Слово 1. О сотворенном и несотворенном

If the Arians tried to ask us whether there is one uncreated thing (τὸ ἀγένητον) or two, so that we, by saying “one” and attributing it to the Father, would [thereby] number the Son among the created, then we should answer like this: firstly, the question itself is ignorant and illiterate, for “τὸ ἀγένητον" is understood in several meanings. “Ἀγένητον” is something that has not yet been created, but can be created, like [for example] a ship made of wood, or a statue made of copper. And also “ἀγένητον” is called something that has never arisen and cannot arise. For example, the triangular shape has never become quadrangular, and never will: because as soon as the shape of the triangle is abolished, it becomes something different from what it was [before]. “ἀγένητον” is also called something that exists and has come into existence (ὑπαρχων καὶ ὑφεστικὸς), but not created by anyone (μὴ γεγενημένον ὑπό τινος). And now, given that “ἀγένητον” is understood in a variety of ways, what will this mean in relation to God? But they will probably say: “was not created” (μὴ γεγενῆσθαι), having first agreed that the question was asked ignorantly. Let us also say, however, that one is uncreated. If they say to this that it is then necessary to simultaneously admit that the Son was created, since the uncreated is one, and this is the Father, then they will again hear in response: “If Wisdom and Power 78, and the Word of the Father is the Son, and in the Father the Word and Wisdom and Power were ever present, then, therefore, did not arise subsequently (οὐκ ἐπιγέγονεν) Son, Who is and is called [all] these. But just as God is from God, and Light shone from the Light 79 , so from the Uncreated – the Uncreated. For such befits the Word, as He who begat Him also is. Indeed, in this way the authenticity of the essence of the Father would be confirmed by those born of Him. So, nothing prevents, despite the fact that one is the uncreated Father, the Word being uncreated from Him, as understood as something [existing] with the Father and in the Father, due to the indistinguishability of nature (διὰ τὸ τῆς φύσεως ἀπαράλλακτον), as He Himself said about Himself: “I and the Father are one,” 80, the word “one” denoting the identity of essence, and the word “esma” – cutting the conceivable into two and again collecting into a single Divinity. OTHER. If the Son is the unchangeable image (εἰκὼν ἀπαράλλακτος) of the Father, so that He reveals Him in Himself, according to what has been said: “He who sees Me, sees the Father” 81, then it is necessary to say that he who came from the uncreated Father is uncreated, for as if in what was created it was visible uncreated? After all, if the archetype appears in similarity, then, of course, the second will be consistent with the first. At the time when we call the Father created, in accordance with Whom the Image was formed. If this is inappropriate, then [the Son] will be in every uncreated way in an uncreated way. OTHER. Blessed Moses, explaining the structure of man, cites the [words] of God, saying: “Let us make man in our image and likeness,” 82 and by saying “to ours,” the duality is again designated - with the co-abiding, of course, and together with it the theologized Holy Spirit. If in one person the same image of the Father and the Son appears, then this is due to [Their] similarity to each other. The unmade is not like the created: therefore the Son was not made, lest he appear unlike [the Father]. OTHER. In the Divine Scriptures the Father is called Almighty and Lord (παντοκράτωρ καὶ Κύριος), but is not understood as one of the things that he contains or has dominion over (ἕν τι τῶν κρατουμένων ἢ κυριευομένων), also the Son, because He [Himself] contains everything and rules over everything. For He [contains] all things and rules together with the Father, being Himself Almighty and Lord. So, just as in these [things] the son is not one of all, but the meaning of the words [“Almighty” and “Lord”] ​​refers to the nature of [beings] created, so regarding uncreatedness - not with the Son, but with the creation, the comparison is not with the Son, but with the creation, even if it were said that there is [only] one uncreated, for the reason that everything was created (γεγονέναι), excluding God. That it is better and more correct to call the Father God rather than the Uncreated The name “father” in every way contains the concept of a son, for such [concepts] are designated through each other. And the name “uncreated” contrasts the fact that God did not arise [from non-existence] with the mention of the created. It is necessary for those who wish to believe to have the right knowledge of the Holy Trinity. Therefore, if he who calls [God] Father looks at the Son, because of Whom He is Father, and he who calls [Him] Uncreated looks at the created ones, to whom He who was not created is rightly opposed, then it is much better to designate God by those [names] from which the knowledge of the Son is born, than by those from which the remembrance of creations arises, which does not in the least contribute to the knowledge of the Holy Spirit. Trinity. And he who calls God Father designates Him, starting from what He is, and he who says “Uncreated” - from what He is not. After all, He is the Father of the Son, but He is not created. And what would be more appropriate to designate God based on what He is, rather than on what He is not, will become clear to everyone from here. For if someone calls this ineffable and incomprehensible nature God, then [he] correctly names [it, starting] from what [it] is, and by saying “God,” he undoubtedly designated it; and if someone tries to designate it, [borrowing names] from what it is not, calling it good-natured and wicked for the reason that there is no malice or guile in it, then [such a person] will, of course, say the truth, but will not fully reveal God, since among people there are good-hearted and wicked people. The same, we believe, are St. angels. Therefore, it is truer and better that [God] will be designated [by names borrowed] from what He [unconditionally] is, rather than from what He is not [i.e. i.e. is only relative]. OTHER. Blessed David sings and says to the Son: “For this reason of Thy anointing, O God, Thy God is more than Thy partaker of the oil of joy.”83 So, if what partakes is something other in relation to that which participates - for one is to be understood in the other - and the creature partakes of the Son, then He will be different in relation to the creature participating in Him, and therefore - not created. And if the Son is not different in relation to her and is by nature separated from her, then what is the need for communion, or how can anyone partake of what he himself is? Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. You might be interested in: