§4. He next skilfully confutes the partial, empty and blasphemous statement of Eunomius on the subject of the absolutely existent.

Now the wording of their doctrine is as follows: “We believe in the one and only true God, according to the teaching of the Lord Himself, not honouring Him with a lying title (for He cannot lie), but really existent, one God in nature and in glory, who is without beginning, eternally, without end, alone.” Let not him who professes to believe in accordance with the teaching of the Lord pervert the exposition of the faith that was made concerning the Lord of all to suit his own fancy, but himself follow the utterance of the truth. Since then, the expression of the Faith comprehends the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, what agreement has this construction of theirs to show with the utterances of the Lord, so as to refer such a doctrine to the teaching of those utterances? They cannot manage to show where in the Gospels the Lord said that we should believe on “the one and only true God:” unless they have some new Gospel. For the Gospels which are read in the churches continuously from ancient times to the present day, do not contain this saying which tells us that we should believe in or baptize into “the one and only true God,” as these people say, but “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” But as we were taught by the voice of the Lord, this we say, that the word “one” does not indicate the Father alone, but comprehends in its significance the Son with the Father, inasmuch as the Lord said, “I and My Father are one211    S. John x. 30.” In like manner also the name “God” belongs equally to the Beginning in which the Word was, and to the Word Who was in the Beginning. For the Evangelist tells us that “the Word was with God, and the Word was God212    S. John i. 1.” So that when Deity is expressed the Son is included no less than the Father. Moreover, the true cannot be conceived as something alien from and unconnected with the truth. But that the Lord is the Truth no one at all will dispute, unless he be one estranged from the truth. If, then, the Word is in the One, and is God and Truth, as is proclaimed in the Gospels, on what teaching of the Lord does he base his doctrine who makes use of these distinctive terms? For the antithesis is between “only” and “not only,” between “God” and “no God,” between “true” and “untrue.” If it is with respect to idols that they make their distinction of phrases, we too agree. For the name of “deity” is given, in an equivocal sense, to the idols of the heathen, seeing that “all the gods of the heathen are demons,” and in another sense marks the contrast of the one with the many, of the true with the false, of those who are not Gods with Him who is God213    Or, possibly, “and the contrast he makes between the one and the many, &c. is irrelevant” (ἄλλως ἀντιδιαιρεῖ): the quotation is from Ps. xcvi. 6 (LXX.).. But if the contrast is one with the Only-begotten God214    Cf. S. John i. 18, reading (as S. Gregory seems to have done) θεός for υἱ& 231·ς., let our sages learn that truth has its opposite only in falsehood, and God in one who is not God. But inasmuch as the Lord Who is the Truth is God, and is in the Father and is one relatively to the Father215    καὶ ἓν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα ὄντος. It may be questioned whether the text is sound: the phrase seems unusual; perhaps ἓν has been inserted in error from the preceding clause καὶ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ ὄντος, and we should read “is in the Father and is with the Father” (cf. the 2nd verse of the 1st Epistle, and verses 1 and 2 of the Gospel of S. John)., there is no room in the true doctrine for these distinctions of phrases. For he who truly believes in the One sees in the One Him Who is completely united with Him in truth, and deity, and essence, and life, and wisdom, and in all attributes whatsoever: or, if he does not see in the One Him Who is all these it is in nothing that he believes. For without the Son the Father has neither existence nor name, any more than the Powerful without Power, or the Wise without Wisdom. For Christ is “the Power of God and the Wisdom of God216    1 Cor. i. 24.;” so that he who imagines he sees the One God apart from power, truth, wisdom, life, or the true light, either sees nothing at all or else assuredly that which is evil. For the withdrawal of the good attributes becomes a positing and origination of evil.

“Not honouring Him,” he says, “with a lying title, for He cannot lie.” By that phrase I pray that Eunomius may abide, and so bear witness to the truth that it cannot lie. For if he would be of this mind, that everything that is uttered by the Lord is far removed from falsehood, he will of course be persuaded that He speaks the truth Who says, “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me217    S. John xiv. 10,”—plainly, the One in His entirety, in the Other in His entirety, the Father not superabounding in the Son, the Son not being deficient in the Father,—and Who says also that the Son should be honoured as the Father is honoured218    Cf. S. John v. 23, and “He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father219    S. John xiv. 9,” and “no man knoweth the Father save the Son220    S. Matt. xi. 27,” in all which passages there is no hint given to those who receive these declarations as genuine, of any variation221    παραλλαγή (Cf. S. James i. 17). of glory, or of essence, or anything else, between the Father and the Son.

“Really existent,” he says, “one God in nature and in glory.” Real existence is opposed to unreal existence. Now each of existing things is really existent in so far as it is; but that which, so far as appearance and suggestion go, seems to be, but is not, this is not really existent, as for example an appearance in a dream or a man in a picture. For these and such like things, though they exist so far as appearance is concerned, have not real existence. If then they maintain, in accordance with the Jewish opinion, that the Only-begotten God does not exist at all, they are right in predicating real existence of the Father alone. But if they do not deny the existence of the Maker of all things, let them be content not to deprive of real existence Him Who is, Who in the Divine appearance to Moses gave Himself the name of Existent, when He said, “I am that I am222    Or “I am He that is,” Ex. iii. 14.:” even as Eunomius in his later argument agrees with this, saying that it was He Who appeared to Moses. Then he says that God is “one in nature and in glory.” Whether God exists without being by nature God, he who uses these words may perhaps know: but if it be true that he who is not by nature God is not God at all, let them learn from the great Paul that they who serve those who are not Gods do not serve God223    The reference seems to be to Gal. iv. 8..” But we “serve the living and true God,” as the Apostle says224    1 Thess. i. 10.: and He Whom we serve is Jesus the Christ225    There is perhaps a reference here to Col. iii. 24.. For Him the Apostle Paul even exults in serving, saying, “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ226    Rom. i. 1..” We then, who no longer serve them which by nature are no Gods227    Cf. Gal. iv. 8, have come to the knowledge of Him Who by nature is God, to Whom every knee boweth “of things in heaven and things in earth and things under the earth228    Cf. Phil. ii. 10, 11..” But we should not have been His servants had we not believed that this is the living and true God, to Whom “every tongue maketh confession that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father229    Cf. Phil. ii. 10, 11..”

“God,” he says, “Who is without beginning, eternally, without end, alone.” Once more “understand, ye simple ones,” as Solomon says, “his subtlety230    Prov. viii. 5 (Septuagint).,” lest haply ye be deceived and fall headlong into the denial of the Godhead of the Only-begotten Son. That is without end which admits not of death and decay: that, likewise, is called everlasting which is not only for a time. That, therefore, which is neither everlasting nor without end is surely seen in the nature which is perishable and mortal. Accordingly he who predicates “unendingness” of the one and only God, and does not include the Son in the assertion of “unendingness” and “eternity,” maintains by such a proposition, that He Whom he thus contrasts with the eternal and unending is perishable and temporary. But we, even when we are told that God “only hath immortality231    1 Tim. vi. 16.,” understand by “immortality” the Son. For life is immortality, and the Lord is that life, Who said, “I am the Life232    S. John xiv. 6.” And if He be said to dwell “in the light that no man can approach unto233    1 Tim. vi. 16.,” again we make no difficulty in understanding that the true Light, unapproachable by falsehood, is the Only-begotten, in Whom we learn from the Truth itself that the Father is234    S. John xiv. 11. Of these opinions let the reader choose the more devout, whether we are to think of the Only-begotten in a manner worthy of the Godhead, or to call Him, as heresy prescribes, perishable and temporary.

Ἔχει τοίνυν ἡ λέξις τοῦ δόγματος αὐτῶν οὕτω: « πιστεύομεν εἰς τὸν ἕνα καὶ μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ τοῦ κυρίου διδασκαλίαν, οὐκ ἐψευσμένῃ φωνῇ τιμῶντες αὐτόν (ἔστι γὰρ ἀψευδής), ἀλλ' ὄντως ὄντα φύσει τε καὶ δόξῃ θεὸν ἕνα ἀνάρχως ἀϊδίως ἀτελευτήτως μόνον ». ὁ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ κυρίου διδασκαλίαν πιστεύειν ἐπαγγειλάμενος μὴ παρατρεπέτω τὴν παρὰ τοῦ δεσπότου τῶν ὅλων γενομένην τῆς πίστεως ἔκθεσιν πρὸς τὸ ἑαυτῷ δοκοῦν, ἀλλ' ἀκολουθείτω ταῖς παρὰ τῆς ἀληθείας φωναῖς. ἐκεῖ τοίνυν τοῦ λόγου τῆς πίστεως περιέχοντος τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, τίνα συμφωνίαν ἔχει τὰ νῦν ἐκτεθειμένα πρὸς τὰς τοῦ δεσπότου φωνάς, ὥστε εἰς τὴν ἐκείνου διδασκαλίαν τὸ τοιοῦτον ἀναφέρειν δόγμα; ποῦ τοίνυν εἶπε δεῖν πιστεύειν « εἰς τὸν ἕνα καὶ μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν » ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελικοῖς λόγοις ὁ κύριος, οὐκ ἂν ἔχοιεν ἐπιδεῖξαι, εἰ μή τι νέον ἐστὶ παρ' αὐτοῖς εὐαγγέλιον. ἃ γὰρ ἐξ ἀρχαίων μέχρι τοῦ νῦν κατὰ διαδοχὴν ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις ἀναγινώσκεται, ταύτην τὴν φωνὴν οὐ περιέχει τὴν λέγουσαν δεῖν πιστεύειν ἢ βαπτίζειν « εἰς τὸν ἕνα καὶ μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεόν », καθὼς οὗτοι λέγουσιν, ἀλλ' εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος. ὡς δὲ ἡμεῖς παρὰ τῆς τοῦ δεσπότου φωνῆς ἐδιδάχθημεν, τοῦτό φαμεν, ὅτι τὸ ἓν οὐ τὸν πατέρα σημαίνει μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν υἱὸν τῷ πατρὶ συνενδείκνυται, οὕτως εἰπόντος τοῦ κυρίου ὅτι Ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν. ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὸ θεὸς ὄνομα ἐπίσης ἐπικέκληται τῇ τε ἀρχῇ ἐν ᾗ ὁ λόγος καὶ τῷ ἐν τῇ ἀρχῇ ὄντι λόγῳ (εἶπε γὰρ ὅτι Καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος), ὥστε καὶ ἐν τῷ τῆς θεότητος σημαινομένῳ ὁμοίως τῷ πατρὶ καὶ τὸν υἱὸν συνθεωρεῖσθαι. πρὸς τούτοις δὲ καὶ τὸ ἀληθινὸν ἄλλο τι παρὰ τὴν ἀλήθειαν νοηθῆναι οὐ δύναται. ὅτι δὲ ἀλήθεια ὁ κύριος, οὐδεὶς ἀντιλέξει πάντως, εἰ μή τις εἴη τῆς ἀληθείας ἀλλότριος.
Εἰ τοίνυν καὶ ἐν τῷ ἑνὶ ὁ λόγος ἐστὶν καὶ θεός ἐστι καὶ ἀλήθεια, καθὼς ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ κηρύσσεται, εἰς ποίαν τοῦ κυρίου διδασκαλίαν ἀναφέρει τὸ δόγμα ὁ ταῖς διασταλτικαῖς ταύταις φωναῖς κεχρημένος; ἡ γὰρ ἀντιδιαστολὴ τοῦ μόνου πρὸς τὸν μὴ μόνον ἐστὶ καὶ τοῦ θεοῦ πρὸς τὸν μὴ θεὸν καὶ τοῦ ἀληθινοῦ πρὸς τὸν μὴ ἀληθινόν. εἰ μὲν οὖν πρὸς τὰ εἴδωλα βλέποντες πρὸς ἐκεῖνα ποιοῦνται τὴν τῶν ῥημάτων ἀντιδιαίρεσιν, καὶ ἡμεῖς συντιθέμεθα: καθ' ὁμωνυμίαν γὰρ τὸ τῆς θεότητος ὄνομα τοῖς εἰδώλοις τῶν ἐθνῶν ἐπιλέγεται: πάντες γὰρ οἱ θεοὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν δαιμόνια [καὶ ἄλλως: πρὸς τὸ πλῆθος ἀντιδιαιρεῖ τὸ μόνον καὶ πρὸς τὰ ψευδῆ τὸ ἀληθινὸν καὶ τοὺς μὴ ὄντας θεοὺς πρὸς τὸν ὄντα θεόν]: εἰ δὲ πρὸς τὸν μονογενῆ θεὸν ἡ ἀντιδιαίρεσις γίνεται, μαθέτωσαν οἱ σοφοὶ ὅτι ἀλήθεια πρὸς μόνον τὸ ψεῦδος τὴν ἀντιδιαστολὴν ἔχει καὶ θεὸς πρὸς τὸν μὴ ὄντα θεόν. τοῦ δὲ κυρίου, ὅς ἐστιν ἀλήθεια, θεοῦ ὄντος καὶ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ ὄντος καὶ ἓν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα ὄντος, αἱ διασταλτικαὶ αὗται φωναὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ δόγματος χώραν οὐκ ἔχουσιν. ὁ γὰρ ἀληθῶς εἰς τὸν ἕνα πιστεύων βλέπει ἐν τῷ ἑνὶ τὸν διὰ πάντων αὐτῷ ἡνωμένον ἐν ἀληθείᾳ τε καὶ θεότητι καὶ οὐσίᾳ καὶ ζωῇ καὶ σοφίᾳ καὶ πᾶσιν ἁπαξαπλῶς ἤ, εἰ μὴ βλέπει ἐν τῷ ἑνὶ τὸν ταῦτα ὄντα, εἰς οὐδὲν ἔχει τὴν πίστιν. χωρὶς γὰρ υἱοῦ πατὴρ οὔτε ἔστιν οὔτε λέγεται οὔτε μὴν χωρὶς δυνάμεως ὁ δυνατὸς οὔτε χωρὶς σοφίας ὁ σοφός: Χριστὸς γὰρ θεοῦ δύναμις καὶ θεοῦ σοφία: ὥστε ὁ τῆς δυνάμεως ἢ τῆς σοφίας ἢ τῆς ἀληθείας ἢ τῆς ζωῆς ἢ τοῦ ἀληθινοῦ φωτὸς ἐκτὸς βλέπειν φανταζόμενος ἢ οὐδὲν βλέπει ἢ τὸ κακὸν πάντως βλέπει. ἡ γὰρ τῶν ἀγαθῶν ὑπεξαίρεσις τοῦ κακοῦ θέσις καὶ ὕπαρξις γίνεται. « Οὐκ ἐψευσμένῃ », φησί, « φωνῇ τιμῶντες αὐτόν: ἔστι γὰρ ἀψευδής ». ταύτῃ τῇ φωνῇ εὔχομαι τὸν Εὐνόμιον ἐπιμένειν, μαρτυροῦντα τῇ ἀληθείᾳ ὅτι ἐστὶν ἀψευδής. εἰ γὰρ οὕτω φρονοίη, ὅτι πᾶν τὸ παρὰ τοῦ κυρίου λεγόμενον τοῦ ψεύδους κεχώρισται, πεισθήσεται πάντως ἀληθεύειν τὸν εἰπόντα ὅτι Ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί ἐστι, δηλαδὴ ὅλος ἐν ὅλῳ, οὔτε τοῦ πατρὸς ἐν τῷ υἱῷ περιττεύοντος οὔτε τοῦ υἱοῦ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ λείποντος, καὶ ὅτι οὕτω χρὴ τιμᾶσθαι τὸν υἱόν, καθὼς τιμᾶται ὁ πατήρ, καὶ ὅτι Ὁ ἑωρακὼς ἐμὲ ἑώρακε τὸν πατέρα, καὶ ὅτι Οὐδεὶς οἶδε τὸν υἱὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ, καὶ ὅτι Καὶ τὸν πατέρα οὐδεὶς ἐπιγινώσκει εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱός: δι' ὧν ἁπάντων οὔτε δόξης οὔτε οὐσίας οὔτε ἄλλου τινὸς παραλλαγὴ ὑπονοεῖται ἐπὶ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ τοῖς ταύτας τὰς φωνὰς ὡς ἀληθινὰς δεξαμένοις. « ὄντως ὄντα », φησί, « φύσει τε καὶ δόξῃ θεὸν ἕνα ». τὸ ὄντως ὂν ἀντιδιαιρεῖται πρὸς τὸ μὴ ὄντως ὄν. ἔστι δὲ ὄντως ὂν ἕκαστον τῶν ὄντων καθὸ ἔστιν: τὸ δὲ μέχρι φαντασίας τινὸς καὶ ὑπονοίας δοκοῦν μὲν εἶναι μὴ ὂν δέ, τοῦτο οὐκ ὄντως ἔστιν, ὡς τὸ ἐνύπνιον φάσμα ἢ ὁ ἐπὶ τῆς εἰκόνος ἄνθρωπος: ταῦτα γὰρ καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα μέχρι φαντασίας ὄντα τὸ ὄντως εἶναι οὐκ ἔχει. εἰ μὲν οὖν κατὰ τὴν Ἰουδαϊκὴν ὑπόληψιν κατασκευάζουσι καθόλου μὴ εἶναι τὸν μονογενῆ θεόν, καλῶς τῷ πατρὶ μόνῳ τὸ ὄντως εἶναι προσμαρτυροῦσιν: εἰ δὲ οὐκ ἀρνοῦνται τὸν πάντων ποιητὴν ὅτι ἔστι, πεισθήτωσαν μὴ ἀποστερεῖν τὸν ὄντως ὄντα τοῦ ὄντως εἶναι, ὃς ἑαυτὸν ἐν τῇ γενομένῃ Μωϋσεῖ θεοφανείᾳ ὄντα ὠνόμασεν εἰπὼν ὅτι Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν, καθὼς ὁ Εὐνόμιος ἐν τοῖς ἐφεξῆς λόγοις τούτῳ συντίθεται, αὐτὸν εἶναι λέγων τὸν τῷ Μωϋσεῖ φανέντα. « εἶτα φύσει τε καὶ δόξῃ θεόν » φησιν « ἕνα ». εἰ μὲν οὖν ἐστιν ὁ θεὸς χωρὶς τοῦ εἶναι φύσει θεός, αὐτὸς ἂν εἰδείη ὁ ταῦτα λέγων: εἰ δὲ οὐκ ἔστι θεὸς ὁ μὴ φύσει θεὸς ὤν, μαθέτωσαν παρὰ τοῦ μεγάλου Παύλου, ὅτι οἱ δουλεύοντες τοῖς μὴ φύσει « οὖσι » θεοῖς θεῷ οὐ δουλεύουσιν, ἡμεῖς δὲ δουλεύομεν θεῷ ζῶντί τε καὶ ἀληθινῷ, καθὼς ὁ ἀπόστολος λέγει, ᾧ δὲ δουλεύομεν, Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός. τούτῳ γὰρ καὶ ὁ ἀπόστολος Παῦλος δουλεύειν καυχᾶται λέγων: Παῦλος, δοῦλος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. ἡμεῖς τοίνυν οἱ μηκέτι δουλεύοντες τοῖς μὴ φύσει οὖσι θεοῖς ἐπέγνωμεν τὸν φύσει ὄντα θεόν, ᾧ πᾶν γόνυ κάμπτει ἐπουρανίων καὶ ἐπιγείων καὶ καταχθονίων. ᾧ οὐκ ἂν ἐδουλεύσαμεν, εἰ μὴ ἐπιστεύσαμεν ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ζῶν τε καὶ ἀληθινὸς θεός, ᾧ πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογεῖται, ὅτι κύριος Ἰησοῦς εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ πατρός. « Θεόν », φησίν, « ἕνα ἀνάρχως ἀϊδίως ἀτελευτήτως μόνον ». πάλιν Νοήσατε ἄκακοι πανουργίαν, φησὶν ὁ Σολομών, μή ποτε εἰς ἄρνησιν τῆς τοῦ μονογενοῦς θεότητος ἀπατηθέντες ἐκπέσητε. ἀτελεύτητόν ἐστι τὸ θανάτου καὶ φθορᾶς ἀνεπίδεκτον, ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ ἀΐδιον τὸ μὴ πρόσκαιρον λέγεται. ὃ τοίνυν μήτε ἀΐδιόν ἐστι μήτε ἀτελεύτητον, τοῦτο πάντως ἐν τῇ φθαρτῇ τε καὶ ἐπικήρῳ θεωρεῖται φύσει. οὐκοῦν ὁ τὸ ἀτελεύτητον τῷ ἑνὶ καὶ μόνῳ προσμαρτυρῶν θεῷ, μὴ συμπεριλαμβάνων δὲ τὸν υἱὸν τῇ τοῦ ἀτελευτήτου καὶ ἀϊδίου σημασίᾳ, φθαρτὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι καὶ πρόσκαιρον διὰ τοῦ τοιούτου λόγου κατασκευάζει τὸν τῷ ἀϊδίῳ καὶ ἀτελευτήτῳ ἀντιδιαστελλόμενον. ἡμεῖς δὲ κἂν ἀκούσωμεν ὅτι μόνος ὁ θεὸς ἔχει τὴν ἀθανασίαν, τὸν υἱὸν διὰ τῆς ἀθανασίας νοοῦμεν (ἀθανασία γάρ ἐστιν ἡ ζωή, ἥτις ἐστὶν ὁ κύριος ὁ εἰπὼν ὅτι Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ζωή): κἂν λέγηται φῶς οἰκεῖν ἀπρόσιτον, πάλιν τὸ ἀληθινὸν φῶς, ὅπερ ἐστὶ τῷ ψεύδει ἀπρόσιτον, τὸν μονογενῆ νοεῖσθαι οὐκ ἀμφιβάλλομεν, ἐν ᾧ τὸν πατέρα εἶναι παρ' αὐτῆς τῆς ἀληθείας ἐμάθομεν. ἐκ τούτων δὲ ὁ ἀκροατὴς ἐπιλεξάσθω τὸ εὐσεβέστερον, εἴτε οὕτω χρὴ περὶ τοῦ μονογενοῦς θεοπρεπῶς δοξάζειν εἴτε φθαρτόν τε καὶ πρόσκαιρον εἶναι λέγειν, ὡς ὑφηγεῖται ἡ αἵρεσις.