Both Parties Confess What They Deny

Eusebius and his party, that is, the Ario-maniacs, ascribe a beginning of being to the Son, and yet pretend not to want him to have a beginning of kingship. But this is ridiculous. Whoever ascribes to the Son a beginning of being very plainly ascribes to him a beginning of reigning as well. So blind are they that they confess what they deny. Again, those who say that the Son is only a name, and that the Son of God, that is, the Word of the Father, has no being and no existence of his own, pretend to be angry with those who say, “Once he was not.” This is ridiculous too. Those who give him no being at all are angry with those who at least grant that he exists in time. So these also confess what they deny, in the very act of finding fault with the others. And again, Eusebius and his party confess a Son but deny that he is the Word by nature, and would have the Son called Word only in idea. The others confess him to be Word but deny that he is Son, and would have the Word called Son only in idea. Both alike have no ground to stand on. [a]