Слово 4. К дерзающим говорить, что некогда было [такое время], когда Сына не было. Собрания силлогизмов и построения мыслей вкупе со свидетельствами. Вывод же из всего этого – что присносущно Божие Слово

God-fighters foolishly speak of the Son as if “there was [a time] when He did not exist.” For if, they say, the word “be” applied to the Word itself, then “not be” would not take place at all. If anyone understands “be” in relation to time and definitely says that there was a time when the Son was not, then he will be exposed as an ignoramus and a fool who says that there was a time before the existence of the Son, about whom Paul says that the worlds were created by Him 87 . Evidence that God's Word is Everlasting “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was to God, and God was the Word” 88. In the Revelation of John this is what He who is, and who is, and who is to come says, 89 that He who is to come is the Word, and in relation to Whom the terms “this” and “who are” are assigned. For [the Scripture] says: “Behold, I will come and dwell in your midst, says the Lord” 90. Definitely, John also posits “be” in relation to the Word. After all, “be,” he says, “the Word to God.” Everything must be characteristic of the One in relation to Whom it is necessary to say “hey” and “be”. Свидетельства . Paul [says] about the Jews: “Whose fathers are, and from whom is Christ in the flesh, who is blessed above all by God forever. Аминь » 91 . He speaks about the Word: “For His invisible being from the creation of the world was conceived by created beings, His essence and ever-present power and Divinity are visible” 92. If what was said applied to the Father, it would be translated into the Word in a different way. For who is the power of God - Paul cries out: “Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God” 93. The same is true for the psalmist: “This is the commandment, O God, by Thy power: strengthen, O God, this which Thou hast done in us” 94. Who strengthened this perfect thing for us, if not the Word of God, who delivered us from corruption and restored us to incorruption? OTHER. Concerning the same thing, there is a convincing kataskeva that the saying that says: “His invisible being from the creation of the world is conceived by the creatures, the essence is visible, and His ever-present power and Divinity” 95 means the Son. The position of [this] cataskeva is as follows. It is written: “No one knows the Father but the Son, and if the Son reveals him” 96. If the Father is known only to the Son, and only through Him alone is revealed to others, then the Father is contemplated not through creation, and not being understood by creatures. But the creature is its Creator, God’s Word, and the Son shows the Father in Himself. And therefore to Philip, who says: “Show us the Father” 97, He commands Him not to know Him comparatively from the beauty of creation, 98 but points to Himself, saying: “Whoever sees Me, sees the Father” 99. Other evidence that the Son is eternal The Psalmist calls Him: “He who was before the world” 100, and not “he who was made” (γενόμενος); Isaiah – “Eternal God, God who formed the ends of the earth” 101. If the Word is the creator of the ends of the earth, then the “eternal” epithet also applies to Him, and it is obvious that He was everlasting, and was not made (οὐκ ἐγένετο). OTHER. Пишет Павел о Слове: « Иже Сый сіяніе славы и образъ ѵnocmacu Его» 102 . И Давид поет: « И буди свѣтлость Господа Бога нашего на насъ » 103 . И снова: « Во свѣтѣ Твоемъ узримъ свѣтъ» 104 . Итак, когда Отец был без Своего сіянія ? Когда не была в Боге Его свѣтлость ? И еще: если Сын есть Свѣтъ отъ Свѣта 105 Отчего, то когда не было в Отце Его света? For just as the ability to shine is inseparable from fire, so from the Father is the Light born from Him. ANDHOE. Поет Давид: « Царство Твое, царство всѣхъ вѣковъ » 106 . If all time is measured in centuries, and the Word reigns in them, then, therefore, there was no time when the Son did not exist. OTHER . Proof from evidence that the divine Scriptures [words] “be” (ἦν), “this” (ὁ ὢν and ὑπάρχων), “byh” (ἤμην), “am” (εἰμὶ), “is” (ἔστιν) applies exclusively to the Word, and never to the created, but rather [uses the expressions in relation to them] “sometimes” (ποτὲ), “before” (πρὶν and πρὸ τοῦ) and “being” (γέγονε), and the like. The Savior, showing His inherent hypostases, said: “I am the truth” 107, “I am the light” 108 and “I am the shepherd” 109. And he also said to the disciples: “You speak of Me, the Teacher and the Lord, and say well: I am” 110; and the psalmist about Him: “Before the mountains were raised 111 and the earth and the universe were created, and from everlasting to everlasting you art” 112. He himself about Himself: “I am the way” 113 and “I am the door” 114. И Отец о Нем: « Ты еси Сынъ Мой возлюбленный» 115 ; and again: “The Lord spoke to Me: You are My Son” 116. Everywhere here “you” and “be” are used, and nowhere – “to be” (γέγονεν). And regarding the created (γενητῶν): “The Spirit of God, who created (ποιῆσαν) me” 117. Moses, narrating the creation (γενέσεως) of the world, [writes]: “And every herb of the herb, before even being (γενέσθαι) on the earth, and every grass of the herb, before even vegetating: for God did not rain on the earth, and man do yu" 118. That “when” (ὅτε) always means time. In Deuteronomy: “whenever a (ὅτε) divides the tongues above” 119. О том, что «прежде» (прὸ τοῦ) [говорится] о сотворенных . Solomon has Wisdom about Herself: “Before I could create the earth, before I could fill the depths, before I could become a source of water, before I could be raised up on the mountains, before I gave birth to Me” 120. Savior: “Amen, I say to you: before even Abraham was not, I am” 121. Иеремии Бог: « Прежде неже Мнѣ создати тя во чревѣ, познахъ тя» 122 . In the book of Daniel, Susanna: “God is eternal and the knower of the hidden, knowing all things before their being (γενέσεως)” 123. Еще [одна] катаскева о том, что Сын является присносущным, от противного Antithesis of the heterodox. If [in your opinion] there was no time [time] when He did not exist, but the Son is eternal and coexists with the Father, then you [thus] say that He is no longer a son, but a brother. Rebuttal to this. Saying that He is co-essential with [the Father], we [at the same time] call Him Son. If He were simply co-existent and not the Son, then your suspicion would have taken place, but since we, in addition to co-existence, confess Him to be the Son, then how will the Son be the brother of the One who begat [Him]? OTHER. If our faith is in the Father and the Son, and thus [by confessing] we are baptized, then what kind of brotherhood is shown here, or how can the Word be the brother of Him whose Word it is? OTHER. The Father and the Son were not born from some pre-existing principle in order to be considered brothers. But the Father is the beginning of the Son, and begets the Son, and remains the Father, and is not called anyone’s son; and the Son is the Son, and remains what He is, and is not called by nature anyone's brother. What place will brotherhood have here? More about the ever-present. If the Father is perfect, that which is from Him will also be perfect. And if He, moreover, also possesses the ever-present, then the ever-present will also be that which is from the ever-present Father, not coming to the essence of the One who gave birth, but ever co-existing with it; and not imperfect because of creation in time, but perfect because of what exists before all time. OTHER. Another difficulty [arising] due to reduction to absurdity in this way. If the Word is not the Son of God, but was formed as a creature from non-existent things, then let at least someone show [this] first. Then let him bring [the expression] “it was when it was not” [used] in relation to creation. If the divine Scriptures call Him the Son, and so the Father calls Him, then the name “Son” means birth from the Father: therefore, He is not a Creation and not a creature, for what is created is not identical to what is born (κτιζόμενον). If this is true, then there will be no place in relation to the Son [the expression] “was when he was not,” which in the proper sense of the word is used in relation to creations alone. OTHER. If the Son was born from the Father, and what was born from the Father is His Word and Wisdom and Radiance, then those who say that “it happened when the Son was not” directly say that there was [a time] when the Father was dumb, unwise and deprived of His radiance. If this is inappropriate, then the “was not” will not apply to the Son. Так что Он будет соприсносущным Отцу. ANDHOE. Антитезис неистинный, претендующий опровергнуть присносущие Сына . If the Divine nature, they say, does not admit of division (τομὴν) due to the fact that it is not subject to suffering (for those who suffer by nature belong to those who are subject to division), then it should not be said that the Son is from the essence of the Father, lest some suffering and division appear in simple nature. For if something that comes from something else is different in number in relation to that from which it came, then a certain division and dissection is seen in the Divine nature, if we admit that the Son did not come from outside, but actually from it. А если Он – извне, то, стало быть, и прившел, и не является соприсносущным Отцу. Rebuttal to this. Badly and ignorantly, some apply what is characteristic of bodies to an incorporeal essence. For in relation to bodies it is proper to say that suffering, dissection and division arise [in them], but in relation to incorporeal nature none of these exist. If God is incorporeal, then he gives birth (τίκτει) without dividing, and gives birth (γεννᾷ) without being cut. Because fire also generates light from itself, without experiencing the slightest separation, although it may be mentally imagined that in some way what happened was separated from it. And if anyone subordinates the incorporeal to bodily necessity, then let him blame it on the weakness of his mind, which is incapable of conceiving what is proper to the incorporeal nature. And again: if some are weak [in mind so that they can] conceive the birth of the ever-present Son from the ever-present Father, and therefore subordinate the incorporeal to bodily orders, then let them, since they do not find [an answer to the question] what the Father is and what He is by nature, deny Him too. But if by faith we perceive what is above us - and above us is the birth of the Son, for no one can confess His generation, 124 as the prophet says - then by faith we must accept this too and discard the “it was not” brought in from weak human reasoning. OTHER. About the ever-present. A syllogism associated with a certain aporia and leading to the recognition that it is proper to understand the Son as [existing] from the essence of the Father, and not as having come from outside, and if so, then it is obvious that he is also co-essential with the Father. If, according to your assumption, O God-fighters, the Son is one of those who do not exist and did not exist before He was born, then it is obvious that He, like other rational [creatures], by communion with God is called God, Son and Wisdom. For this belongs to rational creatures, for whom the beauty of the Divine is not confirmed by [their] nature, but is delivered by the grace of the Giver, as [for example] when He says: “Az rekh: you are gods, and all are sons of the Most High” 125. For we, adopted through [our] relationship with God, are deified by Him. So, if, having communed with God by grace, we are called sons of God, then why will we give communion to the Word so that he may become the Son or God? For we [partake] of the Holy Spirit, but to think such a thing about the Word is illiterate. After all, He Himself speaks of the Spirit: “He will receive from Mine” 126. What then does He partake of? All that remains is to say “Father.” And what is the image of the sacrament? For example, how warmth [comes] from fire [observed] in a [heated] body, or from a certain flower - a fragrance, or, better said, how the Spirit comes to our [souls], about which Scripture says that He “comes from the Father” 127. What is it that comes from the Father and arises in the Word? Then, will this received [by the Word] be from the Father's essence, or from somewhere outside? If, then, it is from outside, then the Son will not be a partaker of the Father, but by participating in something else he is sanctified, which is even ungodly to imagine. If you agree to consider what He gives to the Word in communion as coming from the essence of the Father, then you have either allowed that some dissection, division and suffering can occur in God’s nature, or, by saying that in God such things happen dispassionately and indivisibly, you are in vain destroying the Son’s birth by introducing division and passion into it. If God gives birth indivisibly, and dispassionately gives birth from Himself, then nothing prevents us from confessing what is born of the living Word of the Father. And he who has come from the ever-present Father will in every way be [Himself] ever-present, for, thus, having and preserving the Fatherly nobility in Himself, He will be true, saying, “He who has seen Me, has seen the Father.” For the ever-present is not revealed in created things. ANDHOE. If he who partakes of the divine Son is a partaker of nature 128, according to the word of Peter, and if those in which the Word dwells are called churches of God, 129 then it is necessary to say that the Son is from the essence of God. And if there is nothing inherent in God (for He is perfect and needs nothing), then the Son did not come, but was co-essential with the Father. We call the Father God, and the Son Word and God, not because we think of one as pre-existent, and the other as having arisen after Him, according to the order [observed] among people - for God is above all time - but in order to worship one as the One who gave birth, which is the peculiarity of the Father, and the other - as the true Son, who received an ineffable birth from the essence of the Father. So, [one is called] “Father” - because He gave birth; and [the other] “Son” - because he was born; and for this alone [serves] the use of words and that which is designated through likening us. So, if, as applied to God, the name “Father” is an indication only of the fact that He gives birth, then nothing forces the timelessly begetting God to pre-exist in relation to His own Generation. And if there was no time between the One who gave birth and the One who was born, then the Son did not come, but was always co-essential with the Father. OTHER. If God by nature is the Creator (ποιητής), and the ability to produce beings from non-existence into being 130 does not belong to Him, but He creates and accomplishes everything through the Son, then how would it not be impious to say: “It was when He was not”? After all, this is the same as saying: “there was [a time] when there was no God,” if later the Word, the Creator of everything, arose; after all, without Worth there would be nothing 131, according to the word of John. If God and the Father was always the Creator by nature, then, therefore, He through Whom He revealed Himself to be the Creator, that is, His Word, was also with Him. For just as everything inherent in him by nature is inseparable from man, so everything that is in Him and from Him is inseparable from God. And the Word is in the Father and from the Father, so that It is inseparable and co-essential. OTHER, through reduction to absurdity. If the Son is not co-essential with the Father, but “was when He was not,” as you say, then it is necessary at the same time to confess that the Holy Trinity was once imperfect. For before the [appearance of] the Son She was naturally a Unity, and subsequently became a Trinity when what was missing was brought. Since everything that happens can have a reverse course (πᾶν ὅπερ ἂν συμβῇ, καὶ ἀποσυμβῆναι δύναται), then I am afraid that something might force us to admit that the Holy Trinity can return again to Unit. If you say or think like this, beyond all wickedness, then the fullness of the Holy Trinity has always been with the Father. OTHER, similar things. If the Son is not the own generation of the Father’s essence, but arose from non-existents, then the Holy Trinity will not be similar to Itself, having a composition (σύστασιν) from non-existents. And, it turns out, the creature is numbered together with the Creator (τῷ Κτίστῃ συναριθμεῖται), and the creation is glorified together with the Creator (τῷ ποιητῇ συνδοξάζεται). If this is ungodly, because there is one Divinity of the Holy Trinity, one doxology, one and the same dominion, then it is not fair that She is dissected [by you] into different essences. How would it not be inappropriate, given that the Father is ever-present, to dare to say that the Son who is adjacent to Him and co-reigns did not once exist, but came later and was only introduced to us as God? Θεόν)? OTHER. God is called and is the source of wisdom and life. For through Jeremiah He says: “You have forsaken me the fountain of living waters” 132. And again: “The throne of glory is exalted, the place of our holiness, the hope of Israel, Lord. Let all those who forsake You be ashamed, retreating to the earth. Let them write that they have forsaken the fountain of living waters, the Lord” 133. And through Baruch: “They left to nature the Source of wisdom” 134. So, when God appears and is called this way, it follows that the Source of wisdom must coexist with that which [flows] from Him, since there is no source that does not issue anything. Therefore, when they say that “there was, when there was not” the Son, who says [about Himself]: “I am the life” 135 and “I am the wisdom, the great counsel” 136, then at the same time we have to clearly confess that the Source was once dry and barren. If this is wicked, for the Divine nature is ever-fruitful, and there is nothing new in it, then the true Word [emanating] from Him was co-essential with Him, as if pouring out from some source of the Fatherly essence. OTHER, convincing of the same thing. God promises to create (ποιήσειν) those who work for Him 137, like a fountain, His water will never run low. So He says through the prophet Isaiah: “And you will be satisfied as your soul desires, and your bones will become fat, and they will be like a mountain of water, and like a spring, its water will not fail.” 138 When God promises to do this to men, how will those who say that this divine and unalloyed source once became dry not be guilty of all kinds of wickedness, so that God would seem worse [even] than men? If this is absurd, then there was in the Source the water of life and the wisdom [flowing] from Him, that is, the Son. AndHOE, through reductio ad absurdum. It is written: “There is one God the Father, from Whom are all things, and we are with Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, Who is all things, and we are Those” 139. But if someone calls the One who is all the One of all, then nothing will prevent him from subjecting the One who is all to the same syllogisms. If this is wicked, then the Son will not be one of all, in whom all things were. Therefore, He is ever-present. For having completely escaped being His creature and creature, being not among [the number of] all [beings], He will be thought of [as existing] above all and above all God 141. OTHER simple and absolute [truths]. If God and the Father is the light, then His radiance has always been in Him. If the Son is the mark (χαρακτὴρ) of the hypostasis 142 of the Father, according to the word of Paul, then let those who dare say to refer to Him “was not,” when the hypostasis of the Father was without a mark? For simultaneously with the hypostasis its outline is introduced. If the Son is truth and wisdom, then when was He not in the Father? After all, truth and wisdom are always in the Father. OTHER. If the Father is contemplated in the Son, and [the Son] is the unchangeable image of the essence of the One who gave birth οὐσίας) 143, according to what He said: “seeing Me, seeing the Father,” then it is necessary that by nature the same thing was inherent in Him as the Father. For, in this way, the mark will be accurate. And the Father is ever-present, immortal, King, Creator, Almighty, God, Creator; so is the Son. And how is the ever-present seen in the created, or the perfect in the once non-existent, or the Creator in the creation? For images always have a resemblance (ἐμφέρειαν) to the prototype. A question from heretics, as if addressed to foolish women. “Did you,” they say, “have you had a son before you gave birth to [him]? Just as you did not have it, so did God.” What [will we answer] to this? If, for the sake of denying the ever-present Son, they are not ashamed to add to the Divine nature what is characteristic of humanity, then let them ask at least one of the architects whether they can build without material. If those, confessing the truth, answer them negatively, that they cannot, then let them say that God also had a need for matter for the organization of everything, like man, so that He would no longer be thought of as the Creator, who brought beings from non-existence into being, but, rather, would be considered a processor (μετασκευαστὴς) or creator from some existing principle and substance, just like a person. If they say that this is absurdity, then let them run away from it; or let them name the reason why, with regard to birth, they want God to be no better than man, but with regard to creation they do not attach anything human to Him? And if He is the Creator, as befits God, then He will be the Parent in the same way. The question of the Arians is filled with absurdity, in addition to which there is an even more absurd counter question, teaching that one should not ask ignorantly. “He who exists,” they say, “did God create the existing Son (ἐποίησεν), or the one who does not exist?” To this refutation, i.e. the answer to the anticipated objection (ἀνθ υπ οφορά). Did the Existing God become the Existent, or was He the Existent before He became? 144 And did He create Himself, or did He exist out of nothing? And despite the fact that nothing existed before (μηδενὸς ὄντος πρότερον), He suddenly appeared Himself? Any answer to these [questions] contains [something] offensive; Therefore, it is appropriate for those who ask such questions not to answer the question posed, but it is better to piously tell them that the Father is ever-present. So, since the Father is ever-present, then the Son is also an ever-present Being. For just as light can never be seen without its radiance, so there will be no father if there is no son, thanks to whom he reveals himself to be a father. And God has always been the Father, so, undoubtedly, there has always been One whose Father He is. OTHER. If, as the Arians dare to say, the Father made the Son His instrument, able to be used for the creation of existing things, and for this reason brought Him from non-existence into being, then let them tell us, did the Existing One really have a need for the non-existent? What then will be greater: one that needs something or one that can fill what is missing? But it is quite obvious that in each the deprivation [of something necessary] is replenished through the other, and each is in itself imperfect. If the ever-present Father, in their opinion, found himself in a state of need for the Son who came a little later, then the created nature of the Son became the fulfillment (πλήρωμα) of the Father’s ever-present, and, therefore, the unmixed was mixed. If it is wicked to say and think like this, then the Son did not come to the Father, by Him He created all things 145, and was not, like an instrument, prepared for this, but was co-essential with Him, being His Power and Wisdom. To those who ask: “Or did you have a son before you gave birth?” and to those who say: “So God did not have a Son until He gave birth.” Those who ask women: “Or did you have a son before you gave birth?”, and let those who, in our custom, examine the supremely Divine things, ask in the same way fathers and mothers: “If you give birth to a son, will he be like you in nature? Or will he also partake of the same nature as you? Or will it be alien and alienated?” And having learned the truth, let them think the same way according to God. And let them not seize on time as useful for their evil, but note [that] truth [that follows] from natural sequence (τὸ ἐκ τῆς κατὰ φύσιν διαδοχῆς γνήσιον). And again, when they learn from the parents who were asked that the children future from them will be in every way similar to those who gave birth and will not differ from them in any way in terms of essence, let them also be disposed to [think] about God’s Word. And henceforth confessing that He was born from the essence of the Father, let them ask about time alone, and let them tell us what prevents God from always being the Father, unless someone says that He is subject to human necessity and the limitations of our nature, which is most impious. So, when concluding about time, let them investigate not about what is characteristic of humans, for these are things very far from the Divine nature. But let them ask the sun, if they want, whether the light it gives birth to has always been with it. Let them learn from fire whether it was always inherent in it to warm. If with these things that [comes] from them shows itself to be concomitant and always coinciding, then how much more [is this true] in relation to the ever-present God? So, if the Son is by nature from the Father, and there is no need for God to give birth in time, then, therefore, co-essential with the Father is the Word that came from Him, through which the transition [from non-existence] to being was accomplished for those who do not exist. OTHER. Those who want to think correctly should know that God gave birth indivisibly or fluidly (οὔτε μεριστῶς ἢ ῥευστῶς ἐγέννησε Θεὸς) 146 so that we can think that some kind of change (πάθος); after all, cutting and flowing can only be characteristic of corporeal nature, and in relation to the incorporeal and Divine essence, neither change, nor division, nor anything from such [will ever] happen. So the Son will not be, as it were, a certain part (ὥσπερ τι μέρος) of the Father, but from Him and in Him [dwells], certifying through what is called the Son, [His origin] from Him, and through what is called Wisdom and the Word, [His presence] in Him. For no one who is accustomed to wise wisdom will say that the Father ever became dumb and unwise 147. OTHER. If the human mind indivisibly generates the spoken word from itself and no change arises in it, but one can see the word in the mind, and the mind in the word, and each of them as depicted by the other, and no one who is prudent will say that the mind can ever become wordless, for it will no longer be a mind without having a word. We mean a word not necessarily spoken publicly by the tongue, but also performed mentally in the mind. Thus, no one can say that in God His own Word is completely absent, having a complete image from the complete Father (ὅλην ἐξ ὅλου τοῦ Πατρὸς ἔχοντα τὴν εἰκόνα) and in the Father contemplated due to the indiscernibility of the essence. OTHER. If we want to glorify [God] correctly (δοξάζειν ὀρθῶς), then it is necessary to say that [the property of] being a Father did not appear to God as coming, but was always there. For otherwise He would have turned out to be changeable by nature, subsequently becoming what He was not [before], according to the madness of the heretics. For if the fact that He is the Father seems to be something good, and it was not always so, then there was a time when there was no good in God. If this [sounds] offensive, then it means that He was always the Father, and the Son, of course, coexists with Him, for He would not be the Father if there were no Son. If anyone objects, saying: “Consequently, since God is by nature also the Creator, there have always been creatures; for we are forced to say this so that it would not seem that [the property of] being the Creator arose in God later, and someone might think that a change (τροπὴ) arose in the Divine nature: after all, we said this in relation to the Son.” Or in another way: “Since it is good to create and create, there have always been creatures, so that it would not seem that there was once no good in God.” This should be answered in this way: “The Son and the creature are very far removed from communion with each other, and nothing in them is the same: after all, one, having arisen from the essence [of the Father], directly showed the Father who begat [Him] (even if [our] word be as about men); and the other is from outside the essence, at the same time, undoubtedly, showing the Creator to work [on it], when it arises. For in Him there was the ability (τέχνη) to create, there was also a necessity for it to be before those [things] that were [created] through Him, for anyone first becomes a craftsman, and then a creator. So, when there is such a difference between them, and when the Son is simultaneously [and inextricably] thought of with the name of the Father, so that as soon as the Father [is thought], there is the Son, and as soon as the Son, there is the Father, and a creation can appear even after the existence of the creator (for it is not from the nature of the creator, but an invention of art (τέχνης), and art is not nature, but one of those inherent in nature [properties]), then how then do some, in relation to God, propose to [consider] creation and generation as one and the same, saying that He can be called Father, even if there is no Son, since He was the Creator before creatures? This is the same as if someone who masters the craft (τέχνην) of shipbuilding calls a father when he does not have a son, since he is a shipbuilder only by craft and has the ability to create, even if he has not yet built a ship. But such, because of [his] craft, will be a shipbuilder even before [building] the ship, but not yet a father, until the one for whom he will be a father appears. And creatures, even without appearing, do not take away the opportunity to be a creator, and a son who has not yet appeared in every way takes away [the property] of being a father. So the creation and the Son will not be equal; and God is the Creator by His nature even before the [appearance of] creatures, but not the Father if there is no Son. Wed. at St. Athanasius of Alexandria: “τὴς δὲ ὑποστάσεως ἐστιν εἰκών ἀπαράλλακτος ὁ Υἱός” – “the hypostases [The] unchangeable image of the Father is the Son” (Dialogues on the Holy Trinity//PG 28. Col. 1121D). In PG, the sentence ends with a period, but in the context of subsequent question words, this appears to us to be a typo. Contamination of the 2nd article of the Creed and Hebrews 1:2. That is, the Born did not separate from the One who gave birth, as happens with people, and no changes occurred in God. If, then, the Word and Wisdom were separated from Him. You might be interested in: