For we, considering it unseemly and unmanly to attack what has been proposed, examine what is written in order further, to see if there is anything there that could make the struggle against it more difficult. Everything that he says further, revealing the idea that no environment between the Father and the Son should be allowed, we will omit as somewhat in agreement with our teaching, because it would be unreasonable and at the same time dishonest not to distinguish in what he says, the innocent from the criminal.

Since, in fighting with the Jews, he does not follow their doctrine, and says that there is no medium between the Son and the Father, and does not admit of any connection, and thinks that there was nothing before the Only-begotten, and guesses the existence of the Son, but defends the idea that the bearer was born first, then, stopping a little on this, since our speech has already been sufficiently prepared by what has been said, Let us turn to the subject of our discussion. 4.

It is not the same thing not to place anything higher than the Hypostasis of the Only-begotten and to say that He did not exist before His birth, but that He was born when the Father willed. For the words "then" and "when" actually and naturally have the meaning of indicating the time, both according to the common custom of those who speak sensibly, and according to their meaning in the Scriptures. "Then they will reproach the tongue" (Psalm 125:2). "When ye were ambassadors" (Luke 22:35). "Then shall the kingdom be likened" (Matt. 25:1).

And thousands of similar passages can be cited from Scripture to prove the idea that these particles of speech in Scripture usually mean time. If, then, there was no time, as our adversary agrees, then at the same time the meaning of time is completely destroyed; but when it does not exist, then the concept of eternity is necessarily assumed at the same time.

For when the word "not to be" is undoubtedly implied, the word "when" is also implied, because if he says of something, "does not exist" without the word "when," he must not admit the expression "now is." If, however, by admitting the expression "today," he rebels against eternity, then, of course, he does not mean perfect non-existence, but non-existence at any time. And since this expression has no validity whatsoever, if it is not connected with the designation of time, it is utterly foolish and absurd either to say, "Nothing was before the birth of the Son," or to assert that the Son was not always there.

For if there is no place, no time, no other created thing, in which there is no Word in the beginning, then it is utterly foreign to the teaching of godliness to say, "There was once no Lord." Thus, not to us, but to himself, Eunomius contradicts us, asserting that there was no Only-begotten, and He was, for by acknowledging that the union between the Son and the Father is not separated by anything, of course, he testifies that eternity also belongs to Him.

If, however, he says that the Son is not in the Father, then we will not object to these words ourselves, but let us oppose the Scriptures, which say that the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son, without adding to these words the expressions "when," "when," or "then," but by such an affirmative and decisive utterance testifying to His eternity. And to assert, as he did, that we call the Only-begotten God unbegotten, is the same as to say that we regard the Father as begotten, both equally absurd, or, better, blasphemous.

So that if he has succeeded in slandering, let him, without sparing us in the least, add this other accusation, which might have provoked his hearers against us still more. But if he does not bring this accusation against us because of the manifest slander, then let him leave the rest, because, as we have said, it is equally impious to call the Son unbegotten and the Father begotten.

If, therefore, in what we have written, we find any expression by which the Son is called unbegotten, we ourselves shall pronounce a decisive judgment upon ourselves. If, however, he arbitrarily invents false accusations and slander, and from slander attributes to our teaching what is not in it, then for the sober-minded, perhaps, this will serve as a proof of our piety; Because, since the truth is for us, he sets up a lie to accuse our doctrine, condemning wickedness, to which our word is foreign.

But these accusations can be answered briefly. For just as we consider him worthy of damnation who calls the Only-begotten God unbegotten, so let him condemn him who teaches that in the beginning the Eternal was not at one time. In this way it will be revealed who is true and who is slanderous accusations. If, however, we deny the accusation, and, calling the Father, at that name we think together of the Son, and, naming the Son, acknowledge as true that He is truly that which He is called, having shone forth through birth from the unborn Light, is not the slander of those who proclaim that we call the Only-begotten unbegotten?

But when we say that He has existence through birth, we do not admit that He never existed. For who does not know that the words "being" and "bearing," which are opposite in meaning, do not admit anything in between, so that the recognition of one of them is necessarily the negation of the opposite? And as being is the same at all times in which something is supposed to exist (

For the heavens, and the stars, and the sun, and other beings, are no more now than they were yesterday, before, and in all previous times), so what is signified by non-being is equally non-existent in all respects, whether we speak of the preceding or the subsequent (the time of non-existence). For it cannot be said of anything that it is no more than it was formerly non-existent, but the same concept of non-being is applied to everything that does not exist in all the continuance of time.

Therefore, in relation to animals, although we signify the resolution of what existed in non-existence and the non-appearance in existence by various names expressing non-existence, we say that something either did not exist from the beginning, or, having been born, died, we equally represent non-existence. As the day is embraced by the night on both sides, but the parts of the night that encompass it are not called in the same way, but of the one we speak "after evening," of the other "before dawn," but by both expressions we mean night; In the same way, if someone begins to think of the opposite non-being in accordance with being, he, although he calls the non-being differently before the dispensation of something and after the destruction of the formed, will understand the signified by both names to be one and the same, the same non-being both before the dispensation and after the destruction of the ordered.

For not to be, not to be born, not to die, except for the difference in names, is one and the same thing (we are not speaking here of the hope of the resurrection). And so, since the Scriptures teach us that the Only-begotten God is the author of life, and life itself, and light, and truth, and everything that is worthy in name and thought, we say that it is absurd and impious in Him who truly exists to contemplate anything conceivable as the opposite of what is, a dispensation into incorruptibility or non-existence before dispensation; but, directing our reason everywhere to the pre-eternity of being, we do not admit any thought of non-existence, considering it equally impious to limit the Divinity to non-existence at any time.