Слово 6. О том, что Отец неделимо и не текуче родил из Себя Сына

The antithesis is, as it were, from among the Eunomievs. And how, says [the Eunomian], is it not necessary to confess that the essence of the Father has diminished, if, in fact, the Son came from it, as if being some part of it? If you want the Father to remain immutable and to be above diminution, then you will not refuse to philosophize that the Son cannot be a part of His essence, nor from Him [cannot come], but [only] from without, and that He is potential, in volition alone (κατὰ δύναμιν τὴν ἐν βουλήσει μόνῃ) has coexistence [with the Father]. Rebuttal to this. Rise a little, my dear, above bodies and what is characteristic of bodies to endure (τῶν περὶ τὰ σώματα παθῶν); It's about God after all. For if you think that God, like people, when giving birth, is in some way diminished by the outflows and cannot do this without some harm [to Himself], being divided, as it were, into [Himself and] the Word that came from Him, then what will prevent you from extending the same blasphemy to everything else that is inherent in Him? After all, if He, like a man, gives birth fluidly, then He will create, like a man, with difficulty. If this is absurd (for God does not create like a man), then it means that He does not give birth like a man, but in this, again, He surpasses human nature, giving birth indivisibly. OTHER. If God gives birth like a man, then He works like a man. And since we, from any existing matter, with the movement of our hands, make something of what we want to create, then so does God. If He, without hands and matter, brings everything from non-existence into being through the Word, being above human nature, then He will be above it in every way in terms of the method of birth. OTHER. The one who contains something must, as if in a circle, encircle what it contains. But stretching into a circle is a property of bodies. How, then, does everything contain God, Who is incorporeal and Who therefore cannot even be thought of in space? However, it contains, surpassing, like God, the order [observed] in these [things] (τὴν ἐν τούτοις ἀκολουθίαν). So He is not subject to bodily laws; therefore, not as a body [i.e. that is, not as a bodily nature] He will give birth. OTHER. Being in everything and penetrating through everything is necessarily mixed with everything. This would be the case with everything. But we confess that the essence of God is not mixed with all the diversity of bodies [found] in the world; after all, it remains on its own, pure and from communication with [anything] else, not naturally mixed; [God] penetrates through everything wonderfully and ineffably. So He is not subject to the orders of bodies. And therefore it does not give birth in accordance with the nature of bodies. OTHER. If God appears and is thought to be simple and uncomplicated, then how does He have different and varied actions, producing many types of creatures at different times? If, however, it does not in the least harm His existence as a simple being, the fact that He acts differently in each of the existing ones, since He does not exist through the body, then He will be higher than bodies in the matter of generation. The antithesis is, as it were, from among the Eunomievs. If you wish, he says, to call the Son proceeding from the essence of the Father, then you must first admit that He was previously placed in Him. For, in this way, He would appear to those who came from Him. And if the Father begat the Son, and will not beget any other after Him (for He is the Only Begotten), then we will have to say that He also lost his parental power, and that He partially diminished, having once begotten the Son and no longer being the same as before. Rebuttal to this. Again, without blushing, do you apply the distinctive properties of bodies to the nature of God? After all, it is not fair to understand the Son as placed in the Father, like a body within a body. And it is also not decent to believe that just as those born from us are embraced by the thighs of those giving birth, so one should think about the Divine birth. For if someone reaches such a degree of insolence as to reduce the ineffable nature of God to bodily suffering, then what will prevent him from saying that the Father did not give birth at all, because it is more appropriate for a mother than a man to give birth? But since God is not a body, he does not have [observable] differences in bodies (after all, the male and female sexes are revealed only in the form of bodies), but is simple and incorporeal, and in general [is] a spirit, the purest of all. For this reason, I think, those who wish to experience His birth should think about the fruitfulness [arising] from the mind, and they should strive to liken the birth of the Word, and not say that God is more barren than bodies, since He does not give birth like a body. After all, we could agree that the human mind also gives birth to good thoughts. For from the heart of a good man, as the Savior says, good things come 165. So, if it is wicked to say that the human mind has no fruit, when the Lord speaks [thus] and the matter itself cries out, then how absurd would it be to call Him who is above all understanding barren and deprive Him of the fruitfulness due to Him, or - if it is said that He gives birth - to believe that He is subject to the laws of bodies and, thus, how does the body give birth, when even the indwelling mind does not give birth according to the law of bodies? And above all, God, exalted and surpassing everything, how will he not give birth above the mind, not enduring the eruption or outflow of something previously placed, but having indivisibly shone forth from Himself as the Son, according to the ineffable and ineffable image of the Divine birth? OTHER. Everything that is created in the likeness of something will not have equality with the prototype, and will be secondary in comparison with its glory. So by the power of God the created nature is directed towards fertility, being formed by grace in accordance with that truly and truly fertile divine nature]. Consequently, it will in every way be deprived of the truth inherent in it [the Divine nature] in relation to the image of birth, and will give birth differently from that on the model of which it is formed. If this is true, then God will give birth not as a creature who has received by grace and in this likeness to him, but above all created things. INOE. The question seems to be from [the person] Eunomius. The Father begot the Son from Himself, as you say, exalting yourself with the very great correctness of dogmas; but pay attention to this too. The Father was perfect before the birth of the Son, but if, having given birth, He was divided into Duality, then how else will He possess perfection, unless plurality arose in His essence, as if making up for the deprivation? After all, what is divided from one into two will necessarily seem smaller than itself, unless some imperceptibly invading increment (αὔξη παρεισδραμοῦσα) does not add what is lost. If nothing of the kind can happen to the Divine essence, then, therefore, the Father did not beget the Son from Himself, so that He would not be divided into parts, but He existed (ὑπέστησε) like Himself in everything. Rebuttal to this. You can see in other examples that those who oppose Christ suffer from a complete lack of intelligence, and no less so here. For they are truly in error, ignorant of the Scriptures and the power of God 166 . For how will it be in everything like the uncreated and ever-present God and Father, brought to [separate] existence (εἰς ὑπόστασιν) from non-existent? For if it was realized at all (ὑπέστη), then it is obvious that it once did not exist. How are they not ashamed when they introduce divisions and cuts in relation to the Divine birth and subject the ineffable essence to the laws of created nature? After all, God, of course, will not be equal to His own creatures in anything, and will not give birth in the same way as they do, but just as He surpasses them in everything, so He will surpass them in this too. And if God and the Father is above every created being, then He will also be above it in the way of giving birth, doing this in an ineffable and divine way. OTHER. To endure division and diminution, increase and multiplication, as well as flows during childbirth is a characteristic feature of bodies and, in general, of that which belongs to the created essence. So, if God gives birth in the same way as bodies, and if the same law is in force over Him as is [observed] in created [bodies], then He will create in the same way as bodies, that is, using tools and hands. If, then, while the corporeal and created nature can create [only] in one way and no other way, God makes everything through the Word, and by His will things are composed, then how can it not It is ridiculous [to believe] that in the more important and main thing God will not be above the passions, and will not jump beyond (ἐξάλλεσθαι) what usually [has] to happen to bodies in the process of birth, but, as if by necessity, to remain in relation to birth in the same position as bodies? Therefore, just as He does not create like a man, He also gives birth, not subject to the customs of bodies. OTHER, in narrative form. The Father radiated (ἐξέλαμψεν) from Himself the Son indivisibly and unextended, just as the sun [radiates] the radiance sent from it. But the latter is not independent (οὐκ ἰδιοσύστατον), nor is it perfect in essence in itself, for it has [its] existence in the sun; The Divine generation, having from [this] example only the fact that It came from the Father indivisibly and unextended, has Its own existence, not separated from the Father, but in the Father and with the Father, conceived and existing. And to say that at His birth there was a dissection and separation is a sign of immeasurable madness. For since the Divinity is not contained in [any] place, then what is from Him is not in such a place. And what does not exist in [any] place, or even cannot exist [in it], how will division [into parts] be allowed? For where will what is cut off go, or from what to what? After all, this is characteristic of bodies, but completely alien to incorporeal nature. For the [Divine] nature is higher than passion, division and dissection, and will not allow into itself what is characteristic of bodies. But just as it creates paradoxically, not according to the law of the custom that prevails in us, so what [comes] from it will be born in a strange way, and not in our own way. Examples showing in part how the Son came indivisibly from the Father The spoken word that we use is born in the mind and from the mind, and seems different from that rotating in the heart, since it becomes emitted from the mouth, as if from the depths to the light. But it also abides in him and is like him in everything. For in the word itself (λόγῳ) one can see the thought (λογισμὸν) hiding in the heart, and, in turn, in the mind - the word [still] silent. So the Son of God, who came indivisibly from the Father, is the image and likeness of His individual personality (ἰδιότητος), being the hypostatic and living Word from the living Father. OTHER. Thus, the Father indivisibly begat from Himself the Son, by whom a sage would give birth to a wise thought: the art of mechanics, for example, or geometry, or something else from such. For such things seem to be in some way the fruit of wisdom and are of the same nature; but the art she invented is not separate from wisdom, but exists from it and in it, visually depicting the wisdom that gave birth [to it], and indivisibly appearing as something different in comparison with it. Likewise, the birth of the Son, indivisibly existing from the Father, is preserved in its own hypostasis, surpassing the power of the [given] example. OTHER. Взыскующие точности в Божественных догматах не уделяют чересчур много внимания человеческой логике [причинно-следственных связей] (ταῖς ἀνθρωπίναις ἀκολουθίαις). Из-за того, что Отец родил Сына, не говорят, будто Он умалился, как разделившийся на двоицу (ведь такова речь христоборцев), ни истечение какое-либо не мыслят по отношению к Его сущности. For this is logical to think in relation to us, but in relation to God it is very wicked. Итак, подобает бежать от нелепости в таковых [вопросах] и мыслить, что так родился Сын из Отца, как мудрость из ума, которая и представляется некоторым образом ставшей вне породившего [ее ума] в своем выявлении, и опять же пребывает в нем, произойдя без отделения (οὐ μεμερισμένως) и так же не вызвав какого-либо истечения в породившем ее уме, и весь его в себе наглядно представляя, и будучи, в свою очередь, в нем созерцаема. OTHER. Such will be the giving [beginning] of God (τὸ γεννητικὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ), which can also be imagined as creative (τὸ δημιουργικόν). For just as, while creating many and varied things, He is not divided in essence into each of the emerging [creations], but, even acting diversely in each, He creates everything with a single and ineffable power, so He gives birth without dividing, as they say. And again: just as the Holy Spirit does not undergo division in essence, sending various modes of action in gifts (τρόπους) and giving to those worthy according to the measure of each [of them], but remains one and the same, acting diversely and dispassionately in everyone, so about the giving birth essence of God, no one who wisely will say that it was damaged or experienced some kind of division or outflow, emanating from itself one and only Son. OTHER. The antithesis is, as it were, from among the Eunomievs. If the Father, he says [i.e. e. Eunomian], begot the Son from Himself and is different from Him, being in any hypostasis and thought of as the Father of the Son, then all [the properties] of the Father are divided, and do not remain in Him alone, but turn out to be transferred to the Son. Therefore, either the Father no longer possesses perfect glory, since it is also divided with the Son, or, if it has [His] perfect glory, he deprives [it] of the Son, as if immediately returning what was given back to Himself; and the Deity, which was formerly in one, possessing perfect glory, now, having become in two, has no perfection. With difficulty [the Divinity] collects this [perfection] from itself, when the Father in some way lends to the Son His own [glory], and again takes back from Him the debt [previously] given to Him. Rebuttal to this. Again they are not ashamed, giving to incorporeal nature the distinctive properties of bodies, divisions into parts and cuttings, distances and separations, ignorantly introducing in relation to the Divine essence; not understanding that they greatly dishonor the essence of the Father, saying that it is divided into parts in a bodily image, [and thereby] claiming that He has changed or transformed, and from [a state of] perfection has come to imperfection. For those who consider the Son to have completely departed from the Father's essence, [understanding this emergence] spatially and in the sense of division (διαστατῶς τε καὶ κεχωρισμένως), and therefore say that everything pertaining to Him was divided, and that He came into half of His glory, since the rest passed on on the Son, they do not understand what nonsense they are falling into. After all, since, as they say, the Father, who previously existed in unity and had creative power in Himself, put the Son in front and through Him creates everything, then [it turns out that] He sent power outside of His essence so that it could create, and what he was not before, he became later, and now [as if] empty of creative power. But to think or speak like this is immeasurable impiety. After all, “The Father is working hitherto, and I am working,” 167, says Christ. So just as the creative [beginning] of the Father is not divided into parts, and He is not now imperfect in His essence, so His glory is perfect, despite the fact that the Son, in turn, has the perfection of glory. For, being in everything like the One who gave birth, He possesses perfect glory because He was born from the Father possessing perfect glory. You might be interested in: