when he baptizes, waters through sacramental regeneration, bringing to the mystery those who were instructed by Paul. Thus he places on the same level as Apollos that Spirit who perfects people through baptism. "Distributing every gift." We agree with this, for everything that is good is a portion of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. "Co-operating with the faithful for the understanding and contemplation of things appointed." Since he does not add by whom they are appointed, he leaves his meaning uncertain, whether it is correct or the opposite. But we will advance his statement with a slight addition to make it consistent with godliness. For since whether it is the word of wisdom, or the word of knowledge, or faith, or help, or government, or anything else enumerated in the lists of saving gifts, all these are the work of one and the same Spirit, dividing to every person individually as He wills, we therefore do not reject Eunomius's statement when he says that the Spirit co-operates with the faithful for understanding and contemplation of things appointed by Him, because all good teachings are appointed for us by Him. "Sounding an accompaniment to those who pray." It would be foolish to seriously examine the meaning of this expression, whose ridiculous and meaningless character is immediately obvious to everyone. For who is so demented and out of their mind as to need us to tell them that the Holy Spirit is not a bell or an empty barrel sounding an accompaniment and made to ring by the voice of the one who prays as if by a blow? "Leading us to that which is expedient for us." The Father and the Son likewise do this, for He leads Joseph like a sheep, and led His people like sheep, and the good Spirit leads us in a land of righteousness. "Strengthening us to godliness." David says that to strengthen a person to godliness is the work of God. For "You are my strength and my refuge," says the Psalmist, and "the Lord is the strength of His people," and "He shall give strength and power to His people." If, then, Eunomius's expressions are meant in accordance with the Psalmist's mind, they are a testimony to the divinity of the Holy Spirit. But if they are opposed to the word of prophecy, then by this very fact a charge of blasphemy lies against Eunomius, because he sets up his own opinions in opposition to the holy prophets. Next he says, "Lightening souls with the light of knowledge." This grace also the doctrine of godliness ascribes equally to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. For He is called a light by David, and from there the light of knowledge shines in those who are enlightened. Likewise, the cleansing of our thoughts, which the statement speaks of, is proper to the Lord's power. For it was the brightness of the Father's glory and the express image of His person who purged our sins. Again, to banish devils—which Eunomius says is a property of the Spirit—this also the only-begotten God, who said to the devil "I charge you," ascribes to the power of the Spirit when He says, "If I by the Spirit of God cast out devils," so that the expulsion of devils does not destroy the glory of the Spirit but rather demonstrates His divine and transcendent power. "Healing the sick," he says, "curing the infirm, comforting the afflicted, raising up those who stumble, recovering the distressed." These are the words of those who think reverently of the Holy Spirit, for no one would ascribe the operation of any of these effects to anyone except God. If, then, heresy affirms that those things which belong to God alone to accomplish are wrought by the power of the Spirit, we have in support of the truths we are contending for the witness even of our adversaries. How does the Psalmist seek his healing from God, saying, "Have mercy upon me, O Lord, for I am weak; O Lord, heal me, for my bones are vexed"? It is to God that Isaiah says, "The dew that is from You is healing to them." Again, prophetic language attests that the conversion of those in error is God's work. For "they went astray in the wilderness in a thirsty land," says the Psalmist, and he adds, "So He led them forth by the right way, that they might go to the city where they dwelt," and "when the Lord turned again the captivity of Sion." Likewise, the comfort of the afflicted is ascribed to God, with Paul speaking thus: "Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who comforts us in all our tribulation." Again, the Psalmist says, speaking in the person of God, "You called upon Me in trouble and I delivered you." And the setting upright of those who stumble is innumerable times ascribed by Scripture to the Lord's power: "You have thrust hard at me that I might fall, but the Lord was my help," and "Though he fall, he shall not be cast away, for the Lord upholds him with His hand," and "The Lord helps those who are fallen." And to God's loving-kindness confessedly belongs the recovery of the distressed, if Eunomius means the same thing we learn of in prophecy, as the Scripture says, "You laid trouble upon our loins; You allowed men to ride over our heads; we went through fire and water, and You brought us out into a wealthy place."

Let us now see further what he adds to this sanctifying the saints. If any one says this also of the Father and of the Son, he will speak truly. For those in whom the Holy One dwells, He makes holy, even as the Good One makes men good. And the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are holy and good, as has been shown. Acting as a guide to those who approach the mystery. This may well be said of Apollos who watered what Paul planted. For the Apostle plants by his guidance, and Apollos, when he baptizes, waters by Sacramental regeneration, bringing to the mystery those who were instructed by Paul. Thus he places on a level with Apollos that Spirit Who perfects men through baptism. Distributing every gift. With this we too agree; for everything that is good is a portion of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Co-operating with the faithful for the understanding and contemplation of things appointed. As he does not add by whom they are appointed, he leaves his meaning doubtful, whether it is correct or the reverse. But we will by a slight addition advance his statement so as to make it consistent with godliness. For since, whether it be the word of wisdom, or the word of knowledge, or faith, or help, or government, or anything else that is enumerated in the lists of saving gifts, all these works that one and the self-same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as He will 1 Corinthians 12:11, we therefore do not reject the statement of Eunomius when he says that the Spirit co-operates with the faithful for understanding and contemplation of things appointed by Him, because by Him all good teachings are appointed for us. Sounding an accompaniment to those who pray. It would be foolish seriously to examine the meaning of this expression, of which the ludicrous and meaningless character is at once manifest to all. For who is so demented and beside himself as to wait for us to tell him that the Holy Spirit is not a bell nor an empty cask sounding an accompaniment and made to ring by the voice of him who prays as it were by a blow? Leading us to that which is expedient for us. This the Father and the Son likewise do: for He leads Joseph like a sheep, and, led His people like sheep, and, the good Spirit leads us in a land of righteousness. Strengthening us to godliness. To strengthen man to godliness David says is the work of God; For You are my strength and my refuge, says the Psalmist, and the Lord is the strength of His people, and, He shall give strength and power unto His people. If then the expressions of Eunomius are meant in accordance with the mind of the Psalmist, they are a testimony to the Divinity of the Holy Ghost: but if they are opposed to the word of prophecy, then by this very fact a charge of blasphemy lies against Eunomius, because he sets up his own opinions in opposition to the holy prophets. Next he says, Lightening souls with the light of knowledge. This grace also the doctrine of godliness ascribes alike to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. For He is called a light by David, and from thence the light of knowledge shines in them who are enlightened. In like manner also the cleansing of our thoughts of which the statement speaks is proper to the power of the Lord. For it was the brightness of the Father's glory, and the express image of His person, Who purged our sins Hebrews 1:3. Again, to banish devils, which Eunomius says is a property of the Spirit, this also the only-begotten God, Who said to the devil, I charge you, ascribes to the power of the Spirit, when He says, If I by the Spirit of God cast out devils Matthew 12:28, so that the expulsion of devils is not destructive of the glory of the Spirit, but rather a demonstration of His divine and transcendent power. Healing the sick, he says, curing the infirm, comforting the afflicted, raising up those who stumble, recovering the distressed. These are the words of those who think reverently of the Holy Ghost, for no one would ascribe the operation of any one of these effects to any one except to God. If then heresy affirms that those things which it belongs to none save God alone to effect, are wrought by the power of the Spirit, we have in support of the truths for which we are contending the witness even of our adversaries. How does the Psalmist seek his healing from God, saying, Have mercy upon me, O Lord, for I am weak; O Lord, heal me, for my bones are vexed! It is to God that Isaiah says, The dew that is from You is healing unto them. Again, prophetic language attests that the conversion of those in error is the work of God. For they went astray in the wilderness in a thirsty land, says the Psalmist, and he adds, So He led them forth by the right way, that they might go to the city where they dwelt: and, when the Lord turned again the captivity of Sion. In like manner also the comfort of the afflicted is ascribed to God, Paul thus speaking, Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who comforts us in all our tribulation 2 Corinthians 1:3-4. Again, the Psalmist says, speaking in the person of God, You called upon Me in trouble and I delivered you. And the setting upright of those who stumble is innumerable times ascribed by Scripture to the power of the Lord: You have thrust sore at me that I might fall, but the Lord was my help, and Though he fall, he shall not be cast away, for the Lord upholds him with His hand, and The Lord helps them that are fallen. And to the loving-kindness of God confessedly belongs the recovery of the distressed, if Eunomius means the same thing of which we learn in prophecy, as the Scripture says, You laid trouble upon our loins; You suffered men to ride over our heads; we went through fire and water, and You brought us out into a wealthy place.

The majesty of the Spirit is demonstrated this far by the evidence from our opponents, but in what follows the clear waters of devotion are once again polluted by the mud of heresy. For he says of the Spirit that He cheers on those who are contending, and this phrase entangles him in the charge of extreme foolishness and impiety. For in the stadium some have the task of organizing the competitions between those who intend to display their athletic strength; others, who surpass the rest in strength and skill, strive for the victory and strip to compete with one another, while the rest, taking sides in their good wishes with one or another of the competitors according to how they are individually disposed toward or interested in one athlete or another, cheer him on during the contest, and tell him to guard against some injury, or remember some wrestling technique, or keep himself from being thrown by using his skill. Notice from what has been said how low a rank Eunomius assigns to the Holy Spirit. For while at the games there are some who organize the contests, and others who determine whether the contest is conducted according to the rules, others who are actually competing, and still others who cheer on the competitors, who are acknowledged to be far inferior to the athletes themselves, Eunomius considers the Holy Spirit as one of the crowd who look on, or as one of those who attend upon the athletes, seeing that He neither determines the contest nor awards the victory, nor contends with the adversary, but merely cheers without contributing anything at all to the victory. For He neither joins in the fight, nor does He implant the power to contend, but merely wishes that the athlete in whom He is interested may not lose in the struggle. And so Paul wrestles against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, while the Spirit of power does not strengthen the combatants nor distribute to them His gifts, dividing to every man severally as He will, but His influence is limited to cheering on those who are engaged.

Thus far then the majesty of the Spirit is demonstrated by the evidence of our opponents, but in what follows the limpid waters of devotion are once more defiled by the mud of heresy. For he says of the Spirit that He cheers on those who are contending: and this phrase involves him in the charge of extreme folly and impiety. For in the stadium some have the task of arranging the competitions between those who intend to show their athletic vigour; others, who surpass the rest in strength and skill, strive for the victory and strip to contend with one another, while the rest, taking sides in their good wishes with one or other of the competitors, according as they are severally disposed towards or interested in one athlete or another, cheer him on at the time of the engagement, and bid him guard against some hurt, or remember some trick of wrestling, or keep himself unthrown by the help of his art. Take note from what has been said to how low a rank Eunomius degrades the Holy Spirit. For while on the course there are some who arrange the contests, and others who settle whether the contest is conducted according to rule, others who are actually engaged, and yet others who cheer on the competitors, who are acknowledged to be far inferior to the athletes themselves, Eunomius considers the Holy Spirit as one of the mob who look on, or as one of those who attend upon the athletes, seeing that He neither determines the contest nor awards the victory, nor contends with the adversary, but merely cheers without contributing at all to the victory. For He neither joins in the fray, nor does He implant the power to contend, but merely wishes that the athlete in whom He is interested may not come off second in the strife. And so Paul wrestles against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places Ephesians 6:12, while the Spirit of power does not strengthen the combatants nor distribute to them His gifts, dividing to every man severally as He will 1 Corinthians 12:11, but His influence is limited to cheering on those who are engaged.

Again he says, "Emboldening the faint-hearted." And here, while he follows his previous blasphemy against the Spirit according to his own method, the truth nevertheless manifests itself, even through unfriendly lips. For it belongs to none other than God to implant courage in the fearful, saying to the faint-hearted, "Fear not, for I am with you, be not dismayed" (Isaiah 41:10), as the Psalmist says, "Yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil, for You are with me." Indeed, the Lord Himself says to the fearful, "Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid," and "Why are you fearful, O you of little faith?" (Matthew 8:26), and "Be of good cheer, it is I, be not afraid," and again, "Be of good cheer: I have overcome the world." Accordingly, even though this may not have been Eunomius's intention, orthodoxy asserts itself by means even of the voice of an enemy. And the next sentence agrees with what went before: "Caring for all, and showing all concern and forethought." For in fact it belongs to God alone to care and to take thought for all, as the mighty David has expressed it, "I am poor and needy, but the Lord cares for me." And if what remains seems to dissolve into empty words, with sound but without sense, let no one find fault, seeing that in most of what he says, so far as any sane meaning is concerned, he is feeble and untutored. For what on earth he means when he says "for the onward leading of the better disposed and the guardianship of the more faithful," neither he himself nor those who senselessly admire his follies could possibly tell us.

Again he says, Emboldening the faint-hearted. And here, while in accordance with his own method he follows his previous blasphemy against the Spirit, the truth for all that manifests itself, even through unfriendly lips. For to none other than to God does it belong to implant courage in the fearful, saying to the faint-hearted, Fear not, for I am with you, be not dismayed Isaiah 41:10, as says the Psalmist, Yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil, for You are with me. Nay, the Lord Himself says to the fearful — Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid, and, Why are you fearful, O you of little faith Matthew 8:26? and, Be of good cheer, it is I, be not afraid, and again, Be of good cheer: I have overcome the world. Accordingly, even though this may not have been the intention of Eunomius, orthodoxy asserts itself by means even of the voice of an enemy. And the next sentence agrees with that which went before:– Caring for all, and showing all concern and forethought. For in fact it belongs to God alone to care and to take thought for all, as the mighty David has expressed it, I am poor and needy, but the Lord cares for me. And if what remains seems to be resolved into empty words, with sound and without sense, let no one find fault, seeing that in most of what he says, so far as any sane meaning is concerned, he is feeble and untutored. For what on earth he means when he says, for the onward leading of the better disposed and the guardianship of the more faithful, neither he himself, nor they who senselessly admire his follies, could possibly tell us.