Книга десятая

1. But let us dwell on what is before us (the words of Eunomius), for a little further he arms himself against those who recognize human nature as weak in the understanding of the incomprehensible, and, being arrogant, argues thus, disparaging our teaching with these words: “if someone’s mind is darkened due to evil thinking so that he does not even see what is in front of him, then it does not follow that other people will knowledge of what exists is inaccessible.” But I would tell him that he who recognizes the understanding of existing things as accessible, brought his reason to this, of course, following some path of consistency in the knowledge of existing (objects), and, having refined his mind through the knowledge of what is intelligible and unimportant, then applied his comprehending power of imagination to what is above all understanding. So, the one who boasts that he has achieved knowledge of what exists, let him explain the smallest of what appears before us - what its nature is, so that judging by what is known, one can have confidence in him regarding the unseen. Let him explain in a word what the nature of the ant is: whether its life is supported by air and breathing, whether it depends on the structure of its internal organs, like other animals, whether the body is restrained by its bones, whether the internal voids of the bones are filled with brain, whether its composition is held together by nerves and veins, whether the position of the nerves is protected by a covering of muscles and glands, whether the brain extends from the crown to the tail through the dorsal vertebrae, whether by compressing the nerve membrane it imparts the force of movement to the movable. members, whether it has a liver and a bile-receiving vessel in the liver, kidneys and heart, arteries and veins, chest membranes and diaphragms, whether it is naked or covered with hair, whether it is divided into male and female sexes, in which part the organ of vision is located, whether it is endowed with a sense of smell, whether its stage is equipped with one hoof or is divided into several parts, how long does it live and what is the method of their birth from one another, how long does it carry in the womb born, and why do not all ants walk and not all have wings, but some move on the ground, while others find themselves flying through the air? So, he who boasts that he has achieved knowledge of what exists, let him first explain to us the nature of the ant, and then discuss the nature of the power that surpasses all intelligence. If he has not yet achieved knowledge of the nature of the smallest ant, then how can he boast that with his comprehending word he has embraced the One who contains within Himself all creation? And how about those who recognize the weakness of human nature, he says that their cognitive feelings of the soul are darkened and that they cannot comprehend what is in front of them; nor what is above the annual? But let’s see what he who has knowledge of existing things knows more than others, let’s listen to his arrogant speech: “Is it in vain,” he says, “that the Lord named Himself, if there is no one who enters into the knowledge and contemplation of the Father, in vain - a path when it does not provide any convenience to those who want to come to the Father? How could He be light without enlightening people, without illuminating the eye of the soul to the knowledge of Himself and the superior light? If Eunomius had presented only his own reasoning, which in its subtlety was far from being understood by his listeners, then perhaps he would have been able to captivate the listener with the cunning of his words, since the meaning contained in it would mostly elude him. But since he cites Divine sayings, no one will blame those who intend to offer a well-known inspired teaching. So, since, says the Lord, He called Himself a door, it follows that the being of God is comprehensible. But the Gospel does not allow such a thought, let us listen to the Divine voice itself: “I am,” he says, the door: “By me, if anyone enters, he will be saved: he will also go in and come out and find pasture” (John 10:9). Which of these words gives knowledge of the essence? There are many sayings here, and each has its own meaning according to the meaning, but not one of them can be applied to the concept of essence, without the Divinity not seemed to be (something) mixed from different things. And which of the above expressions could more accurately correspond to what he affirms is not easy to find - “by me, says, if anyone enters, he will be saved, and he will come out, and will find pasture.” Shall we say that the essence is replaced here by the words “entry,” or “salvation of those who enter,” or “processing,” or “finding”? Each of these expressions has a special meaning and does not agree with the other. For from the first it is clear that staying inside is the opposite of procession and so on: another something in the proper sense is pasture and another something besides this is acquisition (of pasture). So, which of these expressions means the essence of the Father? Even if someone points out all these expressions that do not agree with one another in their meaning, he will not mean a simple and uncomplicated essence through all these discordant (expressions). How could the words (of Scripture) be true that “No one has seen God anywhere” (John 1:18), and: “Whom no one has seen is from man, he can see below” (1 Tim. 6:16), “not for a man shall see the face of the Lord and live” (Ex. 33, 20), if what is inside the door or behind it or the finding of pasture is considered to be the essence Father? However, if this cannot be admitted, then from here we will not consider the name His “door” empty and meaningless in relation to the Lord, for He truly is the “door of the enclosure” (Ps. 140:3) and “house of refuge” (Ps. 30:3), as David calls Him; He receives those who enter through Him, and preserves those who remain in Him, and again brings forth through Himself the pasture of virtues. And He is all things to those who are being saved, in order to make Himself suitable for everyone: a way, a guide, a door of enclosure, a house of refuge, a water of rest, and a green place, which the Gospel calls pasture. The new theologian says that the Lord is called the door because of the knowledge of the essence of the Father. So, why shouldn’t he extract the same meaning from the names: “rock”, or “stone”, or “spring”, or “tree” and others, in order to substantiate his teaching with a multitude of strange evidence, since to each of them he can assimilate the same meaning that he attributed to the path, and the door, and the light? But I, taught by the inspired Scripture, dare to assert that among us the One who is Greater than every name receives many different names according to the difference in his good deeds; He is called light when he dispels the darkness of ignorance, life when he bestows immortality, a path when he guides from error to truth, and “a pillar of a fortress” (Ps. 60:4), and a city of protection, and a spring, and a stone, and a grape, and a doctor, and a resurrection, and He is called all of these among us, dividing Himself in many different ways in His benefits to us. And those who see beyond human nature, who see the incomprehensible, but look through the understandable, explain the essence with names; for Him “whom no one has seen is from man, neither can he see” (1 Tim. 6:16), they not only think with confidence to see, but also to measure; and faith - that which alone is proportionate to the strength of our understanding - is not seen by the eye of the soul, preferring to it knowledge through inference. So, I heard, history condemns the sons of Benjamin, who did not respect the law, but fell “to hair with a sling” (Judg. 20, 16); I think that the words (of Scripture) here indicate the vanity of their occupation - that in what is useless and insignificant they were far-reaching and dexterous arrows, and in what is obviously useful they were unskillful and careless. To what has been said, history also adds about the disaster that befell them - how, having indulged in the lawlessness of Sodom, they were exterminated by the army of the entire people of Israel, who armed themselves against them. And it seems to me a philanthropic thing to advise new shooters so that they do not try to shoot “at random”, and ignore the door of faith, but, having abandoned the vain work of research about the incomprehensible, they would not lose the closest acquisition found through faith alone. 2. But, paying attention to the rest of his work, I am perplexed whether I should continue the word further; some kind of horror grips the heart from what is said there. For he wants to show that the Son is something else, different from eternal life, which if you do not contemplate in the Only Begotten, then faith will be vain, preaching will be in vain, baptism will be unnecessary, the exploits of martyrs will be in vain, the labors of the apostles will be unnecessary and useless for the life of people. Why did they proclaim Christ, in whom, according to Eunomius, there is no power of eternal life? Why should believers be called by the name of Christ if there is no hope for them to inherit eternal life through Him? “The minds of those,” he says, “who have believed in the Lord, having risen above all sensual and mental essence, cannot stop at the birth of the Son, but strives beyond it, burning first of all with the desire for eternal life.” What should I most lament about in these words? Is it the fact that they unfortunate people think that there is no eternal life in the Son, or that they recognize the Hypostasis of the Only Begotten as so low and vile that, having reached His Beginning in (their) thoughts, they dream of ascending with their reason above the life of the Son and, leaving the birth of the Lord somewhere down, strive further with His desire for eternal life? For what he said has such a meaning that the human mind, seeking knowledge of what exists and having ascended above the sensory and spiritual creation, like everything else, leaves under itself and at the beginning of the existing God the Word; with the fussy curiosity of the mind, he penetrates where there is no Son, entering an area that is higher than the life of the Son, looking for eternal life where there is no Only Begotten God. For in the desire for eternal life, he says, he ascends in mind above the Son, as if not at all finding in the Son what he was looking for. But if there is no eternal life in the Son, then he turns out to be a liar who said: “I am the resurrection and the life” (John 11:25), or although He is life, He is not eternal. But the non-eternal, of course, is temporary, and this type of life is common to the wordless. So, what is the superiority of truly existing life, if unconditional nature also participates in it? How will the Word be identical with life if, in terms of the temporality of life, we put Him on a par with wordless nature? For if, according to the word of the great John, the Word is life only, as the heresy seems, temporary, but not eternal, and temporary life belongs to others, then what follows in conclusion? It remains to admit that either the dumb are rational, or the Word is unreasonable. Do we still need words to denounce their wicked and evil blasphemy? In such speeches (of him) is there not hidden advice to renounce the Lord? If the Apostle clearly says that the non-eternal is temporary (2 Cor. 4:18), and they see eternal life in the one essence of the Father, while the Son, alienated from the nature of the Father, is at the same time separated from eternal life, then what is this but an obvious renunciation and rejection of faith in the Lord, since the Apostle clearly says that those who trust in Christ only in this life are the most unfortunate of all (1 Cor. 15, 19)? So, if the Lord, although life, is not eternal, then, of course, (He) is a temporary and short-day life, ending in the present time, for those who trust in which the Apostle mourns as those who do not achieve true life. But those enlightened by Eunomius, rising above this, carry their thoughts above the Son, seeking eternal life in what is contemplated outside the Only Begotten. What to say in the face of such evil, except only what causes crying and tears? Oh, how we can mourn this pitiful and unfortunate race, which has brought so many evils! The zealot Jeremiah once mourned the people of Israel when, following his leader in idolatry, Jeconiah, he inclined towards evil and for his criminal service was condemned to captivity by the Assyrians, deprived of the shrine and removed from his fatherly heritage. It seems appropriate for me to sing the same lament when the imitator of Jehoiachin draws the erring ones to this new type of idolatry, depriving them of their fatherly heritage, that is, faith. For they too, like those about whom history speaks, migrated to the Babylonians from the heavenly Jerusalem, that is, from the Church of God they migrated into this confusion of evil dogmas, for Babylon is interpreted as “confusion.” And this one, like the blinded Jehoiachin, voluntarily depriving himself of the light of truth, became the prey of the Babylonian tyrant, not understanding, the unfortunate one, that the Gospel teaches us to see eternal life equally in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, when the Word so spoke about the Father that to know Him is eternal life (John 17:3), and about the Son that everyone “who believes in Him has eternal life” ( John 6:40), about the Holy Spirit, that for those who receive grace He becomes “a source of water flowing into eternal life” (John 4:14). So, everyone who desires eternal life, as soon as he finds the Son, I mean the true and the unfaithful, finds in Him everything that he sought, since He Himself is life and has life in Himself. But this subtle mind and vigilant heart, due to his excessive foresight, does not find eternal life in the Son. But having ascended above Him and leaving Him as some kind of obstacle to what is sought, he seeks eternal life there, where, as he thinks, there is no truly existing life. What other blasphemy can you think of that is more terrible or a reason for crying more sad? But to divulge that in our dogmas we follow Sabellius and Montanus is the same as if someone began to attribute to us the blasphemy of Eunomius. For whoever carefully examines these vain heresies will notice that they have a great resemblance to the error of Eunomius, because both he and the others are Judaizers in this teaching, not allowing either the Only Begotten God or the Holy Spirit into the communion of the Divinity with what they call the great and first God. For the same One, whom Sabellius calls three-named, Eunomius calls unborn, but neither one nor the other sees the Divinity of the Hypostases in the Trinity. So, whoever is inclined here to Sabellius, let those who read this word decide. But enough of that. 3. Since Eunomius, in what follows from him, too verbosely spreads the stench of disgusting conclusions, through which he wants to prove that the Only Begotten God once did not exist, then I consider it good, since our mind through the previous (reasonings) is sufficiently cleansed from them, not to plunge his word into such impurity, but I think that it will not be untimely, having chosen from many, to add only the following. He speaks similarly to those who assert that ungeneracy is connected with the essence of the Father; the train of thought is the same as in the conclusions about the Son. The arguments of the opponents clearly confirm only the teaching of piety, which should not at all be considered unborn and born as one thing with the essence, but that both are only seen in the subject, and the subject in its own meaning is something else, different from this; since in the latter there is no difference, because the difference between being born and not being born does not relate to the essence, it remains absolutely necessary to recognize the sameness of essence in both. Let us also add this to what has been said: in what sense does he recognize birth as not belonging to the Father, does he mean it by essence or by action? If one considers birth to be an action, then it is necessary to recognize that it belongs equally to both the agent and the agent, just as in any work one can equally see the action in both the produced and the producing, inseparable from the organizer and manifested in the structure of the works. If (by birth) he means an essence separate from the essence of the Father, asserting that the Lord came from it, then it is clear that he recognizes it as the Father for the Only Begotten; so that there are two Fathers of the Son: one Father only by name, Whom he calls unborn, not involved in birth, and the other is the essence that performs the work of the Father in relation to the Son, which he calls birth. But even this is more proven by Eunomius’s own words than by ours, because further he says: “God is without generation and exists before the one who is born,” and a little further: “He who is characterized by being through birth did not exist before he was born. So, if begetting does not belong to the Father, and if being through birth is characteristic of the Son, then the Father is not active in relation to the Hypostasis of the Only Begotten, being not involved in the birth from which the Son has being.” So, if the Father is not involved in the birth of the Son, then these wise men either invent some other Father for the Son under the name “birth” or, by the above, they want to indicate some self-born and self-begotten Son. You see how he is convicted of unreason, who in his own speeches in one way or another exposed our ignorance, how he wanders along many paths or, better yet, pathlessness of blasphemy, not holding firmly to any one in the movement towards his goal. And just as it happens to be seen in children when, playing according to their age, they make the likeness of buildings out of sand, which they imitate, not intending to use art to accurately execute the plan of the building, but out of foolishness, first make something at random, and then figure out what to call their work, so I see similar ingenuity in this writer. Having collected, as he had to, like a heap of sand, the words of wickedness, he then considers what to attribute to the senseless blasphemy that randomly appeared from his speeches without any logical sequence. For I do not think that he deliberately invented the hypostasis of birth, replacing the Father for the essence of the Son, nor was it, as I think, the goal of the rhetorician to prove that the Father is alien to the birth of the Son, and the miracle of self-birth was not introduced by him with any intention, but all this was spewed out by the author without reasoning, so that he who errs in dogmas, but does not understand, as the Apostle says, “neither than they say, neither do they affirm about them” (1 Tim. 1:7). “Whoever,” he says, “is characterized by existence through birth, did not exist before birth.” If by the name of birth he means the Father, then I agree with him, and no one will contradict, for one and the other expression means: whether to say that Abraham gave birth to Isaac, or instead of “gave birth” to say that he was the father of Isaac. So, since it is the same thing to give birth and to be a father, then no matter what way of expression someone uses, the identity of the fatherland with birth will equally be proven. Therefore, if Eunomius says that whoever has existence from the father did not exist before the father, then his reasoning is sound, and we agree with his words. But if he talks about that birth and says that it is alien to the Father, but united with the Son, then I consider it an empty matter to dwell on the consideration of the meaningless, because even now we could not even see from his words whether by birth he means any object conceptualized in its special essence, or whether this name leads his thoughts to the unimportant, for his shaky and unsteady speech equally allows for both an assumption, leaning towards whatever one wants to understand. 4. But we have not yet examined the grave blasphemies that Eunomius adds further in his work; let us consider what he said literally. But I don’t know how to dare to utter with my lips the terrible and ungodly writings of a Christ-fighter, because I fear that, like a fatal poison, a remnant of pernicious bitterness might spread to the lips through which the word will pass. “But it becomes the one who comes to God to believe, says the Apostle, as He is” (Heb. 11:6). So, the proper sign of the Divine is true existence, but Eunomius leads to the idea that the One who truly exists either does not exist in the proper sense, or does not fully exist, which is equal to His complete non-existence, because non-existent in the proper sense and does not exist at all. So about one who imagines himself running in a sleepy dream, although it is said that he runs, but since here the apparent running is falsely accepted as true, then the dream of the imagination is not really running, and although the wrong way of expression says so, such a name is false. Therefore, whoever dares to say that the Only Begotten God either does not exist, or does not exist in the proper sense, clearly denies the dogma of faith in Him. For who else would believe in something that does not exist? Or who will turn to the one whose existence as enemies of the true Lord is recognized as not his own and not independent? But so that it does not seem to anyone that our word slanders our opponents, let us offer the genuine words of wicked people of this kind: “he is not existing and in the proper sense existing,” he says, “he is in the depths of what exists, he is in the beginning and is with God, and Basil, without paying attention to this definition and addition, changes the name of what exists contrary to the truth.” What are you saying? He who is in the Father does not exist, and he who is in the beginning, and in the depths, “he who is” does not exist because he has existence in the beginning, is in the Father and is seen in the depths of existence, and therefore does not exist in the proper sense that he exists in existence. O vain and absurd doctrine! Now, only for the first time, have we heard such idle talk: that in the proper sense the Lord, from whom all things come, does not exist. But this is not so important, much more absurd than this is that he not only asserts that the Lord does not exist or does not exist in the proper sense, but also that he must be contemplated as having a complex and varied nature, for “non-existent,” he says, “and is not simple,” and whoever does not have simplicity is obviously attributed to diversity and complexity. But how is it that one and the same thing both does not exist at all and is essentially complex? Any one of two things: either, asserting that He does not exist at all, one should not call Him complex, or, calling Him complex, one should not exclude Him from (the realm of) existence. But in order for their blasphemy to appear more varied and diverse, it is deceptively supported by all sorts of godless reasoning. In comparison with the existing, they claim that the Lord does not exist, and in comparison with the simple, they deprive him of simplicity. What does not exist does not exist either simply or in the proper sense. Which of the foolish and renounced faith was so generous with words denying the Lord? Eunomius took it upon himself to contradict the Divine preaching of John, for as much as he ascribed existence to the Word, so much he insists, on the contrary, to attribute non-existence to the Existing One. He also opposes the holy words of our father, uttering accusations against him that Basil does not pay attention to this definition, calling the existing in the Father, and in the beginning, and in the depths, as if by this addition of the words “in the beginning” and “in the depths” the existence of the existing is limited. O vain doctrine! What do the teachers of lies teach! What dogmas do the innovators present to the listeners! They teach that what exists in something does not exist. So, Eunomius, since the heart and brain are inside you, then, according to your definition, it follows that neither one nor the other exists. For if the Only Begotten God does not exist in the proper sense because He is in the bosom of the Father, then everything that exists in anything will, of course, be taken out of existence. But your heart in you does not exist on its own, therefore, according to your reasoning, it must be said that it either does not exist at all, or does not exist in its own sense. Although there is so much absurdity and blasphemy in his words and to such a degree that it is clear to those with intelligence even without our words, but in order to further reveal his madness along with wickedness, let us add this to what has been said: if in the proper sense only the One to whom the word of Scripture ascribes an unconditional and independent existence should be recognized as existing, then what are they, like the bearers of water, having the opportunity to drink, languishing with thirst? And this one, having at hand the antidote to the blasphemy against the Son, deliberately runs away from him, as if afraid of being saved. He further accuses Vasily of an error in that, having kept silent about the defining characteristics, he pointed out regarding the Only Begotten only that he “would” be in Himself. However, what Vasily knows and what everyone with eyes sees, Eunomius could also see. It seems to me that the lofty John, prophetically inspired to stop the mouths of those who oppose Christ, who deny on the basis of these additions the own existence of Christ, simply and without limitation says that God “would be” the Word, and “would be” life, and light, and not only that He is in the beginning with God and in the bosom of the Fathers, so that such relative expressions could not deny in the proper sense the existence of the Lord; but having said that He would be “God”, with this irrespective and unconditional expression he cuts off every path of those who deviate in thoughts towards wickedness. Besides this, here’s something else that even more exposes the malice of their opponents: if they consider being in something to be a sign of being not in the proper sense, then they must certainly admit that the Father does not exist in the proper sense, since it is known from the Gospel that just as the Son is in the Father, so the Father abides in the Son, according to the word of the Lord (John 10:38). For it is one and the same thing to say that the Father is in the Son and that the Son is in the bosom of the Father. Let us also examine this in passing: when there was no Son, as they say, what did the bowels of the Father contain? Of course, they must admit that they were either full or empty, but if the bosoms were full, then, of course, the Son was the fullness of the bosoms, but if they allow some kind of emptiness in the bosoms of the Father, then this means nothing more than to attribute to Him perfection through increment, as if from emptiness and lack He ascended to fullness and perfection. But “without understanding, without understanding” (Ps. 81:5), David says about those walking in darkness, for he who declares war on the true light cannot have a soul in the light. Therefore, what was added according to the requirement of consistency and what corrects this wickedness, they, as if struck by blindness, like the Sodomites, did not understand. But Eunomius also asserts that the essence of the Son is subordinate to the Father, speaking in these words: “for this dignity is not acquired by the one who exists and lives through the Father, and the essence of the Father, which dominates over him, attracts (attributes) the concept of existence to itself.” Even if it had seemed so to any of the external sages, it would not have disturbed either the Gospel or the other teachings of the inspired Scripture. For what fellowship is there between the Christian word and the wisdom gained? If he relies on Scripture, let him show such a teaching in the Holy Scriptures, and we will remain silent. I hear Paul crying out that “There is one Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 8:6), but, contrary to Paul, Eunomius proclaims, calling Christ a slave, for we do not know any other sign of slavery other than subordination and being under authority, (and the subject), of course, is a slave; but a slave by nature cannot be the Lord, even if by incorrect usage he was called one. And why should I cite Paul’s words as evidence of the Lord’s sovereignty? Master Paul himself tells his disciples that He truly is Lord when he accepts the confessions of those who call Him Teacher and Lord, for he says: “You proclaim Me as Teacher and Lord: and you say well: I am” (John 13:13). But with the same (name) He legitimized them to call the Father, saying: do not call a mentor on earth; “For there is only one teacher, your Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 23:9-10). So, who should we stick to, pressed on both sides? There the Lord Himself and the “speaking” Christ within Himself (2 Cor. 13:3) command that we should not understand Him as a servant, but to honor Him as the Father is honored; here Eunomius attributes slavery to the Lord when he says that he who has received power over everything is himself under power. But is our choice of what to do questionable? Or is it unimportant for us to discern what is most useful? Shall I, Eunomius, disrespect the advice of Paul? Wouldn't you consider the voice of truth more reliable than your lies? “If he had not come and spoken to them, he says, they had no sin” (Jn. 15:22), but since He Himself spoke to them, calling Himself the true Lord, and not falsely named (“I am” (John 13:13), he says, without being named), then what remains to be done with one who, as he himself knew before, faces inevitable punishment? But perhaps he will contrast us with the usual wisdom and say that the same one both slaves and dominates: he submits to the ruler, and dominates over others? Such wisdom is spread through the streets by lovers of lies, who use human relationships to support their vain opinions about the Divine. Since the cases of present life provide us with examples of similar things, namely, that in wealthy houses the more active and shrewd of the slaves is appointed as a steward on behalf of the master and receives an advantage over those who are equally honest to him, then they apply the same understanding to Divine dogmas, so that the Only Begotten God, dependent on the sovereignty of the Most High, nothing prevents the power of the Sovereign from dominating the lower ones. But we, leaving such wisdom aside, will consider their speech about this to the best of our understanding. Do they recognize the Father as Lord by nature or (think) that He has been elevated to such a degree by someone? But I do not think that anyone, even if he has any sense, has reached such madness as not to attribute to God all kinds of dominion by nature, for what is simple by nature, indivisible and uncomplicated is wholly and completely what it is, without becoming such through the change of something else, but as it is, so it remains forever. So, what do they think about the Only Begotten? Do they recognize His essence as simple or do they understand in it some complexity? If they consider Him to be some complex object made up of many and different parts, then, of course, they will not even leave the name of deity behind it, applying some material and bodily ideas to the dogma of Christ. If they recognize Him as simple, then how can one imagine in the mind the combination in an object of qualities that are opposite to its simplicity? For just as there is an immediate opposition between life and death, so domination is incompatible with slavery and is completely different from it in properties. For if someone were to consider each of these (concepts) in itself, he would not express both with the same word, but what the word designation is not the same, the nature is completely different. So, if the Lord is simple by nature, then how could there be a duality of opposites in one subject, when slavery would be combined with domination? But if He, according to the teaching of the saints, is confessed by the Lord, then the simplicity of the subject testifies that He is not involved in the opposite (of this). If they declare Him to be a slave, then in vain they attribute to Him the name of dominion, because what is simple by nature is not dissected into opposite properties. If they say that He is one thing, but is called another: by nature a servant, but by name Lord, let them boldly express such a speech and give us peace from the long labors of contradicting them. For who has so much leisure for empty matters as to expose the obvious and undoubted with reasoning? When someone himself has announced his crime - murder, then there is no longer any difficulty for the accusers to expose the (reality) of the murder with any evidence; so we will no longer seek denunciations against our opponents when they have reached such wickedness. For he who acknowledges the Only Begotten God to be a servant by nature, by the very fact that he speaks, makes Him his fellow servant; from here a twofold absurdity necessarily follows: either he will show contempt to his fellow servant and renounce the faith, overthrowing the yoke of the sovereignty of Christ, or he will submit to the slave and, renouncing his autocratic and insubordinate nature, instead of God will in some way honor himself. Because if in slavery he sees himself, and in slavery he also sees what is honored by him, then he simply honors himself, whoever sees another himself in the object of honor. But what word could account for everything else that is necessarily seen along with this evil teaching? For who does not know that a slave by nature and engaged in the master’s service is not free from the feeling of fear? Because fear is, as it were, associated with the nature of slavery, witness the divine Apostle who says: “For the spirit of work did not accept fear” (Rom. 8:15), so they attribute to God’s fellow servant in the likeness of people a feeling of fear. But this is a heretical God, and as we learned from the Scriptures to philosophize, we, called, according to the Apostle (Gal. 5:13), into freedom by Christ, who freed us from slavery, I'll state it briefly. Excited by the Divine teaching, I boldly declare that the Divine Word does not even want us to be slaves, since our nature has been changed for the better. And he who accepted everything that was ours in order to give us his own in return, accepted slavery as well as illness and death, curse and sin, not in order to Himself have what he accepted, but in order to cleanse the nature (of man) of this, destroying in the immaculate nature such qualities that belong to us. Therefore, just as in the desired life there will be no illness, no curse, no sin, no death, so with all this slavery will pass away, disappearing. And that I say this truly, I call as testimony the Truth itself, which says to the disciples: “I have not said that you are servants to anyone, but I have made you friends” (John 15:15). So, if our nature will once be free from the reproach of slavery, then how is the Lord of all reduced to a state of slavery by the madness and insolence of these frenzied ones? They, on the basis of the saying about slaves, which says that “a servant does not know what his Lord is doing” (John 15:15), of course, consistently believe that He does not know the things of the Father; but if they say this, then let them hear that the Son has in Himself everything of the Father, sees everything that the Father does, and none of the Father’s blessings is hidden from the knowledge of the Only Begotten. For how could he not have something of the Father who has the entire Father in himself? So, if “a servant does not know what his lord is doing,” but He has in Himself everything of the Father, then let those who wander in intoxication be sobered up and although now turn their eyes to the truth that he who has on himself the whole image (of God’s being) (Heb. 1:3) and reigns over everything cannot have an image equal to himself. Otherwise, how can dishonor shine from true glory? For slavery is dishonor. How is the son of a king born into slavery? It's not like that, it's not like that. But as light is from light, and life is from life, from truth is truth, so is the Lord from the Lord, the King from the King, from God the God, from the Unsubject to the Unsubject, for he who has in Himself the whole Father, of course, has everything that the Father has in Himself. But since everything that the Son has belongs to the Father, then if the Son is a slave, the enemies of the glory of God must necessarily bring the Father into slavery. Because there is nothing intelligible in the Son that does not completely belong to the Father, for “All things are mine,” he says, “and yours are mine” (John 17:10). So, what will the wretched say? What is more prudent: to glorify the Son with the royal power of the Father, who said, “And yours is mine: and we are glorified in them” (John 17:10), or to insult the Father the dishonor of filial slavery? Since it is impossible for the Father, who has in Himself everything more filial and He Himself exists in the Son, not to be fully involved in the slavery of the Son and not to have slavery in Himself. This is what Eunomius leads to with his wisdom, insulting the Lord with slavery, he thereby attributes the same dishonor to the incorruptible glory of the Father. But let us return again to what follows in order in the essay. What does Eunomius say about the Only Begotten? That he will not acquire this dignity for himself (he calls the name “existent” a dignity). O absurd philosophy! Which of the people who ever lived, whether among the Hellenes or between the philosophers of the barbarians, which of our (contemporaries), which of the living ever attached the name of dignity to the existing? About everything that is intelligible as existing, according to the general custom of word usage, we say that it exists; The name of being comes from the word “to be,” but now the expression “dignity” is being reinvented to designate being. For he says that the Son does not appropriate to Himself the dignity of being, since He has being and lives through the Father. But, saying this, he can neither confirm his words with Scripture, nor indicate the sequence (of thoughts) that would lead his speech to such madness, but, like someone who has filled his stomach with some kind of carminative food, he emits a completely unfounded and unproven blasphemy, like some stinking wind. “He does not acquire such dignity,” he says. Let us agree that being is called dignity. So what? The existent does not assimilate existence to itself? “Because,” he says, “he exists through the Father.” So, you say that he who does not assimilate being does not exist? For not to assimilate something means the same thing as to be alien to it, and the opposition of meanings here is obvious, because one’s own is not alien and what is alien is not one’s own. So, he who does not assimilate being to himself is, of course, alien to being, and he who is alien to being is not in being. But at the same time he deduces the necessity of such an absurdity, saying that “the essence of the Father, which dominates over him, relates (entails) the concept of being to itself.” But I will remain silent about the incoherence of his speech, and what he means to express in his own words must be investigated. How will he prove that the essence of the Father dominates the Only Begotten? Again he spews out of satiety to us. What evangelist stands for this doctrine? What dialectical induction, what principles, what arguments have consistently proved that the Only Begotten God is under someone's dominion? But “the essence that dominates the Son to itself,” he says, “attributes (entails) the concept of being.” What does the attraction of beings mean to him? And how does the phrase “entails” fit in with what is being said? Let him who considers the power of words judge this, but we will remain silent about this, and return again to his word that he does not recognize Him as existing independently, for whom he does not leave the name of existence. Why does he fight in vain with the shadows, bickering about the non-existent, as if existing? For that which does not exist can be neither similar to anything nor dissimilar. But he who admits His existence forbids saying that He has existence. O vain precision! He who gives in more is worth less in words. In what sense does the Lord, as He speaks of the Son, attract to Himself the concept of being? If he says that the Father attracts His own essence, then this attraction is unnecessary, for being is inherent in Him even without attraction. If he says that the being of the Son is attracted by the Father, then how being will be torn away from what exists and transferred to what attracts, I cannot understand. Is he really delusional about Sabellius’ delusion that the Son does not exist in Himself, but merges with the Hypostasis of the Father? Doesn’t it mean that he attracts the essence of the concept of existence that dominates the Son, that, without rejecting the hypostatic existence of the Son, he wants to separate the meaning of existence from Him? But how can we separate the concept of being from being? For as long as everything exists, it is impossible for it not to be what it is. You might be interested in: