Книга 4. Трудные положения и решения из богодухновенных писаний на возражения о Сыне, заимствуемые в Новом и Ветхом Завете

If the Son is God by nature, but the Father is also God by nature, then the Son is not otherwise than the Father, but equally with the Father is God. If the Son is not God by nature, then, like the falsely named gods, He is called God, but not God. If the Son is the only Lord by nature, then, obviously, not by another nature. Therefore, if the Father is called one God, but the Son is also God, then not in another, but in one nature. If there is one Lord by nature, when many are called masters by appropriation, and one Son by nature, when many are called sons by appropriation, then that which is called by appropriation is called so in imitation of what is such by nature. For nothing could be named by appropriation unless what existed by nature preceded it. Therefore, if we are sons of God by appropriation, then it is necessary for the Son to pre-exist by nature. Moreover, true names are signs of the essence of those named; but the Father and the Son are truly Lord and God - therefore, They have the same essence, as well as the same names. If the only begotten is taken not in relation to birth, but because it has no equal, then the Father is also the only begotten because he is incomparable. And every creature that is not similar to another is the only begotten. Therefore there are many only begotten, and not one Son of God is the only begotten. If the Son is not just the only begotten, but the only begotten Son, and the only begotten of the Father, then the Son is both the only begotten and not the only begotten creature. If the Son is the Creator by participation and consent of the Father, and not by nature, then nothing of what He created would be by nature. For if the Creator is not by nature, then how can the created be by nature? If God acts as no one else acts, then when he gives birth he will not give birth like another; for God is incomparable to nothing and incomparable to anything. What is created is not from the essence of the creator, but is born from the very essence of the one who gives birth. Therefore, it is not the same thing to create and to give birth. If the Son is from God, but not as from the Father, but as from another; God is the author of our existence, because everything is from Him - then God is not otherwise to the Son, and otherwise to us, but to Him and to us equally the Father. But isn't this ridiculous? If nothing is like or equal to God except the Son, then no likeness can be applied in all respects, because God is above all. What is in the image of God is in the essence of God. For it cannot be said that one thing is the image of God, and another the essence of God: otherwise God will be compounded. Therefore, one who is equal in image is also equal in essence. If the one who is born is smaller than the one who gave birth, it is not the fault of the one who was born, but the weakness of the one who gave birth. For if, out of envy, he did not make him equal, or due to lack of strength, he did not give birth to similar ones. If the Father was before the Son, then, of course, he was the Father of someone else, because without the Son he could not have been called Father. If anyone knew the Son in essence, he also knew the Father (for it is said: “If you knew Me, you would know My Father also”, John 14:7); then the Son is consubstantial with the Father, because nothing incorporeal can be cognized from a dissimilar essence. If to believe that Christ is the Son of God means to have eternal life (John 20:31), then not to believe necessarily means death. Those who have the same actions have the same essence. But the action of the Father and the Son is one, for example: “Let us create man” (Gen. 1:26); and also: “Whatever He does, the Son also does” (John 5:19). Therefore, the essence of the Father and the Son is one. If the knowledge of the Father and the Son is “eternal life” (John 17:3), then the Father and the Son are necessarily of one essence, for what is other-substantial is not comprehended by knowledge alone and cannot equally give life. If the Son is the true image of the Father, and every image is an image of either essence, or face, or clothing, or physique, or color - God is not in any of these, but is depicted in one essence - then the Son, being an image of essence, is consubstantial with the Father. If the Father is in no way incomparable with the Son, and also in no way incomparable with the creature, then he is incomparable with the Son, and incomparable with the creature, but equally incomparable with the Son and the creature. Therefore, the Son is not only not like the Father, but even like a creature. But isn't this ridiculous? If, when they call the Son a creature, they do not say that the Son is one of the creatures, then why, when we call the Son a birth, do they mean that the Son is one of the births? If God does not give birth in order to prevent an outpouring from Himself, then He does not create in order not to work. And if he creates dispassionately, then how much more does he give birth dispassionately. If the radiance of any light is born from light, but not with the passage of time, but outside of time and co-essential with light, for there is no light without radiance, then the Son, being radiance, will not be with the passage of time, but coeternal, because God is light, as David says: “in Your light we see light” (Ps. 35:10); and Daniel: “and the light dwells with Him” (Dan. 2:22). If, in their opinion, birth, like non-birth, is an essence, and the Son of God is the birth of God, then the Son is also the essence of God. If God gave birth to the Son according to his will, and not according to nature, then either having willed once, then he gave birth unwillingly, or having willed another time, he gave birth again. If His will is not the same, but different, then He is no longer simple and has not produced one, but produces as quickly as He pleases. If God is not born, it is either because he cannot, or because he does not want to. But if He cannot, then, besides the fact that He has no power, He is below the generative and perfect nature. If he could, but did not want to, then he limited by desire what he had by nature; and therefore, if he has not yet given birth, then, having desired, he will give birth someday. If there was no Son “someday,” then this same “someday” will be after the One who gave birth, and before the one born. But in this case it will turn out that the Son is not before everything except the Father, but also after this “someday.” When we assert that since the Father is always, the Son must always be, they say: “therefore, since the Son is always the Creator, the creature will always be; and in this case, the creation will be co-eternal with the Father and the Son.” But the one who names the creator does not also name the creation, because the building does not begin with the builder, and the boat does not begin with the shipbuilder. For although the creation is in the creator, it is nevertheless created after the creator. But one cannot call a father when there is no son, and those who call a father not only call him a father, but the father of some son. God is called in Scripture by the following names: God, Lord, Almighty, Hosts, He, Adonai, Eloi, but nowhere is he called the Unborn. If anyone concedes this, then it is fitting for Jews and everyone else to call Him Unbegotten and the above names, but it is fitting for Christians to call Him Father of Christ. But if the very thing that distinguishes us from others is false and unjust, it is only a name by assignment, and not a deed by nature, then our faith is false and our hope is vain. For where the beginning is not strong, the end is not strong. Again they ask: how was the Son born? As existing or as not existing? This question is unclear and tricky. For being ashamed to ask about birth “someday” and in time, they say: was he born as one who exists? But you yourself ask them: how did God give birth to the Son, as a real Father or as a non-existent Father? If as the existing Father, then the living one gave birth to the living one. And if he did not exist, then he became a Father, and not by nature a Father. But the Divine Scriptures put an end to all their disputes, because Moses exclaims about the Son: “He who is (Jehovah) has sent me” (Ex. 3:14). And the evangelist says: In the beginning was the Word (John 1:1), not once, but repeating the word four times; in another place he says: “Who is from God” (John 8:47); and: “he who is in the bosom of the Father” (John 1:18), and in other places: he who is in heaven (John 3:13); and in Revelation: “and living; and he was dead, and behold, he is alive forever and ever” (Rev. 1:18). And Paul says: “This being the brightness of glory” (Heb. 1:3); “He being the image of God” (Phil. 2:6); and again: “God is over all, blessed forever” (Rom. 9:5). If the Son is true God, light, unchangeable, good, holy, Lord, but the Father, being the same, not equally, but to a greater extent, is all this, then this is not by superiority of essence, but by excess of quality. For it is not said that the essence of the essence is greater, but the quality of the quality is greater; It is not said that one is more human than another, but one is more good than another, and one is more righteous than another. The nature of those who are born and those who give birth are one and the same, even though the one who was born received existence differently. For Abel, born of a couple, is not different from Adam, whereas Adam was not born, but created. If the cause is greater than what it produces and differs from it in essence, and every father is a cause, and a son is the product of a cause, then fathers are greater than sons in essence, and different, and not the same essence as them. But this is not true. They ask: “Having the Father begotten the Son, did he cease to beget Him?” And if you say that you stopped, they continue: “That’s why I started giving birth. For everything that has an end also has a beginning. Therefore, the Son was not always there." To this we say: if what ceases must have a beginning, and what has a beginning must cease, then the angels and all incorporeal beings, having a beginning of being, will necessarily have an end of being. But this is absurd. Therefore, it is possible for one who has begun to exist not to cease, and for one who has ceased not to begin. Otherwise, the Son Himself, if He has a beginning of being, in their opinion, necessarily has an end; for they demand that everything that has a beginning must also have an end. Isn't this blasphemy? And the foreknowledge of God, which has no beginning, has an end after the fulfillment of what was foreshadowed. Therefore, he who has an end does not need to have a beginning. In incorporeal beings, something is called one, either by action, or by will, or by essence. Therefore, the Savior, having said: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), said this in one of the relationships calculated above. If they say that They are one in action, then it will be necessary to say that They are one in essence. For those who are different cannot have the same action. If there is one according to will, then not only does the Son need to want everything that the Father wants, but also the Father needs to want everything that the Son wants. Therefore, the Son will command the Father in what he wants, if he himself obeys the commands of the Father. If the Son submits only, then he serves under compulsion, and not out of will. If They are one neither in action nor in will, then it remains, in the opponents’ own words, to be one in essence, that is, the Father and the Son are of the same essence. That the word “unborn” means some kind of realization, and not essence If this: “unbegotten” is an essence, and the begotten is also an essence, and therefore the Father and the Son are not of the same essence; then it is necessary for every birth to be of one essence. Therefore, all generations will be of one essence with the Son of God. Isn't this blasphemy? If the unbegotten, in contrast to the begotten Son, is an essence, then the uncreated, in contrast to the created, is an essence. And so put it that the unborn is an essence, and the uncreated is an essence; then God will have two essences, not one. But also the whole creation will be one essence. And this is false; for the creation is one, but the essences are different. But in the same way, God’s immutability, beginninglessness, and much more will be essences. If someone, by calling the Father unbegotten and the Son begotten, signified essences; then, having wished to depict in words the image of their implementation, will he be able to express it other than these words? Therefore it is: the unborn, the image of fulfillment, and not the name of the essence. If those who have different realizations of being also have different essences; then people are not of the same essence. For the realization of Adam, created from the earth, is different; another of Eve, created from a rib; different from Abel, because he is from a couple; other Born of Mary from the one Virgin. But similar things must be said about birds and four-legged animals. If the Father is unbegotten because he was not begotten, and the Son is begotten because he was begotten; then the unborn after the born; because before there was no one in relation to whom he could be called unborn. For the differences are between those that exist, and not between those that do not exist. If there ever was a God without being the Father, then, having already become the Father, he accepted this name “Father.” Therefore, although God does not have a beginning of being, the Father nevertheless has a beginning of being. Consequently, one and the same thing, being simple, both has the beginning of being and does not have it. If the impossible is the opposite of the possible, and the unwise is the wise; if everything distinguished is opposite to one another, then the unborn is opposite to the born. Therefore, the Father is opposed to the Son in essence, unless ungeneracy is not an image of fulfillment, but an essence. If the Son is a creature, and not a birth; and all beings are also creatures: it is in vain that the Father is called unbegotten, when there is no birth at all, in relation to which he is called unbegotten. Therefore it would be more fair to call Him uncreated rather than unbegotten. If the unborn is a name: then it is no longer an essence; for names signify only essences, and are not the essence themselves. If the word: unborn, is the very essence: then let them say its name; for we know not by essences, but by names and by actions, and especially in this way we know incorporeal beings. If the word: unborn, is the name of the essence of God; then God, either knowing his own essence, did not know the name of the essence, or, knowing the name, deceived those who heard. For the Lord says: “The Almighty is My name” (Jeremiah 50:34). And Moses asked, “What is His name?” says: “I am Sy”; and also: the “God” of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; this is My name everlasting" (Ex. 3:13, 15). And David says: “Your name is the Lord” (Psalm 8:2,19). And the name: unborn, and He Himself, and none of the saints named Him. If He did not deceive, and did not know (for it is wicked to say one or the other); then unborn is not His name. This: the unborn is either an essence or an accessory; because other than that there can be nothing else. But this is not an essence; because it is not the essence and the opposite of the unborn. For the Son is begotten, not because He is an essence, but because He was begotten. And if belonging; then it is either natural, or it may or may not be. But if it is natural; then God must be both essence and belonging. For natural belongings necessarily belong to those to whom they come to belong. If the affiliation is random; it will sometimes be both unborn and born. If God is called unborn because he was not born; then they name not what His essence is, but what it is not. Every essence is known not from what it is not, but from what it is. For the words: immortal, incorruptible, unchangeable do not mean the essence of God, but the fact that He does not die, does not decay, does not change like creatures. And so let them teach what God is, and not what He is not. If this: the unbegotten is not the name of the essence, but the essence itself, and also the Son is the essence; then the Son is also unbegotten, and every being is ungenerate. If unbornness is the essence of God; begetting is the essence of the Son: that creation or work is not His essence; because the Son is one essence, and not many essences. The one who names a person, or a stone, or a tree, means some kind of entity; but the one who names the birth does not simply signify the essence; for otherwise every birth is one essence. If the word: birth does not mean any essence; then, obviously, the word: unborn also does not mean it. If God is unbegotten, because he was not born; then it is also incorruptible, because it does not decay. Therefore, as incorruptibility means His infinity; so unbornness means beginninglessness. If God, although unborn, is not incorruptible; it will be, although beginningless, yet not endless; which is ridiculous. Therefore this: unborn is not the essence, but the meaning of unbirth. If the Father is unbegotten by nature; then the Son was begotten by nature. And if by nature birth; it is no longer a creature. Therefore, when there is birth by nature, it is necessary for the one who gave birth; for birth is not possible without the one who gave birth. Let them name the one who gave birth to us, if the Father did not give birth. If God is unbegotten in essence, the Son is begotten in essence, and the Comforter is a creature in essence; then the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are only names without essences. Therefore let them baptize into the unborn, the begotten and the creature: because things are firmer than names; and what exists is more useful for action than what is merely spoken in words. They say: “If the Father is unbegotten and the Son begotten, then they are not of the same essence; for the unborn and the begotten cannot be of the same essence.” But we do not call these essences, but names denoting the implementation of each of them. But nothing prevents one entity from having different names; as well as vice versa, the creature of different essences has one name. They say: “If the Son is consubstantial with the Father, and the Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten; then one and the same essence is both unborn and born.” But we say that the Son is not a part of the Father, as a result of the division of the essence into the unborn and the begotten; but that he is wholly begotten of the wholly Unbegotten, that he is two Perfect Ones, and not two parts of something one. If the Savior came in the name of the Father, as He Himself says: “I came in the name of My Father” (John 5:43); then it is necessary that everything that is predicated about the Father should also be predicable about the Son. Therefore let him also be called unborn, if this is the name of the Father. And if the name: unborn is the honor of the Father: in the same way the Son must be honored, but His own saying, which says: “Let all honor the Son as they honor the Father” (John 5:23): then it is necessary to call the Son unborn, so that the single honor of the Father and the Son is preserved. If the Son revealed to men the name of the Father, as He Himself says: “I have revealed Your name to man” (John 17:6), and “unborn” is the proper name of His essence; then let them show: where did the Savior call Him unborn? If God is greater than all; Is it in essence greater, or because he is the author of everything, but He Himself is not begotten from anyone? For if He is more like an essence; then every essence is greater than all others. And if like the unborn; then the essence and the unborn are not the same thing. If unbornness is something; then immortality, infinity, painlessness, agelessness will also be something. Therefore, God, in that he is unborn, will surpass everyone, and in other properties he will be identical with Angels, spirits and souls; for they too are immortal and endless. But if God prevails not by what He is not, but by what He is (for man is better than a dumb man, not because he is not soulless, not insensitive, as dumb people are, but because he is reasonable); then, therefore, God will no longer be the one who is unborn, but the one who is the author of everything. If the unborn is opposed to the born, the unborn is a simple essence; then He will be contrasted with what is born and in that he is unchangeable, immortal, has no image, as well as with every other property. For if in other things it is opposed, in other things it is not opposed; it is complex, not simple. If one who knows that God is unborn knows exactly what God is, and most importantly, to know God in His nature, this is eternal life; then he who taught us that God is unborn will be higher than those blessings that “God has prepared for those who love Him.” For these blessings cannot be known as a human being; “The eye has not seen them, the ear has not heard, the heart has not sighed” (1 Cor. 2:1); but the name: unborn, even sinners heard. Therefore, God, either Himself or through others, having taught sinners the most important things, has reserved for the righteous the least and not the least conducive to eternal life. But isn't this ridiculous? The concept: unborn is neither a definition nor a property of God. For these latter can also be placed in reverse order with what they serve as a definition and property. Man is a rational animal, mortal, capable of thinking and learning. And if any animal is rational, mortal, capable of thinking and knowing; then it is a person. It is human nature to laugh; and if anything is capable of laughing, then it is a person. In the discussion of the concept: unborn, although someone will agree that it refers to God alone; however, he will not say: if there is anything God, it is together and unbegotten. So the Son, being God, is not unborn. Therefore, the concept: unborn is neither a definition nor a property: for it cannot be put in reverse order. If the Son is a creature of God, and every creature works for the Creator; then Christ is a servant, and not the Son of God. Therefore, He did not take upon Himself the “form of a servant” (Phil. 2:7), in reality being the Lord; but he was a slave. The creation and the Creator do not share the same power; therefore, the Son has nothing in common with the Father, and the creation of creation is not a common matter for them, unless the Son is a creation, and not a birth. If the Son is a birth, but not as one of the ordinary births; every ordinary birth is a creature: then the Son is not a creature; because He is not the same birth as the last ones. If God could not create anything inferior to the one Son; because this would not be in His nature: then the Son does not create diverse things, but one thing. If the lower is created by the lower, and the higher by the higher: then the creature will produce many; because not everything is equal. If God is creative by nature, then he will be the creator not of one, but of many; for he does not create another either out of weakness, or out of envy and hatred (that is, if he does not create another except one, then either out of weakness, or out of envy, etc.). If through the Son the power of the Father created; then the Creator is the Father, and not the Son, since the artist is the instrument. Therefore, to create what the Son produced is not lower than what is appropriate for the Father. If God was ashamed to Himself create a real creature, then He does not accept praise from it; for what he is ashamed to produce, he will not want to recognize as his work. If creating and giving birth are the same thing for God, because He is simple; then it is one and the same thing for Him - to save and to destroy, to give life and to kill, and in such cases it is one and the same - salvation and destruction, life and death. If Christ is God's power and wisdom (1 Cor. 1:24); and power and wisdom are uncreated and co-eternal with God (because God was never unwise and powerful): then Christ is uncreated and co-eternal with God. If Christ is called the power and wisdom of God, because there is action; then we too can be called the power and wisdom of the Lord, just as He is the power and wisdom of God. But this is absurd. If the Son is not eternal God, then he is necessarily newly created; if not true, then false; if not by nature, then by appropriation. But only the wicked bow down to new and false gods, gods not by nature. For it is said: “God will not be new to you” (Psalm 80:10); and Paul says: “But then, if you do not know God, you do not serve as God by nature” (Gal. 4:8). Or those who worship such a Christ are wicked; or Christ is God by nature and true, and they are pious. If the Son is an action and not a generation, then He is neither the agent nor the product of the action, for the action is different from both; He is also not independent, because no action has independence. And if the Son is the product of action; then He is third from the Father, and not immediate from Him; for the first is the one who acted, then the action, and then the product of the action. If the Son is only begotten because one was born of one; then it would be more appropriate to call Him one created, since, according to the opinion of Eunomius, He is truly a creature, but is called birth falsely. If one Son is the creation of the Father, and everything else is the creation of the Son: then He who said: “My whole essence is Thine,” could say this; but, on the basis of Eunomius’s opinion, He should not have added: “and Yours is Mine” (John 17:10); for the Son himself could not be His own. From this it is revealed that he spoke about His similarity with the Father, and about His essence in everything indifferent and similar to the essence of the Father, and not about creatures. If God equally creates and gives birth, then Christ is equally our Creator and Father, because He is God; and we do not need sonship through the Holy Spirit, just as we did not become His creatures through someone else; Moreover, many of the creatures, which are dumb and soulless, by their nature cannot accept the Spirit of sonhood. If we, being creatures, are made sons through the sonship of the Holy Spirit; then, if the Son is a creature, let them say: through whom is He begotten to the Father? If all that the Father has belongs to the Son; but the Father has nothing except what was created through the Son, and unless, as they say, the Son himself: then the Son must have Himself; which is impossible. If the image is similar in everything, and in this sense the Son is the image; and the creature is in no way similar to the Creator, on the contrary, it is not similar in everything: then the Son, being the image of the Father, cannot be His creature. If the incorporeal, giving birth, necessarily gives birth as a body: then, seeing, it will see as a body, and hearing, it will hear as a body; and every action will send like a body. And if the latter happens otherwise; then, obviously, even when giving birth, it will give birth differently. What he himself does not have, he cannot give to others. Therefore, if the Son is a creature and a slave, then he cannot make others free. What by nature constitutes the middle between something; it comes into contact with both extremes. Therefore, if Christ is the mediator between God and us by nature, and not by dispensation; then God and creation are united by nature. If the Son is like the Father, but not in essence; then it remains to say that He is similar either in outline or in action. But in outline it cannot be similar, for nothing incorporeal has an outline. If by action; then He could not produce anything other than what He Himself is, unless He is a creature and not the birth of the Father. Otherwise, if the Son is a birth and is similar in action, then, necessarily, he is similar in essence. If the works of God are in faith, and not in proof, according to David: “and all His works are in faith” (Psalm 32:4); Isn’t it much more pre-eternal birth of the Son from the Father - in faith, and not in proof. If God created the Son from non-existence, and the Son created everything from non-existence: then there is one power, one action for those who can create from non-existence what they want; and should not pay attention to the differences of creatures; because creation, which is varied in many ways, does not have many creators, but one Creator - the Son, through whom all things came into being. If Christ is the first work of God from those who do not exist, and the Arians, believing so, worship Him, and Job calls the devil the first work of God, saying: “This is the first beginning of the creation of the Lord” (Job 40:14): then they, without knowing it, worship the devil, and not the Son of God. If they say that the devil is called the first work of the Son, then the Spirit is not the work of the Lord, as they call Him, or else it will turn out that He was created after the devil. If our faith in the Son is the work of God; for it is said: “This is the work of God, that He may believe Him who was sent” (John 6:29): then He Himself cannot be the work of God; for faith in Him and He Himself are not the same thing. To the words: “When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son himself will submit” (1 Cor. 15:28) If the Son, according to Divinity, submits to the Father, then he would submit to Him from the beginning, just as he was God from the beginning. If at the beginning he did not submit, but he will submit later; then according to humanity - for us, and not according to Divinity - for Himself. In response to the words: “He has been given the same name, which is better than any name” (Phil. 2:9) If the Son, Who is God, upon His incarnation, for obedience, was given by the Father a name, “more than every name,” and “every tongue” confessed Him as Lord: then before His incarnation He did not have a name, “more than every name,” and was not confessed by all that He is Lord. And therefore, after becoming man, He became greater than what He was before becoming man, which is absurd. But the following is similar to this passage: “all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me” (Matthew 28:18). Therefore, these sayings should be understood about humanity, and not about Divinity. To the words: “My father is sick to me” (John 14:28) The greater is called greater, either in magnitude, or in time, or in dignity, or in strength, or as a cause. But it cannot be said that the Father is greater in size than the Son; because it is incorporeal. But no more and in time; for the Son is the Creator of times. But no more and in dignity; for he did not become what he was not before. No more in strength; for “everything that the Father does, the Son does likewise” (John 5:19). No more and as a reason; because He is equally greater than us, if only His cause is the same as us. Therefore, what has been said shows more the honor given by the Son to the Father than the humiliation of the One who spoke. Moreover, the greater is not necessarily alien; for it is said that man is greater than man, and horse is greater than horse. Therefore, although it is said that the Father is greater, it does not follow from this that He is of a different essence. In general, comparisons are used between things of the same essence, not different things. Although it is said that man is greater than the dumb, or the dumb is greater than the soulless, but not actually; in fact, man is greater than man, and the dumb is greater than the dumb. Therefore, the Father is consubstantial with the Son, although it is said that he is greater than the Son. To the words: “No one knows the hour and the day” (Matt. 24:36) If the Creator Son of all things does not know the time of judgment, then He does not know what He has created, for He said that He does not know not the judgment, but the time. And isn’t this strange? If the Son has no knowledge of all that the Father has knowledge of; then He who said, “all that the Father has, is Mine” lied (John 16:1 5); and again: “As the Father knows Me, and I know the Father” (John 10:15). If it is another thing to know the Father, and another thing to know what belongs to the Father; but to know the Father is more than to know what belongs to the Father (because everyone is more than what belongs to him): then the Son, knowing more (for it is said: “no man knows the Father but the Son,” (Matthew 11:24), would not have known less, which is not possible. So He kept silent about the time of judgment only because it was not useful for people to hear about this; for constant expectation makes one more zealous in piety, and the knowledge that before the judgment for a long time, would make them more careless in piety, in the hope that one can be saved by repenting later. And is it possible that He who knew everything that would happen until that hour (for he said all this) did not know this hour? Otherwise, it was in vain that the Apostle said: “In Him are all the hidden treasures of wisdom and understanding” (Col. 2:3). If the Holy Spirit, who tests the depths of God (1 Cor. 2:10), cannot but know the things of God, and the Son does not know these: then, on the basis of their teaching, the Holy Spirit is greater than the Son; although they do not want to recognize Him as equal to the Son. To the words: “Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away” (Matt. 26:39) If the Son truly said: “Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away”; then he not only revealed His fear and weakness, but also thought that there was something impossible for the Father. For the words: “if it is possible,” showed a doubter, and not confident that the Father can save Him. Why couldn’t He who gives life to the dead, all the more, keep life alive? Why does He Himself who raised Lazarus and many dead not give life? himself, but asks for life from the Father, saying with fear: “Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away”? And if he did not die of His own will; then He did not humble Himself, and was not “obedient to the Father even to death” (Phil. 2:8); then He did not betray Himself, as the Apostle says: “Who gave Himself redemption for our sins” (Gal. 1:4; 1 Tim. 2:6). If he died of His own will; then why was it necessary to say: “Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away?” Therefore, these words should not be understood about Him, but about those who had sinned against Him, so that they would not sin. For them, He who was crucified said: “Father, let them go; for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34). Therefore, what is said about the economy should not be taken as simply said. To the words: “And I live for the Father’s sake” (John 6:57) If the Son lives for the Father's sake; then he lives for the sake of another, and not for himself. But whoever lives for the sake of another cannot live an inaccurate life. For He who is holy by grace is not unholy. Therefore, the Son falsely said: “I am life” (John 11:25); and again: “Those things the Son wills, he lives” (John 5:21). Therefore, what has been said should be understood about humanity, and not about Divinity. To the words: “Neither does the Son create anything about Himself” (John 5:19.) If the autocratic is better than the subject, and man is autocratic, but the Son of God is subject; then man is better than the Son; which is ridiculous. And if the subject cannot create with the autocratic, for what he himself does not have, he cannot give it to others according to his will; then the Savior, who created us autocratic, cannot be subject to anyone. If the Savior could not create anything by Himself, but created at the command of the Father, then He is neither good nor bad; because he is not guilty of anything that happened. And isn’t it an obvious absurdity that when people freely do good and evil, the Son, being God, does nothing freely? To the words: “I am the vine” (John 15:1) They say: “if the Savior is the “vine”, we are the “birth”, and the Father is the “worker”: and “birth” is co-natural with the vine, but the vine is not co-natural with the worker: then the Son is co-natural with us, and we are part of Him. But He is not co-natural with the Father; on the contrary, in everything, He is different from Him.” We will tell them that the Savior called us the birth not of His Divinity, but of His flesh, according to the Apostle, who said: we are “the body of Christ, and part of us” (1 Cor. 12:27); and again: “Do you not know that your bodies are the delight of Christ” (6:15)? And in another place: “Like the one who is ringed, so shall he be ringed; and likewise we are heavenly, and likewise those who are heavenly: and as we have put on the image of ring, let us also be clothed in the image of what is heavenly” (15:48.49). If “the head of man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God” (11:3), and man is not consubstantial with Christ God (because he is not God), but Christ is consubstantial with God (because God); this means that Christ is not the head of his husband in the same sense in which God is the head of Christ. For the nature of the creature and the Creative Deity do not agree in one and the same thing. Therefore God is the head of Christ as Father; and Christ is our head as the Creator. If it is the will of the Father, that we believe in His Son: “This is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes may have eternal life in Him” (John 6:40); then the Son is not the Son of will: otherwise it turns out that we believe in Him, either with Him, or before Him. To the words: “no one is good” (Mark 10:18) If the Savior is not good; then, of necessity, he is angry because he is simple and does not give room in himself for anything average. But is it consistent with anything for the Creator of good things to be evil? And if life is good, and the words of the Son are life, as He Himself said: “the words that I spoke to you are spirit and life” (John 6:63); then why, having heard from the Pharisee: “To the good teacher,” He says: “No one is good, except one God!” - He said: “no one is good,” when he not only heard: “good,” but: “good to the teacher.” Therefore, he answered according to what was said in the Gospel, as if he had tempted Him, or as if he did not know that He was a good God, and not just a good teacher. To the words: “Father, glorify Me” (John 17:5) If the Son asked the Father for glorification according to Divinity, and not according to humanity; then he asked for what he did not have, and they say falsely - the Evangelist: “We have seen His glory” (John 1:14), and the Apostle: “Not that they crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor. 2:8), and David: “And the King of glory will come in” (Psalm 23:7). Therefore, he does not ask for an increase in glory, but for the manifestation of the economy. If the Son really asked the Father for glory, “there was no peace before him”; then he asked as if he had lost her. For I would not want to receive what I already had. And if so, then he has lost not only his glory, but also his Divinity; because glory is inseparable from the Divine. Consequently, He was a simple man, as Photinus also thought. From this it turns out that he spoke in this way because of the economy of humanity, and not because of the impoverishment of the Divine. To the words: “the firstborn of all creation” (Col. 1:15) If the Son is before creation, yet not birth, but creation; then he would be called the first-created, and not the first-born. If He is the first-born, because He is called the first-born of creation; then, as he was called “the firstborn from the dead” (Col. 1, 18, Apoc. 1, 5), he would have died before all the dead. And if he is called “the firstborn from the dead” because He is the author of the resurrection from the dead; then He is also called the firstborn of creation because He is the culprit of bringing creation from non-existence into being. If calling a creature firstborn proves that He is the first created; then the Apostle, having said: “Everything was created by Him also” (Col. 1:16), should have said: He Himself was created first of all. But having said: “And He is before all” (v. 17), the Apostle showed that He always abides, and the creation came into being; for the word: “is” expresses the same thing as: “in the beginning was the Word.” They say: “If the Son is firstborn, then he is not the only begotten; but there must be another, in relation to whom he would be called firstborn.” However, O wise one, the only one born of the Virgin Mary is called her firstborn: for it is said: “until you bear your firstborn Son” (Matthew 1:25). Therefore there is no need to be called the firstborn of a brother. But one could also say that He is called firstborn, as being before every birth, and also in relation to those born of God through the sonship of the Holy Spirit, as Paul says: “Whom He foreknew, them He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, as if He were the firstborn among many brothers” (Rom. 8:29) To the words: “The Lord created Me” (Prov. 8:22) If in the flesh the One who came says: “I am the way,” and He said: “no one will come to the Father except by Me” (John 14:6); then He Himself said: “The Lord made Me the beginning of His ways.” But the words “creation” and “creature” are also used about birth, for example: “I created man by God” (Gen. 4:1); and again: “make sons and daughters” (Gen. 5:4); and David says: “Create in me a pure heart, O God” (Psalm 50:12), asking not to give another heart, but to cleanse the one I had. It is also called: “new creation” (2 Cor. 5:17), not because another creation occurs, but because those who are enlightened are prepared for better things. If the Father created the Son to do works; then He created Him not for His own sake, but for the sake of works. But what happens for the sake of another, and not for oneself; something is either part of what it is for, or less than it. Therefore, the Savior will be either part of the creature, or less than the creature. So, it is necessary to understand this passage about His humanity. And another could say that Solomon also said this about that wisdom, which the Apostle mentioned, saying: “For in the wisdom of God there is no understanding, peace through the wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:21). Moreover, those who said this are not a prophet, but an accomplice. And parables are images of something other than what they say. If it is God the Son, Who says: “The Lord created Me”; then it would be better for Him to say: “The Father created Me,” for nowhere did He call Him His Lord, but everywhere His Father. Therefore, the word must be applied to God the Son: begat (Prov. 8:25); and the word: “created”, to Him who took upon Himself the form of a slave. However, in all these expressions we do not mean two, not God in particular and man in particular (for there was One), but only by concept we separate the nature of each. For Peter did not mean two things when he said: “Christ who suffered in the flesh for us” (1 Peter 4:1). They say: “if the Son is a generation, and not a creature; then how does the Scripture say: “So let all the house of Israel know that God created both His Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36)? Therefore, here too it is necessary to answer what is said about the One born of Mary according to the flesh, just as the Angel preaching the good news to the shepherds says: “For today a Savior has been born to you, who is Christ the Lord” (Luke 2:11); for the words: “today” cannot be understood about Him who was before the ages. But this is shown more clearly by the following words: “this Jesus, whom you will crucify” (Acts 2:36). If the Son, when he was born, then became wisdom, then what was said falsely: “Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:24); for His wisdom did not receive a beginning, but always existed. Therefore, this means the same as what was said about the Father by David: “Be God my protector” (Psalm 30:3); and again: “you were my salvation” (Psalm 117:21). And Paul says: “Let God be true, but every man is a lie” (Rom. 3:2). So the Lord “gave us wisdom from God, and sanctification, and deliverance” (1 Cor. 1:30). Therefore, if the Father, who became protector and true, is not a creature; then the Son, who was made wisdom and sanctification, is not a creature. If it is true that the Father is one God, then it is obviously true that the Savior is one Lord Jesus Christ. Consequently, in their opinion, the Savior is not God, and the Father is not Lord. And in vain it is said: “The Lord spoke to my Lord” (Psalm 100:1); the following is also false: “for this reason of Thy anointing, O God, Thy God” (Psalm 44:8); and this: “The Lord waits on the Lord” (Gen. 19:24); and: “God create in the image of God” (Gen. 1:27); and: “Who is God, is it the Lord?” and: “Who is God except our God” (Psalm 17:32)? And John says: “God is the Word, and the Word is to God” (John 1:1); and Thomas about the Son: “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). Therefore, these distinctions should be understood in relation to creatures, and falsely, and not actually, named gods, but not about the Father and the Son. To the words: “Let them know Thee the only true God” (John 17:3) It is called true in distinction from false; incomparable, as superior to everyone and everything. Jeremiah, having said about the Son: “This is our God, no one will be counted towards Him” (Bar. 3:36), did he really call Him greater than the Father? And that the Son is the true God, John himself says about this in his epistle: “that we may know the one true God, and that we may be in His true Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and the eternal life” (1 John 5:20). Therefore, just as on the basis of the words: “it is not imputed to Him,” one should not think that the Son is greater than the Father, so one cannot understand that the Father alone is the true God. But both of these things are said in relation to those called gods falsely, and not really. So in Deuteronomy he says: “The Lord is their leader alone, and God is not alien to them” (Deut. 32:12). If God is one invisible and wise; It does not follow from this that He is greater than everyone else in everything; but God is of necessity superior to all. Could it be that the Apostle, having said that the Savior is God above all (Rom. 9:5), also called Him Greater Father? But this is ridiculous. Therefore, the present place should be understood in a similar way. A great God cannot be less than another God. Therefore, did the Apostle, having said about the Son: we wait for “the blessed hope and the revelation of the glory of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13), considered Him greater than the Father? For we are waiting for the appearance and coming of the Son, and not the Father. Therefore, this is said without distinguishing between the Father and the Son, and not with strict accuracy. To be equal with God is nothing other than to be equal to God. Therefore, how is it that the Son, who did not consider it robbery to be on an equal footing with God (Phil. 2:6), is not similar and equal to God? But the Jews are more pious than Eunomius. For when the Savior called only Himself the Son of God; since the Son, if he is truly the Son, must be equal to the Father: they wanted, as it is said, to stone Him, “for not only did He destroy the Sabbath, but also His Father said God, He created equal to God” (John 5:18). So, the Son is equal to the Father both according to the testimony of the Apostle and according to the word of the Savior himself, although Eunomius does not want this. To the words: “My date is not, but for them it is prepared” (Matt. 20:23) If the Son is not the Lord of judgment, to benefit some and punish others; then how does He say: “The Father judges no one, but gives all judgment to the Sons” (John 5:22)? And in another place: “The Son of man has power to forgive the sins of the earth” (Mark 2:10)? And again: “to Me is given all authority in heaven and on earth” (Matthew 28:18)? And he said to Peter: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 16:19); and to the disciples: “Amen I say to you, you who walked after Me, in the regeneration, will sit on a double throne, judging the deceived tenth tribes of Israel” (Matthew 19:28). Therefore, the question is resolved on the basis of Scripture itself, because the Savior said: “And then you will reward everyone according to his deeds” (Matthew 16:27), and in another place: “They who have done good will come forth to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment” (John 5:29); and also the Apostle: “For it is fitting for us all to appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that everyone may receive what he has done with his body, either good or evil” (2 Cor. 5:10). Therefore, it depends on those who receive to make themselves worthy to sit on the right hand, or left side of the Lord, and not on Him who can give this, even if the request is not just. To the words: “Who is God, is it the Lord? or who is God except our God” (Psalm 17:32) That this and similar things are said in Scripture not in relation to the Son, but in relation to the so-called, but not genuine, gods, this is sufficiently proven by those places from which we borrowed evidence that the Son, both in the Old and New Testaments, is repeatedly called both God and Lord. But David brings this into greater clarity; Having said: “who is like You,” he added: “in God, O Lord” (Psalm 85:8)? And Moses says: “The Lord is their only leader, and God is not alien to them” (Deut. 32:12), although the Savior was with them, as the Apostle says: “I drink from the spiritual stone that follows; the stone is Christ” (1 Cor. 10:4). And Jeremiah says: “The gods who did not create the heavens and the earth, let them perish under the heavens” (Jer. 10:11). For the Son is not one of them; He Himself is the Creator of everything. Therefore, with regard to idols and pagan venerations, and not to the Son, one should understand what was said above and the following: “I am God first, and I am hereafter, and besides Me there is no God” (Isaiah 44:6); and: “before Me there was no god, and after Me there will not be” (Isa.43:10); and: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one Lord” (Deut. 6:4); and all similar places. You might be interested in: