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.

So, if the Father created, then He created that which did not exist at all. Thus, in their opinion, before the Son came into being, there was obviously neither truth, nor intelligent light, nor the source of life, nor in general the nature of all beauty and goodness. But the absence of each of these presupposes the existence of that which is conceivable as an opposite. When there is no light, there must be darkness, and in the same way with regard to other concepts, instead of each understood as superiority, when it is not yet there, the opposite must necessarily be admitted instead of what is lacking.

Thus, it is absolutely necessary to say that when, according to the teaching of the heretics, the Father still had the will to create the Son, and when there was nothing that is the Son, then in Him there was everything opposite: instead of light, darkness, instead of truth, falsehood, instead of life, death, instead of good, evil; for He who creates creates that which is not, because that which is, as Eunomius says, has no need of origin.

Imagining opposite objects, we can only admit the non-existence of the best, except as a consequence of the existence of the worst. This, then, is what the wisdom of the heretics brings as a gift to the Father, depriving the Son of a part of eternity, and through this, before the appearance of the Son, it ascribes to God and the Father a whole series of evils. And let no one think that the absurdity of the doctrine of the opponents, proved by such arguments, can be refuted by pointing to another creation.

Perhaps someone will say that just as when there was no heaven, there was nothing contrary to it, so when there was no Son, who is truth, there is no need to admit the existence of the opposite. To this it must be said that there is nothing contrary to heaven, unless someone calls non-being the opposite of its being.

But good is fully opposed to evil, and good is the Lord, so that when there was no heaven, there was nothing, and when there was no good, there was the opposite of it. Thus, he who says that there was no good must involuntarily fully agree that there was evil. But the Father, says Eunomius, is the whole good, and the life, and the unapproachable light, and all that is lofty in thought and in name, so that there is no need, when there was not yet the Only-begotten Light, to understand in Him by opposite, the other, darkness.

But this is my word, that there has never been darkness, for there has never been a time when there was no light, but in light all things are light, as prophecy says (Psalm 35:10). If, in the words of the heretics, there is another unborn Light, which is from eternity, and another light that has come after this, then it is absolutely necessary to admit that in the eternal light there can never be the existence of that which is contrary to it, for in the eternal radiance of light there is no time for darkness to act in it.

And as for the light that came after, as they say, it is impossible for this light to shine except out of darkness, so that the eternal light and the light that subsequently came will be separated by the environment of darkness. For there would be no need for the creation of the light to come, if what is created were not useful for something, and the only benefit of light is the dispelling of the darkness that reigned by it.