Epistle on the Decrees of the Council of Nicaea

1) You did well in informing me of the competition you had with those who defended the Arian cause, among whom were some of Eusebius’s friends, and most of them were from brethren who were wise in the church. Why, I praised your Christ-loving sobriety, which perfectly exposed the wickedness of this heresy, but I marveled at their shamelessness; because even now, when the instability and vanity of the Arian speculations are shown, even condemned by everyone for their malicious intent in everything, - after all this, they grumble, like the Jews, saying: why did the Fathers who met at Nicaea use words not taken from Scripture: from essence and consubstantial. And you, as a scientist, have proven that, hiding behind this, they are nothing more than idle talk; they, inventing pretexts, do not do anything unusual for their evil; because they also diversify and change their thoughts, like chameleons change color: those exposed blush, those interrogated become confused, and then shamelessly make empty excuses. And if someone accuses them of this, they are tormented until they invent something unprecedented, and, according to the word of Scripture, they think “vain thoughts” (Ezek. 11:2), just to remain ungodly. Such an effort of theirs is nothing other than a clear sign of their foolishness, and, as I said above, an imitation of Jewish evil. For the Jews, convicted by the Truth, when they could not resist, presented pretexts, saying: “What... You did a sign, so that we can see and have faith in You? what are you doing” (John 6:30)? Meanwhile, there were so many signs that they themselves said: “What shall we do? For this man does many signs” (John 11:47). The dead were raised, the lame walked, the blind received their sight, lepers were cleansed, water was turned into wine, five thousand people were fed with five loaves: everyone marveled and worshiped the Lord, recognizing in Him the fulfillment of prophecies, confessing that He was God, the Son of God; Only the Pharisees, although the visible signs were brighter than the sun, still, like ignoramuses, remained dissatisfied and said: “Why have you, this man, created God for yourself” (John 10:33)? O senseless and truly blinded minds! On the contrary, they should have said: why did You, O God, become man? “For works showed that He is God.” So it was necessary to say this, and to honor the goodness of the Father and marvel at His economy for us. But they didn’t say this, they didn’t even want to see what was happening, or they saw it, it’s true, because out of necessity they had to look at it - but again, changing their thoughts, they grumbled: why on Saturday do you heal a paralytic, and on this day do you restore sight to a man blind from birth? And this again was only one pretext and one murmur; for when the Lord on other days healed “every disease and every disease” (Matthew 4:23), they usually blamed Him, and they would rather suspect Him of godlessness, calling Him Beelzebub (Mark 3:22), rather than renounce their own wickedness. And although the Savior revealed His Divinity in so many parts and varied ways, and preached the good news about the Father to everyone, nevertheless, as if trying to “go against the prick” (Acts 9:5), they contradicted the bullshit, if only, according to the word of the Divine parable, “seeking guilt... to separate themselves” from the truth (Proverbs 18:1). 2) So the Jews, who were then deceitful and denied the Lord, rightly became outside the laws and the promise given to the fathers. And now the Judaizing Arians, in my opinion, are in the same position with Caiaphas and with the Pharisees of that time. Noticing that their heresy has nothing plausible in it, they come up with excuses, asking: why was this written and not that? And don’t be surprised that now they are clever in this; they will soon resort to insults, and after this they will begin to threaten with the spira and the commander of a thousand; this is the apparent firmness of their malice. Denying God's Word, they rightly became poor in every word. Therefore, knowing this, I would not give any answer to their questions; but since your love expressed a desire to know what was done at the Council, I did not hesitate, but soon announced how things were happening then, briefly showing to what extent the Arian heresy is devoid of a pious way of thinking. The Arians invent only empty pretexts, and look for yourself, beloved, if this is not really the case. If, due to the evil spirit instilled in them by the devil, they firmly rely on the evil things they have invented; then let them be justified in what they were accused of and recognized as heretics, and then object, if they can, to the determinations made against them. A person convicted of murder or adultery, after trial, has no right to object to the judge’s verdict, why he expressed himself this way and not in another way; and this objection does not free the convicted person, but further increases his guilt for recklessness and insolence. Therefore, they too, or let them prove that their way of thinking is pious; because they were convicted and did not complain before, but those accused have nothing else to do but justify themselves; or, if their conscience is unclean and they themselves see their wickedness, then let them not object to what they do not know, so as not to incur further harm on them: both accusations for wickedness and censure for ignorance. But it is better to let them inquisitively investigate the matter, so that, having learned what they did not know before, they can wash their wicked ears with streams of truth and dogmas of piety. So it was at the Council of Nicaea with the adherents of Eusebius. 3) because they stubbornly stood in their wickedness and attempted to fight God; then, although what they proposed was full of wickedness, yet the assembled bishops (of whom there were more or less three hundred) meekly and philanthropically demanded of them to present the basis and pious evidence for what they proposed. since, as soon as they began to speak, they were condemned and began to bicker among themselves; then, seeing the great inconsistency of their heresy, they remained silent and by their silence they admitted that they were ashamed of their evil faith; and therefore the bishops, having finally condemned the sayings they had invented, contrary to them, set forth in their present form the sound and ecclesiastical faith. And when this exposition was signed by everyone, Eusebius’ adherents subscribed to those sayings to which they now make objections, I mean the sayings: “from essence”, “consubstantial”, and: the Son of God is not a creature, or a work, and not anything created, but on the contrary, he is the Word, born from the essence of the Father. And what is strange is that Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, who denied the day before and subsequently signed this exposition, wrote to his Church, claiming that this is the faith of the Church and the tradition of the Fathers, and thereby clearly showed everyone that before they were in error and in vain persisted against the truth. For, even if he was ashamed then to use these sayings, and as he wanted, he justified himself before the Church; then in the message, without renouncing the words: “consubstantial” and “from essence,” he clearly wants to express what we said. And something extraordinary happened to him. As a justifier, he already accused the Arians that, having written: the Son had no existence until he was born, they did not want to recognize the existence of the Son even before birth according to the flesh. Akaki also knows about this, unless he, being frightened by the current circumstances, becomes a hypocrite and renounces the truth. Therefore, I have attached the Epistle of Eusebius at the end, so that from it you can see the ingratitude of these Christ-fighters towards their teachers, and even more so of Acacius. 4) Therefore, do they not sin, even if they only plan to contradict such a great and ecumenical Council? Do they not act lawlessly by daring to oppose the just determinations made against the Arian heresy and witnessed by the very same ones who formerly taught them to be wicked? If Eusebius’ accomplices, after their signature, changed their minds and, like dogs, returned to their vomit of wickedness; Isn’t it all the more worthy of hatred that those who argue are now worthy of hatred because, sacrificing the freedom of their souls to others, they wished to have them as leaders of heresy, that is, people, as James said, double-minded, “unsettled in all their ways” (James 1:8), who do not hold the same way of thinking, but change in it this way and that, and now they approve of what they say, after a while they condemn what they said, and again they praise that they recently blasphemed. And this, according to what is said in the book The Shepherd, is a creation of the devil and a sign of innkeepers rather than teachers. For this is the true teaching and this is the sign of true teachers, as the Fathers betrayed, - to confess the same things in agreement among themselves and not to enter into disputes either with each other or with their Fathers. And those who are not so disposed can rather be called unfit than true teachers. Therefore, the pagans, who do not recognize the same thing, but disagree with each other, do not have the true teaching, but the holy and real preachers of the truth agree with each other and do not differ from each other. For although they existed at different times, they all mutually strive for the same thing, being prophets of one God and preaching one word in agreement. 5) What Moses taught, Abraham kept; and what Abraham observed, Noah and Enoch knew, distinguishing between pure and unclean, and pleasing God. And Abel became a martyr, knowing what he had learned from Adam; whereas Adam was taught by the Lord, Who, “coming at the end of the ages to sweep away sin” (Heb. 9:26), said: I give you not a new commandment, but an ancient one, which you heard at first. Therefore, the blessed Apostle Paul, taught by Him, in outlining church rules, desired that deacons should not be bilingual (1 Tim. 3:8), and even more so bishops; reprimanding the Galatians, he generally put it this way: “If anyone preaches the gospel to you more than he has already eaten, let him be anathema. As I foretold, and again I say: but even if we, or an angel from heaven, bring you good news, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8-9). since the Apostle says this, then they too, either anathematize the Eusebius accomplices who change their minds and say something different from what they signed up for, or, if they know that they signed up rightly, let them not murmur at such a Council. If they do neither one nor the other, then they are clearly tossed about by every wind and excitement, and not by their own, but by the opinions of others, and are carried away by the opinions of others. And if they are, then they do not deserve credibility even now when they present such pretexts. Let them stop condemning what they do not know; or perhaps, not being able to distinguish, they simply call the evil good, the good evil, and they consider the bitter to be sweet, and the sweet to be bitter. And precisely what they want to have force is what the court found to be bad and rejected, and what was fairly determined, they try to slander. Therefore, just as we should no longer give any account of this and respond to their empty pretexts, so they should no longer persist, but agree to what the leaders of their heresy signed up for, when they know that the change of thoughts that occurred after that in Eusebius’s accomplices is suspicious and malicious. To subscribe, having the opportunity to somehow justify oneself, truly shows how evil the Arian heresy is; for they would not have signed first if they had not condemned the heresy, and they would not have condemned it first if they had not been ashamed, being thrown into difficulty on all sides; why, a change of thoughts exposes persistence in wickedness. Therefore, as it is said, they too should have remained in peace; but, since they are strong in shamelessness and think, perhaps, that they themselves are able - better than those to defend this devilish wickedness; then, although in the first letter written to you I laid out a lengthy denunciation of them, however, even now, having taken up these, as well as those, we will subject to a detailed study everything that they say. For even now their completely sound, but some kind of demonic, heresy will be revealed. 6) So, they say, as they also believed and dared to assert: “Not always the Father; not always - Son; The Son did not have existence until He was born, but He also came into existence from the non-existent; therefore, God was not always Father to the Son; when the Son came into being and was created, then God began to be called His Father; because the Word is a creature and a work, and in essence is alien and not like the Father; The Son is not by nature and not the true Word of the Father, not the only and not the true Wisdom of the Father; but, being a creature and one of the works, it is not in the proper sense called Word and Wisdom. For He, like all others, was brought into being by the word that is in God; and therefore, the Son is not the true God.” But I intend to first ask them the following: what is a son anyway? and what is the meaning of this name? - so that at least through this they can understand what they affirm. Divine Scripture shows us a twofold meaning of this name: - One, attached to those about whom Moses speaks in the law: “If you obey the voice of the Lord your God, to keep all His commandments that I command you this day, to do what is good and acceptable in the sight of the Lord your God... you are the sons of the Lord your God” (Deut. 13:18, 14:1). So John says in the Gospel: “When they received Him, He gave them the realm to become children of God” (John 1:12). Another understanding is that Isaac is the son of Abraham, Jacob is the son of Isaac, and the Patriarchs are the sons of Jacob. In which of these understandings, recognizing the Son of God as the son of God, do they compose such fables about Him? For I know very well that in this evil teaching they agree with Eusebius’s accomplices. So, if in the first understanding, as they recognize as sons all those who, through the correction of morals, acquire the grace of this designation and accept “the realm of being children of God” (and this they also affirmed); then one might think that the Son of God is in no way different from us and is not the only begotten; because He also acquired the title of son for virtue. For, although, as they say, by foreknowledge that it will be such, it receives in advance and, together with being, receives both the name and the glory of the name; however, he will not differ in any way from those who receive this name after completing works, if only in such an understanding He is proclaimed the Son. So Adam, who received grace in advance and was placed in paradise along with being, was no different from Enoch, who, some time after his birth, being pleased, was translated, and from the Apostle, who also, after completing his deeds, was raptured into paradise, and even from the thief, who, for his confession, received the promise that he would soon be in paradise. 7) But those persecuted in this will say, perhaps, the same thing that they have already said more than once, and were put to shame: “So we believe that the Son has an advantage over all others, and is called the only begotten because He alone received being from the one God; everything else was created by God through the Son.” Who put into you this foolish and new thought - to say that one Son was directly produced by one Father, yet everything else came into being through the Son, as through a helper? If, in order to avoid fatigue, it was enough for God to directly produce one Son and not produce another; then it is wicked to talk about God in this way, especially hearing what Isaiah says: “The eternal God, the God who made the ends of the earth, will not hunger, nor will he be weary, nor is the invention of His wisdom.” Rather, He “gives strength to the hungry,” and gives rest to the weary with His Word (Is. 40:28–29). If what was created after the Son, as low, God did not deign to produce it directly; then this thought is also wicked. There is no arrogance in God: He descends with Jacob into Egypt, and for Abraham’s sake, for the sake of Sarah, he admonishes Abimelech; with Moses, although he is a man, he says “mouth to mouth” (Num. 12:8); descends on Mount Sinai; with hidden grace he will fight against the people of Amalek. However, even when you say this, you are lying. “He created us, and not we” (Ps. 99:3). He created everything with His Word, both small and great. And it is impossible to distinguish between creatures and say: this was created by the Father, and this by the Son; but everything was created by one God, who acts with His Word as if by His hand, and does everything about Him. And God Himself, making this clear, said: “all... this hand has made” (Is. 66:2). And Paul, having been taught this, taught: “there is one God..., of Whom are all things,... and one is the Lord Jesus Christ, in whom are all things” (1 Cor. 8:6). So, He always and now speaks to the sun - and rises; commands the clouds, and they rain on one piece of land, but on the one that does not rain, it dries up; and commands the earth to produce fruit, and makes Jeremiah in the womb. If now He Himself does this, then there is no doubt that in the beginning He did not recognize Himself as unworthy to create everything Himself with the Word; because these too are parts of the whole. 8) What if because other creatures could not bear the work of the immeasurable hand of the Uncreated? one Son received being from the one God, yet everything else received being through the Son, as through a co-worker and helper (for this was also written by Asterius, who made sacrifices; having also copied it, Arius passed it on to his own, and finally these madmen, not knowing its rottenness, use such a saying as a crushed reed); then, if it was impossible for the created to bear the hand of God, in your opinion, the Son is the only one of the created, how could He be created by the one God? And if in order for created things to come into being, there was a need for a mediator, in your opinion, the Son was created; then before Him there must be someone mediating for the Son to be created. And since this mediator is again a creature, it turns out that for his own origin he also needed another mediator. But if someone had come up with this other intermediary; then let him invent a new mediator for him, so that it will have to extend to infinity. And thus, with the constant need for a mediator, it will be impossible for a single creature to come into being; because, as you say, nothing created can bear the immeasurable hand of the Uncreated. If, seeing this inconsistency, you begin to assert that the Son, being a creature, became capable of receiving existence from the Uncreated; then, by necessity, everything else, being created, could receive existence directly from the Uncreated. For, according to your teaching, the Son, like all these things, is a creature. And in vain is the birth of the Word, according to your wicked and stupid invention, when God has the power to create everything directly, and everything that has received existence has the opportunity to bear the immeasurable hand of God. Given the incomprehensibility of such mental damage, let’s see if it turns out that this mentality of the wicked, which we mention, is more unreasonable than any other of their mentalities. Adam alone received existence through the Word from the one God; but no one will say that Adam has any other advantage over all people in this, or differs in this from the people who came after him (although he alone was created and formed by one God, we are all born from Adam and come from the succession of the race), as soon as he was formed from the earth, and without having previously been, received existence later. 9) If anyone gives the first-created an advantage because he has been honored with God’s hand; then let him give Adam's advantage in honor, and not in nature; because Adam came from the earth, like everyone else, and the same hand that formed Adam then, now and always, again forms and produces those born after Adam. And this, as I said before, God himself says to Jeremiah: “Before I created you in the womb, I knew you” (Jer. 1:5). Yes, and about everyone he said: “My hand has created all this” (Is. 66:2). And also through Isaiah he says: “Here saith the Lord, who delivered thee, and created thee from the womb: I am the Lord who perfecteth all things, who spread out the heavens alone, and established the earth” (Is. 44:24). And David, knowing this, sang: “Thy hands make me and create me” (Ps. 119:73). The one who says in Isaiah has the same thought: “Thus says the Lord, who created me from the womb to be His servant” (Is. 49:5). So, Adam is no different from us by nature, although he precedes us in time, just as we are all produced and created by the same hand. Therefore, if you, Arians, think this way about the Son of God, namely, that He also came into being in the same way; then, according to your teaching, He will not differ in any way from other creatures by nature, since He did not have existence, but received it, and for virtue the grace of the name was imparted to Him at creation. For He, as you assert, is one of those about whom the Spirit speaks in the Psalms: “He spoke and was created: He commanded and was created” (Ps. 33:9). Therefore, to whom did God command that the Son should be created? For the Word must be the one whom God commands and by whom creatures are created. But you cannot indicate any other Word other than the one you deny, unless you again come up with some kind of guess. Yes, they say, we have found it (so, I heard Eusebius’s accomplices once claim), and we think that the Son of God has an advantage over others and is called the only begotten because He alone is a partaker of the Father, while everything else is a partaker of the Son. - They have already worked so hard, transforming and changing words like colors. However, it will be proven that in this too they are “from the earth... vainglorious” (Is. 8:19) and wallowing in their conjectures like mud. 10) If He were called the Son of God, and we were called sons of the Son; then their invention would be likely. If we also are called sons of that God, of whom He is also the Son; it is clear that we are also partakers of the Father, Who says: “We have begotten and raised up sons” (Is. 1:2). For if we were not partakers of Him, I would not have said: “I gave birth.” If he gave birth, then it is no other, but He is our Father. And there is no importance in this - that the Son has more and first received being, and we have less and received being later - since we are all partakers of the same thing and are called sons of the same Father. To have more and less does not show a different nature; because this is given to everyone for progressing in virtue, and one is assigned over ten, and the other over five cities (Luke 19:17-19); some are seated “on twelve thrones, judging the two ten tribes of Israel” (Luke 22:30), while others hear: “Come, blessed of My Father” (Matt. 25:34), and: “Good, good and faithful servant” (Matt. 25:21). Thinking in this way, they rightly imagine that God is not from eternity the Father of such a Son, and that such a Son is not from eternity, but on the contrary, he was created from something non-existent and did not have existence until he was born; for such a son is different from the true Son of God. But since it is not even permissible for them to say this, and this wisdom is more characteristic of the Sadducees and Samosata; then it remains to affirm that the Son of God is called the Son in another sense, namely, in which Isaac is the son of Abraham. Whoever is born from someone’s nature, and not acquired from outside, is recognized by nature as a son: and this is the meaning of this name. Is the birth of the Son really servile to the human birth (maybe, in their ignorance, they want to make this objection, following the example of those mentioned above)? - Not at all. God is not the same as man; because people are not the same as God; people are created from matter, and from material that provides pleasure, and God is immaterial and incorporeal. If the same sayings are sometimes used about God and about people in the Divine Scriptures; then, as Paul commanded, perspicacious people are required to pay attention to the reading (1 Tim. 4:13), and thus distinguish and recognize what is written in each case in accordance with the property of what is signified and not to confuse the meanings - not to represent God in human terms, and never to reason about human things as if they were God’s. For this means mixing wine with water (Is. 1:22) and casting strange fire onto the Divine altar. 11) God creates, and people are said to create; God is He, and it is said about people that they have existence, and have it, having received it from God. But does God create like people? Or does existence belong to God as much as it belongs to man? Let it not be so; We accept these sayings about God differently, and we understand them differently about people. God creates, “being called... by being” (Rom. 4:17), and having no need for anything; and people process the finished substance, having previously sought and received knowledge to complete the work from God, who created everything with His own Word. And one more thing: people cannot exist by themselves; they are limited by place and supported by God’s Word; God has existence by Himself, embraces everything and is not encompassed by anything; He abides in everything by His goodness and power, and also beyond everything by His own nature. Therefore, just as people do not create in the same way as God creates, and people do not exist in the same way as God does: so the human birth takes place differently, and the Son is born differently from the Father. Human creations are, as it were, parts of those who give birth, because the very nature of bodies is not something simple, but fluid and composed of parts; When people give birth, they exude from themselves, and what is brought in with food also flows into them; for this reason, people eventually become fathers of many children. And God is not divided into parts; He is the indivisible and dispassionate Father to the Son. In the Ethereal there is no outflow; There is no flowing into Him, as happens with people; but, being simple in nature, He is the Father of the one and only Son. Therefore, the Son is the only begotten, and is one “in the bosom of the Father” (John 1:18). And that He alone is from the Father, this is shown by the Father, saying: “This is My beloved Son, in Him I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:17). He is the Word of the Father, in whom one can imagine the dispassion and indivisibility of the Father; because not only God’s, but also the human word is born without suffering and not through division into parts. Therefore, He sits at the right hand of the Father, as the Word; for where the Father is, there is His Word: and we stand judged by Him as creatures. He is venerable because He is the Son of the venerable Father; and we worship Him, confessing Him as Lord and God, because we are creatures and one with Him. 12) since this is really so, then let anyone who wishes to finally understand them, and someone will become their understanding: is it permissible to call something that came from nothing that is from God and is His own birth? Or is there any reason for anyone to even think that what is from God is accidental in God, why would you even dare to say that the Son is not from eternity? The birth of the Son exceeds and exceeds human ideas in the following: we become fathers of our children in time; because they themselves, having no existence before, subsequently came into existence; God, who always exists, is always Father to the Son. And in human birth it certifies the similarity of those who give birth and those who are born; but since “no one knows the Son except the Father, nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and if the Son reveals it” (Matthew 11:27); then the saints, to whom the Son revealed this, communicated to us a certain image, borrowed from the visible, saying: “Who is the brightness of glory and the image of His hypostasis” (Heb. 1:3), and again: “For with You is the fountain of life, in Your light we will see light” (Ps. 35:10). And the word reproaching Israel says: “Thou hast forsaken the fountain of wisdom” (Bar. 3:12); and the Source Himself says: “You left the fountain of living water for me” (Jer. 2:13). Although the similarity is small and extremely weak to the image of what is desired; however, from it one can understand the advantage over human nature, and no longer consider our birth and the birth of the Son equal. existence until one is born? Or who is able to separate the radiance from the sun, or imagine the source ever deprived of life, so that in your madness he can say to you: from the non-existent comes into being the Son, Who says: “I am... life” (John 14:6), or alien to the Father’s essence - He who says: “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9)? The saints, wanting us to understand this way, also communicated similarities. And when we have such images in Scripture, it would be absurd and extremely ungodly to formulate our concept of the Lord according to other images that are not in Scripture and that do not have any pious meaning in themselves. 13) Therefore, let them finally say: where did they learn from, or according to whose tradition, did they begin to come up with such things about the Savior? They say: we read in Proverbs: “The Lord made Me the beginning of His ways for His works” (Proverbs 8:22). It seems that Eusebius’s accomplices also said this. And you expressed in your letter that your opponents, although they were condemned by many arguments, nevertheless, referring in all cases to this saying, continued to assert that the Son is one of the creations, and ranked Him among the creatures that came into being. But, in my opinion, they did not understand this saying well either; because it has a pious and most correct meaning; and if they had understood it, they would not have blasphemed the Lord of glory. Let them compare what was said before with this saying; then they will see the great difference between one and the other. Who, having the correct meaning, will not see that what is created and created is outside the creator, and the Son, as the Word preceding the saying showed, is not outside the begetting Father, but from Him? And man builds a house and gives birth to a son; and no one will say on the contrary that a house and a ship are born by the builder, and a son is created and created by him. No one recognizes the house as the image of the creator, and the son as unlike the one who gives birth; on the contrary, everyone will agree that the son is the father’s image, and the house is a work of art, if only he has common sense and has not lost his mind. And the Divine Scripture, of course, knowing better than anyone the nature of each thing, speaks about the things being created through Moses: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1); about the Son, he represents the speaker as none other than the Father himself: “from the womb before the star I gave birth to Thee” (Ps. 109:3); and again: “Thou art My Son, I have given birth to Thee this day” (Ps. 2:7). And the Lord speaks about Himself in Proverbs: “Before all the hills He gives birth to Me” (Proverbs 8:25). About what came into being and was created, John says: “all things came into being” (John 1:3), while preaching the gospel of the Lord, he says: “the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, is the one who confessed” (John 1:18). So, if he is the Son, then he is not a creature; if he is a creature, then he is not the Son. For there is a great difference between the one and the other, and one and the same cannot be the Son and the creature; otherwise it would be necessary to admit that his essence is both from God and outside of God. Was this saying written in vain? And they also buzz in our ears, like a herd of mosquitoes. No; not in vain, but out of extreme necessity this was written. For it is said that he was created, but when he became a man; because this is human nature. And that this meaning lies in those words - this will be completely found by those who read without negligence, but on the contrary, enter into the study - both of the time, and the persons, and the needs of what is written, and thus disassemble and understand what they read. Thus he will find the time indicated by the saying, and will know that the Lord, who was always present, later, at the end of the ages, became man, and being the Son of God, he also became the son of man. He will also understand the need, namely, that, wanting to abolish our death, he took upon himself the body of the Virgin Mary, and, having sacrificed it for all to the Father, “he will deliver us all, who, through all our life, have been guilty of labor through the fear of death” (Heb. 2:15). About the face, although it is the face of the Savior, it is already said when, having taken upon himself the body, he says about himself: “The Lord He made Me the beginning of His ways for His works” (Proverbs 8:22). For just as eternal existence and existence in the bosom of the Father is completely befitting of the true Son of God, so it is fitting for him who became a man to say: “The Lord created Me.” For then it is already said about Him that He was hungry, and thirsty, and asked where Lazarus lay, and suffered, and rose again. And just as, hearing that He is Lord, and God, and the true Light, we imagine Him to be from the Father, so hearing: “created”, and “slave”, and “suffered,” it would be fair not to attribute this to the Divine, because this is not characteristic of the Divine, but to attribute it to the flesh, which He bore on Himself for our sake, because this is characteristic of it, and the flesh itself belongs to no one else, but the Word. And if anyone wants to know what is the benefit of this; then he will find this too: for “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14), so that flesh also might be offered for everyone, and we, having partaken of His Spirit, could be deified, which we would not have achieved otherwise if He had not put on our created body. For in this way we have already begun to be called people of God and people of Christ. But how, having received the Spirit, do not lose our own essence; so the Lord, having become a man for our sake and carried a body on Himself, nevertheless remained God; because he did not diminish himself by putting on a body, but on the contrary, he deified him and made him immortal. 15) And this is enough to bring shame to the Arian heresy; because the wicked, as the Lord has granted, are convicted by their own words. But now we will go forward and demand an answer from them. For it is timely for them to listen to questions from us when they are in difficulty in their speculations. Perhaps, although ashamed of this, they will turn their gaze to where these malicious ones fell from. About the Son of God, as we said before, we know from the Divine Scriptures that He is the Word and Wisdom of the Father, for the Apostle says: “Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:24), and John, having said: “and the Word became flesh,” soon added: “and we have seen His glory, the glory of the only begotten from the Father, filled with grace and truth” ( John 1:14), that is: since the Word is the only begotten Son; then by this Word and Wisdom the heavens and the earth and everything in them were created. And that the source of this wisdom is God, we learn from the book of Baruch, where Israel is accused, who left “the source of wisdom” (Bar.3:12). Therefore, if they deny what is written; then, having become from now on alien to the very name, in the proper sense they can receive from everyone the name of godless and anti-Christ; because that’s what they called themselves. If they confess with us that the verbs of Scripture are inspired by God; then let them dare to say openly what they think in secret, namely, that God was once without Word and without Wisdom; let them confirm in their madness: “It came to pass when the Son was not; Christ did not exist until he was born"; Let them also declare that the Source did not give birth to Wisdom from itself, but acquired it from without, so that they can boldly say, “from the non-existent the Son came”; for this no longer shows in Him a source, but some kind of ditch, as if receiving water from the outside and appropriating for itself the name of the source. 16) How full of wickedness this is, I think, no one who has even the slightest sense will doubt. since they secretly divulge that Word and Wisdom are names only of the Son; then it is necessary to ask them: if these are names only of the Son; then He himself will be different from them? And if He is more perfect than names; it is dishonest for the most perfect to mean less perfect. If He is below names; then, of course, there is a reason for the name from the most perfect; this again means His success; and such a thought is no less wicked than before. For about Him Who is in the Father and in Whom is the Father, Who says of Himself: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), and Whom “he has seen... in the form of the Father” (John 14:9), to say that He is perfected from something external would be beyond all madness. But those deprived of this support, and like Eusebius’s accomplices, brought into great difficulty, are finally left with what Arius, as if in a new bewilderment, fables in his songs and in his Thalia 2: “God speaks many words; which of them do we call the Son and the only begotten Word of the Father? O foolish ones, and most likely everyone, but not Christians! Firstly, speaking in this way about God, they almost imagine God as a man, who speaks like this and replaces the old words with new ones, as if a single Word from God is not enough to complete all creation according to the will of the Father and to provide for everything. His utterance of many words would show the weakness of all His words; because each gives more room to the needs of the other; God’s use of the one Word (as indeed It is one) shows both God’s power, and the perfection of the Word, which is from God, and the pious understanding of those who think so. 17) Oh, if only they, although because of what they themselves are saying now, would wish to confess the truth! If one day it is agreed that God speaks words; then, of course, they recognize Him as the Father. And knowing this, let them understand that, not agreeing to recognize the one Word of God, they represent God as the Father of many. They do not want to deny that there is undoubtedly the Word of God, but they do not confess that the Word is the Son of God; and this is ignorance of the truth and inexperience in the Divine Scriptures. If God is certainly the Father of the Word; then why is the one who is begotten not the Son? And again, who could be the Son of God except His Word? There are not many words, so as not to be sufficient for everyone, but one - the Word, so that He alone may be perfect. One is the Word, because there is one God, and there must be one His image, which is the Son. The Son of God, as can be seen from Scripture itself, is God’s Word, and Wisdom, and image, and hand, and Power; because one thing is God's birth, yet these are the signs of birth from the Father. If you pronounce the word: “Son,” you express that He is from the Father by nature. Do you form within yourself the concept: “Word”? again you imagine being from the Father and inseparability with the Father. And calling it Wisdom, nevertheless you again have in your thoughts not an origin from without, but an existence from the Father and in the Father. Do you call it Power and Hand? again you mean by these, your own belonging to the essence. And saying: “image,” you proclaim the Son; for what would be like God except one born of God? Without a doubt, what was created through the Word was founded by Wisdom, and what was founded in Wisdom was completed by hand, and came into being through the Son. And we are assured of this not by external evidence, but from the Scriptures. God Himself says through the Prophet Isaiah: “My hand is the foundation of the earth. and My right hand establishes the heavens” (Is. 48:13); and again: “And I will cover you under the canopy of my hand, with it I set up the heavens and founded the earth” (Is. 51:16). David, recognizing this and knowing that this hand is Wisdom, sang: “Thou hast created all things with wisdom: the earth is filled with Thy creation” (Ps. 103:24), just as Solomon, having received knowledge from God, said: “God is the foundation of the earth with wisdom” (Prov. 3:19). And John, knowing that the hand and Wisdom are the Word, preached: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was to God, and God was the Word. This is true from time immemorial to God. All things were by Him, and without Him they were nothing” (John 11-3). And the Apostle, seeing that the hand, Wisdom, the Word is the Son himself, says: “God, who spoke in many ways and in many ways of old from the Father as a prophet, in these last days spoke to us in the Son, whom he appointed an heir to all, in whom also he created the worlds” (Heb. 1:1-2); and again: “There is one Lord Jesus Christ, in whom are all things, and we in Him” (1 Cor. 8:6). And again, knowing that the Word, Wisdom, the Son is the image of the Father, he says in the letter to the Colossae: “giving thanks to God the Father who called us to partake of the inheritance of the saints in the light, who delivered us from the power of darkness, and brought us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, for whom the Imams deliverance..., remission of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation: for By Him all things were created, both in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, whether they are dominions, whether they are principalities, whether they are powers: all things were created by Him and about Him: He is before all, and all things are found in Him” (Col. 1:12-17). Everything was created both by the Word and in the Word; because It is an image. Whoever has such a thought about the Lord will not stumble over the “stumbling stone” (Rom. 9:32), but will rather go to illumination before the light of truth; for this is indeed the philosophizing of the truth, even though these (people) were torn from obstinacy, neither honoring God, nor ashamed when they are accused of arguments. 18) Eusebius’s accomplices, having been interrogated by many, then condemned themselves, as I said above, signed their names, and repented, fell silent and left. But since today's heretics, magnifying themselves in wickedness and circling around the truth in darkness, have only one intention - to accuse the Council; then let them tell us from which scriptures, having learned, or from which of the saints they heard, they collected sayings for themselves - “from things that do not exist”, and: “he was not until he was born”; “it was when He was not”; “changeability, pre-existence, by will” - which ones do they use when mocking the Lord? Blessed Paul in his Epistle to the Hebrews says: “By faith we understand that the word of God has been perfected forever, in which things were not made visible” (Heb. 11:3); but the Word has nothing to do with the ages; because It precedes the eyelids with Its existence, and through It the eyelids received being. And in the book: The Shepherd (because they also refer to this book, although it is not in the canon) it is written: “first of all, believe that there is one God, who created and accomplished everything, and brought everything into being from non-dry.” But this again has nothing to do with the Son; for the book speaks of everything that He brought into being, and with which He is different; because the Creator cannot be counted among His works; Who would be foolish to assert that an architect is one and the same with the buildings he produces? So, why, by inventing sayings that are not in Scripture to confirm wickedness, do they accuse those who affirm piety with sayings not taken from Scripture? It is forbidden to be wicked in any case, even if someone tried to clothe it with elaborate words and plausible speculations; and to be pious is recognized by everyone as a holy deed, even if someone uses strange sayings, if only the one offering them has a pious thought and wants to piously express with these sayings what is in his thoughts. So, then and now, it has been proven by word that the above-mentioned low words of the anti-Christ fighters are filled with all kinds of wickedness. And in what is written and determined against them at the Council, if anyone examines carefully, he will, without a doubt, find the underlying truth, and especially by questioning with curiosity, he will also hear a solid pretext for the use of such sayings. For this pretext is the following. 19) since the Council was pleased to remove from use the sayings introduced by Arian wickedness, and to write expressions recognized by all from the Scriptures, namely, that the Son is not from non-existence, but from God, that He is the Word and Wisdom, not a creature, not a work, but His own birth from the Father; Eusebius’s accomplices, carried away by their long-term evil faith, wanted to insist that the saying: “from God” is common to both us and God’s Word, and the Word in this does not differ from us, according to what is written: “one God..., all things are of no good” (1 Cor. 8:6), and also: “the ancient past was made, and all things were new, and all things were from God” ( 2 Cor. 5:17–18): then the Fathers, seeing their cunning and maliciousness of wickedness, were finally forced to more clearly express the saying: “from God” and write that the Son is “from God’s essence,” so that no one would consider the saying “from God” to be general and equally belonging to both the Son and creatures, but everyone would believe that everything else is a creature, but the Word is one from the Father. For, although it is said that everything is from God, however, this is said in a different sense than in which the Son is from God. As for creatures, since they do not exist without a reason and do not come into being spontaneously and not by chance, as they explain their origin from the cohesion of atoms and homogeneities, or, as some of the heretics call another creator, or, as others again say, that everything was created by some kind of angels; On the contrary, just as God exists, so through the Word everything that did not exist before was brought into existence by Him: therefore, it is said that creation is from God. And since the Word is not a creature; then it is said about Him that He is one - from the Father; and the sign of such understanding is that the Son is from the essence of the Father; for this is not characteristic of anything created. Yes, and Paul, having said that everything is from God, immediately added: “and there is one Lord Jesus Christ, in whom are all things” (1 Cor. 8:6), in order to show everyone that the Son is different from everything created by God; because what was created by God was created through the Son, and Paul said this for the reason that creation was accomplished by God, and not because all things are also from the Father, as is the Son. For everything created is not the same as the Son, and the Word is not one of the creatures, but the Lord and Creator of everything. Therefore, the Holy Council expressed more clearly that the Word is from the essence of the Father, in assurance that the Word is different from the nature of created things, one is truly from God, and so that the wicked no longer have a pretext for deception. So, this is the reason why it is written: “from the essence.” 20) The bishops also said that it should be written: the Word is the true power and image of the Father, that It is like the Father in everything, not different from Him, immutable, always inseparable and abides in Him; for the Word was never devoid of being, but always had it, eternally abiding with the Father, like the radiance of light. Eusebius’ adherents, although they endured this, did not dare to contradict out of shame, because they were already exposed; however, it became noticeable that they whispered to each other and made signs with their eyes, as if the words: “like”, “always”, and the name: “power”, also: “in Him” - were again common to both us and the Son. And they have no difficulty agreeing with us. This is the word: “like”; because it is used in Scripture about us: man is “the image and glory of God” (1 Cor. 11:7). The same is true for the word: “always”; because it is written: “For ever we are alive” (2 Cor. 4:11); – and the word: “in Him”: “in Him we live, and we move, and we are” (Acts 17:28); - and the word: “immutable”; because it is written: “Nothing will separate us from the love of Christ” (Rom. 8:35). As for the word: “strength”; then both the caterpillar and the moss are called strength, and “great power” (Joel 2:25), and it is repeatedly written about people, as for example: “all the power of the Lord came out of the land of Egypt” (Exodus 12:41); but there are other, heavenly powers; for it is said: “The Lord of hosts is with us, the God of Jacob is our protector” (Ps. 45:8). Asterius, called a sophist, wrote something similar to this, having learned from them, and before him, as it is said, Arius, who learned this. Therefore, the Bishops, seeing in this their hypocrisy and the fact that, according to what was written, “there is flattery in the hearts of the wicked who work out evil” (Proverbs 12:20), and they themselves were forced to again extract the meaning from the Scriptures, and what they said before, also again reveal and write more clearly, and namely, that the Son is “consubstantial” with the Father, meaning that the Son is not only similar to the Father, but is from the Father identical with Him in likeness, and to show that the likeness and immutability of the Son are different from what we call likeness, which we achieve as a result of virtue through keeping the commandments. Bodies similar to each other can be separated and located far from one another; such, for example, are the sons of men and those who gave birth to them, as it is written about Adam and Seth, who was born by him, that Seth was like Adam in appearance (Gen. 5:3). since the birth of the Son from the Father is different from human nature, and the Son is not only similar, but also inseparable from the essence of the Father, the Son and the Father are one, as the Son himself said (John 10:30), the Word is always in the Father and the Father in the Word, as radiance and light are inseparable (for this is what is expressed by this saying): then, therefore, the Council, imagining this, beautifully wrote: “consubstantial” , in order to overthrow the evil of the heretics and show that the Word is different from created things, and, having written this, he immediately added: and whoever says that the Son of God is from something that is not existing, or is a creature, or is changeable, or is a work, or is of a different essence, the Holy and Universal Church anathematizes them. Having said this, the Fathers clearly expressed that the words: from “essence” and “consubstantial” serve to eradicate the words introduced by wickedness, which are the essence: “creation” and “work”, “created”, “changeable”; “was not until he was born”; for whoever thinks this way will contradict the Council; and whoever does not philosophize according to Ariev, he necessarily philosophizes and understands, like the Council, clearly seeing what the relationship of radiance to light is, and from here borrowing the image of truth. 21) So, if they also present as an excuse the news of sayings, then let them delve into the thought with which the Council wrote this, anathematizing what the Council actually anathematized; and then, if they can, they condemn the expressions. But I know for sure that, having delved into the thought of the Council, they will undoubtedly accept the utterances that express the thought. And if they want to condemn thought; then they will show everyone that they are talking about sayings in vain, and are only inventing for themselves incentives to impiety. So, this is the reason for introducing such sayings. If they also complain that these sayings are not taken from Scripture; then after this let them themselves be condemned as idle talkers and not of sound mind, and condemn themselves for the fact that they were the first to give a pretext for this when they began to fight against God, using words not taken from Scripture. But, however, if anyone is inquisitive, then let him know that although these sayings are not in the Scriptures, nevertheless, as was said before, the thought contained in them is taken from Scripture, and when they are pronounced, they express this thought for those whose ears are entirely directed towards piety. This can be noticed both by you and by them, despite all their ignorance. It has been proven before this, and this must really be believed, that the Word is from the Father, and is His only birth, His own by nature. For from whom else will anyone imagine the Son, Who is Wisdom and the Word, “In Whom all things were”, if not from God himself? However, we have also been taught this from the Scriptures. The Father says through David: “My heart will vomit out the good word” (Ps. 45:2): and: “From the womb before the star I gave birth to Thee” (Ps. 109:3); and the Son explains about Himself to the Jews: “If God were your Father, you would quickly love Me, for I died from the Father” (John 8:42); and again: “It is not as if anyone has seen the Father, but He who is from God has seen the Father” (John 6:46). And to say, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), and: “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me” (John 14:10), also means to say: I am from the Father and inseparable from Him. And John, saying: “the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, is the one who confessed” (John 1:18), he said this, having learned from the Savior. For what else is meant by the word: “in the womb” if not the sincere birth of the Son from the Father? 22) Therefore, if anyone thinks that God is complex, so that in His essence He has something accidental, or some kind of external shell, and is closed with it, or that around Him there is something that completes His essence, why, when pronouncing the word: God, or calling Him Father, we mean not the most invisible and incomprehensible of His essence, but something around it: then let them blame the Council, which wrote that the Son is from the essence of God; but let them also understand that, meaning this, they are uttering two blasphemies; because they introduce some kind of bodily God, and falsely preach that the Lord is the Son not of the Father himself, but of that which is around Him. If God is something simple (as indeed he is); it is clear that when we pronounce the Word: God, and call Him Father, we are not naming something around Him, but we are signifying His very essence. For, although it is impossible to comprehend what the essence of God is; however, with one idea that God exists, since Scripture means Him with the same names, and we, wanting to designate not anyone else, but Himself, call Him God and Father and Lord. Therefore, when they say: “I am” (Exodus 3:14), and: “I am the Lord God” (Exodus 20:2), and as soon as Scripture anywhere says: “God,” we mean nothing else, but the very incomprehensible essence of Him that is signified, and that which is the one about whom it is spoken. Therefore, let no one be embarrassed when hearing that the Son of God is from the essence of God, but let him better agree with the Fathers, who, having cleared the meaning more clearly, as if equivalent to the expression: “from God,” wrote: “from the essence”; for they considered it identical whether to say: the Word is from God, or to say: the Word is from the essence of God; because the Word: “God,” as I said before, means nothing else, but the essence of God’s being. So, if the Word is from God, not as a true Son by nature from the Father, but as a creature by creation, and about Him, like about everything, it is said that He is from God; that Word is not from the essence of the Father, and the Son himself is the Son, not by essence, but by virtue, like us, who by grace are called sons. If the Word is alone from God, as the true Son (which is indeed the case); then it would be fair to say that the Son is from the essence of God. 23) And the image of light and radiance conveys the same thought. The saints did not say that the Word relates to the Father like a fire kindled by the warmth of the sun, which usually goes out again; for this would be an external work and the work of the Creator. On the contrary, everyone preached that the Word is radiance in order to explain being from the essence itself, and inseparability and unity with the Father. And in this way it will also be preserved that the Son is truly immutable and unchangeable; for otherwise will it be so if He is the improper birth of the Father’s essence? since in this too it is necessary for Him to preserve His identity with His Father. Because this teaching turned out to be so pious; then those who oppose Christ should not be embarrassed by the word: “consubstantial”; because this saying also has common sense and solid proof. For if we say that the Word is from the essence of God (let this saying be recognized by them too); What does it mean if not the truth and eternity of the essence from which the Word was born? It is not foreign; otherwise, something alien and unlike will be mixed into the essence of the Father. It is not only similar in appearance; otherwise, in another, or in general, it will turn out to be of another substance, like shiny copper and gold, silver and tin. These things are alien and heterogeneous to one another, and are divided among themselves by nature and power; copper is not related to gold; The wood pigeon is not born from a dove. Although they are revered as similar; however, they are different from each other. Therefore, if the Son is in the same relation; then, like us, he will be a creature, and not consubstantial. And if the Son is the Word, Wisdom, the image of the Father, radiance; then, in fairness, it will be consubstantial. If it is not proven that the Son is not from God and is only a foreign and alien instrument; The Council wrote it beautifully and understood it correctly. 24) May all bodily thoughts also be taken away from here; having become above all sensory ideas, with pure understanding and a single mind, we will imagine the sincere communication of the Son with the Father, the property of the Word with God, the indistinguishable similarity of radiance with light. As birth, as the Son, he is called such, and really such, not in a human way, but as befits God. In the same way, hearing the saying: “consubstantial,” we will not, descending to human sensory ideas, think about the fragmentations and divisions of the Divine, but as having formed the concept of the incorporeal, we will not begin to divide the unity of nature and the identity of light. For this is the property of the Son with the Father, and this proves that God truly is the Father of the Word. For this purpose, this image of light and radiance is again necessary. Who dares to say that the radiance is alien and unlike the sun? Or better: who, looking at this relationship of radiance to the sun and the identity of light, will not boldly say that light and radiance are truly one, and light appears in radiance, and radiance has existence in the sun, so that whoever sees one sees the other? The same unity and natural property, as believers and those who see correctly will call it, is it not a consubstantial birth? The birth of God, in its proper and proper way, can anyone imagine it as anything other than the Word, not Wisdom, not Power, which to call alien to the Father is illegal, and even in thoughts to imagine not eternally abiding with the Father is not permissible. For by this Birth the Father created everything, and through Him he has mercy on everything, extending His providence to everything. And thus the Son and the Father, as it is said, “are one.” Will the evil-minded still dare and say that the essence of the Word is different, and the light that is in Him from the Father is different, so that the light that is in the Son would be one with the Father, and the Son himself, as a creature, would be essentially alien to the Father. But this in the full sense is the wisdom of Caiaphas and Samosata; The Church rejected it, but they are now covering it up; why, having fallen away from the truth, they themselves were declared heretics. For if the Son is completely involved in the light that is from the Father; then why is it better for Him Himself not to be what He should be involved in, so that there is nothing in between between Him and the Father? Otherwise, it will not be proven that everything came into existence through the Son, and not through something of which the Son himself participated. If the Son is the Word, the Wisdom of the Father, in Him the Father is revealed, known and created, but without Him the Father does nothing; it is clear that He is from the Father; because all created things are a partaker of Him, partakers of the Holy Spirit. And in this case, He will not be from non-existence, and will not be a creature at all, but, what is most certain, His own birth from the Father, like radiance from light. 25) So, the Fathers gathered at Nicaea, having this thought, wrote such sayings. And that, having not invented them on their own, they invented them (for this is also blamed on them), on the contrary, they pronounced them, borrowing from ancient times, from their predecessors - let us prove this too, so that the opponents do not have such an excuse. So, know, Christian Arians, that Theognostus, a learned man, did not refuse to use the expression: “from the essence.” For in the second book of the Hypotipos, writing about the Son, he said this: “the essence of the Son is not something acquired from the outside, and is not introduced from something that does not exist, but is born from the Father’s essence, like the radiance of light, like the vapor of water. For radiance and vapor are not the very sun and not the very water; but they are not alien to them. But from the outpouring of the Father’s essence, the essence of the Father did not suffer division. Like the sun, being the same, it is not diminished by the rays poured out by him; thus the essence of the Father did not suffer change, having as its image the Son.” This is how Theognostus expressed himself, having first examined this in the form of a contest, and subsequently offered his opinion. Dionysius, the former Bishop of Alexandria, writing against Sabellius, explaining at length the Savior's dispensation in the flesh, and thereby denouncing the Sabellians that it was not the Father who became flesh, but His Word became incarnate, as John said, since they suspected him of allegedly calling the Son a work and created, and not consubstantial with the Father, to Dionysius, the Bishop of Rome, of the same name, writes in his justification, that this is slander against him. For he asserts that he did not call the Son created, but confesses Him to be of one essence. His own words are as follows: “I wrote in another letter when I denounced that the accusation brought against me is false, as if I assert that Christ is not consubstantial with God. Although I say that I did not find this word anywhere in the Holy Scriptures, however, my subsequent arguments, which they kept silent about, do not disagree with this thought. For I presented as an example human birth, which, as is known, is homogeneous, no doubt noting that parents are different only with children; because children are not themselves, or it would be necessary for neither parents nor children to be. Due to circumstances, I cannot deliver this letter, as I already said. But if I could, I would send the most used sayings at that time, or better yet, a list of the entire letter, which I will do as soon as I have the opportunity. I know and remember that I have presented many similarities of related things. For I said that a plant that sprang from a seed, or from a root, “is different from that from which it grew; but, without a doubt, it is homogeneous with it; I said that a river flowing from a source receives a different name; because neither a source is called a river, nor a river a source, while there are both a river and a source, and a river is water flowing from a source.” 26) And that God’s Word is not a work and not a creature, but on the contrary, its own, inseparable birth of the Father’s essence, as the great Council wrote; then the Roman Bishop Dionysius, writing against those who adhere to the Sabellian way of thinking, complains about those who dare to say this and expresses himself as follows: “In order, it will be fair to say against those who ruin the venerable preaching of the Church of God, who divide and dissect the Unity of Command into some three powers, into three deities and separate hypostases. For it has come to my attention that some of those who proclaim and those who teach you the word of God spread this wisdom, and in this they are completely, so to speak, contrary to the opinion of Sabellius. He blasphemes, asserting that the Son himself is the Father and, on the contrary, they preach in some way three gods, dividing the Holy Unit into three hypostases, one alien to the other and separate in everything. But the Divine Word must be in unity with the God of all, and the Holy Spirit must abide and dwell in God, and it is absolutely necessary that the Divine Trinity be headed and concentrated in a single, as if some kind of head, I mean the God of all - the Almighty. For the teaching of the superstitious Marcion, the section and division of the Unity of Command into three principles is a teaching of the devil, and not the teaching of the true disciples of Christ, who are satisfied with the teachings of the Savior; for these latter know well that the Divine Scripture preaches the Trinity, but neither the Old nor the New Testament preaches three gods. But no less will others blame those who think that the Son is a work, and believe that the Lord received being as something from what was actually created; meanwhile, the Divine Word testifies to a birth conformable and fitting to Him, and not to some kind of formation and creation. Therefore, it is not unimportant, but very great blasphemy to assert that the Lord is in some way made by hand. For if the Son was created; that was when the Son was not. But He always was, if He is in the Father, as He Himself says, and if Christ is the Word, and Wisdom, and Power. And that Christ is all this, this, as you know, is affirmed by the Divine Scriptures; The Word, Wisdom and Power are God's own powers. Why, if the Son was created; that was when those forces did not exist; there was a time when God was without them. But this is the most ridiculous thing. And why talk any longer about this with you, spirit-bearing men who clearly know what incongruities arise if you say: the Son is a work? It seems to me that the thoughts driven by this opinion did not pay attention to these inconsistencies, and therefore they significantly sinned against the truth, otherwise than as the Divine and Prophetic Scripture requires in this place, understanding these words: “The Lord has made Me the beginning of His ways” (Proverbs 8:22). As you know, there is more than one meaning of the word: “created”. “Created” here should be taken instead of: “set” over the works He created and created through the Son Himself. But not in the meaning: “created”, the word is now used: “created”; because there is a difference in the words: “create” and “create”. “Is not this your Father himself who acquired you, and created you, and created you,” says Moses in the great song in Deuteronomy (Deut. 32:6)? And someone else will say to them: what foolish people! Is the creation really the Firstborn of “all creation” (Col. 1:15), Born “from the womb before the morning star” (Ps. 109:3), like Wisdom, who said: “Before all the hills she gives birth to Me” (Prov. 8:25)? And in many places of the Divine Words everyone will find that the Son is called birth, and not created, and these places clearly expose the false concepts that constitute the Lord’s birth and those who dare to call His Divine and ineffable birth creation. So, the wonderful and Divine Unit should not be divided into three deities, and the word: “creation” should not eliminate the dignity and all-surpassing greatness of the Lord; on the contrary, one must believe in God, the Father, the Almighty, and in Christ - Jesus, His Son, and in the Holy Spirit, to believe that the Word is in unity with the God of all; for he says: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30) and: “I am in the Father and the Father in Me” (John 14:11). In this way both the Divine Trinity and the holy sermon about the Unity of Command will be observed.” 27) О том же, что Слово – вечно соприсуще Отцу и есть собственность не иной, но Отчей сущности, или ипостаси, как изрекли это бывшие на Соборе, можно еще вам слышать и у трудолюбивого Оригена . Что писал он в виде спора и состязания, то пусть принимают не за его собственно образ мыслей, но за мудрование тех, которые усиливались с ним спорить. А что излагает в виде определения, то есть собственный образ мыслей сего трудолюбивого мужа; по крайней мере, после сказанного в виде состязания с еретиками, он тотчас присовокупляет свою мысль, говоря так: «Ежели есть образ Бога невидимого, то и образ – невидимый. А я осмелился бы присовокупить и о подобии Отца, что не возможно когда-либо не быть ему. Ибо когда Бог, у Иоанна называемый светом: «яко Бог свет есть» ( 1Ин.1:5 ), не имел сияния собственной славы Своей, чтобы Кому-либо осмелиться приписывать начало бытию Сына, прежде не бывшего? Когда же не было образа и начертания неизреченной, неименуемой, неизглаголанной, ипостаси Отчей? When was there not a Word that knows the Father? Let him come to his senses who dares to say: there was once a time when the Son did not exist; through this he also says: there was once no Wisdom, there was no Word, there was no Life.” And in another pole, Origen says this: “But it is not permissible and not safe that, through our weakness, as much as depends on us, God should be deprived of the only-begotten Word that is always inherent in Him, that Wisdom, “in which He rejoiced” (Prov. 8:30). For in this sense we imagine He will not always rejoice.” Here we prove that this understanding passed from Fathers to Fathers. And you, new Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, which Fathers can you point to who used your sayings? Do not name any of the men prudent and wise. Everyone turns away from you, except one the devil; for he alone became for you the father of such apostasy; He instilled this wickedness in you at the beginning, and now he has instilled in you the idea of ​​slandering the Ecumenical Council for what the Fathers wrote not according to you, but “who betrayed those who were from the very beginning the witnesses and servants of the former words” (Luke 1:2). The faith which the Council confessed in writing is the faith of the universal Church. Defending it, the blessed Fathers wrote and condemned the Arian heresy. That is why they especially try to slander the Council; It is not the words that offend them, but the fact that they discovered heretics in them, and, moreover, superior in audacity to other heresies. 28) since it was undoubtedly proven then that their words are worthless and can always be exposed as wicked; then they used the phrase “uncreated” borrowed from the Hellenes, so that, under the pretext of this name, the Word of God, by which everything created received being, could be ranked among creatures and creatures. They are so shameless in their wickedness, so persistent in their blasphemy against the Lord! If through ignorance of this naming they are so shameless; then they should have learned this from those who informed them of it, namely, that they, both the mind, which is produced from the Good, and the soul, which is produced from the mind, although they know from whom, they were not afraid to call them uncreated, realizing that, even if they affirm this, they do not detract from the First, from Whom this is also. And they had to either talk like that, or not talk at all about what they didn’t know. And if they consider themselves knowledgeable; then it is necessary to ask them about this, especially since the saying is not taken from the Divine Scriptures, and they argue, speaking again not on the basis of Scripture. I explained for what reason and in what sense the Council and many Fathers of the Council, in accordance with what was said about the Savior in Scripture, wrote and expounded the sayings: “from essence” and “consubstantial.” Let them, if they can, give an answer: how did they find this saying not taken from Scripture, or in what sense do they call God uncreated? For I have heard that this naming has different meanings. They say: “uncreated” is called that which has not yet been created, but can be created; and also that which has not been and cannot come into being; and thirdly, this word means that, although it has existence, it is not created, has no beginning of being, but remains eternally and incorruptible. So, perhaps, they will wish to bypass the first two meanings because of the absurdity arising from them (for, according to the first meaning, what has already been created, or what is expected to be created, will also be uncreated, and the second meaning leads to even greater difficulty), but they will move on to the third meaning, in which they call the uncreated. But even if they claim this, they are nevertheless ungodly. For if they call uncreated that which has no beginning of being, and is not created, or not created, but remains forever, the opposite is said about the Word of God; who will not see the deceit of these God-fighters? Who would not throw stones at them who indulge in such madness? because they are ashamed to utter their former fabled sayings, for which they were condemned; then these pathetic people came up with the idea of ​​expressing it again in a different way through this, as they say, naming: “uncreated.” If the Son is among the created; then it is obvious that He was created from non-existence. And if it has a beginning of being; then he was not until he was born. And if He is not eternal; that was when He was not. 29) So, they, who again adhered to this way of thinking, should have expressed their wrong-headedness by their own words, and not covered up their evilness with the saying: “uncreated.” But this is not what these malicious people do; they still act cunningly, imitating their father the devil. How he tries to deceive with other people's clothes; So the heretics came up with the name of the uncreated, in order, under the guise of glorifying God, to hide their blasphemy against the Lord, and under this cover to express it to others. But since this trick of theirs was recognized; then let them say that something else remains for them? We have found, the insidious ones answer, and in addition to the previous they say: the uncreated is that which has no author of being, but serves as the author of created things in order for them to come into being. Ungrateful and truly ignorant of the Scriptures! And they do and say everything not to the honor of God, but to the dishonor of the Son; but they do not know that whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father. Firstly, although God is called this way, this does not prove that the Word is among the things created; because It, just as it is the birth of the Father’s essence, also remains eternally with the Father. This naming does not violate the nature of the Word, and the saying: “uncreated” again has a meaning not in relation to the Son, but in relation to that which received existence through the Son. Whoever pronounces the name of an architect and names the builder of a house or city does not include under this name the son born to him; but, due to his art and knowledge in matters, meaning that he is not what his works are, he calls him the creator; knowing the nature of the creator, he also knows that the one born by him is different from the works, and in relation to his son he calls him father, and in relation to works, creator and creator. Likewise, whoever in this way calls God uncreated, he names it according to the works themselves, meaning that not only is He not created, but that He is the Creator of created things; He knows that the Word is different from created things, and is the only own birth of the Father, by whom everything received being and everything will take place. 30) And the Prophets, calling God Almighty, did not call Him so because the Word is one of the created things - for they knew that the Son is different from the things created, and Himself contains all creatures in the likeness of the Father - but they called Him because all the creatures that He created through the Son, the Father Himself contains, and power over them was given to the Son, and having granted, He Himself again rules over all through the Son. And also, calling God the Lord of powers, the Prophets said this not because the Word is one of these powers, but because He is the Father of the Son, and the Lord of the powers created through the Son; because the Word itself, which exists in the Father, is the Lord of all this and contains everything, for “all that the Father has” also belongs to the Son (John 16:15). Therefore, since this has such a meaning, whoever wants to call God uncreated, let him call it if it pleases him, however, not because the Word is among the things created, but because, as was said before, God is not only uncreated, but is the Creator of everything created by His own Word. For, even with this name of the Father, the Word is again the Father’s image and consubstantial with the Father. And being the image of the Father, It will be different from created things and from everything else; because whose image It has, the property and likeness it has in Itself; and therefore he who calls the Father uncreated and Almighty, in uncreated and Almighty understands both His Word and Wisdom, that is, the Son. But these wonderful people, prone to wickedness, not caring about the honor of God, but out of enmity towards the Savior, invented the name: “uncreated.” And if they had a concept of honor and glorification; then it would rather be appropriate, and it would be better, to recognize and call God Father, rather than give Him such a name. For, calling God uncreated from created things, as was said before, they call Him only Creator, so that, to please themselves, they declare the Word to be a creature. And whoever calls God Father also means in Him the Son; and he will not be unaware that, since there is a Son, all created things were created through the Son. 31) Therefore, it will be better and more consistent with the truth to mean and call God Father from the Son, rather than to name and call Him uncreated from works alone. For this naming indicates the deeds created by the Word according to the will of God, and the name of the Father is meant to mean its own birth from His essence. Just as much as the Word is superior to created things, so, and to an even greater extent, is the naming of God Father superior to the naming of uncreated things. And since the last name is not taken from Scripture, it is suspicious and has different meanings; so the first is simple, found in Scripture, more consistent with the truth, and points solely to the Son. The naming: “uncreated” is found among the pagans who do not know the Son, and the name: Father is known to us from our Lord and given to them; for Himself, knowing whose Son He is, said: “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me” (John 14:10), and: “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9), and: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). And nowhere does he call the Father uncreated, but even teaching us to pray, he did not say: “When you pray, say”: Uncreated God! but: “Whenever you pray, say: Our Father who is in heaven” (Luke 11:2). To this He deigned to incline also what is most important in our faith: for He commanded us to be baptized not in the name of the Uncreated and created, and not in the name of the Uncreated and created, but “in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). Thus being sanctified, we are truly made sons, and pronouncing the name of the Father, from this name we recognize the Word in the Father. But, if it pleases Him, we should call His own Father our Father; then we should not, therefore, compare ourselves with the Son by nature; because by His grace this is what we call God. Since the Word bore our body and was among us, then as a result of this, by the grace of the Word who appeared among us, God is called our Father. For the Spirit of the Word abiding in us calls His Father as ours through us; This is the thought of the Apostle, who says: “God has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying: Abba, Father” (Gal. 4:6). 32) But perhaps those who have been reproached for the name “uncreated”, being wicked in disposition, will also want to say: about our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ we must speak from Scripture, what is written about Him, and not introduce sayings that are not found in Scripture. Yes, it should be so, I would say; because the signs of truth taken from Scripture are much more accurate than those taken from other sources. But the malice and, with deceit, the wickedness of Eusebius’s accomplices, changing into all sorts of forms, as was said before, forced the Bishops to more clearly set forth the words denouncing their wickedness. And just as it was proven that what was written by the Council contained a right thought, it became so obvious that the Arians’ sayings were rotten and their morals were evil. For the naming: uncreated has its own meaning, and can be pronounced piously; but they, according to their own intentions, as they themselves wanted, use it to dishonor the Savior, only to stubbornly fight against God, like giants. But they did not remain uncondemned when they uttered those sayings, and they could not hide that with a bad thought they were using the word “uncreated,” which can be pronounced well and piously; because they are completely disgraced, and their heresy is everywhere consigned to shame. Although I described to you, remembering as much as I could, what was done at the Council; However, I know that the most persistent of Christ’s opponents, even after hearing this, will not want to change, but will leave it without attention, again looking for new pretexts, and after them they will begin to invent even new ones. According to the prophetic word: “if the Ethiopian changes his skin, and the lynx of his motley” (Jer. 13:23), it is unlikely that they, having learned wickedness, will want to be pious. And you, beloved, having received this, read to yourself; If you find it useful, read it to the brethren who will be with you then, so that they, having learned this, will approve of the zeal of the Council for the truth and the accuracy of the understanding, and condemn the understanding of the Christian Arians and their vain pretexts, which they learned to invent in defense of their heresy. God and the Father are due glory, honor and worship with His co-original Son and Word, together with the Holy and life-giving Spirit, now and forever and ever! Amen. The Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople shows more clearly the number of those who were at Nikeisk. Council of the Fathers, precisely 318. View. Right 1 Philostorgius mentions the songs composed by Arius in the book. 2. Ch. 2. Socrates writes about Ariev’s work called “Thalia” in the Church History of the book. 1. Ch. 4 You might be interested in: