Book VIII.

§1. The eighth book very notably overthrows the blasphemy of the heretics who say that the Only-begotten came from nothing, and that there was a time when He was not, and shows the Son to be no new being, but from everlasting, from His having said to Moses, “I am He that is,” and to Manoah, “Why askest thou My name? It also is wonderful”;—moreover David also says to God, “Thou art the same, and Thy years shall not fail;” and furthermore Isaiah says, “I am God, the first, and hereafter am I:” and the Evangelist, “He was in the beginning, and was with God, and was God:”—and that He has neither beginning nor end: —and he proves that those who say that He is new and comes from nothing are idolaters. And herein he very finely interprets “the brightness of the glory, and the express image of the Person.”

These, then, are the strong points of Eunomius’ case; and I think that when those which promised to be powerful are proved by argument to be so rotten and unsubstantial, I may well keep silence concerning the rest, since the others are practically refuted, concurrently with the refutation of the stronger ones; just as it happens in warlike operations that when a force more powerful than the rest has been beaten, the remainder of the army are no longer of any account in the eyes of those by whom the strong portion of it has been overcome. But the fact that the chief part of his blasphemy lies in the later part of his discourse forbids me to be silent. For the transition of the Only-begotten from nothing into being, that horrid and godless doctrine of Eunomius, which is more to be shunned than all impiety, is next maintained in the order of his argument. And since every one who has been bewitched by this deceit has the phrase, “If He was, He has not been begotten, and if He has been begotten, He was not,” ready upon his tongue for the maintenance of the doctrine that He Who made of nothing us and all the creation is Himself from nothing, and since the deceit obtains much support thereby, as men of feebler mind are pressed by this superficial bit of plausibility, and led to acquiesce in the blasphemy, we must needs not pass by this doctrinal “root of bitterness,” lest, as the Apostle says, it “spring up and trouble us796    Cf. Heb. xii. 15.” Now I say that we must first of all consider the actual argument itself, apart from our contest with our opponents, and thus afterwards proceed to the examination and refutation of what they have set forth.

One mark of the true Godhead is indicated by the words of Holy Scripture, which Moses learnt by the voice from heaven, when He heard Him Who said, “I am He that is797    Exod. iii. 4..” We think it right, then, to believe that to be alone truly Divine which is represented as eternal and infinite in respect of being; and all that is contemplated therein is always the same, neither growing nor being consumed; so that if one should say of God, that formerly He was, but now is not, or that He now is, but formerly was not, we should consider each of the sayings alike to be godless: for by both alike the idea of eternity is mutilated, being cut short on one side or the other by non-existence, whether one contemplates “nothing” as preceding “being798    Reading προθεωροίη for προσθεωροίη,” or declares that “being” ends in “nothing”; and the frequent repetition of “first of all” or “last of all” concerning God’s non-existence does not make amends for the impious conception touching the Divinity. For this reason we declare the maintenance of their doctrine as to the non-existence at some time of Him Who truly is, to be a denial and rejection of His true Godhead; and this on the ground that, on the one hand, He Who showed Himself to Moses by the light speaks of Himself as being, when He says, “I am He that is799    Exod. iii. 4.,” while on the other, Isaiah (being made, so to say, the instrument of Him Who spoke in him) says in the person of Him that is, “I am the first, and hereafter am I800    See note 4 on Book V. §1, where these words are also treated of.,” so that hereby, whichever way we consider it, we conceive eternity in God. And so, too, the word that was spoken to Manoah shows the fact that the Divinity is not comprehensible by the significance of His name, because, when Manoah asks to know His name, that, when the promise has come actually to pass, he may by name glorify his benefactor, He says to him, “Why askest thou this? It also is wonderful801    Cf. Judges xiii. 18 (LXX.).”; so that by this we learn that there is one name significant of the Divine Nature—the wonder, namely, that arises unspeakably in our hearts concerning It. So, too, great David, in his discourses with himself, proclaims the same truth, in the sense that all the creation was brought into being by God, while He alone exists always in the same manner, and abides for ever, where he says, “But Thou art the same, and Thy years shall not fail802    Ps. cii. 27..” When we hear these sayings, and others like them, from men inspired by God, let us leave all that is not from eternity to the worship of idolaters, as a new thing alien from the true Godhead. For that which now is, and formerly was not, is clearly new and not eternal, and to have regard to any new object of worship is called by Moses the service of demons, when he says, “They sacrificed to devils and not to God, to gods whom their fathers knew not; new gods were they that came newly up803    Cf. Deut. xxxii. 17 (LXX.). The quotation is not exact..” If then everything that is new in worship is a service of demons, and is alien from the true Godhead, and if what is now, but was not always, is new and not eternal, we who have regard to that which is, necessarily reckon those who contemplate non-existence as attaching to Him Who is, and who say that “He once was not,” among the worshippers of idols. For we may also see that the great John, when declaring in his own preaching the Only-begotten God, guards his own statement in every way, so that the conception of non-existence shall find no access to Him Who is. For he says804    Cf. S. John i that He “was in the beginning,” and “was with God,” and “was God,” and was light, and life, and truth, and all good things at all times, and never at any time failed to be anything that is excellent, Who is the fulness of all good, and is in the bosom of the Father. If then Moses lays down as a law for us some such mark of true Godhead as this, that we know nothing else of God but this one thing, that He is (for to this point the words, “I am He that is805    Exod. iii. 4.”); while Isaiah in his preaching declares aloud the absolute infinity of Him Who is, defining the existence of God as having no regard to beginning or to end (for He Who says “I am the first, and hereafter am I,” places no limit to His eternity in either direction, so that neither, if we look to the beginning, do we find any point marked since which He is, and beyond which He was not, nor, if we turn our thought to the future, can we cut short by any boundary the eternal progress of Him Who is),—and if the prophet David forbids us to worship any new and strange God806    Cf. Ps. lxxxi. 10. (both of which are involved in the heretical doctrine; “newness” is clearly indicated in that which is not eternal, and “strangeness” is alienation from the Nature of the very God),—if, I say, these things are so, we declare all the sophistical fabrication about the non-existence at some time of Him Who truly is, to be nothing else than a departure from Christianity, and a turning to idolatry. For when the Evangelist, in his discourse concerning the Nature of God, separates at all points non-existence from Him Who is, and, by his constant repetition of the word “was,” carefully destroys the suspicion of non-existence, and calls Him the Only-begotten God, the Word of God, the Son of God, equal with God, and all such names, we have this judgment fixed and settled in us, that if the Only-begotten Son is God, we must believe that He Who is believed to be God is eternal. And indeed He is verily God, and assuredly is eternal, and is never at any time found to be non-existent. For God, as we have often said, if He now is, also assuredly always was, and if He once was not, neither does He now exist at all. But since even the enemies of the truth confess that the Son is and continually abides the Only-begotten God, we say this, that, being in the Father, He is not in Him in one respect only, but He is in Him altogether, in respect of all that the Father is conceived to be. As, then, being in the incorruptibility of the Father, He is incorruptible, good in His goodness, powerful in His might, and, as being in each of these attributes of special excellence which are conceived of the Father, He is that particular thing, so, also, being in His eternity, He is assuredly eternal. Now the eternity of the Father is marked by His never having taken His being from nonexistence, and never terminating His being in non-existence. He, therefore, Who hath all things that are the Father’s807    S. John xvi. 15, and is contemplated in all the glory of the Father, even as, being in the endlessness of the Father, He has no end, so, being in the unoriginateness of the Father, has, as the Apostle says, “no beginning of days808    Heb. vii. 3.,” but at once is “of the Father,” and is regarded in the eternity of the Father: and in this respect, more especially, is seen the complete absence of divergence in the Likeness, as compared with Him Whose Likeness He is. And herein is His saying found true which tells us, “He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father809    S. John xiv. 8.” Moreover, it is in this way that those words of the Apostle, that the Son is “the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His Person810    Heb. i. 3.,” are best understood to have an excellent and close application. For the Apostle conveys to those hearers who are unable, by the contemplation of purely intellectual objects, to elevate their thought to the height of the knowledge of God, a sort of notion of the truth, by means of things apparent to sense. For as the body of the sun is expressly imaged by the whole disc that surrounds it, and he who looks on the sun argues, by means of what he sees, the existence of the whole solid substratum, so, he says, the majesty of the Father is expressly imaged in the greatness of the power of the Son, that the one may be believed to be as great as the other is known to be: and again, as the radiance of light sheds its brilliancy from the whole of the sun’s disc (for in the disc one part is not radiant, and the rest dim), so all that glory which the Father is, sheds its brilliancy from its whole extent by means of the brightness that comes from it, that is, by the true Light; and as the ray is of the sun (for there would be no ray if the sun were not), yet the sun is never conceived as existing by itself without the ray of brightness that is shed from it, so the Apostle delivering to us the continuity and eternity of that existence which the Only-begotten has of the Father, calls the Son “the brightness of His glory.”

Τὰ μὲν οὖν « ἰσχυρὰ » τῶν Εὐνομίου τοιαῦτα. ἐγὼ δὲ τῶν ἐν ἐπαγγελίᾳ δυνάμεως οὕτω σαθρῶν τε καὶ ἀνυποστάτων ἐπιδειχθέντων τῷ λόγῳ, σιωπᾶν οἶμαι δεῖν ἐπὶ τῶν ὑπολοίπων, τοῖς κατὰ τῶν ἰσχυρῶν ἐλέγχοις καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῇ δυνάμει συναπελεγχθέντων: καθάπερ ἐπὶ τῶν πολέμων συμβαίνει, τοῦ δυνατωτέρου τῶν ἄλλων καταπεσόντος μηκέτι τὸ λειπόμενον τῆς στρατιᾶς ἐν λόγῳ τινὶ τοῖς κεκρατηκόσι τοῦ ἰσχύοντος γίνεσθαι. ἀλλ' οὐκ ἐᾷ σιωπᾶν τὸ κεφάλαιον τῆς βλασφημίας ἐν τοῖς ἐφεξῆς τοῦ λόγου προκείμενον: τὴν γὰρ ἐκ μὴ ὄντων εἰς τὸ εἶναι τοῦ μονογενοῦς πάροδον, τοῦτο δὴ τὸ φρικτόν τε καὶ ἄθεον καὶ πάσης ἀσεβείας φευκτότερον δόγμα τοῦ Εὐνομίου, νῦν τῇ ἀκολουθίᾳ τοῦ λόγου κατασκευάζει. καὶ ἐπειδὴ πᾶσι τοῖς διὰ τῆς ἀπάτης ταύτης γεγοητευμένοις ἕτοιμον ἐπὶ γλώσσης ἐστὶν εἰς κατασκευὴν τοῦ ἐκ μὴ ὄντος εἶναι τὸν ἡμᾶς καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν κτίσιν ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ποιήσαντα τὸ λέγειν εἰ ἦν, οὐ γεγέννηται, καὶ εἰ γεγέννηται, οὐκ ἦν, καὶ πολλὴν ἔχει διὰ τούτων ἡ ἀπάτη τὴν συμμαχίαν, τῶν μικροψυχοτέρων ἐν τῇ ἐπιπολαίῳ ταύτῃ πιθανότητι στενοχωρουμένων καὶ πρὸς συγκατάθεσιν τῆς βλασφημίας ὑπαγομένων, ἀνάγκη μὴ παρελθεῖν τὴν ῥίζαν τῆς πικρίας τοῦ δόγματος, ἵνα μή, καθώς φησιν ὁ ἀπόστολος, ἄνω φύουσα διοχλῇ. πρῶτον δέ φημι δεῖν αὐτὸν ἐφ' ἑαυτοῦ τὸν λόγον κατανοῆσαι δίχα τῆς πρὸς τοὺς ἐναντίους μάχης, εἶθ' οὕτως ἐπὶ τὴν ἐξέτασίν τε καὶ τὸν ἔλεγχον τῶν ἐκτεθέντων ἐλθεῖν.
Ἓν γνώρισμα τῆς ἀληθινῆς θεότητος ὁ τῆς ἁγίας γραφῆς ὑποδείκνυσι λόγος, ὃ διὰ τῆς ἄνωθεν φωνῆς ἐδιδάχθη ὁ Μωϋσῆς ἀκούσας τοῦ εἰπόντος ὅτι Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν. οὐκοῦν τοῦτο μόνον θεῖον εἶναι ὡς ἀληθῶς πιστεύειν οἰόμεθα δεῖν, ὃ κατὰ τὸ ἀΐδιόν τε καὶ ἀόριστον ἐν τῷ εἶναι καταλαμβάνεται, καὶ πᾶν τὸ περὶ αὐτὸ θεωρούμενον ἀεὶ ὡσαύτως ἔχει, οὔτε προσγινόμενον οὔτε ἀπογινόμενον. ὥστε εἴ τις λέγοι περὶ θεοῦ ὅτι πρότερον μὲν ἦν νῦν δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν ἢ ὅτι νῦν μὲν ἔστι πρότερον δὲ οὐκ ἦν, ἐπίσης ἄθεον κρίνομεν τῶν εἰρημένων ἑκάτερον: κολοβοῦται γὰρ ὁμοίως δι' ἀμφοτέρων ὁ τῆς ἀϊδιότητος λόγος καθ' ἑκάτερον μέρος ὁμοίως τῷ ἀνυπάρκτῳ περισκεπόμενος, εἴτε προθεωροίη τις τὸ μὴ ὂν τοῦ ὄντος εἴτε καταλήγειν τὸ ὂν εἰς τὸ μὴ ὂν ἀποφαίνοιτο, καὶ οὐδὲν παραμυθεῖται τὴν ἀσεβῆ περὶ τὸ θεῖον ὑπόληψιν ἐν πρώτοις ἢ τελευταίοις ἐπιθρυλούμενον τῷ θεῷ τὸ ἀνύπαρκτον. διὰ τοῦτο τὴν περὶ τοῦ μὴ εἶναί ποτε τὸν ὄντως ὄντα κατασκευὴν ἄρνησίν τε καὶ ἀθέτησιν τῆς ἀληθινῆς θεότητος εἶναι διοριζόμεθα. ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ὁ μὲν διὰ τοῦ φωτὸς ἑαυτὸν τῷ Μωϋσῇ δείξας ὄντα ἑαυτὸν ὀνομάζει λέγων Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν, Ἠσαΐας δὲ καθάπερ ὄργανον τοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ φθεγγομένου γενόμενος ἐκ προσώπου λέγει τοῦ ὄντος ὅτι Ἐγὼ πρῶτος καὶ ἐγὼ μετὰ ταῦτα, ὡς διὰ τούτου νοεῖσθαι καθ' ἑκατέραν ἔννοιαν ἐπὶ θεοῦ τὸ ἀΐδιον, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἡ πρὸς τὸν Μανωὲ γενομένη φωνὴ τὸ ἀπερίληπτον εἶναι διὰ τῆς τοῦ ὀνόματος σημασίας τὸ θεῖον ἐνδείκνυται, ὅτε μαθεῖν ἀξιοῦντος τοῦ Μανωὲ τὸ ὄνομα, ὡς προελθούσης εἰς ἔργον τῆς ἐπαγγελίας ἐπ' ὀνόματος δοξάσῃ τὸν εὐεργέτην, λέγει πρὸς αὐτὸν Τί τοῦτο ἐρωτᾷς; καὶ αὐτό ἐστιν θαυμαστόν, ὡς διὰ τούτου μαθεῖν ὅτι ἕν ἐστι σημαντικὸν τῆς θείας φύσεως ὄνομα, τὸ ἀρρήτως περὶ αὐτῆς ἡμῖν θαῦμα κατὰ ψυχὴν ἐγγινόμενον, ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ ὁ μέγας Δαβὶδ ἐν τοῖς καθ' ἑαυτὸν λόγοις τὸ ἴσον βοᾷ, ὡς πάσης μὲν τῆς κτίσεως ὑπ' αὐτοῦ παραχθείσης εἰς γένεσιν, μόνου δὲ τοῦ θεοῦ ὡσαύτως ἀεί τε ὄντος καὶ εἰσαεὶ διαμένοντος, ἐν οἷς φησι Σὺ δὲ ὁ αὐτὸς εἶ καὶ τὰ ἔτη σου οὐκ ἐκλείψουσι: ταῦτα καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα παρὰ τῶν θεοφορουμένων ἀκούοντες πᾶν, ὃ μὴ ἐξ ἀϊδίου ἐστίν, ὡς πρόσφατόν τε καὶ ἀλλότριον τῆς ἀληθινῆς θεότητος τοῖς εἰδωλολάτραις προσκυνεῖν καταλείπομεν. τὸ γὰρ νῦν ὄν, πρότερον δὲ μὴ ὂν πρόσφατόν ἐστι πάντως καὶ οὐκ ἀΐδιον, τὸ δὲ πρός τι τῶν προσφάτων ὁρᾶν δαιμόνων λατρείαν ὁ Μωϋσῆς ὀνομάζει λέγων Ἔθυσαν δαιμονίοις καὶ οὐ θεῷ, θεοῖς οἷς οὐκ ᾔδεισαν οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν, καινοὶ καὶ πρόσφατοι ἥκασιν. εἰ οὖν πᾶν τὸ πρόσφατον ἐν σεβάσματι δαιμόνων ἐστὶ λατρεία καὶ τῆς ἀληθινῆς θεότητος ἠλλοτρίωται, ὃ δὲ νῦν μὲν ἔστιν, ἀεὶ δὲ οὐκ ἦν, πρόσφατόν ἐστι καὶ οὐκ ἀΐδιον, ἀναγκαίως πρὸς τὸ ὂν βλέποντες τοὺς τὸ μὴ ὂν τῷ ὄντι συνθεωροῦντας καὶ λέγοντας, ὅτι ποτὲ οὐκ ἦν, τοῖς θεραπευταῖς τῶν εἰδώλων ἐγκαταλέγομεν. καὶ γὰρ ὁ μέγας Ἰωάννης τὸν μονογενῆ θεὸν τῷ ἰδίῳ καταγγέλλων κηρύγματι παντοίως τὸν ἑαυτοῦ κατασφαλίζεται λόγον, ὡς μή τινα πάροδον τὴν τοῦ μὴ εἶναι ὑπόληψιν κατὰ τοῦ ὄντος λαβεῖν. λέγει γὰρ ὅτι ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν καὶ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ἦν καὶ θεὸς ἦν καὶ φῶς ἦν καὶ ζωὴ καὶ ἀλήθεια καὶ πάντα τὰ ἀγαθὰ πάντοτε ἦν καὶ οὐδὲν οὐδέποτέ τι τῶν καλῶν οὐκ ἦν ὁ πάντων τῶν ἀγαθῶν τὸ πλήρωμα ὢν καὶ ἐν τοῖς κόλποις τοῦ πατρὸς ὤν. εἰ τοίνυν Μωϋσῆς μὲν οἷόν τινα χαρακτῆρα τῆς ἀληθινῆς θεότητος ἡμῖν νομοθετεῖ τὸ μηδὲν ἄλλο περὶ θεοῦ γινώσκειν ἢ τοῦτο μόνον, ὅτι ἔστι (τοῦτο γὰρ ἐνδείκνυται τὸ Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν), Ἠσαΐας δὲ τὸ πανταχόθεν ἀόριστον τοῦ ὄντος βοᾷ τῷ κηρύγματι, μήτε δι' ἀρχῆς μήτε διὰ τέλους βλέπων τὸ ὂν ἐπὶ τοῦ θεοῦ ὁριζόμενον (ὁ γὰρ εἰπὼν ὅτι Ἐγὼ πρῶτος καὶ ἐγὼ μετὰ ταῦτα, ἐν οὐθετέρῳ τὸν ὅρον τῆς ἀϊδιότητος ἵστησιν, ὡς μήτε πρὸς τὴν ἀρχὴν ὁρῶντας εὑρεῖν τι σημεῖον, ἀφ' οὗ ἔστι καὶ μεθ' ὃ οὐκ ἦν, μήτε πρὸς τὸ ἐφεξῆς τὴν διάνοιαν ἀνάγοντας ὅρῳ τινὶ διακόπτειν τοῦ ὄντος τὴν ἐπὶ τὸ ἀΐδιον πρόοδον), τοῦ δὲ προφήτου Δαβὶδ πρόσφατόν τε καὶ ἀλλότριον θεὸν προσκυνεῖσθαι ἀπαγορεύοντος, ὧν ἑκάτερον ἐν τοῖς δόγμασίν ἐστι τῆς αἱρέσεως [ἐν μὲν τῷ μὴ ἀϊδίῳ τὸ πρόσφατον, ἐν δὲ τῷ τῆς τοῦ ἀληθινοῦ θεοῦ φύσεως ἀπεξενῶσθαι τὸ ἀλλότριον σαφῶς ἐπιδείκνυται]: τούτων οὖν οὕτως ἐχόντων πᾶσαν τὴν διὰ τῶν σοφισμάτων κατασκευὴν τὴν περὶ τοῦ μὴ εἶναί ποτε τὸν ὄντως ὄντα οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἢ παράβασιν τοῦ Χριστιανισμοῦ καὶ τροπὴν εἰς εἰδωλολατρείαν εἶναι διοριζόμεθα. τοῦ γὰρ εὐαγγελιστοῦ διὰ τῆς θεολογίας πανταχόθεν ἐξορίσαντος τὸ μὴ ὂν ἐκ τοῦ ὄντος καὶ διὰ τῆς συνεχοῦς τοῦ ἦν ἐπαναλήψεως τὴν τοῦ μὴ εἶναι ὑπόνοιαν ἐπιμελῶς ἐξαλείψαντος, μονογενῆ δὲ θεὸν καὶ λόγον θεοῦ καὶ υἱὸν θεοῦ καὶ ἴσον θεῷ καὶ πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα κατονομάσαντος, παγίαν ἔχομεν ταύτην ἐν ἑαυτοῖς τὴν κρίσιν καὶ ἀμετάθετον, ὅτι εἰ θεός ἐστιν ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ἀεὶ χρὴ πιστεύειν αὐτὸν εἶναι, τὸν θεὸν πεπιστευμένον. ἀλλὰ μὴν εἰ ἀληθῶς ἐστι θεός, καὶ ἀεὶ πάντως ἔστι καὶ οὐδέποτε ἐν τῷ μὴ εἶναι καταλαμβάνεται. θεὸς γάρ, καθὼς πολλάκις εἰρήκαμεν, εἰ νῦν ἔστι, καὶ ἀεὶ πάντως ἦν, εἰ δέ ποτε μὴ ἦν, οὐδὲ νῦν ἔστιν ὅλως. ἀλλ' ἐπειδὴ τὸ υἱὸν εἶναι τὸν μονογενῆ θεὸν καὶ εἰσαεὶ διαμένειν καὶ παρὰ τῶν ἐχθρῶν τῆς ἀληθείας ὁμολογεῖται, τοῦτό φαμεν ὅτι ἐν τῷ πατρὶ ὢν οὐ καθ' ἓν μόνον ἐστὶν ἐν αὐτῷ, ἀλλὰ κατὰ πάντα ὅσα νοεῖται ὁ πατήρ, διὰ πάντων ἐστὶν ἐν αὐτῷ. ὡς οὖν ἐν τῷ ἀφθάρτῳ τοῦ πατρὸς ὢν ἄφθαρτός ἐστι καὶ ἐν τῷ ἀγαθῷ ἀγαθὸς καὶ ἐν τῷ δυνατῷ δυνατὸς καὶ ἐν ἑκάστῳ ὢν τῶν πρὸς τὸ κρεῖττον ἐν τῷ πατρὶ νοουμένων ἐκεῖνό ἐστιν, οὕτως καὶ ἐν τῷ ἀϊδίῳ πάντως ἀΐδιος. ἡ δὲ τοῦ πατρὸς ἀϊδιότης ἐν τῷ μήτε ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος ἄρξασθαι μήτε εἰς τὸ μὴ ὂν καταλήγειν γνωρίζεται. οὐκοῦν ὁ πάντα τὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἔχων καὶ ἐν πάσῃ τῇ δόξῃ τοῦ πατρὸς θεωρούμενος ὥσπερ ἐν τῷ ἀτελευτήτῳ τοῦ πατρὸς ὢν ζωῆς τέλος οὐκ ἔχει, οὕτω καὶ ἐν τῷ ἀνάρχῳ τοῦ πατρὸς ὢν ἀρχὴν ἡμερῶν οὐκ ἔχει, καθώς φησιν ὁ ἀπόστολος, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ πατρός ἐστι καὶ ἐν τῇ ἀϊδιότητι τοῦ πατρὸς καθορᾶται, καὶ τούτῳ μάλιστα τῷ τρόπῳ τὸ διὰ πάντων τῆς εἰκόνος ἀπαράλλακτον πρὸς τὸν οὗ ἐστιν εἰκὼν θεωρεῖται, καὶ ἀληθὴς ὁ λόγος ἐν τούτοις εὑρίσκεται ὁ εἰπὼν ὅτι Ὁ ἑωρακὼς ἐμὲ ἑώρακε τὸν πατέρα. ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ παρὰ τοῦ ἀποστόλου εἰρημένον οὕτως ἂν μάλιστα νοηθείη καλῶς καὶ προσφυῶς ἔχον, τὸ ἀπαύγασμα εἶναι τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτῆρα τῆς ὑποστάσεως τὸν υἱόν. τοῖς γὰρ ἀδυνατοῦσιν ἐπὶ τὸ ὕψος τῆς θεογνωσίας τὸν λογισμὸν ἀγαγεῖν διὰ τῆς τῶν νοητῶν θεωρίας, τούτοις ἐκ τῶν τῇ αἰσθήσει προφαινομένων ἐμποιεῖ τινα τοῖς ἀκούουσιν ὁ ἀπόστολος τοῦ ἀληθοῦς φαντασίαν. ὡς γὰρ τὸ ἡλιακὸν σῶμα ὅλῳ τῷ περιέχοντι κύκλῳ χαρακτηρίζεται καὶ ὁ τὸν κύκλον ἰδὼν ὅλου τοῦ κατὰ τὸ βάθος ὑποκειμένου τὴν ὑπόστασιν διὰ τοῦ φαινομένου ἀνελογίσατο, οὕτως εἶπεν ἐν τῷ μεγέθει τῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ δυνάμεως τὸ τοῦ πατρὸς μεγαλεῖον χαρακτηρίζεσθαι, ἵνα ὅσον τοῦτο γινώσκεται, τοσοῦτον εἶναι κἀκεῖνο πιστεύηται: καὶ πάλιν ὡς ἐκ παντὸς τοῦ ἡλιακοῦ κύκλου ἡ τοῦ φωτὸς λαμπηδὼν ἀπαυγάζεται (οὐ γὰρ τὸ μέν τι λάμπει, τὸ δὲ ἀλαμπές ἐστι τοῦ κύκλου), οὕτως ὅλη ἡ δόξα, ἥτις ἐστὶν ὁ πατήρ, τῷ ἐξ ἑαυτῆς ἀπαυγάσματι τουτέστι τῷ ἀληθινῷ φωτὶ πανταχόθεν περιαυγάζεται: καὶ ὡς ἐκ τοῦ ἡλίου μὲν ἐστὶν ἡ ἀκτίς (οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἦν ἀκτίς, εἰ μὴ ἥλιος ἦν), οὐ μήν ποτε χωρὶς τῆς ἀπαυγαζομένης ἀκτῖνος ἐφ' ἑαυτοῦ νοεῖται ὁ ἥλιος, οὕτω τὸ συναφές τε καὶ ἀΐδιον τῆς ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ὑπάρξεως τοῦ μονογενοῦς παραδιδοὺς ὁ ἀπόστολος ἀπαύγασμα δόξης τὸν υἱὸν κατωνόμασε.