Книга третья

1. For the ascetic, the lawful end of ascetic labor is that the opponent either, having completely abandoned labor, voluntarily yields victory to the one who has gained the upper hand, or, in accordance with the ascetic law, is thrown to the ground three times, after which, in the court of connoisseurs, with a solemn proclamation at the crown, glory is given to the victor. So, since Eunomius, who has already been deposed twice in previous books, does not yet allow the truth to benefit from the fruits of victory over lies, but for the third time in the usual field of lies he kicks up the dust of verbal debate against piety, straining his strength to resist deception, then, of necessity, and now, in order to overthrow the lie, we oppose it with the word of truth, placing the hope of victory on the Victorious One and the Ascetic himself, and together drawing strength from incorrect fighting techniques of the enemy. For we admit without shame that for this struggle we have not prepared a single word of sophisticated rhetorical art; to overcome the objections made, we have not used any tricks of dialectical subtlety, by which the inexperienced are often forced to suspect lies in the truth. On the contrary, in the word that we have, there is only one power to stand against lies. First, the true Word itself, the power of our word, commands that first there should be teaching, but wise teaching, following preliminary training, and then there should be instruction borrowed from the parable. For Scripture says that parables are “words of wisdom” that reveal the goal through development (Proverbs 1:2-3), because what is not directly understood requires some development in order to understand the hidden. And how Paul, intending to present history to view in the form of an allegory, promised to “change his voice” (Gal. 4:20), and here, too, the discovery of the hidden is called by Solomon the “twisting” of the word, as if it would be impossible to comprehend the beauty of thoughts if one did not see the hidden radiance of the thought, perverted visible in the word into something else, as happens with the feather with which the peacock’s tail is hidden. For whoever sees the back of his pen, due to its ugliness and ugliness, will, of course, not pay attention to this spectacle, as if it is worthless. And if someone turns it around and makes the other side visible, he will see a varied painting of nature, half of the circle shining in the middle with a crimson color and around the circle golden-like air, girded at the edges and shining with multi-colored rainbows. So, since in the accessible sense of the sayings there is no beauty, because, according to what has been said, “all the glory of the Queen’s Daughter is within” (Ps. 44:14), in golden thoughts shines with hidden decoration, then Solomon necessarily offers to those who read this book a convolution of the word, so that from it they will understand “a parable and a dark word, the sayings of the wise and fortune-telling” (Proverbs 1:6). And since this teaching also contains this tributary, anyone with common sense will not accept anything proposed in this book without research and without consideration, although he reads something that is clearer and more familiar at first glance. For even though it seems obvious, some higher view is certainly possible. If the passages of this Scripture that are accessible to understanding necessarily require the most subtle study, then how much more so do those passages where the understanding itself presents much that is unclear and incomprehensible. Why, according to the connection of speech in this place, let us examine whether there is anything clear in the reading before us. The word depicts that wisdom utters certain sayings on its own behalf. And whoever is inquisitive, of course, knows what is said in that place where “you instill wisdom in counsel, you call on understanding and understanding” (Prov. 8, 12), says that he has “acquisition, intelligence and strength, which itself is called understanding, knows how to walk in the paths of righteousness, and live through the path of justification; He says about himself that through it kings reign and the mighty write the truth, and through me the rulers hold their land” (Prov. 8:18, 14, 20, 15, 16). For it is obvious to everyone that a reasonable person will not accept anything in what is said without examining the ready-made meaning of the words. For if by it the kings are brought into dominion, from it the power has power, then, of all necessity, wisdom will appear to us as the culprit of autocracy and will take upon itself the reproaches deserved by those who misrule the kingdom. But we know kings who, under the guidance of wisdom, actually achieve endlessly continuing leadership; these are the “poor in spirit,” whose acquisition “is the kingdom of heaven,” as the Lord, Who is the wisdom of the Gospel, proclaims (Matthew 5:3). We also recognize as such those rulers who rule over the passions, who are not enslaved to the dominion of sin, who, as if on a piece of paper, write the truth in their own lives. So laudable autocracy, with the assistance of wisdom, turning the power of the passions into the autocracy of the mind, enslaves the unbridled striving for bad freedom, I mean all carnal and earthly wisdom. “The flesh lusts after the spirit” (Gal. 5:17), and rebels against the authority of the soul. This land is held by such an autocratic ruler, appointed its leader at the first creation by the Word. 2. Therefore, just as, according to the recognition of all sane people, it is better to read in a similar sense than in the sense presented in the words at first glance, so on this basis it is not easy for right-thinking people to accept this written saying in this connection, and not without examination. “If I tell you,” says Wisdom, which is for every day, I will remember, even from time immemorial. The Lord created Me” (Proverbs 8:21–22). What will the servant of the letter, who, in the Jewish way, stops at the sound of the syllables, tell me about this saying? Doesn’t this phrase really seem to introduce strangeness into the ears of those who are more attentive? “If I will tell you what happens every day. The Lord created Me." As if, if he does not proclaim what happens every day, then the spirit will become a heavy drop. Therefore, what strength is there in something that does not produce any sensation in the one who touches it? For the rarefaction and fluidity of air can be seen in a cloud. How else is God’s “throne” “abandoned” by the fickle nature of the winds? And what is said: to be first created, in the end to be born and in the middle to be founded - can anyone indicate any basis consistent with the general concepts that appear at first sight? And first of all, it is doubtful in the word why the announcement of what is happening “every day”, a reminder of the reading “from the beginning”, is done as if by some reason for the fact that wisdom is said to be created from God. So, since what has been said clearly makes it clear that in the presented expressions there is nothing that, without consideration and without research, could be accepted to be in the word, it would be good, like everything else, to interpret this “The Lord created me” not in the sense that it appears to us in the saying, but with all attention and diligence to look for what is piously understood in the predicate. But to accurately comprehend the meaning of what is proposed is characteristic of those who, through the Holy Spirit, experience the depths and know how to speak spiritually about divine mysteries. Our word will deal with what is proposed to the extent necessary so that the clearly invisible goal in this does not remain unexamined. Therefore, what is our word? It is impossible, I think, for the wisdom imparted to someone by Divine enlightenment to remain alone without other gifts of the spirit; on the contrary, prophetic grace must certainly come with it. For if the comprehension of the truth of beings actually belongs to wisdom, and prophecy contains the understanding of the future, then someone who does not embrace the future with the assistance of the gift of prophecy will not have the full gift of wisdom. So, since Solomon testifies to no human wisdom in himself, who said: “God teach me wisdom” (Proverbs 30:3) and attributed every word he spoke to God when he said: “My words came from God” (Proverbs 31:1), then it will be good to explore in this part the prophecy mixed with wisdom in this part. Therefore, we affirm that Solomon, having said in the previous words: “Wisdom has built for herself an house” (Prov. 9:1), gives in this word a guessing meaning to the dispensation of the flesh of the Lord. For true wisdom did not dwell in an alien building, but she herself created an abode for herself from a virgin’s womb. And here Solomon attaches to the Word, which is combined from both, I mean the house and the wisdom that created the house, that is, humanity and the Divinity merged with man, and to each of them he adapts appropriate and decent words, which, as can be seen, is done in the Gospels, where the adaptation of the word in relation to the subject with the highest and most divine meaning indicates the Divinity, and low and not rising from the earth - to humanity. So you can see that Solomon was prophetic in this part too and completely betrayed the sacrament of economy. For first it represents the eternal power and activity of wisdom, and in some way it agrees with the Evangelist in the words themselves. For just as the Evangelist, with a comprehensive speech, proclaims one and the same as the author and creator of all, so Solomon says that by Him one by one everything that can be counted in the universe was brought into being. “God,” he says, “is the foundation of the earth with wisdom, but the heavens are prepared with understanding” (Proverbs 3:19), and everything that follows this in order is said in the same sense. And in order not to give the idea that the gift of virtue in people leaves unmentioned, he again describes on behalf of Wisdom, saying what we mentioned a little earlier: “all is counsel, wisdom and sense” (Proverbs 8:12), and everything that characteristic of mental and expanding learning. Having outlined this and similar things, Solomon adds the doctrine of the economy regarding man, for which “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14). For since it is clear to everyone that God, who exists above all, has in Himself nothing created or introductory: no power, no wisdom, no light, no word, no life, no truth, or anything intelligible in the fullness of the Divine womb - all this is “the Only Begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father” (John 1:18), then nothing intelligible in God can be rightfully the name of creation is attached, so that it would be fitting for the Son in the Father, or the Word in the beginning, or light in light, or life in life, or wisdom in wisdom, to say: “The Lord created me.” For if wisdom was created by God, and Christ is “God’s power and God’s wisdom” (1 Cor. 1:24), then, of course, God received introductory wisdom, subsequently receiving from what was prepared what he did not have at first. But however, the One who is in the bosom of the Father does not allow us to imagine the Father’s bosom as ever empty of Him, therefore, it is not something that comes into the bosom from outside. On the contrary, the One who exists in the beginning, being the fullness of all good, is, of course, represented in the Father, not expecting to come into being in Him through creation, because the Father cannot be represented as not having some good in himself. But represented by the existing in eternity of which the Divinity is always in Him, as power and life, and truth, and light, and wisdom and the like. Therefore, the saying “I was created” was not spoken by the Divine and incorruptible, but by that which, according to what has been said, is dissolved according to the economy with our created nature. Therefore, how is it that one and the same thing, which is called wisdom and reason and divine feeling, lays the foundation of the earth, and prepares the heavens, and opens up the depths, and is created here at the beginning of things? Not without an important reason, it is said, such house-building is accepted for assistance. On the contrary, since people, having received the commandment that we must keep, have forgotten grace from memory, because of disobedience, remaining in the forgetfulness of good things, therefore, let me “proclaim to you” again “which is every day” for your salvation and “remember, even from the beginning”, counting what you have forgotten (because I am not proclaiming a new gospel now, but I am laboring for your restoration in primitive state), that is why I was created, always existing, and in order to have being, having no need for creation, in order to become for me the beginning of “paths into the affairs of God,” I mean people. Since the first path was damaged, it was necessary for the lost to be renewed again for the new and living path, for myself, who is the path. And that the meaning of the words “having created me” refers to humanity, the divine Apostle presents this to us more clearly in his own words, in which he commands: “Put on your Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 13:14), moreover, where, repeating the same word, he says: “Put on the new man created according to God” (Eph. 4:24). For if there is only one saving vestment, and this is Christ, then no one will say that the new man created according to God is anyone other than Christ; on the contrary, it is clear that he who has put on Christ has put on the new man created according to God. For he alone, in the proper sense, is called the new man, Who appeared in human life through the unknown and ordinary paths of nature. On the contrary, in him alone some excellent and special creation has been renewed. Therefore, the Apostle, having in mind the unusual nature of his birth, calls him a new man, created according to God, and looking at the Divine nature created in the creation of this new man, he calls him Christ, so that two names are given to the same thing, I mean the name Christ and the name of the new man created according to God. So, since Wisdom is Christ, let the intelligent listener analyze the word of both those opposing us and ours, and decide whose is more pious. Who in the saying more preserves divine concepts: the one who affirms that the Creator and Lord of the universe is created, and proves that He is equal to the servant creature, or the one who looks more at the economy and preserves what is appropriate to the concept of Divinity and the concept of humanity. This teaching is confirmed by the great Paul, who sees creation in the new man, and the possession of creation in true Wisdom. The order of words also agrees with this view of teaching. For if the beginning of ways had not been created in us, then the foundation of the expected ages would not have been laid; The Lord would not have become for us the father of the “future age,” if, according to the word of Isaiah, “we had not been born as a child” (Is. 9:6), and His name had not been called, and all the other names that the Prophet had given had not been named, and together with all the name of the father of the “future age.” Therefore, first the sacrament of virginity and the dispensation of suffering were accomplished, then the wise creators of the faith laid the foundation of faith. And this is Christ, “the father of the future age,” on whom the life of endless centuries is built. Therefore, this is done so that in each of those who believe, the Divine wills of the Gospel law come to fulfillment, and the manifold gifts of the Holy Spirit act (all this, the Divine Scripture, in a similar sense, allegorically calls mountains and hills, mountains of God, calling the truth, calling the judgments abysses, and earth - the land sown by the Word and bringing abundant fruit, or, as in another place in David we recognize peace under the name of mountains, and under the name of hills truth (Ps. 71:3), then wisdom and the true word are necessarily born in those who received Him. Therefore, for this to happen in us, it is necessary for the Creator of this to be born in us. So we will understand what follows in connection with this. For if wisdom is born in us, then in each of us God prepares a “country” and a country “uninhabited, a country” - a heart that accepts the cultivation and cultivation of the word, a country “uninhabited” - a heart deprived of evil inhabitants. And thus, our settlement will be at the ends of the earth. Since on earth there is something else that is depth, and another thing that is surface, then when someone does not become either underground or cavernous by reasoning about what is below (what is the life of those living in sin, mired in the unsteady mud of the depths, for whom real life is really a storehouse, according to the word of the psalmody, which says: “the peer of his mouth will speak about me” (Ps. 68:16)), therefore, if anyone after the wisdom born to him begins to adhere to the heavenly way of thinking, touching the earth as much as necessary, then he dwells at the ends of the heavenly world, without delving into earthly wisdom. Wisdom is inherent in him, who prepares heaven in himself instead of earth. And when he makes the teaching of the “highest clouds” “strong” for himself, carrying out the commandments, and limiting the great and vast sea of vice to a strict life, as if by some shore, preventing the indignant water from passing by the “mouth”, and if by the gift of the teaching he is brought down to the sources, carefully pouring out a stream of words, so that instead of pure water, someone is not given a vague mixture to drink, and if, having become above everyone earthly procession, will become airy in life, having lived a spiritual life, which in the word is called “mornings” (Proverbs 8:27), in order to be excommunicated to the throne of the one who ascended him, as Paul was excommunicated in the gospel, in order to become a chosen vessel to “carry the name” of God (Acts 9:15), then, as it were, a new throne for the Word is made to bear the one who ascended on it. When this and the like are successfully achieved, so that he who has already completed the “universe” within himself rejoices (Prov. 8, 31) of God, rejoicing that he became the father not of some dumb and dumb animals, but of man, and these will be Divine providences, formed in God’s image by faith in what is created and born in us, and under the name of faith, according to Paul’s word, is of course the foundation; with it, wisdom is born to the faithful and everything that is said is accomplished; once upon a time, the life of the successful becomes truly blessed. Wisdom agrees with him: and he rejoices “every time in him, every day” who rejoices in her alone (Proverbs 8:30). For the Lord rejoices over his saints and “there is joy” in heaven over those who are being saved (Luke 15:10), and Christ the father celebrates at the salvation of his son. After this, which we have said briefly, the hardworking reader, having delved into the foundations of the Divine Scripture, should adapt the mysterious sayings to these views, considering whether it is not much better to think that the meaning of the riddles lies in this thought, and not in the one that appears at first glance. For it is impossible to recognize as true John’s theology, which proclaimed that everything created is the work of the Word, if we believe that he who is called here created wisdom and created everything else along with it, for then not everything will be through it, but it will also be counted among everything that has come into being. And that the mysterious speeches tend towards this, this is clearly revealed in the continuation of the word, which says: “Now, son, listen to me” (Proverbs 8:32), and: “Blessed is he who will keep My ways” (Proverbs 8:34), paths, obviously naming the paths to virtue, the beginning of which is the acquisition of wisdom. Therefore, who, looking at the Divine Scripture, will not agree that the enemies of the truth are both wicked and at the same time slanderers? They are wicked because, as much as possible, having degraded the ineffable glory of the only begotten God, they put Him on a par with creation, trying to prove that one of those brought into being by Him is the Lord Himself, whose only begottenness is dominion over everything. They are slanderers because, when Scripture does not give them any pretext for such assumptions, they, as if citing evidence from Scripture, take up arms against piety. So, since none of the Holy Scriptures can show any saying that would advise looking at the eternal glory of the only begotten God as well as at the glory of the subordinate creature; then, when this has already been proven by us, it will be good to attribute victory over lies to the word of piety and, rejecting all these clever names of theirs, which bring the creature into resemblance to the Creator and the creature to the Creator, to confess, as the heavenly Gospel teaches, the beloved Son, not false, not thrown; and by the word “son,” meaning every natural affinity, He who is from the true God, call the true God, and believe that in Him also there is everything that is seen in the Father; because both are one, and in the one the other is thought to be unsuperior and undiminished, not superior or different in any godly and good distinctive quality. So, since Eunomius’s struggle with himself has become so obvious, when he is convicted of contradicting himself (I mean the contradiction in the fact that one and the same person, as one born by nature, should be called Son, then again, as a created one, should no longer be called Son, but a creature), then one who rationally and thoroughly understands the matter, since with two concepts contradicting one another, it is not possible for the truth to be equally found in both On the other hand, I think it is proper to reject the wicked and blasphemous in both, I mean the words “creation” and “creature”, but to dwell on one, meaning piety and recognizing that the name of the Son by nature befits the only-begotten God, so that even according to the words of enemies the teaching of piety has validity. 3. I say again, repeating Eunomius’ word, which I proposed at the beginning: “We do not refuse to call the Son, as begotten,” says Eunomius, “birth, because the begotten essence itself and the name “Son” require such a correlation of names.” Therefore, whoever listens to these words with reasoning, let him remember that Eunomius is still talking about the begotten essence, as he does not yet accept together the words “essence”, neither the word “ungeneracy”, nor the word “birth”, but separately takes the essence and separately, by the properties seen in it, understands that it is begotten or unbegotten. Let us understand more carefully the word said about this. Eunomius says that the essence is begotten, and the Son is the name of the begotten essence. But our teaching about this will expose his word with two objections, of which one is an accusation of a malicious enterprise, and the other is an accusation of the powerlessness of this enterprise against us. For he acts maliciously when he speaks of the birth of an essence in order to prove the opposition of essences, the born and the unborn being separated from each other to the point of the otherness of nature. And the powerlessness of the enterprise is exposed by the very thing that malicious intent takes advantage of. For he who says that essence is born clearly defines that birth is something different from essence, so that the meaning of birth is inapplicable to the concept of essence. For in this reasoning he did not do the same thing that he proved in many other things, he did not say that birth is the very essence, on the contrary, he admits that the essence is born, so that the listeners would have a separate concept of each utterance. For another certain thought occurs in the one who hears that something is born, and another in the name “essence.” But this word will be clearer for us from examples. The Lord said in the Gospel that a woman, when the pangs of birth are approaching, is in sorrow, and after this she rejoices with Joy, “as a man has been born into the world” (John 16:21). Therefore, as in this case we learn from the Gospel, there are two different concepts: one childbirth, which we mean by the word “birth”, and the other is the very thing that happens as a consequence of childbirth (for childbirth is not a person, on the contrary, an age is the product of childbirth); so here too, since Eunomius recognized that the essence is born, then by the previous saying we were taught that it was born from something, and from the following we understood the very thing that came from something. Therefore, if something else is signified by the word “essence”, and we assume something else to be understood by the word “birth”, then their wise tricks suddenly fall apart, like clay vessels, one brought together and one another crushed, because they, the difference between the begotten and the unbegotten transferring to the essence of the Son and the Father, will no longer be allowed to transfer the mutual disagreement of names to the objects themselves. For, when Eunomius recognized that essence is born, then, as a similar thought is explained by the Gospel example, from which, having recognized that man is born, we did not recognize man as identical with birth, but with each name we formed a special concept for ourselves, so, without a doubt, there will be no place for heresy, teaching on the basis of such sayings to recognize the otherness of essences. But in order for the concept of this to be revealed much more clearly to us, let us analyze what is still to be discussed in this way: in the beginning, the Organizer of everything created human nature along with everything else, and after Adam was brought into being, he then legitimized for people the birth of one from another, saying: “Grow and multiply” (Gen. 1:28). Therefore, since Abel came into being by birth, who of the sane will not say that, according to the very meaning of human birth, Adam came into being unborn? But the first man had in himself the entire measure of human essence, and also those born from him consist of the same ratio of essence. And if some other born entity were created in the stern of the born entity, then the same ratio of essence would not be appropriate for both. For those who have different essences do not have the same relationship of essence. Therefore, since the essence of Adam and Abel is signified by the same distinctive properties, then, by all necessity, we must agree that although the essence of both is the same, yet in the same nature we see first one and then the other. For Adam and Abel, two people, in the reasoning of nature are something one, but according to the distinctive properties seen in each of them, they have an indistinguishable difference from each other. Therefore, it cannot be said in the proper sense that Adam gave birth to an essence other than himself, but it would be more fair to say that Adam gave birth to another himself, and in this other everything that is in the essence of the one who gave birth was born together. Therefore, what we have learned about human nature in the way that has been consistently shown to us by reason in advance, this same thing, I think, should be recognized as a guide for us to the infallible understanding of Divine dogmas. For, having rejected every carnal and material concept of Divine and high dogmas, in the remaining mental image, when it is cleared of such ideas, we will find the safest guide to the high and inaccessible. And opponents confess that God who is above all is and is called the Father of the Only Begotten, and that the only begotten God who is from the Father is called begotten because he was begotten. So, since among people the name “father” has certain meanings associated with it that are alien to the most pure Nature, then, leaving behind all material ideas that are included in the carnal meaning of the word “father,” one must imprint on oneself some kind of divine thought, showing one closeness to God the Father. Therefore, since the concept of the human father contains not only that which the flesh gives rise to, but in the human patronymic the concept of some kind of interval is certainly implied at the same time, then it will be good in the discussion of the Divine birth, along with the bodily filth, to reject the concept of the interval, so that the higher birth, being cleansed in everything of what is inherent in matter, becomes clean from any mental idea not only of the passionate, but also of intermediate Therefore, whoever calls God Father, in the concept that God exists, also comprehends what He is. For to whom being belongs from some beginning, of course, being something begins from something. And in considering what He did not begin to be (if anything else is intelligible in Him), then it does not have a beginning from anything. On the contrary, God is the Father, therefore, from eternity He is what He is, because He did not become the Father, but is the Father. With God, what was, is, and will be, and if something ever was not, it is not and will not be, because we do not recognize Him as the Father of anything without which it would be pious to imagine God existing in Himself. For the Father is the Father of life, and truth, and wisdom, and light, and holiness, and power, and all the like that the Only Begotten is and is called. Therefore, when opponents argue that sometimes there is no light, I don’t know who suffers more damage, whether the light itself, when He is not light, or the one who never had light. This must be said about life, and about truth, and about power, and about everything else with which the Only Begotten fills the Father’s bosom, who exists with all this in its own fullness; in the reasoning of both, the same inconsistency is revealed, and blasphemy against the Son is tantamount to wickedness before the Father. By saying that someday there is no Lord, you are not simply admitting that there is no power, but you are expressing by this that there is no power of God, no power of the Father. Consequently, what is affirmed in your word about the non-existence of the Son once asserts nothing more than the absence of any good from the Father. Look at what the wit of the wise turns to and how much truth there is in the Lord about this word, which says: “Keep away Me, the one who sent Me will be thrown away” (Luke 10:16). For by denying the eternal existence of the Only Begotten, they dishonor the Father, by their words taking away from the glory of the Father every good name and idea of ​​it. Therefore, what has been said clearly reveals the impotence of malice in the writer, who, intending to prove the opposition of the essence of the Only Begotten and the essence of the Father by calling one born, and the other born, exposes himself in that he is intensifying his assertion of the untenable. For from his words it was clear, firstly, that one is the name of essence, and another is birth, and then that the essence in the Son is not something new and different from the essence of the Father. On the contrary, what is the Father in relation to nature, the same is He who is from Him, because, according to the truth of this word that we have already proven, nature in the person of the Son has not changed into otherness. The essence of Abel did not produce a change in nature, so, according to pure teaching, the Only Begotten God, having descended from the Father and remaining in the Father, as the Gospel says (John 16:28, 17:21), by His birth did not in the least change the essence of the unborn, but, according to the simple and simple expression of our faith, there is light from light, true God from true God, Who is all that the Father is, except this one thing, that He is the Father. The purpose with which Eunomius discusses this so subtly, I think, should not even be discussed in the present case. It is impudent and dangerous, or it is permissible and safe to transform from one into another the words that signify the nature of God, and to call the Born a birth - I leave this without investigation, so that our word, overly occupied with a dispute about trifles, does not neglect the most important. But we must, as I reason, clearly understand whether the relationship by which the use of these names is introduced is natural, for Eunomius, without a doubt, asserts that with the property of names an essential property is introduced along with it. He, of course, will not say that names alone, taken separately from the representation of what they signify, have any relationship or property with each other; on the contrary, in the meanings expressed by sayings, we distinguish what is akin and what is alien in the names. Therefore, if Eunomius admits that the Son has a natural relationship to the Father, then, leaving the names, we will understand the power contained in the signified, what is implied by this property: either that they are alien in essence, or that they are akin to each other. To say that They are alien is a sign of sheer madness. For how can one maintain a coherent and related order in the names of that which is alien to one another and has no communion with one another, when the begotten essence itself, as Eunomius says, and the name of the Son acquire such a relationship of names? If he says that the akin is signified by these names, then by the nature of the names he will necessarily turn out to be a defender of the common essence. And while proving that these terms signify the connection of subjects, doing this many times in his essay, he does not know how to do this. For when he attempts to disprove the truth, he is often drawn against his will into the defense of dogmas that are contrary to him. We know something similar from the story of Saul, namely, that, driven by anger at those who prophesied, he was once overcome by grace and became one of those moved by God, because, I think, the prophetic Spirit itself wanted to instruct the apostates. Why did the extraordinary event in subsequent times become a parable for the living, when history surprisingly told something similar: “food and Saul as a prophet” (1 Samuel 10:11)? 4. Therefore, in what respect does Eunomius agree with the truth? In what he says: “The Lord Himself, the Son of the living God, not ashamed of being born of a Virgin, in His speeches often calls Himself the Son of man.” We also cite this word as proof of the common essence, because the name of the Son indicates the same commonality of nature with both; Just as he is called the Son of Man because of the affinity of His flesh with that from which He was born, so, of course, the Son of God is thought to be due to the connection of His essence with that from which He comes. And this word is the greatest weapon of truth. For “the Mediator of God and men,” as the great Apostle called it (1 Tim. 2:5), nothing indicates so much as the name of the Son, equally applied to both natures, both Divine and human. For one and the same is the Son of God, and according to the dispensation he became the Son of man, so that by communion with both he might unite with himself those who are separated by nature. Therefore, if, having become the Son of man, He was not involved in human nature, then it would be fair to say that He, being the Son of God, has no communion with God’s essence. If, however, the entire unification of humanity was in Him (because He was tempted “in every likeness, save sin” (Heb. 4:15)), then, by all necessity, one must believe that in the Son (since His word ascribes to Him both equally: in man - human, and in God - Divine) there is every distinctive property of the highest essence. So, if names, as Eunomius says, show a property, and the properties are seen in objects, and not in the simple sounds of names (by the name of objects that are mentally represented in themselves, if I don’t put it so boldly, I mean the Son and the Father), then will anyone dispute that the defender of blasphemy is almost carried away, without noticing it, into the defenders of pious teaching, himself refuting his own words and preaching in divine tenets of a common essence? For in this the word thrown out by Eunomius involuntarily lies in favor of the truth, that he would not have been called the Son if the natural meaning of the names had not justified the name. For a bench is not called the son of an artist, and no one of common sense will say that an architect gave birth to a house, and we do not call grapes the birth of a vinedresser; on the contrary, as we call something made by a man, so we call the son of a man the one born by him, so that, as I think, the names signify in the subjects what is characteristic of them. Likewise, those who were taught to call the Only Begotten of God the Son, as a result of this name, began to think of it not as the creation of God, but as what the word “Son” actually indicates in what is signified. If in Scripture wine is also called a product of the grape, then the doctrine of the dogma of piety will not suffer harm from this similarity. For we do not call wine the product of an oak or an acorn - the product of a vine; on the contrary, such a name takes place if the product has something in common by nature with what it is from. For the moisture in the vine, extracted by the base of the root into the core of the plant, is water in its strength, but in a certain order passing through natural paths and flowing from the lower paths into the upper parts, the quality of moisture is transformed into wine with some assistance from the sun's ray, which, by warmth, drawing moisture from the depths into the plant by the characteristic and decent digestion of the liquid, makes wine out of it! so that the moisture contained in the vine naturally has no difference with the wine generated by it, because from one moisture another moisture comes, and no one will say that any other cause of the wine liquid is other than the moisture naturally found in the branches; the differences in qualities do not arise from modifications of moisture, but because some special property distinguishes wine moisture from that concentrated in the branches, or by sweetness or wateriness accompanying one or another moisture, so that in the underlying moisture they are one and the same, but differ in differences in qualities. Consequently, just as we heard that in Scripture the Only Begotten God is called the Son of Man, we recognized by the name a close affinity with true man, so if the Son, according to the teaching of the enemy, is called birth, nevertheless, from this we recognize His affinity in essence with the One who begot, because wine, called the offspring of the vine, in relation to moisture was found not alien to the natural power contained in the grape vine But what is asserted by opponents, if anyone examines it sensibly, tends to our teaching; the meaning of their words contradicts their own evidence, no matter how hard they try everywhere to assert the difference in essence. And it is not at all easy to guess how they are brought to such concepts. For if the name “Son” does not simply mean being from someone, but by the signified it actually indicates a natural affinity, as Eunomius himself says, and wine is not called the offspring of the oak, and the “brood of vipers,” as the Gospel says, are “serpents” (Matthew 23:33), and not sheep, then it is clear that in the reasoning of the Only Begotten title “Son” and “birth” do not have the property of being foreign. But if, according to the opponents, it is called both birth and the name Son, as they also admit, in accordance with nature, then, of course, the Son is from the essence of the One who begat, and not from anything else that appears outside of nature. If it really is from essence, then, of course, it is not alien to That from which He is, as has been proven by other examples, namely, that every being, no matter what it is born from, is certainly homogeneous with that from which it received being. 5. If anyone demands any interpretation, description and presentation of God’s essence, then we will not deny that we are ignorant of such wisdom, confessing only that the infinite by nature cannot be embraced by any invention of words. And that God’s greatness has no limit, the prophetic word clearly states this, preaching that “there is no end to His splendor, glory, and holy things” (Ps. 144:3, 144:5). If His properties are infinite, then much more He Himself, in essence, in all that He is, is not encompassed by any limit or in any part. Therefore, if interpretation by means of names and sayings by its meaning embraces something of the subject, but the infinite cannot be embraced, then it would be unfair for someone to accuse us of ignorance when we do not dare, which we should not dare to do. For what name can I use to embrace the immensity? What speech can be used to express the unspeakable? So, since the Divinity is more excellent and above all signification by names, we have learned to honor in silence that which surpasses both word and understanding. And if the wise man attacks this caution in words more than he should philosophize, and turning into laughter our ignorance of the incomprehensible, in the indescribable, unlimited, indeterminable in size and quantity, I mean the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, he recognizes the difference in dissimilarity and presents as a denunciation of our ignorance this saying, always said by the disciples of delusion: “You you bow down, whom you do not know" (John 4:22), if you do not know the essence of the Worshiped One, then, according to the advice of the Prophet, we will not be afraid to "root the foolish because of their blasphemy" (Isa. 51:7); we will not dare to do the unspoken, making a teacher of secrets beyond knowledge, making a simpleton in the word of Paul, who is so far from the idea of recognizing the nature of God as accessible to man. comprehension that “he calls the judgment of God untested and His ways” unsearched (Rom. 11:33) and asserts that what God promised to those who love Him for success in this life is beyond comprehension, why it is impossible to grasp this with the eye, or to accept it with the ear, or to contain it in the heart (1 Cor. 2.9). Therefore, having learned from Paul, we boldly affirm that not only the judgments of God are above the power of those who attempt to investigate them, but also the paths of knowledge to this day remain unfounded and impassable. For this, as we think, intending to mean, the Apostle said that “unsearched paths” lead to the Incomprehensible, showing with this expression that this knowledge is inaccessible to human thoughts, and no one has yet directed his understanding to such a reasonable procession and has not shown any trace or sign that by his comprehension he has begun to approach the incomprehensible. So, having learned from the great apostolic soul, we conclude from what has been said that if judgments cannot be tried and paths cannot be explored, and the promise of good things surpasses any divinatory idea, then to what extent, in that it is ineffable and inaccessible, the Divinity itself is more excellent and above everything that can be imagined around Him, of which there is no knowledge, as Paul, taught by God, asserts? And therefore, we firmly contain within ourselves the ridiculed teaching, confessing that in knowledge we are lower than the one who exceeds knowledge, and we say that we really bow to “His own knowledge.” We know the height of the glory of the Worshiped One from the very thing that we cannot grasp with our thoughts, concluding about incomparable greatness; and what was said by the Lord to the Samaritan woman, and applied to us by our enemies, let it rather be said to them in the proper sense. For this: “You worship Him who you do not know,” the Lord says to the Samaritan woman, who is preoccupied with carnal concepts in her opinions about God, and her speech touches sensitively, because the Samaritans, thinking to worship God and then believing that the Divine is physically in place, honor God only in words, I worship something other than God. For the Divinity is not something imagined in the mind. On the contrary, it is characteristic of the Divine to be everywhere, to penetrate everything and not to be limited by anything. Therefore, the word they bring against us turns into an accusation against Christ. For just as the Samaritans, thinking that the Divinity is encompassed by a certain local outline, were reproached by what they heard: “you bow down, which you do not know”; and the service you perform before God becomes useless, because God, revered as dwelling in any place, is not God; so in the proper sense one can say to the new Samaritans: in the name of ungeneracy, intending to embrace the Divine essence as if by a place, “you you bow down to him who you do not know,” performing service as God, but not knowing that the infinity of God does not fit any meaning or scope of names. But our speech, always following what is presented through communication, deviated far from what was expected. Therefore, let us return to order again, because the saying presented by Eunomius is sufficiently, I think, explained in what was said as contradicting not only the truth, but also itself. For if, according to the heretics, the name “Son” establishes the natural relation of the Son to the Father, of birth to the begotten, since, due to some grammatical license in the word, the wisdom of their expression, meaning the nature of God, is easily transformed into names, then no one will doubt that the mutual relation of names, naturally formed, becomes proof of their closeness, or better yet, identity in essence. But let our word not distort the opposite saying, so that it does not seem as if the teaching of piety draws strength from the mere powerlessness of those opposed, and does not primarily have strength in itself. Therefore, as far as possible, let the strongest defense on our part be supported by them against the word opposed to us, so that the superiority of force can be recognized from great confidence when we use what our opponents have omitted in action in an accurate test of the truth. For someone who is firmly convinced of the opposite opinion will perhaps say that the names “Son” and “birth”, of course, do not necessarily prove a natural affinity. And in Scripture another is called a “child of wrath” (Eph. 2:3), “son of perdition” (2 Thess. 2:3), “brood of vipers” (Matthew 3:7), and in such names no commonality of nature is yet visible. For the subject is not the same thing, Judas, called the son of destruction, and destruction itself, according to the mental image; one is signified by the word “Judas,” and another by the word “destruction.” Similarly, the same proof will find its way to the contrary. For those who are called sons of some light and sons of the day, in relation to nature, are not one and the same with light and with day; and the stones become “children of Abraham” (Lk. 3:8), when by faith and deeds they acquire an affinity with him; and those led by the “Spirit of God,” as the Apostle says, are called “sons of God” (Rom. 8:14), not being one and the same with God by nature. And many similar things can be collected in the inspired Scripture, with which, hiding behind itself, deception, like some kind of picture, dotted with the testimonies of Scripture, falsely presents itself as an image of the truth. 6. So, what do we say to this? Divine Scripture knows how to use the phrase “son” in both meanings, so that for some this name comes from nature, while for others it is acquired and adopted. When Scripture speaks of the sons of men and the sons of rams, it means the relationship according to the essence of the one who is born to the one by whom he is born. When he calls them sons of power or children of God, he represents a close relationship that took place by choice. And even in the opposite sense, the same ones are called “the sons of Elijah and the sons of destruction” (1 Samuel 2:12), since the name of the sons was very consistent with each of these concepts. The name “sons of Elijah” testified to their natural relationship with Elijah, and by the name “sons of destruction” they were accused of bad will, of not competing with their father in life, but of akin to their will with vice. Therefore, in relation to our natural nature and to our deeds, due to the equal inclination of humanity towards both, I mean towards vice and towards virtue, it depends on us to become sons of either night or day, while our nature, in relation to the main thing in it, remains within its own limits. And he who became a child of wrath because of his depravity did not become alien to human birth, and who by choice akin himself to goodness through the decency of his actions did not reject what comes from people. On the contrary, nature remains the same in both, but differences in wills take on the inherent talents: some for virtue become children of God, others for depravity become children of the enemy. In the discussion of divine dogmas, Eunomius, who preserves the natural order (I use the author’s own words), remains on what was read above, and without ceasing to call the Born, birth, because, according to Eunomius, the essence itself is born, and the name “son” assimilates such a relationship of names, why does it make the Born alien to the affinity with the Begotten in essence? For about those who are called sons or offspring in accusation, or about those to whom such names are accompanied by any praise, it cannot be said that such and such is called a child of wrath, because he was actually born of wrath, or also that he had the lordship of the day as his mother in body and is therefore called her son; on the contrary, the difference of wills produces names of such kinship. Here Eunomius says: we do not refuse to call a born, actual son a birth, because, according to him, the essence is born, and the name “son” assimilates such a relation of names.” So, if he admits that the Son, as an actual birth, assimilates to himself such a relation of names, then is there any reason to apply a similar reason for names to those called in a figurative sense, according to improper usage of words, and where, as Eunomius says, a natural relation assigns such a name to itself? So, something like this is really possible in the reasoning of those alone whose nature is contiguous with both virtue and vice, from which others often take on opposite names, becoming a child of first light, then again of darkness, according to their affinity with good or with the opposite of that. And where the opposite does not take place, no one will say that the phrase “son” is used in a figurative sense, as well as about something to which this name is acquired at will. For it will not go so far as to say: just as a person who has put aside dark deeds, as a result of a good life, becomes a child of light, so the only-begotten God accepts the most preferable from the worst for a change. For whoever, being a man, becomes a son of God, through spiritual birth enters into union with Christ; and whoever by himself makes a man a son of God, he himself has no need for another son to give him sonship, but what He is by nature is called that. Man changes himself, turning from old to new; What should God transform himself into in order to acquire what he does not have? Man, stripping himself of himself, puts on the divine nature, and who is always the same, who will put aside or what will receive? A person becomes a son of God by accepting what he does not have, and by putting aside what he has, but He who has never had vice has nothing to accept or leave behind. A person can also be called someone’s son, sometimes truly, when someone calls him, looking at his nature, sometimes through imprecise usage, when the will of life imposes a name on him. But God, as the only good, in a simple and uncomplicated nature, always has the same goal and never changes in the aspirations of his will, but always wants to be what He is, and always is what He wants to be. As a result of this, in the proper sense, he is actually called the Son of God for both: both because nature has good in itself, and because will does not deviate from the best, and therefore this name is not given to him due to inaccurate usage of words. Consequently, the objection that we made to ourselves on behalf of our opponents about affinity by nature and which they allegedly uttered on the basis of Scripture has no place. But I don’t know why or why, hating the truth and turning away from it, although they call the Only Begotten Son, however, as if by this saying it cannot be attested that he has something in common with the Father in essence, and depriving the word of the meaning contained in the name, they leave the Only Begotten empty and meaningless name of the Son, yielding to Him only the sound of the utterance. And that I say this fairly and am not mistaken about the intentions of my opponents, this can clearly be seen from the very thing that is opposed to the truth. For this is what they represent in the addition of blasphemy, we learned from the divine Scripture many names of the Only Begotten, which are: “stone” (λιθος) (1 Pet. 2:7), “axe” (Matthew 3:10), “stone” (πετρος) (1 Cor. 10:4), “foundation” ( 1 Cor. 3:10), “bread” (1 Cor. 10:17), “vine” (John 15:1), “door” (John 10:9), “way” (Matt. 7:14), “shepherd” (John 10:11), “source” (John 4:14), “tree” (Rev. 22:14), “resurrection” (John 11:25), “teacher” (Matt. 23:8), “light” (John. 1, 4), and many others similar to them, but not a single one of these names, taken in its meaning, presented at first glance, will be piously used, meaning the Lord, for it would be very absurd to think that the incorporeal, insubstantial, simple, without form can be depicted by any visibly represented meanings of names, so that, having heard about the ax, we do not imagine iron of a certain type or not light diffused in the air, or not a vine among the branches of a plant, or something else, as custom suggests, but on the contrary, transferring the meaning of these names to the most magnificent, although we call it that, we imagine something else, not because any of this is really what it is in relation to nature, but because, although it is called, what is understood is something different from what is called. If these are names, and they are really given to the only begotten God, and do not contain an indication of nature, then it follows, say the heretics, that the meaning of the name “son” should not be accepted, in accordance with the prevailing custom, as an indication of nature, but should be sought in this word for some other meaning than the general one and what appears at first glance. In the same way, they are wise to prove that the Son is not what He is and what He is called. But our speech was close to something else, and was ready to prove that the new work of Eunomius is false and untenable, inconsistent with either the truth or with itself. But since by what we accuse their teaching, a kind of defense of blasphemy is introduced into the speech, it would be good to first discuss this briefly, and then return to the order of what was written. 7. Therefore, what can one say about something like this without sinning against what is proper? The fact that the names that Scripture gives to the Only Begotten, as they say, are many, but none of the other names, as we affirm, are so akin to the Begotten. For it is not in this relation to God that we call everyone either Son of the Father, or stone, or resurrection, or shepherd, or light, or anything else. On the contrary, as if with a certain art and rule, the Divine names should be divided into two parts according to their meaning. For some contain an indication of high and ineffable glory, while others indicate the diversity of providential dispensation, so that presumably, if there were no beneficiaries of benefits, then in this case these sayings pointing to benefits would not be appropriate. The same sayings that express what is divine, and without regard to those under the dispensation, are given with complete propriety and in the proper sense to the Only Begotten God. But in order for this teaching to be revealed to us in greater clarity, let us take a look at the names themselves. The Lord was called a vine for no other reason than for the sake of the rebirth of those rooted in Him, would not have been called a shepherd if the sheep of the house of Israel had not perished, and was called a physician for no other reason than for the sake of the sick; He would not have taken upon Himself other names if, through some providential activity, He had not appropriated to Himself these sayings for the benefit of those benefited. For is it necessary, speaking about each saying separately, to continue talking about what is recognized by everyone? The Son, the right hand, the Only Begotten, the Word, Wisdom, power and every similar word, which we call, meaning something, is called, as if in some relative conjunction with the Father, the one who is called together with Him. For he is called the power of God, the right hand of God, the Wisdom of God, the Son of the Father, the Only Begotten, the Word of God, and similar names. Therefore, we should see the corresponding and proper meaning of each of the spoken names, so that we do not err in the teaching of piety by deviating from the right understanding. Therefore, as in other names, translating each of them into something divine, we will set aside the original concept of them, so that we mean light not of any kind, and a path not trodden by feet, and bread not grown from the earth, and the Word not made up of sayings, on the contrary, instead of this we understand everything that represents the greatness of the power of the Word of God, so if anyone rejects the usual and natural meaning of the word “Son,” from which we learn that the Named One is from the essence of the One who gave birth, then, of course, he will transfer this name to some more divinely interpreted one. For just as the transformation of every other name into another more glorious one served to demonstrate Divine power, so, of course, it follows that what is signified by this name should be transformed into something more sublime. Therefore, what most divine meaning should lie in the name Son, if, according to the teachings of opponents, the natural relationship to the Begotten will be rejected? For, perhaps, no one will be so bold in wickedness that in the concepts of God’s nature the low and the creeping on the earth will be considered more decent than the sublime and great. Therefore, if they find some more majestic meaning of this name, so that it seems to them unworthy of the Only Begotten to imagine about Him that He is from the Father’s nature, then let them say whether, in their inexpressible wisdom, they know anything higher than the Father’s nature, in order to exalt the Only Begotten God to this point, placing Him above the relationship to the Father. If the greatness of God’s nature exceeds all heights and surpasses all amazing power, then is there still any concept left by which the interpretation of the name “Son” would be raised to a higher meaning? So, since Eunomius admits that every expression meaning the Only Begotten, although this name is taken from ancient custom, translated into a higher meaning in concepts, is said in its own sense, it is proven that it is impossible to find any concept that would be more sublime than the name “Son,” representing a natural connection with the Begotten, then there is, I think, no need to delay any longer at this point, having sufficiently proven said that the title “Son” should not be interpreted in the likeness of other names. But we should turn our gaze again to the book. It is not the same thing to not refuse to call the Begotten a birth (for I will use their own words), because the begotten essence itself and the name Son assign to themselves such a relation of names, and also to transform natural names into figurative replacements, so one of two things comes out: either the first line of evidence falls apart, and in vain they resort to the natural rank in confirmation of the fact that the Begotten should be called birth, or, if this is asserted by proper, another foundation of what was proven before will be destroyed. For what they call birth, because it is born, is therefore unnatural to be called a work and a creature. There is a very large difference in what is meant by each of these names, and with prudence the person who uses the sayings must use the words, meaning the subject, so that we do not have a fusion of concepts when we begin to change some sayings into others that are not inherent in their meaning. Therefore, we call the work of an artist what is produced by art, and we call the son of a man who is born a man. But none of the sane will call a deed a son, nor a son a deed, for this is characteristic of one who merges and confuses the true meaning in the erroneous use of names. Therefore, one of these two concepts is necessarily true in the reasoning of the Only Begotten. If He is the Son, then He cannot be called a creature, and if He is one of the creatures, then the name Son is alien to Him, just as heaven, and earth, and the sea, and every creature in order does not accept the name “Son.” And since Eunomius testifies that the Only Begotten God is born, and the testimony of enemies is stronger than others in establishing the truth, then, having said that He was born, he thereby testified that he was not created. But enough about this. Since we have a lot of speeches coming in, so that their multitude does not reach immensity, we will be content with what has been said about what has been proposed. You might be interested in: