Книга шестая

1. But I feel that I have stopped at this point longer than necessary, since the very necessity of concepts forced us to such reasoning; now we need to again turn to the following accusations in order, so as not to leave out without refutation a single attack on us. And, firstly, if you like, let us consider how he accuses us of saying that the salvation of the world was accomplished by a simple man; for although this has already been somewhat revealed in previous studies, however, in order to completely clear the prejudice of those who judge (us) based on slander, we will briefly consider it again. We are so far from recognizing the guilt of great and ineffable grace to a simple person that if someone attributed such a good action even to Peter and Paul or to a heavenly angel, then to this person, according to Paul’s commandment, we would pronounce “anathema” (Gal. 1:8), for neither Paul was crucified for us, nor were we baptized in the name of a man (1 Cor. 1:15). But because we confess the saving power of Christ as superior to human nature, the teaching of opponents does not receive greater force against the truth, because their goal is to establish in everything the difference between the essence of the Son and the essence of the Father; and they try to prove the dissimilarity in essence not only by distinguishing the Born from the Unborn, but also by contrasting the Suffering and the Impassive. This will be revealed more clearly at the end of the word, but from what is said now it will become no less clear. Eunomius, accusing those who attribute suffering to human nature, wants, of course, to subject the Divinity itself to suffering. For when a twofold and mutual assumption is possible: either the Divinity or humanity suffered, then the condemnation of one, of course, becomes an affirmation of the rest. Therefore, those who accuse those who see suffering in humanity will, of course, approve of those who call the Divinity of the Son capable of suffering, but admitting this is already a denunciation of the absurdity of their teaching. Because if, according to them, the Divinity of the Son suffers, and the Divinity of the Father remains essentially not involved in any suffering, then the dispassionate nature and the nature that has received passion are alien to each other. Although what has been said is brief in terms of words, but since it contains the beginnings and foundations of all evil in the teaching, it is fair for readers to demand not a short answer, but a thorough one. We do not attribute our salvation to man and do not admit that the incorruptible and Divine Nature is involved in suffering and corruption; but since we must fully believe the Divine word, which proclaims that in the beginning “God is the Word” and that then the Word, having become flesh, became visible on earth and spoke to people, then we accept by faith the concepts corresponding to God’s word. So, when we hear that He is Light, and Power, and Truth, and Life, and Truth, and that all things happened through Him, then we consider all this and the like to be true, referring to God the Word; and when we hear about sorrow, and about sleep, and about poverty, and embarrassment, and bonds, and nails, and a spear, and blood, and wounds, and a coffin, and a stone, and the like, then even though it was contrary to what was previously indicated, we nevertheless accept it as reliable and true, referring it to the flesh, which by faith we received together with the Word. Just as the properties of the body cannot be intelligible in the Word, which was in the beginning, so, conversely, the properties of the Divine cannot be understood in the nature of the flesh. Since in the Gospel teaching about the Lord the high and God-befitting are united with the lowly, then we respectively attach one or another concept to one or another of those conceivable in the human sacrament - to the human, and the high - to the Divinity - and we say that since the Son is God, He is completely impassive and incorruptible; and if in the Gospel any suffering is attributed to Him, then He acted according to human nature, which, of course, allows such weakness. Truly, the Divinity accomplishes salvation through the body it has received; suffering belongs to the flesh, and action belongs to God. Although some, in defense of the opposite teaching, cite the words of the Apostle: “I will not spare His own Son” (Rom. 8:32), and: “God sent His Son as an ambassador” (Rom. 8:3) and the like, which apparently indicate the participation in suffering of the Divine nature, and not of the human, but nevertheless we will not deviate from sound dogmas when Paul himself reveals this sacrament to us more clearly, for everywhere he attributes the dispensation of suffering to the human nature of Christ, saying: “For death was by man, and by man the resurrection of the dead” (1 Cor. 15, 21), and: “God sent His Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin, and about sin, judge sin in the flesh” (Rom. 8:3) (said in the flesh, not in the Divinity), and: “he was crucified through weakness, meaning the flesh through weakness, but he lives because of strength” (2 Cor. 13:4), by strength meaning the Divinity, and also: “I died through sin, that is body, but God lives," that is, by the Divinity (Rom. 6:10). Thus, this proves that man tasted death, and the immortal nature did not suffer the suffering of death. And in the words: “He who knew no sin, made sin for us” (2 Cor. 5:21) again calls the flesh sin. 2. Although we say this in passing, this digression will turn out to be, perhaps, no less useful than the one suggested (research). Since in the words of Saint Peter: “God created the Lord and His Christ” (Acts 2:36) and the Apostle Paul to the Jews: He made him “High Priest” (Heb. 5:10), Eunomius snatches the expression “created” as an indication of pre-eternal existence, and therefore thinks that the Lord should be recognized by creation, then let him hear Paul, who says: “Not For he who knew sin made sin for us” (2 Cor. 5:21). If the word “create”, spoken about the Lord both in the Epistle to the Hebrews and in the saying of Peter, refers to the concept of pre-eternity, then the saying “sin created” should also be attributed to God to the first state of essence and from here, as well as from other evidence, try to prove that He was created. But if here the word “create” refers to the essence, then, while maintaining consistency with oneself, one must also see sin in the essence. But if he is ashamed of this due to obvious absurdity and says that the Apostle, with the words “create sin,” indicates the economy in the last days, then let him be convinced by the same sequence that there “do” refers to the economy. But let us return again to what we shied away from. Besides these, countless passages from the Holy Scriptures can be cited for our purpose. And let no one think that the divine Apostle contradicts himself and gives those who argue about dogmas the opportunity to borrow content equally from his words to confirm both opinions. He who carefully examines will easily find that his word is strictly directed towards one and he does not waver in his thoughts. Because, everywhere proclaiming the dissolution of the Divine nature with the human, he nevertheless sees his own in each, so that human weakness through communication with the incorruptible has changed for the better, and Divine power through the union with the lower nature has not been humiliated. So, when the Apostle says that “the Son will not be spared” (Rom. 8:32), then he distinguishes the true Son from those who are born, and exalted (Isa. 1:2), and adopted - those, I say, who, at His command, are brought into being by the addition, “His,” meaning kinship by nature. And lest anyone attribute to the incorruptible nature the suffering of the cross, in other clearest expressions he corrects such an error, calling Him “the Advocate of God and men” (1 Tim. 2:5), both man and God, so that from the two names attached to one, it is understood the corresponding about each: about the Divine - dispassion, and about the human - the perception of suffering, since thought itself distinguishes between what is united by love of mankind and what is separated. by concept. When he preaches what is superior and surpasses every mind, he uses higher names, calling Him “God above all” (Eph. 4:6), “the great God” (Titus 2:13), “God’s power and wisdom” (1 Cor. 1:24) and the like. And when he describes in words everything necessary for the sake of our weakness, the perceived trial of suffering, then for the one who unites both (natures) he takes a name from our nature, calling Him man, but without imparting this name to the rest of the nature, so that a pious understanding of both is preserved; when the human is glorified because of perception, and the Divine is not diminished because of condescension, but by committing the human part to suffering, by Divine power he brings about the resurrection of that which has suffered. Thus, the test of death refers to the One who partook of a nature capable of suffering due to the unity of man with himself, and both high and Divine names are transferred to man; so that he who is visible on the cross is called the Lord of glory because of the union of His nature with the lower one and at the same time the transition and grace of the name from the Divine (nature) to the human. Therefore, the Scripture presents Him in various ways and in different ways: now He came down from heaven, now He was born of a woman by the eternal God, and by man in the last days - so that the Only Begotten God is confessed to the dispassionate and Christ to the suffering, and by these contradictions no untruth is told, since each name is associated with a concept appropriate to Him. Therefore, if we have learned to think in this way from divinely inspired teaching, then how can we attribute the cause of salvation to a simple person? If we believe that the saying of blessed Paul “create” refers not to the pre-eternity of the existence of the Hypostasis, but to the time of the economy, then what does this have in common with the accusation? For the great Apostle says that what was visible in the form of a servant became through perception what he who perceived was by nature; and in the Epistle to the Hebrews Paul teaches the same thing, saying that God made Jesus the messenger and high priest of our confession, “being faithful to him who made him” (Heb. 3.1–2); here, with his blood for our sins, he priestly propitiated the High Priest, the word “create” does not mean the first existence of the Only Begotten, but wanting to represent grace, usually called when appointing priests, he says: “create.” For Jesus, as Zechariah says, “the great priest” (Zech. 3:1), sacrificed His lamb, that is, His flesh, for “worldly” sin for the sake of the children who partook of flesh and blood, and Himself “sincerely partook” of the blood (Heb. 2:14) (not in the same way as He was in the beginning, being the Word and God, and being in the image of God, and being equal to God; but in the way in which He exhausted Himself in the form of a servant and made an offering and sacrifice for us) - this Jesus became a Bishop for many future generations according to the order of Melchizedek. He who did not casually talk about it to the Jews knew the secret of this completely. So, in the same sense it is said here that he was made by the priest and the messenger, and there that he was made by the Lord and Christ - the first in relation to the economy of us, the last because of the transformation or transformation of the human into the Divine, for the Apostle calls transformation creation. So, the slander of opponents is obvious, slyly transferring expressions meaning economy to the eternal Hypostasis, because the Apostle Paul teaches us to know Christ differently now and before, when he says: “even if we understood according to the flesh of Christ, but now we do not understand” (2 Cor. 5:16), as if indicating that that knowledge means a temporary economy, and this is eternal existence. So, we have sufficiently proven in defense against the accusations that we do not recognize two Christs or Lords and are not ashamed of the cross, and do not believe that a simple person suffered for the world, and do not think that the word “create” refers to the creation of an essence. This opinion of ours finds considerable support in the words of the accuser himself, in which, greatly sharpening the language against us, he exposes the fact that “Basily also presents the same contradiction to himself and clearly shows that he did not delve into the thought of the Apostle and did not maintain consistency in his own words, on the basis of which he must either, having realized their inconsistency, admit that the Word who was in the beginning and was God became the Lord, or apply the contradiction to contradictions." And we say the same thing that Eunomius says, that He became Lord, who was in the beginning the Word and God. For being what he was: God, and the Word, and Life, and Light, and Grace, and Truth, and Lord, and Christ, and every high and Divine name, he became in the assumed man, who was nothing of the sort, all that the Word was, and with it Christ and the Lord, according to the teaching of Peter and the confession of Eunomius, not because the Divinity acquired anything in addition to itself, but because that in the Divine nature every high dignity is seen. In this way he is made Lord and Christ, not by ascending to the Divine to increase grace (for the nature of the Divinity is recognized as not lacking in any perfection), but by introducing the human into the communion of the Divinity, which is signified by the name Christ and Lord. 3. But that’s enough about this. About the same thing that Eunomius said to slander our teaching, that (with us) Christ was exhausted into Himself, enough has already been said in previous studies, from which it turned out that he applies his own blasphemy to our dogma. For it is not the one who recognizes the transition from like to like who confesses that the unchangeable Nature has clothed himself with the created and corruptible, but the one who does not allow any transition from the greatness of nature to humiliation. For if, according to them, He was created, and man was also created, then nothing miraculous remains in the teaching; and there is nothing marvelous when they say that the creation was made by itself. But we, taught by the prophecy: “the betrayal of the right hand of the Most High” (Ps. 76:11) (we call the right hand of the Father the power of God, who created everything, which is the Lord, not as a part dependent on the whole, but as a force, although existing from Him, but in its own Hypostasis contemplated in itself), we say that not a right hand has changed in relation to the nature of Him Whom it right hand, no change can be attributed to it other than what was according to the dispensation of the flesh; for in truth He was the “right hand” of God revealed in the flesh, seen by the discerning and through the flesh itself. Since He did the works of the Father, He is, and of course, the right hand of God, and since He was clothed with the covering of flesh, in appearance He is and of course different from what He was contemplated by nature. Therefore, he says to Philip, who paid attention only to one thing that has changed: look through the changed to the unchangeable, and if you see it, you will see the Father Himself, Whom you seek to see. For “he who has seen Me” (Jn. 14 9) - not the one who appears in a changed form, but truly Me who exists in the Father - will see Himself in Whom I am, since the same image of the Divinity is seen in both. So, when we believe that the incorruptible, and impassive, and uncreated nature began to exist in a creature subject to suffering, and in this we understand change, then how do we accuse us, as if we say that He was exhausted into Himself - those who present their thoughts as our dogmas? For communication between created things and created things is not “betrayal of the right hand.” To call the Hand of the uncreated nature created is characteristic of Eunomius alone and those who think like him, because whoever has a gaze directed towards the truth, the same way he sees the Most High, the same will be seen by the Hand of the Most High: the uncreated - uncreated, the good - good, the eternal - eternal, since the property of eternity does not suffer at all from the fact that it remains born in the Father. So the accuser, directing his censures against us, did not realize that they belong to those for whom suffering serves as a stumbling block and who therefore allow the otherness of essences, believing that the Father, due to the superiority of nature, is inaccessible to suffering, and the Son, due to lack and changeability, condescended to participate in suffering. To what has been said, I would like to add that there is no passion in the true sense that does not lead to sin, and no one would call a necessary consequence of nature a passion in the proper sense, meaning a complex nature that follows the path of some order and consistency. For the mutual combination of dissimilar elements in the structure of our body is some kind of coordinated addition of many dissimilar things. And when, at the appropriate time, the agreement connecting the united elements is destroyed, then again the complex is resolved into those parts from which it was composed. All this is more an action of nature, and not passion, because only understood in contrast to dispassion as a virtue, we usually call passion, which, as we believe, even in communion with our nature, the one who gives us salvation remained uninvolved, “tempted in every way in the likeness of sin” (Heb. 4:15). So, in the proper sense of passion, which is a disease of the will, he did not partake, for “sin,” says Scripture, “thou shalt not commit, lest flattery be found in His mouth” (1 Pet. 2:22, Isa. 53:9). As for the properties of our nature, which, according to some custom and incorrect usage of words, are usually called by the same name “passions”, we confess that the Lord participated in them, namely: birth, and nutrition, and growth, sleep and fatigue, and everything that the soul naturally feels during bodily suffering, the desire for what is necessary, which, coming from the body, arouses the need in the soul, and feelings of sorrow, and the fear of death, and other similar things, except that which results in sin. As we understand His all-pervading power in heaven, and in the air, and on earth, and in the sea, and in everything that is under heaven and under the earth, we believe that He is everywhere and in everything, but we do not call Him any of the things in which He is (for it was not the sky who measured it to the “span” containing the universe (Isa. 40:12), not the earth - “contain the circle of the earth” (Isa. 40, 22), and again not water - the one who embraces the watery nature), so we do not call the one who went through the so-called passions of the flesh passionate, but we say that as the Author of existence and embracing the universe, and with the ineffable power of his greatness, governing everything movable and preserving everything motionless in a firm position, He was born among us to heal the disease of sin, adapting the effect of healing according to the passion, thus introducing healing, which I found appropriate for the sore part of the creature. He deigned to heal passion in the same way as the healed person - with touch. But because He heals illness, one should not think that He Himself became passionate because of this, for they usually don’t say this about people either. About someone who touches a sick person for the purpose of healing, we do not say that he himself is involved in the disease, but we say that he also grants restoration of health to the sick person and is not himself involved in the disease, for the suffering does not concern him, but, on the contrary, he concerns the disease. So, if he who does something good for bodies through art is called not weak and sick, but loving of mankind, and benefactor, and similar names, then why, slandering the economy of us as something low and inglorious, do they immediately assume from here that the essence of the Son is different, since the nature of the Father was above suffering, and the nature of the Son is not free from passion? For, if the goal of the economy of the incarnation is not that the Lord should become a partaker of the passions, but that he might appear to love mankind (and there is no doubt that the Father also loves mankind), then the Father and the Son have the same existence, if we look at the goal. If it was not the Father who accomplished the destruction of death, do not be at all surprised at this, for “the Father judges no one, but he gives all judgment to the Sons” (John 5:22) not because, doing this through the Son, He Himself cannot save the lost or judge the sinner, but in order to do this through His Power, by which He does all things, and the Power of the Father is the Son. So, those saved through the Son were saved by the power of the Father, those judged by Him are condemned by the righteousness of God, for Christ is the truth of God, revealed “by the gospel” (Rom. 1:17, 1:16), as the Apostle says. And whether you look at the whole world or at parts of the world that make up the whole, all these are the essence of the Father’s works as works accomplished by His Power; and thus Scripture rightly says in both cases that the Father creates everything, and that without the Son nothing that exists came into being (John 1:3), because the action of power has to do with whose power it is. So, since the Son is the power of the Father, then all the works of the Son are the works of the Father. And about the fact that not through the weakness of nature, but through the power of will, he begins to construct the economy of suffering, one can imagine countless sayings from the Gospel, which I will keep silent about due to the obviousness of this, so that, by dwelling on what everyone knows, I would not make the word very lengthy. So, if what is done is evil, then not only the Father, but also the Son must be recognized as alien to evil; and if the salvation of the lost is good, and what is accomplished is not a passion, but a work of love for mankind, then why do you deprive the Father of gratitude for our salvation, who freed people from death by His Power, which is Christ? 4. But let us return again to the perky writer and again pay attention to his tense oratory against us. He accuses us that, by not calling the nature of the Son created, we contradict the word of Peter: “God created the Lord and His Christ, this Jesus, whom you will crucify” (Acts 2:36), being much annoyed with us for this, he reviles us and invents arguments with which he thinks to refute our word. So, let's see the strength of his conclusions: “Oh, you most foolish of all,” he says, “who, having the form of a slave, again take on the form of a slave?” We will answer him: no one with intelligence will say this, except those who have completely alienated the Christian hope. And such are you, accusing us of foolishness because we do not recognize the Creator as created. For if the Holy Spirit does not lie, speaking through the Prophet: “Everything is Your work” (Ps. 119:91), and all creation is of service, and, in your opinion, the Son is also created, then, undoubtedly, He is a slave along with everyone, drawn by communion in creation and into the communion of slavery. And to the slave, without a doubt, you must give the image of a slave, for those who recognize Him as a slave by nature should not be ashamed of the outward appearance of slavery. So, who, O most witty rhetorician, transfers the Son from the image of a slave to another image of a slave? Is it the one who, testifying to His uncreatedness, at the same time shows that He is not a slave, or rather you, who directly shout that the Son is the servant of the Father even before the form of a servant, and was in subjection to Him? I don’t need other judges; I’ll let you conduct the trial yourself. I think that no one would be so shameless in the face of the truth that he would shamelessly contradict what is obvious to everyone. For it is clear to everyone that what has been said is that a slave by nature bears the stamp of slavish properties, because creation is a property of slavery; So, whoever says that He, being a slave, took on our image, obviously transfers the Only Begotten from slavery to slavery. But Eunomius a little later objects to what was said. I will now omit what is said in the middle, since this has been sufficiently explored in the previous one; slandering us as people who speak impudently and think absurdly, calling us very pitiful, adds the following: “if blessed Peter talks not about the Word that was in the beginning and was God, but about the visible and exhausted itself, as Basil says; visible man exhausted himself into the image of a slave, and he who exhausted himself into the image of a slave exhausted himself in the human birth. Despite this, we will briefly offer a denunciation of what he said - not to refute such unreasonable speculation, which subverts itself for those who have ears, but so that it does not seem that we, under the pretext of contempt for the emptiness of the word, are omitting what was proposed without research. So let's look at his speech. What does the Apostle say? Let it be known, he says, that “God created the Lord and His Christ” (Acts 2:36). Then, as if answering someone’s question: who was given such mercy? - as if pointing with a finger to the subject, saying: “this Jesus, whom you will crucify.” What does Vasily say about this? That this indicative phrase (“this Jesus”) makes it clear that the one who was crucified by the listeners themselves was made by Christ and the Lord. For he says: “You crucified”, and, probably, those who demanded Him to die were listeners of the word, because not much time passed from the cross to the preaching of Peter. What does Eunomius say against this? “If blessed Peter talks not about the Word that was in the beginning and was God, but about the visible and exhausted itself, as Basil says; visible man exhausted himself into the form of a slave.”... Stop, who is it that says that visible man again exhausted himself into the form of a slave, or who claims that before the appearance in the flesh, suffering took place on the cross? The cross is not before the body, and the body is not before the image of the slave. But God appears in the flesh, and the flesh that has manifested God in itself, after the great mystery of death has been fulfilled through it, is transformed through dissolution into the highest and Divine, becoming Christ and Lord, being transformed and changed into what He who appeared in this flesh was. But it is as if we, on the contrary, said what this opponent of the truth forces us to say, namely, that the one who appeared on the cross exhausted himself in the birth of another person; he literally composed the following false reasoning: “if a visible man,” he says, “wasted himself into the form of a slave, and he who exhausted himself into the form of a slave exhausted himself in the birth of man, then the visible man exhausted himself in the birth of man.” Oh, how he remembers the intended intention! How the word leads to its goal! Basil says that the Apostle said that Christ was created after the visible man. And this skillful and cunning perverter of words says: if Peter did not say about the essence of things in the beginning that it was created, then visible man exhausted himself into the image of a slave, and he who exhausted himself into the image of a slave exhausted himself in the human birth. We are amazed by this invincible wisdom, Eunomius! What we have learned strongly refutes the idea that the Apostle’s word does not mean “he was crucified through weakness” (2 Cor. 13:4)! If we believed that this was so, then again the visible man would be born different, draining himself into another human existence. Won't you stop making jokes about sacred things? Don’t you blush, destroying the awe of the Divine mysteries with such ridiculous sophisms? Will you not turn, if not before then at least now, to the knowledge that the Only Begotten God, “who is” in the bosom of the “Father,” being the Word, and the King, and the Lord, and everything that is high in name and concept, has no need to become anything good, being Himself the fullness of all good things? And what, changing into what, will He become what he was not before? Therefore, just as the “ignorant” of sin becomes sin in order to destroy the sin of the world, so, conversely, the flesh that has received the Lord becomes Lord and Christ, being transformed through dissolution into what it was not by nature. From this we learn that God would not have appeared in the flesh if the Word had not become flesh, and the human flesh that clothed him would not have been transformed into the Divine, if what was visible had not become Christ and the Lord. But those who boldly attack the essence of God with their speculations contemptuously reject the peculiarity of our preaching and want to present the One who brought all things into being as part of creation; and to help their own efforts, to reinforce the blasphemy, drawing on the saying of Peter, who said to the Jews: “Let all the house of Israel understand that God created both the Lord and His Christ, this Jesus, whom you crucified” (Acts 2:36), they cite this as proof that the essence of the Only Begotten God was created. Well, tell me, were there really Jews to whom this word is addressed before centuries? Is the cross older than the world? Was Pilate really before every creature? Is it really Jesus first and then the Word? Is the flesh older than the Divine? Does Gabriel preach the gospel to Mary before the world was? Is it really not the man Christ under Caesar Augustus who receives the beginning through birth, but God the Word who is in the beginning, our eternal King, as the Prophet testifies (Mic. 5:2)? Don’t you see what kind of confusion you are introducing with your words, mixing the upper with the lower, according to the proverb? It was the fiftieth day after the suffering when Peter announced this to the Jews, saying: “He who you crucified, God created the Lord and Christ.” From the words: “He who you crucified, this God created Christ and Lord,” it is clear that Peter is not talking about what happened before the age, but about what happened after the Incarnation. Why don’t you see that the whole meaning of the words is directed towards what is being proven, but you make them laugh with childish confusion false reasoning, saying: if we believe that He who appeared was created from God by Christ and the Lord, then it is necessary for the Lord to be again transformed into man and undergo a second birth. Does this give greater strength to your teaching? How does what has been said prove that the essence of the King of creation is created? But I, on the contrary, say that our teaching is justified by the very objections against us; and due to excessive attentiveness, the rhetorician does not notice that, by bringing his speech to the point of absurdity, he is helping his opponents, thereby trying to refute them. For if one must believe that the change of Jesus occurred from the highest to the lowest, and that the Divine and uncreated nature alone exceeds creation, while man is created, then perhaps, having carefully examined his own word, he will turn to the truth, agreeing that in what was created by love for mankind, the uncreated was revealed. And if he thinks to prove that the Lord was created by pointing out that God became partaker of human nature, then he could find much of the same kind and fill his word with similar arguments. For from the fact that the Word was and God was, and after this, as the Prophet says, “he appeared on earth and lived with men” (Bar. 3:38), the proof will follow that he is one of the creatures. And if this is far from his goal, then something like this is completely inconsistent with it, for according to the thought it is still to say: the Word, which was in the beginning, after this appeared to people, or: “in the form of God” (Phil. 2:6.) he put on the form of a servant. If one of these (sayings) cannot be used to prove a blasphemous opinion, then it is necessary to say the same about the rest. But he graciously advises us to leave behind the error and points out the truth that he himself invented: He who was in the beginning, he says, by the Word and by God, this one was created, according to the teaching of the Apostle Peter. But if he interpreted dreams to us and proclaimed the art of unraveling them, then perhaps there was no danger in allowing him to present the fortune-telling of the imagination as he pleased. But since he says that he is explaining the Divine word, it is no longer safe for us to allow him to arbitrarily interpret the sayings of Scripture. What does Scripture say? “For God created both the Lord and Christ, this Jesus, whom you crucified.” Since here everything refers to one thing - the word (this), indicating the name of man (Jesus), the accusation of those who committed murder, suffering on the cross - then, of necessity, this place should be understood about what is visible (in the flesh). And Eunomius says that Peter, in saying this, with the word “created” pointed to the pre-eternal essence. But it is not dangerous for nannies or grandmothers to be allowed to joke with children and pass off their dreams as reality, and when the divinely inspired word is presented to us for interpretation, then let the great Apostle forbid allowing the old woman’s idle talk. For, hearing about the cross, I mean the cross and, finding a human name, I see the nature signified by the name. Therefore, having been taught by Peter, I have no doubt to say that He who was before our eyes was made Lord and Christ; especially when the saints agree with each other, both in everything else and in this respect. For just as Peter says that he who was crucified was made Lord, so Paul says (Phil. 2:8-9) that He was exalted after suffering and resurrection; therefore he is not exalted as God (for what is higher than the Divine height, of which it could be said that God was exalted to this?). But, he says, the lowliness of human nature is exalted, indicating, as I think, with these words the assimilation of the perceived person to the height of the Divine nature and union with it. So, we believe that this is exactly what the great Peter means when he says that Jesus was made Lord on the cross, that is, (according to human nature) through unity in everything with the Divinity, he became that which is the Divinity. But even if someone agrees with him in the interpretation of the Divine saying, then even then his word will not serve in favor of heresy. Let Peter speak of the One who was in the beginning, that “He created His Lord and Christ, this Jesus, whom you crucified.” We find that even from this the blasphemous opinion does not receive any force against the truth. “His Lord,” he says, “and God created Christ”; Which of the above should include “created”! To which of the words in this saying do we refer this expression? For there are three subjects: “this Lord” and “Christ” - with which of them do we connect the word “created”? No one will be so insolent against the truth as to say that the word “created” does not refer to Christ and the Lord, for the Father made Him, being what He already was, Lord and Christ, says Peter. This is not my word, but the word of the one who fights against us. For in the very thing that lies before our study, he speaks in the following words: “Blessed Peter discusses Him who was in the beginning and was God, and teaches that this one was made Lord and Christ.” So, Eunomius says that He who remained what he once was was made Christ and Lord; A similar story is told about David: that, being the son of Jesse and steward of the flocks, he was anointed king. It was not the anointing that made him a man then, but he who remained by nature what he was, changed him from a commoner into a king. So, is it strongly proven that the essence of the Son is created, if, as Eunomius says, He who was in the beginning and was God, God made Lord and Christ? Dominion is not the name of essence, but of power, and the name of Christ means kingdom; but another is the kingdom, another is nature. But Scripture says about the Son of God that He is made Lord and Christ. So, let's see how to understand this more piously and consistently. Of whom is it more proper to say—of God or of man—that he acquires something higher through an increase in perfection? Who is so foolish as to think that the Divine strives for perfection through the addition of something? There is nothing indecent to assume this about human nature, when the Gospel word clearly testifies to the growth of the Lord in humanity; “Jesus,” it says, “exceeded in wisdom and stature and grace” (Luke 2:52). So, what is more appropriate to conclude from the words of the Apostle - either that God, who existed in the beginning, was made Lord through success, or that humble human nature, through communication with the Divine, ascends to a higher dignity? For the Prophet David, as if on behalf of the Lord, says: “I am appointed king by Him” (Ps. 2:6), almost saying the same thing as what was done by Christ. And also, as if on behalf of the Father, he speaks to the Son: “rule in the midst of your enemies” (Ps. 109:2), saying the same thing with Peter: be Lord of your enemies. Therefore, just as elevation to a kingdom does not mean the creation of an essence, but an elevation in dignity, and he who commands dominion does not command that which was not, but gives authority to those who already exist; so blessed Peter, saying that he was made by Christ, that is, the King of all, added “this” to separate the concept of essence and what is seen with it; being that which is, He is "made" by that which is spoken of. If it could be said about a nature that surpasses everything, that it became something through an increase in dignity, as for example, from a commoner - a king, from a low - high, from a slave - Lord, then, perhaps, it would be decent to attribute the words of Peter to the Divine essence of the Only Begotten. But since we believe that the Divine, as it ever was, always remains the same - higher than any increase, inaccessible to decrease, then it is absolutely necessary to relate the words (of Scripture) to humanity. For what God the Word was in the beginning, so now he is and remains forever King, always Lord, always Most High and God, not having become anything of this through perfection, but being all that can be counted by the power of nature. But whoever has risen from man through perception to the Divinity, in the proper sense and rightly it is said that He is made Christ and Lord, because God made him from a slave Lord, from a subordinate - a King, from a subject - Christ, exalted the humble and having the name of man, “he was given a name that is more important than any name” (Phil. 2:9). And thus, an indescribable mixture and connection took place, connecting human smallness with Divine greatness. Therefore, great and divine names are rightly applied to humanity and, conversely, the Divinity is called by human names. For He has a name “more than any name” and in the human name Jesus accepts worship from every creature, for it is said: “In the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, And every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil. 2:10-11). But enough about that. You might be interested in: