A and having partaken of our nature in all things according to likeness, sin excepted. But according to the likeness of His having assumed the whole man with soul and body, so that by both, salvation might be accomplished for us. He was seen upon the earth, and conversed with men, so that men might no longer, according to their own opinions, conjecture about Him who is, holding those suspicions or opinions which they follow from certain slight conjectures as true and firm decrees. But, being persuaded that God truly appeared in the flesh, let us believe that to be the only true mystery of godliness, which was delivered by the Word and God Himself, who spoke to the apostles in His own person. But let us embrace the doctrine concerning the super-eminent nature, which has been fashioned from the more ancient Scripture, from the law and the prophets, and from proverbial teaching, as a testimony of the truth revealed to us through a certain mirror and enigma, receiving the meaning of what is said with piety, so that we may agree with the faith set forth by the Lord of all; which we keep pure and inviolate in the very wording, as we have received it; and we judge the perversion and depravation of the delivered words, even in a small measure, to be the ultimate blasphemy and impiety. We believe, therefore, just as the Lord set forth the faith to His disciples, saying: "Go, make disciples of 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, in which, through the birth from above, our nature is transformed for the better, while it is renewed from the corruptible to the incorruptible, from the old man, according to the image of Him who at the beginning created the divine likeness. Therefore, of this faith delivered by God to the apostles, we make neither subtraction, nor alteration, nor perversion, nor addition; knowing clearly that he who dares to pervert the divine voice through malicious sophistry, this man is from the father of the devil; for he, having let go of the words of truth, speaks from his own, having become the father of a lie. For everything that is said contrary to truth is utterly a lie, and not truth.
B Since, therefore, this decree is set forth by Truth Itself, if they invent anything incorrectly through the contempt of this voice—the inventors of malignant heresies—so that in place of the Father they name Him [the Father] the creator and maker of the Son; and in place of the Son, a work and creature and something fashioned; and in place of the Holy Spirit, a creature of a creature, and a work of a work; and all such things as seem fit to the enemies of God to say about Him—all such things we call a denial of the divinity revealed to us in this dogma, and a transgression. For once we have learned from the Lord that upon which we ought to gaze with our thought and mind—through which the transformation of our nature from the mortal to the immortal occurs—this, indeed, is the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Wherefore we declare it to be fearful and destructive both to pervert these divine voices malignantly and incorrectly, and to devise others D for the sake of the annulment of these.
A As if they would amend and correct the Word of God, who has legislated for us to hold these voices in faith. For each one of these appellations, when perceived by the mind in its native significance, becomes a rule of truth and a law of piety for Christians. Since there are many other names by which the Divine is signified in history, in prophecy, and in the law, the Lord Christ, having left all these aside, and being able to lead us to the faith which is concerning that which is, sets forth these voices, deeming that if we abide in the appellation of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, it suffices for the cognition of Him who truly is—which is both one and not one. For in respect of the Word of essence it is one; therefore the Lord also legislated that we should look to one name. But according to the properties by which the divine persons are distinguished, it is divided into the faith of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, being inseparably distributed and unconfusedly united. B For when we hear "Father," we receive this notion and understanding: that this name is not understood in itself alone, but also declares through its own force a mutual relation with the Son. For the Father could not be conceived of as separated in Himself, without the Son being joined through the utterance of the Father. Having, therefore, learned "Father," by the same voice we are also instructed in the faith concerning the Son. Since, therefore, the Divine by nature, in what it is and as it is, is always the same, not at any time being something that it now is not, nor at any time being something that it now is not yet; and since the true Father was named "Father" by the Word, and the Son is shown forth together with the Father, we necessarily believe that He who admits no mutation or alteration in His nature is, in what He now is, altogether what He always was—or, if there be anything that He was at some time not, then neither does He now in any way exist. Since, therefore, the Father is named by the true Word, He always and in every way was Father and is, and will be as He was. For it is not permitted to say concerning the divine and impassible nature that what is good is not always in it. For if what now is, was not always in it, it would have been changed either for the worse from the better, or for the better from the worse; and to say either of these regarding the divine nature is equally impious. But the Divine is indeed incapable of change or alteration. Surely, everything that is good and excellent is always considered in connection with the source of the good; and the Only-Begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, is good and beyond all that is good. C But He who is in the bosom, is He not begotten? Wherefore it has been demonstrated through these things that the Son is from eternity perceived in the Father in whom He is, being living life, and light, and truth, and every good name and notion; without which to affirm that the Father was at any time in Himself is of extreme impiety and at once of madness and stupid folly. For if the Son, as the Scripture says, is the power of God, and wisdom, and truth, and light, D and every good thing, how could the Father ever be without these?
A And if these did not exist, it would mean that the bosom of the Father must be thought of as void and empty of such goods. Therefore, lest the Father be thought of as destitute of His own goods, and lest our opinion fall into such an absurdity, it is necessary, according to the voice of the Lord, that the faith concerning the Son be contemplated along with the eternity of the Father. For this reason, leaving aside all names that are used to demonstrate His supereminent nature, He sets forth for us in the faith B the appellation of "Father," as being more indicative of the truth, which, as has been said, by its relative conception implies the Son along with itself. And since the Son, who is in the Father, is always what He is, as has been said in the preceding discourses—for God by nature does not admit of an increase toward something greater (for He does not see any other good outside Himself, through participation in which He could receive anything more; but C existing always in the same way, He neither casts away what He has, nor assumes from outside what He does not have; for He possesses nothing of the things that are to be rejected, and if there is anything blessed, and incorruptible, and immortal, and true, and good, it is altogether around Him and within Him)—we necessarily see that the Holy Spirit, who is the righteous guide, and prince, and director, vivifying, and the ruler of all creation, and sanctifier, who works and effects all things in all as He wills, does not come to Him by any adventitious or added power. D Do not imagine any interval between Christ and the chrism—that is, the anointing—any more than between a king and his kingdom, or wisdom and the spirit of wisdom, or truth and the spirit of truth, or power and the spirit of power. Rather, the Son is understood from eternity in the Father, being Himself both wisdom and truth, counsel and fortitude, knowledge and intelligence. From eternity, the Holy Spirit is also known along with Him, being indeed the Spirit of wisdom and truth, of counsel and intelligence, and all the other things that the Son both is and is named. For this reason we assert that the mystery of godliness has been handed down to the holy disciples, at once joined and distinguished, namely, that one must believe in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. For the property of the hypostases makes this distinction of persons clear and unconfused; but the one name set before our exposition of the faith clearly interprets for us the unity of the essence of the persons who are in the faith—I mean of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit—since by these titles we are not taught a difference of nature, but only the distinguishing properties of the hypostases. So that we may know that neither is the Son the Father, nor the Father the Son; nor is the Son either the Father or the Holy Spirit; but that we may know each one by the characteristic peculiar to his hypostasis, existing in indefinite perfection, and contemplated in himself, and not divided from that to which he is joined. What, therefore, signifies that unnameable name concerning which
the Lord thus spoke? That in baptizing them into the name, he did not add the very significant term that is declared under this name. We understand this in the following way: that all things that are created are comprehended by the significance of names. For he who said “heaven” led the mind of the hearer to that creature which is signified by this name; and he who A makes mention of man or any of the animals by name, immediately imprints the form of the animal in the mind of the one who has heard it; and all other things are likewise painted in the heart of the one who, through hearing, has received the designation applied to the thing, by means of the imposed names. But the uncreated nature alone, which is believed in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is superior to and better than any nominal significance. For this reason the Word, that is the Son of God, when he said “in the name” in the tradition of the faith, did not add what that name was. For how could a name be found appropriate for a thing that surpasses every name? But he granted the power so that, according to its capacity, our intellect, piously moved, might find some name that would show forth the pre-eminent nature, and would likewise apply it to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit—whether one calls it the Good, or the Incorruptible, or whatever each one might deem worthy to be assumed for the demonstration of the immortal and eternal nature. And this seems to me, according to this exposition, to be what the Word ordained by law, namely, to persuade us that the divine essence is something ineffable, indescribable, and incomprehensible. For it is B clear that the designation of the Father is not indicative of essence, but signifies the relation toward the Son. If, therefore, it were possible for human nature to be taught and to perceive the essence of God, He who desires all to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. II, 4) would not have kept silent concerning the knowledge of this. But now, since he has said nothing concerning the essence, he shows that the knowledge of that thing is impossible; but having learned what we can comprehend, we stand in no need of the incomprehensible, having the faith of the handed-down doctrine sufficient for our salvation. For to learn that He is that which truly is—by which name also the magnificence of the Son is made to shine forth together through the relative concept—is the most perfect doctrine of piety, the Son, as has been said, being shown conjointly with himself as the Spirit of life and of truth, since He himself is life and truth.
These things C being thus distinguished, anathematizing every heretical opinion in the divine dogmas, we believe, just as we have been taught by the voice of the Lord, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; confessing along with this faith the dispensation also that was made by the Lord of creation on behalf of men: “Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant” (Phil. II, 6), and being incarnate in the holy Virgin, redeemed us from the death D in which we were held fast, being sold under sin.
A Having given His own precious blood as a price for the redemption of our souls, which He poured out through the cross, and having prepared for us through Himself the resurrection from the dead; for He shall come in His own times in the glory of the Father to judge every soul in righteousness, when all who are in the tombs shall hear His voice and shall come forth, they that have done good into the resurrection of life, but they that have done evil into the resurrection of judgment. So that the heretical discord which is now being disseminated by Eunomius may not, by falling unexamined into the souls of some of the simpler sort, injure the immaculate faith, we will attempt, by setting forth the exposition which is circulated by them, to refute the wickedness of their dogma.
The text of the dogma runs thus: “We believe in one and the only true God according to the teaching of the Lord Himself, not honoring Him with a lying voice (for He is devoid of all falsehood), but Him who truly is in nature and glory one God, without beginning, eternal, without end, alone.” B Let not him who has promised to believe according to the teaching of the Lord pervert the exposition of the faith made by the Lord of all to suit his own opinion, but let him follow the voices that have proceeded from the truth. Since, then, the word of the faith includes the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, what harmony do the words now composed have with the voices of the Lord, so that such a dogma can be referred to that teaching? Where has the Lord said in the Gospels that it is necessary to believe in one and the only true God? They cannot show this, unless they have some new Gospel among them. For the accounts that are read in the Churches from ancient times down to the present day by succession do not contain this expression, which says that it is necessary to believe or to baptize into “one and the only true God,” as these men suppose, but “into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” C But as we have been taught by the voice of the Lord, we assert this: that the word “one” does not signify the Father alone, but also shows the Son together with the Father, as the Lord said, “I and the Father are one” (John X, 30). Furthermore, the title of divinity is equally applied both to the beginning in which the Word was, and to the Word Himself who was in the beginning; for He said that the Word was with God, and the Word was God (John I, 1). So that in the meaning of divinity, the Son is contemplated together with the Father. Moreover, that which is true in essence cannot be understood as anything other than the truth. That the Lord is the truth, no one will surely contradict, unless he be someone completely straying and alien from the truth. If, then, the Word is in the “one,” and is God, and is the truth, as is proclaimed in the Gospels, to what teaching of the Lord does the man who has used these distinctive phrases refer this dogma? D For the antithesis of “only” against “not alone” is also the antithesis of “God” against “not God,” and of “the true” against “the not true.” If, therefore, looking toward idols, they make this adverse division of words against them, we also agree. Since indeed, by…
via homonymy, the name of Divinity is attributed to the idols of the nations: “For all the gods of the nations are demons.” A And otherwise, he distinguishes the One against the multitude, and the True against the false, and those who are not gods against the God who is. But if this adverse division is made toward the Only-begotten God, let the wise know that truth has an adverse distinction only against falsehood, and God against him who is not God. But since the Lord, who is the truth, is God, and is in the Father, and is one with the Father, these distinguishing words have no place in the doctrine. For he who truly believes in the One sees in that One Him who in all things is united to Him, in truth and deity, and in essence, and in life, and in wisdom, and in everything absolutely. B Or if he does not see One who is these very things in the One, he has his faith in nothing; for without the Son the Father neither is, nor is He called such; nor indeed is the Powerful one without power, nor the Wise one without wisdom; for Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. So that he who imagines he is looking outside of power, or truth, or wisdom, or life, or the true light, either sees nothing at all, or else sees the evil; for the removal of goods becomes the position and existence of evil. “Not by a feigned voice,” he says, “worship Him,” for He is truthful. In this voice I pray that Eunomius may remain, bearing witness to the truth that God does not lie.
C If, therefore, he were to think that everything said by the Lord is separated from falsehood, he will surely believe that He who said, “I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me” (John x, 38; xiv, 10), speaks the truth, meaning the Whole in the Whole, neither the Father abounding in the Son, nor the Son lacking in the Father; and that in this way the Son must be honored just as the Father is honored (John v, 23); and that “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John xiv, 9); and that “No one knows the Son except the Father,” and that “No one knows the Father except the Son” (Matth. xi, 27). Through all of which, no difference of glory, or of essence, or of anything else, is supposed in Father and Son by those who have accepted these words as true.
“He who truly is,” he says, “is one God in nature and glory.” That which truly *is* is contrasted with that which does not *truly* exist. Now, that is truly *being*—each of the things that exist, insofar as it is. But that which seems indeed to be only up to a certain imagination and suspicion, but is not *being*, this does not truly exist; as with a dream, a phantom, or a man in a painting. D For these things and such like, existing only up to imagination, do not possess true existence. If, therefore, according to Jewish opinion, they maintain that the Only-begotten God does not exist at all, they rightly attribute "truly being" to the Father alone by their own testimony. But if they do not deny the Creator of all, that He is, let them be persuaded not to deprive Him who is of truly existent being; He who named Himself in the theophany that occurred to Moses as the one who is, when He said, “I am He who is” (Exod. iii, 14); just as Eunomius in the following passages continues to concur with this, testifying to the truth, that He is truthful.
A Then he says that God is one by nature and by glory. If, therefore, God is God apart from being God by nature—let him who says these things see to it; but if one who is not by nature God is not God, let them learn from the great Paul that those who serve those who are not by nature gods, do not serve God. We, however, serve the living and true God; as the Apostle says, “The one to whom we serve is Jesus Christ.” For even the apostle Paul boasts in serving Him, saying, “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ.” We, therefore, who no longer serve those who are not by nature gods, have acknowledged Him who is by nature God, to whom every knee bends, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth. Nor would we have served Him if we had 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.”
“God,” he says, “is one, without origin or beginning: eternal, alone without end.” “Understand again, O little ones, the craftiness,” says Solomon (Prov. viii, 5), “lest at any time, being deceived, you fall into a denial of the divinity of the Only-Begotten.” That is “without end” which is not subject to death and corruption. In the same way, that is called “eternal” which is not temporary. Therefore, that which is neither eternal nor unending—this is altogether viewed in corruptible and ephemeral nature. Consequently, he who attributes that which is without end and limit to the one and only God, but does not include the Son in the meaning of “unending” and “eternal,” C confirms by such a statement that He is corruptible and temporary, being contrasted with the eternal and unending. But we, even if we hear that “God alone has immortality” (I Tim. vi, 16), understand the Son through that immortality; for immortality is life. And even if it is said that He “dwells in light which no one can approach” (I Tim. vi, 16), we do not doubt that the true light, which is unapproachable to falsehood, is understood as the Only-Begotten, in whom we have learned from the Truth herself that the Father is. From these things let the hearer choose what is more pious: whether it is proper to think and feel thus concerning the Only-Begotten in a manner worthy of God, or to say, as the heresy suggests, that He is corruptible and temporary. He does not, he says, divide the essence, according to which He is one, into many, nor does He become something different at different times, nor does He depart from what He is, nor is He fashioned from one essence into a threefold hypostasis. D For He is, in every way and altogether, one, remaining alone, according to the same things and in the same way. From these things that have been set forth, it is fitting for the intelligent hearer to discern, first, the empty words cast forth in the discourse without sense, and to distinguish them from those that seem to have some meaning; and after this, to examine the understanding found in the remaining statements, to see if it concurs with the piety which is in Jesus.
The earlier words, therefore, which are set forth here, are altogether separated from any good or evil way of thinking. For what
A frame of mind does it contain, that it is not the essence according to which he is one that is being separated into several parts, or becoming one thing at one time and another at another, or departing from existence as it is? Neither could he himself say, nor do I think any of those who take his side can find even a shadow of a thought in what has been said. "Not the essence according to which he is one." He either says that he is separated from his own essence, not being separated, or he says that the essence is not divided from him. This talk is a noise B and a vain sound, rashly thrown together, signifying nothing. And why is it necessary to linger any longer in the examination of these senseless words? For how can anyone, when separated from his own essence, continue to exist? Or how is an essence, once divided, shown to be in itself? Or how is it possible for one who has departed from that in which he is, to become someone else once he has come to be outside himself? "But not even," he says, "from one essence is it fashioned into three subsistences." For he is, absolutely and entirely, one, remaining C alone in the same way and in the same state. Now, the lack of sense in what has been said is, I think, clear to everyone even before our own arguments; but let him who thinks there is any mind or thought in what is said argue against this. For anyone who has examined the power of language will disdain to entangle himself with things that lack substance. For what strength or weight does it have against our dogma, to say, "Not the essence according to which he is one is being separated, or divided into several, or becoming one thing at one time and another at another, or departing from existence as it is; nor is it fashioned D out of one essence into three subsistences"? Neither are these things said by Christians, nor are they believed, nor are they understood by consequence through those things that are confessed among us. For who has ever said this, or heard anyone saying in the Church of God that the Father, in regard to his essence, is either separated or divided, or becomes one thing at one time and another at another, becoming outside himself, or is fashioned into three subsistences? To himself Eunomius speaks these things; he does not fight against us, but weaves his own trifles, having mixed into his impiety a great deal of the madness of these things said. For we say it is an equally impious and godless thing for one to declare that the Lord of creation is a creature, and to think that the Father, as he is, is separated or dissected, or migrates out of himself, or is fashioned into three subsistences or persons, as if he were some clay or wax being molded into different shapes.
But let us consider the words that follow. "For he is in every respect and absolutely one, remaining alone in the same way and in the same state." If he says this about the Father, we also agree. For the Father is truly one, alone, and in every respect and absolutely, keeping himself in the same way and in the same state. And he is never that which is neither existing, nor not an existing thing, nor not to exist in the future. If, therefore, such a statement looks to the Father, let him not stubbornly oppose the dogma of piety, but let him agree with the Church in this part; for he who confesses that the Father always exists and in the same manner, being one and alone, upholds the doctrine of piety, looking in the Father
A at the Son; without whom the Father neither is, nor is he called, the Most High or the Almighty. But if he imagines any other God besides the Father, let him dispute with the Jews or with those who are called Hypsistians; for this is their point of divergence from the Christians, that they do indeed confess that there is a certain being whom they name the Most High or the Almighty, but they do not admit that he is the Father. Yet a Christian, if he does not believe in God the Father, is not a Christian.
The things which he adds to these are as follows: "Not having," he says, "a partner or associate of his deity, not a sharer of his glory, not an equal participant in his power, not a co-occupant of his throne in his kingdom. For there is one and only God the Almighty, God of gods, King of kings, Lord of lords." I do not know upon whom Eunomius is looking, that he should protest that the Father does not communicate his divinity to him. If he says such things with regard to vain idols and the misguided opinion of idolaters, as Paul also proclaims that "there is no agreement or convention B between Christ and Beliar, nor fellowship of the temple of God with temples of idols," we also agree. But if he separates the only-begotten God from the paternal deity by the things that are said, let him learn that he is constructing a dilemma of impiety against himself; for either he denies absolutely that the Only-Begotten is God, so as to preserve and vindicate for the Father that which is incommunicable with the Son in deity—and by this he is convicted as a transgressor and prevaricator, having denied the God of the Christians—or, if he grants that he is God, yet not according to a nature conformable to the true God, it is absolutely necessary for him to confess that he worships gods divided and separated from one another by the difference of their natures. Let him choose which of these he desires: either to deny the deity of the Son or to introduce C several gods into his doctrine; for whichever of these he chooses, it matters not, for it is an equal crime of impiety. But we, being instructed and taught by the God-inspired words of Scripture, do not see a "communion" of deity in the Father and the Son, but a unity; the Lord himself having taught this in his own words, where he says, "I and the Father are one," and, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." For if he were not of the same nature, how would he either have within himself that which is foreign, or how would he show forth in himself that which is unlike, since a foreign and alien nature does not receive the character or form of a thing of another kind? He says moreover that he has no sharer or associate of glory: he says this as it is, although he does not know what he is saying; D for the Son does not divide the glory with the Father, but has the whole glory of the Father, just as the Father has all the glory of the Son. For so he said to the Father, that "All mine are thine, and thine are mine." And for this reason he affirms that he will appear in the time of judgment in the glory of the Father, when he is to render to each according to his works; and by this utterance he demonstrates the unity of nature. For just as there is one glory of the sun and another glory of the moon, because they do not correspond to one another
A in the nature of their elements—for if the glory of both were the same, no difference in their nature would be supposed—so he who foretold that he would appear in the glory of the Father demonstrated, by means of that identity of glory, the communion of nature.
To say that the Son is not a joint-throne sharer of the kingdom with the Father bears witness to how much Eunomius has been exercised in the divine utterances, he who, from excessive attention to the divinely inspired Scriptures, has not yet heard: *Set your minds on things that are above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father* B, and that *he has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God*; and many other such things, the multitude of which one could not easily number, which, not having yet learned, Eunomius forbids the Son to be a joint-throne sharer with the Father. But as for "joint-heir" (or "consort") of authority, one ought to pass over this as senseless rather than refute it as impious. For what conception the expression "joint-heir" holds, from the common usage of language, it is not possible to discover. *They cast lots for the garment of the Lord*, as the Scripture says, those who did not wish to tear the Lord's tunic, but to make it the possession of one of them C to whom the lot should grant it. Those, therefore, who cast lots with one another for the tunic can perhaps be called "joint-heirs" (consorts). But here, in the case of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, since authority exists in the nature itself—for the Holy Spirit blows where he wills, and works all things in all as he wills; and the Son, through whom all things were made, visible and invisible in the heavens and upon the earth, did all that he willed, and gives life to whom he wills; and the Father has set the times in his own authority, and from the times we understand all things that have come to be in time to be subject to the Father—if, therefore, the Father and the Son, and the Holy Spirit as we have said, are shown to have the authority to do what they will, what sense does the expression "joint-heir of authority" have? It is not possible to discern. For the heir of all things, the creator of the ages, he who shines forth with the glory of the Father, and who characterizes D within himself the hypostasis of the Father, is Lord of all things that the Father himself has, and is Lord of all authority; not that dignity migrates from the Father to the Son, but it remains also with him and exists in him. For he who is in the Father is, with all his own power, clearly in the Father; and he who has the Father in himself encompasses all the fatherly authority and power. For he has the whole Father in himself, and not a part of him. And he who has the whole, also entirely has his authority. What, then, does Eunomius understand when he proclaims that the Father does not have a "joint-heir of power"? Perhaps his disciples of vanity might say—for he who knows how to understand words confesses that he cannot understand things said without sense. The Father, he says, does not have a "joint-heir of authority." For who is it that speaks of "by lot" instead of "joint-heir"? Joint-heirs,
A over whom the holy Eunomius acts as mediator through a friendly agreement, assigning the rights of authority B to the Father without any lot.
Observe the ridiculous, childish, vile, and abject exposition of these dogmas. Does He who bears all things by the word of His power, who says what He wills to come into being, and who performs what He wills in the power of His command—to whom power concurs with will, and whose will becomes the measure of His power: "For He spoke and they were created, He commanded and they were fashioned" [Ps. cxlviii, 5]; He who created all things through Himself and constituted them in Himself, without whom nothing of things that are either came into being or remains in being—does He await to obtain authority by some sort of "lot"? Judge, hearers, whether he who asserts these things is of sound mind. "One," he says, "is the one and only God Almighty." If indeed he indicates the Father by the name "Almighty," he speaks our language, not an alien one. But if he has in mind some other than the Father as "Almighty," let him also preach circumcision if he likes, he who is the leader of Jewish decrees, for the faith of Christians looks toward the Father. For the Father is everything: Most High, Almighty, King of kings, Lord of lords [1 Tim. vi, 15], and whatever has an exalted and eminent meaning is proper to the Father; and whatever things are the Father's, all those are also the Son's [John xvii, 10]. C If this is the case, we also admit these terms. But if, leaving out the Father, he assumes another Almighty, he puts forward Jewish decrees or follows the doctrine of Plato. For they say that that philosopher also declares that there is a certain supreme creator and maker of certain other inferior gods. Just as, therefore, in the Jewish and Platonic decrees, he who does not acknowledge the Father is no Christian, even if he worships some "Almighty" in his dogma, so too Eunomius lies against the name, Judaizing in his opinion, or preferring the divinities of the Greeks while wearing the name of Christians. D Nay, even concerning what follows, the same argument will apply. For he says, "God of gods." We, by adding the name of the Father, make the expression familiar and proper, knowing that the Father is the God of gods. But whatever things are the Father's are altogether the Son's also. And "Lord of lords"—the same argument applies to this as well; and "Most High over all the earth." For whomever you may conceive in your mind, He is Most High over all the earth. Similarly, there is a contemplation of the heavenly things over the earthly by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But also, as for what is added next to those statements: "Most High in the heavens," "Most High in the highest," "super-celestial," "true in essence," who is and remains "true in words," "true in works"—all these things the eye of Christians beholds equally in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. If [next page begins]
therefore, Eunomius assigns these things to only one of the Persons handed down in the faith, let him dare to say that He who said "I am the truth" A is not true in words, or let him refuse to acknowledge as true in works the Spirit of truth, or Him who works judgment and justice, or the Spirit who works all things in everyone as He wills. For if these things do not bear witness to the Persons handed down in the faith, he is completely erasing the faith of Christians. For how will anyone deem worthy of faith one who is false in his words and not true in his works?
But let us proceed to what follows in the discourse. He says: "He is superior to all rule, subjection, and power." This statement is also our own and proper to the Catholic Church: namely, to believe that the divine nature is higher than every rule, and that it has under its own control whatever is understood to exist among beings. The divine nature is the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But if he ascribes this power by his testimony to the Father alone, and if he declares Him alone free from change and alteration, and if he says He alone is incorruptible, it is clear B from these things what is being constructed: that he who does not possess these things is altogether changeable, corruptible, and subject to destruction. Therefore, Eunomius puts forward these dogmas concerning the only-begotten God and the Holy Spirit; for he would not have employed this contrast, distinguishing the Father from them, had he not held this opinion concerning the Son and the Spirit. What remains, then, brothers? Test whether he who holds these views is not a persecutor of the Christian faith. For who would judge that which is subject to change, alteration, and destruction to be worthy of veneration for himself? Therefore, the whole goal of the one constructing such thoughts is to cast out from the Church the faith which it has in the Son and the Holy Spirit, since by these things he attempts to establish that neither the Truth itself nor the Spirit of truth is incorruptible, C unchangeable, or immutable.
Let us see also what he adds to what has been said. "Not by generating," he says, "does He divide His own essence, and the same one be both generating and generated, or the same becoming Father and Son; for He is incorruptible." Such, perhaps, is what the prophet says concerning the impious: "They weave a spider’s web" 98. For as in that case there is the appearance of a web, but no solid substance underlies the appearance—for he who touches it touches nothing that exists, as the threads of the spider perish by the touch of the fingers—such also is this futile and non-subsistent weaving of empty words. "Not by generating," he says, "does He divide His own essence, and the same be both generating and generated." Is it necessary to call what is said a discourse, or rather a mass of phlegm, D spat out from some dropsical accumulation? For what is it "to divide one's own essence in generating, and for the same to be both generating and generated?" Who is so out of his mind...
A in his thinking, as to say that this is the doctrine against which Eunomius seems to fight? For the Church believes the true Father to be truly the Father of His own Son, as the Apostle says, and not of someone else; for in one of the Epistles he declared: "He who did not spare His own Son" (Rom. viii, 32), contrasting by the addition of "His own" those who are deemed worthy of adoption by grace and not by nature. But what does he who calumniates this belief of ours say? "Not dividing His own essence in generating, nor is He who generates the same as He who is generated; nor is the same [Person] Father and Son; for He is incorruptible." Does anyone, hearing that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God" (Joan. i, 1), and that "the Word went forth from God the Father," thus besmirch and defile such a sincere and pure doctrine with these foul and stinking thoughts, while saying: "He does not divide His essence in generating"? O, the abomination of these filthy and corrupt notions! How does he who says such things not understand that, when God was manifested through flesh, He did not take on the passion of human nature for the formation of His own body, but rather "a child was born to us of the Holy Spirit and of the power of the Most High" (Matth. i, 18; Luc. i, 27); and neither did the Virgin suffer, nor was the Spirit diminished, nor was the power of the Most High divided? For the Spirit is whole, and the power of the Most High remained undiminished; and the child was born whole, and did not violate the integrity of the mother. Then, indeed, flesh was born from flesh B without passion; yet Eunomius does not wish this radiance of glory to be from the glory itself, since the glory that generates the light is neither diminished nor divided into parts. Indeed, the human word is generated from the mind indivisibly. But the Word of God, according to him, cannot be born from the Father unless the Father's essence has been sliced into parts! Who is so senseless and stupid as not to understand the absurdity and madness of this dogma? "Not in generating," he says, "dividing his own essence." For whose essence is divided into parts in the act of generation? For essence in humans is human nature. Among beings devoid of reason, it is, generally speaking, the irrational nature; and specifically, in the case of oxen, sheep, and all irrational animals, the nature viewed according to the differences of properties. Which of these, then, divides its own essence through birth or offspring? Does not nature C always remain whole in each of the animals through the succession of those born? Furthermore, when a human generates a human from himself, he does not distribute his nature, but it is whole both in the one who generated and in the one who is generated; it is not separated and relocated from the former to the latter, nor is it truncated in the one when it becomes perfect in the other. Rather, it is entirely present in this one and entirely found in that one. For even before he generated the one from himself, the human was a rational animal, mortal, capable of intelligence and knowledge. And when he generated such a human, so that all the properties of the nature were shown in him, he did not lose the being of a human D
that he would suppose that by such disconnected words he could corrupt the true doctrine of piety, or provide some strength for impiety, not knowing that by the very things through which he thinks to construct an absurdity, he is found to be a patron and defender of the truth? For we ourselves say that he who possesses all the things of his own Father is that whole thing, except for being the Father. And he who possesses all the things that are of the Son shows the whole Son in himself, except for being the Son. B Thus, the construction of absurdity which Eunomius now attempts becomes an ally of the truth, since our own understanding is clearer and more manifest, according to the induction of the evangelical word. For if he who has seen the Son sees the Father, the Father has generated another himself, without departing from himself, and appearing wholly in him. So that through these things, what seemed to have been said against the truth is shown to be an aid to sound teaching.
"But," he says, "not dividing his own essence in generating, and being the same who generates and who is generated, or the same being both Father and Son: for he is incorruptible." C Oh, the necessity of the conclusion! What are you saying, most wise sir? Because he is incorruptible, he does not divide his own essence while generating the Son; neither does he generate himself, and is generated by himself; nor does the Father at the same time become his own self and Son, because he is incorruptible. Therefore, if anyone is of a corruptible nature, he divides his essence when generating; and he is generated by himself, and generates himself, and becomes his own father and son, because he is not incorruptible. But if these things are so, then Abraham did not beget Ishmael and Isaac, because he was corruptible; but he brought forth himself D through the bondmaid and the lawful wife, or by some other portentous reasoning he diffused his essence by dividing it among the begotten. First indeed, in the birth through the bondmaid Hagar, having been divided into two segments, in one of the halves Ishmael is generated, and in the other half remains Abraham. After this, the remainder of Abraham's essence was divided into the double birth of Isaac, so that in each of the descendants there was an eighth part. How might someone dissect [this] into the twelve patriarchs, breaking down the eighth part into particles, or into the seventy-five souls with whom Jacob went down into
A Ægyptum? And why do I say these things, when the madness of these assertions should have been refuted, starting from the first man? For if it belongs to the incorruptible alone not to divide its nature in begetting, and Adam is corruptible—to whom it was said: "For dust you are, and to dust you shall return"—then, according to the argument of Eunomius, he must have divided his own essence into those who were begotten from him, being cut into pieces. For with the multitude of those coming after, the segment of essence found in each one would necessarily be divided according to the number of those being born; the essence of Adam would be exhausted before it reached the nature subsisting in Abraham, dispersed as it was by the infinite tens of thousands produced from him, through those thin and indivisible particles. Nor would any remainder of Adam's essence be found, which might be divided and diffused into Abraham and his sons and descendants; for the nature would have been consumed and exhausted long before, among the infinite and countless progenitors before him, through those minutiae of the segments of the nature. B Observe the folly of him who knows not what he says nor about what things he makes assertions. For by saying that, because He is incorruptible, He neither divides His essence, nor begets Himself, nor becomes Father of Himself, he indicated by way of consequence that in everything subject to corruption, those things must occur in generation which he maintained do not belong to the incorruptible alone. But although there are many other things that could refute the vanity of these sayings, I believe that what has been brought forward thus far is sufficient for the demonstration of this madness. It is certainly agreed among those who are learned and knowledgeable that one must look at what follows from each thing. He who attributes incorruptibility to the Father alone, confirms that all things discerned by soul and mind after the Father are corruptible, by the difference that exists in relation to the incorruptible. So that he does not even show the Son to be free from corruption. If, therefore, he makes the Son to differ from the incorruptible, he does not only define Him as corruptible, but also asserts of Him all other things which he says do not belong to the immortal alone. For of necessity, if the Father alone neither begets Himself nor is begotten of Himself, then everything that is not incorruptible both begets itself and is begotten of itself, and becomes both father and son of itself, being accommodated to both parts of the essence. C For if it belongs to the Father alone to be incorruptible, and it is proper to the incorruptible that these things do not exist, then according to the reasoning of this heresy, the Son is not at all incorruptible, and all these things are necessarily in Him: to divide the essence, to beget Himself and be begotten of Himself, and to become Himself both father and son of Himself. But perhaps it is vain to dwell and be detained longer with the senseless and the insane. Let us therefore pass on to the things that follow next in his discourse. To these, therefore, he adds: "Not in making does He need matter, or parts, or natural instruments (for He is in need of nothing)." Although Eunomius expounds this notion more remissly in its wording, D yet we do not reject it
for we have learned that "He spoke and they were made; He commanded and they were created." A We know that the Word is the Maker of matter, simultaneously perfecting the qualities along with the matter itself. Thus, to Him all things are present, and instead of all things, there is the impulse of His omnipotent will: matter, instrument, place, time, essence, quality, and everything that is understood to exist in creation. For as soon as He willed that which ought to be made, the power that produces existing things concurred with the thought, making the will a deed. For thus does the great Moses philosophize concerning the divine power in the account of the world's creation, attributing the production of each of the things that appear in creation to imperative commands. For He says, "God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light," and the same concerning the others; He mentions neither matter nor instrumental ministry. Therefore, in this part, the argument of Eunomius is not to be rejected. For God, in creating whatever had its origin through creation, felt no need of any underlying matter or instruments for their construction. For the power and wisdom of God is in need of no outside assistance. B And Christ is the power and wisdom of God, through whom all things came to be, and without whom there is nothing of the things that are, as John testifies. If, therefore, all things came to be through Him, both visible and invisible, and the will alone suffices for the subsistence of the things that are (for the will itself is power), Eunomius has brought forth our argument in a more remiss discourse. For if He "upholds all things by the word of His power," of what instrument or what matter would He have need while upholding through the omnipotent word the subsistence of the things that are? C But if he constructs for the Son that which we have believed concerning the Only-Begotten in the case of creation — namely, as if the Father created Him in a similar manner to how creation came to be from the Son — we repeat here again the argument stated previously: that such an opinion is a denial of the divinity of the Only-Begotten. For we have learned from the great voice of Paul that it is the characteristic of idolaters to "worship and serve the creature rather than Him who created," and from the word of David saying, "There shall be no new god in you, nor shall you worship a foreign god." We use this rule and standard for the recognition of Him who is worshiped, so as to be persuaded that this is truly God, who is neither "new" D nor "foreign." Since, therefore, we have been taught to believe that the only-begotten God is God, we confess that He is neither new nor foreign because we believe that He is God. If, therefore, He is God, He is not new; and he who is not new is in every way eternal. Thus, He who is eternal is neither new, nor is He foreign to the true divinity, being from the Father, and being in the bosom of the Father, and having the Father in Himself. Wherefore, he who separates the Son from the nature of the Father either altogether abolishes the adoration, so that he may not adore a foreign god, or worships an idol,
A setting up a creature and not God for his worship, and applying the name of Christ to the idol.
But that he looks to this idea in his assessment of the Only-Begotten will become clearer from those things which he sets forth concerning the Only-Begotten Himself, which are to this effect: We believe also in the Son of God, the Only-Begotten God, the firstborn of every creature, the true Son, not unbegotten, truly begotten before the ages: not without a generation before He was, named Son, begotten before every creature, not uncreated. I think that the mere reading of the stated words is sufficient, even without our examination, to declare the impiety of this dogma; for when he called Him firstborn, lest he should generate in the hearers any ambiguity as to His not being a creature, he immediately subjoined "not uncreated," lest at any time, the significance of the Son having been grasped as it is accustomed to be, some pious notion B should be inserted into the minds of the hearers. For this reason, although having confessed in the first place the Son of God and the Only-Begotten God, he immediately, through the things that follow, perversely turns the mind of the hearers from the pious opinion to the heretical understanding. For he who has heard "Son of God" and "Only-Begotten God" is necessarily raised to higher speculations, being guided as if by the hand through the significance of these terms, because no difference of nature is insinuated by the word "God" and by the significance of "Son." For how could anything else besides the nature of the Father be understood of Him who is truly the Son of God, and who is Himself God? But in order that the notions of piety might not first be impressed upon the hearts of the hearers through these names, he immediately says, "firstborn of the creature"; not without a generation before He was, named Son, begotten before every creature, not uncreated. As therefore it might appear that this wicked and crafty man holds out these first words as a lure C to men, in order that the deadly poison might be accepted, sweetened by being seasoned with more religious names like honey, let us dwell a little upon this discourse. Who does not see how great the difference between the Only-Begotten and the firstborn is according to what is signified? For neither is the Only-Begotten thought of as having brothers, nor is the firstborn thought of without brothers; but the firstborn is not the Only-Begotten; for he is altogether the firstborn of brothers: but the Only-Begotten has no brother: for He would not be the Only-Begotten if He were numbered with brothers. Furthermore, of whatever essence the brothers of the firstborn might be, the firstborn will necessarily be of the same essence. And not only is this signified by this term, but also that He has His being from the same source, both the firstborn Himself and those who were born after Him; the firstborn contributing nothing to the generation of those who are born subsequently: so that by these things the voice of John, which testifies that all things were made through Him, would be constructed to be false. For if He is the firstborn, He differs D only by the prerogative of time from those who came into being after Him; certainly another...
A by whom the power both for this one and for the rest to be, has come into existence. But that we may not give to any of the calumniators an opportunity of suspecting that we do not admit the divinely inspired utterances by which we make our stand, we shall first set forth our own understanding regarding these names; and then we shall add the judgment of the better sort for those who are listening. The great Paul, knowing that the Unigenite God is the Prince and Author of all good, and He who holds the primacy in all things, testifies to Him not only that the creation of the things that are came into being through Him, but that when the ancient creation of men had grown old and vanished, as he himself calls it, and another new creation had come into being in Christ, no other person was the Leader and Author of this, but He Himself is the Firstborn of all the creation which has come into being through the Gospel.
And so that the meaning concerning this may be clearer, we shall partition the argument as follows: The divine Apostle mentions this term four times. Once he has spoken thus: "That He is the Firstborn of all creation." Again, that He is "the Firstborn among many brethren." Thirdly, that He is "the Firstborn from the dead." After these he sets forth the term as absolute and unrelated, saying: B "But when He again brings the Firstborn into the world, He says: And let all the angels of God worship Him." Therefore, whatever understanding we discern concerning the other combinations of this name, we shall consistently apply the same to the Firstborn of creation. For since there is one and the selfsame term, it is absolutely necessary that the meaning signified by it should also be one. How, then, does He become the "Firstborn among many brethren," and how the "Firstborn of the dead," is this not entirely clear? It is because we were born of blood and flesh, as Scripture says, and He who for our sake became as we are, and partook of flesh and blood, being about to transform us from the corruptible to the incorruptible, through the birth from above, that which is by water and the Spirit—He Himself became the leader of such a birth, by drawing down, through His own baptism, the Holy Spirit C upon the water; so that He might be the Firstborn of all who are spiritually regenerated, and call those who have shared in the same birth as He, through water and the Spirit, His brethren.
And since it was also necessary for Him to bestow upon our nature the power for the resurrection from the dead, He again becomes the "first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep," and "Firstborn from the dead," as the One who was the first to dissolve by Himself the pangs of death; so that a way might be made for us also to rebirth from death, through the Lord's resurrection by which the pang of death, in which we were held, was loosed. As, therefore, by partaking of the regeneration through the laver, He becomes the Firstborn of brethren; and again, by making Himself the first-fruits of the resurrection, He is named the Firstborn from the dead, thus holding the primacy in all things. After all the ancient things have passed away, D
A as the Apostle says, He becomes the firstborn of the new creation of men, through the dual regeneration—that according to holy baptism and that from the resurrection of the dead—He becoming for us the leader of life in both respects, both first-fruits and firstborn. This Firstborn, therefore, has brethren, concerning whom He says to Mary: "Go, and tell my brethren: I am ascending to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God." For by these words, He summarizes in brief the whole scope of the dispensation according to man. For men, departing from God, served those who are not gods by nature; and being children of God, they attached themselves to an evil and falsely-named father. For this reason, the mediator between God and men, having taken upon Himself the first-fruits of all human nature—not from the divine Person, but from ours—sends these tokens of His own to His brethren, saying: "I am going to make for you a Father—the true Father from whom you were separated; and to make for you God—the true God from whom you stood apart." For through the first-fruits which I have taken, I shall bring the whole human race to God and the Father in Myself.
B The first-fruits, therefore, having made Him who is God its own God, and the good Father its own Father, the good is set right for the whole of nature, and He becomes Father and God of all men through the first-fruits. "For if the first-fruits are holy," he says, "so is the lump." Where the first-fruits are Christ, and Christ is the first-fruits, there also are they who belong to Christ, as the Apostle says. Therefore, in those places where he mentions the Firstborn by way of a pairing, having made mention of the dead and of creation and of brethren, he instructs us to understand these things and things of a similar nature. But where he speaks without such an addition, saying, "And again, when He brings the Firstborn into the world," the addition of the word "again" foretells the appearance of the Lord of all that will happen at the end. For just as, "In the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth"—even though the Son does not have a human name, because it is a name above every name—so he says that the Firstborn is worshipped by every supermundane creation, He who for our sake was named this; and C that He again enters into the world, when He shall judge the world in righteousness and the peoples in uprightness. Thus, by the word of piety, the meaning of "Firstborn" and "Only-begotten" is distinguished and adjudicated, with the appropriate meaning of each name being preserved. But he who reduces the name of "Firstborn" to that existence which is before the ages, how does he preserve the notion of "Only-begotten" once it has been perceived by the mind? Let the intelligent listener consider whether these things agree with one another, since neither is the Firstborn understood without brethren, nor is the Only-begotten understood with brethren. For when he said, "In the beginning was the Word," by this we understood the Only-begotten. But when he adds, "And the Word became flesh," by this we have in our understanding the Firstborn.
A And thus the word of piety remains unconfused, preserving the meanings naturally attached to each of the two names, so that we perceive the pre-eternal in the Only-begotten, and through the Firstborn of creation, we perceive the manifestation in the flesh of him who is before the ages.
Again, let us take up the word of Eunomius for examination. "We believe," he says, "in the Son of God, the Only-begotten God, the Firstborn of all creation, the true Son, not unbegotten, truly begotten before the ages." That he shifts the emphasis of generation to the meaning of creation is clear, from the fact that he explicitly called him a creature, having said he was made and not uncreated. B But we, so that his rashness and lack of instruction in dogmas might be most fully revealed, leaving aside lamentations over the obviousness of the blasphemy, shall distinguish the discourse regarding him with a certain technical division. For it seems to me to be well to look into the very meaning of generation with more careful examination. That this name signifies being from some cause is clear to everyone, and I do not think one needs to contend about this; but since the account of those things which subsist from a cause is different, I think it fitting that this be clarified by a certain technical division.
We have grasped these differences, then, of the things that have come to be from some cause. For some things are from matter and art, such as the constructions of buildings and other works, which come to be through matter combined with itself, over which some art presides as mistress, bringing that which is proposed to its own proper end. Others are from matter and nature. C For nature constructs the generations of animals from one another, accomplishing its own work through the material subsistence in bodies. Others are from a material effusion, in which that which precedes remains as it is, and that which flows from it is seen by itself; as in the case of the sun and the ray, or the lamp and the splendor, or in the case of aromatics and perfumes, and the quality emanating from them. For these, remaining undiminished in themselves, immediately have, each of them, the natural property emanating from them accompanying them; as the sun has the ray, the lamp the splendor, and the aromatics the scent diffused from them into the air. There is also another kind of generation besides these: one where the cause is immaterial and bodiless, D but the generation is sensible and through bodies; I mean the word generated from the mind. For the mind, being in itself bodiless, produces the word through sensible organs. We have surveyed as many differences of generation as these in a kind of theoretical contemplation.
Since, then, these modes of generation have been divided by us in this way, it would be time to see how the benevolent dispensation of the holy Spirit, handing down the divine mysteries through things we can grasp, makes the teaching that is above reason, for all of the
A kinds of generation that human intelligence knows, take hold for the demonstration of ineffable power, while omitting the corporeal implications of the names. For when it speaks of the creative and formative power, it certainly calls such an operation a generation, because the discourse must descend to the humble and weak grasp of our capacity and intelligence. Indeed, it does not demonstrate all the things that are seen among us to be associated with generation—not place, not time, nor preparation of matter, nor the kinship of tools, nor the goal toward which that which is born tends. Instead, leaving these for us to ponder, it magnificently and sublimely attributes to God the generation of things that exist, in which it says that "He spoke and they were created, He commanded and they were fashioned" 3. Again, when it explains B the ineffable and incommunicable existence of the Only-Begotten from the Father, which surpasses all human reason and discourse—because human poverty and lack of resources are not capable of those teachings that are far more sublime and higher than human discourse and intelligence—there too it makes use of our words and accommodates itself to our capacity, and calls Him Son, which is the name that is customary among us for those born from matter and nature. But just as when the divine discourse spoke of the generation through creation, because that came to be out of a certain matter, it did not add the essence of the matter, and place, and time, and all such things, declaring that the power belongs to the will of God; so too here, when it said "Son," it omitted all the other things that human nature sees in low, earthly generation: I mean passions and dispositions, and the cooperation of time, and the need for place, and before all, matter—without all of which the lower, natural generation cannot consist. C Since, therefore, all such material and spatial essence is not included in the signification of the Son, only nature is left behind. And for this reason, by the word "Son," the proper and genuine revelation from the Father in the Only-Begotten is interpreted. And because such a mode of generation was not sufficient to produce in us an adequate understanding of the ineffable existence of the Only-Begotten, it includes also another mode of generation for the signification of the theology of the Son, that from material emanation, and it says "Splendor of glory," and "Fragrance of perfume," and "Vapor of God," which our custom calls material emanation in the technical exposition set forth by us. D But just as in the aforementioned, neither the generation of creation, nor the signification of the Son, admitted either time, or matter, or place, or passion, so also here, with every material notion passed over, the discourse of the Holy Scripture, taking up only the signification of the splendor and the others mentioned—which is becoming to God and worthy of such a species of generation—shows what is required: that He must be understood as being from Him and with Him in the same way through the implication of this expression. For neither
does the vapor represent the diffusion into the air from the underlying matter, nor does the odor show the emigration that happens from the quality of the perfume toward the air, nor does the radiance A demonstrate the emanation that occurs through rays from the solar body. But this alone, of all things, as has been said, is indicated by such a mode of generation: that He exists from Him and is conceived with Him, with no interval of distance between the Father and the mediator who is from Him. Since, out of greater benevolence, the grace of the Holy Spirit has provided for us to form divine notions about the Only-Begotten from many places, it added also the remaining species of those things observed in generation, namely that from mind and word. But B the sublime John uses these with greater providence, so that the hearer might not, through languor and pusillanimity, fall to the common notion of speech, as if the Son were thought to be a sound of the Father; for this reason, he attests to the Word that it exists essentially in that first and blessed nature, thus crying out the proclamation: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was light, and life, and everything that is the beginning, and He was." Therefore, we must piously receive each of these—this mode of generation, or those things subsisting from a cause, which are known in our common custom and have also C been taken from Holy Scripture for the teaching of those things which are above—in such a way as is likely for the presentation of divine notions.
It would now be time to consider also, at what meaning Eunomius receives the expression of generation in his discourse. He says, "a true Son, not unbegotten, and truly begotten before the ages." I think it is proper to pass over the sequence corrupted in the distinction, as it is known to everyone. For who does not know that to the Son, in relation to the Father, and to the begotten, in relation to the unbegotten... of the antithesis, he, passing over the Father, antithesizes the unbegotten to the Son? It was necessary, if he had cared for the truth, not to overturn the account of the relative D sequence, but to say, "the true Son, not the Father." Thus, piety would have been preserved with the sequence of the discourse, and the nature would not have been sundered by the distinction of the persons. But he, changing the true and written use of "Father" handed down by the Word Himself in the discourse of faith, named "unbegotten" instead of "Father," so that, having separated Him from the natural affinity to the Son seen in the Father's title, he might make Him common to all things appearing in creation, to which the antithesis to the unbegotten is equal. "Truly," he says, "begotten before the ages." Let him say from whom; he will surely say from the Father, if he is not shameless toward the truth. But since it is not possible to separate the eternity of the Son from the eternal Father, because the significance of the Father also simultaneously indicates the Son, therefore the title of Father being repudiated, he transfers the word to the unbegotten, since the significance of this name...
is unrelated to and incommunicable to the Son. And thus, having led the hearers away from contemplating the Son with the Father, by the substitution of the name he gave a path to wickedness, paving the way for impiety through the interpolation of the "unbegotten." For those who, according to the command of the Master, have faith in the Father, at the same time as they hear "the Father," they also receive the Son into their mind, with no intervening interval of thought, the mind passing from the Son to the Father. But those who, instead of the Father, are led over to the title of the "unbegotten," receive only a thin notion of this name, being taught only that he is not begotten, but not that he is the Father. Yet from this, for those who perceive intelligently, faith remains unconfused even through this notion. For "not to be begotten" is said in the same way of the uncreated nature. And the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are equally uncreated. Because it is believed by those who follow the divine voices that every creature, both sensible and supermundane (or angelic), has its subsistence B from the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. For he who has heard that "by the word of the Lord the heavens were established, and by the Spirit of his mouth all their power," did not conceive in his mind "word" as some sort of utterance, nor "Spirit" as a breath; but he imprinted in his soul, through the things that were said, the God-Word and the Spirit of God. For the same thing cannot both create and be created. But since things are divided into that which creates and that which is created, each being different in nature from the other, so that that which is created is not uncreated, nor is that which produces the nature of created things created; those, therefore, who according to the dominical institution of faith have believed in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, confess equally that none of these is begotten, and the significance of "unbegotten" in no way harms the sound faith. But for the thick-skinned and dull, C who are not well-composed and coherent, this name becomes the beginning of the perversion from the sound doctrine. For not understanding the true sense of this name—namely, that this word "unbegotten" signifies only the "not being begotten," and that "not being begotten" is common to the whole supervening nature—they omitted the faith in the Father and set up the name "unbegotten" in place of the Father. And since, as has been said, the subsistence, or person, of the Only-begotten does not appear simultaneously with this name "unbegotten," they define the nature of the Son by a certain determined beginning, saying what this man just now added to his statements: that the Son is "named not without generation, which precedes his being." What is this monstrous assertion again? Does he not know that he is speaking about God? Who is in the beginning and is in the Father? And there is no time when he was not? He does not know what he says. He asserts nothing about anyone; D but as if he were describing the genealogy of some human being, he tries to adapt and attach to the Master of all nature things which are properly said of the lower nature. For example, Ishmael, to speak of such, was not before the generation of his...
A birth—I mean the temporal interval. But in the case of the radiance of the glory, the words "before" and "after" have no place. For before the radiance, there was absolutely no glory; for at the same moment that the glory exists, the radiance necessarily shines forth along with it, and one cannot be separated from the nature of the other. Nor is it possible to see the glory by itself before the radiance. For he who says this makes the glory out to be dark and blind in itself, if the radiance that comes from it is not shining forth with it. But this is the malice of the heresy, that by means of ideas and expressions understood of man, they might cut off the Only-begotten God from unity with the Father. B Therefore he says: "Before the generation that brings him into being, the Son did not exist." But are not the "sons of the rams," of whom the Prophet makes mention, also called sons after they have been begotten? Just as, therefore, the intellect observes in the sons of the rams that, before the generation which is the cause of their being, they are not sons of the rams—this very thing this grave theologian now attributes to the Maker of the ages and of all creation, to Him, I say, who has the eternal Father in Himself, and who is contemplated in the eternity of the Father, just as He Himself says: "I am in the Father, and the Father in me." But those who cannot perceive the malice in the argument, nor have been trained in any understanding of the consequence, follow these incoherent notions, accepting what is presented to them as if it were a logical consequence.
He says, indeed, that "he was made before all creation"; and as if this statement were not sufficient for the demonstration of impiety, he lies in wait with the following expression, having spoken the blasphemy with his mouth, that "He is not uncreated." How, then, does he name Him true Son of God, He who is not uncreated? For if it is proper to call the created son "true son," heaven is also surely a true son; for it, too, is not uncreated. Thus the sun would also be a true son, and everything that creation contains, both small and great, would be entirely worthy of the appellation of true Son. But how does he call the One who was made "Only-begotten"? For all things that were made are in every way brothers to one another, I mean according to the very principle of things being made. And by whom was it made? For everything that has been made was certainly made by the Son. For so John bears witness, saying: "All things were made through Him." C If, therefore, even the Son, according to the argument of Eunomius, was made, He is surely in the nature of made things Himself. If, therefore, all things that were made were made through Him, and the Word is also one of the things that were made, who is so senseless as not to perceive from these premises the absurdity, that this new teacher of heresy declares the Master of creation to have been made His own work, by explicitly saying that the Lord, the Creator of all creation, is not uncreated? Whence does he have the boldness to assert this? Let him say. From what God-inspired D utterance? What evangelist, what apostle has let forth such a voice? What prophet, or lawgiver,
A or patriarch, or any other of those inspired by the Holy Spirit, whose utterances are recorded, has introduced such a statement? We have learned from the Truth, in the tradition of the faith, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; or was it necessary to believe that he is a created thing? How could the Truth, while delivering the mystery to us, ordain faith in the Son rather than in a creature? And how does the divine Apostle, while worshipping Christ, define those who serve the creature rather than the Creator as idolaters? For he would either not have worshipped him if he were a creature, or he would not have classified those who serve the creature together with idolaters, lest he himself seem to practice idolatry by offering worship to a creature. But he knows that he who is worshipped by him is God over all; for thus he names the Son in his discourse to the Romans. Those, therefore, who alienate the Son from the essence of the Father, and who call him a creature, why do they mockingly bestow upon him that falsely-named title, vainly applying the name of "God"—a name foreign to the true Divinity—as if to Bel, or to Dagon, or to the dragon? Therefore, let those who define him as a creature either not confess him as God, so that they may appear to be Judaizing, or if they confess him to be God who was created, let them not deny that they are practicing idolatry. But they certainly bring forward that proverbial saying which states: "The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways, toward his works."
B This matter could be explained more clearly and at greater length, yet it is possible even in a few words to convey the meaning to men of good will; for some of those who are accurately and diligently instructed in the divine Scriptures say that the word "created" is not written in the Hebrew; and we ourselves have read in older books that "possessed" is written instead of "created me." The "creation" in these proverbial riddles clearly signifies the "servant"—he who for our sake took on the form of a servant. If anyone should object concerning the reading that prevails in the churches on this point, we do not reject the word "created" either. For this also points, through the riddle, to the significance of the servant, since all creation serves, as the Apostle says. C For this reason, we declare that this word is piously accepted. For he who was born for our sake according to us was indeed truly created in the last days. He who in the beginning was the Word and was God, afterwards became flesh and man. The nature of the flesh, however, is created; and he became a participant in this in all things according to likeness, except for sin, created indeed according to God and not according to man, as the Apostle says, in a new way and not in the human manner. For we have learned that he was created of the Holy Spirit and of the power of the Most High—yet this new man was created, he whom the instructor D of the ineffable mysteries...
Paul, commands us to put on, calling that clothing by a double name: sometimes saying, "Put on the new man, which after God is created," and again, "Put on the Lord Jesus Christ." A For to us who have put him on, he who said, "I am the way," becomes the beginning of the ways of salvation, so that he may make us the work of his own hands, having refashioned us again from the evil figment of sin back to his own image. And the same one also becomes our foundation before the future age, according to the voice of Paul, who says that "other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid"; and, "Before the mountains were settled, and before the hills, was I brought forth." For it is possible for each of these things, being transferred according to proverbial usage, to be applied to the Word in a tropological B contemplation. For the great David calls the mountains of God righteousness, and the depths, judgments, and the fountains, the teachers in the churches, saying: "Bless ye God the Lord from the fountains of Israel"; and the hills, innocence, which he demonstrated through the leaping of the lambs. Before these things, then, is generated in us he who was created man for our sake, so that the creation of such things might also find place in us. But I think I should pass over the argument concerning these things, the truth having been sufficiently demonstrated in a few words to those who are fair-minded and sincere.
Let us pass on to the words of Eunomius that follow thereafter. C "In the beginning," he says, "he who was, yet is not without beginning." O, how does he understand the divine voices, he who wishes to be seen as surpassing others in intelligence? He interprets him who was in the beginning as having a beginning; and he does not know that if he who was in the beginning has a beginning, then the beginning itself must necessarily have another beginning. For whatever one says about the beginning, he will by necessity and altogether concede the same about him who was in the beginning. For how shall that which is in the beginning be separated from the beginning? And how shall one conceive of "it was not" before "it was"? For in whatever way one might extend his own intellect toward the understanding of the beginning, D he at the same time perceives in his mind that the Word who is in it cannot be separated from the beginning in which he is, nor can he ever have beginning or end within it. But let no one, through these things, divide the doctrine into two beginnings. For there is truly one beginning, in which the Word is perceived inseparably, who is united through all things to the Father. He who thinks these things will provide no opening for heresy to defile the piety of the faith through the innovation of the term "unbegotten." But in the words set forth subsequently, his discourse seems like bread having much mixture of sand. For having mixed heretical notions with things said soundly, he makes the food inedible by reason of the mingled stone. For he calls the Lord living wisdom, and working truth, and subsistent power, and life. Up to this point it is nourishing; but he inserts poison into what has been said. For having called the life "begotten," he understands something else by the contrast with the unbegotten life, and not the
A true life, the Son, he proposes. Then he says: the Son of God making the dead alive, the true light, the light that enlightens every man coming into the world, the good and the bestower of good things. Proposing all these things, as if it were a kind of honey, to the rather simple, he conceals the poison under the sweetness of these words. For he immediately adds to what has been said his own destructive understanding, saying: "Not having received a share of dignity with the One who begat; nor having been granted the paternal essence as to any other; but having become glorious through generation, and Lord of glory, and having received glory from the Father; not having had a share in His glory, for the glory of the Almighty is not to be shared, just as He said, 'My glory I will not give to another.'" These are the B deadly poisons, which only those who have exercised the instruments of the soul’s intelligence know.
The murderous vice of these things is revealed more clearly in the final things said. Having received, he says, glory from the Father, he did not share in that glory: for the glory of the Almighty is not communicable, as He himself said, "My glory I will not give to another." Who is that "other" to whom God said He would not give His majesty? For the prophet speaks of the adversary: but Eunomius refers the prophecy to the Only-Begotten God himself. For when the prophet had spoken from the person of God, that "My glory I will not give to another," he added, "and my virtues to sculptured images." For since, lured by fraud, men attributed the worship and adoration owed to God to the adversary, honoring the enemy of God by dedicating C sculptured idols, he being multiformly fashioned in men through the images. Having taken pity on the human loss, He who heals those who are ill, foretold through the prophet the benevolence that would arise from Him toward the human race in the last times, in the abolition of the idols, saying: "When the truth is manifested, no longer will my glory be given to another, nor will my virtues be dedicated to sculptured images." For men who have known my glory will not serve those who are not by nature gods. Whatever, therefore, the prophet says from the person of the Lord concerning the contrary operation, this rebel against God and fighter against Him directs at the Lord Himself, who uttered these things through the prophet. Who among the D tyrants is remembered to have been such a persecutor of the faith? Who ever attempted this: that He who appeared in the flesh for the salvation of our souls, as we have believed, is not the true God, but that one who is hostile to God, who in sculptured images and idols worked error and deception against men? For the things that were spoken about that one through the prophet, these Eunomius twists toward the Only-Begotten God. Nor did he understand even this, that the Only-Begotten himself is the one who spoke these things in the prophet, just as he himself asserts in the following passages, that he himself is the one who has spoken in the prophets.
A What need is there for me to speak at greater length about these things? For they hold to the same blasphemy as what was said before. He says that he received glory from the Father, not that he became a partaker or participant of his glory; for the glory of God the Almighty is not communicable. For even if the discussion had only been about Moses, who was glorified in the ministry of the law, I myself would never have uttered such a statement. For although he was not himself luminous with glory from within, nevertheless, through that gift which happened to him from God, he suddenly appeared illustrious and glorious to the Israelites. For that glory which shone forth in that lawgiver was not of any other, but of God himself—the very glory which the Lord in the Gospel commands all to seek, in those passages where he accuses those who value human glory and do not seek the glory that comes from God alone. For by the fact that he commanded them to seek the glory that comes from the one God, he surely promised that what is sought can be obtained. How, then, is the glory of the Almighty incommunicable, if it is necessary to seek the glory that comes from God only, and everyone who asks receives, according to our Lord's voice?
But he who speaks concerning the "radiance of his glory," saying that he B has received the glory, says nothing else than that the radiance of glory is in itself devious of glory; for it needs to receive glory from another, so that thus at some time he too might become a Lord of some glory. Where then shall we place the voices of the truth, both the one which says that he "shall be seen in the glory of the Father," and again, that "all things that the Father has are mine"? To whom ought the listener to pay heed? To him who says that he who is the heir of all things in the Father is a stranger to the glory of the Father, just as the Apostle says, or to him who confesses that he has all that the Father has? For in all things the glory itself is entirely contained. But he says that the glory of the Almighty is incommunicable; C this neither Joel nor the great Peter bears witness to, who claimed the prophetic word for his own in his speech to the Jews. For both the prophet and the apostle say from the person of God himself, "I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh." Therefore, he who did not begrudge the communication of his own Spirit to all flesh, how does he not impart his own glory to the Only-Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, and who has everything that the Father has? Or perhaps one might say that Eunomius speaks the truth in this, even if he does not wish it? For properly speaking, communication or impartation is used of one who does not have glory of his own-that is, to whom having it from elsewhere arises not from nature. But where one and the same nature is understood, he who is by nature that which the Father is believed to be does not need him who makes the communication in each individual case; D or rather, to speak more clearly and openly, he has it well. What need has he of the Father's glory, who has the whole Father in himself, with nothing of those things observed in the Father being withheld? And what, pray, is the dignity of the Almighty, of which Eunomius declares the Son to be a stranger? Let the wise men say among themselves...
does Eunomius affirm the Son? Those, therefore, who are wise in their own eyes and learned before themselves, let them bring forth earthly A doctrines: who, as the prophet says, utter their voice from the ground. But we, who adore the Word and are disciples of the truth—nay, who glory in being so—let us not pass by this expression, either, without examining it; for we know that of all the names by which the Divine is signified, some are demonstrative of the divine majesty, being spoken and understood in themselves; while others are named from the operations that occur for our sake and for the sake of the whole creation. For when the divine Apostle says, "to the incorruptible, invisible, only wise God," and such like, he indicates through these names the conceptions that represent the supereminent power. But when He is called in the Scriptures merciful, compassionate, of great mercy, truthful, Christ, Lord, physician, shepherd, way, bread, fountain, king, creator, founder, protector, who is in all and through all, who is all in all; these and such like contain the expression of those things which are brought to pass in the creation by the divine benevolence toward the human race. Therefore, the name of "the All-Holder" (Pantokrator), to those who examine it precisely, is found to signify nothing else in the divine power than that the force and operation which holds together all things that are considered in creation is, in a certain manner, relative to something. This illustrious appellation of the All-Holder shows this; for just as one would not be a physician but for the sake of the sick, nor would He be denominated merciful and compassionate and so forth, except for the sake of the one who is in need of pity and mercy; so neither is He the All-Holder, except for the fact that all creation stood in need of Him who might powerfully embrace and preserve it in its nature. Just as, therefore, the physician becomes such to him who needs healing, so the All-Holder to him who needs to be held; and as those who are in good health have no need of a physician, but those who are ill do; so, consequently, it is well to say that he who is in that state where the nature possesses steadfastness and immutability no longer needs the One who holds. When, therefore, we hear the word "All-Holder," we understand this: that God holds all things in their being, both those that are intelligible and those that are of a material nature. For this reason He holds the circuit of the earth, for this reason He has in His hand the ends of the earth, for this reason He encompasses the heaven with His span, for this reason He measures the water with His hand, for this reason He contains within Himself the whole intelligible creation, D so that all things may remain in their being by the containing power by which they are held.
Who, then, is He who works all things in all? Let us examine. Who is He that made all things, without whom nothing of the things that exist consists? Who is He in whom all things were created, and in whom things that are possess their permanence? In whom we live and move and have our being? Who is He that has all things in Himself, as many
A as the Father has? Are we still ignorant, from the things that have been said, that He is the One who is God over all, as He is named by Paul, our Lord Jesus Christ, who has in His hand everything that belongs to the Father, just as He Himself says? He has encompassed all things with His spacious palm, and He holds and governs what He has encompassed, and no one snatches from the hand of Him who holds all things. If, therefore, He has all things, and holds what He has, what else is He but the Almighty Lord of all, who holds all things powerfully and dominates them? B But if the heresy says that the Father holds the Son and the Spirit, let them first demonstrate that the Son and the Holy Spirit are of a mutable nature, and then let them set over Him who is turned and changed the One who holds Him, so that by the help that is supernaturally produced, that which is held may remain unchangeable toward evil. But if the divine nature is incapable of vice, unturnable and unalterable, and is always in the same state, for what purpose would it stand in need of one who holds it? That which by itself holds the entire creation, is itself not in need of a holder on account of its unchangeability. For this reason, at the name of Jesus, every knee bows, of things in heaven and on earth and under the earth. For it would not have bowed if it did not entirely recognize the One who holds for their salvation. C But to say that the Son was generated by the goodness of the Father is nothing else than to constitute Him and reduce Him to the same honor as the lowest creatures. For what is there that has not arrived at generation through the goodness of Him who made it? To whom is the construction of human nature imputed: to the wickedness or to the goodness of Him who made it? To what is the generation of animals, or the nature of plants and shoots? There is nothing that did not have its origin through the goodness of Him who made it. Therefore, that which reason perceives in all things, this Eunomius grants to the Son as a favor out of benevolence. But that the Son does not share the essence or majesty with the Father, and whatever other such things Eunomius pursues by trifling and blathering, have already been examined and refuted in the discourses concerning the Father, as things that he has cast forth in vain and without any understanding. For not even among us who are born from one another D does a division of essence take place; for the definition of essence remains whole in each, both in the one who is generated and in the one who generates, with the definition of the essence receiving neither diminution in the one who generates nor increase in the one who is generated. But division of dignity or of kingdom in the One who has all things that are the Father's has no understanding, but is a mark and argument of impiety. It would therefore be superfluous to extend the discourse to infinity by becoming entangled in such things.
Let us proceed to what follows these. Glorified, he says, by the Father before the ages. The argument of the truth has been demonstrated as being confirmed by the testimony of its enemies. For this is the head of our faith, that the Son is glorified by the Father from eternity. For "before the age" is identical in meaning to "from eternity," thus, with the prophecy interpreting for us that God's
A eternal nature is in those words where it says, "He who is before the ages." If, therefore, to exist before the ages is beyond every beginning, then he who attributes the pre-eternal glory to the Son has, much earlier, borne witness to His existence from eternity. For it is not that which is not, but that which truly is, that is glorified. After this, he sows for himself the seeds of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit; not that he might glorify the Son, but that he might drunkenly rave against the Holy Spirit. For, wishing to show that the Holy Spirit is a part of the angelic power, he poured this forth, saying, "Being glorified by the Spirit throughout the age, and by every rational and created essence," as if there were absolutely no difference between the Holy Spirit and all that is brought into being, if the Holy Spirit thus glorifies the Lord. Just as all the other things of which the Prophet tells: the angels and powers, and the heavens of heavens, and the water that is above the world; and all things that are from the earth: dragons, abysses, fire, hail, snow, ice, the spirit of the storm, the mountains and all the hills, fruit-bearing trees and all cedars, wild beasts and all cattle, reptiles and winged birds 63. If, therefore, alongside these, he says that the Holy Spirit also glorifies the Son, the impious tongue that rebels against God declares that He is absolutely one of these and identical in nature.
The following points, which are connected in a disjointed manner, I say ought rightfully to be passed over—not because they are unanswerable and impregnable, but because they could be said by those who think piously, if only they were separated from his malignant mode of expression. C For if anything is put forward by him that pertains to piety, such a thing is offered to the simpler folk as bait and lure, so that the hook of impiety may be swallowed along with it. For after having said some things which an ecclesiastical man might also say, he adds: "Obedient to the creation and generation of beings, obedient to every dispensation, not having attained through obedience that He is God the Son, but because He is the Son and begotten One-begotten God, He became obedient in words, obedient in deeds." And yet, who among those conversant and experienced in divine utterances does not know when it was said by the great Paul—and this only once, regarding Him—that "He became obedient" 64? For when He came to fulfill the mystery through the cross, having emptied Himself in the form of a servant, and having humbled Himself in the likeness and figure of man, and having been found as a man in the humble nature of humans, then He becomes obedient—He who took upon Himself our infirmities and bore our diseases, healing the disobedience or contumacy of men by His own obedience, so that by His stripe our wound might be healed, and by His own death He might abolish the common death of men. Then, for our sake, He becomes obedient, just as He became sin and a curse on account of the dispensation undertaken for us, not being this by nature, but becoming so in His love for mankind. Now, the list of such acts of obedience,
from what Scripture was he taught it? On the contrary, every divinely inspired Scripture testifies to His authoritative and imperial power, saying, *He spoke, and they were made; He commanded, and they were created* A. For it is clear that the Prophet says these things about Him who carries all things by the word of His power, whose authority established every essence and nature, and all things understood and seen in creation, by the mere impulse of His will. From what source, then, is Eunomius moved to proclaim in myriad ways to the King of creation that He is "obedient," saying that He is "obedient to every act of creation, and obedient to every administration, obedient in words and works"? B Yet it is clear to everyone that such a person becomes obedient to another in words and works who has not yet perfected within himself the power to act or speak precisely and blamelessly, but who looks to his teacher and guide and is educated by his instructions in what is precise in words and works. But to think that Wisdom needs a taskmaster and a teacher—one who directs the sequence or the justice of what is required for It—is a figment of Eunomius's imagination alone. And he says regarding the Father that He is "faithful in words, and faithful in works"; but he did not testify to the Son that He is faithful in what is done and said, but declared Him to be obedient in words, and not faithful. So that, through everything he says, the impiety and blasphemy against Him stand equally; but it is perhaps better to pass over the foolishness and madness of the inserted words in silence, lest any of the thoughtless and imprudent should mock their vanity, when one ought rather to weep for the destruction of their souls than to laugh at the foolishness and fatuity of the words. C For this wise and circumspect dogmatist says that He did not receive His being Son from obedience. O his cleverness! How necessarily he discusses these things for us! That He did not first become obedient and then Son, nor is it right to think of His obedience as older than His generation. But if he had not distinguished these things, who would be so foolish and stupid as to think that His generation was given to Him by the Father as a reward for obedience—He who, before He was brought forth, had demonstrated His facility in obeying and His eagerness to be obedient? D But lest anyone be readily drawn into laughter by the madness of the things said, let him understand that there is also something in the foolishness of what is said that is worthy of tears. For what he wishes to construct through these claims is this: that obedience is His nature. So that even if He wished, it would be impossible for Him not to be obedient. He affirms that He has constructed Himself as something such that by nature He is suited only for obedience, just as that tool which has been shaped to a certain form stamps that shape by necessity onto the underlying material which the smith...
has placed within it—a tool which has no power by itself to draw a straight line if its action is circular, nor to demonstrate a circle through its form if the instrument happened to be shaped for a straight line.
How blasphemous and execrable in its impiety such a way of thinking and understanding is, what need is there for our speech to reveal, when the heretical voice itself proclaims its own absurdity? For if He is obedient because He was born such, then He does not have the same nature as humans at all. Since our B soul is free and its own master, subject to no dominion, choosing of its own accord and by its own will whatever is pleasing and acceptable to it; but he who is subjugated to the necessity of nature acts always—or rather, suffers obedience—even if he does not wish to do so, for his nature does not allow him to do otherwise. For from the fact that He is the Son and was born in such a way, they say He became obedient in words and obedient in deeds.
O, the amazement and the folly of this dogma! You make the Word obedient to words, and you conceive in your mind other "words" before the Word that is by essence; and between the Word who was in the beginning, and the Beginning, you place another mediator Word, conveying the will of the Beginning to Him. And this is not just one Word, but there are several "words" which are slipped in by Eunomius between the Beginning and the Word, and which they use to abuse His obedience as they please.
But why is it necessary to dwell any longer on the vanity of these sayings? For it is clear to everyone that when Paul said He became obedient, he meant it in the same way he said He became flesh, a servant, a curse, and sin for our sake. Nor did the Lord of glory, even then, despising the shame and taking upon Himself the suffering in the flesh, deprive Himself of supreme and free power, when He said, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." And again, "No one takes my soul from me; I have the power to lay it down, and I have the power to take it up again." And when those armed with swords and clubs approached Him on the night that preceded His passion, He cast them all backward by saying, "I am He." And again, when the thief begged Him to remember him, D He showed His power over all things when He said, "Today you will be with me in Paradise."
If, therefore, He is not separated from His power even in the time of His passion, where on earth does this heresy see the subjection of the King of glory? Or what is this manifold mediation which it boasts of regarding God, speaking of a mediator in decrees, and a mediator in the law? We have not been taught these things by the high voice of the Apostle, who says that "by abolishing the law of commandments in his own decrees," this is the mediator of God and men. Having spoken this word—that "there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"—he laid out for us the entire focus of the mystery through this term "mediator," and revealed it. And this *is* the focus: the human race had departed because of the malice of the adversary, and being enslaved to sin...
was alienated from the true A life. He who is the Lord of His own creature later calls back His creature, and becomes man while being God; and being that whole, He became this whole; and thus the human element was tempered with God, with the man who is according to Christ working the mediation. With the first-fruits taken from us, the *massa* was tempered with all power. Since therefore a mediator is not of one, but God is one, and He is not divided into parts in the persons delivered in the faith—for there is one Godhead in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—for this reason the Lord becomes one mediator between God and men, joining man through Himself to the Godhead. But even through the concept of the mediator we have been taught the piety of the faith: for the mediator between God and men, just as He accepted the communion of human nature—not being thought man, but having been born according to truth—so also is He true God, not honored by the mere designation of Godhead, as Eunomius would wish. B
Whatever else he adds to what has been said partakes of the same folly, or rather, malignancy. For having called Him Son—whom in what was said a little before he clearly and explicitly determined to be created—and having named Him Only-Begotten God—whom he numbered along with the rest of those who have come into being through creation—he said He is "similar" to the One who begot Him, only by an exceptional similarity, according to his own peculiar notion. It is necessary, therefore, first to distinguish the meaning of "similar," how many ways it is said in the misuse of common parlance, and then thus to proceed to the examination of the matters proposed. For first, as many things as deceive our senses, not being the same to each other according to nature, but by some of the accidents that happen to follow the subjects—I speak of shape and color and sound, and as many things as produce deception through taste and smell and touch—these, when they are of one kind according to their own nature, but act as another C than what they are by nature, common parlance says have this property "similarly." For instance, when inanimate matter is molded by art toward the imitation of some animal, through carving or painting or modeling, the imitation is said to be "similar" to the archetype. For here, the nature of the animal is one thing, and the other is that which falsifies the sight by color and shape alone. Of the same species of similarity is the image that appears in a mirror, bearing the evident appearances of the archetypal form, yet not being that in nature which the primigenial archetype is. In the same way, it is possible for hearing to experience the same thing, when someone, by imitating the voice of a nightingale with his own sound, persuades the hearing to think it is listening to a bird. The taste experiences such a deception, too, when the juice of the fruit of figs counterfeits the pleasure of honey; for the juice of D the fruit has something similar to the sweetness of honey. So also by similarity it is possible to deceive even the sense of smell, when the vapor of the camomile herb mimics the fragrant apple itself with its aroma-
A and deceives the sense. The same thing happens also in the sense of touch, for by similarity B in various ways the truth is falsely represented. For a silver or copper coin, equal in size to a gold one and of the same weight, will be thought to have something in common with the gold one, because the sight does not discriminate the truth.
These things have been said briefly in general regarding those things that, because of a certain similarity, deceptively mislead the instruments of the senses, while they are thought to be something other than what they are. Yet it would be possible, through a more careful investigation, to extend the discourse through those things which, though they are of a different kind among themselves, yet by reason of some of those accidents which follow the thing, one is thought to be similar to another. Is there perhaps some such kind of similarity that Eunomius boasts of in the Son? But he would not have reached such a pitch of madness and insanity as to contemplate a fallacious and fraudulent similarity in the truth. Again, we have learned of another similarity in the divinely inspired Scripture from Him who said: Let us make man after our image and likeness 68. But I do not think that Eunomius considers this species of similarity in the Son and the Father, so as to proclaim the Only-Begotten God to be the same as man. We know also another species of similarity, which in the creation of the world the discourse affirms concerning Seth: Adam begat Seth after his image and after his likeness 69; which, if Eunomius is speaking of this, we do not think his speech should be rejected. For here, neither is the nature of those things which agree with one another in similarity different, and the character and species have communion. These and such like things are what we have understood concerning the difference and discrimination of similar things. Let us see, therefore, to what Eunomius is looking when he attributes to the Son that C exceptional similarity with the Father, saying that He is similar to the One who begat Him by an exceptional similarity according to a peculiar notion, not as Father to Father—for there are not two Fathers. Promising to show the exceptional similarity of the Son to the Father, he constructs by his discourse how it does not befit one to understand Him as similar. For when he said that He is not similar to the Father as Father to Father, he established by his discourse that He is not similar. And again, when he added that neither as the unbegotten to the unbegotten, for that reason he denied the similarity in the Son with the Father; then, adding that neither is it as Son to Son, he introduced a third notion, by which he utterly perverts the account of the similar. He, therefore, follows his own reasonings, making the demonstration of the similar through the construction of the dissimilar. But let us examine his wise and simple statement, which he demonstrates by his determinations. For when he said that the Son is similar to the Father, he makes the hearing secure, that it is not necessary to understand the Son as similar to the Father as a Father is to a Father. But who among men is so foolish as to, having learned that the Son is similar to the Father, be led by his reasonings into the similarity of a Father to a Father? Neither as Son to Son, he says; again, the subtlety has the equal in the determination. Having said that the Son is similar to the Father, after having said that it is not necessary to have a similar relation as toward a Son
A — or that a similarity to the Father should be brought to the Son? And yet he does not urge us to understand the Father as such. Nor have we had any need for this superfluous wisdom, such that he should suppose two Fathers and two Sons through the Father and the Son, as if it were a duality of unbegotten ones.
What Eunomius aims at in his great zeal regarding the "unbegotten" has been declared often, and now it will be stated again in a few words. For since the significance of the Father indicates no difference in nature from the Son, if he had stopped his discourse at this point, his impiety would have had no force; because the natural knowledge of these names does not admit what is alien according to essence. But now, by saying "unbegotten" and "begotten," since there is an immediate contrariety between these names—just as between mortal and immortal, or rational and irrational, and all those things that are expressed in a similar way, which, through the meanings of their opposites, are set over against one another—he has opened a path for blasphemy through these names, so that we might contemplate between the begotten and the unbegotten the B same difference as that between the mortal and the immortal. And just as the nature of the mortal is one thing and that of the immortal another, and the properties of the rational and the irrational cannot in any way harmonize according to their essence, but differ most of all, so Eunomius wishes to establish one nature for the unbegotten and another for the begotten. Just as the irrational nature was created subject and enslaved to the rational, he wishes to demonstrate that the begotten is, by natural necessity, subjugated and enslaved to the unbegotten. Therefore, he joins the name of "Almighty" to the unbegotten, which, as the discourse has previously shown, is not for providential activity, but he transfers the interpretation of "Almighty" into a C tyrannical power. So that he might make even the Son a part of the nature that is subject and enslaved, serving together with all creatures the One who rules all equally by tyrannical power. And that he uses such verbal distinctions with this in view will be made clear from what follows. For when he put forward those learned and well-considered words, that "neither does the Father resemble the Father, nor the Son the Son"—although there is no necessity at all that compels one to say that a father is necessarily perceived as similar to a father, and a son to a son; for there is a father among the Ethiopians, and a father among the Scythians, and a son of each of these, the one the black son of the Ethiopian, and the other the white-skinned Scythian with hair tending toward gold. And none the more, because each is a father, does the Scythian turn black because of the D Ethiopian, nor does the body of the Ethiopian turn white because of the Scythian. Nevertheless, when Eunomius had said these things as it pleased him, he added that he is similar as the Son to the
Father. But since the reasoning of such a likeness demonstrates what is proper according to nature, as the divinely inspired doctrine testifies in the case of Seth and Adam; the dogmatist, making little of and holding for nothing those who listen intelligently, subjoined an empty interpretation of the appellation of the Son, defining him as the image and seal of the Omnipotent operation. The Son, he says, is the image and seal of the operation or efficacy of the Omnipotent. B Let him who has ears to hear consider this very thing first. What is that seal of operation? For every operation is beheld in him who works, in that which is being worked. But when that which is being performed has been completed or finished, the operation itself does not subsist by itself; just as the operation of running, which is the movement made by the feet: when the movement has ceased, the operation no longer exists by itself. The same can be said of every matter that is undertaken to be done or handled, namely that the action itself ceases at the same time as the work and effort of him who labors about it; and that the action itself does not subsist in itself, if there is no one who operates in the work and study proposed to him, or if he who labors has ceased from his work. What, therefore, does he say is the operation in itself, which is neither essence, nor character or figure, nor substance? Therefore he says that its image C is of that which does not subsist; but this, which is similar to a non-existent thing, is not itself at all: this is the portentous vanity of empty decrees, to believe in that which is not. For what is similar to non-being is not in any way whatsoever. O Paul, and John, and the rest of the chorus of evangelists and apostles! Who are they who sharpen their virulent tongues against your voice? Who are those who thrust their frog-like voices, raised from the Stygian swamp, against your heavenly thunders? What, then, does the son of thunder say? *In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.* What of him who came after him, or that other who was snatched into the heavenly inner sanctuaries and shrines, who, having been initiated in paradise, learned things not to be uttered to the common crowd? He says thus: *Who, being the brightness of his glory and the figure or express image of his substance.* What does this ventriloquist say after these? A seal, he says, of the operation of the Omnipotent: he makes him third after the Father, mediated by that non-existent operation, or rather, if you will, formed from non-existence. D The seal of the operation is he who is in the beginning, the Word God, and who is seen in the eternity of the beginning of those things that are, the Only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, who bears all things by the word of his power, who is the creator of the ages, from whom are all things, and through whom are all things, who contains the circuit of the earth, who measures the heaven with a span, who measures the water with his hand, who has embraced all things that are, who dwelling in the heights looks upon the lowly, or rather, has looked so as to make the whole orb of the earth his footstool.
A It is the radiance and seal of God's operation. Oh that impious ignorance! What is the medium between God and the eternal form? By what is the substance of the Father mediated to its own character? And what is understood to exist between the glory and the radiance? But since there are such and so many things through which the magnificence of the Lord of creation is proclaimed by those entrusted with the gospel, how does this herald of apostasy describe Him? What does he say? He says, "As an image and seal of all the operation and power of the Almighty." How does he distort the words of the great Paul? He says that the Son is the power of God, but this man asserts that He is a seal of power, not the power itself.
B And again, resuming the argument, what does he add to the things already said? He calls Him the seal of the Father’s works and counsels. To what works of the Father is He similar? He will certainly point to the world and all things in it; but the Gospel testifies that all these are works of the Only-Begotten. To what works of the Father, then, was He made similar? Of what works did He become a seal? And what Scripture has called Him the seal of the Father’s works? But if one were even to grant this to Eunomius—that he may fashion arguments at will according to his own pleasure, even if Scripture does not concede it—let him say, I pray, what works of the Father are separate from those made by the Son, of which he says the Son has become the seal? The works of the Word are all things visible and invisible; among the visible are the whole world and all that is in it, and among the invisible is the super-mundane creation. What works of the Father, then, remain outside the visible and invisible, considered in themselves, of which he says the Son has become a seal? Perhaps he will again return to the foul vomit of his heresy, being hemmed in, and will say that the Son is a work of the Father? How then does the Son become the seal of these works? Since He is himself, as he asserts, a work, does he call the same being both a work and a likeness of a work? Let these things be granted; let him name the remaining works, of which he says the Father is the creator, to which the Son was made similar, if indeed by "seal" he intends "likeness." And what other words of the Father does Eunomius know, besides the Word who is always in the Father, whom he calls a seal, the one who is properly, truly, and primarily existing and named the Word? And to what counsels does he look, separate and divergent from the wisdom of God, to which the wisdom of God is made similar, becoming a seal of the counsels? C See the undigested, inconsiderate, and drossy nature of his discourse, the kind of mystery he constructs! He neither knows what he is saying, nor about what he makes his speech. For He who has the whole Father in Himself, and is wholly in the Father, as Word and Wisdom and Power and Truth and Character and Radiance, He Himself is all things in the Father; with no other things being considered in the Father before Him; becoming image and seal and likeness. D Then he grants to Him the
gratifies Him with the destruction of men by water that occurred in the time of Noah, and with the fiery rain that fell upon Sodom, and the just punishment and retribution of the Egyptians, attributing these great deeds to Him who holds the ends of the earth in His hand, in whom all things consist, as the Apostle affirms; as if he were unaware that for Him who embraces all things, and moves and carries toward His own purpose both things already passed and things to come, the two or three miracles mentioned do not bring so much an addition of glory as their omission brings a loss and detriment to the rest. But even if these are passed over in silence, one word of the divine Paul is sufficient to demonstrate comprehensively of itself all that it asserts of Him, both through all things and in all.
Deinde A, inquit, “Legem fert secundum Dei æterni mandatum.” Who is the eternal God? And who is it that ministers to Him in the establishing of the law? But it is clear to everyone that it is God who establishes the law through Moses for those who receive the law. Since, however, Eunomius previously confesses that it is the Only-begotten God who performed the miracles in Moses: how does his present discourse forcibly reduce the Lord of the universe to the rank of Moses? He assigns the meaning of the “eternal God” to the Father alone. So that, by this distinction from the eternal, the Only-begotten God—the Creator of the ages—is shown to be not eternal, but recent. But it seems to me that he, who is so eager to learn and yet so forgetful, has forgotten that all these things are said by Paul about himself, as he announces to men the proclamation of the Gospel according to the command of God. Therefore, Eunomius does not blush to attribute to the Lord of the prophets and apostles what the Apostle relates about himself, in order to make the Lord equal in honor to Paul, his own servant. What need is there for me to bring in a multitude of speech while refuting each point? In these matters, one who reads his writings more simply and carelessly will think that he is saying things permitted by the Scripture; but one who is able to weigh each point with diligent examination will find that in no respect is it separated or different from heretical malice and perversity. For both the churchman and the heretic say that the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son. C But each of them does not understand the statement in the same way. For by the same words, the churchman understands the authority over all; while the heretic constructs a sense of deficiency and subjection.
But that must be added to what has been said, which they serve as a sort of foundation for their impiety in their discourse concerning the dispensation; namely, they determine that not the whole man was saved by Him, but only the half of man, by which I mean the body. For the aim of such malice for them in this teaching D is to show that the more humble expressions, which the Lord utters out of human nature, seem to have been made by the Divinity Itself, in order that through these they may show a stronger blasphemy,
A confirmed by this very confession of the Lord: for this reason he says that He who in the last days became man, did not assume man consisting of soul and body. But I, having searched through the entire divinely inspired and holy Scripture, do not see this statement written, that He who made all things assumed only flesh without a soul at the time of the dispensation according to man. Therefore, necessarily looking towards the goal of our salvation, and the decrees of the Fathers, and the divinely inspired voices, I shall try to refute the impiety being constructed in this regard. The Lord came to seek and to save that which was lost; and it was not [merely] a body that was lost, but the whole man, composed of soul [and body]. And if one must speak more truthfully, the soul had perished before the body. B For disobedience is a sin of choice, not of the body; and choice is proper to the soul, from which the entire calamity of our nature had its beginning, as the truthful threat of God testifies to these words: that on whatever day they should touch the forbidden things, death would without delay be joined to the eating. Since the human composition is twofold, death is fittingly wrought upon each, the double life working the deprivation for the one who dies. For the death of the body is the extinguishing of the senses, and the dissolution into the related elements. But the soul, it says, that sins, shall itself die. Sin, however, is alienation from God, who is the true and only life. Therefore, the first-formed man lived for many hundreds of years after the transgression, yet God did not lie when He said: On whatever day you eat, you shall die the death. For because he was alienated and turned away from the true life, on that day the sentence of death against him was confirmed and made valid. But afterward, as the years passed, physical death also followed Adam. Therefore, He who came for this reason, to seek and save that which was lost, which in the parable the shepherd calls a sheep; and he finds what was lost, and takes the whole sheep upon his own shoulders, and not merely the sheep's skin: C in order that he might make the man of God whole, tempered by soul and body to the Divinity. And thus He left nothing of our nature which He did not assume, He who was tempted in all things by likeness, without sin. Now the soul is not sin, but has become capable of sin through lack of counsel and lack of foresight; which He therefore sanctifies through the blending with Himself, that through the first-fruits He might sanctify the whole lump. For which reason also the angel, announcing to Joseph the destruction of the enemies of the Lord, says that those who were seeking the soul of the child are dead. And the Lord says to the Jews: Why do you seek to kill Me, a man who has spoken the truth to you? But "man" is not called the body of a man, but that which consists of both. And again He says to them: You are angry with Me, because I have made the whole ho-
A man healthy on the Sabbath. But He revealed the meaning of "the whole" in other Gospels, saying to the paralytic who was let down in the midst [by way of] the bed, "Your sins are forgiven," which is a healing of the soul, and "Arise and walk," which looks to the flesh. And in the Gospel according to John, after He gave health to the body and liberated the soul from its own disease—in the words where He says, "You have become healthy; sin no more, lest something worse befall you"—thereby the one who was healed was cured in both parts, I mean in soul and in body. For so also Paul says, in order that He might create the two in Himself into one new man. And thus, at the time of the Passion, He foretells the voluntary departure of His own soul from His own body, saying: "No one takes My soul from Me, but I lay it down of Myself; I have authority to lay My soul down, and I have authority to take it up again." B And also the prophet David, according to the interpretation of the great Peter, looking toward Him, said: "You will not abandon My soul to Hades, nor will You give Your Holy One to see corruption." Thus the apostle Peter interpreted the saying, that neither His soul was abandoned to Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. For the Divinity, both before the flesh, and in the flesh, and after the Passion, has itself in the same way, being always in its nature and remaining unto eternity. But in the Passion of human nature, He fulfilled the economy for us, detaching the soul for a time from the body, yet He was not separated from either piece to which He was once tempered together; and He joined again those that were separated, so as to give a sequence and a beginning to all human nature for the resurrection from the dead, in order that all C that is corruptible might put on incorruption, and what is mortal [might put on] immortality; our first-fruits, by the tempering with God, having been transformed into the divine nature, just as Peter said, that God made this same Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ. And many [passages] of such a doctrine can be taken from the holy Gospels in support [of this]: how the Lord, by the humanity of Christ, reconciling the world to Himself, distributed the benefit proceeding from Himself into men, to the soul and to the body, willing indeed through the soul, but touching [us] through the body. But it would be superfluous for one going through everything to heap up a crowded multitude in this discourse. D I will add that to the things said, and then I will pass on to what follows: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." Just as we, through soul and body, become a temple of God dwelling and walking within us, so too the Lord names the temple that which is fashioned from both, the dissolution of which signifies the severance of the soul from the body. But if they bring forward the voice of the Gospel, that "The Word became flesh," as if for the reason that the [soul] not being mentioned...
the flesh alone is assumed, let them learn that it is customary for Holy Scripture to include the whole by a part. For he who said, "To Thee shall all flesh come" (Ps. LXIV, 3), does not mean that the flesh will come to the Judge separated from the souls. And when we hear from history that Jacob went down into Egypt with seventy souls (Gen. XLVI, 27), we understand the flesh along with the souls. Thus, therefore, the Word also, having become flesh, assumed the whole of human nature along with the flesh. Hence, hunger and thirst, and being afraid and fearing, and desiring and sleeping, and being troubled and weeping, and all such things had a place in Him; for neither does the Godhead according to its own nature receive such an affection, nor is the flesh in those things of itself, if the soul is not joined with the body. B
And so much for the blasphemy, that is, the impious railing against the Son of God. Let us see also what he sets forth regarding the Holy Spirit. "After this," he says, "we believe in the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth." But I think it is clear to all who read these things, to what end he looks in perverting the exposition of the faith delivered by the Lord in his discourses concerning the Son and the Father. Although the absurdity of this has already been sufficiently refuted, I shall nevertheless endeavor in a few words to make manifest the scope of his deceitful craft. For just as there he did not say "Father," lest by the eternity of the Father he should at the same time point to the Son, nor did he name the "Son," lest he should represent by this word the familiarity and relationship that exist according to nature; so also now he does not say "Holy Spirit," lest he should be compelled to confess by this very name the majesty of His glory and that which is in all respects united to the Father and the Son. For since both the name of "Spirit" and the name of "Holy" are applied by Scripture to the Father and the Son equally with the Spirit (for "God is a Spirit," and "Christ the Lord is a spirit before our face," and "holy is the Lord God," and "one is holy, one is Lord Jesus Christ"), C lest any pious and religious opinion concerning the Holy Spirit should be engendered in the hearers by these words, from the fact that the Holy Spirit has a glorious appellation in common with the Father and the Son, for this reason, deceiving and eluding the hearing of the ignorant and foolish, he changes and inverts the words of the faith set forth by God in the tradition of the mystery, as if here paving a way through this consequence to impiety against the Holy Spirit. For if he had said, "We believe in the Holy Spirit," but "Spirit is God," he who is instructed in divine things would have suspected, "If one must believe in the Holy Spirit, and Spirit is named God, it is by no means anything other according to nature than that which is properly named by the same names." For whatever things are not falsely, nor by misuse, but properly signified by the same names, it is absolutely necessary that there be one and the same nature confessed for those signified by the same names. On account of this, having passed over in silence the...
A voice established by the Lord in the faith, he says: We believe in the Paraclete. But I have learned from the divinely inspired Scripture that this very name is common to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. For the Son likewise calls both himself and the Holy Spirit "Paraclete." And the Father, through the things by which He works "paraclesis" (consolation), altogether claims the name of the Paraclete for Himself. For certainly, He who performs the work of the Paraclete does not disdain the name of the work. For David says to the Father: "You, O Lord, have helped me and comforted me"; and the great Apostle recounts the same things regarding the Father, saying: "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, openly names the Son as Paraclete; and the Lord Himself, by the words in which He said that another Paraclete would be sent to us, speaking of the Spirit, entirely confessed this name for Himself beforehand.
Since the meaning of this word "to comfort" (παρακαλεῖν) is twofold—one kind being done through honorable words and gestures, by which we move to compassion one whom we need and win him over; the other being a healing and curative concept for pains of soul and body—the holy Scripture B attributes the notion of the Paraclete equally to the divine nature according to each of these significations. For now Paul presents to us the curative power of God toward us through "paraclesis," saying: "He who comforts the humble, comforted us in the presence of Titus." Again, writing to the Corinthians according to the other understanding, he narrates these things, that "we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading (comforting) through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God."
Since these things are so, however you may understand the name "Paraclete" in the Spirit, you will not depart from the communion of the Father and the Son, according to either of the meanings. Therefore, not even in this part was he able, though wishing to, to diminish the glory of the Holy Spirit, attributing to Him that which is ascribed by the holy Scripture to the Father and to the Son.
When Eunomius said "Spirit of truth," he himself, as I suppose, wished to establish something subordinate through such a voice. Since Christ is the truth, and he named that one the "Spirit of truth"—as if one were to say being a possession of the truth and subordinate, not knowing that God is called "righteousness," and we do not, of course, understand God to be a possession of righteousness—therefore, when we learned "Spirit of truth," we received an understanding of the word worthy of God, being led as if by the hand by the succeeding discourse toward the better. For when the Lord said, "The Spirit of truth," He immediately added, "who proceeds from the Father." Which, to none of those things C understood in creation, does the voice of the Lord attribute, neither to things that are seen, nor to those that are beyond the gaze of the eye. D
A nor to thrones, nor to principalities, nor to powers, nor to lordships, nor to any other name that is named, neither in this age nor in the age to come. Since, therefore, the whole of creation is devoid of this, it would be manifest in every way that this is the peculiar and B exceptional characteristic of the uncreated nature. But he commands us to believe in “the guide of piety.” Let him, then, believe in Paul, and Barnabas, and Titus, and Silvanus, and Timothy, and all those through whom we were led to the faith. For if one ought to believe in that which leads to piety along with the Father and the Son, then all the prophets and lawgivers, patriarchs, heralds and evangelists, and apostles, pastors and teachers, are to be honored on an equal footing with the Holy Spirit, because they were the providers and teachers of piety to those who were born after them. “Made,” he says, “by God alone through the Only-Begotten.” He brings his whole impiety to a summary and head through these statements. C Again, he calls only the Father God, having used the Only-Begotten as an instrument for the construction of the Spirit. What shadow of such a notion has he found in Scripture to dare these things? From what principle has he led his impiety by sequence to such a conclusion? Which of the evangelists says this? Which apostle? Which prophet? On the contrary, every Scripture inspired by God, being written through the inspiration of the Spirit, testifies to the divinity of the Spirit. For instance (for it is better to prove the argument by the testimonies themselves), those who received D the power to become children of God bear witness to the divinity of the Spirit. For who is ignorant of the voice of the Lord, that those born of the Spirit are children of God? For thus He expressly testifies to the birth of the children of God by the Holy Spirit, saying: “As that which is born of the flesh is flesh, so also that which is born of the spirit is spirit”; and as many as were born of the Spirit were called children of God. Thus also, when the Lord had given the Holy Spirit to the disciples through His breathing, John says, “Of his fullness have we all received.” But the great Paul testifies that the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Him. But further, through the prophet Isaiah concerning the theophany that occurred to him, when he saw Him sitting on a throne high and lifted up, the older tradition says that He who was seen was the Father; but the evangelist John refers the prophecy to the Lord, saying concerning the Jews who did not believe the words which were said to the prophet concerning the Lord, that “these things said Isaiah, when he saw His glory and spoke of Him.” But the great Paul attributed this same word to the Holy Spirit, in the address which he himself had to the Jews at Rome, when he says, “Well did the Holy Spirit speak concerning you,” showing, as I think, by this holy Scripture, that every divine vision and every manifestation of God, and every word which is spoken in the person of God, is understood of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
For this reason, because David says that they provoked God to anger in the desert, and embittered Him in a land without water, the Apostle refers to the Holy Spirit those things which were done by the Israelites against God, writing to the word thus: “Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says: Do not harden your hearts as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the desert, where your fathers tempted me,” and he attributes to the person of the Holy Spirit all other things which prophecy attributes to God. B But those who boast that we, by such doctrines, fashion three gods, have perhaps not yet even learned to count. For if the Son and the Father are not divided from one another into a dual signification (for they are one, and not two, according to the voice of the Lord; and the Holy Spirit is also one), how is that which is conjoined with the one split into the number of three gods? Or is it not altogether manifest that no one would cast the charge of a number of three gods upon us, unless he had first established a duality of gods in his own doctrine? For that which adds one to two creates a trinity of gods; but where one God is worshipped in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, what place has the accusation of three gods?
But let us resume the whole discourse of Eunomius. “Made,” he says, “by the only God through the Only-Begotten, and this one also.” C What then is this demonstration, and this? Whether this one is to be counted among those things which were made by the Only-Begotten? They will altogether say that all things were made through Him, and that this one also is included in all things. To whom we will say: “All things were made through Him.” But as Paul says, there were made things visible and invisible, thrones, powers, principalities, dominions, virtues; and in those things enumerated through the thrones and the powers, Paul has included the Cherubim and the Seraphim: up to this point, all things. But the Holy Spirit, inasmuch as He is above the nature of those things which were created, he has tacitly passed over in the enumeration of beings; neither demonstrating to us through his own words that He was made, nor that He was subject; D but as the Prophet names the Holy Spirit good, and right, and guiding, indicating by the word guiding the sovereign power: so also the Apostle declares that all things are wrought in all by the same Spirit, as He wills, and attributes full authority to the dignity of the Spirit. But the Lord declares His free power and operation in the discourse with Nicodemus, saying that “the Spirit blows where He wills.” How then does Eunomius assert that this one is of those things which were created by the Son, condemned to eternal subjection? “For once,” he says, “having been made subject.” I do not understand by what species of subjection he subjects Him who has dominion and principality; for this word is manifold in the Holy Scripture, and is understood and said in many ways.
A For the Prophet says that even nature devoid of reason is subjected, and he subjects those who have been conquered in war by the same term; and the Apostle ordains that slaves be subject to their own masters, and commands those who are set over the priesthood to keep their children in subjection, since the disorder occurring from them, after the likeness of the sons of the priest Eli, passes over to the fathers. B But the Apostle also speaks of the subjection of all men to God, when all, having been united to one another through faith, have become one body of the Lord, who is in all; and he speaks of the subjection of the Son to the Father, when the adoration offered by all with one accord to the Son—by those in heaven, and those on earth, and those under the earth—passes over to the glory of the Father, as Paul says: *That at His name every knee of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth should bow, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father*. By which it is established, in the great wisdom of Paul, that the Son who is in all is subjected to the Father through the subjection of all, in whom the Son is. What kind of total subjection, then, does Eunomius prate of regarding the Spirit? It is not possible to learn from the voice he has cast forth, whether it is that of those lacking reason, or of captives, or of household servants, or of children being disciplined, or of those being saved through subjection. For the subjection of men to God is salvation to those who are subjected. According to the voice of the Prophet who says, *Shall not my soul be subject to God? for from Him is my salvation*, subjection is an antidote to destruction. As, therefore, medicine brings aid to the sick, so does subjection to those in need of salvation. But the Holy Spirit, who makes all things live, of what life is He in need, so that through submission He might acquire salvation for Himself? Since, therefore, he has neither any divine utterance to support such prating about the Spirit, nor any sequence of probable reasoning for it, he has uttered this blasphemy against the Holy Spirit; it must be obvious to those who have a mind that the impiety he sets forth against Him is indefensible, supported by neither the testimony of Scripture nor the logic of reason.
D Furthermore, he adds to these things that He is neither ranked according to the Father nor enumerated with the Father—for there is one and only Father, the God over all—nor is He equaled with the Son, for the Son is only-begotten, having no one of the same birth. For my part, if he had only added this to his discourse, that the Holy Spirit is not the father of the Son, I would have thought it vain to dwell upon these things which no one disputes, since they prevent us from thinking things about Him that not even the most foolish would suspect. But because he attempts to construct his impiety through things absurd, inappropriate, and incoherent—by saying that the Holy Spirit is not the father of the Only-begotten—by these very things he demonstrates...
his own folly. For he thinks he can prove that the Spirit is subject to the Father, because the Spirit is not the father of the Only-begotten. But by what necessity is such a conclusion established, as if, were He not the Father, He must necessarily be subject? If it had been demonstrated that "father" and "tyrant" mean the same thing, it would follow that, once the idea of tyranny was understood as belonging to the father, the Spirit must be spoken of as subject to him who was superior in power. But if by the word "father" the relationship to the Son is understood alone, and no tyrannical or despotic notion is introduced by this term, how does it follow B from the fact that the Spirit is not the Father of the Son that the Spirit is subject? "Neither," he says, "is He made equal to the Son." How does he say this? For that which is immutable, and entirely incapable of evil, and ever remains the same in goodness, has no difference in the Son and in the Spirit. For the incorruptibility in the Spirit is equally alien from perishing or corruption, and that which is by nature good is in the same way separated from its opposite. And that which is perfect in every good likewise possesses what is greater, without deficiency.
All these things, moreover, the God-inspired Scripture affirms and teaches concerning the Holy Spirit, assigning to the Holy Spirit the attributes of good, wise, incorruptible, and immortal, and all lofty and God-befitting conceptions and titles. If, therefore, He is not diminished in any of these, in what respect does Eunomius measure out the inequality between the Son and the Spirit? "For the Son," he says, "is the Only-begotten, having no brother of the same kind." But we have discussed in the discourse regarding the "firstborn of all creation" C that the Only-begotten should not be understood in relation to brothers. But we must not let what has been cast out by him through malice and wickedness in this discourse pass by unexamined. For whereas the ecclesiastical dogma proclaims one power, and goodness, and essence, and glory—or majesty—and all such things in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, apart from the difference that exists according to the persons, this man, when he wishes to make the essence of the Only-begotten common with the creature, calls Him the "firstborn of all creation" according to His pre-eternal existence, declaring through this term that all things understood in the creation are brothers of the Lord. For the firstborn is entirely the firstborn not of those of a different kind, but of those of the same kind. But when he separates the Spirit from the connection—or cohesion—that exists with the Son, he calls Him Only-begotten, not having a brother of the same kind—not so that he might understand Him as without brothers, but so that by this he might construct the notion that the Spirit D is alien in essence. For we have learned from Scripture not to call the Holy Spirit a brother of the Lord; but that one should not call the Spirit of the same kind—that is, of the same substance—as the Son is not demonstrated anywhere by the divine words. For if the life-giving power is proved to be in the Father and the Son, it is proved also to be in the Holy Spirit, according to the voice of the Gospel. If the incorruptible, and the immutable, and that which is entirely incapable of evil, and that which is good, and straight, and...
that which has authority, and that which works all in all as it wills: if all such things are to be seen in the same manner in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, how is it possible to conceive of a difference of kind from this very identity? Therefore, the discourse of piety agrees that no fraternity ought to be perceived in the Only-begotten. But that the Spirit is not of the same kind as the Son—that is, strictly speaking, not of the same substance, not the straight with the straight, not the good with the good, not the vivifying with the vivifying—this has been clearly demonstrated to be the product of heretical malice, following the consequence of the argument. B
What, then, is diminished in the majesty of the Spirit through these things? For there is nothing in these God-befitting concepts capable of producing either a redundancy or a diminution. Since all these things are predicated equally by the Holy Scripture of both the Son and the Spirit, in what does he see inequality? He would have nothing to say. But he brings forward an impiety against the Holy Spirit that is naked, unconstructive, and hangs upon no sequence. "Nor," he says, "is it ordained with any other." For it has transcended all the created works brought into being through the Son—in generation, and nature, and glory, and knowledge—as the first and most perfect work of the Only-begotten, and the greatest and most beautiful. For my part, I will leave the unlearned and sordid nature of his language to be mocked by others; for I judge it unbecoming for a man with the white hair of an elder to use such unlearned language against the one who acts impiously toward the Word who is worshipped. But I will add this to the examination: If the Spirit has transcended all the works of the Son—for I will use his own solecistic and senseless utterance, or rather, I will express the meaning more clearly through my own language—if it surpasses all the things that came to be through the Son, the Holy Spirit is unranked with the rest of creation. And if it has the advantage, as Eunomius says, in having been generated before the others, it is absolutely necessary to confess that, in the case of all other creation as well, those which, according to the order of generation, are prior, are to be deemed more honorable than those that follow. C But, indeed, the nature of irrational creatures existed before the formation of man. Therefore, through these things he would surely conclude that the irrational is more excellent than the rational essence. Thus, according to the argument of Eunomius, Cain would be shown to be better than Abel, being prior in time according to birth. Thus, all things that grow from the earth would be shown to be less and more inferior to the nature of the stars. For the former sprouted from the earth on the third day, while the great luminaries and all the stars are recorded by Moses as having been created on the fourth. But surely no one is so senseless as to deem the earthly grass more excellent than the heavenly wonders on account of the seniority of time; or to award the victory to Cain against Abel; or to subject the man who was born after them to the irrational animals. Therefore, that which is proposed by him has no D sense.
A The statement, therefore, that the Spirit has a more honorable nature than the things subsequently created because it was created before the others, is devoid of reason.
Let us see, however, what kind of glory is bestowed upon the Spirit by the one who has separated Him from communion with the Son. For, he says, this one also, being both first and alone, and excelling all the works of the Son according to essence and natural dignity, accomplishing every operation and doctrine according to the will of the Son, being sent by Him, and receiving from Him, and announcing to those who are instructed, is the guide of truth. All operations and doctrine, he says, the Holy Spirit accomplishes: what operation? Is it that which the Father and the Son also effect, according to the word of the Lord, who operates human salvation even until now, or some other operation besides this? If, indeed, He operates that same one, He possesses entirely the same power and nature as the Father and the Son, and a nature of a different kind has no place in God. For just as, if something were to produce the same effects that fire produces—shining and heating in the same way—it would be fire in every respect; so, if the Spirit performs the works of the Father, it must necessarily be confessed that He is of the same nature as He is. But if He operates something else besides our salvation, and if He manifests His operation in something of the contrary sort, He will be shown by these things to be of another nature and essence. Yet the Word Himself testifies that the Spirit vivifies just as the Father and the Son do. Wherefore, B by these same works and effects, it is proved that the Spirit is not alien to the nature of the Father and the Son. And that the Spirit fulfills the operation and doctrine of the Father as it seems good to the Son, we do not deny. For the communion of nature testifies to the one will of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Wherefore, if the Holy Spirit wills that which seems good to the Son, the communion of will clearly demonstrates the unity of essence. But as for the words, "He is sent by Him, and receives from Him, and announces to the instructed, and is the guide of truth," if he had not said these things concerning the Spirit, one hearing this would clearly have thought that they were spoken of some teacher among men. For it is the same thing to be sent and commissioned, and to have nothing from one's own house or from oneself, but to receive from the grace of the one sending or commissioning, and to minister the words to those who are taught, and to offer oneself as a guide of truth to those who wander. For all these things belong even now to pastors and teachers—to be sent, to receive, to announce, to teach, and to establish the truth: these are the things which Eunomius bestows upon the Holy Spirit. But when he had said before these things that He is also one and first and alone and excelling all: if he had ended his discourse at this point, he would have seemed a champion of the decrees of the truth. For one is truly He who is considered inseparably in the One, and first in the First, and alone in the Alone. For just as the spirit of a man which is in him, and the man himself, is one man, so also the Spirit of God which is in Him, C and God Himself, is truly and properly called one God: and first and alone, in that He could not be separated from Him in whom He is. But now when he added, "excelling all,"
A he showed his own speech to be a muddy subversion against Him who "blows where He wills," and who "works all things in all," in that he provides to Him a more honorable rank or place by comparison with the rest of the creatures.
Let us see, however, what he has also added to these: B "Sanctifying," he says, "the saints." Anyone saying this of the Father and the Son would speak truly. For in whomsoever the Holy One is, He makes them holy, just as the Good One also makes them good. And the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are holy and good, as has been demonstrated. "Initiating," he says, "those who approach the mystery." This he may well say regarding Apollos, who watered the planting of Paul. For the Apostle plants through teaching or instruction, but Apollos waters by baptizing, bringing those who were catechized by Paul to the mystery through mystical regeneration. He therefore makes him equal in honor with Apollos, insofar as he initiates men through baptism. "Distributing," he says, "to each every gift." To this we also agree. For whatever is good is a part of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. "Cooperating," he says, "with the faithful for the understanding and contemplation C of what has been commanded." But since he did not add by whom they were commanded, he left the statement ambiguous, whether the matter stands rightly or otherwise. But we shall apply what has been said to piety with a brief addition. For since it is written that "the word of wisdom, or the word of knowledge, or faith, or healing, or government, or any other thing" among those which save us, "all these one and the same Spirit works, dividing to each one individually as He wills," for this reason we do not reject Eunomius's statement when he said the Spirit cooperates with the faithful for the understanding and contemplation of those things which have been commanded by the Spirit Himself, because all good teachings have been commanded and ordained for us by Him. "Echoing," he says, "to those praying." The meaning of this utterance would be foolish to refute with earnestness, since from the very form of the expression it is quite apparent to all to be both ridiculous and senseless. For who is so headlong and deranged in mind as to wait to learn from us that the Holy Spirit is not a bell or an empty jar, which rings back and resounds, being agitated as if by some blow from the voice of the one praying? D "Leading," he says, "on the way," but to that which is profitable: this both the Father and the Son do likewise. For He leads Joseph as a sheep, and He led His people as sheep. And the good Spirit leads us in a straight path. "Strengthening," he says, "unto piety." David says it is the work of God to strengthen a person in piety. "For You are my strength and my refuge," says the Prophet, "and the Lord is the strength of His people; and He shall give strength and strengthening to His people."
If these things are spoken according to the prophetic mind, they are testimonies to the divinity of the Holy Spirit; A but if they are opposed to the prophecy, by this very fact the blasphemy is condemned, because it maintains opinions contrary to the holy prophets in its discourse. Then he says: *Illuminating souls with the light of knowledge.* The discourse of piety ascribes this grace to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. For that illumination is named by David, and from there the light of knowledge arises in those who are illuminated. Likewise, the purification of the mind is the property, as the Word says, of the Lord’s power; for the *brightness of the glory and the stamp of the substance* accomplished the purification of our sins. As for driving away demons, which Eunomius says is the property of the Spirit, this the Only-begotten God also does, who, saying to the demon, "I command you," attributes it to the power of the Spirit, saying: B *If I in the Spirit of God cast out demons.* So the removal of demons is not an abrogation of the glory of the Spirit, but a confirmation of his divine and transcendent power. Healing the sick, curing the infirm, comforting the afflicted, raising up the falling, refreshing those who labor—these are the words of those who think piously concerning the Holy Spirit. For no one would assign the efficacy of each of these to any other than to God. If, therefore, the heresy confirms that those things which no one can perform except God alone are performed by the power of the Spirit, we obtain, for those things for which we strive with effort and zeal, a testimony even from our enemies. In what way does the Prophet seek healing from God, saying: *Have mercy on me, O Lord, for I am weak; heal me, O Lord, for my bones have been troubled?* Isaiah says to God that C *the dew from you is a medicine to them.* And the prophecy bears witness that the turning back of those who have wandered is the work of God: *for they wandered in the desert in a waterless place.* And he added: *And he led them into a straight path, so that they might travel to a city of habitation.* And: *When the Lord turned back the captivity of Zion.* Likewise, the comfort of the afflicted is referred to God, as Paul says: *Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who comforts us in all our tribulation.* And the prophet, from the person of God, says: *In tribulation I called, and I found you.* The raising up of those who are stumbling is referred in countless ways by Holy Scripture to the power of the Lord: *I was pushed and overthrown D that I might fall, and the Lord took me up;* and, *When he falls, he shall not be bruised, for the Lord supports his hand;* and, *The Lord sets upright those who are crushed.* The recovery of those who are suffering has in it the confession of God’s love for man: if what we learned from the prophecy, he also understood, just as the discourse says: *You laid tribulations upon our backs; you made men mount upon our heads; we passed through fire and water, and you brought us out into a place of refreshment.*
A Up to this point, therefore, the majesty and magnificence of the Spirit are demonstrated through the testimony of the enemies; but in what follows, the purity of piety is again defiled by the heretical mire. For he says concerning the Spirit that He "calls out to those who are struggling."
This assertion bears the charge of the utmost folly and impiety. For in the stadiums, some preside over the games for those who intend to display their athletic strength, while others, excelling others in strength and skill, struggle for victory, stripping themselves for the contests against one another; the rest, divided in their good wishes toward the combatants according to the zeal and disposition each may have toward one of the athletes, call out during the time of the engagement, whether from foreseeing a injury, or from remembering a wrestling maneuver, or to guard themselves through their skill from falling. By what rank, therefore, does Eunomius appoint the Holy Spirit? Understand it from what has been said: for in the stadiums, among those who preside over the games, those who judge the lawful contests, those who are struggling, and those who call out to those who are struggling—who are admitted to be much inferior to those who are contending—Eunomius sees the Holy Spirit as one of the spectators from the crowd, or as one of those who serve the athletes; B who neither presides over the games, nor judges the victory, nor struggles against the opponent, but through the calling out, helps nothing toward the victory. For He neither struggles along with them, nor does He instill the power for this very struggle; He wishes only that he whom He favors should not be shown to be second to his opponents. And yet, Paul struggles against principalities, against powers, against the world-rulers of the darkness of this age, and against spiritual wickedness in the heavenly places. But the Spirit of power does not strengthen the athletes, nor does He distribute the gifts to the athletes, dividing to each individually as He wills, but has the power only to call out to those who are engaged in the conflict.
C Again, he says, "encouraging those who are faint-hearted." This man indeed follows in his own discourse the preceding blasphemy against the Spirit, but the Truth also manifests itself through the mouth of the enemy. For it belongs to no one else to instill boldness into those who are struck with fear, D except to God alone, saying to the one who is fearful: *Do not fear, for I am with you; fear nothing*; as the Prophet says: *For even if I walk in the midst of the shadow of death, I will not fear evils, because you are with me.* But also the Master Himself says to those who are fearful: *Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid*; and, *Why are you fearful, O you of little faith?* and, *Be of good cheer, I am; do not fear*; and again, *Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.* Therefore, even against the will of Eunomius, by means of the very voice of the enemy, piety demonstrates itself. And the discourse that follows also agrees with the preceding one: *Taking care, he says, of all things, and bringing in every care and providence.* For it belongs to God alone, as it is truly, to care for
A all things, as the great David says: *I am poor and needy, and the Lord will take care of me.* But if what remains has been rattled off without intelligence, in a noise of empty words, let no one blame the one who sees him in most places destitute of every intelligent perception and instruction. For what sensible person, he says, for the sake of winning the favor of benevolent people and the custody of the faithful, would say what neither would he himself say, nor would those who senselessly admire his decrees and writings? In Christ Jesus, to whom be glory and power for ever and ever. Amen.
AGAINST EUNOMIUS BOOK III
CAPITA OR SUMMARIES OF THE THIRD BOOK
1. This third book shows the third B fall of Eunomius, how he convicts himself, and sometimes says that the Only-Begotten must be named Son, because he was born according to nature from the Father, as the Holy Scripture, he says, declares this from above; but sometimes, because he was created, he is no longer called Son, but a creature. 2. Then again, he expounds in a very beautiful, appropriate, and accurate manner the passage, *The Lord created me.* 3. Then he shows that the non-alienation of essence between the begotten and the unbegotten is no foreign nature, judging by the examples of Adam and Abel and others. 4. Thereafter, he demonstrates the unity of the eternal with the Father, and the identity of essence, and the communion of nature, in which there is also a discussion about the generation of wine, and that both Son and begotten, when stated of the Only-Begotten, have a kinship with one another. 5. In addition to these, he goes through the incomprehensibility of the divine essence, and interprets what was said to the Samaritan woman: *You worship what you do not know.* 6. And after this, he expounds the appellation of Son and of begotten, and the many differences between sons of God, and men, and rams, and perdition, and light, and day. 7. Finally, having interpreted the divine and human appellations of the Only-Begotten, and having carefully discussed the begotten and the unbegotten, he completes the book.
For the one who struggles lawfully, the end of the labors endured in the contests is either that the adversary, worn out by toil, broken and languid, of his own accord offers the grass to the one who has overcome and yields the victory, or that according to the athletic law he is thrown to the ground three times; through which, to the victor, by the judgment of the umpires, with the clear proclamation of the herald, glory accrues as illustrious for the crown obtained. Since, therefore, Eunomius, having already been thrown twice in the previous discourses, does not yet yield to the truth, nor does he allow it to carry off the prizes of victory against the lie, but once again rages against piety through his writing in the customary