Книга четвертая

1. It will be useful to examine the origin of the word “generation”, which is carefully expounded in the work of Eunomius. So, says Eunomius (I literally convey the word he embellished against the truth): “Whoever is so careless and has delved so little into the nature of beings about the bodies that are studied on earth, when they give birth and are born, act and suffer, does not know that those who give birth convey their own essence, and those who are born usually receive this essence; therefore, since the material cause is common, and assistance flows from without, and what is begotten is born by passion, and what gives birth by nature does not have pure activity, because nature is associated with passions of all kinds." See how decently he represents in his view the pre-eternal birth of things in the beginning of God the Word, who carefully surveys the nature of beings, bodies on earth and the material cause, and the passion of those who give birth and those who are born, and everything, similar to what anyone with intelligence would be ashamed of if this were said about us, our passionate nature was put to shame in the word. But such a writer’s reasoning about the nature of the only begotten God is brilliant! And we, putting aside indignation (for will groaning help us in any way in overthrowing the malice of our enemies?), as much as we are able, we will reveal the meaning of what was said. Which birth is being looked at: the birth that takes place according to the flesh, or the birth of the only begotten God? Since there is a twofold view of both the Divine life, simple and immaterial, and the material and passionate being, and in both cases we are talking equally about birth, it is necessary to make a clear and unified definition of what is signified, so that the similarity of the word “birth” does not turn the truth into a lie. Therefore, since the carnal entry into existence is something material and accompanied by passions, and an incorporeal, intangible, formless, free from material mixture is alien to any passionate disposition, then it is necessary to consider what kind of birth the question was about: whether it was about pure and Divine or about passionate and impure. But no one will argue that the pre-eternal fulfillment of the only-begotten God was laid before the vision of the word. Therefore, why does Eunomius dwell on this corporeal natural science, decorating the word with abominations, desecrating nature and describing the passions that operate at human birth, and meanwhile abandoning the object set before him? What we needed to study was not this bestial birth, which takes place through the flesh. And who is so simple that, looking at himself and understanding the human in himself, he will begin to look for another explanation for his nature and will have the need to catch up with all those necessary sufferings that are seen at the birth of the body, because, although someone gives birth differently, nevertheless, what is born differently happens in suffering, so that from this teaching a person learns that he himself gives birth with suffering, and suffering began for him from birth? For whether it is silent or said, the consequence is the same; Whether someone writes, divulging the secret, or covers it with silence, which should not be spoken about, we do not remain ignorant that our nature comes through suffering. But we strive for the word to explain to us that sublime and ineffable realization of the Only Begotten, in which, as we believe, He is from the Father. So, this is subject to research, and the new theologian proposes in the word both flow, and suffering, and a material cause, and some kind of action that has not been purified from filth, and assistance flowing from outside, and all the like. I don’t know in what state, out of an abundance of wisdom, someone who claims about himself that there is nothing incomprehensible outside his knowledge, and who promises to explain the ineffable birth of the Son, having departed from what was supposed, like an eel, plunges into the dirty mud of thoughts, following the example of Nicodemus who came at night, who, when the Lord taught about the birth from above, was carried away by thoughts into the depths of his mother’s womb and wondered how he could be another time again inside he is false, saying: how can this be? Thinking that it was impossible for an old man to be conceived again in his mother’s womb, he denounced spiritual birth as a failure. But the Lord corrects Nicodemus’ erroneous opinion, saying that the properties of the flesh and spirit should not be mixed. Let Eunomius, if you like, correct himself in such thoughts. For I think that someone who cares about the truth should consider what is proposed in what is proper to him, and not, based on judgments about the material, slander the immaterial. For if a man or an ox, or anything else that is born according to the flesh, is unclean from passions when it gives birth or is born, then does this mean anything for a passionless and pure nature? The fact that we are mortal does not deny the immortality of the Only Begotten, the fact that people can turn into vice does not cast doubt on the invariability of the Divine nature, and nothing else that is characteristic of us is transferred to God. On the contrary, the special properties of human and Divine life are something unmixed and incommunicable, and the distinctive properties are different in everything, so that neither the human is contained in the divine, nor the divine in the human. So, why does Eunomius, when it is supposed to talk about the Divine birth, abandoning what was assumed, describes the earthly, although we have not the slightest dispute about this? But the goal of the artist is obvious - to destroy the birth of the Lord by condemnation for passion. And in this, not to mention blasphemy, I marvel at the subtlety of the mind in a person, how he remembers what he cares about, and having previously said leading to the conclusion that the Son should be and be called birth, now he argues that birth of the Son should not be imagined. For if every birth, as Eunomius thinks, is closely connected with a passionate disposition, then, of all necessity, as a result of this it is recognized that what is alien to suffering is at the same time certainly alien to birth. If both suffering and birth are imagined to be connected with each other, then someone who is not involved in one of them cannot have communication with the other. Therefore, how can He, as a result of His birth, call Him begotten, of Whom, on the basis of what has now been said, He Himself has been proven to be unborn? Why does Eunomius argue with our teacher, who advises not to dare to compose names in Divine dogmas, but although recognizing that the Son is born, this concept should not be turned into the form of a name, so as to call the begotten a generation, since this word in Scripture is used actually about inanimate things or taken as an image of evil? But when we say that the word “generation” should be kept silent, Eunomius uses this irresistible rhetoric, taking into account the grammatical coldness of speech, and with the help of artificial or production, or selection of names, or, I don’t know how to properly call this, draws a conclusion from this, without forbidding the Born to be called a generation. When, having accepted this, we examine the concept of name in order to prove from this the community of essence, he again takes names in a special sense and asserts that generation is not begotten, disparaging the pure, divine and impassive birth of the Lord with the shameful nature of bodily birth, as if in God it is impossible for both of them to come together, both the true birth from the Father and the dispassion of nature; on the contrary, if birth is dispassionate, then it will not be birth, but if someone recognizes it as true, then suffering is certainly allowed along with birth. This is not how the sublime John preaches the sacrament of theology, this is not how this thunderous voice, which calls the Son of God, and the sermon cleanses from every passionate thought. For this is how the ear is prepared at the beginning of the Gospel! How much caution is there in the teacher so that none of the listeners falls into low thoughts and, out of ignorance, creeps into any absurd assumptions! So that the untrained ear, as much as possible, can be further diverted from the concept of “passion,” he did not mention at the beginning either the Son, or the Father, or birth, with the goal that in the first words, either, having heard about the Father, would not be carried away by the immediate meaning of the name, or having learned about the preached Son, would not understand the name according to local custom, or would not fall at the word “birth” as if at a stumbling block. But instead of the Father he names the beginning, instead of being born - “he”, instead of the Son - “Word”, and says: “In the beginning was the Word” (John 1:1). Tell me what passion is in these sayings: “be” and the Word. Is passion a “beginning”? Is "be" in passion? Is the “Word” out of passion? Or, since there is no passion in what is said, it is not expressed by preaching and related things? However, how else, and not with these sayings, can the community and closeness of the essence and co-eternity of the Word with the Beginning be better expressed? John did not say: from the Beginning the Word was born, in order to separate the Words from the Beginning by the concept of some extension, but he preached about the Word together with the Beginning, generally saying about the Beginning and about the Word: “be”, so that the Word would not be late against the Beginning, but would touch the ear with a sermon before it had accepted one beginning, having entered with faith into the Beginning. Then he says: “And the Word was with God.” The Evangelist is still afraid of our inexperience, is still afraid of our infancy and ignorance, does not yet entrust the name “Father” to the ear, lest one of the more carnal, having learned about the Father, would then mentally imagine about the mother. But he does not yet name the Son in the sermon, because he still suspects in us a habit of a lower nature, so that someone else, having heard about the Son, would not turn the divine into human through a passionate way of thinking. Therefore, the Evangelist, continuing his sermon, again called the Word, thus speaking naturally about this to you who are unfaithful: just as your word comes from the mind and does not require through passion, so there, having heard the “Word”, you will not notice anyone’s passion. That is why John, resuming his sermon again, says: “And the Word was with God.” Oh, how the Word compares with God! It is better to say how with the Infinite the infinite spreads! “The Word is with God,” the whole God, of course, has the whole Word. Therefore, just as God is immeasurable, so is the Word that is with Him; and if God is limited by limits, then, without a doubt, the Word is also limited. If the infinity of God exceeds the limit, then the Word, imagined by God, is not encompassed by limits and measures. For no one will say that the Word is not represented in the entire Divinity of the Father, so that in God some will be with the Word, and others will be deprived of the Word. Again the fatherly voice of John is heard, again the Evangelist fills the ears of infants with preaching; At the first sounds, we have not yet grown to the point that, having heard the word “Son,” we would not crawl away, carried away by the usual meaning. Therefore, the preacher, resuming his speech for the third time, proclaimed: the Word, and not the Son, saying: “and God is the Word.” Having first said where “there is no Word”, then with whom “there is”, now he will say what It is. By repeating it three times, it achieves the purpose of the sermon. The Evangelist says: not any word understood in the ordinary sense, but I preach God under the name of the Word. This Word, which was in the beginning, was with God, and there was no other thing besides God, but God himself. And by repeating, constantly intensifying his loud appeals, the preacher says that this is God, revealed in the sermon, this same one, by whom “all things were, and the life was, and the light of man,” and the true light shining in darkness, and undarkened by darkness (John 1:3–5), coming into His own and not acceptable to its own (John 1:11), having become indwelling flesh and flesh in human nature (John 1:14). Having listed all this and the like, he then names the Father and names the Only Begotten, when there was no longer any danger, having been purified by so many preliminary steps, given the meaning of the word “Father,” of creeping into any unclean understanding. “By seeing, it is said, His glory, the glory of the Only Begotten from the Father” (John 1:14). Tell this to the Evangelist, tell me, Eunomius, these wise propositions of yours, how do you call the Father in words, how do you call the Only Begotten, when every bodily birth takes place with passion? Of course, the truth answers you for it: another matter is a theological sacrament, and another – the nature of mortal bodies; they are separated from each other by a great environment. Why do you bring into contact the unmixed word? Why do you defile the purity of the Divine birth with bodily passions? Do not interpret the things above according to what is above. My beloved Son” (Matthew 3:17). But when it was taught to me that He is the Son, then by this name I was not attracted to the earthly meaning of the word “son,” on the contrary, I know that He was born of the Father, but I do not know that by passion. I will also add to what has been said that I also know a certain kind of physical birth, pure from passion, which is why Eunomius’ natural theory of bodily birth is proven to be false if there is only a birth of bodies that does not receive passion. Tell me, is it true that “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14) or not? You can't say it didn't happen. Therefore, “to be”, and there is no one who denies it. Therefore, how “God appeared in the flesh” (1 Tim. 3:16)? Of course, you will say: at birth. What kind of birth do you remember? Obviously, remembering the birth from the Virgin and remembering that what was born “in her of the Spirit is Holy” (Matthew 1:20) and that when the days were fulfilled for her to give birth, she gave birth, and yet incorruption was preserved in the birth. Then, that birth on the part of a wife is purely from passion, you believe this (if you only believe), but you do not allow the birth of the Divine and Most Pure from the Father, not imagining passion at birth. But I clearly know that passion is inevitable in dogma for one who does not pay attention to the beginning in the Divine and pure nature; On the contrary, using the hypocritical fear of allowing passion as an accomplice in the denial of the only begotten God proves that the Creator of all creation is recognized as a part of creation. 2. And this clearly shows in what he again disputes what has been said, saying: “from the Father was born the essence of the Son, not torn as a result of stretching, not torn away as a result of expiration or separation from the natural connection with the Begotten, not as a result of accretion to reach perfection, not as a result of change taking on the image of itself, but by the sole will of the Begotten it received being.” For does not everyone, whose senses of the soul are not completely stunned, learn from this that, according to what is proven in the words of Eunomius, the Son is a part of the creation? What prevents all this from being said word by word about every other thing seen in creation? And if we wish to apply speech to something visible in creation, if the consequence is not the same, we will turn the whole speech into condemnation of ourselves, as maliciously, and not with proper care for the truth, examining the word. Therefore, by changing the name “Son,” we will read Eunomius’ speech literally. Let's say: the essence of the earth was born from the Father, not as a result of stretching or separation, it was torn away from the natural connection with the Begotten, not as a result of accretion, it reached perfection, not as a result of change, it was torn out, but by the sole will of the Begotten it received being. Is there any inconsistency in what has been said with the being of the earth? No one, I think, will say that there is, because God did not tear up the earth as a result of stretching, without wasting or separating Himself from the connection with Himself, He formed the essence of the earth, He did not bring it to perfection by a gradual return from small to great, He did not subject Himself to any transformation and change, and was transformed into the form of earth, but His will was sufficient “for” the composition of the essence of what He produced. For “that speech came” (Ps. 149:5), so that the name “birth” does not disagree with the expression “formation of the earth.” Therefore, if this can be rightly said about parts of the world, then what doubt remains about the teachings of opponents? Namely, that by calling Him in words the Son, they prove that He is one of those brought into being by creation, superior to other creatures by one seniority in the order of origin, just as one can say about a forge that all its products are made of iron, but the production of others is preceded by tools: tongs and a hammer, with which the iron is processed, depending on need. But just because the tool precedes the work, there is no longer any difference in substance between the tool that shapes it and the iron that is processed by the tool. Both are iron, but in appearance one is older than the other. This is the theology of the heresy about the Son. Eunomius thinks that in essence there is no difference between the Lord Himself and what He brought into being, except for one difference in the order of origin. Therefore, who among those who belong in any way to Christians will agree that the parts of the world and the Creator of the world have the same dignity of essence? I am horrified by blasphemy, knowing that those who have the same dignity, of course, do not have different natures. As with Peter, with John and with other people, the dignity of the essence is common, and the nature is one, in the same way, if the Lord by nature is of equal dignity with the parts of the world, then if they notice that in the reasoning of these parts, they must necessarily admit that the Lord is subject to the same. But peace will not last forever; This means, in their opinion, that the Lord will pass away along with heaven and earth, if He is one with the world. And if we confess Him as eternal, then, by all necessity, the world is also recognized as not deprived of a share in the Divine nature, if only it is similar to the Only Begotten, as to a creature. You see where, as a result of this beautiful consequence, the word tends, like some kind of stone torn from the top of a mountain and driven down the slope by its own weight. For it is necessary either for the elements of the world to be venerable according to Hellenic vanity, or not to worship the Son. But let's look at it this way. We affirm that creation, both intelligible and everything belonging to sensible nature, was brought into being out of nothing; they preach the same thing about the Lord. We say that everything that exists is brought into existence by God’s will; They divulge the same about the Only Begotten. We believe that creation is not from the essence of the Creator, both in the angelic world and in this world; They likewise alienate Him from the Father’s essence. We confess that everything serves the will of the Creator; They also have this concept about the Only Begotten. Therefore, it is necessary that everything else that they imagine about creation is also applied to the Only Begotten, and whatever they believe in the reasoning of the Only Begotten, they assume this about creation, so that if the Lord is confessed to be God, then they will deify the rest of creation; and if they affirm that creation does not partake of the Divine nature, they will not deny the same opinion about the Only Begotten. But no sane person would attribute deity to a creature. Should I keep silent about the rest, so as not to use my tongue to blaspheme my opponents? What, as a consequence, is added to the former, let those whose lips are trained in blasphemy say. The word of those who keep silent is obvious. For two opposite consequences will be necessary: ​​either they will clearly reject the only begotten God, claiming that they do not have Him and are not named, or, if they attribute deity to Him, then they will equally attribute it to all creation. Or finally, avoiding the wickedness found in both, they will resort to pious words and, without a doubt, agree that the Only Begotten was not created, in order to confess that He is truly God. 3. Should the speech continue, repeating all the other blasphemies that Eunomius, as a result of this beginning, necessarily placed in the word? For whoever looks at the consequence will understand from what has been said that the father of lies, the author of death, the inventor of vice, created by an intelligent and incorporeal nature, this nature did not prevent him from becoming what he is after his transformation. With the vicissitudes of the essence, freely moving to and fro, the force of nature will follow the inclination of arbitrariness, so that nature becomes what arbitrariness leads it to. Therefore, they also believe about the Lord that He can accept opposites into Himself, so that, as a result of creation, He can be reduced to equality with the angels. But let them listen to the great word of Paul: how does he say that He alone is called Son, because He is not of an angelic nature, but of a better nature? “Who speaks more loudly when the angel says: Art thou my Son? When he again introduces the First-born into the universe, he says: and let all the Angels of God worship Him. And to the angels he says: The angels make their spirits and their servants scorching fire: Thy throne, O God, is unto the Son for the crown of the world: the scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom” (Heb. 1:5-8). Thus the Apostle continues, and after this he uttered another theological prophecy. He adds what is related here from another hymn: “In the beginning You, Lord, You founded the earth, and the works of Your hand are the heavens,” and all the following up to the words: “You are the same, and Your years will not fail” (Heb. 1:10, 1:12) where he describes the immutability and eternity of nature. Therefore, if the Divinity of the Only Begotten is so much higher than the angelic nature, insofar as the possessor differs from the slaves, then why is it generalized either with the sensual creation of the Lord of creation, or with the angelic nature of Him Whom the angels worship? Thus, about the mode of existence of the Only Begotten, heretics use expressions that in the proper sense will be befitting of every thing seen in creation, as we have already shown that the word spoken by heresy about the Lord is akin to and characteristic of the structure of the earth. But so that in our works there is nothing doubtful left for the readers, even that from the inspired Scripture, which contains some justification for heretical teachings, will be worthy of being added to what we have studied. For on the basis of the apostolic words we have mentioned, they will ask, perhaps, why is He called the firstborn of the creation, if He is not the same as the creation? Every firstborn is firstborn not among foreigners, but among those of the same kind, just as Reuben, being superior in birth to those who are numbered after him, was a firstborn man among other people, and many others are called firstborn among the brothers who are numbered with them. Therefore, the heretics say: “What we imagine is the essence of all creation, and about its First-born we say that He is of the same essence. Therefore, if all creation is consubstantial with the Father of all, then we do not deny that the Firstborn of creation is the same. If the God of all is different from creation in essence, then it is absolutely necessary to say about the First-born of creation that he has nothing in common with the essence of God.” Such is the strength of the objection we oppose to the word, and I think it is no lower than what we should have made to those fighting with us. But what we need to know for this, as much as we can, will now be explained in words. The Apostle uses the name “firstborn” four times in all his epistles, but the mention of this name is done differently, and not in the same way. For this is what he says about the Firstborn “of all creation” (Col. 1:15), it is also said about the Firstborn “in many brethren” (Rom. 8:29), then about the Firstborn “from the dead” (Col. 1:18). In the Epistle to the Hebrews the name “firstborn” is mentioned by itself, not in connection with others. For he says this: “When he again brings the First-born into the universe, he says, and let the angels worship him” (Heb. 1:6). Having thus divided these places, it is good to examine each of them separately: why is He the firstborn of creation, why is the firstborn in many brothers, and why is He mentioned without each of these additions by Himself, when He is again introduced into the universe and receives worship from all His angels? Therefore, if you like, let’s start considering the proposed places from the last one. “Whenever again he introduces the First-born into the universe,” says the Apostle. The addition of the word “again”, according to its literal meaning, shows that this is not the first time this happens. For we use such a saying about the renewal of what was already once. Consequently, with this word the Apostle means the terrible appearance of the Only Begotten at the end of the ages, when they will see Him not in the form of a servant, but magnificently seated on the throne of the kingdom and receiving worship from all around His angels. Therefore, He who once entered the universe, having become the firstborn from the dead, among his brothers and all creation, when he again enters the universe, judging “the universe in righteousness,” as the prophecy says (Ps. 9:9), will not lay aside the name “Firstborn,” which he once took for us. But just as in the name of Jesus, “every knee will bow before every name” (Phil. 2:9-10), so the fullness of all angels will worship Him who came under the name of the Firstborn, rejoicing in the calling of men, who, due to the fact that he became our firstborn, was called again into original grace. Because the angels will have great joy over those being saved from sin (because this “creature groans and suffers even to this day” in our vanity (Rom. 8:22), counting our destruction as its own damage), when the revelation of the sons of God follows, which is always hoped for and impatiently awaited for us (Rom. 8:19), and when the sheep in the hundred above is saved (we all make up this sheep we, all human nature, and it was the good Shepherd who saved her by becoming the Firstborn), then especially in intense thanksgiving for us will be worshiped of God, who called with the firstborn the one who had departed from his father’s home. Since we understand this this way, let no one doubt the rest, why he becomes the firstborn from the dead, or the firstborn of creation, or the firstborn among many brothers. For all this tends towards the same goal, although each expression expresses some special thought. The firstborn of the dead is the one who was the first to resolve the disease of death on Himself, so that everyone can pave the way to birth through resurrection. The first-born in the brothers again becomes the first-born in the water by the new birth of re-existence, in the diseases of which the soaring of the dove helps. Through this He makes those who participate with Him in a similar birth His brothers and He Himself becomes the firstborn of those born after Him of water and the Spirit. In short, since we have three births by which human nature is brought to life: bodily birth, birth in the mystery of rebirth, and birth in the still-expected resurrection from the dead, then in all three it becomes firstborn. Since rebirth is accomplished in two ways: by baptism and resurrection, He Himself, having become the leader of both, becomes firstborn in the flesh, because the first and only renewed His birth from the Virgin, unknown to nature, in which no one preceded Him in so many human races. Therefore, if this is understood by reason, then the meaning of creation, in whose reasoning He is the firstborn, will not remain unknown. For we know the twofold creation of our nature: the first, by which we were created, and the second, by which we were recreated. But there would be no need for us in the second creation if the first had not been turned into nothing by disobedience. So, since the first creation has become worn out and destroyed, a new creation must come into being in Christ, as the Apostle says (2 Cor. 5:17). He does not want to see anything decayed in the second creation, saying: “putting off the old man with his deeds” (Col. 3:9) and his lusts (Eph. 4:22), “and putting on the new man, created according to God”; (Eph. 4:24). And “if anyone is in Christ,” says the Apostle, “an old creature is a new creation, behold, it is all new” (2 Cor. 5:17). For the same Creator of human nature is both at the beginning and at the end. Then, taking dust from the earth, he created man, and again, taking dust from the Virgin, he not only created man, but created him on himself. Then He created, and after this He was created; then the Word made flesh, and after that the Word became flesh, in order to transform our flesh into spirit, communicating with us through flesh and blood. According to this new creation in Christ, in which He Himself preceded, was called the firstborn, and became the firstfruits of all: both those born into life, and the dead, quickened by the resurrection, in order to rule over the dead and the living, and to co-sanctify in Himself the firstfruits of all confusion. And that the name of the first-born is not given to the Son by pre-eternal existence, is evidenced by the name only-begotten. For truly the only begotten has no brothers. How will one be recognized as the only begotten among the brothers? But just as he is called God and man, the Son of God and the Son of man, at once God and the form of a servant, being one by actual nature and becoming another by a humane economy, so being the Only Begotten God, he becomes the Firstborn of “all creation,” being the only begotten in the bosom of the Father, and the firstborn of creation and becoming, being called a new creation among those who are being saved. If, as the heresy pleases, the name is called firstborn because he was created before other creatures, then this name does not agree with what they themselves have proven about the Only Begotten God. For without saying that the Son and all were brought into being by the Father, but the Only Begotten God is called the work of the Father, and all other things are called the work of the Only Begotten. Therefore, on the basis of teaching that the Son was created, God is called the Father of creation, on the same basis, of course, when they say that everything was created by the Only Begotten God, they call Him not the firstborn, but in a more proper sense - the Father of those created by Him, because the relationship of both to creatures is the same, and therefore one produces the name. For if He, above all, the God of His own creation, in the proper sense, is called not the first-born, but the Father, then on this same basis, of course, the Only Begotten God in the proper sense will be called the Father, and not the first-born of His own creatures, so that the name first-born is in all respects inaccurate and unnecessary, and in the heretical sense has no place. 4. But we must return to those who attribute passion to the Divine birth, and therefore, in order not to imply passion, deny that the Lord was really born. For to say that passion is associated with the birth of everything, and therefore to think about the Son, that the concept of birth must be recognized as alien to Him, so that the Divinity may remain pure and outside passion, perhaps, apparently, has some basis for people who easily fall into deception, but for those trained in the divine sacraments, conviction of what is confessed is ready. For who does not know that birth brings us into the true and blessed life, which is not one and the same with what comes “from blood and from the lust of the flesh” (John 1:13), with flow, transformation, gradual improvement and everything else that is seen in carnal birth, but differently, from God and heavenly. About this birth, as the Gospel says (John 1:13), we believe that it from above and does not allow the suffering of flesh and blood. Let opponents dare to assert one of two things: that either there is no birth from above, or if there is, it is through passion. But they agree that this birth exists, and do not find passion in it. Consequently, not every birth is connected with passion; on the contrary, the material is passionate, and the immaterial is purely from passion. Therefore, what is the necessity of attributing something inherent to the flesh to the most pure birth of the Son, and, since the long birth is ridiculed in an indecent description, and not allowing the Son to be close to the Father? If our birth leads to one and the other life, but the carnal birth is passionate, and the spiritual birth is pure, then (can any of those who are considered Christians, no matter how they are, contradict this?) who mentally imagines the birth of the most pure nature will assume passion? But in addition to what has been said, we will also examine the following. If, due to the passion of carnal birth, they do not believe in the impassibility of the Divine birth, then by the same examples that, I mean, we have, let them believe that the impassive God is the Creator. For if they judge the Divine by ours, then they recognize that God neither gives birth nor creates, because neither one nor the other is produced in us dispassionately. Therefore, let them either remove both of these actions - creation and birth - from the Divine nature, so that both of them preserve dispassion in God, and completely throw out faith in the Only Begotten from their dogma, so that the Father is preserved from passion, not denigrated by birth, or let them concede that the Divine power acts dispassionately in one, and do not argue about the other. For if he creates without labor and substance, then he gives birth, of course, without labor and flow. And in this word again I have Eunomius as my defender. But I will express myself by cutting off his idle talk a little and briefly repeating the whole idea, namely, that people do not prepare substances with us, but invent only one type of substance. Here is the content of what the heretics said with great idle talk. Therefore, if Eunomius, imagining the conception and formation of the begotten in a separate birth, therefore denies the possibility of a pure concept of birth, then as a result of this, since the local creation works on one species, and cannot provide substances for the species, let him therefore deny on the same basis the idea that the Father is the Creator. If he does not want to understand the creation in God according to the human measure of power, then according to what is visible in humanity, let him not condemn the Divine birth. But in order to make Eunomius’ precision and circumspection more apparent in what he says, let us again repeat a little of what the heretics said. Eunomius says: “the active and the suffering have communion with each other in nature,” and after birth from bodies he lists artificial products from substances. Therefore, let the discerning listener discern from this how one who always wanders around what he encounters by chance loses the way to his own goal. Eunomius sees the active and suffering in those born according to the flesh with the same essence, so that one communicates the essence, the other partakes of it. Thus, he knows how to accurately discern the truth in the nature of beings, in order to separate from the essence both the one who communicates and the one who partakes, and to assert about each of them that in itself it is different from the essence. For the one who receives or communicates is, without a doubt, different from the one who receives or gives. Why should we first imagine someone, seen in himself in his own hypostasis, and then we can say about this that he either gives, or has, or accepts, which he does not yet have. And having spewed out this word in such a funny way, the sage does not feel that he is subsequently refuting himself again. For whoever, with the help of art, brings a given substance into whatever form he pleases, he, of course, creates something through his activity, and the substance from the one acting with art receives the communicated form with suffering. For being neither dispassionate nor in the least opposed, matter receives an image from art. Therefore, if in what is produced by art, nothing will happen until suffering and action flow together into what is produced, then how can one think that as a result of this a writer will stand in his words, who, affirming the commonality of essence in suffering and action, dares not only to attribute to the begotten as much as there is a common essence with the one who gave birth, but also to make the whole creation co-essential with the Creator, if only he defines both the active and the sufferers of the same nature? Consequently, by proving what he wanted, he subverts what he sought to prove, strengthening the idea of ​​consubstantiality with his contestation. For if birth from someone in the begotten shows the essence of the one who gave birth, and an artificial creation, carried out with action and suffering, according to the word of Eunomius, acting and produced leads to the communion of the essence, then the writer, in many places of his own writings proving that the Lord was born, thereby alienating the Lord from the Father’s essence, ascribes to Him unity with the Father. For if, according to the heretic, neither as a result of birth, nor as a result of dispensation, a separation of essence is seen, then whatever the Lord allows to be - a creature or a birth - in both cases he will attribute affinity in essence, who in the active and the suffering, in the begetter and the begotten, according to science, has recognized the community of nature. But let's turn to the continuation of the word. I ask readers not to be upset by the accuracy of the study, which is unwittingly verbose. For an important misfortune threatens, by omitting something that requires the most careful review, to suffer damage in a small way; on the contrary, we are exposed to danger in that which is the main thing in hope. We have to either be Christians without falling into heretical destruction, or we will certainly get carried away into Jewish and Hellenic opinions. Therefore, in order not to tolerate either one or the other of what is forbidden, that is, neither by denying the truly begotten Son will express consent to Jewish dogmas, nor by worshiping the creature will we prove that we fell along with the idolaters, we will, of necessity, continue our discussion of this, stopping at the very saying of Eunomius, which reads as follows: “due to this division of concepts, another will rightly say that in the very proper sense, the so-called, first and the single essence produced by the action of the Father takes upon itself the names of birth, work and creation.” And after a few words, Eunomius continues: “the only Son, produced by the activity of the Father, has an incommunicable nature and relationship to the One who gave birth.” And in what was written before this he says that “he does not refuse to call the begotten a generation, because the begotten essence itself and the name “Son” make such a relationship of names characteristic of themselves.” So, due to such an obvious contradiction in what has been said, I can only marvel at the wit of those who praise this teaching. For it will always remain known to which of what Eunomius said, if they turn to it, they will not err in the rest. First, his word proved that the begotten essence and the name “Son” make such a relationship of names characteristic of themselves, and its actual use of words says the opposite, namely, that the Son has an incommunicable relationship with the Begotten. If they believe the first, then, of course, they will not allow the second. If they are inclined to the latter, they will oppose the first opinion. Who will resolve their dispute? Who will mediate in the internecine warfare? Who will bring this disagreement into agreement when, as a result of what has been said, the very desire is divided with itself, and dogmas reach the point of contradiction? Or maybe this is a prophetic fortune-telling said about the Jews by David: “being divided and not being touched” (Ps. 34:15). For those who are divided to the point of contradictory dogmas do not feel their error, but, like vessels carried by the ears, are transferred wherever the one rearranges them. He was pleased to say that the name “Son” was natural for a born entity - and immediately, like those falling asleep, they bowed their heads, agreeing to what was said.” He again changed his speech to the contrary and denies the relationship of the Son to the Begotten - again, and this is very kindly responded to with a bow, like shadows from bodies, in self-moving imitation they are applied to the movement of the one walking in front, leaning towards what he wants, and, even if he begins to fight with himself, they accept this too. Here is a certain new Homeric drink, which does not change the bodies of those being healed into the appearance of dumb, but in the souls it transforms them into something dumb. For the fable says about those that their mind remained firm even after their appearance changed into that of an animal, but here, when their bodies remain in a natural state, their souls turn into dumb. And just as miraculous poetry says that those who drink are changed into various types of animals, at the pleasure of nature, the same thing happens now from this cup of Cercein. For the works of Eunomius, intoxicated with the enchanting charm, change into the images of various dogmas, now transforming into one, and then into another. And at the same time, those who are most delighted by the nature of fables still love Him who has brought them to such speechlessness and, like some kind of fruit of a tree, or acorns, the words scattered by Him, crouching to the ground, collect like pigs, greedily resorting to teachings that do not rise from the earth, and do not have the ability to raise their gaze to higher and heavenly dogmas. Therefore, they do not look at the transformation of speech into the opposite, but they grasp at what they encounter without examination. Just as they say happens to those who are put to sleep by mandrakes, whose bodies become insensible, sleep and immobility are in the same exact position, so are the senses of the soul, lulled to sleep and unable to comprehend the charm. Although it is difficult to deceive oneself as a result of some false mentality, to be subjected to secret deception without noticing it, this misfortune is nevertheless excusable when it happens involuntarily; but with some kind of foresight and diligence to be drawn into the experience of evil, not ignorant of this disaster - this ascends to every world of misfortune. For is it not worthy of indignation when we hear that even greedy fish flee from the bare iron approaching them, but, enticed by the bait, they pull the hook towards themselves in the hope of finding food? But where evil is obvious, to rush arbitrarily to this destruction is worse than the foolishness of fish. For those are drawn to destruction, hidden from them, by gluttony, and these swallow the naked hook of wickedness, out of some unreasonable addiction loving death. For what could be more obvious than this contradiction - to assert that the same one is both born and is a creature, that the name “Son” is akin to Him and the meaning “Son” is alien to this name? But enough about this. 5. It will be useful, perhaps, to see in connection the full thought of the Eunomius saying proposed to us, turning to the beginning of the speech. For the obvious contradiction in what was now examined prompted us to immediately begin the refutation with the last words. So, Eunomius says the following: “due to this division of concepts, others will rightly say that in the very proper sense, the so-called first and only essence produced by the action of the Father takes on the names of birth, work and creation.” Therefore, for those who are attentive to the word, I first intend to remind you that in the first work Eunomius says: in the most proper sense, the so-called essence is the essence of the Father, and he speaks with these words: “all our dogmatic teaching is limited to the highest and in the most proper sense, the so-called essence.” And here, in the very proper sense, he recognizes the essence of the Only Begotten as the so-called and first essence. Therefore, having brought Eunomius’s sayings from this and another book into one, we will present Eunomius himself as a witness about the common essence, who affirmed somewhere else something similar to this: those who have the same names do not have different natures; for the identity of names would not mean something separated by nature, entering into a dispute with itself. But since in the Father and the Son the essence is one in concept, then, of course, he says that this is what is called in the very proper sense of one and in the most proper sense of the other. This word is also confirmed by human custom, which does not attach significance in the proper sense to anything for which the name is not justified by nature. So, due to incorrect usage of words, we call likeness a person, but actually with this word we call a living being shown in nature; and also the word of Scripture sometimes calls an idol, a demon, and even a womb, god, but it does not use its own name and all the others in the same way. It is said otherwise that in a sleepy dream he ate, but a dream cannot be called food in the proper sense. Therefore, if any two people exist equally in their nature, then each of them in the proper sense is called a person. If someone begins to classify an inanimate image as a person who actually exists, and calls the one who actually exists and his likeness two people, then he will not be able to testify that he calls both in the proper sense. Thus, if the nature of the Only Begotten was understood as something different from the essence of the Father, then the writer would not have called each essence in the proper sense so called. For why would anyone signify things that are different in nature by the same names? But the truth, according to custom, is revealed even by those who are at enmity with it, because a lie, even in enemy speeches, cannot completely overcome the truth. Therefore, through the lips of those who are opposed and do not know what they are saying, the word of piety is preached, just as the saving suffering of the Lord for us was predicted by Caiaphas, who did not know what he was saying. Therefore, if the expression “in the most proper sense” is the common essence of both, I mean the Father and the Son, then what right does Eunomius have to say that the essences are different from each other? Or why is it seen in them a difference from that which is more powerful, more important and preferable, when in the very sense of the word the essence does not allow any derogation? For what is imperfect, whatever it is, is not in the proper sense: neither nature, nor strength, nor dignity, nor anything else seen separately. Therefore, the superiority of the Father in essence, whatever heresy, exposes the imperfection of the essence of the Only Begotten. So, if it is imperfect, then it is not called in the proper sense, but if in the proper sense, then, of course, it is called perfect. For it is not natural for someone who is insufficient to be called perfect, even comparatively; when comparing the perfect with the perfect, it is impossible to imagine any difference arising from excess or deficiency, because the perfection of both perfects, as a rule, is one, allowing neither deepening in the lacking, nor prominence in the excess. Therefore, in what has been said, one can clearly see the defense of our dogma by Eunomius, although not concern for us, but a struggle with himself. For the more our dogma asserts in its words, the more it turns its tricks on itself. But again we will literally follow what is written, so that it becomes clear to everyone that their word has no power to do evil, except for the desire to harm. Let us therefore listen to what has been said. “Another will rightly say that in the very proper sense, the so-called first and only essence produced by the action of the Father takes upon itself the names of birth, work and creation.” Who does not know that what separates the Church from heresy is the word “creature,” used about the Son? So, since the difference in dogma is recognized by everyone, how can one who intends to prove that his own concepts are more just than ours act in accordance with reason? Obviously, shouldn’t we compose our own word, as much as possible, proving the necessity of that thought about the Lord, that He was created? Or, leaving this behind, make it a law for those listening to call what is doubtful as if it were universally accepted? I claim the first one. But perhaps everyone who has reason will demand this from those who contradict, first establishing the beginning of the word on some indisputable basis, and then working on it later. And Eunomius, having left the proof of the need to honor Him as created, reveals further, applying a number of conclusions to the as yet unestablished position. Something similar happens to those who delve into vain desires with their souls, entertaining themselves with thoughts either about the kingdom, or about something else desired for them. They think not about having anything they want come true, but about how to control themselves with it, having it in their hands, and to please themselves to take advantage of success, with some pleasure deluding themselves with what has not come true. So our wise writer, I don’t know where, having put his notorious dialectic to sleep before proving what was required, as if to some children, he conveys to us in the form of a fable the deceptive and awkward idle talk about his dogma. For he says: “by the action of the Father, the produced essence takes on the names of generation, production and creation.” On what basis is it proven that the Son was produced by some preparatory action, and the nature of the Father remained inactive in the consideration of the hypostasis of the Son? For the following was subject to doubt and the question was: did the essence of the Father give birth to the Son, or was He produced by something from outside that followed nature? The Church, according to Divine teaching, believes that the Only Begotten really is God, but abhors polytheistic superstition and therefore does not allow the difference of natures, so that, with the difference in essences, the Divines do not fall under counting. And this means nothing more than reintroducing polytheism into the world. So, since the Church teaches this in simplicity, namely, that from the essence of the true God, the true God in essence is the Only Begotten God, then whoever comes into conflict with what is recognized, how should he refute the preconceived opinion? Shouldn't he, in refutation, compose a word in which, on the basis of some recognized principle, the subject of doubt would be proven? I don’t think that anyone with intelligence would demand anything other than this? But Eunomius begins the subject of dispute, and this, as proven, puts it at the beginning of the subsequent word. If it had been proven in advance that the Son was produced by some action, would any dispute be possible about the following, about what was said, that by some action, the produced essence takes upon itself the name of the work? Until the previous one is proven, why the next one is valid, let the defenders of this deception say. For if anyone admits that a person, by assumption, became winged, then won’t he also allow it to go further, because the one who has become winged will, no matter what, fly, will rise above the earth, soaring on wings in the air. But we must understand how someone who has not received an airy nature can become a flyer. Since this is impossible, it is in vain to talk about what follows. Therefore, let Eunomius first prove the following: the Church in vain believed that there really is an Only Begotten Son, not adopted by sonship to a falsely named Father, but born by nature from the Existing One, not alienated from the nature of the One Who Begot. Let him first expose it as false, and then, when discussing what follows, it will be worthy of belief. But until the first is proven, dwelling on the second is a matter of idle talk. And let no one require me to confirm what we admit with evidence, for to prove our word it is enough to have the tradition that has come to us from the fathers, like some kind of inheritance, communicated in order from the apostles through subsequent saints. But those who transform dogmas into this new form will need a great deal of speculation if they intend to bring to their side people who are not restless as dust and fickle, but who are sedate and firm in mind. In the meantime, an unconfirmed and unproven word is offered to them, who will be so simple and meaningless as to recognize the teaching of the evangelists, apostles and after them the men who shone in the church as the weakest of unproven idle talk. But let's look at the excellent dexterity of the writer, how easily, due to the excess of dialectical experience, those with little experience are drawn into the opposite. He added the word “birth” to the names “work” and “creature,” saying that he takes upon himself these names the essence of the Son. And as if ranting to a crowd of drunken people, he thinks that his poor treatment of dogma will not be a burden to anyone. For the word “birth”, joining the words “creature” and “work”, thinks by conjugating the incommunicable to hide the difference between names in meaning. These are the wise tricks of dialectics! But we, ignorant of the word, although we do not deny that in speech and language there is the same thing that the word shows about us, we nevertheless admit that we, as the Prophet says, have ears designed for intelligent hearing (Is. 50:4). Therefore, the combination of names that have nothing in common does not lead to a merger of the signified. But if the great Apostle together names gold, “silver, honest stone, firewood, hay, reeds” (1 Cor. 3:12), then we put the number of things mentioned together and separately recognize the nature of each named thing. So now, since birth and work are mentioned together, then, moving from sayings to the signified, we do not see the same meaning in each name. For the word “creation” means something else, and the word “birth” means something else, so that Eunomius confuses the unmixed. An intelligent listener will listen separately and prove that the names “birth” and “creation” cannot contain any one nature. For if one of them is true, then the other will necessarily be false, so that if it is a creation, then it is not birth, and vice versa, if it is called birth, then the name “creation” will become alien. On the contrary, Eunomius says: “the essence of the Son takes upon itself names and births, and works, and creatures.” But for the rest, did not the one who at the beginning throw this word, without any force in it, into the basis of what is being proven, confirm with anything this word, which has neither a head nor a root? Or is the rest distinguished by the same emptiness, not gaining strength from any assistance from reasoning, but remaining a lengthy and awkward presentation of blasphemy, similar to a story about a sleepy dream? For Eunomius says, adding to what has been said the following: “having immediate birth, not separately maintaining the relationship to the one who gave birth, the one who produced and the one who created.” For if, putting aside the words “immediate” and “inseparable,” we consider the meaning of other sayings in itself, then we will find that everywhere the arbitrariness of the teaching, not supported by any foundation, strikes the ears of those who are deceived. It is said: to the one who gave birth, to the one who created, to the one who produced. Apparently, the three names here have the meaning of two representations, because the two words are conceptually equivalent to each other. The same thing means “to produce” and “to create,” but the opposite means “birth.” So, given the meaning of words, according to the general understanding of people, is divided into different concepts, on what basis will they prove to us that work is one and the same with birth, so that we can adapt one essence to different sayings? For as long as the ordinary meaning of words prevails, there is no basis for turning the sign of the speech into the opposite; It is impossible to divide any one nature by concept into creation and birth. Since each of them, named in itself, has a particularly characteristic interpretation, it is absolutely necessary to imagine the relative conjugation as proper and related to the names. For the rest of the predicate relative to something does not consist in a property that is alien or discordant. On the contrary, even though it was silent about what it is said in relation to, nevertheless, what is associated with the prototype is heard of itself. Such, for example, are the words: “creator”, “slave”, “friend”, “son” and the like. For everything that is included in consideration in relation to another higher thing in the name each time represents a close and inseparable affinity with the signified, in which communication with the foreign is incompatible, because the name “creator” is not associated with the name “son,” and the word “slave” is not raised to the word “creator,” and the word “friend” does not mean a slave, and the word “son” does not mean a ruler. On the contrary, we recognize the explicit and separate combination of each of these names with one another, with the name of a friend we mean another friend, with the name of ba - master, with the name of the creator - deed and with the name of father - son. So the word “birth” actually has a meaning related to something. Therefore, the word “begotten” is conjugated with the word “birth”, and the word “creator” is conjugated with the word “creature”. And if we do not intend by changing names to produce any unity in objects, we must certainly preserve its own meaning with each relative speech. Therefore, when the meaning of these speeches is clear, to what each one refers, then why, according to the rules of dialectics, the one who expounds the dogmas did not understand in these proper names their meaning in relative use, but thinks to adapt to the one who gave birth and to the begotten - the work, saying that the essence of the Son takes on the names of birth, work and creation, but retains an inseparable relationship with the Begotten, the begotten and the created? For it is not in the nature of things to divide the same thing in different respects; On the contrary, just as the Son is in relationship with the Father and the begotten with the begotten, so the work can be traced back to the one who produced it, unless someone, no matter what use of words, considers their other abuse to be more characteristic than their use in their natural meaning. By what and what kind of arguments according to this irresistible dialectic, having turned the opinions of many into the opposite, does it fully confirm this, namely, that since God, who exists above all, is understood and is called both the Creator and the Father, then the Son has the right to both names, equally called both creation and birth? For according to the usual usage of words that distinguishes such names with due accuracy, the name “birth” is given to something that is born from the essence itself, and the name “creature” is given to something that comes from something that is outside the nature that organizes it. And for this reason, the Divine dogmas, in the knowledge of God they taught, conveyed to us the names of the Father and the Son, and not the Creator and the work, so that there would not be any inclination towards blasphemy, when such a name removes the Son into something alien and strange for Him, and the godless Teachings that separate the Only Begotten from the essential affinity with the Father would not find access. Whoever claims that the name “creature” is appropriate for the Son, will, of course, as a result of this, say about the creature that the name “son” belongs to it, so that if the Son is a creature, then heaven is a son, and every created thing, according to the Teaching of this writer, is in the proper sense called by the name of the son. For if the Son has this name not because of his common nature with the Begotten, but because he was created, and therefore is called the Son, then for the same reason the lamb, the dog, the frog, and everything that exists by the will of the Creator can be called the son. If each of these beings, because it does not belong to the nature of the Son, is not a Son and is not called God, then of course, as a result of this, in the proper sense, the Son is a Son and is confessed to be God, because He is of the same nature as the One who begot. But the heretic abhors the concept of birth and banishes it from divine dogmas, denigrating the name based on its carnal explanation. However, enough has been said about this above, namely, that, according to the words of the Prophet, “being afraid of fear, where there was no fear” (Ps. 13:5), for it has been proven that among people, not every birth occurs through passion, but the material is due to passion, and the spiritual is pure and immaculate, because what is born from the spirit is spirit, not flesh, but no passionate disposition is seen in the spirit. Since, due to the examples we have presented, it seemed necessary to this writer to take into account the divine power, then let him convince himself of the divine birth in another way of birth to understand as dispassionate. On the contrary, merging these three names with each other, two of which are equivalent, he thinks by the common meaning of the two sayings to captivate the listeners with him, so that they think the same about the third. Since the name of the work and the creature shows that what was produced outside the nature of the one who produced it, it adds the word “birth” to these sayings, as if it were interpreted in the same way as the previous ones. But this type of speech is called malice, and seduction, and deception, and not some kind of deliberate and skillful proof, because proof is the only thing that, through what is generally accepted, brings the unknown to light. It is maliciously intended to deceive, to conceal reproof, and by obvious deceptions to confuse the meaning of people, as the Apostle says, “who are corrupt in mind” (2 Tim. 3:8); none of the chaste will call this a skillful proof. 6. But let's move on to the next thing in order. Eunomius says that the birth of an essence directly and inseparably retains its relationship to the one who gave birth, the one who produced and the one who created. If, having spoken about the inseparability of essence and its lack of mediocre things, I had stopped my speech there, I would not have deviated from the pious thought, because we also confess the inseparable and immediate unity of the Son with the Father, so that there is nothing included in their environment that would be connected between the Son and the Father, there is no idea of ​​any interval, even the smallest and indivisible, which, after cutting time into two - the past and the future - in the present it seems inseparable in itself, something that cannot become part of either the past or the future, because it is completely unextended and indivisible, and no matter what it is attached to, imperceptibly. Therefore, what has no environment at all, we say that it has nothing intermediary, because what is divided by any environment would not yet have no environment. Therefore, if Eunomius, having said that the birth of the Son is immediate, had not introduced anything of what he affirms, he would have taught a piously understood connection between the Son and the Father. But since, as if repenting of what had been said, he immediately added that he retains the relation to the One who gave birth and created, then the latter desecrated the first, spewing out a blasphemous speech to the pure word; for it is clear that even there the word “immediate” does not tend towards a pious thought, but means the same as if someone said: between the nail and the blacksmith a hammer mediates, and the latter’s structure is immediate; because before the invention of tools by art, by some invention, with the help of some other tool, the artist first of all made a hammer, and thus, with the help of it, other things. That this writer means the same about the Only Begotten is shown by the expression “directly.” And Eunomius is not alone in being misled by the inconsistency of the teaching; something equal to this can be found in the works of Theognostus, who says that God, intending to organize the universe, first, as it were, a rule for the creation of the Son. And Eunomius did not understand the absurdity in this word; what happens not for its own sake, but for the sake of something else, is, without a doubt, valued less than that for which it exists; just as we build an agricultural tool for the sake of life, but we do not value the plow on an equal basis with life, so if the Lord is for the sake of the world, and not the universe for His sake, then the universe will be preferable to the Lord, for the sake of which, as they say, the Lord himself. People are talking about this idea even now, when they are trying to assert that the Son is directly related to the Creator and the One Who Produced. 7. But Eunomius is more lenient in the rest and says: “it cannot be compared with anything that comes from her and after her.” This is how the enemies of truth serve the Lord - with such words, from which blasphemy is most obvious! For, tell me, what of the rest, as far as this creature is concerned, has a comparison with another, because everywhere in every thing there is visible a property that does not allow commonality with something foreign? The sky has no comparison with the earth, the earth with the stars, the stars with the sea, the water with stone, the animals with trees, those living on land with birds, the four-legged with swimming, the verbal with the dumb. And who will waste time talking about everything in detail and proving that the same can be said about every thing visible in creation? And this very thing is not to be compared with anything after Him or that came from Him, as an advantage given to the Only Begotten. For it is clear that everything that you can understand as existing in itself is not comparable either with everything in general, or with each thing separately, and what can really be said about any creature is removed by the enemies of the truth as sufficient and all-sufficient in honor and glory of the Only Begotten God. Having brought to a similar thought, Eunomius otherwise again dignifies Him with honors without meaning, greeting Him as Lord and Only Begotten; but so that no pious thought is born in the listeners from these names, blasphemous things are immediately mixed in with the good news. Word for word it reads like this: “since the generated essence,” says Eunomius, “does not leave room for community to anything else (for it is only begotten), then the action of the one who did it is not seen as common.” What an insult! As if, turning the word to the dumb and senseless, who have no understanding, he freely speaks, full of contradictions, or, better to say, admits to himself the same thing that happens to those deprived of sight; and they often act indecently in the eyes of those who can see, supposing that they are not seen because they themselves do not see. For is it possible for anyone not to see the contradiction in what has been said? The essence, since it is born, says Eunomius, leaves no room for others to communicate (for it is only begotten). Having said this, as if he really either did not see it himself or believed that he was not seen, he attaches to what was said as connected with it something that has nothing in common with it, adapting the action of the Creator to the essence of the Only Begotten, because the begotten to the begotten and the Only Begotten to the Father by connection certainly has a relationship, and whoever has the truth in mind, in relation to the Son he sees not the action of the Creator, but the nature father. And he, as if remembering plants or seeds, or other created things, applies the action of the Creator to the hypostasis of the Only Begotten. For if a stone or a tree, or something else similar, were before our eyes, then we should first imagine in our minds the action of the Creator. If the opponents also confess that the Only Begotten God is the Son and begotten, then how can the same sayings befit both Him and the very last parts of creation? And what can be rightly said about an ant or a mosquito, then, they think, it is pious to say about the Lord. For, if someone has studied the nature of the ant, how it differs from the composition of other animals, then he, without moving away from the truth, can say that the effect of the creator on the ant is not seen as common with the effects on other animals. So, what is said about creatures like these, they also say about the Only Begotten. And as they say about hunters, that with some pits they cross the path that animals go through, but they hide their intentions by covering the holes of the pits with something rotten and unstable, so that the pit seems like a smooth place to those approaching, heresy against people is contrived for something like this, with these good-sounding and pious names, as if some kind of cover laid on top, covering the pit of wickedness, so that the less intelligent who, the sermon by the similarity of speech, considering them to be one and the same with true faith, they flocked to the one name of the Son and Only Begotten, to be cast into a pit, because the meaning of the names does not support them in the procession, but leads them into the abyss of renunciation of Christ. That is why Eunomius mentions a begotten essence that leaves no room for communication with anything, and calls it the only begotten; these are covers on the pit. But when another, standing with her, before being swallowed up by the abyss, puts a test of the word to this word, as if with some kind of hand, then he will see in this teaching a disastrous undermining of idolatry, for, approaching as to God and the Son of God, he finds in the worshiped the creation of God. Therefore, they rush hither and thither in the name of the Only Begotten, so that those who are deceived and death will not become disgusting, as someone else, having mixed poison into bread, will treat those with death to those who need food, who, without a visible bait, would not agree to accept pure corruptible poison. Therefore, Eunomius wisely and for his own benefit does not lose sight of what he has proposed. For if he had completely excluded the word “Son” from his teaching, none of the people would have accepted his deception, when the denial was openly proclaimed in open preaching. And now, leaving one name, but reducing the signified to the concept of a creature, he restores idolatry and hides it from reproof. But since we are not commanded to honor God verbally, and piety is not assessed by the sound of the voice, on the contrary, we must first “believe in the heart in the Son in truth, and then confess with the lips for salvation” (Rom. 10:10), and those who say in the heart: “There is no God, although they confess the Lord with their lips, corrupting” (Ps. 13:1), as the Prophet says, then therefore I affirm that we must look at the thoughts of those who offer words of faith, and not be carried away by sounds. If anyone, speaking about the Son, does not mean the creature, then he is ours, and not one of our opponents. If anyone attaches the name of the Son to the creature, then he will be counted among the idolaters, because they called Dagon, and Baal, and the Serpent God, but as a result they worshiped not God, for wood, and copper, and the animal. - not God. 8. But what is the need, guessing the meaning, to discover the deception hidden in the word, and perhaps give the listeners an excuse to think that we are unfairly objecting to our enemies in this. For here Eunomius offers us open blasphemy, not putting any cover on his lies, but with free speech boldly delving into absurdity. It is written like this: “therefore,” he says, “not finding anything other than the essence in the Son that allows birth, we think that this same essence should be given these names, whether in words we will only call the Son and begotten, or we will separate the words from the essence, and on this basis we will even be convinced that the essences are different from one another.” I think there is no need for us to denounce in our words the absurdity contained in what has been said. One reading of what has been written sufficiently exposes blasphemy to shame. But let's look at it this way. Eunomius says that the essences of the Son and the Father are different from one another. What does the word “different” mean? First, let us examine the very expressiveness of this saying, so that the blasphemy will be better revealed in the interpretation of the word. In ordinary usage, the phrase “difference” (παραλλαγη) refers to bodies when, due to relaxation (paralysis) or some other illness, a member goes out of natural harmony, for, for the contrast of a sick member to a healthy one, the change of a diseased member for the worse is called difference (παραλλαγη) And in those who differ morally in virtue and vice, when an intemperate life is contrasted with a pure and chaste life, or an unrighteous life with a truthful one, or a meek, peaceful and silent life, irritable and scolding, and not restraining anger - in general, everything that, when compared with the best, deserves the accusation of vice, is called having come into difference, because the signs of both, I mean good and bad, do not agree with each other. We also say about the qualities seen in the elements that all those that are opposite to one another differ, one having destructive power for the other, such as heat and cold, dryness and moisture, or in general, if something is in opposition to another; and what is dissimilar in them we mean by the phrase “difference.” And in general, everything that disagrees with another according to visible signs belongs to the number of different objects, such as health and illness, death and life, peace and war, virtue and vice, and everything like that. Based on this distinction of concepts, let us pay attention to the writer, in what sense does he say that the Father and the Son have different essences? What does he mean by saying this? Is it that the Father is such by nature, and the Son is different by nature? Or does this expression express a deviation from virtue, under the name of difference, separating the bad from the better, so that one essence is seen in the good, and the other in the opposite? Or, based on the concept of the opposition of the elements, Eunomius strengthens his assertion that one divine essence differs from another? Or, in what relation is war to the world and life to death, in the same way and in essences he sees a struggle with everything similar, so that they do not converge with one another, because a mixture of opposites has a power that destroys what is included in the mixture, as the tributary wisdom speaks about this teaching, that “water and fire do not say: it is sufficient” (Proverbs 30:16), expressing with this riddle the equivalence natures in struggle and resistance, and mutual destruction of opposites. And for no reason at all, as he says, he does not see the difference in these entities. So, let him say the obvious beyond this? But there will be nothing to say to him, although he says the usual, that the Son differs from the Begotten, for this further exposes the absurdity of what he asserts. What is so akin to each other and combines and agrees with each other as the relative meaning of the Son to the Father? And the proof of this is that, although these two names are not pronounced, one of them also signifies what is silent, so one is contained in the other, one is connected with the other, both are seen in one, and neither of them can be understood in itself without the other. It goes without saying that something is called different in contrast to what is similar; so, for example, a cord lies along a straight line, but a curved cord, being applied to a straight line, does not converge with it. And musicians usually call the agreement of tones harmony, and discordant and discordant tones - discordant. Therefore, it is the same thing to say: different and discordant. So, if, according to heretical teaching, the nature of the Only Begotten God is different from the essence of the Father, then, without a doubt, it is not in agreement, but cannot be in agreement with what cannot be agreed upon, as if on wax and on a cutting, which is on the seal of a ring, there is one image, then when the wax with the image printed by it is again applied to the seal of the ring, then it resembles the outline of the seal, holding its images in drawing and entering the voids, and taking the bulges on the seal of the ring into their own recesses. If, however, some alien and different imprint is applied to the cutting, like on the seal of a ring, then, by taking on an image with unusual features, it will make its own image uneven and unified. But “in the image of God” (Phil. 2:6) is depicted by the Father in no other way than the “image of the Hypostasis” of the Father (Heb. 1:3); the image of God is, without a doubt, one and the same with the essence. Just as he who came in the image of a slave began to have on himself the image of the essence of the slave, having perceived not just a simple image, unconjugated with the essence, on the contrary, the image signifies the essence, so, of course, who said about himself that He is “in the image of God,” the word “image” indicated the essence. Therefore, if He is in the image of God and, being in the Father, has the meaning of the Father’s glory, as the gospel voice says, saying: “For this reason the Father is the sign of God” (John 6:27), why also “seeing the Son in the form of the Father” (John 14:9), then the names “image of goodness”, and “radiance of glory”, and all others similar to this testify that the essence of the Son has nothing in itself, not befitting the Father. This clearly reveals the inconsistency of the blasphemy of those who oppose it. For if the various things do not agree with each other, but the one designated by the Father, showing the Father in Himself, existing in the Father and having the Father in Himself, proves to everyone both affinity and agreement, then this greatly exposes the absurdity of the opponents. For, just as it has been proven that what is different is not in agreement, so, on the contrary, it is recognized without dispute that what is in agreement is certainly inseparable; just as what is different does not agree, so what is consistent does not differ. Whoever says that the nature of the Only Begotten is different from the good essence of the Father, he, of course, sees the difference in the good itself. But what is different with good? “Understand, kindness, deceit,” says the parable (Proverbs 8:5). But I pass over all this in the word as obviously absurd, and let us examine what precedes it. “Besides the essence of the Son,” says Eunomius, “there is nothing else that receives birth.” What does he mean by this? Having distinguished two names from one another and also divided in the word what they signify, each of them is posited by itself: one name is “birth” and the other name is “essence”. The essence, he says, accepts birth, apparently being something else from birth. For if birth were an essence (which, incidentally, Eunomius often asserts), so that the two names are equivalent in expressiveness, he would not say that essence receives birth, for it would mean to say: essence receives essence, or birth receives birth, if birth is identical with essence. Therefore, something else is meant by birth, and something else is meant by the essence that accepts birth, for it is impossible for the acceptor to be one and the same with what is acceptable. So, this is what the wise cunning says in the writer’s word! But whether there is any meaning in what was said - let someone skilled in judgment examine the word, and I will again return to what was said. Eunomius says: “besides the essence of the Son there is nothing else that receives birth.” That there is no meaning in what has been said is obvious to anyone who has delved into the word at all. It remains to bring out the blasphemy that is being prepared in these unintelligible sayings. He wants, although he cannot interpret this due to lack of strength, to instill in his listeners the idea that the meaning of the word “Son” shows His fulfillment, but Eunomius calls this fulfillment birth, covering up the horror of blasphemy with the most decent word, so that it would be easy to agree with the idea that the Lord was created, just as fulfillment is expressed by the word “birth.” Therefore, he says that the essence accepts birth, so that, as in every thing, some kind of realization can be seen. No one will say what has been accomplished and what has not. So Eunomius represents the nature of the Only Begotten God, as if some kind of artificial work, in the word “creation.” Therefore, if he accepts this as birth, then he says this with the intention of meaning that He did not exist until He was realized. What else of what was seen in creation was not brought into being? The sky, the earth, the air, the sea - everything that exists, of course, was brought into being; none of this would have happened if it had not been brought into existence. So, why did Eunomius, as something predominant in the nature of the Only Begotten, see that birth is accepted by Him into its very essence (as Eunomius calls fulfillment), as if a bumblebee and a mosquito accept birth not into themselves, but into something else with themselves? So, in what is written it is recognized that among heretics the essence of the Only Begotten is generalized with the smallest particles of creation, and the entire series of conclusions that prove the otherness of the Son and the Father has equal force in the reasoning of anything taken separately. Therefore, what need does Eunomius have of this varied refinement in proving otherness by nature? It was necessary to turn to the short path of denial, to clearly refuse to recognize the name “Son” and the Only Begotten God, not to preach in churches, but to recognize the Jewish ministry as preferable to the Christian confession, confessing the Father as the only Creator and Creator, yet subsuming everything else under the name and concept of creation; and in the ranks of creatures, call the work left to others a work brought into being by some kind of fulfilling activity, instead of the only begotten God and the true Son, calling Him the first-created. Since these understandings prevailed among the heretics, it was very convenient for them to bring the dogma to the goal, since on the basis of such a principle everything was directed, to what it properly followed, namely, that it is impossible for one who is not born and not a Son to have a common essence with God, but is brought into being by some action. But as long as the Gospel sayings are valid, in which the Son is preached as the Only Begotten, and as being from the Father and from God, and the like, then in vain will Eunomius be mad, declaring and deceiving both himself and his own with such idle talk. Because the name “Son” cries out for a real relationship with the Father, who is so simple that when John, and Paul, and the rest of the host of saints proclaim these genuine and showing kinship names, they will not pay attention to them, but to the teaching, which consists in the empty rattling of Eunomius’s false ideas, and is more truthful than those who speak mysteries by the Spirit and have Christ in them, will Eunomius honor? What kind of Eunomius is this? Where did he rise to the point of being a leader of Christians? But let's leave it at that. Let concern for what lies ahead, as much as possible, calm our hearts, which, out of zeal for the faith, are restless against detractors. For how can one not be moved to anger and enmity when these despicable ones dishonor our God and Master, Life-Giver and Savior? If someone began to slander my father according to the flesh or treat my benefactor with hostility, would it be possible to dispassionately endure the insult of my loved ones? If the Lord of my soul, Who created it as it did not exist, redeemed the enslaved one, gave it a taste of the present life, prepared a future life for it, calls it to the kingdom and teaches us how to avoid condemnation to Gehenna (I recognize this as unimportant and unworthy of the greatness of our common Master), if He, Whom every creature, heavenly, earthly and underworld, worships, Whom is faced with tens of thousands of servants heaven, to Whom everything that dwells here and has a love for beauty is addressed, if He is subject to the slander of people, for whom it is not enough for them to just share the share of the apostate, on the contrary, who recognize it as a loss for themselves, if they do not drag others with them into the abyss with their writing, so that for posterity there will not be a lack of guidance to destruction, then who will blame our anger against them? But let's return to the next thing in order. 9. In what is said further, Eunomius again condemns us for allegedly dishonoring the birth of the Son with human likenesses, and recalls what our father wrote about this, precisely the place where he says: since the word “son” signifies two concepts: descent by passion and natural connection with the begotten, then the indecent and carnal does not agree with the word of God, and what serves as evidence of the glory of the Only Begotten, then one is accepted in high dogmas. Therefore, who dishonors the birth of the Son with human assumptions: is he the one who excludes the passionate and human from the divine birth and dispassionately combines the Son with the begotten, or the one who generalizes the One who brings everything into being with the lower creation? But this new wisdom seems to recognize such things as dishonorable; It is precisely that he considers it dishonest to associate the Son with the majesty of the Father, and to bring Him down to the same dignity as a creature, a servant, like us, as great and lofty. What an empty accusation! Basil honors the Son as the Father is honored, and they slander him that he dishonors the Son; and Eunomius fights for the honor of the Only Begotten, and deprives Him of the good nature of the Father! Paul was once subjected to similar guilt among the Athenians, accused by them of allegedly proclaiming new gods, when he denounced the sinful belief in gods of the Athenians, who were madly devoted to idolatry, and led them to the truth, preaching the resurrection in the Areopagus. The same thing is now objected to by the imitator of Paul by the new Stoics and Epicurians, who, as history says about the Athenians, “practice nothing else, except to say something or hear something new” (Acts 17:21). For is there anything newer than these expressions: the Son of activity, the Father of creation, the newly revealed God, who comes from the non-existent, and good, different from good? These are the expressions of those who, because they assert that the Son is not what constitutes the nature of the begotten, pretend to give Him due honor. Does Eunomius really respect the kind of such honoring if someone says that the Son is not close to the Father by nature, but has something in common with something foreign? For if it is said of the one who generalizes the Lord of creation with creation that he thereby honors the Lord, then let Eunomius also honor him, who generalizes Him by nature with the dumb and insensitive. But if communication with the worst, in his opinion, is a difficult and offensive matter, then why is it an honor for the One who rules “by His power over the world,” as the Prophet says (Ps. 65:7), to be placed on a par with the subordinate and slavish nature? But enough about this. You might be interested in: