Книга седьмая

1. Since Eunomius says that the word “Lord” expresses the essence of the Only Begotten, and not the dignity, and at the same time refers to the testimony of the Apostle, who in the Epistle to the Corinthians says: “The Lord is the Spirit” (2 Cor. 3:17), then it is timely not to leave this error of his uncorrected. He asserts that the word "Lord" signifies essence, and in proof of this opinion he cites spoken words. Let's see if the above opinion has anything in common (with the words of the Apostle). The Apostle says: “The Lord is the Spirit,” and he, explaining the Scripture according to his own arbitrariness, calls dominion the essence and thinks to prove this from what has been said. But if Paul had said: the Lord is the essence, then we would agree with what was asserted. But when the inspired word says that the Lord is spirit, and Eunomius says that dominion is essence, then I do not know what could give force to his opinion; perhaps he will say that the word “spirit” is posited in Scripture instead of the word “essence”. So, let us examine whether the Apostle anywhere indicated the essence by using the word “spirit”. He says: “The Spirit itself obeys our Spirit” (Rom. 8:16), and: “Who knows from man even in man, even the spirit of man living in him” (1 Cor. 2:11), and: “For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Cor. 3:6), and: “If you put to death the deeds of the flesh by the Spirit, you will live” ( Rom. 8:13), and: “If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk” (Gal. 5:25). And who can count the sayings of the Apostle about the spirit, in which we nowhere find that this word denotes the essence? For when he says that “the Spirit itself obeys our spirit,” he does not point to anything other than the Holy Spirit implanted in the mind of the faithful, because in many of his sayings he calls the mind itself spirit, by which those who receive the communion of the Spirit receive the dignity of sonhood. Likewise, in the words: no one “knows what is in man, but rather the spirit that lives in him” - if the word “man” is spoken of essence, and the word “spirit” as well, then from what has been said it follows that in man there are two essences. And when the Apostle says that “writing kills, but the spirit gives life,” I don’t know how he contrasts the essence of “writing”; and again, how does Eunomius think that Paul, when he says that the spirit should kill the deeds of the flesh, refers to the essence of what is signified by the word “spirit”? And the expressions “live in the spirit”, “walk in the Spirit” would be completely meaningless if what is meant by the word “spirit” were attributed to essence, because what else, if not essence, are all of us who are in life involved in life? The Apostle would offer us advice to live by essence, as if saying: participate in life through yourself, and not through others. So, if such a true meaning cannot be found anywhere, then how, again imitating the interpreters of dreams, does he command to take spirit for essence in order to syllogistically prove that the word “Lord” refers to essence? Because if spirit is essence, and the Lord is spirit, then, of course, it turns out that the Lord is essence. Oh, how irresistible is the power of proof! How to expose and destroy this invincible decisiveness of arguments? What does the word "Lord" say about the essence, how does it prove it? Because the Apostle says: “The Lord is the Spirit.” How does this relate to essence? But the art of constructing proofs commands us to use the word “spirit” instead of essence. Such are the feats of Aristotelian art! Therefore, as you say, we are pitiful, uninitiated in such wisdom (but not entirely blessed is the one who investigates the truth in this way) to understand the Apostle as if he put the word “spirit” instead of the words “essence of the Only Begotten.” But how can you then reconcile (the above words of the Apostle) with those that follow? The thought is not limited to them, because Paul, having said: “But the Lord is the Spirit,” added: “And where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (2 Cor. 3:17). So, if the Lord is essence, and essence is spirit, then what other essence is essence? According to you, there is one essence - spirit, which is the Lord. And the Apostle also speaks of another spirit of the Lord, Who is spirit, that is, of another essence, according to your interpretation. So, in your opinion, the Apostle means nothing other than the essence of essence when he writes separately about the Lord spirit and the Spirit of the Lord. But let Eunomius understand what is written as he pleases, and what we understand about this is as follows. Inspired Scripture, as the divine Apostle calls it (2 Tim. 3:16), is the Scripture of the Holy Spirit. His goal is the benefit of “men,” for he says: “All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable”; this benefit is manifold and manifold, as the Apostle says, “for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for punishment, in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16). But this benefit cannot be obtained by those who read it the first time; The Divine, as if by some kind of veil, is hidden by the body of Scripture, since legislation and history seem to cover what is contemplated by the mind. That is why the Apostle says about those who look only at the body of Scripture that they have a “veil over their hearts” (2 Cor. 3:15) and cannot foresee the glory of the spiritual law, since they are hindered by the veil placed on the face of the Lawgiver. Therefore, he says: “writing kills, but the spirit gives life,” showing that the interpretation of what is written at first glance, if not understood in its proper sense, often produces the opposite of the life manifested by the spirit. Thus, the spirit of Scripture posits as a law for all people the perfection of virtue in dispassion, and the “letter” of history in other places contains an exposition of some things that do not agree with this, and apparently, as it were, favors natural passions, so that whoever listens to the Scripture according to his closest understanding will make for himself the letter the teaching of death. Therefore, about those whose attention is paid only to the body of the Scriptures, he says that a veil is placed over their spiritual feelings (2 Cor. 3:14); and about those whose gaze is turned to what is contemplated, what is like a face to them, the glory contained in Scripture is revealed naked. He calls what is acquired by higher understanding the Lord, Who is the Spirit; “whenever they turn to the Lord, a veil is taken away,” he says. The Lord is the Spirit” (2 Cor 3:16-17). The Apostle says this, contrasting the slavery of the letter with the dominion of the spirit, because just as he contrasts the life-giving to the murderer, so he contrasts the Lord to slavery; and so that we do not suffer any confusion of concepts regarding the Holy Spirit, learning to connect the thought of the Only Begotten with the word “Lord,” he more firmly defines the meaning of his words through repetition, calling the Spirit Lord and the Lord Spirit, so that by the honor of dominion he shows the superiority of nature and does not merge with his words the features of the Hypostasis. Because, having called Him both Lord and the Spirit of the Lord, he teaches us to understand something special from the Only Begotten, as in another place he calls Him “the Spirit of Christ” (Rom. 8:9), beautifully and mysteriously setting out in his writing this pious teaching in accordance with the Gospel tradition. Thus, we, the most pitiful of all, secretly guided by the Apostle, pass from the killing letter to the life-giving spirit, taught by those initiated in paradise into the ineffable (2 Cor. 12:4), that everything that the divine Scripture says are the verbs of the Holy Spirit. Thus, having said to the Roman Jews: “The Holy Spirit speaks well,” he cites the words of Isaiah (Acts 28:25–27), and in the Epistle to the Hebrews, introducing the Spirit, saying: “In the same way as the Holy Spirit speaks,” he at length cites the words of the psalm spoken on behalf of God (Heb. 3:7–11). Likewise, we were taught by the Lord Himself (Matthew 22:43) that David, not being in himself, that is, speaking not by human nature, proclaimed heavenly mysteries; for how could anyone, being a man, know the heavenly conversation between the Father and the Son? But being in the Spirit, he said that “the Lord has spoken” what he has spoken; “If David” by the Spirit, says Scripture, “calls him Lord, as he has a Son” (Matthew 22:44-45)? So, God-bearing saints are inspired by the power of the Spirit, and all Scripture is called inspired by God because it is the teaching of Divine inspiration. If you remove the bodily veil of the word, then what remains is the Lord, life and spirit, according to the teaching of the great Paul and according to the Gospel word. Because Paul said that he who turns from the letter to the Spirit no longer accepts killing slavery, but the Lord, Who is the life-giving spirit, and the lofty Gospel says: “the verbs that I spoke to you are spirit and life” (John 6:63), as if stripped of the bodily covering. To understand the spirit as the essence of the Only Begotten is characteristic, we say, of dream interpreters, but in the form of excess we will use their evidence and arm the truth with the arrows of opponents, because it is permissible for the Israelites to take booty from the Egyptian and make his wealth our adornment. If the essence of the Son is called spirit, and God is also called spirit (because the Gospel says so, and the essence of the Father is without a doubt called spirit), if further, in their opinion, what is called differently has a different nature, then, of course, it follows that what is called the same does not differ in nature from one another. So, since, according to them, the essence of the Son and the Father is called spirit, this clearly proves that there is no difference in essence; because a little later Eunomius says that “when the essences are different, then the names denoting the essence are also necessarily different; and if something is called the same, then, of course, it will be the same and denoted by the same name.” Thus, from everywhere “catch the wise in their deceit” (Job 5:13; 1 Cor. 3:19), the long labors of this writer and the countless amounts of sweat shed during labor led to the establishment of our teaching. For if God is called spirit in the Gospel (John 4:24), and Eunomius tries to prove that spirit is the essence of the Only Begotten, then, since there is no difference between the names, then what is signified by the names, without a doubt, will not differ from one another in nature. 2. But it seems to me that it is better to leave without examination that weak and fearless struggle with shadows, which he wrote further in condemnation of the words of the mentor, because his very word, which by itself cries out about its weakness, serves as a sufficient exposure of the emptiness of what was said. Getting involved in a fight with such opponents is the same as attacking the dead. Because Eunomius, having expounded with great self-confidence some saying of his mentor, slandered it and cursed it, and promised to show that it is worthless, acts in the same way as young children, whose imperfection and immaturity of meaning and lack of exercise of the sensory organs do not allow an accurate understanding of phenomena. Therefore, they often, thinking that the stars they see are close above their heads, out of childish foolishness, throw some kind of clods at them; then, when the lump falls, they show off to their peers with applause and laughter, as if what they threw had flown to the stars. Such is Eunomius, who shot a child’s arrow into the truth; He, having previously expounded, like some stars, these shining words of the mentor, threw from the earth, from the trampled and reptiled mind, earthly and unstable words, which, having risen as much as they can fly without falling, then by themselves are thrown back by their own weight. The words of the great Basil are literally as follows: “but which sane person would agree to this proposition: the names of which things are different, those whose essences must necessarily be different? The names of Peter and Paul and people in general are different, but the essence of all is the same. In very many ways we are the same as each other, but we differ from one another only in those properties that are seen in each individual; why names serve to designate not essences but special properties that characterize each one. So, having heard the name Peter, we do not understand by this name the essence of Peter (I call the immaterial subject here the essence), but only imprint on ourselves the concept of the special properties seen in him.” This is what the great one says, and how much art Eunomius used in the fight against what was said and how much time he wasted uselessly can be learned from his work itself, because I have no desire to insert into my works the disgusting chatter of this rhetorician and, among my words, to expose his ignorance and senselessness to shame. He expresses some kind of praise for explanatory words that define the subject, and with his usual way of expression, he folds and glues together the rags of words that were rejected and in the squares. And again the unfortunate Isocrates gnaws at the words and plucks out the phrases to compose the proposed speech; In some places, the Jew Philo suffers from the same deficiency, making words for himself from his own labors. But even so, this patterned and multi-colored fabric of words did not succeed, but all the dexterity of attack and defense in the field of concepts and all the artificial construction blurred by itself. Something similar usually happens with bubbles, when drops falling from above on some body of water produce foamy bulges, which, as soon as they are formed, immediately fall off, leaving no trace of their existence on the water; Such are the bubbles of this writer’s thoughts, which immediately disappear without any touch. Because just as some foamy mass, carried away by the current, collides with something solid and disintegrates, so in his word, after these insoluble constructions and a dreamy philosophy, according to which he argued that with the difference in names we must understand together the difference in essence, accidentally rushing, unforeseenly reaching the truth, this unstable and bubble-like composition of lies crumbled into nothing. He speaks in the following words: “who is so stupid and far from human understanding that, when discussing people, he would call one a man and the other a horse, comparing their names?” I would say to him: it’s good that you call stupid the one who errs in this way regarding words, and to defend the truth I will use your testimony. For if it is a sign of extreme stupidity to call one a horse and the other a man, when both of them are actually people, then it is, of course, equal nonsense to call one created and the other uncreated, believing that the Father is God and the Son is God, because as in the above example humanity, so here the Divinity does not allow the name to be perverted into a name of another kind. For what is dumb in relation to man is also a creature in relation to the Divine, and the latter equally cannot be understood as identical with the One who created it. And just as it is impossible to apply the same definition to a rational being and a quadruped, because each of them naturally differs from the other in its own peculiarity, so you cannot explain the created and uncreated essence in the same words, since what is said about one essence is not in the other. Because just as in a horse there is no rationality, and in a man there is no single-hoofedness, so in the creature there is no Divinity, and in the Divinity there is no creation; but if God, then he is certainly uncreated, and if created, then he is not God—unless someone, by some usage and custom, transfers one name of God to the creature, just as riders give human names to some horses. But neither a horse is a man, even if it is called by a human name, nor a creature is God, even if some have adopted the name of the Divine for it, giving it an empty sound of two syllables (Θεος). So, since the teaching of heresy accidentally coincided with the truth, then let him advise himself to remain with the words proper to the objects and not even figuratively attach his words to them, but in fact consider stupid and crazy the one who names the object not as it is, but instead of a person says a horse, instead of the sky - the sea, instead of God - a creature. And let no one think that it is unreasonable to set creation in opposition to God, but look at the prophets and apostles. The prophet speaks on behalf of the Father: My hand has done all these things (Isa. 48:13), mysteriously calling the hand the power of the Only Begotten, and the Apostle says that all is from the Father and all through the Son (Col. 1:16). The Prophetic Spirit, as it were, converges with the apostolic teaching, which also came from the Spirit, because there the Prophet, having said that everything is the work of the hand of Him who is over everything, distinguishes the nature of what happened from the Creator, and He who created everything with His own hand is God, Who is above everything; He has a hand and makes everything with it, and the Apostle here again makes the same division of things, attaching everything to the creative Vine, but not putting the creative principle among everything, so that by this he clearly teaches to distinguish between the created nature and the uncreated, and shows that the other is by its nature creating, and the other is what has happened. So, since everything is from God, and the Son is God, then the creation is well contrasted with the Divinity, and since the nature of the Only Begotten is something different in comparison with the nature of all things (which those who fight against the truth do not contradict), it is absolutely necessary that the Son should be equally opposed to the creation, unless the words of the saints are false, testifying that everything came into being through Him. So, since the Only Begotten is declared in the divine Scriptures to be God, let Eunomius think about his own words and recognize all the stupidity of the one who assigns divinity to both the created and the uncreated in the likeness of the one who divides man into horse and man, because he, not much after the idle talk that is in between, says that the natural relation of names to things is immutable,” he himself agrees with this that the true affinity of names with the object is constant. So, if the name of Divinity is naturally assigned to the Only Begotten God, and Eunomius, even if he wanted to fight with us, will, of course, agree that Scripture does not lie and that the Only Begotten is given a name of Divinity that does not conflict with His nature, then let him be convinced from his own words that if the natural relationship of names to things is immutable, and the Lord is called God, then one cannot allow in thought any difference in the concept of Divinity in relation to the Son and in relation to the Father, since the name of the Divine is common to both; and not only this name, but a large list of names by which the Son is indifferently called together with the Father: Good, Incorruptible, Righteous, Judge, Long-suffering, Merciful, Eternal, Endless - all names in general that signify the greatness of nature and power, without any decrease in the height of the concept in any of the names when they are applied to the Son. But, like a short-sighted person, passing by so many Divine names, he looks at only the names “begotten” and “unborn,” trusting to a thin and weak rope the dogma, overwhelmed and carried by the winds of error. He says that “no one who cares about the truth calls anything that is begotten unbegotten, nor God, who is above all, Son or begotten.” To denounce this there is no need for our words, because he no longer hides the cunning, as is his custom, with some kind of veil, but makes an equally absurd transformation of concepts, saying that neither of the things that are born is called unborn, nor is God, who is above everything, the Son or the begotten, thus not devoting anything special to the only begotten Divinity of the Son in comparison with other begotten beings, he makes everything equally different in dignity from God happened, without excluding the Son from everything. By means of such an absurd transformation of concepts, he clearly removes the Son from the Divine nature, saying that neither anything born is called unborn, nor God is called Son or begotten, with this opposition clearly covering up a terrible blasphemy, because, having distinguished the begotten from the unborn, he in conclusion through the transformation says not only that the Son or the begotten cannot be called unborn, but cannot be called God, showing Having said that, what is begotten is not God, and that the Only Begotten God, by His very begottenness, is as far removed from being God as the unborn is from being or being called begotten. It is not out of ignorance of the correct sequence that he makes a discordant and incongruous transformation of the provisions, but maliciously acting with the word of piety, he contrasts the begotten with the Divinity, drawing from what has been said the conclusion that the begotten is not God. For the correct sequence of thought would be to, having said that nothing born is unborn, to conclude from this that if something by nature is ungenerated, then it cannot be born. Such a conclusion has truth in itself, and is far from blasphemy. And he, having first assumed that nothing born is unborn, and, concluding from this that God is not born, clearly removes the Only Begotten God from being God, asserting on the basis of His birth that He is not God. So, do we need other further evidence to expose this extraordinary blasphemy? And doesn’t this alone serve as a sufficient monument of shame to this opponent of Christ, who asserts as stated above that God the Word, who existed in the beginning, is not God? What is the need to still fight with this kind of people? We do not care about those who are busy with idols and sacrificial blood, not because we sympathize with the death of those obsessed with idols, but because their illness exceeds the means of our healing. Therefore, just as idolatry is exposed by the act itself, and the evil, which is fearlessly dared, makes preliminary denunciations on the part of the accusers unnecessary, so here, I think, the defender of piety should remain silent before one who openly cries out about his wickedness, so in relation to those possessed by cancer, the treatment remains invalid, because the disease overpowers the art. 3. However, since he promises to add something stronger after what has been said, so that it does not seem that, fearing strong objections, we refuse to refute, together with what has been said, we will examine this too. “It is necessary,” he says, “to leave everything and move on to a stronger word. I can also say that, even if the names he cited to prove his opinion were proven, nevertheless our teaching will turn out to be true. If the difference in names meaning properties shows the differences between objects, then it must be assumed that the difference in names meaning essences also indicates the difference in essences. And everyone will find that this is true of everything - essences, actions, colors, shapes and other qualities; so we mean fire and water - different essences - by different names, as well as air and earth, cold and warm, white and black, triangular and round. And what can we say about intelligent entities, counting which the Apostle indicated the difference between entities by the difference in names? Who will not be horrified by this irresistible force of evidence? The word exceeded the promise, the reality is worse than the threat! I’ll move on, he says, to a stronger word. What is this word? The fact that, since the difference in properties is known through names denoting the property, it must be assumed, says that the differences in essences are expressed in the differences in names. What are the names of the entities from which he learned the difference in the nature of the Father and the Son? He talks about fire and water, air and earth, cold and warm, white and black, triangular and round. I won with examples! Overpowered with words! Because I also do not contradict that names that have nothing in common with each other indicate a difference in natures. But there was only one thing that the sharp and penetrating sense did not see: that here both the Father is God and the Son is God, righteous and incorruptible, and that all theological names are equally pronounced about both the Father and the Son, so that if the difference in names means a difference in natures, then the community of names, of course, will indicate the community of essence. And, if we must agree that the essence of God is signified by names, then it would be more fitting to attribute these lofty and God-appropriate words to the nature of God rather than the names “begotten” and “unborn.” Because goodness and incorruptibility, righteousness and wisdom, and all such things, actually belong to nature alone, which surpasses all mind; and “birth” is a name that is equally applied to the least important of the earthly creatures; we call a dog, a frog, and everything that happens through birth born. But the name “unborn” is used not only when talking about something that exists without a cause, but also has the property of meaning the unprecedented. Skindans is also called unborn, and the Minotaur, Scylla, and Chimera are called unborn, not because they exist unborn, but because they did not exist at all. So, if the more divine names are common to the Son with the Father, and those that are of the same name either with the unprecedented or with the base are different, then the strong proof of Eunomius against us itself strengthens the teaching of truth, testifying that (between the Father and the Son) there is no difference in nature, because no difference is seen in the names. If he posits the difference of essence in being born and ungenerated, as in fire and water, and thinks that these names relate to each other in the likeness of what is presented in the examples, as well as fire and water, then here again, and with the help of silence, terrible blasphemy will be clear. Because fire and water have a mutually destructive nature, and each of them, being in the other, is equally destroyed by the one that has an excess of power. So, if he teaches that this is the difference between the nature of the Unbegotten and the Only Begotten, then, of course, he consistently admits that with the difference of essences, this destructive opposition also takes place in them, so that therefore their nature is not in harmony and has no communion, and is destroyed by one another, if one is in the other or with the other. So, how is it that in the Father the Son is not destroyed, and how is it that the Father, being in the Son, exists constantly without being destroyed, if the property of fire in relation to water is preserved in the relation of the Born to the Unborn, as Eunomius says? His word sees nothing in common between earth and air, because the first is hard, dense, stable, tends downward, heavy, and the nature of air is the opposite; similarly, between whiteness and blackness there is a contrast of color; it is also recognized that the round is not the same as the triangular, because with respect to outline, one of them is something that the other is not. As for God the Father and God the Only Begotten Son, I don’t see where he finds the opposition. One goodness, wisdom, righteousness, intelligence, strength, incorruptibility and everything else that has a high value is attributed to both equally and in some way has power one in the other. Because the Father does all things through the Son, and the Only Begotten, being by the power of the Father, does all things in Him. So, what use do fire and water provide in proving the difference in essence between the Son and the Father? And what is this solid and mysterious doctrine that is thus demonstrated? But he calls it impudent because in the names of Peter and Paul we presented the unity of nature and the difference of persons, and says that we dare to do something terrible when we lead the mind to the contemplation of the mental with material examples. Well, corrector of our errors, well you accuse us of insolence for explaining the Divine with material things! What can you, persistent and prudent, say about the elements? That earth is immaterial, that fire is something only comprehended by the mind, that water is incorporeal, that air is beyond sensory perception? Or is your thought so structured towards the goal, do you see so sharply in all directions, conducting a speech that is elusive to your opponents, that you do not see in yourself the errors of which you accuse others? Or should we allow you to prove the difference in essence through matter, but we ourselves do not dare to prove the community of nature through the examples available to us? 4. But, he says, Peter and Paul were so called by people, therefore their names could be changed. And what of the existing things is not named by people? I bring you to witness the truth of my words. Because if you make the change of names a sign that things are named by people, then, of course, you will agree that every name for existing things is given by us, since not the same names of objects are valid for everyone. For just as Paul was formerly Saul and Peter was Simon, so the earth, and the sky, and the air, and the sea and all parts of creation are not called the same by everyone, but differently by the Jews, differently by us and by every people they are called by different names. So, if the proof of Eunomius is valid, who claims that Peter and Paul were renamed because the names were given to them by people, then, of course, our word will also be valid, on the same basis asserting that all things are named by us, because their names change according to the difference of peoples. If this is to say about all things, then, of course, there is no other origin for the words “born” and “unborn,” since they also belong to the number of names. For, taking the concept of any object in the mind as an example of a name, we express what is thought in different words, changing not the object itself, but only the words with which we name it. Because objects remain in themselves as they are by nature; the mind, touching what exists, reveals its concepts in words. And just as Peter’s essence did not change with the change of name, so nothing else that we see changes with the change of name. Therefore, we say that the word “unborn” has been adopted by us to the true Father and the first author of everything, and there will be no harm if we use another equivalent expression to designate the same concept. For instead of saying “unbegotten,” one can call Him the first Vine or the Father of the Only Begotten, or without a cause of being (self-existent) and many other names expressing the same idea. Thus, and with words aimed at accusing us, he confirms our teaching, namely, that we do not know the name that would designate the Divine nature. We know about the existence of this nature, but as for the name that would embrace the ineffable and boundless nature with all its strength, we say that it either does not exist at all, or is completely unknown to us. So, leaving the usual fable, let him show us names that signify essences, and then, on the basis of the difference in names, let him divide objects. But as long as the word of Scripture is true, that Abraham and Moses did not comprehend the knowledge of the name, and that “God is seen nowhere” (John 1:18), and that “Whom no one has seen is from man, he can see below” (1 Tim. 6:16), and that around Him there is an unapproachable light and there is no limit to His greatness, until then we say this and believe this. And a word which, through the meaning of a name, promises to give some concept and explanation of the infinite nature, is not it like one who thinks to embrace the whole sea with his own hand? For what a handful means in relation to the whole sea, the same means the whole power of words in relation to the ineffable and immense Nature. 5. We say this not because we deny that the Father is unbegotten, and so that we do not agree that the Only Begotten God was begotten, (we admit that) both this one was begotten and that one unbegotten. But we do not learn from the meaning of the words “to be born” and “to be unborn” what it is by nature to be confessed to be unborn, and what it is to be born. For having said that this is either born or not born, we express a double thought: with the demonstrative word ("this") we draw attention to the subject object, and with the words "born" or "not born" we show what should be intelligible with this object, so that something else must be thought about what exists, and another about what is intelligible with what exists. So with every name that is used in our speech to signify the Divine nature, for example, righteous, incorruptible, immortal and unborn, and others, the word “is” is certainly implied, even if this saying is not accompanied by the sound of the word. But the mind of the speaker or listener certainly associates these names with the word “is,” so that if this word were not added, the name would refer to nothing. For example (for an example will better explain our words), when David says that God is “a righteous judge, and strong, and long-suffering” (Ps. 7:12), then if each of the names contained here did not imply the word “is”, then the thought would be empty, and the enumeration of names, not attached to any subject, would be untenable. But when with each name the word “is” is implied, then the above names, of course, will have meaning, being conceivable about being. And just as we, having said that God is a judge, with the word “judgment” we mean some kind of action in Him, and with the word “is” we turn our thoughts to the subject itself and thereby clearly learn that we should not regard the concepts of action and being as the same; so in the expressions “born” and “unborn” we separate two concepts in thought: by the word “is” we mean the subject, and by the words “born” and “unborn” we understand what belongs to the subject. Thus, just as we are taught by David that God is a judge or long-suffering, we do not recognize the Divine essence, but something of what is contemplated with it, so here, hearing the words “to be unborn,” we do not learn from this explanation the subject of the subject, but only receive guidance about what should not be thought about the subject; what it is in essence remains unknown. Likewise, the Holy Scriptures, while proclaiming other Divine names about the Existing, present the Existing One Himself unnamed in Moses (Ex. 3:14). So, let him who reveals the nature of the Existing not explain the names that are attached to the Existing, but with his word reveal to us His very nature. For whatever name you express, it will indicate what is with Being, and not what He is; He is good, not born, but with each of these names “is” is implied. About this good Being, the ungenerated Being, if anyone promised to give an idea of ​​how He is, he would be foolish; speaking of what is contemplated in the presence of Existence, he is silent about the very essence, which he promises to explain in words. For to be unborn is one of the properties contemplated in the Being, but another concept is being and another is the way of being, the first even until now is ineffable and not explained by what is said. So, let him first reveal to us the names of the essence and then, under the pretext of (differences in) names, divide the nature (of the Father and the Son). But as long as what he seeks remains inexpressible, it is in vain that he talks about names when there are no names. These are the stronger blows of Eunomius against the truth. Many provisions in this part of his work are silent, because it seems to me that those who have embarked on the path of fighting with the weapon of the word against the enemies of truth are decent to arm themselves only against those false opinions that are at least somewhat supported by probability, and not to defile the word with dead and already stinking opinions. So, I think, anyone with common sense can easily see that his opinion, expressed in this part of his work (which I will gladly pass by as the stench of carrion), that everything that is united by the concept of one essence is certainly equally susceptible to bodily decay - itself dead and meaningless. For who does not know that there is an unlimited number of human souls, and the essence of all of them is one, and that which in them constitutes the basis of being is alien to bodily corruption? So it is clear to children that bodies decay and are destroyed not because they all have the same essence, but because they have received a complex nature. The concept of complexity and the concept of essence are generally different, so to say: corruptible bodies have one essence is in accordance with the truth, but to say the opposite: everything that has one essence is certainly perishable is not in accordance with the truth; How does this turn out to be true for souls whose essence is one, but to which corruption, despite the commonality of essence, is unusual. What is said about souls applies equally to every rational entity seen in creation. For the names of the supermundane powers given by Paul do not mean (as Eunomius thinks) any natures different from one another, but the meanings of the names clearly show not the difference of natures, but express the various features of the actions of the heavenly army. He says: “as thrones, as dominions, as principalities, as powers” ​​(Col. 1:16), but these names are of such a kind that it is immediately clear to everyone that the beings they signify are located in accordance with their actions. For to rule, and to rule, and to dominate, and to be the throne of someone - no one, after thinking, will attribute all this to the difference of essences, when it is clear that each name signifies an action. So, whoever says that the names given by Paul signify the difference of essences, “flatters himself with his mind,” as the Apostle says (Gal. 6:3), “not understanding what they say or affirm about them” (1 Tim. 1:7), since the meaning of the names clearly shows that the Apostle recognizes the differences in mental powers of some ministries, and does not show through the names the features of their essences. You might be interested in: