Книга 2. О Сыне

Having laid the foundation for blasphemy against the Son of God, as much as he could, in his word about the God of all, after this Eunomius directly sharpens his tongue against the Only Begotten God. What is he saying? Evn. And one Son, the Only Begotten, about whom I could imagine the sayings of the saints, proclaiming that the Son is generation and creation, and by the very difference of names indicating the difference of essence, and thus would be freed from worries and labors. But for people who assume a physical birth and are led into misunderstandings by mutual expressions, perhaps it is necessary to say a few words about this. You. These are the words of Eunomius! If it were necessary to look at his entire work as a fictitious litigation, the kind that is given to young men in vanity schools so that they learn to look for something plausible in lies themselves (as indeed in Eunomius, just as there, everything is like a battle with shadows: a struggle with accusers who are not there; defending oneself against an accusation that no one offered; a word to judges who are not shown anywhere); If this were the way to listen to his words, then I myself would stop analyzing them, and I would advise anyone else not to bother with them at all. But how he promises something more important, and the idea has arisen in many that he has some concern for the truth; then it is necessary, if possible, to put each of its provisions to the test. - What method of testing could be fairer than, comparing his word with the teachings handed down by them from the Spirit, accepting what is in agreement with them, and not believing what is contrary to them and fleeing from it as from an enemy? So, first of all, let Eunomius show which of the saints called Christ begotten and created? What sayings of the Scriptures will he present to prove what he has said? – If it is based on the words of Blessed Peter quoted in the Acts of the Apostles: “Let all the house of Israel know with certainty that God made Him both Lord and Christ, even Jesus, whom you crucified” (Acts 2:36): then, firstly, this testimony has no connection with the subject of this study. He promised to show that the saints call the Son a creation, and gives testimony about God and the Father, “he made Him.” But he will not say that in reasoning about such truths he is allowed to invent some word productions and changes in names. For, if for “every idle word” the answer is “on the day of judgment” (Matthew 12:36); then, all the more, we will not be allowed to invent innovations in such important things without torture. How appropriately the above saying is said about God and the Father, we conveniently learned this from the word of God; but that the word “creation” cannot be applied to the Only Begotten, this was shown by the Holy Spirit by his very silence. After this, will it be safe, rearranging the saying in one’s own way: “He made Him,” to call the Creator of all a creature? If such a name befitted Him, the Spirit would not have been silent about it. Regarding created beings, we find something derived from the word: “created,” the name: “creation,” but regarding the Son of God, we do not find this. It is said: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1); and in another place: “I reason about the works of Your hands” (Ps. 142:5); also: “what is invisible in Him has been seen since the creation of the world by considering the things that are created” (Rom. 1:20). So Scripture uses this name where it is appropriate; but does not apply it to the Lord Jesus Christ, since it does not correspond to the greatness of His glory. He is not ashamed to call the Lord of glory an “axe” (Matt. 3:10), and a “cornerstone,” and a “stone of stumbling,” and a “stone of offense” (1 Pet. 2:6.8), and other similar names, in which there is little honor in the opinion of people who do not comprehend the sign of names; but nowhere does he call Him creation. And Eunomius, wanting to confuse not only his followers, but also the ancient saints with slander, says that he adopted this name from the saints. But, in addition to the fact that it is dangerous, and therefore we should not dare to make such innovations and reinterprets the names of the Lord in our own way, we also note that the meaning of the apostolic saying does not present us with anything about the eternal hypostatic existence of the Only Begotten, about which we are now discussing. For it is obvious that the Apostle is speaking here not about the very essence of the Word of God, which was with God in the beginning (John 1:1), but about Him who spent Himself in the form of a servant, and Who was made conformed to our lowly body (Phil. 2:7; 3:21), and Who was crucified from weakness (2 Cor. 13:4). Anyone, even if he has not delved deeply into the meaning of these words of the Apostle, can understand that here he is not teaching us theology, but showing us an image of the economy of salvation. For, when he says: “God made Him Lord and Christ, that Jesus whom you crucified,” he means only His humanity and that which is visible in Him, as is clearly revealed to all from the indicative speech (“That Jesus”). – And Eunomius transfers the word: “made Him” to the original birth of the Only Begotten. He is also not convinced that the expression: “Lord” is a name meaning not essence, but power, and that, therefore, who said: “He made Him Lord and Christ,” is not talking here about the descent of the Son into being, but speaks only about the authority and dominion over all, handed over to Him from the Father. However, we will prove this later, when we denounce Eunomius for citing the evidence of Scripture, which does not agree with the intention of the Spirit. Now let's return to the continuation of his speech. What does this name mean to him, and on what basis does he dare to call the Creator of all things Creature? Having deceived himself with dishonest false thinking, he thinks that the difference in names also proves the difference in essence. But which sane person would agree to this proposition: “of which things the names are different, the essences of those things must necessarily be different”? The names of Peter and Paul, and in general of all people, are different; but the essence of all is the same. In very many ways we are the same; and we differ from one another only by those properties that are seen in each individually: why names serve to designate not essences, but special properties that characterize each. So, having heard the name Peter, we do not understand by this name the essence of Peter (I am calling the essence here a material subject, which this name does not mean at all), but only instill in ourselves the concept of the special properties seen in him. For at this word, we immediately imagine Peter, son of Jonah, from Bethsaida, brother of Andrew, from among the fishermen called to the apostolic ministry and for the excellence of his faith received the promise that the Church would be built on him. None of these properties is an essence that could be understood as an independent principle. Thus the name shows us the distinctive character of Peter, but does not represent his essence at all. Also, having heard the name of Paul, we imagine a combination of other special properties: we imagine a Tarsian, a Jew, according to the law of the Pharisee, a disciple of Gamaliel, a zealous persecutor of the churches of God, a terrible vision turned to knowledge, an Apostle of the pagan nations. For all this is combined in one word: Paul. - Moreover, if it were true that the names of the things that are different, the essences of those are opposite; then it would behoove both Peter and Paul, and all people in general, to be different in essence. But since there is not a single person who would be so rude and ignorant of the nature common to us all that he would dare to say this; for it is said: “I was also formed from clay” (Job 33:6), and this means nothing more than the unity of the essence of all people: then it is a lie who says that from the difference in names one should also conclude about the difference in essence. For the nature of things does not follow the names, but on the contrary, the names were invented after the things. Otherwise, if the first were true, then one would have to agree that the names of things that have the same names have the same essence: and therefore, since those who are perfect in virtue are honored with the title of gods (John 10:35), then people would be consubstantial with the God of all. But just as to say this would mean obvious madness, so the above words contain the same madness. So, from what has been said it is clear that in the Father and the Son the names do not mean essences, but only show special properties, so in no way can one accept conclusions from the difference of names to the opposition of essences. With this conclusion, Eunomius first of all refutes himself. For if creation and generation are different, then, due to the difference in names, the essence of the Only Begotten will also be different. But if only crazy people can say this, then no one in their right mind will say the previous one. Here Eunomius pretends to have many proofs that the saints called the Son a creation; but hastening to other, more necessary research, this time he does not mention it, postponing it until another time. - A skillful deception - prefers silence to words where he does not know what to say! For if he had even a shadow of evidence that would express that the Only Begotten is a creation, then he would certainly have buzzed into our ears and deafened us. He further says that for people who assume the physical birth of the Lord and are led into misunderstandings by mutual expressions, he needs to say a few words about this. - But what prevented him from first confirming his word with the testimony of the Scriptures, and then proceeding to correct the weak and make amends for the harm resulting from mutual words, if only it was for someone or will ever be? In fact, who would be so completely carnal in mind and ignorant of the word of God that, hearing about the Divine birth, he would be transported to bodily images, which include the copulation of a man with a woman, conception in the womb, the composition and formation of the body, and the birth into the world at the proper time? Who will be so bestial that, hearing about God the Word, who came from God, hearing about Wisdom, born of God, he could incline his thoughts to bodily passions? Among other things, he came up with this plausible image of explanation also in order to appear as a person who takes upon himself the work of teaching out of feeling for his foolish brethren. And so, he corrects the sensory assumptions that can be presented with the word “birth”; and does not avert those harmful consequences that should come from calling the Lord a creature. Whoever imagines bodily birth in his imagination will easily be transported in thought to the material images of creation. For if a weak person, with the word: “give birth,” will imagine some kind of separation, rearrangement and outflow of the essence of the one giving birth; then one cannot expect that he would not be brought to the assumption that to compose the essence (εις υποςασιν) of the so-called creature, some substance was brought in from outside, from nothing. - Why does Eunomius heal the mental infirmities of his brothers only half, and, caring for those who expect a physical birth, neglects those who are tempted by the name of creation? - This is because the expression: “born to be,” as he himself knows, is contrary to his opinions, since the one who is born necessarily has an inextricable connection and perfect, without any difference, similarity with the one who gave birth; and the word: “to be created” favors and contributes to his assumptions, since it expresses the thought of something alien, external to the creator, and not at all having an inextricable connection with him. – To this Eunomius adds the following: Evn. So, according to the teaching of the Scriptures, we say that the Son is a generation; meaning by this that the essence is not one thing, but what is signified by the name is something else, different from it, which is signified by the name, that is the essence itself (υποςασιν), for the name in truth corresponds to the essence. You. And with these words he is obviously fighting against the truth; however, he speaks in agreement with himself. For just as in the above speeches he determined that the essence of God of all things is signified by ungeneracy, so here he says that the essence of the Son is signified by the fact that He is generation; and by this he wants to prove that, due to the opposition of the begotten to the unbegotten, the Only Begotten is opposite to the Father in his very essence. This is why he introduces words not used by the Spirit of God - he calls the Son a generation. Where did he get this from? From what teaching? From which prophet? From what Apostle who would give such a name to the Son? – I have not found this expression used in this sense anywhere in Scripture. And he boasts that such names are borrowed from no other teaching than the teaching of the Spirit. “Is it not enough for you to make trouble for people” (Isa. 7:13); he dares to slander the Spirit himself. That the Father gave birth, we know from many testimonies: but that the Son was begotten, this has not yet been heard until now. It is said: “To us a child is born, to us a son is given; dominion is upon His shoulder, and they will call His name” – not a generation, but – “Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Is. 9:6). But if the word “generation” denoted His essence, then, of course, we would have learned no other name from the Spirit than the one that could clearly express the essence. And Peter, for recognizing the truth, was worthy to hear this proclamation: “Blessed are you,” did not say: “You are a generation,” but: “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God” (Matthew 16:16). Likewise, Paul, who filled all his writings with the name of his son, did not use anywhere the word: “generation,” which Eunomius pronounces with such great confidence, as if he had borrowed it from a divine school. But here they will not allow him to change and remake the expression: “begat”, used from the Father, and therefore call the Son of God the offspring. Because it is not proper for a person, taught by the fear of God, to easily run from genuine sayings to those that seem to come from them; on the contrary, he loves to adhere to the names laid down in Scripture and fill his praises with them, in accordance with the greatness of God. For if the first translators who translated the Scriptures from Hebrew into Greek did not dare to interpret the meaning of some names, but transferred genuine Hebrew sayings, such as: Sabaoth, Adanoi, Eloi, and the like, and showed such reverence not only for the names of God, but also for many others: then with what fear should we look at the names of the Lord! If they did not even dare to interpret some names, so as not to weaken the clarity and power of expression by giving it an inappropriate meaning; then would they allow themselves to make up some names according to their own invention? But if God gave birth, says Eunomius, then why should not the Begotten be called begotten? Because we are afraid to give our names to the One to whom “God has highly exalted Him and given Him the Name that is above every name” (Phil. 2:9). “You are My Son,” He says, “Today I have begotten You” (Ps. 2:7). According to their concept, the Lord should be called here not the Son, but the generation, because He was born; but that is not said. Therefore, whoever has before his eyes the judgment of Christ, and knows how dangerous it is to take away anything from the words delivered by the Spirit, or to add anything to them (Rev. 22:18-19), he should not attempt to introduce something new from himself, but should be content with what was previously proclaimed by the saints. So, is it not extreme madness to venture on something that is not accepted either in common usage or in the language of the Scriptures? For what kind of father or what mother, with kindness and tender love for his child, will call him a child, leaving the usual greeting: “my son” or “child”? “Child,” it is said, “go to the grapes” (Matthew 21:28). And in another place: “God will provide for himself a lamb” to slaughter, “a son” (Gen. 22:8). In a similar way, Isaac says: “Are you my son” (Gen. 27:24)? Also: “My son, do not reject the discipline of the Lord, and do not be burdened by His reproof” (Prov. 3:11). Also: “a wise son makes his father glad” (Prov. 10:1). It's the same in many places. But nowhere is it seen that anyone calls his child his offspring; and this is for the obvious reason that “son” and “child” are proper names for animate beings, and the word “beget” is rarely attached to them. A miscarriage that has not yet received an image can also be called a birth; but he is not worthy to be called a child. The fruits of the earth are also called offspring, but not children. “I will not drink,” said the Lord, from the generation of “this” grape (Matthew 26:29). And about animate beings we rarely find this name used; and where it is used in this sense, it speaks there, as everyone can see, of an animal that is given over to reproach and is presented as an example of anger. For it is said: “snakes, brood of vipers!” (Matthew 23:33). That is why, I think, the general use of speech finds this name base, and divine Scripture clearly turns away from it, especially in relation to the only begotten Son of God. Scripture does not even allow the name “child,” since it contains a lot of humanity. The Apostle everywhere calls the Lord the Son, and also glorifies Him with other various names, calling Him the Firstborn (Rom. 8:29; Heb. 1:6), and the Image (2 Cor. 4:4), and the Radiance (Heb. 1:3); but avoids the name "generation". If he, or any other of the supreme preachers of the word, uses this expression, then let Eunomius prove it, and we will allow him to destroy everything we have said. But he cannot do this unless he decides, imitating the wicked Marcion, to exclude some of the words of God and add others. Thus it is proved that the word "generation" is not peculiar either to the general usage or to the language of the Scriptures. Now let's see whether this name can be used to designate the very essence of the Son. Eunomius says: Evn. It is not possible to imagine that the essence was something else, and that what is signified by the name was something else, different from it; but that very thing is the essence that is signified by the name, since the name truly corresponds to the essence. You. In truth, these teachings of yours are worthy of such judges as you can only imagine in your imagination. In fact, you, as if in the marketplace of dreams, or in a meeting of drunken people, where no one listens or understands what is being said, lay down your laws with great courage, thinking that instead of all the evidence, it is already enough that you said so. But who does not know that those names that are pronounced in a detached sense, about things in themselves, really designate the objects corresponding to them, and those in which the admixture of one object with others is expressed show only its relation to those objects to which it is applied? So the names: man, horse, ox, mean the objects themselves that are named. And the expressions: son, or slave, or friend, show only the contact of one name with another, which is associated with it. Thus, whoever hears the word “generation” does not turn his thoughts to any essence, but understands only that one thing is connected with the other: for the generation of someone is called a generation. Therefore, is it not extreme madness to legitimize that something is recognized as an essence that does not give the thought of any independence, but only means the relationship of one thing to another? – Yes, and detached names, although they seem to express an object better than others, however, as we showed this a little higher, do not represent the essence itself, but only mean some properties related to it. But this great sage, who spent his whole life in vain tricks, is not ashamed to say that the word “generation” denotes the very essence of the Only Begotten. Look how ridiculous this is. – If the essence is a generation, and vice versa, if the generation is the essence itself; then all creations will be of one essence with each other. And from this, according to his method of inference, what will come of it? That the Creator of everything will turn out to have the same essence with everyone involved in the birth. For Eunomius will not say that generation signifies essence only in the Son, but does not retain the same meaning in other beings involved in generation. Otherwise, let him present a clear reason why one and the same name should not have the same force equally for all objects signified by it. But he will not find it: because no matter what concept of generation he comes up with, it will equally befit all those born. Let the strongest proof of the truth of what we have said be the own reflection of each of the listeners. Let everyone ask himself: what concept does he imprint on himself when he hears that such and such is the offspring of such and such? Is it that the one who is born is the essence of the one who gave birth? - But it's funny; The only truth is that one is brought into being from the other, through birth. Likewise, the same should be said about the Only Begotten, and about whoever was born. And let no one think that this similarity of attitude destroys the dignity of the Only Begotten. For the difference between the Son and others does not consist in His relation to anything, but in the special character of the essence in which the superiority of God over mortal beings appears. “Now look at the absurdity to which their teaching leads. - If the generation of another is called the generation, which is proven by general usage and which no one will contradict, and if this very name also means the essence in the Son, according to their teaching, then it will be the essence of the One whose generation the Son is called. Consequently, this name, that is, generation, will no longer mean the essence of the Only Begotten, as they strive to prove, but the God of all. For if it is not possible to imagine that essence was something else, and generation was something else, different from it; if the words: “essence” and “generation” are equivalent; and the Son is the generation of God: then He will be the essence of God, since generation means essence. And thus, from the reasoning of Eunomius, it will be proven that generation is the essence of the Ungenerated. If this conclusion is worthy of laughter; then let the one who placed the first parcels take all the shame upon himself. This usually happens that when reasoning is once divorced from the truth, the very consistency of error carries it into many and dangerous absurdities. But these are still some of the beginnings of warfare and preparation for blasphemy; He proposes the main essence of evil after this, saying: Evn. The essence of the Son, which did not exist before its composition, is begotten; however, she was born first of all, according to the will of the Father. You. Again the same tricks as before! He explains to us about the essence of the Son, as if he imagined the Son to be something else, different from it, and thus slightly prepares the ear for blasphemy, not explicitly saying that the Son was born from nothing, but only suggesting that His essence was born, which did not exist before. - But tell me, before what did she not exist? Consider his trick. So that everyone thinks that he is saying something tolerable, he compares it with itself, and does not say that it does not exist, but only adds: “before its composition.” - But tell me what you claim about the essence of the Father: is it older than its composition? – If Eunomius does not subordinate the essence of the Son to time, and does not understand the words: “before” in this sense; that word is vain and empty, and therefore not worthy of an answer. It would be no less empty in relation to the God of all things, if one wanted to transfer such nonsense to Him. For in this case it would still be meaningless to say that God did not exist before Himself. If the word: “before,” he refers to the essence of the Son in the sense of time, and says that His essence was born, or more precisely, that the Son himself was born from nothing (for, in relation to the thought itself, there is no difference to say this way or that way): firstly, to place the Creator of time second after time, or, if you like, after centuries; secondly, maintaining consistency in his blasphemy, he will say that the Father, not being a Father from the beginning, became a Father later. But, if being a Father is a good quality and befitting the blessedness of God; then why did not the property befitting Him belong to Him from the beginning? - Either out of ignorance of the best, or out of powerlessness (this is how they must explain the reason for this shortcoming), - out of ignorance, as if God had invented the best only after; out of powerlessness, as if He, knowing and understanding the best, could not achieve this. - If it is not good for Him to be a Father (which is contrary to the truth); then why would He accept the change and choose the worse? - But let such blasphemy be directed at its perpetrators! - God is the Father of everything from infinite eternity, and did not ever begin to be a Father. For neither the lack of strength prevented the fulfillment of His will, nor the fact that He waited for the expiration of some centuries, so that, like people and other animals, having reached a mature age, when the power of childbearing came, he could receive what he wanted (this is the way only crazy people think and speak about Him): on the contrary, He has in Himself, if I can call it that, a patronymic co-extended with His eternity. Therefore, the Son, pre-existing and always existing, did not begin to be at any time; but when the Father, then the Son, and with the thought of the Father the thought of the Son is immediately united; for it is evident that the Father is the Father of the Son. – There is no beginning for the Father; and the beginning of the Son is the Father: and between Them there is nothing in between. How then did He not exist from the beginning (and this is precisely what the expression used in their false thinking means: “before His composition”) He Who has before Himself nothing that could be conceived except the Father, from whom He has existence, and Who does not exceed Him by any distance, but is presented before Him only as a cause? Therefore, if it is proven that the communion of the Son with God and the Father is eternal, since our thought directly, without encountering any emptiness, passes from the Son to the Father, and without any interval unites the Son with the Father; then how can He, who is not separated from the Father by any middle place, be touched by the blasphemy of false teachers, who say that He was brought into being out of nothing? In addition, one cannot help but be surprised at their madness and the fact that they do not understand how, while claiming that the Son is from nothing, they place Him not only after the Father, but also after the means by which they differentiate the Only Begotten from the Father. For if there is anything between the Father and the Son, then it must necessarily be older than the existence of the Son. What will it be? – What else if not a century or time? For whoever thinks that the life of the Father is longer than the life of the Only Begotten, how else will he measure it - in order to say that he has found an excess of one life over another - if not by the interval of some centuries or times? - But if this is true, then the Scripture speaks a lie, which claims that through Him the ages [time] came into being (Heb. 1:2), and teaches that “All things came into being through Him” (John 1:3), including among all things, without a doubt, the ages. - If they say: we do not deny that the Son was born before the age [of time]; then let it be known that they reject the same thing in deed, that they yield in words. To prove this, we ask them, who produce from nothing the essence of the Only Begotten: when He was not, as you say; What was then the average distance between Him and the Father? And what name will you come up with for this distance? - General usage subordinates any distance either to times or centuries: what is time for sensory things, then for transcendental things is the nature of the century. If they, in their wisdom, come up with something third; let them say. If they remain silent; then let it be known that they place the essence of the Only Begotten in second place after the ages. For if there was any middle distance before the Son, co-prostrate with the life of the Father; then it was obviously one of the centuries. But there is and will not be anything that could be imagined in thought before the independent essence of the Only Begotten. For whatever we imagine, as the most ancient, the existence of God - the Word, which in the beginning was with God (John 1:1) will be higher than all that. And even if a self-deluded mind, intensifying to create unprecedented phantoms, invents a thousand dreams about objects that do not exist, it will never invent such a cunning by means of which it could be transported beyond the beginning of the Only Begotten, and leave behind its movement the life of Him Who is Life itself, and with its word rise above the beginning of God - the Word, and see the ages in which there would be no God of ages. After this, see with what words Eunomius used to honor the Only Begotten, robbing Him of the glory due to Him. Evn. However, the essence of the Son was born first of all, according to the will of God and the Father. You. This is the great dignity he ascribes to the Son - to be older than creation, and to exist before the creatures He created, believing that this is already sufficient for the glory of the Creator of all things, when He is placed before His creatures. Having alienated Him from His characteristic communion with God the Father, He gives Him glory by preferring Him to creatures. Then he brings his blasphemy to the point of shamelessness, and thinks to completely confuse you with the inevitable and necessary conclusions of his speculations. Evn. Or, he says, God begat an existing Son or a non-existent one. If not existing; then no one reproach me for insolence. If existing; then to say this is not only excessive absurdity and blasphemy, but also complete stupidity: for the existing does not need birth. You. This, well-known, false thinking was invented by others long ago, and now it is only completed in his shameless and arrogant lips. We, first of all, remind the listeners that this sage reached such necessary conclusions, following the ignorance of rude people who, hearing about the birth of the Son, understand it in a human way: holding on to sensory ideas, he leads unlearned souls through them to spiritual speculation, and therefore, seeing that born animals are born without having been before, and that the one born today did not exist yesterday, transfers this concept to an independent essence the Only Begotten, and says: “since He was born, before He was born He was not.” This is how highly he preaches to us about the birth of the Only Begotten! These are the words with which he heals the infirmities of our brothers! But, if anyone, then most of all he should listen to this parable: “Physician, heal yourself” (Luke 4:23)! What kind of mitigating medicine can we offer him against this strange illness of the mind, if not these words proclaimed to us by the Holy Spirit through blessed John: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1)? With these two sayings, the Evangelist blocked all the paths to false teaching: because it is neither possible to ascend above the first, nor beyond the boundaries of the second. It is impossible to come up with anything that would be older than the beginning: for this last would not be the beginning if anything existed further than it. It is also not possible to move in thought beyond the limits of the saying: “there was”, and behind this to discern a time in which there would not have been (a beginning); because this thought: “there was not,” is already the destruction of the thought: “there was.” If the beginning were among the things understood in relation to others, as for example one can understand these expressions: “the beginning of wisdom” (Ps. 111:10; Prov. 1:7), or: “the beginning of a good way” (Prov. 16:6), or: “in the beginning God created” (Gen. 1:1); then, perhaps, we could still ascend in thought beyond the birth of that which arose from such a beginning. But, since here (Jn. 1:1) the beginning is understood in a detached and irrespective sense, and means the highest nature; Isn't he worthy of ridicule who comes up with something beyond this nature, or tries to carry thoughts higher than it? How limitless is this beginning, beyond which nothing can be assumed; in the same way, what is signified by the word “was” extends into infinity. For the word: “there was” does not show here a temporary existence, as in the following expressions: “there was a man in the land of Uz” (Job 1:1), or: “there was a man from Ramathaim-Zophim” (1 Sam. 1:1), or: “the land was formless and empty” (Gen. 1:2); on the contrary, the Evangelist himself in another book revealed to us the meaning of this: “it was”, saying: “He who is and who was and who is to come” (Rev. 1:8): for what the word means: “He who is [he who is]”, the same word: “was”, that is, ever-present and timeless. And to call the non-Existent in the beginning is neither characteristic of the one who preserves the concept of the beginning intact, nor of the one who connects the existence of the Only Begotten with it. For just as it is impossible to imagine in thoughts anything existing before the beginning, so it is impossible to separate the existence of God - the Word - from the beginning. So, no matter how far you want to ascend through the curious searches of the mind, you will never be able to rise above this: “it was,” and become beyond this with your thoughts. Let us ask him: was God the Word in the beginning, or did he appear to him later? – If there was; then “restrain your tongue from evil” (Ps. 33:14), that is, from the blasphemous expression: “He was not.” If it’s different, then it’s wicked to say; then I will turn your own expressions against you, and I will say that this other word contains not only blasphemy, but also extreme madness: for is it not obvious madness for people to demand an account of the words of the Spirit and call themselves a disciple of the Gospel, and at the same time rebel against this very Gospel? – Consider the divine sayings, with what accuracy and clarity they testify to the eternal birth of the Son. After Matthew explained the birth according to the flesh, as he himself says: “the book of the birth of Jesus Christ, the son of David” (Matthew 1:1); after Mark delivered the sermon to John with the beginning of the Gospel, saying: “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: Behold, I send My angel before Thy face, who will prepare Thy way; the voice of one crying in the wilderness” (Mark 1:1–3); after Luke proposed bodily principles, and then began to theology: the gospel was still needed, - and the Evangelist John, who began to write after the others, having elevated his mind, or, better yet, having been lifted up by the power of the Spirit above everything sensible and above the time that accompanies sensory things, he began to approach the Most High Himself, so that it was possible to testify to him about ourselves: “even if we knew Christ in the flesh, now we no longer know.” (2 Cor. 5:16). Having reached the very beginning, and having left all bodily and temporal concepts below his theology, he louder than previous preachers proclaims the mysteries corresponding to the height of his knowledge. The beginning was not from Mary (says), and not from these times. - But what? – “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). In these few sayings he combines everything - being from eternity, and passionless birth, and the unity of nature with the Father, and the greatness of nature; and by applying the saying: “it was,” it leads back to the beginning, as if in order to stop the mouths of those who blaspheme and say: “He did not exist,” and long ago to stop all the paths of their false thinking. Then, having outlined in the teaching about God - the word, as it were, some clear image of the nature of the Only Begotten, he points to Him, as already known, with these words: “It was in the beginning with God” (John 1:2), and again adds: “it was” to represent the birth of the Only Begotten in connection with the eternity of the Father. And then again: “In Him was life, and the life was the light of men” (John 1:4), and further: “there was the true Light” (John 1:9). Thus, by the application of the word: “was”, meaning eternity, the right teaching is fenced off on all sides! - Despite this, Eunomius rejected all the evidence of the Spirit, and as if not even hearing Him, so repeatedly calling to us: “it was,” he says: “he was not born; therefore, born after, he rose.” – But if there was no birth in the beginning, as you say; Isn’t this the most obvious attack against the sayings of the Gospel, which we have believed? After this, who of the right minds will not agree that just as the eye, withdrawn from the illuminated places, due to the lack of light, necessarily ceases to act, so the mind, drawn by the dreams of the imagination into the region of the non-existent, due to the lack of some kind of light of truth, is confused, becomes meaningless and is deprived of understanding. Truly, just as the eye outside the light cannot use the ability of vision, so the soul, rushing around outside the concept of the Only Begotten, cannot use understanding. Because falling away from the truth is blindness and blindness of the mind. Thus, the mind that thinks that it has comprehended something that happened before the Only Begotten is vain and blinded, and truly knows nothing, being likened in this to a person who would attribute sharp vision to an eye straining to see in the darkness. It is said: “in Your light we see light” (Ps. 36:10). And whoever says that he comprehended what happened when there was no light yet, the same thing happens to him as to those possessed by delirium tremens, who in delirium think to see something that is not in front of them. It is impossible to imagine what is beyond the Son. For what is sensual light to the eye, is God the Word to the soul, about whom it is said: “was the true Light, which enlightens every person who comes into the world” (John 1:9); so that the unenlightened soul is incapable of understanding. Therefore, how can one comprehend what is beyond the birth of Light? “On the contrary, I think it would behoove them, if they cared at least a little about the truth, leaving behind bodily likenesses, no longer desecrating the concepts of God with material ideas, but following those theological teachings that the Holy Spirit gave us, and, instead of these questions - similar to riddles, which are equally dangerous to solve either way - imagine in their thoughts a birth worthy of God, dispassionate, inseparable, indissoluble, timeless, and raising the mind to this divine birth, to understand it through the likeness of radiance pouring out from the light; one should imagine “the image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15), not subsequently made similar to the Prototype, as happens with artistic images, but existing and abiding together with the Prototype that produced It, not imprinted through imitation, but existing because the Prototype exists, so that in the Son, as if in a kind of seal, the entire nature of the Father is depicted. Or, if you like, a similarity to this can be the essence of the arts, which is completely transferred from teachers to students in such a way that the teachers do not lose anything, and the students acquire new perfection. And this is still not an exact similarity; for here there is an extension of time. Closer is another similarity - namely, how, together with the movements of the mind, the nature of thoughts is inseparable and not in time. And no one blames me in vain for what I have said, if anything in these similarities is not entirely similar to the objects themselves: for it is not possible with all accuracy to apply small and low things to the divine and eternal. But I only wanted to expose, as far as possible, the pretense of those who cannot accommodate the dispassionate birth in their minds. – In what sense is the Son called an image (Col. 1:15), and is the “image” born, and the “radiance of the glory” of God (Heb. 1:3), and “wisdom,” and “power,” and “the righteousness of God” (1 Cor. 1:24.30)? – Not as a skill or as an ability, but as a living and active essence. He is the radiance of the glory of God: therefore He manifests in Himself the whole Father, as having shone forth from all His glory. What absurdity is it to say that the glory of God had no radiance, or that the wisdom of God was not once present? “But if He existed,” Eunomius will say, then he was not born. - And we answer: since he was born, therefore he was, not having an unborn existence, but always existing and being with the Father, from whom he has the reason for his existence. - When was He brought into being by the Father? – Since the Father has existed. - But the Father, they will say, from all eternity. – Consequently, from eternity the Son was united through birth with the ungeneracy of the Father. And that this word is not ours, we will prove this by presenting to them the very sayings of the Holy Spirit. Let us take, firstly, from the Gospel: “in the beginning was the Word” (John 1:1); secondly, from the psalm, what was said on behalf of God the Father: “from the womb before the morning star, your birth was like dew” (Ps. 109:3); and adding up both, let us say that He both was and was born. The saying: “was born” shows the Reason from which He had the beginning of being; and the word “was” means His non-temporal and eternal existence. - But Eunomius, straining all his strength to deceive himself, thinks to bring our teachings to absurd consequences. Evn. If, to say, the Son was before His birth, then He was unborn. You. But listen, vain man: is this yours: “before birth,” or is it something that does not exist at all, just a construction of the mind that is not established on any object; - in that case, why argue with the crazy? it would be almost the same as fighting a man who has lost the use of reason in delirium tremens; - or, if this word refers to something existing, then, of course, it will refer to the concept of centuries. But, since all ages must understand below the birth of the Only Begotten, since they are His creations; then he is vain who seeks something that existed before the personal existence of the Son. Asking about this means the same thing as wanting to know about the Father, whether He existed before His creation or not. How crazy it is here to propose this question and look for something that would be higher than the Beginningless and Unborn; So, in truth, it is equally insane to ask questions about time and about what happened before the Son, who from eternity has been with the Father, so that there is nothing in between between Him and Him who begat Him. It is as if someone asked: what will happen after the death of the Immortal? or would he inquire: what happened before the birth of the Eternal? – Like-minded people of Eunomius, based on the fact that the beginninglessness of the Father is called eternity, consider eternity to be one and the same thing as beginninglessness; and since the Son is not unborn, they do not recognize Him as eternal. But there is a very great difference in concept between one and the other. For that which has no beginning of itself and no cause of being is called unborn; and eternal is that which is before all time and age. That is why the Son, although not unborn, is nevertheless eternal. Some give the name “eternal” to centuries, as if they were worthy of this name because they always exist. But we consider it equally insane to attribute eternity to a creature, and also to not confess this about the Lord of creation. Further, Eunomius becomes even more shameless in his words. What is he saying? Evn. Holding to what was proven both in former times by the saints and now by us, and finding that neither God’s essence allows birth, nor any other essence can serve as the basis for the birth of the Son, we say that the Son was born without being before. You. Who has sought so much for the glory due to piety! Who adorns themselves so much with the appearance of the Lover of Christ, as much as they boast with words containing impudent insult and dishonor and aimed at destroying the glory of the Only Begotten! Will you, atheist, stop calling the truly Existent, the Source of life, the One who gives existence to all beings, not past? The One Who, in a divine response to His servant Moses, invented a name peculiar to Himself and befitting His eternity, calling Himself the Existing One? “I am who I am” (Ex. 3:14). And no one will deny that this is said on behalf of the Lord, if the Jewish veil does not lie on his heart when reading Moses (2 Cor. 3:15). For it is written: “The angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire” (Ex. 3:2). But Scripture, having first placed the name of the Angel in this narrative, then introduces the voice of God, saying: “he said” to Moses: “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham” (Ex. 3:6); and a little lower: “I am who I am” (Ex. 3:14). Who is this - both an Angel and God? Is it not the One of whom we are taught that “they will call His name Wonderful, Counselor” (Is. 9:6)? I think that no more evidence is needed for this: for Christ-lovers, this indication is enough; and for those who are incurable there will be no benefit from many words. Of course, the Lord became an Angel after the great council; but even before He did not consider Himself unworthy to be called an Angel. For, not in this one place do we find that our Lord is called in Scripture both Angels and God; but Jacob, telling his wives about his vision, says: “An angel of God spoke to me in a dream” (Gen. 31:11); and then, a little lower, on behalf of the same Angel: “I am God [who appeared to you] in Bethel, where you poured oil on the monument” (Gen. 31:13). But there, at the pillar, it was said to Jacob: “I am the Lord, the God of Abraham your father, and the God of Isaac” (Gen. 28:13). So, the same One who is called an Angel there, says here that He appeared to Jacob. From this, everyone can clearly see that where one and the same is called both Angel and God, the Only Begotten is indicated, Who in each generation reveals Himself to men, and proclaims the will of the Father to His saints. Therefore, in the person of the One who, having appeared to Moses, called Himself the Existing One, one should understand none other than God - the Word, who Existed in the beginning with God (John 1:2). But those who speak “untruths on high” (Ps. 73:8) were not afraid to call the Son non-existent. “The fool said in his heart: ‘There is no God’” (Ps. 13:1); and they, having dared to call God non-existent, not only thought this, with wickedness (Ps. 63:8), and did not even hesitate to commit it to writing for a later time. And how do they see that even the demons themselves do not reject the existence of God (James 2:19); then, returning his thoughts back to the previous time, there he fulfills his wicked desire, blasphemously asserting that there once was no Son, as if He did not exist by His nature, but was brought into being by God by grace. But the saying “not existing” also applies to idols; This is what Paul says: “You were in bondage to those who were not gods by nature” (Gal. 4:8); so Jeremiah: “and they swore” by non-existent gods (and); So did the wise Esther: “Do not deliver, O Lord, this scepter of yours to those who are not” (Esther 4:17). When the Eunomians apply this saying to the true God; then how else can they rightfully appropriate the name Christians to themselves? - And in another place the same Apostle, speaking in the Spirit of God, called the pagans non-existent, because they did not have knowledge of God: “God has chosen the lowly things” (1 Cor. 1:28). Indeed, since God is both the truth and the life; then people who are not united by faith with God, Who exists, and who are akin to the insignificance of lies due to their delusion regarding idols, are rightly, as I think, called non-existent - for lack of truth and for alienation from life. On the contrary, this same Apostle, in his letter to the Ephesians, called them, in a special sense, existing, as united sincerely, through knowledge, with the Existing, saying: “to the saints who are in Ephesus and faithful in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 1:1). So, our former ones betrayed this to us before, and we ourselves found it in the ancient lists. - So the servants of Christ participate in this name: but Eunomius did not want to honor our God himself with this name, but called the One who brought creation from nothing into existence non-existent. However, we recognize his contempt even more from the expressions with which he pretends to want to honor the Lord. Evn. We do not make the essence of the Only Begotten common with those things that came from non-existence into being, for what does not exist is not essence; but we give Him as much superiority as the Creator needs to have before His creatures. You. Having brought his word to this limit by various preparations, he now becomes more favorable - however, only in words, and says: “We do not make the essence of the Only Begotten common with those things that came from non-existence into being.” But, if the God of all, by His generation, is necessarily different from born beings, and all born beings have in common that their essence is from non-existence; then aren’t they necessarily connected by nature? For, just as there inaccessibility separates natures, so here the sameness of state brings them together, so that they are identical with each other. Meanwhile, the Eunomians, asserting that both the Son and the beings who received existence from Him, were brought forth from non-existence, and therefore attributing to both Him and them a common nature, they say that they do not attribute to Him the same essence with those things that came into being from non-existence! - Again this: Eunomius speaks as if he himself were the Lord, and had the power to give the Only Begotten as much dignity as he wants: “we give, he says, to Him as much excellence as the Creator needs to have in order to be superior to His creatures.” He did not say: “we understand, or glorify,” which would be decent in relation to God, but: “we give,” as if he were the main manager of the measure of distribution. - But what superiority does he give to the Only Begotten? “How much is necessary, he says, for the Creator to be superior to His creatures.” – This does not yet show differences in essence. For people, although in their art superior to their products, nevertheless have the same essence with them, as for example, a potter with clay, a shipbuilder with trees; because both are equally bodies, equally sensible and composed of earth. Having conceded to the Son such a distinction from creation, he moves on to the very concept of the Only Begotten and weaves new evil tricks. Evn. Therefore, he says, the Only Begotten, having been born and created from one by the power of the Unborn, became the most perfect servant (υπωργος). You. I don’t know what to be more indignant about in what has been said now: whether it’s the cunning with which he maliciously interprets the name of the Only Begotten, understanding its meaning contrary to the use of language between people, and contrary to the pious tradition of the Scriptures (for, according to the general use of speech, the only begotten is not the one who received being from one, but the one who was born alone); or to the blasphemous expression: “created,” which he deliberately added to the word: “born,” in order to show that the name of the begotten belongs to the Lord in common with the creatures, in no way distinguishing Him from them, and that in what sense is it said: “I begot and raised up sons” (Is. 1:2), or: “Israel is My son, My firstborn” (Ex. 4:22), in the same way the Lord is called the Son, not having a name “which is above every name” (Phil. 2:9), but is honored with the name along with others. - Like-minded people of Eunomius resort to the saying of Solomon, and from here, as if from some fortress, they run out to fight against the faith. Since it is said there on behalf of Wisdom: “The Lord created Me” 5 (Prov. 8:22); then they think that they are allowed to call the Lord a creature. I would have a lot to say about this saying: firstly, that it is used only once in all the Scriptures: then, that it is in a book that contains a lot of hidden meaning and comes mostly through similarities, dark and mysterious words, so that nothing indisputable and completely clear can be taken from it: but I leave talking about this so as not to continue the words too much with distant digressions; especially since I intend to propose a study of the sayings they poorly understand in a special place, where this part, God willing, will be examined. And I think that from this study (may it be said with God!) a much more appropriate and non-dangerous meaning of the above saying will be revealed. Meanwhile, let us leave without remark that other translators [Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion], who more precisely delved into the meaning of the Hebrew words, instead of: “created”, translated: “acquired Me” [buy, acquire]. This will be the greatest obstacle for the wicked to maintain the blasphemous expression: "creation". For he who said: “I have acquired a man from the Lord,” obviously used the word not because Cain created, but because he gave birth to him. But let's return to where we started. Evn. Because (says) the Only Begotten is that, having been born and created from one, He became the most perfect servant. You. If He is called the Only Begotten not because He was born alone, but because from One, and if to be created and to be born, in your opinion, are one and the same thing: then why don’t you call Him One-Created, you, who so easily invent and express everything? - And among people, according to your thinking, it seems that not a single one is the only begotten, since everyone is born from marital copulation. Therefore, Sarah was not the mother of her only begotten son, since she gave birth to him not alone, but with Abraham. And if your opinion prevails; then it will be necessary for all people to relearn to make sure that this name does not mean loneliness, due to which the only begotten has no brothers, but orphanhood, due to which he does not have those who gave birth to him together. - Further, for this reason, the creation is lower in dignity than God the Word, since it did not have time, like Him, to be the only begotten, since in creation the Son also acted together with the Father. However, they do not allow this either. Because they call Him the most perfect servant. In fact, was it not from the One that creation, according to your teaching, received being when you are attached to God the Word to the Father, only as some kind of soulless instrument? Otherwise, someone will say that the shipbuilder was not the only one who made the ship because he used tools during the construction. Thus, both the creation and its parts will be one-begotten: that is, not only the invisible forces, but also the sensible bodies, and among them even the lowest ones, such as the scypians, and the locusts, and the frogs. For “He commanded, and they were created” (Ps. 149:5). What need would there be for the assistance of the One who creates everything by one will, so that together with His will the creation is realized? – But according to our teaching, everything is through the Son: how can this be? - So, the will of God, rushing, as if from some source, from the first Guilt [Cause], through His Image - the Word of God - comes into action. - And Eunomius called the Only Begotten Son a servant, as if this were a great dignity for him, to be able to carry out commands in a ministerial manner! But if His glory does not consist in being perfect of God, but in being a good worker in office; then how will He differ from the ministering spirits who carry out the work of service blamelessly? - That is why the false teacher connected with the concept: “born”, the concept: “created”, in order to show by this that there is no difference between the Son and the creation. But it’s worth listening to his advice. Evn. Hearing the name of the Father and the Son, he says, one should not imagine the birth of the Son by man and, taking guidance from the births of people, give God names meaning communication and passions. You. His advice is that one should not imagine that the Son and the Father are similar in essence. For this is where his denial of communicability tends, as if the essence of the Father is not communicable with the essence of the Only Begotten. For this purpose, those strict distinctions of names, of which we have passed many, because not all those names in which the pronunciation is the same, and are identical in meaning, for this, I say, those distinctions, so that for the sake of those called fathers on earth, it would be rejected that God is the Father of the Son. And I argue that although there is much that separates Christianity from pagan error and Jewish ignorance, yet in the gospel of our salvation there is no dogma more important than faith in the Father and the Son. For those who are separated from us by any kind of error agree with us that God is the Creator and Creator. But where will we give a place for a person who declares that the Father is falsely named, that the Son is nothing more than a bare name, who thinks that there is no difference whether to confess the Father or the Creator, and whether to say: Son or work? To what part will he be assigned to us? To the Jews or to the Gentiles? Of course, one who denies the power of piety and, as it were, a distinctive sign of our reverence for God, will not include himself among Christians. For we did not believe in the Creator and the work, but in the Father and the Son we were sealed by the grace of baptism. Therefore, whoever dares to reject these sayings destroys all the power of the Gospel, preaching a Father who was not begotten and a Son who was not begotten. But I say this, he argues, rejecting the concept of passion that is given to the words: “Father.” However, whoever intended to be pious should have rejected the incongruous meaning in these words, if there really was one in them, and not sweep away the whole saying together, and, under the pretext of indecentness, not reject what is useful in it; On the contrary, in the teaching about God one must be careful to avoid low and carnal concepts, to understand birth in a manner befitting the holiness and dispassion of God, not to touch upon the image in which God gave birth, as ineffable and unthinkable, but to raise the names of birth to the concept of similarity in essence. Meanwhile, an observant person can clearly see that these names, that is, Father and Son, do not actually and initially give the concept of bodily passions, but, taken in themselves, show one mutual relationship. For he is the Father who gave another the beginning of being in a nature similar to his own; and the Son, who received the beginning of being from another through birth. Therefore, when we hear that a man is a father, then we also receive the concept of passion, and when we hear that God is the Father, then we ascend in our thoughts to the impassive cause. And Eunomius, accustomed to hearing such a name about the passionate nature, denies as impossible what is beyond the comprehension of his own reason. For it was not necessary, paying attention to the passionate state of corruptible beings, to lose faith in the dispassion of God, to nature that is fleeting and subject to countless changes, applying an essence that is unchangeable and alien to vicissitudes. And since mortal living beings give birth through passion, it was not right to think about God in this way; but on the contrary, this very thing should all the more have shown the way to the truth, and from the fact that perishables give birth in this way, it was necessary to conclude that the Imperishable gives birth in the opposite way. But Eunomius cannot say that these names, actually originally composed for people, are misused and applied to God. For our Lord Jesus Christ, leading us to the beginning of everything and to the true reason for existence, says: “Call no one on earth your father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven” (Matthew 23:9). So, why does Eunomius demand that we, as pointing primarily to carnal passions, rejected the sayings that the Lord, as befitting God’s dispassion, transferred from people to God? And if God is also called the Father of creatures, this in no way undermines our teaching. For “He who gave birth to drops of dew,” according to Job, did not give birth to drops of a son in the same way. Or, if they dare to say this, so as to call the essence of the dew equally the Son, then they will free us from any word with them, as those who have blasphemed to the point of obvious shamelessness. For when God is called the Father of us all, He is not in the same way both our Father and the Father of the Only Begotten. If they are warned of wickedness by the fact that the Lord is called “the Firstborn of all creation” (Col. 1:15) and “the firstborn among many brothers” (Rom. 8:29): then let them learn from the Gospel that the Lord calls both His mother and brothers those who have become His own through virtuous deeds. For he says: “Who is My mother, and who are My brothers?” Is it not those who do “the will of My Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 12:48.50)? Therefore God is called our Father, not by abuse or in a figurative sense, but in the proper, original and true sense; because through our carnal parents He brought us from non-existence into existence, and through His care for us He made Him His relatives. If we affirm that God is rightly called our Father, when by grace we are worthy of sonship, then what reason is there to deprive Him of the right to be appropriately called the Father of the Son by nature, Who came from His essence? Evn. It should not, he says, represent the birth of the Lord to men by the name of the Father and the Son. And I say the same. And what prevents the pious from believing that birth is divine and passionless? I think that Eunomius uses these expressions with the intention of proving not that God gave birth dispassionately, but that He did not give birth at all. How did you, most excellent one, in previous words assert that the essence of the Only Begotten is birth? For if He was not begotten, then how, according to you, did it become characteristic of Him to be born? But, in contrast to the begotten and the unbegotten, he endeavored to prove that the essence of the Son is birth. And now again, seeing that this word signifies the unity of essence, he takes away birth from the one born. And if he rejects birth because passion is presupposed in it; What prevents him, on the basis of the same reasons, from not admitting that He is the Creator? For with every bodily action there is necessarily associated more or less labor, according to the strength of the person producing it and according to the difference in the magnitude of what is produced. But to say that God’s and blessed Nature is oppressed by labor is no less impious than to subject Him to the most shameful passions. And if God creates dispassionately; then you will agree that His birth is passionless. So, enough has been said about the fact that God in the proper and proper sense is called Father, that this name does not mean passion, but unity, either by grace, as in relation to people, or by nature, as in relation to the Only Begotten. But they admitted that this saying, like a thousand others, is not proper and is used in a figurative sense. Just as, when we hear that God is angry, sleeps, flies, and other similar things, which, according to the meaning that appears at first glance, has an indecent meaning, we do not erase these sayings of the Spirit, and do not sensually understand what is said; So why don’t we find concepts suitable to God for this saying, so often used by the Spirit? Or will we exclude this one saying from Scripture, suspecting it based on human usage? Let us reason this way: since the word “give birth” in human usage has two meanings, expressing the passion of the one who gives birth and his relationship with the begotten; then when the Father says to the Only Begotten: “From the womb before the morning, your birth was like dew” (Ps. 109:3), and: “You are My Son; Today I have given birth to You" (Ps. 2:7): which of these two meanings, according to us, is expressed by this saying, the passionate state of those giving birth, or the unity of nature? I say the latter; but I think that they will not contradict if they do not suffer from obvious black bile. Therefore, if the saying is peculiar to God, then why do you disparage it as alien to God? If it is transferred from human birth; then, having chosen a healthy meaning in it, avoid the worst in meaning. For, of course, whoever is raised to a right concept in a meaningful saying through words can bypass what is humiliating and vile in meaning. And don’t tell me: what kind of birth is this? what is it like? how could it be? Let us not reject the firmness of faith in the Father and the Son for the sole reason that the image of birth is completely indescribable and unthinkable. For if we measure everything with our understanding, and assume that what is incomprehensible to reason does not exist at all; then the reward of faith will perish, and the reward of hope will perish. Why else should we become worthy of the blessings that are observed for us under the condition of faith in the invisible, if we believe only what is obvious to reason? Why did the pagans become “vain” and “their foolish hearts darkened” (Rom. 1:21)? Is it not because, following what is revealed through reason, they do not believe the preaching of the Spirit? Whom, as the dead, does Isaiah mourn: “Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and understanding before themselves” (Isaiah 5:21)? Aren't they people like them? Therefore, passing over in silence much of what is said by the way by Eunomius, when he strives to prove that the son is unborn, and when he manages to force agreement that the Only Begotten is a creature and a work, I will turn to the most important thing in his wickedness, then noticing one thing that is silent, that the blasphemy that he had previously uttered with the very deed, wanting to cover up with a word and soften the shamelessness of speech, he says, as if he does not generalize The Only Begotten with creation, having himself forgotten those teachings of his that he expounded above in clear and undisguised words. As a result, it again falls into the most shameless and obvious contradiction. He writes like this: Evn. But hearing that the son is a creature, let no one be offended by this, as if the essence is generalized through the community of names. You. O wise one! if the difference in names is necessarily followed by a difference in essence (we remember that this is exactly what you reasoned in the previous words); then why now the commonality of names will not be accompanied by a commonality of essence? And it seems that he uttered this word more than once and not in passing. For even now, as if he had repented of what he had said, that is, that the commonality of names does not generalize essences, immediately after a few words, attacking his opponents, he again adds: Evn. They, if they only cared about the truth, should have recognized the difference in essences despite the difference in names. You. Who could master words more easily than this man, who, so quickly throwing himself into opposing opinions, now says that the difference in names necessarily indicates the difference in essences, and then again asserts that the commonality of names does not generalize essences? But I think that we act somewhat like people who condemn a murderer for swear words, or for some similar crime. So let's get to the very root of his evil intentions. Eunomius saw that all equally Christians, truly worthy of this name, have a common, firmly rooted idea that the Son is the begotten light, shining from the unborn light, that He is the original life and the original goodness, emanating from the life-giving source of the Father’s goodness; then he reasoned that if he did not shake these concepts of ours, then he would have nothing left but false ideas; for whoever recognizes both the Father as light and the Son as light, since the concept of light is one and the same, will naturally be led to the recognition of unity in essence; since between light and light, according to the word “light” itself, there is no difference either in pronunciation or in the concept itself. Therefore, in order to take this away from us, he overlays the teaching of faith with nets of tricks, teaches that the Father and the Son are completely incomparable and incommunicable with each other, asserts that, what is the opposition between the unborn and the born, the same is between light and light; or, if we do not agree to this, it forces us to admit that God is complex. But we’d better listen to his own words. Evn. Or does the light in the unborn, he says, mean something other than the light that is born, or are both the same thing? If one light is something different from another; then it is obvious that what consists of both is complex: but the complex is not unborn. If they are identical; then as much as the born differs from the unborn, so much must there be a difference between light and light, life with life, force with force. You. Delve into and understand the horror of wickedness! How different, he says, is the unborn from the born, so different will light be from light, life from life, and power from power. Therefore, let us ask him himself: to what extent is the unborn different from the born? Is it really possible in some small way and in such a way that one thing with the other can ever converge into identity? Or is this completely impossible, and much more impossible than for the same person to live and be dead at the same time, to be healthy and sick at the same time, to wake up and sleep at the same time? For everything like this is opposite to one another in the extreme degree of opposition; so that where one is, it is necessary that the other should not be; and such opposites, as a rule, are completely incompatible and incompatible. Let there be this kind of opposition between the unborn and the born; whoever calls the Father light and the Son also light, and asserts that the last light differs as much from the first light as what is born differs from the unborn, although he pretends to be condescending in words, that is, although he calls the Son light, does not he, by the very force of what is affirmed, lead to a contrary concept? For see, what is the opposite of the unborn? Other unborn or born. What is the opposite of light? Another light, or darkness? Without a doubt, darkness. Therefore, if how much the born differs from the unborn, so much must the light differ from the light; then is it not obvious to everyone that his wickedness lies in the fact that, under the name of light, he introduces the opposite of light, and conveys the idea that the essence of the Only Begotten is opposite to the nature of light? Or let the light show us the opposite of the light, and having the same degree of opposition as there is between the born and the unborn. If there is no such light, and he himself is not able to invent it; then let the trick with which blasphemy is prepared from afar not go unrecognized. Because he thinks that the unborn is directly opposite to the born; then he applies this same opposition to light and light as proof that the essence of the Father is in everything opposed and antagonistic to the essence of the Only Begotten. To this end, this is a new decree of dogma: as much as the born differs from the unborn, the light must differ from the light. But between the begotten and the unborn, although not in the nature of the matter itself, at least in the manner of the sayings, there is a certain opposition, as they also assert; and between light and light, neither by pronunciation nor by the meaning of the word, it is not possible to come up with any opposition. But it is clear that he himself is being misled by deceptive false ideas. For he thinks that the things that follow the opposite consist in the same opposition to each other that those that precede them have, and when in one of the opposite things there is an opposite, then the opposite will certainly follow the other. For example: if light follows sight, then darkness follows blindness; and if behind life there is sensitivity, then behind death there is insensibility. But anyone, even with little attention, can see how weak and unsteady this remark is. For because awakening is followed by life, sleep is not necessarily followed by death. And what is born is not even disgusting to the unborn. For if they are disgusting; then (may this be addressed to the head of the detractors!) and are destructive to one another. They themselves are not antagonistic by nature, and what follows them will not necessarily consist of the discord in which, as Eunomius proved, these transitory ones consist. Therefore, either blot out your words, or do not lock yourself in wickedness. For yours is blasphemy; you said: as much as the unborn differs from the born, so must the light differ from the light. Consequently, just as the Born will never participate in the unborn, so you will never yield to Him the light. The essence of the Only Begotten, in your opinion, will be equally far from being unborn and from being represented and called light. But John, with the great voice of the Spirit, cries out to you, saying: “there was the true Light” (John 1:9). But you have neither ears to hear nor a heart to understand. On the contrary, with your false thinking you reduce the essence of the Only Begotten into a nature that is opposed and incompatible with the light. For, of course, you cannot call that thing strong if you did not take away the name Light from the Only Begotten. Godliness is not in the sound of the air, but in the power of the signified. But Eunomius did not stop there; on the contrary, he alienates both life and power to the same extent to the point of opposition, saying: as much as the born differs from the unborn, so much must there be a difference between light and light, and life with life, and power with power. Therefore, according to you, the Only Begotten is neither life nor power. But you are going against the Lord himself, who says: “I am life” (John 14:6); you go against Paul, who said: “Christ is the power of God” (1 Cor. 1:24). For what was proved above, the same should apply to the present. No one will say that life and power are opposite to life and power; on the contrary, death and powerlessness are the complete opposite of them. Evn. He, maliciously hiding this under deceptive words, from afar and covertly prepared the horror of wickedness, and with cunning speeches he alienated the nature of the Only Begotten to the point of opposition to the Father, leaving only the appearance of names. What are we? How, by confessing both the Father unbegotten and the Son begotten, can we avoid opposition in relation to being itself? What shall we say? - That from a good Father is a good Son; that from the unborn light the eternal light shone, from the true life came the life-giving source, from the self-existent power the power of God appeared. And darkness, and death, and weakness are assigned to the prince of this world, the rulers of darkness, the spirits of evil, and every force hostile to God’s nature; and it is not by their very essence that they receive opposition to good as their inheritance (for in this case the reproach would fall on the Creator), but by their own will, through the deprivation of good, they have deviated into sin. However, the God-fighting language made an effort to place the nature of the Only Begotten in the same row. For, of course, what Eunomius does not want to say is that just as the essence of the Father, according to his position, is light, surpassing both in glory and radiance, so he recognizes the essence of the Only Begotten as light, but somewhat weaker and, as it were, darkened. And such a thought will not be pious, because the concept of the weaker destroys the similarity of the image; however, it is desirable that one can only blame him for this; for then it would not take much work from us to correct it. Now, between the unborn and the born, there is not a difference in more or less, as there is between a lesser light and a greater one, but the same distance as between things that are completely incompatible with one another. For it is not possible for something with which another exists together to ever pass through change into its opposite, so that either from the unborn one becomes born, or, conversely, from what is born changes into the unborn. Therefore, whoever once declared that as much as there is a difference between the born and the unborn, there is just as much difference between light and light, there is no chance of salvation left for him. For unalloyed light, with light, as if diminished and weaker, being identical in kind, differs from it in one tension. But the unborn is not a tension of the begotten, and the begotten is not any diminution of the unborn; on the contrary, they seem to be directly opposed to one another. Therefore, for those who recognize the born and the unborn as essence, these and even greater incongruities will follow. For the opposite will be born from the opposite, and, instead of a natural property, there will necessarily be some kind of discord in relation to the essence itself. But this is more ignorance than wickedness when they assert that the essence of essence is, in whatever way, contrary, because even external sages (whom they despise, putting them in nothing, as soon as they do not find them companions in their blasphemies) have long recognized that in essence it is not possible to be contrary. But if anyone, as rightly, accepts that the begotten and the unbegotten are certain distinctive properties, intelligible in essence and leading to a clear and unified concept of the Father and the Son; then he will avoid the danger of wickedness, and maintain consistency in judgment. For properties, mentally represented in essence, as certain forms and images, decompose the general into separate images; but they do not dissect the one-natural thing in essence. For example: The deity is common, but patronymic and sonship are certain particularities; from the combination of both, general and particular, the concept of truth is formed in us; why, when we hear: “unborn light,” we imagine the Father, and when we hear: “born light,” we receive the concept of the Son. Since They are light and light, there is no opposition in Them; and since They are the begotten and the unbegotten, opposition is imagined in Them. For such is the property of particularities that in the identity of essence they show difference. And the very features, repeatedly divided among themselves, although they diverge to the point of opposition, do not dissolve the unity of essence; for example: flying and walking, aquatic and terrestrial, intelligent and dumb. Since all subjects have one essence; then these features do not alienate their essence, and do not arouse them to be, as it were, at odds with themselves, but by the force of signs, bringing some light into our souls, they lead to understanding that is possible for our minds. But Eunomius, transferring the opposition of features to the essence, extracts from this a reason for wickedness, intimidating us, like children, with false ideas; as if, if light is anything other than the unborn, then it will be necessary to prove to us that God is composite. What am I saying? - That if the light were not other than the unborn, then how could it not be possible for the Son to be called light, just as it is impossible to call the unborn itself. You can learn the difference between what these words mean from this. God is said to “dwell in the light” (1 Tim. 6:16) and to be “clothed” with light (Ps. 103:2); but nowhere does Scripture say that God lives in his unbornness, or is clothed with it from the outside (which would be ridiculous). The born and the unborn are certain distinctive properties. For if there were nothing distinguishing the essence; then in no way would it reach our understanding. Because the Divinity is one; then it is not possible to obtain a separate concept of the Father or the Son until the thought is clarified by adding features. And the fact that God will turn out to be complex, if we do not admit that the light is identical with the unborn, we can say that if we took the unborn as part of the essence, then Eunomius’ position would take place, namely, that consisting of different parts is complex. If we believe that the essence of God is light, or life, or good, that God, as God, is all life, all light, all good, but that life also has ungeneracy associated with it, then why shouldn’t what is simple in essence be uncomplicated? For images that indicate its distinctive property do not violate the concept of simplicity. Or, otherwise, everything said about God will prove to us that God is complex. And it is clear that if we want to preserve the concept of the simple and indivisible, then either we will not say anything about God, except that He is unborn, and we will refuse to call Him invisible, incorruptible, unchangeable, Creator, Judge and all those names that we now use in doxology; or, accepting these names, what should we do? Is it really possible to add everything up and fit it into the essence? How will we prove that God is not only complex, but also consists of dissimilar parts; because each of these names means something different and different. Or will we exclude them from the essence? Therefore, whatever position they come up with for each of these names, let them establish the same for the name: “unborn.” Filling his speech with empty vanity, and at the same time exalting himself above everyone who has ever practiced the knowledge of God, as if he himself had paved some new and hitherto unknown path to God, which no one had discovered before, finally, as taught by the very essence of God, Eunomius raises the following blasphemy against his son: Evn. The essence that exceeds the kingdom and does not allow birth at all, teaching this with benevolence to the mind approaching it, according to the law of nature, commands how comparison with others can be further eliminated. You. Doesn’t Eunomius clearly show that, with good will, raising his mind to God, he was awarded the revelation of the mysteries? And therefore, as far as possible, he removes the Only Begotten from communion with the Father, not deigning to accept Him in comparison, but on the contrary, he asserts that the essence of the Only Begotten, according to the law of nature, is different from the essence of the Father. What does this mean? The fact that the God of all, even if he wanted, could not accept the Only Begotten into the unity of essence, being kept from communion with Him by the law of nature; because, as can be seen, He is not the Lord of Himself, but is bound by the limits of necessity. For such is the content of the law of nature: it is involuntarily led to what nature pleases. For, just as fire is warm by nature, and not by choice, and by necessity does not allow cold into itself, by the law of nature it is deprived of communication with it; Thus, Eunomius wants God and the Father to have an essence that, according to the law of nature, is alien to the Son. However, the laws of nature do not produce mutual discord between father and son, but necessary and inextricable communication. If Eunomius had said that God, by His will, established incommunicability with Himself; even in this case, the concept of the goodness of God would not allow us to recognize as worthy of faith the one who claims that the Father in what is with Him is not in communion with the One who is from Him. However, in the words of the person being asserted, this would still be a sequence of thoughts. But to assert that alienation takes place according to the law of nature means not to know the nature and sensory things, according to which each thing, as a rule, gives birth not to something alien and contrary to itself, but more akin and consistent with itself. Therefore, here again Eunomius did not understand that what he said contradicted itself. For, above, indignant at those who claim that the Only Begotten is similar to the Father in essence, he wrote like this: Evn. Firstly, it seems to me that those who dared to compare an essence that is not subject to anyone, higher than any reason, free from all laws, with an essence born and enslaved to paternal laws, either did not delve into the nature of everything at all, or did not judge this with pure thought. You. How did it now turn out that an entity not subject to anyone, free from all laws, has incomparability not by its own will, but is contained by the law of nature, and involuntarily removes what is born from communication with itself; so, therefore, is it unapproachable for the Only Begotten himself? That's how much disagreement there is in Eunomius's words! And how much wickedness there is in them! He calls the essence of the Father not subject to anyone and free (unless the essence subordinate to the law of nature is not subject to anyone), but about the essence of the Only Begotten, on the contrary, he asserts that it is enslaved, and in this respect deprives it of the equality of nature. Since there are two kinds of beings, the creature and the Divine; and the creation is placed in slavery and obedience, and the Divinity is superior and dominant: then he who takes away from the Only Begotten the dignity of dominion and reduces Him to the humiliation of slavery, does not he clearly show that, through this, he places the Only Begotten on a par with creation? For, of course, it would not be fair for Him if He had an advantage over His own kind of slaves. But if he does not confess Him as King and Master, who accepted obedience not due to lack of nature, but due to the goodness of will; then this is hard, and terrible, and disastrous for those who deny. - Eunomius adds: Evn. The essence of God, following the laws of nature, itself does not allow comparison with others, and it tells us to imagine its action as decent and in accordance with its dignity. You. This was told to them as proof that the Only Begotten is alien to the Father; but it also confirms our teaching. For if the essence of God indicates and action is to be imagined as decent and consistent with its own dignity, and ungeneracy, according to Eunomius, is a dignity, but it is also, according to their teaching, an essence; The Only Begotten is the action of God or the way of action, again according to their own teaching: therefore, it will be unnecessary to argue with them, as with people who have nothing to say against us. Of course, I would much prefer if they renounced this blasphemy; however, since they pronounced it, we will draw the following conclusion from their very words: “ungeneracy is the dignity of God, it is also the essence, and the action of God is in accordance with and in accordance with God’s dignity, but this action, according to their assumption, is Christ; therefore He must be characteristic and consistent with the essence of God.” And of these propositions, not a single one is ours: for, by summing up their own sayings, we will build a proof from them. The essence of God, says Eunomius, is consistent with dignity; action according to dignity; The Only Begotten is the way of action. And vice versa: if the Only Begotten is the image of action, and action is the image of dignity, and dignity is the image of essence; then the Only Begotten will be the image of the essence. So often the very makers of lies, forced by evidence, even against their will, testify in favor of the truth! For even the demons, if they were not evangelists, then, unable to look at the light of truth, cried out: “I know You, who You are, the Holy One of God” (Mark 1:24). Let's look at the following. Evn. If one begins consideration with creatures and from them rises to essences; then, finding that the Son is the product of the Unbegotten, and the Comforter the product of the Only Begotten, and from the superiority of the Only Begotten, ascertaining the difference in action, he receives undoubted proof of the difference in essence. You. Firstly, I don’t see whether it is possible to give inferences about entities from creatures. For works serve as an indication of strength, wisdom, art, and not the essence itself. They do not even necessarily depict the full strength of the creator, because sometimes it is possible for an artist not to show the full strength of his strength in actions, but often to use weak efforts in matters of art. And if he puts all his strength into action; then it will be possible to measure the strength of his powers by deeds, and not infer from them about the essence of what it is. If, however, according to the simplicity and uncomplicatedness of God’s nature, he posits that the essence coincides with power, and according to the abundant goodness of God, he says that all the power of the Father moved towards the birth of the Son, and again, all the power of the Only Begotten moved towards the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, so that in the Spirit the power and together with the essence of the Only Begotten is contemplated, and in the Only Begotten it is again perceived and the power and essence of the Father; then look, what follows from this? From what Eunomius tried to prove the dissimilarity of the essence, by this, as it turned out, he proves the similarity. For if power has nothing to do with essence; then how is he brought to the understanding of the essence by creatures that are products of power? If essence and power are identical; that which imprints the force in itself will, of course, also imprint the essence. Therefore, creations do not lead to dissimilarity of essence, as you say, but to exactness of similarity. And this argument again confirms our teaching more than his. For, either there is no way for him to provide evidence for what has been said, or, if he takes similarities from human life, he will find that it is not from the works of the artist that we come to know his essence, but by what is born we know the nature of the one who gave birth. It is impossible to infer from the house the essence of the house builder, but from the generation it is more convenient to imagine the nature of the one who gave birth. Therefore, if the Only Begotten is a creature, then he does not depict to us the essence of the Father; if the Only Begotten allows us to know the Father in Himself, then He is not a creature, but the true Son, the Image (εικων) of God, the Image (χαρακτηρ) of the hypostasis of God. This is the consequence of what Eunomius asserts! But how much blasphemy there is in his speech! Having despised the threat announced in the Gospels, the most terrible threat that the Lord pronounced against those who blasphemed the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:31), Eunomius calls the Holy Spirit a creature; barely recognizing Him as a living being, because the name of creation is most often given to inanimate ones. And of course, we should not moderate our indignation because he previously uttered the same blasphemy against the Lord. This is not an alleviation of wickedness, but an aggravation of condemnation; because the Lord, in his goodness, forgave the blasphemy against Himself; but declared that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit by those who dare to do so is inevitably disastrous. So, Eunomius, the first of those who rebelled to the truth from the time the preaching of piety was preached, dared to utter such a word about the Spirit. For until now we have not heard that any of them called the Holy Spirit a creature, and we did not find this name in the writings they left behind. Evn. If anyone is raised from creatures to understand the essence, that the Son is the work of the Unbegotten, and the Comforter is the work of the Only Begotten. You. This is a new turn of wickedness - to contain two blasphemies in one saying, and taking the humiliation of the Holy Spirit as something recognized, from here rushing to proof of the humiliation of the Only Begotten. And it is clear that “the heavens proclaim the glory of God” (Ps. 18:2), the Holy Spirit proclaims the diminishment of the glory of the Only Begotten! And although the Lord says about the Comforter: “He will glorify Me” (John 16:14); however, the slanderous tongue claims that He serves as an obstacle to the Son from being compared with the Father. Because, says Eunomius, (Lord, have mercy on us when we say this!) The Son is the creator of the Spirit; and this means the same thing as not ascribing any importance to the Creator: therefore, the Son is not worthy of comparison with the Father, deprived of the dignity of equality for the unimportance of what He produced. Have you ever heard the most terrible blasphemy? Who was so clearly subject to inevitable judgment for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? It was characteristic of Montan alone to rebel against the Spirit with such fury, and both to insult Him with humiliating names and to degrade His nature so much as to even say that the Spirit brings disgrace to the Creator. It would be better to say, and Montand avoided derogatory expressions about the Spirit, so as not to disgrace his own pride. But we will talk about Montana in our free time. To whom is it not obvious that not a single action of the Son is separate from the Father, and everything that the Son has is not alien to the Father? For it is said: “all that is mine is yours, and what is yours is mine” (John 17:10). How does Eunomius attribute the guilt of the Spirit to the Only Begotten, and turns His creation into a reproach to the nature of the Son? If one says this, introducing two principles contrary to one another, then one will be crushed along with Manichaeus and Marcion. If everything that exists is made dependent on one principle, then what is said to be created by the Son is also traced back to the first cause. Why, although we believe that everything was brought into being by God - the Word, we do not deny that the author of everything is the God of everything. How is it not an obvious danger to separate the Spirit from God? And the Apostle tells us about the Spirit, without division calling Him either Christ’s or God’s, when he writes: “If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His” (Rom. 8:9); and again: “But we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God” (1 Cor. 2:12); and the Lord calls Him the Spirit of truth; because He Himself is the truth and comes from the Father (John 15:26). But Eunomius, to the humiliation of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ, takes the Spirit from the Father, and ascribes Him primarily to the Only Begotten, by this humiliation of glory, as he thinks, insulting Him, and not expecting any vengeance for his wicked teachings on the day of retribution. In euros In the original, this verse used the word yננק, a derivative of הנק [to buy, acquire], if we were talking about creation, and the Son in this case would be the first creation from nothing, then the Hebrew would have to be used. verb aרב [to create] the subject of this verb can only be God, and therefore this word means “to create out of nothing.” This verse talks about the birth, just below St. Vasily explains this. You might be interested in: