Книга 1

If everyone to whom the name of our God and Savior Jesus Christ is called wished not to seek anything other than the truth of the Gospel, but to be content with the apostolic tradition and the simplicity of faith, then no words would be required of us at the present time, but on the contrary, even now, of course, we would love the same silence that we preferred at first. But since the enemy of truth, in addition to the tares he first sown in the Church of God, constantly multiplying evil with new increments, and now having found tools that fully accommodate all his evil cunning, inspires the idea, under the guise of Christianity, to deny the deity of the Only Begotten, with this worldly and vain wisdom disturbing the purity and simplicity of the teaching of the Spirit of God, and introducing sweet speech into the delusion of the most simple-minded people: then we, out of necessity, for the sake of your love that prescribes this, and for the sake of our own safety, not paying attention to our weakness in this matter, although we did not at all practice this kind of speech, according to the measure of knowledge communicated to us from the Lord, we decided to stand for the truth and expose lies. For we reason that we will certainly achieve at least one of three good goals: that is, either by our reproof we will give the infected a cure for evil, or we will provide no small protection to those who are sound in the faith, or, without a doubt, we ourselves will be rewarded for wishing the best for our brothers. As far as we know, Aetius, the Syrian, was the first to dare to openly speak and teach that the Only Begotten Son is not identical in essence with God and the Father. I will not say what rules he was fed at first, and how he gradually introduced his corruption into the churches of God, so that it does not seem that I am not denouncing, but slandering. This Galatian inherited his wickedness and perfected it. 1 For Eunomius was not from Galatia, but from Cappadocia. This assumption is somewhat justified by Eunomius’ complaint that St. Basil called him Galatus; from which it is clear that he found such a name insulting. Brother of St. Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, responded to Eunomiev’s complaint like this: “It’s surprising if he called someone who lived on the border of two regions, in some unknown corner of Corniaspina, not a resident of Oltiseria, but Galatian, if only it can be proven that he really did. For I did not find this in my lists...”, Eunomius, who, having acquired fame for himself by the most shameful deeds (for it is said: “the glory is in their shame”, Phil. 3:19), and the blessings that are prepared. And the pious, preferring the opportunity to become famous for writing, which no one else had ever dared to do, became so exalted that - in this brilliant work of his, he uttered in the hearing of everyone a blasphemy, which he had barely uttered clearly before, imputing to himself in honor that he would be proclaimed the founder and representative of all heresy. Now we have to work hard to expose him. Since in both there is one evil; it is obvious that it is in the face; the perfected student will be put to shame and the teacher who sowed the seeds of wickedness, if only, through your prayers, it is given to us to accept such power of the word that, like the zealot Phinehas, with one blow of reproof we can defeat both, united by wickedness. So, although in this work I find much that shows in Eunomius a liar, an ignoramus, a scolder, a blasphemer, a blasphemer: however, I will mention the rest in passing, but I will try to make it clear for everyone, exposing from all artificial covers, the blasphemy that he uttered against the height of the glory of the Only Begotten. But I’m starting to denounce, starting with the inscription itself. His first trick is to come up with this type of essay, and offer the doctrine in the form of a defensive speech, so as not to convey the idea that his main intention is to expound the dogmas of wickedness, but to show that he was led to the essay by necessity. He wanted, in whatever way, this crafty and godless proclamation to become known, and to bring into being the blasphemy that he had long conceived, and with which he had long been ill. But he also saw that if he openly accepted the title of teacher, not only would it be extremely difficult and unpleasant for the listeners, but he would also make himself unworthy of credibility and suspicious for many, like a person carried away by the desire for glory into novelty; and if you offer a word in the form of a defensive speech, you will avoid suspicion of innovation, and thereby attract listeners more; because all people are naturally accustomed to favorably taking the side of the humiliated. Therefore, he complains about accusers and slanderers, and attributes the guilt of his writing to them. But so that everyone can see his cunning, it’s not bad to listen to your own expressions of his introduction to speech; here they are: Evn. We know that, having an intemperate tongue and an unkind disposition, to slander and denigrate someone is the job of unworthy and hostile people; and if someone is considered bad by slander, and they with all zeal try to repel the lie with denunciations, then this shows them as sensible people who, while taking care of themselves, greatly respect the safety of many. You. This is exactly the kind of speech that would be used by a person who does nothing simply and without cunning. He protects himself from suspicion of innovation by covering himself with defensive speech, and captures the goodwill of his listeners by proceeding to speak, being forced to do so by slander. And that the word “defense” is just an invention for him, this is exposed by the fact that, not knowing who to name as his accuser in what, apparently, he is trying to justify himself, he goes out to defend himself, without bringing out the shame of persons, not being magnanimously restrained from mentioning the names of the offenders (would a person who showers so many reproaches showering those who contradict him with so many reproaches resist him?), but fearing that the lie will become obvious, he is ashamed to appoint known ones. faces by their accusers. And when would he have someone to name; he would certainly have expressed and divulged this, if not to satisfy his own anger, then at least to serve the safety of many, which he promises to take special care of. But hidden deceit is more harmful than the presented one. Therefore, if we knew the slanderers, we would more easily avoid their intemperate tongues and bad dispositions (I will use this sage’s own words). But since, for whatever reason, then he kept silent; then now let us ask, now let him answer: What kind of accusers are these who, having warned him with their slander, made it necessary for him to make a defensive speech? What part of the universe did they come from? Who are these judges before whom he enters into competition? Which court did he enter with this complaint? Where, on land or sea, do these judges meet? Because what should he say to this? In Seleucia? “But they lost their cause by their silence; they were repeatedly called upon by those gathered to give an account of what they had denounced, but did not appear, and for this they were then condemned. I am speaking in general about the entire congregation, which, through fellowship in wickedness, like some sick member, separated from the healthy body of the Church - Or in Constantinople? “But there was no need for any defense or speeches.” For, having won over to their side the servants at the royal court, and among the rest, the most powerful people, they began to do business, having a greater advantage, they themselves were accusers, and judges, and executors of the sentence - everything they wanted, when, expelling some bishops, elevating others to thrones, and threatening others with danger to their lives, they themselves, with full power, divided the cities among themselves. And someone 2, expelled from the Syrian cities, as if for autocracy, received Constantinople; and this invincible and terrible writer of speeches himself, as a reward for his wickedness, acquired Cysikt; Theosevius, after being accused of unspeakable blasphemies, was given the Sardinian churches. I am silent about the Bithynians, Paphlagonians, Cilicians, and about everyone who was affected by this evil spreading everywhere. What kind of defensive speech was there at that time? But I think it’s impossible for him to lie even if he wants to. Therefore, it is most fair that this image of speech was invented by him for deception. And that's enough about this. But look what he writes next; for before exposing his wickedness, it is not useless, perhaps, to say something about his arrogance. Evn. And first of all, I ask you, who will now listen and subsequently read, that it pleases you to distinguish lies from truth not by the number of followers, and not to give preference to the majority; do not be blinded by the mind, paying attention to the merits; do not block the hearing of those who came after, giving the advantage to those who preceded. You. What are you saying? Shouldn't we give up advantages to those who preceded us? Shouldn't we respect the multitude of Christians, both now living and all those who have been since the time the Gospel was preached? We should not pay attention to those who have shone with spiritual gifts of all kinds; because you have opened this new wicked way of wickedness, hated and disliked by them all? But once forever closing the eyes of the soul, and banishing from thought the remembrance of all that is holy, everyone must betray their idle and marked heart to your tricks and false thinking! Great would be your power if, what the devil did not achieve with various tricks, you managed to achieve this with your order, and we, believing you, would recognize that the tradition, which in all previous times had force among so many saints, is of little importance than your wicked invention. But it is not enough for him to seduce the minds of those listening to him now; he would like those who subsequently take his work into their hands to have the same opinion. What a boast to think that his work will continue to exist in the future, that his memory will remain immortal in future times! So now this man is arrogant, who soon afterwards, amusing his listeners, as if not at all preoccupied with pride, says the following to the fictitious judges: Evn. Moreover, do not be angry with us if, having despised vanity and fear, preferring mercy and security in the present to security in the future, and judging that the threat declared by the wicked is more terrible than any earthly suffering and temporary death, we offer the truth, stripping it of all veils. You. Doesn’t this elegant set of words exceed the extreme degree of all arrogance? When mocking, there is also a curse on the judges, if they do not tolerate goodness so much, and can hardly restrain themselves from being angry with a person who despises self-praise and pride, prefers security in the future to security in the present, and recognizes punishment in the next life as more terrible than temporary death. What does it mean? Do not be angry, judges, with me, who entered the very height of virtue, left earthly things behind me, and transferred all my life to heaven. Here's a new kind of vanity! For, pretending to show that he despises pride, he thereby exalts himself to extreme arrogance. If those deeds for which he proves that they are worthy of apology constitute the main thing in the life of the Gospel, then he leaves one to guess how he should be honored for deeds that require not apology, but approval. Therefore, even though we kept silent about many things, we said enough about this, which constitutes, as it were, a distinctive feature of his entire behavior; and now we can recognize by his lying speeches what the father of lies is saying in him, and by his boasting we can understand with whom he is condemned; because the Apostle clearly says that “the devil who is proud falls into judgment” (1 Tim. 3:6). Let us finally proceed to the very denunciation of wickedness. First, he sets out a confession of faith, composed in simple and vague sayings, which was also used by those of the Fathers, without entering into reasoning about the issues now under consideration, but thus expressing only their thoughts in the simplicity of their hearts. True, Arius, as they say, wanting to deceive Alexander, pointed out to him this same confession of faith (because this is what they claim); but Eunomius refers to it as being consistent with his own way of thinking, for two reasons: firstly, to avoid suspicion of innovation himself, accepting the faith of the Fathers as correctly stated; and secondly, so that everyone, believing the simplicity of these sayings, without seeing it themselves, would fall into the net of his false thinking. But at the same time he also saw that, when interpreting his father’s own sayings, it would be more plausible for him to introduce his own way of thinking, and how best to cover up his wickedness, so, even if they catch something, to appear not guilty, because he does not say anything of his own or from himself, but only interprets other people’s thoughts. But, of course, he did not notice that in this, too, he was being subjected to something very funny. For, after many and great praises of this confession of faith, it soon showers it again with the most vile reproaches. And in order to make what I am asserting clearer, I will examine his composition, taking it apart in parts. And first, let us consider the confession of faith to which he refers, in his own words. Evn. But having proposed in advance, he says, the pious tradition that has been valid since ancient times among the Fathers, as a true guide and rule, we will use this exact model for verification when discussing our subject. You. Then he gives a confession of faith, stated as follows: Evn. We believe in one God - the Father, the Almighty, from whom are all things; and in the one Only Begotten Son of God, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things; and in one Holy Spirit, the Comforter. You. Therefore, he immediately adds: Evn. So for anyone who wants to appear or be a Christian, to put the most essential things briefly, the simplest and most general faith is the following: You. Subsequently, we will talk about the contradiction contained in his words, and how he shamelessly contradicts himself about what he affirms, but first let us remind ourselves that this same man, in previous words, with all his arrogance promised to offer us the truth, stripping all veils. So, is it written here somewhere: do we believe that non-generation is the essence of the God of all, or do we believe that the Only Begotten is not the same with the Father in essence? For Eunomius would have written this if he had not covered his wisdom with any deceptive veil. But I think that, using every word with cunning, he is silent about his opinion, so that, by expressing it to an unprepared ear, he would not deprive himself of trust and access, but puts forward a confession of faith of the Fathers, which, due to the moderation of the sayings used in it, cannot oppose any obstacle to the general goal of his work, and which is easy for him to agree with his opinion, under the guise of interpretation, turning the word to what was said before. And that this is fair is clear at first glance. For, having outlined the confession of faith of the Fathers, he immediately moves on to an explanation, using some other pretext, and at the same time the fact that it is not enough to free him from the accusation. So, why did you propose this, and did not proceed directly to those arguments that are both accurate and can free you from accusation? Now he refers to this confession as an undoubted example for testing judgments, and then corrects it as if there is nothing sound in it. But everyone knows that to his wisdom, like a bait that draws one to death, he attaches the simplicity of faith, so that the inexperienced, rushing into appearances, through carelessness, will be pierced by the evil of wickedness. But lest it seem that he is unnecessarily undertaking to correct the confession of faith, which he himself has honored with extraordinary praise, look at how he, seemingly forgetting his own words, denigrates this confession. You. Tell me, is it really that the pious tradition of the Fathers, this rule, as you yourself called it, this index, an undoubted model for checking judgments, is now called by you an instrument of deception, the art of pretense, and something similar? For if it is not appropriate for true Christians, but for those for whom it is preferable to appear rather than be Christians; then is it possible to conclude anything other than what has been said about him? For who, without being damaged in mind, will assert that the rule of straightforwardness is befitting of obstinate souls, that an indicator of truth is befitting of the enemies of truth? And those for whom it is preferable to be called Christians than to truly be one, putting on this pretense to deceive many, are far from all uprightness and truth. The corrupt will not recover, as Ecclesiastes says (Eccl. 1:15), and those who have chosen lies for life are not suitable for the images of truth, as Eunomius seems to think. But, for the reasons I have said, he is introduced into such obvious contradictions that, by praising faith, he introduces the idea of ​​his communion with the Fathers in piety, and again, by condemning it, opens the way to interpretation. Therefore, he calls it a rule and says that it needs the most precise addition. But this same thing will be a sign of extreme ignorance, if anyone wants to delve into this. For the rule and guide, as long as they lack nothing in order to be a rule and guide, until then, wise one, do not allow any addition for their accuracy; for the addition is made due to insufficiency: and being imperfect, they, in fairness, cannot have these names. But enough about that. Now let us consider the doctrine that he proposes about God. Evn. So, he says, both according to the natural concept and according to the teaching of the Fathers, we confess one God, and not from Himself, and not from anyone else. For both are equally impossible; because, in accordance with truth, what produces must exist before what happens, and what is produced must be second to what produces. But just as nothing can be earlier or later than itself, so nothing else can be before God; otherwise this other thing, in relation to the second after it, would have the dignity of the Divine. You. So, why did I include his entire speech here? So that the love of verbosity that this man shows throughout the entire essay is clearly visible. He himself said: according to the concepts common to all, it is clear that God is unborn; and then he strives to provide proof of this, acting like someone who, on a clear noon, would try to prove from his mind that the sun is brighter than the stars of heaven if he has healthy eyes. And if he who proves from reason what is cognizable by sense is ridiculous; then how can one not accuse a person of such stupidity who teaches what is recognized according to general pre-established concepts? For for those who are sensible, this is, of course, much more reliable than what is visible to the eye. Therefore, if someone shamelessly rebelled against this truth and began to assert that the unborn was born either from himself or from another; then the idle talk of Eunomius would perhaps still have some excuse. If, to this day, none of those alien to our teaching, and of those who in the Church itself rebelled against the truth, fell into such stupidity as to dispute the ungeneracy of the unborn: then I do not see what is the use of these reasonings? Or are Aristotelian and Chrysippian conclusions really needed for our teaching that the unborn was not born either of himself or of another, that he is neither older nor younger than himself? So, what is his point in these words? It seems to me that at the same time, as a man of shrewdness and excellent intelligence, he allows his followers to see with what insight he notices the incongruous, and with what even greater wit he resolves the subordinate, and therefore, boasting of resourcefulness in words, he indulges in subtleties, proving that the unborn was not born either from himself or from another. Moreover, even here he does not forget his art, but, dwelling on what is recognized by everyone, he lays down, as it were, some foundations for his subsequent teaching. For it was not without intention that it was said to them: “according to the truth, that which produces must exist before that which happens”: but so that in the doctrine of the Son it should be recognized beforehand that the Son was begotten by the Father subsequently, since that which produces is older than that which happened, and also so that from this the consequence could be deduced that the Son was born from that which does not exist. But the reproof of the wicked teaching about the Son will be in its place. And I would say that, in fairness, the very name “unborn” is worthy of silence, which, although very close to our concepts, is not used anywhere in Scripture, and serves as the first basis for their blasphemy; because the word “Father” is equivalent to the word “unborn”, and moreover, through the indication of the relationship, together with it brings with it the concept of the Son. For the true and only Father comes from no one else. And not descended from anyone means the same as unborn. Therefore, we should not so much call the unborn as the Father, if we do not want to become wiser than the instructions of the Lord, who said: “Go and teach all nations, baptizing people in the name of the Father” (Matt. 28:19) and not: “in the name of the unborn.” And that's enough about this. Let us consider his present words in connection with those that follow. For, going a little further, and as if shortening what he himself said, he writes like this: Evn. Therefore, if it is proven that neither He Himself exists before Himself, nor anything else that exists before Him, but He is first of all; then unbornness accompanies Him, or better to say, this is the unborn essence. You. The malicious intent that we saw in these words, I think, is very easy for anyone to see even with little attention, but it is not so easy to make it obvious to many. However, we must try, placing our trust in the One who “gives the word to those who bring good news with much power” (Ps. 67:12). Having said, “that if neither Himself exists before Himself, nor anything else that exists before Him, then ungeneracy accompanies Him,” then he sees that, as a result of this situation, the argument turns against him. For if ungeneracy accompanies God, then it obviously follows Him from without; and what is outside of God is not the essence of God; as a result of this, his entire plan, disintegrating, perishes. But in order not to tolerate this, what does he do? Little caring that he will expose himself to ridicule by inconsistency of speech, correcting what was said, he brings the speech to what he wanted, saying: “It’s better to say, this is the unborn essence.” But this does not have the slightest agreement with the previous one. For how does God have ungeneracy both concomitant with Himself, and again not concomitant, but contained in the very concept of essence? However, he does not allow his false thinking to be completely destroyed. For if, having said that “ungeneracy is concomitant with God,” he stopped the speech there; then he could not either call ungeneracy the essence of the God of all, or prove that the Only Begotten Son is different by his very essence; because nothing accompanying from the outside can produce a division in the properties of the Father and the Son according to its very essence. And now, by adding: “it’s better to say, this is the unborn essence,” he showed that unbornness is the same as God. How much this contributes to his gradual success in the matter of wickedness, I will show by extending the word a little further. But what he said at the beginning is revealed from the very truth of the matter, as a consequence of what was allowed before, but what he added at the end was added from heretical wisdom; because this writer of speeches, having made the most shameless leap, corrected his speech. For how can the same thing be concomitant with God and identical with Him, when everyone knows that that which accompanies is different from that which it accompanies? And he, as if having seized some path for himself, after having rapaciously seized upon the word, proceeds from this to prove that ungeneracy is the essence of the God of all, so that, having proven this, he can have another position indisputably recognized, namely, that the Only Begotten is not the same with the Father in essence. Look what he says. Evn. We think that by calling the unborn, we must honor not with just one name, according to human imagination, but we must render to Him the most necessary duty to God, that is, the confession of God that He is real. For the predicate by imagination, having its existence in mere names and pronunciation of them, usually dissipates along with the spoken word. You. He denies that the unborn is intelligible in God by imagination, believing that through this he will make it easier for himself to prove... the proposition that ungeneracy is the essence of God, and from it will indisputably prove another proposition, that the Only Begotten Son is not the same with the Father in its very essence. Therefore, he is attached to the phrase “invention”, as if it does not mean anything at all, but has its own independence in one pronunciation, and apparently claims that it is not worthy of God to honor Him with inventions. But I do not assert, by imagination or not, that the unborn is imaginable until I know it through the very study of the word. However, I would like to ask him: what does this very word mean: “invention” (επινοια)? Does this name mean absolutely nothing, and there is only one sound that is needlessly escaping the tongue? But it would be better to call something like this not an invention, but nonsense and idle talk. If we agree that imagination means something, but only something completely false and non-existent, such as in the creation of fables the imagination of some centaurs and chimeras, then how does the signified lie disappear along with the guttural sound? Although the word is completely diffused in the air, false concepts remain in thought. When the soul, filled with completely false and empty ideas, either in sleepy dreams or in vain movements of the mind, retains them in memory, and then decides to express them through the voice; along with the utterance of the word, ideas are not destroyed. For it would be very fair to tell a lie if the very nature of the lie were not destroyed by the fact that the lie was spoken. But this does not happen in reality. It remains to show how and about what objects the general custom is used to think, and how its use is accepted by God's word. We see that sometimes, with a sudden aspiration of the mind, what appears to be simple and individual, upon detailed examination, turns out to be diverse, then about this multiple, intelligible to thought, according to the general usage of words, it is said that it is intelligible by one “invention”; for example: at first glance the body seems simple, but the mind comes to the rescue and shows that it is diverse, with its imagination, decomposing it into its constituent parts: its color, outline, persistence, size, etc. Again, about objects that do not have independence at all, but are imagined according to some kind of depiction of the mind and one mental idea, which fabulists and painters build from imagination to the surprise of people, according to general custom it is said that they are also mental. Eunomius, without mentioning any of this, either out of ignorance or malicious intent, offered us his speculation about one idea of ​​​​unrealized objects. And even then he interpreted it, not as happens in nature. For he says that the idea does not mean anything, even false, but is a name without any meaning and having independence in one pronunciation with the voice. Meanwhile, applying this name: “invention” to just empty and non-independent ideas is completely unfair, because intellection is also the name given to the most detailed and precise thinking of what is presented, which follows the first sensory idea; why in general usage it is called reflection (επιλογισμος), although not actually. For example: everyone has a simple idea of ​​a grain of bread, by which we recognize what we see. But upon careful examination of this grain, many things come into consideration, and various names are given to the grain, denoting what is represented. For we call the same grain sometimes a fruit, sometimes a seed, sometimes also food; - fruit, as the goal of previous agriculture, seed, as the beginning of the future, food, as something suitable for increasing the body of the eater. Each of these predicates is imagined by the mind and does not disappear along with the guttural sound, but these ideas take root in the soul of the thinker. In a word, everything that is cognized by sense and in the subject seems to be something simple, but by speculation takes on different concepts, is said to be intelligible by imagination. And in God’s word we find that “invention” is used in a similar way. I will pass over the rest in silence, although I could say a lot; I will mention only one thing, which comes closest to the point. Our Lord Jesus Christ, in those places where He speaks about Himself, revealing to people the love of the Divine and the grace of the economy, designated this by various properties intelligible in Himself, calling Himself a “door” (John 10:9), “way” (14:6), “bread” (6:51), “the vine” (15:10), “shepherd” (10:11), "light" (8:12); not because He has many names, - for not all names have the same meaning among themselves, and another meaning of light, another of the vine, another of the path, another of the shepherd; but because, in the subject being one, with one simple and uncomplicated essence, he calls himself one way in one place, another in another, applying to himself different names according to his imagination. For, due to the difference in actions and the different attitude towards those benefited, He also gives Himself different names. He calls Himself the light of the world, meaning by this name the inaccessibility of glory in the Divine, and showing that He illuminates with the light of knowledge those who have a purified spiritual eye; He calls Himself a vine, because He feeds those who are rooted in Him by faith with the fruit of good deeds; He calls Himself bread, because He is the food of a rational being, most suitable for maintaining the composition of the soul and preserving its properties, always replenishing with Himself what is deficient and not allowing the soul to fall into weakness resulting from unreason. Thus, whoever examines each of these names will find different ideas, while in all, in essence, there is one subject. Who has sharpened his tongue to such an extent for blasphemies that he dares to say that these thoughts dissipate along with the spoken words? What is incongruous if something is also thought about about the God of all things, and firstly, the very thing around which all our words are addressed? For nowhere do we find any other use of the word: “unborn.” We say that the God of all is incorruptible and ungenerate, calling Him by these names for various applications. For when we turn our gaze to past centuries and find that the life of God extends beyond every beginning, then we call God unbegotten; and when we extend our minds into the coming centuries, then we call the incorruptible by no limit of the incomprehensible, the boundless, the infinite. Therefore, just as the endlessness of life is called incorruptibility, so its beginninglessness is called unbornness, if we imagine both by imagination. What concept would contradict the fact that both these names were invented, and that which really belongs to God was confessed? But Eunomius, as completely opposing and irreconcilable, separates these two actions from each other, namely: calling God something by imagination, and confessing Him as what He really is. Let us not pass over in silence what kind of reverence, to the destruction of those who hear, was invented by him in these words: Evn. It is not according to the imagination of man to honor God by naming the unborn, but to render to Him the most necessary duty of all in confessing Him that He really is. You. What word, but dignity, can express the tricks of this resourcefulness! He tries to frighten simple-minded people that they will not give God his due if they do not confess Him as an unborn essence, and calls his own wickedness the fulfillment of duty, fearing to give the idea that he is saying something of himself, but suggesting that he is rendering what is necessary - what is due to God. And he proves to everyone else that by introducing unbornness into the essence, they will not be held accountable and will be forgiven; and if they understand differently, in a pious manner, they will incur inexorable wrath upon themselves, as those who neglected to repay the most ancient and necessary of all debts. Therefore, I would willingly ask him: does he equally preserve such gratitude in the consideration of everything that has been said about God, or in the consideration of this saying alone? For if he does not imagine anything at all by imagination, so as not to seem to honor God with human names; then in a similar way everything said about God will be recognized as essence. Therefore, isn’t it funny to say that creativity is the essence; either providence, or also foreknowledge is again the essence; and in general call every action an essence? And if these names lead to the same meaning; then, by all necessity, they are equivalent to each other, as we see in polynominal ones, when, for example, we call one and the same person Simon, Peter, and Cephas. Consequently, whoever has heard about the immutability of God will be brought to the concept of ungeneracy, and whoever has heard about undividedness will come to the concept of creativity. And what could be more absurd than such unity, when he who has taken away from each name its own meaning gives laws contrary to the general use and teaching of the Spirit? When we hear about God that “You have done everything wisely” (Ps. 103:24); let us recognize His creative art. When we hear that he opens his hand, and “satisfies every living thing with good pleasure” (Ps. 145:16); let us recognize the extending Providence to all. When we hear that “he made darkness his covering” (Ps. 17:12); we understand the invisibility of His nature. And again, hearing what was said on behalf of God: “I am the Lord, I do not change” (Mal. 3:5), we recognize the ever-present identity and immutability of God’s essence. So, is it not sheer madness to assert that each name does not have its own meaning, but that all names, despite their strength, are equivalent to each other? Then, even if we concede this, in this case it will not serve their goal at all. For if all this, I mean immutability, invisibility, incorruptibility, when taken about God and the Father, means His essence, then, obviously, in a similar way, when taken about the Only Begotten Son and God, it must mean essence. For we call the Only Begotten Son invisible, unchangeable, incorruptible, indivisible, and all similar names. And thus their wisdom will turn into something opposite. For it will not so much be possible to prove dissimilarity in essence from the difference in one name, as communication in many respects, by the same necessity, as a result of what has been admitted, will force them to recognize the sameness. And if he says that he observes such reverence in the reasoning of one word: “unborn,” but treats others without caution; then again we ask him: by what lot, when there are so many predicates about God, in this alone shows thoroughness, and to them alone repays His debt, confessing God with what He really does, but refuses to honor with others, very many human inventions? He who owes many, but gives only one thing, is not so much grateful through this as extremely unappreciative, through withholding more. So Eunomius, like cunning animals, is caught by his own tricks, thereby being exposed more than he is trying to hide behind. But look at the continuation of his words. Having proved, as he thinks, that unbornness cannot be comprehended by imagination, he adds: Evn. But not in the sense of deprivation, unless by deprivation we mean deprivation of something natural, and, moreover, of later possessions. You. It is not difficult to prove that he is speaking from worldly wisdom, that he has been driven mad by it, and has delved into such novel concepts. For these are Aristotelian concepts of possession and deprivation, as those who have read Aristotle’s work will say, inscribed: Categories; Aristotle says that deprivation comes later than estates. And for us, having proven that he speaks not according to the teaching of the Spirit, but according to the wisdom of the princes of this age, it is enough to turn to him what was said in the psalm: “The wicked lie in wait for me to destroy me; [and] I delve deeper into Your revelations” (Psalm 119:95); and having learned that what he said was not taken from the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ, it is enough to recall to him the word of the Lord: “When anyone speaks a lie, he speaks what is proper to him” (John 8:44), and thus will save himself from many words, thereby making it obvious to many that we have no communication with them; “What agreement does Christ have with Belial? Or what is the partnership of the faithful with the unbelievers” (2 Cor. 6:15)? But so that it does not seem that due to a lack of denunciation we are resorting to silence, let’s talk briefly about this too. From what has been said about God, Eunomius, as we see, is pronounced in a similar way, for example: incorruptible, immortal, invisible. And we believe that the word “unborn” is of the same type. If others call such words meaning deprivation, then it is not for us to argue about this; We do not know the sayings accepted by science and we do not chase after the one who knows. However, no matter what category the words we have counted belong to, let us say that the name also belongs to this: “unborn.” Therefore, just as incorruptibility means that there is no corruption in God; invisibility - that God surpasses all comprehension of the eyes; incorporeality - that the essence of God does not have three dimensions; immortality - that God will not be touched by destruction; so ungeneracy, we say, means that there is no birth in God. If none of those names mean deprivation; this does not mean the latter either. And if you agree about those names that they express deprivation, but about the name “unborn” you do not concede this; then tell me, what antecedent property is deprived of by immortality? Why does this naming not have equal force with the naming: “unborn”? But he takes advantage of this one saying, because the beginnings of his wickedness rest on it. But to make his cunning obvious, do this. The same concepts that he uses about ungeneracy, namely, that this is a blessing about God, not by human imagination and not in the sense of deprivation, apply to anything else from what has been said about God, see what comes out. For you will find that they apply exactly to everyone. And, if you wish, let us apply them to the name: “incorruptibility,” transferring his own words. We think that by calling Him incorruptible, we should honor not according to human imagination, but render Him the most necessary duty of all, that is, confessing Him that He is real; but not in the sense of deprivation, unless by deprivation we mean deprivation of something natural, and, moreover, of later possessions. Why is it more proper to think in this way about ungeneracy than about incorruptibility and, in general, about every word pronounced in the same way? But none of the other words so favors his wickedness; therefore he does not mention others, although there are thousands of things said about God. The point is this: There is not a single name that, having declared the entire nature of God, would be sufficient to fully express it. But many and different names, taken in their own meaning, constitute a concept, of course, dark and very meager in comparison with the whole, but sufficient for us. Of the names said about God, some show what is in God, and others, on the contrary, what is not in Him. For in these two ways, that is, by denying what is not and confessing what is, a kind of impression of God is formed in us. For example, when we call him incorruptible, it is as if we were saying to ourselves or those listening: “do not think that God is subject to corruption”; and when we call him invisible, it is as if we were saying: “Do not suppose that He is comprehensible by the sense of sight”; and when - to immortals: “do not hold on to the thought that death can touch God.” And also when we call it unborn; We say: “don’t think that God’s existence depends on any reason or on any principle.” And in general, with each of these names we learn not to fall into indecent concepts in our opinions about God. Therefore, in order to recognize the predominant property of God, we forbid each other in judgments about God to transfer thoughts where they should not, so that people do not think that God is among the corruptible, or visible, or born. Thus, with all these negative names, a kind of denial of what is alien to God is produced, and as the thought becomes clearer, it alienates thoughts about what does not belong to God. Again, we call God good, righteous, creator, judge, and we give Him names similar to these. As in the previous names, the words meant a certain abolition and prohibition of concepts alien to God; so here they mean confirmation and implementation of what is characteristic of God and decently imagined about Him. Therefore, each type of name teaches us either about what belongs to God, that it is in God, or about what does not belong, that it is not. And “unborn” has the meaning of not belonging; for it shows that birth does not belong to God. Whether anyone would like to call this meaning deprivation, or prohibitive, or negative, or something similar, we will not argue about that. But that ungeneracy has the meaning of something that does not exist in God, I think this is sufficiently explained in what has been said so far. Essence is not something that does not belong to God, but the very being (το ειναι) of God; and to classify it as something that does not exist in God is the extreme height of madness. For if essence is among those that do not exist, then hardly anything else that is predicated about God will be among those that exist. But it has been proven that unbornness is among the number that does not belong; Therefore, he who claims that this word expresses the very essence is lying. But Eunomius, as if by something absurd, being upset by what is said about God in the sense of deprivation, resorts, of course, to a more pious thought: to include unbornness in the very essence, and, bringing his speech into brief expressions, writes like this: Evn. So, if not by design, not in the sense of deprivation, not as a part (because he is indivisible), not as something else in Himself (because simple), not as something else with Him (because the unborn is one and only), then this will be the unborn essence. You. He took the word where he wanted, and, separating the concept of unbornness from everything, he concluded, as he thinks, into the very essence, saying about the God of all that this is the unborn essence. And I would say that the essence of God is ungenerate, but I would not say that ungeneracy is essence. Moreover, it is worthy of note that indivisibility and simplicity, properties that are identical in concept (for indivisible, which does not consist of parts, and also simple, which is not composed of many), Eunomius distinguishes among themselves in the subject, as something different. Then he makes a prohibition that one should not divide God, and suppose that in Him one thing is unborn, and another is born, and also to think that the unbornness is included in Him as something else. But I don’t take the trouble to expose the emptiness of these words; for whoever argues with an idle talker usually becomes like him. Why, I think, the wise Solomon advises not to answer “a fool according to his folly” (Prov. 26:4). Eunomius introduced into the division words not used and not used anywhere in order to show that, of the many predicates counted, he finds the predicate in the only way that is actually predicated: unbornness. But perhaps we too would have needed a long word to detect lies and to show that ungeneracy is not the essence of God, if what he calculated in division had not been clearly revealed. For if his position were firm, that unbornness is not taken by design and not in the sense of deprivation; and in this case, its conclusion would not have strict consistency at all. What is the need for unbornness to fit into one of the calculated concepts? On the contrary, since he, as necessarily connected with the previous one, adds: “so, if not by design, and not in the sense of deprivation, and not by any other of the listed methods; then this will be the unborn essence”; we, turning his speech, will say: “so, since unbornness is imagined by imagination and is a name meaning deprivation; then she is not the essence of God.” For until he refutes what has been said and gives firmness to his positions, his conclusion will not take place. In general, what pride and arrogance to think that the very essence of the God of all has been found! For they almost overshadow with grandeur the one who said: “I will exalt my throne above the stars of God” (Is. 14:13), who do not attempt to ascend to the stars or the sky, but boast to penetrate into the very essence of the God of all. For let us begin to ask him how he achieved the understanding of the essence? Is it really from a general concept? But it reveals to us only the existence of God, and not what God is. Or from the teaching of the Spirit? But what kind of teaching is this? Where is it stated? The great David, to whom God “revealed wisdom within” (Ps. 50:8), does not he clearly confess the inaccessibility of vision when he says: “[Thy] knowledge is wonderful to me—high, I cannot comprehend it” (Ps. 139:6)? And what did Isaiah, who contemplated the glory of God, reveal to us about the essence of God? In his prophecy he testifies about Christ, saying: “Who will explain His generation” (Is. 53:8.)? And the “chosen vessel” (Acts 9:15), Paul, who had “Christ speaking within himself” (2 Cor. 13:3), was caught up to the third heaven and heard “unspeakable words, which it is impossible for man to utter” (2 Cor. 12:4), what teaching did he leave us about the essence of God? When he began to gain insight into the particular laws of economy, as if he had become dizzy from the end of his thoughts, he exclaimed the following word: “O depth of wealth and wisdom and knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are His judgments and unsearchable His ways” (Rom. 11:33). But if this is not available to those who have reached the extent of Pavlov’s knowledge; then what arrogance is there in those who boast that they know the essence of God! I would gladly ask them about the earth on which they stand and from which they were created. What will they say? What kind of essence of the earth will they tell us, so that if they say something indisputable about what lies below and under our feet, we will believe them even in the case when they extend beyond the limits of any concept? Therefore, what is the essence of the earth, and what is the method of comprehension? Let them answer us: was it a word that opened it, or a feeling? If they say: feeling; then by what sense is this essence comprehensible? Is it by sight? But it receives impressions from flowers. Or by touch? But it distinguishes liquid or softness, warmth or cold, and the like; and no one will call anything of this essence unless he falls into extreme madness. Is it necessary to say anything about taste and smell? One accepts impressions from juices, the other from smells. And the ear perceives sounds and words that have no affinity with the earth. So it remains for them to say that the essence of the earth is revealed by word. What word? Where is it in Scripture? Which saint is dedicated? He who tells us about creation teaches us only that “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and empty” (Gen. 1:1–2.). He considered it sufficient to proclaim Who created and adorned the earth; and what its essence is, he refused to enter into the study, as a matter of vain and useless for those listening. So, if the knowledge of this essence is not confirmed either by the evidence of feeling or by the teaching of the word, then where else, they will say, did they comprehend the essence? For what is perceived in the earth by sense is either color, or volume, or heaviness, or lightness, or coherence, or flowability, or persistence, or softness, or coldness, or warmth, or qualities in moisture, or differences in outline. But they themselves will not call anything of this essence, although they are ready to assert everything. Again, there is no speculation about it in any word of wise and blessed men. Therefore, what other image of knowledge remains? Let us answer this from those who despise everything that is under their feet, who pass by the sky and all supermundane forces, and who touch with their minds the very first essence. But it seems that pride is the heaviest of all human passions, and those in whom it is present are truly subject to the same condemnation as the devil. It is because of this pride that they, not even knowing the nature of the land they trample, boast that they have penetrated into the very essence of the God of all. God preferred to His saints, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to be called the God of whom, because of their perfection in every virtue, as something superior and befitting of His greatness, He preferred, calling Himself the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob (for He says: “This is My name forever, and the remembrance of Me from generation to generation”, Exodus. 3:15), – God did not reveal His name to them, much less reveal His essence, what it is. For he says: “I appeared to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob with [the name] “God Almighty” [Eloi Shaddai], but with the name [My] “Lord” [Yahweh] I did not reveal myself to them" (Ex. 6:3) - I did not show it, obviously, because it is higher than what human hearing can accommodate. But it is clear that God showed Eunomius not only His name, but also His very essence. And such a great secret, not revealed to any of the saints, Eunomius makes public, writing in books, and without caution he speaks to all people! And what is prepared for us according to the promises is beyond all human vision (1 Cor. 2:9), “and the peace of God that surpasses all understanding” (Phil. 4:7). But he does not admit that the very essence of God is above any mind and above all human knowledge. But I think that comprehension of the essence of God is higher not only than humans, but also of any rational nature; By rational nature I now mean created nature. For only the Son and the Holy Spirit know the Father; because “no one knows the Father, only the Son” (Matthew 11:27). And: “The Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God, For who among men knows what is in a man? Only the human spirit that is in him. So no one has come to know the things of God, only the Spirit of God” (1 Cor 2:10–11). Therefore, what advantage will they leave to the knowledge of the Only Begotten or the Holy Spirit if they themselves comprehend the very essence? For, of course, having not given the contemplation of the power, goodness and wisdom of God to the Only Begotten, they recognize the concept of essence as commensurate with their powers. The complete opposite of this is in accordance with reason, namely, that the very essence is incomprehensible to anyone except the Only Begotten and the Holy Spirit, but we, raised by the works of God, and understanding the Creator from the creatures, acquire knowledge of His goodness and wisdom. This is the understanding of God (Rom. 1:19), which God has revealed to all people. And if theologians have written anything, apparently, about the essence of God; then their words, with their figurative meanings and allegories, lead to other concepts. And therefore, whoever, without research, stubbornly stops at the bare letter, clinging to the first meaning that appears to him, will, having delved into Jewish and women’s fables, grow old in the complete poverty of valuable concepts about God. For, in addition to imagining some kind of material essence of God, and in this respect coming into agreement with the Hellenic atheists, he will also assume that this essence is diverse and complex. Since the prophet describes that God “from his loins and above is like a radiance”, and “from his loins and below is fire” (Ezek. 8:2.); then one who does not ascend from the letter to higher concepts, but stops at the sensory images of Scripture, and taught by Ezekiel that this is the essence of God, will hear from Moses that “God is fire” (Deut. 4:24) The wise Daniel will lead him to other assumptions, and thus it turns out that from Scripture he collects ideas that are not only false, but also contradictory to one another. Therefore, leaving inquisitive research about the essence as an inaccessible matter, one must submit to the simple admonition of the Apostle, who says: “without faith it is impossible to please: for he who comes to God must believe that He exists and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him” (Heb. 11:6). For what brings us to salvation is not the investigation of what God is, but the confession that God “is.” So, since it has been proven that the essence of God is incomprehensible and completely ineffable for human nature; then it remains to explain what the ungeneracy of God is, and how it is viewed in the God of all. With the help of reasoning, we find that the concept of ungeneracy appears to us not in the study of what God is, but rather (I will say my thought when forced to do so) in the study of how he is. For our mind, seeking about God, Who is above all, whether He has any cause higher than Himself, and then, being unable to come up with any, called the beginninglessness of God’s life unbornness. Just as when we talk about people, when we say that such and such came from such and such, we say about each person not what he is, but where he comes from: so in the word about God, the saying “unborn” does not mean what He is, but that He did not come from anyone. What I am asserting will become clearer from the following. Evangelist Luke, setting out the carnal genealogy of God and our Savior Jesus Christ, and from the latter returning to the former, began with Joseph, saying that He is the son of Eli, and Eli is the son of Matthan; and thus, in the reverse order, leading the narrative back to Adam, when he reached the most ancient ones, saying that Seth is from Adam, and Adam from God, here he stopped the ascending series, in the narrative of the birth of each, not showing the essence of those numbered by him, but representing the nearest beginning from which each came. Therefore, as the Evangelist said that Adam is from God; So let us ask ourselves: from whom does God come? Isn’t everyone ready with the answer in their minds that God is not from anyone? And this: “from no one”, obviously, is beginninglessness; beginninglessness is unbornness. Therefore, just as, in the reasoning of people, to come from someone does not constitute an essence: so, in the reasoning of the ungeneracy of the God of all, ungeneracy cannot be called an essence; and the word: unborn, the same means that - “from no one.” Whoever says that beginninglessness is an essence acts like a man who, when asked: what is the essence of Adam and what is his nature? would answer: Adam is not from the combination of husband and wife, but was created by God’s hand. But to this another will say: I’m asking you not how Adam was formed, but what the material subject of man consists of, and I don’t learn anything from your answer. The same thing happens to us; from the word “unborn” we understand more how God is than the very nature of God. In a word, if anyone wants to believe in the truth of what we have said, let him experiment on himself, does he reach the meaning of ungeneracy when he wants to imagine something essential in God? For I note that just as, stretching our thoughts into future centuries, we call life endless, not limited by any limit, so, ascending in thought into ancient centuries and, as if into an immense sea, plunging our gaze into the infinity of God’s life, since we cannot find any beginning from which it would come, but we imagine the life of God extending further and further beyond everything conceivable, then we call this beginninglessness of life unbornness. For this is the concept of the unborn - not to have the beginning of being from something else. And Eunomius, since ungeneracy can only be conceived in the God of all, drew the most wicked blasphemy against the Only Begotten from this. For what does it say next? Evn. And being unborn, according to what has been proven before, will in no way allow birth, so as to impart to the born his own nature, and will be far from any comparison and communication with the born. You. What shameless and crafty blasphemy! What a secret deception, what many forms of deceit! With what sophistication does the devil’s cunning speak in her! For, wanting to prove that the only begotten Son and God is not like God and the Father, he is silent about the name of the Father and the Son, but speaks simply about the unbegotten and the begotten, and, hiding the names of the saving faith, conveys only blasphemous teachings, so that, upon the discovery of wickedness in reality, and then, when he moves on to the Persons, it would seem that it is not he himself who is slandering, but that the blasphemy is prepared by the very sequence of speech. He says: “but being unborn, he will be far from any comparison and communication with the born.” He did not say: “Father and Son,” but: “unborn and begotten.” This is his first trick; but look at what is different.” But being unborn,” he says, “will in no way allow birth,” and adds: “so as to impart to the born his own nature.” The expression: “will not allow birth in any way” has two meanings: one, that it is not proper for his own nature to give birth (for it is impossible for an unborn nature to be born); the other, that it cannot give birth. So Eunomius used this expression in the latter meaning, but draws many into his deception with the first meaning of it. And what he means by this very thing is clearly shown by the addition. For, having said that “he will not allow birth in any way,” he continues: “so that he can communicate his own nature to the one who is born.” For this is in accordance with the second concept, that he cannot become a Father without imparting to the one who is born his own nature. What wickedness could be more intolerable than this? Has anyone else spoken such untruth to heaven? I am afraid that we, by repeating other people’s blasphemies with our lips, will defile our thoughts and become participants in their condemnation. But I am consoled in the Gospels by the fact that the Holy Spirit did not hesitate to convey to subsequent generations in writing the blasphemy of the Jews against the Lord, both dishonoring their blasphemy for all time, and not inflicting any blasphemy on the most pure glory of the Only Begotten. Therefore, if he does not allow birth in any way, then God is neither the Father nor.... 3; but it’s better to leave this blasphemy unsaid. For just as One did not allow the birth, so the Other did not accept the nature of the one who gave birth. Then Eunomius fights with himself, coming up with a new way to soften the blasphemy, without saying anything similar to repentance, but trying to cover up the previous one with the next one. For what did he dare to say? Evn. And he will be far from any comparison and communication with the born. You. But if the Son has no comparison with the Father, no communion with the One who gave birth; then the Apostles lied, the Gospels and the Truth itself, our Lord Jesus Christ, lied. Although again I am horrified by this blasphemy: however, it is easy for anyone to notice it. For, if it has no comparison with the Father, then how did he say to Philip: “I have been with you so long, and you did not know Me, Philip” (John 14:9)? and: “He who has seen Me has seen the Father”? For the One who does not allow any comparison and has no communication with Him, how could the Son show that He is in Himself? It is not through the other and the alien that the unknown is comprehended; but, as a rule, what is related is known by what is related. Thus, the image of the imprinter is seen in the imprint; Through the image we acquire knowledge of the prototype, and precisely when we compare the identity in both. Thus, by this one blasphemy all the sayings that were handed down by the Holy Spirit for the glorification of the Only Begotten were rejected. For the Gospel teaches that “God the Father sealed Him” (John 6:27); and the Apostle says: “He is the image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15), an image not soulless, not made by hand, not a work of art and invention, but a living image, or rather, self-existent life, an image not in the likeness of an outline, but in its very essence always maintaining indistinguishability. For I affirm that the expression: “being in the image of God” (Phil. 2:6.), is equivalent to the expression: being in the essence of God. For, just as the words: “having taken the form of a servant” (v. 7), mean that our Lord was born in the essence of human nature: so, of course, the words: “to be in the image of God” show the property of God’s essence. The Lord says: “Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). And Eunomius, alienating the Only Begotten from the Father and completely separating him from communion with Him, with all his might suppresses the path of ascension to knowledge, opened to us by the Son. “All that the Father has is Mine” (John 16:15), says the Lord. And Eunomius claims that the Father has no communication with Him who is from the Father, and: “as the Father has life in Himself, so He gave also to the Son to have life in Himself” (John 5). We were taught this by the Lord himself. What can we learn from Eunomius? Because there is no comparison between the Born and the One Who Gave Birth. Briefly, with this one saying he destroys the concept of image (εικων), and denies that the Son is “the radiance of glory and the image” (χαρακτηρ) of the “hypostasis” (Heb. 1:3). For it is impossible to imagine an image of something incomparable, it is impossible for a radiance not to be communicated by nature. But Eunomius adheres to the same kind of trick, saying that there is no comparison between the unborn and the born, and also between the Father and Him who is from the Father, so that the same opposition, which, as he proved, exists in these sayings, can be transferred to the very essence of the Father and the Son. But so that we, pursuing every blasphemy of him and trying to examine every thought expressed by him, do not make the words very long, we will pass over in silence everything that contains wickedness, visible at first glance, and that is clear to readers by itself; Let us offer one thing that requires a word for reproof. For, citing various arguments about the inability of the Son to communicate the essence of the Father, and from everywhere, as he believes, proving its inappropriateness, he adds: Evn. For, of course, we will not say that both have a common essence, and only in order and in the advantages of time, one is first, and the other is second. For in those who have an advantage there must be a reason for the advantage. But neither time, nor age, nor order are associated with the essence of God, for order is later than the establisher of order; but what is in God is not put in order by others. And time is some kind of qualitative movement of the stars; the stars came into existence later not only than the unborn essence and everything mental, but also the primary bodies. Is it even necessary to talk about centuries, when Scripture clearly proclaims that God exists before the ages? You. Having assumed to himself in words what he wanted, and taken up what was in accordance with these assumptions, then plunged into incompatible concepts, he thinks that by this he has proven the need to agree to his own teachings. For he says: “We will not say that both have a common essence, and only in order and according to the advantages of time, one is the first, and the other is the second.” If he understood the community of essence in such a sense that it represents some kind of division and fragmentation of pre-existing substance in the things composed of it; then we ourselves will not accept this teaching. We won't accept it! Even those who affirm this, if there are any, we declare no less wicked, just as those who affirm the indecent. And if someone takes the community of essence in such a way that in both the same ground of being is intelligible, why, if the Father, by assumption, in His essence is represented as light, then the essence of the Only Begotten is also recognized as light, and whatever ground of being in the Father, the same befits the Son - if, I say, this is how the community of essence is taken: then we agree to this, and we affirm that such our teaching. For as a result of this, the Divinity is also one, namely, unity is represented at the very basis of the essence, so that, although there is a difference in number and properties that distinguish each, unity is conceptualized at the basis of the Divinity. Having thus determined how to understand the community of essence, let us consider the subsequent words of Eunomius and what connection they have with the previous ones. Eunomius says: “and only in order and according to the advantages of time, one is first, and the other is second.” What is the need for those who have a common essence to obey order and be second in time? For it is impossible that the God of all, together with His Image, which did not shine in time, should not be from eternity, and should not have a union with Him outside the limits of not only time, but also all ages. For this is why it is called “radiance,” so that we may imagine it united, and “an imprint of the essence” (Heb. 1:3.), so that we may recognize from this what is consubstantial. But order can also be either natural or invented; natural, for example: the order of creatures established according to Creative laws, or the position of countable objects, or the relationship of causes to their products, while it has already been recognized in advance that God is the Creator and Founder of nature itself; but invented and artificial, for example: order in arguments, in sciences, in ranks, in numbers, and the like, and Eunomius, having concealed the first, mentioned the second kind of order, and says that order should not be ascribed to God, since “order is later than the establisher of order.” But either he did not know, or he arbitrarily hid, that there is another kind of order, not established by our position, but arising from the most natural sequence, for example, between fire and light, which is from fire; for here we call the cause first, and what is from the cause second, not by distance separating them from each other, but only by mentally imagining the cause before the product. Therefore, is there any reason to deny order where there is first and second, not because of our position, but because of the natural sequence between them? Why does Eunomius find it reprehensible to allow order; in relation to God? He thinks: if it is proven that in relation to God it is in no other way possible to imagine primacy, then he will only have to prove superiority by its very essence. And we say that in relation to the cause and that which is from the cause, the Father is presented to the Son; due to the difference of nature and the advantage of time, no less is represented; otherwise, admitting the latter, we will also deny that God is the Father; because otherness essentially rejects natural connection. But since this wise man has stretched himself to such an extent that he determines the nature of time for us, let us see how firm and prudent his mind is in this too. So he says that time is some kind of qualitative movement of the stars, namely the sun, the moon and all the others that have the power to move by themselves. Therefore, what will this strong man in heavenly knowledge call the continuation from the beginning of the existence of heaven and earth to the creation of the stars? For by the power of the Spirit he who described the creation of the world clearly says that the great and other stars were created on the fourth day. And apparently there was no time in the previous days, because the stars were not yet in motion. For how could they come into motion, which were not even created? And again, when Joshua fought with the Gibeonites, since the sun, bound by the command, remained motionless, and the moon stood in one place, then was there really no time? What shall we call this continuation of the day? What name can you come up with for it? For if the nature of time has become impoverished, then, obviously, an age has come. To call a small part of a day a century does not mean reaching such madness that it is impossible to surpass it? But apparently, due to the great subtlety of his mind, he believes that day and night consist in the qualitative movement of the stars, and together they are parts of time. That’s why he called time some kind of qualitative movement of the stars, without himself understanding what he was saying. But even if we call it that, it would be much more decent to call it not qualitative, but quantitative. Who has such a childish mind that he does not know that days, hours, months and years are measures, and not parts of time? And time is a continuation, extended by the state of the world; it measures any movement, whether of stars, animals, or anything moving, since we say that one is faster or slower than the other: - rather, that a greater distance travels in less time; and slower, which moves less at longer times. Eunomius, since the stars move in time, calls them the creators of time. And thus, according to the teachings of this sage, since ground beetles also move in time, we define time as follows: it is some kind of qualitative movement of ground beetles. For nothing differs from this in what he said, except the importance of the names. This is his teaching about time; consider what follows. Evn. But it is impossible, he says, for there to be anything in the essence of God, for example: type, or volume, or quantity; because God is completely free from complexity. If nothing like this or anything like this is united with God’s essence, it is not even permissible to think that it would ever be united with it; then on what other basis would it be permissible to liken a born entity to an unborn one? Because similarity, or comparison, or communication in essence will not leave room for any superiority or difference, but will clearly produce equality, and together with equality will show that what is being likened or compared is ungenerate. No one is crazy or dared in wickedness to such an extent as to call the Son equal to the Father, when the Lord Himself speaks in clear words: “I go to the Father, because the Father is greater than Me” (John 14:28). You. and after a few more words he says: Evn. But leaving aside many other arguments that the God of all is one, ungenerated and incomparable, I consider what has been said to be sufficient proof. You. When you intend to touch upon some evil teaching; first he takes something that is accepted by everyone, so that, due to justice in this, he does not lose trust in other matters. He says: “It is impossible for anything to be in God’s essence, for example: type, volume, quantity, because God is completely free from complexity.” Until then, he's right; but in subsequent words he again enters into himself. For, as if out of necessity, he adds the following to the blasphemies proposed above, saying: “if nothing like this or anything like this is connected to the essence, it is not even permissible to think that it will ever be connected to it; then on what basis will it be permissible to liken a born entity to an unborn one? What connection does this have with each other: if God is not complex, then the Son cannot have similarity with Him? For tell me, do you not also affirm that the Son has in Himself neither form, nor volume, nor quantity, and that He is completely free from complexity? But I think that you, with all your fury, will not dare to say anything different about the Son from what you say about the Father, namely, that He is incorporeal, has no form, no outline, and the like. Why is it not pious to compare the one without form with the one without form, and the one without quantity with the one without it, and the completely uncomplicated with the uncomplicated? But Eunomius supplies similarity in form and equality in volume; and what quantity is, which he considers to be something different from volume, let him better explain it himself. Evn. Therefore, he says, neither equal nor similar; because it is non-quantitative and has no form. You. And this is where I believe the similarity lies. For just as the Father is free from all complexity, so the Son is completely simple and uncomplicated; and similarity is not represented in the identity of species, but in essence itself. In those that have an image and outline, the similarity consists in the identity of the species; and nature, which has neither form nor outline, remains to have similarity in its very essence, and equality not in the size of volumes, but in the identity of strength. It is said: “Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:24); that is, all the power of the Father abides in Him. Therefore, “whatever He (the Father) does, the Son also does in the same way” (John 5:19). Evn. But similarity in essence, he says, comparison, communication, leaving no room for any superiority or difference, obviously produces equality. You. Why does it leave no room for any difference, even that which exists between the cause and that which is from the cause? Then Eunomius adds: Evn. No one is mad or so bold in wickedness as to call the Son equal to the Father. You. Let us say to him in the words of the prophet: “but you had the forehead of a harlot, you threw away shame” (Jer. 3:3.) and such women attribute their cold affairs to those who live honestly; and he calls those who want to magnify the glory of the Only Begotten foolish and bold in wickedness, being indignant at the same thing, which also irritated the Jews, who then said that he was making “Himself equal to God” (John 5:18). However, no one will find my words strange! The Jews, apparently, saw the need for an investigation somewhat better. For they were indignant because he called God his Father, concluding by himself about what follows, that is, that through this he makes himself equal to God; because from one thing - to have God as a Father, another necessarily follows - to be equal to God. Eunomius, without a doubt, admitting the first, denies the second, and points us to the words of the Lord, who said: “The Father who sent me is greater than I,” but does not listen to the Apostle who speaks: “He did not consider it robbery to be equal with God” 4 (Phil. 2:6). But if, according to your words, ungeneracy is an essence, and Christ wanted to show superiority in essence; then He would say: He who is unbegotten is greater than Me. Yours is the teaching that the name of the Father means activity, not essence. Therefore, when he says that the Father is greater than the Son, he affirms that activity is greater than deeds. But every activity agrees in measure with its products, and activity is great for great things, and small for small ones. Therefore, to admit that the Father is greater than the Son in this respect means nothing more than to consider the activity disproportionate to the work, and to assert that God moved in vain to great activity when he could not equalize the end with this activity. Therefore, one of two things must come out: either the name of the Father does not mean activity, but essence (and in this case, the concept of similarity invented by them, according to which they consider the Son to be similar to the Father, that is, similar in activity, for they say: as the Father willed, so he created, which is why they call the Son the image of will); or, saving it, we must not say that the Father is greater; because any activity, when there is no external obstacle, is proportionate to its works, and this is said to expose the disagreement in their teachings. Who also does not know that something is called great either in the meaning of its cause, or in the fullness of its power, or in its superiority of dignity, or in its excess of volume? But here the word: more is not taken in relation to volume; Eunomius himself said this in advance, and in the thing itself it is indeed so; because the greater in magnitude is the same as the lesser taken with the remainder. But who can measure one by the other, when both are incomprehensible in magnitude, or better yet, have no magnitude and are non-quantitative? And where comparison is impossible, how do you recognize the excess? To say that Christ, God’s power, is insufficient in strength is only appropriate for children who have not heard the words of the Lord, Who says: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), and takes the word one to mean equal in strength, as we will prove from the very Gospel sayings. For, having said about those who believed: “no one will snatch them out of My hand” (v. 28); and: “My Father, who gave me the gift, is greater than all, “and no one can snatch from the hand of the Father” (v. 29), added: “I and the Father are one,” obviously taking the word “one” to mean equal and identical in power. But if the throne of God, as we believe, is a name signifying dignity; What else does the Son's definite seat at the right hand of the Father mean, if not equality of dignity? Yes, and the Lord gives a promise to come “in the glory of the Father” (Matthew 16:27). Therefore, it remains to conclude that here the word “more” is said in the sense of cause. Since the beginning of the Son is from the Father; therefore the Father and more, as the author and the beginning. That is why the Lord said this: My Father is greater than I, that is, because He is the Father. But the word “Father” means what else but that He is the cause and the beginning of what is born of Him? Of course, even in your wisdom you cannot say that one entity is greater or lesser than another entity. Thus, both in their opinion and in truth itself, the word in question "more" in no way shows superiority in essence. And for God the Father to be greater in volume, even Eunomius himself will not say this, having already declared that in God one should not imagine quantity. Therefore, we are left with the above-mentioned way to understand the word “more”, that is, in the meaning of beginning and guilt. This is Eunomius’ attempt to extract blasphemy from the word “more.” It is worthy of surprise that he, having fallen into contradictions in so few words (as if his spiritual eyes were struck by blindness), could not see the opposites in what he said; and through this he turned out to be so alien to the peace of God, which our Lord left sincerely and unflatteringly to those who believed in Him, saying: “Peace I leave yours, My peace I give to you” (John 14:27), turned out, I say, so alien to this world that he contradicted not only others, but also himself. For, having said that God and the Father is greater than the Only Begotten Son, and accusing those who assert equality of corrupting the mind, as if he had indisputable evidence for this, without going much further, look at what he writes. Evn. But leaving aside many other arguments that the God of all is one, ungenerated and incomparable, I consider what has been said to be sufficient proof. You. So let us ask him: if God is incomparable, then from what is His superiority understood? For the greater is seen from comparison with the exceeded. Therefore, how is He both greater and incomparable? But Eunomius, in order to prove that the essence of God is different from the essence of the Only Begotten, took the word “more,” used comparatively, to mean a difference in essence; and in order to again bring the Only Begotten into equality with creation, he establishes the position that the Father is incomparable, inventing some new and truly incomparable path to blasphemy, and under the pretext of exalting and exalting God and the Father, belittling the glory of the Only Begotten Son and God, although the Lord testifies and says: “Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father” (John 5:23.), and: “He who rejects me rejects Him who sent Me” (Luke 10:16). But the enemy of the truth, who inspired these people to say and write such things, knew that if he blinded them to the understanding of the glory of the Only Begotten, he would take away from them the knowledge of God and the Father himself. Therefore, although, apparently, they attribute some advantages to God and the Father, none of this is of benefit for them, deprived of knowledge of the path that leads to God. For the Jews also think that they glorify God; and we will also hear that some of the Greeks want to say something great about God, but no one will say that they magnify God, without faith in Christ, by whom knowledge is brought (Rom. 5:2). So he calls God incomparable, he wanted to prove that the Son is equal to the creature and, like it, is far from the glory of the Father, because those who are exceeded by an equal measure are necessarily equal to each other. A - the Only Begotten Son, according to the teachings of Eunomius, is as much exceeded by God and the Father as each of the creatures, for such is the incomparable; it is equally impregnable and unattainable for everyone. If the Son, along with others, is removed from the Father, then He is equal to those with whom he is removed. Would they say that Judea is worse than this blasphemy? What else can you hear from the pagans? and those who show that they honor God’s word are not ashamed to offer teachings that are decent and characteristic of Jews and pagans! If the Son is not compared with God and the Father, just as neither the Angels, nor the sky, nor the sun, nor the earth, nor each of the earthly animals and plants are compared; then how will He be different from His own creatures? Where does He have this relationship with Him who gave birth? I and the Father are one, He says. Let us recall the same saying again. Tell me, is this not the word of one who compares himself? What am I saying: comparing? even connecting, and, so to speak, showing thereby the indifference of nature. And Eunomius asserts that God is incomparable and the goodness of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, even as many people as they can see, through teaching and exercise in good deeds, leads to the likeness of everyone to God, when he says: “Be ye perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect” (Matthew 5:48). And he is trying with all his might to deprive the Only Begotten of the property that He has by nature. But even in this case, his word turns against himself. For if the Father is incomparable, where will he get evidence that the Son is not similar? If he says that through mutual comparison of essences a dissimilarity was found; then why is the Father incomparable in this case? And if it doesn’t compare at all; then how could one know the difference? Thus, as a rule, evil opposes not only good, but also itself. St. Basil calls Eunomius a Galatian, perhaps referring to the words of the Apostle (Galat. 3.1.): “O foolish Galatians, who deceived you into not submitting to the truth?” Eudoxius, successor of Macedonius In all likelihood, the word “Son” is left out here, as the words immediately following show. oV en morjh qeou uparcwn ouc arpagmon hghsato to eina qew. oV – which – en – in – morjh – image – qeou – God – uparcwn – abiding, existing – ouc not – arpagmon – to seize from the verb “arpagmoV” the act of seizing or a captured thing, i.e. not by an act of capture or robbery – hghsato – thought – to – article – einai – to be – isa equal – qew – to God. Who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery for Himself to be equal with God (Translation by Bishop Cassian (Bezobrazov)). This text can be commented on in two ways, but in neither case does the meaning change. 1. In this text we are talking about the fact that the Son of God, being equal to God, did not hold on (cling, grabbed) to this His equality with God, but for the sake of saving people, He belittled Himself, agreeing to take on the image of a slave in order to destroy the mediastinum between God and people and become a real mediator. 2. “I did not consider it theft to be equal with God,” that is, equality with God was not something stolen, but belonged to Him in essence. For example, I can take something and not consider it theft only if this thing belongs to me. You might be interested in: