Слово 13. О подобии Сына Отцу, и что Сын – не изменчивой природы, и не извне осуществовался, но из сущности Его произошел как Сын и Порождение

The objection seems to be on behalf of the atheists. If, they say, the Son is in no way different (ἀπαράλλακτος) the image of the Father, and is in every way similar to the One who gave birth, then let He also beget and be the Father of the Son, for [only] in this way will He exactly reproduce (μιμήσεται) Him. And if He does not give birth, then how is the thing that gives birth shown in the non-begetting? Therefore, in this He will not be like the Father. Rebuttal to this. If there is no difference between God and people, then demand that He give birth in the same way as man. If the nature of God is exclusive, then it will in every way be free from our similar necessity. For God did not give birth as a man, so that the Begotten One, following our natural order, gave birth, but He has a certain Divine and ineffable birth from the Father. If it is necessary for the Begotten One to give birth according to our natural custom, and what is characteristic of the Divine is subject to human laws, then what prevents the Father from attributing [another] Father? For this is how our [fathers] were born. If the Father is not from some beginning, and, like God, surpasses our custom, then nothing will force the Son to give birth. For He will already be very similar to the Father, being - like God - above all necessity. OTHER. No one with intelligence will say that the Son turns out to be different from the Father, because He Himself did not give birth to and become the Father of the Son. But rather, thanks to this, he will see in the Son a certain wonderful and most accurate image of the Father. After all, just as the Father, being immutable and unchangeable, always remains the Father and does not turn into the Son, so the Son-Word who came from Him remains what He is, demonstrating in Himself the immutability of the Father. So He is like the Father in this too. The question of the Arians, by which they seem to show the Son to be unlike the Father. Is the Son autocratic (αὐτεξούσιος), they say, or not? If He is autocratic, then naturally He will appear good (καλός) by [free] will (προαιρέσει). But what is held by will, and not by nature, can change to something else, and whatever the inclination of will is, there, without a doubt, there will be something controlled by will. For this is transformation 453 and undergoing influence (Τροπὴ δὲ τοῦτο καὶ πάθος). And how will he who undergoes transformation and influence be the image and likeness of the immutable impassive (ἀτρέπτου καὶ ἀπαθοῦς)? If He is immutable, incapable of deviating to anything else, always remaining what He is, then He, like a stone or a tree, stopped in Himself (ἕστηκεν ἐφ' ἑαυτῷ), being some kind of natural and inviolable bonds we hold in what He is, and not possessing autocracy (τὸ αὐτεξούσιον). Rebuttal to this. It would be necessary not to answer such ignorantly posed questions at all. For where the answer in any case carries blasphemy, silence is preferable. After all, if I call the Son autocratic, then immediately, along with autocracy, transformation (μεταβολή) will be introduced. For autocracy is followed by the admission of transformation, even if He never experienced this, because He did not want to experience it. If, leaving this aside, I say something else, that is, that the Word is immutable, then they immediately present to us the immobility of a tree, not realizing that they dare to express things that are even dangerous to keep in mind. For what would [those] who easily dare anything say if someone asked the same question about the Father? Would they not be as afraid as we are, and would they not approve of silence on these subjects? Or what will they say to this? I have nothing to say, and [it would be] good and useful if they didn’t even think [about it]. And that God’s Word, being immutable, like Him who gave birth to Him, is in everything like the Father, let it be clear from the following. If [the Word] is an indistinguishable image of the Father and speaks the truth, asserting: “He who sees Me, sees the Father” 454, and “I and the Father are one” 455, then It will be immutable and unchangeable in every way, like the Father. For how would it be an image of everlasting and unchangeable existence that which admits of change? Or how could they say “one Esma” [beings] who are so different from each other and, thus, carrying within themselves great dissimilarity? Since it is impossible for the Truth to lie, that is, the Son, who calls himself like the Father, then it is in every possible way necessary to believe that the Son by nature is the same as the Father. Therefore, [the Son] is immutable, just as He is and is like Him in everything. The same thing [said] differently. If the Son, being a changeable (τρεπτῆς) nature, [and at the same time], according to them, spontaneous (αὐτοπροαίρετος) and autocratic, striving for good, has come to such a state that he has no difference in relation to the Father, but can say: “He who has seen Me, has seen the Father,” - then there is nothing great in God, since it is possible for those with a changeable nature, if they wish, to be what He is. If, however, the properties of the Divine are completely inaccessible to another nature, and all of them are manifested by nature in the Son, then He is like the Father in everything, not from some progress or change towards good, being from something other than what He is, but having come perfect from the perfect and immutable from the immutable Father. For how can one not be perfect without being equal to God by admiration 456? And how is He not immutable, Who, as He Himself said, is one with the Father? OTHER. If the tree is known from the fruit, and the fruit of the Father’s essence is the Word that came from Him, that is, the Son, then either let them create the Tree of evil, saying that It is of a changeable nature (for that is what they deign to call the Fruit), or if they create a good Tree 457, then let them believe that such is the Fruit that came from Him, recognizing that It is not changeable, but of an immutable nature, like Tree. OTHER. To Philip, who asks Him and says: “Show us the Father,” 458 Christ answers: “I have been with you for such a long time, and have you not known me Philip? Seeing Me, seeing the Father » 459. So, if knowledge of the Son is knowledge of the Father, then it is in every possible way necessary to believe that the Son is the same as the Father is. If so, and the Father is [truly] immutable, then the Son will be the same. For in this way He will be known and revealed in Him. Evidence from Scripture that the Son is immutable, and the inference [derived] from them (συλλογισμὸς), turning [thought] to this. Paul says: “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, the same and forever” 460. Psalmist: “In the beginning, O Lord, You founded the earth, and the works of Your hand are the heavens. They will perish, but You abided: and all the garments will be discarded, and all the garments will be changed, and they will be changed. You are the same, and Your years will not fail” 461. The Savior about Himself: “You see Me, you see that I am 462 and I do not change 463.” Jeremiah: “For You endure forever, but we are perishing forever” 464. For here the prophet, pointing to the constancy, steadfastness and eternal identity of the Divine nature, says: “Thou art abiding forever”; and explaining the changeability of created [entities] at all times, he adds: “we are perishing forever.” So, if the divine Scripture, speaking in relation to created things about transformation, change, destruction and deviation, removes the Son from participation in these [properties], saying: “But you are the same,” then, therefore, He is not of a changeable nature. For He would not be “the same” if He could transform into something other than what He is. OTHER. If by nature the Son is not immutable, but He happened to be what He is, and He has acquired likeness in relation to the Father, then it means there was a time when He [already] was the Son, but [not yet] like the Father? And how then will He be thought of as a Son who is not attested by likeness by nature? Or how can one who has it [something] that comes with it be established in bliss (ἐπισυμβεβηκὸς)? For if it happened, then it may go away. If Divine Scripture says that the Son abides in identity, and in Him by nature there are all the properties of the Divinity, to which changeability is alien, then, therefore, He is immutable and unchangeable. OTHER. That which transforms and can change would not say about Itself: “I am the truth” 465. After all, if He either is this or is not, then He is lying about Himself. And the Son says about Himself: “I am the truth.” This means that He is not one of those who change or change, but [in everything] like the Father, being immutable and unchangeable. OTHER, [said] narratively. Trying to show the Son as one of those who change, so that He would therefore be thought of as both created and, therefore, not like the Father, they cite as proof of their madness certain [statements] found in the Divine Scriptures and say that the Apostle said: “Even so God has exalted Him, and given Him a name above every name: that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow.” 466. And the Psalmist, again, writes: “For this reason of Thy anointing, O God, Thy God is more than Thy partaker of the oil of joy.”467 Then they say, juggling with words, that “also” and “for this reason” signify some reason why He is exalted, and He is given a name above every other name, and He is anointed with the oil of joy. If some reason provided Him with all this, then, of course, He changed and transformed, becoming what He was not before; and if there is dignity given in Him, then it will also be taken away. And what will be in such a state, how will it be similar in nature to the Immutable and the image of the ever-identical [Itself]? Rebuttal to this. If, in your opinion, there was some reason why He was exalted, made worthy of a name, and anointed with the oil of joy, then He was not what He is now until this reason appeared. Therefore, the Son is not by nature God, if He, due to [some] reason, is God by grace; and not the Son by [His] nature, if [again] He is, by [some] cause, the Son by grace; both sonship and the name of the Divine are for Him, of course, a reward for virtue, just as they are for us. So there will be no gap between Him and us. For it is possible for us, thanks to the purity of life, to receive the same thing, if we are called gods and sons and are anointed with the oil of joy when we present ourselves [to God] as worthy of these [gifts]. If it is inappropriate to either say or think, then the Son will be above us and not like us. For He, being by nature from the Father, is the true Son; just as man [is he who is born] of man, [so] he who is born of God is God. But we, to whom this is not inherent by nature, instead of true [sonship] received - having received [from without] - grace, being called sons and gods according to the love of mankind who gave [this grace to us]; for it is only by name that the property of those who are above us is assimilated to us, especially the [property] of the Son, natural and essential. OTHER. The Divine Apostle nowhere says about the Son: “Who was in the image of God, not by admiration to be equal to God, but made Himself a little lower, taking on the form of a servant” 468, and then: “In the same way, You exalted Him and gave Him a name above every name” 469. So, when He became man, taking on the form of a servant, He was given a name, more than any other name, and He was exalted. Consequently, before coming in the flesh and the form of a servant, He neither had a name nor was He the Most High, according to the words of the Arians. After all, if He was like this even before He lived with us, then the word that He received something is completely unnecessary. If He did not have [any of these], then He became what He was not before. What do you think He was before He received this [grace]? And again: if He then [only] when He humbled Himself 470 turns out to have received those [dignities] in which He now remains - and He is the Word, Wisdom, Power, Truth, Light, Life, Resurrection, Image of the Father - then He was none of these before [His] humiliation. Let them look to what abyss of blasphemy their word is directed: after all, if He has all this from the Father as a reward and payment for humility - and He humbled Himself not at another time, but when he became a man - then we see an inverted order of things. For the divine Scriptures say that the coming [to us] of God the Word took place for the sake of the improvement (ἐπὶ βελτιώσει) of the flesh and the whole nature of man. And if He became God, the Son and the Most High at the moment of [taking on] flesh, then we see Him improved rather than improved; benefited rather than benefited. Therefore, God’s Word did not come for our sake, but for His own sake; He did not take on flesh for our salvation, but to improve [himself]. How then do the prophets and apostles call Him Savior? After all, if so, then it would be more worthwhile to call Him “the improver of Himself.” How did He die for us, of whom it is said that He received as a reward being God and the Son? If to think this way is extremely wicked, then nothing came to the Son as a result of transformation or change, but He by nature, as the Son, is the same as the Father. Therefore He is like [Him]. OTHER. If, in their opinion, there was no Son, or He was, but subsequently improved, having experienced a change for the better, when, having received the form of a servant 471, He humbled Himself 472 (for God also exalted Him, and gave Him a name above every name 473), and this happened in the last times of the age, when His coming in the flesh took place, then what about the whole Tem Bysha 474; How did the Father rejoice over Him, who was not yet perfect? For that which still requires [some] addition is imperfect. How, again, did He in the last times accept worship, and seem to have it from the beginning? For Abraham worships Him under the oak of Mamre, and Moses also worships under the bush, saying: “I am He” 475. How then, as Daniel said, “thousands of thousands serve Him” 476? How, again, is He seen sitting on a throne, high and exalted 477 and praised and praised by the seraphim? What about the powers of heaven, hearing in the Spirit: “Take up the gates, O princes, yours,” 478 and saying: “Who is this King of Glory?” 479 – they hear in response: “The Lord of hosts, He is the King of Glory” 480? Not “He was the King of Glory,” but “He was the King of Glory from ancient times.” If, even before the time of His coming, He turns out to be what He is now, then it is unnecessary - and even very dangerous - to say that the Son is subject to change, or that He, as a reward for good will, received sonship and that He could be Wisdom, Word and God. After all, He, being immutable and unchangeable, is in everything like the One who gave birth. OTHER, [showing] that not from a change from worse to better, the Son is like the Father, but by [His] nature. If He in the image of God diminished Himself, taking on the form of a servant 481, then He can be considered to have gone beyond His natural dignity to the extent that the [distance] lying between God and man appears to be great. For He was not first a man and later became God, but, being God, He became a man. Consequently, the Word of God received nothing from this for improvement. If it is said that He was exalted and received a name as a gift, which is above any name, then He is with flesh and then returns to what He was in even without flesh. And He Himself says nowhere: “Father, glorify Me with glory, even though before you there was no peace” 482. What was the glory of the Son before the world was? To be in the image of the Father. So there is nothing that would be given to the Son by change and transformation for the better, but the glory and exaltation now given to Him as a gift is the resolution of the dishonor [taken by Him along with] the flesh, completely destroying the dishonor from the form of a slave. It is said that these things are given from the Father. For it is in the highest degree characteristic of God to organize everything that is higher than humanity, despite the fact that the Son, according to the unity of the Divinity, does not exist outside the economy of these [things], although He is the Son in a special way in relation to the Father. OTHER, about the same thing. If, in your opinion, He was exalted when He humbled Himself, and therefore He was given a name above every other name, that is, He was called God, and therefore He was anointed and called Son, then it is necessary to say that before the humiliation, God’s Word was nothing of this, for no one can accept what he already has, just as without having received it. And if, even before the time of humility [of the Son], God is found speaking to certain [people]: “Az rekh: you are gods and sons of the Most High” 483, then many before Him turn out to have become sons and gods. How then will it be true that all the same was 484 How will He be before all, having many before Himself? What about the firstborn of all creation 485? And if by imitation of the Son those who are by grace are made [sons] by nature, how will they be before Him who is by nature? And if, by participating in the Son, we are adopted as sons through Him, then how will that which participates be prior to that which participates and that by which it becomes? How can the first one worthy of this not be better than the one who many generations later? But this is all very absurd. Consequently, the Son is immutable and unchangeable, not by grace nor by addition possessing likeness in relation to the Father, but in an essential and natural way. OTHER, about the same thing. If, as a kind of reward for virtue, humility or obedience, God's Word has the existence of the Son, then in some way, before the time of [His] humility, some [people] knew the Father, while the Son says: “No one knows the Father except the Son, and to whom the Son will reveal” 486. After all, if, according to their opinion, there was no Son, then how could the Father be known to anyone? If the Father is always known, then, of course, there was always the Son who reveals [Him]. Therefore, not from some transformation, nor as an addition, He turns out to have received what He is, but has always been this by nature, being like the Father both in the absence of lack of anything, and in perfection, and in immutability. OTHER, indicating that the Son is from the essence of the Father, and not from the outside, as the Christ-fighters say, and since not from the outside, then, of course, he is similar The message seems to be on behalf of heretics. And what [then] beyond this, they say, is in God? How can He not be like us, if He also gives birth to the Son from His essence in the same way as we do? Since He is so much higher than human nature, insofar as He surpasses the created ones, He does not imitate our [properties]; and not from his own essence, as if one of us, [the Father] produced the Son, but He existed from without. If so, then [the Son], of course, is not similar. Rebuttal to this. I could, in fairness, ask the anti-Christists whether God completely rejects likeness in relation to us and in no way carries in Himself what is inherent in man? After all, if they say that the Divine essence is not completely removed from our [customs], then their premise will seem outdated, having their own admission as a refutation. If they ignorantly insist on what they propose, resisting us, then let them say whether man is not an essence. And again, since man is verbal, then let God be dumb among them, so that He may reject [everything] human. If, despite the fact that we abide in these [properties], God also abides in the same ones, then He will not refuse to give birth to the Son from Himself [only] because this is how we give birth. It would be more appropriate to think that by imitation of the Divine nature, we, created in her image, received this, along with other things. Since [God] begot the Son from Himself, and did not exist from without, it is necessary to recognize the likeness in Him. As if from the objection of the Christ-fighters. We, they say, as if using some kind of matter that is given from bodily nature, we give birth to [our] creations from ourselves; and even if we wanted to create something from the outside, then, taking matter, we create it. God, being completely incorporeal, does not have in Himself a source of any matter to give birth to the Son, but creates [Him] from non-existent things. Consequently, having rejected everything that is ours, He neither produced the Son from Himself, nor does He make anything existing from the matter that preceded it, but from without He calls everything into being together with the Son. If so, then [the Son], of course, is not like [the Father]. Rebuttal to this. And how, most respected ones, will our Son turn out to be the Only Begotten, if He is from the outside, like everyone else? How can anyone be a Son who is not from the essence of the One who gave birth? If, therefore, it is allowed that those who arose from non-existents, that is, from the outside, are called and were sons by nature, then nothing, of course, will prevent everything created from being called creations. And the Son will no longer be the only begotten, having many brothers by nature. If it is not allowed, that is, only one Only Begotten, Who, of course, has a completely different existence, not like those called into being, but as the Son, who came from the Father according to nature, and therefore similar. OTHER. If everything is from non-existent things, and together with everything is the Son, then for what reason is one Lord by nature, while others are slaves by nature? After all, it is fair that either everything should be endowed with dominion, as having the same nature as the Son, or He, along with everything, should be and be called a slave. However, we do not see the divine Scripture proclaiming this. But it knows the Son to be Lord by nature, and creations to be slaves, saying: “For every work is Yours” 487. And, again, the Son [Scripture] offers to be sung together with the Father and to be the object of close attention for Him (καὶ σπουδαζόμενον αὐτῷ) 488 , and the creation to be glorified. This means that He is not equal to all [beings], and was not [formed] from outside, like them, but He is the Son by nature, and they are slaves and creatures. And in this case, what prevents the Son from being like the Father? OTHER. Relying, apparently, on incomprehensible reasoning and boasting [rather] of the noise of empty sayings than of the accuracy of speculation, they lose sight of the fact that what truly exists (τὸ ὄντως ὂν) and is capable of giving birth is the Divinity (τὸ θεῖόν). After all, It says about Itself: “I am this” 489, since all others are not existing before [their] emergence, but are brought into existence by Divine will. Therefore, truly existing, for which “being” (τὸ εἶναι) is the most important name, is also the only one that in essence gives birth. After all, other creatures - for example, people - are rather called by the will of God to the ability to give birth, although they do this in accordance with their essence. For a certain Divine law forces something to be born that is natural not to be born. For since the Creator wished it so, it became so. After all, if, in the proper sense of the word, by their essence [their] creations have [the ability] to give birth, then why can’t everyone give birth? Since some give birth, i.e. those to whom this is commanded, then, of course, it is obvious that it is not so much by nature that it is inherent in creatures to give birth, but rather from the law commanding and forcing [them to do this], which the Creator laid down for each of those that exist. So, in the proper sense of the word, what gives birth from itself is Divinity; we [give birth] in imitation of Him. Then, how is it not absurd that what exists by imitation should give birth from itself, but the Archetype, according to which it is formed, should not give birth from itself, but rather from the outside? So, since the truth has become clear from here, nothing will prevent the Father from begetting the Son from Himself. If so, then the Son will be similar to the Father in everything, since the distinctive property of the Father passes to Him. OTHER, about the likeness of the Son in relation to the Father. The objection seems to be on behalf of opponents. If no one, they say, is good, only one God, according to the word of the Savior Himself, and it turns out that He places His own person outside of goodness by nature, saying to the scribe: “What do I say is good?” 490, then how can a Son who is not good by nature be similar to the Father who is good by nature? Rebuttal to this. Those who oppose Christ say that the Son is not like the Father, not at all seeing the danger associated with this word, or seeing it, but rather playing with such great objects rather than being researchers of the truth. For if the Son, in their opinion, is not like the Father, then let them tell us who they will call good by nature: the Father or the Son? If they give their voice to the Father in this, then of all necessity the Son who is not like the Father will not be good. If they refuse to say this, but transfer the essential goodness to the Son (τὸ οὐσιωδῶς ἀγαθὸν), then again they will inevitably be faced with the need to say that the Father is not good if He is deprived of likeness in relation to the Son. Since it is highly inappropriate to utter such blasphemy, either against the Father or against the Son (for if the Father is good, the Son who has come from His essence will also be good), then [the Son] will not be in any way dissimilar to the Father, if it is really in every possible way necessary for good to be similar to good (εἴπερ τὸ ἀγαθὸν προσεοικέναι πάντως ἀνάγκη τῷ ἀγαθῷ) 491 . Antipophora 492 as if on behalf of the Christ-fighters. In this, they say, we confess the Son to be similar to the Father: not, of course, in the sense that He has an essential and natural likeness in relation to Him, but that only thanks to the desire of the Father to make the Son such, He has a likeness in relation to Him. Just as, of course, a dwelling, transformed into a certain form and form (εἶδός τι καὶ σχῆμα), is, as it were, an image of the plan of the one who created [it]: because of matter, it is different in relation to it; and because it is made as he intended, it is similar to his [creative] thought. Rebuttal to this. This logical construction is worthy of laughter—or rather, of pity. Who among the prudent would not rightly be saddened by those who have fallen into such great ignorance? Who would not weep for those who have fallen into such recklessness? After all, if in essence the Son is not similar to the Father, but similar in appearance, then, first of all, it will be necessary to say that the Son was formed from different [parts], and, moreover, very opposing and opposite to each other; I mean - from similarity and dissimilarity, which, in relation to one subject, are not mixed and do not converge with each other. And if [the Son is only] similar in some way, then He is not all Light, not all Truth, and not God by nature. Then, in addition to this, the burden of blasphemy passes on to Him Who gave birth. After all, the Father Himself will be complex for us - both from essence and thinking (νοήματος), - if indeed in the logos of essence He is not similar to the Son, but in thought (ἔννοιαν.) - similar. How then will the Father be considered the beginning of everything, being, in your opinion, complex and not simple? After all, nothing can be conceived before the cause. If nothing can be conceived before the cause, then complexity cannot come from anywhere. Because complex [things] are made from some combination of simple ones. So, since the absurdity in these [arguments] is visible from everywhere, the premise of the Christ-fighters will be extremely vulnerable. And as soon as the blasphemy contained in these words is abolished, then the Son will be essentially similar to the Father, without in any way being deprived of natural similarity in relation to Him. OTHER. If the Son is not similar to the Father in essence, but His thought alone is, as it were, some kind of mark and image, then He cannot have a perfect likeness in relation to Him; because we, being created in the image of the Creator, are then predominantly shown to preserve this when, becoming partakers of His Divinity through the indwelling Holy Spirit, we are formed in accordance with the Divine nature (πρὸς τὴν θείαν μορφούμεθα φύσιν). And therefore those who are not yet involved with Him have by no means become conformed to the image of His Son 493. So, if in the Son there is no natural likeness to the Father, but only the outlines of His thoughts are revealed, then He will not have a perfect likeness, which is impossible even to imagine. For how is He [then] equal to God 494? If this is absurd, then another [position] will be valid - which is also the truest - that the Son, being precisely the distinctive property of the Father’s essence, will be similar to Him in essence. Proof from divine Scripture that by communion with the Divine we are formed in His image. For for the constitution of man - in order for [him] to appear and be the image of Him who created [him] - it was not enough that in the [area] of mental concepts alone there lay a word about Him. Paul says somewhere: “If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he has no gods” 495. But if indeed, even without the participation of the Spirit, man were able to appear [as existing] in the image of God, then we would all be Christ’s, even if we were not involved in the Spirit. Likewise, Blessed John says nowhere: “He who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him.” And of this we understand that it abides in us from the Spirit, which He gave us to eat” 496. Consequently, if the keeping of this commandment turns out to be the reason for us to partake of the Spirit, and having become partakers of the Spirit, we are formed in accordance with the image of the Creator, then, of course, it is obvious that it is impossible for someone to have likeness in relation to God who does not partake in some way of His essence. And again, renewing man into [a state of being] in [His] image, the Savior breathed on the disciples, saying: “Receive the Holy Spirit” 497. And what is characteristic of renewal, then, of course, it is decent to think about what was in antiquity. Therefore, the communion of the Spirit gives a person the perfection of likeness to the Divine essence, and not simply becoming in thoughts alone what He is. If, by receiving the Spirit of the Son, we are formed according to God, then how will the Son be different from the Father, giving through Himself to us also to be formed in accordance with Him? The message seems to be on behalf of the opponents. The Father Himself is not participatory and not participatory for us because of the excessiveness and extremeness of the communion of the Divine, as if inconceivable for human nature. It is contained and becomes [living] in us through the Son, as through the least, of course. How will this one be like the Father when we contain Him in us, who are not able to contain Him? To this there is an antipophora, i.e. a refutation. Again, the God-fighters are intoxicated with recklessness, not understanding, apparently, either what they say or what they say about them 498 . For if, as you say, everything that is in the Father is great and supernatural, then it is necessary to recognize His inherent goodness as such. How then will the Extremely Good be inconceivable for those who need goodness? How can He be wholly good, Who, by virtue of His excessive superiority over creation, prevents everyone from being partakers of Him? For, of course, it is fitting - as can be seen in fact - that the Once-and-Forever-Good (τὸν ἅπαξ ἀγαθὸν) offer the goodness corresponding to Him to everyone and distribute it prepared for consumption by those in need of it. But He is already shown doing this too, which is why He promises to dwell in us and become like us, and proclaims us to be sons 499. Therefore, the atheists have a worthless package. For God does not appear to be inclined toward cruelty (εἰς αγριότητα) because of superiority and greatness, but rather as gentle (ὑπάρχων εἰς ἡμερότητα) as His properties are great. One of them, and the best, is goodness, reaching through the Son, as He himself said, to the good and the bad, and absolutely not prohibiting anyone from partaking of it. Communion with the Father through the Son in the Spirit is truly and properly accomplished. Like the sun, we commune through the radiance born from it, not devoid of warmth, which bears the image of the energy of the Spirit. And just as no one would call the light sent down from him, or warmth, different from the sun, for the reason that through them it participates, so the fact that through Him we are partakers of the Father does not in the least force the Son to be different from the Father. Rather, [on the contrary, it] shows Him to be like [the Father] in everything. For if, by participating in the Son, we are not deprived of the participation of the Father, then how can there not be an identity of the essence of the Father and the Son? And where there is identity of essence, what place will dissimilarity have? Let the Christ-fighters tell [us]. The objection seems to be on behalf of heretics. And how, they say, would the Son be, according to the logos of essence, similar to the Father, Who turns out to be so much lesser that he does not even see Him? For He Himself testified to this nowhere, saying: “No one has seen God anywhere: the Only Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, is the One who confesses” 501. So, if the Son calls the Father invisible to everyone, and He Himself among everyone, then how will He who is so diminished [in comparison with the Father] be similar in essence? Rebuttal to this. And how can you not immediately appear fighting against the truth itself, and at the same time - opposing all the divine Scriptures, when you say that the Father is not visible to the Son Himself, but hides His face from the sight of the Only Begotten, despite the fact that He Himself loudly proclaims; “Who has not seen the Father, but He who is from God has seen the Father” 502? How, if the Father is incomprehensible to the Son, does the Son show Him to us, saying: “He who sees Me, sees the Father” 503? How does His Spirit test everything, and the depths of God 504, as well as the spirit of man - even in man 505? How, again, are the heavenly angels described as seeing His face 506 if this, in your opinion, is not characteristic of the Son? Or how will He speak the truth, saying: “As the Father knows Me, and I know the Father” 507? And also: “No one knows the Son except the Father; no one knows the Father except the Son, and to whom the Son wills to be revealed” 508? So, He who not only knows, but can also reveal the Father to others, how does [Himself] not see Him? How can he not know from what he himself is, who knows the Father and says to him: “All that is mine is yours, and yours is mine” 509? This means that, just as [if] He really were invisible to Him, as you say, the Father [Son] would not be essentially similar to Him, so, since He sees and knows the Father, He will be similar to Him in every way, and your slanderous speech will again turn out to be false. Antipophora, as it were, on behalf of the heretics. Only insofar, they say, do we recognize the Son as similar to the Father, inasmuch as He, having abundantly partook of Him, became in a certain way and was formed according to Him. Like us, as far as it is accessible to people, those who share the divine nature 510 as it is written, receive the image of the Heavenly 511 and are formed, as it were, in accordance with the Divine outlines. Rebuttal to this. And who, tell me, of those who read the divine Scriptures would tolerate such nonsense of yours? For the divine words proclaim, let there be no new God for us, 512 and you, desperately resisting those who spoke from the Spirit, do not be ashamed, offering us the Son as a new and, so to speak, recently born (ἀρτιγενῆ) God. For that which, from communion and communion with the Divine, has become, as it were, formed according to Him, will have acquired and added all that is inherent in it thanks to communion. And what has received something as an increase must be recognized as having passed from a state where it initially did not have this to something else. And this is an accident (συμβεβηκός). And how can one not [perhaps] easily discard what one receives as an increase? After all, in general [everything] given is taken away; and what is acquired, of course, will allow for the possibility of loss. So, let them either say that the Son can fall out of being God, Lord and Son; or, if they do not dare to say this, but rather agree to place the nature of the Son in unconditional beatitude, let them refuse to think of Him as formed according to the Father from the sacrament, but rather preserve the natural and essential likeness [of the Father] for the Word that came from the Father’s essence. OTHER. Those who are called to sanctification, which comes from communion with God, Whose nature is to sanctify, through sobriety retain within themselves what is given [to them], but cannot transfer to another the holiness invested in them. For no one, having received the Spirit from communion, will ever give It to another, since he himself received it from God, but it is fitting for the Source of holiness alone to bestow sanctification from Himself to all whom He wishes. After all, the angels who are in heaven are holy from communion and communion with the Holy God, and they are never shown to give holiness to people. In the same way, blessed Moses, when the seventy elders were nominated for the necessary needs of the meeting, did not himself give them the Spirit, but God, as it is written, received from the Spirit that was in him 513 and put it in the elect. So, it is possible for saints to carry this grace within themselves from communion, but not to give it to others. The Son is not so: after all, He, as the source of holiness, sanctifies the disciples, saying: “Receive the Holy Spirit” 514. It is also the Father who is shown to create; But he who has the same power and authority to sanctify as the Father, how will he not have true likeness in relation to Him? Most likely, there is a typo here, and it should be read: “καὶ συσπουδαζόμενον αὐτῷ” - “and considered together with Him.” Translation option: “...so that the good befits the Good.” In rhetoric, it is a response to an anticipated objection. You might be interested in: