Слово 14. Еще о подобии с приведением речения: «Якоже бо Отец имать живот в Себе, тако даде и Сынови живот имети в Себе» 515 ; вывод же из силлогизмов такой, что Сын является жизнью по природе, как и Отец

The premise seems to be on behalf of the Arians. And how, they say, could the Son be essentially like the Father? Or how will there not be someone after Him who receives something from Him, as He Himself says: “As the Father had life in Himself, so He gave the Son also to have life in Himself”? Rebuttal to this. The nature of the Son will not suffer any damage, O most precious ones, from the fact that He receives something from the Father. For He does not have being in [itself] acceptance, but, having first been and existing (ὢν καὶ ὑπάρχων πρότερον) [then] accepts something. And because He is naturally begotten from the Father, [the Son] is endowed with all the attributes of the Father. Just as with the light that came from the sun, we can say that it received something from it, since everything that is in it belongs to the sun that gave birth to [it], and the fact that the glow emanating from it, as coming from it, indivisibly carries [in itself everything] belonging to it by nature, does not force the sun to be before the radiance. Consequently, the fact that the Son received something from the Father does not necessarily force Him to be second in time. After all, [the Father] will give something to the existing and [hypostatically] existing, and not to the non-existent and not yet appeared at all. OTHER. If we believe that the definition of the existence of beings is to receive something, and this, affirmed about something, is sufficient to reveal the essence, then what prevents those who blaspheme from saying that the Father then also has a beginning of being, when it is said that He accepts something from us? After all, we can hear the Psalmist saying: “Give glory to God” 516. So, if the Father does not exist in the fact that He received glory from us (for He, being and existing (ὢν καὶ ὑπάρχων), receives praise [from us] from servants), then the existence of the Son will not [consist] in receiving something from the Father. For about Him, who is and exists without beginning and has ever come from the Father, it is said that He accepted what was inherent in Him by nature, just as a son descended from a man would turn out to bear in himself all the [properties] of the one who gave birth to [him], having from him, along with all his [properties], also being. And the Divine and ineffable birth, moreover, surpasses the power of the example we have given, and must be understood in a God-appropriate manner. Antithesis, as it were, on behalf of the anti-Christ fighters. They will say that it is more fitting for those who already exist and have come into existence to accept something than for those who do not exist, and we ourselves will agree. But now it must be said that he who receives something from someone receives [it] as if he does not have it. So, if the Father has something to be Life in essence, and gives it to the Son - that is, as if he does not have it - then how will he be essentially like Him who receives from Him what He Himself does not have? Rebuttal to this. It is necessary, O most precious ones, to accurately examine the thought of the above statement, and then we will see the meaning of the word. For in response you will hear from us that if the Son has life like the Father, that is, in Himself, through which the essential [possession] of life is signified, then what will prevent one who has the same [properties] from being the same essence? For if the Father has life in Himself, and, in turn, the Son has it in Himself not as a [certain] application, as you say, then He will be equal to the Father in essence, the same as He, having life in a way, and not in another way. OTHER. If the Son is not life by nature, then how true will be what He said: “Believe in Me to have eternal life” 517? And again: “My sheep hear My voice, and I will give them eternal life” 518. And also: “If you believe in Me, you will never taste death forever” 519. After all, [then] it would be fitting for [Him] to say: “Whoever believes in Me will receive from Me the life that the Father has given Me. And again: “The Father will not allow anyone who believes in Me to taste death.” If He does not reveal Himself as saying this, but as inherent in Himself by nature and as essentially abiding in Himself promises to give life to those who believe in Him, then how is it permissible to think that the Son, [previously] not having it, receives it from the Father? After all, this would, of course, be completely outrageous blasphemy. But, as has already been said, He, having originated from the Father, is by nature endowed with all His properties, and as having received it is therefore thought of, being both His radiance and image. And one of the inherent [properties] of the Father is life. OTHER. If the Son of God is not life by nature, but a partaker of life, as those who oppose Christ say, then He is in essence something other than what He participates in. How then does He Himself openly show itself to us, saying: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven: if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever” 520? After all, it would be fitting for Him to say, if He Himself were not by nature life: “In Me is the bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread that is in Me, he will live forever.” Now, saying “I am,” He defines Himself [as this bread], and not one of the properties that have arrived or are inherent in Him. So, if He Himself is bread, capable of immortalizing those who partake, then it is not from the outside and not acquired that He has the [property] to give life, but, being by nature life, He truly promises to give life to those who partake. OTHER. If the Word of God does not by nature have [the property] to be the life of God, but having acquired it acquired from the outside, as you say, can give life, then what prevents us from saying that angels, who have truly become partakers of life, can give life? But this is unacceptable, for only the Son can give life, like the Father. Therefore, the life-giving power is not acquired from the outside in the Son, but is by nature and essentially inherent in Him, as well as in the Father. OTHER. The Son, saying: “As the Father had life in Himself, so the Son also had life in Himself” 521, clearly shows the unchangeable likeness that he has in relation to the One who gave birth. For He has life in the same way as the Father, that is, natural and essential. And by adding “dade,” He indicates [His] natural and essential emergence from Him (πρόοδον). For the Father, of course, did not give as having taken away something from what was inherent to Him and added it to the Son who did not have [it before], in the image of bodily cutting off or division from some other to another, understood either spatially or in the sense of logical distinction (διαιρετικῶς). But just as a plant gives the fruit that comes from it to bear within itself the quality inherent in it by nature, so the Son is understood to have received from the Father what is inherent in Him, being everything that is the same as the Father, with the exception of being the Father. OTHER. The objection seems to be on behalf of Christ-fighters. If life by nature, they say, is the Son, as you, very curiously insisting, say, then how can Paul be truthful when he says about the Father: “He alone has immortality” 522? After all, if the Son also has [immortality], then the Father is not the only one who has it; and if He alone has [it], then, of course, the Son will not have it either. Rebuttal to this. Many things are said to be characteristic of the Son alone, although the Son is not deprived of all this. Since it is written that the One True God 523 is the Father, then let us [suppose] let the Son be not true, as if someone was substituted and falsely named, having the existence of God. And how then, being such by nature, He accepts worship from us and the angels, as the Divine Law clearly prescribes: “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and serve Him alone” 524? How can we keep [the commandment]: “There shall be no new God for you” 525? After all, if the Father alone is by nature God, and [if], since it is said so, the Son is deprived of being by [His] nature God, then He, like some new and young [god], is introduced by the existing kg of the beginning and by nature [God]. But this is absurd. Therefore, because it is said that the Father alone has immortality, the Son will not be subject to the opposite, but, since the Fatherly peculiarity naturally passes on to generation, He will be thought to be the same as the One who begat Him. OTHER. The Father is said to have many excellent qualities (πλεονεκτήματα). But if the Son does not have them - and Paul says nowhere: “To the incorruptible, invisible, only wise God” 526 - then, in your opinion, He will not be incorruptible, nor invisible, nor wise. How then will the Giver of incorruption be corruptible? Or how will God's nature be seen? Or how can we not think of the Son as wise, about whom it is written that He is God’s power and God’s wisdom 527? For it is time for you to call the wisdom of God not wise. Consequently, it will not deprive the Son of being by nature all the same as the Father can be called, even if “one” is applied to Him. For the Word that came from Him will also include everything that is natural and necessary in Him. OTHER. If the Father is life by nature, as He is, then the Son also possesses all these [qualities]. For He speaks the truth, affirming: “All that the Father has is Mine” 528. OTHER. Same thing on the reverse side. If the Father is life by nature, and the Son is not so, then how will He speak the truth, affirming: “All that the Father has is Mine”? But Truth cannot lie, and the Son, of course, will be life by nature, like the Father. Otherwise about the same thing. If the Father is life by nature, and the Son is not so, but [the property] of being this for Him came from outside, then how will He speak the truth, turning to the Father: “All that is mine is Thine, and Thine is Mine” 529? For either He will by nature have to be life, which is [the property] of the Father, or, if not so, and His [properties] are the Father's, - since He is not by nature life, neither will He be the Father. But this is absurd. For by nature the Father is life. The Son also will be the same, so that the likeness will not be broken. OTHER. If the Son is an indistinguishable mark (χαρακτὴρ ἀπαράλλακτος) of the Fatherly hypostasis, then He will naturally carry within Himself also [the property of] being life, so that the image of the Father is not distorted. OTHER. Christ says nowhere to His disciples: “He who has seen Me, has seen the Father” 530. Therefore, if the Father appears in the Son, being life by nature, then the Son will also be the same, so that the likeness is not destroyed. OTHER [evidence deduced] from the same [words] by means of reductio ad absurdum. Christ says somewhere: “He who has seen Me, has seen the Father.” This means that if He has this [property] of being life coming from outside, that is, He has it by participation, and not by essence, then the Father will be the same. Avoiding such absurdity, you necessarily confess the opposite, namely, that the Son is life by nature. OTHER. If it is said of the Son that He, without the slightest difference, outlines (ἀπαραλλάκτως χαρακτηρίζειν) the essence of the Father, and [He Himself] is not life by nature, but receives this as an application, then the Father will be thought of the same. The absurdity contained in this will entail the opposite [statement], which will be true. OTHER. No one of common sense will agree that heterogeneous and heterogeneous [subjects] have the same effect. For fire will not produce the same effect with water, but just as they are differentiated by the name of the logos of essence, i.e., qualities, so the actions will also show different ones. So, if, despite the fact that the Father is life by nature, the Son will not be this by [His] nature, as it seems to the anti-Christians, then how will He have the same effect as the Father? After all, Christ says nowhere: “Just as their Father wants to live, so their Son also wants to live” 531. For they do not say that those who received it from the Father are quickened in a different way, and those who received it from the Son are quickened in a different way. For He said that the Father gives life just as the Son would give life, defining Himself in everything to have the same effect as the Father. Therefore, He will not be dissimilar in relation to the One who gave birth, but just as He is and is called life by nature, so is the Son. OTHER. If we accept the words of John as true, then we agree that the Father does everything through the Son. If so, and one of the works of the Father is to give life to someone, then the Son will also be life by nature, through whom [the Father] gives life to everything, so that by introducing an alien mediator he would not show those who are not involved with God that which is quickened by connection with Him. OTHER. If the Son is a mediator between God and people, as one who connects ends 532 into natural unity, then it must be said that He was both united with people by nature, becoming a man, and also connected with the Divine nature, being God by nature. If so, then since the Father, by essence and not from the outside, has [the property] of being life, it means that the Son, who is adjacent to Him and from Him by nature [is] will be such. OTHER. The Divine Scriptures everywhere call the Son Truth, and He Himself speaks of both, saying: “I am the Truth” 533. So, if this life in Him is false and neither essential nor true, then how will He not be a liar, saying about Himself that He is the Truth? But He does not lie - for this is wicked to even contemplate - but is the Truth. Therefore, He does not have the property of being life. OTHER, through reduction to absurdity. “Just as the Father,” He says, “has life in Himself, so will the Sons have life in Himself” 534. Here, those who do not want to think right are in danger of falling into great blasphemy. For if it is said that the Father has life in Himself, then He will be something different from the life that is in Him. If so, then a certain duality and complexity will be thought of in relation to Him; How then can God [be at the same time] simple and complex in essence? But this is absurd. Therefore, the life that the Father has in Himself is nothing other than the Son; and vice versa, the life [being] in the Son is nothing other than the Father, and he who says the truth says: “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me” 535. OTHER. Naming the natural and essential distinctive features inherent in God and the Father, Paul nowhere says: “He alone has immortality” 536. So, if he defines nothing else, saying “immortality,” as life, and this is the Son, who says: “I am Life,” 537, then the Father has life in Himself, that is, the Son, and nothing else but Him. And He Himself, being in the same way life, gave Himself to the Sons, not as a body placed in a body, and not as having ceded His own hypostasis to the Son and henceforth having existence in Him, but remaining in what He is ever - God and Father, being ineffably connected by the identity of essence and unity of nature with the Word that came from Him. OTHER. Everything that is called the natural and essential image of the Father is the Son. God the Father is called the only true one, because He alone has a Son who says: “I am the Truth” 538. Wise and Strong, because Christ is God's power and God's wisdom 539. It is said that He alone in the light lives unapproachable 540, for He has in Himself the one who says: “I am the Light” 541. He is called the only one who has immortality, for he has in Himself a Son who says: “I am Life” 542. So, if all that distinguishes the Father is the Son, then when it is said that the Father has life in Himself, this means the Son and nothing else but Him. And being Himself in the Son by the indistinguishability of nature and being life by nature, He gave Himself to Him. OTHER. Being life by nature, the Son says that he received it from the Father, but insofar as He is the Word, or [since the Father's] Radiance naturally has the properties of the Father, but because He became a man for whom everything is God-given. He makes this clear in the following [words], explaining the reason for giving. For, as He says, [the Father] gave Him the domain to execute judgment, for He is the Son of Man 543. If, since He is the Son of Man, it is said that He received the power to judge, then, turning the same word, we say: “Since He became the Son of Man, clothed in the likeness of those to whom it is natural to receive everything from God, then it is said that He received into life, for the naked Divine nature alone, reserving both the unacceptability of communion with anything and the ability to give everything to everyone.” Deut.6:13; Matthew 4:10; Luke 4:8. That is, located at different poles of Divine and human nature. You might be interested in: