Слово 19. К говорящим, что Сын не есть истинное Слово Отчее, но по природе является по отношению к Нему чем-то иным и чуждым. Выводимое отсюда [заключение], что [Сын] и единосущен Отцу, и не извне, но из Его сущности

The antithesis is, as it were, from among the Eunomievs. If, they tell [us], there is a Son, and you say that It [i.e. e. The Word of the Father] is consubstantial with the Father, then let It not differ in anything in relation to Him, for [only] in this way will It be consubstantial. If so, then let the Father also be called and be the Word. But the intention of the Divine Scripture and the preaching of St. will not allow this. apostles For [Scripture] knows the Father as the Father, and not the Son, and, on the contrary, it contains the Son under only the name of the Son, not allowing Him to be called or to be the Father, for He is different and different in essence in relation to Him. So, he is neither the true Word, nor one who came from Him, who differs [from Him in His] nature. Rebuttal to this. And where do you, my dear, put John, who calls the Son the Word and attaches this name to Him as the most appropriate and primarily indicating His essence? For he says: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was to God, and God was the Word” 727. Do you see how this name represents the essence of the Son, and how the fact that He is called the Word signifies what He is by nature? For he says: “God is the Word.” If the name “Word” [used] in relation to the Son is not an indication of nature and essence, then it means something else. And then it is necessary to ask the question: how, being by nature, is the Son called the Word, if not His essence denotes this name? Just like the one who said: “carpenter”, “stonecutter” or “cursive writer”, defines [by this name] not what he denotes by nature, but indicates what his occupation is. So, if this name does not denote the essence of the Son, and the fact that He is called the Word does not show what He is by nature, but, so to speak, His occupation, then why do we marvel in vain at the Evangelist? Why is he called the Son of Thunder 728, as having said something great and extremely important? Although the Divine Scripture calls the Son by many other names, having said “Word,” [John] spoke something extraordinary and supernatural, and did not add anything else to it, just as we see in relation to Paul [when he is called] “Paul, the apostle” 729. But it was enough to say: “Word” to designate the essence of the Son. Therefore, He is the true Word of the Father, and no one else but Him. OTHER. If for this reason the anti-Christists decided that the Son is not consubstantial with the Father, that neither the Father is the Word, nor the Word is the Father, and believed that the unity of nature can be dissected by the difference of names, then let them tell us how the forefather Adam will be consubstantial with the sons who came from him, when neither he himself can be Abel, nor Abel will ever be Adam? But the difference in names does not abolish the identity of the essence. And this applies to created and created nature. How could it not be impious to think this way about uncreated nature, which is superior to everything created? So, just as, if He were different in essence, He would not be the true Word, so, since He is consubstantial, He will be the true Word. OTHER. Names are designations of essence (σημαντικὰ τῶν οὐσιῶν), especially the first and most important ones, but one can see a great difference in them. For some designate beings in the most general form and give a generic definition; others, dividing the designated common into units, make it so that many existents are shown. Just as, say, the name “man,” used simply and absolutely (ἀπολελυμένως) 730, designates the entire human race or the essence itself; and [the names] “Paul,” for example, or “Peter,” “James,” or “Cephas,” dividing humanity into units, make it so that they are many people. So, the difference in names is accepted in relation to consubstantial ones, but does not separate those falling under the definition of the same species from natural similarity in relation to each other. Therefore, when the Father is called Father, and the Son is called Word, then this one will not be dissimilar in nature, or this one will be dissimilar to That, having a difference only in names. For it is shown that the difference in names does not violate the natural similarity of the same in nature (τῶν ὁμοφυῶν) in relation to each other. This means that nothing prevents the Son from being consubstantial with the Father; although He is called the Son and not the Father, He is truly His Word. For, being simple, the essence of the Father does not allow anything else to mediate in the generation of the Word that came from Him by nature, truly one with Him, since He is God and shone alive from the living Father. The antithesis is, as it were, from among the Eunomievs. In the Gospels, he says, we find the Son saying to the Father: “Father, glorify Thy Son” 731, and hearing from Him in response: “And I will glorify, and again I will glorify” 732. And how could the Son truly be the Word of the Father, when we see the Father conversing with Him, and conversation does not happen without a word? Consequently, either He will be conversing with Himself, or - if the Father truly says something to Him - He is different from the inner and inherent word of God, which speaks to Him according to the will of the Father. Rebuttal to this. You will never stop slandering an incorporeal entity, believing that from it arises the same word as a human one, sounding through the lips and tongue and affecting the hearing of those nearby, so that the will of the speaker becomes obvious. For if I wanted to preserve for the incorporeal nature the word appropriate to it, I would not imagine the voice of the Father in such a way that it reaches the ear in a corporeal way. After all, not only the Son heard the Father saying: “And I will glorify, and again I will glorify,” but also those who were [then] with Him. Christ clearly teaches that in the proper sense of the word and by nature it was not the voice of the Father, but a certain roar (κτύπος), similar to a voice, announced the will of the Father about the Son. And [showing] that He is highly valued by Him, [the Son] says to those listening: “This voice was not made for My sake, but for your sake” 733. Note carefully that He did not say: “It was not for My sake that the Father spoke or cried,” or anything else from such, but: “It was not for My sake that the voice came, but for your sake.” So, if a voice arose from some Divine action - not for the sake of Christ, as He Himself says, but for the sake of those who were with Him, for it was impossible for them, as humans, to otherwise know the will of the Father, if it were not for the human voice coming to them - then why do you again recklessly attribute what is perfect economically and humanly for our sake to the incorporeal essence, which is befitting of created nature and fearlessly applying to uncreated? OTHER. The antithesis is, as it were, from among the Eunomievs. Nowhere [in the Scriptures], they say, is the Father shown saying to the Son: “Let us make man” 734. And the Savior Himself, in turn, talking with the Jews, says: “I do not speak about myself 735, but what I have heard from my Father I declare to you 736.” So, if someone were to ask you, who boast of the correctness of dogmas, how the Father speaks to the Son with one who knows about what should be discussed, or how with one who does not know, but what would you answer? After all, if He does not know [this] and finds out [only] when the word of the Father comes to Him about a certain object, then He is different in comparison with what exists by nature [word]; and if He [and so] knows, then wouldn’t it be ignorant and crazy to speak to someone who knows as if he doesn’t know? For even in relation to people this would not without reason be considered as such. If it is inappropriate to say that God is subject to something like this, then it is obvious that He speaks as if he does not know. Therefore, He Himself is not the inner word, nor does He know what God and the Father wills, unless there is a word from Him to Him. Rebuttal to this. Then the Word speaking in the prophets 737 and revealing the future to them will be no different from the prophets of God, for they could not know this from themselves, since the foreknowledge of the future belongs to God alone. And what are we going to do with the fact that the Lord clearly separates Himself from equality with them by saying: “If these gods speak, the word of God comes to them, and the Scripture cannot be destroyed: Whose Father is holy and ambassador to the world, you say, as if you were speaking blasphemy, before you say: I am the Son of God.” 738? After all, if He had natural equality in relation to the prophets, then He would not compare them as less with Himself, citing them as an example. After all, having said: “If the gods spoke, the word of God came to them,” He clearly showed that the word of God did not come to Him, as it did to them, but that He Himself is the Word of the Father, spoken to the prophets. How can one who is so far removed from the prophets and above them not have anything more than what they possess, according to your - oh, blasphemer - insolence [thought]? OTHER. If the Son does not know the will of the Father, but receives, as those who oppose Christ believe, the word from Him in order to know, and [if] the Father speaks to Him as with one of the prophets, then He is equal to the prophets. Where, again, should we put St. The Psalmist saying in the Spirit: “For who in the clouds will be equal to the Lord, and who will be like the Lord among the sons of God” 739? For behold, he clearly says here that none of the prophets, whom he figuratively calls clouds, or of those who by grace are counted among the sonship of God, will be equal to the Son by nature. How can David be truthful when he says such things in the Spirit, if the word of the Father comes to Him as it does to the saints, and He does not know the will of the Father, like them, but receives its revelation through hearing? If it is blasphemous to say that the Spirit is mistaken - and this is every blasphemy and nothing else - then the Lord will surpass the prophets with incomparable superiority, Himself being the true Word and the Father's Will and Wisdom. OTHER. If God the Word, inherent in the Father by nature, is different from what is designated in the divine Scriptures, and one [of them] remains hidden in the Father, and some other is the one who communicates what He says, about which John also says that He is God the Word, then how then will simplicity and uncomplexity be preserved with God and the Father, since he who has something hidden and [something] obvious will not necessarily be simple, but, rather, it will be composed of two [parts]. But God is simple by nature, and there is nothing complicated in Him. Therefore, there is one natural Word and one internal Word in Him – the Son. OTHER. If, as those who oppose Christ dare to say, being different from what is inherent in God, the Word preached to us in the Gospels does not know the hidden [secrets] of the Father, but recognizes them when [the Father] speaks to Him, then it means that It comes from ignorance to knowledge and from foolishness to reason. And how will he speak the truth, asserting: “I and the Father are one” 740? How will there be an unchanging image of the One who gave birth if, like man, He is under the power of ignorance? For in every possible way it is necessary either to say about the Father that He does not know something from the future, or - if He knows everything and has the Son in the image of His ever-present - it is impossible for the Son not to possess the same knowledge as the Father, Whose He is the mark and unchanging image. The objection seems to be on behalf of Eunomius. And who, he says, is so ignorant as to assert that the names assigned to objects are nothing other than them? For, let’s say, the sky is a visible thing, and the name assigned to it is not subject to sight, but is only audible. Therefore, from the fact that the Son is called the Word, it does not necessarily follow that He is what some people think He is; but He is called the Word, but is something else by nature. Rebuttal to this. One should remain silent and not respond to such a meaningless logical construction. However, it is worth asking those who say this, do not the names assigned to things denote their essences, although they are different in comparison with them? Indeed, the name “man” denotes the nature of man, but there is something other than it. For man is a visible object, but his name is only audible. Consequently, if someone names a person, then - since he is not at all what this name means, according to their syllogism - he will have to think something else, and not at all what this name means. If this is full of madness, then one should neither reject the literal meaning of names (τὰς τῶν ὀνομάτων κυριολογίας), nor think of them as something other than what they denote; for in this way the madness of the heretics will be stopped. Let him who is skilled in logic show us that “the Word” is not a proper (κύριον) 741 name for the Son of God, and let him oppose the divine Scriptures and the blessed Evangelist John, who knew the most appropriate and proper (πρεπωδεστάτην καὶ κυριαιτάτην) the name of the Son, calling Him the Word. After all, he says: “In the beginning was the Word” 742. The antithesis is, as it were, from among the Eunomievs. And how, he says, could the Son be the Word and Wisdom of the Father, if wisdom is reliable knowledge (ἐπιστήμη), and the word is a simple utterance of a speech? And reliable knowledge is not something non-existent, but also not living. Likewise the word. And the Son is alive; therefore, He is not knowledge, nor wisdom, nor word. Moreover, how would a word arise within a word, when it is impossible for like to arise within like? After all, color cannot arise in color. So, if truly the word were the Son of the Father by nature, then how would the word be addressed to Him, for example, in [the saying] “Let us make man”? Rebuttal to this. Again you are tempted, not rising above the human, but, as if forgetting that you are talking about the Divine essence, based on what is characteristic of us, you define what pertains to it. Or don’t you know that the Divine is called by names common to us, but in everything there is something other than us? After all, it is not that since the human word is unhypostatic and is a vibration of the tongue sent into the air, then the situation will be the same with the Divine Word, but It is living from the living, and hypostatically existing from the hypostatically existing [Father]. And again, it is not that since the wisdom and knowledge existing in us (ἐπιστήμη) do not exist in themselves in hypostasis, then the Wisdom existing in God will therefore suffer harm in relation to Its existence in hypostasis. But if you agree that God is not like us, then, obviously, in some way you agree with the fact that His properties are not ours, but are as much superior to ours as He is different from us in the logos of essence. OTHER [refutation] to the same thing. This seemingly wise and sharp-minded [man] did not notice how he fell into immeasurable blasphemy. For he calls the Lord alive, not knowing that a living being (τὸ ζώον) is something different in relation to life, just as knowledge (ἐπιστήμη) [is something] different in relation to an expert (ἐπιστήμονα). After all, if someone says “life,” then he means [with this word] the very thing that arises in certain [beings] and vivifies them; and when he says “living,” he is talking about the life-giving principle that is involved. But the Lord is seen not calling Himself that way, but rather calling [Himself| Life. If, being Life, He is also a living [being], according to the extravagance of this person, then let the Father also be called a living [being], since he is found by saying: “As I live, says the Lord” 743. But, having said goodbye to his nonsense and added the apostolic: “Let your thoughts be with you in destruction” 744, let us hasten to the right dogmas and not “living”, like them, but we will call the Lord Life, who gives life to everything, so that it moves about Him, and is 745, according to the word of Pavlov. OTHER, about the same thing. This one, quick to be foolish and stubborn in not thinking right about the Divine Mysteries, imagines that the Divine Scripture calls the Son the Word and the utterance of such sayings as are human, not knowing that the Divine Scriptures preach Him in this way, according to our custom. The Father converses ineffably with the Son, Who by nature knows the will of the One who gave birth to [Him], not waiting for a word that can reveal to [Him] the hidden, since He Himself is the Word. So, when something is said about God that is rather befitting of a person, then the listener must rise [mind] above what is characteristic of us and strive towards the spiritual and [rooted] in divine speculation (νοήσει) understanding [of what was said]. The objection seems to be from among the Eunomievs. But it is not enough, he says, to designate the Son the name “Word”, and His essence will not become obvious through such a naming, for it is also used in relation to many other sayings, vain and non-existent hypostatically. Rebuttal to this. Therefore, the name “God” will not be sufficient to indicate God’s essence. For it is also used in relation to those who are not gods by nature, according to what was said: “Az rekh: gods by nature” 746. What would prevent us from saying that since the names “righteous”, “good”, “holy” are also used in relation to people - for there are many of these in communion with Him Who is truly and essentially Good and Righteous - then each of the named [names] is not applied to God in the proper sense? If we have common names with Him, but He alone by nature truly assimilates the essence, then nothing will prevent the Son from being called the Word in the proper sense (κυρίως), and having this name representing His essence, even if there were many other words called so in a non-proper sense (καταχρηστικῶς) and imitation of the One Who is so named after [the] truth itself. For for this reason the Son says of Himself: “I am the truth” 747. Therefore, no matter what anyone says about Him, who is magnificent and worthy of Divine birth, this will be said about Him in the proper sense of the word, but about others - not so, but rather, in a non-proper sense, as has already been said. The objection seems to be from among the Eunomievs. By His word, he says, the divine Scriptures are called, not as by nature of being from the Father, or as if He Himself were an internal word, but because, having heard the word of the Father, He proclaims it to us, just as He is called sanctification, because He sanctifies, and righteousness, because He justifies. Rebuttal to this. If He is called the Word, according to your dearest blasphemy, not because He is by nature this, having come from the Father and revealing [in Himself] the essence of the One who gave birth, but because, having heard the word of the Father, He proclaims to us, then observe the same logic regarding the rest [of His names] in order to disgrace yourself even more. After all, if He is the Word because He heard the Word, then it will have to be said that He appears both in truth and in sanctification as a partaker of truth and sanctification, and not as being it by nature. And that which is not inherent in someone by nature, but came from outside, easily leaves him. And when, in your opinion, is the Word of God shown without truth and sanctification, saying: “He who has seen Me, has seen the Father” 748? So, when the madness of the Christians has reached the point of blaspheming the Father Himself, we must [finally] leave it. OTHER. Do not, O Christ-fighter, install additional icons for the Divine Scriptures; and let no one be so mad that - when the Divine Spirit speaks differently about the Son - he would rather listen to your false sophisms than listen to Him. So, the Holy Spirit calls the Son the Word, but you consider Him not the Word, but partaker of the word. For if you say that He is called the Word because, having heard the word from the Father, He proclaimed it to us, then how can you not turn out to be idle? For such is no longer the Word, but a partaker of the Word, since that which participates in something cannot in itself be identical with that which participates. Just as, for example, wisdom is not the same as the wise man who partakes of it, nor is grammar the same as the grammarian who partakes in it. Because these are different things. So it is necessary either to confess Him as the Word, or, if He only participates in the word, to no longer call Him the Word [by nature]. For this cancels this, and this fights with that, and everything fits for the Son to be one of these, and not both. And since the Divine Scripture calls Him the Word, we willingly say goodbye to those who consider Him not to be the Word, but only a partaker of the word. That is, without connection with any specific person. John 12:30 . In the Slavic and Russian translations we read: “... but for the sake of the people,” but in the Greek text of the Gospel it is exactly like this: “οὐ δι’ ἐμὲ ἡ φωνὴ αὕτη γέγονεν ἀλλὰ δι’ ὑμᾶς.” Also: “main”, “legal”, “used in the main or direct (rather than figurative) meaning”, etc. Numbers 14:28; Isa.49:18; Ezek.5:11; 14:16,18,20; 16:48; 17:16,19; 18:3; 20:3,31, 33; 33:11.27; 34:8; 35:6,11; Zeph.2:9; 3 Esdras 2:14; Rom.14:11. You might be interested in: