Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume V/Dogmatic Treatises/Against Eunomius/Book XII/Chapter 2

&#167;2. Then referring to the blasphemy of Eunomius, which had been refuted by the great Basil, where he banished the Only-begotten God to the realm of darkness, and the apology or explanation which Eunomius puts forth for his blasphemy, he shows that his present blasphemy is rendered by his apology worse than his previous one; and herein he very ably discourses of the &#8220;true&#8221; and the &#8220;unapproachable&#8221; Light.

Let us also investigate this point as well,&#8212;what defence he has to offer on those matters on which he was convicted of error by the great Basil, when he banishes the Only-begotten God to the realm of darkness, saying, &#8220;As great as is the difference between the generate and the ungenerate, so great is the divergence between Light and Light.&#8221; For as he has already shown that the difference between the generate and the ungenerate is not merely one of greater or less intensity, but that they are diametrically opposed as regards their meaning; and since he has inferred by logical consequence from his premises that, as the difference between the light of the Father and that of the Son corresponds to ungeneracy and generation, we must necessarily suppose in the Son not a diminution of light, but a complete alienation from light. For as we cannot say that generation is a modified ungeneracy, but the signification of the terms &#947;&#8051;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#953;&#962; and &#7936;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#8055;&#945; are absolutely contradictory and mutually exclusive, so, if the same distinction is to be preserved between the Light of the Father and that conceived as existing in the Son, it will be logically concluded that the Son is not henceforth to be conceived as Light, as he is excluded alike from ungeneracy itself, and from the light which accompanies that condition,&#8212;and He Who is something different from light will evidently, by consequence, have affinity with its contrary,&#8212;since this absurdity, I say, results from his principles, Eunomius endeavours to explain it away by dialectic artifices, delivering himself as follows: &#8220;For we know, we know the true Light, we know Him who created the light after the heavens and the earth, we have heard the Life and Truth Himself, even Christ, saying to His disciples, &#8216;Ye are the light of the world ,&#8217; we have learned from the blessed Paul, when he gives the title of &#8216;Light unapproachable &#8217; to the God over all, and by the addition defines and teaches us the transcendent superiority of His Light; and now that we have learnt that there is so great a difference between the one Light and the other, we shall not patiently endure so much as the mere mention of the notion that the conception of light in either case is one and the same.&#8221; Can he be serious when he advances such arguments in his attempts against the truth, or is he experimenting upon the dulness of those who follow his error to see whether they can detect so childish and transparent a fallacy, or have no sense to discern such a barefaced imposition? For I suppose that no one is so senseless as not to perceive the juggling with equivocal terms by which Eunomius deludes both himself and his admirers. The disciples, he says, were termed light, and that which was produced in the course of creation is also called light. But who does not know that in these only the name is common, and the thing meant in each case is quite different? For the light of the sun gives discernment to the sight, but the word of the disciples implants in men&#8217;s souls the illumination of the truth. If, then, he is aware of this difference even in the case of that light, so that he thinks the light of the body is one thing, and the light of the soul another, we need no longer discuss the point with him, since his defence itself condemns him if we hold our peace. But if in that light he cannot discover such a difference as regards the mode of operation, (for it is not, he may say, the light of the eyes that illumines the flesh, and the spiritual light which illumines the soul, but the operation and the potency of the one light and of the other is the same, operating in the same sphere and on the same objects,) then how is it that from the difference between the light of the beams of the sun and that of the words of the Apostles, he infers a like difference between the Only-begotten Light and the Light of the Father? &#8220;But the Son,&#8221; he says, &#8220;is called the &#8216;true&#8217; Light, the Father &#8216;Light unapproachable.&#8217;&#8221; Well, these additional distinctions import a difference in degree only, and not in kind, between the light of the Son and the light of the Father. He thinks that the &#8220;true&#8221; is one thing, and the &#8220;unapproachable&#8221; another. I suppose there is no one so idiotic as not to see the real identity of meaning in the two terms. For the &#8220;true&#8221; and the &#8220;unapproachable&#8221; are each of them removed in an equally absolute degree from their contraries. For as the &#8220;true&#8221; does not admit any intermixture of the false, even so the &#8220;unapproachable&#8221; does not admit the access of its contrary. For the &#8220;unapproachable&#8221; is surely unapproachable by evil. But the light of the Son is not evil; for how can any one see in evil that which is true? Since, then, the truth is not evil, no one can say that the light which is in the Father is unapproachable by the truth. For if it were to reject the truth it would of course be associated with falsehood. For the nature of contradictories is such that the absence of the better involves the presence of its opposite. If, then, any one were to say that the Light of the Father was contemplated as remote from the presentation of its opposite, he would interpret the term &#8220;unapproachable&#8221; in a manner agreeable to the intention of the Apostle. But if he were to say that &#8220;unapproachable&#8221; signified alienation from good, he would suppose nothing else than that God was alien from, and at enmity with, Himself, being at the same time good and opposed to good. But this is impossible: for the good is akin to good. Accordingly the one Light is not divergent from the other. For the Son is the true Light, and the Father is Light unapproachable. In fact I would make bold to say that the man who should interchange the two attributes would not be wrong. For the true is unapproachable by the false, and on the other side, the unapproachable is found to be in unsullied truth. Accordingly the unapproachable is identical with the true, because that which is signified by each expression is equally inaccessible to evil. What is the difference then, that is imagined to exist in these by him who imposes on himself and his followers by the equivocal use of the term &#8220;Light&#8221;? But let us not pass over this point either without notice, that it is only after garbling the Apostle&#8217;s words to suit his own fancy that he cites the phrase as if it came from him. For Paul says, &#8220;dwelling in light unapproachable .&#8221; But there is a great difference between being oneself something and being in something. For he who said, &#8220;dwelling in light unapproachable,&#8221; did not, by the word &#8220;dwelling,&#8221; indicate God Himself, but that which surrounds Him, which in our view is equivalent to the Gospel phrase which tells us that the Father is in the Son. For the Son is true Light, and the truth is unapproachable by falsehood; so then the Son is Light unapproachable in which the Father dwells, or in Whom the Father is.