Слово 9. О том, что единосущен Отцу Сын, о чем приведены и [соответствующие] изречения [Писания]: «Что Мя глаголеши блага? Никтоже благъ, токмо единъ Богъ» 206 и «Восхожду ко Отцу Моему и Отцу вашему, и Богу Моему и Богу вашему» 207 , и так же точно: «Отецъ Мой болій Мене есть» 208

If the Father began to give birth to the Son and stopped, as the anti-Christians say, then [the Son] at a later time joined Him. This means that before He was born, the Divinity (τό Θεῖον) was, in their opinion, in Unity; then It became in Duality when the Son was born, and it turned out to be a kind of addition and increment of the Divinity (θεότητος) from the original Unit into the subsequent Duality. As if the Father, tired of being alone, invented the Son, a partaker of [His] Divinity and works. In addition to this, many [other] blasphemous and absurd [conclusions] will come from such a way of thinking that carries so much blasphemy that is unacceptable for everyone. So, if it is good to reject the absurdity in what has been said, then, accordingly, it is [good] to believe that the Son did not [subsequently] join the Father, but was always co-essential with Him. And just as, if He had been joined, He would not have been of the same essence, since this is not so, but He was always with Him, then everything will be of the same essence. OTHER. And even if the Son has a certain difference in relation to the Father, according to which the Father is the beginning, and the Son is from the beginning, but because of this He will not be torn away from identity and consubstantiality with Him. For there is nothing of the same essence with the Father that is not from Him by nature, so as not to say that what is inherent in the Divine nature alone is inherent in creation. Therefore, even if the Son has His Father as a beginning, but since He exists from the beginning, having an existence simultaneous with the beginning, He will not be dissimilar to him in essence. After all, since He exists from the beginning, He is consubstantial with the beginning. And what is consubstantial with the Father is not arrived, so that it does not turn out that He Himself is like that. OTHER. As if from the objection of the followers of Eunomius. The essence of the Father does not allow, says [the Eunomian], birth, but the Son was born. How then will the Begotten be consubstantial with the Father, who does not allow birth? Rebuttal to this. Let those who ignorantly propose such [questions] tell us: if the consubstantial being is violated by birth, then by what means will it be preserved? And again: if what is born is not of the same essence to the one who gave birth, then what will be of the same essence? Maybe unborn and alien to the essence, or taken from something that is next to the essences? But this is impossible. You will, of course, say that the unborn is of the same essence as the unborn, and the born is similar to the unborn. Therefore, since Adam was not born, and Abel was born from a woman, he will not be consubstantial with Adam. And if, although he was born, he has the identity of nature in relation to Adam, albeit unborn, then what prevents the Son, who exists from the unborn Father, from being born and consubstantial? OTHER, in narrative form. Those who oppose Christ will also agree that the Son was born from the Father, and no one, I believe, would reach such baseness as to dare to place Him, like creatures, outside the Divine essence according to the logos of nature. If the Father begot the Son from Himself, then why is He not consubstantial? Tell us, accusers of God the Word, does He give birth to Him weakly, or unwillingly? And if they say that, having become weak, then let them be ashamed, who blaspheme the essence of the Father, because they dared to attribute weakness to it (τὸ μὴ δύνασθαι). If they switch to something else and say that He did not want to beget a Son consubstantial with Himself, then they blaspheme in a different way, attributing to Him the evil and most shameful of all things - fear of the best. For if what was consubstantial was better than what was not, then how could it not be beyond any [conceivable] blasphemy to say that the Divine Essence feared what was best and most appropriate, and did not desire what was better (κάλλιον) more than what was not? But the Father can do all things, and rather desires the best; so that nothing prevents the Son from being consubstantial. OTHER. Objections seem to come from among the Eunomievs. What exists because of something, or what is born, he says, is necessarily secondary in relation to this, which precisely became the cause of existence for him. Consequently, the Son will be secondary in relation to the Father, having Him as the cause; and therefore He is not consubstantial. Either the one who says that He is consubstantial will show himself to be the most contentious, or then one Divinity, having allowed a certain division in Himself, turned into a Duality: for otherwise it is impossible for Him to be consubstantial. Therefore, it is necessary to say that the Son is not consubstantial. Rebuttal to this. Again, the intoxicated fighter against Christ and chattering in vain about the Divine essence does not feel [his madness]. For dividing and allowing the possibility of some intermediate distance in relation to each other is characteristic of bodies. And the Divine Father's essence, being incorporeal, does not allow cutting and division within itself; and not staying in some place, nor being contained by anything, but resting in some ineffable and inexpressible state, she emitted the Son from herself without extension. Otherwise, she could not have been perfect if she had not given birth to a Son and shown herself to be fertile; and again, otherwise she would not be creative if she did not give birth from herself indivisibly to the Son, by whom she creates everything. So, the Son is born from the Father: not by some division or flow, as you imagine, but - like heat from fire - indivisibly originating from the essence of the One who gave birth. OTHER. As if from the objection of the followers of Eunomius. If, says [Eunomian], the Son is consubstantial with the Father, then why is He not as good as the Father? For nowhere does Christ say to a certain [person]: “Why do you say good things to me? No one is good, only God is one” 209. Having said “one,” He placed Himself outside, as also, of course, good, but not as good as the Father. Rebuttal to this. When the Divine Scripture calls the Son Lord, will you agree that He is also Lord, and truly, or will you deny this too? If you say that He is not the Lord, then you are thinking contrary to the Divine Scriptures and the Spirit who spoke this. By agreeing and saying that He is the Lord, you will expose yourself to wickedness, since you call Him Lord and worship Him Whom you do not consider consubstantial with God and the Father, and rather serve the creature than God by nature. After all, that which is of a different essence than the Existing God will not be God by nature. And to this is witness the Divine Scripture, which reads: “The Lord our God, the Lord is one,” 210 for there is one nature of the Divinity. And about the fact that she alone should be worshiped, listen again: “Worship the Lord your God and serve Him alone” 211. So, if, due to the fact that God and the Father are called “the only good”, the Son falls away from being as good as the Father, then because the Father is called the only God and Lord, the Son falls away from being God and Lord, according to the logic of thought. How then do you worship Him who is neither God nor Lord? If, despite the fact that the Father is God and Lord, the Son is brought with Him, having hence the distinctive property of being from Him by nature, and appears together with the Father as Lord and God, then He will in every way have the ability to be good, like the Father, since the distinctive property of the Father is also present in Him, as in Him. OTHER. The Divine Scriptures say a lot about both the Father and the Son, and the difference in names does not necessarily lead to the fact that the logos of their essence is also divided between them, so that through this there is room for any dissimilarity between them. For there is one Deity of the Father and the Son, even though each of Them is designated by various names, not as having something special in itself that is not inherent in the Other, but in such a way that in relation to both everything that is said regarding one [of Them] can be understood, with the exception of only the naming of the Father and the Son and the deed [corresponding to this naming]. For the Father is always the Father, and He will never become the Son; and the Son is always the Son, and will never be the Father. If anyone wants to say that any name that can be applied to one cannot be understood in relation to both, he will find himself in great trouble. For what will he do when he hears Paul saying: “There is one God the Father, of whom all things are worthless; and there is one Lord Jesus Christ, Who is all things” 212. For behold, he learned from the Father that he was God and the One; and for the Son to be Lord and One. Does it mean that now the Son will not be God because the Father is called God and One, and the Father will not be Lord, since the Son is called Lord and One? But this is not so, let it not be! For since the Father is God, so is the Son; and vice versa, while the Son is the Lord, the Father is the Lord. But if there were some difference that delimits the duality and does not allow [it] to be united by nature in identity, I think the name of one would not be inherent in the other in the proper sense. But since everything that belongs to the Father appears in the Son, and everything that belongs to the Son, in turn, appears in the Father, so that no logos breaks the identity, then He will also be good, like the Father, and therefore consubstantial. OTHER. Those who are deprived of natural communication and identity in relation to each other are, of course, separated from their natural connection with each other by a certain [mutual] alienness of distinctive features (ξενισμός τις ἰδιοτήτων). For a person has alien properties in relation to a horse; and the horse, in turn, - in relation to man - is not the same in a special way. So, if a certain natural distance separates the Son and shows Him to be alien to the Father’s essence, then how will He appear to bear the properties of the Father? How does the Father, if He is truly alien to the Son by nature, carry within Himself His properties? For the Savior truly says in relation to the Father that “all of Mine is Thine, and all of Thine is Mine” 213. So, if “all,” and one of all, is perfect goodness, then the Son will also possess it, which is a distinctive property of the Father’s essence, as having come from Him. And he who possesses the properties of the Father’s essence will be of the same essence. About the fact that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, with the addition of the saying: “I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God” 214 When the Word of God took upon Himself the image of man, and - for the sake of the salvation of us all - He in the image of God, as it is written, humbled Himself 215, then it happens that even as a person converses, without suffering any harm because of this in relation to the divine glory. For if He truly became a man, and because of this did not retreat from being God, then if, as having become a man, He speaks [speeches] befitting a man, then [His] magnificent dignity will not suffer from this either, but He will still be the same, showing humility in words for the purposes of economy. And that He economically, as a man, says such things, kindly preserving in word and deed the image that He accepted, we will see from here. For He nowhere says to the Samaritan woman, taking upon Himself the face of a Jew: “You bow down, whom you know not: we bow down, whom we know,” 216, although the Son is one of those who accept worship, and not those who worship. For [the Scripture] says: “Let all the angels of God worship Him” 217. And nothing like this is given in the Divine Scriptures about angels or any other order of them. For no one accepts the command to worship angels, but only God. After all, it is written: “Worship the Lord your God and serve Him alone” 218. Therefore, just as, being worshiped, the Son “we bow down” speaks economically, as a man, and when, being by nature God, He calls the Father His God - again, as a man, economically - He will not cease to be God because of this, but as by nature the Son will be of one substance. OTHER. If the Son, who is in the image of God and in equality 219 (for so says Paul), has by nature God and the Father as God, then the Divine nature can fall under such [definitions] and will have God and the Father, if [only this] has not already happened. For what can happen, even if it has not yet happened, is in potentiality that which allows for the possibility. If this is blasphemous, then the Father is not called God of the Son by nature, but because [the Son] economically became man. OTHER. If the Son, who is in the image of God and in equality, as it is written, humbled Himself, took on the form of a servant, and was found in the image of a man 220, then the words of humility befitting a servant will not be related to His essence, but will clothe the face of His incarnation. And just as from the height of the Divinity we recognize [His] humility in the humanity [perceived by Him], and vice versa - from the humility in humanity the greatness and height of the essence of the Son [rooted] in the Divinity will be known. Matthew 19:17; Μκ.10:18; Luke 18:19. Matthew 19:17; Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19. Heb.1:6; Deut.32:43; Ps.96:7. Deut.6:5; Matthew 4:10; Luke 4:8. You might be interested in: