St. Basil the Great
Creations. Part 3
Refutation
for a defensive speech
the evil Eunomius
Book 1
If everyone to whom the name of God and our Savior Jesus Christ is called wished to seek nothing but the truth of the Gospel, but to be content with the apostolic tradition and the simplicity of faith: then, at the present time, no words would be required from us, but on the contrary, and now, of course, we would love the same silence that we preferred at first. But since the enemy of truth, beyond the tares he first sown in the Church of God, constantly multiplying evil with new increments, and now having found tools that fully accommodate all his evil cunning, inspires the idea, under the guise of Christianity, to deny the divinity of the Only Begotten, with this worldly and vain with wisdom disturbing the purity and simplicity of the teaching of the Spirit of God, and with sweet speech misleading the most simple-minded people: then we, of necessity, for the sake of your love that prescribes this, and for the sake of our own safety, not paying attention to our weakness in this matter, although not at all We practiced this kind of speech, according to the measure of knowledge communicated to us from the Lord, and decided to stand for the truth and expose lies. For we reason that we will certainly achieve at least one of three good goals: that is, either by our reproof we will give the infected a cure for evil, or we will provide no small protection to those who are sound in the faith, or, without a doubt, we ourselves will be awarded rewards for that. that we wish the best for our brothers.
As far as we know, Aetius, the Syrian, was the first to dare to openly speak and teach that the Only Begotten Son is not identical in essence with God and the Father. I will not say what rules he was fed at first, and how he gradually introduced his corruption into the churches of God, so that it does not seem that I am not denouncing, but slandering. His wickedness was inherited and perfected by this Galatus [1], Eunomius, who, having acquired fame for himself through the most shameful deeds (for it is said: “ the glory is in their wickedness
", Phil. 3:19), and the blessings that are prepared. And the pious, preferring the opportunity to become famous for writing, which no one else had ever dared to do, became so exalted that - in this brilliant work of his, he uttered a blasphemy in the hearing of everyone, which he had barely uttered clearly before, imputing to himself in honor that his will be proclaimed the founder and representative of all heresy.
Now it’s up to us to expose him. Since in both there is one evil; it is obvious that it is in the face; the perfected student will be put to shame and the teacher who sowed the seeds of wickedness, if only, through your prayers, it is given to us to accept such power of the word that, like the zealot Phinehas, with one blow of reproof we can defeat both, united by wickedness. So, although in this work I find much that shows in Eunomius a liar, an ignoramus, a scolder, a blasphemer, a blasphemer: however, I will mention the rest in passing, I will try to make it clear for everyone, exposing from all artificial covers the blasphemy that he spoke to the height of the glory of the Only Begotten.
But I’m starting to denounce, starting with the inscription itself. His first trick is to come up with this type of essay, and offer the doctrine in the form of a defensive speech, so as not to convey the idea that his main intention is to expound the dogmas of wickedness, but to show that he was led to the essay by necessity. He wanted, in whatever way, this crafty and godless proclamation to become known, and to bring into being the blasphemy that he had long conceived, and with which he had long been ill. But he also saw that if he openly accepted the title of teacher, not only would it be extremely difficult and unpleasant for the listeners, but he would also make himself unworthy of credibility and suspicious for many, like a person carried away by the desire for glory into novelty; and if you offer a word in the form of a defensive speech, you will avoid suspicion of innovation, and thereby attract listeners more; because all people are naturally accustomed to favorably taking the side of the humiliated. Therefore, he complains about accusers and slanderers, and attributes the guilt of his writing to them. But so that everyone can see his cunning, it’s not bad to listen to your own expressions of his introduction to speech; here they are:
Evn.
We know that, having an intemperate tongue and an unkind disposition, to slander and denigrate someone is the work of unworthy and hostile people; and if someone is considered bad by slander, and they with all zeal try to repel the lie with denunciations, then this shows them as sensible people who, while taking care of themselves, greatly respect the safety of many.
You.
This is exactly the kind of speech that would be used by a person who does nothing simply and without cunning. He protects himself from suspicion of innovation with a cover of defensive speech, and captures the goodwill of his listeners by starting to speak, being forced to do so by slander. And that the word “defense” is just an invention for him, this is exposed by the fact that, not knowing who to name as his accuser in what, apparently, he is trying to justify himself, he goes out to defend himself, without bringing shame on people, not being held back by generosity remember the names of the offenders (would a person who showers so many reproaches on those who contradict him resist this?), but fearing that the lie will become obvious, he is ashamed to appoint well-known persons as his accusers. And when would he have someone to name; he would certainly have expressed and divulged this, if not to satisfy his own anger, then at least to serve the safety of many, which he promises to take special care of. But hidden deceit is more harmful than the presented one. Therefore, if we knew the slanderers, we would more easily avoid their intemperate tongues and bad dispositions (I will use this sage’s own words).
return 1
St. Basil calls Eunomius a Galatian, perhaps referring to the words of the Apostle (Gal. 3.1): “O foolish Galatians, who deceived you into not submitting to the truth?” For Eunomius was not from Galatia, but from Cappadocia. This assumption is somewhat justified by Eunomius’ complaint that St. Basil called him Galatus; from which it is clear that he found such a name insulting. Brother of St. Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, responded to Eunomiev’s complaint like this: “It’s amazing if he called someone who lived on the border of two regions, in some unknown corner of Corniaspina, not a resident of Oltiseria, but Galatian, if only it can be proven that he really called it. For I did not find this in my lists..."
Works of St. Basil the Great
Treatise "Against Eunomius" was written ca. 364 in Evsinoe (a place on the Black Sea coast of Elenopont - Fedwick. 1981. P. 10) in great haste, as preparatory material for the Council of Lampsacus (Hellespont, autumn 364) and, perhaps, was added after (between 360 and 366). The reason for its writing was the work of Eunomius, known as the Apology (SC. 1983. No. 305. P. 234–299; Vaggione. 1987. P. 34–75), written c. 359–360 (Vaggione. 1987. P. 5–9). Probably, the “Apology” is a written version of the defensive speech that Eunomius successfully held at the K-Polish Council in January. 360, defending his teacher Aetius from accusations of professing an extremely Arian teaching - Anomaeanism (Sesboi. 1982. R. 23).The authenticity of the first 2 books of Against Eunomius has never been questioned. Markings on some Byzantines. manuscripts raise questions about the authorship of the 3rd book. (Hayes 1972, p. 27). However, the connection with the first two leaves no ground for doubt, but the closeness to the content and argumentation of the treatise “On the Holy Spirit” gives reason to assume that this book was written at a later time (Sesboi. 1982. pp. 59–61).
The author attributed to St. Basil 4 and 5 books “Against Eunomius” (Photius. Bibl. 230; German translation: Risch. 1992) to the present. time is considered Didim the Blind. Their lexical differences from the first 3 books of the treatise were pointed out back in the beginning. XVIII century publisher of the entire work Y. Garnier (PG. 29. P. CCXXXIII). In con. XIX century J. Dräzeke attributed these books to Apollinaris of Laodicea (Dräseke. 1892. S. 122–138), about whom it is known that he also wrote against Eunomius (Philostorgius. HE VIII 12). A. Spassky, pointing out the fundamental differences between these books from the first 3 in terms of objectives, style and individual opinions, suggested that they originally bore the title “Refutation of Eunomius” ('AntirrhtikХj kat' EШnom...ou) and were compiled by Didymus of Alexandria. The reason for adding to the first 3 books could have been their unfinished nature, which St. himself noted. Vasily (Spassky. 1895. pp. 339–373; 1914. pp. 519–526). This attribution is now shared by most scientists (Lebon. 1937; Hayes. 1972; Sesbo. 1982. P. 61–64). However, attempts are also being made to attribute these books to Basil the Great on the basis of the evidence of such ancient authors and experts on the heritage of Basil the Great as Timothy Elur (d. c. 460–475) and Sevirus of Antioch (d. c. 540) (Pruche. 1970; Smets, Van Esbroeck 1970, pp. 119–120). Authorship adjacent to the 5th book. “Against Eunomius” treatise “On the Spirit” is controversial. While some researchers attribute it to St. Basil (Henry. 1938. P. 185–196. Dehnhard. 1964), there is an assumption that this treatise belongs to the author of the 4th and 5th books “Against Eunomius” (Garnier. PG. T. 29. P. LXXIV, LXXV, CCXL–CCXLI; Spassky. 1895. P. 343; 1914. P. 519–525) or someone from the entourage of Basil the Great, perhaps St. Makrine (Gribomont. 1981. P. 39–40). In terms of its content, the fragment is a compilation from the writings of Plotinus, made by a Christian author.
In the treatise “Against Eunomius” by St. Basil refutes his opponent’s thesis that unbornness is the essence of God (as stated by Basil the Great - God is unbornness - Adv. Eunom. I 5.108), as an illegal substantivization of a sign, since the effect is not identical to its cause (Ibid. I 6. 117). The logic of refuting the Arian system leads Basil the Great to the inevitability of substantiating the phenomenon of theology, which is based on man’s ability to form rational ideas about existence (Ibid. I 6). At the same time, knowledge of not only the Divine essence, but also the essence of the created world is limited (Ibid. I 12–14); man has access to knowledge only about the existence of God, but not the definition of His nature or being (Ibid. I 12.10; cf. : I 14.44), however, Eunomius, identifying the property of ungeneracy with the essence of God, postulates its cognizability by man. St. Basil also shows that the difference in the own characteristics of the Father and the Son is not the basis for the conclusion about their substantial difference.
The first printed edition of the treatise “Against Eunomius” was published in Venice in 1535. Nothing is known about its handwritten sources (Durand. 1982. P. 133). Editions 1551 (Basel) and 1570 (Geneva) according to their scientific principles they reproduce the 1st. A large number of manuscripts take into account the edition of 1618 (Paris). The text of the treatise prepared by Garnier for the 1st volume of the works of Basil the Great (1721) takes into account the manuscripts of all the main editions. The best modern The treatise was published in mid. "Christian Sources" (SC 299, 305).
