Слово 15. На сказанное в Притчах: «Господь созда Мя начало путій Своихъ, в дѣла Своя» 544 , что «создал» не применительно к сущности Слова полагается, и что Сын – не тварь или создание

The defenders of Ariev's madness, embellishing their wickedness with what seems to them convincing words, say: “The Son is a creation, but not as one of the creations; He is a creature, but not as one of the creatures; generation, but not as one of the generation." Various rebuttals to this. If the Son is a creature, how is it that He is not one of the creatures? And in general, if He is a creation, then why not one of the creations? To think so is extremely ridiculous. For if the Son is not counted among creatures or creatures at all, then He will be neither a creature nor a creature. If, in your opinion, He was created or created, then how could He not necessarily be one of the creations that arose [in time]? OTHER. They say that the Son is a creature, but not as one of the creatures. And they think that by this they give Him special honor, since they confess that although He is a creature, He is not like one of the [other] creatures. However, there is nothing special about this, but He also turns out to be one of the others. For as long as the concept of “createdness” (τὸ πεποιῆσθαι) continues to be [applied to Him] and it is believed that He is a creation, He will not differ in any way from others in this respect, even if He differed in nature or in some other way. After all, one can see the [entities] created by God as such by comparing them with each other. For you will often find them superior to others in [various] advantages, and differing in nature, so that it is possible to say of each of them that it is a creature, but not as one of the creatures. For example, the sun is a creature, but not as one of the creatures, since there is no other sun. In the same way, the moon, the sky, the stars, the earth: all of these are creatures, and each of them is not like one of the creatures. For the mere fact that they arose is common to all creatures, but the form and nature of each is special. So there will be nothing more important in the Son, who is called created, even if He were something great and exceptional in comparison with other creatures. For how will it help the sun not to be a creature if it is very superior to the stars? The same will apply to the intelligent [angelic] forces existing in heaven, for whom collusion is also common. And the logos of everyone’s existence is special. OTHER. If the Son, in your opinion, is a creature, and, being such, has the ability to create, because He is not like one of the other creatures, then let other creatures also have the ability to create, since they have a diverse nature, and each of them is not like one of the others. After all, there is one sky, one sun, one moon, one nature of the stars, one man - as far as essence is concerned; and none of these communicate with each other according to the logos of nature, although they all have in common that they are created. But among creations, not a single one is represented by the [Word] of the Creator, but rather, [all] worship the creative Word of God and sing the glory of the Creator: “The heavens tell the glory of God, but the firmament proclaims the creation of His hand” 545. And as Ezra says: “The whole earth calls for the truth, and the sky blesses it, and all things shake and tremble” 546. And the Son says about Himself: “I am the Truth” 547. Therefore, He is neither a creature nor a creature, therefore able to create, because He is not one of the creatures, but because, being the own generation of the essence of the Father, and showing all of Him in Himself, He also has the ability to create, like the Father. OTHER. If the Son is a creation, but accepts worship from other creatures for the reason that He is something different from them, and not as one of the creations, then it would be fitting for [all] of them to accept worship from each other for the reason that they [all] have a different nature from each other. For there is great difference in creatures, and each of them can be seen in a special nature, that is, quality, and not everything that the other is. But not one among them accepts worship, but they all worship the edifying Word of God. Therefore, the Son is not one of them, and not a creation, as you think. After all, how can in any way be one who receives worship among those who worship, and one who is praised among those who praise? For there is great distance and difference here, and clearly the distinction appropriate to each. OTHER. If the Son is a creation, and the Father does everything through Him, then it means that He creates and creates Himself; but to think so is the highest degree of absurdity. For how will something that you think does not yet exist create itself? Therefore, He is neither a creature nor a creature, but rather a fruit of the Father's essence, possessing, like God, the ability to create and create. OTHER. If the Son is a creation, then how will the ability to create and bring creatures from non-existence into being be found in Him? After all, if we generally assume that created nature can bring from non-existence into being, then other creatures will also be potentially creative, even if we have not yet seen them so actually, just as, of course, a boy who is still in childhood is potentially capable of producing a seed (σπερματιστὴς), like a husband, although not yet actually. But that which is natural to possess something cannot be said to not have [it], even if it still appears as such, since the natural action is still hidden due to certain circumstances or time. Consequently, other creatures will also be constructive, and there is nothing extraordinary in God. But this is absurd. For none of the creatures creates. Therefore, the Son is not a creation, in Whom all things were 548 - so that the creator and the created, the creator and the created, are not one and the same, but rather God, as [coming] from God and the Father. OTHER, with the addition of another syllogism. If the Son is a creation, then why does He alone reveal the Father, while other creatures cannot do this? Why does the Son alone know the Father, while other creatures do not know what [the Father] is? “No one,” He says, “knows who the Father is: only the Son, and whosoever the Son wills to reveal” 549. How can God, Whom no one has seen anywhere, 550, as the evangelist says, be seen by the Son alone? For it is written: “No one has seen the Father, but He who is from God has seen the Father” 551. Consequently, if the Son alone sees and knows the Father, and reveals Him, then it means that He is not a creation, but His own Word, and what He Himself is by nature, He knows the Father from Whom He grew abiding, and reveals Him in Himself, even though other creatures are not capable of doing this. For in creatures the likeness of the Creator is not preserved, neither in those created will the Unborn be seen (ἐν τοῖς γενητοῖς ὁ ἀγέννητος) 552, nor in those brought from non-existence into being - the Ever-Existing One. in the same way (ὁ ἀεὶ καὶ ὡσαύτως ὢν) 553 . He is shown in the Son, for [the Son] is His unchangeable image. So He is essentially like the Father, and not a creature or a creature. Because none of them is the Father according to Whom He was formed. Proof from observations of Scripture that none of the creatures accepts worship like God, nor, being nevertheless worshiped, endures [divine] worship or praise. Blessed Peter prevented Cornelius from worshiping him, saying: “Do not do [this], for I am also a man (καὶ γάρ ἐγὼ ἀνθρωπός εἰμι)” 554. The angel prevented the worshiper of John in his Apocalypse, saying: “See, neither: for I am your brethren’s slanderer of the prophets, and those who keep the words of this book” 555. An angel prevented Manoah, Sampson’s father, from making a sacrifice, saying: “And if you make [the sacrifice] a goat, you will make it for the Lord” 556. And about the Son it is written: “Let all the angels of God worship Him” 557. And in [the book of the prophet] Isaiah it is also written: “They will worship in You, and they will pray in You. For you are God, and you do not know, the God of Israel’s Savior” 558. It is fair that such words should come from the mouths of those called out of the [pagan] nations, who then came to know God. If, having known the Son, they knew God and worshiped [Him] as God, then, therefore, He is not a creation, so that it would not happen that these peoples again serve creatures instead of the Creator. OTHER. Christ says to His disciples: “You speak of Me as teacher and Lord: and you speak well, for I am” 559. Then Thomas said to Him: “My Lord and my God,” 560 and He did not prevent the disciple from saying this, as the angels prevented the saints. And the Psalmist: “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.” 561. But if He really were a creation, He would not be worshiped, would not be called Lord, would not tolerate anyone saying to Him: “You are my God.” Since He is by nature this, possessing that which belongs to the Father, as the Son and the true Generation, He listens favorably to those who say such things, as those who confess the truth. An antithesis of the Aryan dogmas, containing what they think is the true reason for the creation of the Son, and then refuting [this their statement] with the help of convincing syllogisms. The God of all, they say, wishing to establish the nature of the created (γενητῶν), since it could not contain His irresistible (ἄκρατον) power, creates first the Son, whom He calls the Word, so that through Him, who became a mediator, others could be created, capable of containing only His power. In particular, it would be absurd if the ineffable power of God extended to such insignificant [creatures] and dealt with such small [subjects]. Rebuttal to this. If God’s power was unbearable for the nature of created things, then how did the Son bear it, being, in your opinion, Himself created and from non-existent? How did He endure this uncontrollable action of His own (αὐτουργίαν) of the Father, being, as you say, a creation? For it is necessary that either the whole creation could [endure it], since He could; or, if other creatures are weak, then He should also be weak along with it, since He is of created nature. If the Son, being, in your opinion, a creation, included the Father’s own action, then other creations will also include, and the birth, i.e., the creation [in your opinion], of the Son will seem unnecessary in order for other [creations] to be created, and the blasphemous wisdom [of heretics], giving the Son the highest place among creatures, will weaken, and thanks to what they think to honor [God], they, rather, [on the contrary], they will be condemned as blasphemers. For what is generally ranked among creatures will be of created nature, even if it seems better than others due to its immeasurable advantages. If they say that it is inappropriate for the ineffable power of God to extend even to the most insignificant [creatures], then let them be ashamed when they hear Christ saying: “Are not two birds valued by one Assar? And not one of them will fall on earth without your Father" 562. And again: “Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap, and your Father in heaven feeds them” 563. And again: “If the hay from the village is swept into the oven today and in the morning, God clothes it like that, isn’t it much more than you?” "564 What will be more insignificant than grass and small birds, for which God, in [His] goodness, provides? How can the Creator not honor those to whom He does not deny Providence with existence? But these, without noticing it themselves, attribute arrogance to God, saying that He does not deign to be their Creator. So, if He is the Creator of all, and extends down to the most insignificant, being, because of His love for mankind, capable of containing everyone, then the premise of the heretics is unnecessary, saying that the Son was made for the sake of the smallest of creations. Also on [the words] “The Lord created Me” 565. That the Son is not a creature. If, in your opinion, - oh, God-fighters! - due to the fact that the nature of the created cannot accommodate the uncontrollable own action of God and the Father, the need for a mediator arose - and then the Father created the Son, then how, in your opinion, did the Son, being created, accommodate the power of the Father? After all, it is necessary to give Him a mediator; but that, in turn, if it is created, requires a mediator, and thus logic will lead to an endless crowd of mediators. So, [their] sophism about this is in vain, which at once turns the whole creation upside down. For if a mediator is not found, much less sought, then the created things would not come into existence. Another [objection] of the Orthodox, who say: “If the Son is a creature, then how is it natural for Him to be the Creator? For this is by no means a property of the creature.” Antipophora, as it were, on behalf of the heretics. The Son, they say, is a creation and is one of those created; but, having learned to create, as from a teacher and master, He helped God who taught Him in [His] affairs. Further rebuttal. If everything that would seem to be an accident (συμβεβηκὸς) of something and not rooted in nature, but somehow acquired, can someday become absent (ἀποσυμβῆναι), for such is always the nature of accident, then someday it will be taken away (ἀποσυμβήσετα) from the Son in order to be His Creator. And He will be alien to [this] dignity, having lost what He has learned. For he who is called from a state where He does not know something at all, to knowledge [of it], may someday experience oblivion [of what He knew]. OTHER. Bringing creations from non-existence into being is not a matter of art, but of creative power. After all, art transforms existing things into something else, and creative power calls non-existent things into being. So, if through art and teaching the Son can be the Creator, then let them see what they will say about the Father, if someone says the same in relation to Him; “But you will say that the Father [creates] by nature, and the Son by learning.” This means that it is possible through learning to acquire the natural action of God and, having learned to create, to become what He is by nature. Therefore, there is no distance between God and the creatures, except for the excess knowledge [of the former], and we do not differ in nature from Him, and we lack only knowledge, which, if applied, then we will all become gods by nature. How then is there one God, if only in learning [to create] is [a necessary condition for] becoming gods? If these considerations contain some great absurdity, then, therefore, the Son is by nature a Creator, and not by teaching, like us. OTHER. Another thing is wisdom, and another thing is wise. For wisdom is the thing that makes wise, and the wise is the one who contains within himself that which makes him wise. So, if the Son says about Himself that He is wisdom, then how could He become wise? After all, if He needed teaching at all, He was not Wisdom. And if wisdom came to Him, then He will someday not be so, since what happened may be absent. What then was He before? For He was not Wisdom, being devoid of prudence (λειπόμενος φρονήσεως). But the Son was always Wisdom. For this is what the divine Scriptures declare. Therefore, it is erroneous and ignorant to say that He gained something from His teaching. OTHER. If the fruit of learning is the ability to create, and thus the Son became the Creator, then [those who assert this] attribute to the Father the passion of envy, since He, being able to teach many, taught only One. After all, what would hinder Him if many around Him were creators, just as He has many archangels and angels? However, the Son alone does what the Father does. Therefore, [the ability] to create in Him is natural, and not as a result of teaching, so that the Father would seem superior to envy, not having taught, but rather having generated from Himself one Creator, through Whom He creates. OTHER, having a convincing appearance. If, in your opinion, the Father created the Son so that the creator of created nature could be found, then it would be fitting for Him to cease to act once and for all upon the emergence of the Son. What does He do after the Son? For the Savior Himself says this nowhere: “My Father works hitherto, and I work” 566. So, if He does things after the Son, then the Son, in your opinion, will be superfluous. But this is absurd to think and say. Therefore, the Son was not brought into being as a created being in order to become the Creator of others, but, having originated from the ineffable essence of the Father, together with the Father he does everything that is characteristic of the Father, being by nature what He is, that is, God, and therefore the Creator. OTHER. If, according to the Divine Scripture, no one can resist the Divine will 567, but it alone is sufficient for the formation of everything, according to the Psalmist, who says: “Do whatever you please” 568, then what was the need for a mediator? In vain, then, the Son appeared. But to say so is extremely absurd. For He is the endowed with essence (ἐνούσιος) and living will of the Father, through which He calls everything into being. How then was she herself created? How can they say that it [once] did not exist at all? DIFFERENT and witty. If they say that the Son was created for this reason, so that God could create us through Him, then let them see to what impiety this word of theirs reaches. For it turns out that it was He who arose for our sake, and not we for His sake. And we are a creation, and He is an instrument of creation. Then let Him express gratitude to us, for for our sake He came into being. Let Him then be our glory, just as a wife is the glory of her husband. For the wife, says [the apostle], “the glory of the husband is 569”, and then gives the reason: “For the husband was not created for the sake of the woman, but the wife for the sake of the man” 570. So, if the Son was created for our sake, and not we for His sake, then we will be in every way more perfect than Him, just as Adam is more perfect than the wife created for his sake. But this is absurd. Therefore, the Son was not a creation, and He did not arise for our sake, but, being by nature God, like the Father, He brought us into being by His own power. DIFFERENT and witty. If the Son was created for our sake, as they say, then He is not before us with God, since, not having Him in mind, He subsequently creates us for His sake, but, thinking about us, creates Him for our sake. OTHER. If for our sake the Father created the Son, then He does not do this out of free will, but out of necessity, for our sake. Consequently, the Son would not have existed at all if there had not been a reason in us, and perhaps the Father would not have wanted to create the Son, but need barely moved Him to want [to create the Son], and [thus] with them God became subject to necessity (ὑπὸ ἀνάγκην Θεός.) 571 . Run away from such absurdity! OTHER. If for our sake the Father created the Son, and He arose and fulfilled the work for which he was created, then the Son is no longer needed, just as an instrument is not needed when the work for which it was done is completed. Other convincing speculations. If the Father created the Son for our sake, then we are the first for whom He planned. If we are the first about whom the Father thought, then why is He created before us, Who is the last in plans? Why, having created Him first, did [the Father] not design Him first? Why, again, having us first in His plan, does He call Him Son and heir, and us - slaves and property 572 created for our sake? After all, it would be fitting, on the contrary, for us to be sons and heirs, and the instrument of our creation - which appeared for our sake - to be a slave and subordinate. Run away from such absurdity! An explanation, finally, of the right faith. The Son was not created for our sake, but He was not created at all. For even if the created were not supposed to bring glory to the Father, then the Word is in God, and God is the Word 573, as it is written. Of course, what was created had to come into being through Him. For just as light will not shine except through its own radiance, so the Father will not create anything that exists except through His Word. For [the Scripture] says: “Everything came into being, and without Him nothing came into being” 574. Therefore He is called both the Hand and the Arm of God 575. An Observation from Divine Scripture, Good and Helpful. “Speech,” it is said, “God: let there be light; let there be firmament; let there be luminaries, and so be it. Speech: let us create man; and God created man" 576. However, among all this, nowhere is speech found, as if [addressed] to the Father from the Son, who wanted to learn something that is necessary for the appearance of created [beings], but the word [of God immediately] becomes deed. If, by the word, deeds are accomplished according to the will (βουλὴν) of the Father, then the Word, therefore, is the will of the Father, living and endowed with essence (ἐνούσιος), Itself existing in the Father and having Him in Itself. In a similar way, an observation from which we learn that both angels and holy prophets usually, when receiving commands from God, sometimes ask questions without understanding what was commanded. But the Word of God is not shown [by Scripture] to do so God promised Abraham a son, and he said: “Why do I understand this?” 577 Moses was sent, and behold, he says: “If they ask me, what is His name, that I bring the river to them?” 578 And the angel in [the book of] Zechariah asks God, saying: “Lord Almighty, how long wilt thou have mercy on Jerusalem?” 579 And he continues until he hears kind and comforting words. And Habakkuk says: “I will stand on my watch, and I will mount the stone, and I will see to see what God will say to me.”580. For they, as slaves and creatures in need of the mediation of the Word, were honored by It to learn from Him the will of the Father. But the Son does not seek to know [the will of the Father], [Himself] being the Word of the Father and the Will endowed with essence. Therefore, it is not by teaching that He possesses the property of being the Creator, but essentially and by [His] nature. Also on [the words]: “The Lord made Me the beginning of His ways” 581. That the Son is not a creature, but is co-essential with the Father. And how we need to understand [the words] “The Lord made Me the beginning of His ways,” we will see from the following. Firstly, it must be said that what is spoken in parables (τὰ παροιμιωδῶς λεγόμενα) although it seems at first glance to mean something, is [in reality] not understood as it is said, but contains a different thought. That is why the Savior said to His disciples: “These things are said to you in parables: but the hour will come when I will not speak to anyone in parables, but in reality (παῤῥησίᾳ),” 582 since the parable does not have directness [in itself]. (παῤῥησίαν). So, Wisdom, which directly says: “she created Me,” then offers some such words: “Wisdom created a house for herself” 583. So, if Wisdom is God's Word, and She creates a home for Herself, then perhaps one should ask the question, where is the place for “creating Me”? So, [Wisdom] is Christ, who says this as having already been born and become a man, to whom “creating Me” can be attributed without losing weight, since he is a man. It became the house of Wisdom, created by Her, this common body [for Christ with all people], born of the Holy Virgin, in which every fulfillment of the divine body was pleased to live, 584, according to Pavlov. Therefore, since the Word became flesh 585, then the divine Scripture appends to Him [the words] “creating Me,” since It became flesh; and this is how it is appropriate to understand what has been said. OTHER, that this “creation of Me” does not necessarily mean the cause [of being], but the transformation from a certain dispensation or thing into something else. Let, if you like, this “creature” be related to Christ in an indefinite manner. “The Lord made Me the beginning of His ways”; if anyone wants to accurately understand what is written, he will find that “created” here does not mean the created essence of the Word, but some other correct meaning. For the word “to be created” (κτίζεσθαι) is spoken of both those that already exist and those that have not yet arisen. And how it can be said about something that already exists that it is “created” and accepts a different beginning, we will now see. For when it is said “created” about things that do not yet exist, then this will rightly mean bringing from non-existence into being; and in relation to those that already exist and do not allow themselves to be created in the sense of being, this word no longer denotes essence, but a transformation from something one into something else. As, for example, when David says: “And the people of the land will praise the Lord” 586. And again: “Create a pure heart in me, O God” 587. And Paul nowhere says about Christ: “Having abolished the law of the commandments by teaching, so that he might create both into one new man” 588. And again: “Put on the new man, created by God in truth and in the glory of truth” 589. And, of course, David is not pointing to some essentially created people, but is talking about people moving from error to the knowledge of God. And within himself he wished that no other heart would be created than the one he had, but prayed that it would change [from impurity] to purity. And the wisest Paul does not say that two certain people are transformed into natural unity thanks to Christ, as if accepting the beginning of being, but says that those who [came] from Israel, and those who from the pagans, are transformed [with their minds] into a new consciousness (εἰς καινότητα γνώμης), forgetting some - service according to the [old] Law, while others are the delusion instilled in them from childhood. And, again, He commands us all to put on the new man created according to God. And it is obvious that He is not talking about some essentially created man in whom one must put on, but about a virtuous life and renewal of will. Thus, if “to be created” does not necessarily indicate the essence, then what reason would there be, or would it not be madness, to correctly understand what is written in relation to truly created things, but in relation to God the Word - in relation to Whom this must especially be observed - to turn out to think evil? For [Wisdom] says: “The Lord created Me,” and does not place the power of the word within the limits of “creating Me,” but adds that “he created the beginning of His ways for His work,” and not bringing into being, as you understood, but creating the beginning of His ways for His work. Living according to the Law was revered by the Jews, but life in truth was not at all known to the pagans. So, it became, that is, became (ἐκτίσθη), the Word of God, flesh, - that is, man, - so that the beginning of the ways of the Lord and His works could be found by everyone. For in Christ the life of the Gospel shone forth first. By the ways and deeds of the Lord, something else should be understood, if not His commandments, which, fulfilling and working in which, we seem to go to Him in many and different ways. And that “works” mean virtuous living and the commandments of God - listen to what the Divine Scripture says: “Alas for those who do the work of the Lord with negligence” 590. And blessed David, calling the commandments paths, proclaims: “Tell me Your ways, O Lord, and teach me Your paths.” 591 OTHERWISE about the same thing. “The Lord made Me the beginning of His ways, for His work.” “Created” should not be applied to the essence of the Word: after all, it is truly blasphemous and impious to say about the One who always exists in the same way with the Father that He was now created. Understand it in this more reliable way: “Creating Me,” He says, “was the beginning of His ways.” Here He calls “paths” the lawgiver Moses and the prophets, over whom, like a certain principle and power, stands Christ, transforming what they said into the novelty of the gospel preaching, and, moreover, with authority. For the Law says: “Thou shalt not commit adultery” 592, and Christ says: “I say unto you, Thou shalt not lust” 593. He calls the saints paths, as being able to lead [us] to God through instruction. So understand what Jeremiah said: “Stand on the path and see, and ask the eternal paths of the Lord and see which is the good way, and walk in it and you will find purification for your souls” 594. And it is obvious that he did not speak about the ways that are usually understood. For how to question them? How to learn from them? And if anyone applies this word to the saints, he will benefit from such an understanding. For if anyone, as if to certain paths, turns his mind to St. the prophets, not getting acquainted with them in passing, but extracting the exact meaning from what they wrote, he recognizes the Good Way, that is, Christ, who says: “I am the Way” 595 through whom he will be cleansed, having received remission of sins 596. So, He says: “creating Me,” that is, He made Me the beginning, that is, the power over the Law and the Prophets, not, of course, their representative (τυπικὰ) words to affirm, but to lay down the best [commandments] in His deeds. And enough has already been said about the fact that “created” does not necessarily indicate an essence. OTHERWISE about the same thing. [The expression] “The Lord created Me” is the same as if He said: “The Father made Me a body, 597 and as a man He created Me for the salvation of men.” For, as when John says that “the Word was made flesh” 598, and Paul writes about Christ that He “was made a curse for us” 599, and also that “he who knew no sin committed sin for us” 600, we do not consider the Word to be made flesh, nor do we say that Christ truly became a curse and sin, but - even though it is said so in the Divine Scripture - we understand this piously; in the same way, although God’s Word says: “He created Me,” we must nevertheless think [that this is said] instead of “He made me a man,” and we do not understand what was said in the sense of His essence. OTHER, that God the Word is not a creation. If God’s Word is the generation of the Father and is so called divine Scripture, then how will It be a creation? For He [i.e. e. Son] will necessarily be one of two things: either, being a generation, He will escape being a creation; or, being, in your opinion, a creation and a creation, it will not be a generation. After all, no one ever calls his creation both a offspring and a son. Since the Son is a generation, it follows that he is thought of as the Son, and not as a creature. OTHER, about the same thing. The Divine Scriptures call the Word of God the Only Begotten. If so, then how can it be understood that He was essentially created at the beginning of others, which the Influx calls paths? After all, if He is generally numbered with others and for some [of them] is the beginning, then He will be part of the whole totality (σώματος) and will not be the only begotten, having many subsequent ones, of whom He was created by the beginning, as He Himself says. For even though He was created before others, He will not be the only one because of this. After all, the beginning of something, although it takes precedence in relation to those that are after it, but time will still be related to their number and related to them. Behold, Reuben became the beginning of the children of Jacob, but he is not the only begotten, and therefore is not alien to the essence of those who come after him. So, if the Word was created by the beginning of certain (creations), then he will be neither the Only Begotten, nor alienated by the logos of nature from those whose beginning he is, and, thus, will be numbered among the creatures. And the Father will be a liar, who calls Him Son. And blessed John will also be a liar, saying: “In the beginning was the Word" 601. For what about “be” (ἦν) if “be” (γέγονε)? What about “God is the Word” if It is created? How then can one be Lord who, together with others, was created as a slave and is part of the whole creation? But this is absurd. This means that “created” will not be attached to the essence. OTHER. If the Son, in your opinion, was created in essence, being the beginning of the creations that followed [Him], as it is written, then how does He have the ability to create, how did He become the Creator of others? After all, it is necessary that the existing beginning of something be of the same essence with everything of which it is the beginning. So, if the Son, being a creation, also has creative power, then the other creations will be the same, even if they came into being thanks to the Son, [i.e. e.] having a creative nature themselves. And then there is no advantage in God compared to creatures. If He is not the beginning of other creatures in the sense that He Himself is a creation, then, therefore, He is the Son and the Only Begotten. OTHER, about the same thing by means of reductio ad absurdum. “The Lord made Me the beginning of His ways, for His work.” If someone wants to explore what has been said even more curiously, then he will maliciously (κακοτρόπως) say: “If He was the first to be created and became, in your opinion, the beginning, then how is He created into action? After all, He did not say: “The Lord created Me, that I should do His works,” but “for His own work.” As if the works were already accomplished, He says that He was created “in them.” If so, how will the second after them be first? How will the beginning of others be the one who arose for their sake? How would all of Him be 602 if He is after them? If it is not permissible to think this way, then “created” will not be applied to the essence of God the Word, but will be understood by us piously, so that the meaning [of this word] refers to the concept of incarnation. OTHER. As if from the objection of heretics. Lord, they say, He calls the Father: so that He recognized Himself as existing in created nature. For all created things are slaves of God who created them. Rebuttal to this. But He calls Him both Lord and Father. And if through this He recognized Himself as a slave, then, therefore, through this He recognized Himself as a Son. If He is the Son, then He should not justly be called the creation of the One who gave birth, but should be recognized as having originated from His essence. So He is the Son by nature; when for our sake He, having put on the image of a servant 603, became a man, then He calls the Father Lord. For just as, being a Son by nature, He speaks the truth when He calls God Father, so when He did not refuse to take on the form of a servant, He rightly and well calls the Father Lord. And He Himself is aware of this difference when He says: “Confess, Father, Lord of heaven and earth” 604. Behold, He says here that for Himself God is the Father, and for those in heaven and on earth – Lord. But if He, like them, had been created, He would not have reserved for Himself, as if in the form of an exclusive lot, the rank of the Son, subjecting all others to the yoke of slavery. For by saying: “Lord of heaven and earth,” He left no one free, except Himself, as the Son, who calls God Father. OTHER. As if from the objection of the same [heretics]. They say that He calls His Father His Lord. But if He were a Son by nature, He would not call Him Lord. Rebuttal to this. How then can we, being by nature slaves (for we are men), call God Father? After all, if, because the Son called Him Lord, He, in your opinion, will not be a generation, then we will not be creatures by nature, calling the Creator Father. If grace does not place us outside of creation, allowing us to call the Lord Father, then the Son will not fall away from being Son by nature, calling Him who gave birth Lord for the sake of benefit and what was appropriate for the economy of our [salvation]. For the Word of God came [to us] so that, having taken into Himself what was human, He might bestow what belongs to Him by nature. And He shows this by saying: “I go to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God” 605. For He gives to human nature what is His, allowing it to call God Father. And he himself accepts what is characteristic of humanity, calling the Father His God. But neither do we deny slavery by nature by calling God Father, nor does He lose His natural dignity by likening Himself to us for [our] benefit. OTHER. “The Lord made Me the beginning of His ways, for His work.” Because of this, the Son will not have a created nature, nor will he be thought of as a creature by nature, since He does not simply say that He was created, but “into works” and “at the beginning of His ways.” And when there is a reason why He says that He was created, then it is clear that He does not indicate His movement from non-existence to being, but a certain transition from something one thing to something else. For He was in the beginning the Word, and having become flesh, according to the word of John, He became for us the beginning of every good path. So, ever being the Word, He, since He became man, says of Himself that He was created for the work of the Father. Observations from divine Scripture that when the Son indicates His birth from the Father, or any other saint [speaks] about it, he does not add a reason. For God does not exist for the sake of anything, or [the Son is not for an external reason] born from the Father. When the Scriptures indicate the likeness to us and the birth from the Virgin, they immediately add a reason, so that we learn that the ever-present Word of God for the sake of some benefit became man, not then receiving the beginning of being, but then being transformed into the “form of a servant,” and, accordingly, being conceivably created and created. [The saying] “In the beginning was the Word” does not carry a reason; and “The Word is to God” does not carry a reason; and “God is the Word” 606 does not carry a reason. “I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me” 607; “I and the Father are one” 608; “Seeing Me, seeing the Father” 609; “I am the light” 610; “I am the truth” 611; “Who is the radiance and image of His personhood” 612 all these [sayings] pointing to the essence of the Son do not carry within themselves the reason why this is so. As for carnal birth, Scripture gives reasons connected with it. After all, the Savior Himself says: “I came down from heaven, not to do My will, but the will of the Father who sent Me” 613. And again: “I am the Light who has come into the world, but everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness” 614. And again: “For this I was born and for this I came into the world, that I may bear witness to the truth” 615. And Blessed Paul, setting out in the clearest way the reason for His coming to us, writes: “From now on, the children have partaken of flesh and blood, and have sincerely partaken of the same.” 616. And again: “Because death [was] by man, and by man the resurrection of the dead” 617. And again: “For the weak of the law, who was weak in the flesh, God sent His Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin, and for sin, judge sin in the flesh, so that the righteousness of the law may be fulfilled in us, who walk not in the flesh, but in the Spirit.”618 And again: “For God did not send His Son into the world to judge the world, but may the world be saved by Him” 619. And again the Savior about Himself: “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see will be blind” 620. So, when He became a man in order to accomplish these works and become the beginning of these paths, He rightly speaks of Himself: “The Lord made Me the beginning of His ways for His works.” For He was not created by being brought into being, but by ever being and existing (ὢν ἀεὶ καὶ ὑπάρχων), He was created by flesh for the reasons given. Also on [the words]: “The Lord created Me,” about the fact that the Son is not a creation. Paul says somewhere about our Savior, Christ: “For this is our peace, having created both one, and destroying the middle wall of the fence, destroying enmity through His flesh, having abolished the law of commandments by teaching, so that He might create both into one new man.” 621. So, if Christ creates two in Himself, and transforms two new people into one, that is, into a virtuous life - for we were the ones who were created in Him when He accepted the likeness to us, and in Him first we had the beginning of a godly life, being recreated to a better life - then now, as if created for our sake into one person , with sufficient grounds can say: “The Lord created Me.” OTHER. It is written nowhere about our Savior, Christ, that we can take away that weakness (ἀσθενείας) (αἴρει) 622. And again: “There will be an oath for us” 623. And again: “He who knew no sin, commit sin for us” 624. So, as it is said that He was weak (ἠσθενηκέναι), although He was never weak (for He is the power of God 625), because He bore our weaknesses (τὰς ἡμῶν ἀσθενείας ἐβάστασε) 626 ; as divine Scripture says that He became a curse, not precisely meaning that He became a curse, but that He suffered a curse for us; and as, again, it is said that He became sin, not as having lost His nature and not as being converted into sin, which He did not know, but since He bore our sins, as it is written, in His body on the tree 627, so when we are created in Him into one new man, it is said that He too is created. And therefore He says: “The Lord created Me,” Himself not being a creation, but the own generation of the Father’s essence. OTHER. If, in your opinion, God’s Word Itself is a created essence, and It says about Itself: “The Lord created Me,” then, therefore, He who is much earlier than us did not become a man for our sake. If anyone agrees to hold fast to this, then neither we were created in Him, nor He had us in Himself; How then are we created in Christ into one new man? For Paul will put you to shame, even if you did not want it, when he says: “For of this we are creatures created in Christ Jesus” 628. If we were created in Christ, then, therefore, the Word of God is not of created nature. But when He became man, we are created in Him, and in some way, thanks to us, He appears to say: “The Lord created Me.” It is not because He is the Word that it becomes Him to speak such words, but for the sake of our salvation He, although He was the Creator, became [man] in the flesh, so that, having us created in Himself, He could say: “The Lord created Me.” And how, explaining His eternal and [shared] existence with the Father, He says: “And when I rejoiced in it, rejoice every day in His presence” 629; and also: “Before all the hills I give birth” 630; So, when for the sake of saving us all He put on the image of a servant, then as a person rightly says: “The Lord created Me.” OTHER. If we believe that Christ truly became man, then how can we not [consider that] it is necessary for Him to speak words befitting a man? After all, He had to say: “Not in the beginning I was a man, for “to be in the beginning” befits the Divine nature alone," but [He also had to] preserve what is proper to the essence of the created, for man is created. Therefore He says: "The Lord created Me," because He became a man, so that the ever-beginning existence would be preserved for God alone. OTHER. “The Lord made Me the beginning of His ways.” If because of these words you think that every created thing is the essence of the Son, then, when it then turns out that He says: “Before all the hills He begot Me,” let Him avoid [your] accusation of creation by saying about Himself that He was begotten. For generation is something different from creation. For one naturally comes from the essence of the one who gives birth, and the other is from the outside, as alien. So, if, being God, the Word became a man, then let him say as a man: “The Lord created Me.” And let him point to His eternal existence, crying out: “Before all the hills He gives birth to Me.” Antithesis, as it were, on behalf of opponents. [The word] “begot,” they say, does not necessarily show the Son as existing from the essence of the Father. For divine Scripture is indifferent to words. After all, it also applies to those who are truly creatures and does not dispute this in any way [the expression] “gave birth,” as, for example, when it says: “I gave birth to sons and raised them up” 631. And again: “God, who gave birth to you, has left you” 632. And [also]: “Who is the one who gave birth to drops of dew?” 633 After all, because of this, we will not say that God by nature became the father of dew, Therefore, “begat” and “created” are the same thing in relation to the Son. Further rebuttal. We can often see divine Scripture indifferent to words, however, not ignorant of the meaning of each [of them], but sometimes only using them in a different sense. After all, in relation to creations - when it wants to show them related to created nature - it says: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth” 634. Or: “God create man” 635. Not “gave birth”, but [namely] “created”. And in explaining the birth of the whole Word, God says: “My heart will vomit out the Word of Good.” 636 And, defining the beginning of being for creatures, the divine Scripture again says: “In the beginning created”; and regarding God the Word - “In the beginning was the Word.” 637. So, for creatures, the beginning is time, and before the ages, the existing Word of God has only one beginningless Father, always being in Him. Therefore, just as when the word “gave birth” is used in relation to true creatures, it should be understood not in the proper sense and not in the meaning of nature, so when in relation to the truly Born one is used “created” or “created”, this should be understood not in the proper sense, but in such a way that His natural nobility is preserved. After all, grace is given to creatures by the fact that the word “begat” is used in relation to them, and the benefit of humanity gives the uncreated and uncreated Word [the basis] to speak of Himself: “created.” And creatures are called to adoption by the word and counsel of God. And the Son, revealing His ineffable and natural birth from the Father, says: “I have departed from God and come again” 638. And again, showing Himself to be different from those of created nature, He says: “You are from below, I am from above” 639. No one who is prudent will say that the Word of God boasts of height in the spatial dimension, but that by the word “lower” He denotes the humility of the created essence, and by “higher” He understands the height of the Divine and all-surpassing nature. So, given that such a difference lies between the created and the Generation, let the words be indifferent when the [concepts] designated by them do not suffer any harm. OTHER, spoken narratively, on [the words]: “The Lord made Me the beginning of His ways”; and further [to the words]: “Before all the hills He gives birth to Me.” If He says of Himself that He was born before all, then [this means that] He will not be one of all, but different in relation to them. For [the set] “everything” also has its own beginning in itself, since it will not be “all” if anything belonging to it turns out to be outside it. Consequently, if the Son is born before all, then “all” are considered in their number, and the birth of the Son is thought of outside of them. And not being counted among the created things, He will be of a different nature in comparison with them. So, since He is the Word, He was born from the Father, and was created as a man, and became the beginning of ways. Just as, therefore, we, when we take into ourselves the Word of God, are called sons for His sake, being by nature creatures, so He, when He takes on our flesh, is called creation and creation, being by nature Son. And again: just as, being our Creator, God becomes [for us] and Father, so, being by nature the Father of God the Word, [God the Father] becomes [for Him] and Creator, when [the Son] for our sake is likened to creatures. So, if we are sons by nature, then He will be by nature a creature and creation. If we are called to sonship by position and grace (θέσει καὶ χάριτι), then He too will be a creature by position (θέσει) 640 for the sake of building our salvation, without losing [what is inherent in Him] by nature (ἐκ φύσεως) dignity. ANOTHER, clear teaching, how one should piously understand [the saying] “The Lord made Me the beginning of His ways.” The first man, Adam, was born, and the way of salvation was given to him by God. He lost it, breaking the Divine commandment, fell into corruption, rushed to sin, and descended into death. It was necessary that we should again be shown another way by which we could ascend to that original state [in which Adam remained before the Fall]. Since none of the people turned out to be sufficient for this, then, of necessity, the humane Word of God Himself, being uncreated by nature, is created for us as man, putting on our flesh by the will of the Father, in order, as Paul says, to renew for us a new and living way 641, and to accomplish the works of the Father 642, renewing the body into incorruption, and the one who holds in his power death, [arising] from sin, overthrowing 643, and condemning sin itself 644, and doing everything else that is good, which by nature began to be through Him γέγονεν ἀγαθὰ δι' αὐτοῦ) 645 . So, if He became a man in order to become for us the path of good things (ὁδὸς τῶν ἀγαθῶν,) and to fulfill those works that are accomplished by the Father through Him, then He rightly says: “The Lord made Me the beginning of His ways for His works.” Then He speaks again, pointing to His pre-eternal birth: “Formerly was the foundation of Me” 646. If He is both born and created, then He gives a suitable explanation to both. For, as the Word, He is born from the Father before the ages, as He speaks, and is created - as a man - when He became flesh for us 647: so says the Evangelist. OTHER. David says nowhere about God the Word: “He was before the world” 648. So, if the Son exists before the ages and at the same time says about Himself that He is created into the works of the Father, then it is in every possible way necessary to think that He is created when the works have already been formed. For after the creations came into being, in the last times of this age, He became man, when He says – properly and very opportunely – “He created Me.” How could He Himself be the Creator of these [deeds], if He is created after them? If, before works, there is their Creator, the Word of God, and is created “in them,” then this “creation” will not be an indication of the essence, but properly means incarnation, when for the benefit of the works of the Father [the Word] became flesh. And that is why He says: “The Lord made Me the beginning of His ways for His work.” OTHER, as if in abbreviation. He says about Himself that He was created at the beginning of paths. And which ones exactly - you will find out from what follows. Firstly, enumerating the virtues, which, having created them at first Himself, He taught us, He says: “Be merciful” 649 and also: “If someone strikes you on the right side of your cheek, turn to him the other one too 650.” From the one who takes yours, do not torture 651. The law says: You shall not commit adultery. “I say to you: do not lust 652,” and other things that are contained in the Gospel sermon. For this first began in Christ, and then came to us. Therefore He says: “I am the door” 653, “I am the way” 654. So, He, having become for us the beginning of such works, when for the sake of this He took on our flesh and became a man, He can rightly say: “The Lord made Me the beginning of His ways for His works.” The same applies to the resurrection from the dead, and to the transformation of the flesh into incorruption, and to the ascension into heaven. After all, He became the beginning of all this for us, and for this reason He was created. OTHER. Christ died for us and for us. And just as when [His] body died, it is said that He endured it, although He is immortal by nature, so when the body is created, He says of Himself that He is being created, although He is essentially uncreated. For since the flesh is His, and no one else’s, then He assimilates to Himself what happens to it. OTHER. The best thing on earth is a person who, being created perfect, turned out to be imperfect due to a crime, falling from immortality into death and from incorruption into corruption. So, since this seemed like one of the most absurd things, and it would be truly shameful for the work of God to remain imperfect forever, then, of necessity, the perfect Word of God clothed itself in an imperfect man, and for this purpose, as He says, it was created into works in order to complete them, in order to clothe them again in perfection, making up for the insufficiency of man. And so He says to His Father in the Gospels: “I have glorified You on earth, having accomplished the work that You gave Me to do” 655. And again: “The works that the Father has given me to do, those works testify about Me” 656. So, if then, when He became man, He performs works, and is created for them, then, of course, it is obvious that “created” will not be an indication of the essence, but rather shows the time of coming, in which, having become flesh, He is created. For then, having completely completed the works of the Father and restored human nature to its original state, He presented to Himself a glorious church, not having filthiness, or vice, or anything from such, but holy and blameless 657, and we became in Him a new creature 658, no longer bearing imperfection due to transgression and [arising] from sin deadness, but who finally received perfection because of the obedience of Christ and [His] resurrection from the dead. This means, having become a man for this reason, He can rightly say: “The Lord created Me, the beginning of His ways into His work.” OTHER, on [the words]: “The Lord created Me,” that the Son of God is not a creature and not a creature, and on [the words]: “Before the ages was the foundation of Me.” If, in your opinion, - oh, inventors of all kinds of wickedness! – The Word of God is a creature, then how do we cleave to God and become deified, united with Him? How then is Christ the intercessor of God and men 659? After all, He is in connection with us, since He became a man. If He is a creature and not God, then how will He be related to God? What tropos [of existence] will connect Him with Him? After all, things that are not similar in essence cannot be connected with each other in a natural way. How can we, if He is a creature, be saved through Him, according to the word of Scripture: “Not an intercessor, less than an angel, but the Lord Himself saved them” 660? How then, by believing in Him, are we justified 661 if He is a creature? How then does [the curse]—you are the earth, and you go to the earth” 662—lose its power through Him? After all, it was not a proper thing for a creature to abrogate the determination given by God. How, again, if He is a creature, will He take away sin 663, as the prophet says about Him: “Who is God like You, taking away iniquity and leaving iniquity” 664? How, if He is a creature, could He say: “Unless it is the Son you will set free” 665? And He really liberated, as the heir of the Father, and not a creature [as He appears] according to the madness of the atheists. OTHER. If, by imitation of the Son by nature, those who are by adoption are called sons, then it is in every possible way necessary that [the Son] by nature should be different and different in essence compared to them. So, if sons by position are creatures, then [the Son] by nature will not be a creature or creation, so that He would not be the same as [sons] by position. OTHER. If, in your opinion, O Arians, the Son of God is a creature, then what kind of creature was He created by wisdom? What kind of hand is this that created Him along with all the others? For it is written: “He created all things with wisdom” 666. And God Himself says nowhere: “My hand has created all this” 667. And if everything was created by the wisdom and hand of God, and the divine Scriptures cry out about God the Word that everything was the same, and without Him there was nothing 668, then the Son cannot be the work of the wisdom of God, but rather He Himself is Wisdom and the Hand with which God makes everything. Therefore, He is neither a creature nor a creation. Observations from divine Scripture that the Son is not one of the creatures, but rather is called and is their Creator. The youths in Babylon, one might say, numbered all creation, sorting out in order what is in heaven and what is on earth, and saying that God must be praised by all, nowhere did they place the Son in the category of those who should bless [God], and did not say: “Let the Word, or the Wisdom of God, bless the Lord.” 669 But knowing that He, together with the Father, accepts worship, they, having mentioned all creation in general, passed over Him in silence as the Lord and as the one being praised. And the blessed Psalmist, who no less commands the praise of God and names all creation, servants and angels, the powers and heavens of the heavens, the moon and the sun 670, saying that they, like servants, owe worship to God, does not place the Son anywhere among them, but, on the contrary, commands to worship Him, crying: “And let all the angels of God worship Him” 671 If all creation worships, and the Son accepts worship, then, therefore, He is not a creation, but the true Son, worshiped with the Father. OTHER, that the Son, in comparison with creatures, is different, and not one of all. Divine Scripture, indicating that everything was created through God the Word, says this: “all that was” 672. And again: “There is one Lord, Jesus Christ, who is all things” 673. And Paul, revealing Him more clearly than anyone, says: “For the Word of God is living and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and there is no creation that is not manifest before Him, but all naked and declared before His eyes” 674. So, if He is the Creator of everything, and everything is declared before Him, then the Creator of these [all] will not be one of all. And for Him, for Whom everything is naked and declared, it is not suitable to be thought of as one of the “naked and declared.” After all, by saying “all,” he did not leave a single person outside [of this definition]; and if this “all” is filled with creatures alone, then He who is not numbered among them will be different from them. This is how Blessed Paul understands the meaning of this “all.” For, explaining [what he said]: “You have subdued everything under His nose” 675, he unequivocally adds: “Whenever you subdue everything to Him, leave nothing unsubdued to Him.”676. So, if [the word] “all” (πάντα) embraces everyone (τῶν ὅλων), and the Son creates everything, and everything is declared before Him, then He cannot be one of all, but is different in relation to them. OTHER. It is written that “In the name of Jesus every knee will bow, those in heaven and on earth and under the earth” 677. If every tribe worships the Son, then He will not be one of those who worship, but different from them. And again it is written: “For all creation sighs and suffers with us even to this day, looking forward to the redemption (ἀπολύτρωσιν) 678 sons of God” 679. If the creation sighs and longs for the redemption and freedom of the sons of God, and the Son is not shown anywhere to those who sigh, does not accept adoption or liberation, but Himself is the one who fulfills the hope of the creation and calls those who sigh to adoption, and the giver of freedom, then it means that He is not among “all” and is not counted among the creation, but is different in relation to it, since [all], as creatures, they groan, having need of someone who helps, and He, as the Son, frees all those held in the bonds of slavery. On [the words] “Formerly the foundation of Me” 680. It is written: “God with wisdom is the foundation of the earth” 681. So, if Wisdom founds the earth, and She Herself is the affirmation of all (for everything remains stable thanks to her), then we must examine how the founder is founded by God? This will also be said in a form befitting parables, [i.e.] an indirect hint that has the innermost true meaning, for this is always the form of a parable. So, Wisdom, that is, the Son of God, is founded, not because He is the Word, receiving the beginning of being, but because, having become man and clothed in our likeness, He becomes the beginning and foundation for us, trained to piety through faith in Him and transformed into a new creation 682, as it is written. And so, He says not simply: “God created Me by the Word or the Son,” so that for dissenters (ἑτεροδοξοῦσιν) there would be no loophole allowing them to slander His essence as created, but absolutely: “the basis of Me.” For what He said above - [i.e. e.] “The Lord made Me the beginning of His ways, for His work,” - this is what this [speech] means. After all, there He says about Himself that He was created as the beginning of ways, and here He claims that the foundation of those built on Him was laid, 683 speaking about the same thing in different ways and completing the circle of words with the same meanings. After all, it’s the same whether you say “beginning” or “foundation.” For just as in those He becomes the beginning, so here He becomes the foundation of those who build on Him through faith. OTHER. The wisest Paul says nowhere in his Epistles: “For no one can lay any other foundation than he who lies down, even Jesus Christ.” 684. So, if Christ lies at the foundation, then it is necessary that what is built be such as the one lying under it [the foundation], for, thus, the creation is composed (συναρμολογουμένη) grows, - as it is written, - into the holy church 685. It is obvious, of course, that He does not speak of Himself as the Word, that He was founded, since there is nothing by nature similar to the Word, and none of the existing ones will naturally approach Him: after all, He is the Creator, and they are creatures. But since He became man and like us in everything except sin, He says of Himself that He laid down the foundation of those built on Him, capable of being compared (συναρμολογεῖσθαι) with Him. For since He also became man, He has a great affinity with us due to the nature of the flesh. Therefore, this [speech] must also be attributed to the incarnation of the Savior, so that we can avoid blasphemy, saying that it was the Wisdom of God that arose and received the beginning of being. For just as in another place He speaks of Himself that He is the vine, but we are born, 686 showing the rods not alien or alien to the vine, but existing from it by nature, so here He speaks of Himself as our foundation, in order to show the natural relationship with Him of those who are built on Him, [which appeared] when He became man. After all, then we are united by nature with Him, and, holding on to our affinity with Him, like rods [the only begotten] of a vine, we bear fruit that brings piety to God 687 . Therefore, at the foundation lies the Word of God made man, and we are built on Him, like some holy stones, so that we may be a temple of the Holy Spirit living in us 688. OTHER. “Before the age, the basis of Me” 689. It is reasonable, I think, and [even] necessary, to separate the insane false teachings of heretics from the examples themselves observed [in Scripture]; Perhaps, at least in this way, fearing the truth, they will refrain from blasphemy. So, that which is founded and taken for some such use does not necessarily turn out to have the beginning of its being when it is sent to the foundation. Let's say, let there be a stone appointed [for the foundation of a building] and hidden in the ground: it must first be cut off from some rock or mountain in order to be put to such use. And it, of course, first exists, and then becomes the foundation, being hidden in the depths of the earth. But if someone gave such a stone laid down a voice and a mind befitting a person, then he would say, explaining what concerns himself: “I was a stone lying in a rock or mountain, and now I have become a foundation, being surrounded on all sides by the earth that contains me.” Approximately this is how you understand piously and regarding God’s Wisdom, i.e. Son, for He was in the beginning with God, and God was 690, as it is written. When He, like a certain stone cut from a mountain without hands 691, that is, having come from the essence of the Father, clothed itself, as if with some kind of earth, in our flesh, then He speaks of Himself that He was founded, almost saying: “The Father clothed Me, who is the Word and the true Son, with an earthly body, so that I might become the foundation and beginning of those who are built on Me by faith, and, Having appeared co-corporeal with them, I will accept them, naturally composed and associated with Me [together] due to affinity in the flesh. OTHER. As if from the objection of heretics. And how is it possible, they say, to refer [the words] “the foundation of Me” to the coming of the Word with the flesh, when It Itself says that it was founded before the ages, before the earth was created 692, before the mountains were raised 693? After all, it is clear that long after everything then came into being, the carnal dispensation of the Word took place. Rebuttal to this. It is not at all difficult to answer such questions of heretics, but it requires reverence from those listening. For that at the end of the present age the coming of the Word with the flesh happened - no one who is prudent can deny. For this is clearly declared in the divine Scriptures. But God, who knows the future even when things have not yet taken place, and before the “creation of the world” 694, also knew what was going to happen in the last times. That is why, doing what was due to Him, He did not first think about us when we appeared, but even before the creation of the earth and the ages He had in Himself knowledge of what concerns us, and founded His Son in advance in His foreknowledge, so that we, who through disobedience fell into corruption, would, based on Him, be raised again into incorruption. For He knew that we would be dead because of sin, that we will lie in the dust of the earth 695, as it is written, having heard for our listening: “You are earth, and you will go back to earth” 696. Since the Creator and Creator of us all had previously planned good things for us, He foresaw and predestined Him who would be man for us and for us, that is, His Word, so that He would be the beginning of the ways and the foundation when human nature would be renewed in Him into incorruption, and would be called the firstborn in many brethren 697, and would arise as the firstfruits deceased 698. For what the all-wise Solomon says in Proverbs, “Forever was the foundation of Me,” and so on, Paul in the Epistle to his disciple Timothy explains this way: “Follow the gospel according to the power of God, who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not because of our works, but according to His good pleasure and the grace given to us in Christ Jesus before the ages of eternity, which is now the enlightenment of our Savior Jesus Christ, who destroyed death and brought forth life and incorruptibility” 699. So, if before the age, i.e. When we did not yet exist, we were called with a holy calling by grace and the good will of God, who foreknew all things, and were called in Christ Jesus, then it will be clear and obvious to everyone that it is not when it was founded that the Word of God receives the beginning of being, but that through these words He explains about His coming in the flesh, and says that it was founded before the age and before all creatures, insofar as [all this was predetermined] in the foreknowledge of the Father. OTHER. Also on [the words]: “The Lord created Me” and on “Before the ages was the foundation of Me.” Nowhere in the Epistle to the Ephesians does Paul say: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in heavenly things in Christ, because He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before Him in love before called (προορίσας) us for adoption by Jesus Christ into Him » 700. So, if we, not yet having appeared, are predestinated (προοριζόμεθα) to be adopted as sons by Him through Jesus Christ, and are blessed with a spiritual blessing in the heavenly places 701, then how can anyone, having heard the Son of God saying: “The foundation of Me was before the world,” will not understand that He says this, having kind of the foreknowledge of the Father, according to which, being foreknown, we are called in Him, and are made worthy of every blessing, not yet brought into being at all, but appearing after a long time? Clearly teaching us the same thing, the Lord Himself says: “Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” 702. If the Kingdom is prepared by the Father for those who have not yet appeared before the foundation of the world, and everything is prepared in Christ, then He can with sufficient grounds say about Himself: “Before the age was the foundation of Me, before the mountains were raised, before they became a fountain of waters” 703. For all this means bringing the creature from non-existence into existence. OTHER, [said] narratively, from which we seem to learn the reason why we are predestined in Christ and destined for adoption according to the love of God and the Father. God and the Father, having provided for what is beneficial for human nature and knowing that it will always fall into decay, and having found for it a way of renewal and return to incorruption, laid for it, as it were, the roots of such hope in His own Generation, and predestines us to adoption through Him, and worthy of every spiritual blessing, when we have not yet even arisen [from non-existence], so that when [she] happens to fall into death due to a crime, she, as it were, from an ancient root, again grew into life, and, as she had been blessed before, would not be entirely under an oath when she hears: “Thou art the earth, and thou shalt go to the earth” 704. So, Christ is founded before us, and on Him we all are based, and moreover, before the foundation of the world, according to the foreknowledge of God who knows everything, so that, as we have already said, the blessing was ancient than the curse; and the promise of life is [ancient] condemnation to death; and freedom of adoption is slavery from the devil. Nature returns to its original [state], having overcome what happened in the interval [between the fall and the uprising] by the grace of Him who founded it in good [properties] in Christ, and again becomes what it was in the foreknowledge of God, being predestined out of love through the Son to all that is best. OTHER, as if by way of example. It is necessary to consider how God’s wisdom was pre-founded for us before the age. As if some wise architect 705, having begun the construction of a house and having thought, in all likelihood, that what usually happens to all buildings would not happen to it over time, laid a solid foundation and came up with a kind of unshakable root for [his] works, so that if something happened to them, they, having their beginning preserved, could immediately be restored on it; in the same way, the Creator of all [beings] placed Christ in advance as the foundation of our salvation, even before the foundation of the world, so that, if we happen to fall through a crime, we could immediately be recreated on Him. Thus, as far as the Father's counsel and will are concerned, Christ was founded before the ages; and the matter itself happened at its own time, because the benefit of the matter required it. For we are renewed in Christ at the time of [His] coming, even if we had previously had Him as the basis of [our] salvation. See: Matthew 11:27. The quotation is somewhat different from the Gospel text known to us, but in exactly the same form it is found in St. Athanasius of Alexandria in word for word: The whole essence is devoted to Me”//PG. T. 25. Col. 217C. Perhaps it is more correct to read: “ὁ ἀγένητος.” Wed. in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom: “He who is ever present and likewise likewise” (ἀεὶ ὢν ὡσαύτως ὤν). Luke 7:8. In fact, what is meant is Acts 10:26: “and I myself am man” (καὶ ἐγὼ αὐτὸς ἄνθρωπός εἰμι). Judges 13:15–16. The quote is not given accurately. Isa.45:14–15. The quote is not given accurately. An allusion to the belief of the ancient Greeks, according to which all gods were subject to Ananka, i.e. Fate. Ps.43:4; 88:14; 97:1; Isa.62:8; Wisdom 5:16, etc. Luke 1:18. St. Cyril quotes here the words spoken in a similar situation by Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, but means Genesis 17:17: “And Abraham fell on his face, and laughed, and spoke in his thoughts, saying: Will a son be born to a man who is a hundred years old? food and Sarah will bear life for ninety years?” Jer.31:10 (in the Slavic Bible - 48:10). The quote is given with distortion: the original contains a stronger expression: “Cursed is he who does the Lord’s work with negligence.” Jer.6:16. In the Slavic Bible the words: “ἐρωτήσατε τρίβους Κυρίου αἰωνίους” are translated as “ask about the eternal paths of the Lord,” but St. Cyril here, for the purposes of his exegesis, interprets the accusative case differently (τρίβους αἰωνίους), so that he gets: “ask the paths of the Lord.” The end of the phrase - in the original this is a separate sentence: “Δι' αὐτῆς ἁγνισθήσεται τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν τὴν ἄφεσιν κακιζόμενος,” we translated based on the general meaning, since a literal translation is impossible due, probably, to the corruption of the text. The Latin translation in PG also departs from the letter of the original and reads: "...per hanc mundabitur, remissionem peccatorum consequens." Matthew 8:17. In the original: “ἔλαβεν” – “welcome”. “Τὰς ἀσθενείας” in the Slavic Bible is translated as “illnesses,” but we chose the “infirmity” option for the sake of better coherence of the text. Possibly a quote from Isaiah 53:4. In the Septuagint this passage reads as “τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν φέρει” (bears our sins), but in the Masoretic text it is precisely “carried infirmities” (in the modern Greek translation the phrase looks almost identical to that given by the saint: “τὰς ἀσθενείας ἡμῶν ἐβάστασε"). It can therefore be assumed that this is how this place looked in the list of Scripture used by St. Kirill. Τ. that is, according to some conditional establishment. The contrast between “φύσει” and “θέσει” goes back to Plato, who in the dialogue “Cratylus” uses these terms when discussing the connection of a name with a named object: whether a name is a name by the nature of the thing named, or whether the name is established by some mutual agreement of people. Hebrews 10:19–20. St. Cyril uses “μένουσαν” instead of “ζῶσαν” in the apostle. Compare: John 1:3: “πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο.” Wed: Acts 13:39; Rom.3:26,28; 4:5; 5:1; Gal.2:16; 3:24 Hymn “Glory to God in the highest” (Great Doxology). The use of the song “Glory to God in the highest” at Matins is mentioned in the essay “On Virginity,” attributed to St. Athanasius the Great, one of the predecessors of St. Cyril at the See of Alexandria. Heb.1:6; Ps.96:7. St. Cyril here quotes an allusion from St. Paul on the Psalm of David, while in the text of the Psalm itself we read: “Worship Him, all His angels.” Hebrews 2:8. The end of the phrase – “under His nose” (ὑπό τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ) – corresponds to Eph.1:22, while in Heb.2:8 it reads: “ὑποκάτω τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ". In the Slavic Bible, both versions are translated identically. In the text of Scripture: "revelations" (ἀποκάλυψιν). 4Macc 12:14. The 4th Book of Maccabees was not included in the Slavic and Russian Bibles. You might be interested in: