Against Eunomius 4 part 2/2

For continual expectation makes men more fervent in piety;

but the knowledge that there will be a long interval of time would make them more careless about piety, in the hope of being able to be saved even later, when they have repented.

Since how could He who knew all things up to that hour (He did, after all, speak of them) not have known that hour also? And the Apostle too would have spoken in vain when he said:

"In whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."

If the Holy Spirit, who searches the depths of God, can be ignorant of nothing that pertains to God, but the Son is ignorant;

then according to them the Holy Spirit is greater than the Son—a thing which they do not even wish [the Spirit] to be equal [to the Son].

On the text: "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass." If the Son truly said, "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass," then He was not only accusing Himself of cowardice and weakness, but also supposing that there was something even impossible to the Father.

For the words "if it be possible" belong to one who doubts, and is not persuaded that the Father is able to save Him.

And how could He who bestows life on the dead not much more have been able to preserve life for the living? Why, then, did He who raised Lazarus and many of the dead not furnish life to Himself, but asked life from the Father, saying in fear:

"Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass"? And if He died unwillingly, then He no longer humbled Himself, nor became obedient to the Father unto death, nor gave Himself up, as the Apostle says:

"Who gave Himself a ransom for our sins";

but if He died willingly, what need was there of [the words], "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass"? These words, then, must be understood as spoken on behalf of those who were about to sin against Him, that they might not sin, and not as applying to Himself;

on whose behalf, even while crucified, He said:

"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

Things spoken according to the dispensation, then, must not be taken as spoken absolutely.

On the text: "And I live because of the Father." If the Son lives because of the Father, then He lives because of another, and not because of Himself.

But He who lives because of another cannot be Life itself.

For neither is one who is holy by grace Holiness itself.

The Son, then, spoke falsely when He said [it]:

"So also the Son gives life to whom He will."

It must therefore be understood with reference to the incarnation, and not to the Godhead.

On the text: "Neither does the Son do anything of Himself." If self-determination

is better than being under another's authority, and man is self-determining, while the Son of God is under [another's] authority, then man is better than the Son;

and if one who is under [another's] authority cannot make others self-determining (for what one does not himself possess, he cannot give to others by choice), then the Saviour, who made us self-determining, could not be under anyone's authority.

If the Saviour could do nothing of Himself, but [only] at the Father's command, then He is neither good nor evil.

For He is the cause of nothing that comes to pass.

And how is it not absurd that men should be makers of both good and evil things by self-determination, while the Son, being God, is the maker of nothing by [His own] authority? On the text: "I am the vine." "If the Saviour," they say, "is the vine, and we are the branches, and the Father is the husbandman;

and the branches are of the same nature as the vine, but the vine is not of the same nature as the husbandman;

then the Son is of the same nature as us, and we are a part of Him, but the Son is not of the same nature as the Father, but is in all respects alien [to Him]."

To these we will reply that it was not of His Godhead, but of His flesh, that we called ourselves branches, according to the Apostle who said:

"For we are the body of Christ, and members in particular";

"Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?" and elsewhere:

"As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy;

and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly;

and, As we have borne the image of the earthy, let us also bear the image of the heavenly."

If Christ is the head of man, and the head of Christ is God, while man is not consubstantial with the God Christ (for he is not God), but Christ is consubstantial with God (for He is God);

then God is not [head] of Christ in the way that Christ is the head of man.

For the nature of creation and the creative Godhead do not coincide into one and the same.

Therefore the one is head of Christ as Father, while the other is [head] of us as maker.

If it is the will of the Father that we believe in His Son (for "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him should have eternal life"), then the Son is not [a product] of will;

since our believing in Him is found to be either together with Him, or before Him.

On the text: "None is good." If the Saviour is not good, then of necessity He is evil;

for He is simple, and admits of nothing of the things in between.

And how is it not absurd that the maker of good things should be evil? And if life is a good thing, and the words of the Son are life, as He Himself said:

"The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life";

how is it that, having been called "Good Teacher" by the Pharisee, He says, "None is good except one, [namely] God"? For it was not on hearing [Himself called] simply "good" that He said, "None is good," but [on hearing] "good teacher."

He therefore answered as to one putting Him to the test, as the Gospel says, or as to one ignorant that God is good, and not simply a good teacher.

On the text: "Father, glorify Me." If the Son, in asking to be glorified by the Father, asked in a divine and not a human manner;

then the evangelist lied when he said:

"We beheld His glory."

[And] "They would not have crucified the Lord of glory."

And, "The King of glory shall come in."

He does not, then, ask for an addition of glory, but for the manifestation of the dispensation to take place.

If He truly asked the Father for the glory which He had before the world came to be, then He asked for it having [first] cast it away.

For He would not have sought to receive what He [already] had.

But if this is so, then He had cast away not only the glory, but also the Godhead.

For the glory is inseparable from the Godhead.

He would then have been, according to Photinus, a mere man.

It is evident, then, that He spoke such things according to the dispensation of His humanity, not according to any deficiency of His Godhead.

On the text: "Firstborn of all creation." If, before creation, the Son is not offspring but a creature,

then He would have been called "first-created," and not "firstborn."

If, because He is called firstborn of creation, He is the first-created, then, being called also firstborn of the dead, He would [have to] have died before the dead.

But if He is called firstborn of the dead because He is the cause of the resurrection from the dead;

so too He is firstborn of creation because He is the cause of bringing creation out of nothing into being.

If, [as they say,] the fact that He is called firstborn of creation

shows that He was made first, then the Apostle, in saying, "All things were created through Him and unto Him," ought to have said, "And He came into being before all things."

But by saying, "And He is before all things," he showed that He always exists, while creation came into being.

For the word "is" harmonizes with "In the beginning was the Word."

"If the Son," they say, "is firstborn, then He is no longer only-begotten;

but there must also be another, of whom He is called firstborn."

And yet, O wise one, although He was born of the Virgin Mary alone, He is called her firstborn.

"For until she brought forth," it says, "her son, the firstborn."

So that it is not necessary that the firstborn be spoken of [as having] a brother.

It might also be said that He was called firstborn [as being] prior to all begetting;

and furthermore also with reference to those who are begotten of God through the adoption of the Holy Spirit, as Paul says:

"That whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren."

On the text: "The Lord created Me." If He who is in the flesh says, "I am the way";

"No one comes to the Father except through Me";

[then it is also He who says,] "The Lord created Me at the beginning of His ways."

Now [the Son] is also called, in the case of an offspring, a 'creature' and a 'thing made,' as in: 'I have gotten a man through God.'

'He begot sons and daughters.'

'Create in me a clean heart, O God'—he is not asking for another heart, but plainly that the one he has be cleansed.

And it is called a 'new creation,' not as though another creation came into being, but because those who are enlightened are being fashioned anew unto better works.

If the Father created the Son for [certain] works, He created Him not for His own sake but for the sake of the works.

But that which comes to be for the sake of another and not for its own sake is either a part of that for which it came to be, or inferior to it.

Therefore the Saviour will be either a part of the creation, or inferior to the creation.

Of necessity, then, one must understand [this] of His humanity.

And one might say that Solomon spoke these things concerning that wisdom of which the Apostle also makes mention, saying:

'For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not know God.'

Besides, the one who spoke [these words] was not even a prophet, but a writer of proverbs.

And proverbs are images of other things, not the very things spoken of.

If it were God the Son who said, 'The Lord created me,' He would rather have said, 'The Father created me.'

For He nowhere called Him His Lord, but always called Him Father.

We must therefore take the word 'He begot' as referring to God the Son, and the word 'He created' as referring to Him who took the form of a servant.

Yet in all these things we do not speak of two—God separately and man separately (for He was one)—but, by way of conception, we reckon the nature of each.

For neither did Peter conceive of two when he said:

'Christ therefore having suffered for us in the flesh.'

'If the Son is an offspring,' they say, 'and not a thing made, how does the Scripture say:

"Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made Him both Lord and Christ"?' We must say here also that this was spoken concerning Him who is of Mary, according to the flesh.

Just as the angel bringing good news to the shepherds says: 'For unto you is born this day a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord.'

For the word 'today' could not be supposed [to apply] to Him who is before the ages.

And what follows shows it more clearly, when it says:

'This Jesus, whom you crucified.'

If it was only when the Son was begotten that He became wisdom, then the saying 'Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God' would be false.

For His wisdom did not come to be, but always was.

And this too is spoken as concerning the Father by David:

'Be Thou to me a God, a protector.'

and, 'Thou hast become to me unto salvation.'

'Let God be true, but every man a liar.'

So also the Lord 'was made unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption.'

If, then, the Father, having become a protector and 'true,' is not a thing made,

neither is the Son, having become wisdom and sanctification, a thing made.

If the saying 'One God the Father' is true,

then plainly the saying 'One Lord Jesus Christ the Saviour' is also true.

Therefore, according to them, neither is the Saviour God, nor the Father Lord.

And the saying 'The Lord said to my Lord' would be in vain.

And false too would be the saying: 'Therefore God, thy God, has anointed thee.'

and, 'The Lord rained from the Lord.'

and, 'God made [man] according to the image of God.'

and, 'Who is God besides the Lord? And who is God except our God?' And John [says]: that 'God

was the Word, and the Word was with God.'

and Thomas, concerning the Son:

'My Lord and my God.'

These distinctions, then, must be understood as drawn against the creatures and those falsely called gods—not properly so called—and not against the Father and the Son.

On the saying, 'That they may know Thee, the only true God.' The 'true' is spoken in contrast to those [called gods] falsely;

but the 'incomparable' [is spoken] as surpassing all things in every respect.

When, therefore, Jeremiah said concerning the Son, 'This is our God; no other shall be reckoned beside Him,' did he say He is greater even than the Father? But that the Son also is true God, John himself says in his Epistle:

'That we may know the true God,'

'and we are in His true Son Jesus Christ.'

'This is the true God and eternal life.'

Therefore, neither because of the saying 'No other shall be reckoned beside Him' is He to be thought greater than the Father;

nor [is] the Father [to be thought] the only true God, but both [titles are spoken] in contrast to those said [to be gods] falsely, who are not [gods] in reality.

As He says also in Deuteronomy:

'The Lord alone led them, and there was no strange god with them.'

If God [is called] 'only invisible and wise,' is He not at the same time also, in all respects, the God greater than all?

And He who is God over all of necessity surpasses all.

When the Apostle, then, called the Saviour 'God over all,' did he say He is greater even than the Father? But [that is] absurd.

In like manner, then, this too must be understood.

The great God could not be less than another God.

When the Apostle, then, said concerning the Son, 'We await the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,' did he conceive Him as greater than the Father? For it is the appearing and coming of the Son that we await, not of the Father.

Therefore these things are said indiscriminately of the Father and of the Son, and not in a restrictive way.

To 'be equal with God' is nothing other than to be equal to God.

The Son, then, who 'did not regard it as a thing to be grasped to be equal with God'—how is He unlike and unequal to God? But the Jews were more reverent than Eunomius.

For when the Saviour called Himself only the Son of God—as being due to the Son, if He is truly Son—and [implied] that He is equal to the Father,

'they sought to stone Him,' it says, not only because He broke the Sabbath, but also because He called God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.

Therefore He is equal to the Father, both according to the Apostle and according to the voice of the Saviour, even though Eunomius is unwilling.

On the saying, 'It is not mine to give, but for whom it has been prepared.' If the Son is not Lord of judgment, both to benefit some and to punish others, how did He say:

'The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son'? And elsewhere:

'The Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.'

'All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth.'

'I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of the heavens.'

'Verily I say unto you, you who have followed me, in the regeneration shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.'

[The difficulty] is therefore resolved by these very written words, the Saviour having said:

'And then I will render to each according to his deed.'

'Those who have done good shall come forth unto the resurrection of life, but those who have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment.'

'For we must all be made manifest before the judgment seat of Christ, that each may receive the things done through the body, according to what he has done, whether good or evil.'

It belongs, therefore, to those who receive, to make themselves worthy of the seat at the right hand and the left hand of the Lord—not to Him who is able to give, even if the request be unjust.

On the saying, 'Who is God besides the Lord? And who is God except our God?' That these and similar sayings were spoken by the Scriptures not against the Son, but against those called gods who are not, has been sufficiently demonstrated, from which we have often shown, both in the Old Testament and in the New, that the Son is called both God and Lord.

David makes it clearer, saying:

'Who is like unto Thee?' And he added:

'The Lord alone led them, and there was no strange god with them';

'with them,' as the Apostle says:

'For they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them.'

'The gods who did not make the heaven and the earth, let them perish from under the heaven.'

For neither is the Son among these;

for He Himself is the Maker of all things.

Against the idols, then, and the objects of worship of the nations, both the foregoing [saying], and the saying, 'I am the first God, and I am after these things, and besides me there is no God';

and the saying, 'Before me no other god came into being, and after me there shall be none';

and the saying, 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God, the Lord is one';

and as many such [sayings as there are], must be understood not against the Son.