Against Eunomius 1.455–2.473

And how does he define the Godhead by unbegottenness? Or does he say, again, that the unbegotten follows God, who exists unbegottenly? Who will solve for us the puzzle of these riddles? An unbegotten that precedes and an unbegotten that follows; a title of the substance now aptly fitted to it and now following as something foreign! And what is this great alarm of his over the name of unbegottenness, so that he attributes the whole nature of the Godhead to it, and if God is so named nothing is lacking to piety, but if not, the whole doctrine of the faith is in danger? If no one thinks it superfluous and redundant to discuss these matters briefly, we will treat the argument as follows. The everlastingness of the divine life, if one were to sketch it by enclosing it in a definition, is this: it is grasped as always being, and it does not admit the account of once not being or once not going to be. Geometers of plane figures say that the beginning of a circular figure is indeterminate, since the line, equidistant from the center throughout, is turned back on itself, and is drawn out neither to an acknowledged end nor to a visible beginning, but, united to itself at equal distances from the center on every side, escapes showing any beginning or end. So too (and let no one slander the argument as though we likened the unbounded nature to a bounded figure; we look not to the circumference of the circle but to its likeness to the life that is ungraspable on every side) we say that this is the notion of the everlasting. Extending and turning our thought on every side from the present now, as from a center and point, toward the infinity of life, we are drawn round in a circle equally and alike by its incomprehensibility, finding the divine life continuous and unbroken with itself on every side, and able to recognize no limit and no part in it. This is what we say about the everlastingness of God, which we have heard from prophecy: that God is king before the ages, and reigns forever and ever and beyond. For this reason we define him as higher than every beginning and exceeding every end. Holding, then, this notion of him as befitting the God of the universe, we express what we conceive by two titles, "unbegotten" and "endless," presenting the infinity, continuity, and everlastingness of God's life. If only one of these were taken for this notion and the other passed over in silence, the meaning would certainly limp where something was lacking. Neither of them alone can soundly present the meaning contained in both. One who said "endless" showed only the absence of an end, but said nothing about a beginning; and one who said "without beginning" showed that what is signified is beyond beginning, but left the question of an end in doubt. Since, then, as I said, these names present equally the everlastingness of the divine life, it is time to examine how these men divide the meaning of "everlasting": they say that the notion which removes a beginning is substance, not something seen about the everlasting, while they reckon that which admits no end among things outside the substance. I do not know with what thought they make such an allotment, placing having no beginning in the substance and rejecting having no end as outside the substance. Since the two are seen together in it, they ought either to receive both into the account of the substance or, if they judged the one fit to be rejected, to reject the other along with it. But if they are set on dividing the notion of the everlasting, ranking one part in the substance of the divine nature and reckoning the other among things that are not, since they wish to judge such things by low reasonings and do not fly up to the height of thoughts about God, like birds that have lost their feathers, I for my part would advise them to reverse their doctrines: to reckon endlessness as substance, and rather to overlook being without beginning in favor of endlessness, giving the first place to what is to come and to what we hope for rather than to what is past and stale. For (I say this for the sake of small souls, willingly bringing the argument down to the understanding of children) the past part of life is nothing to one who has lived it, while all the eagerness of the living is directed toward what is to come and is expected; so endlessness would be more honorable than being without beginning, since immortality is carried toward what is to come and is expected. So either let their thoughts about the divine nature be lofty and befitting God, or, if they judge such things by human reasonings, let the future be more honorable to them than the past, and let them define the substance of God by that.

since everything that is past already vanishes with the passing of time, while what is expected has its existence through hope. But I bring these things forward as ridiculous and childish, as if to children sitting in the marketplace at play; for one cannot examine how groveling and earthbound the heresy's doctrines are without being brought down to some boyish game. But I say it is well to add this to the argument. Since the meaning of "everlasting" is filled out by both together, as we said, by the absence of a beginning and the absence of an end, if they define the substance of God by one alone, their account of the substance will turn out half-finished and cut in two, conceived only in being without beginning and not possessing endlessness in itself as substance. But if they put both together and complete the account of the substance with both, let us consider in turn the absurdity that appears along with the argument; for they will find God alien not only to the Only-begotten but also to himself. The argument is clear and needs no great attention. The account of beginning and that of end are each opposite to the other, and what is signified by each is different, as with other things diametrically opposed to one another, between which there is no middle. One who is asked for the account of a beginning will not give the same as the definition of an end, but will take the definition of beginning in the opposite direction. Therefore what is opposed to each of these will also differ from each other in equal measure of opposition: "without beginning," which is opposed to what "beginning" shows, will be confessed to be one thing, and "endless," which removes the end, another. If, then, they bring these two, endless and without beginning, and dedicate them to the substance of God, they will show their God to be a concurrence of two opposite and discordant things. For the notion opposed to each of these also shows in itself the opposition of end to beginning; things contrary to opposites are certainly contrary to one another. It is true that all things set against things naturally opposite are also opposite to one another, as can be seen from examples. Water is set against fire; so the powers that destroy these will also be opposed to each other. For if moisture extinguishes fire and dryness destroys water, the qualities opposed to these preserve in themselves the opposition of water to fire, so that moisture is acknowledged to be opposite to dryness. So too, since beginning and end are opposed, the names opposed to them, "without beginning" and "endless," conflict with one another in notion. If, then, they define only one of these as indicating the substance (for I will take up the same argument again), they will bear witness to God's being only by half, saying that his substance is bounded by being without beginning alone and not extending it to endlessness. But if they bring both into the account of the substance and set them there, they will declare nothing other than that it is composed of opposites, divided in substance, in the way described, into endless and beginningless by the opposition of end to beginning. And so their God turns out to be a varied and composite thing, compacted of opposites. But there is not, nor will there ever be, any such doctrine in the church of God as to declare the simple and uncompounded not only manifold and varied but even composed of opposites. The simplicity of the doctrines of truth supposes God to be what he is: unable to be comprehended by name, or by thought, or by any other comprehending conception; remaining higher not only than human but also than angelic and all supramundane comprehension; ineffable and unutterable, above all meaning conveyed by words; having one name that makes his own nature known: that he alone is above every name. This has also been granted to the Only-begotten, because all that the Father has is the Son's as well. And the account of piety confesses that these words, "unbegotten," I mean, and "endless," indicate his everlastingness, not his substance: "unbegotten" shows that no beginning and cause lies above him, and "endless" signifies that his kingdom will stop at no limit. "For you," it says, "are the same, and your years will not fail": by "are" signifying that he did not come into existence from any cause, and by what follows showing the unceasing and endless blessedness of his life.

But perhaps one of the more cautious, attending to what we have examined about the everlasting, will say that it is hard to pass through the account of the Only-begotten without stumbling, given what has been said. Of two incongruous doctrines, one will certainly be fallen into: either we shall make out that the Son too is unbegotten, which is absurd, or we shall not grant him everlastingness either, which is the mark of blasphemers. For if everlastingness is known by being without beginning and endless, it is entirely necessary either to be impious by not confessing the Son's everlastingness, or to be carried into supposing unbegottenness in our notions of the Only-begotten. What then do we say? If the one who contemplates the Father before the Son only in the account of cause were to set some temporal notion beyond the hypostasis of the Only-begotten, our account of the Son's everlastingness would reasonably be endangered. But as it is, the nature before the ages does not admit, equally and alike, any "once he will not be" in our confession of the life of the Father, of the Only-begotten, or of the Holy Spirit. Where there is no time, "once" is removed as well. If the Son is always grasped as being, appearing together with the notion of the Father, what fear is there in bearing witness to the everlastingness of the Only-begotten, who has neither beginning of days nor end of life? As he is light from light, life from life, good from good, wise and just and powerful and all the rest likewise, such from such, so also he is certainly everlasting from everlasting. But the contentious and quarrelsome man snatches at the argument, as though this sequence made one suppose unbegotten from unbegotten too. Let the fighter be sober in heart and attend to his own words: one who confesses "from the Father" has dismissed any suspicion of unbegottenness in the case of the Only-begotten, and there is no fear in calling him everlasting and not unbegotten. Because the Son's being is not bounded by a temporal interval, but before the ages and after them the infinity of his life is poured out on every side, he is properly named by the title "everlasting"; and because, again, being and being called Son, he allows the notion of the Father to be contemplated conjointly with him, he escapes by this the appearance of being unbegotten, being always with the Father who always is. So said that inspired voice of our teacher: that he is joined, as begotten, to the unbegottenness of the Father. Our account of the Holy Spirit is the same, differing in order alone. As the Son is joined to the Father and, though he has his being from him, does not come after him in existence, so again the Holy Spirit is joined to the Only-begotten, who is contemplated before the hypostasis of the Spirit in thought alone, by the account of cause; but temporal extensions have no place in the life before the ages. So, the account of cause excepted, the Holy Trinity is in no respect out of harmony with itself. To it be glory.

The faith of Christians, which was proclaimed to all the nations by the disciples according to the Lord’s command, is neither from human beings nor through a human being, but through our Lord Jesus Christ himself. He, being the Word and life and light and truth and God and wisdom and all that he is by nature, for this reason above all came to be in the likeness of a human being and shared our nature, in all things according to likeness, without sin. And the likeness lies in his taking up the whole human being, with soul and body, so that our salvation might come about through both. He was seen on earth and lived among human beings, so that human beings might no longer hold opinions about Him who Is according to their own judgments, making doctrine of the suppositions that come to them from guesswork, but, persuaded that God was truly manifested in the flesh, might believe that this alone is the true mystery of godliness which was handed down to us through the Word and God himself, who spoke through himself to the apostles. The teaching about the transcendent nature that comes from the older Scripture, from the law and prophecy and the proverbial teaching, given as through a mirror and in a riddle, let us receive as a testimony to the truth revealed to us, taking the sense of the words reverently, so that it agrees with the faith set out by the Master of all. This faith we guard word for word, pure and untampered, as we received it, and we judge even a slight distortion of the words handed down to be the utmost blasphemy and impiety. We believe, then, as the Lord set out the faith to his disciples, he who said, “Go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into 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 from the corruptible to the incorruptible, being renewed from the old man according to the image of the one who in the beginning created the godlike likeness. Since this faith, then, was handed down by God to the apostles, we make neither subtraction nor alteration nor addition, knowing clearly that whoever dares to twist the divine utterance by sophistical malice is of his father the devil, who abandons the words of truth and speaks from his own, becoming the father of lies. For everything said contrary to the truth is entirely a lie and not true.

Since, then, this doctrine is set out by the Truth itself, whatever the inventors of wicked heresies devise besides it to set aside this divine utterance (such as calling the Father, instead of Father, creator and maker of the Son; and the Son, instead of Son, a work and a creature and a thing made; and the Holy Spirit, instead of Holy Spirit, a creature of a creature and a work of a work; and everything else that those who fight against God see fit to say of him), all such things we call a denial and a transgression of the Godhead revealed to us in this doctrine. For once for all we have learned from the Lord, through whom the transformation of our nature from the mortal to the immortal comes about, what we must look to with the mind; and this is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. We say, then, that it is fearful and ruinous to misconstrue these divine utterances and to devise in their place expressions invented to set them aside, as though correcting God the Word, who laid down that we should hold these utterances in the faith. For each of these titles, understood in its proper meaning, becomes for Christians a rule of truth and a law of godliness. For although there are many other names by which the divine is signified, in history and prophecy and law, Christ the Master, who is able to bring us to faith in Him who Is, passed over them all and set forth these utterances, declaring that it is enough for us to hold fast to the title of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit for the understanding of Him who truly Is, who is both one and not one. For in the definition of substance it is one; that is why the Master laid down that we should look to one name. But by the properties that make the hypostases known, it is divided into faith in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, parted without separation and united without confusion. For when we hear “Father,” we take up this sense: that this name is not understood by itself alone, but by its own implication also signifies the relation to the Son. For a Father could not be conceived as separated by himself, without a Son joined to him through the very utterance of “Father.” Having learned “Father,” then, by the same word we were taught faith in the Son as well. Since, then, the divine by nature is always the same in what it is and as it is, neither ever having been without being what it now is, nor ever going to be what it now is not,

and since the true Father has been named Father by the Word, and with the Father the Son is shown as well, we necessarily believe that he who admits no turning or alteration in his nature always and certainly was what he now is; or, if at some time he was not something, neither is he that now. Since, then, he is named Father by the true Word, he certainly always both was and is Father, and will be as he was. For it is not lawful, in the case of the divine and pure nature, to say that the good is not always present to it. For if what it now is it was not always, it has certainly changed, either to the worse from the better or to the better from the worse; and the impiety of each is equal, whichever of the two is said of the divine nature. But the divine admits no change or alteration. Therefore everything that is beautiful and good is always seen in the fountain of the beautiful. And the only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, is beautiful and beyond every beauty; and he who is in the bosom is not one who came to be in it.

It has been shown by these things, then, that the Son is contemplated from eternity in the Father, in whom he is, being life and light and truth and every good name and thought; and to say that the Father ever existed by himself apart from these is the utmost impiety and madness at once. For if the Son, as Scripture says, is the power of God and wisdom and truth and light and sanctification and peace and life and the like, then before the Son existed, as the heretics hold, these too certainly did not exist. And if they did not exist, they will think of the Father’s bosom as entirely empty of such goods. So that the Father may not be thought bereft of his own goods, and the doctrine may not fall into this absurdity, faith in the Son is necessarily contemplated together with the eternity of the Father, according to the Master’s word. For this reason, passing over all the names that are used to point to the transcendent nature, he sets forth for us in the faith the title of Father as more expressive of the truth, a title which, as has been said, by its relational sense shows the Son together with itself. And since the Son, who is in the Father, always is what he is (as was also said in the preceding discussion, the divine by nature does not admit increase toward the greater, for it sees no other good outside itself by sharing in which it might take on more, but is always the same, neither casting off what it has nor taking on what it has not; for it has nothing that could be cast off, and whatever is blessed and pure and true and good is entirely around it and in it), we necessarily see that the Spirit, good and holy, does not come to him by acquisition: the Spirit who is upright, governing, life-giving, who holds together and sanctifies the whole creation, who works all things in all as he wills. So we are to conceive no interval between Christ and the anointing, or between the king and the kingship, or between wisdom and the Spirit of wisdom, or between truth and the Spirit of truth, or between power and the Spirit of power. But as the Son, who is wisdom and truth and counsel and strength and knowledge and understanding, is contemplated in the Father from eternity, so from eternity the Holy Spirit too is contemplated with him, who is the Spirit of wisdom and truth and counsel and understanding, and all the other things that the Son is and is called.

For this reason we say that the mystery of godliness was handed down to the holy disciples as at once joined and distinct: that we must believe into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. For the distinctive property of the hypostases makes the distinction of the persons clear and unconfused, while the one name placed at the head of the statement of the faith clearly interprets to us the unity of substance of the persons in the faith, I mean of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. For through these titles we are taught no difference of nature, but only the properties that make the hypostases known; so that we know that the Father is not the Son, nor the Son the Father, nor is either the Father or the Holy Spirit the Son, but recognize each in the distinctive character of his hypostasis, in boundless perfection, both contemplated by himself and not divided from that to which he is joined. What, then, does the unnamable name signify, of which the Lord spoke, saying,

“baptizing them into the name,” he did not add the very word of meaning that is indicated by “name”? Our understanding of it is this. All the things that exist in creation are comprehended through the meaning of names. For when someone says “heaven,” he leads the hearer’s mind to the creature indicated by the name; and whoever mentions a human being or one of the animals by name at once imprints the form of the animal on the one who has heard; and all other things likewise are painted, through the names applied to them, on the heart of the one who has received through hearing the designation applied to the thing. But the uncreated nature alone, which is believed in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, is above every meaning a name can carry. For this reason the Word, in handing down the faith, said “name” but did not add what it is. For how could a name be found for a thing that is above every name? But he gave us authority, so that whatever name our mind, moving reverently, is able to find as indicative of the transcendent nature, it should apply this equally to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, whether “the good” or “the incorruptible,” whatever each thinks fit to be used to point to the pure nature. And this too, it seems to me, the Word lays down through this statement: that we should be convinced that the divine substance is ineffable and incomprehensible. For it is plain that the title “Father” does not present the substance, but signifies the relation to the Son. So, if it had been possible for human nature to be taught the substance of God, he who wills all to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth would not have kept silent about the knowledge of it. But now, by saying nothing about the substance, he showed that knowledge of it is impossible; and when we learn what we can grasp, we have no need of what cannot be grasped, since in the faith of the teaching handed down we have what suffices for our salvation. For to learn that he is Him who truly Is, together with whom, through the relational sense, the majesty of the Son is also shown, is the most perfect teaching of godliness; the Son, as has been said, shows together with himself the Spirit of life and truth, since he himself is both life and truth.

These things being thus distinguished, anathematizing every heretical notion about the divine doctrines, we believe, as we were taught by the Lord’s voice, into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, confessing together with this faith also the economy that the Master of creation carried out for human beings. Being in the form of God, he did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave; and having become flesh in the holy Virgin, he redeemed us from death, in which we were held, sold under sin, giving as the price of the redemption of our souls his precious blood, which he poured out through the cross; and through himself he made a way for us to the resurrection from the dead. For he will come at his own times in the glory of the Father to judge every soul in righteousness, when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice, and those who have done good will come out to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.

So that the heretical difference now being sown abroad by Eunomius may not fall unexamined on any of the simpler people and harm their pure faith, we shall of necessity set out the statement that they circulate and try to expose the wickedness of their doctrine. The wording of the doctrine runs thus: “We believe in the one and only true God, according to the teaching of the Lord himself, not honoring him with a false name (for he does not lie), but as truly being one God in nature and in glory, without beginning, eternally, without end, alone.”

Let him who professes to believe according to the Lord’s teaching not twist the statement of faith made by the Master of all toward his own opinion, but follow the utterances of the Truth. Since there the formula of faith contains the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, what agreement have the words now composed with the Master’s utterances, that such a doctrine should be referred to their teaching? Where, then, in the Gospels did the Lord say that one must believe in the one and only true God? They could not show it, unless they have some new Gospel; for the one that has been read in the churches in succession from of old until now does not contain this utterance saying that one must believe or baptize into the one and only true God, as these men say, but into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.