Слово 29

About theology 3rd, about God the Son 1st Another would say the same thing, wanting to stop their readiness for the word, their haste and stumbling from haste in every matter, and even more so in the teaching about God. But imposing a ban is not the main thing - anyone who wants to can do this without difficulty, but what is required of a pious and intelligent person is to replace what is prohibited with his own reasoning. Therefore, in trusting in the Holy Spirit, whom they do not revere and whom we worship as some noble and ripe fruit, I will bring to light my own thoughts about the Divinity, whatever they may be. I was not silent at other times either; but on the contrary, this alone was the courage and presence of mind. All the more, I will now dare to stand for the truth, so that by “doubt,” according to the judgment of God, as it is written, I will not incur “disfavour” (Hab. 2:4). Since speech is of two kinds - it either confirms one’s own opinion, or refutes an opposing opinion, then I, having first proposed my own teaching, will then try to refute the teaching of my opponents; but in both cases I will maintain the possible brevity, so that everything said can be comfortably grasped at one glance (since they, to the deception of the simplest and most feeble-minded people, composed a word under the name of leadership) and so that long speeches do not scatter the thought, like water that is not locked in a pipe, but flows and spreads across the plain. The three most ancient opinions about God: anarchy, plurality and unity of command. The first two were (and let them remain!) a game of the mind of the sons of Hellenism. For lack of command is disorderly, and plurality of command is outrageous; as a result of this it is both beginningless and disorderly. Both lead to one end - to disorder, and disorder - to destruction; because disorder is an exercise in destruction. But we honor unity of command; however, not that unity of command that is determined by the unity of a person (and one, if it is at odds with itself, will form a multitude), but that which constitutes the equivalence of unity, the unanimity of the will, the identity of the movement and direction towards the one of Those Who are from the One (which is impossible in a created nature), so that, although They differ in number, they are not divided in power 218. Therefore, the One, which from the beginning moved into duality, stopped at trinity. And this is ours – the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is a parent and producer, giving birth and producing dispassionately, outside of time and incorporeally; Son - born; The spirit is the exhausted, or, I don’t know what someone who distracts from everything visible would call it. For we do not dare to call this an overflow of goodness, as one of the wise Hellenes dared to call it, who, philosophizing about the first and second culprit, clearly expressed himself: “like a cup pouring over the brim” 219. We do not dare for fear of introducing involuntary birth and seemingly natural and uncontrollable ejection, which is least consistent with the concepts of the Divine. Therefore, without leaving the limits given to us, we introduce the Unbegotten, the Begotten and “Coming from the Father,” as God Himself, the Word, says in one place (John 15:26). “But when is this “birth” and “procession”?” – Before the “when”. If it is necessary to express it a little more boldly: then, like the Father. But when is Father? - It has never happened that the Father was not there. And also it never happened that there was not a Son, and there was not a Holy Spirit. You will ask me again; and I will answer you again. When was the Son born? – When the Father was not born. When did the Spirit depart? – When the Son did not come forth, but was born outside of time and unspeakable, although we cannot imagine what is above time, even wanting to avoid expressions meaning time, because the words “when”, “before”, “after”, “first” do not exclude time, no matter how much we strengthen it; Shall we take eternity, that is, a continuation that extends along with the eternal, and is not divided into parts and not measured by any movement or flow of the sun, which is characteristic of time. “But if the Son and the Spirit are coeternal with the Father; then why are they not co-originating”? Because they are from the Father, although not after the Father. It is true that the beginningless is eternal; but the eternal does not need to be without beginning, as soon as it is raised to the Father, as to the beginning. So, the Son and the Spirit are not without beginning in relation to the Author. It is known that the Culprit does not need to be more original than Those for Whom he is the Culprit; because the sun is not more original than light. And together the Son and the Spirit are without beginning, relative to time, although you frighten simple-minded people with this. For those from whom time are not under time. “How is it that birth is dispassionate?” - Such that it is not corporeal. For if bodily birth is passionate; the incorporeal is dispassionate. But I also ask you: how is the Son God if He is a creature? For what is created is not God. Not to mention that in creation, if it is taken bodily, there is suffering, such as time, desire, education, care, hope, sorrow, danger, failure, correction; all this, and much more, as everyone knows, happens during creation. But I am amazed that you do not dare to come up with any combinations, timing of pregnancy, dangers of premature birth, and even recognize birth as impossible if God gave birth differently, or, having listed the images of birth in birds on land and on water, subordinate to any of these births the birth of the Divine and unspoken, or, due to your new assumption, completely destroy the Son? And you cannot notice that Whoever has a different birth according to the flesh (for where did you find the Virgin Mary according to your principles?), For Him there is a different and spiritual birth. It is better to say that He who has a different existence also has a different birth. “What father didn’t start out being a father?” - He whose existence did not begin. And whoever began to be, began to be a father. God the Father did not later become the Father because he did not begin to be the Father. He is in the proper sense the Father; because the Son is not together; just as God the Son in the proper sense is the Son, because he is not at the same time the Father. For we have fathers and sons, not in the proper sense, but each is both father and son, and no more father than son, and we come not only from the father, but from the father, who is also a son, and therefore we ourselves are divided, we gradually become people, but what both those who give birth and those who are born would not want, so that we are left with only relationships devoid of reality. But you say: “The words themselves: “gave birth” and “was born”, what else do they introduce if not the beginning of birth?” Well, if we don’t say: “born,” but: “born from the beginning,” so that it would be more convenient to avoid your subtle objections, in which you always look for time? Are you really going to accuse us of misinterpreting Scripture and the truth? But everyone can see that in expressions expressing time, tenses are often put one instead of another, this is especially common in Divine Scripture, and not only in discussions of past or present time, but also of the future. For example, it is said: “Why are the nations in turmoil” (Ps. 2:1), when they have not yet quarreled; and again: “they crossed the river with their feet” (Ps. 65:6), when they had already passed. It would take a long time to list all such expressions that have been noticed by hardworking people. This is their objection that we have considered. What's next? Isn't it extremely affectionate and shameless? They say: “Did the Father, willingly, give birth to the Son, or unwillingly?” Then, as it seems to them, both cases are tied into a knot, not a strong one, but a weak one, and they continue: “If not willingly, then by force. Who is the forced one, and how is the forced one - God? And if by will, then the Son is the son of will. How is He from the Father? And instead of the Father, they invent some new mother - desire. It is pleasant to hear one thing from those who reason in this way, namely, that, having abandoned suffering, they resort to the will; but will is no longer suffering. Let us then see how firm their reasoning is. And it’s best to get as close to them as possible in advance. You, who without difficulty says whatever you want, were you born of what kind of father, from a willing one, or from an unwilling one? If from the unwilling; then he was forced. What violence! And who forced him? It’s true, you can’t say it’s nature; for it is in nature to be chaste. And if from the one who wants; then in a few syllables your father disappeared; you have become the son of desire, not of the father. But I turn to God and to the creatures, and I submit your question to the judgment of your wisdom. Did God create the world by choice or force? If it is forced, then here too there is violence and the one acting forcibly. And if by choice, then you are deprived of God, like other creatures, then most of all you, the inventor of such conclusions, delving into such wisdom; because between creatures and the Creator, mediating desire becomes an obstacle. But I think that there is another who wills and another who wants, another who gives birth and another who is born, another who speaks and another who speaks; if only we are of sober mind. The first is the mover, and the last is a kind of movement. Therefore, what one wanted does not come from wanting, because it does not always follow wanting, and what is born is not from birth, and what is heard is not from pronunciation, but from the one who wants, who gives birth, who speaks. And what is in God is higher than all this. In Him, the desire to give birth is already, perhaps, birth itself, and not anything in between; if only we completely give room to desire, and do not say that birth is higher than desire. Do you want me to make an application to God the Father? – I borrow such insolence from you. Is the Father a willing or unwilling God? And how to avoid your mutual argument! If he wants, then when did he start wanting? Not before existing. Because there was nothing before. Or in Him one thing willed, and another was determined by desire; and therefore He consists of parts. Wouldn't He, in your opinion, also be the fruit of desire? And if He does not want to, what forced Him to be (God)? And how is He God if He is forced, and forced not to anything else, but to the very thing of being God? You ask: “How was the Son born?” – But how was He created, if, in your opinion, He was created? And here there is a difficulty too. You might say that you were created by will and word. But you haven’t said everything yet, because one thing remains to be said: where will and word have the power of execution, because man does not create like that. How was the Son born? “His birth would not be important if it were intelligible to you, who does not know your own birth, or comprehends something in it, but not much, and such that it is a shame to even talk about it, and then considers yourself omniscient. You need to put in a lot of work before you discover the laws of solidification, formation, birth, the union of soul with body, mind with soul, words with mind, movement, growth, transformation of food into flesh, feeling, memory, recollection, and so on, of which you are composed, and also before you find what belongs to both - soul and body, what is divided between them, and what they borrow from each other. For in birth the foundations are laid for everything that will be perfected later. Tell me, what are these reasons? But even after this, do not speculate about the birth of God, because it is not safe. For if you know your birth; then it does not follow from this that you also know God. And if you don’t know yours; then how can you know God? For as much as God is incomprehensible in comparison with man, so much more incomprehensible is the birth on high than your birth. If the Son was not born only because it is incomprehensible to you, then by the way you should exclude from the list of beings many things that you do not comprehend, and, moreover, first of all God himself. For with all your audacity, no matter how bravely you embark on unnecessary research, you will not say what God is. Throw away your currents, divisions, sections, and whatever else you imagine about incorporeal nature as a body, and then perhaps you will imagine something worthy of God’s birth. How was he born? “I’ll say the same thing again with indignation: let God’s birth be honored with silence!” It is also important for you to know that the Son has been born. How? We will not agree that the Angels, not just you, understand this. Do you want me to explain to you how I was born? - As the Father who begot and the Son who was born know this. And what besides this is covered by a cloud and inaccessible to your myopia. “Did the Father beget a Son who existed, or one who did not exist?” - What idle talk! Such a question comes to me and to you, who, although they were something like Levi “in the loins” of Abraham (Heb. 7:10), were nevertheless born, and therefore were made up in some way from what is and what is not. The opposite of this must be said about primeval matter, which is clearly created from something that does not exist, although some represent it as not beginning to be. But here 220 birth merges with being, and it is “from the beginning” (1 John 1:1). Therefore, where will your abrupt question find a place? Is there anything older than this “from the beginning”, so that we can posit in this oldest thing the existence or non-existence of the Son? For in both cases, “from the beginning” will be destroyed from us; if only, when we ask about the Father: is He one of those who exist or one of those who do not exist? - and you are not in danger of agreeing that either there are two Fathers, one pre-existent and the other existing, or the Father endures one with the Son, that is, Himself from non-existence, as a result of your childish questions and these buildings of sand, which cannot stand even in a weak wind. But I accept neither one nor the other 221, and I say that the question is absurd, and not the answer is difficult. If, according to the rules of your dialectic, it seems necessary to you, in any case, recognize one of the two as true; then give space to my unimportant question: what is time - in time or not in time? If in time, then in what time? What is this time beyond time, and how does it contain time? And if not in time; What kind of excessive wisdom is it to introduce non-temporal time? And in this sentence: “I am now lying,” concede only one thing, that is, recognize it either true or false (and we will not concede both together). But this is impossible, because, of all necessity, either the one who lies will tell the truth, or the one who speaks the truth will lie. Is it surprising that just as the opposites converge here, so both positions should be false? And in this way, your wise will turn out to be foolish. But solve me one more mysterious question. Were you with yourself when you were born, are you with yourself now, or were you not then and are you not now? But if you were and are, then who is present and with whom is he present? How did one become one and the other?.. And if you were not and are not, then how do you separate from yourself? And what is the reason for this separation? You will say: it is stupid to inquire about one thing, whether he is with him or not; This is how you can talk about others, not about yourself. So know that it is even more stupid to inquire about the One who was born “from the beginning”, whether He existed or did not exist before birth. Because this is how you can talk about things separated by time! But you say: “The unborn and the begotten are not the same thing. And if so, then the Son is not one with the Father.” Is it necessary to say that according to this speculation, the deity is clearly taken away from the Son or from the Father? For if unbegottenness is the essence of God, then begottenness is no longer the essence; and if the latter is an essence, then the first is not an essence. Who will dispute this? So, new theologian, choose whichever of the two ungodly positions you like, if you have an indispensable thought of ungodliness. Then I will ask, in what sense, taking the unborn and the born, do you call them non-identical? If in the sense of the uncreated and the created, then I agree, for the beginningless and the created are not identical by nature. But if you call the one who gave birth and the one born non-identical, then the situation is unfair, because they are by all necessity identical. The very nature of the parent and his offspring require that the offspring be identical in nature with the one who gave birth. Or another way: in what sense do you take the unborn and the born? If you mean unbornness and birth itself, then they are not identical. And if those to whom unbornness and birth belong, then why should they not be identical? Folly and wisdom are not identical with each other, but they exist in one person, and their essence is not divided, but they themselves are divided in the same essence. Is it possible that immortality, purity, and immutability constitute the essence of God? But if so; then in God there are many essences, and not one, or the Divinity is composed of them; because they are not without composition in God, if only they constitute His essence. But this is not called the essence of God, because it also belongs to other beings. The essence of God is that which belongs to God alone and is characteristic of Him. It is true that those who introduce both unborn matter and unborn idea would not agree to attribute ungeneracy to the One God (and let Manichaean darkness not even approach our thought!); however, let it be the property of God alone. What can you say about Adam? Isn’t he the only one – God’s creation? - Without a doubt so. But is he the only person? - Not at all. Why? Because creation is not the only way to produce man; and what is born is also a man. Likewise, not only the ungenerate is God, although the ungenerate belongs to the one Father. On the contrary, although you are an excessive lover of the unborn, admit that the Born is God; because It is also from God. Moreover, why do you call the essence of God not the position of what exists, but the negation of what does not exist? For the word “unborn” only shows that there is no birth in God, and does not explain what He is by nature, does not say what He is without birth. So, what is the essence of God? It is your arrogance to answer this because you are curious about birth. And it is great for us if we recognize this later, when, according to the promise of the “Unfalse” (Titus 1:2), the darkness and desolation in us will be dispelled. Let those who have purified themselves to such an extent think about this, and hope for this. We dare to say one thing: if it is great for the Father not to come from anyone, then for the Son it is more important to come from such a Father; because, as having come from the Guilty-Free One, He participates in the glory of the Guilty-Free One, but to this is also added birth, which in itself is great and venerable for the minds of those who are not at all creeping on the earth and earthbound. But they say: “If the Son is identical with the Father in essence, and the Father is unbegotten; then the Son also will be unborn.” - This is true if unbornness is the essence of God. Then the Son will be a new mixture - begotten and unbegotten. But if this difference is not in the essence itself, then why do you present your conclusion as firm? Are you really your father’s father, so that you, being identical with him in essence, should not lag behind your father in anything? Isn’t it obvious that it is better for us to seek what the essence of God is (if we can find it), leaving personal properties immutable? In this way you can also be convinced that unbornness and God are not identical. If they were identical, it would follow, since God is the God of some, that ungeneracy should also be the ungeneracy of some, or, since ungeneracy is not the ungeneracy of some, and God should not be the God of some; because something that is completely identical is spoken of similarly. But unbornness is not the unbornness of some. Because whose is it? And God is the God of some; because He is the God of all. Therefore, how can God and the unborn be identical? And one more thing: since unbornness and birth are opposite to each other, like possession and deprivation, it will be necessary to introduce essences that are opposite to each other; and no one allows this. Or again, since possession is prior to deprivation, and possession is destroyed by deprivation; then the essence of the Son, as a result of your assumptions, is not only more original than the essence of the Father, but is even destroyed by it. What other compelling argument do they have that perhaps they will resort to at the conclusion of everything? “If God has not ceased to give birth, then birth is imperfect. And when will He stop? And if you stopped; then, without a doubt, he started.” - Again the carnal speak carnal things. And just as I don’t say whether the Son is born eternally or not forever, until I delve more carefully into what is said: “Before all the hills He gives birth to Me” (Prov. 8:25), I don’t see the necessary consequence in the proof. For if that which has to end, according to them, began, then that which does not have to end, without a doubt, did not begin. But because what will they say about the soul or about the angelic nature? If they started, they will stop. And if they don’t stop, then, as can be seen from their situation, they never started. But they started and will not stop. Therefore, their position is unfair that what is about to cease has begun. Our teaching is this: just as for a horse, an ox, a person, and for every thing of the same kind, there is one concept, and what fits this concept is predicated about it in its proper sense, and what does not fit is either not predicated about it, or is predicated improperly, so there is one God’s essence, one God’s nature, one God’s naming (although the names differ due to certain different mental ideas), and what in the proper sense is called God is really God; and equally, what is God by nature is truly called God; if only the truth lies not in names, but in things. But they, as if fearing that they might move everything against the truth, when they are forced to do so by reason and evidence, confess the Son to be God, but God by name, that is, by participation in one name. When do we object to them: so what? Is the Son really not God in the proper sense, just as the animal in the picture is not really an animal? And how is He God, if not in the proper sense God? - then they answer: what prevents the same ones from being named and each being called in its own sense? At the same time, they present as an example a dog living on land and a sea dog, which are of the same name, and each is called a dog in its own sense. It is true that among the same names there is a certain “genus”, both similar to this and something else, if it, although different in nature, nevertheless bears the same name and participates equally in it. But there, by subsuming two natures under one name, you do not affirm, O best one, that one is better than the other, that one precedes, and the other is less what it is called. There is nothing associated with them that would make this necessary. The first dog is no more, and the second is no less than the first, is a dog, that is, a sea dog - living on land, and vice versa, living on land - a sea dog (and why, or on what basis would this be?); on the contrary, objects of equal and different importance have a common name. But here, with the concept of God, conjugating venerability and superiority over all essence and nature (which belongs to the one God and constitutes, as it were, the nature of the Divinity), and then attributing this to the Father and taking it away from the Son (through which you place Him lower and give Him secondary honor and worship), although in words you give Him Godlikeness, in reality you cut off His Divinity, and from co-name, which contains equality, with malicious intent you move to co-name, which connects unequal things. And thus, according to your conclusions, the man in the picture and the living man represent the Divinity closer than the dogs presented as an example. Or yield to both both communion in name and equality of natures, although you recognize them as different; Then your dogs, which you invented to explain inequality, will be destroyed. And what is the use of sharing the same name if those you share do not have equal integrity? For not as proof of equality, but as proof of inequality, you resorted to names and dogs. Is it possible to expose more than this both contradiction with oneself and resistance to the Divine? If, to what we have said: the Father is greater than the Son, as the Author, having added the position, but the Author by nature, they draw the conclusion: the Father is greater than the Son by nature, then I do not know whether they are deceiving themselves more, or those to whom they are addressing the word. For it is not unconditional that everything that is predicated about something must be the predicate and the subject of it, but it is necessary to distinguish between what is said and what. Otherwise, what prevents me, having made such a proposition: The Father is greater by nature, and then adding, and what is by nature is not always greater, and not always the father, from drawing the conclusion from this: the greater is not always greater, or the father is not always the father. And if you like, I will reason like this: God is essence, but essence is not always God, from here you can draw the conclusion yourself: God is not always God. But I think that this is a false conclusion, which in educational language is usually called from relative to unconditional. For when we give them the concept of the majority of the culprit by nature, they introduce the concept of the majority by nature. Here it is the same as if we said: a famous person is dead, and they made the pointing simple: the person is dead. But how can we keep silent about the fact that it is no less worth mentioning than the previous one? They say: Father is the name of God in essence or in action; and in both cases they want to tie us up. If we say that the name of God is in essence; then together with this we admit the non-existence of the Son; because the essence of God is one, and, as they say, it was already anticipated by the Father. And if it is a name by action, then we obviously recognize the Son as a creation, and not a birth. For where there is an actor, there is certainly a work. And can what is created be identical with the Creator? - they will say with surprise. “I myself would greatly respect your division if it were necessary to accept one of the two.” But it will be more fair, having avoided both, to make the third position, namely, to tell you, wise ones, that the Father is the name of God, not in essence and not in action, but in the relation that the Father has to the Son, or the Son to the Father. For these names, just as with us they show closeness and affinity, so there they mean the co-naturalness of the One who gave birth to the Begotten. But let the word Father, to please you, also mean a certain essence, then, according to general concepts and according to the power of these names, He will introduce the Son with Him, and will not alienate Him. And if you wish, let it be a name according to action, and in this case do not argue with us. We affirm that this very thing, that is, the consubstantial one, was the action of the Father, or else the concept of such an action would contain absurdity. Do you see that we are avoiding your tricks, no matter how much you want to defeat us? But since we have already learned how irresistible your conclusions and cunning arguments are, let us see what the strength of your evidence from the word of God is if you begin to convince us with them. For we have both come to know and preach the Divinity of the Son, guided by great and lofty words. What kind? The following: God, the Word, in the beginning, with the beginning the beginning ("In the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). And: "the beginning was with You" (Ps. 103:4). And again: "Who from the beginning 222 (Is. 41:2-4). causes childbirth" (Is. 41:4). And also the names: Only Begotten Son ("The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has revealed" (John 1:18); Way, truth, Life, Light ("I am the way, truth and life" (John 14:6); and also: "I am the light of the world" (John 8:12)), Wisdom, Power ("Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God" ( 1 Cor.1:24)), Radiance, Image (χαρακτηρ, εικών), Seal ("This being the radiance of glory and the image (χαρακτηρ) of His hypostasis" (Heb.1:3); and also: "Image (εικών) of goodness" ( Pres.27:6); and again: “The Father set His seal on him, God” (John 6:27)); the Lord, the King, the Jehovah, the Almighty (“and the Lord rained down fire from the Lord” (Gen. 19:24); and again: “the rod of righteousness, the rod of Your kingdom” (Ps. 45:7); and again: “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty" ( Rev. 1:8)) are clearly attributed to the Son, as well as others having the same power with these and belonging to the number of those, of which not one is acquired and subsequently assigned to the Son or the Spirit, as well as to the Father himself, because He was not perfect by increase, and there was no time when He was without the Word, there was no time when He was not the Father, there was no time when He was not true, or wise, or omnipotent, or deprived of life, or lordship, or goodness. In contrast to these words, list those that your ingratitude seeks out! These are the essence: “My God and your God” (John 20:17), “more than” (John 14:28), “created” (Prov. 8:22), “created” (Acts 2:36), “sanctified” (John 10:36). And if you like, the following: “slave” (Is. 49:3), “obedient” (Phil. 3:7), “gave” (John 5:22, 10:29), “skill” (Heb. 5:8), “commanded” (John 14:31), “sent” (John 10:36, 17:3), “can do nothing on his own” (John 5:30), or speak (John 12:49), or to judge (John 12:47), or to bestow (Matt. 20:23), or to will (Matt. 26:39). And also those in which ignorance (Mark 13:32), obedience (1 Cor. 15:28), prayer (Luke 6:2), questioning (John 11:34), prosperity (Luke 2:52), and accomplishment (Heb. 5:9) are attributed to the Son. Add, if you want, more of these derogatory expressions, for example: sleeps (Matthew 8:24), hungers (Matthew 4:7), is weary (John 4:6), weeps (John 11:35), is in agony (Luke 22:44), takes refuge (John 8:59). Or maybe you will turn even death and the cross into a reproach. For, as I think, you will not touch the resurrection and ascension; because there will be something in them in our favor. But besides this, you can collect a lot if you want to create a God of the same name and cognate, when we have a God who is true and equal in honor to the Father. If we analyze each of these expressions separately, then it will not be difficult to explain them to you in a pious sense, eliminating everything that in the Scriptures serves as a stumbling block for you; if only you really stumble, and not with the intention of interpreting crookedly. In general, the more exalted expressions refer to the Divine and to nature, which is higher than suffering and the body, and the more humiliating expressions - to the One Who is Compound, who exhausted Himself for you and became incarnate, and what’s worse, and became human, then exalted, so that you, having destroyed in your dogmas everything carnal and reptiles on the earth, learn to be more elevated and ascend with your mind to the Divine, and not dwell on the visible, ascend to the mental and knew where the conversation was about the nature of God and where about His economy. For it happened when this One, now despised by you, was higher than you. Now He is a man, but He was not complex. Although He remained what He was, He also perceived what He was not. In the beginning He was without a cause; for what can be the cause of God? But subsequently He began to be for a reason, and the reason was to save you, a scolder who despises the Divine because It took upon Himself your rudeness and through the mind entered into communication with the flesh; and the downtrodden man became God after he united with God and became one with Him; because the best prevailed, so that I too could be God, since He became man. He was born; but he was also born before - born from a wife, but also from a Virgin - born human, born divine; here without a father, but also there without a mother; and all this is a sign of the Divine. He was carrying in the womb, but was recognized by the Prophet, who himself was still in the womb, and “leaped” before the Word, for whom he received being (Luke 1:44). He was wrapped in swaddling clothes, but, having resurrected, He laid aside the grave clothes. He was laid in a manger, but glorified by the angels, indicated by a star, and honored with worship from the Magi. How do you find stumbling blocks in what is visible, without paying attention to intuition? He fled to Egypt, but also put everything in Egypt to flight. For the Jews, “it has neither form nor greatness” (Is. 53:2), but for David “it is more beautiful than the sons of men” (Ps. 44:3), but on the mountain it is lightning-fast and more luminous than the sun, which is why it leads secretly to the future. He is baptized as a man; but he resolved sins as God; - baptized not because he himself needed purification, but in order to sanctify the waters. He was tempted as a man, but overcame as God, but commands “to be bold” as “He who has overcome the world” (John 16:33). He was hungry, but fed thousands, but He Himself eats the bread of life and heaven (John 6:33,35). He was thirsty, but also proclaimed: “If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink,” but he also promised that believers would bring forth living waters (John 7:39). He was weary, but He Himself is the rest of those who are weary and heavy-laden (Matthew 11:28). He was burdened with sleep, but He is light on the sea, but He rebukes the winds, but He lifts up drowning Peter. Gives tribute, but from fish, but reigns over those who collect tribute. He is called a Samaritan and has a demon, but He saves “one who came from Jerusalem and fell among thieves” (Luke 10:30), but He is recognized by demons, casts out demons, sends a legion of spirits into the abyss and sees the leader of the demons “like lightning fallen” (Luke 10:19). They throw stones at Him, but they cannot take Him. He prays, but he also listens to prayers. Cries, but also stops crying. He asks where Lazarus was laid, because there was a man, but he also resurrects Lazarus, because there was God. He is sold, and at the lowest price - for thirty pieces of silver, but he redeems the world, and at a high price - with His own blood. “He was led like a sheep to the slaughter” (Is. 53:7), but He is the Word proclaimed by “the voice of one crying in the wilderness” (Is. 40:3). He was “tormented and wounded” (Is. 59:5), but “he heals every disease and every disease” (Matthew 4:23). He ascends to the tree and is nailed down; but restores us with the tree of life, but saves the thief crucified with Him, but darkens everything that is visible. He drinks vinegar, eats bile, but who is He? – He who transformed water into wine, the destroyer of bitter tastes, “sweetness and all desire” (Song. 5:16). He betrays the soul, but “has the power to take it back” (John 10:18), but the veil is torn, because what is above is made open, but the stones are crushed, but the dead are raised. He dies, but gives life and destroys death through death. Buried, but rises. He descends to hell, but raises souls from it, but ascends to heaven, but will come to judge the living and the dead and to torture words like yours. If some statements serve as a reason for you to be mistaken, then let others dispel your delusion! We give this answer to those who speak mysteriously - we do not give it willingly (because for the faithful it is unpleasant to talk idle talk and bicker with words - for them even one opponent is enough (1 Tim. 5:14), however, we give it out of necessity, for the attackers (because there are also medicines for diseases), so that they know that they are not wise in everything and are not invincible in their unnecessary and abolishing the Gospel wisdom. For when, having abandoned faith, we prefer it to it We will destroy the power of the word and the certainty of the Spirit with our questions, and then our word will be overcome by the greatness of objects (this will necessarily follow when the word is driven by a weak instrument - our thought); then what happens? - The weakness of the word seems to us to be the insufficiency of the sacrament itself; and thus, the foolishness of the word turns into the destruction of the Cross, as Paul argues about this (1 Cor. 1:17). But You, “explaining the meanings and resolving the knots” (Dan. 5:12), guiding us to understand how to reduce the growths of forcibly invading teachings, changing them the most, make them true from the cunning words and from those who are now called Christians! This is why we convince you, about this, “in the name of Christ we ask you to be reconciled to God” (2 Cor. 5:20), and “do not quench the Spirit” (1 Thess. 5:19), but it is better to say, may Christ be reconciled to you, and although it is too late, may the Spirit shine upon you! If you are overly stubborn, then at least for ourselves we save the Trinity and are saved by the Trinity, remaining “pure and without stumbling” (Phil. 1:10) until the perfect manifestation of that which is longed for us in Christ our Lord himself, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen. According to some lists, as Elijah notes, instead of the words: “by power” (τη εξουσία), it was read: “by essence” (τη γε ουσία). Plotinus. Enneads. I. book 2. Chapter 1. That is, that the Son was born either as existing or as non-existent. After these words, Elijah read the following. “For the prophet introduces God and the Father himself, who long before described the message to us of the Only Begotten Son, completed according to God’s advice, and says this: “Who raised up a man of righteousness from the east, called him to follow him, handed over the nations to him and subdued kings? He drives them away, walking calmly along a road on which he has never walked with his feet. Who did and accomplished this? He who causes birth from the beginning; I am the first Lord, and I am the same in the last”: You might be interested in: