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.

Thus the uncreated Light is for itself what it is by nature, and the created light certainly comes for something. Thus, darkness necessarily exists first, for the dissipation of which light is created. And no word can convince that darkness does not precede the manifestation of the born light, as soon as it is recognized that light was created afterwards. But to think so is beyond all impiety.

Thus, from this it is clearly revealed that the Father of truth did not create a Truth that did not exist before, but, being the source of light and truth and all good things, the Only-begotten Light of truth shone forth from Himself, through which the glory of His Hypostasis is always reflected (Heb. 1:3). Thus from everywhere is exposed the blasphemy of those who say that the Son was born to God afterwards through creation.

    Book Ten   Contents of Book Ten 1. In the tenth book he discusses the inaccessibility and incomprehensibility of research into the existing, in which he speaks in a surprising way about the nature and structure of the ant, explains the Gospel saying: "I am the door" (John 10:9) and "the way" (John 14:6), and discusses the name and interpretation of the Divine names and the history of the sons of Benjamin. 2.

Then, in a surprising way, he pointed out the true Life, that is, Christ, to those who do not recognize it, and applied to them the lamentation of Jeremiah for Jeconiah, since they resemble Montanus and Sabellius. 3. Then he shows the eternity of the birth of the Son and the inseparable identity of (His) essence with the One who begat Him, while Eunomius compares the foolishness with children playing with sand. 4.

After this, he shows that the Son is in the proper sense the Son and has existence in the bosom of the Father, simple and uncomplicated, that He is not subject to the Father and not a slave who has freed us from slavery; but if this is not so, then He is not alone, but also the Father, as being in the Son and one with Him, will be a slave; says that the name "This" comes from the word "to be" (ων from ειναι)

; and after an excellent and wonderful discourse on all this, he closes the book.   1. But let us dwell on what is set before us (the words of Eunomius), for a little later he arms himself against those who recognize human nature as weak in the understanding of the incomprehensible, and puffing himself up, he argues thus, debasing our teaching with these words: "If a man's mind, darkened by reason of wickedness, so that he does not see even what is before him, it does not follow that other people are inaccessible to the knowledge of what exists."

But I would tell him that he who acknowledges the comprehension of what exists has brought his understanding to this, of course, following a certain path of consistency in the knowledge of existing (objects), and having refined the mind through the knowledge of what is intelligible and unimportant, he then applied his comprehensible power of imagination to that which is above all understanding. Therefore, he who boasts that he has attained knowledge of things that exist, let him explain the least of what appears before us, what is its nature, so that judging by what is known, it may be possible to have confidence in it also in regard to the hidden.