Книга одиннадцатая

1. But let’s move on to the continuation of the speech. “The Only Begotten Himself,” says Eunomius, “assimilates this title to the Father, as due to Him alone in dignity. For, having taught that the name Good befits Him alone, Who is the author of both His own and all goodness, He also attributes to Him every existing and existing good, but He found it difficult to appropriate to Himself the power over what happened and the name of the Existing.” As long as Eunomius attracted people to his side unnoticed by deception, covering up blasphemy under circumstantial conclusions, as if under some cover, I believed that we should pay attention to secret villainy and expose this destruction in words as much as possible. But since he, having thrown off every deceptive guise of lies, sets out the blasphemy in clear terms, I consider it unnecessary to endure vain anxiety, by means of inferences drawing accusations against those who do not renounce wickedness. For what more should we look for to prove malicious intent beyond what is revealed at first glance from what is written by the heretics themselves? The Father alone, says Eunomius, is worthy of the name Good; such a name is due to Him alone, just as the Son agrees that goodness belongs to Him alone. The accuser himself speaks in our favor, for before, when I proved that the opponents of Christ lead to the idea that the Lord is alien to the Father’s goodness, perhaps, in the opinion of the readers, I was some kind of slanderer, but now, as I think, the confession of the opponents has proven that we brought such an accusation against our enemies not out of slander. For he who says that the name Good is due to the Father alone, and who says that this word befits Him alone, now with an open word reveals the previously hidden deceit. “To one,” he says, “the Father, befits the name Good.” With the meaning belonging to (the) word or separately from its meaning? If Eunomius ascribes to the Father only the name of the Good as an advantage, then it would be pathetic folly to offer the Father the gift of the sound of an empty speech. If he thinks that the concept signified by the word “good” belongs to God the Father alone, then this would be vile impiety, a renewal of the Manichaean disease in his Dogmas. For both health and illness, so goodness and evil have consistency in mutual negation, so that the absence of one becomes the realization of the other. Therefore, if Eunomius says that goodness belongs to the Father alone, then he does not allow it in any of the intelligibly existing things except the Father, so that along with everything, the Only Begotten God is excluded from the concept of “good.” For just as he who says that one (only) man is capable of laughter, thereby shows that of all other living beings not a single one shares the same property, so he who declares that the Father alone has goodness takes away the property of goodness from everything. Therefore, if one Father should worthily have the title of Good, as Eunomius says, then this word cannot be applied to anyone else in the proper sense. But every desire for freedom certainly either acts for the good, or is directed in the opposite direction, for it is characteristic of the soulless or insensitive to have no inclination towards either one or the other. Therefore, if the Father alone is good, has not acquired, but natural goodness, and the Son does not have a common nature with the Father, as heresy as you like, then he who does not participate in the good essence, of course, is at the same time alienated from the name good. And it is not unknown, without a doubt, who is not involved in either the nature or the name of the Good, although I will refrain from using a blasphemous name. It is clear to everyone that Eunomius strives to bring evil and opposition into the thought of the Son, for what name is characteristic of one who is not good is obvious to everyone who has understanding. Just as the unmanly is timid, the untruthful is unrighteous, and the unwise is foolish, so it is obvious what the opposite name corresponds to ungood. And this is what strengthens the idea of ​​the Only Begotten of Christ, this is another Manes or Vardesan in the Church. In this case, as we affirm, our word is no more valid than silence. Even if someone said a lot and used all the inferences, he would not say anything as an accusation, such as what the heretics themselves preach openly. For what can be said more grave in relation to wickedness than that He is not good, who “in the form of God was not equal to God by admiration” (Phil. 2:6), but solely through love for mankind descended to the humiliation of human nature. Why, tell me, will I use the words of Moses to the Israelites: “Do you repay the Lord for this” (Deut. 32:6)? Is He not good who, you, soulless dust, adorned you with god-like beauty and made you an animated image of His power? Is He not good who for your sake took on the “form of a servant” (Phil. 2:7), and “instead of the joy that was set before Him” (Heb. 12:2) took upon Himself suffering for your sin, gave Himself to redeem you from death and became “for us” a curse (Gal. 3:13) and sin (2 Cor. 5:21)? 2. Marcion, the first defender of your dogmas, will not help you in this case. What he has in common with your way of thinking is the duality of gods and the opinion that one of them is different from the other by nature. But he is softer in that he assimilates goodness to the God of the Gospel, but you separate the Only Begotten God from the good nature, so that by the vicissitudes of your teaching you have surpassed Marcion. But the Eunomians firmly adhere to what was written (by them) and claim that they suffer untruth, being accused because of the sayings of Scripture, and they say that the Lord Himself said: “no one is good, except one God” (Matthew 19:17). Therefore, so that slander against the sayings of God does not have power, let us briefly examine the very word of the Gospel. It is known from history that the young man to whom the Lord speaks this word was rich; I think that he was a man who loved the enjoyment of worldly pleasures and was covetous, for it is said that he was saddened by the advice to renounce the possession of his property and did not dare to exchange acquisitions for a belly. He, having heard that some teacher of eternal life had come, then, in the hope of prolonging his pleasures forever with an endless continuation of life, he approached the Lord with the affectionate name of the Good; It’s better to say, not to the one who is understood to be the Lord, but to the one who was visible in the “slave’s eye”, for he was not such that he could penetrate the veil of flesh and see the inaccessible shrine of the Divine. Therefore, the Lord, looking at hearts, saw to whom the young man addressed his prayer, he saw precisely that his soul was not directed towards the Divine, but on the contrary, he pestered the man, calling him a good teacher in the hope of learning such a science, with the help of which, as he expected, it would be possible to delay death. Therefore, as it should be, the one whom he called to his aid answers him. Since the appeal was not to God the Word, then as a result of this the answer to the suppliant is made from human nature. This answer gives the young man a twofold instruction: at the same time he teaches that the Divine must be served not by verbal gratification, but by life, by fulfilling the commandments, and eternal life must be purchased at the cost of all one’s possessions, and that humanity, having become evil through sin, is alien to the name good in the proper sense of the word. Therefore, the Lord says: “Why do you say good things to Me?” (Matthew 19:17). When he says: “Me,” then with this word he points to human nature. And when he attributed goodness to the Divine, then he directly declared Himself to be good, because He truly is God, as the Gospel preaches. If the Only Begotten Son were removed from the name by God, then perhaps it would not be inappropriate to think that He is alien to the name good. But if the prophets, evangelists, and apostles proclaim the Divinity of the Only Begotten, and the Lord Himself testifies that God is entitled to the name of goodness, then why does He who has fellowship in the Divine not have fellowship in goodness? And who is so uninitiated in the knowledge of God that he needs the word to learn that the prophets, evangelists, disciples, and apostles recognize the Lord as God? Who does not know that in Psalm forty-four the Prophet specifically proclaims about Christ that He is God, anointed by God (Ps. 44:8)? And again, who of those who have been engaged in the prophecy of Isaiah does not know that he proclaims so clearly about the Divinity of the Son, when among other things he also says this: “Men of high standing will come to You, and You will be servants, and after You they will follow, bound with bonds by hand, and: They will pray in You, for God is in You, and they will say: Unless You have God: for You are God” (Is. 45, 14–15)? For, besides the Only Begotten, is there any other God who would have God in himself and be God Himself, let those who do not listen to the prophecies say. I will remain silent about the meaning of the word “Immanuel” (Is. 7:14), about the confession of Thomas by inquiry (John 20:28) and about the great sermon of John (John 1:1), as obvious even to those who do not belong to the faith. I think that there is no need to offer with precision Pavlov’s sayings, which are on almost everyone’s lips. Paul calls the Lord not only God, but the great God and God above all in the Epistle to the Romans he says: “Whose are the fathers, and from whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is God blessed above all forever” (Rom. 9:5), and to his disciple Titus he writes: because of “the manifestation of the glory of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ” (Tit. 2:13), and in the Epistle to Timothy definitely exclaims: “God appeared in the flesh, being justified in Dus” (1 Tim. 3:16). Therefore, if it has been proven everywhere that the Only Begotten God is God, how can he who says that goodness befits God prove that this designation is alien to the Divinity of the Son? And this is when the Lord Himself, in the parable of the mercenaries in the grapevine, assimilates goodness to himself, for there, because those who worked more than others were indignant at equal shares of the payment and considered the well-being of those who came later to be their own loss, the righteous Judge says to one of the vexed ones: “Friend, I will not offend you: did I not consult with you on a fine day? Here's yours. I want to give this gift to this last one, just as I did to you. Or I don’t have the power to create what I want in my Mi; Even if your eye is evil, for I am good” (Matthew 20:13–15)? Without a doubt, no one will argue that reward according to dignity is actually the work of the judge, and all the disciples of the Gospel agree that the Only Begotten God is the Judge, for the Gospel says: “For the Father does not judge anyone, but the Son has given all judgment” (John 5:22). But the Eunomians do not rebel against the Scriptures; they argue that the addition “one” actually points to the Father, for it is said: “no one is good except one God.” So, does truth really not have enough strength to defend itself? Or from many other places it is impossible to expose this false conclusion of deception without much difficulty? For he who said this about the Father also speaks to the Father the following: “All of mine are Yours, and I am glorified in them” (John 17:10). If, according to what has been said, everything of the Father is and of the Son, and goodness is one of the properties contemplated in the Father, then either the Son does not have everything, if he does not have this, and the Eunomians will say that the truth lies, or, if it is not permissible to suspect the real Truth of being attracted to a lie, then He who called everything of the Father His own at the same time confessed that He is not alien to goodness, for having in Himself The Father also embraces everything of the Father, since it is obvious that along with everything he also has goodness. So the Son is good. But He says: “No one is good except God alone.” This is exposed by opponents. And I do not reject this word, and yet for this reason I do not deny the goodness of the Son. He who confesses the Divinity of the Lord by this very confession certainly assimilates His goodness. For if goodness is a property of God, and the Lord is God, then from these provisions it clearly follows that the Son is good. But, they say, the saying “one” separates the Son from fellowship in goodness. On the contrary, it is convenient to prove that this “one” does not separate the Father from the Son. For everything else, the word “one” means the absence of another. But in the case of the Father and the Son, the oneness is not seen in individuality, for it is said: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). Therefore, if the good is “one,” and a certain unity is seen in the Son and the Father, then it follows that the Lord, having ascribed goodness to the one, with the word “one,” adopted this name for Himself, as being “one” with the Father and not separated from this natural unity. 3. But in order to make clear the ignorance and lack of education of this venerable writer, let us pay attention to the very words in what he wrote. He says: “The Son does not assimilate to himself the dignity of Being,” and he calls being itself a dignity. What a skill to bring precise words to the point! Because the Son is from the Father, Eunomius says that He alienates Himself, since the essence of the Father as the Dominant attracts to itself the concept of the Being. This is as if someone said: someone bought with money ceases to be what he is, his own person; he is purchased and his personality is essentially absorbed into himself by the nature of the one who has become his master. These are the lofty concepts of this theologian. What is the proof of the above? Because, he says, “the Only Begotten Father Himself assimilates this title as due to Him alone in dignity.” And having said this, he adds that the Father alone is good. Where is the Son’s renunciation of the name being? And Eunomius proves this by literally adding the following words: “for having taught that the name Good befits Him alone, Who is the author of both his own and all goodness, he also attributes to Him every existing and existing good, but it was difficult for himself to appropriate power over what happened and the name of the Existing.” What does what is said have in common with power? How does the Son, together with her, alienate Himself from the name of being? But I don’t know what should be done more: should I laugh at ignorance or regret the death? For the saying: “It is peculiar to him,” chosen not for such use as is akin to him and is usually among people who know how to master the word, testifies to how much knowledge Eunomius has in the art of using pronouns, which is easily achieved by grammar teachers and small children. And Eunomius’s ridiculous deviation from the subject to something that has nothing to do with inference either in concept or in appearance, the application of strange proofs to the idea that the Son does not participate in the naming of beings, and all this, as if with a special intention, is gathered together for laughter, so that perhaps people who do not care about anything will suffer somewhat and laugh at the incoherence of concepts. But the idea that God the Word does not exist or is not good at all (for Eunomius leads to it when he says that the Son does not appropriate to Himself the name of being and good), as well as the conclusion that power over those who come into being does not belong to the Son - all this is worthy of tears and collective mourning. For not in one place did Eunomius say so out of some rash and imprudent impulse, and then in the next further corrected the error; on the contrary, with love he stagnates in evil, with subsequent efforts to surpass the previous one, for he further says that the Son is as much lower than the nature of God as the nature of the angels is separated from Him in humiliation. He does not write in these words, but in his words he makes one see such a thought. But readers can understand the matter, because it is written like this: “by what is called an Angel, He clearly taught whose words He proclaimed, and who He is, and by what is called God, He showed His own advantage over everyone; God for what came into being through Him, He is the Angel of God who exists above all.” Your speech is interrupted by the irritation that has penetrated into my heart, and my mind, moved to anger by what you say, is outraged by passion. And perhaps this passionate movement of the soul in me is not unforgivable. For who doesn’t have a heart boil from this? The Apostle proclaims that all angelic nature is subordinate to the Lord, and as evidence of this teaching he borrows the prophetic voice, for he says: “When he again brings the First-born into the universe, he says: and let ye worship him ecu His angels” (Heb. 1.6; Ps. 96:7), and also quotes the words: “Thy throne, O God, is for ever.” centuries" (Ps. 44:7), and: "You are the same ecu, and Your years will not fail" (Ps. 101:28); and all this is stated by the Apostle to prove that the Only Begotten is God (Heb. 1:6, 1:8, 1:12). How should I feel when I hear that it is not by chance that a champion of Christ throws out such a word that the Lord of angels is an angel, but persists in that absurdity in order to prove that the Lord has no advantage over John and Moses? For the Word says about John: “For this one is, about him it is written: Behold, I send My angel before Thy face” (Matthew 11:10). So, John is an angel. But the enemy of the Lord, although he calls the Lord God, proves that His Divinity is similar to the deity of Moses, because Moses, the servant of the Lord who is above all, was to the Egyptians instead of God (Ex. 7:1). Meanwhile, to be above all, as was said before, the Son is in common with the Father, which is why the Apostle assigned this expression to the Son, saying: “from them is Christ according to the flesh, who is God above all” (Rom. 9:5). But Eunomius degrades the Lord of angels to the rank of angel, as if he had not heard that angels are “ministers of soul and burning fire” (Heb. 1:14, 1:7). By this the Apostle makes clear and unified the distinction of those of whom he speaks; he defines the subordinate nature by spirits and fire, and signifies the power of the Lord by the name of the Divine. And contrary to so many heralds of the glory of the Only Begotten God, Eunomius alone says that the Lord is the angel of God who exists above all, by means of distinction from the One who exists above all, asserting that He is one of all, and by the commonality of name with the angels, proving that He differs in no way from them in nature. For before this he said many times that “everything that has the same general name does not differ from each other and in nature.” Therefore, is there still a need for a word of reproof against one who definitely exclaims that the Son is an angel, and proclaims not his own word, but the word of Jehovah? For this shows that the Word that existed in the beginning, God the Word, is not the Word itself, but becomes the word of some other word, becoming the servant and messenger (αγγελος) of it. And who of all does not know that what exists is opposed only to what is not, so that he who distinguishes the Son from the Existent is clearly judaizing and stealing the Hypostasis of the Only Begotten from the dogma? For, speaking about Him, which does not bear the name of Existence, leads to completely excluding Him from existence, because if I admitted His existence, I would not argue over one sound of a word. And he even attempts to support this absurdity with Scripture and presents Moses as his champion against the truth, for, talking to us as if from Scripture, he arbitrarily tells his own fables and says: He who sent Moses was Himself, and He through Whom He sent and spoke is the angel of Jehovah, and God of all others.” But that these are not the words of Scripture can be known from Scripture itself. If Eunomius claims that this is the meaning of the letter, then we need to examine the actual word of Scripture. And first of all, we recognize that it is worthy of damnation that Eunomius, having named the Lord (second) after God Himself, does not give Him anything more than an angelic nature. For Moses, having heard that he was a god to “Pharaoh” (Exodus 7:1), did not come out from among people, but with natural equality with them, he was exalted before his peers with the advantage of power, and the name god did not in the least prevent him from being a man. So in this case, Eunomius, having accepted that the Lord is one of the angels, corrects such an error with the name of the Deity, on the basis stated above, due to some similarity, making the name God common for Him. Let us examine the most blasphemous sayings, again proposing them. “He who sent Moses,” says Eunomius, “was He Himself, and He through Whom He sent was the angel of Jehovah,” - this is what he calls the Lord. But the absurdity of the writer is exposed by the words of Scripture itself, in which Moses begs the Lord not to assign an angel to lead the people, but to lead their procession Himself. Literally these are the words from the face of God: “Go, come down and bring up this people to the place that I spoke to you: behold, My angel will go before your face: on that day I will be present” (Ex. 32-34). And a little later God says again: “And I will send My angel before you” (Ex. 33:2). Then, a little after this, the servant turns to God with a prayer in the following form: “If I have found grace before You, may my Lord go with us” (Ex. 34:9). And again: “Unless You Yourself go with us, do not bring me out from here” (Ex. 33:15). Then God’s answer to Moses: “I will do this word to you that you have spoken: for you have found grace before Me, and I know you above all” (Ex. 33:17). Therefore, if Moses refuses the angel, and the One who spoke to him becomes his companion and leader of the army, then this clearly proves that He who made Himself known by the name of Jehovah is the Only Begotten God. If anyone contradicts this, he will be a defender of Jewish opinions, not taking the Son’s part in the salvation of the people. For if an angel does not accompany the Israelites, and the name of Jehovah does not mean the Only Begotten, as Eunomius thinks, then this is nothing more than a transfer of the dogmas of the synagogue to the Church of God. So, it is necessary to admit one of two things: either that the Only Begotten God did not appear to Moses at all, or that He Himself speaking to the servant is the Son. But Eunomius contradicts what has been said, pointing to Scripture itself, which says that the voice of an angel preceded (Exodus 3:4), and then the conversation of Jehovah followed (Exodus 3:14). But this is not a contradiction to what we say, but a confirmation. For we also clearly affirm that the Prophet called Jehovah an angel, wishing to make the mystery of Christ open to people, precisely so that the meaning of what was spoken would not be attributed to the Father, if only the name of Jehovah were in the conversation. But just as our word is the bearer and messenger of mental movements, so we say about the true Word that exists in the beginning that it, as proclaiming the will of His Father, is called by the activity of the messenger, called an angel. And just as the exalted John, first calling Him the Word, then adds that the Word is God (John 1:1) so that the name God, if it preceded, would not carry our thoughts to the Father, so the great Moses, having first called Him an angel, in the following words teaches that He Himself is, wanting to clearly foretell the mystery of Christ, for, calling Him an angel, Scripture teaches about the Word - the interpreter of the Father's will, and calling it Existence, teaches about the natural affinity of the Son with the Father by very being. If Eunomius also exposes Isaiah as saying that “his name is called great is the counsel of the angel” (Isa. 9:6), then even this will not refute our teaching, for it is clear and indisputable that the prophecy there signifies a dispensation according to humanity, for it is said: “A Son was born unto us, and was given unto us, whose rulership was upon His frame: and His name is called Great is the counsel of the Angel” (Isa. 9:6). This, as I think, with this in mind, David also talks about his installation as king, not because the Lord was not a King, but because the slavish humiliation to which the Lord suffered in the dispensation was elevated to royal dignity, for he says: “I am appointed King by Him over Zion, His holy mountain, to proclaim the commandment of the Lord” (Ps. 2:6-7). Therefore, he is called an angel and a Word, a seal and an image, and all these things in the same sense, as having made the Father’s goodness known by Himself; for an angel is someone’s messenger, a word also reveals the thought put into it, a seal with its imprint indicates the prototype, and the image makes clear the beauty of what it reflects; so all this is equivalent to each other in meaning. That is why the name of angel is placed before the name of the Being, He is called an angel as the messenger of the Father, and He is called as not having such a name that would express His essence, but exceeding any designation by name. Therefore, in the Apostolic Scripture it is testified that He has “a name that is above every name” (Phil. 2:9), not in the sense that it was any one among others, preferable, but in the fact that He truly is above every name. 4. But I see that my word is already stretching beyond measure, and I’m afraid to seem like some kind of talker and overly eloquent, extending further in refutation; although I omitted much from the middle of the enemy’s writing in order to prevent this word from stretching out into many dozens of speeches. For for the most industrious, the lack of brevity is a cause for accusation, so what should be taken into account is not the need, but the desire of lazy and not diligent people, for whom it is desirable to travel a lot with a few steps. What should we do when blasphemy pulls us forward? Or is it really unnecessary and truly talkative to fight against such conclusions? For everything that Eunomius cares about and in continuation of his words is in agreement with what has been examined before, and does not contain anything new to confirm beyond previous conclusions. Therefore, if we firmly have a refutation of what was stated before, then we will leave what is exposed along with what was previously examined. But if to controversial and stubborn people what is omitted seems the most powerful, then for their sake it is necessary to briefly run through the rest. Instead of showing that the Son is in no way separated from the Father, Eunomius says that the Lord did not exist before His birth, and he asserts this, not confirming this concept with Scripture, but deducing this position from his own conclusions. But it has been proven that this is common to all parts of creation: neither a frog, nor a worm, nor a beetle, nor grass, nor thorns, nor anything else, the most insignificant, existed before they received their composition. Therefore, what Eunomius, through artificial inferences, proves with difficulty and then about the Son, is admitted without this about any of the particles of creation; and this writer puts a lot of effort into showing that, in terms of the commonality of distinctive properties, the Only Begotten God is equal in honor with the last of creatures. So, it is sufficient evidence of the evil way of thinking of the Eunomians regarding dogmas that these heretics have similar ideas both about the Only Begotten God and about the birth of frogs. Then Eunomius says that not to exist before birth “in truth and in power is the same as not being unborn.” Again, and against this, the same word will be useful to me, namely, that it will not be a sin to say the same about a dog, and a butterfly, and a snake, and about whatever the last thing is; since there was no dog before birth, in truth and in power it is the same as if there was no unborn dog. If, according to the definition of the Eunomians, which they often take as the basis, “what has common properties has a common nature,” and non-existence before birth is characteristic of both the dog and every creature, and this same thing, according to Eunomius, should be applied to the Son, then the listener will undoubtedly see the last conclusion from the proof from the consistent course of it. 5. But Eunomius moves on to a more moderate speech, showing the Lord some condescension, and says: “we not only affirm that the Son is the Existing One and, moreover, above all beings - and he himself, if we look back a little, separated the name of the Existing One from Him - but we also call Him Lord, Creator and God of every sensible and intelligible essence.” What kind of entity does he think this is about? About the created or the uncreated? If he recognizes Jesus as Lord God and the Creator of every intelligible essence, then, by all necessity, he either lies, assimilating to the Son the creation of the uncreated nature, if he speaks of an uncreated essence, but if he understands the created essence, then he leads to the conclusion that the Son is the Creator of Himself, for if he is not separated from the intelligible essence by self-creation, then there will still be no difference between the sensible creature and mental essence - both of them will be generalized in thought. But Eunomius adds to this: “in the creation of the Existent, the Father entrusted to Him (επιτετραπται) the creation of everything visible and invisible and the providence of what was brought into being, because the power given to Him from above was sufficient to bring into being what was created.” Although a lot of what has been written encourages us to go over it briefly, blasphemy somehow delays (our) word, containing many thoughts, like a swarm of some poisonous wasps. “The Father has entrusted him with the leadership,” says Eunomius. If we were talking about any artisan who, at the will of the hirer, takes up work, wouldn’t the same words be used? We will not be mistaken in saying the same about Bezaleel that, having received the commission from Moses to create the tabernacle, he became the builder of the one mentioned here and would not have begun the work if he had not first acquired the ability from the power of God and had not been encouraged to work by the commission from Moses. Therefore, the phrase “entrusted” shows that the creative power and authority of the Son is temporary, so that before the assignment He did not dare and could not do it; and when he received the power to do this and the strength sufficient for these works, then he became the creator of Existence; “Because He had enough,” as Eunomius says, “from above the power given to Him.” Doesn’t he already assume, by some conclusion based on calculations of the time of birth, that the birth of the Son was connected with some fate, just as those who engage in this empty deception say that according to the quality of the confluences and distances of the stars, the life lots are distributed to those born, and the forces necessary for something are straightened out for those who come into being by the highest circulation taking place in some connection? Perhaps this sage has something similar in mind and says that he who is “far above all principality and authority and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in the world to come” (Eph. 1:21), as if imprisoned in some empty places, from above was given a power commensurate with the amount of what was brought into being. For the sake of brevity, I pass over this teaching too, in the meager beginnings of what has been studied, leaving the seeds of understanding blasphemy to the most intelligent of readers. Then in the following words in order there is written a certain justification for us on the part of the Eunomians. It will no longer seem to readers that we are deviating from the meaning of speech and reinterpreting words in a reprehensible sense; in the voice of Eunomius himself, a confession of absurdity is uttered, for it is written like this: “Well, weren’t the earth and the angel brought into existence from non-existence?” See how the exalted theologian is not ashamed to apply the same concept to the earth, and the angels, and to the Creator of the universe Himself. Therefore, if he thinks that it is proper to say the same thing about the earth and about the Lord, then he will either completely deify the earth, or he will subject the Lord to the same humiliation as the earth. Then he adds words to this that expose the blasphemy even more, so that it is not difficult for children to recognize the absurdity, namely: “I say that it would take a long time to list all the intelligible births, or essences, which all do not have any common nature of existence, but have differences among themselves according to the actions of the creator.” Even without our explanation, this contains a completely clear and open blasphemy against the Son, when Eunomius admits that what is said about every birth and every essence does not differ in any way from the word about the Divine Hypostasis of the Only Begotten. But it seems to me that it would be appropriate, having bypassed the evidence inserted in the middle of his blasphemous speech, as in some way exposed in the previous study, to proceed to the main faults in the teaching of the Eunomians. It turns out that Eunomius proves that the sacrament of rebirth is in vain, the sacramental gift is useless, and communion does not bring any benefit to those receiving communion. After, from a continuous series of centuries, in censure of our dogma, he pointed to the Valentines, Cerinths, Basilides, Montanov, Marcions, and deduced from this that it is unusual for them to even be called Christians, who claim that the nature of God is unknown and the image of birth is unknown, and having ranked us among those deserving of blame, then continues his speech with these words: “and we, following the holy and blessed men, We say that the secret of piety does not actually consist in sacred names and not in special customs and mysterious signs, but in the accuracy of dogmas.” That Eunomius writes this, following neither the evangelists, nor the apostles, nor any of those who were teachers in the ancient Scriptures, is clear to anyone not unfamiliar with the Holy and Divine Scriptures. And as a result of this, one can think that “holy and blessed men” he calls Manichaeus, Nicholas, Colufus, Aetius, Arius and all of the same person, following which he lays down this law, namely, that it is not the confession of names, not church customs, not mystical signs that constitute piety proper. And we, having learned from the holy voice that “unless one is born again and unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he will not enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:3, 3:5), and that “he who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me and will live forever” (John 6:56, 6:58), we are confident that the secret of piety lies in confession itself. names of God - I mean the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and salvation is based on the communication of mysterious customs and signs. Dogmas are often examined carefully and alien to the sacraments, and, as can be heard, many take our dogma as a subject for their verbal contests, and some of them often fall on the truth, and yet are alien to faith. Therefore, since Eunomius despises the sacred names, upon the invocation of which, by the power of the most Divine birth, grace is given to those who approach with faith, and also despises the communication of mysterious signs and customs, in which the strength of Christianity, then we will say to the listeners of this deception, with a slight change, the word of the Prophet: “How long is heaviness of heart? Do you love destruction and seek lies" (Ps. 4:3)? How can you not see that he is a persecutor of the faith, causing those who trust him to deviate from Christianity? For if the confession of the sacred and venerable names of the Holy Trinity is useless, and church customs are of no use, and among these customs are the seal, prayer, baptism, confession of sins, zeal for the commandments, moral advancement, as well as living chastely, striving for truth, not having the habit of desires, not submitting to lust, not being deprived of virtue; if Eunomius says that none of these customs is a good deed and that mysterious signs do not serve, according to our belief, to protect the blessings of the soul and as a means of averting what is brought upon believers through the slander of the evil one, then is he not clearly preaching to people nothing more than that they should regard the Christian sacrament as nonsense, laugh at the venerability of the names of God, recognize church customs as a toy and Are all the secret actions some kind of idle talk and stupidity? Do those who are in Hellenism present anything else to slander our dogma? And don’t they turn the honoring of the names on which our faith is established into a reason for laughter? Are the mysterious signs and customs observed by the participants in the sacraments ridiculed? And to whom is the opinion that piety should be based solely on dogmas so common as to the Hellenes? Therefore, they also say that, in their opinion, there is something more probable than our preaching, and some of them assume a certain great God, superior to others, and recognize some subordinate powers, in a certain rank and order, differing from each other in majority or minority, but still under the authority of the supreme God; therefore, the teachers of the new idolatry preach the same thing and, following them, are not afraid of the condemnation that awaits criminals, as if they do not understand that in reality doing something absurd is much more difficult than sinning only in word. So, what are they if not criminals against saving dogmas, because in fact they reject faith, denigrate rituals, despise the confession of names, impute consecration by mysterious signs to nothing, but are inclined to mean cunning words, and think that salvation lies in artificial reasoning about the begotten and the unborn? If anyone thinks that we are making this accusation against the Eunomians due to some kind of slander, let him consider for himself what was written by Eunomius and proposed by us for research, as well as what he adds in order to what was said. Abolishing the law of the Lord (for the tradition of the Divine mystery is the law), Eunomius says that baptism should be performed not in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as the Lord commanded the disciples, giving the sacrament, but in the name of the Creator and Creator, and asserts that this Creator of the Only Begotten is not only the Father but also God. “Woe to the one who besmirches his friend with muddy corruption” (Hab 2:15)! How he muddies and muddies the truth, adding mud to it! How did he not fear the oath imposed on those who add anything to the words of God or dare to take away from them! Let us read the saying of the Lord in the original words: “As you go, he says, teach all languages, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). Where is the name of the Son of the creation? Where is the teaching of the Word about the Father as the Creator and Creator of the Only Begotten? Where in these words is the teaching about the slavery of the Son before God? Where in the tradition of the sacrament is the sermon about God the Son? So, being led into destruction by deception, think and understand: whom have you made the guide of your souls? A man who forges the Holy Scriptures, alters God’s sayings, disturbs the purity of the dogmas of piety with his own filth, not only weapons his tongue against us, but also accepts the transformation of the holy sayings themselves and strives to prove that his own perversion is more accurate than the Lord’s teaching! Don’t you see that Eunomius puts himself in the place of the worshiped name, so that over time the Lord’s name will not be heard, and in the churches Christ will be replaced by Eunomius? Don’t you really think that this godless sermon was spewed out by the devil, as an attempt, preparation and foreshadowing of the coming of the Antichrist? For how else, and not the Antichrist, can one in the proper sense be called one who strives to prove that his own expressions are more accurate than the words of Christ, and replace faith in God’s names, and mysterious customs, and signs with his own deception? You might be interested in: