Книга восьмая

1. These are the strong arguments of Eunomius; I, having shown that the evidence he promised as strong evidence is rotten and untenable, I think to keep silent about the rest, because the refutation of strong evidence also exposes the weakness of others; This also happens in war, that when the strongest part of the army falls, the victors of the strong part no longer pay any attention to the rest. But I will not allow myself to remain silent about the main blasphemy that follows this. For now, according to the order of the words, Eunomius proves that terrible and godless teaching of his, which must be avoided more than any wickedness - that the Only Begotten came into being from the non-existent. And since everyone who is fascinated by this lie, to prove that the Only Begotten, who created all creation from nothing, came from the non-existent, the words are always ready in the language: “if He (always) was, then he was unborn, and if he was born, then he was not”; since further this lie has great support in these words, since the weak-minded are put into difficulty by the superficial probability of these words and are inclined to agree with this blasphemy, then it is necessary not to ignore the root of the sorrow of the teaching, so that, as the Apostle says, “getting cold” does not cause harm (Heb. 12:15). And, firstly, I say, you need to consider his words on their own, without entering into a fight with opponents, then begin to study and expose what is stated. The Holy Scripture reveals one sign of true Divinity - the one that was indicated to Moses by a voice from above when he heard him say: “I am this” (Exodus 3:14). So, we think that, in accordance with the truth, only that one thing should be recognized as Divinity, which is understood as ever-present and in being infinite, and such is everything that is contemplated in Him. Nothing in Him waxes or wanes, so if someone were to say about God that He formerly was, but now is not, or that He now is, but was not before, then we would consider both of what was said equally godless, because both equally distort the concept of eternity, since it is equally limited on one side or the other by non-existence. Whether someone sees non-existence before the Existing One or declares that the Existing One ends in non-being, the ungodly opinion of God will be no less, since whether at the beginning or at the end, non-existence is attributed to God. Therefore, we resolutely consider the proof that the One who truly exists never existed to be a denial and rejection of the true Deity. Because He who revealed Himself to Moses in the light calls Himself “He”, saying. “I am the One” (Ex. 3:14), and Isaiah, being, as it were, the organ of the speaker in him, on behalf of the Being says: “I am the first and I am hereafter” (Is. 44:6), so that these words make it clear that God is eternal in both respects. In the same way, the voice that came to Manoah, through the meaning of the name, shows that the Divinity is immense; when Manoah wanted to know the name in order to glorify the benefactor by name by fulfilling what was promised, He said to him: “Why did you ask this in My name; and that is wonderful” (Judges 13:18); so from here we can learn that there is one name that means the Divine essence, namely the very surprise that inexpressibly arises in the soul at the thought of it. And the great David, speaking about God, also proclaims that while every creature is brought into being by Him, God alone is always unchanging and eternally abiding; he says: “You are the same, and Your years will not fail” (Ps. 101:28). Hearing this and the like from inspired men, should we not allow idolaters to worship one who is not from eternity, but has recently come into being and is alien to the true Divinity? For what now exists, and previously did not exist, is completely new and non-eternal, and Moses calls honoring something new serving the demons, saying: “Having been devoured by the demon, and not by God, by God, they were not known; So, if the veneration of the new is service to demons, since it is alien to the true Divinity, and what now exists, but has not always been, is new and impermanent, then we, who honor the eternally existing, those who in the Existing see with being and non-existence and say that He once did not exist, must necessarily be counted among idolaters. And the great John, in his gospel proclaiming the Only Begotten God, affirms his word in every possible way so as not to allow the opinion of the non-existence of what ever existed; for he says that the Son “was in the beginning, I was to God, and God was, and was the light,” and true life (Jn. 1:1, 1:4), and that He was always every good and there was no time when He was not some good, being the fullness of all good and in the bosom of the Father. So, Moses lays down for us a certain distinctive property of the true Divinity, namely, that nothing else can be known about God except that He is, for this is indicated by the words: “I am He.” And Isaiah in his sermon proclaims the perfect eternity of Existence, not seeing the limitation of being in God as either a beginning or an end; for when saying: “I am the first and I am hereafter,” neither on one nor the other side puts a limit to eternity, so if we look at the beginning, we will not find any sign from which existence would begin and behind which He would not be; if we turn our attention to the continuation of existence, we will not find any limit by which the eternal continuation of the existence of Being. The Prophet David also forbids the worship of any new and alien God (Ps. 80:10), but in the teaching of heresy there is worship of both, for by asserting that the Son is immaterial, they clearly show that He is new, and by saying that He is alien to the nature of the true God, they recognize Him as an alien God. When this is so, then we decisively say that any construction of false conclusions to prove that the truly Existent One never existed is nothing more than a perversion of Christianity and a turn to idolatry. For when the Evangelist, with his theology, completely eliminated non-existence from Being and by frequent repetition of the word would carefully erase any thought of non-existence, when he called the Only Begotten God, the Word of God, the Son of God, and equal to God, and the like, then we are firmly and immutably convinced that if the Only Begotten God is God, then we must believe that He has always been God. But He is truly God, therefore He is always completely God and can never be represented as non-existent. Because God, as we have often said, if He exists now, then He certainly always existed, but if He never existed, then He is completely absent even now. But since, as the enemies of the truth admit, the Son is the Only Begotten God and abides forever, we say that He who is in the Father does not exist in Him by any one property, but is in the Father by all the properties that we understand in Him. Thus, “being” in the incorruptibility of the Father He is incorruptible, in goodness He is good, and in strength He is strong, and He participates in every most perfect property that is understood in the Father. So, “being” in the Eternal, He is completely eternal, and the sign of the eternity of the Father is that it did not begin from the non-existent and will not cease into non-existence. So, he who has completely everything that the Father has, and is contemplated in all the glory of the Father, just as having being in the infinity of the Father, has no end of life, and having being in the beginninglessness of the Father, has no “beginning by day” (Heb. 7:3), as the Apostle says; but it also comes from the Father and remains in the eternity of the Father, in which the perfect similarity of the image with the One of whom He is the image is especially seen, so that what is said is quite true: “he who has seen Me in the form of the Father” (John 14:9). But we should especially honor what is said in the words of the Apostle, well and according to the case, that the Son is “the radiance of glory and the image of the hypostasis” (Heb. 1:3), because here for those listeners who cannot ascend in thought to the height of knowledge of God through contemplation of the intelligible, the Apostle offers some image of the truth from objects subject to sense. For just as the solar body is depicted by the entire circumference of a circle, and whoever sees the circle infers from what is visible the content of the whole that lies in the depths, so, says the Apostle, in the greatness of the power of the Son the greatness of the Father is depicted, so that we may believe that the greatness of the Father is the same as the greatness of the Son that we perceive. And further, just as the entire solar circle shines with the brilliance of light (for in the circle not one part is shining, but the other is dark), so the entire glory, that is, the Father, is reflected from everywhere in the radiance that comes from it, that is, in the true light. And just as a ray comes from the sun, for there would be no ray if there were no sun, and without a luminous ray the sun itself is unthinkable, so the Apostle, depicting the affinity and eternity of the existence of the Only Begotten from the Father, called the Son the radiance of glory. 2. So, when we have explained this, no one can be perplexed how the Only Begotten is recognized both as having existence from the Father and as eternally existing, although to a superficial understanding it may seem a contradiction to say that He has existence from the Father and at the same time affirm that He is eternal. If it is necessary to confirm the truth of our word with something else, then the teaching about this can be made understandable with the help of certain phenomena accessible to our sensory knowledge. However, let no one blame our word for the fact that in what exists it cannot find such an image of what we are looking for, which, by similarity and likeness, would be completely sufficient to represent what is before us. Because those who say that the Father first willed and then became the Father, and from this they deduce that the Word came into being later, we want to convince, through the examples available to us, to change their way of thinking to a pious one. For neither the most immediate affinity excludes the will of the Father, as if He had the Son involuntarily, by some necessity of nature, nor does the will separate the Son from the Father, as if some gap had fallen between them; so that in our teaching the will of the One who gave birth to the Son is neither rejected, although the close union and unity of the Son with the Father is recognized, nor is the inextricable connection destroyed, although at birth the will is also contemplated. Because only our heavy and inflexible nature is not capable of many things at the same time - both having something and wanting; but now we want to have something that we do not have, and then we achieve something that we would not have wanted to achieve. In a simple and omnipotent nature, we understand everything together and at the same time, so that it both wants good and has what it wants. We mentally imagine the good and eternal will as all-active in the being and being of the eternal nature, affirmed, not originating in it from any special principle and not conceivable without what is desired. For with regard to God it cannot be assumed that there is no good will in Him, nor that good does not exist together with the will, since there is no reason that would detract from the fulfillment of what is appropriate for the Father or prevent one from having what is desired. So, since by nature the good, or, better, the highest good, is the Only Begotten God, and the Father cannot not will the good, it is clearly seen from here both that the connection of the Son with the Father is direct, and also that the directness of the connection does not exclude or deny the will that is always inherent in good nature. For those who will listen to our speech without being attacked, I want to add something like this to what has been said. If someone, I say presumably, ascribed to the flame some kind of power of arbitrary election, then it is obvious that the flame, along with being, would wish to shine light from itself; having wished, it, of course, will also have the power to carry out what it wants, since the power of nature would produce that with the existence of the flame, the desire to shine was combined. So, if we allow arbitrary movement in the flame, then without contradiction we can imagine the coincidence of everything at the same time - the ignition of the fire, the desire to shine, and the glow itself, and the arbitrariness of the movement will in no way interfere with the proper originality of the light. So, according to the example we have given, recognizing a good will in the Father, you, because of this will, will not separate the Son from the Father. For the will of His existence cannot serve as an obstacle to His being immediately (together with the will). But as in the eye, in which vision and the desire to see are combined, of which the first is a natural action, and the latter, that is, the desire to see, is an action of arbitrariness, the movement of this arbitrariness does not serve as an obstacle to vision, but only through the action of vision produces the desire to see (for both are considered by us separately and in themselves, and one does not serve as an obstacle to the existence of the other, but both are in some way mutually connected; so that both natural action accompanies arbitrariness, and arbitrariness again does not lags behind the natural movement), - just as, I say, vision is innate to the eye and the desire to see does not in the least remove the vision itself, but along with the desire to see the desired discretion appears, so we must understand about the Ineffable and every thought that surpasses every thought in such a way that in Him all things happen together and at the same time - the existence of the eternal Father, and the will of the Son, and the Son himself, who is “in the beginning,” as John says (Jn. 1, 1), and unthinkable at the beginning. The beginning of everything is the Father, but we are told that the Son also has existence in this beginning, being by nature what the beginning is, for just as the beginning is God, so the Word, which is in the beginning, is God; and since the beginning points to eternity, John well connects the Word with the beginning, saying that the Word was in him. I think that by this he means to prevent the emergence in the listener’s thoughts of the idea of ​​one Beginning in itself, but before this beginning is imprinted in the mind, he connects with it the thought of the Word existing in the beginning, so that together with the concept of the beginning, both the mind and the ear of the listener receive the concept of the Word. 3. Now, after a thorough disclosure of the dogma, it is timely to present and consider the teaching that is contrary to ours, mutually comparing it with our positions. Eunomius says this: “while we actually expressed two opinions: one, that the essence of the Only Begotten had no existence before its own birth, and the other, that it was born first of all, he exposed neither of them as lies. For he did not dare to say that she was before the very first birth and creation, since both the nature of the Father and common sense contradict this. For who of any sensible mind will admit that the Son had existence and was born before the very first birth, as if He, in order to be what He is, does not need to be born from the Being without generation? Whether he is telling the truth, that our teacher did not at all refute his opinions, which are contrary to his own, let everyone who is familiar with his writings consider it. And I (since I consider it unimportant to prove his malicious intent by exposing this slander), having left the proof that the teacher and this part of his opinions was not left without attention and analysis, I will turn the floor, as much as possible, to the study of what he stated above. Two opinions, he says, are expressed in his work: one is that the essence of the Only Begotten had no existence before its own birth, the other that it was born first of all. But that the Father did not give birth to any new essence other than that which is contemplated in the Father himself, this, I think, has been sufficiently proven by us in what was said before; and since we talked about this first of all, we do not need to deal with this blasphemy; in our word, careful attention must now be paid only to that godless and terrible saying of his, in which it is clearly stated about God the Word that He did not exist. But since we have already spoken somewhat about this blasphemy before, then perhaps it would be unnecessary to again confirm with similar speculations what was previously proven, for this is why we prefaced these speculations, so that after preliminary imprinting on the minds of readers of a pious way of thinking, the blasphemy of opponents who claim that the non-existence of the Only Begotten God preceded existence would be more obvious. It seems to me that it would be good, through careful research, to consider the very meaning of the word “birth” (γεννησις). That this word expresses the existence of something from a cause is clear to everyone, and I think there can be no dispute about this. But since the mode of origin from the cause is different, I consider it necessary to explain this by means of some artificial division. In what comes from something we notice the following differences: some objects receive their existence from matter and from art, for example, buildings and other works; although they occur with the help of the corresponding substance, the main participation in their origin belongs to some art, which, in accordance with the special purpose of the object being produced, combines the present substance in a certain way. Other objects come from matter and from nature, so the birth of animals one from another is arranged by nature, performing its work with the help of the material principle in bodies. Something else comes from a natural flow, and the object from which something flows remains the same, and what flows out is understood by us as something that exists in itself; this kind of relationship, for example, between the sun and a ray, between a lamp and its radiance, between aromas, “massives” and the smell they emit; for all these objects remain not diminished in themselves, although each is essentially connected with some natural special phenomenon emanating from it, namely: with the sun - a ray, with a lamp - light, with aromas - incense emitted through the air. Besides this, there is another type of birth, the cause of which is immaterial and incorporeal; birth is accessible to the senses and occurs with the help of the body - I mean the word born from the mind, because the mind, being incorporeal in itself, gives birth to the word through the sensory organs. Our thoughts perceive so many different types of birth in the general concept of birth. For everything else that nature does in an amazing way, when it transforms the bodies of some animals into bodies of a different nature, when from some change in moisture, or from the decay of seeds, or the rotting of wood, it produces some animals, or when the condensation from fire of wet vapors remaining from brands at the bottom, transforms into the existence of an animal called a salamander - all this, although it seems to be outside the species we have indicated, into which the concept of birth is divided, is nevertheless contained in them, for nature also organizes these various types of animals through bodies; whatever nature determines a change in the body, such is the nature of the animal it creates; and there is no other kind of birth except that which occurs from nature and from matter. 4. So, since these methods of birth are obvious to people, the humane economy of the Holy Spirit, teaching us Divine mysteries through what is accessible to us, teaches about what is above reason; as he does in all other cases, when he physically describes the Divinity, saying that God has an eye, and eyelids, and an ear, and fingers, and an arm, and a right hand, and a muscle, and feet, and shoes, and the like, of which in the ordinary sense nothing is accepted in the nature of God. But bringing the teaching to intelligibility, in words commonly used by people he explains objects that are above any designation, since each of the (above) expressions about God, according to their correspondence, leads us to some higher thought. Likewise, the inspired teaching accepts many types of birth to represent the ineffable Hypostasis of the Only Begotten, taking from each type as much as can be piously admitted into the concept of God. For, just as when he mentions the fingers of God, and the hand, and the muscle, he does not describe in words the structure of these members from bones, and nerves, and flesh, and ligaments, but with these names he designates His active and active force, and from other names each indicates the corresponding concept of God, not allowing at the same time the carnal meaning of the names, so also about the types of these births, although he speaks in relation to the Divine nature, but speaks differently than we are accustomed to understand. For although the word of God, speaking about the creative power, calls such an action birth (or production), because the word about Divine power should descend to our weakness, it does not indicate everything that we understand when constructing and producing something - neither place, nor time, nor preparations, nor the assistance of tools, nor the disorder that occurs in this; but, leaving this to our birth, he majestically and sublimely attributes to God the work of what exists, for example, when he says that “He commanded and was created” (Ps. 149:5). Again, when Scripture explains the ineffable and beyond reason hypostatic existence of the Only Begotten from the Father, then, since human poverty is not able to accommodate a teaching that is beyond all expression and understanding, it uses our words here and calls Him the Son - a name that we usually apply to that which is born from matter and nature. But just as the word of God, having spoken about the creation of creation by God, did not add that it was accomplished through any substance, showing that the essence of the substance, and place, time, and the like is replaced by the power of will, so here, calling Him the Son, it omitted everything else that human nature perceives during the second birth, i.e. passions, and dispositions, and the assistance of time, and the necessity of place, and above all matter - without which no long-term natural birth can take place. If the meaning of the word “Son” does not allow any such thought about anything material and intermediate, then one concept of nature remains and therefore the expression “Son” explains in the Only Begotten the affinity and truth of His origin from the Father. But since this type of birth was not sufficient to give us a satisfactory image of the ineffable being of the Only Begotten, theology, to designate the birth of the Son, takes together another type of origin - from a material outflow - and speaks of the radiance of glory (Wis. 7:25), and the fragrance of the “world” (Song. 1:3), and the breath of God, which, as in the distinction between the types of birth we previously outlined, usually called real outflow. But just as in what was said before, both in the creation of the creature and in the meaning of the word “Son,” time, or matter, or labor, or passion is not allowed, so here the word of God, having cleared from all thoughts of matter the meaning of the word “radiance” and other things that are mentioned, taking from this type of origin only one thing befitting God, the meaning of this expression indicates the idea that He is from Him and with Him. For neither breath represents the dispersion of the underlying substance in the air, nor the incense - the transformation of the quality of the "world" into the air, nor the radiance - the outflow from the luminous body through the rays, but through this image of origin, as has been said, only one thing is explained, which should be understood here as being from That and with That, since there is no mediating distance between the Father and the One who is from Him. But since, out of great love for mankind, the grace of the Holy Spirit took care to instill in us in many different ways the idea of ​​the Divinity of the Only Begotten, it added the rest of the type of origin that we saw, I’m talking about the origin from the mind and the word. But the great John shows great prudence so that the listener, through weakness and feeble-mindedness, does not somehow fall to the ordinary concept of the word and consider the Son to be the voice of the Father; therefore, with the first words of the sermon, he forces us to contemplate the Word in its essence and essence, not alienated by any and torn away from the one from which it originates, but in God himself, in the first and blessed nature. For this he teaches, saying that “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was to God, and God was” (John 1:1), being all that the Beginning is. This is how he argues, theologizing about the eternity of the Only Begotten. So, when these methods of origin or the very objects that come from a cause, usually recognized by us, are accepted by the Holy Scriptures for the teaching of the highest, and, moreover, each, since it is necessary to accept for the presentation of the concept of the Divine, then let the reader judge with a righteous court (John 7:24) whether anything of what is disclosed by heresy has any force against the truth. But I will add again literally the very speech of the enemy, which is as follows: “two,” he says, “we have expressed opinions: one, that the essence of the Only Begotten had no existence before its own birth, and the other, that it was born first of all.” What kind of birth does this teacher of dogmas offer us? Is it proper to think and talk about God this way? And who is so godless as to attribute non-existence to God? But it is clear that, paying attention to material birth, he leaves it to lower nature to teach us how we should think about the Only Begotten God; and since an ox, or a donkey, or a camel does not exist before its own birth, he wants to assert the same regarding the Only Begotten, which makes it possible to see the order of the inferior nature of animals; and this carnal theologian does not even understand that if it is said about God that He is the Only Begotten, then this very word denotes His non-community with every birth and specialness. For how would His birth be the only begotten, if in meaning and identity it had in common with another birth? The name “Only Begotten” actually and accurately explains that something unique and exclusive must be understood about Him, which cannot be found in another birth; so that if anything characteristic of a child’s birth were seen in Him, then He would no longer be the Only Begotten, having become, due to some properties of birth, a fellow being with other born people. Because if the same thing was said about Him that is said about other creatures who came into existence through birth, then the meaning of the word “Only Begotten” would change, meaning some kind of fraternal relationship (towards the creature). So, if the meaning of the word “Only Begotten” indicates non-mixture and non-community with other created beings, then we will not allow us to think about the Hypostasis of the Son, which is from the Father, anything that is seen in a separate birth. But the property of all beings that have existence through birth is not to exist before birth, therefore, this is alien to the property of the Only Begotten, Who, as the name “Only Begotten” testifies, does not have any irregularity in the manner of the ordinary type of birth. So let this carnal and sensual-loving writer be convinced by another kind of origin to correct the error of his opinions. But perhaps, hearing about the radiance of glory and the fragrance of the world, you will say that there was no radiance before its own origin. But if you say this, then you will admit that neither glory nor peace exists at all, for they do not exist, or you will have to admit that glory ever existed in itself, blind and not shining, or “mirror” - not producing incense. Therefore, if there was no radiance, then there was no glory at all, and if incense does not exist, then at the same time it is proven that “mirror” does not exist either. If these examples taken from Scripture frighten anyone, as not accurately expressing the greatness of the Only Begotten, because here there is no identity with the subject in essence, that is, a smell with the world or a ray with the sun, then let the true Word, which has existence in the Beginning, and is everything that is the Beginning, and exists first of all, destroy fear; for John in his sermon proclaims that God also had the Word, “and God is the Word” (John 1:1). So, if the Father is God, then the Son is also God. What bewilderment still remains for the recognition of the Only Begotten as God in the strict sense, when the meaning of the word “Son” makes it possible to know about kinship by nature, by radiance - about unity and inseparability, and by the name God, equally applied to the Father and the Son - about equality in everything. The image (χαρακτηρ) (Heb. 1:3) of the entire hypostasis of the Father that we contemplate means the fullness of the Son’s own greatness, and the image of God (μορφη) (Phil. 2:6) indicates identity in everything, since He reveals in himself everything that is characteristic of the Image. Therefore, when it is said that there was no Son, then, of necessity, the non-existence of the Father is consistently affirmed. For if, according to the apostolic testimony, one is inseparably united with the other: radiance with glory, and image with hypostasis, and wisdom with God, then he who says that one of the two united objects does not exist, by taking away one completely destroys the rest; so, if there is no radiance, then we must admit that there is no shining nature, and if there is no image, then there is no hypostasis reflected; if there is no wisdom and strength, then we must admit that there is no one at all, who is inconceivable in Himself without wisdom and strength. So, if the Only Begotten God did not exist before His origin, as Eunomius says, and Christ is God’s power, and God’s wisdom, and image, and radiance, then, of course, there was no Father, whose Son is power, and wisdom, and image, and radiance. For it is impossible to imagine with the mind either a hypostasis without an image, or glory without radiance, or God without wisdom, or a Creator without a hand, or a beginning without reason, or a Father without a Son, but all such things, both for those who recognize and for those who reject them, are united together, and by taking away one, that which is united with it is destroyed together. So, since they prove that before the origin there was no Son, who is the radiance of glory (and the sequence with the non-existence of radiance requires destruction together with the eternity of glory - glory is the Father, from Whom the Only Begotten Light shone), then let the wise understand beyond measure that they turned out to be champions of the Epicurean teaching and, under the guise of Christianity, the heralds of atheism. So, when the absurdity is consistently revealed in both cases, whether they admit that there is no God at all, or that He is not without beginning, then let them choose whatever is shown - either to be called atheists, or to assert that the essence of the Father is no longer without beginning. But they will probably refuse to be called atheists. So, it remains for them to assert that God is not eternal. If the sequence of evidence forces them to do so, then where are the various and compelling interchanges of names? Where is the irresistible power of inference that deafens the ears of old women with the distinction between the unborn and the born? 5. But enough of that; and it’s good not to miss what follows without research. Let us keep silent about the jokes he inserts into his speech, with which this important rhetorician childishly amuses himself, whether jokingly or really wanting to insult us, as if through this he will become superior in intelligence. For no one will force us, along with those who are cross-eyed, to spoil our eyes, or, together with those affected by the disease of madness, to break, jump and fall in body; We will regret them, but we ourselves will not get out of the proper situation. So, turning in his essay to our mentor, as if personally waging a struggle with him, he says that he has become entangled in his own wings. For when he said that the beautiful is always inherent in the Most High God, and it is wonderful to be the Father of such a child, then since the beautiful was never alien to Him, the Father never wanted to be without the Son, and, having desired, did not lack the power to realize in his own thoughts what was possible before Him and desired and to always have a Son, since he always wants good (this is the meaning of what our father said); Eunomius, having mocked this reasoning borrowed from external wisdom, presents this kind of expression to refute what was said; and as if someone experienced in such speeches had said this, he asks: “Who will give birth? If it is beautiful and decent for God to create, then how was this beautiful and decent (that is, creation) not inherent in Him without beginning, if God is without beginning? And this was not hindered by ignorance, nor was it hindered by weakness, age for creation, or other obstacles that you collected for your own shame, for it is indecent to talk about God like that.” If the mentor himself had been able to answer Eunomius’s question, he would have indicated in God-taught language who was born, and, revealing the Divine secret, would have struck with denunciations the leaders of lies, so that it would be clear to everyone what the distance is between the minister of the mysteries of Christ and the ridiculous actor or inventor of new and strange teachings. But since, as the Apostle says, “the dead man still speaks” to God (Heb. 11:4), and he objects when there is no defendant, then although our answer cannot be compared with the voice of the great Basil, nevertheless in this case we will answer the questioner like this: your very speech, expressed in refutation of our words, serves as evidence that we are speaking the truth, denouncing the teaching of wickedness. For we condemn nothing else so much as the idea that we should not distinguish in any way the Lord of creation from an ordinary creature, and we equally condemn what you propose against the Only Begotten. For if you think that what you see in creation should also be attributed to the Only Begotten God, then our conversation with you is over. For the absurdity was exposed by your own words, and it became clear to everyone that we are speaking the direct truth, and you have the same opinion about the Only Begotten God as about other creatures. What was the doubt about if not about the Only Begotten Son of God, the Creator of all creation - did He exist eternally or was he subsequently born to the Father? So what does the mentor's word say about this? That it is ungodly to believe that what is naturally beautiful does not always exist in God, for no reason can be found why what is good could not be inherent in the Good - neither lack of strength, nor weakness of will. What does the person challenging what was said say to this? The fact is that if you admit to believe that God the Word has existence from eternity, then you will admit the same thing regarding creatures. Oh, how he was able to discern in his words the nature of creatures and Divine greatness! How does he know what corresponds to what, what is pious to think about God and what to think about creation! If, he says, the Creator posits the beginning of creation from a certain time (for nothing else can indicate the beginning of what happened except by a special distance of time, which determines the beginning and end of what happens), then therefore, he says, the Creator of times must begin His existence from a similar beginning. But creation has a beginning of ages, and for the Creator of ages what kind of beginning can you imagine? If anyone says that this beginning is indicated in the Gospel (John 1:1), then it was this that had to be explained, and the confession of the Son is inextricably indicated with it; and what is in the Father (John 14:10), as the Lord says, cannot begin at any appointed time. If anyone speaks of another beginning besides this, then let him say the name by which such a beginning is signified, since no beginning can be understood before the dispensation of the ages. Therefore, such a speech of his will not in the least deviate us from a pious opinion about the Only Begotten God, even if the old women applauded his position as very strong. For we remain with what we first recognized, having our minds established in the truth that everything that the word of piety requires to affirm about the Only Begotten God has nothing to do with creation; but great is the distance separating the distinctive properties of Him who created all things and His works. So, if in some other way the Son had in common with creation, then, of course, it would have to be said that He is not different (from it) in the manner of existence. If the creation is not involved in what we have been taught regarding the Son, then it is absolutely necessary to say that in the way of its existence it has no commonality with Him, for the creation was neither in the beginning, nor was with God, nor was God, nor life, nor light, nor resurrection, and other godly names are not appropriate for it, such as: truth, righteousness, sanctification, Judge, the Righteous Creator of all, Who existed before the ages, Who reigns over forever, and forever, and ever; creation is neither the radiance of glory, nor the image of the Hypostasis, nor the image of goodness, nor grace, nor power, nor truth, nor salvation, nor redemption, in a word, there is nothing in the creation and is not attributed to it that is said by Scripture for the glory of the Only Begotten. I present more sublime expressions, namely: “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me” (John 14:11), and: “he who has seen Me in the form of the Father” (John 14:9), and: “no one knows the Son except the Father” (Matthew 11:27). So, if the word such and such (names) were attributed to the creature, then it would be good to think that what is seen in it should also be applied to the concepts of the Only Begotten, since here there would be a comparison of homogeneous with akin. If all such concepts and names belong together (with the Son) to the Father and exceed everything that can be thought of about creation, then will not this sage and wit hide in shame, explaining the nature of the Lord of creation by what is seen in creation, not understanding that the distinctive signs of creation are different? And according to the most important division of everything that exists, it is divided into created and uncreated, the latter as the cause of what happened, the former as what came from it. So, when both the created nature and the Divine essence are separate and have no connection in terms of distinctive properties, then it is absolutely necessary to think of both in a different way and not to seek the same characteristics for what is different in nature. So, if the created nature reveals in itself, as the book of Wisdom, (called) Panaret, says, “the beginning and the end and the middle of times” (Wis. 7, 18) and spreads over all distances of time, then we accept as a certain sign of this nature that its property is that in it we fully see some beginning of the dispensation, and we see the middle, and we hope to see the end of it. For we have been taught that heaven and earth did not exist from eternity and will not exist forever, so from here it is clear that from a certain beginning everything that exists received existence, and from a certain limit it will completely cease to exist; The divine being, not limited in any way, but in all respects infinitely surpassing any limit, is far from those signs that we find in creation. For the extended, non-quantitative and indescribable Power, containing in Itself the ages and all creation in them and in all respects with the eternity of its own nature exceeding the infinity of the centuries, either does not have any sign that would indicate Its nature, or some completely different one, and not the one that the creature has. So, since it is characteristic of a creature to have a beginning, then what is characteristic of a creature should be alien to the nature of the uncreated. For if anyone decides to assume that the existence of the Only Begotten in the likeness of creation had some known beginning, he will necessarily connect with the concept of this everything else that follows; because when a beginning is admitted, it is impossible not to recognize at the same time what follows from it. Thus, if someone admits the concept of “man,” then, having recognized this, he will also add together what is characteristic of his nature, saying that he is an animal, and a rational being, and everything else that is understood in relation to man; On the same basis, if we mentally attribute one of the properties of creation to the Divine essence, then it will no longer be in our power not to apply the concept of what is seen in creation to immortal nature. The beginning will forcefully and necessarily demand what follows it, for the beginning so understood is the beginning of what follows it; so that if there is a last, then there is also a first, and if you abolish what is in connection with it, then what precedes will not remain. So, since the book of Wisdom with the beginning posits both the middle and the end, then if in the nature of the Only Begotten we accept any beginning of existence, determined by some point (of time), as the heresy teaches, Wisdom, of course, will not allow us not to add both the end and the middle to the beginning. If this happens, it will turn out that this theologian, with his conclusions, proves that the Divinity is mortal; for if, according to the word of Wisdom, the beginning necessarily follows the end, and between (these) limits a middle is seen, then he who admitted one involuntarily recognized both, defining the measure and limit of life for the infinite nature. If this is wicked and absurd, then it is worthy of equal or greater condemnation to give rise to a word expressing wickedness, and the beginning of such absurdity turned out to be that the life of the Son is considered limited by some principle. Thus, one of two things: either forced by what is said, they must turn to a sound way of thinking and, together with the eternity of the Father, contemplate the One who is from Him, or, if they do not want this, let them doubly limit the eternity of the Son - the beginning and the end, bringing the infinity of His life to non-existence. If the nature of both souls and angels has no end, and does not in the least prevent it from extending into eternity, then it is both created and received the beginning of being from someone; so that, as a result of this, our opponents could be told the same thing about Christ, that He, although not from eternity, but extends into eternity, then let him who makes this visible judge how much the Divinity differs from creation in properties. For it is characteristic of the Divine not to need anything that we understand as good, and a creature becomes good only by participating in the best; it not only has the beginning of being, but in relation to the good is recognized as always beginning to be good as a result of growth in the best. Therefore, she never stops there, and everything acquired through participation in good is (for her) the beginning of an ascent to greater things; as Paul puts it, she never ceases to reach out to “the things that are ahead and forget those that are behind” (Phil. 3:13). So, since the Divinity is self-existent life, and the Only Begotten God is God, and life, and truth, and everything that can be imagined that is sublime and befitting of God, and the creature is supplied with goods from Him, then from this it should be clear that if it partakes of life, then it abides in life, and if it ceases to partake of it, then it completely ceases to abide in life. Thus, if they dare to say about the Only Begotten God the same thing that can rightly be said only about creatures, then let them say along with everything else that, like creatures, He has a beginning of being and continues to live in the likeness of souls. If He is self-existent life, then He has no need for life that comes from outside; everything else (besides Him) is not life, but only partakes of life. What need is there to limit the eternity of the Only Begotten by what is visible in creation? For what is eternally identical by nature does not allow its opposite and is incapable of changing into something else, and those whose nature is limited tend to do both, as they please at will. So, if true life is seen in the Divine and supreme nature, then, in fairness, any descent into the opposite (state) is completely impossible. The meaning of life and death is varied and is not understood in the same way. For in relation to the flesh, life is called the activity and movement of bodily senses, and, conversely, the cessation of their (activity) and destruction is called death. In the intelligible nature, true life is communion with God, and the name of falling away from Him is death. Therefore, the original evil, the devil, is called both death and the inventor of death, but the Apostle says that he also has “the power of death” (Heb. 2:14). So, when Scripture, as said, makes clear the double meaning of death, then the truly immutable and unchangeable One has immortality and dwells in light unapproachable and inaccessible (1 Tim. 6:16) for the darkness of evil. And what is involved in death, when through inclination to the opposite one becomes far from immortality, then if one evades participation in good, due to the variability of nature one can perceive communication with the worst, which is nothing more than death, which has some similarities with bodily death. For just as here death refers to the cessation of the activity of nature, so in a spiritual being the real estate for good is death and removal from life, so that what is thought about an incorporeal creature does not contradict the word denouncing heretical absurdity. For death, which is characteristic of spiritual nature, that is, separation from God, which we do not call life, is not removed from this nature in possibility. For the origin from non-existence shows the changeability of nature. And what is akin to change is kept from participating in the opposite by the grace of the Strengthening One, and no longer remains in goodness by the power of one’s own nature; what is such, it does not last forever. So, if Eunomius rightly says that one and the same thing should not be attributed to the Divine essence and the created nature, then the existence of the Son should not be limited by any principle, so that, if this is allowed, with the recognition of one quality, other things that are characteristic of the creature would not arise. For the absurdity of the one who, by what is said regarding creation, separates the Only-Begotten God from the eternity of the Father is clearly exposed, because just as nothing is seen in the Creator of creation that characterizes creation, neither is it seen in Him that property that it exists from a certain beginning; from here follows the proof that there is always a Son in the Father, who is wisdom, and power, and light, and life, and everything with which He is contemplated in the bosom of the Father. You might be interested in: