§6. He then shows the unity of the Son with the Father and Eunomius’ lack of understanding and knowledge in the Scriptures.

What he adds next after this is as follows:—“Having no sharer,” he says, “in His Godhead, no divider of His glory, none who has lot in His power, or part in His royal throne: for He is the one and only God, the Almighty, God of Gods, King of Kings, Lord of Lords.” I know not to whom Eunomius refers when he protests that the Father admits none to share His Godhead with Himself. For if he uses such expressions with reference to vain idols and to the erroneous conceptions of those who worship them (even as Paul assures us that there is no agreement between Christ and Belial, and no fellowship between the temple of God and idols236    Cf. 2 Cor. vi. 15, 16.) we agree with him. But if by these assertions he means to sever the Only-begotten God from the Godhead of the Father, let him be informed that he is providing us with a dilemma that may be turned against himself to refute his own impiety. For either he denies the Only-begotten God to be God at all, that he may preserve for the Father those prerogatives of deity which (according to him) are incapable of being shared with the Son, and thus is convicted as a transgressor by denying the God Whom Christians worship, or if he were to grant that the Son also is God, yet not agreeing in nature with the true God, he would be necessarily obliged to acknowledge that he maintains Gods sundered from one another by the difference of their natures. Let him choose which of these he will,—either to deny the Godhead of the Son, or to introduce into his creed a plurality of Gods. For whichever of these he chooses, it is all one as regards impiety: for we who are initiated into the mystery of godliness by the Divinely inspired words of the Scripture do not see between the Father and the Son a partnership of Godhead, but unity, inasmuch as the Lord hath taught us this by His own words, when He saith, “I and the Father are one237    S. John x. 30,” and “he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father238    S. John xiv. 9.” For if He were not of the same nature as the Father, how could He either have had in Himself that which was different239    S. John xvii. 10.? or how could He have shown in Himself that which was unlike, if the foreign and alien nature did not receive the stamp of that which was of a different kind from itself? But he says, “nor has He a divider of His glory.” Herein he speaks in accordance with the fact, even though he does not know what he is saying: for the Son does not divide the glory with the Father, but has the glory of the Father in its entirety, even as the Father has all the glory of the Son. For thus He spake to the Father “All Mine are Thine and Thine are Mine240    S. John xvii. 10..” Wherefore also He says that He will appear on the Judgment Day “in the glory of the Father241    S. Mark viii. 38.,” when He will render to every man according to his works. And by this phrase He shows the unity of nature that subsists between them. For as “there is one glory of the sun and another glory of the moon242    1 Cor. xv. 41.,” because of the difference between the natures of those luminaries (since if both had the same glory there would not be deemed to be any difference in their nature), so He Who foretold of Himself that He would appear in the glory of the Father indicated by the identity of glory their community of nature.

But to say that the Son has no part in His Father’s royal throne argues an extraordinary amount of research into the oracles of God on the part of Eunomius, who, after his extreme devotion to the inspired Scriptures, has not yet heard, “Seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God243    Col. iii. 1.,” and many similar passages, of which it would not be easy to reckon up the number, but which Eunomius has never learnt, and so denies that the Son is enthroned together with the Father. Again the phrase, “not having lot in his power,” we should rather pass by as unmeaning than confute as ungodly. For what sense is attached to the term “having lot” is not easy to discover from the common use of the word. Those cast lots, as the Scripture tells us, for the Lord’s vesture, who were unwilling to rend His garment, but disposed to make it over to that one of their number in whose favour the lot should decide244    Cf. S. John xix. 23, 24.. They then who thus cast lots among themselves for the “coat” may be said, perhaps, to “have had lot” in it. But here in the case of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, inasmuch as Their power resides in Their nature (for the Holy Spirit breathes “where He listeth245    S. John iii. 8,” and “worketh all in all as He will246    Cf. 1 Cor. xii. 6 and 11.,” and the Son, by Whom all things were made, visible and invisible, in heaven and in earth, “did all things whatsoever He pleased247    Ps. cxxxv. 6.,” and “quickeneth whom He will248    S. John v. 21,” and the Father put “the times in His own power249    Acts i. 7.,” while from the mention of “times” we conclude that all things done in time are subject to the power of the Father), if, I say, it has been demonstrated that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit alike are in a position of power to do what They will, it is impossible to see what sense there can be in the phrase “having lot in His power.” For the heir of all things, the maker of the ages250    Cf. Heb. i. 2, He Who shines with the Father’s glory and expresses in Himself the Father’s person, has all things that the Father Himself has, and is possessor of all His power, not that the right is transferred from the Father to the Son, but that it at once remains in the Father and resides in the Son. For He Who is in the Father is manifestly in the Father with all His own might, and He Who has the Father in Himself includes all the power and might of the Father. For He has in Himself all the Father, and not merely a part of Him: and He Who has Him entirely assuredly has His power as well. With what meaning, then, Eunomius asserts that the Father has “none who has lot in His power,” those perhaps can tell who are disciples of his folly: one who knows how to appreciate language confesses that he cannot understand phrases divorced from meaning. The Father, he says, “has none Who has lot in His power.” Why, who is there that says that the Father and Son contend together for power and cast lots to decide the matter? But the holy Eunomius comes as mediator between them and by a friendly agreement without lot assigns to the Father the superiority in power.

Mark, I pray you, the absurdity and childishness of this grovelling exposition of his articles of faith. What! He Who “upholds all things by the word of His power251    Heb. i. 3.,” Who says what He wills to be done, and does what He wills by the very power of that command, He Whose power lags not behind His will and Whose will is the measure of His power (for “He spake the word and they were made, He commanded and they were created252    Ps. cxlviii. 5, or xxxiii. 9 in LXX.”), He Who made all things by Himself, and made them consist in Himself253    Cf. Col. i. 16 and 17., without Whom no existing thing either came into being or remains in being,—He it is Who waits to obtain His power by some process of allotment! Judge you who hear whether the man who talks like this is in his senses. “For He is the one and only God, the Almighty,” he says. If by the title of “Almighty” he intends the Father, the language he uses is ours, and no strange language: but if he means some other God than the Father, let our patron of Jewish doctrines preach circumcision too, if he pleases. For the Faith of Christians is directed to the Father. And the Father is all these—Highest, Almighty, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, and in a word all terms of highest significance are proper to the Father. But all that is the Father’s is the Son’s also; so that, on this understanding254    “If this is so:” i.e. if Eunomius means his words in a Christian sense., we admit this phrase too. But if, leaving the Father, he speaks of another Almighty, he is speaking the language of the Jews or following the speculations of Plato,—for they say that that philosopher also affirms that there exists on high a maker and creator of certain subordinate gods. As then in the case of the Jewish and Platonic opinions he who does not believe in God the Father is not a Christian, even though in his creed he asserts an Almighty God, so Eunomius also falsely pretends to the name of Christian, being in inclination a Jew, or asserting the doctrines of the Greeks while putting on the guise of the title borne by Christians. And with regard to the next points he asserts the same account will apply. He says He is “God of Gods.” We make the declaration our own by adding the name of the Father, knowing that the Father is God of Gods. But all that belongs to the Father certainly belongs also to the Son. “And Lord of Lords.” The same account will apply to this. “And Most High over all the earth.” Yes, for whichever of the Three Persons you are thinking of, He is Most High over all the earth, inasmuch as the oversight of earthly things from on high is exercised alike by the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. So, too, with what follows the words above, “Most High in the heavens, Most High in the highest, Heavenly, true in being what He is, and so continuing, true in words, true in works.” Why, all these things the Christian eye discerns alike in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. If Eunomius does assign them to one only of the Persons acknowledged in the creed, let him dare to call Him “not true in words” Who has said, “I am the Truth255    S. John xiv. 6,” or to call the Spirit of truth “not true in words,” or let him refuse to give the title of “true in works” to Him Who doeth righteousness and judgment, or to the Spirit Who worketh all in all as He will. For if he does not acknowledge that these attributes belong to the Persons delivered to us in the creed, he is absolutely cancelling the creed of Christians. For how shall any one think Him a worthy object of faith Who is false in words and untrue in works.

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

ἃ δὲ τούτοις ἐφεξῆς προστίθησι, ταῦτά ἐστιν. « οὐ κοινωνὸν ἔχων », φησί, « τῆς θεότητος, οὐ μερίτην τῆς δόξης, οὐ σύγκληρον τῆς ἐξουσίας, οὐ σύνθρονον τῆς βασιλείας: εἷς γάρ ἐστι καὶ μόνος θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ, θεὸς θεῶν, βασιλεὺς τῶν βασιλευόντων, κύριος τῶν κυριευόντων ». οὐκ οἶδα πρὸς τίνα βλέπων ὁ Εὐνόμιος τὸ μὴ κοινωνεῖν αὐτῷ τῆς θεότητος τὸν πατέρα διαμαρτύρεται. εἰ μὲν γὰρ πρὸς τὰ εἴδωλα τὰ μάταια καὶ τὴν πεπλανημένην τῶν εἰδωλολατρούντων ὑπόληψιν τὰ τοιαῦτα λέγει, καθὼς καὶ ὁ Παῦλος βοᾷ ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι συμφώνησις Χριστῷ πρὸς Βελίαρ οὐδὲ κοινωνία ναῷ θεοῦ μετὰ εἰδώλων, καὶ ἡμεῖς συντιθέμεθα: εἰ δὲ τὸν μονογενῆ θεὸν διὰ τῶν λεγομένων τῆς πατρικῆς ἀφορίζει θεότητος, μαθέτω ὅτι διλήμματον τῆς ἀσεβείας κατηγορίαν ἐφ' ἑαυτοῦ κατασκευάζει. ἢ γὰρ ἀρνεῖται καθόλου θεὸν εἶναι τὸν μονογενῆ θεόν, ἵνα φυλάξῃ τῷ πατρὶ τὸ ἐν τῇ θεότητι πρὸς τὸν υἱὸν ἀκοινώνητον, καὶ διὰ τούτου παραβάτης ἐλέγχεται, τὸν θεὸν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀρνησάμενος, ἢ εἰ δοίη κἀκεῖνον εἶναι θεὸν κατὰ τὴν φύσιν τῷ ἀληθινῷ θεῷ μὴ συμβαίνοντα, ἀνάγκη πᾶσα θεοὺς αὐτὸν πρεσβεύειν ὁμολογεῖν τῇ διαφορᾷ τῶν φύσεων ἀπ' ἀλλήλων διεσχισμένους. ἑλέσθω τούτων ὃ βούλεται, ἢ ἀρνεῖσθαι τοῦ υἱοῦ τὴν θεότητα ἢ θεοὺς ἐπεισάγειν τῷ δόγματι: ὅπερ γὰρ ἂν ἕληται τούτων, ἴσον ἐστὶν εἰς ἀσέβειαν. ἡμεῖς γὰρ παρὰ τῶν θεοπνεύστων τῆς γραφῆς λόγων μυσταγωγούμενοι οὐχὶ κοινωνίαν θεότητος ὁρῶμεν ἐν πατρί τε καὶ υἱῷ, ἀλλ' ἑνότητα, τοῦτο τοῦ δεσπότου διὰ τῶν ἰδίων λόγων διδάξαντος ἐν οἷς φησιν Ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν, καὶ ὅτι Ὁ ἑωρακὼς ἐμὲ ἑώρακε τὸν πατέρα. εἰ γὰρ μὴ τῆς αὐτῆς ἦν φύσεως, πῶς ἂν ἢ ἔσχεν ἐν ἑαυτῷ τὸ ἀλλότριον, ἢ πῶς ἂν ἔδειξεν ἐφ' ἑαυτοῦ τὸ ἀνόμοιον, μὴ δεχομένης τῆς ξένης τε καὶ ἀλλοτρίας φύσεως τὸν τοῦ ἑτερογενοῦς χαρακτῆρα; λέγει δὲ ὅτι « οὐδὲ μερίτην » ἔχει « τῆς δόξης ». τοῦτο δὲ ὡς ἔχει λέγει, εἰ καὶ μὴ οἶδεν ὃ λέγει: οὐ γὰρ μερίζεται ὁ υἱὸς πρὸς τὸν πατέρα τὴν δόξαν, ἀλλ' ὅλην ἔχει τοῦ πατρὸς τὴν δόξαν, ὡς καὶ ὁ πατὴρ πᾶσαν ἔχει τοῦ υἱοῦ τὴν δόξαν. οὕτως γὰρ εἶπε πρὸς τὸν πατέρα ὅτι Πάντα τὰ ἐμὰ σά ἐστιν καὶ τὰ σὰ ἐμά. διὸ καὶ ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τῆς κρίσεως ἐπιφανήσεσθαι ἑαυτόν φησιν ἐν τῇ δόξῃ τοῦ πατρός, ὅτε μέλλει ἀποδιδόναι ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ. δείκνυσι δὲ διὰ τῆς φωνῆς ταύτης τὸ ἡνωμένον τῆς φύσεως: ὡς γὰρ ἄλλη δόξα ἡλίου καὶ ἄλλη δόξα σελήνης διὰ τὸ μὴ συμβαίνειν πρὸς ἄλληλα τῶν στοιχείων τὴν φύσιν (ὡς εἴ γε ἡ αὐτὴ δόξα ἐπ' ἀμφοτέρων ἦν, οὐκ ἄν τις διαφορὰ τῆς φύσεως αὐτῶν ἐνομίσθη), οὕτως ὁ ἑαυτὸν ἐν τῇ τοῦ πατρὸς δόξῃ φανήσεσθαι προειπὼν ἔδειξε διὰ τῆς κατὰ τὴν δόξαν ταὐτότητος τὴν κοινωνίαν τῆς φύσεως.
Τὸ δὲ μὴ « σύνθρονον τῆς βασιλείας » εἶναι λέγειν τῷ πατρὶ τὸν υἱὸν πολλὴν μαρτυρεῖ τῷ Εὐνομίῳ τὴν τῶν θείων λογίων μελέτην, ὃς ἐκ τῆς ἄγαν προσοχῆς τῶν θεοπνεύστων γραφῶν οὔπω ἤκουσεν ὅτι Τὰ ἄνω φρονεῖτε, οὗ ὁ Χριστός ἐστιν, ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ πατρὸς καθήμενος, καὶ ὅτι Ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θρόνου τοῦ θεοῦ κεκάθικεν, καὶ ἄλλα τοιαῦτα πολλά, ὧν οὐκ ἂν ῥᾳδίως τις τὸ πλῆθος ἐξαριθμήσειεν: ἅπερ μήπω μαθὼν ὁ Εὐνόμιος ἀπαγορεύει « σύνθρονον » εἶναι τῷ πατρὶ τὸν υἱόν. τὸ δὲ « σύγκληρον τῆς ἐξουσίας » μᾶλλον ὡς ἀνόητον παραδραμεῖν χρὴ ἢ ὡς ἀσεβὲς διελέγξαι. τίνα γὰρ διάνοιαν ἔχει ἡ τοῦ « συγκλήρου » λέξις, ἐκ τῆς κοινῆς τοῦ λόγου καταχρήσεως οὐκ ἔστιν εὑρεῖν. ἐπὶ τὸν ἱματισμὸν τοῦ κυρίου βάλλουσι κλῆρον, καθὼς ἡ γραφὴ λέγει, οἱ μὴ βουλόμενοι διασχίσαι τὸν δεσποτικὸν χιτῶνα, ἀλλ' ἑνὸς αὐτῶν ποιῆσαι κτῆμα, ᾧ ἂν ὁ κλῆρος χαρίσηται. οἱ τοίνυν πρὸς ἀλλήλους ὑπὲρ τοῦ χιτῶνος διακληρούμενοι δύνανται ἴσως « σύγκληροι » λέγεσθαι: ἐνταῦθα δὲ ἐπὶ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἐν τῇ φύσει οὔσης τῆς ἐξουσίας (τό τε γὰρ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ὅπου θέλει πνεῖ καὶ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν ἐνεργεῖ καθὼς βούλεται, καὶ ὁ υἱὸς δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο, ὁρατά τε καὶ ἀόρατα, ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, πάντα ὅσα ἠθέλησεν ἐποίησεν καὶ οὓς θέλει ζωοποιεῖ, καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τῇ ἰδίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ τοὺς χρόνους ἔθετο, ἀπὸ τῶν χρόνων δὲ καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐν τῷ χρόνῳ γεγενημένα νοοῦμεν εἶναι τῷ πατρὶ ὑπεξούσια): εἰ οὖν ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ τοῦ ποιεῖν ἃ βούλεται ὁ πατὴρ καὶ ὁ υἱὸς καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ὡς εἴπομεν, ἀποδέδεικται, τίνα νοῦν ἡ τοῦ « συγκλήρου » τῆς ἐξουσίας λέξις ἔχει, κατιδεῖν οὐκ ἔστιν. ὁ γὰρ πάντων κληρονόμος, ὁ τῶν αἰώνων δημιουργός, ὁ τῇ δόξῃ τοῦ πατρὸς συνεκλάμπων καὶ χαρακτηρίζων ἐν ἑαυτῷ τοῦ πατρὸς τὴν ὑπόστασιν, πάντα ὅσα ἔχει ὁ πατὴρ αὐτὸς ἔχει καὶ πάσης τῆς ἐξουσίας κύριός ἐστιν, οὐ μεθισταμένης ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς εἰς τὸν υἱὸν τῆς ἀξίας, ἀλλὰ καὶ παρ' αὐτῷ μενούσης καὶ ἐν ἐκείνῳ οὔσης. ὅ τε γὰρ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ ὢν μετὰ πάσης δηλαδὴ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ δυνάμεώς ἐστιν ἐν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ὁ ἐν ἑαυτῷ τὸν πατέρα ἔχων πᾶσαν ἐμπεριέχει τὴν πατρικὴν ἐξουσίαν καὶ δύναμιν. ὅλον γὰρ ἔχει ἐν ἑαυτῷ τὸν πατέρα καὶ οὐχὶ μέρος αὐτοῦ: ὁ δὲ ὅλον ἔχων καὶ τὴν ἐξουσίαν αὐτοῦ πάντως ἔχει. τί οὖν νοῶν Εὐνόμιος ἀποφαίνεται μὴ ἔχειν τὸν πατέρα « σύγκληρον τῆς ἐξουσίας », εἴποιεν ἂν ἴσως οἱ τῆς ματαιότητος αὐτοῦ μαθηταί: ὁ γὰρ εἰδὼς ἐπαΐειν λόγων τὰ δίχα διανοίας λεγόμενα ὁμολογεῖ συνεῖναι μὴ δύνασθαι. οὐκ ἔχει, φησί, « σύγκληρον τῆς ἐξουσίας ὁ πατήρ ». τίς γάρ ἐστιν ὁ λέγων ἐκ διακληρώσεως ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐξουσίας πρὸς ἀλλήλους τόν τε πατέρα καὶ τὸν υἱὸν διαμάχεσθαι; οἷς μεσιτεύων ὁ ἱερὸς Εὐνόμιος διὰ φιλικῆς συμβάσεως ἄνευ κλήρου νέμει τῷ πατρὶ μόνῳ τὰ πρεσβεῖα τῆς ἐξουσίας. ὁρᾶτε τὸ καταγέλαστον καὶ παιδαριῶδες τῆς χαμαιζήλου ταύτης τῶν δογμάτων ἐκθέσεως. ἆρα ὁ τὰ σύμπαντα φέρων τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ, λέγων ἃ γενέσθαι θέλει καὶ ποιῶν ἐν τῇ τοῦ προστάγματος δυνάμει ἃ βούλεται, οὗ σύνδρομός ἐστι τῇ βουλήσει ἡ δύναμις καὶ μέτρον τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ τὸ θέλημα γίνεται (Αὐτὸς γάρ, φησίν, εἶπε καὶ ἐγενήθησαν, αὐτὸς ἐνετείλατο καὶ ἐκτίσθησαν), ὁ πάντα δι' ἑαυτοῦ ποιήσας καὶ ἐν ἑαυτῷ συστήσας, οὗ χωρὶς τῶν ὄντων οὐδὲν οὔτε ἐγένετο οὔτε ἐν τῷ εἶναι μένει, οὗτος ἀναμένει ἐκ διακληρώσεώς τινος σχεῖν τὴν ἐξουσίαν; κρίνατε οἱ ἀκούοντες, εἰ ὁ ταῦτα λέγων ἐν τῷ καθεστηκότι τὴν διάνοιαν ἔχει. « Εἷς γάρ ἐστι », φησί, « καὶ μόνος θεὸς παντοκράτωρ ». εἰ μὲν οὖν τὸν πατέρα διὰ τῆς τοῦ παντοκράτορος προσηγορίας ἐνδείκνυται, ἡμέτερον λέγει τὸν λόγον καὶ οὐκ ἀλλότριον: εἰ δὲ ἄλλον τινὰ παρὰ τὸν πατέρα νοεῖ παντοκράτορα, καὶ τὴν περιτομήν, εἰ δοκεῖ, κηρυσσέτω ὁ τῶν δογμάτων τῶν Ἰουδαϊκῶν προστάτης. τῶν γὰρ Χριστιανῶν ἡ πίστις πρὸς τὸν πατέρα βλέπει, πάντα δέ ἐστιν ὁ πατήρ, ὕψιστος, παντοκράτωρ, βασιλεὺς τῶν βασιλευόντων, κύριος τῶν κυριευόντων, καὶ πάντα ὅσα τῆς ὑψηλῆς ἔχεται σημασίας, τοῦ πατρός ἐστιν ἴδια: τὰ δὲ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ υἱοῦ ἐστι πάντα, ὥστε τούτου ὄντος κἀκεῖνα δεχόμεθα. εἰ δὲ ἀφεὶς τὸν πατέρα ἄλλον « παντοκράτορα » λέγει, τὰ τῶν Ἰουδαίων λέγει ἢ καὶ τοῖς Πλάτωνος ἕπεται λόγοις: καὶ γὰρ κἀκεῖνόν φασι τὸν φιλόσοφον λέγειν εἶναί τινα ὑπεράνωθεν κτίστην καὶ ποιητὴν ὑποβεβηκότων τινῶν θεῶν. ὥσπερ οὖν ἐν τοῖς Ἰουδαϊκοῖς καὶ Πλατωνικοῖς δόγμασιν ὁ τὸν πατέρα μὴ παραδεχόμενος Χριστιανὸς οὐκ ἔστιν, κἂν « παντοκράτορά » τινα πρεσβεύῃ ἐπὶ τοῦ δόγματος, οὕτω καὶ ὁ Εὐνόμιος καταψεύδεται τοῦ ὀνόματος, ἰουδαΐζων μὲν τῷ φρονήματι ἢ τὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων πρεσβεύων, τὴν δὲ τῶν Χριστιανῶν προσηγορίαν ὑποδυόμενος. ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τῶν κατὰ τὸ ἀκόλουθον ἐκτεθειμένων ὁ αὐτὸς ἔσται λόγος. λέγει γὰρ ὅτι « θεὸς θεῶν ». προσθέντες ἡμεῖς τὸ τοῦ πατρὸς ὄνομα τὴν φωνὴν οἰκειούμεθα, εἰδότες ὅτι ὁ πατὴρ θεός ἐστι τῶν θεῶν. τὰ δὲ τοῦ πατρὸς πάντα τοῦ υἱοῦ ἐστι πάντως. « καὶ κύριος τῶν κυριευόντων ». ὁ αὐτὸς καὶ περὶ τούτου λόγος. « καὶ ὕψιστος ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν ». ὃν γὰρ ἂν τῇ διανοίᾳ λάβῃς, ἐκεῖνος « ὕψιστος ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν », ὁμοίως ἄνωθεν τοῖς ἐπιγείοις τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς γινομένης παρά τε τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος. ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ ἐφεξῆς τοῖς εἰρημένοις προσκείμενα: « ὕψιστος ἐν οὐρανοῖς, ὕψιστος ἐν ὑψίστοις, ἐπουράνιος, ἀληθινὸς ἐν τῷ εἶναι ἀεὶ ὅ ἐστι καὶ διαμένων, ἀληθινὸς ἐν ἔργοις, ἀληθινὸς ἐν λόγοις »: ταῦτα γὰρ πάντα ἐπίσης ἐνορᾷ ὁ τῶν Χριστιανῶν ὀφθαλμὸς ἐπὶ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου πνεύματος. εἰ δὴ μόνον ἑνί τινι τῶν ἐν τῇ πίστει παραδοθέντων προσώπων ὁ Εὐνόμιος ταῦτα νέμει, τολμησάτω μὴ « ἀληθινὸν » εἰπεῖν « ἐν λόγοις » τὸν εἰπόντα ὅτι Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἀλήθεια, ἢ τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, ἢ « ἀληθινὸν ἐν ἔργοις » μὴ συνθέσθω τὸν ποιοῦντα κρῖμα καὶ δικαιοσύνην ἢ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἐνεργοῦν πάντα ἐν πᾶσι καθὼς βούλεται. ταῦτα γὰρ εἰ μὴ προσμαρτυροίη τοῖς παραδοθεῖσιν ἐν τῇ πίστει προσώποις, καθόλου τὴν τῶν Χριστιανῶν παραγράφεται πίστιν. πῶς γάρ τις πίστεως ἄξιον οἰήσεται τὸν ψευδῆ μὲν ἐν τοῖς λόγοις, μὴ ἀληθινὸν δὲ ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ;
Ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸ ἐφεξῆς τῷ λόγῳ προέλθωμεν. φησὶ γὰρ ὅτι « ἀρχῆς ἁπάσης, ὑποταγῆς, ἐξουσίας, βασιλείας ἀνώτερος ». ἡμέτερος οὗτος ὁ λόγος καὶ τῆς καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας ἴδιος, τὸ πιστεύειν τὴν θείαν φύσιν πάσης ἀρχῆς ἀνωτέραν εἶναι, ὑποχείριον δὲ ἑαυτῆς ἔχειν πᾶν ὅτιπέρ ἐστιν ἐν τοῖς οὖσι νοούμενον. θεία δὲ φύσις ὁ πατὴρ καὶ ὁ υἱὸς καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον. εἰ δὲ μόνῳ τῷ πατρὶ ταύτην προσμαρτυρεῖ τὴν δύναμιν καὶ εἰ μόνον αὐτὸν τροπῆς τε καὶ μεταβολῆς ἐλεύθερον ἀποφαίνεται καὶ εἰ μόνον αὐτὸν λέγει ἀκήρατον, πρόδηλον τὸ ἐκ τούτων κατασκευαζόμενον, ὅτι ὁ ταῦτα μὴ ἔχων τρεπτός ἐστι πάντως καὶ φθαρτὸς καὶ μεταβλητὸς καὶ ἐπίκηρος. οὐκοῦν ταῦτα δογματίζει ὁ Εὐνόμιος ἐπὶ τοῦ μονογενοῦς θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος: οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἐχρήσατο τῇ ἀντιδιαστολῇ, τούτοις ἀντιδιαιρῶν τὸν πατέρα, μὴ ταύτην τὴν διάνοιαν ἔχων περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ πνεύματος. τὸ λοιπόν, ἀδελφοί, δοκιμάσατε, εἰ μὴ διώκτης ἐστὶ τῆς τῶν Χριστιανῶν πίστεως ταῦτα φρονῶν. τίς γὰρ τὸ τρεπόμενον καὶ μεταβαλλόμενον καὶ τὸ ἐπίκηρον καταδέξεται σεβάσμιον ἑαυτῷ κρῖναι; οὐκοῦν ὅλος ὁ σκοπός ἐστι τῷ κατασκευάζοντι τὰ τοιαῦτα νοήματα, ἐκβαλεῖν τῆς ἐκκλησίας τὴν εἰς τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα πίστιν, δι' ὧν κατασκευάζει μήτε ἀκήρατον εἶναι μήτε ἄτρεπτον μήτε ἀμετάβλητον ἢ αὐτὴν τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἢ τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας.