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.

It is one and the same thing to say: immortal life is mortal, truth is false, light is dark, and to say: that which exists does not exist. Therefore, whoever does not admit that the Son will never exist, will not agree that He never existed, will avoid, as we have said, both absurdities; for just as death does not cut short the endless life of the Only-begotten, so the preceding non-existence does not limit his life to infinity, so that the truly Being is everywhere pure from communion with the bearer.

For this reason, the Lord, wishing to remove the disciples from such a delusion, lest they, too, seeking out anything preceding the Hypostasis of the Only-begotten, stop in thought at non-existence, saying: "I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me" (John 14:I), not as He who bears in That Which Is, or Who Is in That which bears. And by the very order of words the pious understanding of the dogma is expressed.

Since the Father is not of the Son, but the Son of the Father, He says in the first place: "I am in the Father," showing that He is not of another, but of Him He has being; then he says the opposite: "and the Father is in Me," meaning that in idle curiosity he who goes beyond the Son at the same time loses the thought of the Father, for He who is in anything cannot be found outside of that in which He is. So that he is senseless who, without contradicting that the Father has existence in the Son, imagines to find something of the Father outside the Son.

And in vain do our adversaries exhaust themselves in the vain struggle with us, deceived by the expression "unborn." In order to bring to light still more all the absurdity of their words, let them be allowed to engage a little more in discussing this subject. If they say that the Only-begotten God was born after the Father afterwards, then it necessarily turns out that into the unborn itself, whatever it may be, whenever, according to their dreams, the concept of evil is introduced by them.

For who does not know that just as the bearer is opposed to the Eternal, so to every good object and name is opposed in thought, as for instance evil to good, falsehood to truth, darkness to light, and everything that is thus contrary to one another? Who does not know further that there is no middle ground between opposites, that it is impossible to admit the same existence of two opposites in one and the same object, one with the other, but that the presence of one of them annihilates the other, and with the removal of the other there occurs the appearance of the opposite?

When this is thus acknowledged, it is clear to everyone that, as Moses says, before the creation of light there was darkness (Gen. 1:2-3), so with regard to the Son, if according to the teaching of heresy, then the Father created Him, when He willed, it must be assumed that before His creation there was no light which is the Son; and when there was no light, it is impossible not to agree that there was the opposite of light. And from other (Scriptures)

we know that the Creator does not bring anything into existence in vain, but by means of creation in the existing is filled for what is lacking. From this it is quite clear that if God created the Son, He created it because the nature of beings was deficient. And just as there was darkness when there was not yet enough sensual light, and if there had been no light, darkness would have reigned perfectly, so when there was no Son, there was no true light Himself, and no all that is the Son, for that which exists, even according to the heretics, has no need of origin.