I pass in silence his blasphemy in reducing God the Only-begotten to a level with all created things, and, in a word, allowing to the Son of God no higher honour than theirs. Still, for the sake of my more intelligent hearers, I will here give an instance of his insensate malice. Basil, he says, lends God the primacy over all things by reference to the ages. What unintelligible nonsense is this! Man is made God’s patron, and gives to God a primacy owing to the ages! What is this vain flourish of baseless expressions, seeing that our Master simply says that whatever in the Divine essence transcends the measurable distances of the ages in either direction is called by certain distinctive names, in the case of Him Who, as saith the Apostle, hath neither beginning of days nor end of life122    Heb. vii. 3., in order that the distinction of the conception might be marked by distinction in the names. And yet on this account Eunomius has the effrontery to write, that to call that which is anterior to all beginning ungenerate, and again that which is circumscribed by no limit, immortal and indestructible, is a bestowing or lending on our part, and other nonsense of the kind. Moreover, he says that we divide the ages into two parts, as if he had not read the words he quoted, or as if he were addressing those who had forgotten his own previous statements. For what says our Master? “If we look at the time before the Creation, and if passing in thought through the ages we reflect on the infinitude of the Eternal Life, we signify the thought by the term ungenerate. And if we turn our thoughts to what follows, and consider the being of God as extending beyond all ages, we interpret the thought by the word endless or indestructible.” Well, how does such an account sever the ages in twain, if by such possible words and names we signify that eternity of God which is equally observable from every point of view, in all things the same, unbroken in continuity? For seeing that human life, moving from stage to stage, advances in its progress from a beginning to an end, and our life here is divided between that which is past and that which is expected, so that the one is the subject of hope, the other of memory; on this account, as, in relation to ourselves, we apprehend a past and a future in this measurable extent, so also we apply the thought, though incorrectly, to the transcendent nature of God; not of course that God in His own existence leaves any interval behind, or passes on afresh to something that lies before, but because our intellect can only conceive things according to our nature, and measures the eternal by a past and a future, where neither the past precludes the march of thought to the illimitable and infinite, nor the future tells us of any pause or limit of His endless life. If, then, it is thus that we think and speak, why does he keep taunting us with dividing the ages? Unless, indeed, Eunomius would maintain that Holy Scripture does so too, signifying as it does by the same idea the infinity of the Divine existence; David, for example, making mention of the “kingdom from everlasting,” and Moses, speaking of the kingdom of God as “extending beyond all ages,” so that we are taught by both that every duration conceivable is environed by the Divine nature, bounded on all sides by the infinity of Him Who holds the universe in His embrace. For Moses, looking to the future, says that “He reigneth from generation to generation for evermore.” And great David, turning his thought backward to the past, says, “God is our King before the ages123    Cf. Ps. xliv. 4, and xlviii. 14, with lxxiv. 12.,” and again, “God, Who was before the ages, shall hear us.” But Eunomius, in his cleverness taking leave of such guides as these, says that we talk of the life that is without beginning as one, and of that which is without end as quite another, and again, of diversities of sundry ages, effecting by their own diversity a separation in our idea of God. But that our controversy may not grow to a tedious length, we will add, without criticism or comment, the outcome of Eunomius’ labours on the subject, well fitted as they are by his industry displayed in the cause of error to render the truth yet more evident to the eyes of the discerning.

Σιωπῶ τὸ βλάσφημον ὅτι κοινοποιεῖ πρὸς πᾶν γεννητὸν τὸν μονογενῆ θεόν, τῇ περιληπτικῇ φωνῇ πρὸς ὁμοτίμους ὑπολήψεις παντὶ τῷ διὰ γενέσεως ὑφεστῶτι τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ κατάγων: ἀλλὰ τὴν ἀδιανόητον αὐτοῦ κακουργίαν τοῖς συνετωτέροις τῶν ἀκροατῶν προθήσω τῷ λόγῳ. « παρὰ τῶν αἰώνων προξενεῖ Βασίλειος κατὰ πάντων τῶν γεννητῶν τῷ θεῷ τὰ πρεσβεῖα ». τίς ἡ ἀδιανόητος αὕτη κενοφωνία; πρόξενος θεοῦ ἄνθρωπος γίνεται καὶ προξενεῖ διὰ τῶν αἰώνων αὐτῷ τὰ πρεσβεῖα; τίς ἡ ματαία τῶν ἀνυποστάτων τούτων ῥημάτων κενεμβασία, εἰ τὸ ὑπερεκπῖπτον τὴν διαστηματικὴν τῶν αἰώνων παράτασιν ἐφ' ἑκάτερα τῆς θείας οὐσίας ἐμφαντικοῖς τισιν ὀνόμασιν ὁ διδάσκαλος εἶπεν σημαίνεσθαι ἐπὶ τοῦ, καθὼς εἶπεν ὁ ἀπόστολος, μήτε ἀρχὴν ἡμερῶν μήτε ζωῆς ἔχοντος τέλος, ὡς διαφόροις τοῖς ῥήμασι τὸ διάφορον σημανθῆναι τῆς ὑπολήψεως, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τὸ μὲν πάσης ἀρχῆς ἀνώτερον ἄναρχον λέγεσθαι καὶ ἀγέννητον, τὸ δὲ μηδενὶ τέλει περιγραφόμενον ἀθάνατον ὀνομάσαι καὶ ἄφθαρτον; ταῦτα « πορισμὸν » καὶ « προξένησιν » καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα οὐκ αἰσχύνεται γράφων. ἀλλὰ καὶ « διχοτομεῖσθαι » παρ' ἡμῶν φησι « τοὺς αἰῶνας », ὥσπερ οὐκ ἀνεγνωκὼς ἃ παρέθετο ἢ ὡς ἐν ἐπιλήσμοσι τῶν λεγομένων τὸν ἑαυτοῦ λόγον διατιθείς. τί φησιν ὁ διδάσκαλος; ἐὰν τὰ πρὸ τῆς κτίσεως ἐννοήσωμεν καὶ τοὺς αἰῶνας τῷ λογισμῷ διαβάντες τὸ ἀπερίγραπτον τῆς ἀϊδίου ζωῆς λογισώμεθα, τῇ τοῦ ἀγεννήτου προσηγορίᾳ τὸ τοιοῦτον διασημαίνομεν νόημα, κἂν εἰς τὸ ἐφεξῆς τὴν διάνοιαν τρέψωμεν καὶ περισσοτέραν τῶν αἰώνων τὴν ζωὴν τοῦ θεοῦ καταλάβωμεν, διὰ τῆς ἀτελευτήτου καὶ ἀφθάρτου φωνῆς τὴν διάνοιαν ταύτην διερμηνεύομεν. ποῦ τέμνει τοὺς αἰῶνας ἐν τοῖς εἰρημένοις ὁ λόγος, εἰ τὴν ἀϊδιότητα τοῦ θεοῦ κατὰ πᾶσαν ἐπιβολὴν ἐπίσης προφαινομένην καὶ πανταχόθεν ὡσαύτως ἔχουσαν καὶ μηδενὶ διαστήματι μετρουμένην τοῖς κατὰ δύναμιν ἐξαγγέλλομεν ῥήμασί τε καὶ ὀνόμασιν; ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ἡ ἀνθρωπίνη ζωὴ διαστηματικῶς κινουμένη ἀπό τινος ἀρχῆς εἴς τι τέλος προϊοῦσα διέξεισι καὶ μεμέρισται πρὸς τὸ παρῳχηκός τε καὶ προσδοκώμενον ὁ τῇδε βίος, ὡς τὸ μὲν ἐλπίζεσθαι τὸ δὲ μνημονεύεσθαι, τούτου χάριν ὡς πρὸς τὴν ἡμετέραν σχέσιν τό τε παρῳχηκὸς καὶ τὸ προσδοκώμενον τῆς διαστηματικῆς παρατάσεως ἐννοοῦντες, οὕτως καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς ὑπερκειμένης φύσεως ἐκ καταχρήσεως λέγομεν, οὐχ ὡς τοῦ θεοῦ διὰ τῆς ἰδίας ζωῆς κατόπιν ἑαυτοῦ τι καταλιπόντος διάστημα καὶ πρὸς τὸ προκείμενον πάλιν ἐν τῷ ζῆν διοδεύοντος, ἀλλ' ὡς τῆς ἡμετέρας κατανοήσεως ὡς πρὸς τὴν ἰδίαν ἡμῶν φύσιν περινοούσης τὰ πράγματα καὶ τὸ ἀΐδιον ἐν τῷ παρῳχηκότι καὶ μέλλοντι διαμετρούσης, ὅταν μήτε τὸ κατόπιν περικόπτῃ προϊοῦσαν εἰς τὸ ἄπειρον τοῦ ἀορίστου τὴν ἔννοιαν, μήτε τὸ ἔμπροσθεν σύστασίν τινα καὶ ὅρον τῆς ἀπείρου ζωῆς ἐπαγγέλληται. εἰ ταῦτα καὶ νοοῦμεν καὶ λέγομεν, πῶς ἡμῖν ἡ τῶν αἰώνων ἐπιθρυλεῖται τομή, εἰ μὴ καὶ τὴν ἁγίαν γραφὴν διχοτομεῖν τοὺς αἰῶνας ὁ Εὐνόμιος λέγοι τῇ αὐτῇ διανοίᾳ τῆς θείας ζωῆς τὴν ἀπειρίαν διασημαίνουσαν, τοῦ μὲν Δαβὶδ τὴν πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων βασιλείαν ὑμνήσαντος, τοῦ δὲ Μωϋσέως τὴν ὑπὲρ τοὺς αἰῶνας ἐκτεινομένην τοῦ θεοῦ βασιλείαν δείξαντος: ὡς ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων ἡμᾶς διδαχθῆναι ὅτι πᾶν διαστηματικὸν νόημα ἐντὸς τῆς θείας φύσεως περιείληπται, τῇ ἀπειρίᾳ τοῦ τὸ πᾶν περιέχοντος ἁπανταχόθεν ἐμπερατούμενον. ὁ μὲν γὰρ Μωϋσῆς εἰς τὸ ἐφεξῆς βλέπων βασιλεύειν αὐτόν φησι τὸν αἰῶνα καὶ ἐπ' αἰῶνα καὶ ἔτι: ὁ δὲ μέγας Δαβὶδ πρὸς τὸ κατόπιν ἀγαγὼν τὴν διάνοιαν εἶπεν Ὁ δὲ θεὸς βασιλεὺς ἡμῶν πρὸ αἰῶνος, καὶ πάλιν Εἰσακούσεται ὁ θεὸς ὁ ὑπάρχων πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων. ἀλλ' ὁ σοφὸς Εὐνόμιος ἐρρῶσθαι φράσας τοῖς τηλικούτοις καθηγηταῖς ἄλλην φησὶν ἡμᾶς λέγειν ἄναρχον ζωήν, ἑτέραν δὲ τὴν ἀτελεύτητον πάλιν καὶ αἰώνων τινῶν ἑτερότητας καὶ διαφορὰς συνδιασχιζούσας τῇ ἑτερότητι ἑαυτῶν καὶ τὴν περὶ θεοῦ φαντασίαν.
Ἀλλ' ὡς ἂν μὴ διὰ μακροῦ γένοιτο ἡμῖν ἡ πρὸς τὰ εἰρημένα μάχη, αὐτὴν προθήσομεν ἀβασάνιστόν τε καὶ ἀνεξέταστον τὴν ἐν τούτοις τοῦ Εὐνομίου φιλοπονίαν ἱκανὴν οὖσαν δι' ὧν σπουδάζει περὶ τὸ ψεῦδος ἐκδηλοτέραν ποιῆσαι τοῖς συνετοῖς τὴν ἀλήθειαν.