Thus the uncreated Light is for itself what it is by nature, and the created light certainly comes for something. Thus, darkness necessarily exists first, for the dissipation of which light is created. And no word can convince that darkness does not precede the manifestation of the born light, as soon as it is recognized that light was created afterwards. But to think so is beyond all impiety.

Thus, from this it is clearly revealed that the Father of truth did not create a Truth that did not exist before, but, being the source of light and truth and all good things, the Only-begotten Light of truth shone forth from Himself, through which the glory of His Hypostasis is always reflected (Heb. 1:3). Thus from everywhere is exposed the blasphemy of those who say that the Son was born to God afterwards through creation.

    Book Ten   Contents of Book Ten 1. In the tenth book he discusses the inaccessibility and incomprehensibility of research into the existing, in which he speaks in a surprising way about the nature and structure of the ant, explains the Gospel saying: "I am the door" (John 10:9) and "the way" (John 14:6), and discusses the name and interpretation of the Divine names and the history of the sons of Benjamin. 2.

Then, in a surprising way, he pointed out the true Life, that is, Christ, to those who do not recognize it, and applied to them the lamentation of Jeremiah for Jeconiah, since they resemble Montanus and Sabellius. 3. Then he shows the eternity of the birth of the Son and the inseparable identity of (His) essence with the One who begat Him, while Eunomius compares the foolishness with children playing with sand. 4.

After this, he shows that the Son is in the proper sense the Son and has existence in the bosom of the Father, simple and uncomplicated, that He is not subject to the Father and not a slave who has freed us from slavery; but if this is not so, then He is not alone, but also the Father, as being in the Son and one with Him, will be a slave; says that the name "This" comes from the word "to be" (ων from ειναι)

; and after an excellent and wonderful discourse on all this, he closes the book.   1. But let us dwell on what is set before us (the words of Eunomius), for a little later he arms himself against those who recognize human nature as weak in the understanding of the incomprehensible, and puffing himself up, he argues thus, debasing our teaching with these words: "If a man's mind, darkened by reason of wickedness, so that he does not see even what is before him, it does not follow that other people are inaccessible to the knowledge of what exists."

But I would tell him that he who acknowledges the comprehension of what exists has brought his understanding to this, of course, following a certain path of consistency in the knowledge of existing (objects), and having refined the mind through the knowledge of what is intelligible and unimportant, he then applied his comprehensible power of imagination to that which is above all understanding. Therefore, he who boasts that he has attained knowledge of things that exist, let him explain the least of what appears before us, what is its nature, so that judging by what is known, it may be possible to have confidence in it also in regard to the hidden.

Let him explain in words what is the nature of the ant: whether its life is maintained by air and breath, whether it depends on the structure of the entrails, like other animals, whether the body is restrained by its bones, whether the inner voids of the bones are filled with the marrow, whether its composition is held together by nerves and sinews, whether the position of the nerves is protected by the covering of muscles and glands, whether the brain extends from the crown to the tail by means of the spinal vertebrae, whether he imparts by compression of the nerve membrane the force of movement to the movable limbs, whether he has a liver and a biliary vessel in the liver, kidneys and heart, arteries and veins, thoracic membranes and diaphragms, whether he is naked or covered with hair, whether he is divided into male and female sexes, in which part the organ of sight is placed, whether he is endowed with the sense of smell, whether his stage is equipped with one hoof, or whether he is divided into several parts, how long does it live, and what is the manner in which they are born from one another, how long does it take in the womb that is born, and why do not all ants walk and not all with wings, but some move on the earth, and others are found to fly in the air?

Therefore, he who boasts that he has attained knowledge of what exists, let him explain to us for the time being the nature of the ant, and then reason about the nature of the power that surpasses all understanding. But if he has not yet attained knowledge of the nature of the smallest ant, how can he boast that by his comprehensible word he has embraced Him Who contains in Himself all creation? And as of those who recognize in themselves the weakness of human nature, he says that their cognitive senses of the soul are darkened, and that they cannot comprehend what is before them; nor that which is above the year?

Но посмотрим, что больше других знает имеющий познание о существующем, послушаем его надменную речь: «ужели напрасно, - говорит, - Господь наименовал Себя, если никого нет входящего к познанию и созерцанию Отца, напрасно - путем, когда никакого не доставляет удобства желающим прийти к Отцу? Как бы Он был светом, не просвещая людей, не озаряя ока душевного к познанию Себя Самого и превосходящего света?

» Если бы Евномий излагал только свои собственные рассуждения, далекие по их тонкости от понимания слушателей, то, быть может, ему и удалось бы увлечь слушателя хитростью слова, так как заключающийся в оном смысл большей частью от него ускользал бы. Но поелику он приводит Божественные изречения, то никто не обвинит тех, кои намерены пред­ложить общеизвестное богодухновенное учение.

Итак, поелику, говорит Господь наименовал Себя дверию, то отсюда следует, что существо Божие удобопостижимо. Но такой мысли не допускает Евангелие, послушаем са­мого Божественного гласа: «Аз есмь», говорит, «дверь: Мною аще кто внидет, спасется: и внидет и изыдет, и пажить обрящет» (Ин. 10, 9). Какое из сих слов дает познание сущности? Здесь много речений, и каждое имеет свой смысл соответственно значению, но ни одного из них невозможно прило­жить к понятию сущности, без того, чтобы Божество не представлялось (чем-либо) смешанным из различного.

И какое из вышесказанных выра­жений могло бы более точно соответствовать утверждаемому им, найти не легко. Господь — «дверь; Мною, говорит, аще кто внидет спасется: и внидет и изыдет, и пажить обрящет». Скажем ли, что сущность заменяется здесь словами «вхождение», или «спасение входящих», или «исхождение», или «пажить», или «обретение»? Но каждое из сих выражений имеет особен­ное значение и не согласуется с другим.

Ибо с первого раза понятно, что пребывание внутри противоположно исхождению и прочее так же: иное нечто в собственном смысле есть пажить и иное нечто, кроме сего, обретение (пажити). Итак, какое из сих выражений означает сущность Отца? Если даже кто укажет и на все эти несогласные одно с другим по своему значению выражения, и тот посредством всех сих несогласных (выражений)