2.

Tell me, then, does the radiance of the sun proceed from the substance¹ itself of the sun, or from some other source? Any one not deprived of his very senses needs must confess, that it proceeds from the substance itself. Yet, although the radiance proceeds from the sun itself, we cannot say that it is later in point of time than the substance of that body, since the sun has never appeared without its rays. Now if in the case of these visible and sensible bodies there has been shown to be something which proceeds from something else, and yet is not after that from whence it proceeds; why are you incredulous in the case of the invisible and ineffable Nature? This same thing there takes place, but in a manner suitable to That Substance.² For it is for this reason that Paul too calls Him "Brightness" (Heb. i. 3 ); setting forth thereby His being from Him and His Co-eternity. Again, tell me, were not all the ages, and every interval³ created by Him? Any man not deprived of his senses must necessarily confess this. There is no interval⁴ therefore between the Son and the Father; and if there be none, then He is not after, but Co-eternal with Him. For "before" and "after" are notions implying time, since, without age or time, no man could possibly imagine these words; but God is above times and ages.

But if in any case you say that you have found a beginning to the Son, see whether by the same reason and argument you are not compelled to reduce the Father also to a beginning, earlier indeed, but still a beginning. For when you have assigned to the Son a limit and beginning of existence, do you not proceed upwards from that point, and say, that the Father was before it? Clearly you do. Tell me then, what is the extent of the Father's prior subsistence? For whether you say that the interval is little, or whether you say it is great, you equally have brought the Father to a beginning. For it is clear, that it is by measuring the space that you say whether it is little or great; yet it would not be possible to measure it, unless there were a beginning on either side; so that as far as you are concerned you have given the Father a beginning, and henceforth, according to your argument, not even the Father will be without beginning. See you that the word spoken by the Saviour is true, and the saying everywhere discovers its force? And what is that word? It is "He that honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father." (John v. 23.)

And I know indeed that what now has been said cannot by many be comprehended, and therefore it is that in many places we avoid⁵ agitating questions of human reasonings, because the rest of the people cannot follow such arguments, and if they could, still they have nothing firm or sure in them. "For the thoughts of mortal men are miserable, and our devices are but uncertain." (Wisd. ix. 14.) Still I should like to ask our objectors, what means that which is said by the Prophet, "Before Me there was no God formed, nor is there any after Me"? (Is. xliii. 10.) For if the Son is younger than the Father, how, says He, "Nor is there⁶ any after me"? Will you take away the being of the Only-Begotten Himself? You either must dare this, or admit one Godhead with distinct Persons of the Father and Son.

Finally, how could the expression, "All things were made by Him," be true? For if there is an age older than He, how can that⁷ which was before Him have been made by Him? See ye to what daring the argument has carried them, when once the truth has been unsettled? Why did not the Evangelist say, that He was made from things that were not, as Paul declares of all things, when he says, "Who calleth those things which be not as though they were"; but says, "Was in the beginning"? (Rom. iv. 17.) This is contrary to that; and with good reason. For God neither is made,⁸ nor has anything older; these are words of the Greeks.⁹ Tell me this too: Would you not say, that the Creator beyond all comparison excels His works? Yet since that which is from things that were not is similar to them, where is the superiority not admitting of comparison? And what mean the expressions, "I am the first and I am the last" (Is. xliv. 6 ); and, "before Me was no other God formed"? (Is. xliii. 10.) For if the Son be not of the same Essence, there is another God; and if He be not Co-eternal, He is after Him; and if He did not proceed from His Essence, clear it is that He was made. But if they assert, that these things were said to distinguish Him from idols, why do they not allow that it is to distinguish Him from idols that he says, "the Only True God"? (John xvii. 3.) Besides, if this was said to distinguish Him from idols, how would you interpret the whole sentence? "After Me," He says, "is no other God." In saying this, He does not exclude the Son, but that "After Me there is no idol God," not that "there is no Son." Allowed, says he; what then? and the expression, "Before Me was no other God formed," will you so understand, as that no idol God indeed was formed before Him, but yet a Son was formed before Him? What evil spirit would assert this? I do not suppose that even Satan himself would do so.

Moreover, if He be not Co-eternal with the Father, how can you say that His Life is infinite? For if it have a beginning from before,¹⁰ although it be endless, yet it is not infinite; for the infinite must be infinite in both directions. As Paul also declared, when he said, "Having neither beginning of days, nor end of life" (Heb. vii. 3 ); by this expression showing that He is both without beginning and without end. For as the one has no limit, so neither has the other. In one direction there is no end, in the other no beginning.