But the comparison of concepts and the connection of proofs for all this (I affirm this) are incomprehensible neither to me, nor perhaps to my father himself. If he had reasoned in the same way about creation, namely, that heaven is the work of a higher action, and the star is the product of the action that follows the heavens, and the product of the stars is an angel, and the angel is man, then his speech by comparing such things would serve to confirm the dogma somewhat.

But if all these things are brought into being by one, of which he himself agrees, unless he goes entirely contrary to the word of the Scriptures, and in the origin of the Son and the Spirit determines some other way, then what has the following to do with the former? But let us admit that there is something in common in this to the proof of the difference of essences, because it is desirable for him to prove it by what he says.

But let us hear how he connected what follows with what he said. "As much as some Deeds," he says, "are older and preferable than other Deeds, so much is action, some pious thinkers will say, superior to action." If he says this about the subject of the senses, then his speech is far from what he has assumed, for what is the need for one who has proposed to reason about dogmas to speculate about the order of creation and to assert that the higher and lower actions of the Creator are commensurate with the magnitude of each created thing?

And if he does not speak of this, and calls the deeds that he has now invented in the dogma, that is, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the oldest and preferable to other deeds, then it may be better to be indignant at this thought in silence, than to enter into a struggle with it, thereby apparently proving that it has significance. For how can the most preferable be found where there is nothing disrespectful?

If in Eunomius the inclination and readiness for evil has extended to such an extent that the naming and concept of disrespectful presupposes something that according to our belief is in the Holy Trinity, then we must close our ears and, as much as we can, flee from evil hearing, so that in the listener there will be no communion with impurity, when, as from a vessel full of impurity, the word will pour into the hearts of those who hear.

For how can anyone dare to say anything about the Divine and supreme nature, which in comparison in the word leads the thought to something less worthy of respect? "Yes, in cu," it is said, "they honor the Son as they honor the Father" (John 5:23). Since this saying legitimizes equality, since the divine word is the law, Eunomius will reject both the law and the Lawgiver himself, he gives to one a greater honor, and to the other a lesser honor, I do not know where, having found the measure of that which is abundant in honor.

For according to human custom, the differences of merit also determine the honors of those who possess them, so that the subject are not presented in the same and equal form to kings and inferior principalities, but the greater and weakest manifestation of fear and respect in those who present themselves shows the lack or excess of honor before the honored. And therefore the most preferable can be found according to the disposition of the ruled, when someone is most feared by his neighbors and, apparently, is honored with greater respect than others.

In the Divine nature, since all the perfection of good things is revealed in it, according to the word of God, it is impossible, as far as we understand, to find a way of preference. In Them, neither excess nor lack of power, and glory, and wisdom, and love for mankind, or in general anything understood as good, is conceivable; on the contrary, all the good things that the Son has belong to the Father, and everything that belongs to the Father is seen in the Son.

How then shall we be justified, giving great honor to the Father? If we comprehend the royal power by understanding according to its worth, then the Son is the King. If we imagine the judge in our minds, then the whole judgment belongs to the Son. If our soul is occupied by the greatness of creation, then "all things were by Him" (John 1:3). If we understand the cause of our life, we know that true life has descended even to our nature.

And if we have known the repose from darkness, then we will not know the true light, by which we are freed from darkness. But if wisdom seems precious to anyone; then Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God (1 Corinthians 1:24). And so, since our soul, in justice, as much as is possible for it, is filled with wonder at such and such great miracles of Christ, what can we imagine an excess of honor, given primarily to the Father alone, in which it would be proper for the Lord not to have a part?

For this very human veneration of the Godhead, considered in the proper sense, is nothing other than a loving affection and confession of the good things inherent in Him, and it seems to me that love is prescribed in the word of God, when it is said: "Thus should the Son be honored, as the Father is honored." For the law, commanding to love God with all one's heart and with all one's strength, prescribes that such honor should be given to Him; and here the word of God, legitimizing equal love, says thus: The Son must be honored as the Father is honored.

This method of honoring was also performed before the Lord by the great David; in the preface to a psalmody, confessing that he loved the Lord, and enumerating the reasons for love, he calls God "strength, strength, refuge, deliverer, God, helper, hope, defender, horn of salvation", intercessor and similar names (Psalm 17:2-3). Therefore, if the Only-begotten Son was not made this for people, then let the exaggeration of the honor given for this be stopped, according to the law of heresy.

But if we believe that all this, and that which is still higher, and is called the Only-begotten God, according to every conception of good work and good thought, being equal to the greatness of the goodness that is in the Father, then how can anyone call it justified either not to love such a person, or not to honor the beloved? For no one will say that love should come from the whole heart and from all the strength, and honor from the half.

Therefore, if the Son is honored with all the heart, because all love is dedicated to Him, then what invention can invent anything greater than this veneration, when the whole heart, as much as it contains, brings honor to Him to such an extent as a gift of love? Wherefore it is vain who, in the presence of what is revered by nature, teaches about what is preferable, and by such a comparison stops the thought on what is unworthy of honor. 25.