§ 136. б) Как догматико-полемик в трех книгах против Евномия. Содержание первой и второй из них.

II. In three books against Eunomius, St. Basil analyzes and refutes the work of Eunomius: “apology” 495. The apology begins with the conviction not to look at the antiquity and nobility of the teachers, but at the truth. Evnomiev’s admonitions, Vasily replies, cannot be obeyed, although the truth is older than lies: experience is a teacher; - Meanwhile, Eunomius contradicts himself when, exposing the Creed, he calls this Symbol ancient, when in fact it is the same one with which Arius deceived Alexander. The first basis for his teaching Eunomius puts forward is that “since the One did not receive existence either from Himself or from another, then he was not born, or rather, non-generation is his very essence.” In support of the last addition, Eunomius wrote that non-birth is not the action of our thoughts about God alone. St. Basil, noticing that the first words of Eunomius are taken from Aristotle and taken needlessly for the truth, since Scripture does not call God unborn, firstly says that our words mean either only the relationship of one object to another, or the particular properties of an object, but not the whole essence; further shows that non-birth does not constitute the essence of God, but is the action of our idea of ​​God as the Beginningless One, just like the concept of Providence - the concept of the Creator is the concept of the private actions of God; the concept of immutability and omnipotence is the concept of the particular qualities of God. Eunomius wrote about unbirth that this is not a denial of reality. Basil St. He answered that because of this it is not yet the essence of God, but a private quality and even in a simple concept a negative quality, and since Scripture attributes the private qualities of God - originlessness, immutability, omnipotence - to the Son of God: then Eunomius’s speculation destroys his own thought about the Son of God. In general, regarding the assurance of Eunomius regarding the essence of God known to him, he notes that such assurance is both unreasonable and contrary to Scripture, since neither reason nor Scripture tell us that they know the essence of God (Ps. 139:6, Ps. 53:8, 2 Cor. 12:7) 496. Having, as it seemed, affirmed non-birth in the meaning of the essence of God for the Divinity, Eunomius wrote: “Being unborn, as shown above, he can never take birth, so as to impart his nature to the one being born, but remains far from any comparison and communication.” since the basis of such a conclusion has already been rejected; then St. Basil turns only to, firstly, to notice the trick of Eunomius, with which he hides the wicked thought about the Son of God, calling Him only begotten, and then, in denouncing Eunomius, he excellently explains the words of Scripture that the Son of God is the true image of the invisible God, expressing in himself the essence of God (John 14: 9–17–10:5–25. Col. 1:15. Heb. 1–3). “In my opinion, the words: the image of a servant is perceived means that our Lord was born in a human being, and being in the image of God expresses the property of the being of God.” Eunomius was so bold that he wrote: “Who is so crazy as to claim that the Son is equal to the Father, when the Lord Himself clearly says: “My Father is greater than me?” St. Basil responded modestly to Eunomius's insolence with the words of Scripture about the shameless (Jer. 3–3); the words quoted by Eunomius explain in the sense that the Father is greater than the Son by the origin of the Son from the Father 497. In the second book of St. Basil examines that part of the apology where Eunomius speaks about the Son of God. Eunomius began this part by saying that “if, he said, we pointed to the words of Scripture, where the Only Begotten is called birth and creation, then we could free ourselves from further reasoning; but for those who understand physical birth, it is necessary to say something else about this.” St. Basil, noticing that such words are nothing more than words of arrogance, explains those words of the Apostle (Acts 2:36), which the Arians usually cited in their defense and explains in exactly the same way as St. Basil explained. Afanasy. For Eunomius, he notes that it is completely in vain that he stubbornly continues to adhere to the word he invented; “begotten” when it does not express the whole essence of the Son and indicates only the relationship of the Son to the Father; equally arbitrarily calls the Son birth, when Scripture does not use such a name. “Birth is an essence,” wrote Eunomius, but such a concept of birth is nothing more than an oddity, easily exposed by general usage of words” 498. Eunomius taught his concept of the Only Begotten as follows: “the essence of the Son is begotten, since it was not before its assimilation, but was begotten first by the whole will of the Father.” St. Basil destroys this sophistry, a) by saying that the essence of the one who gives birth would not be older than its dispensation; b) the fact that there is no distance between time and eternity, while all things were by the Word (John 1:1). Another sophism of Eunomius in support of the first: “If I gave birth to something that does not exist, then no one reproach me for injustice; if it exists, then blasphemy and madness.” On the contrary, Vasily answers: in the beginning there was the Word, and what does it mean to say: “one cannot think that something was older than the beginning, otherwise it would not be the beginning; Equally, you cannot leave the word: be and imagine any distance in which there is no be: to think that it is not be means to reject the word be.” And this is proven by the biblical use of the word “beginning” 499 . Eunomius, having then called the Only Begotten with open audacity as non-existent, writes to cover up his audacity: “He is the Only Begotten because, having been born and created one by the power of the One Begotten, He became a perfect servant. St. Basil, having shown that according to general usage, the Only Begotten means only the One who was born alone, and no more, finds out why they call the Only Begotten created. Recalling that the Arians usually cite the words: The Lord created me, he makes the following remark on this: a) “this is said in a book that contains a lot of hidden things, consists of parables and similarities; b) other interpreters, more precisely showing the meaning of Hebrew words, translated instead of creation, experience; and this is directly contrary to the blasphemy about creation, since whoever said: man’s acquisitions by God (661.7. 4), as we know, said this not in the sense that Cain was created, but born.” Eunomius further noted that there is no need to connect thoughts about human birth with the name of the Father and the Son; St. Basil says that such a remark is very good, but nevertheless he is not a Christian who rejects or falsely interprets the names of the Father and the Son; for “we have not believed in the Creator and the creation, but have been sealed by the grace of Baptism into the Father and the Son” 500. In weakening the general belief that just as the Son and the Father are called light and life, this indicates their consubstantiality, Eunomius built sophism; if light and life in the unborn and in the begotten are one and the same: then the unborn is compounded and unborn. If not the same thing; then of course the light in the born and the unborn differs in degree. St. Basil, noticing to this that in the general sense, darkness is opposed to light, and death to life, quotes the words of Scripture, where the Son is called true, complete light, and not the degree of light (John 1:9; 14:6; 1 Cor. 1:24). Then he denounces Eunomius’s blasphemy against the Holy Spirit 501. Jerome (De vir. illustr. 119), Theodoret (dial. 2. p. 17), Svida say that St. Basil wrote “excellent words against Eunomius”; Vasily himself mentions them in a letter to Athanasius, Bishop of Ancyra, (Er. 25. olim. 53). But how many words or books were written against Eunomius is unknown to the ancients. Now known (except for 3), the last 2 words against Eunomius, for no reason can be called the work of Vasily - neither in private expressions, nor in syllable, nor in order, nor in evidence; this is nothing more than a collection of some remarks against Eunomius; and in some ancient manuscripts only 3 words are written. Why can’t we disagree with Garnier and Schrenk that St. Basil has only three words against Eunomius. r. 228–238. Slav. l. 17–24. r. 238–248. Slav. l. 18–30. r. 247–254. Slav. l. 31–37. r. 255–260. Slav. l. 38–41. r. 261–270. Slav. l. 42–49. In one Paris-Latin edition, at the end of the second book, on the side is printed: Spiritum S. ab utroq. procedure. Eunomius's last objection in this book follows. The Son is the creation of the unbegotten, and the Comforter is the creation of the Only Begotten. St. Basil, having said that Eunomius blasphemes both the Holy Spirit and the Son, writes: “Does the law not know that every action of the Son is inseparable from the actions of the Father? And there is nothing related to the Son that would be alien to the Father: Everything, talk. mine is Yours and Yours is mine (John 17:10). What arr. the guilt of the Spirit, does he attribute it to the Only Begotten and, in reproach of His nature, allows creation? If he introduces two different beginnings; then should he be condemned along with Manichaeus and Marcion? If he makes everything dependent on one principle, then what he says about the Son also applies to the first guilt.” We will also ask how it is. Do Westerners deduce from these words of Vasily Vasily’s belief in the origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son? Basil does not say a word here about the origin of the Spirit, but refutes the opinion of Eunomius about the creation of the Spirit by the Holy Son, and, moreover, he calls the opinion of two principles Manichaeism. See below in the book. about St. Spirit, Deputy 37. You might be interested in: