§2. He then wonderfully displays the Eternal Life, which is Christ, to those who confess Him not, and applies to them the mournful lamentation of Jeremiah over Jehoiakim, as being closely allied to Montanus and Sabellius.

But now that I have surveyed what remains of his treatise I shrink from conducting my argument further, as a shudder runs through my heart at his words. For he wishes to show that the Son is something different from eternal life, while, unless eternal life is found in the Son, our faith will be proved to be idle, and our preaching to be vain, baptism a superfluity, the agonies of the martyrs all for nought, the toils of the Apostles useless and unprofitable for the life of men. For why did they preach Christ, in Whom, according to Eunomius, there does not reside the power of eternal life? Why do they make mention of those who had believed in Christ, unless it was through Him that they were to be partakers of eternal life? “For the intelligence,” he says, “of those who have believed in the Lord, overleaping all sensible and intellectual existence, cannot stop even at the generation of the Son, but speeds beyond even this in its yearning for eternal life, eager to meet the First.” What ought I most to bewail in this passage? that the wretched men do not think that eternal life is in the Son, or that they conceive of the Person of the Only-begotten in so grovelling and earthly a fashion, that they fancy they can mount in their reasonings upon His beginning, and so look by the power of their own intellect beyond the life of the Son, and, leaving the generation of the Lord somewhere beneath them, can speed onward beyond this in their yearning for eternal life? For the meaning of what I have quoted is nothing else than this, that the human mind, scrutinizing the knowledge of real existence, and lifting itself above the sensible and intelligible creation, will leave God the Word, Who was in the beginning, below itself, just as it has left below it all other things, and itself comes to be in Him in Whom God the Word was not, treading, by mental activity, regions which lie beyond the life of the Son, there searching for eternal life, where the Only-begotten God is not. “For in its yearning for eternal life,” he says, “it is borne in thought, beyond the Son”—clearly as though it had not in the Son found that which it was seeking. If the eternal life is not in the Son, then assuredly He Who said, “I am the life885    This quotation from Eunomius presents some difficulties, but it is quite as likely that they are due to the obscurity of his style, as that they are due to corruption of the text.    S. John xi. 25    That is, of the Son’s goodness: for S. Gregory’s comment on the awkward use of the pronoun σφετέρας, see p. 233, inf.,” will be convicted of falsehood, or else He is life, it is true, but not eternal life. But that which is not eternal is of course limited in duration. And such a kind of life is common to the irrational animals as well as to men. Where then is the majesty of the very life, if even the irrational creation share it? and how will the Word or Divine Reason886    i. e.with the subject of discussion, the generation of the Only-begotten.    ὁ λόγος: the idea of “reason” must be expressed to convey the force required for the argument following.    Cf. Phil. ii. 6 be the same as the Life, if this finds a home, in virtue of the life which is but temporary, in irrational creatures? For if, according to the great John, the Word is Life887    The genitive ληξέως is rather awkward; it may be explained, however, as dependent upon ἀρχήν; “He began to be generated: He began to cease being generated.”    Cf. S. John i. 4    Deut. xxxii. 6., but that life is temporary and not eternal, as their heresy holds, and if, moreover, the temporary life has place in other creatures, what is the logical consequence? Why, either that irrational animals are rational, or that the Reason must be confessed to be irrational. Have we any further need of words to confute their accursed and malignant blasphemy? Do such statements even pretend to conceal their intention of denying the Lord? For if the Apostle plainly says that what is not eternal is temporary888    Ps. cxxvi. 3.    The reference is perhaps to 2 Cor. iv. 18.    Heb. xii. 2., and if these people see eternal life in the essence of the Father alone, and if by alienating the Son from the Nature of the Father they also cut Him off from eternal life, what is this but a manifest denial and rejection of the faith in the Lord? while the Apostle clearly says that those who “in this life only have hope in Christ are of all men most miserable889    S. Luke xxii. 35.    Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 19..” If then the Lord is life, but not eternal life, assuredly the life is temporal, and but for a day, that which is operative only for the present time, or else890    S. Matt. xxv. 1    If we might read ᾑ for ἢ the sense of the passage would be materially simplified:—“His life is temporal, that life which operates only for the present time, whereon those who hope are the objects of the Apostle’s pity.” the Apostle bemoans those who have hope, as having missed the true life.

However, they who are enlightened in Eunomius’ fashion pass the Son by, and are carried in their reasonings beyond Him, seeking eternal life in Him Who is contemplated as outside and apart from the Only-begotten. What ought one to say to such evils as these,—save whatever calls forth lamentation and weeping? Alas, how can we groan over this wretched and pitiable generation, bringing forth a crop of such deadly mischiefs? In days of yore the zealous Jeremiah bewailed the people of Israel, when they gave an evil consent to Jehoiakim who led the way to idolatry, and were condemned to captivity under the Assyrians in requital for their unlawful worship, exiled from the sanctuary and banished far from the inheritance of their fathers. Yet more fitting does it seem to me that these lamentations be chanted when the imitator of Jehoiakim draws away those whom he deceives to this new kind of idolatry, banishing them from their ancestral inheritance,—I mean the Faith. They too, in a way corresponding to the Scriptural record, are carried away captive to Babylon from Jerusalem that is above,—that is from the Church of God to this confusion of pernicious doctrines,—for891    The phrase is obscure, and the text possibly corrupt. To read τὰς ἐννοίας (as Gulonius seems to have done) would simplify matters: but the general sense is clear—that the denial of the existence of time implies eternity.    Altering Oehler’s punctuation. Babylon means “confusion.” And even as Jehoiakim was mutilated, so this man, having voluntarily deprived himself of the light of the truth, has become a prey to the Babylonian despot, never having learned, poor wretch, that the Gospel enjoins us to behold eternal life alike in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, inasmuch as the Word has thus spoken concerning the Father, that to know Him is life eternal892    Cf. S. John xvii. 3, and concerning the Son, that every one that believeth on Him hath eternal life893    Cf. S. John iii. 36, and concerning the Holy Spirit, that to Him that hath received His grace it shall be a well of water springing up unto eternal life894    Cf. S. John iv. 14. Accordingly every one that yearns for eternal life when he has found the Son,—I mean the true Son, and not the Son falsely so called—has found in Him in its entirety what he longed for, because He is life and hath life in Himself895    Cf. S. John v. 26. But this man, so subtle in mind, so keen-sighted of heart, does not by his extreme acuteness of vision discover life in the Son, but, having passed Him over and left Him behind as a hindrance in the way to that for which he searches he there seeks eternal life where he thinks the true Life not to be! What could we conceive more to be abhorred than this for profanity, or more melancholy as an occasion of lamentation? But that the charge of Sabellianism and Montanism should be repeatedly urged against our doctrines, is much the same as if one should lay to our charge the blasphemy of the Anomœans. For if one were carefully to investigate the falsehood of these heresies, he would find that they have great similarity to the error of Eunomius. For each of them affects the Jew in his doctrine, admitting neither the Only-begotten God nor the Holy Spirit to share the Deity of the God Whom they call “Great,” and “First.” For Whom Sabellius calls God of the three names, Him does Eunomius term unbegotten: but neither contemplates the Godhead in the Trinity of Persons. Who then is really akin to Sabellius let the judgment of those who read our argument decide. Thus far for these matters.

Ἀλλὰ τὰ λειπόμενα τῆς λογογραφίας ἐπισκεψάμενος ὀκνῶ προαγαγεῖν περαιτέρω τὸν λόγον, φρίκης τινὸς ἐκ τῶν λεγομένων τὴν καρδίαν ὑποδραμούσης. βούλεται γὰρ ἄλλο τι δεῖξαι παρὰ τὴν αἰωνίαν ζωὴν τὸν υἱὸν ὄντα, ἥτις εἰ μὴ ἐν τῷ μονογενεῖ θεωροῖτο, ματαία μὲν ἡ πίστις ἀποδειχθήσεται, κενὸν δὲ τὸ κήρυγμα, περιττὸν δὲ τὸ βάπτισμα, εἰς οὐδὲν δὲ τῶν μαρτύρων οἱ πόνοι, ἄχρηστοι δὲ καὶ ἀνόνητοι τῇ ζωῇ τῶν ἀνθρώπων οἱ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἱδρῶτες. τί γὰρ κατήγγειλαν τὸν Χριστόν, ἐν ᾧ τῆς αἰωνίας ζωῆς κατ' Εὐνόμιον οὐκ ἔστιν ἡ δύναμις; εἰς τί δὲ τῷ ὀνόματι Χριστοῦ τοὺς πεπιστευκότας κατονομάζουσιν, εἰ μὴ διὰ τούτου τῆς αἰωνίας μέλλοιεν μετέχειν ζωῆς; « ὁ γὰρ νοῦς », φησί, « τῶν εἰς τὸν κύριον πεπιστευκότων πᾶσαν αἰσθητὴν καὶ νοητὴν οὐσίαν ὑπερκύψας οὐδὲ ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ γεννήσεως ἵστασθαι πέφυκεν, ἐπέκεινα δὲ καὶ ταύτης ἵεται, πόθῳ τῆς αἰωνίου ζωῆς ἐντυχεῖν τῷ πρώτῳ γλιχόμενος ». τί τῶν εἰρημένων πλέον ὀδύρωμαι, τὸ μὴ εἶναι τὴν αἰωνίαν ζωὴν ἐν τῷ υἱῷ τοὺς δειλαίους νομίζειν ἢ τὸ χθαμαλὴν οὕτω καὶ πρόσγειον βλέπειν τὴν τοῦ μονογενοῦς ὑπόστασιν, ὥστε τῆς ἀρχῆς αὐτοῦ τοῖς λογισμοῖς ἐπιβάντας « ὑπερκύπτειν » ἄνω τῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ ζωῆς τῇ ἑαυτῶν διανοίᾳ φαντάζεσθαι καὶ καταλιπόντας κάτω που τοῦ κυρίου τὴν γέννησιν ἐπέκεινα ταύτης ἵεσθαι πόθῳ τῆς αἰωνίου ζωῆς; ταύτην γὰρ τὰ εἰρημένα τὴν διάνοιαν ἔχει, ὅτι ὁ ἀνθρώπινος νοῦς τὴν τῶν ὄντων γνῶσιν διερευνώμενος καὶ τῆς αἰσθητῆς τε καὶ νοητῆς κτίσεως ἑαυτὸν ὑπεράρας καθ' ὁμοιότητα τῶν λοιπῶν κατώτερον ἑαυτοῦ τὸν ἐν ἀρχῇ ὄντα λόγον θεὸν καταλείψει, καὶ ἐν ᾧ οὐκ ἦν ὁ θεὸς λόγος, ἐν ἐκείνῳ αὐτὸς γίνεται, διὰ τῆς πολυπραγμοσύνης τοῦ νοῦ τοῖς ὑπερκειμένοις τῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ ζωῆς ἐμβατεύων, ἐκεῖ τὴν αἰώνιον ζωὴν ἐρευνώμενος ὅπου ὁ μονογενὴς θεὸς οὐκ ἔστιν. πόθῳ γὰρ τῆς αἰωνίας, φησί, ζωῆς εἰς τὰ ἐπέκεινα τοῦ υἱοῦ τῷ νῷ φέρεται, ὡς ἐν τῷ υἱῷ πάντως μὴ εὑρὼν τὸ ζητούμενον. εἰ οὖν οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν τῷ υἱῷ ἡ αἰώνιος ζωή, ἆρα ψευδὴς ἁλώσεται ὁ εἰπὼν ὅτι Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ζωή, ἢ ζωὴ μὲν ἐστίν, οὐκ αἰώνιος δέ; ἀλλὰ τὸ μὴ αἰώνιον πρόσκαιρον πάντως, τὸ δὲ τοιοῦτο τῆς ζωῆς εἶδος κοινὸν καὶ τῶν ἀλόγων ἐστίν. ποῦ τοίνυν τὸ μεγαλεῖον τῆς ὄντως ζωῆς, εἰ μετέχοι ταύτης καὶ ἡ ἄλογος φύσις; πῶς δὲ ταὐτὸν ἔσται τῇ ζωῇ ὁ λόγος, εἰ τῇ ἀλόγῳ φύσει διὰ τῆς προσκαίρου ζωῆς εἰσοικίζοιτο; εἰ γὰρ κατὰ τὸν μέγαν Ἰωάννην ζωὴ μὲν ἐστὶν ὁ λόγος, πρόσκαιρος δὲ αὕτη καὶ οὐκ αἰώνιος, καθὼς τῇ αἱρέσει δοκεῖ, γίνεται δὲ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις ἡ πρόσκαιρος, τί κατὰ τὸ ἀκόλουθον συμπεραίνεται; ἢ λογικὰ εἶναι τὰ ἄλογα ἢ ἄλογον ὁμολογεῖσθαι τὸν λόγον. ἆρ' ἔτι λόγων πρὸς ἔλεγχον τῆς ἐξαγίστου καὶ πονηρᾶς αὐτῶν βλασφημίας δεόμεθα; μὴ γὰρ τοιαῦτα τὰ λεγόμενα, ὡς κεκρυμμένην ἔχειν τὴν συμβουλὴν τῆς τοῦ κυρίου ἀρνήσεως; εἰ γὰρ φανερῶς μὲν ὁ ἀπόστολος λέγει τὸ μὴ αἰώνιον πρόσκαιρον, οὗτοι δὲ ἐν μόνῃ τῇ οὐσίᾳ τοῦ πατρὸς τὴν αἰώνιον ὁρῶσι ζωήν, τὸν δὲ υἱὸν τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς φύσεως ἀλλοτριοῦντες συναποτέμνουσι καὶ τῆς αἰωνίου ζωῆς, τί ἄλλο καὶ οὐχὶ ἄρνησίς ἐστιν περιφανὴς καὶ ἀθέτησις τῆς εἰς τὸν κύριον πίστεως, σαφῶς τοῦ ἀποστόλου λέγοντος τοὺς ἐν τῇ ζωῇ ταύτῃ μόνον ἐν Χριστῷ ἠλπικότας ἐλεεινοτάτους ἁπάντων εἶναι; εἰ οὖν ζωὴ μὲν ὁ κύριος, οὐκ αἰώνιος δέ, πρόσκαιρος πάντως ἐστὶν ἡ ζωὴ καὶ ἐφήμερος ἡ κατὰ τὸν παρόντα χρόνον ἐνεργουμένη, « ἐν » ᾗ τοὺς ἐλπίζοντας ὁ ἀπόστολος κατοικτίζεται ὡς τῆς ἀληθινῆς ἀφαμαρτόντας ζωῆς.
Ἀλλὰ μὴν τοῦτον διαβάντες οἱ κατ' Εὐνόμιον πεφωτισμένοι εἰς τὸ ἐπέκεινα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῖς λογισμοῖς φέρονται, ἐν τῷ ἔξω τοῦ μονογενοῦς θεωρουμένῳ τὴν αἰώνιον ἀναζητοῦντες ζωήν. τί χρὴ λέγειν ἐπὶ τῶν τοιούτων κακῶν ἄλλο πλὴν εἴ τι θρῆνον ἐκκαλεῖται καὶ δάκρυον. ὢ πῶς ἂν ἐπιστενάξαιμεν τῇ δειλαίᾳ ταύτῃ καὶ ἐλεεινῇ γενεᾷ, τοιούτων δὲ κακῶν ἐξενεγκούσῃ φοράν; ἐθρήνησέ ποτε τὸν Ἰσραηλίτην λαὸν ὁ ζηλωτὴς Ἰερεμίας, ὅτε τῷ Ἰεχονίᾳ τῆς εἰδωλολατρείας καθηγουμένῳ πρὸς τὸ κακὸν συνεφρόνησαν καὶ ἀντὶ τῆς εἰς τὴν θρῃσκείαν παρανομίας τὴν εἰς Ἀσσυρίους αἰχμαλωσίαν κατεδικάσθησαν, ἐξοικισθέντες τοῦ ἁγιάσματος καὶ πόρρω τῆς τῶν πατέρων κληρονομίας γενόμενοι. τούτους μοι δοκεῖ νῦν τοὺς θρήνους οἰκειότερον ᾄδεσθαι, ὅτε ὁ μιμητὴς τοῦ Ἰεχονίου πρὸς τὸ καινὸν τοῦτο τῆς εἰδωλολατρείας εἶδος τοὺς ἀπατωμένους ἐφέλκεται, τῆς πατρικῆς ἐξοικίζων κληρονομίας, τῆς πίστεως λέγω. οἷς ἀτεχνῶς κατὰ τὴν ἱστορίαν εἰς Βαβυλωνίους ἡ μετανάστασις γίνεται ἀπὸ τῆς ἄνω Ἱερουσαλὴμ τουτέστιν ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκκλησίας ἐπὶ τὴν σύγχυσιν ταύτην τῶν πονηρῶν δογμάτων μεθισταμένοις: σύγχυσις γὰρ ἡ Βαβυλὼν ἑρμηνεύεται: καὶ κατὰ τὸν πηρωθέντα Ἰεχονίαν καὶ οὗτος ἑαυτὸν ἑκουσίως τοῦ φωτὸς τῆς ἀληθείας στερήσας λάφυρον γέγονε τοῦ Βαβυλωνίου τυράννου, μὴ καταμαθὼν ὁ δείλαιος ὅτι τὴν αἰώνιον ζωὴν ἐπίσης πατρί τε καὶ υἱῷ καὶ πνεύματι ἁγίῳ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἐνορᾶν δογματίζει, περὶ μὲν τοῦ πατρὸς οὕτως εἰπόντος τοῦ λόγου ὅτι τὸ γινώσκειν αὐτὸν ἡ αἰώνιός ἐστι ζωή, περὶ δὲ τοῦ υἱοῦ ὅτι πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν τὴν αἰώνιον ἔχει ζωήν, περὶ δὲ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου ὅτι τῷ δεξαμένῳ τὴν χάριν ἔσται πηγὴ ὕδατος ἁλλομένου εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον. οὐκοῦν πᾶς ὁ ποθῶν τὴν αἰώνιον ζωήν, ἐπειδὰν εὕρῃ τὸν υἱόν, τὸν ἀληθῆ λέγω καὶ οὐ ψευδώνυμον, ὅλον εὗρεν ἐν αὐτῷ ὅπερ ἐπόθησε, διότι καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν ἡ ζωὴ καὶ ἐν ἑαυτῷ τὴν ζωὴν ἔχει. ἀλλ' ὁ λεπτὸς οὗτος τὸν νοῦν καὶ διορατικὸς τὴν καρδίαν ὑπὸ πολλῆς ὀξυωπίας τῷ υἱῷ τὴν αἰώνιον οὐκ ἐνευρίσκει ζωήν, ἀλλ' ὑπερβὰς τοῦτον καὶ καταλιπὼν οἷον ἐμπόδιόν τι πρὸς τὸ ζητούμενον ἐκεῖ διερευνᾶται τὴν αἰώνιον ζωήν, ὅπου μὴ εἶναι οἴεται τὴν ὄντως ζωήν. τί ἄν τις ἐπινοήσειε τούτων ἢ εἰς βλασφημίαν φρικτότερον ἢ εἰς θρήνων ἀφορμὴν σκυθρωπότερον; ἀλλὰ μὴν τὸ « Σαβέλλιόν » τε καὶ « Μοντανὸν » τοῖς ἡμετέροις δόγμασιν ἐπιθρυλεῖσθαι τοιοῦτόν ἐστιν οἷον εἴ τις καὶ τὴν κατὰ τὸ ἀνόμοιον ἡμῖν βλασφημίαν προστρίβοιτο. εἰ γάρ τις ἐπεσκεμμένως τὴν τῶν αἱρέσεων τούτων ἀπάτην διεξετάσειεν, εὑρήσει πολλὴν ἔχοντας πρὸς τὴν κατ' Εὐνόμιον πλάνην τὴν οἰκειότητα. ἰουδαΐζει γὰρ ἑκάτερος αὐτῶν ἐν τῷ δόγματι οὔτε τὸν μονογενῆ θεὸν οὔτε τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον εἰς κοινωνίαν τῆς θεότητος τοῦ μεγάλου παρ' αὐτοῖς καὶ πρώτου λεγομένου θεοῦ προσδεχόμενος: ὃν γὰρ Σαβέλλιος λέγει ”τριώνυμον”, τοῦτον Εὐνόμιος ὀνομάζει „ἀγέννητον„: οὐδέτερος δὲ τούτων ἐν τῇ τριάδι τῶν ὑποστάσεων θεωρεῖ τὴν θεότητα. τίς τοίνυν οἰκείως ἔχει πρὸς τὸν Σαβέλλιον, ἡ τῶν ἐντυγχανόντων τῷ λόγῳ κρίσις ἀποφηνάσθω. ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν εἰς τοσοῦτον.