§20. He does wrong in assuming, to account for the existence of the Only-Begotten, an ‘energy’ that produced Christ’s Person.

That such is his intention in using these phrases will be clear from what follows, where he more plainly materializes and degrades our conception of the Son and of the Spirit. “As the energies are bounded by the works, and the works commensurate with the energies, it necessarily follows that these energies which accompany these Beings are relatively greater and less, some being of a higher, some of a lower order.” Though he has studiously wrapt the mist of his phraseology round the meaning of this, and made it hard for most to find out, yet as following that which we have already examined it will easily be made clear. “The energies,” he says, “are bounded by the works.” By ‘works’ he means the Son and the Spirit, by ‘energies’ the efficient powers by which they were produced, which powers, he said a little above, ‘follow’ the Beings. The phrase ‘bounded by’ expresses the balance which exists between the being produced and the producing power, or rather the ‘energy’ of that power, to use his own word implying that the thing produced is not the effect of the whole power of the operator, but only of a particular energy of it, only so much of the whole power being exerted as is calculated to be likely to be equal to effect that result. Then he inverts his statement: “and the works are commensurate with the energies of the operators.” The meaning of this will be made clearer by an illustration. Let us think of one of the tools of a shoemaker: i.e., a leather-cutter. When it is moved round upon that from which a certain shape has to be cut, the part so excised is limited by the size of the instrument, and a circle of such a radius will be cut as the instrument possesses of length, and, to put the matter the other way, the span of the instrument will measure and cut out a corresponding circle. That is the idea which our theologian has of the divine person of the Only-begotten. He declares that a certain ‘energy’ which ‘follows’ upon the first Being produced, in the fashion of such a tool, a corresponding work, namely our Lord: this is his way of glorifying the Son of God, Who is even now glorified in the glory of the Father, and shall be revealed in the Day of Judgment. He is a ‘work commensurate with the producing energy.’ But what is this energy which ‘follows’ the Almighty and is to be conceived of prior to the Only-begotten, and which circumscribes His being? A certain essential Power, self-subsisting, which works its will by a spontaneous impulse. It is this, then, that is the real Father of our Lord. And why do we go on talking of the Almighty as the Father, if it was not He, but an energy belonging to the things which follow Him externally that produced the Son: and how can the Son be a son any longer, when something else has given Him existence according to Eunomius, and He creeps like a bastard (may our Lord pardon the expression!) into relationship with the Father, and is to be honoured in name only as a Son? How can Eunomius rank our Lord next after the Almighty at all, when he counts Him third only, with that mediating ‘energy’ placed in the second place? The Holy Spirit also according to this sequence will be found not in the third, but in the fifth place, that ‘energy’ which follows the Only-Begotten, and by which the Holy Spirit came into existence necessarily intervening between them.

Thereby, too, the creation of all things by the Son59    There is of course reference here to John i. 3: and Eunomius is called just below the ‘new theologian,’ with an allusion of S. John, who was called by virtue of this passage essentially ὁ θεόλογος will be found to have no foundation: another personality, prior to Him, has been invented by our neologian, to which the authorship of the world must be referred, because the Son Himself derives His being according to them from that ‘energy.’ If, however, to avoid such profanities, he makes this ‘energy’ which produced the Son into something unsubstantial, he will have to explain to us how non-being can ‘follow’ being, and how what is not a substance can produce a substance: for, if he did that, we shall find an unreality following God, the non-existent author of all existence, the radically unsubstantial circumscribing a substantial nature, the operative force of creation contained, in the last resort, in the unreal. Such is the result of the teaching of this theologian who affirms of the Lord Artificer of heaven and earth and of all the Creation, the Word of God Who was in the beginning, through Whom are all things, that He owes His existence to such a baseless entity or conception as that unnameable ‘energy’ which he has just invented, and that He is circumscribed by it, as by an enclosing prison of unreality. He who ‘gazes into the unseen’ cannot see the conclusion to which his teaching tends. It is this: if this ‘energy’ of God has no real existence, and if the work that this unreality produces is also circumscribed by it, it is quite clear that we can only think of such a nature in the work, as that which is possessed by this fancied producer of the work: in fact, that which is produced from and is contained by an unreality can itself be conceived of as nothing else but a non-entity. Opposites, in the nature of things, cannot be contained by opposites: such as water by fire, life by death, light by darkness, being by non-being. But with all his excessive cleverness he does not see this: or else he consciously shuts his eyes to the truth.

Some necessity compels him to see a diminution in the Son, and to establish a further advance in this direction in the case of the Holy Ghost. “It necessarily follows,” he says, “that these energies which accompany these Beings are relatively greater and less.” This compelling necessity in the Divine nature, which assigns a greater and a less, has not been explained to us by Eunomius, nor as yet can we ourselves understand it. Hitherto there has prevailed with those who accept the Gospel in its plain simplicity the belief that there is no necessity above the Godhead to bend the Only-begotten, like a slave, to inferiority. But he quite overlooks this belief, though it was worth some consideration; and he dogmatizes that we must conceive of this inferiority. But this necessity of his does not stop there: it lands him still further in blasphemy: as our examination in detail has already shewn. If, that is, the Son was born, not from the Father, but from some unsubstantial ‘energy,’ He must be thought of as not merely inferior to the Father, and this doctrine must end in pure Judaism. This necessity, when followed out, exhibits the product of a non-entity as not merely insignificant, but as something which it is a perilous blasphemy even for an accuser to name. For as that which has its birth from an existence necessarily exists, so that which is evolved from the non-existent necessarily does the very contrary. When anything is not self-existent, how can it generate another?

If, then, this energy which ‘follows’ the Deity, and produces the Son, has no existence of its own, no one can be so blind as not to see the conclusion, and that his aim is to deny our Saviour’s deity: and if the personality of the Son is thus stolen by their doctrine from the Faith, with nothing left of it but the name, it will be a long time before the Holy Ghost, descended as He will be from a lineage of unrealities, will be believed in again. The energy which ‘follows’ the Deity has no existence of its own: then common sense requires the product of this to be unreal: then a second unsubstantial energy follows this product: then it is declared that the Holy Ghost is formed by this energy: so that their blasphemy is plain enough: it consists in nothing less than in denying that after the Ingenerate God there is any real existence: and their doctrine advances into shadowy and unsubstantial fictions, where there is no foundation of any actual subsistence. In such monstrous conclusions does their teaching strand the argument.

Καὶ ὅτι ταῦτα νοῶν τούτοις τοῖς λόγοις κέχρηται, διὰ τῶν ἐφεξῆς σαφέστερον δείκνυται, δι' ὧν φανερώτερον εἰς χαμαιζήλους τινὰς καὶ ταπεινὰς ὑπολήψεις κατάγει τὴν περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ πνεύματος ἔννοιαν. « συμπεριγραφομένων », φησί, « τοῖς ἔργοις τῶν ἐνεργειῶν καὶ τῶν ἔργων ταῖς τῶν ἐργασαμένων ἐνεργείαις παραμετρουμένων, ἀνάγκη δήπου πᾶσα καὶ τὰς ἑκάστῃ τῶν οὐσιῶν ἑπομένας ἐνεργείας ἐλάττους τε καὶ μείζους εἶναι, καὶ τὰς μὲν πρώτην, τὰς δὲ δευτέραν ἐπέχειν τάξιν ». ταῦτα γὰρ εἰ καὶ φιλοπόνως τῇ ὁμίχλῃ τῆς λέξεως συγκαλύψας δυσθήρατον αὐτῶν τὴν ἔννοιαν εἶναι τοῖς πολλοῖς παρεσκεύασεν, ἀλλ' οὖν ἐκ τῆς ἀκολουθίας τῶν ἐξητασμένων εὐκόλως σαφηνισθήσεται. « συμπεριγραφομένων », φησί, « τοῖς ἔργοις τῶν ἐνεργειῶν. ἔργα » ὀνομάζει τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα, « ἐνεργείας » δὲ τὰς ἀποτελεστικὰς τούτων δυνάμεις δι' ὧν ἀπειργάσθησαν, ἅσπερ μικρῷ πρόσθεν « ἕπεσθαί » φησι « ταῖς οὐσίαις ». ἡ δὲ τοῦ « συμπεριγράφεσθαι » λέξις δηλοῖ τὸ ἰσοστάσιον τῆς ἀποτελεσθείσης οὐσίας πρὸς τὴν ὑποστήσασαν δύναμιν, μᾶλλον δὲ οὐχὶ δύναμιν, ἀλλὰ δυνάμεως ἐνέργειαν, καθὼς αὐτὸς ὀνομάζει, ἵνα μὴ πάσης τῆς τοῦ ἐνεργοῦντος δυνάμεως ἔργον ᾖ τὸ ἀποτέλεσμα, ἀλλά τινος μερικῆς ἐνεργείας τοσοῦτον ἐκ τῆς πάσης δυνάμεως κινηθείσης, ὅσον σύμμετρον ἔμελλε τῇ ἀπεργασίᾳ τοῦ γινομένου φανήσεσθαι. καὶ πάλιν τὸ αὐτὸ ἐπαναστρέψας φησί: « καὶ τῶν ἔργων ταῖς τῶν ἐργασαμένων ἐνεργείαις παραμετρουμένων ».
Τούτων δὲ ὁ νοῦς γένοιτ' ἂν ἡμῖν δι' ὑποδείγματος γνωριμώτερος. ὑποθώμεθα γὰρ περὶ ὀργάνου τινὸς τῶν σκυτοτομικῶν εἶναι τὸν λόγον οὕτω: τὸ σμιλίον εἰς κύκλου σχῆμα περιηγμένον ἐὰν ἐπιβληθῇ τινι, ᾧ χρὴ τὸν τοιοῦτον ἐγγενέσθαι τύπον, συμπεριγράφεται τῷ σχήματι τοῦ σιδήρου τὸ δι' αὐτοῦ ἐντεμνόμενον, καὶ τοσοῦτος ὁ ἐν τῇ τομῇ κύκλος δειχθήσεται, ὅσος ὁ ἐν τῷ ὀργάνῳ ἐστί: καὶ πάλιν ὅσῳ διαστήματι περιῆκται τὸ ὄργανον, τοσοῦτον καὶ διὰ τῆς τομῆς περιγράψει τὸν κύκλον. τοιαύτη τοῦ θεολόγου ἡ ἔννοια περὶ τῆς θείας τοῦ μονογενοῦς ὑποστάσεως. ἐνέργειάν τινα καθάπερ ὄργανον τῇ πρώτῃ οὐσίᾳ παρεπομένην σύμμετρόν φησιν ἑαυτῇ ἔργον πεποιηκέναι τὸν κύριον. οὕτως οἶδε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ δοξάζειν. τὸν ἐν τῇ δόξῃ τοῦ πατρὸς νῦν δοξαζόμενον καὶ ἐν καιρῷ τῆς κρίσεως ἐκκαλυφθησόμενον, τοῦτόν φησιν « ἔργον ὄντα τῇ ἐργασαμένῃ αὐτὸν ἐνεργείᾳ παραμετρεῖσθαι ». τίς τοίνυν ἡ ἐνέργεια ἡ τῷ θεῷ μὲν τῶν ὅλων παρεπομένη, πρὸ δὲ τοῦ μονογενοῦς νοουμένη καὶ περιγράφουσα αὐτοῦ τὴν οὐσίαν; δύναμίς τις οὐσιώδης καθ' ἑαυτὴν ὑφεστῶσα καὶ τὸ δοκοῦν ἐργαζομένη δι' αὐτεξουσίου κινήματος. οὐκοῦν αὕτη πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου. καὶ τί ἔτι ἐπιθρυλεῖται τῷ ἐπὶ πάντων θεῷ ἡ τοῦ πατρὸς κλῆσις, εἰ μὴ ἐκεῖνος, ἀλλά τις ἐνέργεια τῶν ἔξωθεν αὐτῷ παρεπομένων τὸν υἱὸν ἀπειργάσατο; πῶς δὲ υἱὸς ὁ υἱός, ὃν δι' ἑτέρου μέν τινος ὑποστῆναι λέγει, καθάπερ δέ τινα τῶν ὑποβολιμαίων (ἵλεως δὲ εἴη τῷ λόγῳ ὁ κύριος) οὕτω τὴν οἰκειότητα τοῦ πατρὸς ὑποδύεσθαι, μόνῃ τῇ προσηγορίᾳ τοῦ υἱοῦ τετιμημένον; πῶς δὲ μετὰ τὸν θεὸν τῶν ὅλων καὶ τὸν κύριον τάξει ὁ τρίτον ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τὸν υἱὸν ἀριθμῶν, τῆς μεσιτευούσης ἐνεργείας ἐκείνης ἐν δευτέρᾳ τάξει μετὰ τὸν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸν ἀριθμουμένης; κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἀκολουθίαν ταύτην καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον πάντως οὐκέτι ἐν τρίτῃ, ἀλλ' ἐν τῇ πέμπτῃ τάξει καταληφθήσεται, τῆς ἐνεργείας τῆς τῷ μονογενεῖ παρεπομένης, καθ' ἣν ὑπέστη τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ὡς ὁ Εὐνομίου λόγος, διὰ μέσου πάντως ἀριθμουμένης.
Ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ πάντα διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ γεγενῆσθαι λέγειν ἀσύστατον διὰ τούτων ἐπιδειχθήσεται, ἑτέρας τινὸς ὑποστάσεως πρεσβυτέρας τοῦ μονογενοῦς προαναπλασθείσης ὑπὸ τοῦ καινοῦ θεολόγου, εἰς ἣν εἰκότως ἡ αἰτία τῆς κτίσεως τῶν πάντων ἀνενεχθήσεται, διότι καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ μονογενοῦς ἡ κατασκευὴ κατὰ τὸν ἐκείνου λόγον τῆς ἐνεργείας ἐκείνης ἤρτηται. εἰ δὲ ταῦτα τὰ ἄτοπα φεύγων ἀνυπόστατόν τι πρᾶγμα λέγοι τὴν ἐνέργειαν, ἧς ἀποτέλεσμα τὸν υἱὸν διορίζεται, πάλιν εἰπάτω πῶς ἕπεται τῷ ὄντι τὸ μὴ ὄν, πῶς δὲ κατεργάζεται τὸν ὑφεστῶτα τὸ μὴ ὑφεστός. εὑρεθήσεται γὰρ διὰ τούτων ἀκολουθοῦντα μὲν τῷ θεῷ τὰ ἀνύπαρκτα, αἴτια δὲ τῶν ὄντων τὰ μὴ ὄντα γινόμενα, καὶ περιγράφοντα τὴν τῶν ὑφεστώτων φύσιν ἃ τῇ ἑαυτῶν οὐχ ὑφέστηκε φύσει, καὶ ἡ πάσης τῆς κτίσεως ἀποτελεστικὴ καὶ δημιουργὸς δύναμις τῷ ἀνυπάρκτῳ κατὰ τὸν ἴδιον λόγον περιληφθήσεται. τοιαῦτα τοῦ θεολόγου τὰ δόγματα, ὃς τὸν κύριον τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς καὶ πάσης τῆς κτίσεως δημιουργόν, τὸν ἐν ἀρχῇ ὄντα λόγον θεοῦ, τὸν δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα τοῦτον ἀνυπάρκτῳ τινὶ καὶ ἀνυποστάτῳ πράγματι ἢ νοήματι ἢ οὐκ οἶδ' ὅπως ὀνομάσαι προσήκει τὴν παρ' αὐτοῦ νῦν ἀναπλασθεῖσαν ἐνέργειαν ὑποστῆναι λέγει καὶ ἐν αὐτῇ περιγεγράφθαι, οἷόν τινι ἑρκίῳ τῇ ἀνυπαρξίᾳ πανταχόθεν διειλημμένον. καὶ οὐ συνίησιν ὁ τὰ ἀθέατα βλέπων, εἰς οἷον καταστρέφει πέρας ἡ ἀκολουθία τοῦ λόγου. εἰ γὰρ ἀνυπόστατος μὲν ἡ ἐνέργεια τοῦ θεοῦ, ταύτῃ δὲ ἐμπεριγράφεται τὸ ἐκ τῆς ἀνυπαρξίας ἀποτελεσθὲν ἔργον, πάντως ὅτι τοιοῦτόν τι νοηθήσεται τῇ φύσει τὸ ἀποτέλεσμα, οἵα καὶ ἡ τοῦ ὑποστησαμένου τὸ ἔργον φύσις ἀνεπλάσθη τῷ λόγῳ: τὸ γὰρ καὶ ἀποτελεσθὲν ἐκ τῆς ἀνυπαρξίας καὶ ἐμπεριειλημμένον ταύτῃ παντὶ δήπου πρόδηλον, τί νοεῖται, ὅτι οὐδέν. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἔχει φύσιν ὑπὸ τῶν ἐναντίων τὰ ἐναντία περιέχεσθαι: οὔτε γὰρ ὑπὸ πυρὸς ὕδωρ οὔτε ὑπὸ σκότους φῶς οὔτε ὑπὸ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος τὸ ὄν. ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν ὑπὸ τῆς περιττευούσης αὐτῷ σοφίας ἢ οὐ συνίησιν ἢ ἑκὼν ἀμβλυώττει πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν.
Ἐξ ἀνάγκης δέ τινος τὸ ἔλαττον ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ μονογενοῦς ὑποστάσεως νοεῖ καὶ πάλιν ἐπίτασίν τινα τῆς ἐλαττώσεως παρὰ τὸν υἱὸν ἐνθεωρεῖν τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι κατασκευάζει, οὕτω λέγων τοῖς ῥήμασιν: « ἀνάγκη πᾶσα τὰς ἑκάστῃ τῶν οὐσιῶν ἑπομένας ἐνεργείας ἐλάττους τε καὶ μείζους εἶναι ». τὴν μὲν οὖν ἀνάγκην τὴν ταῦτα ἐν τῇ θείᾳ φύσει βιαζομένην καὶ τὸ μεῖζον καὶ τὸ ἔλαττον διακληροῦσαν οὔτε παρ' αὐτοῦ μεμαθήκαμεν οὔτε ἀφ' ἡμῶν αὐτῶν συνεῖναι μέχρι τοῦ νῦν δεδυνήμεθα. τέως γὰρ παρὰ πᾶσι κρατεῖ τὸ δόγμα τοῖς τὸν ἰδιωτισμὸν καταδεχομένοις τοῦ ἁπλουστέρου κηρύγματος, ὅτι οὐδεμία τις Ἀνάγκη τῆς θείας ὑπέρκειται φύσεως, ἣ πρὸς τὸ ἔλαττον κάμπτει καὶ βιάζεται καθάπερ τινὰ τῶν ἀργυρωνήτων τὸν μονογενῆ. ἀλλὰ τοῦτο παρεὶς καίτοι οὐ μικρᾶς ζητήσεως ἄξιον ὂν μόνον τὸ δεῖν ἔλαττον νοεῖν δογματίζει. καὶ μὴν οὐκ εἰς τοῦτο μόνον ἡ ἀνάγκη τὸν λόγον καθίστησιν, ἀλλά τι καὶ πλέον εἰς βλασφημίαν κατασκευάζει, καθὼς ἤδη μερικῶς προεξήτασται. εἰ γὰρ μὴ ἐκ πατρὸς ὁ υἱός, ἀλλ' ἔκ τινος ἀνυποστάτου ἐνεργείας ἀνεφύη, οὐκ ἐλάττων μόνον τοῦ πατρὸς νοηθήσεται, ἀλλὰ τὸ παράπαν ἰουδαΐζειν ἀνάγκη τῷ δόγματι. τὸ γὰρ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος ἀποτέλεσμα οὐχὶ μικρὸν ἡ τῆς ἀνάγκης ταύτης ἀκολουθία δείκνυσιν, ἀλλ' ὅπερ οὐδὲ κατηγοροῦντι λέγειν ἀκίνδυνον. ὥσπερ γὰρ ἀναγκαίως ὁμολογεῖται εἶναι τὸ ἐκ τοῦ ὄντος ἔχον τὴν γέννησιν, οὕτως τὸ ἔμπαλιν ἐξ ἀνάγκης ὁμολογηθήσεται « μὴ εἶναι » τὸ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος ἀναφυόμενον. ὅταν γὰρ αὐτό τι μὴ ᾖ, πῶς ἕτερον ἐξ αὑτοῦ ὑποστήσει;
Εἰ οὖν οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἰδίᾳ οὐσίᾳ ἡ τῷ θεῷ μὲν παρεπομένη ἐνέργεια, τὸν δὲ υἱὸν ἐργαζομένη, τίς οὕτω τυφλός, ὡς μὴ συνιδεῖν τὴν τῆς βλασφημίας κατασκευήν, ὅτι πρὸς τὴν αὐτοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ἄρνησιν ὁ σκοπὸς αὐτῶν βλέπει; καὶ εἰ τοῦ υἱοῦ τὴν ὑπόστασιν ἡ τοῦ δόγματος αὐτῶν ἀκολουθία ὑποκλέπτει τῆς πίστεως, οὐδὲν αὐτῷ πλὴν ψιλοῦ ὀνόματος καταλείπουσα, σχολῇ γ' ἂν εἶναι κατ' ἰδίαν ὑπόστασιν πιστευθείη τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον τὸ διὰ τῆς τῶν ἀνυπάρκτων ἀκολουθίας γενεαλογούμενον. ὅταν γὰρ μὴ ὑπάρχῃ μὲν κατ' οὐσίαν ἡ παρεπομένη τῷ θεῷ ἐνέργεια, ἀνύπαρκτον δὲ τὸ ταύτης ἀποτέλεσμα καταλαμβάνῃ ἐξ ἀνάγκης ὁ λόγος, τούτῳ δὲ πάλιν ἄλλη τις ἐνεργείας ἀνυπαρξία παρέπηται, εἶτα διὰ τούτου γεγενῆσθαι τὸ πνεῦμα κατασκευάζηται, πῶς οὐκ εὔδηλος πᾶσιν ἡ βλασφημία, ὅτι μετὰ τὸν ἀγεννήτως ὄντα θεὸν οὐδὲν ἀληθῶς ὑφεστάναι κατασκευάζουσι, διὰ σκιωδῶν τινων καὶ ἀνυπάρκτων ἀναπλασμῶν προϊόντος αὐτῶν τοῦ δόγματος καὶ οὐδενὶ τῶν κατ' ἀλήθειαν ὑφεστώτων ἐπερειδομένου.
Ἀλλ' ἡ μὲν κατασκευὴ τῶν τὰ τοιαῦτα δογματιζόντων εἰς τοιαύτην ἀτοπίαν ἐκβάλλει τὸν λόγον.