Message in Arian. Word 3

“The Epistle to the Arians” (4 Words) is the main dogmatic work of St. Athanasius the Great, representing a complete and comprehensive refutation of Arianism and a presentation of the Orthodox teaching about the deity of the Word and the Holy Trinity. This work was probably written by St. Athanasius in 356-361. during his third exile. The Arian Epistle has been called a classic exposition of the doctrine of the second Person of the Holy Trinity and a source of theology. The first word (64 chapters) contains a presentation of the Arian teaching (based on the book of Arius “Thalia”), emphasizing its novelty. Arianism is opposed to the true and catholic teaching transmitted by the fathers. The book contains a defense of the definitions of the Council of Nicea about the uncreatedness of the Son and the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. The 2nd (82 chapters) and 3rd (67 chapters) words represent a detailed analysis of the texts of Holy Scripture (mainly Proverbs 8:22, one of the main arguments of the Arians in favor of the creation of the Son-Wisdom) regarding the birth and incarnation of the Son, the relationship between the Son and the Father. The 4th word (36 chapters), according to most researchers, does not belong to St. Afanasy. The book sets out the teaching about the personal properties of the Son of God, about the mutual relationship between the Father and the Son. The author especially proves that the Word is not a simple quality of the Father, not another principle existing in itself, but the own birth of the Father’s nature, different from him, but not separate, and refutes Sabellius and Paul of Samosata. 1) The Arians, apparently, having once decided to be apostates and opponents of the truth, stubbornly strive to have what is written applied to them: “When the wicked comes into the depths of evil, he is negligent” (Proverbs 18:3). Those exposed do not calm down, those brought into difficulty do not feel shame, but like “the face of a harlot’s wife... they do not want... to be ashamed of everyone” (Jer. 3:3) in their wickedness. Since the sayings that they put on display: “The Lord created Me” (Prov. 8:22), and: “being better than the angels” (Heb. 1:4), and: “first-born” (Rom. 8:29), and: “being is faithful to Him who created Him” (Heb. 3:2), have a right meaning and show pious faith in Christ, then (I don’t know why), again, as if drunk with serpentine poison, not seeing what they should see, not understanding what they were reading, spewing out from the depths of their wicked heart, they began to reproach what was said by the Lord: “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me” (John 14:10), saying: “How can the Son be contained in the Father and the Father in the Son? Or in general, how can the Father, who is greater, fit into the Son, who is less? Or what is surprising if the Son is in the Father, when it is also written about us: “in Him we live and move and we are” (Acts 17:28). They fall into this as a result of their evil, thinking that God is a body, and not understanding what the true Father and the true Son are, what the invisible and eternal Light and His invisible Radiance are, what the invisible Hypostasis is, the ethereal mark (χαρακτὴρ, ὰσώματος) and the ethereal Image. And if they had known, they would not have ridiculed and blasphemed the Lord of glory, and, understanding the incorporeal physically, reinterpreted what was said in a good meaning. Hearing this, it would be enough to know what the Lord says and believe, for faith in simplicity is better than unnecessary wrangling. But since they set out to strengthen their heresy and swear at this, it is necessary to expose their evil, and to protect the faithful to show the true meaning. The words: “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me,” do not mean, as the heretics think, that They move one into the other, like empty vessels filled with each other, so that the Son fills the emptiness in the Father, and the Father fills the emptiness in the Son, but each of them is not full and not perfect. For this is characteristic of bodies, and therefore even to say this is completely wicked. The Father is complete and perfect, and the Son is the fullness of the Godhead. And yet, God is not in the Son as He is in the saints, imparting strength to them, because the Son is the Father’s power and Wisdom. Created beings are sanctified by the Spirit through communion with the Son, and the Son Himself is not the Son by communion, but is the Father’s own birth. And yet, not in the sense that the Son is in the Father in which we “live and move and are” in Him, because the Son is, as from a source, the life flowing from the Father, by which everything is given life and existence. But life does not live by another life, otherwise it would not be life; on the contrary, the Son himself gives birth to life. 2) Let us see what the defender of heresy, the sophist Asterius, says, for he, competing with the Jews in this, wrote the following: “It is obvious that he called Himself in the Father and also the Father in Himself, meaning that the word taught by Him is not His, but the Father’s, and the deeds are not His own, but those of the Father, who gave Him power.” But if a simple youth had said this, he would have been excused by his age. Since the one who wrote this is a so-called sophist, proclaiming that he knows everything, then why is he worthy of condemnation? And does not the apostle show himself to be a stranger, exalting himself with “exceeding... words of wisdom” (1 Cor. 2:4), and thinking that he can deceive with them, when he himself does not understand what he is saying and what he is arguing about? What the Son called characteristic and proper to the Son alone as the Word and Wisdom and the image of the Father’s essence, Asterius refers to all creatures and makes common to both the Son and creatures. This wicked man speaks of the power of the Father, as if it receives power into itself, so that through his wickedness one can consistently tell him that the Son is adopted in son and the Word has received the power of the word. And he still does not want to agree that this was said by the Son as the Son, but he also puts Him, as the one who learned this, on a par with all creatures. If the Savior said: “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me,” not because the words He uttered are the words of the Son, but because these are the essence of the words and deeds of the Father, then David also says: “I will hear what the Lord God says about me” (Psalm 84:9), and Solomon: “My words come from God” (Proverbs 31:1). And Moses was a minister of the words spoken by God, and each prophet spoke not from himself, but from God: “To this the Lord says” (Zech. 1:3), and the deeds that the saints did, they called not their own, but attributed to God, who gave the power. So, Elijah and Elisha called on God to raise the dead. Elisha said to Naaman, having cleansed him of leprosy: Yes, you understand that there is a God in Israel, and Samuel himself in the days of the harvest prayed to God to give rain, and the apostles said that they did signs not by their own power, but by the grace of the Lord. From this it is clear that this saying could be common to everyone, and everyone, like the Savior, could say: “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me.” And therefore He is no longer alone, the Son of God, the Word and Wisdom, but only among many. 3) But if the Lord spoke in this sense, then He should have said not like this: “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me,” but better: I am in the Father, and the Father is also in Me, so that this would show not His own and exclusive relationship to the Father as the Son, but His common grace with all. But it is not said as the heretics think. Not recognizing that He is the most sincere Son from the Father, they slander the most sincere Son, to Whom alone it is fitting to say about Himself: “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me.” The Son is in the Father, as far as this can be comprehended, because the entire being of the Son actually belongs to the Father’s essence, the Son is from the Father, like a radiance from light, like a stream from a source. Therefore, whoever sees the Son sees and imagines what actually belongs to the Father. Thus, the existence of the Son, being from the Father, is in the Father. And the Father is in the Son. For what is truly from the Father is the Son. He is in the Son as the sun is in the radiance, as the mind is in the word, as the source is in the stream. Thus, whoever sees the Son sees and represents what actually belongs to the Father's essence, because the Father is in the Son. Since the existence of the Son is the Father's image and the Father's Divinity, it follows that the Son is in the Father, and the Father in the Son. Therefore, the Savior rightly said before: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), added: “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me” to show the identity of the Divinity and the unity of essence. 4) They are one, not in the sense that one is divided into two parts, which themselves constitute one, and not in the sense that one is named twice, so that one and the same is sometimes the Father, and sometimes the Son of Himself; Savely, who thought so, was recognized as a heretic. On the contrary, two are in number, because the Father is the Father, and He is not the Son, and the Son is the Son, and He is not the Father, but the nature is one, because Birth is not unlike the One who gave birth and is His image, and everything that belongs to the Father also belongs to the Son. Therefore, the Son is not another God, for he was not invented from outside. Otherwise, without a doubt, there would have been many gods, if an alien Deity had been invented, besides the Deity of the Father. If the Son is anything other than birth, then He is the same as God. He and the Father are one, as it is said by the affinity and affinity of nature and by the identity of the one Divinity. For radiance is light, and not second to the sun, not another light, not light according to the communion of light, but entirely its own generation. The same generation is necessarily one light, and no one will say that these are the essence of two lights, but although the sun and radiance are two, yet there is one light from the sun, shining everywhere in radiance. Likewise, the Divinity of the Son is the Divinity of the Father, and therefore it is inseparable, and thus, there is one God, and there is no other besides Him. Since They are one, and the Divinity is one and the same, then, in addition to the name “Father,” the same thing is said about the Son that is said about the Father; for example, the Son is called God: “and God is the Word” (John 1:1), – the Almighty: “this says... Who is, and is, and is to come, the Almighty” (Apoc. 1:8), – Lord: “one Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 8:6). It is said that the Son is light: “I am light” (John 8:12), blots out sins: “but let it be known,” it is said, “that the Son of man has power on earth to forgive sins” (Luke 5:24). And you will find much more. For the Son Himself says: “All that the Father has is Mine” (John 16:15), and again: “Mine... Your essence” (John 17:10). 5) Whoever hears that what is characteristic of the Father is said about the Son, through this he will see the Father in the Son, and he will also see the Son in the Father, when what is said about the Son is also said about the Father. Why is it said about the Son that it is characteristic of the Father? Is it not because the Son is the Father's birth? Why does that which belongs to the Son belong to the Father? Is it not because the Son is the own birth of the Father's essence? Being the own birth of the Father's essence, the Son rightly calls His own what belongs to the Father. Therefore, appropriately and in accordance with what was said: “I am one and the Father,” he added: “You understand that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me,” and before this he also said: “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). And these three sayings have the same meaning. Thus, whoever understands that the Son and the Father are one, knows that the Son is in the Father, and the Father in the Son, because the Divinity of the Son is the Divinity of the Father, and it is the same in the Son. And whoever has comprehended this, he believes that “he who sees the Son sees the Father,” because in the Son the Divinity of the Father is contemplated. Another can see this more closely in the similarity of the royal image, because in the image there is the appearance and image of the king, and in the king there is the appearance of the one represented in the image, the likeness of the king presented in the image is not different from him, why whoever looks at the image sees the king in it, and vice versa, whoever looks at the king recognizes that he is represented in the image. And due to this indifference of likeness, wanting to see the king after the image, the image can say: “I and the king are one and the same, I am in him, and he is in me. What you see in me, you will see in him, and what you saw in him, you will see in me.” Why does anyone worship an image, he worships the king in it, because the image is his image and appearance. Thus, since the Son is the image of the Father, it is necessary to imagine that the Divinity of the Father and His inherent existence is the existence of the Son. This is what it means: “Who is in the form of God, and the Father is in Me” (Phil. 2:6). 6) And not only in part is the image of the Divinity, but the fullness of the Father’s Divinity is the being of the Son, and the Son is entirely God. Therefore, being equal to God, “it is not through admiration that one is equal to God” (Phil. 2:6). And again, since the Divinity and image of the Son belong to no one else but the Father, this means what is said: “I am in the Father. Thus God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself” (2 Cor. 5:19). For the Son is the property of the Father's essence, in Him creation is reconciled with God. So, what the Son did, all that is the work of the Father. For the Son is the image of the Father's Deity, which accomplished the works. Thus, whoever looks at the Son sees the Father, for in the Father’s Divinity the Son is and is contemplated, and the Father’s image in the Son shows the Father in Him, and thus the Father in the Son. And what is characteristic of the Father and the Divinity in the Son shows the Son in the Father and the fact that the Son is always not separated from the Father. And whoever hears or sees what is predicated about the Father as also being predicated about the Son, not in the sense that by grace or by communion it has ascended into the essence of the Son, but in the fact that the very existence of the Son is the own birth of the Father’s essence, he, as noted above, will well understand what is said: “I am in the Father, and the Father in me,” and: “I and the Father are one.” The Son is the same as the Father, because he has everything that is characteristic of the Father, and therefore is implied with the name of the Father; no one calls him Father when there is no Son. Whoever calls God the Creator does not necessarily mean the created thing, because the Creator is before creatures, but whoever calls God the Father, together with the Father, makes it clear that the Son exists. Therefore, whoever believes in the Son believes in the Father, because he believes in the inherent essence of the Father. And thus, one thing is faith in the One God. Whoever worships the Son and honors Him, in the Son he worships the Father and honors the Father, because the Divinity is one. Therefore, there is one honor and one worship, namely that which is given to the Father in the Son and through Him, and the one who worships thus worships the One God, because God is one, and there is no other besides Him. Therefore, when one Father is called God and it is said that God is one: “I am, and there is no God except Me” (Deut. 32:39), and: “I am the first and I am hereafter” (Isa. 44:6), then this is said beautifully, because there is one God, the only and the first. But this is not said to deny the Son. Let this not happen! For He is in the one and the first and the only as the only Word of the one and the first and the only, His Wisdom and radiance. But He Himself is the first and the fulfillment of the first and One Divinity, the complete and perfect God. Consequently, this is not said for His sake, but shows that there is no other like the Father and like His Word. And this meaning of the prophetic words is clear and obvious to everyone. 7) But the wicked, and making this obvious, blaspheme the Lord and reproach us, saying: “Behold, God is called one, the only and the first, how can you say that the Son is God? If the Son were God, then God himself would not have said: I am the only one, or: God is one.” Therefore, it is necessary, as much as possible, to explain the meaning of these sayings, so that from this everyone will understand that the Arians are truly fighters against God. If the Son has rivalry with the Father, then let them hear such words. Or if, as David heard about Adonijah and Absalom, so the Father looks at the Son, then let Himself speak and pronounce such words so that the Son, calling Himself Son, does not distract others from the Father. If anyone knows the Son, he knows the Father better, because the Son Himself reveals the Father to him, and he, as it is said, will see the Father better in the Word; The Son, having come, glorified not Himself, but the Father, when he said to the “one who came” to Him: “Why do you say that I am good? “No one is good except one God” (Matthew 19:16, 17), and he asked: “What is the greatest commandment in the law?” (Matthew 22:36) answered: “Hear, to Israel, the Lord your God is one Lord” (Mark 12:29), and he said to the people: “I came down from heaven, not to do My will, but the will of the Father who sent Me” (John 6:38), and he taught the disciples: “My Father is sick.” (John 14:28) ), and: whoever honors Me honors Him who sent Me (John 5:23), if, I say, the Son is like this toward His Father, then what opposition is there between Them to derive such suspicion from such sayings? On the other hand, if the Son is the Father’s Word, then who, except those who oppose Christ, would be foolish to think that God spoke such words to slander and deny His Word? This is not a Christian thought. Let this not happen. This was not written for the sake of the Son, but to overthrow the false gods invented by men. And this meaning of their words has a good reason. 8) Since those devoted to false gods deviate from the true God, then, as a good and caring God for people, calling out to the lost, he says: “I am one God,” and: “I am, and there is no God except Me” (Deut. 32:39), and similar words, in order to shame the non-existent, and turn everyone to Himself. And as if someone, in the middle of the day and with the sun shining, painted just a tree that does not have the ghost of light in it, and said that this image is the cause of light, but the sun, looking at this, says: “I alone make up the daylight, and there is no other daylight besides me,” then it will say this, meaning not its own radiance, but the deception produced by the image of the tree and the dissimilarity of the empty outline. So the sayings “I am” and: “I am one God, and there is no Me” were said to turn people away from false gods and to teach them to finally know the true God. Without a doubt, God, in saying this, spoke through His Word; will the Jews of today also add that God did not speak this through the Word. But although these children of the devil are raging, the Scripture says so, for the word of the Lord came to the prophet, and he heard it. If the Word was the Lord’s, and through the Word the Lord spoke it, and what God says and does, he says and does no differently than in the Word, then of course, fighters against God, this was not said for His sake, but because of those who are alien and not from Him. For, in accordance with the above-mentioned similarity, if the sun had uttered the previously mentioned words, then not having its radiance outside, but showing its light in the radiance, it would have denounced error and spoken what was said. Consequently, such sayings were used not to deny the Son and not for His sake, but to overthrow a lie. God did not speak such words to Adam at first, although the Word was with Him, by which “all things were” (John 1:3). There was no need then, because there were no idols. When people rebelled against the truth and named for themselves what gods they wanted, then the need arose for similar sayings to overthrow the non-bearing gods. And I would add that such sayings were spoken in advance to admonish the folly of the Christ-fighters, so that they would know that the God they imagine outside the Father’s essence is not true, is not the image and son of the only and first God. 9) Therefore, if the Father is called the only true God, then this is said not in denial of the One who said: “I am... the truth” (John 14:6), but again in the rejection of those who do not have the property of being true like the Father and like His Word. For the Lord Himself directly added: “and whom thou didst send, Jesus Christ” (John 17:3). And if He were a creature, He would not have joined and counted Himself with the One who created Him. For what kind of communication does the true have with the false? Now, having joined Himself to the Father, He showed by what He is of His nature, and gave us to understand that He is the true birth of the true Father. Realizing this, John taught us, writing in his epistle: “And let us be true in His Son Jesus Christ: this is the true God and the eternal life” (1 John 5:20). And since the prophet says about the creation: “the sky is one” (Job 9:8), and God Himself: “I... spread out the sky is one” (Is. 44:24), then it became clear to everyone that the word “one” also means the Word of the One, “In Him all things were, and without Him nothing was” (John 1:3). So, if creation came into being through the Word, and God says: “I am one,” then along with the One, of course, is the Son, by Whom the heavens were created. Thus, if it is said: “there is one God,” and “I am one,” and “I am the first,” then the Word is understood to be co-existent in the One, the only and the first, like a radiance in the light. This cannot be understood about anyone other than the one Word, because everything else was produced from nothing by the Son and is far removed by nature. And the Son Himself by nature from the Father is true birth. Therefore, the saying “I am first,” which these foolish people thought to present in defense of their heresy, further exposes their evilness. God says: “I am the first, and I am hereafter.” So, if, as one who is numbered among the creatures that follow Him, He is called the first of them, and therefore the creatures are second after Him, then in your opinion He Himself will surpass the creatures only in one time. And this alone is above all wickedness. If, to signify that He is not from anyone else, that there is nothing before Him, but that He Himself is the beginning and the guilt of everything, and in refutation of the Hellenic fables, He said: “I am the first,” then it is clear that when calling the Son the firstborn, it is not because He is numbered with the creation that He is called the firstborn, but to show that all are created and adopted through the Son. For just as the Father is the first, so the Son, since He is the image of the First and the first abides in Him, is the first, but also begotten from the Father, and in Him every creature is created and adopted. 10) But heretics are ready to object to this with their fabulous inventions, saying: “Not in the sense that the Son and the Father are one and similar to one another, in which the Church preaches this, but in the sense that pleases us.” For they say: “Since what the Father wants, the Son also wants the same, and does not contradict the Father both in commands and in judgments, on the contrary, he agrees with Him in everything, observing the identity of commands and teaching a teaching consistent and closely united with the teaching of the Father, then in this sense He and the Father are one.” And some of the heretics dared not only to speak, but also to write. But is it possible to say anything more incongruous and unreasonable? For if for this reason the Son and the Father are one, and in this only sense the Word is like the Father, then it follows that the angels and other higher beings, principalities, powers, thrones, dominions, even visible creatures, the sun, moon and stars, like the Son, are also sons, and about them it must be said that they and the Father are one, and each of these beings is the image of God and the Word of God. For what God wants, they also want the same; they do not disagree either in judgments or in commands, but in everything they are submissive to the Creator. They would not have remained in their glory if they themselves had not desired what the Father wants. And to the one who did not remain in this agreement, but neglected it, it is said: “How did the morning star fall from heaven?” (Isa. 14:12) In the same case, why is this one the only begotten Son and Word and Wisdom? And why, with so many like the Father, is He the only image? For among men there will be many like the Father, many martyrs, and before them there were apostles and prophets, and even before these there were patriarchs. Many have even now kept the Savior’s commandment, having become merciful, “like... the Father” who is in heaven (Luke 6:36), and have kept what was said: “Be imitators of God, like beloved children, and walk in love, as Christ also loved us” (Eph. 5:1, 2). Many became like Paul, as he did to Christ (1 Cor. 4:16). However, none of them is either the Word, or Wisdom, or the only begotten Son, or the Image, and none of them dared to say: “I am one and the Father,” or: “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me.” On the contrary, it is said about everyone: “Who is like You in God, O Lord?” (Psalm 85:8), or: “who... will be like the Lord among the sons of God?” (Psalm 88:7). It is said about Him that one Son is true and by nature the image of the Father. If we too are created in the image, we are called “the image and glory of God” (1 Cor. 11:7), then again we have this grace of the title not on our own, but because the image of God and the true glory of God dwells in us, that is, the Word of God, for our sakes finally made flesh. 11) Since even such wisdom of heretics turns out to be indecent and unreasonable, it is necessary to attribute similarity and unity to the very essence of the Son. If we understand it in the wrong sense, then it will turn out, according to what has been said, that the Son has no advantage over creatures, and He will not be like the Father, but will be similar to the commands of the Father and will be different from the Father, because the Father is the Father, and the commands and teaching are the Father’s. Therefore, if the Son is similar to the Father only in commands and teaching, then, according to their words, the Father will be the Father only in name, and the Son will not be an indifferent Image, or rather, it will turn out to not have any property or similarity with the Father. For what is the likeness and attribute of him who is different from the Father? And Paul, who teaches like the Savior, is not like Him in essence. Therefore, the heretics, by thinking this way, are deceived. The Son and the Father are one in the sense that it is said. The Son is similar to the Father and from the Father Himself, just as one can understand and imagine the Son in relation to the Father, just as one can understand the radiance in relation to the sun. Since this is the being of the Son, then when the Son does, the one who does is also the Father, and when the Son comes to the saints, he who comes in the Son is the Father, as He Himself announced, saying: “We will come, I and the Father, and will make our abode with him” (John 14:23). For in the Image the Father is contemplated, the light abides in the radiance. Therefore, as we said a little higher, when the Father gives grace and peace, the Son also gives them, as Paul expresses it, writing in every epistle: “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1:3). For there is one grace, given from the Father in the Son, as one light in the sun and radiance, and the sun shines through radiance. So again, praying for the Thessalonians and saying: “Let our God and Father himself and the Lord Jesus Christ straighten our way towards you” (1 Thessalonians 3:11), Paul preserved the unity of the Father and the Son. For he did not say “let him correct” as about a double grace given by two, but “let him correct”, wanting to show that the Father gives grace through the Son. Evil heretics, although they could feel shame at this, do not want to. 12) If there were no unity, if the Word is not its own birth from the Father’s essence, like radiance from light, and the Son is by nature distant from the Father, then the Father alone would be enough to bestow grace, without associating any of the creatures with the Creator in the gift. Now such giving shows the unity of the Father and the Son. No one will pray to receive anything from the Father and from the angels or from any other creature, no one will say: may God and the angel give you, but asks from the Father and the Son because of unity and a single giving. For what is given is given through the Son, and whatever the Father does, he does all through the Son. Therefore, the one who receives has undoubted grace. If Patriarch Jacob, blessing the grandchildren Ephraim and Manasseh, said: “God, who has nourished me from childhood even to this day, the angel who delivers me from all evils, bless these children” (Gen. 48, 15, 16), then to the God who created them he added more than one of the created and naturally existing angels, and not from an angel and asked for blessings for his grandchildren, leaving God to feed him, but saying: “He who delivers me from all evils,” showing that this is not some created angel, but God’s Word, to whom he prayed together with the Father and through whom God delivers whomever he wants. Knowing that He is also called the Angel of the great council of the Father, He, and not anyone else, called Him the one who blesses and delivers from evil. He did not want God to bless him himself, but an angel to bless his grandchildren, but Whom he himself called upon, saying: “I will not let you in unless you bless me” (Gen. 32:26), and this was God, as Jacob himself says: “I saw... God face to face” (Gen. 32:30), He begged the same to bless the sons of Joseph. 13) Посему и Давид не иного кого, но Бога умолял об избавлении: к Тебе, Господи, «внегда скорбети ми, воззвах, и услышал мя еси. Lord, deliver my soul from unrighteous lips and from the flattering tongue" (Psalm 119:1,2). Ему восписуя благодарение, «глагола... словеса песни в семнадцатом псалме в день, в оньже избави его Господь от руки всех враг его и из руки Саула: и рече: возлюблю Тя, Господи, крепосте моя: Господь утверждение мое, и прибежище мое, и избавитель мой» ( Псал. 17, 1–3 ). И Павел, претерпев многие гонения, не иного кого, но Бога благодарил, говоря: от всего избавил меня Господь, и избавит, наньже уповахом ( 2Кор. 1, 10 ). No one else but God blessed Abraham and Isaac. И Исаак, молясь об Иакове, сказал: «Бог... мой да благословит тя, и возрастит тя, и умножит тя, и будеши в собрания языков: И да даст тебе благословение Авраама отца моего» ( Быт. 28, 3, 4 ). If blessing and deliverance belongs to no one else but God, and the one who delivered Jacob was none other than the Lord Himself, and the patriarch called upon his grandchildren the Deliverer himself, then it is clear that in prayer he did not join anyone else to God, but His Word, which He therefore called an angel, because It alone reveals the Father to us. The Apostle did the same, saying: “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” For in this case, the blessing was reliable because of the inseparability of the Son with the Father, and because the grace given is one and the same. Although the Father gives, it is given through the Son. Although the Son is called the giver, the Father gives through the Son and in the Son. “I give thanks,” says the Apostle in his letter to the Corinthians, “to my God always for you, for the grace of God given to you in Christ Jesus” (1 Cor. 1:4). The same thing can be seen in light and radiance. What the light illuminates, the radiance illuminates, and what the radiance illuminates, that is, the illumination of the light itself. So when we see the Son, we also see the Father, because the Son is the Father’s radiance. And thus, the Father and the Son are one. 14) But no one will say this about created things and about creatures. When the Father does, none of the angels or any other creature does the same; not one of the creatures is a creative cause, but they are all among the created. Moreover, they are separated and far from the One, different from Him by nature, and being themselves works, they cannot do what God does, they cannot, as I said before, give gifts when God gives. Looking at the angel, no one will say that they saw the Father. For angels, as it is written, “are servants of souls, sent to serve” (Heb. 1:14), and they proclaim the gifts given by God by the Word to those who receive them. And the angel who appeared himself confessed about himself that he was sent by the Master: thus, Gabriel himself confessed this to Zechariah and the Mother of God Mary. Whoever sees the appearance of angels knows that he sees an angel, and not God. Zechariah saw an angel, and Isaiah saw the Lord. Manoah, the father of the Sampsons, saw an angel, and Moses saw God. Gideon saw an angel, but God appeared to Abraham. And whoever saw God did not say that he saw an angel, and whoever saw an angel did not think that he saw God. For created beings are much, or better said, completely different in nature from the God who created them. If sometimes, when an angel appeared, the one who saw heard the voice of God, as was the case at the bush, for “the Angel of the Lord appeared in a flame of fire from the bush... and called... The Lord to Moses from the bush, saying... I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham... the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob” (Ex. 3, 2, 4, 6), then the angel was not the God of Abraham, but in the angel was the one speaking God, and although we see, there was an angel, but God spoke in him. For just as God spoke in the pillar of cloud to Moses in the Tabernacle, so He appears in the angels speaking. Thus He spoke to Joshua through the angel. But what God says, as is known, he says through the Word, and not through anyone else. And what the Word, which is inseparable from the Father, does, is not dissimilar and not alien to the Father’s essence, these are the essence of the Father’s works, and the Word and the Father perform the work together. And what the Son gives is the Father’s giving. And whoever saw the Son knows that he saw Him, he saw not an angel, and not a being higher than the angels, not any creature, but the Father Himself. And whoever hears the Word knows that he hears the Father, just as he who is illuminated by radiance knows that he is illuminated by the sun. 15) And the Divine Scripture, wanting us to understand this, presented to us, as we spoke about before, such similarities with which we could shame the traitors of the Jews, and repel the accusation of the Hellenes, when they say and think that in the doctrine of the Trinity we also recognize many gods. For, as the similarities themselves show, we do not introduce three principles or three fathers, like the followers of Marcion and Manichaeus. We do not represent the image of three suns, but the sun and radiance, and one light from the sun in radiance. So we know the one beginning, and we say that the creative Word has no other image of the Divine, but the Divinity of the One God, because it was born of God. Therefore, the Arians can much more justly be accused of polytheism or atheism, because they vainly say that the Son is a creature from without, and also a Spirit from nothing. For they say that the Word is not God, or even calling Him God because of what is written, but not actually belonging to the Father’s essence, because of the heterogeneity of the Father and the Son, they introduce many gods, unless they dare to assert that the Word is also called God by the sacrament, in which sense everything can be so called. But even thinking so, they are equally ungodly, saying that the Word is one of all creatures. And this would never even occur to us! For there is one type of Divinity, which is also in the Word, and one God is the self-existent Father, because “He is above all” (Rom. 9:5), appearing in the Son, because “he penetrates through all things” (Wis. 7:24), and in the Spirit, because He acts in all through the Word. Thus, by confessing the Trinity, we confess the One God and talk about God much more piously than the heretics who recognize the many-formed and many-part Divinity, because we recognize the one Divinity in the Trinity. 16) For if it is not so, on the contrary, the Word of non-existents is a creature and a work, then He is either not the true God, because He is one of the creatures, or if heretics, ashamed of Scripture, call Him God, then of necessity we must call two gods: one Creator, the other created, and serve two masters: one Uncreated, the other created and created, have two faiths: one in the true God, the other and - in what was created, invented by them and called God. And being blind in this way, of necessity, when they worship the Uncreated, they must despise the created, and when they approach the created, they must turn away from the Creator. For it is impossible to see one in another, because their natures and actions are alien and different from each other. And those who think this way certainly combine many gods together, which is what the undertaking of those who fall away from the One God leads to. Why do the Arians, reasoning and imagining this way, not classify themselves as pagans? For both they and they serve the creation more than God who created all things. Although they avoid being called pagans to deceive the foolish, they secretly contain a thought similar to a pagan one. For this wise saying, usually used by them: “We do not name the two uncreated,” is used, apparently, to deceive the simple-minded. Saying: “We do not name the two uncreated,” they name two gods, and gods who have different natures: one having a created nature, and the other an uncreated one. If the pagans serve one Uncreated and many created, they are one Uncreated and one created, then in this case they do not differ from the pagans, because what they call created is one of many created, and also many pagan gods with this one have the same nature, and this one and they are creatures. Heretics are pathetic, especially since they harm themselves by philosophizing against Christ; They fell away from the truth and, denying Christ, surpassed the Jews in betrayal, and these God-haters are mired together with the pagans, serving creation and various gods. There is one God, and not many, and there is one Word of God, and not many. God is the Word. It alone has the Father's vision. By this being a vision, the Savior Himself puts the Jews to shame, saying: “The Father who sent Me is the One who bears witness to Me. You have neither heard His voice anywhere, nor seen a vision of Him, nor have His word abiding in you, who is His ambassador. In this you do not have faith” (John 5:37, 38). He beautifully added a vision to the Word, showing by this that the Word of God Himself is the image and image and “vision” of His Father, and that the Jews, who did not accept the One who spoke this, did not accept the Word, that is, God’s vision. Having seen this vision, the patriarch Jacob was blessed, and instead of Jacob he was named Israel by Him, as the Divine Scripture testifies, saying: “The sun rose up to him when the sight of God passed away” (Gen. 32:31). But this sight was the One who says: “He who has seen Me in the form of the Father,” and: “I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me,” and: “I and the Father are one.” Thus, there is one God, and one faith in the Father and the Son. And since the Word is God, then again “the Lord God our Lord is one” (Deut. 6:4), because He is the own and indivisible Son of the One in the nature and affinity of essence. 17) But not ashamed by this, the Arians say: “Not as you say, but as we want. Since you rejected our previous inventions, we have found a new one and affirm: in the same sense, the Son and the Father are one, the Father in the Son, and the Son in the Father, in which we can also be in Him. This is written in the Gospel of John, this is what Christ desired for us, saying: “Holy Father, keep them in Thy name, which Thou hast given Me, that they may be one, as we also are” (John 17:11), and a few more words later: “Not for these... I pray only, but also for those who believe their words for their sake in Me, that they may all be one: as Thou, Father, is in Me, and I am in You and they also may be one in Us: that the world may have faith, because You sent Me: And I have given the glory that You have given Me, that they may be one, as We are one: I in them, and You in Me: that they may be perfect in one, and that the world may understand that You have sent Me” (John 17:20-23). Then these cunning people, as if having found an excuse, add this: “If just as we are one in the Father, so He and the Father are one, and so He is in the Father, then why, according to what He said: “I am one and the Father,” and “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me,” do you call Him actually belonging to and similar to the Father’s essence? It is necessary either for us to actually belong to the Father’s essence, or to be alien to Him, just as we are alien.” This is how heretics talk foolishly. And I don’t see in such their evil mindedness anything other than unreasonable audacity and devilish arrogance, because they, like the devil, say: we will ascend to heaven, we will be like the Most High. What is distributed to people by grace, they want to equate with the Divine Giver. Hearing that people are called sons, they imagined that they themselves were equal in nature to the true Son. And now, again, hearing from the Savior: “that they may be one, as We are,” they deceive themselves, boldly dreaming that they too will be in God, as the Son is in the Father, and the Father in the Son, not noticing the fact that their father, the devil, has fallen from such conceit. 18) If, as we have said repeatedly, the Word of God is the same as we are, and does not differ from us in any way except in time, then let It be similar to us, let It have the same place with the Father as we have, let it not be called either the only begotten, or the only Word, or the Wisdom of the Father, but let this name be common to Him with all of us, similar to each other. For those who have one nature have a common name, although they differ from each other in time. Adam is a man, and Paul is a man, and the one now born is also a man, and time does not change the nature of the race. Therefore, if the Word differs from us only in time, then we must also be the same as the Word. But we are not the Word or Wisdom, and It is not a creature or a work. For why do we all come from one, and He alone is the Word? But if it is decent for heretics to speak such speeches, then it is indecent for us to even think about their blasphemy. And although it would not be necessary to even enter into any consideration of the presented sayings, given their clear and pious meaning and our right faith, however, so that the heretics turn out to be evil in this too, with this very saying, as we learned from the Fathers, we will briefly expose their unorthodoxy. In Divine Scripture, natural objects are often presented to people as an image and example. And this is so that the voluntary movements in people can be seen more clearly from the natural. And thus, either bad or truthful human character is shown. Thus, he means bad morals when he commands: “Do not be like a horse and a beast that has no understanding” (Psalm 31:9), or when, reproaching those who have become such, he says: “A man who is ignorant of honor is like a foolish beast and becomes like them” (Psalm 48:13); and again: “misogynistic horses have been created” (Jer. 5:8). And the Savior, showing what Herod was like, said: “Call that fox” (Luke 13:32), and commanded the disciples: “Behold... I send you like sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye wise like a serpent, and targets like doves” (Matthew 10:16). He said this not so that we would by nature become like cattle, become snakes or doves (He did not create us like that, therefore nature does not allow this), but so that we would avoid unreasonable aspirations; Knowing the wisdom of the serpent, they did not fall into his deception and appropriated the meekness of the dove for themselves. 19) In the discussion of the Divine, again presenting images to people, the Savior says: “Be ye... merciful, as... your Father who is in heaven is merciful” (Luke 6:36), and: “Be ye... perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48). He said this again not so that we would become the same as the Father, because it is impossible for us, creatures brought into being from nothing, to become the same as the Father, on the contrary, as he commanded: “Do not be like a horse,” not so that we would not become cattle, but so as not to imitate their foolishness, so he said: “Be... merciful like... the Father,” not so that we would become the same, what God is like, but so that, looking at His good deeds, when we do something good, we do it not for the sake of people, but for the sake of Him, expecting rewards from Him, and not from people. Just as there is at least one Son by nature, true and only-begotten, but we also become sons, not like Him, not in nature and not in reality, but by the grace of Him who called, and being earthly people, we are called gods, not as God is and as His true Word is, but as God who gave this willed, so like God we become merciful, without thereby coming into equality with God, without becoming by nature and true benefactors, because beneficence is not ours, but God’s invention, but since it is done by grace for us by God Himself, we make it common to others, without reasoning, but simply extending charity to everyone. Only in this way, and not in any other way, can we become somewhat imitators of God, because we serve each other with what He gives us. But just as we understand this well and correctly, the passage read in the Gospel of John has the same meaning. For it is not said: as the Son is in the Father, so let us also be. And is this possible, when He is God’s Word and God’s Wisdom, and we are created from the earth, He is by nature and essence the Word and the true God (so says John: “we know... that the Son of God has come and given us understanding, that we might know the true God, and that we might be in the truth in His Son Jesus Christ: This is the true God and the eternal life” (1 John 5:19, 20)), and we, by adoption and grace through Him, become sons, partaking of His Spirit, for it is said: “The little ones... having received Him, gave them the province to become children of God, who believe in His name” (John 1:12)? Therefore, He is the truth, testifying about Himself: “I am... the truth” (John 14:6), which He confirmed and talking with His Father: “Sanctify them in Your truth: Your Word is truth” (John 17:17), and by imitation we become virtuous and sons. 20) So, the Savior said: “that they may be one, as we also are” (John 17:22), not so that we might become the same as He is, but so that just as He, being the Word, abides in His Father, so we, looking at Him and borrowing a certain image from Him, become one with each other in unanimity and unity of spirit and do not disagree, like the Corinthians, but they thought the same thing, like the five thousand mentioned in Acts, who were all like one man (Acts 4:32). We will be like sons, and not like the Son, and gods, but not like He Himself, and merciful, like the Father, but not like the Father, but, as it is said, having become one, “like” the Father and the Son; We will not be one in the sense in which by nature the Father is in the Son, and the Son in the Father, but in what is consistent with our nature, in what is it possible for us to conform ourselves to this and learn how we must become one, just as we learned to be merciful, because usually in unity there are like with like, and all flesh enters into unity according to race. The Word is not like us, but like the Father, therefore He is by nature and in reality one with His Father, and we, being homogeneous with each other, because we all came from one, and all people have one nature, become one with each other by disposition, having for ourselves the natural unity of the Son with the Father. Just as He taught meekness by His example, saying: “learn from Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart” (Matthew 11:29), not so that we could be compared with Him (this is impossible), but so that, looking at Him, we would always remain meek - so here, wanting us to have true, firm and indissoluble goodwill towards each other, He takes an example from Himself and says: “Let them be one, as We are.” And our unity is indivisible, therefore, having recognized the indivisible nature in us, let them also maintain mutual agreement among themselves.” People, as has been said, are safer imitating what is borrowed from nature, because it remains the same and never changes, but human character is changeable and only by looking at what is unchangeable by nature can it avoid the bad and conform itself to the best. And thus, what is said: “that these also may be one in Us” (John 17:21) has the correct meaning. 21) If it were possible for us to become what the Son is in the Father, then we should say: let these also be one in You, as the Son is in the Father. Now he did not say this, but by saying: “in Us,” he showed the distance and difference, namely, that He alone is in the one Father as one Word and Wisdom, while we are in the Son and through the Son in the Father. But in saying this, he meant nothing more than the following: “By our unity, “and these” may become one with each other, just as We are one in nature and in reality, otherwise they will not become one if they do not learn unity “in Us.” And that the saying “in Us” has this meaning, listen to Paul, who says: “And this... we have transformed Apollos also... so that from us you may learn to be wiser than those who are written” (1 Cor. 4:6). So, the phrase “in Us” does not mean “in the Father,” as the Son is in the Father, but is only an example and image and is used instead of the words: let them learn from Us. Just as Paul was for the Corinthians, so the unity of the Son and the Father serves as a model and lesson for everyone, from which, looking at the natural unity of the Father and the Son, people can learn how they too should become one with each other in the way of thinking. If in reasoning this saying must be defended in another way, then we can also say that the saying “in Us” is equivalent to the words: by the power of the Father and the Son may they be one, saying the same thing, because without God it is impossible to become “one.” And this again can be found in the divine word, for example: “in God we will create strength” (Psalm 59:14), and: “In God... I will pass over the wall” (Psalm 17:30), and: “in You we will tear our enemies by the horns” (Psalm 43:6). So, it is clear that in the name of the Father and the Son we can become “one” and have a firm union of love. For spreading the same thought again, the Lord says: “And I have given the glory that thou hast given to me, that I may give it unto them: that they may be one, even as we are one” (John 17:22). Very decently, he did not say here: let them be in You, as I am in You, but says: “as We are.” And by saying “as”, it shows not identity in what is said, but an image and example. 22) Therefore, the Word truly and truly has an identity of nature with the Father, and for us, as it is said, it is only possible to imitate. For he immediately added: “I am in them, and You are in Me: that they may be perfect in one” (John 17:23). Here the Lord asks for us something great and most perfect. For it is known how the Word became in us, It took on our flesh. But “You also are in Me,” Father, because Your I am the Word. And since You are in Me, because Your I am the Word, and I am in them according to the body, and through You the salvation of people has been accomplished in Me, then I ask, “that they also may be one” according to the body in Me and according to its completion, “that they also may be perfect,” having unity with this body and becoming “one” in it, so that all, as those borne by Me on Myself, will be one body and one spirit and will achieve perfect manhood. For all of us, by partaking of His body, become one body, having within us the One Lord. When this saying has such a meaning, the unorthodoxy of the anti-Christ fighters is even more exposed. For, repeating again, I will say that if I had said simply and detachedly: may they be one in You, or: may these and I be one in You, then the atheists would have at least a shameless excuse. Now he didn’t just say, but: “As You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, that they may all be one.” And again saying: “as”, shows that it is far from people to be in the Father, as He is in the Father, and far not in place, but in nature. For nothing is far from God in place, yet it is far from Him in nature alone. And as I noted before, whoever pronounces the particle “as” shows not identity or equality, but an example of a predicate comparatively in some respect. 23) And this again can be learned from the Savior Himself, Who says: “As Jonah was in the belly of the whale for three days and three nights, so will the Son of man be in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12:40). Jonah was not like the Savior, Jonah did not go to hell, the whale was not hell, and Jonah, who was swallowed up, did not take with him those swallowed up by the whale, but went out alone when the whale was commanded. Therefore, no identity and equality is meant by this phrase “as”, but on the contrary, they differ from one another, while the similarity of Jonah is shown somewhat by the expression “three days”. So we, since the Lord says “as”, are not made the same as the Son in the Father and the Father in the Son, but “as” the Father and the Son, so we are made one according to the way of thinking and according to the consent of the Spirit. The Savior, “like” Jonah, will be in the earth. But just as the Savior is not Jonah, and the Lord did not descend into hell in the same way as he was swallowed up, one is different from the other; so, if we become one, as the Son is in the Father, we will not therefore be the same as the Son and equal to Him, but completely different from Him. That is why it is said about us “as if”, because that which is not in nature and tends towards something else is done as natural. Therefore, the Son Himself simply and without any mediation is in the Father, because this is characteristic of Him by nature, and we, not having this in our nature, have a need for an image and an example, so that we can also say to Him: “As” You are in Me, and I am in You. When, he says, they are so perfect, then the world will understand, “because you sent me.” If I had not come and carried their bodies on Myself, then none of them would have become perfect, but all would have remained corruptible. Therefore, act in them, Father, and just as you gave Me to bear this body, so give them Your Spirit, “that they also... may be one,” and made perfect in Me. For their accomplishment shows that the coming of Your Word has taken place, and the world, seeing them perfect and God-bearing, will, without a doubt, believe that “You sent Me,” and I came to them. Where would they receive fulfillment from if I, Your word, had not become a man, having taken upon Myself their body, and had not completed the work that You gave Me, Father? The deed is accomplished, because people, redeemed from sin, no longer remain dead, but, having become deified and looking at Us, have a mutual union of love among themselves. 24) So, we, as simply as possible to consider the expressions of this saying, proposed this at length, but blessed John in his epistle in a few words and much more perfectly than ours will show the meaning of what is written, will convict the understanding of the wicked, teach how we are in God and God in us, and also how we become one in Him and how far the Son is from us by nature, and thus will finally force the Arians not to think about themselves, that they too will be like that but what is the Son like, so that otherwise they would not hear: “You are a man, and not God” (Ezek. 28:2), and: “Do not prostrate yourself, you poor one, with the rich” (Prov. 23:4). So, John writes, saying the following: “of this we understand that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit to eat” (1 John 4:13). So, according to the grace of the Spirit given to us, we are in Him, and He is in us. And since the Spirit that is in us is God’s, then we, having the Spirit in us, are rightly considered to be in God, and thus God also is in us. Consequently, not as the Son is in the Father, so we are in the Father. The Son is not made a partaker of the Spirit, so that through this He may be in the Father. It is not He who receives the Spirit, but rather Himself who gives It to everyone, and it is not the Spirit who unites the Son with the Father, but rather the Spirit who receives it from the Word. And the Son is in the Father as His own Word and radiance. And we, without the Spirit, are alien to God and far from Him, but by the communion of the Spirit we are united with the Divinity, why is it not ours to be in the Father, but of the Spirit who exists and abides in us, as long as we preserve Him in ourselves by confession, as John again says: “If you confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he also in God” (1 John 4:15). So, what similarity and what equality do we have with the Son? Or are not the Arians denounced by everyone, especially by John, that otherwise the Son is in the Father, otherwise we are in Him? And we will never be as He is, and the Word is not as we are, unless the heretics now, as always, dare to say that the Son Himself became in the Father through the participation of the Spirit and for the excellence of works. But again, even to allow this even in thoughts is extremely wicked. For He, as it is said, gives to the Spirit, and what the Spirit has, it has from the Word (John 16:15). 25) So, the Savior, speaking about us: “As You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, that these also may be one in Us,” does not mean that we will have identity with Him, for this is also proven by the example of Jonah. But this is a prayer to the Father, as John wrote, that through Him the Spirit may be given to believers, through Whom we hope to be in God and united with Him. Since the Word is in the Father, and the Spirit is given by the Word, he wants us to receive the Spirit, and that when we receive Him, having within us the Spirit of the Word who is in the Father, we too, by the Spirit, should become “one” in the Word, and through the Word also in the Father. If he says: as we are, then this means nothing more than the following: may this given grace of the Spirit become indefatigable and immutable in the disciples. For what, according to what was said before, is natural to the Word in the Father, desires that this should be given to us through the Spirit immutably. Knowing this, the Apostle said: “Who will separate us from the love of Christ?” (Rom. 8:35). “Unrepentant for the gift” of God and the grace of calling (Rom. 11:29). Therefore, the Spirit abides in God, and not we in ourselves. Just as we are sons and gods according to the Word who is in us, so we will be in the Son and in the Father and will be considered to have been made “one” in the Son and in the Father, because in us is the same Spirit who is in the Word who is in the Father. Therefore, when someone falls away from the Spirit due to some vice, then although immutable grace abides in those who wish, if someone repents after the fall, yet this fallen one is no longer in God, because the Holy and Comforting Spirit who is in God has departed from Him; on the contrary, the one who sins will be in the one to whom he has subjected himself, as was the case with Saul. For “The Spirit of the Lord departs from him, and the evil spirit crushes him” (1 Sam. 16:14). Hearing this, one should finally be ashamed of the atheists and not imagine themselves equal to God. But they do not understand this, for it is said: “The wicked does not understand understanding” (Proverbs 29:7). They do not tolerate pious words, because it is hard for them to even hear them. 26) For behold, how tireless in wickedness and embittered, like Pharaoh, seeing and hearing again in the Gospels about the humanity of the Savior, following the example of Samosata, they completely forgot the Father’s Divinity of the Son and boldly say: “How can the Son be from the Father by nature and be like Him in essence, who says: “All power has been given to Me” (Matt. 28:18), and: “The Father... judges no one, but he gave all judgment to the Son” (John 5:22), and: “The Father loves the Son, and gave all things in His hand. Believe in the Son to have eternal life” (John 3:35, 36), and again: “all things have been handed over to Me by My Father: no one knows the Father, save the Son, and if the Son wills to reveal Him” (Matthew 11:27, 28), and again: “all that the Father gives Me will come to Me” (John 6:37)?” Then the heretics add: “If He were, as you assert, a Son by nature, He would not have had the need to receive, but as a Son He would have had this by nature. Or how can it be by nature the true Power of the Father who, during suffering, says: “Now my soul is troubled, and why should I cry? Father, save Me from this hour: but for this reason I have come to this hour: Father, glorify Your name. But a voice came from heaven: “I will glorify you, and I will glorify you again” (John 12:27,28)? He also said something similar to this: “Father... even if it is possible, let this cup pass by” (Matthew 26:39). And: “This Jesus said, he was troubled in spirit and testified and said: Amen, Amen, I say to you, for only you will betray Me” (John 13:21).” And at the same time the wise ones say: “If He had strength, He would not be afraid, but even more so He would give strength to others.” Then they say: “If He were by true nature and the Father’s own Wisdom, then why is it written: “Jesus abounded in wisdom and stature and grace with God and man” (Luke 2:52)? And having come “to the countries of Caesarea Philippi, he asked the disciples: Who do men say that I am?” (Matthew 16:13). And having come to Bethany, he asked: where does Lazarus lie (John 11:34)? Moreover, he said to the disciples: “How much bread do you have?” (Mark 6:38).” Why do they say: “He is Wisdom who excels in wisdom and does not know what he wanted to know from others.” They also say the following: “As the Father’s own Word, without Whom, as you philosophize, the Father never existed and through Whom he does all things, maybe He who says on the cross: “My God, My God, have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46)? And before this He prays: “Father, glorify Your name” (John 12:28), “glorify Me, O Father... with glory, since before You there was no peace” (John 17:5), and in the desert he prayed and commanded the disciples to pray so that they would not fall “into misfortune”, and said: “The spirit... is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Matt. 26:41), and: “But no one knows about that day or about that hour, neither the Angels... nor the Son” (Mark 13:32).” Then again, in this reasoning, these pitiful ones say: “If the Son, according to your understanding, existed with God forever, then the day would not be unknown to Him, on the contrary, He would know it as the Word, and the Co-present One would not be abandoned, would not ask to receive glory, having it in the Father, and in general would not pray, because as the Word he would not need anything. But since He is a creature and among those who received being, He spoke in this way and had a need for what it did not have, because it is common for creatures to have a lack and need for what they do not have.” 27) The wicked dare to make such speeches, but those who argue in this way should boldly ask: why did the Word become flesh in the first place? Or add one more thing: how could He, being God, become a man? Or: how could the Ethereal One bear a body? Or, in Jewish terms, we can say with Caiaphas: why did Christ, being a man, create Himself as God? One way or the other, the Jews then grumbled when they looked at Christ, but now the Arians, reading about Him, do not believe and fall into blasphemy. If anyone, having compared the words of both, subjects them to research, he will certainly find that both of them fall into the same unbelief, both of them have the same audacity of wickedness, and both of them have a common identity with us. The Jews said: how, being a man, can one be God? The Arians say: if the true God was from God, then how could he become a man? And just as the Jews were tempted and laughed, saying: He would not have endured the cross if God had been the Son, so the Arians, standing right next to them, say to us: how dare you call Him who has a body the Word of the Father’s essence, and why did He endure this? Then, just as the Jews sought to kill the Lord because He called God His Father and created Himself equal to God, doing the same as the Father does, so the Arians themselves learned to say: He is not equal to God, God is not the Father of the Word by nature, and they seek the death of those who do not think so. And the Jews also say: “Isn’t this... the Son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know, as he says... before even Abraham was not, I am,” and: “I fell from heaven” (John 6:42, 8:58)? The Arians also listen to them, saying in the same way: how can it be the Word or God, who, like a man, sleeps, cries, asks? Both of them, because the Savior was human because of the flesh He bore, deny the eternity and Divinity of the Word. 28) So, since such madness is Jewish, and Jewish occupied by the traitor Judas, then let the Arians either openly confess themselves to be disciples of Caiaphas and Herod, without covering up Judaism with the name of Christianity, and completely, as we said before, deny the coming of the Savior in the flesh (this wisdom is characteristic of their heresy), or, if to please Constantius and those deceived by them, they are afraid to openly Judaize and to be circumcised, they do not say what is characteristic of the Jews. For it is right to turn away from the wisdom of those whose names they refuse. Let it be known to the Arians that we are Christians. We are Christians, and it is common for us to understand well what is said about the Savior in the Gospels, and just as we, together with the Jews, do not throw stones at Him if we hear about the Divinity and His eternity, so together with you we do not be tempted by those humble sayings that man uses for our sake. Therefore, if you also want to be Christians, then put aside the madness of Aria and your ears, defiled by blasphemous words, wash them with the words of piety, knowing that as soon as you cease to be Arians, you will leave the wisdom of the present Jews, immediately as the truth will shine for you from the darkness, and you will no longer reproach us for recognizing two eternal ones, but you yourself will know that the Lord is true and by nature the Son of God, and is recognized not simply as eternal, but as co-existent with the Father’s eternity. For those things of which He is the Creator are also called eternal. Thus, in the twenty-third psalm it is written: “Lift up your gates, O princes, and lift up the eternal gates” (Psalm 23:9), but it is clear that these gates were also created by Him. If He is the Creator of the eternal, then can any of us still doubt that He is above even this eternal? But the Lord is known not so much by eternity, but because He is the Son of God. For being the Son, He is not separated from the Father, and there was no time when He was not; on the contrary, He always, and being the image and radiance of the Father, also has the Father’s eternity. Therefore, how much the heretics exposed themselves as misunderstanding those sayings that they put forward, this can be seen from what we said briefly before, but that in the reasoning of the sayings that they now present from the Gospels, their understanding turns out to be unfounded, this can be conveniently seen if now we especially turn to the goal of our Christian faith, and having accepted it for ourselves as a rule, we will, as the apostle said, be attentive to the reading of the inspired Scripture (1 Tim. 4:13). For those who opposed Christ, not realizing this goal, turned away from the path of truth and stumbled “against the stumbling block” (Rom. 9:33), philosophizing more than they should philosophize. 29) So, this purpose and distinctive feature of Holy Scripture, as we have repeatedly said, will tell us two truths about the Savior: that He was always God, and is the Son, being the Word, radiance and Wisdom of the Father, and that finally, for our sake, taking upon Himself flesh from the Virgin Mary, Theotokos, He became man. And one can find that this is given to be understood in all the inspired Scripture, as the Lord Himself said: “Test the Scriptures, for... they are the ones that testify about Me” (John 5:39). But so that, collecting all the sayings together, we do not write too much, we will be content with the fact that, instead of all the passages, we will recall the following. John says: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was to God, and God was the Word. This one from time immemorial was unto God: all things were by Him, and without Him nothing became” (John 1:1-3), then: “The Word became flesh and dwelt in us, and we saw His glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father” (John 1:14). And Paul writes: “He who was in the form of God was not equal to God by admiration; but He made Himself humble, taking on the form of a servant, and became in the likeness of mankind, and was found in the likeness of man: He humbled Himself, becoming obedient even to the point of death, even death on the cross” (Phil. 2:6-8). For whoever, starting with this, goes through all of Scripture with the same thought, will see how the Father said to the Word at the beginning: “let there be light” (Gen. 1:3), “let there be a firmament” (Gen. 1:6), “let us make man” (Gen. 1:26); at the end of the ages, “He sent Him into the world, not that the world should judge, but that the world might be saved through Him” (John 3:17), and it is written: “Behold, a virgin will be with child and give birth to a Son, and they will call His name Immanuel, as it is said: God is with us” (Matthew 1:23). 30) Therefore, let the reader of the Divine Scripture study the Old Testament sayings, and in the Gospels see the Lord who became man. For it is said: “The Word became flesh and dwelt in us.” The Word became man, but did not descend into man. And it is necessary to know this so that the wicked, having stopped at this, do not deceive others, and the deceived do not think that, just as in former times there was a word in each of the saints, so now It descended into man, and sanctified him, and appeared in him, as in other people. For if this were so, and the Word appeared only in man, then there would be nothing unusual in this, and those who saw would not marvel and would not begin to say: “Who is this?” (Matthew 8:27). And why “You, this man, create God for yourself” (John 10:33)? It was customary for them to hear that there was the Word of the Lord to every prophet. Since now the Word of God Himself, “In Whom all things were,” has condescended to become the son of man and has humbled Himself, “taking the form of a servant,” then for the Jews the cross of Christ is a temptation, but for us “Christ is the power of God and the Wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:24). For, as John said, “The Word became flesh,” Scripture usually calls man flesh, as it is said through the prophet Joel: “I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh” (Joel 2:28), and as Daniel said to Astyages: “I do not worship an idol made with hands, but to the living God, who made heaven and earth and rules over all flesh” (Dan. 14, 5). For Daniel and Joel call the human race flesh. 31) So, in ancient times the Word came to each of the saints, and sanctified those who received Him sincerely, but when they were born, it was not said that the Word became man, and when they suffered, it was also not said that the Word suffered. When from Mary he came “alone to the end of the ages, to sweep away sin” (Heb. 9:26), because the Father was so pleased “to send His Son... begotten of a woman, being under the law” (Gal. 4:4), then it is said that the Word, having taken upon Himself flesh, became man, and in it (as Peter said: “Christ who suffered for us flesh" - (1 Peter 4:1)), suffered for us, so that it became clear and we all believed that always being God, sanctifying those to whom he came and arranging everything according to the will of the Father, finally for our sake the Word became man, and, as the Apostle says, the Divinity dwelt in the flesh “bodily” (Col. 2:9). This means that the Word, being God, had its own body and, using it as an instrument, became man for our sake. And since the Word was in the flesh, then things characteristic of the flesh are said about Him, for example: hunger, thirst, suffering, toil, and everything like that that is acceptable to the flesh. The works characteristic of the Word Himself, such as: the resurrection of the dead, the granting of sight to the blind, the healing of the bleeding woman, He performed through His body. And the Word bore the infirmities of the flesh as if it were His own, because this flesh was His, and the flesh served the works of the Divine, because the Divinity abided in it, and the body was of God. The prophet said well: “carried” (Isa. 53:4, 11), but did not say: He healed our infirmities, so that the Word, as existing outside the body and healing only this, as He always did, would not leave people again guilty of death, but It bears our infirmities, bears our sins, so that it can be seen that for our sake it became man, and the body that bears these infirmities is His own. And just as the Word itself did not suffer harm, “bearing up,” as Peter said, “our sins... in His body on the tree” (1 Peter 2:24), so we, people, were freed from our passions and filled with the truth of the Word. 32) Therefore, when the flesh suffered, the Word was not outside it, which is why the suffering is called His suffering. And when He divinely did the works of the Father, the flesh was not outside of Him, but again in the body itself the Lord did this. Therefore, having become a man, he said: “If I do not do the works of My Father, you do not have faith in Me: if I do, even if you do not believe Me, believe in My work: that you may understand... that the Father is in Me, and I in Him” (John 10:37,38). Of course, when it was necessary to restore Peter’s mother-in-law, “burned by fire” (Matthew 8:14), then he stretched out his hand in a human way, and divinely stopped the illness. And to the man who was blind from birth from human flesh he created spitting, and Divinely opened the eyes with clay. And Lazarus as a man called with a human voice, and Divinely, as God, he raised Lazarus from the dead. Yet this was done and showed that it was not a dream, but actually had a body. And it was fitting for the Lord, who clothed himself in human flesh, to clothe himself in perfect flesh with all the sufferings inherent in it, so that just as the body would be called His own body, so the bodily sufferings would be called His own only, although they did not concern His Divinity. If the body belonged to another, then the suffering would be called the suffering of this other. And if this is the flesh of the Word (for “the Word became flesh”), then it is necessary for the sufferings of the flesh to be called the sufferings of the One whose flesh is. And to Whom suffering is attributed, such as specifically: being condemned, being given over to be beaten, as well as thirst, the cross, death and other bodily infirmities, to Him they constitute merit and grace. Therefore, in accordance with the truth and fittingly, such sufferings are attributed not to anyone else, but to the Lord, so that grace may come from Him, and we become not the servants of anyone else, but truly godly, because not to any of the created, not just some kind of man, but by the nature of being from God and the true Son, and when He became man, we call, nevertheless, calling the Lord, and God, and Savior. 33) Who wouldn’t marvel at this? Or who will not agree that this is truly God’s work? For if the works inherent in the Divinity of the Word were not accomplished through the body, then man would not be deified. And vice versa, if the things inherent in the flesh were not attributed to the Word, then a person would not be completely freed from this, but although, as we said before, he would not be freed for long, yet sin and corruption would still remain in him, as was the case with people who lived before. And this is obvious. Many became holy and pure from all sin: Jeremiah was sanctified from his mother’s womb. (Jer. 1:5), John, still in the womb, “spring... with joy” from the voice of the Mother of God Mary (Luke 1:44). However, “kingly death from Adam even to Moses and on those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam’s crime” (Rom. 5:14). And thus, people, nevertheless, remained mortal, perishable, accessible to the suffering inherent in nature. Now, since the Word became man and assimilated to Himself the properties of the flesh, this no longer concerns the body because of the Word that was in the body, but was destroyed by Him, and people no longer remain sinful and dead according to their passions, but, having risen by the power of the Word, forever remain immortal and incorruptible. Therefore, when the flesh is born from the Mother of God Mary, the one who gives being to others is called born, in order to transfer our birth to Himself and for us, as one earth, not to depart into the earth, but, united with the Word, which is from heaven, from Him to be raised to heaven. Therefore, not without reason, He also transferred to Himself other infirmities of the body, so that we would no longer be like men, but as members of the Word, would become partakers of eternal life. For we no longer die according to our former existence in Adam, but since our existence and all bodily infirmities were transferred to the Word, we rise from the earth after the remission of the curse for sin by Him Who became a curse in us and for us. And rightly so. Just as we all who exist from the earth die in Adam, so having been reborn from above by water and the Spirit, we are all quickened in Christ, because our flesh is no longer, as it were, earthly, but brought into identity with the Word by God’s Word Himself, which for our sake “became flesh.” 34) But in order to more accurately understand both the dispassion of nature in the Word and the infirmities attributed to Him due to the flesh, it is good to listen to blessed Peter. For he can be a reliable witness about the Savior. And so he writes in his epistle, saying: “Christ who suffered in the flesh for us” (1 Peter 4:1). Consequently, when it is said about Christ that he hungers, thirsts, is weary, does not know, sleeps, cries, asks, runs away, is born, refuses the cup, and in general, everything characteristic of the flesh is attributed to Him, it will be fair to repeat the same thing every time. Thus, Christ hungers and thirsts “for us in the flesh,” calls Himself ignorant, is choked and labored “for us in the flesh,” and still ascends to the cross (John 12:32), is born, grows in the flesh, fears, hides itself “in the flesh,” says: “Even if it is possible to eat, let this cup pass by from Me” (Matthew 26:39), endures beating, accepts wounds “in the flesh,” and in general, everything like this takes upon Himself “for us in the flesh.” Therefore, the Apostle himself said: “Christ suffered for this,” not in Divinity, but “for us in the flesh,” so that suffering would be understood, not inherent in the Word Himself by nature, but inherent in the nature of the flesh itself. Therefore, let no one be tempted by what is human in the Lord, but on the contrary, let him know that the Word Himself is by nature impassive, and yet, because of the flesh in which It was clothed, this is said about Him, because this is characteristic of the flesh, and the body became the Savior’s own body. And He, being impassive by nature, remains impassive, not suffering harm from this, but even more so destroying and destroying all this; people, since their infirmities passed on to the Impassive and were destroyed, and they themselves become dispassionate and free from infirmities forever, as John teaches, saying: “And you know that He has appeared, that He may take away our sins, and bear no sin in Him” (1 John 3:5). Since this is so, then none of the heretics will cry out, why will flesh, by nature mortal, rise up? Why, if he rises, will he not hunger, thirst, suffer again, and will not remain mortal? Why, although she came from the earth, will what is natural to her cease? Otherwise, the flesh could answer such a stubborn heretic: “Although I am from the earth, mortal by nature, I subsequently became the flesh of the Word, the Word Himself, although He is dispassionate, bore my sufferings, and I became free from them, and was freed from slavery by them by the Lord who freed me from them. If you cry out that I have gotten rid of natural decay; then be careful, don’t even think about crying out at the fact that the Word of God has taken upon Himself my slave image.” Just as the Lord, having put on flesh, became man, we people, perceived by the Word, are adored for the sake of His flesh and already inherit eternal life. 35) We, of necessity, subjected this to preliminary research, so that if we see the Savior doing something divinely or speaking with the instrument of His own body, we would understand that He does this as God; and again, if we see Him speaking humanly or suffering, do not remain ignorant that, having bore flesh on Himself, He became a man and thus does and says this. Knowing what is inherent in both natures, seeing and understanding that both are accomplished by the same thing, we will rightly believe and will never fall into error. If someone, looking at what is divinely accomplished by the Word, denies the body, or, looking at what is characteristic of the body, denies the carnal coming of the Word, or, based on the human actions of the Word, begins to think lowly about Him, then such a one, like a Jewish innkeeper, mixing wine with water, will regard the cross as a temptation, and like a pagan, he will recognize preaching as riotousness. This is what befell the Arians who fought against God. For, looking at the human deeds of the Savior, they considered Him a creature. Therefore, looking at the Divine deeds of the Word, they had to deny the existence of His body and already classify themselves with the Manichaeans. But let them, even if it is too late, understand that “the Word became flesh,” and we, adhering to the goal of faith, recognize as having the correct meaning what they understand poorly. What is said: “The Father loves the Son, and all things are given in His hand” (John 3:35), and: “All things have been handed over to Me by My Father” (Matthew 11:27), and: “I cannot do anything for Myself. As I hear, I judge” (John 5:30), and all such sayings do not show that the Son once did not have this. And why did not what the Father has, eternally one in essence, the Father’s Word and Wisdom, not have the One who says: “all that the Father has is Mine” and Mine belongs to the Father (John 16:15; John 17:10)? If what belongs to the Father also belongs to the Son, and the Father always has it, then it is clear that everything that the Son has, insofar as it belongs to the Father, is always in the Son. So, he said this not because he once did not have it, but because the Son, whatever he has, having it forever, has it from the Father. 36) So that another, seeing the Son as having everything that the Father has, and misled by this indifferent similarity and identity of what he has, does not exalt himself, like Sabellius, and does not consider the Son to be the Father, the Son says: “I was given” (Matthew 28:18), and “I received” (John 10:18), and “The essence was handed over to Me,” showing by this one thing that He is not The Father, but the Father's Word and the eternal Son, who in likeness with the Father eternally has what he has from the Father. Since He is the Son, He has from the Father everything that He has eternally. And that the sayings “given, given” and similar ones do not diminish the Divinity in the Son, on the contrary, they moreover prove that He is truly the Son, this can be learned from these very sayings. For if “all is given over” to Him, then, firstly, He is different from everything that He has received, and then, being the heir of everything, He is the only and in essence the Father’s own Son. And if He were one of all, then He would not be the heir of everything, but each would accept as much as the Father wanted and gave. Now He, accepting everything, is different from everything and the Father’s only own Son. And that the sayings: “given” and “given” and all the like do not show that the Son once did not have, this can be seen from another similar saying. The Savior Himself says: “Just as the Father had life in Himself, so He also gave the Son life in Himself” (John 5:26). By the word “dade” He makes it clear that He is not the Father, and by the word “taco” He shows the natural similarity and unity of the Son with the Father. Therefore, if there was a time when the Father did not have, then it is clear that there was a time when the Son did not have. For as the Father has, so also the Son has. And if it is wicked to say this, it is much more pious to say that the Father always has, then when the Son says that as the Father has, so the Son has, is there anything to do with the heretics asserting that He has not in this way, but in another way? Therefore, the Word is more worthy of faith, and always having everything that He calls Himself received, has it from the Father. The Father has not from anyone, but the Son has from the Father. As in the discussion of radiance, if the radiance itself says: “The light has given me to illuminate every place, and I do not illuminate from myself, but as the light wants it,” then, saying this, it will show not that it once did not have this, but on the contrary the following: “I am the property of the light, and everything that belongs to it is mine,” and so should one imagine about the Son to an even greater extent. The Father, having given everything to the Son, again has everything in the Son. And when the Son has, the Father again has it, because the Divinity of the Son is the Divinity of the Father. Thus, the Father provides for everything in the Son. 37) This is the meaning of sayings like these. As for what was said about the Savior in human terms, this also has a pious meaning. For this is why we entered into the study of such sayings, so that if we hear Him asking where Lazarus lies, and when, having come to the borders of Caesarea, He asks: “Who do men say that I am?” (Matthew 16:13), and: “How much bread do you have?” (Mark 6:38), and: “What do you want that I do to you?” (Matthew 20:32), - from what was said earlier, understand the correct meaning of these sayings and not be tempted like the Arians who fought against Christ. And first of all, these wicked people must be told the following: why do they think that the Savior does not know? He who asks does not certainly ask out of ignorance; on the contrary, the presenter can also be asked about what he knows. And indeed, John is talking about Christ asking: “How much bread do you have?” knew that He was not ignorant, but, on the contrary, knew it. For he says: “This is what he said, tempting Philip: For he himself knew what he wanted to do” (John 6:6). And if he knew what he was doing, then he asked not out of ignorance, but knowing. And similarly, other similar sayings should be understood, namely, when the Lord asked: where does Lazarus lie? or: “whom do men say that I am?” , - he asked not as if he didn’t know, but he knew what he was asking about, knowing “what he wants to do.” And thus, the trick of the heretics is immediately overthrown. If they still persist in reasoning about what Christ asked, then let them hear that in the Divinity there is no ignorance, but the flesh, as it has been said, is characteristic of not knowing. And that this is true, look how the Lord, who asked where Lazarus lay, when he was not yet in place, but was far away, said: “Lazarus will die” (John 11:14), and said where he died. And Whom the heretics regard as not leading, He foreknows the thoughts of the disciples, knows what is in everyone’s heart and what is in man, and what is even more important, He alone knows the Father and says: “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me” (John 14:10). 38) So, isn’t it obvious to everyone that ignorance is characteristic of the flesh, but the Word Himself, since He is the Word, knows everything even before the event. Even when It became human, It did not cease to be God and does not avoid humanity, because It is God. Let this not happen! On the contrary, being God, He took upon Himself flesh and, being in the flesh, deified the flesh. And as he inquired in the flesh, so in it he raised the dead, and showed everyone that He who gives life to the dead and calls upon the soul all the more knows the secrets of all. It knew where Lazarus lay, but it still asked. The All-Holy Word of God, who endured everything for us, did this so that, thus bearing our ignorance on Himself, He would grant us the knowledge of His One true Father and Himself, sent for our sake for the salvation of all, and nothing can be higher than this mercy. Therefore, about the sayings presented by heretics, when the Savior says: “He has given... power” (Matthew 28:18), and: “Glorify Your Son” (John 17:1), and when Peter says: “Dominion has been given to Him” 1, we know that everything is said in the same sense, because all this is said in a human way, because of the body. For although it has no need, it is said, as it were, to those who Himself accepted what He accepted according to humanity, so that again, since the Lord accepts and since the deed rests on Him, grace may remain firm. A simple person, having accepted, can also lose what was accepted, and this became evident in Adam, because he, having accepted, lost. But in order for grace to become inalienable and constantly observed among people, for this He appropriates giving to Himself, like a man, he calls Himself the one who has accepted “power,” which He always has, like God, who glorifies others and says: “Glorify Me,” wanting to show that he has flesh that needs glorification. Therefore, when He receives flesh, since He received flesh in Him, and having received it He became man, He calls Himself as if He had received it. 39) So, if, as has been said more than once, the Word did not become man, then let, according to your words, the Word belongs to both acceptance, and the need for glorification, and ignorance. And if it has become a man (for it really has become), then it belongs to man to both receive and have need and not know. Why do we consider the Giver to be the acceptor, and the one who supplies others, we assume that he has needs, and the Word, as imperfect and having needs, is separated from the Father, and we deprive humanity of grace? If the Word Itself, since It accepts the Word for Its own sake and is glorified, if It is glorified and resurrected according to Divinity, then what hope is there for people? They, as they were, remain naked, and pitiful, and dead, not participating in the least in what was given to the Son. Why did the Word come and “flesh become”? If, in order to accept what It says, It accepted, but did not have it before, then of necessity It must thank the body, because when it became with the body, it then received from the Father, which it did not have before descending into the flesh, and from this it turns out that It Itself was more perfected through the body than the body through Him. But this is Jewish wisdom. And if the Word came to redeem the human race and in order to sanctify and deify people, “the Word became flesh” (for for this reason He became flesh), then to whom is it not already obvious that if He calls Himself having received something when it became flesh, He refers to it not in relation to Himself, but to the flesh? He who calls Himself received Himself in the flesh; flesh and gifts were given through Him by the Father. Let us consider what it was, what He asked Himself, and in general, what He called Himself to have received, so that at least this could put the heretics to shame. So, he asked for glory for himself and said: “all things were given over to me” (Luke 10:22). And after the Resurrection he says that he has received all power. But even before he said: “all things were given over to Me,” he was the Lord of all, for “all things were by Him” (John 1:3), and “there is only one Lord... Who is all things” (1 Cor. 8:6). And asking for glory, the Lord of glory was and is, as Paul says: “Even if they understood, they did not crucify the Lord of glory” (1 Cor. 2:8). For he also had the glory for which he asked, saying: “By the glory which You had before there was no peace” (John 17:5). 40). 18, 19). But what He also called Himself “accepted,” turns out to be what He had before receiving it, because He cast out demons, He Himself resolved what was bound by Satan, as He did this to the daughter Abraham (Luke 13:16); He forgave sins, saying to the paralytic and the woman who anointed his feet: “Your sins are forgiven” (Matt. 9:2, Luke 7:48), raised the dead, renewed the existence of the blind, giving him sight, and did this, not postponing until the time when he accepted, but as a ruler. Why, from this it is clear that having become man and after the Resurrection, the very thing that He had as the Word, calls Himself assumed by humanity, so that through Him people on earth, as having become partakers of the Divine nature, would finally have power over demons, and in heaven, as freed from corruption, they would reign forever. In general, you need to know that if He calls Himself having received something, He did not receive it as one who did not have it, because the Word, being God, always had it, is now called “Receiving” according to humanity, so that after receiving this flesh in Him from it, it would already remain solid in us. This is the meaning of what Peter said: “receive... from God... honor and glory” (2 Peter 1:17), “by the angel who submitted to Him” (1 Peter 3:22). Just as He inquired according to humanity and resurrected Lazarus according to Divinity, so it is said about Him “receive” according to humanity, but the obedience of the angels proves the Divinity of the Word. 41) Therefore, be silent, God-haters, and do not humiliate the Word, do not take away from Him the Divinity that is one with the Father, as one who needs something, or who does not know, so as not to cast your shortcomings on Christ, as the Jews did when they threw stones at Him. All this does not belong to the Word as the Word, but is characteristic of people. And just as, hearing that He “spit” (John 9:6), “stretched out His hand” (Matthew 8:3), called out to Lazarus, we call these actions, although they were performed with the help of the body, not human, but divine, so, if in the Gospel something human is said about the Savior, then, delving again into the property of the predicate and finding it alien to God, we attribute it not to the Divine Words, but to His humanity. For although “the Word became flesh,” yet infirmities are the property of the flesh, and although the flesh became moved by God in the Word, grace and power belong to the Word. He performed the works of the Father with the help of the flesh, and yet the infirmities of the flesh were also visible in Him. So, He asked and raised Lazarus; objected to the Mother, saying: “My hour has not come” (John. 2:4), and at the same time made water wine, because the true God was in the flesh, and the Word had true flesh. Therefore, by deeds He made Himself known, the Son of God, and His Father, and by the infirmities of the flesh He showed that He bore the true body, and that it was His own. 42) Since this has been made clear, let us examine this saying: “But no one knows about the days or the hour, neither the Angels... nor the Son” (Mark 13:32). For the heretics, most of all remaining in great ignorance of this and being darkened by this meaning, think in this to have a strong pretext for their heresy. But it seems to me that they, presenting this as an excuse and seeking support for themselves in this, are again fighting God like giants. For the Lord of heaven and earth, “to whom all things were” (John 1:3), is judged by them “about the days and the hour,” the omniscient Word is accused by them as not knowing about the days, the Son who knows the Father is called not knowing the hour of the days. Is it possible to say anything more meaningless than this to anyone? Or what madness can be compared with their madness? Everything was produced by the Word: years, and times, and night, and day, and all creation, and the Creator is called not knowing creation! The very connection of speech in the presented place shows that the Son of God knows the “hour” and “day,” although the Arians stumble over ignorance. Having said: “neither the Son,” he describes to the disciples what preceded the day, saying: this and that will happen, “and then... the end” (Matthew 24:14). But He who speaks about the day preceding, He, of course, also knows the day that will appear after the predicted one. And if I did not know the “hour”, I could not mean the previous hour, not knowing when this hour will be. As if someone else, wanting to identify a house or a city to those who do not know, describes what is in front of the house or city; Having denoted all this, he will say: “Then soon the city or house,” then, without a doubt, the denominator knows where this house or city is, and if he did not know, he would not designate what is in front of them, so as not to lead the listeners too far out of ignorance, or, in saying this, not to make a mistake and not be deceived in the designation, so the Lord, speaking about the previous “day” and “hour”, knew exactly and cannot but have knowledge of when this “hour” and “day” will come. 43) Why, knowing it, didn’t he tell the disciples clearly then? No one should inquire about what He himself kept silent about. “Who understands the mind of the Lord, or who is His counselor?” (Rom. 11:34). Why, knowing, did he say that the Son also did not know? It is known, I think, to every believer that he said this not for any other reason, but as a man because of the flesh. This is not a deficiency of the Word, but it is human nature not to know. And this again can be fully understood if anyone with a good conscience examines the time when and to whom the Savior said this. So, He said this not when He brought heaven into being, not when the Word arranged everything with the Father Himself, and not before He became man, but when “the Word became flesh.” Therefore, everything that the Word, after becoming a man, speaks in a human way, is rightly attributed to humanity. For it is characteristic of the Word to know created things and not to be ignorant of their beginning and end, because creation is His work. And the Word knows how many creatures It has produced, and how long they will exist. Knowing the beginning and end of every creature, without a doubt, he knows the decisive and general end of everything. Speaking in the Gospel about Himself according to humanity: “Father, the hour has come: glorify Your Son” (John 17:1), of course, as the Word knows the hour of the general end, but it does not know like a person, because it is human nature not to know, especially not to know this. But this ignorance was also adopted by the Savior out of love for mankind, for when the Lord became man, because of the flesh that does not know, He was not ashamed to say about Himself: “I don’t know,” wanting to show that, knowing as God, He does not know according to the flesh. He did not say: neither does the Son of God know, lest the Divinity be ignorant, but he simply says “neither the Son,” so that ignorance would apply to the Son of Man. 44) Therefore, speaking about the angels, he does not extend higher and did not “speak nor the Holy Spirit,” but remained silent, thereby making a twofold indication that if he knows the Spirit, much more as the Word, he knows the Word, from whom the Spirit also receives (John 16:14), and that, by keeping silent about the Spirit, he makes clear what he said about His human ministry: “neither the Son.” To prove that what was said, “neither the Son ... the message” refers to humanity, it shows together that according to Divinity He knows everything. For about the same Son, about whom he said that he does not know the day, he says that he knows the Father. “Neither the Father,” it is said, “who knows, but only the Son” (Matthew 11:27). Everyone, except the Arians, will agree that He who knows the Father, even more so, knows everything concerning creation, and among all, its end. And if the day and hour have already been determined by the Father, then it is clear that they were determined through the Son, and the Son knows what is determined through Him. For there is nothing that came into being and was determined not through the Son. Consequently, the Son, being the Creator of everything, knows what, in what number and for how long, according to the will of the Father, creatures received existence, in what and when their change will take place. Also, if everything that belongs to the Father also belongs to the Son (as the Son Himself said - (John 16:15)), and it belongs to the Father to know the day, then it is clear that the Son also knows, and this having actually belonged to Himself from the Father. And again, if the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son, and the Father knows the day and the hour, then it is clear that the Son who is in the Father and knows what is in the Father, Himself knows the day and the hour. If also the Son is the true Image of the Father, and the Father knows both the day and the hour, then it is clear that the Son, by this knowledge, is likened to the Father. And it is not surprising if He, “in whom all things were” and in whom “all things are made” (Col. 1:17), knows the things created and when the end of each thing and everyone in general is. But the surprising thing is that we were forced to defend such a truth by this recklessness, truly befitting only the madness of the Arians. For, counting the ever-present Word of the Son of God among the created things, they will soon learn to affirm that the Father Himself is less than creation. If He who knows the Father does not know the day and hour, then I am afraid that these madmen will say that knowledge of the creature, and even of a small part of the creature, is more important than knowledge of the Father. 45) But let them, uttering such blasphemy against the Spirit, remain in the expectation that, as the Lord said, they will never receive remission of this wickedness (Matthew 12:31). We, as Christ-loving and Christ-bearing people, know that the Word said I do not know, not attributing ignorance to Himself as the Word, because It knows, but pointing to humanity, because it is human nature not to know; and since it put on ignorant flesh, while remaining in it, in relation to the flesh it said: “I don’t know.” So, having said then: neither does the Son know, and presenting the ignorance of people under Noah as an example, the Lord immediately added: “Beware, for you also do not know at what hour your Lord will come” (Matthew 24:42), and again: “at that hour do not forget, the Son of man will come” (Matthew 24:44). For your sake, having become like you, I said: “no Son.” And if I didn’t know from the Divinity, then I should have said “watch,” because I don’t know and I don’t expect it at what hour. But the Lord did not say this, saying: “You don’t know” and “in the room... “do not think”, showed that it is characteristic of people not to know, for whose sake He, having similar flesh with them and becoming a man, says: neither does the Son know, for he does not know in the flesh, although he knows as the Word. And the example of those who lived under Noah again exposes the shamelessness of the anti-Christ fighters, because here too he did not say about himself: I did not know, but he says: “You will not be taken away until the water comes” (Matthew 24:39). People did not know, but Who brought the flood (it was the Savior Himself), He knew the day and hour in which he opened the abyss of heaven, and opened up the depths, and said to Noah: come in, you and your sons, “into the ark” (Gen. 6:18, Gen. 7:1). If I didn’t know, I wouldn’t have predicted to Noah: “In yet...seven more days I will bring a flood on the earth” (Gen. 7:4). If he denotes the day by the image of what was under Noah, and knew the day of the flood, then, of course, he knows the day of His coming. 46) And having told the parable of the virgins, he showed even more clearly who they are who do not know the day and the hour, when he says: “Watch for you, for you do not know the hour of the day” (Matthew 25:13). Shortly before this he said: “no one knows... not the Son,” but now he didn’t say: “and I don’t know,” but says: you “know not.” Consequently, when the disciples asked about the death, He said well: “neither the Son,” because of the body in relation to the flesh, wanting to show that he does not know as a person, because it is common for people not to know. If He is the Word, and He Himself is coming, the Judge Himself, the Bridegroom Himself, then He knows when and at what hour He will come and when He will say: “Arise, sleep, and rise from the dead, and Christ will illuminate you” (Eph. 5:14). Just as, having become a man, He hungers and thirsts and suffers with men, so with men He does not know as a man, but through the Divinity, as through the Father, He knows the existing Word and Wisdom, and nothing is hidden from His knowledge. So again, according to humanity, He inquires about Lazarus, He who came to resurrect him and knows from where he will call the soul of Lazarus; but to know where the soul was is more important than to know where the body lay. He asked according to humanity in order to resurrect according to Divinity. So he asks the disciples who came “to the countries of Caesarea,” although he knew Petrov’s answer before. For if the Father revealed to Peter what the Lord asked about, it is clear that the revelation was through the Son, for it is said: “No one knows the message of the Son but the Father: neither the Father... but the Son, and whatsoever the Son wills, reveal it” (Matthew 11:27). If the knowledge of the Father and the Son is revealed through the Son, then there is no doubt that the questioning Lord, having first revealed to Peter from the Father, subsequently asked according to humanity, thereby wanting to show that, asking according to the flesh, he knows from the Divine what Peter will say. So, the Son knows, because he knows everything, knows His Father, and nothing can be higher and more perfect than this knowledge. 47) Although this is enough to expose heretics, in order to further show them as enemies of truth and opponents of Christ, it is advisable for me to ask in turn. The Apostle in his second letter to the Corinthians says: “Before he was fourteen years old, a man knew about Christ; if in the body, we did not know; if apart from the body, we did not know; God knows” (2 Cor. 12:2). So what do you say? Did the apostle know what happened to him in the vision, although he says “we don’t know”, or “didn’t know”? If you didn’t know, then take care that you, having learned to fall, do not fall into the lawlessness of the frigs, who say that the Prophets and other servants of the Word do not know what they do or proclaim anything. If, when he said “we do not know,” the apostle knew because he had Christ within himself, revealing everything to him, then is not the heart of those who oppose Christ truly corrupted and self-condemned? About the Apostle, when he says “I don’t know,” they claim that he knows, but about the Lord, when he says “I don’t know,” they claim that he doesn’t know. If Paul, because Christ was in him, also knows what he says “we do not know,” then how much more does Christ Himself know, although he says “we do not know.” The Apostle, since the Lord reveals to him, knows what happened to him, and therefore says “man knows about Christ”; knowing a person, he also knows how this person was caught up. Thus, Elisha saw and knew how Elijah was taken. But knowing that when the sons of the prophets began to think that Elijah had been cast down by the Spirit “one of the mountains,” he first assured them of what he had seen and knew; when they began to force him, he fell silent and agreed that they should go in search (2 Kings 2:12, 15–18). Really, since he fell silent, he didn’t know? He knew, of course, but he agreed as if he did not know, so that once they were convinced, they would no longer doubt about the capture of Elijah. Moreover, Paul, being himself caught up, knew how he was taken away, because Elijah also knew and, if anyone had asked, would have said how he was taken away. However, Paul says “we do not know”, I think, for two reasons: firstly, as he himself said, “lest by the abundance of revelation any one should honor him more than he who sees him” (2 Cor. 12:6, 7), and secondly, since the Savior said “we do not know”, and it was fitting for Paul to say “we do not know”, so as not to appear to the servant above his Master and to the disciple above the Teacher ( Matthew 10:24). 48) Consequently, He who gave knowledge to Paul knew much more Himself. For speaking of what precedes the day, as stated above, He knew when it was day and when it was. However, knowing, he says: neither does the Son know. Why then did He call Himself ignorant of what He knew as the Lord? As much as researchers need to resort to guesswork, I think that the Lord did this for our benefit. He Himself gives to my assumption the meaning of truth. In both cases, the Savior observed what was beneficial for us, because He made it known that He would meet before the end, so that, as He Himself said, we would not be amazed at these events and not be horrified by them (Matthew 24:6), but based on them we would expect the end that would follow. But about the day and hour He did not deign to say “I know” from the Divinity, but because of the ignorant flesh, as noted above, He said “We do not know,” so that no questions would be asked of Him yet, and then He either should not sadden the disciples by not saying, or by saying, not doing something that would not be useful to them and all of us. For whatever He does, it is all, without a doubt, for us, since for our sake “the Word became flesh.” Therefore, for our sake, he said: neither does the Son know. And he did not lie when he said this, because as a human being he said: I don’t know, and he did not allow the disciples to force an answer from Him, because by saying “I don’t know” he stopped their question. In the Acts of the Apostles it is written that when “he ascended upon the angels” (Psalm 17:11), ascending as a man and lifting up to heaven the flesh that he bore on himself, when the disciples, seeing this, again asked whether the end would be soon and whether it would come soon, then he said to them more clearly: “You cannot understand the times and years which the Father has set in His power” (Acts 1:7). He did not say then, “neither the Son,” as he had said before in humanity, but “not yours to understand,” because His flesh was already resurrected, having put aside deadness and deified, and it was fitting for Him ascending into heaven to answer not according to the flesh, but to teach, finally, according to the Divine: “to understand the times and years which the Father has laid down in His power: but receive the power.” What is the Father's Power, besides the Son? For Christ “is the mighty power of God, and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:24). 49) So He, being the Word, knew. For in saying this, he made it clear: I know, but “there is nothing to understand” for you, and sitting on the mountain, he said: I according to the flesh “does not know ... and the Son,” meaning your and the common benefit of all. For it is useful for you to hear this about the angels and about the Son, because of the deceivers who will be after this, so that when the demons are transformed into angels and intend to talk about the end, you do not believe them, because they do not know, and when The Antichrist, taking on a feigned appearance, will say: “I am Christ,” and to deceive those listening, he will also attempt to talk about the day and the end, and they did not believe him, remembering My word “neither the Son.” Moreover, not knowing when the end or when the day of death is useful for people, so that, knowing, they do not become careless about the current time in anticipation of the days close to the end and do not have an excuse that only then will they take care of themselves. Therefore, he kept silent about the death of everyone, so that, under the pretext of knowledge, people would not become arrogant and begin to neglect themselves most of the time. Thus, the Word hid from us both, both the end of everything and the limit of each (because the end of each is connected to the common end, and the common end approaches the end of each), so that, since the end is unknown and constantly expected, every day we, as those called, would advance, “stretching out to the things that are before, but forgetting the things behind” (Philippians 3:13). For who, knowing the day of death, will not ignore the current time? Without knowing this day, will it not be necessary to prepare every day? Therefore, the Savior added this to what was said, saying: “Beware, for you do not know at what hour your Lord will come” (Matthew 24:42), and: “Do not forget the hour, the Son of man will come” (Luke 12:40). Therefore, he said this because of the benefit of such ignorance; for he says this for the purpose that we should always be ready. You, he says, do not know, but I, the Lord, know when I will come, although the Arians do not expect Me, the Father’s Word. 50) So, the Lord, knowing better than us what was good for us, warned the disciples with this, and they, realizing this, corrected those Thessalonians who were ready to sin in this (2 Thessalonians 2:2). But since the anti-Christ fighters are not brought to shame by this, then, although I know that their hearts are harder than Pharaoh’s, I nevertheless want to ask them about this as well. God asks in paradise, saying: “Adam, where are you?” (Gen. 3:9), Cain also asks: “Where is Abel, your brother?” (Gen. 4:9), so what do you say about this? If you believe that God does not know and therefore asks, then you are already joining the Manichaeans, because such a daring thought belongs to them. If, fearing the obvious name of Manichaeans, you force yourself to say that he is asking, knowing what incongruity or strangeness you can notice in the fact that the Son, through whom God then inquired, this I say, the Son and now, clothed with flesh, as a man inquires of the disciples. Do you really want, having become Manichaeans, to condemn the question given to Adam then, just to have an opportunity to boast about your evilness? Convicted of everything, you still grumble because of what was said in Luke, although it was said well, but you understand poorly. What exactly needs to be offered here, so that the corrupt mind of the heretics can be seen in this too. 51) So, Luke says: “And Jesus excelled in wisdom and stature and grace with God and man” (Luke 2:52). This is the saying. But since the Arians find offense in this too, it is necessary to ask them again, like the Pharisees and Sadducees, who is Luke talking about? Let us ask this: Is Jesus Christ a man, like all other men, or God, bearing flesh? If He is an ordinary man, like other people, then let him prosper just like a man. This, of course, is the wisdom of Samosatsky, which you also essentially adhere to, but only deny the name for the sake of human rumor. And if He is God, bearing flesh on Himself (as in fact), and “the Word became flesh,” and, being God, descended to earth, then what success did He who is equal to God have? Or where, having begun, did the Son, who always exists in the Father, grow? If He who is in the Father always succeeds, what is greater than the Father, in what should the Son succeed? Then it will be good to say here the same thing that was said about acceptance and glorification. If He succeeded, becoming a man, then it is clear that until He became a man, He was imperfect, and the flesh became the cause of His perfection rather than He the cause of the perfection of the flesh. And again, if, being the Word, he succeeds, then how can he become greater than the Word, Wisdom, Son, God's power? But the Word is all this, and whoever can become any partaker of this, like a ray, becomes the most perfect man and equal to the angels. For the angels, and the archangels, and the dominions, and all the powers, and the thrones, through communication with the Word, “behold” (Matthew 18:10) the face of His Father. How then does He who bestows perfection on others succeed after them? Angels also served at His human birth, and what Luke said is said after the ministry of the angels. How can this even occur to a person? Or how did Wisdom succeed in wisdom? How did He who gives grace to others (about which Paul, knowing that grace is given to Him, says in every epistle: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all”) Himself abounds in grace? Either let them say that the apostle lied, or let them dare to assert that the Son is not Wisdom. And if He is Wisdom, as Solomon said and Paul wrote: “Christ is with God, I am the mighty God, and I am the Wisdom of God,” then what success did Wisdom allow? 52) People, being creatures, can stretch forward and advance in virtue. So, Enoch was “cut down quickly” (Heb. 11:5), and Moses, growing, became perfect, and Isaac, advancing, became great, and the apostle said about himself that every day he “stretches into the foreground” (Phil. 3:13). For everyone had something to excel in, depending on the degree set before him. But the Son of God as one, to what could he reach? Everything succeeds, looking at Him, but He Himself is one in the One Father and no longer extends from Him, but always abides in Him. Therefore, it is common for people to excel, but the Son of God, since He has nothing to excel in, being perfect in the Father, humbled Himself for our sake, so that through His humility we could grow even more, and our growth consists in nothing other than moving away from the sensory and approaching the Word Himself, because His humility is nothing other than the perception of our flesh. Therefore, it was not the Word that prospered, since He is the Word, perfect from the perfect Father, having no need for anything, but also leading others to prosperity, but even here it is called prospering according to humanity, because prosperity is also characteristic of people. And the Evangelist, speaking with strict caution, added “age” to prosperity. The Word and God are not measured by age, but ages belong to bodies, therefore, prosperity also belongs to the body. As the body prospered, the appearance of the Divine also prospered in it for those who saw it. And to the extent that the Divinity was revealed, grace increased more and more for all people, as in man. Being a baby, He was carried, becoming a youth, He remained in the church and asked the priests about the Law, and as the body gradually grew and the Word revealed Himself in it, first Peter, and then everyone, confessed that “truly God” He is the “Son”, although the Jews, both the ancients, and these new ones voluntarily close their eyes and do not want to see that to advance in wisdom, otherwise This means that it is as if Wisdom itself is succeeding, but rather that humanity is succeeding in wisdom. “And Jesus abounded in wisdom... and grace.” If it is necessary to express it truly and clearly, then Jesus excelled in Himself, because “Wisdom created for Herself a house” (Proverbs 9:1), and made the house prosper through Her. 53) What kind of prosperity is being spoken about? Isn’t it about that deification and isn’t it about that grace which, as noted above, after the destruction of sin in people and the corruption that was in them, in the likeness and affinity with the flesh of the Word, is taught to them by Wisdom? So, when the body grew over the years, the appearance of the Divine in it corresponded to this, and it became clear to everyone that this was God’s church and that God was in the body. If they insist that the Word made flesh is called Jesus, and they begin to refer to Him what was said “more than excelled,” then let them hear that this does not diminish the Father’s light (because the Son is the Father’s light), but shows again that the Word became man and bore true flesh. And just as we said that the Word suffered in the flesh, hungered in the flesh and was toil in the flesh, so we can rightly say that He prospered in the flesh, because the Word was not outside when this happened, whatever the prosperity we said was. In the Word there was flesh that prospered and is called the flesh of the Word. And this again so that human progress, due to the coexistence of the Word, remains infallible. So, this is not the advancement of the Word, Wisdom was not flesh, but the flesh became the body of Wisdom. Therefore, as we have already said, not Wisdom, since She is Wisdom, excelled in Herself, but humanity excelled in wisdom, gradually rising above human nature, adoring, becoming and becoming for you the organ of Wisdom for the effectiveness of the Divinity and His radiance. That is why the Evangelist did not say: the Word prospered, but “Jesus prospered,” and by this name the Lord was called, having become a man. And thus, prosperity, as we said above, belongs to human nature. 54) Therefore, just as with the progress of the flesh, the Lord Himself is called progressing, because the body actually belonged to Him, so what is said regarding the time of death, that the Lord was indignant and cried, must be taken in the same sense. For the heretics, rushing here and there, and on this, as if again building up their heresy, say: I wept and said: “Now my soul is troubled” (John 12:27), and prayed, “let ... the cup pass by” (Matthew 26:39), why, if He said this, is He God and the Father’s Word? So, it is written, the God-fighters, who cried and said “be indignant,” and on the cross said: “Eloi, Eloi, l and ma savahoani? there is... My God, My God, you have forsaken Me everywhere” (Mk. 15:34. Matt. 27:46), I also prayed that “let... the cup pass by,” and this is written. But I would also like you to give an answer. For each of your objections must be countered with the same. If the Speaker is a simple man, then let him cry and fear death like a man. If He is the Word in the flesh (it is not burdensome for us to always repeat the same thing), then why should He, God, be afraid? Or why was he afraid of death, being himself life and saving others from death? Or why, when he said: “Do not be afraid from those who kill the body” (Luke 12:4), did you yourself fear? Why did the One who says to Abraham: “Do not be afraid, for I am with You” (Gen. 26:24, Isa. 43:5), and encourages Moses to courage before Pharaoh, and says to Joshua: “Be strong and take courage” (Joshua 1:6), Himself came to fear from Herod and Pilate? Moreover, having become a helper to others, so that they would not have fear (for it is said: “The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear: what can man do to me?” (Psalm 117:6), He himself became afraid of the rulers, mortal men, and, having voluntarily come to death, was afraid of death? Is it consistent with anything and is it not wicked to say that He was afraid of death or hell, Whom “he saw... the gate... feared hell" (Job. 38, 17)? If, according to your words, the Word was afraid, then why, long before this, speaking about the evil intentions of the Jews, It did not escape by flight, but when they were looking for it, said: “I am” (John 18, 5)? the region of the imam will accept you again”, and: “no one will take it from Me” (John 10:18). 55) On the contrary, it was not the nature of the Word as the Word, the Christ-fighters and ungrateful Jews, to fear, but the Word was in the flesh, subject to fear. And this was not said about the Word before He took on flesh, but when “the Word became flesh” and became a man, then this was written in relation to humanity. There is no doubt that about Whom this is written, He raised Lazarus from the dead, made water into wine, gave sight to the one who was born blind and said: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). So, if heretics present human properties as an excuse to think lowly about the Son of God, or better yet, consider Him to be a completely earthly and not heavenly man, then why don’t they recognize the Word that is in the Father from the works of God and finally renounce their wickedness? For they can see why the Creator of deeds is the same One who reveals the suffering body, allowing it to cry, and hunger, and reveal in itself what is characteristic of the body. Through similar things, He made it known that He is an impassive God and took upon Himself the flesh that suffers, and through His deeds He proved that He is God’s Word, who later became man, and said: “If you do not believe Me, seeing Me clothed in a human body, believe by My work: that you may understand... that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me” (John 10:38). But the shamelessness and blasphemy of the anti-Christ fighters seem very great to me. Hearing: “I and the Father are one,” they try to reinterpret the meaning and dissolve the unity of the Father and the Son, and hearing that he cried, shed sweat, and suffered, they do not pay attention to the body, but for this reason they classify among the creatures the One by whom the creature came into being. How, finally, do these heretics differ from the Jews? Just as they blasphemously attributed the works of God to Beelzebub, so they, counting the Lord who performed these deeds among the creatures, will suffer the same merciless condemnation as the Jews. 56) But they, hearing “I and the Father are one,” should have seen the one Divinity and characteristic of the Father’s essence, and hearing: “he wept” and the like, should have called this characteristic of the body, especially since in both of them they have good reason to recognize one thing written about Him as about God, and the other said because of His human body. The Incorporeal One would not have what is characteristic of the body if He had not taken upon Himself a corruptible and mortal body. For Saint Mary was mortal, from whom the body came. And therefore, when He was in a suffering body, capable of crying and getting tired, then it became necessary that, along with the body, that which actually belongs to the flesh should be attributed to Him. So, if He wept and was indignant, then it was not the Word as the Word who wept and was indignant, but this was characteristic of the flesh; if he prayed, “let the cup pass by,” then it was not the Divine that was afraid, but this weakness was also characteristic of humanity. And the words “Where have you left Me?” , according to what was said above, again, although he did not suffer at all (because the Word was dispassionate), the Evangelists attributed it to Him. For the Lord became man; and this is done and said by Him as a man, so that He Himself, having alleviated these sufferings of the flesh, would make the flesh free from them. Therefore, the Lord, who always exists in the Father, cannot be abandoned by the Father, both before he spoke this and after he uttered these words. But it is impermissible to say again that the Lord feared Him, of whom, fearing, “the gates... of hell” gave freedom to those who were kept in hell, “and the tombs were opened: and many bodies... of the saints rose up... and appeared to their own” (Matthew 27, 52, 53). So, let every heretic be silent and be afraid to say that he had a fear of the Lord, from whom death flees like a serpent, before whom demons tremble, of whom the sea fears, for whom the heavens open and all forces waver. For now, when He says: “Where you have forsaken Me,” the Father shows that, as always, so at this time He was in Him. because the earth, knowing the Lord who was speaking, immediately shook, the curtain was torn, the sun was hidden, the stones were scattered, the tombs, as said above, were opened, and the dead who were in them arose, and, most amazing of all, those present, who had previously denied Him, when they saw this, confess that “truly this is the Son of God” (Matthew 27:54). 57) In considering what He said: “If it is possible to eat, let the cup pass by” (Matthew 26:39), pay attention to why He who said this in a different case reproached Peter: “Think not the things of God, but of men” (Matthew 16:23). What he asked for to be cancelled, he wanted it himself, and that’s what he came for. But just as it was natural for Him to want this, because this is what He came for, so it was natural for the flesh to fear; why did He say these words as a man? And again, this and that were said by Him as proof that He was God, He Himself wanted this, but, having become a man, began to have terrible flesh, and because of it He dissolved His will with human weakness, so that, having also destroyed this, He would again make man not afraid of death. This is a truly extraordinary thing! Whom Christ's opponents consider to speak out of fear, He, through imaginary fear, made people courageous and unafraid. And the blessed apostles after Him, as a result of these words, begin to despise death so much that they do not pay attention to their judges, but say: “It is fitting to obey God rather than man” (Acts 5:29). Other holy martyrs were so unafraid that they could rather be considered as passing into life than undergoing death. So, is it not an obvious incongruity to be surprised at the courage of the servants of the Word and attribute fear to the Word Himself, by whose power they too despised death? The very firm determination and courage of the holy martyrs proves that it was not the Divine who had fear, but the Savior took away our fear. For just as death brought everything human into inaction through His humanity, so through imaginary fear He took away our fear and made people no longer afraid of death. That’s why I said and did this together. It was common for humanity to say: “let the cup pass by”, and: “thou hast forsaken Me”; and according to God He made the sun darken and the dead rise. And again, speaking humanly: “Today my soul is troubled,” he said divinely: “the region the imam will lay down my soul, and the region the imam will again accept.” It was natural for the flesh to be indignant, but to have the power to lay down and receive the soul whenever it wants is no longer characteristic of people, but is possible only by the power of the Word. Man dies not by his own power, but by the necessity of nature and against his will; The Lord, Himself being immortal, but having mortal flesh, had the power, as God, to be separated from the body and to take it again when He pleased. David sings about this: “Do not leave My soul in hell, let Thy venerable one see corruption” (Psalm 15:10). It was fitting for corruptible flesh to no longer remain mortal in accordance with its nature, but to remain incorruptible because of the Word clothed in it. Just as It, being in our body, imitated what was characteristic of us, so we, having received It, partake of immortality from Him. 58) Therefore, the Arians in vain pretend to be tempted and think lowly about the Word, if it is written: “were indignant”, and: “wept”. Apparently, they do not have human feelings, not knowing human nature and what is characteristic of people. One should have been more amazed that the Word was in such painful flesh and did not hinder the evildoers, did not punish the murderers, although He who kept others from death and raised the dead from the dead could have done this. On the contrary, the Word allowed His own body to suffer. For this purpose, as I said before, It came in order to suffer in the flesh and finally make the flesh impassive and immortal, so that, as we have repeatedly said, through suffering and everything that happened, in so far as this related to the Word Himself, it would no longer concern people, but would be completely destroyed by Him, and people, as the church of the Word, would remain incorruptible forever. If the anti-Christ fighters had reasoned about this in this way and recognized the church leadership as the anchor of faith, then they would not have been crushed in faith and would not have reached such shamelessness as to resist those who want to restore them from their fall, and, better yet, consider as enemies those who exhort them to piety. But, as can be seen, the heretic has a truly evil heart, corrupted in everything by wickedness. For behold, convicted of everything and, as it turns out, devoid of all meaning, they are not ashamed; but just as the hydra described in Hellenic fables, when its former snakes were killed, gave birth to new ones and stubbornly resisted the mortifier, opposing the newly generated snakes, so these God-fighters and haters, like the hydras, in their souls are mortally affected by everything that they put forward in their defense, invent new Jewish and Boian questions for themselves and, as if at enmity against the truth, invent new ones, just to show themselves to be Christ-fighters in everything. 59) For after so many accusations, in which even their father - the devil - would have turned back, they murmur again, imagining things in their cunning hearts, and with some they whisper, with others, like mosquitoes, they buzz, saying: “Suppose that you interpret it this way, and overcome it with conclusions and arguments; but it must be said that by will and intention the Son came from the Father.” And by protecting themselves with God’s will and will, they deceive many. But if one of the Orthodox believers said this in simplicity, then there would be nothing suspicious in what was said, because the simple-minded utterance of such words would be overcome by Orthodox understanding. Since heretics say this, and heretical speech is suspicious, and, as it is written, “their wickedness is ruled by flattery,” and “their words are flattering” (Proverbs 12:5, 6), even if they made one hint, because they have a corrupt heart, then let us examine what they said and find out whether they, having been convicted of everything, finally, like the hydras, invented a new saying, so that, with such cunning and with his insinuation again sow his wickedness in a different form. Whoever says that the Son came into being by will means the same thing as who says: “It came to pass when the Son was not, and He came into being from something that does not exist, and is a creation.” But since the Arians were ashamed for such speeches, these cunning people set out to express the same thing differently, shielding themselves with desire, like cuttlefish with black moisture, in order to darken the simple-hearted people, and not forget their heresy. Where does this “by will and pleasure” come from? Or from what Scripture are such words quoted? Let these suspicious in their speeches and inventors of evil say so! The Father, revealing His Word from heaven, declared: “This is My beloved Son” (Matthew 3:17); and through David he said: “My heart will vomit out the good Word” (Psalm 44:2), and he commanded John to say: “in the beginning was the Word”; and David, singing, says: “For with You is the fountain of life, in Your light we will see light” (Psalm 35:10); The Apostle writes: “Who is the radiance of glory” (Heb. 1:3); and again: “He who is in the image of God” (Phil. 2:6); and: “Who is the image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15). 60) Everyone and everywhere speaks about the existence of the Word and nowhere about the fact that It is from will, and in general that It was created. Where did the heretics find the will or will that precedes the Word of God? Will they, leaving the Scriptures, hide behind the evil of Valentine? For Ptolemy, a student of the Valentines, said that the Unborn has two inseparably conjugate forces (δύο ζυγοὺς) - thought and will; and first he thought, then he willed; and what I thought, I could not have produced if the power of will had not arisen. And having learned from this, the Arians want the Word to be preceded by will and desire. So, let them compete with Valentine in delusions; and we, reading God’s words, find about the Son: “be”, and we hear that He is alone in the Father and is the Father’s image; about those created alone, because by nature they never existed, but they came up later, we read that they were preceded by desire and will, as David sings in the one hundred and thirteenth psalm: “But our God has created in heaven and on earth everything that He pleases” (Psalm 113:11); and in the one hundred and tenth: “Great is the work of the Lord, perfect in all His will” (Ps. 110, 2); and again in one hundred and thirty-four: “The Lord has created everything that the Lord wills in heaven and on earth, in the seas and in all the abysses” (Psalm 134:6). Therefore, if the Son is a work and a work, and one of all, then let it be said that He, too, was made by will, for, according to Scripture, this is how creatures came into being. And the defender of heresy Asterius, agreeing with this, writes this: “If it is unworthy of the Creator to produce according to His will, then let His will also be taken away from Him in everything, so that His dignity may remain intact. If it is fitting for God to will, then even in the consideration of the first birth, let the most perfect belong to Him. For it is impossible for the will to be attributed to the same God in the reasoning of what is produced, and it is fitting not to will.” Having put into his words the greatest possible evil, namely, that work and birth are one and the same and that the Son is one of all existing births, the sophist concluded that we should say about works: they are by will and will. 61) So, if the Son is different from all, as it was proved before, or rather, the works were accomplished by Him, then let them not say that He also was by will, otherwise He too will happen in the same way as everything that He created happened. For Paul, who did not exist before, later, however, “by the will of God” became an Apostle (1 Cor. 1:1). And our calling, which we once did not have, but have now received, has a will that preceded it, as the same Paul again says: “It came to pass according to the good pleasure of His will” (Eph. 1:5). What Moses said: “let there be light”, and: “let the earth bring forth”, and: “Let us create man” (Gen. 1, 3, 11, 26), I think, as was said above, means the will of the Creator, because the Creator deliberates to create what did not once exist, but comes from outside. But His own Word, begotten of His nature, is not preceded by consultation, because the Father produces everything else about which He deliberates, and through Him He builds, as the Apostle James teaches us, saying: “having willed... give birth to us by the Word of truth” (James 1:18). Therefore, for all those who are regenerated and once brought into being, there is God’s will in the Word, by which God produces and regenerates what He intended. And the Apostle again makes this clear when he writes in Thessalonica: “For this is the will of God in Christ Jesus in you” (1 Thessalonians 5:18). If by Whom he creates, in Him is the will, and in Christ is the will of the Father, then how can Christ Himself happen according to will and will? If He, according to you, came into existence by will, then it is necessary for the will to take place about Him in some other word, by which He is also produced. For it has been proven that the will of God is not in what is brought into being, but in Him by Whom and about Whom all creatures come into being. Moreover, since to say “according to will” means the same thing as “it was, when it was not,” then let them be content with this saying: “it was when it was not,” and being ashamed of the fact that they designate time through this, let them know that by using the word “according to will,” they again suggest that there was time before the Son. For what once was not, as must be said of all creatures, is preceded by a meeting. If the Word is the Creator of creatures, and is itself co-existent with the Father, then can the Ever-Present be preceded by a conference as a non-existent? If counsel precedes Him, then how is it possible for Him to do everything? On the contrary, one of all will be the Son Himself, born of will, just as the Word of truth made us sons; and it is necessary for us, as has been said, to look for another word, by which the Son also received being and was born along with everyone whom God wanted to give birth to. 62) Therefore, if there is another Word of God, then let the Son also be produced by the Word. If there is no other word (as indeed there is no), but everything that was pleasing to the Father received being the Son, then does this not reveal the many-headed cunning of the heretics? Those who are ashamed for calling the Son a work and a creature and for this statement: “There was no Word of God until He was born,” again express differently that the Son is a creature, protecting themselves with the phrase “will” and saying: “If He did not come into being by will, it means that out of necessity and against His will God had a Son.” But who imposes necessity on Him, the deceitful heretics, trying to turn everything in favor of their heresy? You have noticed what is opposite to desire, but you have not noticed what is more important and higher. Just as will is opposed to what is inconsistent with the will, so higher and more primary than free choice is that which is in nature. A man builds a house by free will, but gives birth to a son by nature. And what is arranged according to will has received the beginning of being, and for the creator it is external, and the Son is the own birth of the Father’s essence, not outside the Father. Therefore, the Father does not consult about the Son, otherwise one would have to conclude that He also consults about Himself. So, to the extent that the Son is above creation, in the same way that which is from nature is above will. And the heretics, hearing this, should not have charged that they willed what is of nature, but they, having forgotten that they were hearing about the Son of God, dared to use human antitheses about God: “out of necessity and against the will,” so that they could deny the existence of the true Son of God. Indeed, let them tell us themselves: is God willing or unwilling that He is good and merciful? If by will, then it should be noted that He began to be good and there is a possibility for Him not to be good, because during consultation and election there is an inclination towards both, and this state is characteristic of rational nature. If, due to the incongruity contained in this, God is good and merciful not by will, then let them hear what they themselves said: therefore, He is good by necessity and not by will. Who imposes this necessity on Him? If it is not consistent with anything to attribute necessity to God, and therefore He is good by nature, then much more and with greater certainty by nature, and not by will, He is the Father of the Son. 63) But I intend to propose to their shamelessness a question, although a bold one, however, with the goal of piety (may the Lord have mercy!) Let them also tell us this: the Father himself, having consulted first and then desired, or does he exist before the conference? The heretics who dared to speak in this way about the Word should listen to this too and understand from this that such insolence concerns the Father Himself. So, if, having once decided forever to talk about volition, they say that the Father is the result of volition, then what was He before the meeting? Or what more did you begin to have, as you say, after a meeting? If such a question is absurd and untenable, and in general, it is impermissible to even say anything like that (for when we hear about God, it is enough for us to know and imagine in our minds only the fact that He is “He is”), then wouldn’t it be unreasonable to think in a similar way about the Word and put on display “will and will”? For when we hear about the Word, it is enough for us to know and imagine only one thing, that God who exists not by will, not by will, but by nature, has his own Word. Is it not beyond all madness to even think that God Himself deliberates, reflects, chooses and motivates Himself to the decree not to be without the Word and Wisdom, but to have the Word and Wisdom? He who deliberates about Him Who is actually from His essence, apparently consults about Himself. Therefore, there is a lot of blasphemy in such wisdom, but it would be pious to say that created beings came into existence by good will and will, and the Son is not a creature of the will that has risen, like a creature, but his own birth of the essence by nature. For, being the Father’s own Word, He does not allow one to think about any desire that preceded Him, because He Himself is the Father’s advice, the Father’s power and the Creator of what is pleasing to the Father. And this is what He Himself says about Himself in Proverbs: “My advice and confirmation, My understanding, My strength” (Proverbs 8:14). Just as He Himself is the mind for which the heavens have prepared, and He Himself is strength and strength, because “Christ is the power of God and I am the Wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:24), but now, turning the speech, he said: “My mind and my ... strength”; so, saying: “My council,” He Himself is the living Father’s council, as we were taught by the prophet, that He becomes the Angel of “great counsel” (Isa. 9:6), and He is called the Father’s will (Isa. 62:4). Thus it is necessary to denounce heretics who represent what is human about God. 64) So, if creatures came into being by will and good will, and all creation received being by will, and Paul “by the will of God” was called “messenger” (Eph. 1:1), and our calling was by good will and will (Eph. 1:9), and yet received being by the Word, then the Word consists of those who received being by will; it is better to say, It Himself is the living Father advice by which “all... was”, to which Saint David, thanking, said in the seventy-second psalm: “Thou hast restrained my hand on my right hand, and with Thy counsel thou hast instructed me” (Psalm 73:23, 24). How can the Word, being the advice and will of the Father, Himself, like every creature, come into being according to will and desire? Will the heretics, according to what was said before, in their madness say again that the Word was produced by Itself or by some other word? Therefore, by whom did It come into being? Let them invent another word and, competing with Valentin’s teaching, name another Christ. It's not in Scripture. But if they invent another word, then, without a doubt, it comes into being by someone. And finally, when we reason in this way and seek the consequences, a multi-headed heresy of the atheists opens before us, falling into polytheism and immeasurable madness, according to which the heretics, wishing that the Son was a creature and one that does not exist, express the same thing differently, covering themselves with the words: “will and will,” which can most thoroughly be used about created things and about created things. So, isn’t it impious to attribute created beings to the Creator? Is it not blasphemous to say that in the Father there is will before the Word? If will in the Father precedes, then the Son does not say the truth: “I am in the Father” (John 14:10). Or, if He is also in the Father, but will be considered the second, then it was indecent for Him to say about Himself: “I am in the Father,” when before Him there was a will, by which “all ... was” and, according to your words, the Son Himself took place. For although He is distinguished by glory, nevertheless, nevertheless, He is one of those who received being by will. But in this case, as we said before, why is He the Lord and others are slaves? And He is the Lord of all, because He is in unity with the Lordship of the Father; and the creature, without a doubt, is a slave, because it is outside of unity with the Father and, having never existed, came into being. 65) But the heretics, saying that the Son received being by will, should have said: and by understanding, because understanding and will, as I think, are one and the same. He who deliberates about something understands it, and whatever he understands, he consults about it. The Savior Himself correlatively combined both of them together as related, saying: “My advice and confirmation, My understanding, My strength” (Proverbs 8:14). Just as strength and affirmation are one and the same thing, because it is strength itself, so it is the same thing to say that there is reason and advice, because this is the Lord. But the wicked do not agree that the Son is the Word and living counsel; They say about God that reason, and advice, and wisdom exist in Him in a human way, as an accidental state that sometimes has no place; and they set everything in motion and expose “thought and will” with Valentin, just to separate the Son from the Father and say that He is not the Father’s own Word, but a creature. And let them hear something similar to what was said to Simon the sorcerer: the wickedness of Valentinus be with you “to destruction” (Acts 8:20). Let each of us better believe Solomon, who says that the Word Itself is wisdom and understanding; for it is said: “God is the foundation of the earth with wisdom, but the heavens are prepared with understanding” (Proverbs 3:19). And as it is said here: “by reason,” so in the psalms: “The heavens were established by the Word of the Lord” (Psalm 33:6). And just like the heavens with the Word, so “create everything that you please” (Psalm 134:6); just as the Apostle writes to the Thessalonians: “This is the will of God in Christ Jesus” (1 Thessalonians 5:18). Therefore, the Son of God Himself is Word and Wisdom, Himself reason and living counsel; in Him is the will of the Father, He is the truth, light and power of the Father. If the will of God is wisdom and understanding; Likewise, the Son is wisdom, then he who asserts that the Son received being by will, affirms at the same time that Wisdom was produced by wisdom, the Son was created by the son, the Word was created by the word. And this is contrary to God and contrary to His Scriptures. For the Apostle preaches that the Son is his own radiance and the image not of will, but of the Father’s very essence, saying: “Who is the radiance of glory and the image of His hypostasis” (Heb. 1:3). If, as we said above, the Father’s essence and hypostasis are not from will, then clearly, that which constitutes the property of the Father’s hypostasis is also not from will. For as this blessed hypostasis is and is, so should Her own Birth be. And the Father Himself did not say: This is the Son who came into being according to My will, or: the Son whom I have according to my good pleasure, but simply says: “My Son,” and moreover: “In Him I was pleased,” showing by this that He is the Son by nature, but in Him My will is pleasing to Me. 66) Since the Son is by nature, and not by will, is He really unwanted by the Father and contrary to the Father’s will? No way; on the contrary, the Son is desirable to the Father, and, as He Himself says, “The Father... loves the Son, and shows Him all things” (John 5:20). Just as God, although he did not begin to be good by will, is nevertheless good not against his will and will; for as He is, that is what He desires; so also this, that He is the Son, although it did not begin by will, yet did not begin against the desire and will of God. Just as God desires His own hypostasis, so His own Son, who exists from His essence, is not undesirable to Him. So, let the Son be desired and loved by the Father. So let them reason piously about the will of God and about what is not contrary to God’s will. For the Son, by the same will as the Father wills, He Himself loves, and wills, and honors the Father, and there is one will that is in the Son from the Father; why from this it can be seen that the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son. Therefore, no one, in agreement with Valentinus, introduces a previous will and, under the pretext of wanting, let him not set himself up as a mediator between the one Father and the one Word. For he is foolish who puts will and counsel between the Father and the Son. It is another thing to say: He came into being by will, and another thing to say: he loves and desires the Son as his own by nature. To say: He came into existence by will means, firstly, to assume that He did not once exist; and then, according to what has been said, admit that an inclination towards both is possible; why might another think that God might not want the Son. But to say about the Son: he might not have existed is an evil impudence that extends to the Father’s essence. If we say that what actually belonged to this essence might not have existed, then this means the same as saying that the Father might not have been good. But just as the Father is always good by nature, so the Parent is always by nature. The words: the Father wants the Son, and the Word wants the Father, do not indicate the previous desire, but make it clear the sincerity of nature, properties and similarity of essence. How can one say about radiance and light that radiance does not have a previous will in the light, but is by nature a birth, willed by the light that gave birth to it, not by the deliberation of the will, but by nature and in reality: thus, it would be correct to say about the Father and the Son that the Father loves and wants the Son, and the Son loves and wants the Father. 67) Therefore, let not the Son be called a creature of the will, and let not Valentinian concepts be introduced into the Church, but let the Son be called a living council and truly begotten by nature, like the radiance of light. So the Father said: “My heart will vomit the Word of goodness”; and according to this the Son says: “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me.” If the word is in the heart, then where is the will? And if the Son is in the Father, where is the will? And if He Himself is the will, then what is the advice in the will? This is absurd: otherwise, as has been said repeatedly, there will be Word in Word, Son in Son, Wisdom in Wisdom; because the Father's Son is all these things. And there is nothing in the Father before the Word, but in the Word both the will and by Him the wills of the Father are accomplished in practice, as the Divine Scriptures show. But I would like that the wicked, who have fallen to such an extent into foolishness and talk about desire, no longer ask their wives who are giving birth, as they asked them before, saying: “Did you have a son before you gave birth?” - but to ask the fathers: “Are you fathers only from your own will or by the nature of your desire?” Also: “Are your children similar to your nature and your essence”? Then, perhaps, their parents, from whom they sought a solution to the problem of birth and from whom they hoped to receive knowledge, would have put them to shame. Their parents would answer them: “What we give birth to is not our will, but like us; and we become parents not only as a result of our intention, but to give birth is inherent in nature, just as we ourselves are the image of those who gave birth to us.” Therefore, let the heretics either condemn themselves and stop asking wives about the Son of God, or let them understand that a son is not born by desire, but by nature and reality. It is fitting for these wise men to have such a reproof taken from people, because they also talk about the Divine in a human way. Therefore, why are the anti-Christ fighters still going crazy? And about this, as about their other objections, it has been proven and discovered that this is only a dream and a fable. And therefore, although it was too late to see into what rapids of unreason they had fallen, they must, according to our admonition, turn back and flee from the devil’s snare. For the humane Truth always cries out: “If you do not believe in Me, because of the covering of the body, believe in deeds: that you may understand... that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me,” and: “I and the Father are one,” and: “he who has seen Me has seen the Father.” But although the Lord is characterized by love for mankind and He desires to “raise up all the downtrodden” (Psalm 145:8), as David says in his praise, yet the wicked, not wanting to hear the Lord’s voice and not suffering to see (oh wretched ones!) that the Lord is confessed by everyone as God and the Son of God, like “Khrushchev” (Hab. 2:11), go around everywhere, with their father the devil looking for pretexts for evil. What pretexts or where else can they find after this? Will they take blasphemies from the Jews and Caiaphas, and will they take godlessness from the pagans? The Divine Scriptures are concluded for them; Everything about them exposes these senseless and anti-Christ people. In the 1st letter of St. ap. Peter we read: “Giving Him glory” (1 Pet. 1:21). You might be interested in: