Слово 16. О присносущии Сына, и что Он неделимо произошел из сущности Отца

The antithesis of the Arians, which is then followed by a refutation. And how is it possible, they say, for the Son to be ever-present? How, having come from the Father, was He not completely separated from Him? After all, what comes from something will be part of the essence from which it came. And once the separated will no longer be thought of as a whole. Refutation with an example. What then will they say about what happens to the sun when it gives off its radiance? What do they think about what happens to fire - when it emits heat? Is it supposed that in these entities there is a division and cutting off [of a certain part]? And the sun does not shine without being diminished in any way? No one can spatially separate the radiance from it. And we see heat flowing from fire not in the sense of separation, but it is the fruit of the essence of fire, indivisibly arising from it, just like the radiance of light [is the same fruit of it]. And there can be neither light without radiance, nor fire without the property of warming. For such entities are always accompanied by what is born from them. Also understand the Son, who comes from the essence of the Father, ever existing in Him and understood in a special hypostasis, and in no way diminishing the Father’s essence, and not separating Himself from it, but [thought] that He exists in the Father and has the Father in Himself, so that He speaks the truth, affirming: “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me” 706; and that, due to the indistinguishability of essence, He is in the Father, and the Father appears in Him, so that He can say: “I and the Father are one 707. Seeing Me, seeing the Father "708". OTHER. Those who say that the Son was torn away from the Father’s essence because he came from it and is, therefore, a part and not a whole, let them say that the radiance was torn away from the light, and the heat that comes from it from the fire, and the word from the mind; and let them show that these individually are parts of the essences from which they come, or that light was ever without radiance, fire without warmth, and mind without words. And then let them imagine something similar about God’s Word. And if these [all] always coexist with the essences from which they come, and do this indivisibly, and not separately (since they do not cause them suffering and truncation), then how will they not be beyond the bounds of all wickedness who attribute to the Divine nature that which no one will agree to recognize as happening even with the nature of created [entities], if, of course, he has a mind and thinks correctly? OTHER, as if from the objection of heretics. And how, they say, can the Son be ever-present with the Father? After all, the sons of men are born after their fathers and are born after a long time, not existing until they are born. How, again, can the Son be the Word or Image of God? After all, the human word is not hypostatic, nor is it preserved after it is spoken, but immediately dissolves into non-existence, denoting what is contained in the thoughts of the speaker, and revealing thoughts hidden in the depths of the heart. Rebuttal to this. If God is the same as man, and there is nothing in Him beyond what is in us, then let human [orders] be observed in relation to Him, and let Him then pre-exist in relation to His Generation, just like us; and let that which came from Him be out of non-existence. If the Divinity is far removed from our [properties], and He has nothing in common with us as far as the logos of essence is concerned, then how do they impose human shortcomings on Him and are not ashamed, subordinating Him to our necessity? After all, as much as He differs from human nature, I believe He will be better than our customs and natural laws. So, we are perishable, but God is incorruptible. We are brought from non-existence into being, but God always was and will be. And as the one who gives birth is, so should be the one who is born from him. God and the Father is ever-present; ever-present, therefore, the Light [born] from Him was and is. And that means the Light and Radiance coexisted. But the word that comes from man dissolves into nothingness, and is neither living nor effective. After all, the person who gave birth to him is from non-existence and is subject to decay. But the Word of God is alive, and, having come from the Living, has always been and is. For God never was and never will be without the Word. Well, Paul also says about Him: “The Word of God is living and active” 709. After all, He is the Creator, and everything was the same, and without Him nothing would have happened 710. OTHER. As if from the objection of heretics. Christ, they say, is not the power and wisdom that is rooted (ἔμφυτος) in God and in Him, but something else - that about which Paul writes, and which is His ever-present power and divinity 711; and another in comparison with it is Christ; and [also] many others, together with Him are called powers and wisdom. And one is the truly rooted and true power of God - the creator of all [beings], and the others are created by it, although Christ is some kind of special power of God in comparison with others, created in order to strengthen what requires strength, to make wise what is in need, and with wisdom to justify what does not have righteousness. So there is, they say, a power rooted in God, beginningless and uncreated; and Christ was created - for the reasons mentioned. If some believe that Christ Himself is a power rooted in God, since it is written in Paul: “Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God,” 712, then what will they say when they hear God speaking about caterpillars: “My great power” 713? What will they do when the Psalmist points to the many powers of God, about which he says: “Bless the Lord with all His might” 714? Rebuttal to this. If Christ was created for this purpose, to make wise that which needs wisdom, to strengthen that which requires strength, then we, therefore, became the authors of His existence, and He would not have become like us if God had not intended to create the created. And if He is this because of our need, then it means that He is the instrument of our creation, not being such from Himself, but becoming such for our sake. Therefore, just as He is called strength for the sake of those who are strengthened, and wisdom for the sake of those who become wise, so He is called the Son for the sake of those who are adopted, and He is nothing in the proper sense of the word for His own sake, but all this for our sake. How then will what is sung in the Psalms be preserved [inviolate]: “He created us, and not we” 715. – if we gave Him the reasons for being? For although He appeared as the self-maker (αὐτουργὸς) 716 of our creation, we became seeds of being for Him (τοῦ εἶναι τὰ σπέρματα), and for our need He was created, in your opinion. Just as, of course, the sky [was created] to cover those who are on earth, and the sun to give light to those who need light, and the earth, in like manner, to nourish those who need food. And the Son has no advantage over the creatures if He, like them, has a service rank. Run away from such absurdity! OTHER, from the same ones. And without wanting it, you, heretic, confess that the Wisdom and Power rooted in God exist uncreated in Him; so when you hear that the Son is not created, do not say again: “Then there are two not created.” For we believe that this Wisdom and Power itself, existing uncreated and timelessly in God, is the Son, who created all things and became flesh for our sake, according to the word of John. OTHER, [said] as if in the form of a question, [but] having the power of proof. Why does the Father do everything through the Son? Or, on the other hand, why in St. In baptism, is the Son named together with the Father? Why is He, being, in your opinion, a created nature, and is numbered with the Creator? What need is there for the perfection and sanctification of all things created? How do we call Him to be our helper? After all, although many other creatures are created, not one of them is taken for the above-mentioned needs, but only the Son, who ever coexists with the Father. What is the point, if He is not God either, to preach faith in the Creator and the creation? Why is He called the Creator if He is not by nature, like the Father? And didn’t the Son Himself say: “All that the Father has is Mine” 717? The Father has the ability to create; this [therefore] is preserved in the Son. In the same way, [the ability to] sanctify, save, and [everything else] that is fitting [to do] for God, all through the Son. For He ever coexists with the Father, as radiance coexists with light. Therefore, the Son is God: not created, as they falsely say, but originating from the essence of the Father as a true generation. Those. who did it with his own hands. You might be interested in: