Message in Arian. Word 4

“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 Word is God from God, “and God is the Word” (John 1:1); and again: “whose fathers are, and from whom is Christ... who is God above all, blessed forever, Amen” (Rom. 9:5). And since Christ is God from God and God’s Word, Wisdom, Son and Power, therefore one God is proclaimed in the Divine Scriptures. For the Word, being the Son of the one God, is raised to Him whose Word it is, so that the Father and the Son are two and together an inseparable and indecomposable unit of the Divinity. One can also say this: one beginning, and not two beginnings of the Divine. Hence unity of command in the proper sense. From this beginning there is the Word, the Son by nature, not constituted by Himself, like another beginning, and not originating outside of this beginning (otherwise, this difference would produce duality and plurality), but of one beginning, its own Son, its own Wisdom, its own Word, which exists from this beginning. For, according to what John said, “in this beginning was the Word, and the Word was to God.” The beginning is God. And since the Word is from this Beginning, therefore “God is the Word.” But just as there is one Beginning, and therefore one God, so the truly, truly and truly existing essence and hypostasis is one, namely the one that says: “I am this” (Ex. 3:14), and not two essences; otherwise there will be two beginnings. From one essence there is the Word, Wisdom, its own and inseparable Power, by nature and truly the Son; but just as there is not another essence, so that there are not two principles, so from one essence is not a resolved word, not just a significant voice, but the essential Word, the essential Wisdom, that is, truly the Son. And if the Word were not essential, then God would speak into the air and have a body in no way superior to a human one. since God is not a man, His Word cannot be like human weakness. Just as the beginning is one essence, so there is one essential and independent Word of this essence and one Wisdom. Just as from God there is God, from the All-Wise - Wisdom, from the Verbal - the Word, from the Father - the Son, so from Hypostasis - the Hypostasis, from the Essence - the Essential and Self-Existing, from the Existing - the Existing. 2) If Wisdom is inessential, the Word is not self-existent, the Son is not existing, but simply Wisdom, and the Word, and the Son in the Father, then the Father Himself will be composed of Wisdom and the Word. If we allow this, then the inconsistencies said before will follow: the Father will be the Father of Himself, the Son begetting Himself and being born from Himself. Or the name alone is the Word, Wisdom and the Son, and He about Whom this is said is not independent; it would be better to say Who is all this. And if he is not independent, then the names are vain and meaningless, unless someone says that God is the original Wisdom and the original Word. In the same case, He is both Father and Son to Himself; and the Father when He is wise, and the Son when He is Wisdom. But this is not just any quality in God. No - such a thought is indecent, because otherwise God will be composed of essence and quality, because essence has every quality. And as a result of this, the indivisible Divine unit will turn out to be complex, dissected into the essence and the accidental. Therefore, we must ask these bold ones: about the Son it is preached that He is God’s Wisdom and God’s Word. How is this possible? If it is a quality, then the inconsistency of this is shown. And if God is the source Wisdom, then the inconsistency that follows from this is expressed by Sabellius. Consequently, the Son is preached as, in the proper sense, birth from the Father Himself, in the likeness of light. For as light comes from fire, so does the Word come from God, Wisdom from the All-Wise, the Son from the Father. In this sense, the Unit remains indivisible and whole, and Her Son is not a non-self-existent, not dependent, but a truly essential Word. But if we imagine it in a different way, then everything that is predicated about the Son will be predicated by imagination and without foundation. If, however, inconsistencies arising from invention must be avoided, then it follows that the true Word is essential; as the Father is truly, so is Wisdom truly. As a result of this, although there are two of them, because the Father and the Son are not one and the same, as Sabellius teaches, but the Father is the Father, and the Son is the Son; however, They are one, because the Son, by the nature of the Father, is an essence, the Father’s own Word. This is what the Lord said: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). The Word is inseparable from the Father, and the Father never was and is not without the Word. Therefore, the Word is God, and the Father is not without the Word. That is why the Son said: “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me” (John 14:11). 3) And one more thing: Christ is God’s Word. So, did He come into being from Himself and, having come into being, cleave to the Father? Or did God create Him and call Him His Word? If the first, that is, Christ was constituted by Himself and is God, then there will be two principles, and it is unfair to call the Son actually belonging to the Father, because He is not from the Father, but from Himself. If it was created from outside, then it will be a creature. Therefore, it remains, of course, to say that He is from God Himself. And if so, then the one who is from someone will be different, and the one from whom he is from will be different; as a result of this there will be two. And if not two, but this is said about one and the same thing, then one and the same will be both the cause and the effect of the cause, and the begotten and the begetting; the inconsistency of this is proven by the teaching of Sabellius. If Christ is both from the Father, but nothing else from Him, then he will be both begetting and non-bearing; those who give birth, because He makes Himself from the Father, and those who do not give birth, because they are nothing else from Him. If this is so, then one and the same is said by intention by the Father and the Son. But if this is indecent, then there will be two, the Father and the Son, but together and one, because the Son is not from outside, but born of God. If anyone avoids this expression: “birth”, and only says that the Word exists with God, then let him be afraid, lest he, by avoiding what is used in Scripture, fall into inconsistency and introduce some kind of dual God. For, not agreeing that the Word is from the Unity, but simply adding the Word to the Father, he introduces two essences, neither of which is the Father of the other. The same should be said about the Force. But everyone will see this more clearly by applying it to the Father. There is one Father, and not two Fathers, but from Him alone is the Son. And just as there are not two Fathers, but one, so there are not two principles, but one, and from this one beginning is the essential Son. But, speaking with the Arians, the questions must be distorted, because the Sabellians must be refuted from the concept of the Son, and the Arians from the concept of the Father. 4) Therefore, we must ask: is God wise and has the Word, or, on the contrary, is He not wise and does not have the Word? If we assume the latter, then the inconsistency is obvious. And if the first, then we should ask: how is He wise and has the Word? Does He have the Word and Wisdom from outside or from Himself? If from outside, then there will be someone who initially informed Him, but He Himself, before accepting what was communicated, was neither wise nor without a Word. If the Word is from Him, then it is clear that It is not from non-existent, and did not exist when He did not exist. There has always been the Word, because the One whose image it is always exists. And if they say that although God is wise and not without the Word, but in Himself He has His own wisdom and His own word, namely, not Christ, but the word with which He created Christ, then one must say to this: if by that word Christ was brought into being, then it is clear that by him all things were brought into being. And It will be the Word about which John speaks: “all this came to pass” (John 1:3); and the psalmist: “thou hast created all wisdom” (Psalm 103:24). Then Christ will be found to have falsely said: “I am in the Father,” because the other is in the Father. According to the heretics, this will also be unfair: the Word became flesh. For if He, by whom “all things... were,” Himself became flesh, and Christ is not that Word in the Father, “In whom all things... were,” then it follows that Christ did not become flesh, unless Christ is called the Word. And if we accept this, then, firstly, Christ will not be what His name shows, and then: not by Him “all things... were,” but by the word by which Christ was brought into being. If they say that Wisdom in the Father is a quality or that the Father is the original Wisdom, then the inconsistencies mentioned above will follow from this. The Father will be folded, becoming Himself both Son and Father. Moreover, to expose and shame the heretics, it will be necessary to say that the Word that exists in God will not be a creature, and It is not from those that do not exist. Since the Word is in God, He is Christ, Who says: “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me”; and therefore, the only begotten Son, for no one else is born of the Father. This son is one; He is the Word, Wisdom and Power, because God is not made up of these things, but gives birth. Just as he creates creatures with the Word, so by nature he has the birth of His own essence - the Word, by which everything creates, creates, rules everything, because everything is brought into being by the Word and Wisdom, and “through the creation of the Word all things abide” (Psalm 119:91). The same must be said about the Son. If God does not give birth, then He does not do; because the Son is His begotten, and through Him God does. Otherwise, the same questions and the same inconsistencies will follow the shameless heretics. 5) In Deuteronomy it is said: “But you who are close to the Lord with your God are all living to this day” (Deut. 4:4). From this we can see the difference and understand that the Son of God is not a creature. For the Son says: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), and: “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me” (John 14:11). And created beings, when they prosper, “attend” to the Lord. The Word as its own abides “in the Father”; and beings created, being from outside, are “adjacent” as alien by nature and “adjacent” by will. And the Son by nature is one with the One who gives birth, and the one adopted from outside will be added to the race. That’s why it was soon added: “what... is such a great language, it also has God, come closer?” (Deut. 4, 7). And in another place: “God draw near, I am” (Jer. 23:23). For he approaches those created as strangers; He does not approach the Son as his own, but abides in Him. And the Son is not adjacent, but co-subsisting with the Father. Therefore, Moses also says in the same Deuteronomy: “Listen to His voice... and cleave to Him” (Deut. 13:4). And that which cleaves cleaves to the outside. 6) In the reasoning of this weak and human concept of the Arians, according to which they assume that the Lord had a deficiency when he said: “Given to Me” (Matthew 28:18), and “received x” (John 10:18), and when Paul says: “the same... God has highly exalted Him” (Phil. 2:9), “and seated Him at the right hand” (Eph. 1:20) and the like, it must be said that our Lord, being the Word and Son of God, bore a body and became the Son of man, so that, becoming the Intercessor of God and men, he could serve us with what is God, and serve God with what is ours. Therefore, when it is said that he hungers, cries, becomes weary, cries out: “Eloi, Eloi” (Mark 15:34), then he accepts from us our own human and our infirmities and brings them to the Father, interceding for us, so that these infirmities may be destroyed in Him. When it is said: “he gave me... power”, and: “acceptance x”, and: “even so... God has exalted Him”, these are the essence of gifts communicated to us through Him from God. The Word was not insufficient, It was not ever brought into being. Also, people were not able to serve themselves with this; this is given to us through the Word. Therefore, what is given to us is communicated to us as if to Him. This is why the Word became human, so that what was given to Him would be transferred to us. A simple person could not be worthy of this, and the One Word would not have any need for this. Therefore the Word united with us, and then imparted power to us, and exalted us. The Word that is in man has exalted man. And since the Word was in man, man accepted. So, since the Word is in the flesh, man is exalted and has received authority. Therefore, this will be attributed to the Word, because it was given for His sake. For the sake of the Word existing in man, these gifts were given; and just as “the Word became flesh,” so man accepted what was received by the Word. For everything that a person received is told to those who received the Word, so that it can be seen that He, as a man, in accordance with His nature, was not worthy to receive, but nevertheless accepted for the sake of the Word made flesh. Therefore, if it is said that something is given to the Lord, or something similar, then it must be imagined that it is not given to Him as someone who has a need, but is given to man through the Word. And everyone who intercedes for another receives mercy, not needing it himself, but for the sake of the one for whom he intercedes. 7) Just as He accepts our weaknesses without being weak Himself, and hungers without being hungry, but sends up prayer for our weaknesses so that they may be blotted out, so again, instead of weaknesses, He Himself accepts gifts from God, so that the person who has entered into unity with Him can partake of them. Thus, the Lord says: “everything you have given to Me... I have given to them”; and again: “I pray for these things” (John 17:7-9). He prayed for us, taking what was ours upon Himself, and He gave us what He accepted. since the Word united with man, the Father, looking at the Word, gave man the opportunity to ascend, to have all power and everything like that. Therefore, it is written down to the Word Himself and, as it were, everything that we accept through Him is given to Him. Just as the Word became man for our sake, so through Him we are exalted. Therefore, there is nothing incongruous in the fact that, just as He humbled Himself for our sake, He also appears to be exalted for our sake. So, “given to Him” means: given for His sake to us; and “exalted” Him means: exalted us in Him. The Word itself, when we ascend, and accept, and receive help, as if It ascended, accepted and received help, thanks the Father, writing to Himself ours and saying: “everything you have given to Me... I have given to them.” 8) The Arians who followed Eusebius, attributing the beginning of being to the Son, pretend that they do not agree that the Son has the beginning of kingship. But it's funny. For he who ascribes the beginning of being to the Son obviously also ascribes to Him the beginning of kingship; and therefore, admitting what they themselves reject, they are blind. And also those who assert that the Son is one name, that the Son of God, that is, the Father’s Word, is not self-existent and independent, pretend to be indignant at those who assert what happened when the Son did not exist. And it's funny too. For those who do not attribute existence to the Son are indignant at those who attribute even temporary existence. And what they themselves deny, they admit as a reproach to others. Eusebius’ followers, while recognizing the Son, deny that He is the Word by nature, and want the Son to be called the Word by imagination. Others, recognizing the Word, deny that He is the Son, and, relying on nothing at all, want the Word to be called Son by imagination. 9) “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). You say: “So two are one, or one has two names, or else, one is divided into two.” So, if one is divided into two, then what is divided must be a body, and neither one nor the other is perfect, because each is a part and not a whole. If one thing has two names, then Sabelli's is the teaching; Sabellius says that both the Son and the Father are one and the same; and thereby destroys One and the Other, precisely when He is the Son, He destroys the Father, and when He is the Father, He destroys the Son. If two are one, then it is necessary to be both two and one in Divinity; and since the Son is consubstantial with the Father, it is necessary for the Word to be from the Father Himself; why, although they are two, because there is a Father and a Son, that is, the Word, they are one, because God is one. And if not so, then it was necessary to say: I am the Father, or: I and the Father am. Now the saying “I” means the Son, and the saying “and the Father” means the One who gave birth, and the saying “one” means the one Divinity and His consubstantial beings. For the Wise One and Wisdom are not one and the same, as the Greeks say; or the Father and the Word are not one and the same, because it is indecent for Him to be the Father of Himself. The Divine teaching knows the Father and the Son, the Wise and the Wisdom, God and the Word, although it completely preserves in all things the inseparability, inseparability, and indecomposability into parts. 10) If someone, hearing that the Father and the Son are two, begins to slander that there are two Gods being preached (others actually imagine such a thing and do not hesitate to mock, saying: you say two Gods), then they must answer: if he who recognizes the Father and the Son says two Gods, then he who says one destroys the Son and preaches Sabellianism. For if the one who says two is Hellenistic, then it follows that the one who says one is Sabellian. But that's not the case. Let this not happen! On the contrary, just as the one who says that the Father and the Son are two says one God, so the one who says that God is one contains in thought two, the Father and the Son, who are consubstantial in Divinity; because the Word, which is from the Father, is urgent, inseparable, inseparable from Him. Take human likeness: fire and radiance from it; in being and in appearance there are two here, but also one, because the radiance from the fire and with it is inseparable. 11) The Sabellians fall into the same folly as the Arians. And these say that the Son was created for our sake, so that we could be created, as if God waited for our creation in order, according to some, to manifest, or, according to others, to create the Son. Therefore the Arians yield more to us than to the Son. For they say that it was not we for His sake, but He for our sakes who came into being; since for this purpose he was created and exists, so that through Him God could create us. The Sabellians, equally and even more ungodly, attribute less to God than to us. For we often act silently, with one thought, in such a way that what we think is clothed in images; they want God to be inactive while he is silent and then only have power when he publishes the Word; because He could not create in silence, but He began to create by speaking. It would be fair to ask them: Was the Word, being in God, perfect, so that it could create? If, being in God, It was imperfect, but having been born, it became perfect, then we are the reason for Its perfection, because It was born for our sake. For for our sake it received the opportunity to create. And if It was perfect in God, so that it could create, then His birth was superfluous, because, being in the Father, it could create. And therefore, whether It is not born or is born, this is not for us, but because It is always from the Father. His birth shows not our creation, but His being from God, because He existed before our creation. 12) The speculations of heretics will be just as impudent in relation to the Father. If the Father could not create silently, then it is necessary to conclude that, having given birth, that is, spoken, He received power. But where did he perceive it and why? If he could create while still having the Word in Himself, then he gives birth in vain, having the opportunity to create in silence. Moreover, if the Word was in God before birth, then it follows that it was born without and became outside of God. And if we admit this, then why does he say now: “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me”? If now It is in the Father, then it follows that it has always been in the Father, as it is now, and in vain they say that It is born for us, but after us it returns to be what It was; because before it was not what it is not now, and now it is not what it was not before. On the contrary, the Word is as it always was, having everything the same and to the same extent, otherwise it will turn out to be imperfect and changeable. For if what was, it will be after, as if it does not exist now, then it is clear that now It is not what it was and will be, that is, if before it was in God and after will be in God again, then it is clear that now the Word is not in God. But the Lord exposes them, saying: “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me.” So, He is now, as He always was. And if this is the case now, as it has always been, then it is clearly impossible that sometimes He was born and sometimes not, that sometimes there was silence in God, and sometimes God spoke. On the contrary, there is always a Father; and the Son, the Father's Word, is not only the Word by name; The Word is not by imagination (κατ´ ὲπίνοιαν), but really is the Son, consubstantial with the Father, not born for our sake, because for His sake we received being. And if He was born for our sake, and at His birth we were created, and through His birth the creation took place, and He returns to be what He was before, then, firstly, He who was born will again be unborn. For if His procession is a birth, then His return is the cessation of birth. As soon as He is in God, God will become silent again. If He becomes silent, it will again be the same as it was during His silence—silence, not creation; therefore, the creature will receive an end. Just as with the coming of the Word creation received being and was realized, so with the return of the Word creation will cease to exist. What was the need to come into being if it ceased? Or why did God speak only to then remain silent? To what did He manifest Him Whom He calls? Why did he give birth, Whose birth did he want to stop? What will happen again? Unknown. Either he will remain silent forever, or he will give birth again and invent a new creation, because he will not create the same one (otherwise the one that has received being could remain), but will create another; and, consequently, he will stop this one, and invent another new one, and so on ad infinitum. 13) Savellius, perhaps, borrowed this from the Stoics, who claim that God contracts, and also, together with creation, extends, and rests immeasurably. For that which expands expands out of constraint, and that which expands expands when it is first compressed; and remains the same; nothing else succeeds but one modification. Therefore, if the expanded Unit became a Trinity, and the Unit is the Father, and the Trinity is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, then, firstly, the expanded Unit suffered a modification and became what it was not, because it expanded without having previously been expanded. And then, if the Unity Itself expanded into the Trinity, and the Trinity is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, then it follows, according to Sabellius, that the Father Himself became both the Son and the Spirit, unless the Unity called by Sabellius is something else from the Father. In the same case, it should have been said that the Unit did not expand, but produced three, so that first the Unit, and then the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. For if She Herself had expanded and spread Herself out, She would have remained the same as she was spread out. But the Trinity is no longer an expanded Unit; being a Unit, She was not yet a Trinity. Therefore the Father, being Father, was not Son and Spirit; having become Them, there is no longer only the Father. And others will mockingly call it God’s body, introducing a modified God. For what does expansion mean—isn’t it a modification of what is being expanded? Or what is expanded - is it not something that was not expanded before, but was constrained? For this is one and the same thing, and differs from itself only in time. 14) The divine apostle also knows this, writing in his letter to the Corinthians: “you are not crowded into us... but you too will spread out... Corinthians” (2 Cor. 6, 12, 13). He advises not others, but the same Corinthians, to come from a constrained state to an expanded one. But just as if the closely contained Corinthians expanded again, they would not become different, but would again be Corinthians, so if the Father expanded into the Trinity, then the Trinity is again one Father. And the apostle also says the same thing: “enlarge our heart” (2 Cor. 6:11). And Noah says: “May God spread Japheth” (Gen. 9:27). And the heart is the same, and Japheth is the same even when expanded. Therefore, if the Unit has expanded, then perhaps it has expanded in others. And if it has expanded in itself, then it will be that which is expanded. What is this if not the Son and the Holy Spirit? But it’s good to ask the reasoner himself: what is the effect of such an expansion? Or to say in front of the truth itself - why, in general, is the Unit expanded? What does not remain the same, but is subsequently expanded by necessity, must have a reason for which it is expanded. If the Father expanded in order for the Word and the Spirit to be inherent in Him, then it will be unnecessary to say: first - the Unit, and then - expanded. For the Word and the Spirit are not subsequently, but always, otherwise God would be without the Word, as the Arians say. Therefore, if there was always a Word and there was a Spirit, then the Unit was always expanded, and not just expanded. If it expanded later, then the Word expanded later. If it expanded due to the incarnation and then became the Trinity, then it follows that before the incarnation there was no Trinity. It turns out that the Father also became flesh, because He, being a Unit, expanded in man. Or maybe the Unit will already be both flesh and, thirdly, the Spirit, because one and the same thing expanded. And the Trinity will be only in name. And if the Unit expanded for creation, then this is absurd. For it was possible for her, even being a Unit, to create everything; The unit had no need for expansion and was not weak before expansion. It is absurd and impious to think and talk about God in this way. But the consequence of this will be another inconsistency. If the Unit expanded for the sake of the creature, and while it was the Unit, there was no creation, but after the completion of creation the Unit will again be without expansion, then the creation will be destroyed. For just as it expanded for creation, so with the cessation of expansion the creation will also cease. 15) Such incongruities will be encountered due to the position that the Unit expands into the Trinity. since those who affirm this dare to separate the Word and the Son and say that one is the Word, and another is the Son, and first the Word, and then the Son, then let us consider this too. But heretics express their daring thoughts in different ways: some say that the Son is the man whom the Savior took upon Himself; the others, both, man and the Word, then became the Son when they became united. And there are others who claim that the Word Himself then became the Son when it became man. From the Word, they say, the Son came, being not previously the Son, but only the Word. The Stoics are imitated in both respects and claim that God is expanding and deny the Son. But it is extremely senseless that, naming the Word, they deny that He is the Son. For if the Word is not from God, then they can rightly deny that He is the Son. If It is from God, then why can’t they notice that what exists from someone is the son of the one from whom it exists? Then, if God is the Father of the Word, then why should not the Word be the Son of His Father? That father is called father who has a son; that son is called a son who has a father. Therefore, if God is not the Father of Christ, then the Word is not the Son. If God is the Father, then in all fairness the Word will be the Son. If He is subsequently the Father, and initially God, then this is Arian wisdom. Moreover, it is not in accordance with anything for God to change: this is characteristic of bodies. If, both in relation to the creature, God subsequently became the Creator, and subsequently became the Father, then one should know that there subsequently occurred a change in the created, and not in God Himself. 16) Therefore, if the Son is a work, then in relation to Him God could rightly become the Father subsequently. And if the Son is not a work, then it follows that there is always a Father and always a Son. If the Son is always, then the Word Himself will be the Son. For if the Word is not the Son (and someone dared to say this), then whoever asserts this either calls the Word Father, or represents the Son as more perfect than the Word. since the Son is “in the bosom of the Father” (John 1:18), it is necessary either for the Word not to be before the Son, because nothing is before that which is in the Father, or, if the Word is not the same as the Son, for the Word Himself to be the Father, in Whom the Son is. If the Word is not the Father, but the Word, then the Word will be outside the Father, because the Son is “in the bosom of the Father.” They are not both, the Word and the Son, “in the bosom of the Father,” but one must be in the bosom, and this one is the Son, that is, the Only Begotten. And again, if one is the Word and another is the Son, then the Son will turn out to be more perfect than the Word; for “no one knows... the Father, not even the Word, but the Son” (Matthew 11:27). Therefore, either the Word does not know the Father, or, if it does, it is falsely said: “no one knows.” The same should be understood in the reasoning of what has been said: “He who has seen Me in the form of the Father” (John 14:9), and: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). These, according to the heretics, are the words of the Son, not the Word. This is also clear from the Gospels. According to the Gospel of John, when the Lord says: “I and the Father are one. He took... the stone... to the Jews, so that they might beat Him. Jesus answered them: “Many good works have been revealed to you from the Father... for what cause are you throwing stones at Me?” Having answered Him to the Jews... we do not cast stones against You about a good deed, but about blasphemy, since You, this man, created God for Yourself. Jesus answered them: Isn’t it written in your law: I said, “Are you gods?” If these were the words of the gods, the word of God came to them, and the Scripture cannot be destroyed: Whose Father is holy and sent into the world, you say, as if you were speaking blasphemy, you have already said: I am the Son of God. Unless I do the works of the Father... do not have faith in Me: if I do, even if you do not believe Me, believe by the work: that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I am in the Father” (John 10:30-38). However, as far as what has been said must be understood clearly, Christ did not say this: “I am God,” nor this: “I am the Son of God”; He only said: “I and the Father are one.” 17) Therefore, the Jews, having heard this “one thing,” thought that He, in agreement with Sabellius, was saying: I am the Father; Our Savior draws the following conclusion from their erroneous opinion: even if I called Myself God, then you should have known what is written: “Az reh: you are God.” Then, explaining what was said: “I and the Father are one,” he pointed to the unity of the Son with the Father, saying: “I decided beforehand: the Son is God”; for if he did not say in exact words, then the meaning of these sayings: “I am one,” was explained by the saying: Son. Nothing can be one with the Father except that which is from the Father. And what can be from the Father other than the Son? That’s why he adds: “Yes, you understand... that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me.” For, interpreting the saying: “one,” he said that unity and inseparability consist not in the identity of the Son with Him with whom He is “one,” but in the fact that He is “in the Father, and the Father in the Son.” By this He refutes both Sabellius, saying: I am not the Father, but the Son of God, and Arius, saying: “I am one.” Therefore, if another is the Son, and another is the Word, then it is not the Word, but the Son who is one with the Father, and “seeing” is not the Word, but the Son, “seeing the Father.” And according to this explanation, either the Son is greater than the Word, or the Word has no advantage over the Son. For what is higher or more perfect than this: “one”, and: “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me”, and: “the form of Me, the form of... the Father”? The following sayings also belong to the Son, as the same John says: he who saw Me, “he saw Him who sent Me” (John 12:45); and: “Whoever accepts Me, accepts Me who sent me” (Matthew 10:40); and: “I have come into the world, so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness: And if anyone hears My words and does not keep them, I do not judge him: for I did not come, but I judge the world, but I will save the world: the Word that He hears, He judges him on the last day” (John 12:46-48), for I am coming to the Father... John 14, 12); preaching, He says, judges those who have not kept the commandment. For, as he says, “If I had not come and spoken to them, they had no sin; now they have no excuse” (John 15:22), hearing My words, from which those who preserve them reap salvation. 18) Perhaps the heretics, in their shamelessness, will say that this is not a saying of the Son, but of the Word. But from what was said above, it became clear that the One who speaks is the Son, for it is indicated that the One who says here: I came not to judge, but to save the world, is no other, but the only begotten Son of God. For the same John above says: “So... God loved the world, because... He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. God did not send the Son... into the world to judge the world, but may the world be saved by Him. He who believes in Him is not condemned: but he who does not believe is already condemned, for he does not believe in the name of the only begotten Son of God. This is judgment, because light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, for they were evil because of their deeds” (John 3:16-19). If the One who says: “I did not come... let me judge the world, but let me save” him is the same One who says: “He who sees Me, sees Him who sent Me.” And He who came “to save the world, and not condemn it” is the only begotten Son of God, then it is clear that He who says: “He who sees Me, sees Him who Sent Me” is the same Son. For the One who says: “Believe in Me,” and if anyone does not listen to My words, “I do not judge him,” is the same Son about whom this is said: “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is already condemned, for he who does not believe in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” And again: “this... is judgment” for those who do not believe in the Son, “for light has come into the world” and they did not believe in Him, obviously in the Son. For He is that “light... which enlightens every man who comes into the world” (John 1:9). And all the time that He remained on earth after His incarnation, light was in the world, as He Himself said: “As long as you have light, believe in the light, that you may be sons of light” (John 12:36). And: “I have come into the world as light” (John 12:46). 19) Therefore, as a result of what has been clearly proven, the Word is the Son. If the Son is the light that came into the world, then it is undeniable that the world came into being through the Son. For at the beginning of the Gospel, speaking about the Baptist John, the evangelist adds: “not without this light, but let him testify to the light” (John 1:8); because, as was said before, Christ Himself “is the true light that enlightens every man who comes into the world” (John 1:9). For if He “was in the world, and the world became” (John 1:10), then, of necessity, He Himself is the Word of God, about whom the evangelist said: “all things came into being” (John 1:3). Or the heretics will have to name the two worlds, so that one receives existence through the Son, and the other through the Word; or, if the world is one and creation is one, then one and the same should be called Son and Word before every creation, because creation through Him received existence. Consequently, if “all things... were” both by the Word and by the Son, then it will not turn out to be contradictory, but it will be one and the same thing to say: “in the beginning was the Word, in the beginning was the Son.” If, since John did not say: in the beginning was the Son, they will say that what is attributed to the Word is indecent to the Son, then look, and what is attributed to the Son will be indecent to the Word. It has been proven that the Son says: “I and the Father are one, that the Son is “he who is in the bosom of the Father” (John 1:17), and He also says: “He who sees Me sees Him who sent Me.” True, the general relation to the Word and to the Son is what was said: “the world was made” (John 1:10), which is why this proves that the Son is before the world, for the Creator must be before the created; but what was said to Philip, according to their reasoning, would apply not to the Word, but to the Son. For it is said: Jesus said: “I have been with you only a while, and have you not known Me, Philip? seeing Me in the form of the Father: and how do you say: show us the Father? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The verbs that I say to you, I do not say about Myself: But the Father abides in Me, it is he who does the works. Believe in Me, for I am in the Father, and the Father in Me: no matter what, have faith in Me for these works. Amen, amen, I say to you: Believe in Me, the works that I do, He will also do this, and greater works than these He will do, because I am coming to My Father. And whatever you ask in My name, I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son” (John 14:9-13). So, if the Father is glorified in the Son, then the Son is the One who says: “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me.” He says: “seeing Me, seeing the Father.” For the very One who says this proves of Himself that He is the Son, adding: “that the Father may be glorified in the Son.” 20) Therefore, if they say that the man whom the Word took upon Himself is the Only Begotten Son of God, but the Word is not the Son, then it will follow that man is also the One who is in the Father and in Whom the Father; man is also the One who is “one” with the Father, who is “in the bosom of the Father”, who is the “true light”. They will be forced to say that with this man “the world was made,” that this same man came not to judge the world, but to save it, that He is “before even Abraham was not made.” For it is said: “Jesus said to them: Amen, Amen I say to you, before even Abraham was not, I am” (John 8:58). What is the incongruity, as a result of their wisdom, for the One who came from Abraham’s seed forty-two generations after Abraham to say: “before even Abraham was not, I am”? What incongruity is it - if the flesh that the Word took upon Himself is itself the Son - to say that the flesh of Mary is the same one with which “the world was made”? How will they explain this: “in the world there is no” (John 1:10)? For the evangelist, denoting what preceded the existence of the Son in the flesh, added: “in the world.” How, if not the Word, but man is the Son, can He save the world, being Himself one of those who exist in the world? If this does not bring heretics to shame, then where will the Word be when man is in the Father? By what number is the Word in relation to the Father, when man and the Father are one? If man is already the Only Begotten, then who will be the Word after him? Will someone else say that the Word is second after the Only Begotten? Or if It is higher than the Only Begotten, then Itself is the Father. For just as the Father is one, so the only begotten of Him is one. What is the advantage of the Word over man, when the Word is not even the Son? Although it is written that “the world was made” by both the Son and the Word, that the Son and the Word have in common to create the world; but seeing the Father is no longer attributed to the Word, but to the Son, and the world is saved, according to what has been said, no longer by the Word, but by the only begotten Son. For it is said, “Jesus said: I have been with you so long, and you have not known Me, Philip? Seeing Me as the Father." And according to what is written, it is not the Word that knows the Father, but the Son; because it is not the Word, as it is said, who sees the Father, but the only begotten Son, “who is in the bosom of the Father.” 21) What superiority does the Word bring to our salvation over the Son, if, according to them, the Son is different, and the Word is different? We are commanded not to believe in the Word, but in the Son. For John says: “He who believes in the Son will have eternal life: but whoever does not believe in the Son will not see life” (John 3:36). And holy baptism, on which the composition of our entire faith rests, is given not into the Word, but into the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Therefore, if, according to them, one is the Word, and another is the Son, and the Word is not the Son, then baptism has nothing to do with the Word. Therefore, how, according to their teaching, is the Word co-essential with the Father, not being co-essential with Him in the giving of baptism? But perhaps they will say that the Word is also contained in the name of the Father. So, why is the Spirit not contained? Or is the Spirit outside the Father? And man, since the Word is not the Son, is named after the Father, and the Spirit after man? And even further, according to their teaching, the Unit expands not into the Trinity, but into the quaternity: into the Father, into the Word, into the Son, into the Holy Spirit? Ashamed of this, they resort to another, and say that it is not man in himself, whom the Lord took upon Himself, but both together, both the Word and man, is the Son, for both in union, as they say, are called the Son. Therefore, what was the fault and who made whom the Son? Or, to put it more clearly, is it for the sake of the flesh that the Word is the Son, or is it for the sake of the Word that the flesh is called Son? Or is neither the Word nor the flesh, but only the union of both called the Son? So, if the Word is for the sake of the flesh, then it is necessary for the flesh to be the Son; and the consequence of this will be the same inconsistencies that, according to what was said before, follow from calling a person the Son. If, for the sake of the Word, the flesh is called the Son, then, of course, even before the flesh the existing Word was the Son. For how can anyone adopt others without being the Son himself, especially when there is a Father? Therefore, if He adopts Himself, then He Himself is the Father; and if the Father, then it is necessary to be the Son Himself, and especially to be the Son of the One by whom others are adopted. 22) For if, when the Word is not the Son, we become sons, then God is ours, and not His Father. Why does he appropriate it to himself, saying: “My Father” (John 5:17), and: “I am from the Father” (John 16:28)? If God is the common Father of all, then not only His Father, and not just one Word came from the Father. Scripture sometimes says that God is also called our Father, because the Word became part of our flesh. For for this reason “the Word became flesh,” so that, since the Word is the Son, because of the Son who dwells in us, God might also be called our Father. It is said: “God sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying: Abba, Father” (Gal. 4:6). So, the Son, who calls His own Father in us, does that He is also called our Father. Of course, whoever does not have the Son in his heart, God is not called his Father. So, if for the sake of the Word man is called the Son, then since even before the incarnation the Old Testament were called sons, by all necessity the Word must be the Son even before coming. It is said: “I have given birth to sons” (Is. 1, 2); and under Noah: “having seen the sons of God” (Gen. 6:2); and in the song: “Is not this your Father himself” (Deut. 32:6). And therefore there was a true Son, for whose sake they also were sons. If, again, according to the heretics, neither the Word nor the flesh is called the Son, but this name is given for the sake of uniting both, then of necessity neither one nor the other, that is, neither the Word nor man is the Son; Whatever the reason for which they are united will be the Son. Thus the cause of combination which creates the Son will precede. Therefore, and therefore, the Son was before the flesh. After these considerations, they resort to another assumption, saying that man is not the Son, and neither one nor the other together, but the Word. At first He is simply the Word, and when He became man, He was then called the Son; for before the appearance in the flesh there is no Son, but only the Word. And just as “the Word became flesh” without first being flesh, so the Word became the Son without first being Son. These are the vain assumptions of the heretics, and what serves to refute them is self-evidently clear. 23) If the Word, having become man, became completely the Son, then the reason is incarnation. If man or both together are the reason for the fact that the Word is the Son, then the previous incongruities will be encountered. Moreover, if initially the Word, and subsequently the Son, then He will turn out to be subsequently, and not initially, to know the Father, because it is not the Word that knows the Father, but the Son: “no one knows the Father except the Son” (Matthew 11:27). The following will also be encountered: The Word subsequently became “in the bosom of the Father”; subsequently It and the Father became “one”; Subsequently, this also began to take place: “seeing Me in the form of the Father”; because all this is said about the Son. And as a result of this, they will be forced to say that the Word was not anything else, but only one name; because neither in us was He with the Father, below the “seeing” Word saw the Father, below the Father was cognizable by anyone at all. For the Father is known through the Son, as it is written: “and if ... the Son” will reveal (Matthew 11:27); when the Word was not yet the Son, no one knew the Father. Therefore, how did God appear to Moses and the fathers? For He Himself says in the book of Kings: “By being revealed, he was revealed” to all your fathers (1 Sam. 2:27). And if God revealed himself, then it is clear that the Revealer was the Son, as He Himself says: “and even if ... the Son” will reveal. Therefore, it is impious and unreasonable to say that one is the Word, and another is the Son. But it’s good to ask the heretics: where did they get such an assumption? They will say, of course: “The Old Testament does not speak about the Son, it speaks about the Word; this asserts on the assumption that the Son is later than the Word, because the Son is spoken of not in the Old Testament, but in the New Testament alone.” This is what they say in their wickedness. Firstly, dividing the Testaments and saying that one is not in connection with the other is the work of the Manichaeans and Jews, some of whom dispute the Old, and others the New Testament. Then, according to them, if what is contained in the Old Testament precedes in time, and what is contained in the New is later, and this determines the time in the Scriptures, then, of necessity, these sayings must again be understood about the later time: “I and the Father are one,” and: “Only Begotten,” and: “He who has seen Me in the form of the Father”; because this is testified not by the Old, but by the New Testament. 24) But the position of the heretics is incorrect; It is true that in the Old Testament it is repeatedly said about the Son, for example: in the second psalm: “Thou art my Son, this day I have begotten Thee” (Psalm 2:7), and in the inscription of the ninth psalm: “at the end, about the secret ones of the Son, a psalm to David”; and in the forty-fourth psalm: “at the end, about those who are changed, by the son of Korah in understanding, a song about the beloved;” and in Isaiah: “I will sing to my beloved the song of the Beloved... to my grapes: Grapes become to the Beloved” (Is. 5:1). Who is this Beloved if not the only begotten Son? So in Psalm one hundred and nine it is said: “from the womb before the morning star I gave birth to Thee” (Psalm 109:3), which will be discussed later; and in Proverbs: “before... all the hills I give birth” (Proverbs 8:25); and in Daniel: “the form of the fourth is like the Son of God” (Dan. 3:92); there are many other sayings. So, if the Old Testament proves antiquity, then the Son will also be ancient, clearly preached in many places in the Old Testament. Yes, they say: “And there the Son is mentioned, but prophetically.” Therefore, we can say that the Word is spoken of prophetically. For it cannot be said that one thing is said one way and another another. If it is said about the future: “You are My Son,” then it is clear that this is also said about the future: “The heavens were established by the Word of the Lord” (Psalm 33:6). For David did not say, “It happened,” or created it. And that the phrase “established” denotes the future, it is said: “The Lord reigns,” and then: “for establish the universe, which cannot move” (Psalm 93:1). And if the forty-fourth psalm speaks of the “Beloved” about the future, then it is clear that the future is also indicated by the addition: “My heart will vomit out the good Word.” And if the expression: “from the womb” is used about a person, then it follows that the expression “from the heart” should also be understood about a person. If the womb is something human, then the heart is something bodily. And if the saying “from the heart” signifies the eternal, then the saying “from the womb” signifies the eternal. And if the Only Begotten is in the womb, then the Beloved is also in the womb, because the sayings: Only Begotten and Beloved mean the same thing. For example: “This is My beloved Son” (Matthew 3:17). For he did not say “beloved” with the intention of expressing love for Him, otherwise he would have conveyed the idea that he hated others; but by this he expressed his only-begottenness, wanting to show that He is one from Him. So the Word, wanting to designate Abraham’s only begottenness, says: “Take your beloved Son” (Gen. 22:2); everyone knows that from Sarah there is only one Isaac. So, the Word is the Son, not recently created or called Son, but the Son always exists. For if not the Son, then not the Word; and if not the Word, then not the Son. What is from the Father is the Son. What is from the Father except the Word, which came from the heart and was born from the womb? The Father is not the Word, and the Word is not the Father; but one is the Father, the other is the Son, one begets, the other is born. 25) Therefore Arius is mad, saying that the Son is from non-existent, and was when He was not. Sabellius is also crazy when he says that the Father is the Son, and vice versa, the Son is the Father, one in hypostasis and two in name. The one who presents as an example the grace of the Spirit and says: “Just as there is a division of gifts, but the Spirit is one and the same, so the Father, although one and the same, expands into the Son and the Spirit.” This teaching is full of inconsistencies. For if, as it is said about the Spirit, we mean the same about God, then the Father will be both the Word and the Holy Spirit, for one being the Father, for another the Word, and for another the Spirit, in accordance with the need of each; and although in name He is the Son and the Spirit, yet in reality He is only the Father; just as he began to be the Son, he ceases to be called the Father, became man only by name, but in truth did not come to earth and falsely says: “I am also the Father,” because in reality it is the Father Himself. From here follow all the other incongruities of Sabelli’s wisdom. It is necessary for the very name of the Son and the Spirit to cease when the need is satisfied. Everything that happens will already be one game, because it did not appear in reality, but only under a name. And with the cessation, according to their teaching, of the name of the Son, the grace of baptism will also cease, because it was given for the sake of the Son. And what will follow this if not the destruction of the creature? For if in order for us to be created the Word came into being, and because It came into being, we exist, it is clear that, as the heretics say, after the return of the Son to the Father we will no longer exist. Because then everything will be what it was, and therefore we will not exist, just as we were not there before; since the Word no longer comes into being, there will be no more creation. 26) There are so many inconsistencies in this! And that the Son had no beginning of being, but was always with the Father even before His incarnation, this is clearly expressed by John in the first letter, saying this: “Who from the beginning, who we heard, who we saw with our eyes, who we saw, and who touched our hands, about the Word of the living: and the life was revealed to us, and we saw, and we testify, and we proclaim to you the eternal life that we have.” Father, and appear to us” (1 John 1:1–2). Having said here that the “eternal life” did not come into existence, but “was with the Father,” at the end of the epistle he says that this “life” is the Son; He writes like this: “and let us be in the truth in His Son Jesus Christ: this is the true God and the eternal life” (1 John 5:20). If the Son is life, and life is with the Father, and if the Son was with the Father, John himself says: “and the Word was to God,” then the Son is the Word, always existing with the Father. And just as the Son is the Word, so God is the Father Himself. But the Son, according to John’s word, is not just God, but the “true” God; and according to his own word, “God is the Word” (John 1:1), and the Son says: “I am life” (John 14:6). Therefore, the Son is the Word and the life that is with the Father. And also, what was said by the same John: “the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father” (John 1:18), shows that the Son always exists, and Whom John calls the Son, David sings of Him, calling him “hand” and saying: “Thou hast turned away Thy hand and Thy right hand from the midst of Thy bosom” (Psalm 73:11)? So, if the hand is in the bosom and the Son in the womb, then the Son is the hand, and the hand is the Son, and by Him the Father created all things. For it is said: “Thy hand has created all this” (Is. 41:20); and: “with your hand... you brought people out” (Bar. 2:11), therefore, you brought them out by the Son. If it is said: “and... this is the betrayal of the right hand of the Most High” (Psalm 76:11), and also: “in the end, about those who are changed... a song about the Beloved” (Psalm 44:1), then it follows that the changed hand is the Beloved about whom the Divine voice speaks: “This is My beloved Son.” The same thing means: “This... is My hand,” and: “This... is My Son.” 27) since some of the ignorant, denying the existence of the Son, do not attach importance to what was said: “from the womb before the morning star I gave birth to Thee” (Psalm 109:3), and, as if this could be applied to Mary, they say that “He was born of Mary before the morning star, but it is indecent to attribute the womb to God,” then it is necessary to say briefly about this. If the womb is something human and therefore alien to God, then it is clear that the heart also means something human, because he who has a heart should also have a womb. And since both are human, it is either necessary to deny both, or we need to look for the meaning of both. For as a word comes from the heart, so it is born from the womb; and just as, if it speaks of the heart of God, we imagine not a human heart, so if Scripture says: “from the womb,” we should not understand the bodily womb. Divine Scripture usually expresses and explains in a human way that which is higher than man. And of course, describing creation, he says: “Thy hands created me and created me” (Psalm 119:73), and: “My hand created all... these” (Isaiah 66:2), and: “He commanded, and they were created” (Psalm. 32, 9); and speaking decently about each object, about the Son it makes clear His attribute with the Father and sincerity, about the creature the beginning of its existence; because God creates and creates creatures, and begets the Son - the Word and Wisdom - from Himself. But the womb and the heart express an attribute with the Father and sincerity, because we also have what is born from the womb, and we do our deeds with our hands. 28) Therefore, what does it mean, they say, “before the morning star”? I will answer this: if the saying “before the star” indicates His miraculous birth from Mary, then many others were born before the rising of this star. Therefore, what is surprising about Him and why does Scripture mention something that is common to many as something exceptional? Moreover, there is a difference in expressions: to give birth and to plague. The phrase “to give birth” contains the concept of the beginning of a work, and “to bring forth” means nothing more than to produce what already exists. Therefore, if you relate this saying to the body, then you should know that it did not receive the beginning of existence when the gospel was preached to the shepherds at night, but when the angel spoke to the Virgin. It was not night then, because this was not said. But it was night when he came out of the womb. Scripture puts this difference into perspective and calls one the birth before the morning star, and the other the procession from the womb, as in the twenty-first psalm: “You plucked me out of the womb” (Psalm 21:10). Moreover, he did not say: before the rising of the morning star, but simply: “before the morning star.” Therefore, if this saying is understood about the body, then it is necessary for the body to be before Adam, because the stars are before Adam. Or we need to find the meaning in this letter, and we can borrow this from John. The Apocalypse says: “I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. The blessed ones have enlarged their garments, so that their area will be on the tree of the animal, and the gates will enter into the city. Outside... dogs and sorcerers, and fornicators and murderers, and idolaters and everyone who commits and loves lies. Jesus sent My angel to testify to you this in the churches. I am the root and lineage of David, and the bright morning star. And the Spirit and the bride say: come, and hear and say: come. And let him come if he thirsts, and let him whoever thirsts, let him receive the water of life” (Apoc. 22:13–17). So, if the line of David is a bright and morning star, then the appearance of the Savior in the flesh, which was preceded by birth from God, is clearly called the star. Why does what is said in the psalm mean this: “Out of Myself I gave birth to You before appearing in the flesh,” because the expression: “Before the morning star” means the same as: before the incarnation of the Word. 29) Consequently, in the Old Testament there are passages that clearly speak about the Son, although it is unnecessary to doubt this. For if something is not said in the Old Testament, everything is new, then let these lovers of disputes say: where in the Old Testament is it said about the Comforter Spirit? It is true that it is said about the Holy Spirit, but nowhere about the Comforter. Is it therefore possible that one is the Holy Spirit, and another is the Comforter, and, moreover, the Comforter, since it is not mentioned in the Old Testament, is something new? But let it not be either to call the Spirit new, or to divide Him and call one the Holy Spirit and the other the Comforter! It is one and the same Spirit, both then and now, sanctifying and comforting those who receive Him as one and the same Word - the Son, and then still bringing the worthy into sonship, because in the Old Testament there were sons adopted not through anyone else, but through the Son. For if the Son of God was not before Mary, then how can He be first of all, when there are sons before Him? Why does the First-born turn out to be later than many? But the Comforter is not later than the others, because he was before all, and the Son is not new, because “in the beginning was the Word.” And just as the Spirit and the Comforter are one and the same, so the Son and the Word are one and the same. And just as the Savior speaks of the Spirit, without dividing, but understanding one and the same thing, says: “The Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name” (John 14:26), so, expressing himself in a similar way, John says: “And 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). for here too he did not divide, but attested to identity. Just as one is not the Comforter, and another is the Holy Spirit, but one and the same, so one is not the Word, and another is the Son, but the Word is the Only Begotten; because the evangelist does not speak about the glory of the flesh, but about the glory of the Word. Therefore, whoever dares to separate the Word and the Son, let him separate the Spirit and the Comforter. If the Spirit is indivisible, then the Word is indivisible; It Itself is the Son, and Wisdom, and Power. As for the saying: “beloved,” even the Hellenes who are well versed in the expression know that it is equivalent to the saying “only begotten.” For Homer speaks of Telemachus, the only begotten son of Odysseus, in the second book of the Odyssey: “Why are you, dear child, such thoughts are in your heart? Are you holding it? Why else would you want to go to a distant land? Here you are alone, our beloved. Far from the homeland God-born Odysseus perished among unknown peoples.” So Telemachus, being alone with his father, is called beloved. 30) Some of the followers of Samosata, separating the Word from the Son, say that the Son is Christ, and another is the Word, and as a pretext for this they take a passage from the Acts, and what Peter said beautifully, they understand poorly. This is the place: “The word... sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ: This is the Lord of all” (Acts 10:36). For they say: “The Word spoke through Christ, just as it is said about the prophets: “This is what the Lord says”; but there was another prophet, and another the Lord.” This can be objected to with a similar passage in the first letter to the Corinthians: “to those who wait for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will also establish you even to the end, innocent in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1:7). Just as it is not another Christ who confirms the day of another Christ, but He Himself confirms those who wait on His day, so the Father sent the Word made flesh, so that the man who had come would preach by Himself. That is why the apostle adds immediately after this: “This is the Lord of all.” The Lord of all is the Word. 31) “And Moses said to Aaron: come to the altar and make the hedgehog of sin for your sake, and your burnt offering, and pray for yourself and for the house with howl: and make the gifts of men, and pray for them, as the Lord commanded Moses” (Lev. 9, 7), Here too, although Moses is alone, as if about another Moses Moses says: “as the Lord commanded Moses." Thus, if blessed Peter speaks of the Word of God sent to the sons of Israel by Jesus Christ, then we must understand not another under the name of the Word, but another under the name of Christ, but one and the same because of the unity in His Divine and humane condescension and incarnation. If it is understood dually, then without separation of the Word, as the divine John said: “and the Word became flesh and dwelt in us.” Therefore, what was said well and correctly by blessed Peter, poorly and misunderstood, the followers of Samosatsky do not stand in the truth. In Divine Scripture, the name “Christ” means both together, for example, when it is said: “Christ is the strength of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:24). Therefore, if Peter says that the Word was sent to the children of Israel by Jesus Christ, then let this be understood in the sense that the incarnate Word appeared to the children of Israel, so that this would be consistent with what was said: “and the Word became flesh.” If they understand differently and, confessing the Word of God as It is, the man He took upon Himself, with whom, as we believe, It was united, they separate from Him, saying that It was sent by Jesus Christ, then they do not understand that they contradict themselves. For here they understand the Word of God separately from the Divine Incarnation, and therefore they belittle it, hearing that “the Word became flesh,” and they reason in a pagan way, because they really assume that the Divine Incarnation is a change in the Word. 32) But there is no change. Let this not happen! Just as John here preaches indescribable unity after the dead has been sacrificed to life, and to the source of life, as the Lord said to Martha: “I am... life” (John 11:25), so blessed Peter, when he says that the Word was sent by Jesus Christ, means by this Divine unity. Just as the one who hears that “the Word became flesh” does not think that there is no longer a Word (which, according to what was said before, is absurd), so the one who hears that the Word was combined with the flesh understands one and simple Divine mystery. But what the Archangel said to the Mother of God Herself will show the unity of God the Word and man more clearly and beyond any doubt; for he says: “The Holy Spirit will come upon You, and the power of the Most High will overshadow You: by the same thing, and what is holy to be born will be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). Therefore, the followers of Samosata foolishly separate the Word, when it is clearly proven that It was united with man from Mary. He was not sent by the Word, but the Word dwelling in Him sent, saying: “As you went... you all learned languages” (Matthew 28:19). 33) And often in Scripture speech is expressed loosely and simply. So, another will find in the book of Numbers; it is said: “Moses spoke... Raguel spoke to the Midianite, Moses’ father-in-law” (Num. 10:29). It is not another Moses who says this, nor another one to whom Raguel was father-in-law, but Moses is one and the same. If in a similar way the Word of God calls itself Wisdom, strength, right hand, arm and other similar names, and if out of love for mankind it enters into unity with us, putting on our firstfruits and being merged with it, then it follows that one and the same Word rightly took upon itself other names. What John said: “in the beginning was the Word,” and He “was to God,” and is God Himself, and “all by Him,” and “without Him nothing was,” clearly shows that man is a creation of God’s Word. Therefore, if, taking upon Himself this incarnate one, it again renews it with a firm renewal for endless abiding and for this sake unites with it, raising it to the Divine lot, then can it be said that the Word was sent by man from Mary, and the Lord of the apostles can be numbered among the other apostles, that is, among the prophets sent by Him? How can a simple person be called Christ? But, united with the Word, he is rightly called Christ and the Son of God, as the prophet of old clearly proclaimed the Father’s hypostasis in Him and said about Him: “I will send My Son Christ” (Luke 20:13). And on the Jordan it was proclaimed: “This is My beloved Son” (Matthew 17:5). For, having fulfilled the promise, the Father, not without reason, indicated that He was the One whom He promised to send. 34) Therefore, by the name of Christ we mean both together, that is, the Word of God united in Mary with Him who is from Mary; for in Her womb the Word created for Himself a home, as in the beginning from the earth of Adam, or better to say, more divine than this. About this Solomon, clearly knowing that the Word is also called Wisdom, says: “Wisdom has made for herself a house” (Proverbs 9:1); the apostle, explaining this, says: “Whose house we are” (Heb. 3:6); and in another place he calls the same house a church, because it is fitting for God to dwell in the church, the image of which he commanded the Old Testament people to create through Solomon from stones: why, with the revelation of the truth, the image ceased. For when the ungrateful set out to assert that the image is the truth itself, and to destroy the true church, which, as we firmly believe, is the unity of Divinity and humanity, then he did not threaten them, but, knowing that they dare to rebel against themselves, he said: “Destroy this church, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19). And by this our Savior clearly showed that everything that people plan soon comes to ruin. For “except the Lord build the house, and... will preserve the city, which labored in vain to build, and will guard the ears” (Psalm 126:1). Therefore, the Jewish thing collapsed, since there was a shadow; and the Church was established because it was founded on rock, “and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18). It was common for the Jews to say: “How did You, this man, create God for Yourself?” (John 10:33). And Samosatsky is their student. Because (and naturally) he teaches to his own people what he has learned himself. But we do not have such information about Christ if we listened to Him Himself and learned from Him, putting aside “the old man, which is corrupting in the lusts of deceitful desires... putting on the new... created by God in righteousness and... the excellence of the truth” (Eph. 4:22, 24). Therefore, piously imagine that Christ is both together. 35) If the Scripture in many places calls the body of Christ Christ, for example, when blessed Peter says to Cornelius: “Jesus of Nazareth... God anointed him with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 10:38), and also to the Jews: “Jesus of Nazareth, a man of God known in you” (Acts 2:22); and also Blessed Paul - to the Athenians: “O the Man whom He ordained, giving faith to all, raising Him from the dead” (Acts 17:31); We find that notification and sending in many places mean the same thing as anointing; therefore, anyone who wishes can understand from this that there is no disagreement in the words of the saints, but they call the union of God the Word with man from Mary differently, namely, sometimes anointing, sometimes sending, and sometimes notifying - then what was said by blessed Peter has the right meaning and preaches the true Divinity of the Only Begotten, without separating the hypostasis of God the Word from man from Mary. Let this not happen! For how would one begin to separate someone who has repeatedly heard: “I am one and the Father,” and: “He who has seen Me in the form of the Father”? Therefore, after the Resurrection, the same body was “shut with a door” (John 20. 19), enters the general meeting of the apostles, and what seemed incredible about this, resolves, saying: “Handle Me and see: for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see Me has” (Luke 24:39). He did not say: touch this body or person perceived by Me, but: “Me.” Why can no excuse be found for Samosatsky, who denies the unity of God - the Word with the testimony of so many and God Himself - the Word, Who addresses His gospel to everyone, confirming by eating food and permission to touch Him, which of course was done, because when He served or was served food to Him, hands were undoubtedly touched. It is said: “They gave Him some baked fish and honeycombs from the bees,” and eating before them and taking the rest, He gave it to them (Luke 24:42, 43). So, if not as Thomas touched Him, then in another tangible way, he verified them. If you want to see ulcers, then learn from Thomas; for it was said to him: “Bring your hand and place it in My side, and bring your finger... and see My hand” (John 20:27). By calling His ribs and arms, God the Word shows all of Himself - together both man and God; because the Word, as can be understood, now makes Himself felt holy through the body, when it enters “by the closed door,” suddenly presenting itself with the body and allowing them to be convinced. Let this be said as sufficient for the confirmation of the faithful and the correction of the unfaithful. 36) May Paul of Samosata also come to his senses, heeding the Divine voice saying: “My body, and there is no other Christ besides Me the Word; He is with Me, and I am with Him; because the anointing is I the Word, and the one anointed by Me is man. Therefore, without Me one would not be called Christ; it is named because He is with Me, and I in Him.” Therefore, the mentioned message of the Word means His union with Jesus, born of Mary; Jesus, as this name is interpreted, is the Savior not otherwise, but by union with God - the Word. This saying means the same as the words: “the Father who sent Me” (John 8:18), and: “I did not come of Himself, but the Father who sent Me” (John 8:42). He called the connection with man, in which it was possible to give people knowledge of the invisible nature through the visible nature, a message. God, when under the image of our smallness shows His existence in the flesh, does not change place, like us, hiding in some place. For how can He who fills heaven and earth change his place? But because of His appearance in the flesh, the saints called it a message, and then God Himself called it the Word. So, from Mary the God-man is Christ, not another Christ, but one and the same. He is from the Father before the ages, but He is from the Virgin in the last days, formerly invisible to the holy heavenly powers, but now visible because of his union with the visible man; visible, I mean, not by the invisible Divinity, but by the action of the Divine, through the human body and the whole man, whom He renewed by appropriating Himself. To Him be honor and worship, before, and now, and always, and unto the ages of existence! Amen You might be interested in: