Книга двенадцатая

1. But let's look at the following appendix to blasphemy, which contains the most important confirmation of their teaching. Those who degrade the greatness of the glory of the Only Begotten with low and slavish opinions think that the strongest proof of what they say is to be found in the words of the Lord to Mary, which He spoke after the resurrection before the Ascension: “Touch me not, lest I sigh unto my Father: go therefore to my brethren, and say unto them: I will ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and my God, and your God” (John 20, 17). I think that those who have accepted faith in the truth understand the pious meaning of these words, in which, as we believe, they were spoken to Mary, however, in a decent place we will offer a speech about this. In the meantime, from those who pronounce such sayings, it is worth asking us: is it considered a feature of the Divine or human nature that what ascends, and is visible, and is known by touch, and, besides this, is related to people in brotherhood? For if what is tangible, and visible, and sustains life through food and drink, and is homogeneous, and fraternal to people, and so on, seen in bodily nature - all this is seen in the Divinity, then let them affirm about the Only Begotten God and attribute this to Him whatever they want - both the action of walking and local movement, which is characteristic of beings limited by the body. If the one speaking through Mary speaks with the brothers, and the Only Begotten has no brothers (for how would the only begottenness be preserved with the brothers?), if the one who said: “The Spirit (is) God” (John 4:24) Himself says to the disciples: “Touch Me” (Luke 24:39) in order to show that human nature is tangible, and the Divinity is intangible; and the one who said: “I go” (John 16:28) means this local movement, and the one who embraces everything, by whom, as the Apostle says, “all things were created and in whom they are all” (Col. 1:16-17), has nothing existing outside himself, to which there could be any movement or displacement (because movement can only occur in no other way than if the object being moved leaves the place in which it was, and will take something else. And for that which penetrates everywhere, exists in everything, supports everything and is not limited by anything that exists, there is no empty place where it could move, since the fullness of the Divine is everywhere), then how can they, having lost sight of the fact that those words were from what is revealed (in the flesh), apply them to the Divine and all-exceeding nature; when the Apostle, in his sermon to the Athenians, forbids thinking like this about God (Acts 17:24-29), because Divine power is not acquired by touch, but by rational contemplation and faith. Who again ate food in the eyes of the disciples, promising to precede them and to be visible in Galilee, to whom does he point, having to be visible to them? Is it God, who “cannot be seen by anyone” (John 1:18), “can see below” (1 Tim. 6:16), or the bodily image, that is, the “form of a servant” in which God was? So, if in the words of Scripture the meaning of what is said clearly refers to the visible, and tangible, and movable, and homogeneous with the nature of the disciples, and nothing of the kind is seen in the invisible, and incorporeal, and intangible, and formless, then they reduce the Only Begotten God Himself, who is in the beginning and who is in the Father, to equality with Peter, and Andrew, and John, and others the apostles, saying that they are both brothers of the Only Begotten and slaves with Him? And all their concern is directed towards the goal of proving that the Father, in the greatness of his nature, is as much higher than the dignity, power, and essence of the Only Begotten as he is higher than human nature. In defense of their thought, they cite a proof that equally summarizes the nature of the Father, the Lord, and the Lord’s disciples, so that they do not understand (by them) any difference in natural dignity when the Father is similarly recognized as the Father and God of the Son and the disciples. The consistent conclusion from the blasphemy of Eunomius is that he must either attribute to the disciples, by relative significance, a community of essence with the Father, or the Lord, on the basis of this saying (John 20:17), should not be brought into communion with the Father. And just as the slavery of the disciples confirms that God above all is called their God, just as precisely on the basis of what has been said, I must admit that the Son is the slave of God. So, from the very meaning of what was said, one can see that the words to Mary are not applicable to the Divinity of the Only Begotten, for what was said is said by the same One who in everything humbled himself to the point of equality with human littleness. And what is the meaning of the sayings themselves, those who experience the depths of the sacrament in spirit could know exactly; As much as is accessible to our understanding according to the guidance of the fathers, we will briefly suggest. By nature, the Father of Jehovah, from whom all things have their being, is preached by the One in the great voice of the Apostle: “One,” says God the Father, “all things are of no good” (1 Cor. 8:6). So, human nature did not come out of nowhere into creation and did not spontaneously arise in the environment of what happened, but it had no other creator of its own composition, like the Father of all. And the very name of the Divine means either a supervising or a providential power, which actually refers to the human race. For He who imparted the power of being to beings is God and the overseer of what has come from Him. But since, through the slander of the one who planted the tares of disobedience in us, our nature no longer retained the image of the Father, but was transformed into the ugliness of sin, then through this arbitrary likeness it entered into an evil affinity with the father of sin, so that for the one who renounced (God) by his own malice there is no longer the Good and true Father and God, but instead of the nature of the Existing God, he began to honor the the nature of non-existent gods (Gal. 4:8), as the Apostle says, and instead of the true Father, recognize a false father, as the Prophet Jeremiah mysteriously said somewhere: “Cry out to the pockmarks, O brethren, you shall not beget them” (Jer. 17:11). So, since our main misfortune was that human nature was alienated from the Good Father and deprived of the Divine watch and care, then He who shepherds all rational creation, leaving the heavenly unerring and worldly flock, through love for mankind comes to the lost sheep, that is, our nature; for human nature is the most insignificant and smallest part, if compared with the totality of everything - one sheep, according to the riddle of the parable, separated through evil from the rational hundred (Luke 15:4). So, since our life was alienated from God by itself, it was impossible to return to a mountainous and heavenly place, therefore, as the Apostle says, “who knew no sin, sin is committed against us” (2 Cor. 5:21) and frees us from the oath, having assimilated our oath (Gal. 3:13), and having taken upon ourselves our enmity with God, which occurred through sin, and having “killed” it within himself (Eph. 2:16), according to the word of the Apostle (enmity was sin), and having become what we are, he again united the human race with God. For this new man, “created according to God” (Eph. 4:24), in whom dwelt “the fulfillment of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:9), through the purity of our nature in him, having made him kindred and close to the Father, He at the same time attracted to the same grace all that was involved in his body and the nature akin to it. And this, through the wife, is preached not only to these disciples, but also to all who have been taught (by this) word (of Scripture) even until now, namely, that men are no longer among the rejected and cast out from the kingdom of God, but again the Son, again subject to God, since together with the firstfruits of mankind the admixture is also sanctified (Rom. 11:16). “Behold,” he says, “I and the children, who have given God” (Isa. 8:18), from where you were separated, having become flesh and blood through sin, there again, having received, He who for our sake partook of flesh and blood (Heb. 2:14) brought you up; thus He became both our Father and God, from whom we were previously alienated by apostasy. So, with what has been said, the Lord preaches this good gospel good deed, and those sayings are proof not of the humiliation of the Son, but the gospel of our reconciliation with God, for what happened to Christ as a man is grace common to all believers. For just as, seeing the (nature) body bowing down and gravitating toward the earth, carried up through the air to heaven, we believe, according to the word of the Apostle, that we too “will be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air” (1 Thess. 4:17), so, hearing that the true God and Father became the Father and God of our firstfruits, we no longer doubt that He became and our Father and God, knowing that we will ascend to the same place where “Jesus the forerunner of us appeared” (Heb. 6:20). And that this grace was proclaimed through the wife, then this too is in accordance with this understanding. For since, as the Apostle says, “the woman was deceived and became transgressed” (1 Tim. 2:14) and was the forerunner in apostasy from God through disobedience, she becomes the first witness of the resurrection, so that the fall from crime can be corrected by faith through the resurrection. And just as at the beginning, having become for her husband a servant and adviser to the words of the serpent, she brought into life the beginning of evil and the consequence, so, having conveyed to her disciples the words of the apostate dragon who slew, she becomes for people the beginning of the leader of faith, by which, as befits, the first sentence of death is destroyed. Those who were more careful would perhaps have found some more useful interpretation of the above (the words of Scripture), and if nothing had been found, then, I think, everyone who is pious, comparing the interpretation presented by the enemies with the one open to us, will find it completely empty. For that was invented for the destruction of the glory of the Only Begotten, but ours indicates the purpose of the economy of humanity. For it has been proven that it was not the Intangible, and the Immutable, and the Invisible who gave Mary the commandment to convey His word to the disciples, but what (in Him) was visible, and movable, and tangible - which is characteristic of human nature. 2. Let us also pay attention to how he defends himself against the denunciation of the great Basil that he removes the Only Begotten God into the region of darkness, when he says: “As far as the born is from the unborn, so much does light differ from light.” Basil proved that the difference between the born and the unborn does not consist in any derogation or tension, but that there is direct opposition between the concepts signified (by these words); and from these provisions he consistently drew the conclusion that if the light of the Father differs from the light of the Son in the same way as unbornness differs from birth, then it is absolutely necessary to understand in the Son not a diminution of light, but its complete absence. For just as it cannot be said that birth is a diminished unbornness, but the (concepts) signified (by the words) “unbornness” and “bornness” are separated from one another by complete opposition, so if Eunomius retains the same distinction between the Father’s light and the light understood in the Son, then he will consequently no longer recognize Him as the Son, since He will be equally alien to both ungeneration and the light inherent in it; and what is other than light, then, as it obviously follows, will have the property of being opposite to light. So, when such absurdity has become apparent from these provisions, Eunomius attempts to resolve them with skillful turns of evidence, saying this: “we know, we know the true light, we know the One who created the light after heaven and earth, we heard the very life and truth of Christ saying to His disciples: “You are the light of the world” (Matthew 5:14), we know that blessed Paul calls God, who is above all, the unapproachable light (1 Tim. 6, 16), with the addition ("impregnable"), delimiting this light and showing its superiority. Then, having recognized such a difference in light, will we really begin to listen indifferently to the fact that the concept of light is the same?” Is he really putting such conclusions against the truth, or is the nonsense of his followers tormenting them with deception: will they be able to understand such a childish paralogism of false thinking or will they not feel such an obvious deception? For I think there is no one so unreasonable who would not understand the deception of the same name with which Eunomius deafens both himself and his own. Light, he says, is what the disciples are called, and the created light is also called light. But who does not know that in these (subjects) there is only one thing in common, but the signified in both is different? For the light of the sun gives the sight a way to distinguish things, and the word of instruction of the disciples brings the illumination of truth into the souls. So, if the same difference is known to him in the other world, so that he recognizes one as bodily and the other as spiritual light, then we will no longer speak to him, since his very defensive speech condemns him even before us. If in that light such a difference in the manner of action cannot be found, because this light is not illumination: one of the bodily eyes, and the other of the eyes of the understanding, but one action of both the light produced by them, then how does the sun’s rays and the apostolic words prove the difference between the Only Begotten light and the light of the Father? But the Son, he says, is called the true light, and the Father - unapproachable, these defining words indicate the difference between the Father's light regarding greatness; for he honors the true as something else, and the unapproachable as something else. But who is so stupid as not to see the identity of those signified (by these names of concepts)? For both the true and the inaccessible are equally inaccessible to what is thought of as the opposite, for just as the true does not accept confusion with falsehood, so the inaccessible does not allow the approach of the opposite. The Impregnable is completely unapproachable to evil, but the light of the Son is not evil, for how could anyone nearby see the truth? If truth is not evil, then let no one say that the light (located) in the Father is inaccessible to truth, because if he were to distance the truth from himself, he would become completely close to lies. For such is the property of opposites (objects), that in the absence of something better, the conceivable is the opposite of it. So, if anyone says that the light that is in the Father must be thought of as being far from direct opposition (to the light of the Son), he will interpret the phrase “unapproachable” in accordance with the apostolic intention. If he says that the word “unapproachable” means alienation from the good, then he will assume nothing more than that he is hostile and alien to himself, being good and the opposite of good. But this is impossible, for good has an affinity with good, therefore this light is not different from that, for just as the Son is the true light, so the Father is the unapproachable light. I would even dare to say that whoever replaces these names with one another will not sin, for the truth is inaccessible to lies, and again the inaccessible in all its purity is embraced by the truth. So, the inaccessible is the same as the true, because what is signified by both is equally inaccessible to evil. So, what difference does he come up with between them when he deceives himself and his own by the same name of both worlds? But let us not leave without remarking the fact that, having remade the Apostle’s saying in our own way, it passes it off as his words. Paul says: “in the light of the living we are unapproachable” (1 Tim. 6:16), but there is a big difference between the expressions “to be something” and “to be in something.” For he who said, “He who lives in the light is unapproachable,” by the expression of dwelling, pointed not to Him, but to what is peculiar to Him, which, according to us, is the same with the Gospel saying that the Father has existence in the Son (John 14:11); because the Son is the true light, and truth is inaccessible to lies, therefore, the Son is the unapproachable light in which the Father dwells or in which the Father exists. 3. But Eunomius stubbornly fights for absurdity and says: “based on the case itself and reliable sayings, I accept what was said as true.” This is the promise, but whether the speech is in accordance with the promise, of course, will be seen by an intelligent listener. “Blessed,” says John, “having said that the Word had being in the beginning, and adding that It is life, then calling life light, a little further then he says: “And the Word became flesh” (John 1:14). So, if light is life, and life is the Word, “And the Word became flesh,” then it is clear from here that there was light in the flesh.” What then? Since light, and life, and God, and the Word appeared in the flesh, is the true light different from the Light in the Father? But the Gospel also testifies that even though he was in darkness, he remained inaccessible to the opposite nature, for it is said: “The light shone in the darkness and its darkness was not overcome” (John 1:5). So, if the light that was in darkness were to change into the opposite and become subject to darkness, then this would greatly serve as proof for those who want to show how much this light has changed for the worse in comparison with the light seen in the Father. And if the Word, although appearing in the flesh, remains the Word, and the light, although it shines in darkness, is nevertheless a light that does not accept communication with the opposite, and life, although it was in death, is preserved in itself, and God, although he took on the form of a slave, does not himself become a slave, but raises to dominion and the kingdom the subordinate (to Him), making the humble and human (nature) Lord and Christ, then how does this prove the change of light to the worst, when the inability to become evil and immutability equally belongs to both? He also does not pay attention to the fact that he who looked at the incarnate Word, who was light, and life, and God, through the glory he saw, knew the Father of glory, saying: “I have seen His glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father” (John 1:14). But Eunomius reached a controversial expression, in which we had previously convicted him on the basis of the consistency of what he said, but which he now expresses in open words. He wants to show that the essence of the Son is somehow passionate and perishable and is in no way different from the material and fluid nature, in order from here to prove the difference (from the Father). He says: “If he can prove (i.e. Basil the Great) that God, who is above all, who is the unapproachable light, was or could be in the flesh, come under the power to obey commands, submit to human laws, bear the cross, then let him say that light is equal to light.” If we proposed these (words), extracting them on the basis of a consistent conclusion from previously prepared (provisions), without at the same time confirming it with (our own) expressions, then who would not accuse us of slander, that by some distortion of words we bring the teaching of our opponents to such absurdity? Now, some proof that we carefully and in accordance with the truth presented the teaching of heresy is the fact that they themselves did not keep silent about the absurdity that was revealed from the consistent course of their thoughts. For this is how open and daring the abuse is against the Only Begotten God, and the cause of love for mankind is understood by the enemies as slander and condemnation of the nature of the Son of God, as if not by providence, but naturally He fell to life in the flesh and suffering on the cross. And just as it is natural for a stone to gravitate downward, and for fire to gravitate upward, and just as substances do not mutually change their properties, so that a stone gravitates upward and a fire gravitates downward, so, they prove, infirmities are inherent in the nature of the Son, and therefore He comes to what is akin to and characteristic of His nature. The nature of the Father, as free from these infirmities, is inaccessible to the attack of evil, for it says that God, who exists above all, Who is the unapproachable light, was not and could not be in the flesh. It would be enough to say the first of what is said, namely, that the Father was not in the flesh, but now, through the addition, some kind of construction of absurdity turns out to be twofold; he either accuses the Son of evil, or the Father of impotence. Because if communion with the flesh is evil, then he attributes evil to the Only Begotten God, but if love for mankind is good, then he represents the Father as powerless for good, saying that He could not perform such a good deed through the flesh. But who does not know that “as the Father lives, so also the Son, whoever he wills, lives” (John 5:21) (as Scripture says), obviously calling us dead who have fallen from true life? If, as the Father lives, the Son also does the same good deed in no other way, then how does (this) fighter against God raise a blasphemous tongue against both, insulting the Father with impotence for good, and the Son by affinity with evil? But light, he says, is not equal to light, since one is called true, and the other unapproachable. So, why is the true light considered less? They say that this is why the Divinity of the Father is considered greater and higher than the Divinity of the Son, because the Father is called in the Gospel the true God, and the Son God without the addition of “true.” But how does one and the same word mean an increase in relation to the Divine, and a decrease in relation to the light of what is meant by it? If the Father calls the Son greater because He is the true God, then on the same basis the Son must be recognized as greater than the Father, because the former is called the true light, but the Father is not. But this Light, he says, accomplished deeds of love for mankind, but he remained inactive with such a good deed. New way of preference! The ineffective in relation to philanthropy is considered superior to the active. But there is not and will never be among Christians such a thought from which it would follow that not every good that exists has a cause (of existence) from the Father. The main of all our benefits is recognized by all right-thinking people to be a return to life, and this is accomplished through the Lord’s economy for humanity, and the Father does not remain idle and inactive during the economy, as heresy wants. For this is not what is indicated by the one who says: “He who sent Me is with Me” (John 8:29), and “The Father abides in Me, He who does these works” (John 14:10). So, how does heresy, attributing good deeds to us to the Son alone, deprive the Father of his share in gratitude for what he has done? For we owe gratitude only to natural benefactors, and, of course, we should not thank someone who is powerless to do good. You see how in everything their goal - blasphemy against the Only Begotten - turns into the opposite, and according to the consistent course of thoughts turns into blasphemy against the Father. And it seems to me that this happens necessarily, for if he who honors the Son honors the Father (John 5:23), according to the Divine saying, then it is clear that concern for the contrary regarding the Son is related to the Father. But I say that for those who accept the simplest sermon about the cross and resurrection, the same good deed should be the basis of equal gratitude to both the Father and the Son; since the Son accomplished the will of the Father, that is, “all man wants to be saved” (1 Tim. 2:4), as the Apostle says, and for this good deed we must honor the Father and the Son equally, since our salvation would not have been accomplished if the good will of the Father had not been translated into action by His own power, and that the power of the Father is the Son, we know from the Scriptures. 4. But let us think again about what has been said. “If he can prove,” he says, “that God, who is above all, who is the unapproachable light, was or could be in the flesh, then let him say that light is equal to light.” From the very composition of the sayings, the purpose of what was said is clear; he does not think that the Son, by the omnipotent Deity, would have been able to accomplish this type of love for mankind, but accepted the suffering of the Cross, because he had a nature capable of suffering. But when I examined and sought where he fell into such assumptions about the Divinity as to think that the unborn light is inaccessible to the contrary, and is purely dispassionate, and not mixed with anything, and the one born by nature can be both, because he does not keep the divinity unmixed and pure in dispassion, but has an essence, in some way mixed and dissolved from parts of the opposite, and desiring participation in the good, and inclined to perceive suffering, then, since no basis could be found in Scripture for such absurdity, the thought occurred to me: is it not because of the Egyptians’ fables about the god of reverence that he mixes their opinions with speeches about the Only Begotten? For they say that they are talking about that strange idolatrous work, when images of some dumb animals are attached to human members, they say that this is a fortune-telling image of a mixed nature, which is called a demon. But although this nature is much more subtle than human nature and greatly exceeds ours in strength, it does not have an unmixed and pure divinity, but has a divinity fused with the nature of the soul and with the feeling of the body, receiving both pleasure and labor, which is completely absent in the unborn God. For they also use this name, attributing ungeneracy to the predominant, according to their assumptions, God. So, it seems to us that this wise theologian from the Egyptian sanctuaries introduces Anuv, or Isis, or Osiris into Christian preaching, without pronouncing only their names. But regarding wickedness, of course, there is no difference between the one who recognizes the names of idols and the one who firmly holds opinions about them, but is careful not to pronounce the names. So, if no confirmation of this wickedness can be found in the Divine Scripture, and the opinion of the Eunomians finds strength in hieroglyphic riddles, then it is completely clear what right-thinking people should think about this. And that it is not out of a desire to disgrace that we raise such an accusation, let Eunomius himself and his own words be our witness, where he calls the Unborn the unapproachable light and cannot reach the test of suffering, and regarding the born he asserts that such a disposition (towards suffering) is appropriate and akin to Him, so that man does not owe gratitude to the Only Begotten God for the fact that He suffered, since He, in their opinion, did not condescend to endure suffering spontaneously, for an entity accessible to suffering is naturally attracted to this, and this does not deserve any gratitude. For who would accept with gratitude what happens out of necessity, even if it were profitable and useful? For we do not feel gratitude to fire for warmth, nor to water for fluidity, attributing this to the necessity of nature, because neither fire can not have a calorific effect, nor water can remain standing on a sloping plane, when the inclination of the place necessarily carries it to further movement. So, if they say that, out of necessity of nature, the Son accomplished the good deed of the Incarnation for people, then they do not, of course, recognize any gratitude, because they attribute this event not to free force, but to natural necessity. And if, feeling the gift, they do not value the good deed, then I am afraid that their wickedness will again turn to the opposite and that they will not prefer the disposition of the Son, capable of suffering, to the dispassion of the Father, judging the dignity of the good by the good that concerns them. For if the Son, as they teach about the Father, happened to be incapable of accepting suffering, then the misfortune of our nature would remain uncorrected, since there would be no one who would raise man to immortality through his own trial (of suffering). And thus, the insight of the sophists does not notice that by doing so it intensifies to humiliate the greatness of the Only Begotten God, it leads to greater and more honorable opinions about Him, since he who is able to do good has an advantage over those who are weak for this. 5. But I feel the disorder of my word, for it does not remain in the proper course, but, as if on hot and furious horses, rushes along with the blasphemies of opponents to absurd assumptions. So, it is necessary to restrain his unbridled desire to deduce the absurd beyond measure. And a right-thinking listener, of course, will excuse what has been said, the absurdity arising from (this) research, attributing not to us, but to those who put (at the basis) bad principles. We must transfer our reasoning to something else from what was said (by him). He says that “God becomes complex for us as soon as we assume that there is one light, but separate (in it) certain properties and various differences between one (light) and another. For even the complex is nevertheless united by one commonality, but is separated by certain differences and combinations of properties.” But our talk about this will be brief and short. He accuses our dogmas, except for what he deduces from them in his own words, we admit this accusation against us. Let us consider what he wrote. He calls the Lord the true light, and the Father the unapproachable light; So, he also recognized the community in the world, naming both of them that way. And since names are naturally adapted to objects, as he repeatedly asserted, we think that it is not the empty name of light without any thought that is attached to the Divine nature, but it points to some subject. So, with the community of name, they also recognize the identity of the signified, since “what objects have the same names, those, as they declared, cannot have different essences.” If now one and the same thing is meant by light, then the addition “unapproachable” and “true,” according to the teaching of this heresy, separates the common features, so that the light of the Father is thought to be different and the light of the Son to be different, differing from each other in special properties. So, either let him take back his own words, so that by what he says he does not make the Divinity complex, or let him no longer accuse us of what he sees in his own words, for this does not violate simplicity, because both generality and particularity are not an essence, so that their combination makes the object complex. But although the essence itself remains what it is by nature, being what it is, nevertheless, everyone who has a sense will say that these properties belong to the number of those thought and seen with it. Because in us, humans, one can discern something in common with the Divine nature, but therefore divinity is not humanity or humanity is divinity. We, believing that God is good, know that man is also given this name by Scripture, but the commonality that comes from this same name distinguishes the peculiarity of the meaning (goodness) assigned to both. For one, being the source of goodness, has a name from it, and the other, participating in goodness, also participates in this name. But God is not complex because he has the name Good in common with man. So, from this it is clear that there is a different concept of community and a different concept of essence, and in the simple and unquantified nature no complexity or multipartiality is introduced in the least because anything seen in it is either contemplated separately or has the meaning of something in common. But if you like, let's move on to another of what has been said, saying goodbye to the stupidity lying in between. Diligently applying Aristotle's division of beings to our word, he talks about genera and species, and differences, and indivisibles, and uses all the subtlety contained in categories to slander our dogmas. So, leaving this behind, let us move (in our) word to what is difficult and inconvenient for him. For, having given his words the tone of Demosthenian anger, he appeared before us as some other Exoltisirides of Paeani, imitating the causticity of this rhetorician in the fight against us. But I will present literally the very speeches of this writer. “Truly,” he says, “if the born is opposite to the unborn, then in the same way the born light will relate to the unborn light as inferior; one will be light, and the other will be darkness.” Let those who have leisure learn the sharpness and dexterity of his responses to objections from his words; and I would demand from the false interpreter of our words either to speak ours, or to imitate this word as closely as possible, or, as he has been taught and can, to state what he used in his speech on his own behalf, and not on our behalf; for none of us will ever be deceived in such a way as to think, when the begotten is opposite in meaning to the unbegotten, to think of the subordination of one to the other. For everything opposite is not distinguished only by relative decrease, but is completely opposed as different in meaning. Thus, we say that someone is sleeping or not sleeping, sitting or not sitting, born or not born, and in the same way we talk about everything else in which the negation of one thing is the position of the opposite. So, just as life is not a reduction of non-life, but is completely opposed to it, so we thought about birth not as a reduction of the unborn, but as a certain opposition and direct opposition; so that what is signified by each can in no way have any commonality with the other, neither in the small nor in the large. So, whoever says that what is thought by its opposite is inferior to its opposite, let him speak on his own behalf. For our usual usage of words says that objects that have similarities with opposite things are just as different from each other as in prototypes. Thus, if in light Eunomius sees the same difference as in the begotten in relation to the ungenerated, then I will repeat our word that, just as there one part of the opposition remains without commonality with the opposite part, so if the light had a correspondence with one part of the opposition, then the rest of the part, of course, will turn out to have an alliance with darkness, since the necessity of the opposition is in accordance with the previous one and the concept of light distinguishes from what is opposite to it. This is what we say in simple, rustic language to the new Peanian - we who decide to write without logical thoroughness, as our detractor says. How did he fight against this objection when he threw these hot and fire-breathing words against us with Demosthenian force? Anyone who enjoys laughing should turn to the very writings of this rhetorician. For our word, although always ready to expose wicked dogmas, is completely unsuitable for ridiculing the ignorance of the ignorant. Book twelve. Part two The first section of the contest with Eunomius with Divine assistance has already been sufficiently completed in previous works; Those who wish can learn from our very works how, in the first section of (our) books, deception is powerfully exposed, and lies, as our research has shown, no longer has any power against the truth for those whose shamelessness against the truth is not very strong. But since he also compiled a second, so to speak, robber book against piety, then again, with God’s assistance, the truth through us arms itself against the system of enemies, like some military leader, leading our words and directing them against the enemies as it pleases. Following on her heels, we dare (to proceed) with cheerfulness to the second part of the competition, not at all afraid of the system of lies, even if it appears in many words. For he is faithful who proclaimed that “one will marry a thousand, and two will move the darkness” (Deut. 32:30), since godliness has power in battle, and not many hands. Like the dense Goliath, shaking his heavy spear in front of the Israelites, he did not instill any fear in the husband-shepherd, who had not practiced the art of war, but having grappled with him, he lost his head in the fight, contrary to his hope; in the same way, our Goliath, the leader of foreign knowledge, extending slander to his opponents, as if he had taken a drawn sword by the hilt, and at the same time flashing with newly sophisticated sophisms, did not seem to us, simple people, terrible and invincible, as he had the opportunity to boast in the absence of opponents; but he found that we, from the flock of the Lord, unprepared warriors, who had not learned to argue with words, and who did not consider it a loss not to learn this, threw at him the simple and crude word of truth. So, since that mentioned shepherd, who overthrew a foreigner with a sling, when the helmet was pierced by a stone and went inside from the force of the throw, not only did he make it the limit of his courage to look at the fallen enemy, but, having run and captured the enemy’s head, he victoriously returns to his own, carrying this eloquent head into the camp of his fellow tribesmen; Therefore, looking at this example, it is fitting for us not to become soft when approaching the second section of the books, but as much as possible to imitate the courage of David and, like him, after the first defeat, step on the one who is lying down, so that this enemy of truth appears (especially) deprived of his head; because the head of the one who renounced the faith was cut off even more than that of the foreigner. Since “the head of every man is Christ,” as the Apostle says (1 Cor. 11:3), and it is completely fair for a believer to be called a husband, for Christ is not the head of unbelievers, then, of course, he who is cut off from the saving faith, like Goliath, is beheaded by his own sword, which he sharpened against the truth, being separated from the true head. Now our business is no longer to cut off the chapter from it, but to show the severed one. And let no one think that out of any curiosity or desire for human glory, having willingly entered into this irreconcilable and incessant struggle, I fought with my opponents. For, if it were possible to lead a peaceful life without hassle in silence, then it would be completely far from my intention to voluntarily disturb the peace, exciting and voluntarily calling them to battle against us. But since the city of God - the Church - is being besieged, the great wall is shaking, surrounded by siege weapons of heresy, and there is a considerable danger for the plundered word of the Lord to be captured by the army of demons, then, considering it terrible not to participate in the struggle of Christians, I did not bow down to rest and the sweat of labor preferred to inaction of rest, knowing for sure that, as, according to the Apostle, everyone “will receive compensation according to his labor.” (1 Cor. 3:8), and everyone will receive punishment for neglecting feasible labor. Therefore, I withstood the first verbal struggle with good boldness, from a pastoral vessel, that is, from church dogmas, using these unprepared and spontaneous words to overthrow the blasphemy, not having for this struggle the need for any weapons of external wisdom. And now I do not shy away from the second battle, following the example of the great David, placing my trust in the one who teaches “hands for armies and fingers for warfare” (Ps. 143:1). Oh, if only we could somehow, with the help of Divine power, direct our writing hand to the destruction of heretical dogmas, and use our fingers to overthrow the evil militia, skillfully and militantly positioning them against the words of our enemies! And just as in human wars those superior to others in courage and strength, protected by weapons and familiarity with dangers, having gained experience in military affairs, stand at the head of the formation, exposed to the danger of those previously lined up in the distance, and the rest of the crowd, forming a tightly compressed formation, only seems to the imagination of the majority to bring some benefit to the common cause, so in our battles the noble warrior of Christ and a strong fighter against foreigners, the great warrior of the Spirit Basil, having put on the apostolic armor and protected himself with the shield of faith, then always extending forward his defensive weapon (I’m talking about the spiritual sword), fights ahead of the army of the Lord - in the word he composed against heresy - alive, and protecting, and having an advantage over his enemies. We, the crowd, covering ourselves with the shield of the foremost defender of the faith, as if (this) military leader led us against the enemies, will not restrain ourselves from battles that are according to our strength. So, since he, denouncing the false and untenable dream of heresy, says that the name ungeneracy is applied to God by no means other than by imagination, and provides evidence supported by evidence, both ordinary and from Scripture; and the inventor of lies, Eunomius, does not agree with what has been said, and is not able to refute it, but, embarrassed by the truth, the brighter the dogmas of piety shine, the more, according to the custom of Nocturnal animals, not seeing the light and not finding the usual refuges in sophisms, he wanders in vain, and, having entered into a hopeless lie, crowds around the same thing; so that almost all of his second work is occupied with the same chatter, therefore it is good that our struggle with our opponents should be about what our opponent showed us the way to through his own word. First, I say, we must go through in the main outlines all our teaching about dogmas and the disagreement of our enemies with us, so that we can see in order what is before us. So, the essence of Christian piety is to believe in the Only Begotten God, who is truth, and true light, and the power of God, and life, that He truly is everything that is said about Him, both other things, and above all else, that He is God and truth; that is, God in truth always exists by what is thought of Him and by what is named; and never being a bearer, never having to be such, Whose being of what He is in essence is inaccessible to any method of comprehension and curiosity. But we, as the word of Wisdom says (Wisdom 13:5), is led to the knowledge of this being by the greatness and beauty of creatures by some similarity to the knowable, that is, bestowing only faith (in this being) through an indication of its action, and not knowledge. So, when this thought is firmly held by all Christians worthy of this name - those, I say, who are taught by the law not to worship anything that is not the true God, but to worship the Only Begotten God Himself, and who confess that He is in truth, and not falsely, God; a dew that was pernicious for the Church appeared, making pious seeds fruitless, similar to Jewish lies, and having something of Hellenic atheism; for by inventing a created God, it agrees with the lies of the Greeks, and by not accepting the Son, it coincides with the Jewish error. So, this heresy limits the true divinity of the Lord and leads to the assumption that we should honor Him as created, and not as the Father in essence, power and dignity. Since, with the shining of truth from everywhere, these dark thoughts have no support, then, ignoring all the names invented by Scripture for some kind of praise befitting God and equally pronounced about both the Father and the Son, they came to the name “ungeneracy,” which they themselves composed to deny the greatness of the Only Begotten God. For while the pious confession makes faith in the Only Begotten God a dogma: “Let all honor the Son as they honor the Father” (John 5:23), they, rejecting all pious words that denote the greatness of the Son equally with the dignity of the Father, invent from here for themselves the principles and principles of a godless crime regarding this dogma. For, since the Only Begotten God, as the voice of the Gospel teaches, came from the Father (John 8:42) and is from Him (John 16:27–28), then they, replacing the thought “from Him” with other names, tear apart the true faith with them. For since the truth teaches that the Father does not have existence from any superior cause, they called such a concept ungeneracy, and the hypostatic existence of the Only Begotten from the Father is designated by the word “birth.” Then, by comparing these two words - “unborn” and “birth”, which are literally opposite to one another, they deceive their foolish followers. For “born” and “not born,” if we explain this by example, mean the same thing as “sits” and “does not sit” and similar expressions. They, having deprived these sayings of the natural meaning of words, are trying to adapt to them another meaning for the destruction of piety. For since, as has been said, the meaning of these sayings is equivalent to the expressions “sits” and “does not sit” (for one of the designated words seems to destroy the other), then they falsely think that this contradiction in the manner of pronunciation indicates a difference in essence, determining that one has the essence of birth, and the other – ungeneration. And just as it is impossible to consider the essence of a person to be the fact that a person sits and does not sit (for no one would express in the same word the sitting of a person and the person himself), so the unborn essence, by similarity to the example we have presented, is, of course, something different in its own meaning in relation to what is denoted by the word “not being born.” But they, having in mind that evil goal, in order to establish as much as possible the denial of the Divinity of the Only Begotten, do not say that ungeneracy is not the essence of the Father, but, having converted this word, they define the essence as ungeneracy, in order to bring out the difference of natures by contrast with the begotten from the contradiction of names. And although they turn their eyes towards wickedness with the darkness of their eyes, they do not see the futility of efforts in this, as if the eyes of the soul had closed. For which of the people, who has not completely lost the sound feelings of the soul, does not see the instability and inconsistency of the beginning of their teaching and that the word that makes unbornness an essence is not established on anything? This is how they prepare a lie. I will also lend my voice, objecting as strongly as possible to the words of my enemies. They say that God is called the unborn; The Deity is simple by nature, and the simple does not accept any complexity; So, if God, to whom the name of the ungenerate belongs, is not composite by nature, then the unbegotten will be the name of the essence itself, and nature is nothing other than ungeneracy. We tell them this: there is another meaning of uncomplexity and another of ungeneracy, for the first represents the simplicity of the subject, and the second - being not from a cause; and the meanings of these names are not replaced by one another, even if both were spoken of the same thing. But from the name unbegotten we learn that He who is thus named exists without a cause, and from the name simple we learn that He is pure from complexity; but neither of them is said instead of the other. So, there is no need to call the nature of the Divine ungenerate on the grounds that It is simple by nature. But in the sense that It is without parts and uncomplicated, It is called simple, and in the sense that it is not born, it is called unborn. And if the name “unborn” does not mean being without a cause, but the meaning of this name is simplicity, then, according to the teachings of heresy, God would be called unborn because He is simple and uncomplicated. And if the meaning of both simple and ungenerate is the same, then the simplicity of the Son will, of course, be called ungenerate. For they will not deny that the Only Begotten God is simple by nature, unless they deny that He is God. So, simplicity in meaning will have nothing in common with ungeneracy, as if, because of uncomplexity, nature should consider ungeneracy, otherwise they would have to choose against themselves one of two absurdities: either deny the divinity of the Only Begotten, or declare Him unborn. For if the Divinity is simple by nature, and the name of simplicity, in their opinion, is ungeneracy, then they either admit that the Son is compound, which shows that He is not God, or, if they recognize divinity in Him, and the Divinity, as has been said, is simple, then they admit that He is completely existing and ungenerate because of simplicity, since simplicity is considered to be the same thing as ungeneracy. And to make our words clearer, I will repeat what was said again. We say that each of these names has some special meaning; and neither is that which has no parts the same as the ungenerate, nor is the ungenerated the same as the simple; but by simple we mean uncomplicated, and by unborn we mean being not from any cause. But we must believe about the Son, we think that He is God, who is from God, and despite the fact that He is simple, because the Divinity is pure from all complexity. In exactly the same way, neither the name of the Son signifies the simplicity of the essence, nor does simplicity itself express the meaning of the Son, but from the first (name) his existence from the Father is revealed, and from simplicity - what this word shows. So, since the concept of simplicity is essentially the same and is applied to both the Father and the Son, not differing either by any deficiency or excess, and what is born from the unborn has a great difference in meaning, for with both of these names one must think of what is not in the other; that is why we say that there is no need, when the Father is unborn, to call His essence ungeneracy, because His essence is simple. For because the Son, of whom we believe that He was also begotten, is simple, (we) do not call the essence simple; but just as essence is simple, and not simplicity, so essence is unborn, and not unborn. In exactly the same way, from the fact that the Son was born, it is in no way necessary, since His essence is simple, the birth to honor His essence. But here, too, each of the names has a special meaning. For the name “born” represents to you being from something, and simple means the absence of complexity. But it does not seem so to them, for, since the essence of the Father is simple, they want it to be considered nothing other than ungeneracy, which is why He is called unborn. One can also say to them that since they call the Father both Creator and Creator, and the one called so is essentially simple, then it is time for these sages to declare the essence of the Father as both creativity and creation, since the doctrine of simplicity elevates into essence every meaning of the name by which He is called. So, either let ungeneracy be removed from the definition of the Divine essence, leaving it with its own meaning, or if, due to the simplicity of the subject, they want to define the essence as ungeneracy, then for the same reason, let them see in the essence of the Father both creation and creation, not as if the power (located) in the essence created and created, but as if the power itself was conceivable as creation and creation. And if they reject this as evil and absurd, then let consistency convince them to reject their word along with it. For just as creation is not the essence of the Creator, so ungeneracy is not the essence of the Unborn. And for the sake of brevity and clarity, I will repeat the same words again: if the Father is called unborn not because of ungeneracy, but because He is a simple and uncomplicated essence, then for the same reason the Son will be considered unborn, for in essence He is homogeneous and uncomplicated. And if the Son must be recognized as begotten because He is begotten, then it is clear that we will also call the Father unbegotten because He is unbegotten. And if this is forced by both truth and the sequence of propositions, then it is clear that ungeneracy is not the name of the essence, but means some difference in concepts that distinguishes the begotten from the unbegotten. Then let us add this kind of reasoning to what has been said: if they say that the name “ungeneracy” means essence, and not existence without a cause, then what name will they establish for the concept that the Father exists without a cause, when ungeneracy is assigned by them to indicate the essence? If through the expression “unborn” we recognize not the separating difference of the Hypostases, but we believe that it serves to indicate the nature itself, as if flowing in some way from the subject subject and through the proclamation of syllables revealing what is sought, then it is absolutely necessary either not to be unborn to God, or not to be called by him, since there will no longer be any word that would allow such a meaning in it. If ungeneracy, as they say, does not mean being without a cause, but shows nature, then this sophism will turn completely contrary to theirs (opinion) and it will turn out that ungeneracy in God is far from their teaching; for when no other saying or name represents that the Father was unborn, and ungeneracy, according to their wisdom, means something else, and not not being born, then their shaky word converges and merges with Sabellius. Because it is absolutely necessary, according to this sequence, to think that the Father is one and the same with the Son, since in their teaching the distinction between the begotten and the unbegotten is lost; so one of two things: either they must change their opinion about this name, recognizing that it denotes the difference between one and the other feature, and not nature, or, remaining with what they recognized, they must agree with Sabellius regarding this statement. For it is not visible how the difference of Hypostases will have a non-fusion when it does not separate the born from the unborn. So if the word “unbornness” means difference, then the essence through this name will no longer be signified, because the concept of difference is different and the essence is different; if the meaning of this word is attributed to nature, then the so-called son-fathers will be consistently carried away into the lies when the clarity of the teaching about the Hypostases disappears. And if they say that nothing prevents the word “unborn” from both denoting a difference from the born and representing its essence, then let us distinguish between the related meanings of this name, so that the word “unborn”, which has a different meaning, can be accurately adapted to both. For, being used to indicate a difference, this name does not have reciprocity, as soon as it is compared with the distinguished concept; for we also agree, instead of saying that the Son is begotten and the Father unbegotten, due to some similarity in the sayings, we call one unbegotten and the other begotten. But from what understanding of this word the indication of essence can be explained - it would be impossible for him to say. But, keeping silent about this, the new theologian, weaving in for us other chatter to the previous wording, argues (like this): “Since God,” he says, “is called unborn because he is simple, therefore God is unborn.” What does the concept of simplicity have to do with the idea of ​​the unborn? For He is both the Only Begotten and the begotten, and there is no doubt that He is simple. “But He has no parts and is not compound.” What does this have to do with what is being studied? For the Son is neither diverse nor complex, but because of this he is not unborn. “But,” he says, “He is alien to both quantity and magnitude.” Let it be so, for the Son is not defined by size and is not quantitative, and yet he is the Son. But this is not the question being investigated; it is to indicate what meaning of the word “unborn” indicates the essence? For just as the basis for the distinction of (personal) properties is taken from this name, so they would like the indication of being to be ambiguous through some of the meanings of this same name. But Eunomius is silent about this, but says that “it is not by imagination that one should honor God by calling the unborn, for what is said in this way usually dissipates along with the sounds themselves.” But what of what we say is not destroyed along with how it is said? For we cannot preserve what is spoken in sound (the word) indestructible in the form of the word, once formed in the mouth, as something made from clay or bricks is preserved; but at the same time, as soon as the word is uttered in sound, what was said is no longer there, because when the breath of sound spreads again into the air, in the place where the outpouring of sound followed, no trace of what was said is anymore imprinted; so if he characterizes a word “by invention” in that it does not remain a word, but disappears “along with the sound of the speaker, then he will not avoid (the need) to call every word an invention, since nothing significant remains from any word after utterance. He will not be able to prove that even ungeneracy itself, which he excludes from the realm of invention, remains indestructible and solid after utterance, since a speech that comes out of the mouth by means of sound does not remain in the air. But we can also prove the inconsistency of his words in this way: even if we silently began to depict the thoughts of the soul in writing, it is impossible for what is solid in concepts to receive designation in writing, and what is not solid remains without designation through writing; for whatever comes to mind, whether it is correct according to understanding or not, can be committed to writing at will. To denote thought, sound is the same as writing, for equally through both we express what is thought. Therefore, I cannot understand what he means, along with pure sound, he destroys thought. For with every word pronounced with the help of any sound, there is a transition of breath, transmitting the sound into what is akin to it, and the meaning of the words is imprinted through hearing in the memory, in the soul of the listener, whether the meaning is true or false. So, there goes the explanation of “invention” that our writer imagines when he characterizes and defines it as the resolution of sound; and therefore this “reasonable listener,” as Isaiah says (Is. 3:3), rejects this inaccessible doctrine of invention, proving that it is completely “destroyed and has no substance,” as he says. He skillfully discusses the power contained in speech, using well-known examples to direct the word towards the doctrine of dogmas. Against him, Eunomius, arrogant (to become on a level with) this venerable scripture, tries to destroy what is clearly revealed there about invention in this way. But perhaps it would be better, before refuting what is written, to examine the purpose that he has in mind, he avoids attaching to God the name unborn by imagination. For all who have recognized the teaching of piety, the generally accepted dogma has gained force that all hope of salvation must rest in Christ, so that otherwise it is impossible to receive blessedness if faith in Christ does not give this desired good. And when this thought is firmly established in the souls of believers, all honor, and worship, and glory are given from all to the Only Begotten God, as the Author of life, “who does the works of the Father” (John 10:37), as the Lord Himself says in the Gospel, and no less in excellence in everything that is understood as good; I don’t know where, incited by hatred and envy of the honor of the Lord, considering the worship rendered by believers to the Only Begotten God as a detriment to themselves, they speak against divine (Him) honors and try to convince that none of what is said about Him is true. So (with them) He is not the true God, although He is called so in Scripture; he who is called Son does not have a nature exactly corresponding to the name; Neither in dignity nor in nature does He have any communion with the Father; and it is impossible for the Born to be equal in dignity, or power, or nature with the Creator, because with the Father, life is unlimited and existence is from eternity, but with the Son, life is in some way limited: since the beginning from which He came sets a limit to the continuation of life for the previous time and prevents Him from extending with the eternity of the Father; so that His life is recognized as insufficient, and the Father was not always what He is and what He is now called, but is different, in comparison with the former; since afterward He wanted to be the Father, or better yet, not to be, but to be called. For He is not truly called the Father of the Son, but the name of the creature is replaced by the name of the Son. In any case, they say that what came into being after is necessarily inferior to the most ancient, limited - to the eternal, what happened at the will of the Creator - to the Creator Himself in power, and in dignity, and in nature, and in seniority in time, and in all advantages. And who is far from perfection in those concepts of Divinity that correspond to Him, how could anyone worthily glorify him with the honors characteristic of the true God? So from this they draw the conclusion that the One who is imperfect in power, lacks the perfection of life, is subordinate to the Sovereign, does not create anything of Himself except what is commanded to Him by the command of the Master - this should be recognized as having no honor befitting God and nothing corresponding to the concept of God, but calling Him God, adopting a name devoid of any majestic meaning. With words spoken in this form, without the cover of speculation, he would arouse rage and would terrify the listener with a new teaching. For who will accept an evil teacher who openly and artlessly teaches the perversion of the greatness of Christ? That is why, covering up these evil verbal intrigues with some believable and flattering deductions, they deceive foolish listeners with ideas (borrowed) from external wisdom. Having prepared everything by means of which the thoughts of the listeners could be spontaneously carried away to such opinions, they leave the conclusion of the final conclusion to the listener himself. For, having said that the Only Begotten God is essentially non-identical with the true Father, and sophistically deducing such a conclusion from the opposition of the unborn with the begotten, they are silent about what follows from this, since the wicked thought here itself receives force through the sequence of the conclusion. And just as the compiler of poisons makes the poison palatable to the poisoned person, sweetening the destruction with honey, and only gives the poison, and the poison itself, mixed with the entrails, produces destruction without any participation from the compiler of the poison, so something similar is done by them. With refined reasoning, as if they had sweetened the deadly teaching with poison, after they have poured into the souls of their listeners the delusion that the Only Begotten God is not the true God, they silently commit everything else along with it. For the conviction that He is not the true God follows that nothing that is said about Him as befitting God is said truly. Because if He is not called both Son and God in truth, but by incorrect usage of words, then, of course, the other names by which He is called in the Divine Scripture will be alien to the truth, for if one is said about Him untruely, then both will be alien to the truth. Of course, everything will follow one after the other, so if He is truly God, then it is necessary for Him to be both a Judge and a King, and in general everything that represents each of the names that are given to Him. If the Divinity is falsely assimilated to Him, then everything else regarding Him is untrue. So, if the deceived are convinced that the Only Begotten is falsely called by the name of the Divine, then at the same time it is affirmed that one should neither serve Him, nor worship, nor generally render the honor due to God. And in order for the attempt against the Savior to be valid, they invented this method of blasphemy: they teach that one should not pay attention to communication in other names, which signify the equality of dignity of the Son with the Father, but that one should infer the difference of nature from the opposition of the unborn to the Born, for this constitutes the Divine nature, which is signified by the name of ungeneration. Then, since all people who have reason think that it is impossible to express the ineffable nature by any force of speech, and our knowledge does not extend so far as to comprehend that which exceeds everything knowable, and the ability of the gift of speech has not received such strength in us that it can depict the conceivable, if something entirely lofty and divine constitutes the subject of thought, then again these sages, accusing the majority of stupidity and ignorance of science reason, they themselves claim that they know it and can acquire knowledge about anything they want. That is why they say that the Divine nature is nothing other than ungeneracy itself, and, calling it the most important, supreme and highest, they contain in this sound all the greatness of the Divine. It follows from this: if ungeneracy is the most important (expression) of the essence and the rest of the names befitting the Divine are associated with it, such as divinity, power, incorruptibility and others - if this is what ungeneracy has, then, of course, if it is inapplicable, those other (properties) are also inapplicable. For just as the ability to think, laugh and acquire knowledge is a characteristic of man, and a non-human, of course, will not have the characteristics of (human) nature, so if ungeneracy is true divinity, then in one to whom this name is not characteristic, of course, there will not be any other (of the properties) characterizing the Divinity. Hence, since ungeneracy is not applicable to the Son, it has already been proven that all other high and proper names for God are not applicable to Him in the proper sense. So, in this they put the understanding of the Divine mysteries in order to reject the Divinity of the Son, almost openly exclaiming to anyone who wants to listen to them that you can be perfect in knowledge (only) you, who do not believe in the Only Begotten God, that He is the true God, you, who do not honor the Son in the same way as the Father is revered, admitting that He is not the Son, but a creature by nature, not the Lord, not Master, but slave and subject. For this is the end of their suggestions, although blasphemy is hidden behind other expressions. For this purpose, in his previous work, having variously amused himself with the circulation of sophisms and exercising his art in various ways on the concept of ungeneracy, he takes away the meaning from the deluded when he says: “So, if not by design, not in the sense of deprivation, not as a part (because He is indivisible), not as something else in Himself, because the Ungenerate is one and singular, then He will be the unborn essence.” Our teacher was aware of the harm that necessarily flows from this for those who are deceived, namely, that the admission of the opinion that He is not truly God, an opinion according to which the dogma is perverted by the sequence of these sayings, is a subversion of the very confession of the Lord; For this reason, on the one hand, he does not contradict that ungeneracy is not assimilated to God as a part, and he himself, in agreement with him, confesses that the Divinity is simple, non-quantitative, has no size and complexity, and on the other hand, he both objects and provides evidence against the idea that the name should not be applied to Him by design. Without stopping there, our writer in the second word again confronts us with his wisdom, fighting against what has been said about invention. But it would be timely for them to remember the rest of Vasily’s discussion about this; We will only add to this that human nature does not have the power to accurately know the being of God; and perhaps it will not be enough to say this about human strength alone; but if anyone says that even an incorporeal creature is inferior to containing and grasping with knowledge the Infinite Nature, of course, he will not make a complete mistake, as can be seen from examples close to us. Many and various creatures received life in the flesh: winged, land, and rising upward with the power of wings, and living and hiding in the depths. If we compare them with each other, it turns out that those living in the air are quite different from those on earth; If we compare it with the stars and the fixed sphere, we will have to admit that what floats in the air with the help of flight differs from the heavenly no less than from the animals of the earth. Likewise, the angelic power, compared with ours, seems to have very many advantages, because, unburdened by any (external) sensation, the pure and undisguised power of knowledge strives for the heavenly. If we also consider their ability of understanding in relation to the greatness of the Truly Existing One, then he who dares to say that their power in relation to the understanding of the Divine is not far from our smallness will show courage that does not go beyond proper limits. For the distance by which the Uncreated Nature is separated from the created essence is great and impassable. One is limited, the other has no boundaries; one is encompassed by its measure, as the wisdom of the Creator desired, the other knows no measure; one is connected by a certain extent of distance, closed by time and place, the other is above any concept of distance; No matter how much one strains the mind, the same amount it avoids curiosity. In this life one can discern both the beginning of beings and the end, and Bliss above creation does not allow either a beginning or an end, but, being above what is signified by both, remains always the same. One thing has the movement of life in itself, and does not pass through any distances in it from one (state) to another (for it does not come to life through communication with another life, and one should think that there is both an end and a beginning of communication), but the very thing that exists is the life that acts in it - a life that does not become greater or lesser from any addition or subtraction. For the accretion of something to increase does not take place in the infinite, and the thought of decrease does not allow the dispassionate nature of Nature. Thus, looking at the sky and in some way coming into contact with the beauty of heaven with the help of the visual organs, we do not doubt that what appears exists; and when they ask us: what is this? - we cannot explain in words the nature of this and are only amazed when we see the circular circulation of the whole, the harmonious movement of the planets, some kind of circle called the zodiac, drawn obliquely on the vault of heaven, on which those knowledgeable observe the movement of the luminaries drawn in the opposite direction. We marvel at the difference in size of the luminaries, and the peculiarities of their brilliance, their rising and setting, which always invariably occurs at the same times, according to their circular annual revolution, the conjunctions of the wandering luminaries, the approaches of the lower ones and the disappearance of the upper ones, eclipses on the earth, the returns of the vanishing luminaries, the varied changes of the moon, the movement of the sun in the middle of the poles and the way it, being full of its own light, is crowned with rays all around and, enveloping everything with a luminous force, sometimes it itself is eclipsed, when, as they say, it is obscured by the lunar body, and how, always performing its course according to the will of the One who set it, it turns along the predetermined path of retreat and approach, by itself producing the four seasons of the year. Seeing this, based on what we see, we do not doubt the existence of phenomena, but we are as far from understanding the essence of the causes of each of these objects as if we had not recognized the phenomena at all with the help of sensation. So we know about the Creator of the world that He exists, but we also do not deny that we do not know the concept of His being. And let those who boast of the knowledge of this first answer regarding what is accessible: what, in their opinion, is a celestial body? What kind of instrument is it that produces rotational motion in everything? What is the movement? No matter who comes up with the intellect, the thinking, moving further, will certainly end up insoluble and incomprehensible. For if anyone says that another body similar in outline, adapted in form, embraces movement, so that this run, always inclined, rotates uniformly around itself, necessarily encountering obstacles in this enveloping body to strive in a straight direction; then how can we explain the fact that these bodies remain during continuous friction without destroying one another? And how does movement occur when two homogeneous bodies, although one is adapted to the shape of the other, but one of them remains motionless? For, with the immobility of the surrounding body, the body, tightly compressed inside, will, of course, be incapable of its own action. And what is it that holds together the strength of this enveloping body so that it remains unshakable, unshaken by the movement that is attached to it? If, due to the curiosity of thinking, we assume that it has some place (anchoring) that keeps its position firm, then, of course, thought, consistently going further, becomes curious about the basis and this basis, and then another basis for this (last), and another even further; and thus the investigation, ascending in this way, will extend into infinity and end insoluble, because if finally the body is placed at the foundation of everything, then again the question is asked what is behind it; so that the mind never stops, constantly inquiring what surrounds this enveloping body. But that's not true; according to the empty assumption of those who philosophize about this, something empty is spilled in the heavenly spaces, the circulation of everything slides along it and returns to itself, not encountering any resistance from anything dense that could stop and interrupt the forward circular movement. What is this empty thing, which, they say, is neither body nor thought? To what extent does it extend, and what replaces it? What affinity does the tightly compressed and dense have with this empty and insignificant? What serves as a means between objects that are different in nature? How is such a harmonious harmony of the whole formed from heterogeneous things? Who can say what heaven is? Is it a mixture of the elements it contains, or one (formed) from all of them, or something else, different from them? What are the stars themselves? Where does the shine come from? What is it and how is it compiled? What is the basis for their difference in beauty and size? And as for the planets making a movement within seven orbits that is opposite to the general movement, what does this mean and by what necessity is it forced? And that insubstantial and ethereal fire and the air diffused in between, serving as a barrier between the calorific and destructive nature and between the moist and destructible nature? And how is the earth in the lower part attached to the whole, and what keeps its position firm? What keeps her from going down? If someone asks us about this and the like, whether anyone will be able to rise to such an extent as to promise the concept of this, the sane have nothing left to answer, except that “He who created all things with wisdom” (Ps. 103:24) alone knows the foundation of creation; and we “by faith understand that the word of God will be perfected forever,” as the Apostle says (Heb. 11:3). So, if the lower nature, which is subject to our senses, is above the measure of human knowledge, then how can He who created everything by one desire be within the limits of our understanding? “False vanity and confusion” (Ps. 39:5), as the prophet says, to think that it is possible for someone to understand the incomprehensible. This can be seen in small children: due to the ignorance characteristic of the playful and at the same time inquisitive age, often when a ray of sunshine bursts into them through a window, they, delighted at the beauty, rush to the appeared (ray) and try to carry the ray with their hands, argue among themselves, grab the light in a handful, squeezing, as they think, the very radiance; and when the clenched fingers are released, the disappearance of the beam from the hands produces laughter and noise in the children. So the babies of our generation, as the parable says, play sitting “in the marketplace” (Matthew 11:16), seeing the Divine power illuminating souls with the actions of Providence and miracles, as if some ray and warmth flowing from the solar nature, they do not marvel at grace and do not worship what is known in this; but, overstepping the limits of what the soul can contain, they grasp the intangible with the hands of false reasoning and, with their conclusions, think to hold on to what appears to them. And when reason decomposes and reveals the web of false thinking, there is nothing for those who have reason to take. Thus, like minors and childishly, vainly occupied with the impossible, as if in some child’s palm, they contain the incomprehensible nature of God in a few syllables of the word “unborn,” defend this stupidity and think that the Divinity is only such that it can be grasped by the human mind through one name. They pretend to follow the words of the saints; but, placing themselves above them, they do not show them reverence. For what none of the blessed men appear to have said, whose words contained in writing in the divine books are known; about this, “without understanding,” as the Apostle says, “they neither speak nor affirm about them” (1 Tim. 1:7); however, they say that they themselves know, and boast that they also lead others to knowledge. And that is why they firmly stand on the concept that the Only Begotten God is not truly what he is called, for the necessity of inferences dictates so. What pathetic wits! How miserable and destructive for them is the study of philosophy! Who strives as diligently into the abyss as they laboriously and diligently dig themselves a pit of blasphemy? To what extent have they separated themselves from Christian hope! By what an abyss they were separated from saving faith! How far they have departed from the depths of the faith of Father Abraham! He (if, in accordance with the great thought of the Apostle, it is necessary, leaving the letter, allegorically to understand the meaning of the story, and, of course, the historical truth remains), - he, by Divine command, withdrew from his land and from his family, departed, as befits a prophetic husband striving for the knowledge of God (Heb. 11, 8). It seems to me that it is not some local migration that should be understood here if we are looking for spiritual meaning; but he, having renounced himself and his earth, that is, from earthly and base understanding, raised his thought as much as possible above the usual limits of nature and abandoned the affinity of the soul with the senses, so that, being unburdened by anything that appears to the senses, he is no longer subject to darkness when understanding the invisible; and, walking, according to the word of the Apostle, “by faith, and not by sight” (2 Cor. 5:7), when neither the hearing was any longer loud, nor the sight was deceived by the visible; he was so elevated by the greatness of knowledge that here one can lay the limit of human perfection, he knew as much of God as this fleeting and temporary power can be contained with all its tension. Therefore, the Lord of all creation, having become, as it were, something found for the patriarch, is especially called the God of Abraham (Ex. 3:6). However, what does Scripture say about him? That he “came ignorantly, but he is coming” (Heb. 11:8). But, not even recognizing the name of the Beloved, he was not upset by this ignorance and was not ashamed of it. So, for him, this served as a firm indication of the path to what he was looking for, that in his thoughts about God he was not guided by any of the available means of cognition, and that once the thought aroused in him was absolutely not delayed by anything on the path to that which exceeds everything knowable. But, having abandoned by the power of reflection his native wisdom, that is, the Chaldean philosophy, which stopped at phenomena, and having become higher than what is cognizable by sense, he, from the beauty of the visible and from the harmony of heavenly miracles, desired to behold beauty that has no image. So, everything else that he comprehended, moving forward along the path of reflection, whether strength, goodness, originlessness, or infinity, or if some other similar concept regarding the Divine nature was revealed, he made everything as aids and foundations for the further path to the heavenly, always firmly holding on to what he had found and stretching forward, placing these beautiful “ascents” in his heart, as the prophet says (Ps. 80, 6); and, ascending further than everything comprehended by one’s own power, as still lower in comparison with what is sought after, after having risen in opinions about God above every idea arising from the name of nature, having purified the thought from such assumptions and perceived pure faith and without the admixture of any opinion; This is what he made an infallible and clear sign of the knowledge of God, a sign most excellent and higher than any distinctive sign - namely, faith that God exists. That is why, after such inspiration, excited by lofty contemplations, again lowering his gaze to human weakness, he says: “I am earth and ashes” (Gen. 18:27), that is, speechless and powerless to interpret the good embraced by thought; for earth and ashes, in my opinion, mean that which is lifeless and at the same time barren. Thus, the law of faith becomes the law for subsequent life, teaching those who approach God through the history of Abraham that it is impossible to approach God otherwise than if faith does not mediate and if it does not bring the investigating mind into contact with the incomprehensible Nature. For, leaving aside the curiosity of knowledge, “faith, it is said, Abraham to God, and imputed to him as righteousness” (Gen. 15:6); “It was not written for him alone, says the Apostle, but also for us” (Rom. 4:23–24), that God does not impute knowledge to people as righteousness, but faith. For knowledge seems to have some kind of commercial inclination, entering into connection with one thing known, but Christian faith is not so. It serves as the realization not only of what is known, but also of what is expected (Heb. 11:1), and what is already possessed is not the subject of hope. For if anyone has anything, says the Apostle, “how can he hope” (Rom. 8:24)? Faith makes what is beyond our understanding ours, vouching with its own firmness for what has not yet appeared, for the Apostle says about the believer that “seeing the invisible, he endures” (Heb. 11:27). So, he is vain who says that it is possible to know the Divine essence through knowledge that is puffed up in vain. Because man is not so great as to equal his cognitive power with God. For “who in the clouds can be equal to the Lord” (Ps. 88:7)? - says David. And what he seeks is not so little that he should be overwhelmed by thoughts of human insignificance. Listen to the advice of Ecclesiastes not to utter words before the face of God, for God, he says, “is in heaven, but you are down on earth” (Eccl. 5:1). By the mutual comparison of these parts of the world, or, better to say, their distance, in my opinion, he shows how much the Divine nature is higher than the wisdom of human reasoning. For as much as the stars are above the touch of your fingers, so much or, better yet, many times more is the Nature, which surpasses any mind, above earthly speculations. So, having learned how great the difference is in nature, let us calmly remain within our boundaries. For it is both safer and at the same time more pious to believe that the greatness of God is above understanding, rather than, defining the boundaries of His glory with some assumptions, to think that there is nothing higher than what is comprehended by reason; and even in the case when someone finds it safe, do not leave the Divine essence untested as ineffable and inaccessible to human reasoning. For guessing about the unknown and acquiring some knowledge about the hidden from the imagination of human reasoning paves the way and leads to false assumptions; because he who makes a guess about the unknown will assume not only the truth, but often the very lie instead of the truth. And the evangelical and prophetic disciple believes that Jehovah exists on the basis of what he hears in the sacred books, on the basis of harmony in visible nature and the works of Providence; what He is and how it is, without examining it as useless and unsuitable, he will not give lies access to the truth; for with great inquisitiveness there is a place for incorrect reasoning, and with the inaction of inquisitiveness the need for error is completely suppressed. And that such a thought is true can be seen from how church heresies deviated into various and different assumptions about God, when everyone deceived himself differently, judging by some movement of thought. How did those in question themselves plunge into such an abyss of wickedness! Isn’t it safest, according to the advice of wisdom (Eccl. 5:1), not to explore the deepest, but to calmly preserve for oneself inviolate the simple pledge of faith? But as soon as human insignificance began to recklessly touch the incomprehensible and give the force of dogma to the inventions of its own empty opinion, then from here arose a long list of those who were hostile to the truth, and those in question themselves became teachers of lies; imagining the Divinity as something describable, they almost clearly create an idol out of their opinion when they deify the meaning that appears in the word “ungeneracy,” so that it is no longer a quality attributed in a certain respect to the Divine nature, but is itself God or the essence of God. Of course, they had to, looking at the face of the saints, I mean the prophets and patriarchs, to whom the word of truth was proclaimed in many parts and in various ways, and then at those who were self-seers and ministers of the Word, to reverence the authenticity of those who were testified by the Spirit Himself, to remain within the boundaries of their teaching and knowledge, and not to dare to do what was not accessible to the understanding of the saints. For they, making God, previously unknown to people because of the idolatrous delusion that prevailed then, known and known to people, both from the miracles that appear in His works, and from the names through which the diversity of Divine power is understood, lead to the understanding of the Divine nature, making known to people one (only) the greatness of what is seen in God; and they left the concept of essence as something that cannot be contained and is of no use to the inquisitive, ineffable and unexplored. For although they told about everything else that happened - about the sky, the earth, the sea, the times, the centuries and the creatures in them, they kept silent about what each of these creations was, and how, and where it came from. So it is about God that He “is and is a rewarder of those who seek Him” (Heb. 11:6), they teach to believe, but His nature, as higher than every name, they did not signify by name, and did not care about it. If we know any name to clarify the understanding of the Divine, then all such names have affinity and similarity with those names that denote the peculiarity of a person. For when those depicting an unknown (person) with some signs say that he is of high birth, if this happens, and comes from nobles, famous for wealth, remarkable for his merit, flourishing age, such and such height, and the like, then they do not depict the nature of the person being described, but some distinctive features of what is known about him. For neither nobility, nor wealth, nor fame by merit, nor remarkable by age is the person himself, but each of these is a quality seen in a certain person. Likewise, all the sayings in sacred Scripture that are open to the glorification of the Divine mean something revealed about God, each representing a special meaning; from them we learn either power, or non-involvement of imperfection, or guiltlessness, or indescribability, or that He has power over everything, or generally something about Him. The very essence, as inconceivable for any thought and inexpressible in words, Scripture left unexplored, legalizing it to honor it with silence, when it forbade the study of the deepest and said that one should not “utter a word before the face of God” (Eccl. 5, 1). Therefore, the researcher of all inspired sayings will not find in them the teaching about the Divine nature and about anything else that concerns being in essence. Regarding this, we people live in ignorance of everything, not knowing first of all ourselves, and then everything else. For who has reached the understanding of his own soul? Who recognized her essence? Is it material or immaterial? Is she completely incorporeal, or does she have something similar to a body? How does it happen? How is it mixed (in the body)? Where is it administered from (into the body)? How does it leave? What serves as the connection and means between it and physical nature? How, being intangible and having no image, is it encompassed by a certain outline peculiar to it? What is the difference in its actions? How is it one and the same and strives for heaven, exploring the invisible, and falls, carried away by the burden of the body, into earthly passions, into anger and fear, sadness and pleasure, mercy and cruelty, hope and memory, timidity and courage, love and hatred, and into all other opposing actions of the forces of the soul? Who, with this in mind, would not think of himself that a whole crowd of souls is gathered in him, because each of the named (actions) is completely different from the others? And how does one of them become predominant, gaining dominion over all, so that the very power of reason falls under and submits to the predominance of such movements and adds its assistance to these impulses, as if by force serving some ruler? What word of inspired Scripture has taught us regarding this multiplicity and diversity of what is perceived in the soul by thought? Does everything come together as one thing? And what kind of mixture and combination of mutually opposite things, whereby the plural becomes one, but each of the many, represented separately, is contained in the soul, as if in some vast vessel? And why do we not always feel all the forces contained in it, so that we feel courage, fear, hatred and love together, and experience within ourselves the fused and mixed movement of all other sensations, but we recognize the strength of each of them separately, when one of them gains predominance and the others subside? In general, what is the combination, and the arrangement itself, and the vast breadth within us, so that each of the forces is assigned a special place, and what kind of environments and obstacles prevent it from mixing with the neighboring force? What word interpreted the very thing: does anger, or fear, or other of the above mentioned (actions of the soul) have an independent essence, or are they some kind of movements that do not have independence? If they have independence, then we do not have one soul, as has been said, but some kind of gathering of souls, how soon can each of these movements be singled out as a special and separate soul. And if it is necessary to recognize each such movement as not having independence, then how does one that does not have independence dominate and rule over us, and by some kind of unlimited power makes us its slaves, each of these movements that happens to gain predominant power? And if the soul is something intelligible, then how is multipartality and complexity seen in this intelligible essence, then how should such a concept about it be conceivable without these bodily qualities? And the power of the soul, returning, stimulating, nourishing, changing, and the fact that although all parts of the body are nourished, sensation does not pass through all of them, but some of them, like soulless things, are devoid of sensation, for example, bones and cartilage, nails and hair, which have nutrition but no sensation; who, tell me, figured all this out? But why talk about the soul? Even for the flesh, no one’s strong consideration has hitherto grasped the expression that defines its bodily qualities. If someone breaks down with his intellect what appears to us into what it consists of, and, having abstracted the qualities, tries to understand the subject in itself, then I do not see what will be comprehended by such speculation. If we take away from the body color, figure, density, heaviness, quantity, position of place, movement, passion, and activity, and relation to something - of which nothing individually is a body, but everything together belongs to the body, then what remains for what is actually called body? We cannot understand this on our own; Scripture has not taught us this. But how can one who does not know himself know what is above him? He who is accustomed to ignorance of himself does not clearly learn thereby not to touch anything hidden outside himself? That is why we know with our feelings the elements of the world only to the extent that it is useful for our life to receive knowledge about each of them. And what is the concept of their essence, we have not been taught this, and ignorance of this does not harm us. For what good is it for me to carefully examine the nature of fire, how it arises from friction, how it ignites, how, engulfing the substance before it, it ceases not before devouring and destroying what lies before it? How does a spark hide in a stone? How does iron, cold to the touch, create a flame? How does rubbing one tree against another ignite a fire? How does water that shines in the sun produce a flame? Leaving aside careful research and research about the reason for the upward movement of fire, and about its ever-moving force, and about everything like that, we have come to know only one thing about it that is useful for our life, knowing that the one who benefits, without caring about the research, receives no less careful researcher. Therefore, Scripture does not go into discussions about the essence of created things, as about a superfluous and useless subject. And it seems to me that John, the son of thunder, who had loudly proclaimed the previous sermon of his teaching, had this in mind, and at the end of his gospel narrative said that there were many things done by the Lord, “even if they were written in one, I could not contain the whole world to write the books” (John 21:25). When he said all this, he did not mean miraculous healings, because not a single one of them are not left without mention in the narratives, although not all those healed are mentioned by name. For when the Scripture says that the dead were raised, the blind saw, the lame walked, and that every disease and every ailment was healed, then with these words it did not omit any of the miracles in the narrative, including each of them in general concepts. But, perhaps, the Evangelist, in the depth of his vision, says that greatness. The Son of God must be known not only from the miracles He performed in the flesh. They are insignificant if we compare them with the greatness of other things; and you look at the sky, look at its beauty, sweep your thoughts across the entire expanse of the earth, through the depths of the water, declaring the whole world in thought and imagining in your mind the premium nature, find out that these are the true deeds of the One who lived with you in the flesh. “Even,” he says, “if only it were written one by one”, that is, what, and how, and from where, and how much, then the abundance of the teaching about the world would exceed the capacity of the world. Since God “created everything with wisdom” (Ps. 103:24), and the wisdom of God has no limit, for “His understanding, it is said, is without number” (Ps. 146:5), then the world, limited by its limits, will not accommodate the concept of infinite wisdom. So, if the whole world is small to contain the teaching about the works of the Lord, then how many measures will contain the story about the God of all? Perhaps even a blasphemous tongue will not deny that the Creator of everything brought into existence by a single will is infinite. So, if the whole creation is not capable of accommodating the teaching about itself, as the great John testifies, according to our explanation, then how can human smallness accommodate the teaching about the Lord of creation? Let the eloquent people say, what is a person in comparison with the whole world? What geometric point is so incapable of dividing? Which of Epicurus's atoms becomes so thin in empty speculations, reasoning about this, and so approaches non-existence, like human smallness, which in comparison with the whole world is, as it were, nothing, as the great David also says, who perfectly defined the weakness of mortals with the words: “My composition is like nothing before You” (Ps. 38:6). He does not say: absolutely nothing, but “like nothing,” denoting by this all excessive smallness in comparison with the Self-existent. However, coming from such a nature, the Eunomians widen their lips against the unspeakable power and measure the infinite Nature with one name, concluding the essence of God in the word “unborn,” in order to thereby pave the way for their blasphemy against the Only Begotten. The Great Basil corrected their false opinion and, regarding names, showed that they do not flow from nature itself, but are attached to objects by imagination; but they are so far from turning to the truth that they seem to be glued with some kind of glue to what they have once expressed, and do not lag behind false thinking, but believe that the word “unborn” is not attached by our imagination, but represents nature itself. Therefore, trying to analyze all their speech and word by word to refute their absurd and long idle talk would require a lot of work, a lot of time, and a lot of leisure. I hear, for example, how Eunomius, for many years, carefully and in perfect peace, sitting over this Trojan War in the middle of a long sleep, composed for himself this great dream, carefully trying not to explain the meaning of any concept, but to forcibly attract some meaning to the sayings, and collecting the most euphonious expressions from some works. Just as poor people who lack clothes sew patchwork clothes for themselves from various rags, so he, training phrases for himself from different places, sews patchwork speech from them, pathetically gluing and adjusting a set of words. The pettiness and childishness of his passion for argument are just as worthy of contempt from a man who has the truth in mind, just as for a powerful and mature wrestler the concern for effeminate attire is despicable. I intend to leave aside his long periods and briefly trace the meaning of all his reasoning. We have said (for I recognize the words of the mentor as my own) that with the help of inferences we receive an unclear and very small concept of the Divine nature and that, however, from the names piously adopted by this Nature, we acquire knowledge sufficient for our weak powers. We say that the meaning of all these names is not uniform, but some of them mean what is inherent in God, while others express the absence of something in Him; We call Him, for example, righteous and incorruptible; By calling him righteous, we mean that righteousness is inherent in Him, and by calling him incorruptible, we mean that corruption is not inherent in Him. And it is also possible, on the contrary, to correctly apply names to God, changing their meaning so that instead of what is inappropriate, we present what is characteristic of Him, and instead of what is inherent, what is alien to Him, because if untruth is the opposite of truth and eternity is the opposite of corruption, then perhaps it is proper to apply opposite expressions to God and not sin against the truth by saying that He is eternally the same and is not unrighteous. This is the same as saying: He is righteous and incorruptible. Likewise, other names, with a certain change in meaning, are suitable for expressing the same meaning, such as: calling Him good and immortal and all other names attached to Him in a similar way; for each of them, modified in one way or another, expresses the presence or absence of something in the Divine nature; so that when the appearance of names changes, the pious thought about the subject (of the name) remains unchanged. It is one and the same thing to call God not involved in evil and to call Him good, to confess Him immortal and to call Him living forever. For in these expressions, in their meaning, we do not imagine any difference, but each of them means the same thing, although one of the expressions seems to contain an affirmation, and the other a negation of something. In the same way, calling God the beginning of everything and in another case calling Him beginningless, we do not disagree at all in meaning, both expressions mean that He is the beginning, leader and author of everything, so whether we call Him beginningless or the beginning of everything, in the first case we represent what is inherent, and in the other - what is not inherent in Him. For, as has been said, it is possible, by means of a change of meaning, to change the meaning of names into their opposites and, by means of some change of form, to signify what is inherent in God even with a name that was hitherto inappropriate to Him, while others can mean something else. Thus, instead of the expression “He has no beginning,” one can give the definition “He is the beginning of everything,” and vice versa, instead of this expression, one can confess Him as the only existing unborn. With a change in form, the speeches seem different from each other, but the meaning of the expressions remains the same. When speaking about God, one should not try to come up with a selection of words that is euphonious and pleasing to the ear, but one should look for a pious thought that would preserve the corresponding concept of God. So, since it is pious to think about the Author of everything in such a way that He has no other reason above Himself, then with the affirmation of this thought, what reason remains for those who have meaning to argue about words, when each of the expressions with which this thought is expressed represents the same thing? Whether you say that He is the beginning and the cause of everything, or whether you call Him beginningless, or ungenerated, or existing from eternity, or the cause of everything, or the only one without any cause (existence), all such sayings are identical in meaning and equal dignity. Anyone who gets into arguments because of this and not another sound of voice is engaged in empty business, as if piety lies not in thought, but in syllables and sounds. This is the thought revealed by our mentor, with the help of which people who are not covered by a dark heretical veil can see clearly that the Divinity in relation to His nature remains inaccessible, unthinkable, exceeding all understanding obtained through inferences. The human, much-concerned and testing mind, with the help of conclusions possible for it, strives for the inaccessible and supreme Nature and touches It; he is not so perceptive as to clearly see the invisible, and at the same time he is not completely separated from all approach, so that he cannot receive any fortune-telling about what he is looking for; He guesses about other things in what he is looking for by groping conclusions, and in some way sees others from the very impossibility of discernment, receiving clear knowledge that what is sought is above all knowledge; for what does not correspond to the Divine nature, the mind understands, but what exactly one should think about Him, it does not understand. He is not able to know the very essence of what he is discussing in this way, but with the help of understanding what is inherent and what is not inherent in the Divine nature, he recognizes one thing that is accessible to discernment, namely, that It comes at a distance from all evil and is thought to be in all good; and yet, being such as I say, It is ineffable and inaccessible to inference. Thus, our mentor removed all inappropriate thoughts in the concept of the Divine nature, and instructed and taught everything that is praiseworthy and godly to think about Him, so that the First Cause is not something subject to corruption or brought into being through (temporary) origin, but the thought of It is alien to any such assumption. From the denial of what is not inherent in Him and from the recognition of what is piously thought about Him, the concept of His existence is obtained. A zealous opponent of the truth argues against what has been said and wants such and such a sound of speech (I mean the word “unborn”) to clearly express the essence of God. But it is clear to anyone even slightly familiar with the use of names that, with the help of the negative particle, incorruptibility means that nothing like this is inherent in God - neither corruption, nor birth. And many other names, composed in a similar way, express the denial of the non-existent, and not the affirmation of something existing; These are the names of gentle, carefree, non-evil, serene, without anger, dispassionate, blameless and the like. These names are assimilated and quite rightly constitute a kind of census and a list of those concepts of evil that are inapplicable to the Divine; however, with these names the word (ours) does not say anything about what it is that is being spoken about. For what is unsound (to think about God), we have learned from what we have heard; but what He is, the power of the above (words) did not show us. If someone, wanting to say something about human nature, calls it not soulless, not insensitive, not flying, not four-legged, not aquatic, he will not indicate what it is, but will only explain that it is not; By saying this about a person, he is not lying, but he also does not clearly indicate the essence of the subject. For the same reason, from many similar expressions applied to the Divine nature, we learn the proper way of thinking about God, but we do not learn from these expressions what He is essentially. In every possible way avoiding introducing any absurd thoughts into the concept of God, we use many and varied names for Him, adapting the names to the difference in concepts. Since no name has been found that embraces the Divine nature and is suitable for the corresponding expression of His essence, then by many names corresponding to various concepts, expressing one or another special idea of ​​Him, we call His Divinity, extracting from the various and varied designations of Him some general names for the knowledge of what is sought. Asking ourselves and exploring what the Divinity is, we answer differently, for example: It is the supreme being over the entire structure and government of things; It has no beginning from any cause, but is the cause of the existence of everything else; for Him there is no birth and beginning, corruption and end, there is no reversal, no weakening in perfection, no evil has a place in Him, no good is absent from Him. If someone wants to express these concepts in names, then it is absolutely necessary for him to call the one who does not allow change for the worse immutable and unchangeable, the first culprit of everything to call the unborn, not susceptible to decay - incorruptible, immortal and endless - having no limit to existence, the almighty - the ruler of everything. Thus, forming all other names on the basis of pious ideas, we, in accordance with the difference in concepts, call Him one way or another, meaning by names either power, or dominion, or goodness, or being not from a cause, or eternal existence. Therefore I say: such a formation of names is in the power of people who attach names to objects as they see fit. And there is no absurdity in the recognition that this writer, wanting to intimidate us, makes it look terrible and terrible, namely in the recognition that the names assigned to God are recent in comparison with the very thing named, that is, with God Himself. For God is not speech, and does not have existence in voice and sound. But God Himself is that which is ever recognized in our belief; those who call upon Him do not name what He is (for the nature of the Existent is ineffable), but He receives names from the actions that we believe concern our lives; This is also the name just now expressed, for when we call Him “God”, we call Him so, having in mind that He oversees, and looks upon, and foresees the secret. If essence precedes actions, and we comprehend actions on the basis of what we feel, and, as far as possible, express this in words, then what room remains for fear of calling names recent in comparison with objects? For if we do not explain what is said about God before we imagine it in our minds, but we present it on the basis of knowledge given by actions, and actions are preceded by force, and force depends on the Divine will, and the will lies in the power of the Divine nature, then don’t we clearly learn that the names that mean what happens are later in origin than the objects themselves, and words are, as it were, shadows of objects formed according to the movements of the existing thing? That this is really so is clearly demonstrated by Divine Scripture through the mouth of the great David, who calls the Divine nature by certain special names corresponding to Him, which he learned from his actions. “The Lord is generous and merciful,” he says, “long-suffering and abundant in mercy” (Ps. 102:8). How will they say: do these words mean action or nature? No one will say that they mean anything other than action. So, when did God, who showed bounty and mercy in action, receive a name from such action? Is it before human existence? But who needed mercy then? Of course, mercy came after sin, and sin after man. Therefore, after the origin of man, they received the beginning and action of mercy and the name of mercy. So what? He who is wiser than the prophets will not also condemn David for calling God by those (actions) by which he knew Him? Or he will compete with him, exposing, as if from a tragedy, that venerable saying taken from a tragedy, that David, with invented names, exalts the most blessed life of God, glorious in itself alone and before the origin of creatures capable of inventing. The defender of the prophetic words, of course, will say that the Divine nature is glorious in itself and before the origin of thinking beings, but the human mind speaks of this glory only to the extent that it can contain it, taught by the actions of God, for, as Wisdom says, “from the majesty and beauty of creatures, the creator of all kinds is known comparatively” (Wisdom 13:5). We assimilate such names to the Divine being who surpasses all minds, not exalting Him with these names, but guiding ourselves by what we say about Him, to the knowledge of the unseen. Next, the prophet says to the Lord: “You are my God, for you do not require my good things” (Ps. 15:2). How then do we exalt so much, as Eunomius says, the most blessed life of God, about which the prophet says that it has no need of human goods? Or did he coin the word “exalt” (αγαλλειν) instead of the word “name” (ονομαζειν)? And from those who use the correct expressions and have learned to put words precisely, we hear that the word “exalt” (αγαλλειν) does not simply mean “to express”; For this purpose, the words “to make known” (γνωριζειν), “to explain” (ρηλουν), “to mean” (σημαινειν) and other similar ones are used. And the word “exalt” (αγαλλειν) is equivalent to the words “boast” (επικαυχασθαι), “to magnify” (επευφραινεσθαι) and others that have the same meaning. He says that we exalt the blessed life with invented names. But we think that adding some kind of honor to the Divine nature, the highest of all honor, is a matter that exceeds human weakness; but at the same time we do not deny that through piously invented sayings and names we are trying to give some concepts about the properties of this Nature. And therefore, following piety as far as possible, we understand that the first cause does not have its existence from any higher cause. Whoever accepts this as truth, then for the sake of the only truth it will be worthy of praise. If anyone recognizes this truth as the highest of all other ideas about the Divine nature and, on the basis of this one thought, says that God delights and rejoices, as it is natural for someone who has an advantage to rejoice, then this will be characteristic of Eunomius’s poetry alone, since Eunomius says that the basis of joy lies in ungeneracy itself, which he recognizes as the essence and calls the blessed and Divine life. But let us listen to how he, in a manner appropriate to the case and according to the previously accepted model (for he again flaunts before us names compiled in the same pattern), how with the help of them he thinks to destroy, as he says, the opinion formed about him and to cover up the ignorance of the deluded. I will use the final words of this pompous writer. “Having said,” he says, “that what is spoken by thought is usually resolved into nothingness along with the sounds themselves, we add to this: but God, both in silence and in the speaking of everything that received being and before names came into being, was and is not born.” So, we admit that the invention of words or the assimilation of names has something in common with the objects themselves, which we denote by the well-known sound of names and words. Therefore, if God exists unbornly before the creation of man, then the word expressing such a concept must be recognized as not having its own meaning, as decomposing along with sound, if it is given according to human imagination, for being is not the same thing as naming. But what we call God is by nature; This is expressed in our words, as much as is possible to express given the poverty of our nature, according to which its dispositions would remain unknown in the soul if they were not revealed in sound and word. So, comprehending with thought that He does not have existence from any cause, we, by imagination, express this concept with the word “unbegotten.” Therefore, what harm is there if one speaks of the Existing One as He is? It is not because He was called unborn that He actually exists unborn, but from such existence comes the naming. This wit did not understand this, and he did not clearly understand his own positions, otherwise he would have stopped blaming those who make the name of unbornness from imagination. For notice that he says: “What is spoken by thought is resolved into nothingness along with sounds, but God was and is unborn before all things, who received being, and before the origin of names.” You see that He has the existence of what He is before the existence of all those who are silent and those who speak, being neither more nor less than what He is. The use of words and names was invented after the creation of people whom God honored with the gift of speech. So, if the creature is later than the Creator, and of all creation the last creature is man, if the word constitutes the peculiarity of man, if sayings and names are parts of the word, and if (the word) “ungeneracy” is a name, then how does he not understand that he is fighting against the very thing that he affirms? For we also say that the names given to existing objects to distinguish one from another are invented by human invention; and he admits that those who use the word appeared later than the Divine life; The divine nature, as it now exists unbornly, has always existed. So, if he admits that the blessed life existed before people (returning to this again, we will use the same words), then we do not contradict that people appeared later in time, and we say that we began to use words and names from the time we originated and received reason from the Creator. But the word “unborn” is a name expressing its own special concept; every name is part of human speech; therefore, recognizing that the Divine nature exists before the human, he agrees that the name invented (by man) is later than the (Divine) nature. For it is incongruous for the use of the word to arise before the creation of the bodies who use it, just as the cultivation of the earth did not appear before farmers, or navigation before sailors, and in general, nothing that is done in life appeared before the emergence of human life. Why does he enter into an argument with us, not knowing how to be consistent in his own reasoning? “God,” he says, “before the origin of man, was what He is.” And we do not reject this. For everything that is not comprehended by thought in God, all this was before the creation of the world; but, we say, this comprehended thing received names after the origin of the one who names. For if we use names because they teach us something about objects, and only the ignorant requires teaching, while the Divine nature is above all teaching, because it embraces all knowledge, then from this it is revealed that it is not for the sake of God, but for our sake, that names were invented to clarify the concepts of Being. He did not assign to His nature the name of unbornness in order to know Himself, for He who knows everything and Himself first of all does not need syllables and words in order to know what His nature and dignity are. But in order to have some understanding of what is piously thought about Him, we, with the help of certain words and syllables, formed distinctions of concepts, with combinations of words, as if drawing some signs and signs on the various movements of thought, so that with the help of sounds adapted to (known) concepts, we could clearly and separately express the movements occurring in the soul. So, how does he denounce our speech, in which we said that the name ungeneracy was invented to signify the beginningless existence of God, when he says that “God was and is unborn before those who speak, and those who are silent, and those who think, and before all creation was created”? If anyone were to assert that He was not unborn before we invented this name, one would be forgiven for writing these words in refutation of such absurdity. If it is recognized by all that God in being precedes both word and thought, and the assimilation of the name by which the thought of the mind is expressed is called by us invented by imagination, and if the goal of his struggle with us is to prove that this name was not invented by people, but existed before we came into existence, being spoken by an unknown person, then what connection do his words have with the task he proposed for himself, that God, before all things existing, exists ungenerately, and his efforts to prove that (invented name) later in origin, and in general everything that he said? Because only crazy people tend to think that an idea is older than the thinkers themselves. Moreover, his further reasoning does not even concern those who think in this way, that is, that people, being the latest of God’s creatures, should consider the idea to be more ancient than themselves. His speech would receive great power if someone, out of madness or insanity, said that God is an invention. If such speeches do not exist and never have been (for who would reach such a degree of madness as to say that the One who truly exists and brought everything that exists into being does not have his own existence, but appears only in the imagination of a name?), then why fight in vain with the shadows, entering into a fight with that which no one has affirmed? Of course, the reason for this insane disputation is obvious - namely, that, being ashamed of those deceived by false speculation regarding unbornness, since it has been fully proven that the name is different from the meaning of the essence, he arbitrarily confuses what was said, transferring the dispute from the name to objects; so that by such a confusion the ignorant might be conveniently deceived into thinking either that, as we say, God is an invention, or that He comes into existence after people invented names. Therefore, leaving aside our irrefutable evidence, he changes the subject of the dispute. As has been said, our reasoning was such that the name “ungenerate” does not mean Nature, but was acquired by Nature as a result of an invention, which signifies His existence without a cause. And they argued that this word expresses the very essence. Where is it proven that such is the power of this name? Of course, this is hidden somewhere in other reasoning, and all his work is aimed at establishing the idea that God exists ungenerately, as if someone directly asked him what concept he has of the name “ungeneracy”, whether he recognizes it as a word invented to express the beginningless existence of the first cause or to explain the essence itself? And he very importantly and decisively answers that he has no doubt that God is the Creator of heaven and earth. But just as this speech evades the main subject and has no connection with it, in the same way in his red-verbed argument with us you will find the absence of any connection with the intended goal. Let's consider this. The Eunomians say that God is ungenerate, and we agree with this, but that ungeneracy is also an essence, we contradict this, for, we say, this name means that God exists ungenerate, and not that ungeneracy is God. Eunomius promises to refute our words. What is his refutation? That “the unborn was,” he says, “before the origin of man.” How does this relate to what he was looking for, to what he promised to prove, that is, that a name is one and the same with the (named) object, since, according to his definition, ungeneracy constitutes the essence? What is the proof of what is promised? Proves that God exists before creatures gifted with words! What undeniable and amazing evidence! Isn’t this itself a skillful logical work of dialectical art? Who among those uninitiated into the secrets of his teaching is able to resist him? In his distinctions between the meanings of the word “invention,” he gravely ridicules the very name “invention” before us: “of the so-called inventions,” he says, “some exist only in words, without any meaning, and others exist only in thought, and of this latter, some only due to increase, such as colossi, and others due to decrease, for example, pygmies; some due to addition, such as multi-headed ones, others due to addition, for example, half-animals and half-people.” You see what a small coin this sage exchanged our “invention” for, without deigning to trace its meaning further; invention, he says, means nothing, has no meaning, invents what is not in nature, either reduces or expands the established measure of nature, or composes from dissimilar objects, or fools with ugly additions. At the same time, playing with the name “invention,” he proves in his own way that it is useless and unsuitable for life. Where does the highest of sciences come from? Where does geometry, the wisdom of numbering, the doctrine of logical and physical propositions, inventions in mechanics and wonderful observations of time and clocks with the help of copper and water come from? Where does the very wisdom about what exists, and the contemplation of the intelligible, and, to put it briefly, every preoccupation of the soul with great and lofty objects come from? What about agriculture? What about sailing? What about other dispensations that relate to our lives? Why did the sea become passable for humans? How did those living on earth begin to be served by those living in the air? How does the wild become tame? How is the ferocious tamed? How does the strongest not throw off the reins? Wasn’t all this invented in human life by invention? According to my reasoning, invention is the ability to discover the unknown, searching for the future with the help of immediate conclusions from the first knowledge of what constitutes the subject of study. For, having formed a certain concept about what we are looking for, we, with the help of newly found concepts, connecting conclusions with what was understood at the beginning, carry out to the end the research we have begun. But why should I list the most important and greatest successes of invention? For a person who does not have the passion to argue against the truth can easily see that everything else that time has revealed that is useful and necessary for human life is revealed only through imagination. And it seems to me that whoever recognizes imagination as the most precious of all the blessings that are given to act in us in this life and which are implanted in our soul by Divine Providence, will not sin against the correct way of thinking. I say this, having been taught by Job precisely in those words where God appears in the storm and clouds talking with His servant. While speaking what is fitting for God to speak, He also says that He Himself taught man the arts and gave his wife the ability to weave and embroider patterns (Job 38:36). And, of course, no one, except those inclined to a carnal and rude understanding, will object to the fact that God taught us such arts not by any actions, without sitting before us Himself at work, as we see in those taught in a carnal way. It is said that we were taught these arts from Him, because, having given our nature the ability to imagine and invent what we wanted, He Himself brought us to the arts. On this basis, everything discovered and accomplished by imagination relates (by us) to the Creator of this ability. Thus, life discovered the art of medicine, but the one who says that the art of medicine is a gift of God will not be mistaken. And everything that is invented in human life for peace or war that is suitable and useful for something did not appear to us from somewhere outside, but is the work of the mind, which conceives and invents everything according to us. And the mind is the work of God; therefore, everything that is given to us by the mind has been given from God. If opponents say that fabulous inventions and false monsters are invented and created by imagination, then I do not contradict this; their thought is even useful for our purpose. For we also say that knowledge of objects that are opposite to each other, both those that are beneficial and those that have a different effect, is one and the same in itself, as, for example, in the science of healing, steering a ship, and the like. He who knows how to help the sick with medicine would be able, if he began to use art to harm, to inject poison into the healthy, and the one guiding the ship with the help of the helm towards the pier could direct it towards rocks and cliffs if he, out of malice, wanted to destroy the sailors. And the painter, with the help of the same art, writes on the board the most graceful image, and he again gives a living image of the most vile form. In the same way, a teacher of children (gymnastics), with the help of gymnastic techniques, brings a dislocated member (of the body) into its proper position and, with the same art, if he wants, spoils a healthy member. But why burden your speech with a lot of details? No one will object to what has been said, that is, that he who has studied any art in order to make the best use of it, can use the same art for an improper application. Thus, we say, the ability to invent for good is given by God to human nature, but for those who abuse the ability to invent, it often serves and promotes useless inventions. So, from the fact that invention can create what is false and obviously non-existent, it does not follow that it cannot investigate what is truly existing and what truly exists; the very ability to do the first serves as evidence for sensible people of the ability to do the second. What is presented with the aim of producing some kind of amazement or pleasure in the spectators is not without invention directed towards this goal; but whether inventing some (creatures) with many arms, or many heads, or breathing fire, or entwined in clubs of dragons, or exaggerating the proportionality of parts, or reducing the size of nature to the point of ridiculousness, or stories about the transformation of people into springs, trees and birds - all this (in which those who delight in such inventions can find joy) serves, in my opinion, as the most obvious proof that with the help of the ability to invent one can achieve knowledge and the best of sciences. For it is impossible to think that the Giver has invested in us a perfect mind for the invention of objects that cannot exist, and for the search for what is useful to the soul, no ability has been given with the help of which we could achieve what is useful to us. But since the ability of our soul to desire and have will is imparted to nature primarily in order to strive for the beautiful and good, if someone uses this power for something other than what it should, then no one will say that the desire for evil that has happened serves as evidence that the will is not inclined towards anything good; Likewise, the desire of the imagination to focus on empty and useless objects does not indicate its impotence for useful activity, but proves that it is capable of producing both what is useful for the soul and what is necessary. For just as there it invented what serves for pleasure or amazement, so here it will not deviate from what leads to the truth. And one of the questions being studied was: is the first cause, that is, God, without beginning or has existence dependent on some beginning? Having comprehended with reason that it is impossible to think of the “first” as originating from anything else, we invented a name to express this concept and say that what exists without any higher cause exists without beginning and unborn. We called Him who has such existence unborn and beginningless, meaning by this name not what He is, but what He is not. To make the meaning of this name completely clear, I will try to present the most obvious example. Let there be a study about some tree, whether it was planted or whether it grew on its own. If it is planted, then, of course, we will call the tree planted; if it has grown on its own, we will call it unplanted. Such a name does not evade the truth, because, of course, neither one nor the other name denotes the distinctive nature of the plant. From the name “unplanted” we learned that it is native; But whether it is a plane tree, or a vine, or some other tree of similar plants, we did not know from this name. If the example is understood, then it is time to move on to the subject for which the example is presented. We have understood that the first cause has existence without any higher cause; therefore, God, who exists unbornly, we, putting this thought into the form of a name, called the unborn. That He does not exist by birth, we have expressed this by the meaning of this name; What is the nature of the essence itself, which has ungenerated existence, this name does not lead us in the least to an understanding of this. For it is unnatural for inferential thinking to have so much power as to elevate us above the limits of (our) nature, to elevate us to the incomprehensible and to embrace what is inaccessible to understanding with our knowledge. But Eunomius continues to torment (our) mentor, mocks his words about invention, again disgraces what was said, ridiculing what was said with the usual chatter of little words, and says: “He is ashamed by the testimony of the very ones whose explanations he uses.” Pointing to some part of our mentor’s reasoning about invention, the one where he says that invention is used not only for vain activities, but has some power for higher activities, and explains what was said with the examples of wheat, seed and food, accuses him of following external philosophy and limiting Divine invention, not recognizing the origin of the names of objects from God Himself, that he assists the atheists, rebels against Providence, respects them the way of thinking, more than the laws of God, assimilates greater wisdom to them, without paying attention to the initial words of Scripture, where the name is given to the fruit and seed even before the bringing of man into being (Gen. 1:11-12). These are the accusations he brings against us. These thoughts were not expressed by him in such terms, but we changed the presentation only as much as necessary to correct the rudeness and harshness in the wording of what he said. What shall we say? What shall we answer to the guardian of Divine Providence? He accuses us of untruth because we do not deny that man was created by God rationally, but we attribute the invention of sayings to the power of reason given by God to human nature. This is the most serious crime, for which the teacher of piety is accused of going over to the side of the atheists and is called the heir and defender of the criminal habit and other terrible names. Let the corrector of our errors answer. God gave names to existing (objects) - this is what the new interpreter of the mysterious teachings says - because he gave names to the sprout, and the past, and the grass, and the seed, and the tree, and the rest before the creation of man, when by his command he created everything that received existence. So, if he stops at one letter, and in this respect adheres to the Jewish way of thinking, and if he has not yet learned that a Christian is a student not of writing, but of the spirit, for “writing, according to the word of the Apostle, kills, but the spirit gives life” (2 Cor. 3, 6), but presents us with one literal reading of the letters and is convinced that God Himself pronounced them, then he admits nothing more than that God, in the likeness of people, used lengthy speech, expressing thoughts with the help of voice and sound. If he understands this this way, then, of course, he will not reject what follows from this. Our human word is pronounced with the help of the vocal organs, respiratory canal, tongue, teeth, mouth, and the production of sounds is facilitated by the flow of air and breathing from the inside. In our case, the respiratory channel from below gives sound, being attached to the throat like a flute, into the sky through the upper void, extending to the nostrils, from above it enhances the sound with sonority, as if some kind of string stand. And the cheeks contribute to speech, according to the difference in sounds, sometimes becoming sunken, sometimes rising, and then conducting the sound further through a narrow passage in accordance with the many different turns of the tongue produced by one or another part of it, when, with the help of the teeth or the palate, it seems to roughen or compress the breath passing through it. The assistance of the lips also helps, with various kinds of movements that determine the sound and complete the formation of words. So, if God, naming the sprout, and the past, and the Tree, and the fruit, gives names to objects, as the new interpreter of Divine history has explained, then it is absolutely necessary for Him to pronounce each of these names in no other way than as they usually say, that is, with the help of a combination of syllables, some of which are formed through the movement of the lips, others through the tongue, and others with the help of both organs. So, if the name is pronounced only with the help of the vocal organs, producing syllables and the word through a certain movement, then, of course, he will attribute these organs to God and for the sake of using the word he will give the Divinity a form. For every arrangement of organs that produce voice necessarily has a form, and form is the outline of a body, and every body inevitably has complexity. And where complexity is seen, there, of course, is the decomposition of the complex; decomposition, in its concept, is one and the same with incorruption. So, the triumph over us of this writer ends with the fact that he has to recognize his God, whom he created with the help of the name “ungeneracy,” who speaks, so as not to remain alien to him from the invention of names, to recognize him as equipped with vocal organs in order to utter names, and even not lacking a corporeal nature, as the outline requires, for no outline in itself can be intelligible without the representation of the body. Then, gradually moving further, “we will reach the representation (in the Divinity) of passions akin to the body, from complexity we will reach destruction, and from this to final incorruption. This is the nature of the new god, which was revealed (to us) by a consistent conclusion from what was said by the new creator of the gods! But he stands for Scripture and says that Moses very clearly proclaims: “God speaks,” and cites the very words: “Let there be light, let there be a firmament, let the waters be gathered together, let the dry land appear, let the earth sprout, let the waters come forth” and everything else that is written for this (Gen. 1:3, 1:6, 1:9, 1:11, 1:20). Let us explore the meaning of these words. Who, even among infants, does not know that hearing and speech have a mutual relationship and that just as hearing does not show activity if sounds are not heard, so is a word not valid if it is not directed to someone else’s hearing? So, if he claims that God spoke, then let him also show us the hearing (of those) for whom He spoke. Or will he say that God spoke to Himself? Therefore, by giving these commands, He commands Himself. Who would agree that God sat, giving Himself commands about what should be done, and used Himself as a servant and executor of commands? And even if someone agreed to recognize this as pious, then which of the people even has a need for speeches and conversations with himself? One movement of thought is enough for everyone to fulfill the desire of his will. He will say, of course, that God is talking with the Son, but why is sound needed here? It is natural for carnal nature to express the thoughts of the heart in words; therefore, expression (of thoughts) through writing, equivalent to the use of the voice, was invented, for we express thoughts in the same way whether we speak or write. At a distance not very far away, we reach the ears with a voice, and for those who are far away, we express thoughts in writing; and for those present, depending on the distance, we either intensify the strength of the sound or weaken it. And sometimes, with one wave, we explain to those nearby what needs to be done, so that one or another expression of the eye indicates the intention that has appeared in the soul, and a certain movement of the hand allows or rejects something. So, if those clothed with a body often express to those present the innermost movements of thoughts without the help of sound or words and without written conversation, and at the same time silence does not cause any harm to the work that needs to be accomplished, then for the immaterial and intangible, and, as Eunomius says, the highest and first essence, are there really any need for utterances that would explain the thought of the Father and would give knowledge to the Only Begotten of the will of the Father - utterances that, according to the expression Eunomius himself, dissipate along with the sound? I don’t know who with reason will accept this as truth, especially when every sound is always poured into the air. For sound can exist in no other way than by being composed in the air, and it is absolutely necessary to allow some kind of medium to exist between the speaker and the one to whom the speech is addressed. If there is no intermediary, how will the sound pass from the speaker to the listener? So, what will they call the medium by which they will separate the Son from the Father? For bodies, such a medium, which in its nature is something different from the essence of human bodies, lies in the air. And if God, intangible, without image and pure from all complexity, communicating his wills to the Only Begotten God, similar to Him, or, better, in the same way as He, immaterial and incorporeal, produces this communication with the help of a voice, then what in this case serves as the medium through which the word, flowing and passing, reaches the ears of the Only Begotten? There is no need to point out that in the Divine the actions of cognition are not separated in the same way as with us each of the instruments of sense separately perceives a feeling akin to itself, for example, vision perceives the visible, the sense of hearing perceives the audible, but neither the sense of touch tastes, nor the hearing perceives fumes or tastes, but each sense remains with one activity for which it is designed by nature, and in some way remains insensitive to what is unusual for it and does not feel pleasure enjoyed by the neighboring sense. But there it is not so, but the whole Divinity is entirely knowledge, and hearing, and knowledge; and other more animal feelings cannot be attributed to pure Nature, unless one can assume something deeper in it and reduce the concept of Divinity to crude ideas. So, given the idea that the Father speaks words with his mouth and that the Son’s ear is active in this, what kind of medium can we assume that conducts the Father’s voice to the Son’s ear? It must be created or uncreated. But it cannot be recognized as created, for the word (of the Father) was before creation followed; and there is nothing uncreated except the divine nature. So, if there was nothing created yet, and the word mentioned at the creation of the world was older than (every) creation, then he who claims that this word denotes utterances and sounds of voice, what kind of environment will he assume between the Son and the Father in which sound and utterances were formed? For if there is a medium, then, of course, it has its own special nature, so that it is not identical with the Father and not similar in nature to the Son, but there is something completely different, mutually separating the Father from the Son, squeezed between both. What is this? It was not created, for creation is later than the word, but the Only Begotten, as we have been taught, was born, and there is nothing unbegotten except the Father. So, truth, of necessity, does not allow us to think of any mediation between the Father and the Son. And where spatial separation is not conceivable, there, of course, contact is allowed (το συνημμενον), and in everything that comes into contact there is no need for the medium of voice and speech. I call something inseparable in anything touching. For in relation to intelligible nature, the word “contact” does not mean any bodily fusion, but the unity and dissolution of the intelligible with the intelligible by the force of the identity of desires. For there is no difference in will between the Son and the Father, but according to the original beauty of goodness, (the Son) is the image of goodness. If someone looks in a mirror (nothing prevents one from imagining a thought with the help of carnal examples), then the image will be reflected in everything in accordance with the prototype, since the cause of the image in the mirror is the image being looked at; the reflection will not move or deviate by itself unless the beginning of evasion or movement follows in the prototype; if the one in front of the mirror makes a movement, then at the same time he will make the movement reflected in the mirror. Thus, we say, the image of the invisible God, the Lord, immediately and relentlessly follows the Father in every movement of will. The Father willed something, and the Son, who was in the Father, knew the will of the Father, or, better, He Himself became the will of the Father. Since He has everything of the Father in Himself, there is nothing of the Father for Him that He does not have. If, however, he has in himself everything of the Father, or, better, the Father Himself, and with the Father, of course, that which belongs to the Father, then in Himself He has the entire will of the Father. Therefore, He has no need to learn from the word the will of the Father, Himself being the Word of the Father in the highest sense of the word. And what kind of word could there be for the true Word? And how again does the true Word need another word for teaching? According to the words of the Apostle, he who is in God “tests all things, even the deep things of God” (1 Cor. 2:10). So, if God utters any utterances, and every word is received by hearing, then those who declare that God acts with the help of separate words, let them show us the assembly of listeners of Divine words. He has no need to speak to himself; The son does not need to be taught by words; “The Spirit,” it is said, “tests all things, including the depths of God”; there was no creature yet; to whom was the speech addressed? But, he says, the Scripture of Moses is not false, from which we know that God said something. And the great David does not belong to the false witnesses, but he clearly speaks in these very words: “The heavens tell the glory of God, but the firmament declares the creation of His hand. Day vomits forth the day, and night proclaims the mind” (Ps. 18:2-3). And having said that the heavens and the firmament will tell, and day and night the mind and verbs will proclaim, he again adds to what has been said that this is “not the essence of speech, lower than words, their voices are not heard below” (Ps. 18:4). How is it that stories, announcements and verbs are neither speech nor a voice perceived by the sense of hearing? Or does the prophet contradict himself? Or is he talking about something impossible, speaking of verbs without sounds, of telling without speech, and of proclamation without voice? Or, better yet, does not the true prophetic word teach by these words that the message of heaven and the verbs proclaimed by day are not articulate sounds, but that the teaching of Divine power is communicated to those who can hear the silent voice? How to think about this? If we understand this, then perhaps we will understand the words of Moses. To clearly understand the subject being explained, Scripture often uses the consideration of the intelligible in something more carnal, as, for example, in the teaching that, in my opinion, David proclaims. In his words, he teaches that nothing that exists received its existence from some spontaneous chance, as others thought, that random and uncontrolled by reason self-combinations of the original elements formed our entire world and everything in it, without any participation of providence; but that there is a certain Reason for the creation of everything and control, on which all nature depends, from it receiving its principles and causes, heading towards it and turning and remaining in it. And since, as the Apostle says, “His ever-present power and Divinity, from the creation of the world, was conceived and visible” (Rom. 1:20), therefore every creature and, first of all, as Scripture says, the heavenly dispensation reveals the wisdom of the Creator in the art revealed from the created. In my opinion, the Prophet wanted to present evidence from the realm of the visible that what exists is wisely arranged and with the great art and power of the Ruler of all remains forever; the heavens themselves, he says, by the very fact that they reveal the wisdom of the Creator, almost speak with a voice, cry out and preach the wisdom of the Creator without a voice. You can hear how they teach this, as if saying in words: “Looking at us, O people, and at our beauty, greatness and the ever-moving heavenly circle, at the well-ordered and harmonious movement, always occurring in the same way, think about the Establisher of our structure; by visible beauty judge the original and invisible beauty; There is nothing in us that is beyond the control of the Lord - either self-moving or voluntary, but what is visible in us and perceived by thought depends on the supreme and ineffable power.” This is not articulate speech, but through the visible it imparts into souls the knowledge of Divine power better than if the word expressed by sounds were preached. Therefore, as the heavens preach without making a sound, and as the firmament proclaims the creation of God without needing a voice, and the day does not utter verbs, and there are no speeches here, and no one will say that the prophetic word is in error; in the same way, the one Teacher of both Moses and David, that is, the Holy Spirit, saying that creation was preceded by a command, reveals to us God as the Creator not of sayings, but of objects indicated by the meaning of sayings, so that we would not consider creation to be subject to anyone and to have originated from itself, but on the basis of the order set forth by Moses in the form of a narrative about the universe, dogmatically, we would think that creation was produced. It is better to say that every expression of this narrative clearly exposes the error and groundlessness of the thoughts of our opponents. Anyone who wants to, reading the explanation we have written about the book of Genesis, can evaluate what is more thorough: our teaching or the teaching of our opponents. But let us return to the task ahead of us. The expression “speech” does not in any way indicate the voice and speech of God, but, signifying the power inherent in the will of God, it represents an intelligible teaching with greater accessibility to our senses. Because everything exists according to the will of God; and people are accustomed to expressing their desire in words in advance and then performing an action in accordance with the desire; the description of the creation of the world serves for beginners as some introduction to the knowledge of God, and the power of the Divine nature is presented in features most suitable for understanding; and knowledge of the intelligible is most easily achieved with the help of the senses; then, by saying that God commanded something to happen, Moses depicts the free will of the will, and by adding: “and it came to pass,” he shows that for the Divine nature there is no difference between will and action. He teaches that with God the thought precedes the action, and yet the action does not lag behind the thought, but that both are represented together and collectively, both the movement of will in the mind, and the force that performs the action. For the concept of will and action does not at all allow the thought of anything mediating between them; but just as when a fire is ignited, light appears at the same time, which comes from the fire and shines with it, so the action of Divine will is the very fulfillment of what happened and does not take second place after the will. It is not like other creatures who have the power by nature to do anything; Some things are imagined in their minds as possibilities, and others as actual fulfillments. We say, for example, that a shipbuilder always possesses the art of shipbuilding in potential, but reveals it in reality when he actually shows his knowledge. This is not the case in the Blessed Life, but everything in it that is mentally imaginable is actually activity, and the will passes into the implementation of the intended goal without any mediation. Therefore, just as the heavenly dispensation, testifying to the glory due to the Creator, tells the Creator and does not need the sounds of a voice, so let anyone who contrasts my words with the Scripture of Moses, judge that God, who has fulfilled everything by His command, says that the world is His creation, and at the same time has no need for words to proclaim this thought. Just as one who hears the preaching of heaven does not seek to hear articulate speech from them, for to one who has understanding, the world speaks through what happens in it, leaving other beings to explain in words; So, he who hears the words of Moses that God, as it were, gives a command and commandment by name regarding each of the parts of the world, let him not assume that the prophet speaks a lie, and let him not humiliate the high teaching with petty and crude ideas, assimilating in them to the Divine a humanoid action and assuming that God utters commands with a voice like people. The command must mean the will, and the names of the created must mean the essence of the created. Thus, the words teach two truths: the one that God created everything according to His will, and the one that the Divine will became nature without effort and labor. If someone interprets the expression “God spoke” in a more carnal way, arguing on the basis of this that God uttered articulate words, then based on the expression: “God saw” (Gen. 1:4), of course, he will assume that God knows through the activity of the eyes in the likeness of our sense of sight, which has the ability to perceive. And also the expressions: “the Lord heard and had mercy on me” (Ps. 29:11), and: “smelling the stench of fragrance” (Gen. 8:21) and everything else that Scripture tells in a humanoid way about the head of God, legs, arms, eyelids, fingers, shoes - taking in the closest meaning, to present to us the Divinity as humanoid, similar to what we have. If, hearing about the work of His fingers - the heavens, about His strong hand, high muscle, about the eye, eyelids, legs, shoes, he understands in each of such expressions the concepts befitting God, and does not defile the speech about the purity of nature with an impure admixture of carnal opinions; then, according to the requirement of consistency, I must recognize the utterance of words as a designation of the Divine will, not consider them as articulate sounds, but reflect on the fact that the Creator of rational nature gave us a word corresponding to the measure of nature, so that we could, with its help, proclaim the movements of the soul. And to the extent that nature is separated from nature, the Divine from ours, to the same extent everything belonging to our existence that is seen in us is different from the greatest and God-appropriate way of being. And just as our power, compared with the power of God, is nothing, and just as our life in comparison with His life, and everything that is ours in comparison with what belongs to Him, is “like nothing” before Him (Ps. 39:6), as the Prophet expresses it, so our word, in comparison with the Word that truly exists, is nothing. Our word did not exist in the beginning, but was created along with our nature; it cannot be understood as having its own essence, but it, as our mentor says somewhere, disappears along with the sound of language; It is also impossible to imagine our word as deed, but it has its existence in one voice and writing. And the word of God is God, the Word, existing in the beginning and eternally abiding, by Him everything exists and stands, “It rules over everything and has all power over heavenly and earthly...” It is life and truth, truth, and light, and every good, and preserves the existence of everything. This is what and how high the Word is understood in God; and Eunomius gives to God as something great a word composed of names, verbs and conjunctions, not realizing that the one who gave active power to our nature cannot be called the Creator of our every action. He gave our nature strength, and we ourselves make a house, a bench, a sword, a plow, and in general everything necessary for life; Each individual of these works is our work, but is related to the Author of ourselves, who created our nature capable of all knowledge. Likewise, the power of words is the work of Him who created our nature as such, and the invention of words, each individually, was invented by us ourselves in order to use them to designate objects. This is confirmed by the fact that many words are recognized everywhere as shameful and indecent, the inventor of which no sane person recognizes God. And although in the Divine Scripture some of our usual sayings are spoken on behalf of God, we must know that the Holy Spirit speaks to us in our own words. So from the narrative of the book of Acts (Acts 2:6) we know that everyone accepted the teaching in his own natural language, listening to the power of words with the help of sayings known to him. And that this is true will be learned more by those who more carefully examine the Levitical law, for there Moses, when describing the mysterious sacred services, mentions “pan and unleavened bread” (Lev. 2:4-5), and “wheat flour” (Lev. 9:4) and similar names, symbolically and mysteriously pointing to some soul-beneficial dogmas. He also names some measures, then usual, speaking of a certain “ifi”, and “nevel (fur)” (1 Samuel 1:24), and “in” (Lev. 23:13) and about many other things. But did God create these names and denominations and ordain from the beginning that it should be called so, did He order that such and such a seed be called wheat, and its grating be called flour, ordinary membrane-like and spread out cookies be called unleavened bread, and such and such a vessel in which the dough liquid is fried and dried should be called “frying pan”, such and such a quantity of liquid should be called by the name “in” or “nevel”, and measure drier fruits with “gomor”? It is the chatter and vanity of the Jews, completely alien to the sublimity of the way of thinking of Christians, to think that the great, and the highest, and above every name and thought God, who by the sole power of will holds everything and brings everything into being and preserves it in being - this (God), like some kind of grammarian, sits, occupied with the subtleties of such an establishment of names. But just as we signify to the deaf what we should do through signs and movements of the hands, not because we ourselves do not have our own voice when we do this, but because for those who do not hear, explanation through words is completely useless, so, since human nature is in some way deaf and does not hear anything above, then the grace of God, we say, “which spoke in many parts and variety in the prophets” (Heb. 1:1), guides us to understanding the things above, conforming the sayings of the holy prophets with what is clear and familiar to us, and does not offer teaching corresponding to its own greatness (for how could the great be contained in the small?), but condescends to the poverty of our strength. Just as God, having given an animal the power of movement, no longer controls each individual step, because his nature, having once received a beginning from the Creator, moves and directs itself, making any movement anywhere, except for the case when (as) it is said: “from the Lord a man’s feet are straightened” (Proverbs 20:24), so having received from God the opportunity to speak and utter sounds and proclaim with a voice what is desired, nature (ours) acts on its own. itself, imposing certain signs on existing (objects) through a certain difference in sounds. These are the sayings we pronounce and the names with which we signify the properties of objects. And although Moses speaks of fruit before the birth of fruit and of seeds before seeds (Gen. 1:11-12), this does not refute our words and what we said about invention does not contradict the thought of the Lawgiver. For the very fact that we call fruit the limit of past agriculture, and seed the beginning of the future, teaches (us) that the very things that are to be named, whether it be wheat or something else that multiplies through sowing, do not occur by themselves, but by the will of the Creator are born with such power that the same thing can be a fruit and again produce itself, becoming a seed, and nourish man with excess. The thing happens by Divine will, not the name; so that a thing in its existence is the work of the power of the Creator, and the sounds that serve to recognize existing things, through which the mind means each separately in order to give an accurate and unified knowledge of it, are the work and invention of the faculty of speech; This very ability of speech and nature (ours) is the work of God. And since the gift of speech is found in all people, it is necessary, according to the differences in peoples, that differences in names are also seen. If anyone says that the words “light”, or “sky”, or “seeds” were spoken by God in human terms, he, of course, will admit the idea that these words are composed in one particular dialect of the language. What adverb this is, let him indicate; for he who knows this, of course, should not be ignorant of this. And at the Jordan, after (the descent of) the power of the Spirit, and again into the ears of the Jews (John 12:29), and during the transfiguration, there was a voice from above, teaching people so that they should not regard the One who appeared to them only as some kind of ghost, but believe that He is the truly beloved Son of God; such a voice for admonishing the listeners was formed by God in the air element in accordance with the prevailing habit of the speakers. So God, “who wants everyone to be saved and to come into the understanding of truth” (1 Tim. 2:4), articulated the word in the air, with the goal of saving those listening, just as the Lord says to the Jews, who thought that “thunder came” because the sound was formed in the air, that “this voice did not come for my sake, but for your sake” (John 12:29-30). And he who says that God used speech before the creation of everything, when there was no one who perceived the word, or any material element in which an articulate sound could be formed, how can he give justice to the word? (God) Himself is incorporeal, there were no creatures, the mind does not allow anything material to be thought about Him, and those who could benefit from hearing did not yet exist, there were no people, and even no dialects had yet been formed according to any peculiarity of peoples. So, paying attention to only one letter (of Scripture), what evidence will confirm the understanding that God spoke those very words and thoughts? Let them also learn from the following the emptiness of those who say this. Just as the natural properties of the elements, being the work of the Creator, are the same to everyone and there is no difference in sensations when they experience the action of fire, or air, or water, but the nature of everyone is one and motionless, acts the same and does not change in the least according to the distinction of those experiencing it, so the names, if they were established and agreed with things by God Himself, would be the same for everyone. But now, the nature of things, as established by God, remains immovable, and the sounds that serve to designate them have been divided into so many different languages ​​that it is not even easy to count them in multitude. If someone presents the confusion (of languages) during the pandemonium as a contradiction to what has been said, then here it is not said that God creates the languages ​​of people, but confuses the existing language so that not everyone understands everyone (Gen. 11:6-9). Because while everyone lived the same way, and people were not yet divided into many different nations, the entire totality of people living together spoke one language; after, by Divine will, the whole earth was to become inhabited, after the dissolution of communication of language, people scattered to different places, and each people (again) formed a special character of speeches and sounds, receiving unanimity as their lot, as if some kind of connection of mutual like-mindedness, so that, without disagreeing regarding the knowledge of objects, people began to differ in the way they were named. For nothing else appears as a stone or a tree (to one and not another) to another, and the names of (these) substances are different for each (people), so our word remains firm that human sounds are inventions of our intellect. Because we do not know from Scripture either that in the beginning, when humanity was still unanimous with itself, words were communicated from God by any teaching, nor that, when languages ​​were divided into different differences, the Divine law established how everyone should speak; but God wanted people to be multilingual and allowed them to follow the natural path and each (people) to form a sound as they pleased to explain the names. So, Moses, who lived many generations after the pandemonium, uses one of the following languages, telling us historically about the origin of the world and attributing some words to God, expressing them in his own language, in which he was brought up and to which he was accustomed. He does not distinguish the words of God by the peculiarity of some foreign and strange sound, in order to show by the unusualness and difference of names that these are the words of God Himself, but, using ordinary language, he expounds both his words and God’s in the same way. And some of those who have more carefully studied the Scriptures say that the Hebrew language is not even as ancient as the others, but that, along with other miracles, the miracle happened among the Israelites that this language was suddenly given to the people after (the exodus from) Egypt. And the prophet has one place that certifies this: “when he says, out of the land of Egypt, he never heard a language” (Ps. 80:6). So, if the Hebrew language is newer than others and occurred later than all others after the creation of the world, if Moses is a Jew and expounds the sayings of God in his own language, then doesn’t he clearly teach that he does not attribute to God Himself such speech, formed in a human way, but says so because what he understands is impossible to express otherwise than in human sounds, and means by saying some kind of divine and majestic thought? I don’t know how a sane person can agree with the idea that God used the Hebrew language when there was no one who could hear the words of this language. The Book of Acts teaches us that the Divine power was divided into many languages, so that none of the foreign speakers would be deprived of something useful; but God, speaking humanly before creation, to whom did he intend to benefit by such speech? No one will consider adapting your word to the ability of the listeners to (achieve) benefit unworthy of Divine love for mankind, because the imitator of the Lord Paul knew how to harmoniously apply his speech to the properties of the listeners, offering milk to infants and strong food to the perfect (Heb. 5:12-13). If (despite the fact that) there was no goal that would be achieved by such use of words, they claim that God uttered some of these kinds of sayings for Himself (since there was no one who needed an explanation through these words), then I don’t know how not to call such an opinion not only ridiculous, but also blasphemous. So, the speech of God is not pronounced either in Hebrew or in any other language used among nations, but all the words of God, written by Moses or the prophets, are instructions of the Divine will, now in one way or another in accordance with the dignity of the participants in grace, illuminating the pure and sovereign power (mind) of the saints. So, Moses spoke in the language that was natural to him and in which he was brought up, and he attributed these words to God, as has been said more than once, out of immaturity, those who had just been brought to the knowledge of God for the clearest presentation of the Divine will, in order to more conveniently convince the listeners, instilling fear in them with the authenticity of the One who spoke to them. But Eunomius, “the heir and defender of the criminal habit,” does not agree with this (since he utters such an insult against us, then in return for the insult I will greet him to his dishonor with his own words). He strives to assert that Moses himself testifies in favor of his opinion that the Creator of nature gave people the use of both named objects and the names themselves, and that the name of what is given is older than the very origin of those who use it; He says all this literally. If he acquired his own Moses? from whom he learns such wisdom, prompted by which he dares to affirm such speeches, that God lays down the law, as he himself says, commanding human speech to attach words to objects (precisely) in this way, and otherwise forbidding him, then let him speak whatever nonsense he pleases, having the secret Moses as his companion. If one (only) is Moses, whose Scripture is generally known to all students of the word of God, then we admit ourselves guilty if we are convicted of the Mosaic laws. The Scriptures of Moses themselves set forth the origin of the world, followed by the genealogy of people, the history of certain events and various laws relating to worship and the rules of life. If Eunomius says that there is some kind of law regarding speech, then let the law indicate it, and I will remain silent. But he cannot say this, because, leaving aside clearer evidence, he will not offer those that, for all sensible people, make him more ridiculous than convincing. For is it not a sign of extreme simplicity to think that the height of piety is to attribute to God the invention of sayings - to God, for the praise of Whom the whole world and its miracles are small, and leaving the great, to glorify the Divine, attributing human deeds to Him? Creation was preceded by a command expressed by Moses in human terms, but which was appropriate to God. The creative principle of everything created by Divine power is the will (of God), and this, a subtle connoisseur of Scripture, declares that this principle is the science of sayings. And as if God had said: let there be speech, or: let a word be created, or: let such and such a name be given, he, in defense of his nonsense, points to the independent movement of creativity in the Divine will, from great attentiveness and experience in the study of the Scriptures, not even knowing that the aspiration of thought is often called a word in Scripture. Moses himself, who was often tormented, is a witness to this and does not know in this regard. Who is anyone familiar with his books who does not know that the people of Israel, having recently fled from Egypt, were suddenly horrified in the desert by the invasion of the Egyptians? When danger threatened them from everywhere - there the sea blocked the passage, the enemies behind them prohibited flight - surrounding the prophet, they blamed him for their helplessness. While he was comforting those stricken with fear and instilling in them courageous cheerfulness, a voice from God is heard calling the prophet by name: “Why did you cry to Me” (Ex. 14:15)? And although before this the Scripture does not mention any voice of Moses, the prophet’s thought (directed) to God is called a certain voice, and in silence crying out in the innermost thoughts of the heart. If Moses, without even speaking, cries out before a witness who hears “cryings that cannot be spoken” (Rom. 8:26), then what is strange if the prophet, knowing how much it was possible for him to say and for us to listen to the Divine will, explained it through familiar and ordinary words, describing it as bodily, the speech of God, which was not in words, but proclaimed by deeds themselves? “In the beginning,” he says, “God created not the name of heaven and earth, but heaven and earth” (Gen. 1:1); also “speech: let there be light, not the name of light; and dividing the light from the darkness, he says, “God is the light of day, and the darkness is called night” (Gen. 1:3, 1:5). It is likely that our opponents will rely on these words. I agree with what they say, and what they present, I will bring forward later in further research, in order to strengthen our teaching, without leaving any contrary opinion without research. “He says, “God makes the firmament of the heavens and the dry earth”; and the light is day, and the darkness is called night” (Gen. 1:10, 1:5). They ask: when Scripture recognizes that these names were ordained by God, how do you say that the names were invented by people? What should we say to this? Again we resort to the usual word and say that He who brought all creation from non-existence into being is the Creator of things, considered in their essence, and not names that have no essence and are composed of the sounds of voice and language; things, due to the natural ability found in everyone, are called by some sound that serves to designate them, so that the name agrees with the object in accordance with the local custom of each people. But since most of the things seen in creation do not have a simple nature, so that the object can be fully expressed in words (for example, in fire: here there is an object, which by its nature is subject to a name, and another is a name denoting an object; the first is something holy, burning and destroying the substance that it engulfs, and the name is a certain short sound expressed by one syllable πυρ), then therefore the word, dividing the powers and qualities seen in fire, names each one specifically, and, as we said before, no one will say that only one name is given to fire when they name either lightness, or destructiveness, or any other of the qualities noticed in it, because these names serve to designate the properties that naturally belong to it. In exactly the same way, regarding the sky and the firmament, both names signify the same nature, but the difference in the names indicates some peculiarity in what happened during this creation. So, with this in mind, we understand something else by the name of heaven, and something else by the firmament. For when the word of God describes the limit of sensory creation, followed by the region of rational and supermundane existence, then, in comparison with the intangible, and incorporeal, and formless, it calls the firmament the beginning and limit of all material existence. When we pay attention to what surrounds objects, what holds all material nature around us, we call it the sky (ουρανος), as the boundary (ορος) of everything visible. In the same way, regarding earth and dry land, since both of these elements are given a downward and heavy nature - I’m talking about earth and water, then the first by the name land is, as it were, distinguished from its opposite quality, because it was called dry land in opposition to moisture, when, by Divine command, having removed the cover of the water that poured over it, it appeared with its characteristic quality. And the name earth, in its meaning, no longer indicates any one of its qualities, but, according to the meaning contained in it, it embraces everything that we understand in (this) element, such as: hardness, density, heaviness, inelasticity, suitability for any kind of nutrition of fruits and animals. So, the word “land” was not renamed into the last name given to it, because from the second name the land did not cease to be and be called land, but while both this and that name exist, some special meaning remains in each of the names; the first means difference from a foreign nature and property, and the last means that it contains all the power seen in it. So, regarding light and day, and again regarding night and darkness, we find that it is not the sound of syllables that is created here by the Creator of everything, but that through these names we perceive the essence of (these) objects. By the command of God, with the appearance of light, the darkness that prevailed at the first creation dissipates, since the earth is placed in the middle and from everywhere it was restrained by the surrounding foreign elements (as Job says: “hang the earth for nothing” - Job 26:7), it was necessary that when the light fell on one part of it, and the earth with its own mass blocked its path to the opposite side, it remained some area of darkness from the shadow it produces. Since the ever-moving circle of the firmament necessarily carries along with it the darkness that comes from the shadow produced by the earth, it was necessary for God to put this circular movement in order so that there would be a measure of the extension of time; and this measure is day and night. Therefore, Moses, in his wisdom historically explaining this teaching to us, called the darkness that comes from the barrier (light) (separation) between light and darkness, and called the ever-equal succession on the earth's surface of light and darkness day and night (Gen. 1:18). So it was not the already named light that was called day, but just as there was light, and not just the simple name of light, so there was also a measure of time, and the name followed the measure; It did not come from the Creator in the sound of utterances, but the very nature of the thing entailed designation by sound. And as if the legislator had clearly said that everything that appears and is named does not exist by itself and uncreated, but has its existence from God, then we ourselves would conclude that the whole world, and its parts, and the order seen in it, and the power for the knowledge of existing things were created by God; So what has been said leads us to such a thought as to believe that everything that exists has a beginning. And with this in mind, he sets out in order what follows, successively calculating what happened; and this could only be represented in words as by denoting objects by names that serve for recognition. So, if it is written that “God calls day,” then it must be understood that God created day from light, which is something different in its concept, for you cannot say that the concepts of day and night are the same, but we understand light as the opposite of darkness, and day as such and such a measure of distance in light. In the same way, you understand both night and darkness by the same division of the concept, defining darkness as something understood in opposition to light, and calling night such and such a delimitation of darkness. So, our word is confirmed by everything (although it is not artificially constructed according to the rules of dialectics), proving that God is the Creator of objects, and not of simple sayings, for it is not for His sake, but for our sake, that names are attached to objects. Since it is impossible for us to always have everything that exists before our eyes, we cognize some of what is always in front of us, and imprint others in our memory. But separate remembrance cannot be preserved in us in any other way, if the designation by names of the objects contained in our mind does not give us a means of distinguishing them from one another. Everything is inherent in God, and He does not need to remember anything, since He sustains and contemplates everything with His all-pervading power. So, what need does He have for a word or a name, when the very wisdom and power found in Him unfused and separately embraces the nature of things? So, everything that exists and exists is from God, and for our guidance, names are attached to what exists, meaning objects. If anyone says that these names are formed as people please, in accordance with their habits, he will not make any mistake regarding the concept of Providence, for we say that the names, and not the nature of existing objects, come from us. The Jew calls the sky differently and the Canaanite differently, but both understand the same thing, not being mistaken in their understanding of the subject due to the difference in sounds. And beyond measure, the prudent imaginary piety of these sages, which claims that if we accept the idea that the names of objects originate from people, then people will be higher than God, is exposed as vain and untenable by the very example we mentioned (the naming) of Moses (Ex. 2:10). Wasn't it Pharaoh's daughter who named him by chance? For "Moses" in the Egyptian language means "water." So, since, by order of the tyrant, the parents, having put the baby in the ark, gave it to the river (for this is how some historians talk about it), and the ark, by the will of God, carried by the whirlpool of waves, was washed up on the shore and became the discovery of the princess, who washed the body in this river, then, as the Scripture says (Ex. 2:10), in memory of the incident that she acquired the child from the water, it was given child is the name. And God Himself did not disdain the use of this name for (naming) His servant and did not consider it unworthy to allow the name given by a foreigner to be the proper name of the prophet. So before him, Jacob, holding on to his brother’s heel, was called a reproacher (Ex. 25:26, 27:36) from the position of his birth, for this is what the word “Jacob” means when translated into the Hellenic language, as those who understand this teach. And Perez was again named so by his grandmother because of what happened at birth (Gen. 28, 29); and no one, following Eunomius, was jealous, as if she had exceeded the power of God. And the patriarchs are given the names of their mother - Reuben, Simeon, Levi, as well as everyone who follows them (Gen. 29:32-35, 30:1-25), and no one in those times appeared like the current writer of the guardian of Divine Providence to forbid women, through the assignment of names, to be higher than God. But what if from (sacred) history someone points out in particular “the water of discord” (Num. 20:13), and “the place of weeping” (Gen. 50:11), and “the hill of circumcision” (Joshua 5:3), and “the wilds of hell” (Deut. 1:24), and “the field of blood”, and all similar names called by people, but often mentioned by the face of God? From this we can learn that neither the designation of objects by words exceeds human dignity, nor does the power of the Divine nature have evidence in this (against itself). Other nonsense that Eunomius invented against the truth, as having no force against dogmas, I will pass over (in silence), considering it unnecessary to dwell long on trifles. For who is so reckless and free from more important concerns as to waste effort on crazy speeches and argue with those who say that we declare human care to be higher and more important than the care of God, and transfer the negligence that the carefree suffer to His Providence? These are literally the expressions of our slanderer. And I consider it the same to pay attention to them as to attend to the dreams of old women. Because to think that the dignity of the leadership and dominion of the Divine nature is preserved in the form of some sounds, and in this to indicate the great power of God, to slander us again, as if we consider God careless and carefree in His proper providence because people, having received from God the power of words, then arbitrarily use words to explain objects - what is this other than an old woman’s tale or a drunken dream? The true power of God, and power, and authority, and dominion, according to us, does not exist in syllables (otherwise every inventor of sayings would become equal to God), but boundless centuries, and the beauty of the world, and the radiance of the luminaries, and miracles on earth and sea, armies of angels and supermundane powers, and some other heavenly destiny, the existence of which we mysteriously hear from Scripture - this is what testifies to the highest power of God. And he who attributes the sound of a voice to those who by nature speak, will not say anything wicked against the One who gave the voice, for we do not consider it anything great to invent sounds to signify objects. The same creature similar to us, which Scripture called the name “man” in the history of the world formation, Job calls “mortal” (βροτος) (Job 14:1), and some of the pagan writers “man” (φως), and others “speaking” (μεροψ), - I will omit the different names it has for each people. Are we really going to equate their honor with the honor of God, because they also invented some sounds that have equal power with the name “man”, through which this subject is also explained? But we will ignore, as we said before, this idle talk and will not give any meaning to the following curses, in which he says that we are distorting the meaning of Divine sayings and fearlessly slandering everything else and God Himself. Let's move on to the rest. Again Eunomius offers the words of the mentor, which are as follows: “And in the word of God they found that in a similar way, and not in another way, imagination is used. Our Lord Jesus Christ, revealing to people the nature of the Divine, designates it with certain properties imaginable in Him, calling Himself “the door” (John 10:9), “bread” (John 6:51), “the way” (John 14:6), “the vine” (John 15:1), “shepherd” (John 10:11), “light” ( John 8, 12). What Eunomius said about these words to offend us (for this is how dialectics taught him to fight those who contradict him), I think it is decent to ignore and not be at all embarrassed by childish madness. But let us examine this sharp and irresistible saying, which he puts forward as a subversion of our words: “Which of the saints,” he says, “testifies that these names were attributed to the Lord by imagination?” And who, I tell him, forbids, considering it blasphemous, to see an invention in the use of names? If in the fact that this is not said, one finds a sign that it is forbidden, then, of course, one will agree that non-forbiddenness is a sign of permission. The Lord is called by these names; will Eunomius really deny them too? But if he denies that these expressions are spoken about Christ, then we have won without a fight. For what victory could be more glorious than that which proves that the enemy is clearly rebelling against God by erasing the utterances of the divine Gospel? If he truly acknowledges that Christ is called by these names, then let him say how they are piously applied to the Only Begotten God? Does he not believe that the stone indicates His nature? Is not His essence understood by the axe? Doesn't the door signify the property of the Only Begotten Divinity? And in each of the other names (we will not overwhelm the word with the number of names) - each of these names is not the nature of the Only Begotten, is it not the Divinity or the property of the essence? He is called by these names, and the name has its own meaning, for it is pious to think that in Divine sayings there is nothing idle or meaningless. So, if he denies that these (names) are used by design, let him give an answer as to why they were applied to Christ? We say that since the Lord provides for human life in many ways, each type of good deed is separately known through each of these names; since the providence and good deed imagined in Him is conveyed (to us) in the form of a name, and the naming of one or another name is called invention by us. If our opponents don’t like it, then let it be as anyone wants. But it contradicts what we say, not paying attention to the names used in the Scriptures. Because if I had studied the Divine sayings, then, of course, I would have learned that, by various (methods of) inception, the Lord is called in Scripture both “an oath” (Gal. 3:13), and “sin” (2 Cor. 5:21), and “a goaded youth” (Hos. 4:16), and “a lion of the skies” (Gen. 49:9), and “a bear deprived" (Hos. 13:8), and "trot" (Hos. 13:7), and similar names with which holy and excellent men correctly explained the purpose of the thought that they had in mind. These names, in their immediate meaning, are apparently vulgar, and if we do not assume that each of them is piously attached to God by some intention, then such expressions will not be free from suspicion of impiety. And it would take a long time to expose all (such expressions) and reveal their meaning - how vulgar they are, according to the ordinary understanding of them in their immediate meaning, and how the concept of invention reconciles these names with piety regarding God. But let's move on to what follows in order. Let us repeat what has been said again: similar names are said about the Lord, and no one who has studied the inspired Scriptures will say, on the contrary, that they are not said. What then? Does Eunomius believe that these expressions mean nature itself? So, he admits that the Divine nature is somehow multiform and reveals a polysyllabic difference according to the difference (of concepts) denoted by names. For bread and lion, door and youth, ax and water do not have the same meaning, but each of these names can be given a special definition that has nothing in common with the others. So, I must say that (these names) do not mean (natures). But no one will dare to say that naming does not have its own meaning and significance. So, if they are said, but not about nature, and everything said by Scripture, of course, has its own meaning and is applied (to the subject) accordingly, then what other basis remains for the decent application of such expressions to the Only Begotten God, other than the fact that they are attributed to Him by imagination? For it is obvious that the Divinity is called by names according to the difference of actions in accordance with the different meanings (of them), so that we understand Him by these names. So, does that action of our mind to understand existing things, which we call imagination, in any way harm piety? If anyone wants to call it something else, then we will not argue. But like strong fighters, we do not abandon this attack that is inevitable for us and says literally this: “Those names exist through human imagination and are said according to the imagination of some, which none of the apostles or evangelists taught us.” And after such an insurmountable objection, he cites this sacred saying (of our mentor), again spitting at us with stinking abuse in his accustomed language. “For,” he says, “he refers to the human invention of the same name based on analogy, the work of a soul that is rightly devoid of a strong mind and examines the words of the Lord with a weak understanding and with some criminal habit.” What a dialectical proof! How skillfully the word achieves its goal! And who else will stand for an idea when such a stench pours out of his mouth on those who intend to say something! Even we, who are trying to say something about this, need to refrain from examining his words, so that he does not push this stream of slander towards us, or, better, because only the faint-hearted tend to ardently rebel against childish absurdities. Therefore, the slanderer must be allowed to use any form of speech he pleases. But we must repeat his words, so that help for the truth may be revealed to us from them. He mentioned the “analogy” and pointed out the “eponymousness” based on it. But where did you learn this, and from whom did these sayings come? Moses did not say them, he did not hear them from the prophets and apostles, the evangelists are silent about such words, no Scripture gives information about them. So why does he say this? Isn't it an invention of the speaker's mind that a word is called analogy for a well-known designation of thought? How can he not understand that he uses the very (words) against which he fights as fellow fighters for the fight? He himself fights with the word “by imagination” through words also by imagination, asserting, however, that nothing should be said by imagination! “But none of the saints,” he says, “taught this.” And to which of the ancients can you attribute the word “ungeneracy” and the fact that it is a name expressing the very essence of God, and even more, that ungeneracy itself is the essence? Or are you allowed, where it is intended to bring out some wicked thought, to introduce new ones and invent words suitable for you, and if something is said to others to overthrow wickedness, then the power of the one who argues is taken away? You will be convicted of great violence if you strengthen such power for yourself that what you prevent from others, you allow yourself to do the same, and what you arbitrarily dare to do, you begin to forbid others. By decree you forbid the attribution of such names to Christ by imagination, because none of the saints established that such names should be said. How then, by using the word “unborn,” do you legitimize that only those words can be correctly spoken that are indicated by the inspired word of Scripture? The name “unborn” should be eliminated from your writings, since none of the saints established such a word. But you accept this expression on the basis of the meaning contained in this saying; and we just as accurately accepted the word “invention” on the basis of the thought contained in it. So, either we will remove both from use, or neither one nor the other; Whatever we allow, in both cases we will win. For if we completely consign to silence the word “ungeneracy,” then at the same time all the speech of opponents against the truth will be destroyed, and the glory due to the Only Begotten God will shine forth from everywhere, because there will be no name that would diminish the greatness of the Lord through opposition (to His Father). And if both remain, then even in this case the truth will prevail with us, as soon as the name “unborn” turns from essence into invention. But until he erases the word “unborn” from his speeches, let the Pharisee who rebels against us make it a rule not to consider our straw before he vomits out of his eyes the log that lies in front of him. “But God,” he says, “gave the most honorable names to the weakest on earth, without giving equal dignity to the names, and to the most important, the lowest, without giving them natural baseness as a result of the names.” This is said word by word and exactly as we rewrote it. If these words contain some meaning hidden in depth and escaping from us, then let it be expressed by those who have comprehended something far from our comprehension, initiated by them into an inner and mysterious initiation. If they mean nothing more than what is immediately understood, then I don’t know who is more worthy of pity, whether they say it or listen to them. “To the weakest on earth,” he says, “he bestowed the most honorable names, without giving equal dignity to the names.” Let's take a closer look at the meaning of what was said. The weakest, he says, is awarded a simple honorary name, without being by nature such as it is called. And he calls this the work of God - it is false to attribute a more honorable name to the worst nature, and on the contrary, he says that God assigns humiliating names to the most excellent by nature, without changing the nature along with the name! But in order for what has been said to be completely clear to us, the absurdity must be proven in reality. If someone who is glorified for great virtue calls him depraved, or, on the contrary, he who is accused of all evil, is good and well-behaved, will those with intelligence be considered sane or at all attentive to the truth when he changes names in the opposite direction when the meaning of the names does not correspond to nature? Don't think. So, he says that God has things that do not agree with either common sense or the testimony of Scripture. For in our ordinary life, it is common for those who are distraught from drunkenness or rage to make mistakes in the reasoning of names and to use words about objects that do not correspond to their meaning, but, for example, to call a dog a person, and vice versa, to attach the name of a person to a dog. But the Divine Scripture is so far from allowing such a confusion of names that one can even clearly hear the prophetic word indignant at this: “Woe,” he says, to him who speaks light to darkness, and light to darkness; They consider the weakest on earth, which is honored by God with the most honorable names. “equal (names) of merit,” as Eunomius says? But we have not yet heard of these weak creatures being called by the most majestic names, or of a great and honorable person being insulted by being called one of these creatures. Noah was righteous, says Scripture, Abraham was faithful, Moses was meek, Daniel was wise, Joseph was chaste, Job was blameless, and David was full of generosity. So, let them say, did each of them receive their names from nasty (qualities)? Or of those whose depravity is attested, such as: Nabal of Carmel, Pharaoh the Egyptian, Abimilech the Philistine, equally of all those mentioned because of depravity, is anyone honored by the Divine word with more glorious names? Not at all, but what is the nature and truth of beings, God judges them and calls them, giving names not contrary to their essence, but so that what is signified is completely clear, being expressed in the names characteristic of it. Thus, the strong-minded accuser of criminal habit, who brings to trial (us) devoid of reason, believes that he has such knowledge of the Divine nature, expresses such opinions about God as if He mocks things, giving them inappropriate names, gives the weakest names the most honorable and insults the worthy by common names with bad things. Even a person from those whose gaze is fixed on virtue, having retreated, and often involuntarily, from the truth, is covered with shame, and he thinks to attribute to God the honor due to Him, declaring that He gives deceptive names to objects. This is not what the prophecies about the Divine nature testify to. “God is long-suffering and abounding in mercy and truth,” says David (Ps. 145:8). But how true is he who falsely represents things and changes the truth in the meanings of names? He again calls the Lord God “righteous” (Ps. 91:16). But is it natural to honor something unworthy with the most honorable names and, by giving an empty name, as if out of envy, to deprive the one who has received the name of the dignity expressed in the speech? Such is the testimony of these new theologians about the new God; This is the limit of the notorious dialectical subtlety - to show that their God delights in deceptions and is not free from the passion of envy. For deception tends to name weak things not according to their nature and dignity, but to give them names in vain, borrowed from excellent ones, not agreeing the strength of the name with the name; and envy - when the one who can give the most honorable expression to the superiority called in respect, hesitates to show mercy, as if considering the well-being of the weak to be a harm to himself. But I would advise the prudent (although the violence of inferences forces the God of these scientists to be such) not to worship the true God, the Only Begotten God, but to look at the truth of objects, testify to each according to its merits and give a name according to deeds. “Come, he says, blessed ones, and depart from Me, cursed ones” (Matthew 25:34, 25:41), not honoring in the name of blessing the one worthy of the curse and, on the contrary, not rejecting, along with the evildoers, the one who has acquired the blessing for himself. But what is the significance of what the writer said? And to what purpose does his word aim? Let no one suppose that, not having anything to say, and wanting to give his word the greatest possible breadth, he, babbling with some senseless ones, prolonged his chatter. And the nonsense of what he said has something to be suspected of heresy. For in what he said, that the most honorable names are attached to the weakest (objects), although by nature they do not have the dignity corresponding to the names, he had some preparation, secretly laying the way to a blasphemous conclusion, so that his disciples would learn from him that although the Only Begotten is called God, light and truth, Judge and King, God above all and great God, Prince of Peace and Father of the next age, and all the like this - but only the honor of the name belongs to Him, and He is not involved in the very dignity indicated by the meaning of the names. And what the wise Daniel did among the Babylonians, correcting their errors in the reasoning of idols, so that they would not worship copper or the serpent, honoring the name of God, which these vain people attached to these (objects), and by his action clearly showed that the high name of the Divine does not befit either a reptile animal, or the image that is given to copper - the very same thing, and the enemy of God, on the contrary, is strengthened through his teachings to apply to the Only Begotten God, proclaiming in this previous saying of him this: do not look at the names perceived by the Lord, as if from them one could conclude about the ineffability and sublimity of His essence, for many other weakest things are honored with excellent names, but although its name has height, the nature does not change according to the greatness of the name. Therefore, he says that God, by simple names alone, attaches honor to the lower, but the name is not accompanied by equality in dignity, so that on the basis of what he cunningly expressed, everything that is high in sign we know about the Son, we must honor only by name and attribute honor to Him only in words, not allowing Him to be involved in the corresponding (names) dignity. But by dwelling on the meaningless, apparently, I secretly deliver something pleasant to my opponents. For by contrasting the truth with the emptiness of what is said, it seems that I am causing boredom to the listeners of my words before struggling with what is most important. So, it is necessary to leave this, whatever it may be, to more attentive listeners, but we must turn the speech to what follows. I will also keep silent about what is in direct connection with what was investigated, because this is arranged in such a way that the power to give names does not fall to human invention for a long time. But who says that what is considered not in its own essence has power in any matter? Only that which is governed by its own arbitrariness has the power to do anything. But imagination is an action of our mind, depends on the arbitrariness of those who speak, and does not exist by itself, but has existence in the impulse of those who speak. “But all this,” he says, “God created: relationship, action, and correspondence, and he agreed the name with each of the named (subjects) according to the laws.” This either makes no sense at all, or contradicts what was stated above. For if he now ascribes to God a corresponding agreement of names with objects, how does he assert, as stated above, that God bestows high names on the low, without at the same time imparting the dignity contained in the meaning of the names, and, conversely, insults the great by nature with low names, although the nature does not change along with the baseness of the words? But perhaps we are acting unfairly by leveling such accusations on such a meaningless collection of his words. For those who know how to carefully examine this find this alien to any thought, not only, I say, correct in relation to piety, but also not even making any sense. So, since his speech, like a sea slug, in appearance has the appearance of some kind of swollen body, and a swollen body is phlegm, which is disgusting to see and even more disgusting to take in hand, then, considering silence to be the most decent answer to idle talk, I will pass over in silence what is said. What law governs action, compliance and disposition? And who is the legislator who gave God laws and ways of correspondence and relationship? It would be better to leave this without examination, rather than, by paying attention to it, to produce nausea in the listeners and distance the word from something more worthy of attention. But I am afraid that everything that is presented to us in the writings of Eunomius is uniformly some kind of swollen bodies and sea slugs, so that we would have to stop talking about what he said, not finding in what was written any subject for (our) work. For just as smoke or fog thickens and makes the air unclean and, stopping in it, interferes with the natural action of vision, it does not, however, thicken in itself, so that anyone who wants to can grab and hold it with his hands and repel its attack; in the same way, if anyone speaks about this famous scripture, he will not sin against the true idea. For the laborious idle talk of this plump and wet word appears to a not very insightful mind like fog to someone looking from afar, having some firmness and outline. But if someone possesses himself and an inquisitive mind touches what is said, then thoughts, like smoke, elude understanding, dissipate into nothingness and do not reflect the striking word with anything solid and resisting. So what should be done is unknown. Whatever method those who love to object choose, both are equally subject to accusation: will we, jumping, as it were, over some ditches, through idle talk, direct the word to what is prominent and even, and by refutation rebel against that (only) that apparently has some force against the truth, or, in accordance with all its talkativeness, will we prolong the fight against idle talk. Thus, for those who do not love work, zeal will be difficult and useless, stretched out over many thousands of speeches without any benefit. And if we dwell only on that one thing that, apparently, has some force against the truth, then we will provide opponents with a pretext for the accusation that we have missed something that does not admit of contradiction. So, since we are presented with two ways: either to trace everything in our word, or to pay attention only to what is more necessary; But the first is difficult for listeners, and the last is suspicious for opponents, then I consider a certain middle direction to be better, in order to avoid, as much as possible, reproaches from both sides. So what is this direction? From all the idle talk he has produced, having separated out the heap of rubbish, let us briefly consider the main thoughts, so as not to delve recklessly into the meaningless, nor to leave anything said without examination at all. His entire word is occupied with one thing - trying to prove that the Deity speaks humanly and that words meaning objects are applied to existing things by the Creator of objects himself. Therefore, fighting with the one who said that these names are the work of the rational nature, which we received from God, he says that he departs from the truth and does not stand up to his own foundation; bringing this accusation against him, he uses such conclusions to prove it. “Vasily,” he says, “said that what arises in us after the first thought about an object, a more subtle and thorough study of the conceivable, is called imagination.” With the help of such considerations, Eunomius, as he thinks, denounces his words by the fact that, in whom there is no first and second thought, in him, he says, another, more subtle and thorough thought cannot take place. And here everyone who hears this will convict him of an insidious distortion of words (Vasily). Because our teacher gave such a definition not of every invention, but, having made, as it were, some particular division of what was being considered by invention, so as not to introduce great confusion into the word, after explaining this part, he then left it to those who have the mind to conclude about the whole from a part. And just as someone who, having in mind many and various kinds of creatures and calling them animals, will not be convicted of deviating from the truth if he cites a person as an example (of an animal), so he will not be subject to correction in error even if he does not give the same definition about flying, and four-legged, and living in water, which he will express about a person; With such diversity and such differences seen in the concept of invention, it is impossible to say: if invention is not this and that, then it is certainly this. Therefore, if another type of invention were discovered, then the previously presented one would not be false. “If,” he says, “one of the apostles and prophets turned out to use these names about Christ, then the lie would have consolation.” What thoroughness in the study of the divine Scriptures reveals in the writer what is said! “None of the prophets or apostles called the Lord bread or stone, fountain or axe, or light, or shepherd.” What and about whom does David say that “the Lord feeds me” (Ps. 23:1), and: “He who shepherds Israel” (Ps. 79:2)? And is there any difference in saying: “shepherd” or “shepherd”? Also: “The fountain of life is with You” (Ps. 35:10). Therefore, he admits that the Lord is called the source. And again it is said: “The stone that was built carelessly” (Matthew 21:42). And John, when he designated by the name of the ax the crushing power in the Lord for evil, says: “Already the ax lies at the root of the tree” (Matthew 3:10), does not it turn out to be a worthy witness of what was said? And Moses, seeing God in the light, and John, calling (the Lord) by the true light, Paul, illuminated by the same light in the first epiphany and then hearing the words of the Light: “I am Jesus, whom you persecute” (Acts 9:5), is this not sufficient for testimony? About bread (Eunomius) let him read in the Gospel that the food given to Israel from heaven by Moses was accepted by the Lord Himself as the image of the Lord: “Moses did not give you bread: but My Father gives the true bread” (he calls himself that way), who came down from “heaven and gives life to the world” (John 6:32-33). Meanwhile, the real listener of the law claims that none of the prophets or The apostles did not apply such names to Christ. What follows next? “If the Lord Himself called Himself by these names, and between the names of the Savior there is neither the first nor the second, nor one more subtle and precise than the other, but He knows everything together and with equal accuracy, then it is impossible to apply to any of them the concept of invention expressed by Him.” I have already gleaned a lot of nonsense from his words, but I ask the readers to forgive us if we do not ignore the obviously empty ones, not because, however, we are pleased with the shamelessness of the writer (for what benefit does the denounced madness of our opponents bring us?), but so that the truth makes its way, finding confirmation of itself in everything. “Since,” he says, “the Lord attached such names to Himself, without representing them as either first, or second, or more subtle or precise, it cannot be said that these names come from imagination.” How he remembers his goal! How he knows those words against which he entered into a struggle! To explain the idea, our leader mentioned something that is commonly encountered and, having explained the meaning (of this word) with examples borrowed from distant objects, thus leads his speech to the contemplation of the heavenly. For he said that wheat itself appears to us as one thing in essence, but according to the various properties seen in it, it changes its name, being a seed, a fruit, and food, and whatever it is, it is called so. In the same way, he says, the Lord Himself is what is by nature, but being called by various actions, not one has a name for all of them, but takes a name for each concept that we receive from the action. So, in what way is our word refuted by what has been said, that many names, due to the difference in actions and in relation to what is produced, can be applied to the one essentially Son of God, just as wheat, being one, receives different private names due to the difference in concepts about it? How does one refute what has been said who says that Christ speaks such names about Himself? For the question is not about who gave the names, but the concept of names was subject to consideration: do they signify nature, or do (objects) receive names by imagination from actions? But this insightful and comprehensive man, perverting this definition of invention, which says that for one subject one can find many names according to the meanings of actions, forcibly armed himself against us, saying that such words were not applied to the Lord by anyone else. But how does this relate to the intended purpose? Since these names are spoken by the Lord, will he really not recognize them as names, titles, or words meaning concepts? But if he does not recognize them as names, then along with the destruction of the names, the invention is also destroyed. And if he does not dispute that these words are names, then does his proof that these names were ordained not by anyone else but by the Lord Himself in any way harm the concept of invention? For it was said that, just as represented in the example of wheat, the Lord, being one in essence, also has names in accordance with actions. But if it is recognized that wheat has a name based on the idea of ​​what is seen in it, then it follows that such words about the Lord do not mean His nature, but on the basis of the idea they express what is understood in Him. However, the objector, out of great care, does not fight against what is supposed, but says that the Lord called Himself that. This is as if someone asked about the meaning of the name Isaac: does it mean laughter, as some say, or what else does this name mean, and one of the Eunomians answered decisively: the mother gave the name to the child. But the question was not whether someone could say who gave the name, but what the concept of a name means when translated into our language. So it is here, when the question is whether the various names attached to the Lord are spoken of Him by imagination, without in the least indicating nature; then the one who, in support of the opinion that names cannot be looked at as inventions, provides such evidence that these names are given by God Himself, can he be ranked among the prudent - the one who, fighting against the truth, uses such aids for warfare, with the help of which the opponent is the strongest? Then, going further, as if his word had already reached its goal, he prepares against us, as he says, more severe accusations than those expressed, beforehand he complains a lot, and slanderes ahead, and strongly directs the attention of the listeners to what has to be said; where he accuses us that we affirm even more wicked opinions, (that) we not only attribute the names given by God to things to our imagination (although he does not say which one, when and how the distribution of names was made), but we confuse all objects and reduce both the essence and the action of the Only Begotten to identity. Without having thought at all about this and without showing how we affirm the identity of essence and action, he finally brings out the most important of the accusations, speaking in these words: “already,” he says, “moving from this, he showers the God of existence over everything with extreme blasphemies,” and in his own words interrupts our words and eliminates some of our examples. I have no need at all to go into consideration of this, but I only want to point out the collection and incoherence of the writer’s words, with which he deafens the old women between their husbands and boasts with the great noise of small words in front of his astonished listeners, but does not understand that by this he has put himself in shame before people experienced in the art of speech. But this has nothing to do with our goal. Oh, if only his guilt extended to this extent, and without sinning in anything regarding faith, he was considered to have sinned in the mere utterance of words, so that there would be nothing to praise or blame him for, except for this or that way of speaking! Following what has been said against us, he adds the following: “After the various exercises of imagination,” he says, “about wheat and the Lord, he similarly affirms that the most holy essence of God allows for various imaginations.” This is the most serious accusation, for the sake of which previously, in what was said above, these grave accusations of impiety and absurdity and the like were proclaimed against us. But what is the proof of wickedness? Eunomius says something about wheat and explains what is usually and directly known to everyone, that is, how it is born and how, having ripened, it nourishes with fruit, being born, growing and being used by certain natural forces. And having said this, he says that there is nothing obscene, that the Only Begotten God allows for various ideas both in concepts and in differences in actions, as well as in certain correspondences and relationships. And He rants about such names to the point of satiety. “But isn’t it absurd,” he says, “or, better yet, isn’t it wicked to compare the Unborn with this?” With what? “With wheat,” he says, “and with the Only Begotten God?” Do you see the awe? He asserts that the worthless wheat and the Only Begotten God are equally far from the dignity of the unborn God. And if we do not slander his words, his thoughts can be recognized from what he himself wrote. For “isn’t it absurd,” he says, “or, better yet, isn’t it wicked to compare this Unborn One?” - and, having said this, he speaks of wheat and the Lord as objects of equal dignity, considering it equally absurd to compare God with one or the other of them. But everyone, of course, knows that objects that are equally distant from something are themselves equal to each other; so that, according to the wise theologian, the Creator of the ages, who declared the entire nature of existence, turns out to be equal to a small seed, since both Himself and the wheat are equally far from God when compared with Him. Such is the wickedness of the (Eunomius) word. Now is the time to examine the very basis of blasphemy, from which it is consistently derived in (his) word. Having said that it is absurd to compare God with wheat and Christ, he says about wheat that “God is not capable of changing like these,” but about the Only Begotten, that He is also incapable of change, he kept silent; and thus clearly showed the humiliation of His dignity, precisely in the fact that when he said: one should not compare Him, like wheat, with God, he left his words without support, without any other conclusion proving from this side the inequality of the Son in relation to the Father; as if his reasoning about grain was enough to prove at the same time the difference between the Son and the Father in the sense of lower dignity. And he argues about the incorruptibility of the Father that it is inherent in him not from action. But if real life, producing itself, is some kind of action, and if the meaning is the same to always live and never resolve into decay, then I still do not agree with such a word, but I hold my own opinion. That one concept of incorruptibility is equally conceivable in both the Father and the Son, and that the incorruptibility of the Father is in no way different from the incorruptibility of the Son, that neither by decrease, nor by addition, nor by any other type of difference is the difference in incorruption revealed, I consider it timely to say now and always, so that as a result of this, his word, on the basis of the concept of incorruptibility, asserting that the Father has no community with the Son, has no place. For just as incorruptibility is understood in the Father, so, undoubtedly, it is also in the Son. That which is not subject to corruption, which is what it is, and is called incorruptibility, has equal, or rather the same meaning, whatever it is attributed to. So, on what basis does he attribute to the unborn God alone that His incorruption does not come from action, as if thereby proving the difference between the Only Begotten and the Father? For if he assumes that his created god is corruptible, then the difference in nature is well demonstrated by the difference between the corruptible and the incorruptible. If both the one and the other are equally not subject to corruption, and in incorruption by nature neither increase nor decrease is intelligible, then how does one prove the incomparability of the Father with the Only Begotten Son? Or what does he want, claiming that the incorruptibility of the Father does not come from action? But he reveals (his) purpose in the words that follow. “Not from actions,” he says, “incorruptible and unborn, but as the Father and Creator.” Here I especially ask the listener to pay attention to me. How does he consider the concepts signified by these two names, that is, creation and patronymic, to be identical? For he asserts that both are equally action, clearly proclaiming this in this way: “incorruptible not from action, but from actions he is called Father and Creator.” So, if it is the same thing to call Him Father or Creator, since with Him action is the cause of both names, then it is absolutely necessary that the consequences of actions must be homogeneous with each other, by the very fact that He equally comes from action. But what extreme blasphemy this consistently leads to is obvious to anyone who knows how to discern the consequences. And what I think about this, I want to add to the study of (his) words. It cannot be that an action producing a thing has independence in itself without something that perceives the movement of the action. So, when we talk about someone who forges copper, he makes (ενεργειν) something, but about a substance that is subject to art, it is made (ενεργεισθαι). Consequently, the active and passive forces have some necessary relationship to one another, so that if one of them is separated in the mind, then the rest will not have independence in itself; If there is no one who suffers, there will be no one who acts. So, what will follow from this? If the action that produces any thing does not have independence in itself without a subject suffering, and the Father, as they say, is nothing more than an action, then as a result of this the Only Begotten Son appears to be suffering; formed for the movement of His action. For as we say that the Creator of everything made His creative essence active, placing before Him some passive and submissive substance, in the realm of the sensible, skillfully imparting to the subject various and varied qualities for the completion of each of the things that receive being (objects), and in the realm of rational being, forming what is subject in a different way, through not qualities, but voluntary aspirations; it is so necessary that if anyone defines the patronymic as an action, he can imagine the hypostatic existence of the Son in no other way than by the example of some passive substance created. For if they began to regard Him as non-passive, then non-passiveness would, of course, be resistance to the action, and when an obstacle is placed on the action, then, of course, there would not be anything produced by the action; so one of two things: either through this they make the essence of the Only Begotten passive, so that it takes action, or, not daring to do this because of the evidence of wickedness, they lead the matter to the fact that it does not exist at all; for what by nature cannot suffer, then, of course, does not allow itself to be creatively active. Therefore, he who asserts that the Son is the product of some action asserts that He is one of the passive beings that came into being through action, or if he rejects passion, he will deny His existence along with passion. But since in both cases the dilemma reveals wickedness, and to say that He does not exist and consider Him to be passive, then the truth is obvious, revealed through the elimination of absurdities. If He truly exists and is not passive, then it is clear that He does not exist from action, but as befits, He is the true God, from the true God the Father, dispassionately shining and shining from the ages. “But God,” he says, “by his very essence is incorruptible.” What other concept befitting God is not connected with the very essence of the Son? Righteousness, goodness, eternity, non-participation in all evil, unlimitedness in everything that is thought to be good - will anyone really say that any of the perfections is acquired in the nature of God, and that not everything that is good comes from Him and is contemplated in Him, when the prophet says so: “If there is any good and if there is any good” from Him (Zech. 9:17)? To this adds that “unbornness exists by essence.” If he says this in the sense that the essence of the Father is unborn, then I agree with what was said and do not contradict this teaching, for absolutely none of the pious believe that the Father of the Only Begotten is born. If this thought is indicated by the appearance of words, but leads to the fact that unbornness itself is the essence, then I find it necessary not to leave this unexamined, so that it does not hide from those who are easily deceived that he is preparing (them) to agree to blasphemy. That something else is, according to the concept, unbornness and something else is the Divine essence, this can be seen from the very thing that he said. “By its very essence,” he says, “He is incorruptible and unborn, since it is unalloyed and pure from all otherness and difference.” He says this about God, whose essence, according to him, is incorruptibility and ungeneracy. So, he expressed three names about God: essence, incorruptibility and ungeneracy. If these three names relating to God express one concept, then, of course, all three are divinity; it’s the same as if someone, wanting to portray a person, said that he is reasonable, capable of laughing and has wide nails; in this case, since there is no difference in nature in each of these properties, we say that these names have equal force with one another and that in the subject the three are one - the humanity described by the names. So, if divinity is ungeneracy, incorruptibility and essence, then, of all necessity, when one of them is taken away, divinity is also destroyed. For just as he who does not call a person rational and capable of laughter will not call him a man, so in relation to these three names, that is, ungeneracy, incorruptibility and essence, if they depict the Divinity, when one of the three is not present, then, of course, the concept of divinity is taken away from the rest. So, let him answer, what opinion does he have about the Only Begotten God? Does he consider Him begotten or unbegotten? Of course, he will call him born if he does not contradict his own words. Therefore, if the same thing with ungeneracy is essence and incorruptibility, which constitute the sign of divinity, then whoever does not have ungeneracy will, of course, have his essence and incorruptibility taken away together, in the absence of which, of all necessity, divinity will also be taken away. So, the sequence of their blasphemy takes the thought to a double extreme. For if in one and the same meaning essence, incorruptibility and ungeneracy are attributed to God, then it clearly turns out that this new God-created Son recognizes the Son he created as corruptible, because he does not recognize him as unborn, and not only corruptible, but also completely non-existent, because he cannot recognize as Divinity someone in whom he does not perceive ungeneracy, since he considers ungeneracy and incorruptibility to be one and the same thing with essence. Since the destruction of this is obvious, then let someone advise those unfortunate to turn their thoughts to the remaining (assumption) and not to deliberately fight against the truth, but to agree that each of these names has a special meaning, which can be better understood from what is opposed to them, because ungeneracy is revealed from the opposition to birth, incorruptibility is recognized from comparison with corruption, essence is discerned from the difference with the non-existent. For just as that which is not born is called unborn, and that which does not decay is called incorruptible, so also that which has non-accidental existence we call essence. And vice versa, just as we do not call what is born unborn, so we do not call what is perishable incorruptible. So, essence is thought of as the existence of something, and goodness or corruption is thought of as the quality of being. Therefore, there is a different concept of being and a different concept, indicating the image or quality of being. It seems to me that it is best, bypassing the vomit lying in the middle (for this, I think, should be called his senseless attacks on the invention), to dwell on the thought we have presented, because what, like some kind of phlegm, the writer vomited to refute the mentor’s reasoning regarding the invention, is such that it does not pose any danger to the reader, even if someone very stupid and easily carried away happened between them. For who is so senseless that, when Eunomius directly applies the principles expressed by his mentor about wheat as an example, through which he offered his listeners, as it were, some tool and way to contemplation of things above, to the essence of the God of all, to think that he is saying something and with some dexterity building arguments against the truth? For in what he said that the most fitting reason for the birth of the Son by God is unlimited power and unsurpassable power (which can be said not only about the world and its elements, but also about reptiles and beasts, and the venerable theologian expounds this as something decent in the concept of the Only Begotten God), or in his words that God, even before the origin of names, calls Himself unbegotten, or Father, or other names, as if fearing that, in the absence of a name among those who have not yet come into existence, He might be ignorant of Himself or fall into oblivion of Himself, in the absence of a name, not knowing what He is; also in a mocking attack on our words, from which he deduces the absurdity that the Father, who was before all ages and times and before all sensible and rational nature, seems to be waiting for people to receive a name from their imagination, not being named, as he says, either by the Son or by the rational beings that came through Him; how much wit and intricacy there is in all this! I think that no one is so burdened with phlegm in the head that he does not know that the Only Begotten God, who exists in the Father and sees the Father in Himself, does not need a name or a word to know this subject; that “the Holy Spirit, who searches the depths of God” (1 Cor. 2:10), is not raised to the knowledge of what is sought through naming, and the incorporeal nature of the supermundane forces does not name the Divinity with voice or language; because in the immaterial and intelligent nature the action of the mind is the word, which has no need at all for the material service of the organs. For in human nature there is no We would need to use words and names if it were possible to reveal to each other the undisguised movements of the mind. Now, since the thoughts that arise in us, due to the fact that our nature is contained in a bodily shell, cannot be revealed, we, of necessity, having imposed on things, as if signs, known names, through them we explain to each other the movements of the mind. And if it were somehow otherwise possible to detect the movements of the mind, then we, having ceased to use the periodic service of names, would talk more clearly and purely with each other, revealing through the aspirations of the mind the very nature of things with which the mind is concerned. Now, for this purpose, we have given the name “sky” to one of the existing things, “earth” to another, some other thing, and some kind of relationship to something, or action, or suffering - we designate all this with special sounds so that the movement of the mind in us does not remain uncommunicated and unknown. And this premium and immaterial nature, being free and detached from the corporeal shell, and in relation to the Supreme Nature has no need for names or words. If, however, any word of a mental nature is mentioned anywhere, written in the sacred books, then this is said for us, the listeners, since we cannot otherwise understand what is being revealed unless it is announced by sounds and speech. Although David says by the Spirit that something was spoken to the Lord by the Lord (Matt. 22:43), but the speaker is David, who could not otherwise teach us what he understands, if he did not interpret with sounds and words the understanding of the mysteries that he received from God. Therefore, I consider it best to ignore everything that Eunomius, wisely speaking, says about invention, even if he accuses those of insanity who think that the name of the Divine is uttered by people through invention for the purpose of revealing and exceeding power. What he means, he thinks, what the idea should ridicule, those who wish can learn from his words. And what we understand regarding the use of names, we said above, is that while things exist as they are, whatever their nature is, sounds were invented to explain things by the rational power God placed in our nature. If anyone attributes their cause to the One who gave strength, we do not contradict. Just as we say about movement, vision and other actions of the senses that they come from Him from Whom we received such ability, so the reason for calling God, who exists by nature, what He is, according to the general understanding, should be attributed to Himself. And the power to name everything conceivable in one way or another lies in nature; and whether anyone wants to call it an invention or something else, we will not argue. To prove what has been said, we cite the fact that not everyone has the same name for the Divine, but everyone expresses this concept at will. So, having kept silent about all his vulgar chatter regarding invention, let us stick to the dogmas, noting for ourselves from what is included in the middle of his idle talk, only the place where he believes that God, sitting before the primordial ones, like some kind of teacher or grammarian, teaches the doctrine of words and names, where he says that the primordial ones themselves by God or directly descended from them, if they had not been taught, like each of things are named and named, they would live together silently and wordlessly, and, he says, would not accomplish anything useful for life, since everyone’s thought would be unknown due to the lack of signs, that is, words and names. Such is the madness of the writer that he thinks that the power invested by God in nature is not enough for any method of rational activity, but that if people had not studied each word separately, as, for example, learning the language of the Jews or Romans word for word, they would not know the things that they are, not recognizing either fire, water, air, or other existing (objects), if they had not acquired knowledge about this from the names superimposed on them. And we say that He who created everything with wisdom and gave life to this rational creature, by the very fact that he sent down reason into nature, invested all rational power. And just as we, the power that lies in the sensory organs, having received from Him who formed the eye and who planted hearing with nature itself, use them for what each of the senses is adapted to, and do not need anyone who would name the colors perceived by sight (because the eye is a sufficient teacher for itself in this), nor for the knowledge of what we feel by hearing, or taste, or touch - we do not need foreign teachers, having a home criterion everything that we sense; so, we say, the rational power of the soul, having originated as such from God, then moves by itself and looks at things, and in order for knowledge not to suffer any fusion, it imposes on each of the things, as if some kind of brands, designations by means of sounds. The great Moses also confirms this teaching, saying that Adam gave names to the irrational animals, writing word for word: “And God created from the earth all the wild animals and all the birds of the air, and I brought to Adam to see what I would call: and whatever life is called Adam, this is its name. And he called the names of all the beasts of the earth and livestock and every wild beast Adam” (Gen. 2:19-20). But it seems that the chatter he composed about invention, like some kind of sticky and sticky mud, delays us and does not allow us to touch more useful things. For how can we ignore this careful and thoughtful philosophy, where he says that not only in works is the greatness of God revealed, but also in names the wisdom of God is revealed, naturally and naturally adapting names to every created thing? He says this, probably, either having read Cratylus himself, Platonov’s conversation, or having heard from one of those who read it, due to the great, I think, poverty of thoughts, he stitches the local chatter with his own idle talk. He does something similar to those who gather their food by begging, for just as they, receiving something small from each of the givers, make up their food from various and varied substances, so the speech of Eunomius, due to the scarcity of true bread, collects crumbs of sayings and thoughts from everywhere with its own labor. Therefore, deafened by the euphony of Plato’s speech, he considers it appropriate to make his philosophy a dogma of the church. How many sounds, tell me, according to the differences between peoples, is the building of the firmament called? We call it “heaven” (ουρανος), the Jew – “shamayim”, the Roman – “soelum”, and otherwise the Syrian, Mede, Cappadocian, Mauritanian, Scythian, Thracian, Egyptian; It is not even easy to calculate the differences in names that exist in every nation regarding the sky and other things. What, tell me, is their natural name, in which the majestic wisdom of God is revealed? If you prefer the Hellenic name to others, then perhaps an Egyptian will oppose you, presenting his own. If we give primacy to the Hebrew, the Syrian will put forward his sound, and the Roman will not give up primacy to them, the Mede will also not allow his words to take precedence, and from other nations, each will consider his own primacy worthy. So, what will this teaching not tolerate, when the disputants are torn apart by such differences of words? “But from them,” he says, “as if from openly laid down laws, it is revealed that God gave decent and characteristic names to creatures.” O majestic teaching! What opinions does the theologian give with Divine instruction, in which people do not envy even the bathhouse attendants! Because we give it up to them to make up the names of those actions on which they work, and no one called them god-like honors, but they established names for those who were with them: basins, psiletyrs, wipers and many of those, naturally expressing the object by the meaning of words. But I will pass by both this and their subsequent Epicurean natural theory, which says that it is tantamount to invention, asserting that emptiness, and atoms, and the random origin of beings are akin to those that are signified by invention. Saying - oh how he knows Epicurus - we are convicted! Let it be kept silent about his leader and comrade-in-arms in dogma - Aristotle, whose opinion, as he says further, agrees with what was said about invention; because, he says, he owns the doctrine that providence does not penetrate everything that exists and does not extend to earthly things. He tries to prove that this is consistent with research on imagination; This is what it means to discuss doctrine carefully and carefully! But continuing further, he says that it is necessary either not to assimilate to God the origin of things, or, having allowed it, not to take away the position of names. Meanwhile, regarding irrational animals, as we said before, Scripture teaches us the opposite, that neither Adam created animals, nor God named them, but the origin is from God, and the name of what happened is from man, as Moses relates. Then in his essay he writes us a laudatory speech to the words, as if someone had degraded the power of the word, and after this pitiful and long-winded set of words he says that providence, by law and measure, has completely connected the transfer of names with the knowledge and use of what is necessary; and having babbled a lot of this in deep sleep, he turns in his speech to an irresistible and invincible necessity. I will speak, expounding his teaching not word for word, but only in thought. There is no need, he says, to attribute the invention of words to poets who lied in their assumptions about God. This is what this magnanimous one gives to God, attributing to God the invention of poetic arbitrariness, as if this would make God seem more honorable to people and higher, when those taught by Eunomius believe that the expressions: λικριφις (from the side), καρκαιρε (rattled), ευραξ (from the side), κεκαδε (away), φοχειρι, σιζε, δουπησε (stunned), καναχιζε (made noise), σμερδαλεον κοναβιζε (sounded terrible), λιγξε (whistled), ιαχε (yelled), μερμηριξε (lost his thoughts) and all such poets do not use arbitrarily, as they please, but having been introduced into the sacraments of these words by God Himself, they insert them into their poems! And let’s skip this, and this wise and invincible proof that in the annals of the Scriptures we cannot indicate the holy men who invented new words. For if, before the appearance of these men, human nature was imperfect and did not yet fully possess the gift of words, then, of course, it was necessary to demand from them to make up for (this) deficiency; If, from the very beginning, the nature (of man) became sufficient and perfect in verbal and rational activity, then how would it be convenient to confirm the doctrine of invention by looking for saints who laid the foundation for sounds or words? Or, if we cannot prove this, then how can he consider this sufficient proof that God has ordained such and such syllables and words for us? But “since,” he says, “God does not disdain conversation with those who serve Him, then one should think that He laid down the names characteristic of things from the beginning.” What do we say to this? That God allows a conversation with man, we believe the reason for this is love for mankind. But since what is small by nature cannot rise above its own measure and reach the superior nature of the Most High, therefore He, reducing the human-loving power to our weakness, as much as we can accept, devotes His grace to what is for our benefit. For, just as, according to the dispensation of God, the sun, having moderated through the medium of air the excess and purity of its rays, delivers a brilliance and warmth commensurate to those receiving it, being in itself inaccessible due to the weakness of our nature, so the power of God, similar to the example we have given, infinitely exceeds our nature and is inaccessible to communication, as if some kindly mother, imitating the senseless babble of babies, devotes to human nature what she is able to do. accept. Therefore, in various theophany to people, She takes on a human form, speaks like a human, and puts on anger, mercy, and similar (human) passions, so that through everything characteristic of us, our infant life would be guided, being brought into connection with the Divine nature by the instructions of Providence. For that it is ungodly to consider the nature of God to be subject to any passion of pleasure, or mercy, or anger, no one will deny this, even those who are little attentive to the knowledge of the truth of existence. But, although it is said that God rejoices over His servants and is angry with rage at the fallen people, then that He has mercy, even if He has mercy, He also gives generously (Exodus 33:19), but with each of these sayings, I think, the generally accepted word loudly teaches us that through our properties, the providence of God adapts to our weakness, so that those inclined to sin, out of fear of punishment, restrain themselves from evil, having previously been carried away by sin not They despaired of returning through repentance, looking at mercy, and leading a careful and right life were more delighted with virtues, as if they were making merry with their lives the Overseer of the good. But just as one cannot be called a deaf-mute who speaks to a deaf-mute through visible signs that he is accustomed to understanding, so one cannot attribute human words to God on the grounds that He used them with people according to the economy. For we too usually control unreasonable animals by hissing, prodding and whistling; But we do not have the word with which we act on the ears of irrational animals, but the one that we use among ourselves by nature, and in relation to animals it is enough to use the appropriate cry and some kind of sound. But this prudent man does not want God to use our (words) because of our inclination to vice, not knowing, my dear, that for our sake He did not refuse to become even a curse and sin. So great is His love for mankind that He voluntarily came to test not only our good, but also our bad, and whoever accepted communication in the worst, how could he delay participation in the best of our (accessories), I mean, in the word? But Eunomius offers David in his defense and claims that he says that names for things come from God, because it is written like this: “count the many stars, and name them all” (Ps. 146:4). But I consider it obvious to anyone with intelligence that what is said about this has nothing to do with the subject of speech. Since it is likely that some will unwisely agree with his words, let us briefly discuss this. Divine Scripture often appends such words to God that it seems that they do not differ at all from our words, for example: “the Lord was angry with rage” (Ps. 105:40), “repenting of their evil” (Jon. 3:10), “repenting, as if he had anointed Saul as king” (1 Sam. 15:35). In addition, he also talks about sitting, standing, moving and many other things that God does not have by nature, but which are not useless for adapting to those being taught; because the more dissolute, the indication of anger is restrained by fear, those in need of the healing of repentance, he says that the Lord also repents of evil, to those who, in the event of any successes, are exalted with pride, shows by repentance for Saul that prosperity will not remain with them, even if it seemed that it was from God, to those who do not wallow in the fall of sin, but, as if from some sleep, have risen from an empty life, he says that together with them God rises and is excited, that He stands for those who steadfastly live in goodness, sits for those who remain in goodness, moves and walks for those who are moved by firmness in goodness. So, for example, the story of Adam depicts God walking in paradise in the evening (Gen. 3:8), meaning in the evening the decline of the primordial to the dark, and the movement - the instability and inconstancy of man in goodness. But this may seem to many to be far from our proposed research. And about the following, hardly anyone will say that it disagrees with the subject of speech, namely, that what is incomprehensible to them is considered by many to be incomprehensible to God, and what eludes their understanding is recognized as exceeding the power of God. Since we have made number a measure of quantity, and number is nothing more than the addition of units, since a unit increases in many different ways into a multitude, for a ten is a unit that achieves this through the addition of units, and a hundred is a unit composed of tens, and a thousand is another unit, and ten thousand are similarly made up from the multiplication: one - hundreds, the other - thousands, then when we define objects, we first of all make signs of the quantity of those being counted things. So, in order for us to learn from the Divine Scripture that there is nothing unknown to God, it says that many stars are numbered by God, but not by this method of numbering. For who is so simple as to think that God comprehends beings by odd and even numbers and by adding units brings the number to the sum of the combined quantity? But since in us exact knowledge of quantity comes from number, so that we can learn about God that everything is encompassed by the knowledge of His wisdom and nothing escapes exact understanding, (the prophet) said that God numbers the stars; with these words advising us to think that the Divine does not comprehend existing things according to the measure of our knowledge, but that everything incomprehensible and unthinkable for us is encompassed by the knowledge of the wisdom of God. For, while the stars, due to their multitude, elude the calculation of human thought, Scripture, teaching in part the whole, saying that they are numbered by God, testifies that nothing unknown to us escapes the knowledge of God. Therefore he says: “count the multitude of stars,” that is, it is not as if He does not know the number of stars before counting. For is it likely that He did not know what He had created? The guardian of everything cannot fail to know what is contained in the power that embraces everything; who believes what he knows? For those who do not know tend to measure quantity by number, but He who knows everything before origin does not need number as a teacher for the knowledge of objects. But David says that He numbers; Obviously, (here his) word for our teaching descends to an explanation (of thought) in accordance with what is understandable to us; By the meaning of the number, David showed that God knows exactly what is unknown to us. Therefore, as He is called a numberer, not at all needing to know things in series of numbers, so the prophecy says about Him and the fact that He gives names to everyone, meaning, I think, not this name by means of sound; because the thought will reach something absurd and unworthy of an opinion about God if we say that God assigns to the stars the names that are usually found among us. For if anyone were to admit that they were named by God, then it would be absolutely necessary to admit that He ascribed to the stars the names of Hellenic idols, and everything that in the fabulous narrative is attached to the names of the stars should be recognized as true, since God assigns these names to them. Thus, the sevenfold luminaries contained in the firmament, divided according to Hellenic idols, will make those who fall into this error blameless, since they will believe that such an order was created by God. Thus the fable of Orion and Scorpio is introduced into faith, as are the stories of Argus, and the Swan, and the Eagle, and the Dog, and the fable of the crown of Ariadne. Eunomius will also make him suspect that God is the inventor of the signs of the zodiac named after animals, invented for phenomena according to a certain outline, if he truly thinks that David says that God gives them these names. Since it is absurd to consider God the inventor of such names, so that it does not seem that the names of idols received their origin from Him, it would be good not to accept what was said without research, but just like what we understood about the number, to understand the meaning of this too. Since for us evidence of the accuracy of knowledge is the fact that we call what is known by name, Scripture teaches us with these words that from what is incomprehensible to us, not only the completeness of the quantity collected into a sum is comprehended by knowledge of the One who embraces the universe, but he also knows exactly each individual. Therefore, Scripture says that not only is the multitude of stars numbered by Him, but also that each one is called by name; this means that the accuracy of His knowledge extends to the smallest details, and He knows each individually with such accuracy as a person knows him by name. If anyone says that the names given by God to the stars, which, according to Eunomius, David said, are different, which, in his opinion, human nature does not know, then he is wandering far from the truth. For if the stars had other names, then the divine Scripture would not have mentioned those names that are in use according to Hellenic custom; so Job says: “create pliad and espera, and arcturus, and the treasures of the south” (Job 9:9), and Isaiah names Orion and Asyroth (Isaiah 13:10); from this it is clear that Divine Scripture uses names commonly used in life for our instruction. Thus, in the book of Job we hear about the horn of Amalthea (Job 42:14), and in Isaiah about the sirens (Isaiah 13:21), because the Hellenic understanding so calls the abundance of all goods, and Isaiah refers to the pleasures of hearing by the name of sirens. Therefore, just as here the inspired word used names from fabulous stories, having in mind the benefit of those listening, so there Scripture, without shame, expressed the names given to the stars by human invention, teaching that every thing called by people has its existence from God - a thing, and not a name. For “do not name, but create,” he says, “pliades, espera and arcturus.” What has been said, I think, is sufficient to prove that David also speaks in favor of our opinion, teaching us by prophecy not that God names the stars, but that He knows them exactly, since even among people they usually know objects more accurately, who, out of great habit of them, can call them by name. And if we further expound the idea of ​​psalmody, recognized by many in these words, then the vanity of Eunomius about this opinion will be much more exposed. For those who have especially carefully examined the meaning of the inspired Scriptures affirm that not everything that exists is worthy of Divine counting. Thus, in the saturations mentioned in the Gospel that took place in the desert, neither children nor wives were considered worthy of counting. And in the exodus of the Israeli people, only those who were able to bear arms against enemies and distinguish themselves in battle were counted. And not all (objects) have names of such a kind that they deserve to be pronounced by the Divine lips, but only something beautiful and heavenly is counted; that which, according to the height of its state, remains free from mixture with darkness, is called a star; it is also named if something in the same sense turns out to be worthy of being written in divine books. For about those who oppose him he says that “I will not mention their names in my mouth” (Ps. 15:4). And we clearly learn about the names that the Lord gives to such stars from the prophecy of Isaiah, which says: “I have called you by your name: You are mine” (Is. 43:1), so that if someone makes himself an acquisition of God, the deed itself becomes a name for him. But let it be as the readers wish. And what Eunomius adds to what has been said, that the first words of the world-making testify that the sounds of words are assigned to existing things from God, then I consider it unnecessary to repeat the previous sufficient studies on this. Let him also interpret the words of Adam, which, as the Apostle says, were prophesied regarding Christ and the Church (Eph. 5:31-32), as he wishes. For no one would be so foolish as to consider, instead of Paul, who by the power of the Spirit reveals to us the hidden mysteries, a more reliable interpreter of the divine Scriptures, Eunomius, who clearly opposes the words of the inspired testimony and strengthens himself through the reinterpretation of the sayings about this (the Scriptures) to prove that the species of dumb animals were not named by Adam. Let his offensive words be bypassed, and that unpleasant rudeness, and his voice that stinks on the ground, with the usual eloquence calling our teacher a sower of tares, (which is found in him) and the rottenness of the fruit, and the destruction of Valentine, and the fruit from him, which, as he says, has accumulated in the soul of the mentor, and other things that are vile to them, let them be covered with silence, like rotting bodies, covered with earth so that the stench does not spread from their accumulation. But the speech must be directed to what is said to them next. He again sets out one of the mentor’s sayings, which is as follows: “We say that the God of all is incorruptible and ungenerate, calling Him by these names according to various applications. For when we turn our gaze to the past centuries and find that the life of God extends beyond every beginning, then we call God unbegotten, and when we extend our minds into the centuries to come, then we call God incorruptible by no limit of the incomprehensible, the limitless, the infinite. Therefore, just as the infinity of life is called incorruptibility, so its beginninglessness is called unbornness, if we imagine both by imagination.” Again, we will omit the abuse that he makes as a preface to the consideration of what has been said, and the change of some seed, and the leader of the sowing, and the incoherence of the censure and everything else that he expounds, chattering in vain with a tireless tongue; and what he tries to accuse us of, slandering the words (of the mentor), is what we will pay attention to. He promises to expose us that we call the Divine incorruptible not by nature; We consider only that one thing alien to nature, which is acquired by something and can be lost, and not those (properties) without which nature cannot be conceived; How can we be accused of dividing nature from itself? If in our speech it was asserted that incorruptibility with God is something that has arisen afterward, so that it once did not exist with Him or will not ever exist, then there would be a reason to say this against us as our accusation. But if our speech asserts that the Divinity is always the same and will forever be what it is now, that in Him nothing comes either from the accretion of something or from the addition of something that does not exist, but always exists with everything that is natural and called good, then how does it slander that we attribute to Him incorruptibility not by nature? But from the words of the teacher he read above, he imagines borrowing reasons for accusing his speech of the fact that we attribute to God incorruptibility through the accumulation of centuries. If we were to present our sayings, then our speech could be suspected that, in order to protect ourselves, we are now correcting and changing into correct words that are subject to censure. But when our words are expressed by the enemy, what proof of the truth can be stronger than the testimony of our opponents in our favor? In what form now is our speech, which Eunomius is slandering? “When,” he says, “we extend our minds into the coming centuries, then we call the incorruptible, the limitless, the infinite by no limit.” Does Eunomius really think that to assimilate and to name are the same thing? Who is so frenzied as not to know the proper meaning of these words? For he who acquires what is not inherent in himself acquires, but he who names what exists by designation names. After all this, how can this enlightener of truth not be ashamed to make accusations with the help of obvious slander? Just as those who do not see, due to some illness, commit a shameful thing in front of those who see, thinking that even the healthy do not know what they themselves do not see, so something similar happened to this far-sighted and quick mind, which assumes its own blindness regarding the truth in its listeners. And who is so unreasonable that, having compared the slandered words with the accusation, a comparative reading of both would not reveal the writer’s deceit? Our speech calls God incorruptible, but he accuses her of adopting incorruptibility. What do “have” and “name” have in common? It is fair for everyone to be held accountable for their own words, and not be reprimanded for those of others. And now he accuses us and is angry with us, but in truth, he blames no one but himself. For if it is reprehensible to attribute incorruptibility to God, and no one else except him alone says this, then this slanderer turns out to be an accuser of himself, attacking his own, and not ours. Regarding the name “unbornness,” we say that just as the infinity of life is called incorruption, so its beginninglessness is called unbornness; and he claims that from (continuing) centuries we have made the precedence of God over everything that is born. I will keep silent about the blasphemy that equates the Only Begotten God with everything that is born, through the sameness of name leading to the opinion that the Son of God is equal in honor with everything that exists through birth. But for more intelligent listeners, I will add to the word its senseless deceit. “Basily from (continuing) centuries produces the precedence of God before all who are born.” What senseless idle talk this is! Man finds himself presenting something to God and from centuries granting Him eldership! What empty chatter in these untenable words! The Teacher said that that in the Divine being that exceeds the extent of centuries measured by distance on both sides is signified by certain significant names - namely, that God, as the Apostle says, “neither had a beginning by day, nor had an end to life” (Heb. 7, 3); so that different words signify different thoughts; and because that which exceeds every beginning is called beginningless and ungenerate, and that which is not limited by any end is called immortal and incorruptible; Eunomius is not ashamed to write that this is assimilation and provision - and similar nonsense. But he also says that we divide the centuries into two parts, as if not reading at all what he conveyed, or offering his speech to those who have forgotten what he said. What does the teacher say? When we think about what is before the ages, and flow with the thought of the century, then, understanding the unlimitedness of eternal life, we signify such a concept by the name of unbornness; when we turn our thoughts to the next time and imagine the life of God as extending beyond centuries, then we explain this thought with the words “immortality” and “incorruptibility.” Where is the dissection of centuries in our words, when the eternity of God, in all its meanings equally manifested and the same everywhere, indivisible by any intervals, we express, if possible, both in words and in names? Since human life moves in an interval of time and moves forward from a known beginning to some end, and this life is divided into the past and the expected, so that one serves as an object of hope, the other as a memory, then for this reason, as far as we are concerned, we think of the past and the expected in an alternating continuum. In the same way, due to imprecise usage of words, we speak of the Supreme Nature, not because God in his own life leaves any extension behind himself and again during his life reaches out to what is ahead, but because this is characteristic of our mind, thinking about objects in accordance with our own nature and dividing eternity into the past and the future; meanwhile, neither what is behind stops the thought of the boundless continuation of the unlimited, nor what is ahead promises any stop or limit to endless life. If we think and say this, then how does he attribute to us the division of centuries? Wouldn’t Eunomius say that Scripture also divides the centuries into two parts, when, in the same sense, meaning the infinity of Divine life, David mentions the kingdom before the ages, and Moses points to the kingdom of God, extending over the centuries; so that both one and the other teach us that every thought about intervals of time in the Divine nature is embraced by the infinity of Him Who contains in Himself everything limited from everywhere? For Moses, looking into the distance, says that God reigns “for ever, and for ever, and again” (Exodus 15:18), and the great David, raising his mind to what is behind, said: God is “our King,” eternal (Ps. 73:12), and again: “God will hear Him before the ages” (Ps. 54:20). But the sage Eunomius, without paying attention to so many leaders, claims that we say that some life is beginningless, and another endless, and also that we recognize the difference and difference of some centuries, which by their very difference separate the idea of ​​​​God. But in order not to prolong our struggle against what has been said, we will also add the most untested and unexplored reasoning about this of Eunomius, since his most intense works in favor of lies for the rational can conveniently serve to a greater discovery of the truth. So, continuing the speech further, he asks us: what, finally, do we consider centuries? But it would be fairer for us to ask him this question. For he himself says that he has come to know the being of God, and believes that with his own mind he understood what is incomprehensible to us. So, let him himself, boasting that he has comprehended the highest, give us an understanding of the essence of the ages. And let him, not too menacingly, shock us simpletons with that double-edged dilemma of the answer - namely, that if we don’t think about centuries, we will fall into the same absurdity in both cases. “If,” he says, “you say that they are eternal, then you will be Hellenes, Valentinians and barbarians, and if,” he says, “they are born, then you will no longer recognize the unbornness in God.” O what an invincible and irresistible conclusion! If anything is recognized, Eunomius, as born, then the recognition of the unborn will be rejected! But where did your skillful constructions about the begotten and the unborn go, through which you proved the dissimilarity of the essence of the Son with the One who begat Him? It seems that from these words we now learn that the Father, considered in relation to the Begotten, is not only not similar to Him in essence, but with the recognition of unbornness is completely resolved into nothingness, because if we call the ages begotten, then we will be forced not to recognize the unborn. But let's look at the necessity by which he forces us to recognize such absurdity. If, he says, beginninglessness in God comes from the addition (of centuries), then when they are not there, there will be no addition. Oh, what a strong and irresistible blow this is! How cleverly he entangled us with insoluble ties! “By the application of centuries,” he says, “ungeneracy is introduced to God.” Who contributes? Who says that unbornness is imparted to the Being without beginning from the application of something? Neither the letter of speech nor its meaning convicts our word of such absurdity. Speech is its own defense, containing nothing that could be turned against us; and as for the meaning of what was said, who should be considered a more reliable interpreter of it, if not the originators of the word themselves? Therefore, it would be fairer for us to express what we think. When we affirm that the life of God is above the ages, we say what is said above. “But if there is no,” he says, “the application of centuries, then it is impossible for that which is added to God through this; “And attached,” he says, “is unbornness.” Let him also say by whom this is applied to God. If he himself, then he will be ridiculous, blaming our words for his own madness; and if by us, then let him read again what we said, and we will accept the accusation.” But I think that we should ignore this and everything like that that follows. All these are just games of children building some houses out of sand. For having added up several parts of a period and barely reached the end, it already proves that the same life is beginningless and endless, fulfilling in this case our desire. For we also say nothing more than that Divine life is one, continuous in itself, limitless, eternal, and is not limited in boundlessness by any limit on any side. Until now, this writer has given his labor and sweat to our truth, just as we do, proving that one and the same life is not limited in any part, whether anyone examines what was before the ages or thinks about what is after them. But then he again returns to his characteristic confusion (of concepts). For having said that one and the same life is beginningless and endless, leaving aside the conversation about life, all the ideas that are seen in the Divine life, putting them together into one concept, made everything one. “If,” he says, “beginningless and infinite life is (together) both incorruptible and unborn, then incorruption will be identical with unbornness, and beginninglessness with infinity.” And to support this he adds the following conclusion: “It is impossible,” he says, “for there to be one life, and the concept of incorruptibility not to be identical with the concept of unbornness.” By the way, the valiant husband adds this. It seems to him that neither word, nor righteousness, nor wisdom, nor strength, nor goodness, nor any of the names appropriate to God can express anything other than what is said. There should not be any word that has its own private meaning, but the entire list of names contains one meaning, and the same word will fully describe and determine the meaning of each of the above names. If you are asked what Judge means, answer by explaining (the word) “unborn”; if you need to make a definition of righteousness, immediately point out incorporeality in response; if they ask what incorruptibility means, then, of course, you will say that it represents the meaning of either mercy or judgment. So you and every concept represent one instead of the other, because no feature of meaning distinguishes them from one another. If Eunomius legitimizes this, then why does Scripture in vain call the Divine nature by many names, calling God judge, righteous, strong, long-suffering, true, merciful, and many other such (names)? For if none of these names is taken in a special meaning, but they are all mixed in meaning with each other through merging, then it would be in vain to use many names for the same thing, since these names do not represent any difference in their meaning. Who is so senseless as not to know that the Divine nature in its essence is one, simple, uniform, uncomplicated and in no way can be mentally represented in any diverse composition. And the human soul, located on earth and immersed in this earthly life, due to the impossibility of clearly contemplating what it seeks, strives to understand the ineffable nature in a diverse and multi-part manner with the help of many concepts, without catching the hidden in one concept. For understanding would be convenient if we were given one path to the knowledge of the Divine, but now from the wisdom manifested in everything we learn that the Ruler of all is wise, from the greatness of the miracles of creation we understand the meaning of power, and the belief that everything depends on Him serves as evidence that there is no reason for His existence. Again, imagining that He abhors evil, we understand His complete immutability and non-involvement in sin, and considering mortal incorruption to be the highest evil, we call Him immortal and incorruptible, Who is alien to any concept of this. We do not divide into parts the object itself along with these concepts, but, believing that God is one in His essence, we believe that in what we think there is something corresponding to all such concepts. For names do not contradict each other, as is characteristic of opposite objects, so that if there is one thing (quality) in an object, then at the same time it is impossible to see another in it; as, for example, it is impossible to think of life and death together in the same subject; but the meaning of the names ascribed to the Divine nature is such that each of them, although it has a special meaning, does not contain any contradiction with the other ascribed with it. For does righteousness contradict incorporeality, although these sayings do not agree with each other in their meaning? What is the contradiction between goodness and invisibility? In the same way, the eternity of Divine life is not divided along with the difference in names, although it is cognized with the help of two names and concepts: infinity and beginninglessness, and one name in its meaning is not the same as the other, for one shows the absence of a beginning, and the other - an end, but in the object itself the difference in the names ascribed to it does not produce any division. That's what we say. And what the enemy tells us is, by the very letter of the expression, of such a kind that it cannot in any way find support in the arguments of reason, since he spits out these strange, inflated and meaningless speeches in the form of sentences and periods, as it happens. The purpose of what he says is this: to show that there is no difference in meaning between the various names, so that it would seem as if we ascribe to God something that He does not have. “Since,” he says, “true words receive their meaning from the subjects and the objects they signify, and different ones agree with different objects, as well as identical ones with identical ones, then it must necessarily be one of two things: either the object itself signified is completely different, or the word signifying is not different.” He directs this and many other similar things towards the achievement of the goal proposed by him, setting out certain forms of words, and comparisons, and type, and measure, and part, and time, and method, so that through the removal of all this it turns out that “unbornness” is a word indicating the essence. This is the form of his proof, and I will express his thought in my own words. Life, according to him, should not be recognized as anything other than essence, so as not to imagine any complexity in simple nature, when the concept will be divided into what is involved (essence) and what is involved (life), but the same thing, says that there is life, there is also essence. It is good to be wise about this, for who is so crazy as to contradict that this is not so! But if, by signifying unbeginning, as he says, we mean life, and truth compels us to call this very life essence, then how did he deduce in his word what he meant - namely, that unbornness means the very Divine essence? That the Divine life is not born by another (which is meant by the concept of beginninglessness) - and we ourselves agree, but to believe that the very thing that is meant by the expression “not to be born” is an essence, we think, is characteristic only of those who have reached an insane frenzy! For who is so frenzied as to declare unbornness to be the definition of essence? For just as birth has a close relationship with the begotten, so, obviously, the unborn will also be in agreement with the unborn. So, if ungeneracy indicates that which is not in the Father, how can we accept as essence that which indicates that which is not present? But, having formed for himself what was not admitted either by us or by consistent conclusions from his own positions, he concluded that the unbornness of God is a designation of Divine life. In order to expose his extravagance even more clearly in this place, we will look and explore, using the very conclusions with which he converted the concept of ungeneracy into the concept of essence regarding the Father, whether it is not possible to equally bring the essence of the Son to ungeneracy? “It must be,” he says, “that for one and the same life, completely unified, the word should be the same, at least in the names, in the image and arrangement (of them), and there is a difference. Since true words receive their meaning from the subjects and the objects they signify, and different ones agree with different objects, as well as identical ones with identical ones, then one of two things must necessarily happen: either the object signified is completely different, or the word signifying is not different; since, besides the life of the Son, there is no subject matter to which one could either apply this concept or attach another word.” Is there really anything inconsistent in these words that could not be said or written about the Only Begotten? And is not the Son Himself completely one life? And in relation to Him, is it not proper for one and the same word to be, even if there is a difference in the names or in the image and order? And regarding Him, is it not possible to affirm one of two things: that either the object signified is completely different, or the word signifying is not different, since there is no subject object other than His life to which one could either apply this concept or apply another word? We have not added anything to what Eunomius said about the Father, but have arrived at the same confession and consequence by inserting only the name of the Son. So, if He Himself is one life, pure from all addition and free from confusion, and there is no object other than the life of the Son (for just as in a simple thing one can suspect the admixture of an alien object; there would no longer be something simply thought together with another); simple life is at the same time the essence of the Father; and in simple life, according to the very concept of life and simplicity, there is no difference, since neither addition, nor subtraction, nor difference in quantity or quality introduces difference into it; then it is absolutely necessary that what is consonant with the concepts themselves be called by the same names. So, if one thing is understood regarding simplicity in the Father and the Son, since the concept of beauty, as has been said, does not admit of any difference, then it is absolutely necessary that the name assigned to one should be corresponding to the other; so that if the simplicity of the Father's life is signified by the name of ungeneracy, then the same expression cannot be inappropriate for the designation of the simplicity of the Son. For just as a rational and mortal being, capable of thinking and knowing, is called man equally in Adam and in Abel, and the name of nature does not change in the least because Abel received life through birth, and Adam without birth, just as accurately, although the simplicity and simplicity of the life of the Father is called ungeneracy, the same concept and with the same name must be applied to the life of the Son, since, according to Eunomius, one thing must be allowed of two: that either the object signified is completely different, or the word signifies not other. But why should we dwell on trifles? To those who are more industrious, in order to expose madness, they should offer the very book of Eunomius and, without further refutations, point out to the reasonable not only the blasphemous wickedness of the teaching, but also its usual incoherence. For, interpreting the word “invention” in many different ways is inconsistent with our concept of it, but according to his arbitrariness, he, as in a night battle, when no one distinguishes his own from someone else’s, does not understand that by the very thing with which he thinks to defeat us, he is defeating his own teaching. For what especially, in his opinion, should separate him from the Church of the pious is the position that God once became the Father and that the name of the patronymic is newer than all other names that are said about Him, for He was called Father from the time when He assumed to be the Father and became Him. Now, since in this speech he asserts that all the names attached to the Divine nature agree with each other in their meaning and there is no difference between them, and one of the names attached is “Father,” for He is called Father in the same way as He is called incorruptible and eternal, then he must either affirm the same opinion about this name as about other names, and destroy the previous position (since in all names there will be the concept of patronymic is also included together; for it is clear that if the words “incorruptible” and “Father” have the same meaning, then He must be recognized as both eternally incorruptible and eternally Father, since in all names, as he says, there is one meaning). Or if he is afraid to attribute a patronymic to God from eternity, he will of necessity destroy his proof by admitting that each name has its own special meaning, and thus his long rant about names is destroyed by bursting like a bubble. And if he begins to defend himself (against the accusation) in the contradiction that the title “Father and Creator” alone is appropriated to God as something that came afterward, because both sayings are attached to God from actions, as he says, then he will save us from the greater concern of researching this subject, admitting what we had to convict him of with much difficulty. Because if the words “Creator” and “Father” have the same meaning (since each is borrowed from action), then, of course, what is meant by them is completely equivalent; for in those words in which the signified is the same, of course, and the subject to be signified is not different. So, if He is called both the Father and the Creator by action, then it is, of course, possible for anyone who wishes to use one word instead of the other on the contrary and say that both the Creator of the Son and the Father of the stone are God, since the name “Father” in its meaning has no relation to nature. And what follows from here is already undeniably absurd for sensible people. For just as it is absurd to consider a stone or other created thing to be God, so it will be recognized that the Only Begotten God should not be ascribed to Divinity, since, according to Eunomius, on the basis of the same meaning from the action by which he is called both Father and Creator, both names are attributed to Him. But let's move on to what comes next. Attacking our speech, which claims that knowledge of God is aroused in us through various applications (thoughts), he says that we no longer recognize Him as simple, since He gradually perceives the concepts signified by each name and, through the assimilation of them, completes the perfection of His own being. I said this in my own words, shortening his long chatter. But I think that no prudent person would give an answer to this empty and unfounded verbosity, not wanting to be accused of insanity. For if there was anything like that in our words, then, of course, we should either change what was said badly, or correct the ambiguity of thought by interpretation. And since we have not said anything like that, and the sequence of what has been said does not lead the thought to the necessity of such a conclusion, then what is the need, dwelling on the obvious, to bother readers with the spread of speech? For who is so crazy that, hearing that pious ideas about God are compiled with the help of many concepts, he would think that the Divinity itself is composed of various things, or that He collects perfection for Himself through the gradual assimilation of certain (properties). Suppose that someone invented geometry, the same person can be considered the inventor of astronomy, as well as the art of medicine and grammar, agriculture and other similar knowledge. Is it really because many and different names of this knowledge are mentally imagined about one soul that the soul should be considered complex? Although what is meant by the name of medical art differs very much from astronomical knowledge, and grammar in meaning has nothing in common with geometry, and again navigation and agriculture are not the same thing; however, the concept of each of this knowledge can be applied to the soul together, and from this the soul will not become complex, and all the names of knowledge will not be mixed in the soul into one meaning. So, if the human mind, from so much that is said about it, does not tolerate anything in its simplicity, then how can anyone think that God, if He is wise, righteous, good and eternal, and if He is called among us by all other godly names (unless one meaning is recognized for all names), consists of many parts, or from the assimilation of them constitutes the perfection of His nature? But let us also examine his strongest accusation against us, which is as follows. “And if I must say more sharply, He will not preserve the very essence unmixed and pure from evil and contradictory.” This is the charge against us. What is the proof of what he accuses? Let's look at this strong and oratorical evidence against us. “If,” he says, “God is incorruptible only because of the infinity of life and unborn only because of beginninglessness, then in the respect in which He is not incorruptible He will be corruptible, and in the respect in which He is not ungenerated He will be begotten.” And again, returning to the same thing, he says: “So, by (the nature of) beginninglessness He will be unborn and at the same time corruptible, and by (the property of) infinity - incorruptible and together born.” So, here is his harsh word, which he threatened to utter against us in denunciation of the fact that we say that the essence of God has been mixed with its opposite and worse. But for those who have a firm ability to judge the truth, I think it is clear that since in the words we have quoted the teacher did not give the slanderer any reason for accusation, he weaved this childish sophism, distorting what he said according to his own will. However, to make this clearer to all readers, I will again literally repeat those words and compare the speeches of Eunomius with them. “We call the God of all,” says the teacher, “incorruptible and unborn, using these names for various applications. For when we turn our gaze to past centuries and find that the life of God extends beyond every beginning, then we call God unbegotten; and when we extend our minds into future centuries, then we call the incorruptible, the infinite, the incorruptible by any limit. Therefore, just as the endlessness of life is called incorruptibility, so the originlessness of it is called unbornness, if we imagine both by imagination.” Here is the speech of the teacher, teaching us what has been said that Divine life, being one in nature and continuous in Itself, neither begins from any beginning, nor is limited to any limit, and that the concepts imagined about this life can be understood through certain names; for that He has existence not from any cause, we express this with the words “beginningless” and “unborn,” and that He is not limited by any limit and is not involved in corruption, this is denoted by the words “incorruptible” and “infinite.” It is also affirmed by what has been said that in Divine life the property of beginninglessness should be called unbornness, and the property of infinity should be called incorruptibility, since everything that has ceased to exist, of course, is destroyed, and when we hear about the destruction of what exists, we imagine the destruction of what had been, then he says that what never ceases to exist and is incapable of ceasing its existence through destruction is called incorruptible. What does Eunomius have to say about this? “If,” he says, “He is incorruptible only because of the infinity of life and unborn only because of beginninglessness, then, since He is not unborn, He will be born.” Who told you this, Eunomius, that incorruptibility is not included in the whole life of God? Who, having divided the Divine life into two, calls each half by its own special name, as if saying that one part is appropriate for one name, but another is not appropriate for that part? Only your sharp dialectic is capable of asserting that life, being beginningless, is perishable, and that beginninglessness cannot be contemplated together with incorruptibility. This is the same as if someone called a person a being with the gift of speech, and intelligence, and the ability of knowledge, assigning to the subject one or another of these names, depending on the difference in intention and thought; and then was ridiculed for this by someone who reasoned like (Eunomius) that if a person is a being endowed with reason and the ability of knowledge, then therefore he cannot be a verbal being, but if he is endowed with the ability of knowledge, then he will be only this one, and his nature will not allow him to be anything else; and again, if you define a person as a verbal being, then you will not allow the ability of reason in him, so the very fact that he is a verbal being proves that he is not involved in understanding. If everyone sees quite clearly that this is ridiculous and senseless, then the same cannot be doubted at all; and when you read the words of the teacher, you will find in Eunomius only their shadow, childish sophism; for, as in the example of man, the ability of knowledge is not eliminated by the gift of speech, or the gift of speech by the ability of understanding, so the eternity of Divine life will not be devoid of incorruptibility if it is without beginning, and will not cease to be without beginning if someone attributes incorruption to it. Thus, the one who seeks the truth with the help of dialectical cunning, with what he wanted to impose from himself on our word, both amazes and overthrows only himself, and does not concern us. For we have said nothing more than that Life, being without beginning, is called from conception, and is not made unborn, and that if continuation into infinity is signified by the name incorruptibility, then the name does not make it incorruptible, but means only what is already in it; so that the Divine life being limitless in both respects is a property of the object itself, and one way or another the properties seen in the object will be named, it depends only on the word expressing the designated property. One of the properties of Divine life is that it exists without a cause - this is expressed by the phrase “unborn”; Another property of this life is that it is boundless and infinite - this is what the word “imperishable” means; so that an object is beginningless and infinite, which is above any name and concept, and that it does not exist from a cause and will not someday turn into nothingness, this is signified by the invention of these names. So, what in our speeches caused him to this senseless mockery, so that, repeating again, he says the same thing in these words: “By the property of being without beginning, He is unborn and at the same time incorruptible, and by the property of infinity, He is incorruptible and together begotten?” Although we have left this without analysis, it is absolutely clear to anyone with any sense to what extent this is ridiculous and senseless, or, better, wicked and worthy of condemnation. For in the very speech where he arranges the combination of the incorruptible with the beginningless, he in the same way laughs at every pious and divine name, since not only these two properties are seen in the Divine life (that is, that it is beginningless and not subject to corruption), but He is also called immaterial and without wrath, unchangeable and incorporeal, invisible and imageless, true and righteous, and There are thousands of other concepts regarding the Divine life, each of which in itself is designated by a special word, according to the special thought it expresses. Thus, every name denoting a divine concept can be placed in the monstrous combination invented by Eunomius! For example, immateriality and lack of anger - both are said about the Divine life, but not in the same sense, for that the Divinity is not involved in material imagination, we understand this from the concept “immaterial,” and the concept “non-wrathful” means that It is alien to the passion of anger. So Eunomius, in all likelihood, will make his foray into these names and in a similar way will mock what has just been said, for, weaving the same absurd connection of concepts, he will say: if, because he is alien to material thought, he is called immaterial, then therefore he will not be wrathless, and if, because he is not involved in anger, he is without wrath, then it is therefore no longer possible to recognize him as material, but, of all necessity, due to his non-involvement the substance must be recognized as immaterial and at the same time angry, and due to its non-involvement in anger it must be recognized in the same way as non-angry and material, and the same will be found with respect to all other names. And if you like, we will propose another similar combination of names, for example: immutability and ethereality. Each of these two names in its own special meaning is used about the Divine life, but the wisdom of Eunomius will create absurdity with them in a similar way; for if what always remains the same is designated by the word “immutable,” and the spirituality of the essence is expressed by the name “incorporeal,” then regarding these names Eunomius will say the same thing, that is, that they are not united and alien to one another and that the concepts contained in these names do not have mutual community, since the fact that the Divinity always remains the same contains only the concept of immutability, and not incorporeality, but in spirituality and the formlessness of essence contains the concept of incorporeality and does not contain the concept of immutability; so it follows that when immutability is contemplated in the Divine life, then together with immutability it must also be recognized as corporeal, and when spirituality is taken into account, it must be assumed that it is incorporeal and at the same time changeable. Such are the wise inventions of Eunomius against the truth! But why waste the word, refuting everything separately, when in everything you can also see the conclusion of such absurdity? For according to the previous false thinking, the true is at enmity with each other, and the true with the righteous, since some things are signified by truth, and others by righteousness; so, remaining consistent, here too Eunomius must say that the righteous does not possess the true, and the truth lacks righteousness, and thus it will follow that when someone thinks about God that he is alien to unrighteousness, then on the basis of this he will declare the Divinity righteous and false, and if he thinks about His non-participation in falsehood, then the Divinity will turn out to be true and at the same time unrighteous. The same must be said about invisibility, the same about formlessness, for on the basis of wisdom similar to the above, he can also say here that neither the formless has invisibility, nor does the invisible have formlessness, but with the concept of the invisible he will connect the form, and the visible, by contrast, will be considered to have no form. About this too, he will say what he thought about incorruptibility and originlessness, namely, that when we think about the simplicity of Divine life, we recognize it as formless, but not at the same time invisible, and when we think about the impossibility of seeing God with bodily eyes, then, while assimilating His invisibility, we do not admit at the same time that He has no form. So, if this seems ridiculous and at the same time senseless to everyone, then even more so will anyone with intelligence find their absurd opinion worthy of condemnation, from which (his) word has consistently reached such absurdity. But he attacks the words of the teacher, who supposedly unjustly contemplates the incorruptible in the infinite and thinks the infinite in the incorruptible. Let us also talk about the funny, imitating the wit of Eunomius. Let us consider his opinion about these names, which is of this kind: something is different, he says, infinite in meaning, than incorruptible, or both are one and the same. But if he considers both to be one thing, then he will agree with us, but if he says that the word “incorruptible” has a different meaning and the word “infinite” has another, then it is absolutely necessary that words alien to one another should not be the same in power; Consequently, if another is the concept of “incorruptible” and again another is “infinite,” and each of them is something that is not the other, then neither the incorruptible can be recognized as infinite, nor the infinite as incorruptible, but the infinite will be perishable, and the incorruptible will have an end. I earnestly ask readers not to judge for ridicule, for we necessarily respond to the joker with a joke in order to break the childish web of his sophism with such a game. But if it does not seem tedious and difficult to the readers, then it is not superfluous to literally repeat the words of Eunomius again. “If,” he says, “only by (the property of) the infinity of life He is incorruptible, and only by the property of being without beginning, He is not born, then to the extent that He is not incorruptible, He will be corruptible, and to the extent that He is not unborn, He will be born,” and, repeating the same thing (I omit inappropriate and unnecessary insertions, as they do not add anything new to confirm what has been said), he again says: “So, by (the property of) beginninglessness, He will be unborn and together perishable, and by the property of infinity, incorruptible and together born.” I think everyone will easily notice that the meaning of our words, which he himself cited, has nothing to do with the accusation that he brings against us. The Teacher says that we call the God of all incorruptible and ungenerate, using these names for various applications, for since He is not limited by centuries by any distance of temporal extension, whether we mean the previous or subsequent time, then, bearing in mind both the concept of the infinity and unlimitedness of eternal life, we signify one by the name of incorruptibility, and the other by ungeneracy. And he claims that we teach that beginninglessness is essence and infinity is also essence, so that we allow the division of essence into two opposite parts, and in this way he deduces the absurd, positing his own opinions and entering into a struggle with them and the opinions he himself has compiled to the point of absurdity, but this does not concern ours (thoughts) at all. For that God is incorruptible only due to the infinity of life, this is his, not ours (opinion); Likewise, the fact that the incorruptible is not without beginning is an invention of the same wit that includes the non-inherent (of God) in the concept of essence. For we do not call anything that is not inherent essence, but it is not inherent in God that life ends in destruction, not that existence begins with birth, which is depicted by these two names: incorruptibility and ungeneracy; and he, having mixed his own nonsense into our teaching, does not understand that he is dishonoring himself with the accusation brought against us. For he who asserts that ungeneracy is an essence will consistently reach the absurdity of which he accuses our teaching, because another is the beginning and another is the end according to the separate presentation of these concepts; if someone calls the absence of one of these (for example, the beginning) essence, he will admit the existence of life only in (one) half, in one beginninglessness, and it will no longer extend to infinity by (itself) nature, since unbornness would be considered nature; If, however, both are forced to be essence, then it is absolutely necessary, according to the concept given by Eunomius, that both names, according to the meaning contained in them, have existence in the concept of essence, being contained (in it) no more than the meaning of the name indicates. And in this way, the fundamental opinion of Eunomius will appear that neither the beginningless has infinity, nor the infinite has beginninglessness, since, according to him, each of the above (names) is an essence, and both remain in their concepts immiscible with one another, and neither the beginning has the same meaning with the end, nor the names that deny them are not compatible with each other in their meanings. But so that he himself admits his delirium, we will expose him using his own words. Revolting against our words, he says that God is both unborn by (the property of) infinity and infinite by (the property of) unbornness, as if the meaning of both names is the same. So, and by (the property of) infinity He is unborn, if infinity and ungeneracy have the same meaning, and that the Son is infinite, in this he agrees, then by this consistency he must necessarily recognize the Son as unborn, since he said that infinity is one and the same with ungeneracy. For just as he perceives infinity in the unborn, so he recognizes that in the infinite he also conceives beginninglessness, for he would not rearrange the names if they were equal. But God, he says, is unborn by nature, and not by comparison with the ages. Who argues that God is not by nature everything that is said (about Him)? For we call God righteous, and omnipotent, and Father, and incorruptible, not by comparison with the ages, and not in relation to anything else that exists, but we relate every pious concept (about Him) to the object itself, as He is by nature; so that if we suppose that neither ages nor anything else conceivable in creation was created, then nevertheless God would be what He is recognized to be today, without in the least needing centuries to be what He is. But, he says, God has a life neither borrowed, nor complex, nor changing, for He Himself is eternal life, by life itself immortal, by immortality itself imperishable. We have learned this also regarding the Only Begotten, and there will be no one who contradicts this, unless someone wants to clearly contradict the words of John. Life was not given to the Son “from somewhere else”: “I am,” he says, “life” (John 11:25), nor is His life complex, nor subject to change, but by life itself He is immortal (for in what else would anyone see immortality except life?) and by immortality itself He is incorruptible, for that which is more powerful than death, of course, does not allow corruption. So far, our speeches agree with him, and let those who are skilled in the wisdom of Prunik explain the riddle added to what was said below, because from this stock, it seems to me, he proposed what was said. Because what does he say? “Being without beginning without beginning, He is unborn ungenerated, infinite infinitely, and is called so not by another, not through another, not in relation to another.” He who has pure hearing and a penetrating mind sees even without my words that, apart from the chatter of names that deafened me through their monstrous interweaving, there is not even a trace of rational thought in what was said; if there is even a shadow of some thought in loud words, then what is found will be either completely wicked or ridiculous. For what do you mean, tell me, when you say this—namely, that the beginningless is infinite and the infinite is without beginning? Or do you think that the beginning is the same as the end and that two words are used with the same meaning? Since the names “Peter” and “Simon” indicate one and the same known subject, do you therefore think that since the beginning is one and the same with the end, then by combining into one meaning two words, each of which mutually destroys the other, that is, the words “end” and “beginning,” taking by contrast the infinite for one and the same thing with the beginningless, through the fusion of two words you made them identical in relation to one another? And this is where your confusion of names leads you, when you say that the unborn is infinite and the infinite is unborn! But how can you not see in your words the wicked and at the same time extremely funny? For if through this new confusion of names there occurs their mutual replacement of one by another, so that the ungenerated is infinitely ungenerated, and the infinite ungenerated is infinite, then it is absolutely necessary that the infinite should be infinite in no other way than if it were ungenerated. And in this way, O beloved, the famous ungeneracy, which, according to you, characterizes the essence of the Father, appears to you to be common to all immortal things and makes everything consubstantial with the Father; since it equally belongs to everyone in general (creatures), whose life, due to immortality, extends to infinity: archangels, angels, human souls and, perhaps, the fallen forces themselves - the devil and demons; for if, according to you, the infinite and incorruptible are ungenerated, then, of course, it is necessary that in everything that has no end and is incorruptible, ungeneracy should be seen at the same time. Those people fall into such absurdities who, before learning what they need to learn, reveal their ignorance through what they decide to teach. For if (Eunomius) had been able to reason at all, he would not have known what special concept is contained in the word “beginningless” and what in the word “infinite” and that infinity is the common property of everything that is recognized as capable of continuing life into infinity, and infinity is the property of one existing without a cause. So, how can what is common to all be accepted as equivalent to what is recognized by everyone as belonging primarily to one God before all (creatures)? On this basis, either all those who participate in immortality must learn unbornness, or, if infinity is a property only of the unborn, nothing should be recognized as immortal; and, conversely, if it is the nature of the infinite alone to be ungenerated, then therefore everything that has no end must be recognized as ungenerated. But let’s leave this alone, and at the same time keep silent about his usual blasphemies with which he filled the above speeches. Let's turn to reading the following further. But it seems to me that it would not be better to leave most of what follows without consideration, for everywhere he remains the same, does not in the least amaze our speeches, but as if in relation to our word he gives himself cases of contradiction, cases that someone who is accustomed to judging sensibly will probably find unnecessary to carefully examine, since any of the readers of his writing gifted with meaning will see slander from his very words. He says that “the dignity of God is older than the imagination of our guide.” And we do not contradict this at all, for the dignity of God, no matter how it is understood, is not only older than ours (the human race), but precedes every creation and the centuries themselves. But what follows from this in relation to our words, if the dignity of God is recognized by the elders not only of Basil, but of all things? But a name, they say, is a virtue? But who proved that the name is one and the same with dignity, so that we could agree with what was said? “The law of our nature,” he says, “teaches us that the dignity of names depends on the objects named, and not on the arbitrariness of those who name them.” But what kind of law is this nature and why does it not apply to everything? If nature lawfully laid something down, then her law must extend to everything. If nature lawfully laid this down, then her law must be valid for everyone who has the same nature, like everything else that belongs to nature. So, if the law of nature commanded that names be born for us from the very objects, just as plants are born from seeds or roots, and did not provide names that serve to designate objects that arbitrarily consider these latter, then we, people, would all have the same language; for if the names given to objects did not differ from each other, then we would not differ from each other in special languages. “It is righteous,” he says, “and very consistent with the law of Providence, that names for objects should be given from above.” But how come the prophets did not know what is righteous and did not learn the law of Providence, who never (as they should have), according to your word, deified the unborn? How is it that God Himself does not know this kind of righteousness, Who does not impose names on the animals created by Him from above, but gives the power of inventing names to Adam? For if it is in accordance with the law of Providence and righteous, as Eunomius says, that the names of objects should be given from above, then, of course, it is impious and absurd that the names of objects should be composed by beings below. “But,” he says, “the Provider of all things, according to the law of creation, destined to plant (names of objects) in our souls.” If they are planted in the souls of people, then how come from Adam until your very crime, the fruit of this vanity, planted, as you say, in the souls of people, did not grow, namely, to call the essence of the Father by the name of ungeneracy? Adam and everything that came from him would have said this, if it had been planted into nature from God, for just as what now grows out of the earth constantly remains the same from the first creation through the succession of the seed, and no new seed is currently created by nature, so this word, if it were, as you say, planted into nature from God, would have grown along with the first sound of the speech of the primordial ones and would have accompanied succession of those born. But since this did not exist in the beginning, since no one from the first to the very present people said it, it is clear that something unreal and counterfeit came from the weeds, and not from these good seeds, which, speaking in the Gospel, God sowed in the field of nature (Matthew 13:24). What really exists in ordinary nature has a beginning of existence not now, but appeared along with nature at its first structure, such as the activity of the senses and the fact that a person has an inclination towards something, or an aversion, or anything else similar that is recognized as common to (his) nature; nature did not create any of this again in subsequent generations of people; but the essence of man is constantly preserved with the same properties from the first to the last (people); From what exists from the beginning, nature does not reject anything, and what does not exist, does not accept. So, for example, vision is recognized as a natural ability, but the ability to see is artificially acquired through exercise by those who study science, because not everyone has access to scientific concepts acquired with the help of a diopter, or the demonstrative theory of geometric lines, or something else similar, through which it is not the ability to see that is invented by art, but the ability to use vision for some purpose. Thus, the ability to think can be called a common property of the human essence and a feature that is inherent in nature (man) from the beginning, and inventing words and names for existing objects that serve to designate them belongs to people who have received the ability to think from God, who always, at their own discretion, in order to clearly represent objects, invent well-known sayings indicating their properties. “But if this (opinion) is considered strong, then,” he says, “one of two things must be assumed: either that the invention is older than those who invent it, or that the names that are due to God by nature and the oldest of all (existing) have an origin later than people.” Is it necessary to fight such speeches or argue with words against such obvious madness? And who is so foolish that he could be misled by this and think that if words are considered the product of thinking power, then one should recognize the sounds of words as the most ancient speakers, or consider it a sin against the Divine that people, after becoming human, call the Divine as best they can? That Nature, which surpasses everything, does not need words pronounced by voice and tongue, this has already been said and it would be unnecessary to burden our speech with a repetition of the same thing. For something that needs nothing by nature, and is perfect, and has no surplus, is neither deprived of anything necessary, nor has anything unnecessary. If it is clearly proven by what has been said before and is recognized by the general agreement of all who have intelligence that It does not need to be named by name, then no one will argue that a sign of extreme wickedness is to assimilate to God what He does not need. But I think that there is no need to pay attention to this and dwell for a long time on such (opinions), and also to refute in detail what is said below, for for those who are attentive, the very speech composed by the enemy will reveal the wicked teaching clearly contained in it. He says that incorruptibility, as well as immortality, constitute the very essence. I say: whether these properties are inherent only in the Divine nature, or whether, according to what has been indicated, they constitute the very essence - in any case, I think there is no need to enter into a struggle with it, for whichever of the indicated opinions prevails, in any case will completely confirm our words. For if the property of incorruptibility is inherent in nature, then the property of ungeneracy will necessarily be inherent in it, and thus the concept of ungeneracy will not have the meaning of essence; If someone, because God is incorruptible, calls incorruption an essence, and because He is more powerful than death, determines that immortality is the very essence, then, since the Son is incorruptible and immortal, incorruption and immortality will be the essence of the Only Begotten. So, if the Father is incorruptibility, the Son is incorruptibility, and it constitutes the essence of One and the other, and in the concept of incorruptibility no difference is conceivable, then, of course, in no way does the essence (of one) differ from the essence of (the other), since nature is equally (not) alien to both. Repeating the same thing again, he thinks that he entangles us in hopeless difficulties of dilemmas when he says: “If we distinguish what is inherent from what is, then the Divinity will turn out to be complex; if It is simplicity, then it is absolutely clear that incorruptibility and ungeneracy mean essence.” But we will prove that he again speaks in our favor. For if to say that something is inherent in the Divine essence means to make it completely complex, then nevertheless the patronymic cannot be completely excluded from the essence; but he must recognize the Father as Father by nature, as well as incorruptible and immortal; but in this way, against his will, he will accept the Son into the unity of nature, for it is impossible, when He is by nature the Father, to remove the Son from the natural relationship to Him. If he says that (the indicated properties) are inherent in the Father outside of nature, so that no harm is done to simplicity, then what is designated by the word ungeneracy is outside essence. If he says that incorruptibility and ungeneration mean the very essence, and begins to assert that both names are unambiguous, since there is no difference between them, since both have the same meaning, and that one and the same is the concept of incorruptible and ungenerate, then it will follow that the one who is one of these is completely both. The fact that the Son is incorruptible, they do not argue against this; therefore, according to Eunomius, He will also be unborn, if incorruptibility means the same as ungeneracy. So, one of two things: either he must agree that ungeneration means something other than incorruption, or, stubbornly holding to his opinion, he will express various kinds of blasphemy against the Only Begotten God, that is, either he will have to recognize Him as corruptible, so as not to call him unborn, or he will recognize Him as unborn, so as not to present him as corruptible. But I don’t know what should be done, whether to analyze everything he proposed in order or to just limit the fight against vanity. For just as among those who sell poisons, a sample of a small part serves for those who buy it as evidence of the destructive power of the entire drug, and no one, having learned through any experience the destructive effect of a particle of poison, will doubt the toxicity of the entire drug, so, I think, the toxicity of this verbal composition, proven by the test made above, will leave no room for doubt for those who have intelligence that all its words are the same as what is exposed as stated above; and therefore I think that it would be preferable not to prolong the speech, dwelling for a long time on his nonsense. But since the defenders of lies are looking for convincing evidence from different sides, and one should be wary that the omission of something invented by them will not be a plausible pretext for slandering us, as if we passed the most important things in silence, then I ask the readers, without neglecting our eloquence, to readily follow our word, which everywhere, of necessity, comprehensively fights against the attacks of lies. So, as soon as he stopped creating a dream about “imagining” in deep sleep, he, armed with these absurd and meaningless conclusions, turns his attention to another dream, much more meaningless than the previous delirium. Anyone who understands his cunning reasoning about deprivation should also recognize this futile work. But let Eunomius himself and his followers deal with a lot of this idle talk, having no concern for anything more worthy of occupation; We will review his speeches briefly and in their general content, so as not to omit any of (his) errors, and not to prolong our speech for a long time with some trifles. For, intending to offer a learned argument about names that signify deprivation, he promises to prove that our teaching is incurable, as he says, absurd, and piety is feigned and worthy of condemnation. This is the promise, what is the proof of these accusations? “Since some,” he says, “argue that God was not born due to deprivation of birth, we, in refutation of this, say that neither this expression nor the Concept is in any way applicable to God.” Let him indicate the first culprit of these words, and if it turns out that someone from the time people appeared until now, either among the barbarians or among the Greeks, said this, then we too will remain silent. But as long as people exist, there is no one who would say this, unless in madness. For who was so maddened by intoxication, who was so maddened by madness or madness, that he could say these words, namely, that the unborn God by nature belongs to be born, but He, having lost what belongs to nature, from being born before became then unborn? But this is a rhetorical trick - by attributing what one is accused of to some dummies, oneself avoids the shame of being exposed; so in this apology he defends himself, placing the blame of which he is condemned on the judges and accusers, without being able to indicate either the accusers, or the court, or the trial court. And now, seemingly correcting someone else’s stupidity, he says that he has come to the point of having to say so. Here is evidence of our incurable madness and feigned and condemnable piety! But he says that we are confused and do not know what to do in this case, and to cover up our helplessness we unfoundedly accuse him of worldly wisdom, while we assimilate the teaching of the Holy Spirit to ourselves. This is another sleepy dream - to think that he is so strong in external wisdom that this makes Vasily seem terrible. Thus, some often dream that they sit on the same throne with kings and are in the highest ranks, when a strong desire in the waking state produces (in a dream) a ghostly appearance of this. Vasily, he says, not knowing how to respond to what was said, accuses him of worldly wisdom. Eunomius attached great importance to this accusation, so that the power of his words seemed terrible both to some of the readers (of course, not to Basil), and to any of his followers, if only there was or was anyone who completely followed him. But those in the interval of his speeches (since these speeches are ignorant abuse and rude jokes with which he thinks to amaze our teaching) I will all pass in silence, considering it vile and unpleasant to fill our words with such abomination, like those for whom swollen and stinking boils are disgusting and the sight of those whose body surface, changed from some kind of malignant thinness, is covered with warts and growths is unbearable. Having stated in a few words the meaning of his speeches, we will pass by the great stench hidden in them, while we speak (forward) freely, without turning around at all to respond to any abuse spoken by him. Every word, that is, a true word, is a sound denoting some movement of thought, and every action and movement of the sound mind relates to the knowledge and mental representation of existing things, as far as possible. The nature of the existing is divided into two parts: that which is comprehended by the mind and the senses. But the knowledge of sensory phenomena, due to the ease of understanding, is the same for everyone, since the evidence of the senses does not give any reason for bewilderment regarding the judgment of objects, the difference in color and other qualities, which we judge through sight and hearing, or smell, or with the help of the sense of touch or taste, we all, having the same common nature, accordingly recognize and name, as well as other objects that seem most accessible to understanding, encountered in life and related to life social and moral. In the contemplation of intelligible nature, since it exceeds sensory understanding, the mind, by guesswork, strives to catch what escapes from the senses; Each person differently approaches the sought-after understanding of the subject that is born in each person, as much as possible, expresses thoughts, bringing, as much as possible, the meaning of sayings closer to the essence of what is understood. Moreover, often what we care about is successfully achieved on both sides, when the mind does not make mistakes regarding what is sought, and the sound (words) aptly expresses the mental through appropriate explanation. And sometimes there is a failure in both, or in one thing, when either the comprehending mind or the ability to explain is not applied as it should. So, since the correct direction of a word depends on two conditions - on reliability in thought and on pronunciation in speech, it would be better if it had the dignity of both. But it is no less good not to make mistakes regarding the proper understanding (of the subject), even if the word happens to be lower than what is understood. So, since the mind cares about the lofty and invisible, which the senses do not reach (I’m talking about the Divine and ineffable nature, about which it would be impudent to think anything from a superficial understanding, and even more impudent to trust any expressions to explain the thought that is in us), then we, leaving without attention the sound of the sayings, one way or another pronounced according to the ability of the speakers, pay attention to one meaning that is revealed in the words, whether it is sound or not, leaving these subtleties of the use of utterances or names to the art of grammarians. Since we designate only what is accessible to knowledge by name by name, and that which is higher than knowledge cannot be understood with the help of any names that serve to signify (for how could anyone signify the unknown?), then, not finding any appropriate name that would satisfactorily represent the subject, we are forced to use as many and different names as possible to reveal the concept of the Divine that is in us. But objects that fall within our understanding are of such a kind that they are necessarily either mentally imagined at some distance, or give the idea of a local room in which each is represented separately, or for our view they are limited by the beginning and the end, equally limited on both sides by non-existence (for everything that has a beginning and an end of being begins from the non-existent and ends in non-existence), or, finally, we understand what appears to us through a combination of bodily qualities, connecting with it destruction and suffering, and change, and change, and the like. Therefore, in order to make it clear that the highest Nature has no affinity with lower objects, we use concepts and expressions about the Divine nature that show the difference from such (objects). We call (the Nature) transcending centuries - pre-eternal, having no beginning - beginningless, endless - infinite, existing without a body - dense, not subject to corruption - incorruptible, inaccessible to change, or suffering, or change - impassive, immutable and unchangeable. Let those who wish, with the help of science, judge of such names as they please, and attach others to these names, which they call meaning deprivation, negative, or whatever they please. And we, leaving it to those who wish to teach or learn this, examine only one meaning - whether it agrees with a pious and worthy understanding of God or is alien to it. If God either did not exist before, or will not ever exist, then He would not be called either infinite or beginningless in the proper sense, just as He would not be called either unchangeable, or incorporeal, or incorruptible, if it were understood in Him either body, or corruption, or change, or anything like that. If we do not think of anything like this in God in a pious manner, then, of course, it would be wicked to use negative words about Him and showing what is unusual for Him, and to call Him (as has often been said about this) incorruptible, and infinite, and ungenerated, since the meaning contained in each of these names indicates only the removal of what is closest to our understanding, and does not explain the Nature itself, from which what is alien to Him is removed. For what the Divinity is not, the meaning of these names shows, but what it is by nature that it is not remains unknown. But other names, the meaning of which indicates something positive and existing, contain an indication not of the Divine nature itself, but of what is piously imagined about Him. For reflecting that nothing that exists, either (sensually) appearing or being comprehended by the mind, was formed spontaneously and by chance, but everything that is contained in the concept of existence depends on the Nature that is superior to all beings and in it has the reason for existence, seeing the beauty and greatness of miracles in creation; from all this and the like, obtaining a different kind of concept about the Divine, we explain each of the concepts that are born in us with special names, following the advice of Wisdom, which says that from the majesty and beauty of creatures we should know them comparatively to the Creator (Wisdom 13:5). We call the creator of mortals the Creator, powerful - having power over such a creation, who had enough strength to make the will into an essence; Having in mind the good of our life, we give the name good to the one who rules its course, knowing from Divine Scripture about the future impartial judgment, therefore we call Him judge and righteous; and generally speaking, we express all the concepts of the Divine nature that arise in us in the form of names, so that no name is attached to the Divine nature without some special concept. And the very word “God,” we know, received its origin from the activity that supervises Him, for, believing that the Divine is inherent in everything, sees everything and penetrates everything, such a concept is signified by this name, guided in this by the Holy Scripture, because he said: “My God, “see me” (Ps. 54:3), and: “God has seen” (Gen. 1:4), and: “God knows the hidden message.” heart" (Ps. 7:10), clearly interpreted the idea contained in this word that God (0e6d) is so named because He sees (Oshaley), for, strictly speaking, there is no difference between the expressions “see” and “see.” So, since someone sees, sees the visible, then God, as he should, is called the viewer of the visible. Thus, having learned from here some of the particular actions of the Divine nature, we have not achieved an understanding of the essence itself with the help of this word. But we do not believe that the lack of an appropriate name serves to any detriment to the Divine glory; the powerlessness to express the inexpressible, exposing our natural poverty, proves all the more the glory of God, teaching us that there is one thing, as the Apostle says, the name appropriate to God - faith, that He is above every name (Phil. 2:9). For the fact that He transcends every movement of thought and is found beyond comprehension by means of a name serves as evidence to people of ineffable greatness. This is what we know about the names of God, whatever the form of their expression, which we set out artlessly and simply for right-thinking listeners, considering it shameful and at the same time indecent and for ourselves to respond with irritation to the powerless abuse against this Eunomius. For what answer should we give to those who say that we value the form of names more important than the dignity of the thing named, giving names preference over objects and unequal (things) and ascribing equal honor? That's exactly what he says. But let anyone who is capable of carefully judging judge whether this strong accusation against us by a slanderer, which would be worth defending, concludes anything true - the accusation that we give preference to names over objects; when it is clear to everyone that no name in itself has essential independence, but every name is some sign and sign of some essence and thought, in itself both non-existent and unthinkable. But how can one give preference to something that does not exist? Let him teach his students lies who claims to use names and sayings accordingly (to objects), and I would not have mentioned this if it were not necessary through this to provide proof of the impotence of (our) author both in meaning and in expression. I will pass over in silence the fact that he clumsily and irrelevantly draws from the inspired Scripture, cunningly distinguishing between the immortality of angels and people, I don’t know what he means and what he deduces from here. For the immortal, while it is immortal, does not allow comparatively more or less (immortality), for if one of the opposite parts in comparison with the other had any decrease in relation to the concept of immortality, then it is absolutely necessary that it should not be called immortal. For how can something in the proper sense be called immortal to which, by contrast, mortality is comparatively attributed? What can be said about this refined precision, about the non-commandment to be incorruptible, about the middle concept of privation, about the fact that the removal of the best should be called privation, and the absence of the worst cannot be designated by this name, because if this were valid, then, in his opinion, there would no longer be a truly apostolic word, which says that He alone has and imparts immortality to others (1 Tim. 6:16)? What does the above saying have in common with the previous words? It is impossible for us or anyone else with intelligence to understand this. And since we could not comprehend this wisdom and subtlety, he calls us ignorant both in judging objects and in the use of names - these are the words he writes. All this, as having no force against the truth, I leave indiscriminately, as well as his censure of the concept of incorruptibility and incorporeality set forth by us, according to which the latter means the absence of extension in that which does not include three dimensions of the body, and the former means inaccessibility to corruption. Further, he says (in these very words) that, not having a correct concept of the form of names, we fall into unfounded opinions and consider each of the names to mean non-existence or non-presence (of something), and (not) being itself; and this, considering it worthy of silence and deep oblivion, I will omit, leaving it to the readers themselves to expose the wickedness mixed with senselessness. He thinks that the perishable is not the opposite of the incorruptible and that the negative meaning (of the concept) does not mean the absence of the worst, but that being itself is signified by the subject. So, if, in the opinion of this empty speculator, the word “incorruptible” does not mean the absence of corruption, then, of course, it is absolutely necessary that this form of the name will express the opposite; for if incorruption is not the alienation of corruption, then we, of course, will have to admit the opposite; for such is the property of opposite (concepts) that with the negation of one there is instead an affirmation of the opposite. We also ignore the profound conclusion that God is inaccessible to death by nature - as if anyone had a contrary opinion about this. For regarding opposite (concepts) we think that there is no difference whether we say that something is or is not contrary to it; so in the present case, calling God life, by virtue of such recognition we forbid to think of death in Him, although we do not express this in words; and when we confess that He is inaccessible to death, then by the same expression we affirm that He is life. “But I don’t see,” he says, “how, through the denial of what is unusual for God, He will surpass the very creations?” - and with this wise conclusion he calls not only wicked, but also stupid the great Vasily, who dared to say this. I would tell him that he would not so mercilessly heap censure on those who say this if he knew that the same censure falls on him. But perhaps he himself will not contradict the fact that the greatness of the Divine nature is recognized in the fact that it has nothing in common with what belongs to the lower nature. For if It were one of these, it would not have more, but would certainly be identical with every object that has a common property with It. If It is higher than this, then it is clear that by the very absence of this It exceeds the objects that have it; Thus, we say that the sinless are superior to those who are in sin, because distance from evil is proof of the abundance of good. But let our critic act as is his nature; Having noticed a little of what was said in this part (of his work), we will move on to what follows. “God,” he says, “is equally superior to the mortal as immortal, the corruptible as incorruptible, the begotten as the unborn.” Is the wickedness of the theomachist’s (writer’s) reasoning clear to everyone, or is it necessary to reveal his deceit in words? Who does not know that (objects) superior to the same extent are certainly equal to each other? For if God equally surpasses the corruptible and the begotten, and the Lord is also begotten, then Eunomius deduces obvious wickedness from his propositions, for it is clear that he attributes to birth the same meaning as corruption and death, since in the previous words he declared the unborn to be identical with the incorruptible. So, if he sees equal significance in both corruption and birth and in the same sense says that God is far from both, and the Lord is born, then no one will demand that we set out the consequences of his words, but everyone himself will draw the final conclusion, since the nature of God is the same and in the same sense far from both what is born and from what is corruptible. “But it is impossible,” he says, “to call Him incorruptible or immortal because of the absence of death and corruption.” Let those who are led by the nose and carried away by every arbitrary opinion believe what has been said and say that corruption and death must be inherent in God in order to be called immortal and incorruptible. If it is not the absence of death and corruption, as Eunomius says, that their names expressing the negation mean, then, of course, by this speculation the conclusion is being prepared that the opposite of both is inherent in Him. For each of the concepts is either necessarily not inherent in something, or inherent; so, for example, light and darkness, life and death, health and illness, and the like; if someone says that one of these concepts is not inherent (in an object), then, of course, he admits that the other is inherent in it. So, if we say that God is called immortal not because of the absence of death, then it is clear that he admits the presence of death in Him and therefore completely denies immortality in the God of all. For how else will He be truly immortal and incorruptible, of whom he says that corruption and death are not inherent in Him? But perhaps someone will say that we are deducing a violent meaning from his words, for no one would go so far as to argue that God is not immortal. But no one knows someone’s innermost thoughts, and we guess what is hidden based on what is said. So, let's look again at what he said. “It is not because of the absence of death,” he says, “that God is called immortal.” How can we understand what is said? That death is not inherent in God, although He is called immortal. So, if this is to be understood, of course, Eunomius’s god will be mortal and subject to corruption, because whoever does not have death cannot be immortal by nature. If the names “immortal” and “incorruptible” do not mean the absence of either death or corruption, then they are either in vain applied to the God of all, or contain some other meaning. What is the meaning of this, let this learned man explain. But we are ignorant, as Eunomius says, and in judging about objects and in the use of names we are taught to call painless not the one who does not have the strength of the body, but the one who has no disease, and unmutilated - not the one to whom feasts are alien, but the one who has no injury. In the same way, in other cases, according to the presence or absence of something, we call it courageous, unmasculine, sleepy, sleepless and other (names), as usual. But I don’t know what profit there is in deigning to analyze this kind of chatter, for it is quite reprehensible for someone covered with gray hair and meaning the truth to convey with his own lips everything that is funny and incoherent from a contentious opponent. Therefore, I will pass over in silence both this and what follows. And he says this: “neither truth ascribes to God anything connatural...” If this had not been said, would anyone call God binatural except you, who equate every concept of name with the essence of the Father and say that there is nothing inherent in Him outside (the essence), but you graft each of the Divine names onto the essence of God. “Neither piety (continues) has outlined in the laws such a concept from outside and composed by us.” But again, regarding what has been said, I assure you that I set out these ridiculous expressions not in order to make the readers laugh, but in order to convince the listener, from what choice of words, laying the beginning, then boldly rushes against the truth, mocking our simplicity, which in thoughts and expressions amuses and boasts before the stupid listeners, who, clumsily spreading these inflated speeches of his, proclaim him (a fighter) who has overcome everyone by the power of words. But immortality, he says, is the very essence. I would say to him: is the immortality of the Only Begotten an essence or not? What do you say? In (essence), as you say, simplicity does not allow any affinity. So, if he denies that immortality is the essence of the Son, then it is obvious where this leads, for it does not take much subtlety of mind to understand what is the opposite of immortality. For just as, as a result of opposition, it turns out that what is not incorruptible is perishable, and what is not unchangeable is changeable, so it will certainly turn out that what is not immortal is certainly mortal. So, what is it, an interpreter of new dogmas? What will it actually say about the essence of the Only Begotten? Again I will ask (our) writer the same question. Will she admit that she too has immortality or will she not admit it? If he does not admit that immortality is the essence of the Only Begotten, then he must agree to admit the opposite of this and assert that due to the denial of the best (that is, immortality), his essence is death. If, avoiding absurdity, he calls the essence of the Only Begotten immortality, then he will have to agree that there is no difference in essence (between Him and the Father). For if immortality is equally the nature of both the Father and the Son, and immortality does not represent a difference in any respect, then don’t our enemies themselves admit that there is no reason to distinguish the essence of the Father and the Son? But it’s time to present the grave accusation against us that he has at the end of his essay. He says that we affirm that the Father came from something completely non-existent. Having stolen a certain utterance from the connection of speech and having torn it out alone and without order from the rest of the composition, he begins to tear it, tormenting it with terrible teeth or, better yet, spitting on (our) words. First, I will express the thought that lies in the excellent reasoning about this mentor, then I will literally state the very words so that it will be clear to everyone how he spoils the works of the pious to the detriment of the truth. Clarifying for us in his own words the meaning of the word “unborn,” our mentor, wanting to prove that what is meant by the word “unborn” is far from the concept of essence, offers us this path to knowledge of what we are looking for. Since the Evangelist, he says, began the genealogy of the Lord according to the flesh from Joseph, then, constantly ascending further to the oldest in time, in Adam he set the limit to the genealogy, and since the first-created one then did not have a physical father, he said that he was “God’s” (Lk. 3:38), then everyone, he says, can easily understand with his own understanding that God, from whom Adam is not in the likeness of those whose genealogy is set out in human terms, also has his being from another. Since we have gone through everything, after everything we imagine God in our minds, we think about the beginning of everything; and every beginning, as soon as it depends on something else, is not (no longer) a beginning; then if God is the beginning of everything, there will be nothing that would be higher than the beginning of all (things). Here is a statement of the meaning (of the word) “unborn” from the master. And to prove that we have not attributed anything to him that was not true, I will literally present his very words about this. “The Evangelist Luke,” says, “outlining the carnal genealogy of our God and Savior Jesus Christ and from the latter returning to the first, began with Joseph, saying that he was the son of Eli, and Eli the son of Matthan, and thus, in reverse order, leading the story back to Adam, when he reached the most ancient, saying that Seth is from Adam, and Adam from God, he stopped the ascending series... Therefore, as the Evangelist said that Adam is from God, so let us ask themselves: from whom is God? Isn’t everyone ready with the answer in their minds that God is not from anyone? And this “from no one”, obviously, is beginninglessness, and beginninglessness is unbornness. Therefore, just as in the reasoning of people to come from someone is not an essence, so in the reasoning of the ungeneracy of God of all things, ungeneracy cannot be called an essence.” With what eyes do you still look at your leader, I tell you, the herd of the perishing? How else do you incline your ears to your own shamelessness, which has erected such a shameful pillar with these words? Aren't you ashamed now, if not before, to trust this guide to the truth? Wouldn't it be a sign of his obsession with dogma that he so shamelessly rebels against the truth of what is written? This is how he interprets Divine words to us! So he defends the truth of the dogmas, denouncing Vasily, as if he creates the kind of God who exists above everything from the completely non-existent! I will express what they said, I will state shameless speeches, but I will pass over the silence of the insult, I will not be angry at the insults; I do not blame for the stench the one whose mouth is stinking, for the mutilation whose body is mutilated, because this is a natural misfortune at which no one sane can be angry. Likewise, the attempt to insult is a disease of thinking and a misfortune of the soul in which common sense is distorted. So, I will not say a word to his insults; But I will write out this strong and irresistible web of inferences, through which he applied the accusation against us to his goal, directly, literally. “So that,” he says, “there would be no obstacle for him to call the Son Son by participation in the Being, he forgot that he himself called the God who exists above all, who came from the completely non-existent. For if nothing is conceptually the same as something that is absolutely non-existent, and equivalent (expressions) can be mutually interchanged without exception, then he who says that God has existence from nothing, calls God having received existence from something that is completely non-existent.” Which of the above should we pay attention to? Shall we examine the fact that he honors the Son as Son (only) by participation in God, and on those who do not allow this he pours out the stench of his lips, that is, a disgusting stream of false thinking full of sleepy delirium? But that producing sons from participation in the divine nature is the work of only poets and compilers of myths, this is not unknown to everyone who has any sense. So in verse, those who compose myths invent some Dionysuses, and Hercules, and Minos and others like them from the copulation of gods with human bodies and exalt them over other people on the basis that they are more perfect than others because of their participation in a higher nature. So, those words of his, as clearly exposing his madness and at the same time wickedness, must pass in silence. It’s better to bring to attention this irresistible conclusion, so that our simpletons will know how much and what kind of harm they suffered without studying the artificial twists. “If “nothing,” he says, “is the same in concept as something that is completely non-existent, and equivalent (expressions) can be easily interchanged with each other, then he who says that God has existence from nothing calls God having received existence from something that is completely non-existent.” Who told the one shaking the Aristotelian spear before us that to say that someone has no father is the same as to say that he came from something completely non-existent? For he who numbers in order those whose genealogy is depicted in Scripture, obviously always means the one who is in front of those mentioned as the father. For what was Eli to Joseph, what was Matthan to Eli, what was Adam to Seth? Isn’t it clear to the babies themselves that the list of these mentioned names is a list of fathers? For if Seth is the son of Adam, then, of course, Adam is the father of him who was born of him. Now tell me: God, who is above all, who is the father? Tell the one who is asking you, open your mouth, answer, direct all your logical art to this question. Will you not find that some concept escapes the snare of your false thinking? Who is the father of the unborn? Can you say: who? So He is not unborn. But you will inevitably say, of course, what needs to be said: “nobody.” What then, my dear? Or has this weak web of false thinking not yet collapsed before you? Don't you agree that you spit in your own bosom? What does the great Vasily say? That the unborn has being “from no father.” For, on the basis of the genealogy of previous fathers, the sequence allows the word “father” to be applied even where this is silent. And you made “nothing” from the expression “from no father”; and further, turning “nothing” into “absolutely non-existent”, he drew up this shaky conclusion. So, these tricks of subtle art turn against you. I ask: who is the father of the unborn? Of necessity you will say: no one, for the unborn, of course, has no father. So, if “no one” is the father of the unborn, and “no one” for you turned into “nothing,” and “nothing,” according to you, is the same in concept as “perfectly non-existent,” and the mutual substitution of equivalent expressions, as you say, is not prohibited, then he who said that “no one” is the father of the unborn affirms that God, who is above everything, came from the completely non-existent! This is the trouble, as it seems, Eunomius, that you should not (to use your own words) seem wise to yourself before others consider you wise. This may not be a great misfortune. But, not knowing yourself, you also do not know what the difference is between the high-flying Vasily and (you) the earthly animal. If his sharp and divine eye were still looking at our lives, if he were still flying around human life with the wing of wisdom, then, having swooped down on you with the blow of a word, he would have shown what a shard of madness is akin to you and against whom you have insidiously rebelled, wanting to appear like something before old women and eunuchs. However, do not expect to escape his claws. For although in comparison with his word about ours it would be a lot to say that it is also part of the claw, but in relation to you it is enough to break the shell of deceit and show the shamelessness covered with a shard. You might be interested in: