Часть 2

In this first section of the second part, the fourth in order of counting from the beginning of the sections, there are eighteen heresies, and the order is as follows: 1) Encratites. Comprising a fragment of Tatian's heresy, they reject marriage, recognizing it as a satanic act. Eating animals is also prohibited. 2) Phrygian heretics: they are also Montanists and Taskodrugits. They accept the old and new covenants; but after the prophets they introduce other prophets: they boast of a certain Montanus, and Priscilla and Maximilla. 3) Pepusians, they are also Quintillians, with whom the Artothirites are in connection (these are two heresies) 135 Some of them are Phrygian heretics; and partly they teach something different compared to them. They honor as a shrine some desolate city of Penusa, between Galatia, Cappadocia (and Phrygia), and recognize it as Jerusalem. (There is, however, another Pepuza) Women are given leadership and clergy. During initiation into their sacraments, they pierce a small child (with copper needles, like those belonging to the Phrygian heretics, and after kneading flour in his blood and making bread, they eat it as an offering). They say that there, in Pepusa, Christ revealed himself to Quintilla (or Priscilla) in the form of a woman. They also use the Old and New Testaments, altering them according to their own thinking. 4) Fourteeners. These celebrate Easter on the same day of the year, and on whatever day the fourteenth day of the moon falls, that is, on Saturday or on the Day of the Lord, they fast on that day and also perform a vigil. 5) Those we call alogs: these are those who reject the Gospel of John and his Apocalypse, because they do not accept the Word of God who came from the Father. 136 6) The Adamians, which some call the heresy of the living Adam, contain a teaching more worthy of ridicule than true. (Something like this happens with them, naked, as if from a mother’s womb, men and women come together in one place, and in this form they perform readings, prayers, and all that. As if they lead a monastic and abstinent life, and do not accept marriage; and they consider their church to be paradise. 7) The Sampsei, who are also the Elkesii, still live in Arabia, which lies beyond the Dead Sea. These are deceived by a certain false prophet Ilkai; from his family there still existed two women: Marfus and Marfina, 137 whom this heresy worships as goddesses. With these heretics everything is very close to the teachings of the Ebionites. 8) Theodotians, followers of Theodotus, the Byzantine tanner. He stood high in Hellenic education. During the days of the then persecution, he was captured along with some others, and one fell away, while they suffered torment for Christ. since for avoiding this he was reproached: then, due to the accusation that he had renounced God, he intended to say about Christ that He was a simple man. 138 9) Melchizedekians. These honor Melchizedek, claim that he is some kind of power, and not a simple person, and everyone dared to build up to his name and speak in his name. 10) Vardisianists. This Vardisan came from Mesopotamia; at first he adhered to the true faith, and shone with philosophy, 139 but deviated from the truth, and taught very close to Valentinus, with the exception of some parts in which he differed from Valentinus. 11) Noetians. This whine was from Smyrna of Asia. Having become exalted in arrogance, he and some others began to teach that Christ is the Son and Father, that He is one and the same Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And he says about himself that he is Moses, and about his brother that he is Aaron. 12) Valicia. These, as it has come down to us, inhabit Waqafa, the main settlement of Arabia Philadelphia. They emasculate those who come to them (and take advantage of their hospitality). And among them themselves there are many circumcised eunuchs. They also teach something else, full of heresy; they do not obey 140 the law and the prophets, and introduce something else icy. 13) Kafars. These, being in a relationship with the Roman Novatus, completely reject second marriages and do not accept repentance. 14) Angels. These are completely gone. They boasted that they were in the rank of angels. Or they were named that way because they were called angels. 15) Apostolics, they are also anotactics. These heretics are in Pisidia; they accept only apotactics, and take vows of their own. They are very close to the Enkratites: but they think differently than they do. 16) Savelians. They are similar in opinion to the Noetians, except that they do not say that the Father suffered; They teach about the Word that It is pronounced and comes back again. 141 17) Origenists. 142 These are disgraces, doing what is not permissible to speak of, and giving over their bodies to corruption. 18) Other Origenists, from the writer Origen, who is also called adamantine. They reject the resurrection of the dead; they teach that Christ and the Holy Spirit are creatures; paradise, heaven and everything else are interpreted allegorically; they talk idle talk that the kingdom of Christ will (one day) cease, and will cease along with the Angels; also, as if Christ and the devil will be under one king (and they monstrously claim that Christ was crucified by demons). Here are the eighteen heresies of the first part of the second part. On Encratites, 27th (47th) Tatian is followed by certain so-called Encratites, who were actually misled and deceived by him, but accepted opinions other than his own, and even more indulged in empty inventions. There are many of these heretics to this day in Nisidia and in Phrygia, the so-called burned region; for, probably, according to God’s dispensation, it is customary in the world to call their homeland by this name because its inhabitants were burned by such and such a great error into which they were seduced, because there are many heresies in that area. There are also Encratites in the countries of Asia, in the land of Isauria, Pamphylia and Cilicia, in Galatia, and even in the Roman region; and there is also such a heresy in the Antioch region in Syria, but not everywhere. And they affirm the existence of certain principles, and say that there is a principle contrary to the works of God, that is, the devil, who does not submit to God, but has power and acts as if by his own power, and not as a result of transformation. For they teach not in accordance with the church, but in a different way, not similar to the true preaching. They use the so-called Acts of Andrew, John and Thomas, and some counterfeit writings, as well as, whatever they please, the words of the Old Testament as archetype writings. Marriage is clearly defined as a work of the devil; and they abhor animals, forbidding them to eat not for the sake of abstinence and a strict lifestyle, but out of fear and out of fear, so as not to be condemned for this. They drink water in secret, but do not drink wine at all, claiming that it is from the devil, and that those who drink and use wine are lawless and sinners. And yet they also believe in the resurrection of the dead: so with these erring ones everything is filled with madness. And a truly intelligent person should look, marvel and be amazed at everything that strangers to us say and do; because everything they say and do is inconsistent, and has no appearance of consistency at all. For if they allow the use of the Old and New Testaments, then how will there be different principles, when the two testaments agree on one Godhead, and preach the knowledge of that, if, moreover, there is a resurrection of the dead? How else will an honest marriage turn out to be a work of the devil, when God says: grow and live in many (Gen. 1:28), and the Lord in the Gospel says: what God has joined together, let not man separate (Matt. 19:6), and the Apostle says: marriage is honorable, and the bed is undefiled (Heb. 13:4)? But when these heretics are exposed, then they resort to blasphemy and call the apostle a drunkard, and in favor of their opinion and to confirm their fabulousness, they attack those who drink wine, catching some sayings, and claim that wine is the body of the evil one. For they say, Noah drank from the wine, and became naked (Gen.9:21); and Lot, they say, having become drunk, without his knowledge, mixed with his own daughters; and the creation of the calf was accomplished while intoxicated ( Ex. 32:4–6 ); and the scripture says: to whom is the rumor? Who needs scolding? Who cares about sorrows and quarrels? Who needs contrition in vain? Who has blue eyes? Do they not dwell in wine, and do they not look upon the banquets (Prov. 23:29,30)? And they seek out and collect something else similar to this to give themselves credibility, not knowing that everything that is excessive in everything is regrettable, and that which goes beyond the boundaries of what is proper is prohibited. And I can say this not only about wine, but also about great insatiability. For the Lord, teaching about this, said: Let not your hearts be burdened with overeating and drunkenness and the sorrows of this life (Luke 21:34). And: if you are not well-fed, do not covet the rich man’s food, for they have a false belly (Proverbs 23:3). And the holy apostle, in order to further eradicate the insatiable and the satiated, cursing gluttonous lusts, said: meat to the belly, and meat to the belly: God will abolish both this and this (1 Cor. 6:13). Yes, and Esau destroyed the birthright for boiling juice 143 (Gen. 25:30), as the scripture says, calling the same thing wheat boiling and juice boiling (v. 34); however, I think that perhaps it was not from the grains called by this name (πυρός), that is, not from wheat, but perhaps it was, again heated on the fire, the remainder of lentils that had already been boiled and still put on the fire, and this in Scripture is expressed by the word: fiery (πυροῦ), because the boil, after cooling, was heated. And just as he became naked as a result of wine, but did not suffer harm from this, so on the contrary, this one, due to greed and gluttony, destroyed his birthright, and suffered more harm from this than from wine. So, near the truth, a counterfeit saying and any fictitious fabulous story have no power. These heretics are proud of their abstinence, but all their activities are shaky: they are among women, and everywhere they deceive women, they travel with women and live together, and use their services. These are people alien to the truth, and possessing only an image of godliness, but rejecting its power (2 Tim. 3:5). For whoever leaves any part of the matter, leaving one part, will leave the whole completeness unattended. Because of this, their mysteries are performed on the same water, and they are not mysteries, but, when they imitate true mysteries, they become false. For this reason, in this too, they will be convicted by the direct word of the Savior, Who says: I am not to drink from the fruit of this vine until I drink it new in the kingdom of heaven with you (Mark 14:25). As if pushing away with the strong hand of truth this heresy, like a beast that causes pain, but lacks teeth, let us move on to those following it in order, but by custom calling on the God of all to be a guide and protector from troubles, an assistant to our understanding and a giver of wisdom, so that we, learning the truth from Him, will have the opportunity to open it about other heresies, and from the many worldly types in the word of truth to prepare against heresies are a medical antidote, for those affected already in healing and healing, if they read, and for those who intend to find out what they have not seen, in the prevention of torment, for us for salvation and for the reward that God generously gives us. About the Phrygian heretics called either Montanists, or also Taskodrugits, 28th (48th) From the Encratites arose another heresy, the so-called Phrygian heretics, which began contemporary with those and was their successor. They began under the pious Antoninus, who reigned after Hadrian, around the nineteenth year of his reign. And Marcion, the followers of Tatian, and his Encratite successors appeared in the time of Hadrian and after Hadrian. These so-called Phrygian heretics accept all the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, and similarly teach about the resurrection of the dead. But they boast that they have a prophet - some Montanus, and the prophetesses Priscilla and Maximilla, listening to whom they have become perverted in mind. The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are thought of in the same way as the holy universal church; But they separated from her by heeding spiritual flattery and the teaching of demons (1 Tim. 4:1), and saying: “We must also receive gifts.” And the holy church of God also accepts gifts, but real gifts, and already tested in the holy church of God by the power of the Holy Spirit on the basis of the prophets, apostles and the Lord Himself. This is what the Apostle John says in his epistle: tempt the spirits, if they are of God (1 John 4:1); and he also says: You have heard that the Antichrist is coming, and now there are many Antichrists. She departed from us, but was not driven away from us: even if they had been from us, they would have remained with us: but so that it would be known that they are not from us (1 John 2:18,19), for this reason I write to you children (1 John 2:12), and what follows further. Therefore, it is true that they are not among the saints: for they came out of it out of their own covetousness, listening to the spirits of deception and fables. For by their very deed they are exposed that they cannot fulfill what they themselves jealously promise. If gifts must be received, and there must be gifts in the church: then why, after Montanus, Priscilla and Maximilla, do they no longer have prophets? Has grace become ineffective? But in holy churches grace is not inactive; not at all. If those who prophesied prophesied until a certain time, and no longer prophesy: ​​then it follows that Priscilla and Maximilla were not prophetesses after the prophecies tested by the holy apostles in the holy church. Therefore, the folly of these heretics can be exposed in two ways. Or, in order that the grace of which they speak may not remain inactive, they must show that there are prophets after Maximilla; or Maximilla’s accomplices will turn out to be false prophets, because after the limit of prophetic gifts had arrived, they dared to receive inspiration not from the Holy Spirit, but from deceiving demons and deceive their listeners. And let them be rebuked on the basis of what they themselves say. Called a prophetess by them, Maximilla states: “After me there will be no more prophetess; but there will be demise.” The Holy Spirit and seducing spirits are visible in everything. For what the prophets spoke, and what they spoke with understanding, preserving the natural order of thoughts, what they said was accomplished and is still being fulfilled. Maximilla said that after her death; and the end has not yet come, despite the fact that there were so many kings and so much time has passed. For from that time until our time, that is, until the twelfth year of the reign of Valentinian. Valens and Gratian, 145 two hundred and nineteen years, 146 not much more, not much less; and there is no death yet, as the prophetess who spoke from herself predicted, who did not even know the day of her death. And one can see that all those who alienated themselves from the truth did not maintain good firmness in the teaching, but on the contrary, how children, succumbing to the deception of the always seducing serpent, themselves surrendered to destruction and became food for the wolf, were taken and carried away from the fence, and thus perished. Without holding back the beginning, but abandoning the truth, they abandoned themselves to ruin and the pressure of the waves of all deception. For if Maximilla says that there will be no more prophet; then he denies that they have a talent, and continues to this day; if the talent, as I said above, continues to her, then it follows that she also has no talents. Indeed, she is deluded. For the Lord sealed the church, and in it concluded the fullness of gifts. When there was a need for prophets, then the saints of God, filled with the Holy Spirit, according to the gifts given to each by the Spirit, and according to the measure of faith (Rom. 12:6) for good (1 Cor. 12:7), prophesied everything in the true spirit, in a sound mind, and with consistency in thoughts. What was useful, or what was appropriate, that these 147 prophets spoke with faith? On the contrary, are they not those of whom the Lord said: Hearken from the lying prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves (Matthew 7:15)? For, comparing what was spoken by them and what is truly in the Old and New Testaments, both truly fulfilled and prophesied, let us examine what is a prophecy and what is a false prophecy. The prophet spoke everything with a calm and consistent flow of thoughts, and spoke from the Holy Spirit, speaking everything soundly, like Moses the servant of God, and faithful in the house (Num. 12:7). A prophet in the Old Testament was called a seer (1 Samuel 9:9). The vision, it is said, was the vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz (Is. 1:1), the prophet. I saw, he says, the Lord sitting on a throne, high and exalted, and I saw the Seraphim and Cherubim (Is. 6:1,2), and I heard the voice of the Lord saying to me: Go, voices of this people: by hearing you will hear, and will not understand: and by seeing, you will see, and will not see (Is. 6:8,9). And because I heard the Lord; Then he came to the people and said, “This is what the Lord says.” Don't you see that these are the words of a person speaking consistently, and not in a frenzy, and that the speech was not published in a frenzy of mind? In the same way, the prophet Ezekiel, having heard from the Lord: make bread for yourself on the bloodlines of men, said: no way, Lord: never anything foul or unclean came into my mouth (Ezek. 4:12.14). For he knew that what was said to him was spoken in the form of a threat, and did not rush to do it, as if driven by a frenzy of mind, but on the contrary, as having a sound and consistent mind, he begged and said: no way, Lord. Such are the characteristics of true prophets that, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, their understanding, teaching, and conversation are sound. Is it not also possible to find that Daniel was full of all understanding and observed the natural order in his thoughts - that Daniel who solved Nebuchadnezzar’s riddles, and what he saw in a dream and deviated from the one who saw it (Dan. 2:5), brought it to memory, and then offered a solution in his sound state and due to his abundance of talent; because he abounded in wisdom more than any man through the gift of the Holy Spirit, who makes wise the actual prophets and those who through the prophet are worthy of true teaching? And these, promising to prophesy, turn out to be unable to control themselves and not observing consistency in their words. For their sayings are vague and vague and do not contain anything direct. Montan openly says: “Behold, man is a lyre, and I touch 148 him, as if it were rattling; the man is asleep, and I am awake; Behold, the Lord makes people’s hearts go into a frenzy, and gives a heart to people.” Therefore, who among those who reason consistently and accept useful teaching intelligently, and who care about their lives, will not condemn this self-made assumption and teaching of a person who boastfully counts himself among the prophets, but cannot speak like the prophets, because the Holy Spirit did not speak in him? For the expressions: “I touch”, “I strike”, “I am awake”, “The Lord makes the heart go into a frenzy”, are words of a frenzy, and not preserving the order of thoughts, on the contrary, revealing another distinctive property in comparison with what is different from the Holy Spirit who spoke in the prophets. If they want to weave a lie into the truth and are inattentive to an accurate understanding of the meaning of the words, and meanwhile they collect sayings for themselves with the help of which they will falsely present their error as similar to the truth; namely, they will point to the words from Holy Scripture: God put a curse on Adam, and he succeeded (Gen. 2:21): then there is no similarity with that. For here 149 God does not have the intention of creating a body from one brought into a frenzy, why would He, in an abundance of love for mankind, want to bring something similar to what was brought on Adam: for He brought on Adam a frenzy of sleep, and not a frenzy of the mind. The word: frenzy (ἐϰςασις) has many different uses. Excess of surprise is called frenzy; frenzy is called frenzy because it comes out of the proper order. There, a dream is called frenzy in a different meaning, namely in relation to natural activity, most of all because this frenzy, induced on the holy and created by the hand of God Adam, was very deep. And truly one can see how rightly the divine Scripture called this frenzy. For during a person’s sleep, all senses retreat, turning to peace. For example, the sense of vision, although present, does not see: for the eyes are closed, but the spirit or soul that produces movement in a person is at rest. Whether there is a stench in the house or an incense, the sense of smell does not perceive this, although it is present; because this feeling receded, turning to peace. Whether the taste in the mouth is bitter, or salty, or sweet, the sense of taste does not perceive, because, acting in a waking state, in the frenzy of peace it remains inactive. Hearing is there, but the sense of hearing is inactive, and often, when someone speaks in the house, the person does not hear what is said, unless he is asleep, because the activity of hearing recedes at this time. Some animals pass through our body, and we, unless the animals lay heavily on us, do not feel their touch on our body, because any instrument of feeling, as a result of tranquility in sleep, ceases to act. since the instrument of feeling is of an earthly nature and constitutes an external accessory for the soul; 150 then he is given a time in which the most active sensitivity is replaced by a state of rest, because God has arranged it this way for our benefit. The soul itself, with its sovereign power and understanding, does not retreat. For he often imagines and sees himself as if in a waking state, walking, working, traveling on the sea, giving speeches to the people, seeing this in larger or smaller sizes in a dream. This, however, is not similar to a frenzied person who acts without mind and is in a frenzy, who, while awake in body and soul, undertakes terrible deeds and often causes troubles for himself and his neighbors: for he does not know what he says and does, because such a person has come into a state of insane frenzy. But in all this, beloved, we had a need for the words: the Lord imposed a frenzy on Adam, and succeeded: we collected various types of frenzy, and explained, but for what reason the experience of sleep in this case is called by the Lord a frenzy. Precisely because sleep, by God’s protection and love for mankind, is given to all people, so that a person, calming down in sleep, is freed from worries and affairs necessary for life. And in this case, the dream is called a frenzy even more because God made a person temporarily not feel pain when he intended to take a rib from him and create a wife from the rib. But the man was not in a frenzy of mind and thoughts: for immediately after he stood up, he recognized and said: Behold, now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: this woman will be called, for this life was taken from her husband (Gen. 2:23). As you see, he knows both the past and the present, and prophesies about the future: for behold, he learned what happened before, when he was in a dream, and says: bone of my bones: he also knew the present, after the creation of the woman, recognizing her as taken from the body; and prophesied about the future, namely, that for this reason a man would leave his father and mother and be united to his wife: and the two would become one flesh (Gen. 2:24). And this is not characteristic of a person who is frenzied and has lost the natural order of thoughts, but who has a sound mind. If we must also say about the words: I am Rech in my frenzy: every man is a lie (Ps. 115:2): then again the word here has a different power: frenzy; it does not mean any person who is out of mind and frenzied - far from it, but on the contrary, one who is overly surprised and reflects beyond ordinary reflection on what is visible and done in the usual way. since the prophet was surprised: he says this out of surprise. There were also prophets in a frenzy, but not in a frenzy of reason. For Peter, too, was in a frenzy, not in the sense that he did not preserve the consistency of reasoning, but in the fact that instead of the daily order, he saw something different from what people see: he saw the shroud being lowered, tied at the four edges, and in it were all four-legged creatures and vermin and birds of the air. Look: Saint Peter retained the consistency of his thoughts and was not in a frenzy of mind; for when I heard, “Rising up, slaughtering and eating,” I did not listen, as someone who was not of sound mind would have done, but said to the Lord, “Never mind, Lord” (Acts 10:10–14), for no evil and unclean thing has come into my mouth (Acts 11:8). And Saint David said: Every man lies: and saying: I have spoken, and said separately about himself and about people, that, as it is said, they lie. Consequently, he himself did not lie, but, amazed and amazed at God’s love for mankind, he was overly amazed at what was announced to him from the Lord, and seeing that every person is in need of God’s mercy, he attributed the truth to the Lord alone, and learned about every person that he was subject to forgiveness, thereby showing that the true Holy Spirit spoke in the prophets and revealed to them the depths of accurate knowledge of God. Abraham was also in a frenzy, but not in a frenzy of mind, but in a frenzy of fear (Gen. 15:12): for at the setting of the sun he saw a cave and candles (v. 17). And other prophets, seeing the visions, in their right minds said, as Moses said: I am afraid and trembling (Heb. 12:21). Abraham learned that the Lord had said to him: “He who knows, hang him, that your seed will be lost in a foreign land for four hundred years” (Gen. 15:13). You see how you can see that the prophets truly said everything in a sound mind and with sound reasoning, and not in insanity. If they also want to say that earlier talents are not the same as later ones, then how can they prove this? The holy prophets and holy apostles prophesied in the same way, both one and the other. And firstly, when the Savior ascended to heaven, those who saw the two in white robes saw not in madness, but in their right mind heard: men of Galilee, why are you standing with your eyes fixed on heaven? This Jesus, who ascended into heaven from you, will also come again, and whatever follows after this (Acts 1:11). Then Peter, as I said, seeing, hearing, answering and saying: No, Lord, he was in a good state of mind. Agabus spoke prophetically and mysteriously under an amazing cover; Taking Paul's belt and tying his feet, he said: The man whose belt is this will be bound in Jerusalem (Acts 21:11). And also the prophets came to Antioch and announced that there would be a famine throughout the whole world; and their word did not pass by, but to show that these were true prophets, Scripture immediately added: what happened under Claudius Caesar (Acts 11:27,28). The Holy Apostle Paul prophetically said: The Spirit speaks clearly (1 Tim. 4:1): in the last days there will come times of cruelty (2 Tim. 3: 1), and what follows further, and in another place: because the people will depart from sound teaching, giving heed to the deceivers and the teaching of demons, those who forbid getting married, leaving the world, what God has created for the consumption of those who receive 151 with thanksgiving (1 Tim. 4:1.3). This has been fulfilled for you and those like you, 152 as the deed itself clearly shows. For many of these heresies forbid one to marry, command one to retire from marriage, urging one to do so not for the sake of the severity of life, not for the sake of the highest virtue, rewards and crowns, but on the contrary, thinking that this is what Christ abhorred. And the holy church glorifies and praises virginity, monasticism, purity, and widowhood, and honors and accepts honest marriage, and forbids fornication, adultery and debauchery. From this you can see the distinctive property of the holy universal church and the feigned morals of others, and after testing this, you can flee from every crooked path leading to error and in the opposite direction of the directed path. For I said above that it was foretold by the Holy Apostle, and I will also say that, speaking about those who forbid getting married and leaving the world, he said how boldly those who forbid what was beautifully established by God lay down the law, and by this he warns us and distinguishes the property of the Holy Church from heretical deception. For God the Word in the Gospel said with some moderation: Do you want to be perfect (Matthew 19:21)? Knowing the composition and weakness of man, He rejoices over those who can provide experimental evidence of godliness and choose the feat of virginity, purity, abstinence; but he also honors monogamy, although he foretold that the gifts of the priesthood should be adorned primarily by those who are abstinent among monogamists and who spend their lives in virginity, which is why His apostles decently and reverently established this church rule of the priesthood. If someone, after the death of his wife, due to weakness, has the need to marry a second time, the true rule does not prohibit this, that is, for someone who is not a priest. And these heretics prohibit, in fulfillment of what has been said: those who forbid getting married. For they cast out the one who was married a second time, and they force him not to marry a second time. We do not impose compulsion, but we exhort, motivating him who is able with good advice; We do not impose coercion on the one who is unable, and we also do not consider him rejected from life. For the holy word has been preached to everyone who must bear the weakness of the weak (Rom. 15:1). And now we will find that the holy Apostle, in denouncing those who do not have the same talent, says: deny young widows: for after they become furious against Christ, they want to encroach, having that sin, for having rejected the first faith (1 Tim. 5:11,12). For those who made a promise and turned it back into nothing have sin; but those who were not promised, but were married through weakness, will not have sin. If they had sin, then how would the apostle say: let them trespass and build a house (1 Tim. 5:14)? Therefore, everyone who prophesies, whether in the Old Testament or in the new, turns out to preserve the sequence of thoughts. So Saint John said in the Apocalypse: the Lord revealed this to His servant through His servant John (Apoc. 1:1), and: this says, Lord, v. 8). The one who said this had a sound mind and maintained consistency in his thoughts. Therefore, behold: this saith the Lord, and: the vision which I saw (v. 2). And this Montanus, boasting that he is a prophet, and misleading those who succumb to his deception, tells a story that is inconsistent with the divine Scripture. For in his so-called prophecy, he says: “Why do you say that he who is being saved is greater than man? The righteous, he says, will be illuminated a hundred times more than the sun, and the little ones among you who are being saved will be illuminated a hundred times more than the moon.” But he is rebuked by the Lord, who has the power to give enlightenment to the faces of the saints, who enlightened the face of Moses, and with the saints in His holy resurrection of bodies brings about the change that they, having been sown without honor, arise in glory (1 Cor. 15:43). and their bodies, although not different from those now existing, but on the contrary rise entirely the same as they now exist, but after the resurrection they receive glory from Him, who generously bestows glory on His saints, because, as God and Lord, He has the power to give and bestow this. But, having the power to grant this, He did not promise as Montanus teaches, but says: your faces will be illuminated like the sun (Matthew 13:43). Therefore, if the One who has the power and truly is our Master and Lord, Jesus Christ, says that the faces of the righteous will be illuminated like the sun: then why does Montanus promise that it is a hundred times more abundant? Unless he is similar to the one who promised Adam, affirming: you will be like gods (Gen. 3:5), and arranged for people to be cast out from the glory that they had and heavenly pleasure, and cast into mortal corruption. The same Montanus adds to this the following words: “I am the Lord God Almighty, abiding in man.” Therefore, the divine Scripture and the consistent teaching of the Holy Spirit beautifully warn us, admonishing us, so that we know how the truth is counterfeited, and how an alien spirit is opposed to it. As soon as Montanus said this, he gave us the idea to remember the saying of the Lord. For the Lord says this in the Gospel: I came in the name of My Father, and you did not receive Me: another will come in his own name, and this one will be received (John 5:43). So Montanus turned out to disagree with the divine Scriptures in everything, as is clear to any reasonable reader. Therefore, if he does not agree, then he is alien to the universal church; His heresy is also alien to her, boasting that she has prophets and gifts: she did not receive them, on the contrary, she is removed from them. Who, speaking consistently, would dare to call these heretics prophets? Are they not seducers anymore? Christ taught us, saying: I will send you the Comforter Spirit (John 15:26), and, pointing out the signs, said: He will glorify Me (John 16:14). And indeed one can see that the holy apostles, having received the Comforter Spirit, glorified the Lord. And this Montand glorifies himself. The Lord glorified His Father, and Christ the Lord also glorified the Spirit, calling Him the Spirit of truth (John 16:13); and Montanus glorifies himself only alone, and says that he is the Father Almighty and the Spirit who dwelt in the Father, so that from everything it is clear that it is not He, was not sent by Him, and did not receive from Him. For in the Lord every fulfillment of the Divine was pleased to dwell bodily (Col. 2:9), and from His fulfillment, according to the word of Saint John, all the prophets received (John 1:16). See how all the ancients proclaimed Christ, and those who followed glorified Christ and confessed Him; and Montanus came out pretending to be someone, thereby showing that he was not that, and was not sent by Him, and did not accept anything from Him. Then this pathetic little man Montanus says: “I am not an angel, and not an intercessor, but I, the Lord God the Father, have come.” But these words reveal that it is alien, because it does not glorify Christ, Whom every gift in the church glorifies, truly given in the holy church. For it turns out that he is alien to the body of the church and the Head of all, not holding the Head, from Her the whole body (Col. 2:19), according to what is written, is composed (Eph. 4:16), grows. Our Lord Jesus Christ, as the truly true Son, revealed Himself as the Son: and Montanus also calls himself the Father. Therefore, how can we believe you, the Phrygians, the enemies who again rose up against us, by name, however, appearing to be Christians, but rose up with a barbarian war, and became imitators of the hostility of the Trojans and Phrygians; when you say that you are separating from the church because of your gifts? For what is alien to gifts and, as your prophets say, is promised not with the distinctive property indicated by the Lord, cannot be gifts. And you also bring Maximilla to us; your names are so different and very terrible; there is nothing soft and pleasant in them, but there is something wild and barbaric. Listen, children of Christ, to what this same Maximilla, so called by these Phrygian heretics, says: “Don’t listen to me, but listen to Christ.” And thinking that this glorifies Christ, she deceives herself. For if she were Christ’s, she would have spoken like the holy apostles, as each of them says. And first of all, Peter says: we have heard from Him (Acts 4:20). And the Lord Himself says: listen to you, He listens to Me (Luke 10:16). And Paul says: Be imitators of me, just as you are imitators of Christ (1 Cor. 11:1). However, although she lies, she, without wanting it herself, speaks the truth: for she speaks well when she asserts that it is not her who should listen, but Christ. And often unclean spirits, although they are not from the truth, are forced to cast down themselves and, whether they want or not, out of necessity reveal their Lord. So the young woman, having an inquisitive spirit, said: These men are the servants of the Most High God (Acts 16:16, 17). And: why did you come before the time to torment us (Matthew 8:29)? We know You who You are, the Holy One of God (Luke 4:34). So Maximilla was forced to say that they should listen not to her, but to Christ. Why do those who heard this from her and believed her want to listen to her, when she herself was taught to listen not to her, but to the Lord? And indeed, she broadcasts earthly things, and she should not have been listened to if those who listened had understanding. And don't say she keeps her thoughts in order. For it is not the job of one who maintains order in his thoughts to teach and to refute himself. If she really says: “don’t listen to me,” then what spirit is speaking in her? If she said this herself out of humanity, then it follows that she did not have the Holy Spirit. For it is clear that she who says, “Don’t listen to me,” speaks humanly, and not from the Holy Spirit. But she who speaks not from the Holy Spirit from above, but from human understanding, knew nothing, and, as she does not have the Holy Spirit, was not a prophetess, but spoke and broadcast according to human understanding. If she spoke and prophesied from the Holy Spirit: then what kind of Holy Spirit is this, which says: do not listen to me? Great is the blindness of deception. And the word of God is great, admonishing us in every possible way to understand what is spoken by the Holy Spirit, now from the person of the Father, now from the person of the Son, now from the person of the Holy Spirit. And if Maximilla had the Holy Spirit, He would not have rejected His own words: for there is one and the same Holy Spirit, dividing each one as he wills (1 Cor. 12:11). If he has the power to divide as he wills, and is called the Spirit of knowledge and the Spirit of godliness (Is. 11:2), he is also called the Spirit of Christ (1 Peter 1:11; Rom. 8:9), and the Spirit of the Father (Matthew 10:20), proceeding from the Father (John 15:26), and receiving from the Son (John 16:14,15), as not alien to the Father and To my son: he won’t say: don’t listen to me. For the Spirit spoke the words of Christ, and Christ sends the Spirit, and casts out demons in the Holy Spirit (Matt. 12:28), and the Lord speaks of the Father, and the Father sanctifies the Son and the ambassador to the world (John 10:36), so that they may know and glorify Him as they glorify the Father (John 5:23). Thus, in every possible way, the opinions of those who are alien to following Christ turn out to be untenable. The same Maximilla - this, I will say laughingly, is consistent knowledge and teaching - also says: “The Lord sent me to be a protector, a guide, an interpreter of this work, covenant and promise; and I am forced, whether anyone wants or not, to teach everyone the knowledge of God.” Therefore, beloved, let us consider the prosperous foundation of our life and the path of light, and let us not be drawn into error by the words of the adversary from the herd of alien spirit. For look: here she declares that she spoke so under compulsion, and not out of voluntary intention. But our Lord did not come into the world unwillingly, nor was he sent by the Father forcibly; but on the contrary, since He has a common will with the Father, and a common teaching with the Holy Spirit, He also has this in common with the Father, that He desires and gives grace to everyone not under compulsion, but out of an abundance of love for mankind. So those whom he called, Op called voluntarily, without imposing necessity, without imposing a yoke. For he says: let him who thirsts come to Me (John 7:37), and again: if anyone wants to come to Me, let him deny himself, and come after Me (Matthew 16:24). And through Isaiah, saying the same thing, he said: If you will, you will listen to Me (Is. 1:19). And then the prophet, to show who was saying this, said: For the mouth of the Lord speaketh this (Isa. 1:20). You can clearly see the disagreement between these heretics and the Divine Scripture and the difference of their opinions and assumptions in comparison with God’s faith and correct teaching. Maximilla said that she forces everyone, whether anyone wants or does not want; why from this very saying its lie is visible. For she did not teach those who wanted to know about God, in which she was not versed, and she did not force those who did not want to do so. Not everyone even in the world knows what kind of name Maximilla is, and what the deceitful sounds of her speeches are. And in every possible way the sinful invention of these heretics falls down as alien to the truth of God. They still honor a certain desolate place in Phrygia, once called the city of Penusa, which has now been razed to the ground, and they say that the highest Jerusalem descends there. Therefore, when they go here, they perform some sacraments in this place, and, as they think, they perform sacred functions. For this kind of heretics is in Cappadocia, Galatia, and the above-mentioned Phrygia, which is why it is called the Phrygian heresy; and there are also a lot of them in Cilicia and Constantinople. But so that we do not omit anything concerning the names of each heresy we have mentioned above, we will now say about the name of the Tascodrugits. This name belongs either to this very heresy, or to the next one, the so-called Quintillian heresy. For this name comes from these very heresies. They are called taskodrugits for this reason. They call a peg a task (τασϰὸς), and a druig (δροῦγγος) a nose or nostrils; and because during prayer, as if for the sake of a sad expression on their face and self-willed righteousness, they place the so-called index finger on their nose, some called them taskodrugits, that is, those who stuff their noses (πασσαλορυγχῖται). In this very heresy, or in a related heresy, the so-called heresy of the Quintillian or Priscillian, as they say, some terrible and impermissible deed is being done. On some holiday, a child, still just a baby, is pierced all over his body with copper needles and his blood is extracted, namely, for making a sacrifice. But enough, beloved, is what we have said about this heresy. For we promised about every heresy that we know, without stinting, to declare that we accepted with our minds partly by hearing, partly from books, partly from records, partly from the true evidence of some; so that, having done something unnecessary against what we have learned, we do not present evidence against ourselves, as if we ourselves are talking about people incorrectly according to our own invention, and are succumbing to the passion to which they also fell, not speaking the truth, but proclaiming what they did not see, and did not hear, and did not accept from the true teaching of the Holy Spirit. But expounding, as I said, carefully everything about each heresy, revealing what is terrible in them, for the correction of those who have fallen into heresy, and from refuting them on the basis of the words of God and correct conclusions, compiling a healing, so to speak, medicine, prepared in the Lord for a double use, namely: for the restoration of those who belong to heresy from illness and such great suffering, and for those who have never fallen into heresy, As a precautionary aid, so to speak, we teach the wise the medicine of truth, and we ourselves will be called disciples of the disciples of the Lord and the Savior Himself, our helper in body and soul. Since we have presented the present study of this heresy in sufficient detail; then, by the power of Christ, we strive to go forward to the following heresies in order, having wiped out the poison and tempting poison of the teeth of this heresy with the tree of the truth of the cross. She is like a bleeding viper, the harm of which consists in the fact that blood erupts from the entire body of those wounded by it, and then causes death. This same heresy of the Quintillians does the same: for it perforates the body of an uncorrupted child, and it is this very blood that is brought for communion, in secret teaching in the name of Christ, plunging those deceived by it into error. Approaching the following heresies in order by the power of Christ, let us call on Christ’s truth, so that, having tracked down, discovered and exposed the power of each error, according to custom, we can give thanks to God for everything. About the Quintilians or Pepusians, they are also the Priscillians, with whom the Artothirites are related, 29th (49th) The Quintilians, called Pepusians, and also Artothirites and Priscillians, are one and the same with the Phrygian heretics, and are descended from them, but in some respects they differ. For these Phrygian heretics, or Priscillians, say about Quintilla or Priscilla, I cannot say for sure that one of them, as I said above, slept in Pepusa, and Christ came to her and slept with her in such a form, as the seduced woman herself said. “In the form,” he says, “of a woman, clothed in light clothing, Christ came to me, and put wisdom into me, and revealed to me that this is a holy place, and Jerusalem descends here from heaven.” Therefore, as they say, even to this day, some people, both women and men, are also initiated into the sacraments on the spot, in order that, while staying there, they may see Christ. Their women are called prophetesses; However, whether these are the same heretics, or the Phrygian ones, I don’t know quite clearly: for these heresies are common and of the same mind. They use the old and new testaments, and also recognize the resurrection of the dead. Their leader is Quintilla, together with that Priscilla, who is also among the Phrygian heretics. They also provide a lot of empty evidence. They give thanks to Eve because she was the first to eat from the tree of understanding. In support of the fact that they place women in the clergy, they cite the evidence that the sister of Moses was a prophetess (Ex. 15:20). And also, they say, Philip has four daughters who are diviners (Acts 21:9). Often seven girls in white robes with lamps come out to their church, and they come precisely to prophesy to the people. Showing some kind of inspiration, they cause seduction to the coming people, and make everyone cry, as if arousing in them the pity of repentance, shedding tears, and in appearance, as if mourning human life. They have women as bishops, and women as presbyters and in other places; in this there is no difference between the sexes: for in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female (Gal. 3:28). Here's what we learned. They are called Artothirites because in their secrets they offer bread (ἄρτος) and cheese (τυρὸς), and thus perform their secrets. But when we deviate from the right faith, everything worthy of laughter happens: people are put into difficulty and turn to various kinds of inspirations and frantic rituals. For those who do not hold on to the anchor of truth, but for any reason whatsoever give themselves over to the flow, their minds always become frantic. And if these heretics, out of respect for Eve, appoint women to bishoprics and presbyteries: then let them hear the word of the Lord: your appeal is to your husband, and she will have possession of you (Gen. 3:16). They also ignored the apostolic word: I do not command a woman to say that she should rule over her husband (1 Tim. 2:12), and again: for man is not from woman, but woman is from man (1 Cor. 11:8), and: Adam was not deceived: but Eve was the first to be deceived and become transgressed (1 Tim. 2:14). And, oh, how prolific are errors in this world! Therefore, having passed this heresy, as something toothless and full of madness, like a speckled lizard, I will move on, beloved, to the following heresies, calling on God to help our humility, in fulfillment of our promise. About the Fourteeners, 30th (50th) From these two heresies, mixed together with one another, that is, from the Phrygian heresy, and the Quintilian or Priscillian heresy, another heresy, the so-called Fourteeners, again arose in the world. They contain everything similarly to the church, but they sin in everything, because they are inattentive to the established order and teaching, and also adhere to Jewish fables, but they do not teach the same as the Jews: for they do not know what they say, nor do they affirm about them (1 Tim. 1:7). Although they contain the doctrine of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit as they should and in the same way as us, they accept the prophets, apostles and evangelists, and also recognize the resurrection of the flesh, the future judgment and eternal life in the same way as us, but in spite of us they celebrate Easter on the same day every year. They fell into this important mistake precisely because they applied to the case that saying of the law, which says: cursed is anyone who does not keep the Passover on the fourth and tenth day of the month (Num. 9:3). 154 And others of them celebrate Easter on the same day, and on the same day they fast and perform mysteries, and boast that according to the acts of Pilate they have found exactly that, as it is written in them, the Savior suffered on the eighth day before the Kalends of April, and they want to celebrate Easter on the day on which the fourteenth day of the moon falls. In Cappadocia they celebrate the same day - the eighth day before the April calendar. 155 And there is no unimportant discord between them: some say that on the fourteenth day of the moon, others that on the eighth day before the Kalends of April. And we also found lists of acts of Pilate, which indicate that the suffering took place on the fifteenth day before the April calendar. 156 In fact, we accept, as we have learned with great accuracy, that the Savior suffered on the thirteenth day before the Kalends of April. 157 And some say that on the tenth day before the Kalends of April; 158 but even these deviated from the truth. I’m afraid to expand the word too much about this: for we have a lot to say. Having fully outlined the entire law, the lawgiver Moses, having received a command from God, in the last book, that is, in Deuteronomy (27:15 et seq.), sets out all the oaths, not only relating to the Passover, but also to circumcision, tithes and offerings. Therefore, although they escaped one curse, they subjected themselves to many curses: for they will be subject to curses as not being circumcised, as not giving tithes, and being subject to curse as not making offerings in Jerusalem. And, oh, what a multitude of empty inventions people indulge in! Truly, we can say with this the reasonable saying of Ecclesiastes, spoken to us by the Holy Spirit: Ecclesiastes knew this, that God made a rational man upright, and these he sought out many ways (Eccl. 7:28.30). For in what way are the opinions of these heretics not found to be untenable? Firstly, if they celebrate the Passover on the fourteenth day: then they need to take the sheep from the tenth day and keep it even until the fourth day (Exodus 12:3–6); and there should no longer be one day of fasting, but there should be five days: the tenth, and the eleventh, and the twelfth, and the thirteenth, and the fourteenth. If the Passover is to be devoured in the evening (Exodus 12:6): then with the fifteenth day coming, there will be six days of fasting, and there will be more than one day of fasting. Thus, the heretics’ search for one day turns out to be untenable, because it is not one. Connected with this is an indication of the primitive; and the heretics end up losing in an important matter of God. For Christ, according to the law, had to be slain on the fourteenth day, so that, with the rising of the sun and the moon hiding its light, the light of the law illuminating them would cease from the Jews; because from the fourteenth day onwards the moon is in detriment. So, by the power of Christ’s coming and suffering, the legal light of the Jewish synagogue dimmed, but the Gospel shone forth, and the law was not destroyed, but fulfilled, and the type was not abolished, but brought to light the truth. Thus, speaking about the celebration of the Passover in Jericho, the Divine Scripture immediately added: and the children of Israel kept the Passover, and the food was eaten in Gilgalech: and the manna ceased (1. Joshua 5:10-12). By this, the Divine Scripture testified and prophesied to the Jews that, after the suffering of the Lord, for their renunciation of God, their angelic food 160 and heavenly food, as they called manna, would cease. But the holy Church of God, in the matter of this mystery, combining everything in connection, does not fall away from the truth. She takes into account not only the fourteenth day, but also the week, this circularly repeating order of the seven days of this Sabbath, in order to bring the resurrection and festival into conformity with what came true with the Lord, that is, in accordance with the prototype. She also takes into account not only the fourteenth day of the moon, but also the course of the sun, so that we do not celebrate two Easters in one year, and not be left without celebrating one Easter in another. But to this, although we observe the fourteenth day, we pass beyond the equinox, and finally attribute the celebration of Easter to the holy day of the Lord; We take the sheep from the tenth day, recognizing the name of Jesus by the way, so that nothing that in all truth pertains to the church and true celebration of this life-giving Passover is hidden from us. But, sealed by the power of Christ, I pass by this inflated veton, or bloated snake, and stretch my mind to the following heresies in order, calling on God for help as usual. On the heresy that does not accept the Gospel of John and his Apocalypse 161, 31st (51st) Following these heresies, after the Phrygian heresy, after the Quintillians and the so-called Quaternaries, another heresy arose in the world, like a weak reptile that cannot resist the smell of Cretan star anise (τῆς διϰτάμνου), or styrax, or rosemary (λιβανώτιδος), or the tree of God, or the smell of mountain resin, or incense, or jet stone, or deer antler. For people familiar from experience say that these substances drive away poisonous reptiles. And some call Cretan star anise a maternity herb (τίϰταμνον), because doctors use it to help women during childbirth; as a result of which we can rightfully accept him as the likeness of God the Word from above, from heaven, who was born from the Father outside of time and without beginning. Solomon says about a mad and evil wife that she hates words of affirmation (Prov. 11:15). So these too hate what is solid in preaching: because they are earthly, and they hate heavenly things. For this reason, they are afraid of the voice of the Holy Spirit, which says: the voice of the Lord makes the oil perfect (Ps. 28:9), because the Lord said to His servants and apostles: Behold, I have given you power to tread on the serpent and on the scorpion, and on all the power of the enemy (Luke 10:19). This is the voice that brings about the Holy Spirit: this is the voice that was taught to the world by the holy apostles and their teachings and evangelists to trample underfoot the resistance of the devil. From among them, Saint John became the highest, and overthrew the power of those who had fallen into error, but who had the image of the serpent. But these heretics will have no power against the ark. For the holy Noah strengthened the ark, as he was commanded by the word of the Lord, in which it was said to him: You shall polish it inside and outside (Gen. 6:14). This indicates the likeness of God’s holy church, which has, like the power of mountain tar, the power to drive away terrible and destructive serpentine teachings: for where mountain tar smokes, the snake cannot remain. Therefore, the holy incense of styrax is heavy for the heads of these heretics, and they deny its fragrance: the power of God’s tree or rosemary, naturally repugnant to the serpent himself and vegetating on top of his hole, is also heavy. For where Ebion and Cerinthus with their like-minded people preached that Christ is a simple man born of marriage, I mean, in Asia: there the Holy Spirit gave rise to the world this holy herb or bush, which drove away the serpent and destroyed the violence of the devil. For there Saint John, in his old age, was commanded by the Holy Spirit to preach and convert those who were lost to the path, revealing in the holy teaching of God the light of God to those who, not under compulsion, but willingly obey. But how long should I keep speaking? I firmly stand on the fact that just as where the tree of God grows, the snake can no longer remain and nest, so where the true teaching of God is, there the dwelling of the snake teaching cannot strengthen, but on the contrary, it bends. So the alogs say, this is the name I give them, and from now on let them be called that way, and we, beloved, will give them this name, that is, the name of the alogs. This heresy is called that which rejects the books of John. Therefore, since they do not accept the Word (Λόγον) preached by John, they will be called alogs. 162 So they, as completely alien to true preaching, renounce the purity of preaching and do not accept either the Gospel of John or his Apocalypse. And if they accepted the Gospel and rejected the Apocalypse, then we would say that perhaps they do this out of severity of judgment, not accepting the hidden, 163 because of the deep and dark sayings in the Apocalypse. But since they do not accept the actual books containing the sermon of St. John: then it is clear to everyone that what Saint John said in his conciliar epistles applies to them and others like them: the last hour is: and you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, and now, behold, there are many antichrists (1 John 2:18), and what follows further. Ashamed to contradict Saint John, because they know that he belongs to the number of the apostles, was loved by the Lord, revealed the mysteries with dignity, and reclined on the breasts of the Lord, they use a trick and try in another way to reject the books of John. They say that these are not the books of John, but the books of Cerinthus, and they claim that they are not worthy to be in the church. And they, by their very design, will immediately be exposed in that they do not understand what they say, or what they affirm (1 Tim. 1:7). For how can that which speaks against Cerinthos be Cerinthos? Cerinthus says that Christ is a recent and simple man; and John preached that He is the ever-present Word, coming from above and incarnate. Therefore, from the very beginning, their empty slander is exposed in the fact that it is stupid and does not understand what it is accused of. Apparently, they believe the same as us; but, since they do not adhere to what was undoubtedly preached to us, according to the dispensation of God, by Saint John, they will be exposed in the fact that they themselves do not know why they rebel against the knowledge of the truth. And if they want to come to their senses and understand, they will find out. For we do not reject the teachings of the Holy Spirit, which are certain and testified to be true. And they argue against themselves—I don’t want to say against the truth—that the books of John do not agree with the other apostles. And then they think that they are incriminating a holy and divine teaching. They say: “What did John say? In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word (John 1:1). And: The Word became flesh and dwelt in us: and we saw His glory, the glory of the only begotten, from the Father, full of grace and truth (–14). And after this: John bears witness, and calls out, saying: This is the one who has been cut down for you (-15), and: This is the lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world (-29.36). And after that he said: and those who heard this rested with Him: Rabbi, where do you live (-38)? And at the same time here he says: in the morning he desired to go out into Galilee: and you found Philip, and Jesus said to him: Come after Me (-43). And after this a little later he says: and after three days the marriage took place in Cana of Galilee: and Jesus and His disciples were called to the wedding supper: and she became His mother (John 2:1,2). And other evangelists say that He spent fourty days in the desert being tempted by the devil, and then returned (Luke 4:2.14) and began to receive disciples.” And these foolish people do not know that each evangelist had a concern - to speak in agreement with the other evangelists about what they said, but also to reveal what was not said by them, but left as is. For it was not in their will; но их последовательность и учение были от Духа Святого. If the heretics want to catch John: then let them know that the other three evangelists did not begin in the same order. Матфей первый начинает писать Евангелие. For he was first commissioned to proclaim the Gospel, as we have said at length about this and in the presentation of another heresy. However, it will not be a burden for us to confirm the truth and expose those who are mistaken, and to further reason about the same thing. So this Matthew, as I said, is worthy to be an evangelist; and this is very fair. For Matthew, as an example for you who have to be saved, turned from many sins, and having risen from the tollhouse, went (Matthew 9:9) in the wake of Him who came to save the human race and said: I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance (Matthew 9:13), and therefore it was necessary for him, raised from the tollhouse and turned from unrighteousness, to provide a saving sermon, so that people would learn from him how humane the coming of the Savior is. For after the remission of sins, the Savior gave him the power to raise the dead and cleanse leprosy, and the power of healing, and the power to drive out demons, so that not only in words he would convince those who listened, but also by deed he preached the good news to the lost that they would be found through repentance, to the fallen that they would be restored, to the dead that they would be made alive. So this same Matthew writes and proclaims the Gospel in Hebrew letters, and begins not with what constitutes the beginning of the Gospel, but sets out the genealogy from Abraham. Abraham says, beget Isaac, and Isaac Jacob (Matt. 1:2 ), и так далее по порядку до Иосифа и Марии (–16). И сначала ставит слова : книга родства Иисуса Христа, сына Давидова. Потом говорит: сына Авраамля. Then, having reached the very point that was required, he says: Jesus Christ’s Nativity is here: His former mother Mary Joseph, who was betrothed, had never even dreamed of before, having been found in the womb of the Holy Spirit. И Иосиф, праведен сый , искал пустити ю тай . And behold, the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying: “Do not let your wife go: what was born in her from the Holy Spirit is.” Ибо вот родит Сына, и наречеши имя Ему , Иисус: Той спасет люди Своя от грех. And this, he says, came to pass, that what was spoken from the Lord by the prophet might be fulfilled, saying: “Behold the virgin shall receive with child,” and what follows further. And rising, he says, from sleep, Joseph did so, and received his wife. And without knowing her, Dondezh gave birth to her firstborn son, and he called His name Jesus. Now Jesus was born in Bethlehem, a Judean, in the days of Herod the king, and behold, a wolf came from the east to Jerusalem, saying: Where is the King of the Jews born? Видехом бо звезду Его на востоце, и приидохом поклонитися Ему (1:18–2:2). Where is the event with Zechariah? Where is what is stated by Luke? Where is the Angel's vision? Where is the prophecy about John the Baptist? Where is the forgiveness of Zechariah, that he will not have the power to speak until what was spoken by the Angel comes true (Luke 1:20)? Where is what Gabriel said to the Virgin? Where is the proof, along with the reasonableness, of the caution of Mary, who answered this very Angel with the question: what will this be like, even if I don’t know my husband (–34)? Where is the exact and frank explanation of the Angel who said to her: The Spirit of the Lord will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you (-35)? So what can we say? since Matthew did not announce what Luke said: then does Saint Matthew really not agree with the truth? And also, isn’t Saint Luke speaking the truth when he says what happened before what was stated by Matthew? Did not God divide each one so that, having to preach, the four evangelists found what to do for each of them, and one preached accordingly and in the same way, to show that they drew from the same source, and the other, left to each individually, was narrated by the one who received the corresponding part from the Spirit? What should we do when Matthew preaches that Miriam gave birth in Bethlehem, and about Christ’s theophany in the flesh from Abraham and David, according to the genealogies set out in Matthew, and Mark turns out not to say this, but begins the Gospel with the events on the Jordan, and says: the Gospel was conceived, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet: a voice crying in the wilderness ( Mark 1:1–3)? So in the narrative of St. John, set forth undoubtedly by the action of the Holy Spirit, there was concern to speak not only about what had already been preached many times, but about what was necessary and what was omitted in the preaching of others before him. The entire presentation of the Gospels had this direction. For Matthew preached about the birth of Christ, the conception by the Holy Spirit, and the descent according to the carnal economy from the seed of David and Abraham; but others, who did not understand this, misunderstood the words of the Gospel out of their own evil intentions, and sinfully turned them into confirmation of what they themselves were convinced of; but it was not the Gospel that was to blame for their error, but, on the contrary, their sinful way of thinking. For this reason, Christ was recognized as a simple man by the accomplices of Corinth, Ebion, Merinthos, Cleovius or Cleovulus, Claudius, Demas and Hermogenes, who loved the present age (2 Tim. 4:10) and abandoned the path of truth. Contradicting the disciples of Christ, they at one time tried to confirm their madness with a genealogy from Abraham and David, and although they thought incorrectly, they nevertheless looked for a pretext for this in this Gospel. They were often disputed by Saint John and those around him: Lunius and many others. But shamelessness with an insolent brow intensified to bring trouble upon itself. Following Matthew, Mark, who was a companion of Saint Peter in Rome, receives orders to expound the Gospel, and, after writing, is sent by Saint Peter to the country of Egypt. Mark was one of the seventy-two who were scattered after the saying that the Lord said: If anyone does not eat My flesh or drink My blood, he is not worthy of Me (John 6:53.66), of which those who have read the Gospels have a clear understanding. However, having been returned by Peter, he, filled with the Holy Spirit, is worthy to be an evangelist. And he begins the sermon from the time from which the Spirit commanded him, namely, he begins the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, thirty years later than Matthew’s narrative. since he was the second evangelist, and did not clearly indicate the descent from above of God the Word, and although he pointed out very expressively, but not so precisely: then the above-mentioned erring people were for the second time darkened in their minds, due to which they were not worthy of enlightenment by the Gospel. They say: “Here, the second Gospel makes us know about Christ, and nowhere speaks of His birth from above; but on the contrary he says: in the Jordan the Spirit descended on Him, and a voice: This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased” (Mark 1:10,11). Since this happened to these foolish ones, the Holy Spirit compels and excites Saint Luke to raise the minds of these erring ones, as if from the deepest abyss, and again offer what was left by others so that none of the erring ones could think that he was explaining birth in a fabulous way. Therefore, Luke begins the word from afar, sets out the entire narrative with precise details, and introduces the former servants of Slovese as witnesses to confirm the truth. He says: “There were many beginnings” (Luke 1:1), which indicates some of those who began, I mean the accomplices of Cerinthos and Merinthos, and others. Then what does he say? I also deigned, following the order of the self-viders and servants of the former Words, to write to you the sovereign Theophilus (he said this because he was writing then either to a certain Theophilus, or to any person who loved God), about them, he says, you learned the words of all, statement (–2,–4). And he spoke about the teaching as if it had been done before, because he had already been taught by others, but did not firmly learn from them. Then he says with precision: there came to be in the days of Herod the king from the day of Abijah a certain priest named Zechariah: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaran, whose name was Elizabeth (-5). And he starts before Matthew. For Matthew indicated where the thirty year period begins; and Mark outlined what happened after thirty years, namely, similar to Matthew and Luke, he outlined the actual events on the Jordan. And Matthew began the story thirty years before the events of the baptism in the Jordan; and Luke made known the time, beginning six months before the time of the conception of the Savior in the womb, and continuing nine months with several days after the conception of the Lord, so that the total time is thirty-one years too much. He also tells about the divine vision of the shepherds of the evangelizing Angels, and about how the Lord was born in Bethlehem, was nursed in a manger (2, 7), and circumcised on the eighth day, how in forty days they made an offering for him according to the law, how Simeon received him in his hand (–28), how Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, confessed (–36. 38), and how the Lord left Nazareth and went up to Jerusalem every summer along with his parents, who did for him what followed according to the law (–41); Neither Matthew, nor Mark, nor even John talk about any of this. As a result of this, some other Hellenic philosophers, I mean Porphyry and Celsus, and Philosavvatius, who came from the Jews, this terrible serpent deceiver, spreading in refutation of the Gospel narrative, accuse the evangelists as spiritual and carnal, militant in the flesh and unable to please God, and not understanding the spiritual. Each of them, in his ignorant blindness, stumbles over the words of truth, and those who fell into this said: “How can there be a birth in Bethlehem on the same day, and on the same day an eight-day circumcision, an ascension to Jerusalem after forty days, and what was done by Simeon and Anna with Christ; because, as it is said, on the same night on which Christ was born, an angel appeared to Joseph at the departure of the wise men, who came to worship Christ, opened their vaginas and brought Him gifts, it is precisely said: an angel appeared to him, saying: rise up, take your wife and the Child, and go into Egypt, because Herod is looking for the soul of the Child (Matthew 2:13)? Therefore, if on the same night on which he was born, he was taken into Egypt, and was there until the time when Herod died (-14.15): then how could he remain up to eight days and be circumcised? Or why does Luke turn out, as the blasphemers say to their own detriment, to speak falsely about what happened forty days later, namely: on the fortieth day of His ascension to Jerusalem (Luke 2:22), and from there to Nazareth (-39)? But these, possessed by ignorance, do not know the power of the Holy Spirit. For He gave to each of the evangelists to narrate the time allotted to each, and about what was truly fulfilled at this time. And Matthew, having outlined the story only of the birth by the power of the Holy Spirit, and conception without the seed of a man, said nothing about circumcision, and nothing like that that happened to Him for two years after birth, but talks about the coming of the Magi, as the true word of the Lord testifies to us about the answer of the Magi to the question and Herod’s finding out from the Magi about the time of the appearing star (Matthew 2:7 ): from two years and the lowest (-16). Therefore, this is not the time that Luke talks about; On the contrary, Luke narrates what happened one year before, and Matthew, having spoken about the birth, skips two years of time and makes known what happened two years later. Therefore, Herod, after the Magi deviated in a different way, reflecting with himself, thought that among the multitude of children this one who was born would be found, and together with them he would be killed. For he commanded that children from two years of age and younger be killed within the borders of Bethlehem, until the day on which the wise men came to him. Therefore, who does not see from this that when the Magi came, the Child who was born was two years old? And the narration itself explains everything exactly. For Luke says that immediately after birth the Child was taken care of and laid in a manger in the cave: there was no more room in the monastery (Luke 2:7), for then there was a census. And those who were scattered from the time of the wars that took place under the Maccabees were scattered throughout the whole earth, and very few remained to dwell in Bethlehem. Therefore, in one of the Gospel lists, Bethlehem is called the city of David (Luke 2:4), and in another it is called all (John 7:42), because this land has become small. When the order of Emperor Augustus came through, and those who had been scattered had the need to come to their place for a census according to their families, the flocking crowds filled the place, and there was no room in the monastery due to the overcrowding. And then, after the census, everyone went to the edge of the earth where they had permanent residence. Therefore, this place became spacious. And the parents of Christ, at the end of the first year and after the fulfillment of the second, so to speak, in memory of the events there, came there from Nazareth, as well as to this national meeting. Therefore, the coming of the Magi coincided with this occasion, and Mary and Joseph were then probably not in the same refuge in which, according to Luke, they were when they came for the census. For the Magi did not find Mary in the cave where she gave birth. On the contrary, as it is said in the Gospel, the star guided them to the place where the Child was. And when they came to the house, they found the Child with Mary (Matthew 2:9.11), no longer in a manger, not in a den, but in the house. From this you can find out the exact truth and the two-year distance from the birth of Christ to the coming of the Magi. And on that night, two years after birth, an Angel appeared and commanded that the Mother and Child be taken to the land of Egypt. Therefore, Joseph no longer returns to Nazareth, but, together with the Child and His Mother, flees to Egypt and spends the next two years there. And then, after the death of Herod, the Angel returns him to Judea again. For in the thirty-third year of the reign of Herod the Lord was born: in the thirty-fifth the Magi came, in the thirty-seventh Herod died, and his son Archelaus became the successor to his royal dignity, who reigned for nine years, as I have already said in other places. 164 Therefore, having heard about Archelaus, he departed and came to live in Nazareth (–22.23), and from here he again went up to Jerusalem every year. Do you see how much precision there is in the divine gospels in every narrative? But those who are carried away by ignorance, having darkened their minds, do not know the purpose of each word, but simply lift up their lips and stick out their tongues (Is. 57:4) against the saints, saying nothing in truth, but alienating themselves from life. Then Luke, after narrating the first events, speaks about the coming of the Lord in the twelfth year to Jerusalem, so as not to leave room for those who thought that He appeared into the world as a perfect man and came to John at the Jordan, as Cyrinthus, Ebion and others assumed. For the terrible serpent, walking along crooked paths, does not stop at one thought; but some think that Christ was born from marriage and from the seed of a husband, and others that He appeared as a mature man. Therefore, the holy evangelists, when narrating everything, maintain accuracy down to the details. And it is natural that Luke, raising his thought from below to above, says: Jesus began to be about thirty years old, and is said to be the son of Joseph (Luke 3:23). And what is imaginary is not really. But although Joseph was recognized as a father, because it pleased God, he was not a father, since he did not touch Mary, but was only called her husband, because he was betrothed to her, but he accepted this ministry as an old man, about eighty years old (somewhat more or less), having six sons from his first actual wife, as I have stated this more precisely elsewhere. Therefore, how could he who did not touch the Wife be the Father of Christ? This is impossible. But you tell me: why was he called her husband if he did not have her as his wife? Anyone who doubts this does not know that according to the law, as soon as a virgin is named wife to her husband, even if she lives in her father’s house, then she is called the wife of the one named by her husband. Therefore, the Holy Angel says: Do not be afraid to receive your wife (Matthew 1:20). And let no one think that there is any error in the gospels. This is an amazing mystery, and beyond human storytelling; and only to the sons of the Holy Spirit is everything smooth and bright. He was, as if he were thirty years old, the son of Joseph, Eli, and Matthat (Luke 3:23,24). Then Luke brings the genealogy to Abraham, where Matthew also began, passes after Noah and reaches Adam in order to point to the first created, and this was required because Christ came from his mixture, that is, from the Holy Virgin Mary. For he came for the sake of this which was once created and those who were born from him, desiring to inherit eternal life. And stepping above Adam, Luke says: God’s (–38). From here it is already clear that the Lord was the Son of God, and came in the flesh successively from the seed of Adam. But those who fell into error were again not enlightened, but contradicted the Word, deceiving themselves from the truth. They said: “Here is the third gospel of Luke.” For it was entrusted to Luke, who himself was one of the seventy-two who were scattered due to the word of the Savior, but was again returned to the Lord by Saint Paul, and was commanded to preach the gospel himself. And he preaches first, in Dalmatia and Gaul, in Italy and Macedonia. And the beginning of his preaching in Gaul, as Paul himself says in his letters about some of Luke’s companions. Criscent, he says, is in Gaul, and not in Galatia, as some people mistakenly think; on the contrary, in Gaul (2 Tim. 4:10). 165 However, I will return to what was assumed. Although, to the disgust of those who were mistaken by error, Luke transferred the genealogy from the lower world to the heavenly one and tried to indicate the coming of God the Word from above, and at the same time touched upon His carnal economy; however, those who were mistaken did not come to their senses. Therefore, finally, the Holy Spirit, despite John’s refusal, out of reverence and humility, compels him to become an evangelist at an old age, when he was over ninety years old, upon his return from Patmos under Caesar Claudius. And after John had spent quite a few years in Asia, he was forced to expound the gospel. And he did not need to talk in detail about the carnal coming: for the teaching about this was already established. But since he followed in the footsteps of others, and ahead of him saw them straying on the obstinate, misleading and thorny path: he took care to recall them to the straight path, and to bring them to safety, he proclaimed and said: why are you mistaken? Where are you going? Where have you gotten lost: Cerinthus, Evion and others? Not really as you think. Yes, Christ was born according to the flesh; it's obvious. For I myself confess that the Word became flesh (John 1:14). But do not think that It has been since the time the flesh came into existence. It has existed not only since the time of Mary, as each of us exists from the time of birth, but before birth it has no existence. The Holy God the Word, the Son of God Christ, our Lord Jesus has been not since the time of Mary alone, and not since the time of Joseph alone, or Eli, or Levi, or Zerubbabel, or Shealtiel, or Nathan, or David, or Jacob, or Isaac, and not since the time of Adam, or Noah, or Abraham, and not since the fifth, nor the fourth, nor the third, nor the second day, 166 and not since the time we received being heaven and earth, not since the time of the world; on the contrary, in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. All things were made by Him, and without Him nothing came into existence that came into being (John 1:1.3), and what follows further. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt in us: and we saw Him (–14), Then: a man was sent from God, his name was John. He has come as a testimony, to testify to the light, so that all may believe through him. Not without the light, but let it testify to the light. There is no true light, which enlightens every person coming into the world. In the world there was no, and the world was, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. The little ones accepted Him, giving them the realm to become children of God. Who was born not of blood and not of flesh, but of God. And the Word, he says, became flesh and dwelt in us. John bears witness, and calls out, saying, “This is Him, He has been rebuked to you, and we have all received Him because of His fulfillment” (-6.16), and says: “I am not Christ” (-20), but the voice of one crying in the wilderness (-23). And according to the presentation of all this he says: this happened in Bethabara, and according to other lists: in Bethany, obon half of the Jordan (–28). And after this he shows that John’s disciples said to Him: Rabbi, where do you live? He said: she will come and see. And they went, and that day abided with Him. And in the morning, at about the tenth hour, Andrew was the brother of Simon Peter, one of both who walked in Him. First he found his brother Simon, and the verb to him, he found the Messiah, the predicate Christ. Bring him to Jesus. Jesus looked up and said: You are Simon the son of Jonah; you will be called Cephas, as it says, Peter. In the morning you desired to go to Galilee: and you found Philip, and Jesus said to him: Come after Me. Be Philip from Bethsaida, from the city of Andreov and Petrov. Philip found Nathanael, and said to him: Moses in the law, and the prophets, found Jesus the son of Joseph, who was of Nazareth. And Nathanael said to him: Can anything good come from Nazareth? Philip said to him: come and see. When Jesus saw Nathanael coming to Himself, he said about him: Behold, an Israelite indeed, in him there is no flattery. Nathanael said to Him: How do you know me? Jesus answered and said to him: “Philip, who was under the fig tree, did not even cry to you before.” Nathanael answered Him and said: You are the Son of God, you are the king of Israel. Jesus answered and said to him, saying: I saw you under the fig tree, and you believed: you will see more of these. And he said to him: Amen, amen, I say to you, see the heavens open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of man. And on the third day the marriage took place in Cana Galilee (1:38; 2:1), and so on. This John wants to show that the Lord, after forty days of temptation and after returning from this temptation and after departing to Nazareth and Galilee, about which the other three evangelists speak, came again to the Jordan. This is how it turns out from the words of John, who said: when he saw Him coming at morning, the verb: behold, the lamb of God, take away the sins of the world (1:29). And again on another day, when he saw Him coming, he said: This is the one about whom I spoke to you: for me he who came before me was, because he was greater than me (–30). And he testified, says John, saying that he saw the Spirit in the form of a dove descending and coming on Him (-32). The words: testifying, and: This is, about whom he spoke to you, show that he is talking about another and another past time, and therefore this time is not the same as the time of baptism, but different, and not that. For the Lord does not immediately after the temptation come to John, but first to Galilee, and then from Galilee to the Jordan, or, what is the same, to John. Therefore he says: This one was, about whom he spoke to you. And also the words: and John testified that he had seen the gospel, speaking as if it were a thing that had already come true some time before. After this, the beginning of Peter’s calling by Andrew is announced. Andrew came to the Lord, one of both who followed Him (1:40), who, although they were disciples of John, were still in Galilee and used the lessons of John from time to time. And after Andrew spent that day, the same hour, like the tenth (-39), it happened that on the same day he met his brother Simon and told him what was said above, namely: he had found the Messiah (-41), and brought him to the Lord, and what follows this in order, namely: the Lord said to him: you will be called Cephas (-42). And in the morning you desired to go out into Galilee: and you found Philip, and Jesus said to him: Come after me. Be Philip from Bethsaida, from the city of Andreov and Petrov (–43.44). You see: what gives us cause for reflection is that of the two disciples of John who followed Jesus, the name of one is said to be Andrew, but the name of the other is not said; why do we, on the basis of common soil, cohabitation, common art, co-working, imagine that the one whose name is not mentioned is either John or Jacob, one of the sons of Zebedee. For they must first be called, and then Philip, according to the order in which they are listed in the gospels: first Peter, then Andrew, then James, then John, and after them Philip (Matthew 10:2,3). But let’s leave talking about this now. For the study of this is complex. But we must return to what is being asked, namely, to realize that just as when they were already disciples of John, and were engaged in their craft, and were attentive students, so exactly, having spent the first day with Jesus, they left the next day and were again engaged in fishing, as it turns out from the order of the other gospels. For after Jesus went into the morning (John 1:43), after this it is said in order: on the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee: and she was the mother of Jesus. Jesus and her disciples were called to marriage (2:1,2). From a detailed examination of both sayings and their content, it should be known that Jesus took with Him other disciples who were with Him, perhaps these were Nathanael, Philip and some others. For Andrew and his companions returned back; those who remained with Jesus were invited to the wedding feast. After performing this first sign, the Lord went into the borders of Capernaum (–11. 12), and having arrived there, he settled down, and there he began to perform other signs: he healed the one who had a dry hand (Luke 6:8-10), as well as the mother-in-law of Peter, who was from Bethsaida, and got married in Capernaum, because these places are not at a great distance from each other. The Lord delivered her from a fever, and the servant was healed (Luke 4:38, 39). That's the order. After this, the Lord returned again to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and read the book of Isaiah the prophet (Luke 4:16,17). Then he warned the inhabitants of Nazareth, and said: Every time you speak to me a parable: Heal yourself to the doctor: if you heard the sign that was in Capernaum, do it here in your own country (Luke 4:23). Do you see what the true order is? And the Lord did not do anything, as it is said, because of their unbelief (Matthew 13:58). And having left there, he again settled in Capernaum. And having come to the seaside places, as Matthew says, he saw Simon Peter, and Andrew his brother, sweeping nets, and also James and John, the sons of Zebedee, and finally called them, and after throwing down the nets, they walked after Him (Matthew 4:18-22). And Luke makes exactly this event known, after which they irrevocably followed the Lord, without postponing their calling: he says: when He came to Lake Gennesaret, He saw Simon and Andrew mending nets, and boarded the ship which, as it is said, was Simonov Petrov and Andreev (Luke 5:1-3). And this shows that He was already known to them. Therefore, by acquaintance, they received Him, and He entered and sat down. Then, after the teaching, he says to Peter: go into the depths and plunge into the deep. They said: Mentor (-4.5). For they already called Him a mentor according to the testimony of John, as those who had heard before from John: Behold the lamb of God (John 1:36), take away the sins of the world (-29), and because they stayed with the Lord one day and left the next. After that, they were surprised about fishing (Luke 5:9), and Peter said: “I went out from Me, because I am a sinful man, O Lord (–8) For perhaps he repented of the fact that he was called before, and returned to the fish and to all the work of fishermen. But the Lord, encouraging him that he was not rejected, but could still accept the calling, said: do not be afraid, because, he says, from now on you will be catching people (-10). Then he beckoned to the communicant, who were among the other ships, to come and help take the caught fish, for, as it is said, Simon’s promise was besta (–7.10). So, on this basis and above, I explained that of the two who heard John and followed the Lord, one was Andrew, and the other, perhaps one of the sons of Zebedee, as we said, very appropriately concluding this on the basis of complicity in the matter, partnership and complicity. After this, these four, having left everything, that is, the ships and in general, as it is said, left everything on the earth, following His footsteps, as Luke testifies (-11). All this shows that in the holy gospels and between the evangelists there is no confusion or contradiction, but everything is clear, but there are differences in time. From that time and after that, when Peter and John and their brothers had already united with Him and followed Him, He taught throughout Galilee and Judea (Matthew 4:23), and then, with the spread of the sermon, He performed the following divine signs in order: so throughout the order of events is this. Firstly, He was baptized, according to the Egyptian reckoning, as we said, on the twelfth day of Aphira, six days before the Ides of November, 167 that is, sixty full days before the day of Epiphany, which is the day of His birth in the flesh. Thus the Gospel of Luke testifies that Jesus, when he began to be about thirty years old, was said to be the son of Joseph (Luke 3:23). For, in fact, when He came to baptism, He was twenty-nine years old and ten months old, and although thirty years old, it was not entirely. Therefore it is said: He began to be about thirty years old. Then 168 He was taken into the desert. From that time on, the order of events shows: forty days of temptation, and a little over two weeks, namely two days that the Lord spent returning from temptation to Galilee, that is, to Nazareth and its borders, and with another day on which he came to John, when John said: Behold, the lamb of God, take away the sins of the world (John 1:29). And in the morning John stood again, and two of his disciples stood. And seeing Jesus coming, the verb: Behold the Christ, the lamb of God. Then it is said: both of his disciples heard, and according to Jesus, he walked (-35-37). It was the eighteenth day after the temptation, according to what we said before, but for John the first, when Andrew and the other with him walked after Jesus, and that day remained with Him like the tenth hour (–39); Then Andrei, having found his brother Simon, brought him to Jesus (–42). Then the Gospel says: in the morning you desired to go out into Galilee: and you found Philip, and the Lord said to him: Come after Me (-43). It was the nineteenth day after the temptation; in the order of the gospel, the calling of Philip and Nathanael belongs to him. And then it is said: on the third day, after the two days about which John spoke above, the marriage took place in Cana Galilee (2:1). Therefore, by adding these twenty days to the forty days of temptation, two full months are obtained, which with ten months make a year. Then the Lord will be thirty years old from birth. And it turns out that the Lord performed the first sign of turning water into wine when He was thirty years old, as one who carefully understands the order of the Gospels can understand. Then, after this first sign, He performs other signs and preaches, showing all people His wonderful and ineffable love for mankind and the miracles of the Gospel, as many times I was forced to speak due to the ignorance of those led into deception, who dare to speak against the accuracy of the Gospels, set out in order by the Holy Spirit. For such an accurate proof will not leave room for those who go against themselves, I do not say against the truth, because this is not possible for them. It is clear that baptism was the beginning of the whole matter: for it turns out that after the day of baptism the Lord was subjected to temptation in the desert for forty days, which it was not pleasing for the Holy Spirit to make known through John, because this had already been made known by the three evangelists. And also the other evangelists had no concern for anything else; because everyone helps each of them. And besides, the truth collected from everyone turns out to be one and not inconsistent with itself. For from there, as I said, right after the temptation, the Lord comes to Nazareth, and remains there, not yet having a single disciple with Him. From here he goes to John; then Peter is called by Andrew, then Philip, and Nathanael by Philip. And let no one delve into the study of this with doubt, seeing that Andrew was the first to come to Jesus, and then Peter, and that Peter was called by Andrew, and let him not begin to be annoyed about this. Andrew was the first to meet the Lord; but he is younger than Peter in age. Subsequently, when their renunciation 169 became complete, the matter began with Peter, for he preceded his brother. And also because God knows the inclinations of the heart, and knows who is worthy to be placed first, the Lord chose Peter to be the leader of His disciples, as everything clearly proves. After that 171 they came to the Lord and stayed with Him the first day, as I said; on the other we set off; and on the third day the first divine sign was performed, and some were with the Lord: not Andrew, not Peter, not John, and not James, but, as you can understand, Nathanael, Philip and some others. Following this, the Lord went to Capernaum, and again came to Nazareth, and from there again to Capernaum and performed some of the signs, namely the healing of the one who had a withered hand and Peter’s mother-in-law, and again came to Nazareth, and read the book of Isaiah the prophet, and in it the words: The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me: It is for His anointing that I preach good news to the poor (Luke 4:17,18), and what follows for sim. This was a few days after the day of Epiphany. And according to the legend of John (Mark 1:14), he again came to Capernaum and settled there. It was then that the perfect calling of Peter and John followed, when the Lord walked by Lake Gennesaret. And in this calculation, the whole order of events is such that no contradiction is encountered, but the entire gospel narrative turns out to be very clear and preached in truth. Why did these heretics, who deceived their own minds and vomited this heresy to the world, get it into their head to reject the Gospel of John? We have rightly called their heresy dumbness, because they do not accept the Word of God who came from above, preached by John. For, not understanding the power of the Gospels, they say: “As other evangelists said, Jesus fled to Egypt on behalf of Herod, and when he came after the flight, he stayed in Nazareth; and then, after receiving baptism, he went into the wilderness, and after that he returned, and upon his return began to preach?” “But the Gospel called John,” they say, “tells a lie. For, after the words: The Word became flesh (John 1:14), and a few more, he immediately says: The marriage took place in Cana of Galilee (2:1).” But those who attracted foolishness to themselves do not remember this, that John, after saying: The Word became flesh and dwelt in us, that is, became a man, also says: He came to John the Baptist on the Jordan and was baptized by Him. John himself testifies to this, saying that John the Baptist said: This is the one who spoke to you (1:30), and also: I saw the Holy Spirit descending in the form of a dove and remaining on Him (–32,33), and: This is the one who takes away the sins of the world (–29). You see: John does not forget anything in the narrative, but omits what was said by Matthew. For there was no longer a need for this, but there was a need to present a complete refutation of those who thought that the Lord is from Mary and in this world is called Christ and the Son of God, and that He was first of all a simple man, but gradually took the name Son of God. Therefore, John has concern for what is necessary, and although everything is great and necessary, he most of all explains the heavenly secrets of the heavenly economy. But those who have completely given themselves up to error and are blind in mind say that the Gospel of John is not worthy of acceptance, 172 because it does not say what the other Gospels say - I’m talking about the forty-day temptation - and they do not merit acceptance of this Gospel. Coming fourth in the succession of the evangelists, Blessed John, after Peter and Andrew, the first by calling together with his brother James, but the last of those who wrote the Gospel, did not bother to expound what was well expounded before him, but preferably before what was said, he chooses what was not said and talks about it. For Matthew begins with Abraham, and after the beginning and after two years after Christmas he begins the story again. Mark begins with the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, and sets out the middle of what follows the beginning. Before the beginning, Luke lays down another beginning, that is, the story of Elizabeth and Mary, before she became pregnant in her womb. And John, although the first by calling, but the last of the evangelists in terms of the time of preaching, confirms his narrative even before coming in the flesh. For he speaks most of all about spiritual things, since those things pertaining to the flesh have been clearly stated. Therefore, he spiritually narrates the story of a gift from above from the beginningless Father, which descended for us, by the favor of the Father, into the womb of the Holy Virgin. And he did not keep silent about what was necessary, but, moved by the Holy Spirit, he represents the pre-eternal existence of God the Word, born without beginning and without time from the Father, and declares that for our sake He came in the flesh, so that we could receive from the four evangelists exactly all knowledge regarding the flesh and the Divinity of the Lord. For after fulfilling everything pertaining to baptism and redemption, Jesus went, and, as I have said many times, after meeting John on the Jordan, he spent several days in Nazareth and its borders and near Capernaum, the next day he received some disciples, and performed this first sign in Cana on the third day after meeting John, and after returning from temptation and from the beginning of the sermon - on the twentieth. For it is not said that Christ came to the marriage before the temptation. And in general, before the temptation, Christ did not perform any divine sign and did not begin a sermon, but did he do anything while playing in childhood, as is told about Him. For He also had to have childish signs, so that there would be no pretext for other heresies to say that Christ, that is, a dove, descended on Him on the Jordan. And this is really said on the basis of the numerical value of omega and alpha, 173 which make up the number of the dove; because the Savior said: I am Alpha and I am Omega (Apoc.1:8). Therefore, Luke introduces Jesus in the twelfth year from birth, during an interview with teachers in Jerusalem, saying to Mary who was looking for Him: Do you not know that in those who are My Father, I am worthy to be (Luke 2:49)? From this, the teaching of those who say that Christ became the Son of God from the time of baptism, when a dove descended on Him, which, according to them, is Christ, must fall. And it should be clear from this that God the Word came from above, and having come was incarnate of Mary, and on the Jordan the Spirit descended on Him, to signify who He is of whom the Father testifies: this is My beloved Son (Matthew 3:17): Hear ye Him (Matthew 17:5); and also this, for those who receive enlightenment from Him, should serve as an example of the fact that by the grace given from Him, they too will be rewarded in the font with the gift of the Holy Spirit and the remission of sins. After that, during his preaching, He began to perform perfect divine signs, as it is said: Jesus did this first sign in Cana of Galilee (John 2:11); and not before baptism, as I have said many times, but when he returned after temptation, on the third day after those two days, during which he had two disciples of John who heard and followed Him. For right after those two days during which they were with Him. John adds; went out to Galilee, and having found Philip, he said: come after Me (1:43), and then after this: on the third day there was a marriage in Cana Galilee (2:1). since the marriage was soon to take place, and the Lord was leaving, out of respect for Him it was necessary to call Him to bless the marriage. And John says: the marriage took place on the third day in Cana of Galilee; and be that Mother of Jesus. Jesus and His disciples were quickly called to marriage (2:1,2); for it was necessary, after he was called to the marriage, to ask Him for the blessing of the marriage. And I lack, it is said, wine, the verb of the Mother of Jesus: they have no wine. And Jesus said to her, “What do you have for me and for you, woman?” My hour has not come (–3.4). After coming from the desert, as a result of 174 temptations, He was taken to Jerusalem and placed on the church hill (Matthew 4:5), and from Jerusalem was transferred to a high mountain (-8), which, as many say, is Mount Tabor, that is, Itavirius; and this is in Galilee. This is the order outlined by Matthew, who said: When Jesus heard that John was betrayed, he went into Galilee (-12). And Luke, who also precisely pointed to the transfer from the mountain, first spoke about the mountain and about the kingdoms that the devil showed to the Lord (Luke 4:5), and then speaks about the krill and Jerusalem (–9), and about how the Lord returned to Galilee (–14) and to Nazareth (–16). In agreement with this, Matthew also says: he left Nazareth and came to Capernaum (Matthew 4:13). For the Lord came to Nazareth and from there to the Jordan to John, and after crossing the Jordan he again rushed home, to where he was raised, that is, to his Mother in Nazareth, and stayed there for two days, when Andrei and his friend were with Him; then he hastened, for the sake of saving people, to begin preaching. Here, because He came after a long time, He stayed for two days, having with Him the disciples He had accepted, and having dismissed the two who followed Him, He then went to Galilee to preach and to perform the divine sign He performed at the wedding. See how the word is confirmed that John the Baptist testifies, speaking as of a thing that has already passed: and I did not know Him: but he who sent me to baptize spoke to me; over him you will see the Spirit descending in the form of a dove, He is (John 1:32,33). For the Father, sending John to baptize, gave him this sign, so that when he saw him, he would recognize the Savior and Benefactor of our souls sent from above to the world. Thus these heretics are refuted by the truth and accuracy of these writings, and especially by the agreement of the four Gospels. For no one who thinks well will deny what is accurately said by the Holy Spirit in the divine Gospels. Although 175 heretics say: “the evangelists Matthew, Mark and Luke tell about the Savior that after baptism he was quickly taken up into the wilderness (Matthew 4:1), and spent fourteen days being tempted (Mark 1:13; Luke 4:2), and after the temptation, hearing that John was betrayed, he came to live in Capernaum in Pomorie ( Matthew 4:12,13): and John lies, because he did not say this”: but they will immediately turn out to be completely ignorant of the accuracy of the Gospel, by the very fact that the Evangelist John says about the first day when the Savior came to John, and about other actions of the Savior. For the Evangelist John makes it known that the Lord, before the tradition of John the Baptist, came to him after the days of temptation. According to the legend of John, how was it possible for the Savior to come to him again at the Jordan? But the heretics do not know that the other three evangelists tell about the time according to the tradition of John (Mark 1:14), saying with precision: when Jesus heard that John was betrayed, he left Nazareth and settled in Capernaum in Pomorie (Matthew 4:12:13). You see that in truth everything is said according to the four evangelists: for, apparently, John also narrates in this order: after the first sign was performed, the Savior came to Capernaum and performed some signs there, went up to Nazareth and read the book, and then, when the baptist was betrayed, he came and settled in Capernaum for many days. These days followed the day of theophany, after His walk to Capernaum and Nazareth, and His ascension to Jerusalem for Easter, and after a new coming to John at the place where he baptized, in Aenon, near Salem. For this is what the Evangelist John says: for this reason He and His Mother and His brethren went to Capernaum: and those days were not many (John 2:11). He indicates a non-permanent residence, about which later, according to the tradition of John (Mark 1:14), it is said: having come to live in Capernaum in Pomorie (Matthew 4:13). And the Passover of the Jews is near, he says, and Jesus has gone up to Jerusalem. And you will find oxen and sheep and doves and stumps of stumps sold in the church. And after driving out these same penniants and sellers of doves and other things, he said: Take this from here: and do not make a purchase for My Father’s house (John 2:13-16), and I heard from them: what sign have you shown us, that you have done this? And I said to them: Destroy this church, and in three days I will raise it up (-18,19). And Nicodemus came to Him (3:1,2). And having said a lot more, the evangelist continues: Jesus and His disciples came to the land of the Jews: they lived with them and were baptized. John was in Aenon near Salem, for there was a great abundance of water. It was not John who was imprisoned (–22–24). And after many words of John about having a bride, he has a groom (-29), the Gospel then says: when Jesus realized that the Pharisee had heard that Jesus was creating and baptizing many disciples, even 176 John: Jesus did not baptize Himself, but His disciples: leave the land of Judea, and go back to Galilee. It was fitting for Him to pass through Samaria (4:1-4). Then He sat by the well and talked with the Samaritan woman, and the Samaritan woman told the inhabitants of the city about Him, and the Samaritans came to Him and besought Him to remain with them: and He remained for two days. And you believed much more for His word (-40,41). After two days He went to Galilee (–43). And there was a certain king’s husband, his son was sick in Capernaum (–46). At that time Jesus said to him: Go, your son is alive. And she had faith (-50), and the boy was healed. The Gospel adds: Jesus performed the second sign, coming from Judea to Galilee (–54). After this there was a Jewish holiday (I think that we are talking about another Jewish holiday, namely the feast of either Pentecost, or the setting up of tabernacles), and Jesus went up to Jerusalem (5:1). At this time, having come to the sheep's font, on Saturday He healed the paralytic, who had been ill for thirty and eight years (-5). After this the summer was fulfilled pleasantly (Luke 4:19), and then they began to persecute Him from the time when He healed the paralytic at the font on the Sabbath. Then the Gospel again says: the Jews persecuted Jesus even more, because not only did He destroy the Sabbath, but He also declared His Father to be God, and created equal to God (John 5:16.18). Therefore, do not those heresies deserve condemnation which represent the Son as the poorest of the Father? Equal, they say, when creating to God. The Gospel continues: after this Jesus went to the floor of the sea of ​​Galilee and Tiberias: and many people walked along Him, seeing the signs that He did on the sick. Therefore Jesus went up to the mountain, and sat down with His disciples. After that there was Easter, the Jewish holiday (6:1-4), as the other Gospels speak about. According to the legend of John, he came to live in Capernaum in Pomorie (Matthew 4:13). So it turns out that John himself speaks in agreement with others. For Easter occurs in the month of March or April, and this shows that the Savior, after temptation, comes to John at completely different times. These same heretics also accuse the holy evangelist, or rather the Gospel itself, for the fact that, as they say, according to John, the Savior celebrated two Passovers over the course of two years, while other evangelists talk about one Passover. But the ignorant do not know that, as we have shown everywhere, the Gospels recognize not only two Easters, but having spoken about the first two Easters, they also speak about another Easter, on which the Savior suffered, so that from the time of baptism and from the beginning of the sermon for three years until the cross there were three Easters. For the Savior was born in the forty-second year of the reign of the Roman emperor Augustus, in the consulate of this same Octavius ​​Augustus, the thirteenth, and Silanus, as is in the consular lists of the Romans: for so it is stated in them. Under these consuls, that is, in the thirteenth consulship of Octavius ​​and the consulate of Silanus, Christ was born on the eighth day before the Ides of January, 177 thirteen days after the turn of winter and the beginning of the presence of light and day. And this day the Hellenes—I’m talking about idolaters—celebrate on the eighth day before the Kalends of January: 178 among the Romans it is called Saturnalia, among the Egyptians it is called Kronia, 179 and among the Alexandrians it is called Kikellia. For on the eighth day before the January calendars, this turning point occurs, that is, a turning, and the day begins to increase, and the light receives an increase. On the eighth day before the Ides of January, that is, on the day of the Nativity of Christ, thirteen days are completed, and a thirtieth part of an hour is added to each day. So the Syrian sage Ephraim testified to this in his interpretations, saying: “For thus the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, His fleshly birth, or perfect incarnation, which is called theophany, is located at a distance of thirteen days from the beginning of the increase of light. For this too had to be the image of our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, Who with His twelve disciples completed the thirteenth number of days of the increase of light. 180 And how many other things have been done and are being done on the basis and as evidence of this - I’m talking about the Nativity of Christ? For even the founders of idolatry, forced to admit partly the truth, albeit with deception, to the deception of the idolaters who trusted them, in many places celebrate the greatest festival on this very night of theophany, so that those who put their trust in error do not seek the truth. Firstly, in Alexandria, in the so-called Coria; this is a vast church, that is, the church of Kore. 181 Here they spend the whole night in vigil, singing some songs with pipes to the idol, and after the all-night celebration, after the roosters crow, they go with lamps into some sacred dungeon, and from there they bring out a certain naked wooden idol, sitting on a stretcher with a gilded seal of a cross on its forehead, and with two other similar seals on both hands, and with two others even on two knees, and in total five seals stamped in gold; This idol is carried seven times around the middle of the church with pipes, timbrels and chants, and after this rejoicing the idol is taken back to an underground place. When asked what kind of sacrament this is, they answer with the words: this day at this very hour Kora, which means a virgin, gave birth to a century. This is also done in the city of Petra (this is the main city in Arabia, or, which is also in Edom, mentioned in Scripture), in the idolatry there: there they sing of the maiden in the Arabian dialect, calling her in Arabic haamu, 182 which means: maiden, or virgin, and they also sing of Dusar, who was born by her, that is, her only begotten son lords. The same thing is done in the city of Elusa on the same night, as there in Petra and Alexandria. And that the carnal birth of the Savior, which took place in Bethlehem at the eighth hour, is properly called a phenomenon (τὰ ἐπιφἀνεια), this, for the sake of unbelievers, we are forced to confirm with many proofs. The Savior was born and was revealed to the shepherds and the world by the testimony of Angels. He also appeared to Mary and Joseph. And at that same hour a star appeared to the wise men in the east, two years before their arrival in Jerusalem and Bethlehem, when Herod carefully scouted from these same wise men the time of the star that appeared (Matthew 2:7), and heard from them: from two years ago and below (16). And this very word, that is, what Herod says about the appearing star, gives rise to this name for the phenomenon. Therefore, when the wise men say: where is the king of the Jews born? We saw His star in the east, and when we breathed, we worshiped Him (–2); Herod saw that this was not about a simple man, a king. For he thought about the matter, and was surprised that there were many kings in Jerusalem, firstly Saul from the tribe of Benjamin, secondly David from the tribe of Judah, and his son Solomon, the son of Solomon Rehoboam, and his sons by succession, and not once at the birth of any of them did a star appear, and there was no coming of the wise men so that they would come to worship the born king, but all this was only now. Having considered this and penetrating his mind to the knowledge of the truth, he realized that this is not a human sign, but is characteristic only of the Lord. Therefore, he no longer asks about an earthly king or a human king, but about Christ, when he says to the scribes and priests: where is Christ born (-4)? And he heard from them: in Bethlehem the Jews (-5) Having asked them, he learned about the place, and from the wise men he learned about the time. For these same wise men came to Bethlehem two years later on the same day of theophany, and brought gifts: myrrh, gold, and frankincense (-11). Indeed, on this day of theophany, many events began that served as signs of theophany. And this day, as I said above, and am forced to say many times, in the thirteenth consulate of Octavius Augustus with Silanus, is the eighth before the Ides of January, so that from the beginning of the existence of light and day, or, what is also, from the winter turn, that is, from the eighth day before the Kalends of January, until this day of birth and theophany, there are thirteen days, according to the above-explained image of the Savior Himself, Who, with His twelve disciples, makes the thirteenth number. So the Savior was born in the forty-second year of the reign of the Roman emperor Augustus, in the consulate about which it is written above, twenty-nine years after Augustus annexed the Jews. And Augustus reigned for thirteen years until the complete annexation of Judea to the Romans. From the time of the accession of Augustus, for more or less four years from the beginning of his reign, the Romans were on friendly terms with the Jews, sent them auxiliary troops, a guard was supplied to the Jews, and part of the taxes were paid to the Romans for more or less five years, until the time when, with the end of the princes from Judas, and the installation of Herod from the pagans, although proselyte, Judea was finally betrayed to the Romans and became their tributary. Then Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea and came to preach. Then the anointed leaders from Judah and Aaron ceased, continuing until the anointed leader Alexander and Salina, also called Alexandra; at the same time, the prophecy of Jacob was fulfilled: the prince from Judah, and the leader from his loins, will not come to the end that was set aside for Him: and that is the hope of the tongues (Gen. 49:10); this is the born Lord. All this began to happen from the time of the birth in Bethlehem, which took place in the forty-second year of the entire reign of Augustus. This year was after the fifth year, when the guardianship of Antipater, Herod's father, began, and when the Romans were on friendly terms with the Jews and took part of the tributes from them; -after the guardianship of Antipater, which lasted from the sixth year of Augustus to the ninth year of his reign and the year of the installation of Herod, during which part of the taxes was given, starting from the tenth year to the thirteenth (this was the fourth year of the reign of Herod, appointed by Augustus); after the fourth year of the reign of Herod, when Judea was completely betrayed to the Romans, and all of Judea was under their rule until the thirty-third year of Herod, when the reign of Augustus was forty-two years old, that is, as I said, twenty-nine years after it was made tributary to the Romans, and after Herod’s father Antipater was appointed guardian, and after him, by the will of Augustus, Herod was made king over Judea in the twelfth year of the reign of Augustus himself. 1) This happened in the consulate of Octavius ​​Augustus the thirteenth, and the consul of Silanus, as I have said many times; This consulate was successively followed by the consulates listed below in the following order: 3) Luke 183 Caesar and Paul, 9) Camilla and Quintilliana, 15) Two Sextus: Pompey and Apuleius, 19) Tiberius Caesar the second and Drusus Germanicus the second, 22) Tiberius Caesar third, and Drusus Germanicus third, 24) Pollio and Vetera; 188 26) Agrippa the second, and Lentulus Galba, You see: this is thirty years time. For this purpose, we took pains to present the consulates exactly as they follow in order, so that those who pass by can see that there is nothing counterfeit in the true divine teaching, but on the contrary, everything is exactly preached by the church. For who, having counted a series of consulates in which there can be no errors, will not condemn those who think that there is a disagreement in the designation of the number of years among the evangelists? That is why the former heresies of Valentine and some others fell, having fabulously compiled a list of thirty aeons, which they thought to liken to the years of the Savior, precisely in order to be able to compile their fabulous list of aeons and beginnings. For it turns out that the Only Begotten, although He was not involved in suffering, like God the Word who came from above, but since He accepted suffering for us in the flesh in order to destroy the handwriting of death on us (Col. 2:14), He suffered in the thirty-third year from His coming in the flesh. After that consulate, indicated in the thirtieth year of the reign of Augustus, there came another consulate, called the consulate of the two Gemini, then another - the consulate of Rufus and Ruvellion, and then during the consulate following the consulate of Ruvellion, and this consulate that came after this was the so-called consulate of Vinicius 189 and Longinus Cassius, then There is in the eighteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, the Savior suffered on the thirteenth day before the April calendars. Thus, the error of all these heretics is exposed, because from the true teaching it is clearly revealed that in the Gospels there are not only two, but even three continuations of time from one Easter holiday to another. For the Savior was born in the month of January, precisely on the eighth day before the Ides of January; among the Romans it is the sixth day of January, coming from the evening of the fifth day, among the Egyptians it is the eleventh day of Tiwi, 190 among the Syrians or Hellenes it is the sixth day of Abdeneas, 191 among the Cyprians or Salamis it is the fifth day of the fifth month, among the Paphosians it is the fourteenth day of July, 192 among the Arabs it is the twenty-first day of Alson, among the Cappadocians it is the thirteenth day Atartava, among the Athenians - the sixth 193 Memaktirion, 194 among the Jews - the fifth day of Tevith. For in this too the words of the prophet were to be fulfilled: the ark of God has come down to us (2 Chronicles 8:11). He speaks of the perfect incarnation of Christ on the fifth day of the fifth month; as happened then among the Jews. This originally had to be fulfilled according to the Jewish reckoning; This reckoning was followed by many of the pagan peoples, such as the Romans, who celebrate this day on the evening of the fifth day and at dawn on the sixth; the Cyprians, who celebrate the same fifth day of the month: the natural Egyptians and Salamis, who consider this same month to be the fifth, just as the Jews, from the new year they celebrate, consider this month to be the fifth. 195 Then twenty-nine of the above-mentioned full consulates passed; and in the thirtieth consulate, precisely about the tenth month, the Savior came to John and was baptized in the Jordan River in the thirtieth year from His carnal birth, according to the calculation of the Egyptians on the twelfth day of Atyr, that is, on the sixth day before the Ides of November, which is the eighth day of Diya among the Hellenes, 196 among the Salaminians, who are also the Constantians, the sixth day of the third month. Hoyaka, among the Paphosians - the sixteenth day of Agogonik, 197 among the Arabs the twenty-second day of Agafalvaif, among the Macedonians the sixteenth day of Apelleus, 198 among the Cappadocians the sixteenth day of Aratata, among the Athenians - the seventh day of Metagitnion; among the Jews it is the seventh day of Mareshvan. This position of mine is supported, as I have repeatedly said, by the Holy Gospel of Luke, which speaks in a similar way: Jesus began to be about thirty years old, and is said to be the son of Joseph (Luke 3:23). From that time on, that is, from the twelfth day of Ather, He preached the pleasant year of the Lord, according to what was predicted by the prophet Isaiah: The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, for the sake of My anointing, to bring good news to the poor of My ambassador, to preach release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to preach the pleasant year of the Lord, and the day of recompense (Is. 61: 1, 2) For in truth He preached the year of the Lord pleasantly, that is, without controversy. In the first year after the thirtieth year from His coming in the flesh, He preached, and everyone accepted, and neither Jews, nor pagans, nor Samaritans argued, but on the contrary, everyone listened to Him with delight. In this year He entered Jerusalem, after baptism, and after forty days of temptation, and those twenty days before the first sign, which we spoke about above, and after the election of the disciples; Having returned after the temptation to the Jordan, and having crossed the Sea of ​​Tiberias, going to Nazareth, He apparently entered Jerusalem. And in the midst of the holiday you called, saying: If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink (John 7:37). From here He went to Nazareth, Judea, Samaria and the borders of Tire. At the end of the first year, He ascends again to Jerusalem, and then I sought that they might have Him (-30) on the feast, but they were afraid. About this holiday He said: I will not go out on this holiday (-8). And he didn’t say a lie, not at all. For it is said: at half-time of the feast he went and went up to Jerusalem (–14). And the verb: Isn’t this the one they were trying to capture? And he says this without hesitation. Didn’t the priests know that this is Christ? But we are from where this is (–25–27). He talked with His brothers mysteriously and spiritually; and they did not understand what He was saying. And He told them that on this holiday He would not ascend to the church and to the cross in order to complete the dispensation of His suffering and the mystery of salvation, to rise from the dead and ascend to heaven; all this was accomplished by Him according to His own authority. And after completing two years after this, that is, from the day of baptism and birth, after the month of November, and after the month of January, and those following it, already in the thirty-third year from His coming in the flesh, after the lapse of the two consulates about which we spoke, namely, the consulate of the two Gemins, and the consulate of Rufus and Ruvellion; in the third consulate, in its third month, that is, after January and February, in the month of March He performs the sacrament of suffering - He is God the Word, not involved in suffering, who suffered for us in the flesh, but remains in His non-participation in suffering, as Peter says: being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the Spirit (1 Pet. 3:18). The Savior suffered on the thirteenth day before the Kalends of April, after the day passed into the evening, that is, when the fourteenth day of the moon was at night. For they ate Easter 199 prematurely, as the Gospel says, and we spoke many times. So they ate Passover two days before the time when they should have eaten, that is, on the third day of the week in the evening; but it was necessary to eat on the fifth day in the evening, for this fifth day was the fourteenth. 200 And the Savior was taken late on the third day; it was the sixteenth day before the Kalends of April, the eleventh day of the moon at night. The coming fourth day of the week was the fifteenth before the April calendar; day of the moon at night the twelfth. The fifth day is the fourteenth before the April calendar; the day of the moon is the thirteenth during the day, and the fourteenth at night 201. Saturday Eve is the thirteenth day before the calendar of April; day of the moon in the afternoon 202 fourteenth. Saturday is the twelfth day before the April calendar; day of the moon in the afternoon 203 fifteenth. On the coming day of the Lord, the day of the moon at night 204 fifteenth; That's when hell, earth, sky, night and day were illuminated with light: on the fifteenth day of the moon, and according to the course of the sun, because the resurrection and equinox are on the eleventh day before the Kalends of April, 205 as a result of which the Jews fell into error and crossed, as I said before, one day. When calculated to the finest detail, it turns out that there are several hours, of which over the course of three years the Jews make up one day difference: for, in addition to three hundred and fifty-four days, they add four more hours for each year according to the lunar course, of which in three years one day is made up. Therefore, 206 they have five additional months in fourteen years, and up to three hundred and sixty-five days and three hours of 207 solar revolution one hour is missing, for even with the added hours there are three hundred and sixty-five days without one hour. Therefore, the Jews, after repeating fourteen years six times, insert one additional month into the eighty-fourth year; so that in eighty-five years they have thirty-one such months, while according to exact calculation there should be thirty-one months, and twenty-four days with three hours. 208 Therefore, having made a mistake then, the Jews, in confusion, not only ate the Passover two days before the proper time, but on top of that they transgressed one day and sinned in every possible way. In the economy of truth, everything was done with all precision for our salvation. Therefore, the Savior Himself, having celebrated the Passover, went out into the mountain (Luke 22:39) after having desired (-15) and ate the Passover. And He ate the Jewish Passover there with the disciples, having acted no differently, but on an equal basis with those who did the same, so as not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). And thus, after the thirtieth year in which he was baptized, in the thirty-first year He preached for a whole summer without contention; He preached another year amidst bickering, persecution and irritation against him; and also, after this other year, from the day of His birth, that is, from the day of theophany, which occurs from the fifth to the sixth day of the month of January, and according to the Egyptian reckoning on the eleventh day of Tiwi, until the day, as we said above, the thirteenth before the April calendars, a full seventy-four 209 days passed; and then, and according to the Egyptian reckoning on the twenty-fourth day of Phamenoth, he completed thirty-two full years and seventy-four days from the day of theophany. He resurrected, according to the Egyptian reckoning, on the twenty-sixth day of Phamenoth (when the equinox was after the night, and the equinoxes were after the twenty-fifth day), and on the eleventh before the calends of April. From this it appears that all those who are not sons of truth are deceitful. Here is the first of them, Valentine, who composed for us a theatrical spectacle of thirty aeons on the basis that the growth and maturation of the Savior lasted thirty years, as he thought, not knowing that the Savior not only lived thirty years, but in the thirtieth year, namely, after completing twenty-nine years and ten months, on the twelfth, as we said above, day of Aphira, and on the sixth before the Ides of November, he was baptized, and then preached summer The Lord is pleased, and after this year he preached another year amidst quarrels, and still amidst quarrels seventy-four days, from the day of baptism, which was earlier than the day of His birth; so that all the years of His coming in the flesh, from His birth to His suffering, were thirty-two years and seventy-four days; and from the beginning of the consulate of Silanus and Nerva - two years and one hundred and thirty-four days. 210 By this the above-mentioned Valentine and many madmen like him are exposed. And those who reject the Gospel of John are also denounced, whom I can rightly call alogues because they reject the Word of God, the God preached by John, the Word of the Father, who came down from heaven and brought about our salvation through His entire coming in the flesh; because by the enumeration of consulates and years, and by the testimony of the prophet Isaiah, and by the Gospel of Luke, and John, and Matthew, and Mark, and everyone in general, these erring ones are convicted of the fact that the Savior performed not only the Passover during the annual cycle of time, from the beginning of the sermon, but even performed three such cycles without anything after the baptism by John. So the teaching of these stupid people fell, completely filled with delusion, unreason and ignorance, not only not knowing their own life, but generally taking up arms against the truth with lies. For, as we found, the following words are written nowhere: “The Word of God was born from God in the fortieth year of Augustus.” Either the writer wrote this in error, or it was only forty years since the number signified by the twist, 211, was erased, and only mi remained. 212 For the Savior was born in the forty-second year of Augustus. It is also said: “on the twelfth day before the July or June (I can’t say) calends, at the consulate of the consuls of Sulpicius, Camirinus 213 and Buteon, 214 Pompeian.” But I noticed that those who spoke about the day of conception, when Gabriel preached the gospel to the Virgin, expressed the opinion of some who said, according to tradition, that the Savior was born after seven months: for from this 215 time until the eleventh day of Tiwi and the eighth before the Ides of January, when truly theophany took place and the Savior was born, we found the continuation of time seven months less four days according to the lunar course. Therefore, if you find this written anywhere in the records, do not err in knowledge: for the truly undoubted day of the birth of Christ is the eleventh day of Tiwi. And others, bearing in mind the saying of Solomon: in the ten months the blood was thickened (Wis. 7:2), they say that the Savior was carried in the womb for ten months without fourteen days and eight hours, that is, nine months and fifteen days with four hours. However, in any case, the carnal birth of the Lord took place on the above-mentioned eleventh day of Tiwi according to the Egyptian reckoning. On the same eleventh day, thirty years later, the first sign was done in Cana of Galilee, when water became wine. Therefore, to this day, because of the divine sign that was performed then, in many places this happens as a testimony to unbelievers, as evidenced by the transformation of springs and rivers into wine in many places, namely, the source in the Carian city of Quivir at the hour when the servants 216 drew water, and the Savior said: give it to the Architriclinus (John 2:8): the transformation of the source in Gerasa of Arabia also testifies. We ourselves drank from the spring of Quivira, and our brothers drank from the spring in Geras, located in the martyr's church (ἐν τῷ μαρτυρίῳ). Many testify to this about the Nile in Egypt. Therefore, on the eleventh day of Tiwi, according to the Egyptian reckoning, both in Egypt itself and in many other countries everyone draws water and conserves it. For this is what we find: after the twelfth day of Aphira, the Savior left and, after forty days of temptation, came to Nazareth, and stayed there for about two weeks. He came to the Jordan to John for three days, and spent the first and second days, and returned to Nazareth, and stayed there the first and second days, and on the third he went to Cana of Galilee. So from baptism all sixty days were fulfilled: forty days of temptation, in Nazareth two weeks, 217 and other two days, and on the third the sign was performed over the water at the wedding. After this, the Savior went to Capernaum and did other signs, as we have said many times, and again coming to Nazareth, read the book of the prophet Isaiah, why they say to Him: Do here also the signs that I heard You did in Capernaum (Luke 4:23). And then He came again to Capernaum, and from there he went to the lake or sea of ​​Gennesaret, finally chose the companions of Peter, and with this completely completed the sermon there. For the first day and the next morning, as we said, came in order after forty days and the other two weeks, and the two days spent with John. The Savior returned to Nazareth and stayed from the tenth hour until the evening, and the next day he went out and met with Philip; here are two days. After this, the Gospel, because of the first two days that He spent after His coming, tells with indispensable accuracy: on the third day the marriage took place in Cana of Galilee (John 2:1). This was a sign of the church. For the Savior, after suffering, rose again on the third day of His sojourn in the hearts of the earth (Matthew 12:40), and married Cana. For Kana means: the one who has acquired. 218 Who is this one who has acquired it, if not the heiress, about whom the psalmist in the fifth psalm said: about the inheritor (Ps. 5:1), and what further follows from this? And this marriage is truly blessed, for the reason that it was an image of it. For there, in Cana of Galilee, the marriage was sensual, and the water really became wine. The Savior was called for two reasons: to give the watery marriage of those turning in the world the astringent property of chastity and sedateness, and to correct what is missing, bringing joy to those who drive away worries with wine and pleasure, and through this completely stop the lips of those who rebel against the Lord, and to show that He, together with the Father and His Holy Spirit, is God, giving moisture to the vine, and coloring this moisture in it into wine, fun for people. But we have stated this in more detail in other places; and here I touched on this topic as if in passing. From what I have said in detail about the days, months and consulates, it follows that the Savior, after the beginning of His preaching, celebrated two Passovers, and suffered on the third. Thus the sinful teaching of these heretics falls completely; because the Gospels agree with each other, and none of the evangelists finds anything contrary to the other. But let me turn again to what should be addressed. Luke, testifying in favor of what I have said in many details and in a variety of ways, also says: it came to pass on the second Saturday (Luke 6:1). By this he makes it clear that the first Sabbath is the one that was established from the beginning and called so by the Lord at the creation of the world, and from that time until now returns alternately after seven days, and the second Sabbath is the one that was established by law. For the law says: take for yourself a sheep of the first year, without blemish, male (and this was a type of the Savior), from the tenth day of the month. And it will be observed until the fourth day, and you will slaughter it on the evening of the fourteenth day. And Saturday will be a holy day for you. Eat unleavened bread seven days, and the seventh day you will make holy (Ex. 12:3.5,6.14–16). You see that, after the first Sabbath, this holy day of the Passover lamb is called the second Sabbath, 219 becoming a Sabbath after consecration, even if it were the Lord’s day, even if it happened on the second or third day from the Sabbath. Upon returning again after seven days, the second Saturday is called the first. From these words of Luke it turns out that not only John, but also Luke and others make it possible to see the biannual reversal of time and the three feasts of Easter. For the law, referring to Pentecost, says this: You shall number for yourself seven weeks from the beginning of the binding of the sheaves, from the day of laying the sickle in the harvest. And may you make the seventh week 220 a holy day for the Lord (Deut. 16:9,10). The law commanded that the sheaf be brought within three days after the Passover sacrifice, that is, three days after the slaughter of the lamb (Lev. 23:11). This indicates that blessed Sheaf, who rose from the dead after three days, which was brought by the earth, and also brought Himself out of it, having risen from the grave, stayed with the disciples for forty days and at the end of Pentecost ascended Himself to the Father in heaven; He is the firstborn of the firstborn, the holy firstfruits, the sheaf reaped from Mary, the hilt embraced by God, the fruit of the womb, the firstfruits of the threshing floor. For after Pentecost the sickle does not bring the firstfruits to God: as it is written: To whom Christ dies no more: death hath no more possession of Him (Rom. 6:9). Do you see what mysteries of God the law prefigured and the Gospel fulfilled? And why can’t we prove this with clarity? But I'm afraid to spread the word. Therefore, we must return again to what follows in order. From what is said about the ears of corn, about the harvest, about the disciples, it is clear that John, Luke and everyone else are talking about all this after the forty-day temptation. But these heretics, thinking whether they can somehow refute the truth, are not ashamed to even arm themselves against what St. John said, not knowing that they are arming themselves more against themselves than against sound teaching. In mocking the Apocalypse, they say the following: “What,” they say, “does the Apocalypse of John benefit me, which tells me about seven angels and seven trumpets (Apoc. 8:2)?” And they do not know how necessary and useful this is when presenting a sermon correctly. For what was dark and mysterious in the law and the prophets, the Lord, for our salvation, providentially revealed by the Holy Spirit to His servant John, what was dark there, preaching here spiritually and clearly. The Lord arranges the same thing for us spiritually. And it is precisely then that he builds a tabernacle of skins, blackened and blue skins (Ex. 25:5), and so on, to show that the tabernacle there, although it is a tabernacle, is built in anticipation of the most perfect tabernacle of Christ. For the skin is removed from a dead body, as if it were a shade of a living body. From which we can see that the tabernacle of God is made up of bodies, because God dwells in the body of the saints, which fulfills the saying: I will dwell in them and walk around (2 Cor. 6:16). Therefore, some kind of error would have been born among the faithful if the book had not been opened to us spiritually to teach us that we do not need trumpets, but to know that every act of God is spiritual, so that we would receive preaching not like the Jewish brass or silver trumpets, but would spiritually think that the church sermon is from heaven. So nowhere else is it said: on that day they will blow a great trumpet (Is. 27:13). And the prophets were trumpets; but the great trumpet is the holy voice of the Lord in the Gospel. Therefore, it was given to the Angels to communicate revelation to us. The trumpet will sound, it is said, and the dead will rise again (1 Cor. 15:52). If you ridicule the trumpets of angels, because it is written about them in the Apocalypse; then you ridicule the trumpet, about which the holy apostle speaks: it will come down from heaven in the last trumpet, and the dead will rise on the last day in the voice of the archangel (1 Thessalonians 4:16). Therefore, if Paul speaks in agreement with the holy Apostle John in the Apocalypse; then is there any excuse left? Is not every error immediately exposed by the testimony of God given by one and the other of the saints? Then some of the same heretics attack this saying in the same Apocalypse, and object the following: “in the Apocalypse it is also said: write to the angel of the church who is in Thyatira (Apocalypse 2:18): but there is no Christian church there in Thyatira; How could he write to a church that doesn’t exist?” And it turns out that by the very fact that they preach against the truth, they force themselves to confess the truth. For if they say: “There is now no church in Thyatira;” then they make it clear that John prophesied. When both these heretics and the Phrygian heretics settled there, and like wolves they plundered the minds of the simple faithful; They drew the whole city into their heresy, and those who rejected the Apocalypse at that time took up arms against the refutation of this book. And now, at the present time, for a period of one hundred and twelve years, according to the power of Christ there is a church there, and it is growing, and some other churches are also found in those places; then the entire church was devastated by the Phrygian heresy. Therefore, the Holy Spirit tried to reveal to us how this church had to fall into error after the time of the apostles John and those who followed him; and this time when the local church was about to fall into error and melt into the Phrygian heresy was ninety-three 221 years after the ascension of the Savior. For the Lord directly denounces her in this way, saying in the Apocalypse: write to the angel of the church of Thyatira: thus says He, having His eyes like a flame of fire, and His nose like a flame of fire: We know your deeds, and faith, and love, and service, and that your last is greater than the first. But the imam is against you, because you allow the wife of Jezebel to deceive My servant, who says to herself to be a prophetess, teaching her to endure an idol’s sacrifice and commit fornication. And he gave her time to repent, and does not want to repent of her fornication (Apoc.2:18-21). Do you not see what is said about women who are deceived and deceive many by thinking of themselves as prophetesses? I'm talking about Priscilla, Maximilla and Quintilla. Their deception was not hidden from the Holy Spirit; on the contrary, the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of Saint John, before his dormition, prophetically foretold this. And John prophesied in the time of Claudius 222 Caesar, and earlier, when he was on the island of Patmos (for even these heretics admit that this was fulfilled in Thyatira); therefore, he prophetically wrote to those living there at that time according to the law of Christ that the woman would call herself a prophetess. The doctrine erected against the truth, which was entirely fictitious, fell; since it turns out that the Apocalypse is truly a prophetic book from the Holy Spirit. But these same heretics are still puffed up in mind, and ignorantly seize on words in order to seem to rightfully reject the books of the holy Apostle, that is, this same John, namely: the Gospel and the Apocalypse, and, perhaps, the epistles, for the epistles agree with the Gospel. The heretics say; saw, and it was said to the Angel: let the four Angels be at the Euphrates. And when I heard the number of the army, I remembered ten thousand and thousands of thousands: and they were dressed in armor of fire and bogeymen and Hyacinthians (Apoc. 9: 1.14.16, 17). The heretics thought: is it possible to laugh at this truth? But if John speaks of four angels sitting on the Euphrates; then in order to point out the different peoples there living along the Euphrates; and these are the Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes and Persians. These same four kingdoms are found in Daniel in such an order that the first was the kingdom of the Assyrians, and in his time there was the kingdom of the Babylonians, followed by the kingdom of the Medes, and after them the kingdom of the Persians, whose first king was Cyrus. For the nations are subject to the angels, as evidenced, in my opinion, by the servant of God Moses, who consistently explains this teaching and says: inquire of your father, and your elders will tell you, and they will say to you: when the Most High divided the tongues, as if the sons of Adam were scattered, you set the boundaries of the tongues according to the number of the angels of God: and it came to pass that the portion of the Lord, his people Jacob, were already his inheritance, Israel ( Deut.32:7-9). Therefore, if the nations are subject to the Angels, then it is rightly said: release the four Angels who sit by the Euphrates and are kept from allowing war between the nations until the time of the Lord’s forbearance, until the Lord commands that they take retribution for His saints. For the angels appointed over the nations were restrained by the Spirit, and it was not time for them to make an attack; because justice has not yet allowed them to give permission to other nations for offending the saints. But the Angels, according to the prophecy of John and other prophets, are released and attack the earth, for they encourage the nations to rush to retribution. And that John pointed out the armor of fire and bogeymen and Hyacinthus, there is nothing doubtful about that; for this is the color of the clothing of these nations. Horrible armor - clothes made of wool, the so-called ash (μηλίνη) color; fiery means scarlet robes: and jakinth means wool of a greenish color (ϰαλλαίνην). But these heretics, who have not received the Holy Spirit, before the spiritual court turn out to be those who do not understand the spiritual, and want to speak against the words of the Spirit, and do not know the gifts in the Holy Church. These gifts were revealed by the Holy Spirit, as well as the holy prophets and holy apostles, truly, in good condition, while maintaining order of thoughts and sound mind; Among these, Saint John in the Gospel, Epistles and Apocalypse taught from the same holy gift to the holy church. But even these heretics are comprehended by what has been said: whoever speaks blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven him, neither in this age nor in the next (Matthew 12:32). For they too took up arms against the words spoken by the Spirit. After this has been said and so much against this heresy, considering this to be sufficient, and having trampled upon this heresy by the power and truth of God, like a many-legged reptile called a millipede or a julus, which is insignificant in the strength and pain caused by its poison, but has many legs and is long in appearance, let us again stretch forward, and with the help of God we will move on, beloved, to those who follow this one in order heresies. On the Adamians, 32nd (52nd) A mole is a name given to some four-legged animal that lives low in the ground in burrows. It digs the earth and has its home in its most hidden places. In all respects, this animal looks like a small puppy, the same has the same height, and has no vision at all. But this animal is devastating; it destroys the roots from below of everything that people grow on the ground, and mainly of everything growing in vegetable beds, and in herb crops: onions, garlic, bulbous plants and the like, wheatgrass and others. If, while digging, without noticing it, it comes out of the ground into the light, or is captured and caught by people; then this animal makes everyone who catches it laugh. So the heresy that is now under my hands, which I am about to speak about, is blind in heart and senseless, and causes devastation to itself, cuts off its own composition from below, and destroys many roots, that is, the men who have fallen into it. If intelligent people ever happen to spy on it, it will cause quite a bit of laughter: just like the above-mentioned animal, due to its blindness, it is subjected to being mocked as a result of its lack of vision, and does not find where to go; so is this heresy. These heretics gave themselves the name Adam. We say this by ear, because we have heard it from many men; for they did not find this in written works, and did not meet with any of such heretics. Since many said: we considered it fair to mention this heresy. Therefore, and rightly, we likened it to the above-mentioned blind animal, which people cannot soon see, because it hides in the ground and causes harm from below. But this heresy is very funny, and I thought not to include it among the others at all: but since there is still a rumor about it in the world; then let a reasonable listener not take the trouble to learn about all the tares sown in the world by the devil. For whether there is such a heresy or not; but since we have heard stories about her from many; then, for the sake of safety, it seemed to me to be thorough to talk about it, and not to ignore it, even if it collapsed and no longer existed. For I don’t know for sure whether it still exists or not. But why drag out the preface to the story for a long time? I’ll start with a funny story, and a more deplorable one (for both are both funny and deplorable); It’s deplorable how the devil gave rise to mockery of God’s creation in the minds of people, and what’s funny is that people neither see nor think about what is reasonable. For firstly, as they say, they build their churches, or holes and caves (that’s what I would call heretical gatherings) in rooms heated from below, and they heat them from below so that there is warmth to warm those who gather inside the despised house. And at the entrance, at the door, they place some kind of guardians of clothes, like guards of clothes in baths (ϰαμψαρίων); and everyone who enters, whether a man or a woman, undresses outside, and enters completely naked, as if from the womb; and all their imaginary bosses and teachers, as if from the womb, sit some higher, others lower, mixed and absent-minded. All of them, of course, only call themselves and are reputed to be abstinents and virgins, but they are deceiving themselves. They perform both readings and everything else naked. And if it seemed that someone, as they say, suffered a fall; then he is no longer accepted into the congregation; for they say that he is Adam who ate from the tree, and they condemn him to expulsion, as it were, from paradise, that is, from his church. For they consider their church to be paradise, and themselves as partners with Adam and Eve. For what reason do they heat their house so that the cold does not touch them? Adam and Eve did not live in a heated house, and no heat depressed them, no cold bothered them. And their air was the purest and harmoniously proportioned by God for complete goodness: neither the cruelty of the cold made it harsh, nor the most unpleasant heat from the heat threatened it. Even the food was incorruptible (ἀμβροσία), created by God. The location chosen was one that was created for a pleasant and prosperous life; and they, as I said, were not exposed to either cold or heat. And these heretics need this; That is why they are especially subject to ridicule. Then let us consider from another side how all this error is exposed by the fact that Adam and Eve 223 are not only for one hour, but constantly naked and not ashamed (Gen. 2:25). And these heretics are naked not because they are not ashamed, although they themselves think so, but because of the insatiability of lust, in order to amuse the apples of their eyes. For they had no more shame, praised in all the holy Scriptures, and the saying of the prophet was truly fulfilled on them: the face of a harlot was revealed to you; you did not want to be ashamed of everyone (Jer. 3:3). And after this hour, outside the meeting, they put on clothes; and then they are no longer Adams. And Adam and his wife did not immediately stock up on clothes; but first the fig leaves were sewn together (Gen. 3:7) and then they were given garments of leather (–21), and after a long time of their lives, the manifold wisdom of God implanted in them the art of dressing. And these heretics are subject to ridicule in every possible way when they call themselves fellow members of Adam, because they lie to themselves, but at the same time they also speak the truth. For on the one hand they are not Adams, as is clear from the many signs that we have indicated; and on the other hand, they become the plaything of the spiritual serpent - this is clear from their counterfeit hypocrisy, exposure, shame and ridiculous custom. But it is unworthy of us to worry much about their refutation. For even to exterminate an animal like them there is no need for military shells or large weapons: this animal is destroyed with a small stick, and often, as soon as it sticks out of its hole, it is left there and dies by itself, subjected to abuse and ridicule, and not finding refuge, just as these heretics, having been caught, are brought to shame by general ridicule, immodest behavior, and absurd content teachings. As we begin to consider the following heresies in order, let us again pray to the Lord to help us both in identifying and in refuting other heresies, for the salvation of us and our readers. Some Sampsei in Perea are also called Elkesii. We have already mentioned them in other heresies. This heresy exists in the country of the so-called Perea, on the other side of the salt or Dead Sea, in the country of Moab, by the stream Arnon, and further, in Ituraea and the land of the Nebatites, as I have already explained many times. They boast that Ilksay is their teacher; and they also worship the two women still remaining from his family as goddesses, because they are from the blessed seed. The same book 224 was used by both the Ossenes and the Nazarenes, as I have already said many times. Actually, from it these Sampsei take their teaching, who are neither Christians, nor Jews, nor Hellenes, but something in between, and nothing at all. They say that they also have another book, called the book of Ieksey, brother of Ilksaev. They teach about God that He is one, and, moreover, they honor Him by using some kind of baptism; but not in everything close to the Jews. Some of them also abstain from eating animals. They die for those who are from the Ilksaev family. And at the present time, as I have heard, one woman, called Marfus, has died, and Marfana remains even now, unless she also died. If, when they went somewhere, they went out: the crowds following them took the dust of their feet, and it was for healing, as well as the saliva they spat out, and to great shame, they used it instead of protective bandages (φυλαϰτηρίοις) and pendants. For in every error there is first blindness, and then vanity. They accept neither prophets nor apostles; but everything they do is full of deception. They hold water in honor, and they honor it as if it were God, claiming that it is almost life. Christ is recognized only by name, but they honor Him as a creature, and they think that He always appeared from time to time, and was first created in Adam, but took off Adam’s body from Himself, and again puts on it when He wants, and He is called Christ; and the Holy Spirit, existing in female form, is His sister; and each of them, that is, both Christ and the Holy Spirit, are ninety-six miles high, and twenty-four miles wide. And they have a lot of other nonsense. But having already spoken about this many times in other heresies, I have made a refutation. Therefore, I do not consider it necessary to attach importance to the resolution of what these heretics are refuted, because we have already done this in relation to Ilksey himself or Ilksay, and his followers in other heresies explained above. For it is convenient for everyone to discover that both he and his heresy are in error. Therefore, let us move on to the following heresies in order, beating it like a solar lizard with the rod of the hope of Christ and the cross. For by what name these heretics called themselves, it is fair to use it for a comparative explanation of the name they assigned to themselves. For sampsei means solar. That's why we remembered this animal; since people call this lizard solar. But this heresy is worse than this lizard, and does not care at all about its own benefit. For this lizard, when it begins to go blind, temporarily gains its sight when turning towards the sun: huddled in a hole facing the east, and remaining without food, by turning to the east it gets rid of weakness of vision. And this, I’m talking about heresy, has in everything the foolishness of this animal, but has nothing less than what deserves praise in it. So let this heresy, which we call the solar lizard, and trampled underfoot by the truth of the Sun, remain without any power against the truth of God; and we, as they said, will rush to other heresies. About Theodotians, 34th (54th) A certain Theodotus also arose, a fragment from the wordless heresy, which was mentioned above, that is, the one that renounces the Gospel of John and the God of the Word proclaimed in it, existing in the beginning, as well as the Apocalypse of John. In addition, Theodotus arose and existed in community with other heresies, which were mentioned above, and in time was their successor. From him are the so-called Theodotians. Whether this heresy still exists, we do not know; but let’s say what has come down to us from written works. This Theodotus came from Byzantium, now called Constantinople; He is a tanner by trade, but by science he is a learned man. He, along with many other people, during the coming persecution, and in what persecution, I cannot say, was taken among many by the ruler of the city and, together with others, was subjected to torture for Christ. All other servants of God, having won the victory, received heavenly rewards as martyrs for Christ. And he, having renounced Christ and retreated from the true goal, became an apostate, and out of great shame, because he was reviled by many, fled from his fatherland. Having come to Rome, he lived there; but, having been recognized by those living in Rome, he was again subjected to the same reproach there, because those who knew him accused him because of his much learning, because he was a learned man who had fallen from the truth. To protect himself, of course, the bad one, he invented this new dogma, namely, he said: “I have not renounced God, but I have renounced man.” Then, to the question: from which person? He answered with the words: “I have renounced the man Christ.” So for this reason he confirmed his dogma, as well as the Theodotians who descended from him, who claim that Christ is a simple man and was born from male seed. Then, what he found suitable for a bad defense of himself, not out of pure thought, but because of his perversion, he collected it, putting it in a heap. “Christ said,” he says: “now you seek to kill Me, the man who spoke the truth (John 8:40). You see,” he says, “He is a man. » But the accursed one did not recognize what Christ was saying here; the truth which I have heard from My Father. And He calls God His Father, not man. For if he had heard it from a man, he would not have boasted of the testimony of the truth, saying that he heard the truth from men. On the contrary, he wants to say that He is God, born again from the Father, but for our sake became man, mortified by the flesh, but always alive in Divinity. Then Theodotus says that he did not commit a sin by renouncing Christ; because, he says, Christ Himself said: all blasphemy will be forgiven by man. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of man will be forgiven him: but whoever blasphemes the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven him (Matthew 12:31,32). And the pitiful person does not know that the Lord, wanting to ensure salvation for those who once blasphemed Him, turn to repentance so as not to determine condemnation for them, speaks this word in advance out of an abundance of meekness and love for mankind; and since he knew that some would rise up and blaspheme the Holy Spirit and recognize Him as consisting in a slave chip created and alien to God’s essence; therefore, as a precaution, he says: and whoever blasphemes the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven him, either here or in the next century, not as a praise to those who blaspheme Himself, but showing His foreknowledge and His love for mankind, which ensures salvation for those who repent of blasphemy against Him. For He Himself also says: He who has denied Me before men will be rejected before My Father (Luke 12:9), and again: I will deny him, and also: Whoever confesses Me, we will confess him before My Father (Matthew 10:32,33). And the same Theodotus says: “And the law said of Him: The Lord will raise up for you a prophet like Me; Hear Him (Deut. 18:15). But Moses was a man; also, raised up by God, this Christ, he says, was not God, but a man, because he was from them, just as Moses was a man.” And again, Theodotus, who brought himself to the point of fall, does not know that every utterance has its own certainty; for the Lord raised up Christ from the brethren, because He was born of Mary. So it is said: behold, the Virgin will conceive and give birth to a Son (Is. 7:14); and remaining a virgin, she will conceive in her womb not from the seed of a man, and will give birth to a Son, obviously a carnal birth, which will be born of a Virgin; but they will call His name Immanuel: as it is said, God is with us (Matthew 1:23). For He is God and man: God, born of the Father without beginning and without time, born as a man from Mary, because of His coming in the flesh. “Then,” he says, “and in the Gospel itself it is said to Mary: The Spirit of the Lord will come upon you (Luke 1:35), but it does not say: The Spirit of the Lord will be in you.” Therefore, this foolish man, bickering on every occasion, falls away from the truth. For Scripture, protecting our life in every way, wants everywhere and in every form to show the Trinity as collectively existing and acting collectively, so that some would not say, as many say, looking for a reason for something bad, that the Holy Spirit is alien to Christ and the Savior; therefore the Angel says to Mary: The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and then after this: in the same way that which is born holy will be called the Son of God. And he didn’t just say: what is being born; but: in the same way also that which is born, and, in order to show that the highest God the Word was in the womb and for Himself formed His human nature for our salvation, adds: in the same way also that which is born holy will be called the Son of God. For if he had said: The Holy Spirit will enter into you: 225 then one would still think that it was not the Son of God who came in the flesh, but the Holy Spirit who came in the flesh. And that the Word came from above, about this John, clarifying the words of the angelic gospel, says: in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. All things were made by Him, and without Him nothing came into being (John 1:1.3). Then, after this: the Word became flesh (–14), and did not say: the Spirit was flesh, nor did he say: the man Christ was born. For the divine Scripture with all certainty recognizes Him as God and man, God who came from above from God, and a man born of Mary without male seed. And whoever departs from these two truths is not from the truth. Even to justify himself, the accursed Theodotus says: “and Jeremiah said about Him: there is a man, and who will know him (Jer. 17:9)?” And he who has alienated himself from the truth does not know that, as I said, every saying has its own power in interpretation. For whoever is a person is, without a doubt, known by many who know him, that is, father and mother, brothers and relatives, cohabitants and neighbors, fellow citizens and household members. And here Scripture, revealing the miraculousness of His whole work, although it called Him a man because He came in the flesh, but with the words: who can know Him? made it known about the incomprehensibility of His Divinity. For no one knew the Son except the Father; no one knew the Father, except the Son, and if he revealed it (Matthew 11:27); therefore no one will know Him unless He reveals. By the Holy Spirit He reveals to His servants His Divinity and the glory of His Father, His future eternal life, His mysteries and teachings, and His true coming in the flesh for us, namely, that He is God from above and a man from Mary. Then this same Theodotus also says: “And Isaiah said about Him that He was a man, in these words: a man who knew to endure illness: and we saw him in an ulcer, and in bitterness, and was dishonorable, and not accounted for (Is. 53: 2-4).” But the bestial one does not know how he exposes himself again. For in the same place Isaiah said this: Like a sheep that is led to the slaughter, and like a lamb that is silent before its shearers, so it opens not its mouth. In His humility His judgment will be taken. Then he says: who can confess His generation? As if His belly will fall from people (–7.8). And he did not say: His belly will fall, but: from people. For the Word is always alive, and has life in Himself, and will give life to those who love Him. His life was taken from men; but in Itself It is life. For the Word is life, and gives life to all who trust in Him in truth. Isaiah also said: Who can confess His generation? If He were a simple man, born of Mary; then His generation would be known. since He existed before David, before Abraham; for he says: Abraham your father desired to see My day: and he saw it, and rejoiced, and then, when the Jews were surprised and said: The Imam has not had fifty years, and have you seen Abraham? - then, in denunciation of Theodotus and the unfaithful and apostate Jews, he said: Amen Amen I say to you that before Abraham, I am (John 8:56-58), and really had existence before Abraham, before Noah, before Adam, before the world, before heaven, before the time of the world, before all things and before creatures, as having being not in time: therefore the Holy Spirit proclaims in Isaiah about His ineffability in words: who can confess His generation? as if His belly were lifted up from the earth. But, says Theodotus, “the apostles said: men were known in you with signs and wonders (Acts 2:22), and did not say: God was known.” And again, Theodotus, you are convicted by the fact that these same apostles in the same Acts also said, as blessed Stephen says: Behold, I see heaven opened, and the Son of man at the right hand of God (Acts 7:56). But Theodotus also seeks excuses for himself, and says: “The apostle said about Him: the mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim. 2:5).” And he doesn’t know how he rebels against himself again. For he who said: the mediator of God and men, Christ Jesus, himself explained this, saying: the first named Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, from the resurrection of the dead, our Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 1:4), and also: born of a woman, being under the law (Gal. 4:4), and bringing into certainty these expressions, he said: if they are verbs, Gods are many, and the Lord many: for us there is one God, from Whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, Who is all things (1 Cor. 8:5,6). And if He is everything, and we are with Him: then the Only Begotten is not a simple man from Mary, and henceforth, and not from the seed of a man; because how could everything that came into existence before Him, according to your teaching, come from Him if He were a simple man? Or how everything could come into being from Him; what was made known before Him and came to pass? Thus, the absurd teaching of Theodotus falls from all sides. But having said in this very interview, both about what can be known about Theodotus, and at the same time about what can be used to refute it for each saying, in the usual order we will pass this heresy, like some part of a still trembling reptile, which we have beaten with true hope and faith, and, having destroyed this heresy, we will consider those following it in order, and we will hasten to examine the most beast-like heresies. On the Melchizedekians, 35th (55th) Still others, perhaps having broken away from the so-called Theodotians, call themselves Melchizedekians. They glorify Melchizedek, who is spoken of in the Scriptures, recognizing him as some kind of great power, and also, in their delusion, they claim that he is located in unnamed places, as if he is not only some kind of power, but also higher than Christ. And they think about Christ that He simply came and was awarded the order of Melchizedek, and this is based on the saying that says: You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek (Ps. 109:4); therefore, they say, Christ is lower than Melchizedek. For if He were not in a certain second order; then there would be no need for the Melchizedek order. And they say about Melchizedek himself that he is without a father, without a mother, without a priest (Heb. 7:3), and they want to confirm this with the letter of St. Paul to the Jews. And yet, deceiving themselves, they falsely invent books for themselves. But from the same words comes the beginning and refutation of these heretics. For when David prophetically speaks of the Lord, that He is appointed priest according to the order of Melchizedek; then by this divine Scripture reveals that Christ will be a priest. For we find that the apostle immediately says: He is likened to the Son of God, and remains a priest (Heb. 7:3). And if he is likened to the Son of God, then he is not equal to the Son of God. For how can a slave be equal to the Master? Melchizedek was a man; and without a father, without a mother, not because he has no father or mother, but because in the Divine Scripture they are not clearly named. And many were led into deception by what is in the Divine Scripture most profound, glorious, and beyond natural human understanding. So the inhabitants of Petra of Arabia, called Rock and Ed, marveling at the divine signs of Moses, once depicted his image, and in error began to worship him. But this righteous man was not the culprit for them, but on the contrary, their error in the reasoning of the righteous man, in ignorance, led them to a false idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe matter. In Sebastia, which was once called Samaria, having deified the daughter of Jephthah, they annually celebrate a festival in her honor. So these heretics, hearing the glorious and wise sayings of Scripture, fell into foolishness, and, being overly exalted in reason, abandoned the path of truth, and can be convicted by everyone of having made up fables for themselves. For some have the father and mother of Melchizedek indicated; but this is not according to the recognized and accepted scriptures. And others said that his father’s name was a certain Irakl, and his mother was Astarf, and also Astorian. He descended from one of the natives who lived at that time on the Savina plain (Gen. 14:17). The city was called Salim; One writes about this city one way, and another another. Some say that this is now called Jerusalem, once called Jebus. And others said that there is some other Salim in the field of Sikkim, on the contrary, now so-called Naples. So whether he was from this city or from that (these places are not at a far distance from one another), it makes no difference; the presentation shows what the matter was. For it is said: You brought bread and wine to Abraham: and he was a priest of the Most High at that time; He blessed Abraham and received tithes from him (Gen. 14:18–20). For the servant of God had to give honor to the priest of the Most High, and since the circumcised priesthood came from Abraham himself, then Abraham had to make an offering in advance to the priest who officiates in uncircumcision, so that every heap levied on the mind of God would be despised (2 Cor. 10:5), and the circumcision, boasting of the priesthood, could not speak against the priesthood in the holy church of God, which does not observe the carnal circumcision or uncircumcision, but has the highest and most perfect circumcision - the bath of regeneration. For if Abraham brought the tithe to Melchizedek, and the descendants of Abraham bring it to Levi and Aaron, and after the time when the circumcised priesthood of Aaron and his sons began to be again by succession, after twelve generations from the birth of Levi, and seven 226 from the beginning of the Aaronic succession, the Scripture through the mouth of David says that the priesthood of Melchizedek will rise: then naturally the Scripture showed that the priestly rank will not remain with the ancient one circumcised priesthood. For it is added to the priesthood that preceded the priesthood of Levi and Aaron, the priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek. This 227 priesthood, from the time of the Lord's coming in the flesh until now, is now sent to the churches, and it is no longer the seed that is chosen by succession, but a model of virtue is required. For the first priesthood is accomplished in uncircumcision by Abel, and also the one that follows him by Noah, and the third by Melchizedek, who was a priest of God not in circumcision, but in perfect righteousness and virtue, but according to the flesh in uncircumcision. And that Melchizedek was a man, this is revealed by the holy apostle of God himself in his epistle; He says this: he who is not considered by birth to be one of them is the patriarch of the tenth age (Heb. 76:6). Therefore, it is clear that birth is owed not to them, but to others. And how many others whose genealogies are not very clear? Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, Elijah the Tishbite. For in all the sacred books their fathers or mothers are not indicated anywhere. But so that there is no misconception about this, we will not be burdened to say what we learned from the legends. For we have found that the father of Daniel is someone called Shebaa. And we also found the origin and family of Elijah, which I will outline in this connection: Elijah the Tishbite was the brother of the priest Jehoiada, obviously he himself was one of the priests, and the son was Ahimaam; and Ahimaam the son of Zadok; Zadok the son of Ahit, the son of Amori; Amoriah the son of Moriah: 228 Moriah the son of Zerah, 229 the son of Haaziin; Aaziah son of Phinehas; Phinehas son of Eleazar; Eleazar son of Aaron the priest; and it is known that Aaron is the son of Amram; Amram son of Kohath; Kohath the son of Levi: Levi the third son of Jacob; and Jacob is the brother of Esau, the son of Isaac; Isaac son of Abraham. In the sacred books their genealogies are not entirely clear; and in relation to Elijah only parts of the genealogy are indicated in the book of Chronicles. 230 We did not find the natural fathers of the three youths: Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, either in traditions or in forged books. So what should we say? Will they, that is, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, lead us to the false idea that we will conclude what we should not, and be overly amazed at each of them, concluding that they have neither fathers nor mothers? But let it not be so. For we have been shown the limits, and the foundations, and the building of the faith, and the traditions of the apostles, and the holy Scriptures, and the succession of teachers; and the truth of God is fenced off from everywhere. And no one should be deceived by new fables. But I will return again to what was assumed, that is, to what these heretics falsely imagine about Melchizedek. Namely, although it is obvious that this righteous man was holy, was a priest of God and the king of Salem: but Salem was not such a king as was in heaven, nor did he come down from heaven. For no one has ascended into heaven except he who came down from heaven, the Son of man (John 3:13), says the holy and unfaithful God the Word. And when the divine Scripture confirms and the Spirit clearly teaches about the order of Melchizedek, then this clearly indicates the change of the priesthood after the dilapidated synagogue and ancient institution into a most excellent and higher institution, not connected with participation in carnal succession. For this holy Melchizedek had no succession after him, nor any cessation of the priesthood; he remained a priest throughout his life, and is also called a priest in Scripture, because no one was his successor, no one violated his priesthood during his ministry. So our Lord, not a man, but God, the holy Word of God, the Son of God, born without beginning and outside of time, eternally existing with the Father, and for our sake became man from Mary, and not from the seed of a man, priests before the Father, accepting human confusion in order to become a priest for us according to the order of Melchizedek, that is, according to such an order that has no succession. For He continues to continually offer gifts for us, first offering Himself on the cross to destroy every sacrifice of the old covenant, and at the same time performing the most perfect and living sacrifice for the whole world - the sacrifice Himself, the slaughter Himself, the priest Himself, the altar Himself, God Himself, the man Himself, the king Himself, the high priest Himself, the sheep Himself, the lamb Himself, who became all in all for us, so that become life for us in every possible way, and make the stronghold of His priesthood forever immovable, no longer distributing it according to bodily origin and succession, but allowing it to be preserved in the Holy Spirit by justification. But others also who speak about this Melchizedek have a false idea about him: for they judge according to the flesh, and do not understand spiritually what was said by the holy Apostle in this very letter to the Hebrews. Thus, the Egyptian heresy leader Hierax thinks that this Melchizedek is the Holy Spirit, because, as it is said, he is likened to the Son of God, and abides a priest (Heb. 7:3); and this is, as it were, on the basis of the saying spoken by the holy Apostle: But the Spirit intercedes for us with groanings that cannot be uttered. He who knows the wisdom of the Spirit knows that he intercedes before God for the elect (Rom. 8:26,27). But this heresy leader also completely deviated from what was proper. For the Spirit never put on flesh; and if he did not put on flesh, he could not be king of Salem or priest of any place. But in due time, when I draw up a refutation of this Hierax and his heresy, I will expound this at length; Now I will keep order. And how many others have false ideas about this Melchizedek! The Samaritans honor him as Noah's son, Shem. But they too will be deserving of ridicule. For the divine Scripture, affirming everything well, has protected the truth in every possible way, not in vain arranging times in order, and listing the years of life of each of the fathers and succession. For when Abraham was about eighty-eight, or ninety years old (more or less): 231 then Melchizedek met him and brought him bread and wine, mysteriously prefiguring the sacraments, namely: images of our Lord, who says: I am seven bread of life (John 6:51), and images of His blood, which flowed from His side for the cleansing of the defiled and for the sprinkling and salvation of our souls. And Abraham's father Terah gave birth to Abraham in the seventieth year (Gen. 11:26); in total it became about one hundred and sixty years (more or less). Nahor begat Terah, seventy-nine years old (–24): became two hundred and thirty-nine years old. Serukh gave birth to Nahor, one hundred and thirty years old (–22); became three hundred and sixty-nine years old. Raghav gave birth to Serukh, one hundred and thirty-two years old (-20); became five hundred and one years old. Peleg gave birth to Ragava, one hundred and thirty years old (-18); became six hundred and thirty-one years old. Eber gave birth to Peleg in the one hundred and thirty-fourth year of his life (–16); became seven hundred and sixty-five years old. Salah gave birth to Eber in the one hundred and thirtieth year of his age (–14); became eight hundred and ninety-five years old. Kina 232 gave birth to Sala in the one hundred and ninth 233 year of his life; became one thousand four years. Arphaxad, one hundred and thirty-five 234 years old, begat Kina (-12); became one thousand one hundred and thirty-nine years old. And the above-mentioned Shem, about whom the Samaritans falsely imagine that he is Melchizedek, gave birth to Arphaxad in the one hundred and second year of his life. In total there were one thousand two hundred and forty-one years, until the time when Abraham met Melchizedek, returning from the slaughter (Gen. 14:17) of the kings: Amphar, 236 Arioch, Hodollogomor, Tagar, 237 Barsah and Simovor. But Shem did not live so many years, according to their absurd idea, but begat Arphaxad one hundred and two 238 years, in the second summer after the flood: and after that he lived five hundred years, as the divine Scripture says, and begat sons and daughters: and he died (Gen. 11:10,11). Therefore, if he lived six hundred and two years and died, then how could he reach one thousand two hundred and forty-one years, so that these heretics could call Shem, the son of Noah, who lived ten generations before Abraham, ten generations later and one thousand two hundred and forty-one years Melchizedek? Oh, how great is the delusion of these people! According to other lists, from the time of Shem to the above-mentioned time of Abraham’s meeting with Melchizedek, which was in the eighty-eighth or ninetieth year of Abraham’s life, it comes out to about six hundred and twenty-eight years (more or less), so, in any case, Shem could not live until the above-mentioned time of Abraham so that he could be considered Melchizedek. And the vulgar opinion of the Samaritans completely fell. The Jews also say that although Melchizedek is righteous and good and a priest of the Most High (Gen. 14:18), as stated in the Divine Scripture, he is the son of a harlot, and therefore they say that it is not written about his mother, and his father is unknown. But their crazy opinion is also untenable. And Rahab was a harlot, and is mentioned in Scripture (Joshua 2:1); Zimri, who committed fornication, is also recorded, and with him Hazvi (Num. 25:14, 15), although she is a stranger and does not come from the family of Israel. And everyone who does not enter through the door, as the holy Gospel said, is a thief, and not truly a shepherd (John 10:1). Actually, some in the church have different opinions about this Melchizedek. For some think that it was the Son of God who appeared to Abraham in the form of a man. But they also move away from the truth: for no one can ever become like himself, as the divine Scripture says about Melchizedek: he is likened to the Son of God, he remains a priest (Heb. 7:3). And truly not ranked among them by birth, Abraham’s 10th birthday (–6); because he is not descended from them, that is, from the Israelites, but rather from other people. The enumeration we made of all this we brought to mind regarding this heresy, and talked about this in the form of a deviation to the side. Ch. 8 The above-mentioned heresy raises offerings in the name of this Melchizedek, teaches that he is a guide to God, and says that offerings should be made to God through him, because he is the prince of righteousness, appointed for this very purpose by God in heaven, as spiritual and appointed to be a priest. And we, they say, must make offerings to him, so that he may make an offering for us, and through him we may gain life. And Christ, they say, was chosen to call us from many paths 240 to this only knowledge, and was made the anointed and chosen one of God, because he turned us away from idols and showed us this path. And the apostle He sent revealed to us that Melchizedek is great and remains a priest forever. And: you see, this tree (–4), and: the lesser of the higher is blessed (–7); therefore, they say, he blessed Patriarch Abraham as the highest. We are initiated into his sacraments so that we ourselves may receive a blessing from him. And oh, how empty is every heretical way of thinking! For these heretics too are rejected by their Master, who redeemed them (2 Peter 2:1) with His blood. He did not receive the beginning of being from Mary, as they think, but is, present with the Father, God the Word, born of the Father without beginning and outside of time, as all Scripture teaches. And the Father said: Let us make man in our image and likeness (Gen. 1:26). The speech is not to Melchizedek: for although he was a priest of the Most High God (Gen. 14:18), he had his own family, and had no successors after him, and not from above, he came down from heaven. For the Scripture did not say that he brought bread and wine from above to Abraham, but: bring it to him and those with him when he received the patriarch returning after the victory of the kings, and bless him (Gen. 14:18,19) for his truth, faithfulness, and for the fear of God of this man, because the patriarch, having been tempted in every way, did not depart from the truth in anything. But in this matter, Abraham had God as an accomplice against those who actually came to the land of Sodom and captured his nephew Saint Lot, whom he returned with all the plunder from him and with all the captured booty. And how can we not prove that the Son was always with the Father? For in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word (John 1:1). But it is not said, in the beginning was Melchizedek, or: God was Melchizedek. And one more thing: so the Lord came to Abraham; and the Lord caused fire from the Lord and a plague on Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:24). And the apostle himself says: there is one God, of Whom are all things: and one Lord Jesus Christ, in Him are all things (1 Cor. 8:6). And let no one say: where is the Holy Spirit, because it is said about one thing and another? The Spirit should not have exposed Himself: for the Divine Scripture always observes to be a model for us. From the Holy Spirit the Apostle spoke and said: there is one God, from Whom are all things: and one Lord Jesus Christ, Who is all things. He was in the Holy Spirit when he said this. Therefore there is no lack in the Trinity. The Lord Himself clearly says: go, baptize all languages ​​in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 28:19). And the apostle also says: there is one Spirit, dividing for the benefit of each as he wills (1 Cor. 12:11). So here is the Father, here is the Son, here is the Holy Spirit: and nowhere is it said about Melchizedek that he is given gifts, or that he belongs to the most exalted world. And in vain do heretics publicly spread false and fictitious stumbling blocks, which do not come to them from the truth, but are even whispered to them by the dragon, because he has the power to lead every heresy into deception and error. And also 241 it has come to us that some, having gone astray even more than all those mentioned above, and rising with even more vain thoughts, dared to turn to hopeless thoughts, reach the blasphemous thought, and say that this very Melchizedek is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Oh, how careless human thought is, and how the human heart is deceived and unsteady in the truth! Based on the words of the Apostle about Melchizedek, that he was without a father, without a mother, without a clergyman (Heb. 7:3), these heretics, having lost their way in thought due to the extreme expression, and thinking that these words correspond to the Father of all, imagined on their own a blasphemous delusion. On the basis that the Father of all, God Almighty, has neither father nor mother, nor the beginning of the day, nor the end of life (Heb. 7:3) (for this is recognized by everyone), they likened Melchizedek to Him, because this was said about Melchizedek by the Apostle, and fell into insane blasphemy, not thinking about what was said differently about Melchizedek. For it is said of him that he was a priest of the Most High (Heb. 3:1). Therefore, if he is the highest and the father, then, as a priest of another Most High, he himself can no longer be the Father of all, in the rank of priest of another Most High. O human rudeness, which does not understand the truth, but turns to error! The Holy Apostle, bringing the resolution of the whole question to an end, said: he who is not counted by birth among them, but, obviously, counted among others, is the 10th of Abraham (Heb. 7:6), and also: who 242 in the days of his flesh made supplications and supplications to Him who was able to save him (Heb. 5:7), but it is known that the Father did not put on flesh. But, having said enough about these heretics, let us leave this heresy, beating it, like a small shrew with a stone, with the stronghold of strong faith, and avoiding its poisonous infection. For they say about the shrew that when she bites, for that hour she does not harm the one whom she bites, but after a while she destroys the body, so that all the limbs of the one subjected to her bite are covered with scabs of leprosy. So this heresy, for the first time hearing about it, seems insignificant in its opinions: but a prolonged stop on the heretical teaching, leaving traces, gives rise to questions and, as it were, destruction in those who do not have such an antidote in their handbook, such as this, compiled by us, a refutation of this heresy and an objection to it. But this animal is in no hurry to show itself: it walks at night, and thus causes harm, especially in the country of Egypt. Why, from those who know information about this animal, you can know that it was not idlely and not contrary to the truth that we remembered this animal, taking it as a semblance of harm from this heresy: for such is the torment inflicted on this animal. But I will move on to other heresies in order, so that, having been granted the power of God to fulfill the promise, I may give thanks to God. About Vardisianists, 36th (56th) Following these in order is someone, the so-called Vardisian. This Vardisian, from whom the Vardisian heresy originated, was from Mesopotamia, from the inhabitants of the city of Edessa. At first he was a valiant man, and wrote many books while he was sane. He belonged to the holy church of God, and knew two languages, namely: the Hellenic dialect and the Syrian language. At first he was one of the people of the ruler of Edessa, Abgar, a most righteous and eloquent man, he acted with him and participated in his education, and after his death he continued his life until the time of Caesar Antoninus, not the one who is called pious, but Vera. He competed a lot with the astronomer Avida against his teaching about fate. There are also other works of his that are consistent with pious faith. He also rebelled against the convictions of Antoninov's friend Apollonius to refuse to call himself a Christian. He almost became a confessor and, courageously defending his piety, answered with reasonable words, namely, he said that he was not afraid of death, which was necessary, even if he did not contradict the king. And so much this man was adorned in everything, until by mistake he fell into his heresy, becoming like a beautiful ship, on which an incongruous weight was placed, and which crashed at the entrance to the pier, and destroyed all its cargo, and caused the death of others who were on it. For he was corrupted in community with the Valentinians, and from their worthless teaching he drew their poison and tares, and he himself began to teach about many principles and heavenly creations and, rejecting the resurrection of the dead, established this very heresy. He uses the law and the prophets, the old and new testaments, and also some counterfeit books. But this heretic, together with all those who preceded him and followed him, will be refuted, as having alienated himself from the truth and turned from a bright fiery lamp into soot. We have already spoken about the resurrection of the dead in many heresies, but let us not put it into a burden to now say a few words in refutation of this heretic. For if you, Bardisian, accept the Old Testament, as well as the new, then why do you not expose yourself to the fact that you are damaging the path of truth, and removing yourself from the true life of the Lord? For the Lord Himself is the first, that He may be the guarantee of the resurrection for us and the firstborn from the dead (Col. 1:18), and died for us and rose again, and not only suffered imaginary, for He was buried, and His body was carried. That this was not imaginary and not illusory is testified by Joseph, who was also of Arimathea (Mark 15:4-3), and the women who carry myrrh on the tomb testify (Luke 23:56; 24:1), and scarlet weighing a hundred liters (John 19:39). And the angels who appeared to the women testify: He has risen, and is not here: why are you looking for the living with the dead (Luke 24:5,6)? And they did not say: He did not die, but: He rose again, suffering in the flesh, but always alive in spirit, and according to His Divinity, not involved in suffering, from above eternally begotten of the Father, and in the last days deigned to become man from the Virgin Mary, as St. Paul testifies, who says: He who is born of a woman is under the law (Gal. 4:4). Have you not yet heard the saying that says that it is fitting for this corruptible to put on incorruption, and for this dead thing to put on immortality (1 Cor. 15:53)? Or does not the prophet Isaiah convince you, who says: the dead will rise again, and those who are in the graves will rise (Is. 26:19)? And also the Savior Himself, Who says: And these shall rise into everlasting life, and those into everlasting torment (Matthew 25:46)? Or don’t you remember about Abel’s posthumous conversation with God, about which it is said that it is not the soul, but the blood that turns in prayer and cries out to God (Gen. 4:10)? And blood is not the soul, but the soul is in the blood. For blood is a visible body; and the soul, as invisible, has its abiding in the blood. And your evil faith, Vardisian, is exposed to everyone, refuted by the truth itself. Since I have spoken many times about many principles against those who say this: I will not say much about this here, but I will remember the words of the holy Apostle: We have one God the Father, of whom all things are worthless, and we are with Him: and there is one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him (1 Cor. 8:6). Therefore, how can there be polytheism and many principles, if there is one, the Lord Jesus Christ, who is all things, and we are He? From this it follows that there is one Creator, and not many gods, and not many eons. For it is said: if many are gods of verbiage (1 Cor. 8:5). In a word: verbemia, the apostle showed that in essence these are not gods. Having shown this about the so-called Hellenic gods, whom the Hellenes idolized: the sun, moon, stars, and the like, he blocked the path to the opinions of all those who were mistaken. Since sound faith is preserved throughout and constitutes the stronghold and salvation of the faithful, then every heretical fabrication of strange sayings is conveniently refuted. So this one is also refuted, having made himself pitiful and alienated himself from life. For the prophet says to the holy church of God: I will lay thy stone, and sapphire on thy foundation, and chosen stones of thy walls, and thy jaspis shall take away (Isa. 54:11,12). Then later he says: every voice that will rise up against you: if you prevail against them all, you will not prosper (-17), for it will not prevail against true faith, because the church was created on rock, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18), as the holy God the Word promised her, her King and Bridegroom, her Lord and Master, to Whom and the Father in the Son, with the Holy Spirit, glory, honor and power forever and ever, amen. Having trampled upon this heresy, which we have beaten with the tree of life, like the severed, but still trembling, head of a serpent, we ourselves, beloved, will give thanks to God, and again we will strive to consider other heresies. After Bardisian, not many years before this, but a hundred and thirty years before our time (more or less), another heretic named Noet, a native of Asia, from the city of Ephesus, rebelled. Carried away by an alien spirit, he wanted to speak and teach on his own behalf, what the prophets and apostles did not say, and what the church did not initially contain and did not have in mind. Having exalted himself with insane exaltation, he dared to say: as if the Father had suffered. And rising even more with some kind of arrogance and extravagance, he said about himself that he was Moses, and about his brother that he was Aaron. But meanwhile, after this was revealed about Noet, the blessed church elders, calling him, interrogated him about all this, and about whether he proposed this very blasphemy about the Father. But he, being brought before the meeting of the elders, at first denied it, because before him no one had spewed out this terrible and destructive bitterness. Subsequently, when, so to speak, he loaded others with the rage that was in him, and attracted about ten men to himself, then, having exalted himself with even greater arrogance and insolence, he became insolent, and began to openly teach his heresy. Again, the same elders called him and the people who had been corrupted with him, and asked again about the same thing. And he, along with those misled by him, began to openly contradict with a shameless brow, saying: “What bad thing am I doing by the fact that I glorify one God, I know one God, and besides him I do not know another God, born, suffered, died”? Therefore, since he remained at this, he, along with those taught by him to his dogma, was expelled from the church. He died together with his brother not long ago, but not in glory, like Moses, and was not buried with honor, like Moses’ brother Aaron. For they were cast out as apostates, and none of the godly buried them. After this, corrupted in mind by the influence of Noet, they approved this teaching and were carried away by the same sayings as their bad teacher at the beginning. For when, in response to a question from a meeting of elders, he said that he glorified God alone, he heard from them words of their love for the truth: we ourselves glorify God alone, but, as we know, we glorify correctly; and we have one Christ, but, as we know, one Christ the Son of God, who suffered as he suffered, died as he died, rose again, entered into heaven, is at the right hand of the Father, coming to judge the living and the dead. This is what we say, this is what we know, taught by the divine scriptures. From this time on, both the Noetians, who form a fragment of Noet himself, and his followers, accept this dogma, and try to confirm their frantic teaching with these sayings spoken by God to Moses: I am the God of your fathers (Ex. 3:6). I am the first, and I am hereafter (Exodus 44:6). May there not be any sins for you (Ex. 20:3), and so on. For this reason the heretics said: “That is why we know Him alone. And if Christ came and was born: then one and the same Father, one and the same Son, and therefore one and the same God, eternal and now come, as the scripture says: this is your God, it will not be imputed to Him. You will invent every way of cunning, and give it to Jacob to His servant, and to His beloved Israel. Therefore, he appeared on earth and lived with men (Bar.3:36–38). You see, they say, how again the divine scripture admonishes us not to recognize God and another God, claiming that one and the same God came, and also the same one appeared subsequently.” They also use another saying, which says: Egypt will labor, and the purchases of Ethiopia, and Shebaimstia, high men will come to you, and they will be your slaves, and they will follow you, bound with hand bonds, and they will worship you and pray in you, for there is God in you, and there is no God for you. For you are God, and you do not know. God of Israel Savior. (Ex.45:14,15). “Do you see” they say “how the divine Scriptures make known about the one God, and announce his appearance? And admittedly, He is the same, always existing. And therefore we say that there are not many gods, but one God, one and the same, not involved in suffering, one and the same Father of the Son, one and the same Son, and suffered in order to save us by His suffering, and we cannot say that there is another God,” obviously because we learned this confession from our mentor, and this bad opinion, and destructive madness. Then they present other sayings in their favor, just as their teacher said: and the Apostle testifies in favor of these words, saying: of whom are the fathers, of whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is God blessed above all forever, Amen (Rom. 9:5). And they want to explain this one-sidedly in the same way as Theodotus. For the one, going to the greatest extreme, ranted that Christ was by nature a simple man, and this one, going to another extreme, thought that the one and only God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, suffered and was born in the flesh. Therefore, neither those, that is, the followers of Theodotus, said anything in truth; nor this wise man 244 with his followers, or better yet, truly unreasonable, as the divine scriptures expose both of them and all those who are deceived. For everyone who has acquired understanding about God and is enlightened by the divine scriptures and the Holy Spirit is easily convicted of their teaching and is full of all foolishness. For it is a daring thing and a blinding of the mind to assert that one and the same Father is the same, and He is the Son, and He also suffered; because those who assert this are subject to condemnation based on correct and thorough reasoning. For how can one be the Father who is also the Son? If he is a Son, then without a doubt it is someone else’s, the son of the one from whom he was born: but if he is a Father, then it is not possible to give birth to oneself. And again, a son is called not the one who gave birth to himself, but who was born from the father. And, oh, how great is the damage to the minds of these people, and how wrong are their conclusions! For what is truly fundamental is not what these heretics think, but what the truth shows us in the Divine Scripture. For behold, the Lord says: Behold, My beloved child will understand (Exodus 52:13), Him I have willed, and My soul has loved Him: I will put My spirit on Him (Matthew 12:18). Do you see how the voice of the Father points to the natural Son, on whom the Father places His Spirit? Then the Only Begotten Himself says: Glorify Me, Father, with the glory that I had with you before the world came into being (John 17:5). And whoever says: Father, glorify Me, does not call himself father, but on the contrary recognizes him as father, His Father. Again in another place: a voice came from heaven: This is My Son: Hear ye Him (Matthew 17:5). And he did not say: I am My Son: listen to Me; he also did not say: I became the Son; but this is My Son; Listen to him. It is also said: I and the Father are one (John 10:30). The Lord did not say: I and My Father are one; but: I and My Father are one. And the words: Az and Father (εγώ ϰαι ο πατηρ), since there is a member among them; ο, and the union: and (ϰαί), make it known that the Father is truly the Father and the Son is truly the Son. Also about the Holy Spirit: if I go. He will come, the Spirit of truth (John 16:7.13). And this is very clear: I go away, and He comes. The Lord did not say: I go away, and I come; but with the words: I and He made it known about the hypostasis of the Son and the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit. And again: the Spirit of truth proceeding from the Father (15:26), and: he will receive from Mine (16:14). By this the Lord wants to show that the Father is hypostatic, the Son is also hypostatic, and the Holy Spirit is also hypostatic. And also: on the Jordan, the Father spoke from above, the Son descended into the Jordan, and the Spirit in the middle appeared in the form of a dove and came to the Son; although the Spirit did not bear flesh and did not put on a body, so that they would not think that he is merging with the Son, the Holy Spirit takes on the form of a dove, so that it would be clear that the Spirit is hypostatic by its nature. But otherwise, we cannot prove about these heretics that they themselves caused damage to the mind? For if their opinion and their speech are true, yesterday and having neither coherence, nor force, nor rational meaning or meaning, then the Scriptures must be rejected, which everywhere recognize the Father as the Father, the Son as the Son. Holy Spirit Holy Spirit. But what are you saying? How would not those who truly pay homage to the Trinity, that is, the sons of truth and the apostolic and one universal church, introduce polytheism? This is wrong. For who will not say that the one God is truly the Father Almighty, from whom is the Only Begotten Son, the true God the Word, the hypostatic Word, truly begotten of the Father without beginning and outside of time? For this reason, the Church unwaveringly preaches that the Father and the Son are one God; because I am in the Father and the Father is in Me (John 14:10), and We two are one (John 10:30), that is, one Divinity, one will, one dominion. From this same Father proceeds the Spirit, the hypostatic and truly perfect Spirit of truth, enlightening everything, receiving from the Son the Spirit of truth (John 16:13,14), the Spirit of the Father (Matthew 10:20). Spirit of Christ (1 Peter 1:11). That is why the church recognizes one Deity: the true Father, the perfect hypostatic Father, and the Son, the perfect hypostatic Son, and the Holy Spirit, the perfect hypostatic Holy Spirit - one God, one Godhead, one dominion, one dominion. For this reason, the divine scriptures clearly preached everywhere about one God, that is, about the consubstantial Trinity, always the same in Divinity, the same in dominion. And from all sides your, wise man, unreasonable teaching turned out to be untenable. After this has been said and in contrast to the speeches of the above-mentioned Noet, one must first consider and then refute its main reasons. Therefore, since the first reason he gave is that there is one God, from Him we are all, and we are with Him: and there is one Lord Jesus Christ, for whom we are all things (1 Cor. 8:6): then don’t you see how the Apostle with the words: one God is from Him who is all, and we are from Him, makes it known about one beginning, in order not to turn thoughts to the multitude of principles and the human mind, sold to the error of empty polytheism, does not introduce polytheism again? Do you see why the Apostle uses one name and one designation, although he does not deny the Divinity of the Only Begotten? For he acknowledges Him as Lord, and at the same time recognizes Him as God, for which he says with certainty: there is one Lord Jesus, Christ Who is all things. And saying this about Him Whom the Lord names, it does not mean that the Father and the Son are one and the same, but it shows that the Father is the Father, and the Son is truly the Son; because he says about the Father: there is one God, not to deny that the Son is God (for if not God, then not the Lord: since the Lord, then also God). On the contrary, the holy Apostle, compelled by the Holy Spirit to use one name, expressed faith to us in such a way that he made it clear that there is one Lord, and therefore God. But let no one think that the Apostle, since he speaks of one and one, is short of the number of the trinity, because the Apostle did not name the Holy Spirit. Having called the Father and the Son God and Lord, he named in the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3). For by what he said about the Father: there is one God, from Him are all things, he did not deny that He is Lord. 246 And also by saying: and there is one Lord Jesus Christ, who did not deny that he is God. But just as, speaking about the Father, I was content with one name: there is one God, and it is clear that at the same time as He is God, He is also Lord: so, speaking about the Son, I was content with the name: there is one Lord; in this same thing: one Lord, lies also: God. So, speaking about the Father and the Son, the Apostle was not without the Holy Spirit, but, as I said, he spoke in the Holy Spirit. For it is always the habit of the Holy Spirit not to show Himself, so as not to give us a model to show ourselves. So there is one God the Father, from Him is all things: and One Lord Jesus Christ, in Him are all things, or for Whom are all things: and one Holy Spirit, not alien to God, but hypostatic, because He is the Spirit of God, the Spirit of truth, the Spirit of the Father, the Spirit of Christ. Is there any need to talk about this foundation: Egypt has labored, and the rich men of Ethiopia and Shebaimstia will come to you, and: you are God, and you know nothing, and you will have servants, and they will follow you, bound with bonds by hand, and they will worship you, and they will pray in you, for there is a God to you, and there is no God for you. For you are God and know not, God of Israel, Savior. ( Ex.45:14,15 )? “Don’t you see,” they say, “that there is literally one God?” Based on how many sayings, as we have shown, Noetus, not understanding what was said, but cunningly cutting off the scriptures, interpreting them at random, and misrepresenting words, speaks inconsistently and inappropriately, and teaches incoherently, and the Noetians who descended from him think the same way. For just as the name of a bad dog is lion, and those who do not see at all are called those who see much, and gall is called sweetness, and others call ocete honey, and erinnius Eumenides, 247 so this one, named wise, turns out to be unreasonable, and those who received the name from him after him are unreasonable, and do not at all understand the consistency of what he asserts, and what they hold on to, so that it is fulfilled on them The saying of the holy Apostle: neither do they speak with understanding, nor affirm about them (1 Tim. 1:7). For look, men and brothers, as the divine scripture says above, or better yet, the Lord himself, as it was said at the beginning of the chapter. From here the whole truth and the whole content of this chapter should be shown. Ask Me about My sons and My daughters, and command Me about the works of My hand. I created (he says) the earth, and people on it, I established the sky with My hand, I gave commandments to all the stars. I have raised up a king with righteousness, and all his ways are right; this will build my city, and will bring back the captivity, not for reward, nor for free: says the Lord of hosts (Ex. 45: 11-13). Then: Egypt labored and the purchases of Ethiopia, and so on, as if 248 you have God. In whom, shall we say, if not in the Word of the Father? For the Son truly is God the Word, and in Him the Father is known, as He says: He who has seen Me has seen the Father (John 14:9); and: I have glorified Your name on earth (John 17:4). Then again: I raised up a king (Is. 45:13). Don't you see that this is actually the voice of the Father, which of itself erects the true Word as king over all, as truly begotten without beginning and before time? The Father again made (ἤγειρε) Him king, as the Holy Apostle says, who says: if the Spirit of the Risen (τοῦ ἐγέιραντος) Christ from the dead lives in you, Who raised up (ὁ ἐγέιρας) Christ from the dead, He will also give life to your dead bodies through His living Spirit in you (Rom. 8:11). So the prophetic words agree with the apostolic, and the apostolic with the gospel, and the gospel with the apostolic, and the apostolic with the prophetic. Again, I raised up a king: and here is He who raises Christ from the dead. In the words: in you, God exists, how mysteriously and amazingly all this divine scripture expounds! Here it was foreseen and foreshadowed by the aspirations of people for turning to God, the Divinity in the flesh, as in a church. For the Son of God, God the Word, speaks as if in the holy city and in the holy church, that is, in the holy incarnation and fleshly coming, as God dwelling in the holy church: Destroy this church, and in three days I will raise it up (John 2:19); because God the Word, having been sent from the Father in the flesh, arranges everything mysteriously and showing the union of spiritual love, draws after Himself, since even with the humiliation of Himself He is the great God, is the Word Himself, as the one Son of God, born of the Virgin through the action of the Holy Spirit, making Himself one in flesh and in Spirit. Therefore he says: he who came down is also the one who ascended (Eph.4:10), the Son of man who is in heaven (John 3:13). What will Noet say in his foolishness? Was not 249 flesh in heaven? Obviously he wasn't. How is it that the one who descended from heaven is also the one who ascended? But this is said to show that the Word that came is not from below, but descended from above. since He became man in the flesh, not from male seed, but completed His dispensation in spirit and flesh: therefore, in showing the perfect unity in the union and incarnation of the Word, He says that He who came from above ascends the mountain in the perfection of the Divinity. For now he who was not once flesh, but who was spirit, has become flesh from the Spirit and the Virgin; This is the perfect Word brought to the Father, who was not flesh before in heaven. What was It in heaven, if not such a Word as was sent from heaven, having in power unity with the Father in the unity of the Divinity? This shows that on earth and in heaven there was one and the same God the Word, immutable and unchangeable. For He was the Word, always was God, was the spirit, was the power; but having taken upon himself the usual and capacious name for people, he began to be called the Son of Man, although he is the Son of God, and even among the prophets, before he was the Son of Man, he was called by him, although he was not yet in the flesh, because this was to happen to Him. So Daniel said: I saw the Son of man coming among the clouds (Dan.7:13). Therefore, it is right that the prophet, who calls the Son of man, saw the Word in heaven under this name as the Holy Spirit, contemplating this before it was made, and calling it the Son of man before the incarnation. Therefore, the Only Begotten, after speaking about what happened before, says: no one ascended into heaven except the Son of Man who came down from heaven (John 3:13), as he is called by this name, not because the mountain was flesh, but because he descended from above. What else are you pointing out, Noet? It is said: This is our God, and no other will be imputed (Bar.3:36). And very well said. So the Apostle affirms: of whom are the fathers, and of whom is the son according to the flesh, the son being God above all (Rom. 9:5). This is a wonderful teaching! He is God above all, because He Himself teaches us: all things have been handed over to Me by My Father (Matthew 11:27); therefore He is God above all. This is what John also testifies, saying: from the first we heard, and we saw with our eyes, and we touched with our hands (1 John 1:1). And again in the Apocalypse He says: who is from the beginning and who is to come, the Almighty (Rev. 1:8). In all respects He spoke beautifully: for He said beautifully: the whole essence was handed over to Me by My Father, and He taught it exactly. For this reason, although He is God above all, He has His own Father, which is why He says: I go to the Father (John 16:10). If He were the Father Himself, then to which Father He goes, say the foolish one. He also says: that they may be one, just as You and I are one (John 17:22). For Scripture always, preventing people from falling into extremes, by all means gathers the mind onto the middle path of truth. Against those who think that the Son is alien to the Father, I mean, as Arius thinks with other heresies, he says: I and the Father are one (John 10:30). And against those who, because it is said: I and the Father are one, think that they are one and the same Father, and one and the same Son, he says: create, that they may be one, just as I and You are one, which shames Noet and his school, imagining the unity of the disciples. For Peter, John and those who follow them, how could they be one, as if by fusion? But since the Father and the Son are one in the unity of the Divinity and in one will and powers; This is said to reflect any assumption that could, on one side or the other, rebel against the truth. The Holy Apostle Philip says: show us Your Father; and He said: he who has seen Me has seen the Father (John 14:8,9). And he did not say: I am the Father; but pointing to Himself he says: Me, but: in the form of the Father he is not talking about Himself. For something else: the Father; other: Mene; and another: I, and another: Me. For if He Himself were the Father, He would say: It is I; since He Himself is not the Father, but the Son, He truly says: He who has seen Me, has seen the Father, in order to repel the blasphemy of Ariev, by which the Son is alienated from the Father. Therefore, when all Scripture clearly shows us the path of truth, we will be sober, and since we have reflected, along with other heresies, this Noetian and his heresy, that is, the heresy of Noetian, like a dragon called skull-skinned, which, when pursuing a person, cannot turn away either to the right or to the left: then, having turned away from him and his school and worthless teaching, by the power of God let us direct our minds to those who follow I sow heresies in order, to present and expose strange teachings invented in these heresies contrary to the truth. We have often heard about Valisia; However, we don’t know where or who this Valis was, or where he came from, or what he taught, what he inspired or preached. However, this name, being Arabic, gives us some reason to think that he and his heresy are still continuing - that presumably, as I said, there are some in Waqaf, in the country of Philadelphia, on the other side of the Jordan. The natives want to call them Gnostics; but they are not Gnostics, for their wisdom is different. And what has reached us about them is this. Many of them gathered in the church for some time, until their madness spread and they were cast out of the church. All of them, with the exception of a few, 250 are castrated. They think so about principles, and about authorities, and about other things. And when a person is accepted as a disciple, then as long as his genitals are not cut off, he does not eat animal food; and when they persuade him to do this, or castrate him under compulsion, then he eats whatever he wants, as if he has already stopped his feat and is no longer in danger of reaching the lust of voluptuousness from irritation with food. And not only do they treat their own people in this way, but often passing strangers who take advantage of their hospitality are disposed to this state, as many people talk about it. They drag them inside and behind, tying them with hand bonds, 252 with coercion they lay hands on them and carry out the removal of their members. And this is what has reached us about these heretics. We knew about them, in what place they reside; and since this name is often found in those countries, and we have not heard another name for this heresy, we thought that this was the heresy of the Valisians. But the mental damage of such heretics is great. For if they want to fulfill the saying of the Gospel: if one of your members offends you, then cut it off from yourself: for it is more beneficial for you to enter the kingdom of heaven either if you are lame, or blind, or without an arm (Matthew 18:8): then can anyone who is crippled be in the kingdom? If the kingdom of heaven has everything perfect, then there is nothing imperfect in it. And as soon as there is a resurrection of the body, then all the members will rise, and not one of them will be left. And if at all one member does not rise, then the whole body will not rise. And if only one member is left unresurrected, the very one that seduces, then not a single member will remain at all; for they have all tempted us. But who can tear away from himself the heart from which all temptations come? From within (it is said) come fornication, adultery, adultery, and the like (Mark 7:21,22). Who will pluck out his heart? And if, in accordance with the insane and wicked opinion of some, the body does not rebel: then why should there be a difference in the doctrine affirmed about the members? For if all members do not enter the kingdom of heaven at all, then what is the need to lose one member when this is not fulfilled with others? If the body rebels (and it really does rebel): then how is it possible that even in the kingdom of heaven there is damage in the body? Or would it not be indecent for bodies in the kingdom of heaven to be subject to damage, when this kingdom is appointed for the glory of those who are in it? Moreover, even if a tempting member is cut off, then it is already cut off and does not sin; and if he is cut off and does not sin, then he, who did not sin, should have been resurrected first of all. Those who have enough courage to do this work at hand make themselves rejected from everyone and alien to everyone. For they are no longer husbands, due to the removal of their penis, and they cannot be wives, because it is contrary to nature. Yes, they did not get the title with which the feat is crowned and awarded. For they will turn out to not belong to any of those three categories of eunuchs about which the Lord speaks. The essence is, he says, eunuchs, those who were born from their mother’s womb (Matthew 19:12). They are not guilty of their hoarding; there is no sin on them because this happened to them, and also they cannot commit sin, I mean the sin of lust: because by nature they do not have reproductive instruments created by God. But the kingdom of heaven is not given to them as a reward for espionage, because they are not initiated into the feat. Although they also participate in lusts; but since they cannot do what they should not do, and therefore do not do it, they have no reward. For they did not do the work because they did not want to, but because they could not. This is the state of the first category of eunuchs about whom the Lord speaks, that is, those who were born eunuchs from their mothers. These heretics cannot belong to the number of these, because their skoptism is the work of their hands. And they are eunuchs, castrated from man (Matthew 19:12), says the Savior. But those mentioned above do not belong to these. Those are born like this; and these people become eunuchs for royal or princely service. For some of the kings, or even the rulers of the barbarians, out of jealousy and suspicion of their spouses, take at their own request young men who are almost still young, and make them eunuchs, so that when they mature, they entrust to them, as I said, their own spouses. This was the reason for the espionage in the world. Hence, I think, the name eunuchs may come from, that is, from the fact that after the removal of their members, they can be well-meaning (ἐυνοεῖν) and, as being deprived of tools, do not know bodily confusion. So here is the second category: these are those who are taken from adolescence and become eunuchs from men, and not for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. And they are eunuchs who have corrupted themselves for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 19:12). Who are these eunuchs? The valiant Apostles and the virgins and monastics who follow them. These are John and James, the sons of Zebedee, who were virgins, but did not cut off members with their own hands, and were not married, but struggled in their own hearts, and wondrously earned the glory of this feat. And after them, how many monastics in the world and from monasteries and monasteries of maidens gained fame by this feat, how many who did not mix physically with their wives, but labored in the most perfect feat! This is how we find Elijah in the Old Testament, and Paul, who says: I say to the unmarried, that it is good for them if they remain as I did. If they do not resist, they will encroach (1 Cor. 7:8,9). How did he himself stay? If his members were cut off, and those who resembled him, in fulfillment of the words: like I, remained just like him: then how could anyone with cut off members get married if he could no longer abstain? And don't you see? Let them encroach, and not inflame, says the Apostle: about abstinence, and not about taking away members. If these heretics claim that they have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, then how can they remove from themselves the saying: these are some who are gathered together from men (Matthew 19:12)? For if someone makes himself an eunuch with his own hands, then he is a man, and his hands are doing this impermissible thing; and if he cannot do this to himself, but is castrated by others, then this will no longer be for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, because he is castrated by people, that is, either by himself or by those who did it. And he will also not receive a crown and reward, because it is not mercy that he deserves by abstaining from the use of members, but on the contrary, he cannot use the members that serve this purpose due to their withdrawal. He who injures his own member will be subject to the same judgment, as will he who cuts another man's vineyard. For such a one does not live according to the will of God, but insidiously rebels against the Lord God the Creator. And he will be even more obsessed with lust. For, according to the saying of the Wise One, even the eunuch is not freed from lust, but cannot satisfy it, which is why the Wise One says: the desire of the eunuch to corrupt the maiden (Sir.20:4). Oh, how many different nonsenses have been invented in the world everywhere! This is what we know about these heretics. Therefore, having said briefly about them and, as I said, assuming that they are the same ones about whom it was said above, let us leave them and laugh at them, that they, like a scorpion with two stings, with horns and claws, first of all, resist the inherited rules of life from their fathers, and with the other sting they rebel against the establishment of the holy church of God; having trampled them with hard boots, that is, the sayings of the Gospel, and having laughed at these heretics, we will put an end to their foolishness, according to custom, moving on to the following heresies. About Kafarah, the unclean, 39th (59th) Following them, the so-called Kafars 253 appeared from a certain Navat, as many talk about this. This Navat was in Rome during the persecution that preceded the Maximin persecution. Perhaps, as I think, it was the persecution of Decievo or Aurelian. Concerning those who fell during the persecution, he became exalted with pride, and together with his followers did not want to have communication with those who repented after the persecution, and turned to this heresy, namely, he taught that this is not salvation, but that repentance is one, 254 and after the font there can be no pardon for anyone who has fallen. And we also affirm that there is only one repentance, and that by the washing of this being, salvation is obtained (Tim. 3:5); but we do not deny God’s love for mankind, knowing the true preaching and mercy of the Lord, and what should deserve the indulgence of nature - namely: the soul’s ability to be carried away, the weakness of the flesh, the great emotion of many during the fall - why no one is sinless and clean from filth, even if his life on earth was only one day (Job 14:4,5). And perfect repentance occurs in the font; but if someone has fallen, God’s holy church does not destroy him, but gives room for conversion, and after repentance, repentance. For God said to Cain: Have you not sinned? be silent (Gen.4:7), and to the paralytic: behold, you are healthy: let him not sin (John 5:14). And the Lord calls Peter to Himself again after his renunciation, and, according to the three renunciations, calls him three times to confession: Do you love Me, Peter? Do you love Me, Peter? Do you love Me, Peter? and says: Feed my sheep (John 21:15,16). Kafarov, however, misleads the saying of the Apostle: it is not possible for those who are enlightened by one, and have tasted the good word of God, and the power of the coming age, and those who have fallen away, to be renewed into repentance, who again crucify the Son of God to themselves, and reprove. For the earth, which has drunk in abundance the rain that falls upon it, and gives birth to the former goodness of it, which is done by them, receives the blessing: but the one that bears thorns and thistles does not need to eat or curse, but its end is burning (Heb. 6:4-8). And it is truly impossible to renew those who were once renewed and those who have fallen away. For Christ will not yet be born to be crucified for us; no one can crucify the Son of God again, who is no longer crucified; no one can accept the second font; because there is one baptism, and one renewal. However, the Holy Apostle, healing the church and having care for its members, immediately offers healing to them and says: we hope for you, beloved, the best, and those who adhere to salvation, even if he says so. For God is not offended, forgetting your good deeds (Heb. 6:9,10). Do you see how the Apostle, although he decisively declared that there could be no second renewal, did not deprive those who still repent of salvation, but showed that they are close to salvation, and that the Lord God is the protector of those who, after their falls, bring the most perfect repentance, conversion and repentance, for their good deeds? Therefore, both the holy word and the holy church of God always accepts repentance, not out of licentiousness, not in order to make those who perform the work careless, but so as not to go against God’s grace and God’s love for mankind, because it knows how to handle every matter. For just as one who has lost his virginity cannot acquire it physically, due to natural impossibility, so one who has fallen into some great sins after the font; and just as the one who has lost his virginity is left with the second honor - abstinence: so the one who, having been baptized, has suffered a greater fall, remains with another healing; not as strong as the first, however, even this, the acquired second, is not alienated from life. Therefore, the Word of God does not reject rewards for those who work in repentance. And then these same heretics, going even further from this, invented something else. For they say that they have the same faith that we have. But they don’t want to have contact with bigamous people. If someone, after baptism, marries a second wife, then he will no longer be accepted by these heretics. All this makes little sense. Let's imagine a person floating in the water, who, not knowing how to swim, indulges in the waters, and drowns due to his inexperience, because he is not well acquainted with the art of saving himself with the help of his hands and feet, he thinks that the water simply carries a person, without the help of his own hands; or how can we imagine a person who, hearing that the ruler punishes scoundrels even for the slightest offenses, thinks that the same punishment applies to everyone, that is, both for murder and for slandering a neighbor, or for a fight; or imagine a completely ignorant person who, seeing that the boss, having received power, draws a sword against villains, and against sorcerers, and blasphemers, or insults to the majesty, will think that everyone has the power to punish for such guilt, and when he sees people being executed, he himself, in imitation of that, will want to kill some, condemning them as if they were criminals, but having been caught, he himself will suffer punishment, because he did not receive from the king the power to similar cases; thinking that the legal court issues the same sentence to everyone, with this untruth, as a result of his ignorance and his lack of understanding, he will betray himself to destruction. So these heretics, having mixed everything together, lost everything, and not understanding God’s teaching exactly, sinfully turned to another path, and do not know that the tradition and order of Divine Scripture are these very things. For what was taught regarding the priesthood because of the primary importance of the sacred act, they thought that it applied equally to everyone. Hearing that it is appropriate for a bishop to be an immaculate wife, one wife to her husband (1 Tim. 3:2), abstinent (1 Tim. 1:8), and likewise a deacon (1 Tim. 3:12), and a presbyter, they did not think that this definition refers to these orders. And indeed, God’s holy preaching after Christ’s coming, due to the superiority of the honor of the priesthood, does not admit to the priesthood those who, after the death of the wife of their first marriage, were united in a second marriage. And this is accurately observed by the Holy Church of God. She even, especially where church rules are strictly followed, does not allow to the priesthood a husband, one wife, still living with his wife and bearing children, but admits to the deacon, and to the presbyter, and to the bishop and to the subdeacon only those who have begun to abstain from one wife, or have become widowed. But of course, you will tell me that in some places elders, deacons and subdeacons still give birth to children. This is not according to the rule, but due to the weakening of the soul that has appeared over time in people and the lack of church ministers for many believers. For the Church, well-ordered by the Holy Spirit, always keeping in mind what is most appropriate, recognized it as necessary to take care that services to God were performed without distraction, and spiritual needs were fulfilled with a completely prudent conscience. I mean that it is fitting for the presbyter, deacon and bishop, due to unexpected services and needs, to be free to serve God. For if the holy Apostle also commands the laity, saying that they should free themselves for a time from everything for prayer (1 Cor. 7:5): then does not the same command the priest much more? But I am talking about non-entertainment in order to freely perform sacred rites according to the will of God in spiritual needs. And the laity, due to weakness, may be allowed, if they cannot stop at the first marriage, after the death of the first wife, to marry a second. And although he who has one wife enjoys greater praise and honor among all those belonging to the church; However, if someone could not be content with one wife, in the event of her death, or separation, which occurred for any reason: whether as a result of fornication, or adultery, or vicious guilt, and was married to a second wife, or the wife was married to a second husband: then the word of God does not recognize them as guilty, and does not excommunicate them from the church and life, on the contrary, because of the weakness of people, it is not tolerated that a person, even during the life of one wife, had in at the same time another, but that, after separation from one, if it happens, it would be combined with the other according to the law; to such a person the holy word and the holy church of God show mercy, especially if he is otherwise reverent and lives in accordance with the law of God. For even the Apostle would not say to widows: let them marry, bear children, rule the house (1 Tim. 5:14); Nor would I say to a husband who has a wife of his father, and is given over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord (1 Cor. 5:1.5), - he would not say: strengthen your love for him, so that he may be consumed with a little sorrow (2 Cor. 2:9,8). And he also said: what do you give him, and I: therefore, even if we give you gifts, for the sake of the gifts, in the presence of Christ, let us not be harmed by Satan: for we do not fail to understand his plans (2 Cor. 2:10,11). See how the Apostle gives room for repentance even after the fall. The Lord also says: forgive one another’s sins, so that your heavenly Father may also forgive you (Matthew 6:14). And also in another place the Apostle says this: and I will mourn for the many among you who have fallen and have not repented (2 Cor. 12:21), which shows that if they have fallen and repented, they become worthy of acceptance, and will not be rejected, because the Lord knows what to do with everyone. That this is the distinctive property of the rule of truth is clear to everyone. After the first repentance through the bath of rebirth, in which the whole person was renewed, there is no other like this. For there are not two baptisms, but one; and Christ was not crucified twice, but once, and not twice, he died for us and rose again. And for this reason we must be careful not to lose the crown of renewal by falling. But if anyone falls and falls into some sin, as the Apostle says, you spiritually correct such a person with a spirit of meekness: being careful, lest you also be tempted (Gal. 6:1). Therefore, if anyone falls into any sin, let him repent. For God accepts repentance even if someone falls after baptism. And how he acts after this, He alone knows: for His judgment is untestable, and His ways are inexplicable (Rom. 11:33). And before the coming one should not judge, until the Lord comes, Who will reveal the secrets of the heart: and then the praise (1 Cor. 4:5) of everyone will be revealed: the day for which it will be revealed will be revealed before fire (1 Cor. 3:13). Therefore, we do not promise the fallen after baptism any freedom at all, and we do not despair for their lives. For God is merciful and generous (John 4:2), and has given that there is return for those who repent (Sir.17:20). And the first is clear; and we know about the second by the fact that God is merciful if we repent of our sins with all our souls: for in His hand is life, and salvation, and love for mankind. And what he does is known to Him alone; but only there is no harm to anyone from repentance, and the one who repents of all sins is not rejected. Especially the one who, according to the law, married a second wife. And the first wife is from the ordinance of God; and the second - from human weakness; but if someone has also been married to a wife, then this weakness is still bearable. The Apostle says: a wife is bound by the law, while her husband lives; and if she dies, the husband is free to eat, but she wants to encroach on him (1 Cor. 7:39), which shows that after the death of her husband, this, without any contradiction, is free from sin, and adds: about the Lord, as a sign that the one who, after the death of her husband, is united with another husband is not alien to the Lord, or not He is a stranger to the Lord who, after the death of his wife, marries another wife, precisely about the Lord, as the Apostle himself says. The Apostle also says: She is most blessed if she remains so (1 Cor. 7:40). About the Lord means: not in fornication, not in adultery, not stealing marriage, but lawfully, openly, in an honest marriage, remaining in pure faith, in the commandments, in acts of kindness, in reverence, in fasting, in good conduct, in almsgiving, in zeal, in good deeds. For this, if they are together and remain, not idle, less than barren, they will bring about the coming of the Lord (2 Peter 1:8). And the priesthood is assigned the primacy of rank and strict observance of everything; and to the laity - moderation and leniency, so that everyone can learn and be pardoned. For the Lord is merciful and powerful to save everyone by His own good laws and true faith in pure preaching. He alone is pure. And these, who call themselves clean, actually become completely unclean. For everyone who claims about himself that he is clean, decisively condemns himself as unclean. But even if it were true that the teaching speaks in this way about all the laity, great is the madness of these heretics who think highly of themselves. It was necessary to know that it is not for this alone that guilt falls on every soul, and not for this alone that it becomes virtuous, but also by not slandering, not swearing with an oath either in truth or in lies, but by saying: to her, to her: neither, nor (Matt. 5:37), not to be deceitful, not to slander, not to steal, not to deceive in trade. From all this we collect the defilements of sin, for just as, according to what has been said, a stake is erased between two stones, so sin is between the one who buys and the one who sells (Sir. 27:2). It should have been known that, of course, among the multitude there are people who are dishonest in trade, covetous people, usurers, and that, without a doubt, these heretics have all this and the like, because deception follows each of them. How can they call themselves pure, thinking with one promise to protect the whole matter of pleasing God from all errors? But they did not know the teaching exactly, nor the one for whom this strict injunction forbade second marriage. And also if those who have fallen due to persecution show complete repentance, sit in sackcloth and ashes and cry before the Lord: the Merciful is able to have mercy on them; for nothing bad comes from repentance. Therefore, both the Lord and His church accept those who repent. Thus Manasseh the son of Hezekiah converted and was accepted by the Lord. The holy and supreme of the Apostles Peter, who for a time renounced, was also accepted, who became for us a truly solid stone, constituting the foundation of the Lord’s faith. On this rock the church was created in all respects, firstly because Peter confessed Christ as the Son of the living God, and heard: on this rock of unshakable faith I will build my church (Matthew 16:16.18); because He clearly confessed Him as the true Son, for having said: Son of the living God, by adding: living, He showed that He is the true Son, as much has been said about this in the refutation of almost every heresy. And also about the Holy Spirit, he confirms us by saying to Ananias and his wife: Why has Satan tempted you to lie to the Holy Spirit? You have not lied to man, but to God (Acts 5:3,4); because the Spirit is from God and is not alien to God. And even in that case, Peter became the solid stone of the building and the foundation of the house of God, when, after renouncing and converting again, he was found by the Lord, and was deemed worthy to hear again: Feed My lambs, and: Feed My sheep (John 21:15,16). By saying this, Christ leads us to conversion through repentance, so that on it again a well-founded faith is built, which does not deny life to people as long as they live and breathe, truly repent, and in this age correct their mistakes. So in the Song of Songs the bride herself says to the groom: my brother answers and says to me: Arise, come, my neighbor, my good one, my dove, for winter has passed, that is, the terrible, gloomy and very terrible accumulation of clouds has passed, the rain has gone, gone away: flowers have appeared on our land, the time of circumcision has come, the cry of the turtledove is heard in of our land: the figs bear their blossom, your ripening grapes give off a stink (Song. 2:10-13). How does one know that all the past has passed, because spring is already blooming, the sea is calm, the fear of rain has passed, the old branches on the grapes are cut off, the grass is not only green, but also produces flowers, the voice of the sermon cries out in the desert - this means the words: in our land - and the fig tree, once cursed, wears out its color, that is, the fruits of repentance appearing on the branches and trees, and in The fragrant preaching of the gospel faith is already ripening in the vineyard. since the Word of God now called the bride and said: Arise, come (v. 10), - arise from the deadness of sin and come to righteousness, arise from falling and come with boldness, rise from sins and come in repentance, rise from relaxation and come intact, rise from damage and come healthy, rise from unbelief and come with faith, rise from destruction and come found; and since she knew that after the first repentance, and after the first calling and healing, humanity would, so to speak, experience many falls: then again he said: Arise, come, my neighbor, my good one, my dove. This is the second time he calls her, not just once. And the second time the call is not the same as the first. For in the first invocation he says this: Arise, come, my neighbor, my good one, my dove. For the first time: arise, come, and does not say: come you (-13,14). The second time he adds this part of the speech to show that the second invocation is different from the first, and, indeed, even at the first invocation after the falls, the favorable hand of heavenly love for mankind is again given. And he says: come, my little dove, covered with stone, near the entrance (- 14): in the covering of stone, in the love of Christ, and in the mercy of the Lord, this is what the covering of stone is - a reliable, faithful and true cover; near the entrance, that is, before the door is locked, before the king, having entered inside the fence, will no longer receive, and this is after leaving here and death, when we are no longer near the entrance, but the doors are locked, and it is impossible to correct ourselves. For in the next century, after a person departs from here, there is no benefit from fasting, there is no call to repentance, there is no profit from alms, and there are also no deeds worthy of accusation: no abuse, no fornication, no debauchery, there is also no truth and repentance. Likewise, when the ear is compressed, it cannot become full of grain, or become damaged by the wind, or suffer anything else. And do not tell me about the damage in the barn, that is, about the worms, 255 about the worms and moths: for this happens to what belongs to this age; and what was indicated to us and spoken under the image of the doors and enclosed in the granary marks and prescribes the area of ​​​​faith, where neither robbers break in nor aphids corrupt (Matthew 6:20), as the word of God says. After death, as I said, there is no benefit from piety and repentance. For there neither Lazarus goes to the rich man, nor the rich man to Lazarus: and Abraham does not let go of his spoil the poor man, who has finally become rich, nor does the rich man, who has become poor, receive what he asks for, although in his request he begged the merciful Abraham. For the vault is sealed, the time is fulfilled, and the feat is over, the place of competition is empty, the crowns are distributed, those who labored are calmed down, those who did not manage to leave the battlefield, those who did not struggle no longer have the opportunity to do so, those defeated in the competition are cast out, it is clear, everything ended with the departure from here. While everything is in this century, and after the fall, an uprising is possible, there is still hope, there is still healing, there is still confession, and although this is far from complete perfection, salvation is not denied to this, like everything else. But every heresy that departs from the truth is blind in darkness and closes its eyes, thinking one thing instead of another. For these heretics are like other ignorant people who do not know the quality, purpose and decoration of each member in the body; and the nonsense of the heretics, one can say, no matter how funny what I intend to say, is just as if they put shoes on their heads, a wreath on their feet, a golden hryvnia around the belly, or another case, as if footwear made of some kind of material, which others call underwear (οδὼνια) or trousers (βράϰαι), began to be worn on your hands, rings on your feet. Thus the institutions of these ignoramuses turn out to be erroneous and disorderly. For what was approved about the second marriage and other things regarding the priesthood, they made it a law for the whole people, which was proclaimed by God for the sake of primary severity, so that some, being careless, would not fall, they, attributing to God, brought it to inhumanity. And just as if someone, taking his clothes by the sleeve, covers himself only from the so-called hand to the elbow, but every hour he raises the sleeve to his eyes, and laughs at others, forgetting that his whole body is naked: so these, who boast that they do not accept bigamous people, proclaim one commandment, and ignored all the others, although they are similar to it, and are even much better when preserved, and failure to observe them causes death. Thus, having forgotten themselves, they leave their whole body naked, because they leave all the commandments not put into action, and even one commandment is not kept in its pure form. And, oh, how great is human wisdom! For every reason, no matter how small the other, every heresy is distracted from the truth and is carried away into a great multitude of evils. For just like if someone, having found a gap in a fence along the road, decides to pass through it, and leaves the path, deviates to the side, thinking that it is possible, having made a detour, to return very close to the path again, and does not think that the wall is very high and built for a long distance, and not finding how to get out onto the road, runs, then, instead of one mile (σημείον) or a mile, having passed unnoticed much more more, he will not find the way, and thus will deviate more to the side, but thus exhausting himself and not having the means to get out on the road, he may not be able to find it, unless he returns to the path that he took at first: so is all heresy; having conceived of inventing, as it were, some kind of shortcut, he deviates far from the path, but finds in front of him an indestructible wall - a weave of unreason and ignorance, and will not find how to come to the true path, unless he returns to the original path, that is, the royal path, as the law clearly proclaims in the words of Saint Moses to the king of Edom: thus says, thy brother Israel, by thy borders I will pass through the land which the Lord swore to give to our fathers, a land flowing with milk. and with honey, the land of the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Girgashites, the Jebusites, the Hivites, the Canaanites, and the Henites, a land flowing with honey and milk. Let us not turn aside to the right hand or to the left. Let us drink water for money, and eat food for money; Let us not turn aside this way or that way, let us go the royal way (Num. 20:14.17). Truly there is a royal path; this is the church of God and the way of truth. And each of the heresies, leaving the royal path and deviating to the right or to the left, further multiplying its growth, will be carried away into error, and the dissipation of error in any heresy no longer has measure. So what, servants of God, sons of the holy church of God, who lead an unshakable rule and walk the path of truth? Let us not entertain ourselves with voices, and we will not follow the voice of any counterfeit charter. For the ways of these heretics are sinful, and the path of their false way of thinking is downhill. They boast a lot, but know little. They promise freedom, but they themselves are slaves who are more than sin (2 Peter 2:19). They boast about a lot, but have achieved little at all. But it is enough, as I think, what has been said so far about these so-called Pure ones, but in fact, if the truth must be told, unclean ones. Having cast aside this heresy, like the image of the basilisk, which apparently contains something excellent in its name, 256 but on occasion causes death, and having beaten it with the power of the tree of the cross, let us again rush against other heresies, adding the same prayer to God, so that He will accompany us, be present, co-present, assist, save us, instruct, vouchsafe to tell the truth, so that we ourselves, having said something is false, not to fall into the same thing that the heresies fell to, teaching the world not the truth. And there are also in Africa and Byzacium 257 those who think like these, disobedients, so called, after a certain Donatus, Donatiana. And they, because they do not enter into communication with those who fell away during the persecution, will be refuted in the same way as the Novatians, or the so-called Caphars, who walk with them under an alien yoke. Therefore, we did not need to have anything else to do with them; but we have placed them in connection with others like them. However, they have fallen even more for the worse: for they philosophize about faith in the Arian way. But in their bad philosophies about faith they will be refuted in the same way as Arius, who philosophizes in the same way with them, as they with him, will be refuted with the words of truth. Having also passed this heresy, let us move on to those following it in order, trampling them in the Lord like terrible reptiles. About Angeliki, 40th (60th) We have heard about the heresy of the Angelics, and only the sound of their name has reached us, but we do not quite clearly know what kind of heresy it is, perhaps because it, having been formed at some time, subsequently ceased and was finally destroyed. We don’t know why she had this name. For either because some claim that the world was brought into being by Angels, but I cannot say whether the very heresy that asserts this is called by this name, or because it had this name because these heretics are magnified as if they are in the rank of angels and lead a very different way of life, but I do not affirm this either; or they received this name from some place, because there is some area of ​​\u200b\u200bAngelika, lying on the other side of the Mesopotamian country. But listener, if you are mindful, then your suspicions will not lead to reproach. We promised to declare about some heresies their roots and content, or anything done belonging to them, and to mention others only by name; and how much the Power of God helped and gave before this heresy, of all that we have outlined, not a single one was left unexplained, with the exception of this one. Or perhaps the concept of it is not entirely clear to our knowledge, because it became exalted in arrogance for a short time, and subsequently ceased. Having quickly mentioned only its name, and treated its name as if it were a slander, we bypass this place in order to rush to the consideration of other heresies, asking the Lord of all to open up to us and, having shown our little mind the details of what happens among heretics, let us understand everything exactly, so that we can direct ourselves and our neighbors to avoid the unworthy and to acquire constancy from God in goodness and genuine truth. On the Apostles, 41st (61st) After these heretics, others called themselves Apostolics, and also want to be called Apotacticians. They observe non-covetousness. And these are also a fragment of the teachings of the Tatianovs, Enkratites, Tatians and Kafars, who actually do not accept marriage. But their sacraments have also been changed. They exalt themselves in their lack of covetousness, while in vain they tear apart the holy church of God and harm it with unauthorized service, departing from God’s love for mankind. For they no longer have acceptance for any of the fallen; and also about marriage and other things, they think similarly to those about whom it was said above. But the Kafars use only the generally accepted Scriptures; and these, alienating church rules in everything, rely for the most part on the so-called Acts of Andrew and Thomas. If marriage is unclean, then all those born from marriage are unclean. And if the holy church of God consists only of those who have renounced marriage, then marriage is no longer of God; and if every reason for procreation is not from God, then it is alien to God; and if the basis of procreation is alien to God, then children are alien to God, as those born from marriage. Why is it said: God joins together, let not man separate (Matthew 19:6)? For to separate forcibly is from a person; and to abstain voluntarily is not a human matter, but a divine one, as the Lord said. And natural need is often criticized because it is not done with proper consideration, but comes out of the rule: for godliness is alien to coercion, and righteousness depends on will. Actually, it is necessary for godliness, as is obvious, that something is given to human nature in some way: not to commit fornication, not to commit adultery, not to be debauched, not to enter into a second marriage at the same time, not to be a predator, not to offend, not to get drunk, not to be insatiable, not to idolize, not to kill, not to practice sorcery, not to curse, not to be a scolder, not to swear, and although to come into indignation, but quickly subdue, be angry and not sin, lest the sun go down on anger (Eph. 4:26). And that it is lawful to marry can be made clear by the nature created by God and given permission to do so. And everything else like this happens one way or another in accordance with permission. But we started talking about these heretics. They are found in a small area in Phrygia, Cilicia and Pamphylia. What then? Therefore, the church, which is from the ends of the earth to the ends of the earth, has been reduced, and no longer has their message gone out to the whole earth, and their words to the ends of the world (Rom. 10:18)? And also the saying of the Savior will not take place: will you be My witnesses even to the last of the earth (Acts 1:8)? For if marriage is not honorable, and is not pleasing to God, and life is lost to marriage: then let them be born without marriage; and if they are born from marriage; then impurity due to marriage. If they alone are not bad, although they come from marriage, then marriage is not bad, because without it no one in the world can be born. So great is the error of these people, which has caused harm to the human race in various ways and for many reasons and, under a plausible pretext, has led each of them away from the truth. And in the church there is renunciation of the world; but she does not disdain marriage. And in the church there is non-covetousness; but the church does not rebel against those who own righteous acquisitions and have it from their parents to satisfy themselves and those in need. And many abstain from food, but do not become puffed up before those who do not abstain: for the one who is poisonous, let him not rebuke the one who eats, and the one who is not poisonous, let him not condemn the one who eats: for he eats and drinks of the Lord, and he does not eat or drink of the Lord (Rom. 14:3.6). You see: in the church: one unanimity, one hope, one faith, distributed to each according to his own strength and according to his own feat in work. God's holy church is like a ship. And the ship is not built from one tree, but from various ones; and although its keel is made of one tree, it is not from one log (ὀυμονοβόλας), but the anchors are from others, 258 and the beams and flooring on the deck, the side, posts, and parts of the stern, walls, lintels, sails and rudder, levers, tillers and rules, and so on - all this is collected in the ship from various trees. And each of these heresies is some kind of one-tree and does not demonstrate a distinctive property of the church. But in the holy church of God there is also an honest marriage, and it is revered as such, because the marriage is honest, and the bed is undefiled (Heb. 13:4): there is the most amazing continence, and it is boasted, because the church strives as a feat, and does not care about this world, as being much more powerful; but there is also virginity, and it is glorified as something valiant and adorned with the lightest wings. There are those in the church who have renounced the world, but who are not puffed up before those who are still converted in the world, but who rejoice for them, if they are very pious, as the Apostles did, although they themselves were not acquisitive. And the Savior Himself, the Lord of all, being in the flesh, did not have any earthly acquisitions, but did not reject the wives who served Him and His disciples: for it is said: even when they walked after Him from Galilee, they served Him (Matthew 27:55) and those who were with Him from their possessions (Luke 8:3). Otherwise, how will what was said be fulfilled: come, stand at my right hand for the blessing to which my heavenly Father appointed the kingdom before the foundation of the world. For you were hungry, and gave Me food: you were thirsty, and you gave Me to drink: you were naked, and you clothed Me (Matthew 25:34–36)? How could they do this if they did not do this from righteous labors (Proverbs 3:9), and from their righteous possessions? And if these people who renounced the world and led an apostolic lifestyle were mixed with others, they would not have an alien distinctive feature, far from the institution of God; and if they renounced their wives for the sake of abstinence, then their abstinence would be commendable, if only they did not disdain marriage, but, knowing the work and dignity of each, were in communication with those who are still married. For the ship of God receives everyone who comes in, except the robber. Knowing who the predator and sea robber is, the ship does not accept him, nor does he accept the fugitive or the one who has escaped from the power of his masters. So the holy Church of God does not allow fornication, does not allow adultery, does not allow apostasy, does not accept the institutions established by God by the Apostles that reject the authority? She accepts some with a great purchase, some because of their experience in navigation, some as a helmsman and an expert, one to the bow of the ship, another, namely, one who has the greatest skill in not losing sight of the goal, to the stern, some even as if instead of the weight and luggage placed at the bottom, and some only in order to swim across and not drown in the sea. And if it does not give salvation to someone, then, without a doubt, it is not because he lacks so much: on the contrary, she knows how to save everyone, but each according to his own work. Otherwise, why do the Apostles kiss those from the house of Caesar (Phil. 4:22)? Why is it also said by the Apostle: if you consider it indecent for your maiden, she should do so; let her marry, she does not sin (1 Cor. 7:36)? This word: does not sin, cannot be fulfilled without the help of the font. For if all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, we are justified through grace (Rom. 3:23,24): then it is obvious that all are justified by the washing of regeneration (Tim. 3:5). For this bath, having washed away every sin with repentance, adorns the soul and body. Consequently, just as the gift of baptism extends to a genuine virgin, so to one who is no longer a virgin, there is a special need to put the seal of baptism on account of sinfulness. But although we said about the virgin that, according to the decree of the apostle, she should get married; Let people who are prone to licentiousness not think that the Apostle decreed this, wanting to one day dedicate her virginity to God to remove her from her career. For we are not talking about these virgins, but about virgins who have passed into adulthood, who remained at their maturity not for the sake of virginity, but because of the inconvenience of finding husbands to marry. The apostles, as having come from the Jews, and building their lives according to the law, when they began preaching, were still bound by legal decrees, not in the form of any justification of the flesh, but in the form of decent firmness in the law and strict observance of it. And the law amazingly preached to the Israelites, so that they would not give their daughters to foreigners, so that they would not seduce them to idols. Therefore, at that time, each of the believers was ordered not to give his virgin in marriage to Jews, but to marry only to like-minded and like-minded Christians. since the sermon was new; there were still not many Christians and Christian teachings visiting the places. Therefore, those who at that time had maiden daughters, not having the means to marry them off as Christians, took care of their maidens for a long time; and those, having become overripe, fell into fornication out of natural need. Therefore, the Apostle, seeing the damage that occurs from strict observance of this, gave permission, saying: if anyone wants his virgin... and did not say: his virginity, for he is not talking about his body, but about the father who protects the maiden; and if he calls his body his virgin, then this is not an obstacle; and so he says: he stands firm in his mind, and she must do this: let him trespass and not sin (1 Cor. 7:86,87). Yes, he encroaches, he speaks for whom he finds it convenient, he does not sin. And for this reason are you attached to your wife? do not seek permission: have you renounced your wife? don’t look for a wife (– 27). The speaker: I want everyone to be like me (- 7), said: if they cannot resist, let them encroach (- 9). Again turning to the unmarried, he said: I say to the unmarried and to the widows: it is good for them if they remain as I did (-8). How else did he say: have you become attached to your wife? don't seek permission? Or how will the Apostle not be found to give the law contrary to his Lord, who says: Whoever does not leave father, and mother, and brethren, and wife, and children, and daughters, is not my disciple (Luke 14:26)? How then does He Himself, who says that one must leave an honest wife and father, also say: honor 259 father and mother (Matthew 15:4), for this is the first commandment of promise (Eph.6:2) and: let God join together, let not man separate (Matthew 19:6)? But there is no need for allegory to see what power all the sayings of God have; but speculation and meaning are needed to know the strength of each position. One must also make use of tradition: for not everything can be borrowed from divine Scripture. For this reason, the holy Apostles betrayed one thing in the scriptures, and another in tradition, as the holy Apostle says: as I delivered it to you (1 Cor. 11:2), and in another place: so I teach, and so I have delivered in the churches (- 7:17), and if you hold it: unless you believe in vain (- 15:2). Therefore, the holy Apostles of God betrayed to the holy Church of God that it is sinful, by defining oneself as a virgin, to marry. And the Apostle wrote: even if a virgin commits violence, she has not sinned (7:28). How does this fit in with that? But the Apostle is not talking about the virgin who decided to be a virgin for God, but about the one who remained a virgin out of necessity, due to the difficulty of the small number of those who believed in Christ at that time. And that this is so, the Apostle himself can teach us, who says: deny young widows: for after they become angry against Christ, they who have sin want to encroach, because they have rejected the first faith (1 Tim. 5:11,12). Therefore, if a widow, after testing life in the world, because it is so arranged by God, will have a sin if she later gets married, as someone who rejected her first faith: then how much greater is the sin of a virgin who, without having experienced life in the world, dedicated herself to God, if she gets married? Doesn’t she turn out to be much more enraged against Christ, more rejected of faith, and will she not be condemned as having failed to keep her intentions in relation to God? Therefore, let them get married, bear children, rule the house (-14): here is a short and moderate word against those who think badly about every subject of church preaching. The Church so rejects those who call themselves Apostolics, Apotactics and Encratites, and so rejects those who in the Church are prone to licentiousness and exhort women, not embarrassed by the demands of a perfect path, to renounce the field leading to such perfection. And although he who has rejected virginity, dedicated to God, and brought disgrace to the feat, is subject to sin and judgment: for just as a wrestler who has violated the rules of wrestling, upon punishment with whips, is ejected from the place of struggle, so the one who violates virginity is ejected from this path and is deprived of the crown and reward: however, judgment is better than condemnation. For whoever, out of shame before people, commits fornication secretly, hiding behind monasticism or abstinence, although he is not open to people, he is revealed to God, who knows the hidden and at His coming will convict all flesh of everything that everyone has sinned. Therefore, it is better to have one sin than to have many to the point of excess. It is better to clearly leave the high path and take a wife according to the law, and for non-observance of virginity, having brought long-term repentance, to be brought back into the church again as someone who has done something bad, as someone who has fallen and broken and needs a bandage, than to be wounded daily by the hidden arrows of evil from the devil. This is the usual preaching of the church; These are healing medicines; These are the types of world-class art; This is the preparation of holy oil according to the law; Such is the fragrant good faith that girds the one who strives for the feat, and with its voice encourages him to continue the race so that he can receive the crown. This is the work of God, gathering everyone according to the royal command for the construction of the royal palace: and scarlet from the sea, and wool from the sheep, and linen from the land, and fine linen, and silk, and scarlet skins (Ex. 85:23), and the precious stone emerald, pearls, agate, stones different in color, but equally significant in value, and in addition gold, silver, wood that does not rot (– 24), copper and iron, and also that does not reject the wave of a goat (– 26). Such was the tabernacle then, and now, instead of the tabernacle, such is the house established in God, the foundation of power. And may all heresy cease to rebel against the truth, or better yet, may it cease to remove itself from the truth. More about this. Having beaten with the wood of the cross and abandoned this arrogant viper, similar to the so-called acontius, 260 or a blind snake, or a mousetrap snake (although these reptiles do not have so much poison, however, these heretics, for their art of rubbing in, it is good to liken these snakes in their movement, in their arrogance and in their swiftness in attack), and despising these heretics, let us move on, beloved, to the next heresies in order. On the Sabellians, 42nd (62nd) A certain Sabellius rebelled not in very ancient times; this is a new heretic, from whom the so-called Sabellians descended. And he taught very close to the Noetians, with the exception of a few things. This doctrine is adhered to by many in Mesopotamia and the borders of Rome, carried away by some kind of madness. Sabellius, with the Sabellians descended from him, teaches that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one and the same, so that these are three names for one hypostasis or as body, soul and spirit in man. And the Father, so to speak, is the body, and the soul can be called the Son, and, just as in man there is a spirit, so in the Divine there is the Holy Spirit. Or as in the sun, although it is, in essence, one, there are three actions, i.e., to illuminate, and to warm, and also the most rounded appearance. And that which warms, or warmth and heat, is the Spirit, that which enlightens is the Son, and the very form of the whole being is the Father. At one time the Son was sent as a ray, and He did everything in the world pertaining to the gospel economy and the salvation of people, and then ascended again into heaven, like a ray emitted by the sun and returning again to the sun. The Holy Spirit is sent once for the whole world and then separately for each of those worthy of it; With spiritual strength and closeness, he, so to speak, revives and ignites, warms and makes warm. This is what the Sabellians teach. They use all the writings of the Old and New Testaments, but they use only some sayings that they themselves choose, according to their own invention of their damaged mind and unreason. First of all, they use the words and sayings that God said to Moses, namely: Hear to Israel: The Lord your God is one (Deut. 6:4). Do not create other gods for yourself. Let there be no new gods for you (Exodus 20:2–3) (Psalm 81:10), for I am God first and hereafter (Isaiah 41:4), and there is none other than Me (44:6). And everything that is similar to this, according to their own understanding, is cited as confirmation of this. Also from the Gospel are the words: I am in the Father and the Father in Me - and: We two are one (John 14:11; 10:30). And they received all their error and the power of their error from some forged scriptures, especially from the so-called Egyptian Gospel - this is the name some gave it. For in this Gospel much like this is set forth, as if furtively, mysteriously; it says on behalf of the Savior, as if he himself were explaining to the disciples that one and the same Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And when they meet someone who is the most simple-minded or inexperienced, who does not have a clear knowledge of the Divine Scriptures, then for the first time they are confused by such words - what should we say, dear ones? Do we have one God or three gods? When a God-fearing person, but imperfectly versed in the truth, hears this, immediately, confused in mind, he agrees with their error and finds himself denying God, he turns out to be denying the existence of the Son and the Holy Spirit. 3. In all this, the primordial enemy of people acts with his suggestions in order to seduce the majority of people and seduce them from the path of truth: one this way, another another. For in the holy Church of God it is clearly confessed and unanimously recognized that there is truly one God and there is no other. We do not teach polytheism, but we preach unity of command. Preaching unity of command, we do not fall into error, but we confess the Trinity - the Unity in the Trinity and the Trinity in the Unity and the one Divinity of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. For the Son did not beget Himself, and the Father did not change so as to become the Son from the Father, and the Holy Spirit did not ever call himself Christ, but the Spirit of Christ, given through Christ, proceeding from the Father and receiving from the Son. The Father has a personal existence, the Son has a personal existence, and the Holy Spirit has a personal existence, but the Trinity is not a mixture, as Sabellius thought, and does not change in its eternity and glory, as the vain Arius taught, but the Trinity has always been a Trinity, and the Trinity never receives the addition of being one Divinity, one dominion, being one glory. She, however, is counted as the Trinity - the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; she is not counted in such a way that one thing is called by three names, but the names are truly perfect, perfect and hypostases, and there is no change in them. The Father is always the Father, and there has never been a time when the Father was not the Father, He is always the perfect Father, having a personal existence; and the Son is always perfect, always having personal existence, truly begotten of the Father without beginning, pre-eternally and unspeakably - not a brother of the Father, who did not receive the beginning of being, and never ceased to exist, but always, as a true Son, existing with the Father, born before time from the Father, equal to Him, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, uncreated. But He is not the Father Himself, and the Father is not the Son Himself. If the Father is God, then both the Son and the Holy Spirit are God. For the Spirit is always with the Father and the Son; He is not a fellow brother of the Father, not begotten, not created, not the brother of the Son, not the grandson of the Father, he comes from the Father and receives from the Son; not another being with the Father and the Son, but one and the same being, one and the same Divinity, from the Father and the Son, 261 with the Father and the Son, always having a personal existence, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, the Spirit of glory, the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of the Father, for it is said: the Spirit of the Father speaks in you (Matthew 10:20); and again: My Spirit will remain in your midst (Hag.2:6). He is third in name, and equal in Divinity, not different from the Father and the Son, the union of the Trinity, the seal of confession. For the Son says: I and the Father are one (John 10:30), did not say: I am one; but the words: I and the Father mean that the Father has a personal existence and the Son has a personal existence, he said: two, and did not say: one. And again: I am one, but did not say: I am one. In the same way he said: as you go, baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19), and in the middle ones there are conjunctions at the syllable τε, τε and τε. Matthew exposes Sabellius, who introduces confusion of persons, for he denotes truly the Father, truly the Son, truly the Holy Spirit. And when the Trinity is placed in one order and called by one name (in the name), then by this he exposes Arius, who invented in the Trinity some kind of gradualism, or changeability, or difference, for although the Father is proclaimed in the teaching to be greater than the Son, he nevertheless gives glory to the Son. For who would it be fitting to glorify his Father if not the true Son? And again, wanting to show equality, so that some would not fall into error, considering Him, as the Son, lesser, he says this: whoever does not honor the Son as he honors the Father does not have life in himself (John 5:23); and again: all things are the Father, they are Mine (John 16:15). What do the words mean: “The Father has a greatness”, if not that, just as the Father is God, so I am God; The Father is life, and I am life, the Father is eternal, and I am eternal: everything that the Father has is my essence. Look, Sabellius, and think, open the eyes of your heart and do not be blind; May your thoughts and those deceived by you descend with Saint John to the Jordan. Open your ears and listen to the voice of the prophet, saying: I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness (Matthew 3:3). Listen to the Forerunner of the Lord, who was honored to receive the name of the angel who received the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb and leaped at Mary’s entrance to Elizabeth. While still in the womb, he recognized the coming of his Master and leapt. It was given to him to open preaching and prepare the way of the Lord. Believe him and you will not deviate from the goal of truth. So, as soon as he recognized his Master, he testifies, saying: I have need of You, and are You coming to me? When the Savior said: leave now, that all righteousness may be fulfilled (Matthew 3:15), and was baptized by him, then, as the Divine Gospel says, John testified, saying that the heavens were opened and I saw the Holy Spirit descending in the form of a dove and coming upon Him, and a voice from heaven: This is My beloved Son, in Him I am well pleased (John 1:32; Matthew 3:16–17 ). O controversial husband! The father was in heaven, a voice came from heaven. If the voice came from heaven, then I ask you to consider your wrong opinion. To whom did the Father say: This is my beloved Son, and in Him I am well pleased? And who was Sey? Why did the Spirit descend in the form of a dove, although the Holy Spirit does not have a body? For one Only Begotten took on a body and truly became man from the Ever-Virgin Mary through the Holy Spirit. Not from the male seed, but from Mary, He - the creative Word - formed for Himself a body, as well as a human soul and mind, and remains human to this day, having taken everything completely into Himself and united it with His Divinity - not so that He only dwelt in man (this will not happen), but the Holy God Himself - the Word - became man. Why does the Spirit appear in the form of a dove? In order to inspire you, who want to appear wise, but do not understand anything correctly, so that you do not utter blasphemy and do not think of merging the Spirit with the Father or the Son. The Holy Spirit, having no body, takes the form of a dove in order to expose your error and show that the Spirit itself has a personal existence; The Father has it, and the Only Begotten has it; the Divinity, however, is not divided, and His glory is not diminished. You see how the Trinity is numbered: the Father gives a voice from heaven, the Son is baptized in the Jordan, the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove. Tell me again who said this: behold, my beloved child will understand, I am well pleased with Him, my soul will accept him, I will lay down my Spirit, and he will proclaim judgment with his tongue. He will not contradict, he will not cry out, his voice will be heard below at the crossroads. He will not break the broken reeds, and will not quench the flax that heeds, will the Dondezhe bring judgment to victory, etc. (Matthew 12:18–20; Isaiah 52:13; 42:1–3)? Argumentative husband! Surely these words cannot contain references to the Trinity? Did the prophet’s Father really say this about Himself? And who is this, about whom it is written: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand (Ps. 109:1)? Or, as the Gospel says, he ascended into heaven and sat at the right hand of the Father (Mark 16:19), and will come to judge the living and the dead? Or else, how were you not convinced by two men who appeared in white robes and said to the disciples: Men of Galilee, why do you stand with your eyes on heaven? This Jesus, who ascended from you into heaven, will he come in the same way as you see Him ascending (Acts 1:11)? Whom did blessed Stephen see when he said: Behold, I see heaven opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God (Acts 7:56)? And you, ignorant in everything, who did not understand the voice of the Holy Scriptures, did more harm to yourself and to those who listened to you, falling away from the holy faith in the truth of God. God truly said: I am the first and I am hereafter, besides Me there is no other (Is. 44:6). It is true that there are not many gods, but one God, the first and still, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit - the Trinity, unmerged and indivisible in its unity; The Father truly begat the Son, and the Son was truly begotten of the Father and has personal existence without beginning and before time, and the Holy Spirit is truly from the Father and the Son, has the same Divinity, comes from the Father and always receives from the Son - there is one God, the first and to this day. This is also said on behalf of Christ Himself for the sake of some other economy. Although Jesus Christ, our Lord, often appeared to the prophets and announced His future coming, some did not accept Him, expecting another in His place, therefore, lest the children of Israel, becoming mad and turning to the side of superstitious worshipers and idols and introducing polytheism into the world, would not worship the idols of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, the Girgashites, the Jebusites, Arukeev and Asanneev (Gen. 10:15,16), (as, incidentally, it is said about them that they worshiped Beelphegor Chemosh, Astarte, Mazuroth, 262 Neaste 263 and Beelzebath 264 and other pagan idols), the Lord said to them: I am the first and until now, in order to turn them away from the delights of the fables of the pagan worshipers polytheism. And since they had to reject the coming of His Son - our Lord Jesus Christ, He said to the Jews: I am the first and after this - the first who came in the flesh and who is to come to judge the living and the dead, who suffered on the cross, was buried and resurrected, with the same body ascended into heaven in glory, since the body received participation in the glory of His Divinity, shone, is no longer subject to touch and death is no longer involved, for Christ As the Scripture says, the dead rise from the dead; death has no power over them, says the apostle (Rom. 6:9). See how the accuracy (of the scripture) guides a person so that he does not deviate in any direction from the truth. When the mind decided to produce polytheism, then man should have heard: The Lord your God is one Lord (Deut. 6:4). When the children of Israel expect another Christ, and not the one who came, they will hear: I am the first and until now. I am the alpha and omega (Rev. 1:18); alpha (Α) is open downward, and omega (ω) is open upward - so that what was spoken may be fulfilled: he who came down is also the one who ascends above all principality and power and dominion and every name that is called (Eph. 4:10; 1:21). And so that, reflecting on the words: I am the first and I am hereafter, I am the alpha and omega, the Lord your God is one Lord, I am this (Exod. 3:14), no one begins to deny Christ and the Holy Spirit, for this it is said: My Father is sick of Me (John 14:28); and again: that they may know thee the one true God, and it is Jesus Christ that thou hast sent (17:3). This is said not in the sense that the Son is not the true God, but in order to raise the name of the Trinity to unity and turn human thought from polytheism to a single Divinity. If Arius, having lost his mind, thinks that only one is called the true God, that is, the Father, and the Son, although he is God, is not true, he again exposes him in a different way, saying: I am the true light, which enlightens every man who comes into the world (John 8:12; 1:9). About the Father it is said that God is light (1 John 1:5), but it is not said: true light, so that from the name of God true and true light we might recognize the equality of the Divinity of the Father with the Son and of the Son with the Father; and the Father is called light, and the Son is called God, without adding here the word true; and there was no need to say, because there is no doubt, for the words God and light clearly show the one perfection of the same truth both of the Father in relation to the Son, and of the Son in relation to the Father. Thus, all the madness of your delusion is refuted. For the Father is the Father, the Son is the Son, the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit, the Trinity is one Godhead, one glory, one dominion. To him be glory and dominion, to the Father in the Son, to the Son in the Father with the Holy Spirit forever and ever. Amen. Having shaken off this heresy, as if it were a Libyan serpent, or a frog, or a snake, or some other type of reptile, very terrible, but not having the power to cause harm by bites, and trampling it with the power of the Holy Trinity, let us call, moving forward in the order of heresies, the very Intercessor of our wretchedness and poverty, may He help in a worthy manner to expose what is said and what happens in each heresies, and make their refutation. About the Origenists, the first - they are also shameful, 43rd (63rd) Some heretics are called Origenists; This kind of heresy is not found everywhere. In my opinion, this heresy also appeared after those heresies. And from what they are called Origenists, we do not know quite clearly - whether from Origen the adamantine, nicknamed Syntactus, (the writer), or from someone else, I don’t know. However, we have adopted this name. Their heresy is recognized as similar to the heresy of Epiphanes, about whom I spoke above, when presenting the Gnostic heresies. They accept various scriptures of the New and Old Testaments, reject marriage and know no limits in voluptuousness. Some said that this heresy originated in Rome and Africa. They defile their body, mind, and soul with debauchery. Some of them look like monks, and the women living with them look like nuns. Their body is exhausted: satisfying their lust, they, to put it more modestly, do the work of the son of Judah, named Abnan (Gen. 38:9). For just as he, when he touched Tamar with his body and satisfied his lusts, did not do what was necessary for the production of offspring, in accordance with the method of child-bearing given by God, but in the very way of an evil action he committed a sin against himself: so they also use imaginary wives, committing this illegal deed. For them, the subject of competition is not innocence, but hypocritical purity, which goes by the same name. They care so that a woman does not become pregnant from corruption, or so as not to increase childbearing in the world, or so that people do not catch them, they want to be honored for this feat of chastity, revered among them, and yet this is what they do. Others prefer to perform this most shameful deed not through a woman, but in other ways, desecrating themselves with their own hands. And in this they imitate the aforementioned son of Judah, desecrating the earth with their criminal actions and vile drops, and with their feet rubbing their discharges on the earth, so that their seed would not be stolen by unclean spirits, to conceive and give birth to demons. They, as I have already said, use various writings of the Old and New Testaments and some apocryphal books, especially the so-called acts of Andrew and others. They even often boasted that they do this openly, while they accuse those belonging to the church who have lovers, the so-called cohabiting (τὰς συνεισὰϰτος) wives - they accuse them of doing it secretly, ashamed of people, so that they join in lawlessness, and in appearance, in order to avoid people's rumors, they adorn themselves in good faith. Some people told us about some of the dead, what they did too - people who heard this allegedly from the raped women themselves told us. Among these, they put forward the name of one Bishop, who spent quite a few years holding an episcopal position in a small town in Palestine, as if he had such women in his service, that is, cohabiting women; and we also know that he was one of the confessors. However, we did not believe those who told this and said that they had heard about it from the women themselves, although the extreme shrewdness of the people who said this prompted us to either believe or not believe the bad rumor about the previously mentioned elder, the Bishop, that was spread after his death. And the guilt charged to him was this: when one of these was caught in the act of committing a sin with a woman, and when we caught him, he presented in his defense that the woman who had committed fornication with him, although already old in years and outdated, showed him this obscene way of acting and taught him how to do and scatter his bad discharges throughout the earth. Such are their vile actions, deceiving their minds, through the blindness of the devil. I do not consider it necessary to present evidence on the basis of which they are subject to fall, so that, wanting to tell in detail in order to ward off the lawless action of each heresy, but rather to direct the thoughts of people who are not strengthened and always capable of relaxation, inclined to catch for themselves evil instead of good, towards evil. But in order to turn away from this terrible and reptile-like heresy, I will offer only a few out of many things. Where did you, my dear fellows, get the idea of ​​such a lawless action of yours? And first of all, for whom is not all this obvious, namely, that your teaching is demonic, that it is an evil device invented by people deceived in mind and corrupt? For if conception (in your opinion) is a completely bad thing, then, of course, not because of childbearing, but because of carnal copulation: why, overcome by voluptuousness, do you copulate with the body? If carnal intercourse is not a bad thing, then it is not a bad thing for something conceived through copulation to become born. By abandoning this, a person does not need to cultivate the land. Abel, for example, was a shepherd of sheep, and Cain worked the land. Another cultivates the earth like Noah, who was a man who worked the earth, and planted grapes (Gen. 9:20); he planted grapes, but not so that there would be no grapes on them; and plant and drink of this fruit, and write it down, as it is written (v. 21). The old man can be excused for this. Being pleasing to God, he became intoxicated not as a result of intemperance, but, perhaps, from grief he fell into an unconscious state, and, unable to bear the effects of one or the other reason, due to weakness and old age he fell into infirmity, not deserving, however, ridicule from his son. And the one who laughed acquired a curse for himself, as an example of the fact that those who insult parents will be punished, as well as the thoughts that rebel in you against the mind of God and against the beautifully arranged order. Although marriage is not as praised as virginity, although virginity is higher than it, true and undefiled virginity is called glorious and virtuous: however, even if it aims at childbearing, and does not turn what was beautifully created from God to a shameful goal, it does not properly observe the order of marital intercourse established by God. True virginity is such as the Holy Apostle praises it: a virgin and a virgin cares for the Lord, how to please the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit (1 Cor. 7:34); By this he showed that loneliness does not provide any reason even for suspicion of misconduct. But we know that Abraham gave birth to children, and at the same time was a friend of God, and Isaac, and Jacob and others. They did not defile themselves with lawless deeds, for they did not touch abominations, and were not hostile to childbirth, through honest marriage, beautifully arranged by God, and those who labored among them in chastity and virginity did not violate the laws of asceticism, and did not distort the laudable image of asceticism by putting on it as if in jest. Elijah almost never entered cities and did not interact with women, but was constantly in the desert; and Elisha, and John, and all who, having in mind this great image of following the angels, according to the Gospel commandment of the Lord, distorted for themselves the kingdom for the sake of heaven (Matthew 19:12). We would have a lot to say about this, and with many passages of Divine Scripture we could expose their thoughts, which the devil put into them to ridicule, but we are content with this little. For it is quite obvious that such a thing they do is not from reason, such knowledge is not from God, but through the action of demons this desecration occurs and they fall into lawless deeds. Having repelled this heresy as if it were a terrible snake called a viper, which is small in stature, but emits a breath terrible in its poisonousness and causes death to those who approach it, having crushed it, we will move on to the next heresies, calling on God for help in completing all our work in God. About Origen, who is also called Adamantine, 44th (64th) Following these in order is Origen, nicknamed Adamantine. He was the son of Leonidas, a saint and blessed martyr. Origen himself, in his young years, suffered many persecutions, and as a man, having mastered Hellenic education well and being brought up in the church, he became famous in Alexandria, during the time of King Decius. He was an Egyptian by birth, lived and was raised in Alexandria, and, perhaps, attended Athenian schools for some time. They say that he suffered a lot for the holy teaching of the faith and for the name of Christ; in the city he was insulted many times, reviled and subjected to cruel torture. Once, as they say, the Hellenes cut his hair, sat him at the entrance to the so-called Serapium, that is, in the church of their idol, and ordered him to distribute palm branches to those who came for wicked service and worship of the idol, for this is the custom of the priests of their idols. Taking the branches, Origen, without any timidity or hesitation, exclaimed with a loud voice and boldly: “Go, receive not an idol’s branch, but the branch of Christ.” And according to legend, the ancients tell much more about his excellent deeds. Chapter 2. But the reward for the feat did not remain with him until the end; he was subjected to great envy because he was superior to others in his education and learning; This especially irritated those who had government power at that time. Through the devil's wiles, the evildoers decided to bring shame on this husband and determined the following punishment for him - they gave him to Ephion to desecrate his body. Unable to endure such an action invented by the devil, Origen shouted that of the two things offered to him, he was more likely to make a sacrifice. Although he did not do it voluntarily, as many say; but since he himself fully admitted that he had done this, namely that the pagans, having placed incense on his hand, threw it from his hand onto the hearth of the altar, then, according to the judgment of the confessors and martyrs, he was then deprived of the glory of martyrdom, and expelled from the Church. Having been subjected to this in Alexandria, and not being able to bear the ridicule of scoffers, he withdrew from here and chose Palestine, that is, the land of Judea, as his residence. When he arrived in Jerusalem, the clergy urged him, as a famous and learned interpreter, to preach in the Church, for they say that before the sacrifice he was awarded the presbytery. When the then clergy leaders of the Holy Church of Jerusalem urged him, as I said, to preach in the Church, and strongly urged him to do this, he stood up and uttered only the following saying of the forty-ninth psalm, skipping everything that preceded it: To the sinner God said: You will tell my justifications, and you will accept My covenant with your lips (Ps. 19:16); then, bending the book, he gave it away, and sat down weeping and in tears: everyone else cried with him. Some time after this, he, through the convictions and motives of many, met a certain Ambrose, one of the noble courtiers, whom some called a follower of Marcion, and others a follower of Sabellius, and persuaded him to renounce heresy, curse it and accept the faith of the holy Church of God. For Origen then belonged to the Orthodox Catholic Church. And the aforementioned Ambrose, since he held a different opinion and was a learned man and zealous for the divine reading of the Holy Scriptures, begged Origen, since the meaning of the sayings in the Divine books is deep, to give him an explanation. Having bowed to his legitimate desire and conviction, Origen decided to become an interpreter, so to speak, of all Scripture, and to explain it. In Tyre, Phoenician, he is said to have led an excellent life in occupation and labor for twenty-eight years; Ambrose provided sufficient food for him, the scribblers and servants, as well as the charter and the necessities for other expenses; Meanwhile, Origen, spending his time without sleep and in intense studies, completed his work on the Scriptures. First of all, he took care to carefully collect six translations: Aquila, Symmachus, seventy-two, Theodotion, and also the so-called fifth and sixth edition; to this he added a Hebrew text written in Hebrew letters, and on another page opposite it he made another comparison - he wrote the same Hebrew text, but in Greek letters. This is how a work called exapla came into existence, in which two appendices were made to the Greek translations: a Hebrew text written in Hebrew letters and a Hebrew text written in Greek; so that the whole Old Testament consists of the so-called exaples and two copies of the Hebrew text. This husband did all this work with special love, but he did not completely keep his glory intact; for extensive information served as a reason for his great fall. Desiring, in accordance with his goal, not to leave anything in the Divine Scriptures without explanation, he fell under the spell of sin and uttered deadly words. From him came the so-called Origenists, although not those previous ones who were engaged in shameful matters: about those, as I said before, I cannot say whether from this Origen - he is also the adamantine one - they received their beginning, or had as their head someone else, called Origen. However, they also say about this Origen that he intended something against his body. Some say that he castrated himself so as not to be disturbed by voluptuousness, not to be inflamed and inflamed by carnal movements; others say not so, but that he came up with the idea of ​​​​applying some kind of medicine to known members and drying them out. Others dare to contribute something else to it, for example. as if he had found some herb that had a healing effect on memory. We do not entirely believe the extraordinary stories about him, but we did not fail to convey these stories. The heresy that arose from him was first discovered in the country of Egypt, and now it is found among excellent people who have apparently adopted a monastic way of life, among people who, by the pull of nature, have retired to the desert and have chosen non-covetousness. This heresy is also terrible and worse than all the ancient heresies with which it shares similar wisdom. Although she does not dispose her followers to commit shameful acts, she instills a terrible, in its vile, doubt regarding the Divinity itself; from her Arius received the first reason, followed by Anomea and others. At the very beginning, he boldly says that the Only Begotten Son cannot see the Father, and the Spirit cannot see the Son, and angels cannot see the Spirit, nor people - angels. This is his first mistake. He does not want the Son to be from the essence of the Father, but recognizes Him as completely alien to the Father and at the same time a creature. He wants to say that He is called Son by grace. There are other, greater misconceptions. He allows for the pre-existence of the human soul; says that souls are angels and mountain powers who have fallen into sins and are imprisoned in this body as punishment for this. They are sent by God as punishment to undergo the first judgment here. Raving about the ancient fabulous fortune-telling of the Hellenes, he says that the body is called δέμας because in the body, as in bonds, the soul is imprisoned. To this he adds more fables: for he says that we call the soul that way because it has cooled down from above (ψυχὴ ἐψύχϑη). In accordance with his thoughts, he also selects evidence from the Divine Scriptures, which mean the same and are not so faithful. He says that the words of the prophet: do not even humble yourself before those who have sinned (Ps. 119:67) are the words of the soul itself that it sinned in heaven before it was imprisoned in the body. The words: my soul is converted to your rest (Ps. 115:6), in his opinion, mean that he who has spent his life here in good deeds is converted to doing righteous deeds. And he says a lot of similar things. He claims that Adam lost what was in him according to the image: he says that Scripture also points to this, speaking about clothing of leather: and you made them garments of leather, and clothed them (Gen. 3:21), that is, according to him, clothed them with a body. And he says a lot of empty things. The resurrection of the dead is incomplete, and in one place he admits it, in another he completely rejects it, and in another he says that only a certain part will be resurrected. Finally, he explains allegorically, as much as possible, for example. paradise, its waters, waters above the heavens and below the earth. He speaks such and similar nonsense incessantly. We have already stated this in some other places when we mentioned it. For us, however, it will not be at all burdensome now, when presenting the heresy itself, to talk again about his opinion and assumptions, and to refute with his own words what he says against himself; for his recklessness, the unnaturalness of his corrupted concepts, and his deviation from the truth had finally reached the extreme. He thought to speak against all the heresies that had come before him, and to refute each one, and in the end he himself spewed out this heresy, unprecedented in the world. So, in order to expose his corrupt, fictitious concepts, I will first of all present his words, and then I will present what can be said against him by our humility. This is what he wrote in his explanation of the first psalm. In all the writing he weakly adhered to the letter, he erred in the most essential. But all his work is enormous: for they say, as I noted, that he wrote an extensive explanation of every book of Scripture, without hesitating to express his thoughts. However, what he said in conversations and in prefaces about the morals and natural properties of animals and others, for the most part he presented perfectly, keeping to the middle; and in what he taught in the presentation of dogmas and in reasoning about faith and about objects of higher contemplation, he turns out to be more absurd than all those who came before him and after him, excluding the student actions allowed in some heresies. Apparently he chose an ascetic life, as I showed above; That is why his chest, as some say, due to the excessive severity of life and abstinence from animal food, fell in. Let us now present from the interpretation of the first psalm the true words of his contemplations and his teaching, so that no one will say that what we have said against him is slander. We do not do this because only when explaining the first psalm did he completely fall away from the truth, as I have said many times, but he is like that in every interpretation. Due to the vastness of his work, we will select one, or two or three places from the interpretation of the above psalm and reveal all its unsuitability in the teaching of faith and try to say against it what is necessary. In every speech he has one main idea, which you know, good-loving listener; - it was he who very clearly taught that the Son of God is a creature, and from this daring thought about Christ, conclude that he recognized the Holy Spirit as created. So let us present the interpretation of the psalm from the very beginning and in the same words as Origen himself spoke. The beginning of Origen's interpretation of the first psalm. “The words of God say that the Holy Scripture is concluded and sealed with the key of David and, perhaps, with that seal about which it is said: the image of the seal is holy to the Lord (Ex. 28:36), that is, by the power of God who gave the scripture, denoted by the name of the seal. And that the Scripture is concluded and sealed; John testifies to this in the Apocalypse, saying: And write to the angel of the Philadelphian church: this is what the Holy One says. The true one, having the key of David, opens and no one can shut, he who shuts and no one opens: I know your works: behold, the doors are open before you and no one can shut them (Rev. 3:7,8); and not much after that he says: and I saw in the right hand of Him who sat on the throne, a book written inside and outside, sealed with the seventh seal. And I saw a strong angel preaching with a great voice: who is worthy to open the book and loosen its seals, and no one else in heaven or on earth can, below the earth, open the book below the sight, and I wept, because not a single one was found worthy to open the book below the sight. And one of the elders said to me: Do not weep: behold, the lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has overcome, breaking the book and loosening its seven seals (5:1-5). And Isaiah spoke about one sealing in these words: And all these words will be unto you, like the words of this sealed book, even if they give the scriptures to a man, saying, Read these things, and say: I cannot read them, for they are sealed. And this book will be given in the hand of a man who does not know the scriptures, and it will be said to him: Read this: and he will say: I do not know the scriptures (Is. 29:11,12). One must think that this is said not only in the discussion of the Apocalypse of John and Isaiah, but without a doubt in relation to the entire Divine Scripture, which, admittedly, for those who can even sufficiently understand the Word of God, is filled with riddles and parables, dark expressions and other various types of obscurity, incomprehensible to human nature. Wanting to show this, the Savior says that the Pharisees and scribes, having the key, do not bother to find a way to unlock it: woe to you lawyers, because you have taken the key of understanding and do not understand it yourselves, nor leave those who come in to understand (Luke 11:52; Matt. 23:13). “We said this in the form of a preface to the greatest work, which is certainly beyond our strength and abilities, but which we are forced to undertake by your strong curiosity and which we decide to begin due to your favor and condescension, holy Ambrose. So, as you pleased me with friendship in every possible way and, at the inspiration of God, led me to this work, although I shied away for a long time, knowing the danger - not only of talking about holy objects, but even much more - of writing and leaving it to posterity: then be me a witness before God, when He demands from me an answer for my whole life and writings, with what disposition this was done. Sometimes we succeed, and sometimes we become more intense than we have time to say anything. We embarked on a study of what was written, not forgetting that beautiful saying: “When you speak about God, you will be judged by God,” as well as another saying: “It is not a small danger to speak even the truth about God.” So, since without God there can be nothing good, and especially in the understanding of the Inspired Scriptures, we demand that you, approaching God and the Father of all through our Savior and Hierarch, who became God, ask Him to grant us, first of all, to seek well, since the promise has been given to those who seek that they will find; whereas those who follow the wrong path may not even be considered by God among those who seek at the very beginning.” Hitherto from Origen. Against the eloquent imaginary sage, the researcher of unsearchable subjects, the seeker of heavenly things, who filled the whole world with idle talk, as one of the best among us said about him, I will begin, first of all, to talk about the one who “became God.” Everyone knows that in everyday life there are many words and names that have the same meaning; and if someone else says such a speech, then we can say that it was used in the literal sense. When in many places we discovered that such a person maliciously alienates the Only Begotten God from the Divinity and being of the Father, and at the same time, for the same purpose, called the Holy Spirit made God: then it is obvious that he recognizes Him as created. Some want to confuse us with their wisdom, and say that what has happened is the same as what was born: - but this cannot be accepted in the reasoning of God, but only in relation to creatures; for some are made (γενητὸν), and others are born (γεννητὸν). Since he said: “became God,” let us ask him first of all: in what way was He created whom you recognize as God according to this usage? and why will He be worshiped if He was created? But you remove the reproach of the holy Apostle, directed against those who call the creature God, and show me such a God, Who, having been created, would be worshiped by pious faith, worshiping not the creature, but the Creator, and then the result of your false teaching would be in agreement with reason and not alien to paternal piety, but you cannot imagine this. And even if you had dared to steal from somewhere and forcibly deduce such an interpretation, you, the godless one, would not have been able to seduce godly people into such wickedness of the intellectual sense; both feeling and reason are opposed to you: for everything created is not worthy of worship, as I said. If, however, it is undoubtedly venerable: then, since there are many other created beings, it will not make a difference for us if, as a reproach to the One Creator, we worship all beings who co-serve with us and are under the same name. Let us see in the four Gospels, through which the Word of God who came arranged our whole life, whether Christ said somewhere: “God created Me, or My Father created Me.” Let us also see whether the Father declared in the Gospel: “I created a Son and sent him to you.” But enough of that here now; for, as far as evidence is concerned, we have often brought them in abundance against those who introduce the creature. And in the present case, it is not at all burdensome for us to show the weakness of this teaching and say to this imaginary sage: how can He be created who says: I am in the Father and the Father in Me - and also: I am one (John 14:10; 10:30)? How can one who has equal honor with the Father be different from Him? No one knows the Son except the Father, nor the Father but the Son (Matthew 11:27) - and also: he who saw Me saw the Father (John 14:9). And how he doubts about the resurrection, let’s talk about this, keeping things in order, later, taking his words into consideration. From one saying of his we will show the whole way of his thoughts and reveal the inaccuracy of his opinion regarding this dogma: and although he has spoken about this many times at length and lied in many books: but I will offer him to reprove him what he said in the interpretation of the first psalm - against us, who believed in the resurrection with firm hope. He says the following: for this reason they will not rise again, wickedness will be judged (Ps. 1:6); further, since he has the custom of making guesses on the basis of various publications, he says that this is what Theodotion, Aquila, and Symmachus say, and after this he mockingly attacks the sons of truth in this way. Based on this, he says, the simpler of the believers think that the wicked will not receive the resurrection and will not receive Divine judgment, while they do not clearly express what they mean by resurrection and what kind of judgment they imagine. And if, apparently, they express their thoughts about this, then research will expose them to the fact that they, without understanding the image of the resurrection and judgment, cannot comprehend this in a consistent manner. If we ask: what will be resurrected? They answer: the bodies with which we are now clothed. Then, if we ask them again: will they be resurrected in their full being or not? Without examining it they say: completely. And when we, applying to their simplicity and not at all reasoning about the fact that the essence of bodies is changeable, express bewilderment: will the blood that flowed out when the veins were cut, and the flesh consumed by diseases, and all the hair that we ever had, or those alone that fell out at death, will be resurrected together with the body - they are sometimes indignant that such a question is given, and they think that regarding this God should be allowed to do what wants; sometimes, apparently being condescending, they say that only those hairs that were on us at the end of this life will be resurrected with us. And the more decisive of them, in order to avoid the need to formulate mental considerations regarding the blood that has been released many times from our bodies, and the flesh that turned into sweat or some other matter during illness, say that our body will be resurrected as it was at the end of life.” These are the words of the above-mentioned imaginary sage, expressing doubt about the truth: I, of necessity, cited them as proof to those who wish to know the whole essence of his unbelief in the resurrection. By the way, there is much more further in the interpretation of this psalm. He says: For this reason the wicked will not rise again for judgment. On this basis, as simple-minded people, he attacks those who recognize the resurrection as undoubted and believe with firm hope in the resurrection of the dead; - at the same time, he said a lot of harmful things and brought up some sophistic assumption, taken not from faith, but from reason, so that they would believe him in everything to their misfortune, and on the basis of what happens to us by nature, he attempted to pervert the confession of our very resurrection, expected with true hope. But I, as an insignificant person, not wanting to dare to be the best of those who have already successfully worked and very correctly overthrew all his invented rhetorical mischief, considered it sufficient to be content with what the blessed Methodius said in the word “about the resurrection” against the same Origen, and I will offer it here literally. Methodius, as he himself stated, says exactly this: Abridged opinions of Origen from the works of Methodius. Based on this, the simpler of the believers think that the wicked will not receive the resurrection, while they do not clearly express what they mean by resurrection and what kind of judgment they imagine. And even if they apparently express their thoughts about this, their research will expose them, since they cannot comprehend this in a consistent manner. If we ask them what will rise; they answer: the bodies with which we are now clothed. Then, if we ask them again: whether they will be resurrected in full being or not, they, without examining it, say: in full. And when we, applying their simplicity, express bewilderment: is it possible that the blood that flowed out when the veins were cut, and the fleshy parts, and the hair that we once had, or those alone that fell out at death, will be resurrected along with the body - they refer to the fact that God can do what he wants. And the more decisive of them, in order to avoid the need to formulate thoughts in the mind about the very blood that many times happened to be released from our bodies, say that our body will be resurrected as it was at the end of life. We expressed doubt against this, for the reason that nature is changeable, that just as food enters our body and changes its likeness, so our bodies change, and in carnivorous birds and animals they become parts of their bodies: these again change, being eaten by people or other animals and become the bodies of people or other animals. So, as this is repeated many times: it is necessary to assume that the same body is a part of many people many times. Whose body will it be in the resurrection? Thus we will have to fall into the abyss of reckless idle talk. And after all these perplexities, they turn to the fact that for God everything is possible, and cite the sayings of the Holy Scripture, which, in their closest meaning, can confirm their opinion: this is the passage from the prophet Ezekiel: And the hand of the Lord was on me and brought me to death, and set me in the midst of the field, and it was full of human bones and circled me around, there were many of them around green on the faces of the field, and behold, they were dry: and he said unto me, Son of man, shall these bones live, and said, O Lord God, thou weigh these: and he said unto me, The prophets, Son of man, and said unto them, These dry bones: hear the word of the Lord. Behold, says the Lord Adenai, by this bone: Behold, I will put the spirit of life into you, and I will put sinews in you, and I will bring flesh upon you, and I will spread skin over you, and I will put my spirit in you, and you will live, and I will put you in your own land, and you will know that I am the Lord (Ezek. 37:1-6). They use this saying as the most convincing. They also cite other sayings from the Gospels, for example: there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 8:12): and also: fear the mighty One, who will destroy both soul and body in Gehenna (Matthew 10:28); and from the letters of Paul: Your dead body will be given life by His living Spirit in you (Rom. 8:11). Anyone who loves the truth must, having stopped with this thought, strive for the truth of the resurrection, preserve the tradition of the ancients and beware of the danger of falling into the emptiness of pitiful thoughts, both impossible and unworthy of God. In relation to that place, one should reason like this: every body supported by nature, which introduces into it something from the outside for nutrition and instead of what is introduced, excretes something else, like you, for example, plants or animals, never remains the same in material terms. Therefore, it is not a bad thing for the body to be called a river: since upon careful examination, it may be that even for two days the original substance does not remain the same in our body. But for example, Paul or Peter are always alone not only according to the soul, the essence of which is not poured into us and has nothing coming from outside, but they have the same appearance that characterizes the body, even if the nature of the body is changeable; just as the forms representing the bodily quality of Peter and Paul remain the same. As a result of these qualities, scars and other marks remain on the bodies from childhood, for example. freckles and other things like that. This form, in which Paul and Peter differ from each other, is bodily, and at the time of the resurrection it will again surround the soul, having changed for the better and being formed completely no longer in the same way. And just as the form remains from infancy to old age, although the features apparently undergo a great change, so with regard to the present appearance of the body one should think that it is the same with the future, although there will be a very great change for the better. A soul residing in physical places must have a body corresponding to the place. 265 And just as if we needed to become water animals and live in the sea, then we would need to have gills and other fish structure: so those who are to inherit the kingdom of heaven and will be in various places must have spiritual bodies, but such, however, that the appearance of the former body is destroyed, but so that it changes into a more glorious one, just as the appearance of Jesus, Moses and Elijah did not become different during the transfiguration, contrary to what was. Therefore, do not be embarrassed if anyone says that the original substance of the body at that time will not be the same, since reason shows those who can understand that even now, even for two days, the previous substance of the body cannot remain the same. It is worth paying attention to the fact that some things are sown, and others are raised: the spiritual body is sown; the spiritual body arises (1 Cor. 15:44). To this the Apostle adds the teaching that we have, so to speak, to lay aside our earthly quality, while the appearance of the body will be preserved during the resurrection: but this I say, brethren, because flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, lower than corruption is incorruptibility (v. 50). Perhaps a holy person, protected by God, who once created flesh, will no longer be surrounded by flesh, but what was once imprinted in the flesh will be imprinted in the spiritual body. And in what our brethren refer to the sayings of Scripture, this must be said, and first of all about the words of Ezekiel. Since the simplest want to establish themselves on them, then according to their literal meaning there will be no resurrection of the flesh, but only a resurrection of bones, skin and veins. At the same time, it is necessary to prove to them that they are carried away without understanding what is written: for not everywhere where bones are spoken of, the name bones should mean precisely these bones, as for example in the following places: their bones were wasted in hell (Ps. 141:7); all my bones are crumbled (Ps. 21:15) and again: heal me, for my bones are crushed (Ps. 6:3). Obviously, here we are talking about bones not in the generally accepted sense. They indicate in the words of the prophet: they say: our bones were dry (Ezek. 37:11). But is it really because they say: Our bones are dry, because they want to be resurrected when they are gathered together? This is impossible. To say: our bones were dry - they could be like those who were in captivity and lost all vital moisture. Therefore they add: our hope is destroyed, we are killed. And so this is the promise of the uprising of the people from the fall and, as it were, the death by which they died, having been handed over to their enemies for their sins. And sinners are called by the Savior graves full of bones and all uncleanness (Matthew 23:27). It is fitting for God to open everyone’s tomb and bring us out of our graves revived, just as the Savior brought Lazarus out. As for the words: it will cry and gnashing with a tooth, then they must be told that just as the Creator designed every member for some use in this life, so the teeth are designed for crushing solid food. What need is there for those who are being tortured to have teeth? Those in Gehenna will not eat from them. And we also need to show that not everything has to be taken literally. It is said: You have crushed the teeth of sinners (Ps. 3:8); and again: the member of the lions is the Lord who has crushed (Ps. 57:7). Who would be so reckless as to assume that God, preserving the bodies of sinners, will only crush their teeth? And if someone who wants to understand them in this way will, out of necessity, incline towards an allegorical meaning: then the same study must be allowed regarding the gnashing of teeth in those subjected to torture. Does the soul have the ability to chew, so that during the time of exposure for the sins to which it is inclined in thought, it can grind its teeth, in the manner of when teeth collide? A saying: Fear the mighty and destroy your soul and body in Gehenna (Matthew 10:24). perhaps it indicates that the soul is incorporeal, and perhaps it also shows that it will not suffer without a body, as we said in the physiological study “about the species and the first essence.” And what was said by the Apostle: He will give life to our dead body - perhaps, since our body is mortal and has no part in true life, it can mean that the bodily form about which we spoke is mortal by nature, and when Christ, our life, appears (Col. 3:4), then he will change it from the state of a mortal body into a quickened one, so that by the power of the life-giving Spirit it will become spiritual. In the same way, the words: but someone says: how will the dead rise, with what body will they come? - clearly show that the former being of the body will not rise. For if we understand well that example (about the seed), then we must say that the power of the seed is in the grain of wheat. having mastered the surrounding substance, penetrating it completely, taking root in its very form, it will give the strength it has to what was previously earth, water, air and fire, and overcoming their qualities, will change it into the very thing that itself is the producer, and thus the ear is filled, which is extremely different from the original grain in size, appearance and variety. Speech of Proclus from the same Methodius. 266 This is, as it were, an abbreviation of everything that Origen expressed while discussing the resurrection, and proved his thoughts with various speculations. You should also carefully consider what follows. It remains to add more evidence from the scriptures to what has been shown, so that speech, like a statue, having all its parts in proportion, will be completely processed and will not lack anything related to its form and beauty. And so it must be said how much the scriptures that guide a person to the perfection of a better life are consistent with this. If anyone can reason strictly without falsifying the present, he will learn that the resurrection must be understood in relation not to this body, since it cannot remain unchanged for centuries, but in relation to the spiritual body, in which the same distinctive property will be preserved, which is expressed in it now, so that each of us will be the same in appearance, as Origen said. For he believes that such will be the resurrection. Since the material body is changeable, and will never remain in the same position even for a short time, but increases and decreases in appearance, which distinguishes a person, on which the figure itself depends: then, of necessity, he says, it must be assumed that the resurrection concerns only one type of person. And so that you don’t say: I don’t understand, because he expressed it in darkness, then here I will reveal to you more clearly the meaning of these words. 268 You, of course, have seen the skin of an animal, (fur) or something similar, filled with water; if, having released water from it, you fill it again little by little: then it always presents the same appearance; because whatever the containing is, such a form is necessarily assumed by that which is within it. Imagine now: if, when water is poured out, someone adds as much as is poured out without allowing the skin to completely lose water: then what is added, although not the same, is necessarily the same as everything else; because during the decrease and addition of water, the containing is one and the same. And so whoever wants to liken the body to this will not be ashamed. For in the same way the food taken in replacement of the ejected substances is changed into the image of the containing species. Thus, what is diverged in the eyes becomes similar to the eyes, what is in the face, then with the face, and what is in other parts is likened to them: from this, everyone appears to be the same, although the original matter of the body does not remain in the same position, but only the appearance, in accordance with which what enters the body is formed. And so, if even for a few days we are not the same in relation to the body, but only in the form that the body has, since this alone remains in us from birth, then much less at that time we will not be the same in the flesh, but only in the form, which even now is always preserved in us and remains unchanged. For what is skin is here appearance, and what is water in the above comparison is here addition and decrease. And just as now, although the body does not remain the same, but the external features in the very appearance remain the same: so then, although the body will not be the same, but the appearance, elevated to a more glorious state, will no longer be in a corruptible body, but in an impassive and spiritual one, such as, for example, the body of Jesus at the time of the transfiguration, when He ascended the mountain with Peter, Moses and Elijah, who appeared to Him. (and in Petav. ed. 39). And enough to talk about this; because this, in brief, is the meaning of Origen's teaching. If any of those who doubt, pointing to the body of Christ, since Christ is called the firstborn from the dead and the firstfruits of those who sleep (Apoc. 1:5; 1 Cor. 15:20), says that just as He was resurrected, so it is necessary to believe that everyone will be resurrected like Him, so that as Christ is risen, so God will bring those who died in Jesus with Him (1 Thessalonians 4:14), and the body of Jesus was resurrected with the same flesh and bones that He had, as Thomas was convinced of this: then to this we will say: the body of Christ was not from the lust of man (John 1:13), not from the pleasure of sleep (Wis. 7:2), not conceived in iniquity and born in sins (Ps. 51:7), but from the Holy Spirit and the power of the Most High (Luke 1:35) and from Virgo; while your body is a dream, pleasure and defilement. Therefore, the wise Sirach says: When a man dies, he will inherit creeping things and beasts and worms (Sir.10:14); also in the 87th Psalm it says: will food from the dead work miracles, or will doctors resurrect and confess to You? Food is the story of Thy mercy in the grave, and Thy truth in destruction: Food will Thy wonders be known in darkness, and Thy truth in the forgotten land? (vv. 11–13). There are other sayings of this kind that anyone can choose from the scriptures, so that we, having recalled all of them in abundance, do not increase the words too much. (40). So, when Proclus finished his speech with difficulty and those present were silent for a long time, rather carried away by unbelief; when I noticed that he had actually finished, I raised my head slightly and gathered my courage, as happens with those who are sailing when the storm has already subsided - but being still in fear and confusion (for I, so to speak, was depressed and bombarded by the power of words - I turned to Auxentius and, naming him, said: “Auxentius! I think that it was not in vain that the poet said: To two walking together. 270 For we have two opponents, therefore we must withstand the strength of both. I choose you as an assistant and collaborator in the dispute with them, so that Aglaophon with Proclus and Origen, armed against us with destructive evidence, will not refute the resurrection. So let us speak out against their sophisms, not at all afraid of their objections, with which they attack timid people. For they have nothing completely sound and solid, but one beautiful set of words, prepared. to defeat and convince the listeners, not for the sake of truth and benefit, but in order to appear wise in words to those present. Because of this, speeches arising from probabilities and embellished for appearance and pleasure are sometimes considered by ordinary people to be much better than those aimed at an accurate investigation of the truth. The teachers themselves are no longer jealous about what is better and what is worthy of respect, but about being liked and pleasing, as do the sophists, who charge for speeches, selling cheaply the praises of wisdom. In former times, brevity in explanations was strongly used, because they tried not to please, but to benefit those present. Subsequently, when it became permissible for everyone to explain the Scriptures without any difficulty, and everyone, filled with conceit, became stupid to do good, and began to excel in eloquence, boasting that they were able to know everything; when they began to consider it a shame to admit that they still needed to study, but rather argued and came forward like teachers: then what happened was that, having taken on impudence, they shied away from reverence and meekness and from the faith that God can do everything as promised, but turned to empty disputes and blasphemy, not thinking that it is not actions that need words, but words - in deeds, as happens in the art of medicine, where are the words from which the sick must receive healing, confirmed by deeds. It is necessary that if there is unanimity between us, our minds should be in harmony with choice words, and morals with language, like a lyre, and there would be nothing rude and discordant. For in order for us to acquire the ability to strive for the truth, and not only seem like that, we must practice justice, and not walk limping along the path of wisdom, caring more about glory than about the truth and hiding behind pretexts and appearances and every cover of hypocrisy. (41). For there are, truly there are people who dress up in the magnificent clothing of decorated words, as women dress up, in order to seduce young men, if one of them, without protecting himself with faith and chastity, looks at them. Therefore, before a thorough investigation, we should take such speech to heart with caution; since seducers often manage to attract teachers to their side, like sirens who cover their hatred of people in front of those fleeing from them with pleasant singing from afar. How, Auxentius, I said, do you think about this? He answered: just like you. Of course, we can say about the wrong-minded sophists that they imitate images of the truth, but do not know the truth itself, just like the painters: for these latter try to imitatively portray shipbuilders, ships and helmsmen, but they themselves do not know how to build ships or control them. So, do you want us, having removed the paints, to convince the young men surprised by these drawings that it is not a ship, which seems to be a ship, and not a helmsman, which appears to be a helmsman, but a wall, painted on the outside with paints and drawings for pleasure, and that those who made this with paints, and not the ship itself, are the copyists of the appearance of the ship and the helmsman? This preface is long, my dear, I said, for those who want to listen, but it is useful. For if someone takes away from them the sayings of the Inspired Scriptures, with which they colorfully decorate their opinions to deceive others, smugly calling them just and true, but themselves completely ignorant of justice: then how ridiculous, in your opinion, will they be, deprived of such names? “Absolutely so,” he said. “Well, Auxentius,” I said, do you want to be the leader on this path, or will I lead? - “It’s fair,” he said, for you to be a leader, because you rule over the word.” (42). Now we examine the opinion of Aglaophon sequentially, in parts from the very beginning. He said: “The soul received this body in which we are clothed as a result of crime, and in former times it lived a blessed life without a body. Bodies are leather garments in which souls happened to be imprisoned in order to suffer punishment for their deeds in a mortal body.” “Isn’t this what you said from the very beginning, doctor? But if it seems to you that I didn’t remember something, then remember.” There is no need for this reminder now, he said, because we said this very thing in the first place. - “What? Is it really what you often said later, namely: that the body serves as an obstacle for us to the understanding and knowledge of what really exists, because of our concern for decoration and care for it, and because of other obstacles related to the whim of the belly? And besides, the body is the cause of slander and all kinds of sins; because the soul itself is alone, without a body it cannot sin at all, and therefore, so that, after leaving here, it can be free from sin and disobedience in heaven, where it will have a stay with the Angels, it must remain free and detached from the body, because the body serves as the cause of defilement by sin for it and contributes to this? For without a body it is impossible for the soul to sin; therefore, in order to remain sinless for endless centuries, she will no longer receive a body that drags her down to corruption and unrighteousness.” This was also said: “Well? Do you really think that what you said was fair and good?” I said. Why doesn't this seem right to you? he said. You cannot refute these words. “Not at all,” I said. But I want to explore the reason why you said that.” This is good and fair, he said. “In your opinion, does the one who says something contradictory and discordant act well and justly?” No way. “Don’t you think that he is ignorantly counterfeiting the truth?” Absolutely so, he answered. “Will you really approve of someone who makes deliberate mistakes for the sake of false harmony of speech?” No way. “Therefore, you cannot justify yourself in speaking so unfoundedly. For having admitted that souls sinned without a body, violating the commandment, and saying that for their iniquity God gave them clothing of skins in the end, so that, wearing deadness, they would be condemned, calling these garments bodies - in the continuation of your speech you forgot what you had previously stated, and you say that the soul itself cannot sin, because by nature it is completely incapable of this, but that the body has become for it the cause of all evils. Therefore, so that the soul does not again rush towards unrighteousness, as happened to it before as a result of union with the body, it will remain forever without a body, although at first you said that the soul sinned before union with the body, when it was still blessed and carefree in paradise. For after breaking the commandment of God, when sin had already prevailed over her, as a result of obedience to the serpent, it was as if a body was given to her as punishment, like a bond. Therefore, either the first or the last opinion turns out to be unfair. For either the soul has sinned without yet having a body, and even if it has not received a body, it will nevertheless sin; therefore, any reasoning that the body will not be resurrected will be in vain and unnecessary; or has sinned along with the body, and thus the garments of skin cannot be mistaken for the body; because man turns out to be a transgressor of the commandments of God before the dispensation of them: and yet clothes were created for this purpose, so that they could cover the nakedness that resulted from sin. Finally, do I convince you, and do you see how you have allowed yourself to contradict yourself? Is this clear to you? Or do you, Aglaophon, I said, not yet understand what I’m saying?” I understand, he said, and I don’t need to listen to it a second time. But I didn’t even notice that I said it so unfairly. For when I admitted that skins are bodies, I also had to admit that the soul sinned before it entered the body, since the crime was committed before the creation of the clothes; for clothes were given to people because of a crime, and the crime did not happen because of the clothes. When we agreed on this, we must also agree that the cause of sin is not the body, but the soul itself, therefore it will sin, even if it has not received a body, since it sinned before when it was without a body. Therefore, it is foolish to say that the body cannot be resurrected in order not to become the cause of sin for the soul; for just as she sinned before being united with the body, so she will sin after putting off the body, even if she does not receive a body again. Therefore, I do not need to believe either myself or anyone else who says that skins are bodies. But if I agree on this, then I must also agree on what is said. (43). "Well? I said. Don’t you think, Aglaophon, that this is unfair too?” What's happened? “To assert, I said, that the body is made for the soul, like bonds and fetters, on the basis that the prophet called us prisoners of the earth (Zech. 9:11) and David fettered (Ps. 146:7)?” Then he answered: I cannot answer you so quickly. But why don’t you reason with others? Then I, noticing that he was blushing and avoiding accusation, said: “Do you really think that I am trying to expose you out of envy, and not because there was an intention to clarify the dispute? No, my dear! Do not be burdened by my questions: you see that we are not talking about unimportant subjects, but about how one should believe; and I do not assume from anywhere that there is so much evil for a person as comes from a false opinion about necessary objects. So answer the questions willingly and clearly; and if it seems to you that I am telling a lie, accuse me, being more concerned about the truth than about me; for I consider it better to receive reproof than to reprove others, and how much better it is to distance oneself from evil than to remove others. So, let us now compare our speeches and see where they differ from each other. For the subjects about which we argue are not at all unimportant, but are such that it is wonderful to know them, and shameful not to know them. So, you do not allow the resurrection of the body, but I do.” Of course, he said, I already said it. “But you,” I said, called the body bonds, prison, coffin, burden and fetters, but I do not call it that.” You are telling me the truth, he said. “You also said that the body is the cause of intemperance, seduction, sadness, anger and, in short, all other evils that hinder us in the soul’s striving for the beautiful and do not allow us to achieve understanding and knowledge of what truly exists; because even though we try to grasp something of what exists, the darkness that always surrounds us darkens the mind, not allowing us to clearly consider the truth. For, as you said, the information acquired by our ears is full of deception, just as what is acquired by sight is deceptive, and what is acquired by other senses is deceptive.” “You see,” he said, “Eubulius, how ready I am to praise you when you explain the words correctly”? Ch. 23(44). “And I will say this again so that you will praise me more. If, in your opinion, the body is a bond; then one cannot think that it is the cause of sin and untruth for the soul, but on the contrary, it is the cause of chastity and good manners. Think about it this way, for you will understand better: where do we take those suffering from bodily illnesses? Shouldn't we go to the doctors? “Obviously so,” he said. “Where are the criminals? Shouldn't it be to the judges? "Certainly." “Is it not so, I said, that they receive a worthy punishment for their deeds?” “Yes” “And what is fair is beautiful?” I agreed. “So he who judges justly does well, for he judges justly?” And he agreed to this. “And what is beautiful is also useful? it seems so; because the defendants benefit; since from their torture the crime stops, just as from medical operations and medicines illnesses stop: since to punish the offender means to correct the soul and eliminate a serious illness, that is, untruth.” He agreed. “What? Is it not, you say, according to the measure of sins that punishments are determined for those who are worthily punished, just as operations are performed on those who are healed according to the measure of their wounds?” He agreed. “So whoever does what is worthy of death is punished with death, what is worthy of blows is punished with blows, and what is worthy of chains is punished with bonds?” I agreed. “So,” I said, “is the guilty person punished with chains, or blows, or some other similar punishment, so that the repentant person will stop doing wrong and correct himself with these punishments, just as a crooked tree is corrected?” You are telling the absolute truth, he said. “Because the judge punishes him not for the sake of past guilt, but as a warning against future guilt, so that he does not do the same thing again?” It's obvious, he said. “For it is obvious that the bonds take away from him the desire for unrighteousness, preventing him from doing what he wants?” Truly so. “So he is restrained from sin because the bonds do not allow him to freely indulge in pleasures, but constrain him and teach him to respect justice, until he, being admonished, learns to be chaste?” It seems so, he said. “So, bonds, as you can see, are not the cause of sin, because they make people chaste and make them more just, serving as a medicine for the soul, although bitter and caustic, but healing?” It's obvious, he said. - “What? Let's review what was said before. Have you not admitted that the body is a bond of the soul due to crime? Yes, I admit it, he said. “Also: that the soul sins together with the body, because committing adultery, killing and acting dishonestly seems to you to be a sin, but the soul does this together with the body?” He agreed. “But we also recognized that a prisoner cannot offend?” Recognized, he said. “Because the pain from the bonds interferes with this?” Yes! “But flesh is the bond of the soul?” He confirmed this. “But being in the flesh, we sin with the consent of the flesh?” Yes, he said. “But a bound man cannot sin?” And he agreed to this. “From feeling pain?” Yes! “Because the bonds do not allow?” Certainly. “But the body contributes to sin?” Yes! “Do the bonds hold?” He agreed. “And so,” I said, neither in your opinion, Aglaophon, nor in anyone else’s opinion, the body is not a bond, but in both, i.e. that is, both in good and in evil, it contributes to the soul.” He agreed. Ch. 24(45). If this is so, then you, Aglaophon, defend what you said before. For in previous Conversations you asserted that the body is a bond, a prison and shackles of the soul, and you see how this does not agree with what you said. If it is necessary, my dear, to recognize the flesh as bonds, and the soul uses these bonds as an aid and assistance to untruth, then is it possible to agree with this? It's impossible. For if punishment is determined for sin, so that the soul, oppressed by sorrow, learns to worship God: then how can the body serve as its aid and assistance in unrighteousness? Bonds, prisons, shackles, and, in short, all such punitive means related to correction have the power to restrain those punished from untruth and sin. For it is not so that the one who has offended will commit even more untruths that he is given bonds as an aid to unrighteousness, but so that the one who is tormented by the bonds will stop committing untruths. This is why judges put villains in chains: the bonds involuntarily keep them from committing crimes. Yes, and doing evil is common to people who enjoy freedom and live without supervision, and not bound. Man first committed murder, like Cain, strengthened himself in unbelief, adhered to idols, and retreated from God. How then was the body given to him instead of bonds? Or how, when man sinned before being united with the body, God gave him a body to assist in greater unrighteousness? How finally, after the establishment of these bonds, is it said: Behold, life and death are before you: choose life, good and evil (Deut. 30:15); also: are you willing and will listen to Me (Is. 1:19)? This is said to him as having complete freedom, and not as bound by bonds and necessity. From all this it follows that the body should not be recognized as bonds, or prison or shackles, and prisoners of the earth do not therefore mean that souls are bound by earthly bonds as a result of their condemnation by God: for how can this be when nothing can prove this? Obviously, the opinion that in eternal life the body will not be united with the soul for the reason that it is bonds and fetters is also absurd, so that we do not become eternally condemned prisoners of corruption when we are in the kingdom of light. After sufficient refutation and exposure of the teaching in which the body was recognized as the bonds of the soul, the idea that the body will not be resurrected is destroyed, on the grounds that we will not be prisoners because of it in the kingdom of light that we will receive. Finally, what other evidence needs to be presented to convince the dissatisfied? They will not be satisfied with the proof and the clearest of the above. But this contention of theirs can be exposed both on the basis of this passage and many others. In the further continuation of the speech, we will prove by natural arguments, and not by assumptions, that neither Jeremiah called us prisoners of the earth for the sake of union with the body, nor David, for the same reason, called them chained (Ps. 146:7). It is worth pointing out where they most turn out to deviate from the truth. So, gentlemen judges (I, sovereign Theophilus, call you judges of words), having said the proper things about leather garments and that before the dispensation of these, the ancestors lived with the body, enjoying immortality, and also about the fact that it is impossible to honor the body with bonds and prison - I will finally turn to the following subjects, as promised, so that we can see more clearly what we want. Ch. 25(18). After God, the Creator of all things, harmoniously composed the universe, like a great city, and adorned it, commanding it with a word; after he proportionately arranged each element in it and filled everything with various animals, so that the world would completely increase in beauty, - He, having created many different types of nature: the stars in the sky, birds in the air, four-legged animals on the earth and swimming in the water - after all, He introduced man into the world, the exact likeness of His own image, having prepared this world for him as a most beautiful dwelling and with His own hands formed it, as if beautiful statue in a magnificent church. He knew that what was made by His hand would necessarily be immortal, as a work of immortality, for from immortality the immortal becomes immortal, just as from malice the evil becomes evil, and from unrighteousness the unrighteous. What is unrighteous is not the work of righteousness, but of untruth, and conversely, a righteous work is not the work of unrighteousness, but of truth: just as to make corruptible is not characteristic of incorruption, but of corruption, and to immortalize is not the work of corruption, but of incorruption - and to briefly say: as that which produces, such (usually) of necessity is made also that which is produced from it. God is immortality, life, and incorruptibility: And man is the work of God; and since what is produced by immortality is immortal, therefore man is immortal. That is why God Himself produced man, and commanded the other kinds of animals to be produced by air, earth and water. Man in the truest sense of nature is not called a soul without a body and not a body without a soul, but that which is formed into one beautiful image from the union of soul and body. From here it is revealed that man was created immortal and not involved in any corruption and disease. This can be learned enough from Scripture; for about other creatures that change over time, growing and aging, it is said: let the creeping waters take away the souls of the living, and the birds that fly on the earth, in the firmament of heaven. And again: let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind, the four-footed creature, the creeping thing and the beast of the earth according to its kind (Gen. 1:20.24) It is not said about man as about those: let the earth bring forth, or let the waters bring out, or let there be lights: but it says: Let us make man in our image and after our likeness, and let him have possession of the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and all livestock (v. 26). And God took the dust from the earth and created man (Gen. 2:7). (19). And so that you better understand the difference of man, how he differs in everything from other creatures, and, being immortal, finds himself placed in second place after the angels - and we will also present this in the true and Orthodox sense. Other animals were given animated life through the inhalation of the spirit diffused in the air: but to man from the most immortal and personal essence, for God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul (Gen. 2:7). These are commanded to serve and be in subjection: this is to rule and rule; to these are given various types and forms of nature, which, at the command of God, rough and visible nature gave birth to: to this - something God-like and God-like, in everything corresponding to the prototype and only-begotten image of the father: and God created man, in the image of God created him (Gen. 1:27); therefore, he took care of establishing His image in it, so that it would not be easily accessible to decay, just as is usually the case for statue makers: they care not only about the beauty and splendor of their sculptures, so that they are beautiful to the point of splendor, but also try, as far as possible for them, about the immortality of their works, so that they remain intact for a long time, as for example. Phidias, having made a statue of Olympian Jupiter (and it was made of ivory), ordered oil to be poured near the feet in front of the statue in order to keep it as immortal as possible. Thus, if artists of hand-made things act this way, then couldn’t God, the highest artist, Who can create everything from something existing, absolutely necessary, arrange so that His rational work, man, would not perish and be immortal? Would He really allow that which He deliberately deigned to create with His own hands, forming it in His image and likeness - the adornment of the world, for which the world was created, to be so ingloriously destroyed and given over to destruction and decay? This is impossible to say. Anyone who dared to think like that would fall into madness. (20). But perhaps, without carefully considering what has been said now, you, Aglaophon, will say: “if, in your opinion, the animal was immortal from birth, then how did it become mortal, when the immortal must certainly be what it is, without falling and without passing into a worse and mortal nature? This is impossible, otherwise it is not immortal.” To this I will say: against the freedom in choosing good, given to man and having received this law, the hater of good, envy, rebelled with malicious joy. God created man for incorruptibility and made him the image of his own eternity: for God did not create death, nor rejoices at the destruction of the living: but through envy of the devil death came into the world, as the wisdom of Solomon testifies (Wis. 1:13–2:24). But, again, it is necessary to say: where does death come from if God did not create death? If from envy: then how could envy be stronger than the will of God? We will call this offensive to God. The enemy asks: where does envy come from? If from the devil, then why did the devil come into being? And if it came into existence, does it mean that the one who created it is the culprit of the existence of evil? But God is absolutely not the author of evil in any respect; therefore, the devil did not receive existence, and if he did not receive it, then he is not subject to suffering and destruction and has no need for anything: this, of necessity, must be with the one who did not receive existence, and meanwhile he is subjected to humiliation and torment. But that which is subjected to torment changes and suffers, and the Unborn is impassive, therefore the devil is not one who has not received being, but one who has received it. If he received being, and if anything that received being came from some beginning and there is a creator of it, it means that there is some kind of creator of the devil. So, did he receive being, or did he not? But we must imagine that there is only one thing that has unborrowed existence, namely God: for in general, besides Him, there absolutely cannot be another creator. I, it is said, am the first, and I am hereafter, and besides Me there is no God (Is. 44:6). Without His will, nothing can be remade or created, for the Son also confesses that he cannot do anything for himself unless he sees his father doing it. For, as he says, the Father creates, the Son also creates in the same way (John 5:19). There is nothing hostile, or hostile, or opposed to God; because if anything resisted God, it would cease to exist, since its existence would be destroyed by the power and strength of God; Only one creator can destroy the immortal. (21). So, you say, what is the devil? The spirit circulating around matter, as Athenagoras said, received existence from God, just as other angels received existence from Him, and they were entrusted with the management of matter and types of matter. This was the purpose of the Angels, to be with God in His providence for creatures. They are arranged well, so that God has the general and main care for everything. Himself possessing dominion and power over everything and everything, like a ship, steadily guiding it with the rule of wisdom, and in part the Angels assigned to this would watch over it. The other Angels remained in the state in which God created and distributed them; but this one became proud and in the management of what was entrusted to him became evil, inciting envy against us, like those who subsequently became inflamed in the flesh and entered into lustful communication with the daughters of men (Gen. 6:2). For they, as well as people, God determined to have a free desire for one thing or another, so that - either, obeying His word, they would remain with Him and enjoy bliss, - or, if they do not obey, they would be condemned. The devil was also a morning star: how did the morning star fall from heaven (Is. 14:12)? He, together with the Angels, shone with light, was the morning star, but fell and was thrown to the earth, directing man in the opposite direction. For God is angry with the proud and puts a stop to arrogant intentions. It occurs to me to say this in verse: Snake! You are the beginning of all evil for people and the end, You are the deception of the blind, which gives birth to a heavy burden of evil. Leader to recklessness - you find joy In the tears of life, in the lamentations of mortals; Consanguineous to criminal offense You raised your fratricidal hands: You convinced Cain to stain himself with streams of blood The earth for the first time: and you deceived the forefather, So he fell from his imperishable life to the earth. Ch. 29(22). Such is the devil. Death was introduced for punishment, just as children who are beginning to learn to read and write are given blows to correct them. Death is nothing more than the separation and separation of the soul from the body. - You say: what? This means that God is the culprit of death. The same speech comes across us again. Let this not happen, because teachers are not the main culprits in children experiencing pain from blows. So, death is a good thing if it is introduced, like blows to punish children, not sinful death, wise men, but death consisting in the separation and separation of the soul from the body. For man, being free and autocratic, received self-dominant will and free will to choose good, as I said when I heard: from every tree that is in heaven, you will carry food; eating, with the help of the devil, who convinced people to disobey with various kinds of seductive cunning, he violated the commandment of God; and this became a temptation, a snare, and a stumbling block for him. For God did not create evil, and in general is in no way the author of evil. But everything that He created free for the preservation and observance of the law, which He righteously decreed, if it did not keep it, is called evil. And the gravest harm is not to listen to God, transgressing the limits of spontaneous truth. Therefore, when a person, having departed from the instructions of God, stained himself and desecrated himself, and imprinted on himself the filthiness of much evil, which this prince and father of delusion gave birth to, who conceived the disease according to the Scriptures. (Ps. 7:15), in order to be able to constantly entice and encourage a person to unrighteousness: then the Almighty God, seeing that man, created immortal, had suffered embitterment to the point of humiliation from the cunning of the devil, did not allow him to eat from the tree of life, but clothed him and his wife Eve in leathern clothes, and expelled them from paradise, decreeing death for them and saying: earth art thou, and to earth shall thou return ( Gen. 3:19), so that by resurrection he would save them from humiliation, as is characteristic of the best artist, and again restore them in their own body without humiliation. Ch. 30(23). The doubt has already been examined and it has been proven that clothing of skins is not the essence of the body. Nevertheless, we will talk again (for it is necessary to talk about this more than once). For even before the dispensation of these, the first-created One recognized that he had bones and flesh, when he saw a wife brought to him and exclaimed: Behold, now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. This will be called woman, for she was taken from her husband. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife: and the two will become one flesh (Gen. 2:23,24) I cannot tolerate some idle talkers and shamelessly violating the Scriptures, who, in order to maintain the opinion that there is no resurrection of the flesh, assume both spiritual bones and spiritual flesh, and with allegories rush to and fro, up and down. And that this must be accepted as it is written is confirmed by Scripture. Christ, to the Pharisees who asked about the release of his wife, answers: Don’t you know that from the beginning I created male and female and said: for this reason a man will leave his father and mother, etc. (Matthew 19:4-5). Further, how can one accept only in the reasoning of souls the words: grow and fill the earth (Gen. 1:28). And one more thing: God took away dust from the earth and created man (2:7), which is obviously said about the body itself, for the soul did not receive its being from dust or heavy matter. Thus, from all this, in all fairness, it follows that man was created with a body before the clothing of skins, because all this was said before his fall, and about the clothing - after the fall. Therefore, let us begin again to consider what is at hand, having sufficiently proven that leather garments are not bodies, but the intelligently prepared fruit of the death of animals. Now it remains to consider why a person is evicted from the confines of paradise. God did not expel him because he did not want him to pluck from the tree of life and eat (for having again eaten from the tree of life he could live forever), but so that, as we assumed, evil would not become immortal. Otherwise, why did he send Christ from heaven to earth if he fully wanted man to die completely without tasting life? If the arguer says that God did this out of repentance, then this reasoning is weak, since it allows for a change of thought in God. No, God is not the leader of the future, and not the creator of evil, but is supremely good and knows the future in advance. Thus, he expelled him from paradise, not so that he would not live forever, eating from the tree of life, but so that sin would first of all be put to death by death, so that thus, after the destruction of sin, having risen clean after death, man would taste life. Ch. 31(24). No one would be so foolish as to dare to assert that this is said in a different sense. For whoever in general asserts that this flesh is incapable of immortality, as truly subject to the disease of madness, is blasphemous. Why, after the creation of skins, was Adam expelled, having received a prohibition from eating from the tree of life and living, if it were completely impossible for a person to live forever with a body? But the prohibition is made due to the fact that he might not have died if he had taken and eaten from the tree of life. For he says: And the Lord God made Adam and his wife garments of leather, and clothed them. And God said: Behold Adam, who is one of Us, knowing good and evil. And now, never before, will he stretch out his hand and take from the tree of life, and cut it down, and live forever. And the Lord God expelled sweets from paradise, making the earth from which it was taken quickly. And from the memory of Adam (Gen. 3:21–24). So, the body could live forever and be immortal if it had not been forbidden to eat from life. And he received the prohibition so that sin would be destroyed, put to death along with the body, and the body would arise after the destruction of sin. So, so that man would not be immortal, as I said, evil, or eternally living, containing within himself a predominant sin, as if vegetating in an immortal body, and having immortal nourishment, for this purpose God made him mortal, clothed with deadness. This was the purpose of the leather garments, so that through the destruction and disintegration of the body, all sin would perish to the ground, as if torn out by the roots, so that not the slightest part of the root would remain, from which new branches of sins would again arise. Ch. 32(25). Just as a wild fig tree, having grown on the building of a beautiful church, grown in width and height, and spread with its many-branched roots along all the connections of the stones, does not stop growing until it is completely torn off due to the disintegration of the stones in the places on which it grew (for after the fig tree is torn away, the stones can be put back in their places so that the church can be preserved, no longer having with it anything that destroys it unfavorable conditions, and meanwhile the fig tree, which had fallen off all the roots, withered): in the same way, the artist God destroyed his church - man, who had brought forth sin, like a wild fig tree, killing with the temporary attacks of death, as it is written, and reviving, so that after the drying and mortification of sin the flesh with the same members, like a renewed church, would arise immortal and undamaged, after complete and final destruction of sin. For while the body still lives until death, it is necessary to live with it and sin, which hides its roots inside us, at least from the outside and was subjected to blows from sound thoughts and suggestions: otherwise, after baptism, after sin was completely taken away from us, no unrighteousness would happen. And now, even after we have believed and come to the water of baptism, we often find ourselves in sins. For no one can boast that he is so free from sin that he does not even think about unrighteousness. From this it follows that sin is now restrained and lulled to sleep by faith, so as not to bear harmful fruits, and is not destroyed to the roots. Now in this life we ​​restrain its vegetation, what are its evil lusts, so that a certain root of sorrow does not bother us when it vegetates (Heb. 12:15), and we do not allow ourselves to open our eyes and open our clenched lips to these vegetation, when the mind, like an ax, cuts off the roots of sorrow born below. In the future, the very thought of evil will be destroyed. Ch. 33(26). Those who wish to sincerely speak the truth do not lack the witnessing word of the Scriptures, since the Apostle knew that the root of sin has not yet been completely destroyed in people when he says in one place: We know that no good thing lives in me, that is, in my flesh. Even if you want to be diligent with us, but don’t do good deeds. It’s not because I want good that I do it, but because I don’t want evil, I do it. If I don’t want to, I do this; it is no longer I who do this, but the sin that lives within me. And again: I delight in the law of God according to the inner man: I see another law in my heart, warring against the law of my mind, and taking me completely into captivity through the law of sin that is in my heart (Rom. 7:18-20.22-23). Thus, it has not yet happened that sin was cut off, being torn out by the roots (for it did not die completely), but it still lives (for how can this be before a person undergoes death?), so that along with it, having withered and withered away, like a plant, it would completely bend and collapse due to the destruction of that on which, as I said, it secretly held its roots, and the person would be resurrected, no longer having the root of sorrow penetrating into him again. Therefore, in order to eradicate and destroy sin, our true Intercessor and Physician, our God, allowed death, like an antidote, so that evil, having arisen in us as immortals, would not be eternally immortal, and we ourselves, mutilated and, like the sick, deprived of our own strength, would not remain for a long time in this state, feeding the great disease of sin in our permanent and immortal bodies. Therefore, it is wonderful that for the salvation of both, soul and body, God invented death like a medical cleansing, so that we would become truly blameless and unharmed. Ch. 34(27). So, since many examples are needed for this, we will consider them here in particular, not retreating until the word reaches the clearest interpretation and proof. An example is given of some skilled artist who would melt a beautiful statue, made of gold or some other substance, proportionately decorated in all parts to the point of grace, again, suddenly seeing that it had been damaged by some evil person, who, out of envy, not being able to tolerate that the statue was beautiful, spoiled it, tasting the vain pleasure of envy. Please note, wise Aglaophon, that if the artist wants the statue on which he worked with such diligence and care not to be completely spoiled and disfigured, then he will again try, by melting it, to make it the same as it was before. And if he does not melt it and renew it, but leaves it like that, repairing it and straightening it, then the statue, from hardening in fire and from forging, of necessity, cannot remain the same, but will turn out to be changed and distorted. Why, if he wants this work to be beautiful and impeccable, then he must melt it and pour it again, so that through alteration and recasting, the ugliness and all the changes that happened to it from deceit and envy are destroyed, and so that the statue is again brought to its undamaged and pure form, most similar to it. This is done with the statue not so that it will perish for the artist himself, even if it turns back into its original substance, but so that it will be restored. It is necessary that the ugliness and damage be destroyed (for along with the transfusion they disappear), and not that they appear again; because an artist excellent in any art does not have in mind the ugly or erroneous, but the proportionality and correctness of the work. This is also how God’s economy regarding us seems to me. For seeing that man, the most beautiful work of God, was damaged by the evil slander of envy, God, out of love for mankind, did not want to leave him as such, so that, bearing within himself a stain ineradicable by death, he would not be subjected to eternal shame, but would resolve him back into the original substance, so that through re-creation everything shameful in him would be destroyed and destroyed. For what is the melting of a statue, here is the death and resolution of the body; that there is a new form or alteration of matter, then here is resurrection after death, as the Prophet Jeremiah says; for he also proclaims in accordance with this, saying: and he went down into the house of a poor woman, and behold, he did the work on the stone, and the vessel was broken, and he created it with his own hands: and then make another vessel out of it, as it was pleasing to do in his sight. And the word of the Lord came to me saying: food, because this poor person is not able to do this to you, the house of Israel? You are eating into my hand like the clay of a poor man (Jer. 18:47). Ch. 35(28). Consider how, after a man’s crime, the great hand, as I said, did not want to leave its work in reproach, as being of poor quality, when the evil one unlawfully damaged it with envious accusations, but having dissolved it again, turned it into a finger, like a potter, again fashioning a vessel, so that from the alteration all the ugliness and ulcers in it were destroyed, and everything became as before immaculately pleasant. Or should the scoundrel in the mud not have the power, from the same confusion to create a vessel for honor, but not for honor (Rom. 9:21)? This means (for, it seems to me, the Apostle points this out precisely): does not God have power from the same substance, having recreated and renewed each in his own way, to raise one to our honor and glory, another to dishonor and condemnation? To the dishonor of those who spent their lives badly in sins, and to the honor of those who lived in righteousness, as shown in Daniel, who says that many from those who sleep in the dust of the earth will arise, these to eternal life, and these to reproach and eternal shame. And those who understand will be enlightened like the brightness of the firmament (Dan.12:2-3). For it is in our power not only to completely destroy the root of evil, but to prevent it from growing larger and bearing fruit. For the complete and complete extermination and destruction of evil to the very roots is accomplished by God, as it is said, after the destruction of the body, and by us - in parts, so that it does not give rise to shoots. Therefore, whoever brought up evil to multiply and increase it, and did not make as much as he could, sterile and did not suppress it, is necessarily subject to judgment, because, being able and having the power to do this, he decided to prefer the harmful to the useful. Ch. 36(29). So, let no one, being himself guilty, condemn the nature of God with an unbridled tongue, as if it unfairly distributed to everyone the reward for evil or for virtue. Who are you, O man, who speaks against the Lord? The food says to the one who created it: why did you create me (Rom.9:20)? For how is this possible when, by his autocratic will, he chose evil? Therefore, he cannot say to God, who judges according to the immutable rules of truth: why did you create me so that I would be condemned to sorrow? Consider how the Apostle, like a skilled marksman, having released these wicked words, turns the conclusion, however unclear and hidden in the depths of the letter, into the most true and Orthodox, and not having anything careless or blasphemous in it. For those who listen to words not with diligence, but with low goals, sometimes it seems that he speaks awkwardly and incongruously; and those who are diligent and with sober thoughts - for those whose words are filled with order and truth! However, a thorough study of this alone would be sufficient this time. But it would be funny, leaving aside your bewilderment, for the sake of which we embarked on the study, to move on to something else. We said this as punishment and condemnation for those who deliberately do bad things. So, when it has been most clearly proven that death is not designed for any harm to man, then he who listens to the words, not with a bad purpose, must finally understand what concerns the resurrection of the body. For how is death not beneficial when it destroys what robs our nature, although at the time it comes, it seems unpleasant, like the most sour medicine for the sick. But in order not to say the same thing many times about the same thing, then, having reinforced what has been said with words from the song of Deuteronomy, let us move on to further research. Ch. 37(30). For what God said: I will kill and live, I will smite and I will heal, and I will take away all that is out of my hand (Deut. 32:39), what else is intended to teach, if not that the body is first subject to death and dies, in order to later be resurrected and come to life? It is struck first and destroyed so that later a whole and healthy one can be formed from it. And in general, nothing can snatch from His great and sovereign hand for destruction and destruction, neither fire, nor death, nor darkness, nor chaos, nor corruption. Who will separate us, says the Apostle, from the love of the Lord (Who is interpreted: the hand of the Father and the word), whether sorrow, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or trouble, or sword: as it is written: For for your sake we are slain all the day long; We are counted as sheep of the slaughter. But in all these we overcome because of him who loved us (Rom. 8:35–37). And this is completely true, so that these words may be fulfilled, as I said: I will kill and I will create life, I will smite and I will heal. And there is nothing that will drive us away from the love of God, even in Christ for destruction. For this reason we were imputed, like sheep of the slaughter, so that having died to sin, we might begin to live for God. But enough about this; it is also necessary to consider what is in connection with this. Ch. 38(31). “Everything that is born is subject to disease (this is how the enemy objects) both in birth and in nutrition, he says, it grows from what comes in, and decreases from what decreases. On the contrary, what is not born is healthy because it is not subject to disease, does not need anything, and has no desires. And what is being born desires both coexistence and food. To want means to be sick, and not to need and not to want means to be healthy. What is born hurts because it desires, but what is not born does not hurt. The sick suffers either from an abundance or from a lack of substances that come and go. The one who suffers both perishes and is destroyed because he is born. But a person is born, therefore a person cannot be passionless and immortal.” But this is where the conclusion falls. For if everything that happens or is born perishes (nothing prevents us from saying this, because the primordial ones are not born, but are produced), and meanwhile Angels and souls are produced (Angels create their spirits (Ps. 103:4); then, in their opinion, both Angels and souls perish. But neither Angels nor souls perish, for they are immortal and indestructible, according to the will of the Creator. For this reason, man is immortal. But it is also not suitable if we say that the universe will perish from the ground up, and there will be no earth, no air, no sky. Although the whole world, engulfed in the descending fire, will burn for purification and renewal, it will not, however, come to complete destruction and destruction. For if it is better for the world not to be than to be, then why did God, who created the world, choose the worst? But God did not create anything in vain. Therefore, God arranged for creation to exist and continue to be, as wisdom affirms: God created everything into being. and the beings of the world are salvific, nor are there in them healings that are destructive (Wis. 1:14), And Paul clearly testifies, saying: for the creation longs for the revelation of the sons of God. For the creation obeys vanity, not by will, but because of him who obeyed in hope: for the creation itself will be freed from the work of corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God (Rom. 8:19-21). For vanity, (says) the creature obeys, but expects that the creature will free itself from such slavery, wanting to call the real world that way. “For it is not the invisible that works corruption, but the visible.” Therefore, the creation continues to exist, being renewed in its best and most splendid form, rejoicing and rejoicing in the resurrection with the children of God, for whom it sighs and sympathizes now (v. 22), seeking the very deliverance of our body from the corruption, so that when we rise and shake off the deadness of the flesh, as it is written: shake off the dust, and arise, sit in Jerusalem ( Is.52:2), and when we get rid of sin, we will also get rid of corruption and work no longer in vanity, but in righteousness. We know, he says, that all creation sighs and sympathizes even to this day. Not exactly, but we ourselves have the firstfruits of the Spirit, and we sigh within ourselves, longing for sonship, for deliverance for our body (Rom. 8:22-23). And Isaiah says: For the heavens are new, and the earth is new, even as I create they remain before Me, says the Lord: Thus shall your seed become, your name (Is. 66:22). And again: thus says the Lord, who created the heavens, this God who formed the earth, and who created it, divided it. I did not create it in vain, but for the whole world (45:18). Truly, God did not create the universe in vain and not in vain, not for destruction, as the superstitious think, but so that it existed, was inhabited and continued to be. Therefore, both earth and heaven will necessarily exist again after the burning and ignition of everything. Why is this necessary, a word about this would be longer than what was said. For the universe, having collapsed, will not be transformed into formless matter and not into the same state as it was in before the dispensation, and will not undergo complete destruction and decay. Ch. 39(32). But if the universe is not destroyed, opponents will say, then why did the Lord say that heaven and earth are passing by (Matthew 24:35). And the prophet: the sky will perish like smoke and the earth will wear out like a robe (Is. 51:6)? This is because, we say, the scriptures usually call the change of the world from this state to a better and more glorious one destruction, since the previous form disappears with the change of everything into a better form; There is no contradiction or inconsistency in Divine words. It passes away, for the image of this world (1 Cor. 7:31), and not the world is said in scripture. Thus, it is customary for the scriptures to call annihilation the conversion of an earlier form into a better and more beautiful form, just as someone would call annihilation the change in appearance of a child into a mature man, when the age of the child changes in size and beauty. When he was a child, like a child he said, like a child he was wise, like a child he was wise; when he was a man, he rejected the child (1 Cor. 13:11). Therefore, we must expect that the creation will suffer, as if doomed to death during combustion, but in order to be recreated, and not perish, so that we, renewed, will live in a renewed world, without experiencing sorrow, according to what was said in the hundred and third psalm: follow your Spirit, and the face of the earth will be built up and renew (v. 30), when God again grants goodness to the surrounding air. When the earth continues to exist after this age, then, of all necessity, there will be inhabitants who will not die, nor marry, nor be born, but, like the Angels, will invariably enjoy bliss in incorruption. Therefore, it is reckless to say what kind of life the bodies will lead at that time, when there will be no air, no earth, and nothing else. Ch. 40 (33). In addition to what has been said, it is worthy, Aglaophon, to consider what a great error one can fall into by giving oneself the freedom to talk about such subjects. For having said that the Lord, when the Sadducees tempted Him, explained that those who had received the resurrection at that time would be like Angels (Luke 20:35; Mark 12:25), you added: “but the Angels, as incorporeal, therefore remain at the height of bliss and glory, therefore, we, who have equal status with the Angels, must, like them, be naked from our bodies.” I did not notice, my dear fellow, that the One who created and arranged the universe out of nothing gave the nature of immortals not only to Angels and Servant Spirits, but also to Principalities, Thrones and Powers. For there is another kind of Angels, another of Powers, because there is not one rank, not one host, generation and tribe of immortals, but there are genera, generations and differences. Neither Cherubim, emerging from their nature, change into the image of Angels, nor do Angels change into the image of others. For they must be what they are and how they came to be. And man, appointed to live in the world and rule over everything that is in it, being immortal according to the original order, will never change from the human state into the image of Angels or other creatures, because Angels do not leave their original form and do not change into the image of other creatures. And Christ came to preach not the transformation or application of human nature into another image, but a return to the state in which man was at first before the fall, when he was immortal. Therefore, each of the created beings must remain in the image of the position acquired by him, so that everything is filled with everything, the heavens with Angels, the thrones with authorities, the lights with ministering spirits, the Divine places, the pure and clear lights with Seraphim, standing before the great Council that rules the universe, and the world with people. If we assume that people change into Angels, then at the same time we must admit that the Angels also change in Power, and the Power in another and another form, until the word, having touched the highest ones, becomes entangled in danger. Ch. 41 (34). And this cannot be allowed, as if God, having created man bad, or having made a mistake in him during the dispensation, decided to later make him an Angel, repenting, like the worst artists. Or as if at first he wanted to create an angel, but not having the strength to do this, he created a man. It's weak. Why did he create man and not an angel, if he wanted man to be an angel and not a man? Was it because he couldn't? This is blasphemous. Or did you put off the best until the future and do the worst? This is ridiculous. He does not make mistakes in creating the beautiful, does not put it off, does not feel powerless, but has the opportunity to do as He wants and when He wants, since He is power. Why, wanting man to exist, created man in the beginning. If he desires something, then he desires the beautiful, and the beautiful is a man, and a man is a being composed of soul and body: therefore, a man will not be without a body, but with a body, so that besides a man no other man will appear. For God must preserve all immortal generations: and man is immortal. For God, says wisdom, created man into incorruption, and created him in the image of his ever-present (Wisdom 2:23). Therefore, the body will not be destroyed, because man consists of soul and body. Ch. 42 (35). Therefore, he will accept how the Lord himself wants to teach this when the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the flesh. This was the teaching of the Sadducees. For this purpose, having prepared a parable about the wife and seven brothers, in order to reject the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, they approached Him, as the Evangelist himself showed, saying: the Sadducee also came to Him, who say there is no resurrection (Matthew 22:23). If there had been no resurrection of the flesh, but only one soul had been preserved, then Christ would have agreed with them as with excellent and correct thinkers. But now he answers, saying: on the resurrection they neither marry nor commit sex, but as the angels of God are in heaven (v. 30); not that people will then not have bodies, but will not marry or enter into marriage, but will remain incorruptible. And he says that in this we are like the Angels, so that like the Angels in heaven, so we in paradise are no longer engaged in marriages and feasts, but in the contemplation of God and the organization of our lives, under the control of Christ. He did not say: there will be Angels, but like Angels, as crowned, according to what is written, with glory and honor, made a little less than Angels (Ps. 8:6) and close to being Angels. It is as if someone, in the air and silence, during the night, when everything is adorned with the clear light of the moon, said: the moon shines like the sun. And we would certainly not say that he testifies that the moon is the sun, but only as the sun. In the same way, what is not gold, but close to gold, is usually said to be like gold, and not gold itself. If there was gold, they would not say: like gold, but gold. since it is not gold, but is close to gold, and appears to be gold, then it is said: not gold, but like gold. So, when the Lord says that the saints in the resurrection will be like Angels, then we understand that it is not as if He promises that the saints in the resurrection will be Angels, but close to being Angels. Therefore, it is very foolish to say that since Christ announced that the saints will appear like angels at the resurrection, therefore these bodies will not rise. The expression itself clearly shows this meaning of the event. For the word: uprising is used not about something that has not fallen, but about something that has fallen and is rising. Likewise, when the prophet says: And I will raise up the fallen tabernacle of David (Am.9:11). The tabernacle of the soul, which had undergone change, fell, descending into the dusty land (Dan.12:2). For what goes down is not what does not die, but what does die. The flesh dies, for the soul is immortal. And so, if the soul is immortal, and the body dies, then those who say that there is a resurrection, but not the body, deny the existence of the resurrection; because what does not stand, but what has fallen and lies rises, as it is written: food that falls does not rise? or does he who turns away not be converted (Jer.8:4)? Ch. 43 (36). And the Lord clearly taught that the soul is immortal, speaking both Himself and through Solomon. Himself - in the story of the rich man and the beggar Lazarus, this latter, after laying down his body, allowed him to rest in the bowels of Abraham, and condemned him to torment; and brought Abraham into conversation with them. Through Solomon - in the book inscribed: “wisdom”, in which it is written: the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and no torment will touch them. It was impossible for them to die in the sight of the foolish, and their exodus was imputed to their bitterness, and their destruction from us was imputed: they are in the world, and the hope of their immortality is fulfilled (Wis. 3:1-4). And so resurrection belongs to the body, not to the soul; for they do not lift up the one standing, but the one lying down, just as they treat not the healthy, but the sick. If anyone insists that there will be a resurrection of the soul, and not the body, this is great stupidity and madness. For first one must prove the corruption and destruction of the soul in order to prove its resurrection, in order to show oneself not to be empty talkers, but to speak with substance. However, let us yield to him, let him recognize the soul as mortal. Then one of two things must be assumed: either that the Lord proclaimed the truth when he taught that the soul is immortal, and therefore it is unfair to say that it is subject to corruption: or - that it is subject to corruption and that Christ, both in his speech about the rich and the poor, and in the appearance of Moses and Elijah, falsely taught that it is indestructible and immortal. But the Lord did not say anything unjust or lie. For it was not as a ghost and apparition, out of a desire to deceive the Apostles, that he showed them Moses and Elijah on the mountain, but what they really were. From this, so to speak, even the most uneducated will understand that He thereby confirmed the immortality and indestructibility of the soul. Ch. 44 (37). So the resurrection belongs to the body, and not to the soul, so that the tabernacle of David, which had fallen into corruption, might be raised; and being restored and rewarded, it remained undamaged and indestructible, like the days of the age (Am. 9:11), because it is not God’s nature to build a stone house for David for the future, so that in the kingdom of heaven he would have a beautiful dwelling, but to restore the dwelling of the soul - the flesh that He created with His own hands. So you must judge this, wisest Aglaophon! And you will understand this most easily if you pay attention to the image of sleep and awakening. For if wakefulness is followed by sleep, and sleep is followed by awakening: then this is the doctrine of death and resurrection; since “sleep and death are twins,” 271 then revival from the dead, in order for the flesh to come to life, is also necessary as rising from sleep. For just as sleep is followed by wakefulness, and the sleeper, of course, does not remain forever in the same sleepy state, but gets up again: so life will follow death, and the deceased, of course, does not remain in the same state after death. So, if after sleep there is wakefulness, after a fall there is an uprising, after destruction there is a re-creation: then how can one not expect that the fallen will rise and the dead will come to life? And we confess without deluding ourselves that dead bodies will come to life again. If you want, infer this not only from sleep and rebellion, but also from seeds and plants, since the resurrection is heralded by all of them. Look at the seeds, how they throw themselves naked and skinny into the ground, and emerge from there with ripe fruits. If the seeds died and rotted, and no new life and plant came from the seeds, then what else would happen but that everything would be destroyed by death? Ch. 45 (38). But now, sovereign Theophilus and other judges of our words, we will not talk more about this, but we will consider what follows this in order, since the reasoning has moved far from what is proper. For, according to the far-fetched and incongruous interpretation of the prophecy in Psalm 65 by opponents, God, as if in punishment for sins, imprisons the soul in the body, as if in bonds. This is more of an absurdity than a fair opinion. For if earlier crimes, as we have previously stated, souls received a body: then how, after the crime, are they enclosed in a body, as in bonds, when there is no time in which they sinned before receiving the body? He is not smart who says that the souls sinned because of the body, or that after they sinned, the body became a prison and chains as a punishment. If souls sinned because of the body, then the body was united with them from the beginning, even before sin. For how would they sin because of something that did not yet exist? And one more thing: if a person’s body is taken for bonds, shackles and prison; then not both are guilty of sin together, but one soul. For what happens after sin to the one who has sinned? A prison, bonds and shackles are being prepared for him. But we have admitted that the body cannot be called the bond of the soul; because the body assists her in both, that is, in righteousness and unrighteousness, and the bonds keep her from unrighteousness. Therefore, as I say, one of two things must be assumed: either we sinned from the beginning along with the body, and there is no time in which we would be without the body, and therefore the body, together with the soul, is the guilt of both good and bad deeds; or we sinned when we lived without a body, and therefore the body is completely innocent of evil. But a soul without a body is not conquered by unreasonable voluptuousness, and meanwhile the primordial ones are defeated, having been caught by unreasonable voluptuousness; therefore the soul was united with the body even before sin. It seems to me that I have already fully and convincingly proven that it is impossible to think that the body became chains as punishment for a crime, so that the soul, clothed in death, would, in their opinion, bear an unceasing and constant punishment. Therefore, it is untenable and impossible that the body is a net and bonds, and that God imprisoned souls in this net as punishment, casting them down from the third heaven because they violated the commandment. For on what basis can one believe such rash words of theirs? And this is not in the psalm, although they tensely explain it. But I present the very words that are there, so that the falsity of their interpretation will be revealed when they do not want to understand the scriptures correctly. These words are precisely the following: you have tempted us, O God, you have kindled us, as silver is liquified. You brought us into the net; you laid sorrow before our faces. Thou hast raised up men upon our heads: thou hast passed through fire and water, and brought us forth into rest (Ps. 65:10-12), and immediately they add: this is said about the souls cast down from the third heaven, where paradise is, into this body, as if into a net, as if for an exploit. For they say the words: “passed through fire and water” mean: or the entry of the soul into the world through the mother’s womb, since it remains there as if in flame and moisture; or - a descent from heaven into this life, accomplished through sources of fire and water located above the expanses of the firmament. I considered it necessary to speak out against them. You, Aglaophon, answer for them yourself what they will say. Firstly, paradise, from which we were expelled in the person of the primordial, is obviously a beautiful place on this earth, of course appointed by the saints for carefree peace and life; from where the flowing Tigris and Euphrates and other rivers appear here to irrigate our continent with their flow; They do not flow and fall from the sky, because the earth would not be able to accept such a mass of water rushing from above. And the Apostle does not posit paradise in the third heaven, if anyone knows how to understand the subtle meaning of his words: in everything, he says, she was caught up to the third heaven; and this is how man is: whether in the body or apart from the body, God knows that he has been caught up into paradise (2 Cor. 12:2-4). He reveals that he saw two revelations, apparently being raptured twice: once to the third heaven, another time to heaven. For the words: “He who was caught up into the third heaven” actually points to the revelation that happened to him during the rapture to the third heaven; and the words following these: “and such is man, even in the body, or apart from the body, (as if he were caught up) into paradise” indicate another revelation that happened to him in paradise. And to say that souls are cast down from heaven and, rushing into our world, pass through fiery springs and waters over the expanses of the firmament, is idle talk and pompous speech. since Adam was not cast out from heaven, but from paradise planted in Eden in the east; and the fall is not before putting on the body, as we have sufficiently shown: this is also a body, but there is a net, but the fall occurred after the union of the soul with the body, because man consists of both, and expulsion from paradise happened here. But they, Aglaophon, did not pay careful attention to this word, but he began to reason about such subjects that do not have a safe conclusion, and began to explain the psalm in accordance with the opinion of ill-intentioned people, which we will not talk about anymore. Since we once decided to correct their ignorance, I want to reveal to them the meaning of this prophecy: Thou hast tempted us, O God, thou hast set us on fire, as silver is liquified. Thus, the martyrs, long tempted by the blows of torment during torture (for much in the prophecies relate to us and they are fulfilled by faith), having labored gloriously and courageously, with the words: “Thou hast tempted us,” they thank God for the fact that He, in order to gain from Him greater glory, tested them with many sorrows, inviting them to win the true Olympic competition. And look how, in agreement with these words and clearly, Solomon speaks about torment (for our word is not devoid of evidence from other scriptures): for God has tempted them and found them worthy for himself. Like gold in the furnace I tempted them, and like the fruitfulness of the fragrance I received when I visited them, and so on. (Wis. 3:5-6): and above he said: for even if they suffer torment in the sight of men, their hope of immortality is fulfilled: even if they have suffered little punishment, they will receive great blessings (vv. 4-5). And in the 123rd Psalm it says: if the Lord had not been in us, man would have risen against us, for they would have devoured us alive, for the water would have drowned us. Our soul shall pass over the stream, for our soul shall pass over the fickle water. Blessed be the Lord, who did not let us be caught by their teeth. Our soul, like a bird, is delivered from the net of those who catch it: the net is broken and we are delivered (Ps. 124:2-8). This psalm is sung by the martyrs. So two faces of the good-victorious martyrs, one of the New, the other of the Old Testament, alternately send up this harmonious song to God the Intercessor and the king of all: You have tempted us, God, you have kindled us, as silver is liquefied. You brought us into the net, you placed sorrow on our backbone: here of course is the judgment seat of the pagans, or torture, during which those tormented and scorched by fire were greatly tempted. Tempt me, Lord, he says, and try me: kindle my bowels and my heart (Ps. 25:2). Let Abraham, who was kindled in his womb for his only begotten and preferred the command of God to everything, after he heard the voice: Abraham! Spare your son and throw down the sword, he says these words: You have tempted us, God, and you have kindled us as silver is liquified. Even if Job, after he had expired with pus, was reviled by his friends and was sick in body, even if he, too, heard God speaking to him in a whirlwind: Do you think that you have done anything differently, unless you appear truthful (Job 40:3). He says: You have placed sorrow on our backs, so that you may tempt us like gold in a furnace. Let the three youths, being watered in the cave so that they would not be scorched by fire, say: You have tempted us, God, who have kindled us as silver is liquified. You passed through fire and water and brought us to rest.... God Almighty, eternal. Father of Christ! Grant me Methodia, when on your day I pass painlessly through the fire and escape the rush of the waters that have changed into a fiery nature, grant me to say: I passed through fire and water and brought me to rest. For this is your promise to those who love you: even if you pass through water, I am with you, and the rivers will not cover you; and if you pass through fire without being burned, the flame will not burn you (Is. 43:2). However, this is enough to explain the psalm. Now we must pay attention to the fact that they, like sleepy ones, carried away by manifold deceptions, point to the words of the Apostle: I live sometimes apart from the law (Rom. 7:9) - and cry out that the Apostle by life before the commandment meant our life in the primordial life before the body, as the following words show: I am carnal, sold under sin (v. 14); because a person could not become subject and submit to evil, having been sold to it for a crime, if he had not become flesh: since, according to them, the soul in itself is not accessible to sin, therefore the Apostle added with intention: I am carnal, sold under sin, having said before: I sometimes live outside the law. From such words of theirs, many at that time were surprised and amazed, and now, when the truth has already become clearer, they find themselves not only far mistaken, but also reaching extreme blasphemy, admitting that souls lived without a body before the commandment, and judging that they themselves are completely inaccessible to sin, they again refuted their teaching, or better than themselves. For they subsequently appropriate bodies to them as punishment, because they sinned before the body, and at the same time raised reproaches against them, likening the body to chains and shackles and saying other nonsense. And now, as said, the whole thing is going the opposite way. For the soul, before sin, must exist together with the body; because if the soul itself is not susceptible to sin, then it would in no way sin before the body; and if she has sinned, then in herself she is no longer inaccessible to sin, but rather is accommodating and easily accessible; therefore, she will sin again, even though she has not received this body, just as she sinned before receiving it. And in general, why would she receive a body later, after committing a sin? And what was her need for a body? If in order to suffer torment and sorrow, then why does she, along with her body, indulge in luxury and debauchery? How is she also autocratic in this world? For it depends on us whether to believe or not to believe; Therefore, it is up to us to correct ourselves and to sin, and it is up to us to do good and do evil. And how else can one expect that future judgment, at which God will reward everyone according to their deeds and intentions? Shouldn’t we admit that judgment already exists even now, if to be born and enter the body for the soul means to be condemned and receive retribution; and to die and be separated from the body means to be freed and come to rest, because, in your opinion, she is imprisoned in the body as a condemnation and punishment for having sinned before the body? But reasoning has sufficiently and abundantly proven that it is impossible to admit that the body is a place of torment and a bond of the soul. And so, having proven from Scripture itself that the primordial crimes consisted of soul and body, we can be satisfied and conclude our discussion on this subject here. Now, in order not to go out of order, I will analyze their teaching in its main principles in order to refute the beginnings of their proofs with objections. For you yourself can already see, judges, that the words spoken in the Epistle to the Romans: I live apart from the law sometimes cannot, according to their opinion, indicate the life of the soul before the body, as the words that follow show, even if this famous doctor, having torn out what followed, tried to remake the words of the Apostle into a meaning suitable for him, acting in this case not like a doctor, but like a child. For instead of preserving the bodily members in their own joints and connections, so that the entire natural appearance of the body was intact, he, without paying attention, disfigured the connection of the scripture, like Scythian, who mercilessly cuts the members of some enemy for his destruction. So be it. How, they will say, did the Apostle understand these words when you proved that they do not have such a meaning? I would say that he considers the commandment to be law. For let it be, first of all, according to your assumption that he called the commandment a law, but at the same time he did not say that the first-created one before the commandment lived without a body, but only without sin. For not much time passed from his creation to the commandment, when he lived without sin, not without a body, but with a body. Soon after the commandment they were expelled, spending a very short time in paradise. And if anyone, taking advantage of the following saying: when we are in the flesh, the passions of sin, which are worked by the law in our lives (Rom. 7:5), thinks that the Apostle condemns and accuses the flesh, and if we add to this what is said about the same thing in another place, namely: let the justification of the law be fulfilled in us; not those who walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit, or else: those who are in the flesh, carnal wisdom, and those who are spiritual in the Spirit, for carnal wisdom is death, but spiritual wisdom is life and peace, because carnal wisdom is enmity against God: for the law of God is not repented, for below it can be done. But you are born in the flesh, but in spirit (Rom. 8:4,5,6,7.9); Should one say to such a person: have the Apostle and those to whom he wrote this already renounced life, if in this place he condemned not life according to the flesh, but the flesh, or, although he was still in the flesh, he wrote this as if he were not in the flesh? You shouldn't say that; for it is obvious that he himself was in the flesh, and those to whom he wrote this. If neither he himself was already in the flesh, nor those to whom he writes, how could he say: when we were in the flesh, the passions of sin, which were the law in our lives? And so he talks about the intemperate life, and not about the flesh itself. For it is customary for him to call a person who lives in this way a carnal person, as well as a spiritual person who has lost hope of seeing the truth and the light of the sacrament. Let them say that the soul cannot be saved at all. For it is written: a natural man does not receive the Spirit of God, for he has foolishness: but a spiritual man strives for everything (1 Cor 2:15). Along with the spiritual, a spiritual man also appears there - the spiritual is among those who are saved, and the spiritual is among those who perish, and not because the soul perishes, and something else besides the soul is saved; so here too, when he says that the carnal and those who are in the flesh perish and cannot please God, he is trying to destroy not the flesh, but life according to the flesh. Further he says: those who are in the flesh cannot please God, and immediately adds: you are not in the flesh, but in spirit, because the Spirit of Christ lives in you; and a little further: since the spirit of Jesus who raised from the dead lives in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your dead body as well, to those who live through His Spirit in you. Moreover, brethren, we must not live according to the flesh. If you live according to the flesh, you are about to die; if you kill the deeds of the flesh with the spirit, you will live (Rom. 8:8,9.11,12,13). We should pay attention to the Apostle’s certification that it is not the body that is mortified, but the body’s desire for voluptuousness. If they again object to this and say: why is it said: the wisdom of the flesh is enmity against God, for the law of God is not repented, for it can do less (Rom. 8:7): then it must be said that here they sin too. For the Apostle said that it is not the flesh itself that cannot submit to the law of God, but the wisdom of the flesh, which is completely different from the flesh. Thus, if someone were to say: the impurity in poorly purified silver is not subject to the artist’s control in order to make a useful vessel, because it cannot, because it must first be separated and purified through fire: then this would show that it is not the silver that is impossible to work into a useful vessel, but the impurity of copper and other solid substances found in the silver. So the Apostle, speaking about the wisdom of the flesh, did not say that the flesh cannot submit to the law of God, but wisdom in the flesh, meaning its desire for intemperance. In other places, he sometimes called it the old brew of malice and wickedness, commanding us to completely cleanse ourselves from it (1 Cor. 5:7), sometimes - a law that wars against the law of the mind and takes captive (Rom. 7:23). But if he said about the flesh itself that it cannot submit to the law of God: then we, whether we were to commit debauchery or rob, or do other similar things through the body, could not deserve condemnation from the Righteous Judge; because the flesh cannot submit to the law of God. For how could one condemn the body when it lives in accordance with its inherent nature? Likewise, the body could not be subjected to the demands of purity or virtue, since it is by nature not subject to goodness. For if the nature of the flesh is such that it cannot submit to the law of God, and the law of God is truth and chastity: then, of necessity, it would be absolutely impossible to be either a virgin or abstinent. If they remain virgins and abstain, then they abstain obviously because they subdue the body; otherwise it is impossible to abstain from sin. If the body cannot be subject to the law of God, how would John subject his body to purity, or Peter to holiness, or others to righteousness? 3Why then does Paul say: Let sin not reign in your dead body, lest you obey its lusts? Let ye now present your hands as weapons of unrighteousness to sin: but present to yourselves the weapons of God as from the living dead, and your hands as weapons of the righteousness of God (Rom. 6:12-13)? And again: just as your servants presented uncleanness and iniquity into iniquity: so now will you present your servants to righteousness in what is holy (v. 19). And so the Apostle knew that this outer church could be corrected and directed towards good, so that the sins in it could be killed. Otherwise, how can a person, even in our situation, be enslaved to the truth, unless he first subdues the members of his body so that they no longer obey sin, but the truth, and leads a life worthy of Christ? since sinning and non-sinning occur through the medium of the body, since the soul uses it as an instrument in virtue or vice. And if neither harlots, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor harlots, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor molesters, nor extortioners can inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9,10), and these deeds are accomplished and amplified through the body, then no one can be justified unless he first abstains from them: but he who abstains from them is the one who abstains from them. directed towards chastity and faith: it follows from this that the body submits to the law of God; because the law of God is chastity. Therefore, the Apostle said that it is not the flesh that is not subject to good, but the wisdom of the flesh, as if destroying its very desire for intemperance, as well as the inflaming of the soul towards unrighteousness. Armed even against the incontinence of gluttony, he said that we need to purify ourselves, teaching us to exterminate such desires and passionate desires and shaming those who think of spending their lives in such pleasures, who recognize the belly as God (Phil. 3:10), and eat pits and drink, we will die in the morning (1 Cor. 15:32), like insatiable animals, caring only for food and meals. Having said: food for the belly and food for the belly, he added: God will abolish both this and this: the body is not fornication, but the Lord and the Lord the body. God has raised up the Lord, and He will raise us up with His power. Or do you not know that your bodies are the delight of Christ? Shall I take the hooks of Christ and create the hooks of harlots? no it won't. Or you don’t know that the filthy one cleaves, there is one body. It will be said that both will become one flesh. Cling to the Lord, there is one spirit. Flee fornication: every sin, even if a man commits it, exists besides the body: but a fornicator sins in his own body. Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit living in you, and you have it from God, and you carry it with your own; bought with a price: therefore glorify God in all your bodies (1 Cor. 6:13-20). Please note that the Apostle said these words because this body can receive the law of God and immortality if it is cleansed of unclean fervor, without being completely defiled by the lawless excitement of the passions. For what else can cleave to a filthy woman, draw closer and become one flesh with her through the union and mutual communication of members, if not this external body, by which all these sins related to copulation and sexual intercourse are committed? since every sin, even if a person commits it, exists besides the body: but the fornicator sins in his own body (1 Cor. 6:18). For pride, unbelief, rage, hypocrisy are sins of the soul: and fornication, lust, debauchery are sins of the body; with them, neither the soul can soar to the truth, nor the body submit to the rules of chastity: but both must lose the kingdom of God. And so, if our bodies, kept in holiness, are the church of the Spirit living in us (1 Cor. 6:19), if the Lord abides in the body, and the members of the body are members of Christ, then the body is subject to the law of God and can inherit the kingdom of God. For He who raised Christ from the dead, says the Apostle, will also give life to your dead bodies through His living Spirit in you (Rom. 8:11), so that this mortal may be clothed with immortality and the corruptible with incorruption, and death may be sacrificed in victory (1 Cor. 15:54). The Apostle was not talking about another body, as you think, here, but about this dying and mortifying one, through which one can commit fornication and become debauched. If they assume that there is a difference between the body and the flesh, and want us to agree with their reasoning, according to which they consider the body to be something else, as if inherent to the soul itself, not visible, but the flesh is external, visible: then against this it must be said that not only Paul and the Prophets usually call this flesh body, but even other philosophers, who especially observe the accuracy of the names. If they want to scientifically investigate this, then in general flesh is not actually called the entire mass of our bodily frame, but some part of the whole, such as: bones, nerves, veins: and the body is the whole, the whole. Therefore, doctors who have carefully examined the nature of the body call this visible body the body. And Plato himself recognizes this very thing as a body. So in the Phaedo, Socrates says: “Do we really consider death to be anything other than the detachment of the soul from the body? Doesn’t dying mean that the body, detached from the soul, exists on its own, and the soul without a body exists on its own?” 272 And blessed Moses (we again turn to the Lord's scriptures) does not this body mean, which we also call, when he says: and let him who touches the unclean wash his garments at the time of cleansing, and let his body be washed with water, and be unclean until the evening (Lev. 14: 9.11.25)? What about Job? Isn’t it this dead body that he also designates with these words: is my body being kneaded into the pus of worms (Job.7:5)? Yes, and Solomon says: wisdom does not enter into an evil soul; below it dwells in a body guilty of sin (Wisdom 1:4). And Daniel says about the martyrs: the fire did not overcome their bodies, and the hair of their heads was not scorched (Dan. 3:94). Likewise, the Lord in the Gospel: For this reason I say to you: do not worry about what you eat or what you will wear. Is not the soul more than food, and the body clothing (Matthew 6:25). And the Apostle, with the words: Let not sin reign in your dead body (Rom. 6:12), indicates this body in which we are clothed: and again: if the Spirit of the resurrected Jesus dwells in you, the raising of Christ from the dead will give life to your dead bodies (Rom. 8:11); and again: if the foot says that the hand is not from the body, food for this reason is not from the body (1 Cor. 12:15); and again: Abraham did not faint in faith, neither did he consider his flesh (σωμα) already slain (Rom. 4:19); also: for it is fitting for us all to appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that everyone may receive what they have done with the body (2 Cor. 5:10); as well as: the messages are heavy and strong, but the coming of the body is not powerful (2 Cor. 10:10) also: we knew a person about Christ before he was fourteen years old: if in the body, we do not know, if apart from the body we do not know (2 Cor. 12:2); and again: this is why husbands should love their wives as their own body (Eph. 5:28); also: May the God of peace Himself sanctify you, all perfect ones: and may your spirit be all perfect, and your soul and body blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Thess. 5:23). But they, not understanding any of this correctly, thought that the Apostle was in agitation and confusion, as if his thoughts did not have firmness and foundation in words, but were spinning back and forth and contradicting themselves: either he said, the flesh will be resurrected, or he will not be resurrected. Therefore, in order not to omit anything proposed, I will again return to the subject in order to completely chop up the hydra. Having presented in order, as I promised, other reasons for their bewilderment, and having proven what should be said against them, I will then show what the enemy said regarding the belief in the resurrection of the flesh in agreement and identically with us. So, let us consider what we first decided to say about the words of the Apostle. His words: “I sometimes live without the law,” as we showed at first, mean our former life in the person of our ancestors, in paradise, before the commandment, not without the body, but together with the body; since before the commandment was given, God destroyed the earth of the creation of man (Gen. 2:7): and then we lived without lust, completely unaware of the attacks of unreasonable lust, which, through the fascinating seductions of pleasures, compels us to intemperance. For that which does not have a definite law in accordance with which one must live, nor the independent power of reason, which way of life to choose in order to deserve just praise or blame, then, it must be said, is free from any accusation; because such a person cannot desire what is not forbidden; and if he wishes, he will not be guilty. For desire inclines not to objects inherent and in our power, but to those which, although inherent to us, are not in our power. How can anyone desire and love something that is not forbidden to him and for which he has no need? Therefore I knew not lust, except the law had said: Thou shalt not lust (Rom. 7:7). After the ancestors heard: from the tree that you know good and evil you will not take away from it: but if you take away from it one day, you will die (Gen. 2:17), - then they developed passion and lust. For the one who lusts does not desire what he has, what he dominates and what he uses, but what is forbidden to him, and taken away, and what he does not have: therefore it is beautifully said: I do not know lust, unless the law said: “Thou shalt not lust,” that is, unless it were said: Thou shalt not take it away from him. From here sin received a place and a reason to arise in order to seduce and entice me. After the commandment was given, the devil began to have a reason, through the commandment, to create lust in me, arousing and cunningly inducing me to fall into the desire of the forbidden. Without the law, sin is dead (Rom. 7:8), that is, until the commandment was given and did not yet exist, sin was not active, and before the commandment I lived blamelessly, since I did not have a specific law and commandment in accordance with which I had to live, and which if I had violated, I would have sinned. But the commandment that came, sin was made alive: I died, and the commandment was found unto me, even this death (Rom. 7:9-10), because after God laid down the law and determined what should be done and what not to do, the devil created lust in me. Thus, this admonition of God and the command given to me for life and immortality, so that by obeying it and living in accordance with it, I would have joy and a carefree and eternally blessed life, and always blooming with immortality, upon my violation of it, it would turn into death and condemnation for me. since the devil, whom the Apostle now called sin, because he is the author and inventor of sin, received an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me into disobedience and, having seduced me, killed me as subject to sentence: on that day, if you take away from him, you will die (Gen. 2:17). – Moreover, the law is holy and the commandment of God is holy and righteous and good (Rom. 7:12); because it was given not for harm, but for salvation: for we should not at all think that God would do anything unhelpful or harmful. And so, was the good done for me by death, that is, the law given in order to be for me the greatest good? It won't happen. Because the commandment of God was given not in order to enslave me to corruption and to put on me the seal of death, the author of destruction, but so that the devil, who through good has arranged evil for me, would be revealed, so that he would be revealed as a sinner par excellence - the inventor and builder of sin, and so that he would be excommunicated from all good things, having organized something contrary to the commandment of God. We know because there is a spiritual law, why it cannot cause harm to anyone or anything; because the spiritual dwells far from irrational lust and sin; I am carnal, sold under sin (Rom. 7:14), that is, I, being carnal, was placed among evil and good, as autocratic, so that I could choose what I want (for he says: I have laid down life and death before you (Deut. 30:15) - when I turned away to disobey the spiritual law, that is, the commandment, and obeyed the carnal, that is, the advice of the serpent: then as a result of this choice, I fell into sin, I was sold to the devil. Hence evil, having besieged me, sits on me and dwells in my flesh, like a drone in a honeycomb, often flying and buzzing around it, since for violating the commandment the punishment was imposed on me - to be sold to evil: then I do not understand what I do, thinking about what I do not want. For the words: what I do I do not understand, and what I hate, I do (Rom. 7:15) should not be taken in relation to committing and doing evil, but only in relation to the thought, since extraneous thoughts often fly to us and incline us to what we do not want, and the soul is carried away by thoughts to many objects. For it is not at all in our will to have or not to have thoughts about something unsuitable, but to follow or not to follow thoughts depends on us. We cannot prevent thoughts brought from outside to tempt us from entering us: but we can disobey or not follow them. Otherwise, how could the Apostle do much more evil, which he did not like, and less good, if he had not spoken here about extraneous thoughts that sometimes come to us against our will and for unknown reasons? However, these thoughts must be destroyed and curbed, so that, expanding beyond their limits, they do not take over the soul - and when occupied with them, good cannot arise in us. Therefore, the Apostle rightly said: what I do, I do not understand; what I will, I do; but what I hate, I do. We want not to think about the inappropriate and lawless, because perfect goodness consists in refraining not only from committing evil, but even from thinking about it: but the good that we want is not done, but the evil that we do not want is done. For often, against our will, countless thoughts about countless objects come into our hearts, filling us with care and unreasonable worries. Therefore, it is our will to wish not to think about such things, but to do so in order to destroy these thoughts so that they do not come to our minds again is impossible, because, as I said, it is not in our power, but in our power only to follow them or not to follow them. Therefore, the meaning of this saying: no, if I want good, I do this: I want not even to think about what harms me, since that good is impeccable, which, as they say, “is done immaculately and perfectly, both by hand and by mind”: 273 but if I don’t want good, I do: but if I don’t want evil, I do this: I don’t want to think, - and I think about what I don’t want. And see if this is why David himself, sick of thinking about what he himself would not want, asked God: cleanse me from my secrets, and spare your servant from those that are strangers; If they do not possess me, then I will be blameless and cleansed from great sin (Ps. 182:13–14); and the Apostle himself says in another place: casting down thoughts and every exaltation that is taken against the mind of God and bringing every mind captive into the obedience of Christ (2 Cor. 10:5). If anyone, daring to go contrary to these words, objects that the Apostle teaches that it is not only in thought that we do evil, which we hate and do not desire, but in the very action and execution of it, because the Apostle said: “I do not want good, I do it; and did not want to do it, yet he did it, and what kind of good was it that he wanted to do, and yet he did not do it: but on the contrary, as many times as he wanted to do good, so many times he did not the good that he wanted, but the evil that he did not want. Is it that he, not wanting to serve idols, but to serve God, could not serve God, which he wanted, but could serve idols, which he did not want? Or that, wanting to be chaste, he did not do this, but, on the contrary, indulged in intemperance, which he abhorred? And to briefly say: drunkenness, debauchery, anger, lies and other evil deeds that I did not want, I did: but I did not do the truth and holiness that I wanted? However, he himself, strenuously encouraging everyone in the church to shun iniquity, and trying to develop in us righteousness without the admixture of sin, inspires that not only those who do indecent things and engage in them are reserved for destruction and wrath, but also those who deign them in this (Rom. 1:32). since every sin and intention achieves fulfillment through the flesh, then, clearly teaching us to turn away from all this and hate, he often says in his epistles: do not flatter yourselves: neither harlots, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor harlots, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor molesters, nor extortioners, will inherit the kingdom of God ( 1 Corinthians 6:9–10). And, most importantly, urging us in every possible way to completely withdraw and turn away from sin, he says: be imitators of me, as I am of Christ (1 Cor. 11:1). Thus, he said the above words not in the sense that he was doing what he did not want, but in the sense that he was only thinking: otherwise how could he be a strict imitator of Christ? And now, since animal thoughts often attack us, filling us with this or that desire and unreasonable urges, “like dense swarms of countless flies”; 274 That’s why he said: I do this if I don’t want to. We must boldly expel these thoughts from our souls, without agreeing to do what they suggest. For this is why our mind is confused by many thoughts, so that we, having experienced all kinds of pleasures and sorrows, will inherit the kingdom of heaven, if we do not change for the worse, but on the contrary, tempted in every way, like pure gold by fire, we do not deviate from our virtue. Therefore, we must courageously resist thoughts, like brave warriors who, having learned that they are besieged by enemies, do not pay any attention to the arrows and their various spears, but cheerfully rush towards them to save the city and do not weaken in the least in their zeal, until, having put their horde to flight, they expel them from their borders. You see how thoughts, due to the sin living in us, rise up against us from outside, like mad dogs, or fierce and daring robbers, who are always directed against us by a cruel ruler and prince of unrighteousness, and who test us whether we have the strength to resist them and resist. And so be careful, soul, that you, having succumbed to him, do not be carried away into his power; then we will not be able to give a ransom for you. For what will a man give for his soul (Matthew 16:26)? It would be good and gratifying if we did not have those opposing us and fighting us. But since this is impossible; and we cannot achieve what we want (for we want not to have people dragging us into passions - then we could be saved without difficulty; - but what we want is not done, but what we do not want happens, because we need, as I said, a test), therefore, let us not succumb, soul, let us not succumb to the evil one, but accept all the weapons of God, protecting us and preparing us for feat, let us put on the armor of truth and put on our feet in preparation for the gospel of peace: let us take up the shield of faith over all, in which we will be able to quench all the flaming arrows of the evil one, and receive the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: for we are able to resist the wiles of the devil (Eph. 6:1-17): and to lay down all exaltation that is charged to the mind of God (2 Cor. 10:5), for we are not warfare in flesh and blood (Eph.6:12). I say this because this is the nature of the Apostle’s writings. For much can be said about each saying in this epistle, how correctly and strictly it is expressed; but it would take a long time to consider each of them in this way. I now meant to show only the character and purpose of his speech. He rightly says: I do this not if I want, but if I hate it, I do it. I praise the law of God, for it is good: now it is not to anyone that I do this, but to sin that lives in me. We know that no good thing lives in me, that is, in my flesh (Rom. 7:15,16,17,18). However, you remember that we set limits for ourselves above, and if, despite all my haste, wanting to explain everything quickly, I slow down too much, and the volume of my speech has become larger than I expected, then we must try to finish it: otherwise we will never reach the end in a continued discussion. And so we said, if you remember, that from the time when man, deceived, broke the commandment, sin, which received its beginning from this disobedience, entered into him. Thus, at first there was an indignation - and we were filled with the desires and thoughts of others, deprived of the Spirit (έμϑυσήματος) of God and filled with carnal lust, which the most cunning serpent put into us when we in a short time left the circle of God’s command. Therefore, to destroy sin, God invented death for us; otherwise, in us immortals, he himself, as I said, would be immortal. Thus, with the words: everything that is not living in me, that is, good in my flesh, the Apostle wants to show that as a result of crime, through desire, sin has taken root in us, from which, like young offspring and shoots, lustful thoughts always arise in us. For there are two kinds of thoughts in us: some arise from lust that has crept into the body, which, as I said, came from the influence of the carnal spirit (τῶ ὑλιϰῶ πνεύματος): others arise from the law of the commandment, which we have received as an innate and natural law, stimulating us to good and correcting our thoughts. That is why, according to our minds, we delight in the law of God (this is the inner man), but according to the lust that lives in the flesh, we delight in the law of the devil; - this is the law that fights and acts against the law of God, that is, the striving of the mind for good, the same one that always produces in us passionate and carnal attractions to lawlessness, completely drawing us towards voluptuousness. It seems to me that Paul obviously presupposes here three laws: of which one corresponds to the goodness innate in us, which he clearly called the law of the mind; the other comes from the attack of the evil one and often drags the soul into passionate ideas, which he called warring against the law of the mind; the third - which took root in the flesh due to sin from lust, and which he called the law of sin, which dwells in spirit (Rom. 7:23). Establishing himself on this law and controlling it, the evil one often arms himself against us, forcing us to untruth and evil deeds. From the outside, the law instilled by the evil one and through the feelings, like asphalt lava, pouring inwards into the very soul, is supported by the law, which is in the flesh due to lust. It seems that in ourselves there is one beginning that is better, and another that is worse. When the best by nature is stronger than the worst, then the whole mind rushes towards good; and when the worst, having become stronger, suppresses the best, which is called fighting against the good invested in us, then, on the contrary, a person is again drawn to all sorts of dreams and evil thoughts. That is why the Apostle wants to get rid of this, considering it death and destruction, as the prophet says: cleanse me from my secrets (Ps. 18:13). This is also expressed by the following words: for I delight in the law of God according to the inner man: but I see another law in my heart, warring against the law of my mind and taking me captive by the law of sin that is in my heart. I am a damned man: whoever will deliver me from the body of this death (Rom. 7:22-24): he does not call the body death, but the law of sin, which, as a result of transgression, is hidden in our lives and always deceives the soul, leading it to the death of unrighteousness. Therefore, considering what kind of death he wanted to get rid of, and who would deliver him, he immediately adds: thanksgiving to God through Jesus Christ (v. 25). It is necessary, Aglaophon, to pay attention to the fact that if the Apostle had called this body death, as you think, he would not have mentioned Christ as finally delivering him from such evil. For what special or what advantage in this respect have we received from the coming of Christ? And why does the Apostle even say that as a result of the coming of Christ he can be delivered by God from death, when everyone had to die before the coming of Christ into the world? For all, having been separated from their bodies, upon leaving this life, were delivered; even equally all souls - both faithful and unfaithful - were separated from their bodies on the day of death. What more did the Apostle try to gain compared to others who spent their lives in unbelief? Or, if he considered the body to be the death of the soul, then why did he want to get rid of the body, when this, of course, would have happened to him even without his desire, since everyone is destined to die and their souls to be separated from their bodies? So, Aglaophon, he does not call this body death, but sin settled in the body through lust, from which God delivered man by the coming of Christ. The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus freed us from the law of sin and death (Rom. 8:2), so that Christ, who raised from the dead through his living Spirit in us, might give life to our dead bodies (v. 11), upon the condemnation of sin in the body for destruction; so that the demand of the natural law would appear in its former strength, in accordance with the commandment that draws us to good - a demand that, due to the dominance of sin over the flesh before the coming of Christ, having become powerless, was suppressed by earthly concerns. For the weak good that is natural in us, but weak in him because of the predominance of lust in the body, God strengthened by sending his Son, who took on flesh like the flesh of sin (for what was revealed was the truth, and not a phantom), so that when sin was condemned to destruction, so that it would no longer bear fruit in the flesh, the justification of the natural law would be fulfilled and multiplied. obedience in those who walk not according to carnal lust, but according to the desire and direction of the Spirit (vv. 3,4). The law of the Spirit of life, that is, the Gospel, being different from the above laws, through preaching offered to obedience and for the forgiveness of sins, freed us from the law of sin and death (v. 2), completely defeating the sin that reigns in the flesh. And so, Theophilus! What they object to, and what they misinterpret from the words of the Apostle, I have explained and set forth. Now I’ll turn to someone else, if we find an assistant in presenting the speech. since what follows is confusing and not entirely convenient for refutation: therefore, I proceed to this with great timidity, seeing how long and difficult their proofs will be: unless some breath of wisdom, suddenly blowing from the sky, will lead us, sailing in the middle of the sea, to an untroubled pier and to the surest proof. Hitherto taken from the works of Methodius. Having presented here in continuous order from the reasoning of blessed Methodius, also called Eubulius, precisely from the same word about the resurrection that he says about the above-mentioned Origen and his evil belief, spread through sophistical delusion, we recognized this as sufficient against his idle talk and thoughts harmful to human life, stemming from evil, embellished by Hellenic superstition. Of course, much more has been said, and just as much in verse, in the study of this subject by the above-mentioned Methodius, a learned man who fought hard for the truth; but since we promised to talk a little about each heresy, in order to refute it, here we were content with what we offered from his work. Having added a little more from our own misery against the same idle talk of this man, we will end the dispute with him, giving the honor of victory to the victorious God, Who, due to His special love for mankind, always adorns His church with unfading crowns - broadcasts of truth. So, let us speak against Origen to the best of our ability. You, my dear fellow, mockingly say, as I have shown above: was God really a tanner who made leather clothes for Adam and Eve when animals had not yet been sacrificed? And if they were brought, then even then they were not, he says, leather clothes, but the earthly body in which we are clothed. Corrupting humanity with unbelief, you are exposed in everything as a follower of the wickedness of the devil and the cunning of the serpent, who deceived Eve and always corrupts the thoughts of simple souls with the cunning that acts on their thoughts. So, let's see if what you said can stand, on which you worked so much and labored in vain in writing so many books. For if it is true what they say about you, an empty worker, that you wrote six thousand books and spent all your work on reproaches and empty talk, then you undertook your work in vain and in vain, sinning in what was necessary, precisely by misinterpreting the doctrine of the resurrection - and thus deprived yourself of all hope of gaining profit for your hard work. For if the body is not resurrected, then the soul does not inherit anything: because there is one and the same communication and one activity of soul and body. But the faithful are languishing in body and soul because of the hope of an inheritance after the resurrection, which in your opinion will not happen. This means that our faith and our hope are in vain, contrary to the apostolic and true word spoken by the Holy Spirit. And you yourself, in another case recognizing the resurrection as an opinion invented by fantasy, and not as the truth, are forced to use only the name. What kind of resurrection of the soul can we talk about when it does not die and is not given over to burial? From the very name (ἀνάσταζις - rebellion) it is obvious that the resurrection belongs to the fallen and buried body, and it is preached throughout all scripture by the sons of truth. If the body were not resurrected, then the resurrection would not be preached in all the scriptures; if there is no resurrection, then waiting for the resurrection of the dead is in vain. For resurrection does not belong to souls that have not died, but to bodies that have been buried. But if one part of the body rises at the resurrection, and the other is abandoned: then how will this part exist? For in the body the members alone cannot be resurrected; and others put aside and abandoned. And that there is a natural body and there is a spiritual body (1 Cor. 15:44), this should be understood not as if there is one spiritual body and another spiritual body, but that one and the same body is both natural and spiritual. For when we are in the world and do the corruptible deeds of the flesh, we have spiritual bodies: because in the world we are servile to lawless deeds, as you yourself partly said. And when we rise, there will no longer be slavery of the soul, but there will be a walk in the spirit, which already has a guarantee here, according to the words of scripture: if we live in the Spirit, let us walk in the Spirit (Gal. 5:25), and if we mortify the deeds of the flesh in the Spirit, we will live (Rom. 8:13). For there will be no marriages, no lusts, no exploits for those who have taken a vow of abstinence, no falls contrary to purity, no actions committed here, but, as the Lord says, those who are worthy of this resurrection neither marry nor commit violence, but are like angels (Luke 20:35; Mark 12:25). Just as Enoch was cut short and did not see death, and was not found (Heb. 11:5), he was not cut down so that he left the body, or part of the body; for if he left the body, then he saw death, but having been transformed with the body, he did not see death, because he exists in a living body, carried as a result of transformation spiritually, and not spiritually, although being in the body, but spiritually. The same must be said about Elijah, who ascended on a fiery chariot: and he is still in the flesh, according to the spiritual flesh, which no longer has the need for what it always needed when it was in this world, such as: to eat through the corvids, to drink from the stream of Choreth and to be clothed with sheepskin: but it feeds on some other food, spiritual, which is given by God, who knows the unseen and created the unseen - having a certain immortal and incorruptible food. So you see that one and the same body is mental and spiritual, since our Lord also rose from the dead, raising not another body, but the same one that he had, and not another, but the same thing, changing it into spiritual subtlety and uniting everything spiritual; why are the doors closed below (John 20:26), which cannot happen here with our bodies due to their whiteness, and because they have not yet developed into spiritual subtlety. What a body it was that passed through the closed doors! Is it something else from the one who was crucified, or the same thing that was crucified? You, Origen, of course cannot help but admit that this was the very body that was crucified: for you are convicted by the careful study of Thomas, who said to him: do not be unfaithful, but faithful (John 20:27); He showed the nail ulcer and the place of the spear and left the very ulcers on the body, although he united the body into one spiritual unity. He could have destroyed the plagues, but he does not destroy them in order to expose you, God-hating one! Thus, this was the body that was buried in the tomb for three days, and rose with Him at the time of the resurrection: for He showed bones and skin and flesh, saying: You see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, but as you see Me having (Luke 24:39). Why is He behind closed doors? In order to show that this is a visible body, and not a spirit, but a spiritual body. And although it is united with the soul and Divinity and all human nature, it is spiritual: formerly plump, but now thin: crucified and defeated, and now irresistible, united and dissolved with Divinity, and no longer destroyed, but always abiding and never dying. For Christ is risen from the dead, the firstfruits of those who are dead; to those who die no more, death has no power over them (1 Cor. 15:20; Rom. 6:9). But so that you may also know why Christ is called the firstfruits of those who died, although He was not the first to rise, but before Him, through Him, they were resurrected: Lazarus and the widow’s son and others, also resurrected by Elijah and Elisha: then since all of them, having been resurrected, died again, therefore Christ is the firstfruits of those who died; for, having been resurrected, he no longer dies, just like our resurrection, which is due to His life and love for mankind. If He is the firstfruits of those who died, then His entire body was resurrected in union with the Divinity, that is, everything received in the incarnation was resurrected and none of it was left, neither the body nor anything else. For do not leave my soul in hell, let your venerable one see corruption (Ps. 15:10). He says about the soul that it was not abandoned in hell, but told the monk in order to show that the holy body did not see corruption, but that the three-day body was resurrected incorruptible and remains incorruptible forever. You say, my dear fellow, that leather garments are these bodies, while the connection of speech does not contain this anywhere; but these seeds were initially planted in you by the fabulous pagan teaching of the Hellenes, and from there they grew in you with the malicious thought of unbelief in the resurrection, when, that is, the Hellenes, led you to this and taught you. For a natural man, says the Apostle, does not accept even the Spirit of God: for he has foolishness, he strives for spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14). If Adam and Eve had been given clothes before their crime, then your lies would have been convincing and could have deceived; and since it is known that this was after the creation of Eve, then where was Eve formed if not from the body? Obviously so; for it is said: put a curse on Adam, and succeed: and take one from his side; A rib is nothing else but bone: and fill its place with flesh (Gen. 2:21). So, when it is called flesh, what else can we expect for its creation? And above he says: Let us make man in our image and likeness (Gen. 1:26) and, he says, we will take away the dust of the earth and create man (Gen. 2:7). Finger and flesh mean nothing else than body. Then further: and Adam arose from sleep, saying: Behold now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh (v. 23). Leather garments and your false allegory were not yet there. So from the words: bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh, it is obvious that these were bodies and that Adam and Eve were not incorporeal. And we took from the tree and poisoned (Gen. 3:6), when he was deceived by the serpent and fell into disobedience. And he heard the voice of God walking into paradise at noon and Adam and Eve hid themselves in the middle of the tree. And God said to Adam: Where are you? He, being convicted, answers: I heard your voice and hid myself, as if I were naked. What did he call naked: soul or body? And what did the fig tree leaves cover: the soul or the body? And he said: Who can tell you that you are naked except from the tree, whose commandments you are not to eat, this only came from him? And he said: the woman that you gave to me, I gave and poisoned (Gen. 3:8-12). Where was the woman taken from, if not from the rib, that is, from the flesh, before clothes were given to them? And he said to his wife: What have you done? And the wife said: The serpent deceived me and gave me poison and gave it to her husband. Then God places a curse on the serpent; the wife suffers from the disease of childbearing, and the husband suffers from eating bread in the sweat. And after this he says: behold, Adam became one of Us. May he one day stretch out his hand and take away from the tree of life, and cut it down and live forever (v. 22). 275 Do not think, listener, that the Lord said affirmatively: behold, Adam was one of Us. For, incriminatingly reproaching the desire of Adam, who believed the deception of the serpent, he says that he did not become what he wanted to become, that is, behold Adam was as one from us. Having desired to become the highest, Adam fell into the lowest. And the words: let us cast him out, lest he stretch out his hand to the tree of life, and tear it down, and live forever, God says, not out of envy, but because he took care of the vessel, which was damaged by himself, so that it would not remain the worst forever, but as an excellent scoundrel, a vessel damaged by itself, turning it into its own composition, that is, into the earth, during the resurrection he will recreate, so that there will be no damage in it, and the righteous will glory will be immortal and may receive the kingdom, and the unrighteous at the time of the final resurrection may suffer the punishment of judgment. For whatever evil God has planted, let it not come to pass! but he also planted the tree itself for the needy at the appropriate time, by his command allowing him to use it. But you will say on the contrary: how will the words be fulfilled: on the same day if you eat from it, you will die by death if you allowed yourself to eat from it? Of course, no matter what time he tasted, he would immediately fulfill the word: you will die. To the one who speaks this I will say again: God, who foretells the future before it comes to be (Is. 46:10), knowing that man, being deceived, would have eaten of the tree before His command, decreed death for him for the crime that he had committed. Those who are mistaken in this heresy blaspheme God, saying: good is the God of the law, because he was jealous of Adam and drove him out, saying: let us cast him out, lest he stretch out his hand and take away from the tree of life, and live forever. But their slanderous madness exposes itself. For not only from the very beginning God did not forbid eating from the tree of life, but also encouraged him, saying: from every tree that is in paradise, eat food (Gen. 2:10), and before the eyes of Adam there was also the tree of life, one of the trees of paradise. God did not command us to eat from the tree alone, meaning good and evil. But the insatiable thought of Adam and his wife Eve, deceived by the devil, out of inexperience, acted contrary to the commandment. So, since Adam fell into humiliation of his own accord, God did not want him to live forever in humiliation, but, like an excellent scoundrel, he was pleased to turn the vessel, which had broken by itself, into its own composition, in order to remake it again from its own composition, as if on a wheel, correcting and renewing the vessel without any defect, so that it could live forever. Therefore, first he threatens him with death, and then he no longer speaks about death, but: You are the earth and you will go into it without putting a person to death. And then it says: and God made garments of skins and clothed Adam and Eve and brought them out of paradise. You see, Origen, how vain is the idle talk you introduce. For how long did Adam and Eve have their bodies? If this worries you, and you cannot, by reasoning with your soul, accept the grace of the Spirit, you are unfaithful and worse than infidels: then tell me, how much miraculous and amazing does every object created by God contain? How does the sky, raised on high, stretch out of nothing? How did the sun shine and the moon and stars be created? From what primitive substance was the earth taken, created from nothing? What rocks are the mountains carved from? Where does the composition of the whole world come from, produced by God out of nothing? Where does the composition of the clouds come from that suddenly covers the sky? Where, at the command of God, did His servant Moses produce mosquitoes and mosquitoes? How did he turn a wooden staff into a living and crawling snake? How did Moses' hand change into the form of snow? So then, O infidel! God was pleased, and He, without animals, without any human art or manifold work, made skin clothes for Adam and Eve, immediately as He wanted: just as He had just wanted in the beginning, and heaven and everything appeared. But I have often spoken about this in other places and above. For those who desire life, salvation is close and evil faith is conveniently refutable: and for those who do not want to accept the saving teaching, a whole century is not enough to talk with a person, like an adder, always deaf and covering his ears, so as not to heed the voice of a charmer, a spellcaster, skilled in spells, as the word of God says (Ps. 57: 5-6). I think that this speech of mine is quite useful to the sons of truth: although it turns out to be very lengthy here. But I will move on to your discussion about the resurrection, while explaining the first psalm. For when you, an empty worker, deceive the ignorant, presenting your opinion and saying: “Some of the simplest think that the wicked will not receive the resurrection,” and subsequently you pretend that you again ask the same simplest people: for what body will there be a resurrection? and, as if mutually on behalf of those who are called the simplest by you, you are perplexed within yourself (for this too needs to be explained) whether to call those who are called the simplest by you good - the speech will no longer be yours, and it is not your speech that needs to be thanked, but the truth, which makes you talk about the signs of the dignity and kindness of God’s servants. For the pagan proverb says: “the word of truth is simple.” We usually call simple people those who are not evil, to whom the Savior praises them in many places, for example, make your goals (simple) like doves (Matthew 10:16), and also: leave the children to come to Me, for such, that is, the simplest, is the kingdom of heaven (19:14). These simple ones, as you call them, answered you that the resurrection belongs to this body with which we are clothed. When you express bewilderment and again ask: will the whole body or only a part be resurrected: they answer: the whole body. Meanwhile, in accordance with the resourcefulness of broad-based idle talk, you say that this cannot be for the reason that blood flows out of the body, flesh, hair and other substances are lost daily, along with saliva, sputum and other eruptions - this is how you avert your eyes with your extensive, evil medical knowledge, as our most beautiful old man and blessed husband Methodius has already exposed your fabulousness with many proofs. But you will hear something from me, too. What are they always looking for? They seek for everything to be the purest; and what is superfluous is discarded from what is pure, and is not questioned. A piece of material is ready as soon as the weaving comes out of the loom, and it is cut off from the loom, without adding to it or subtracting from it. It is not sent to the bleacher in order to receive it from the bleacher in the worst form, but the bleacher presents it in its most perfect form, so that the perfection of the fabric becomes obvious to everyone. Likewise, the body does not become worse because of the eruption of bad substances and impurity, and of course the artist, because the body has emitted impurity, will not demand from us the body along with the impurity, but will demand this clothing in its entirety, sound and pure. Here's another example. You introduced the question of what comes out of a person through bloodletting, illness, excrement and spewing of saliva and snot: but you will be refuted by the very thing you said. For not only this is in the body, but also insects degenerate from us, such as lice and nits, which are neither outside the body nor included in the body. And no one has ever looked for a nit released from the body, or a louse that has degenerated from the flesh itself, for its preservation, but rather for extermination, and no one considers its extermination as loss. In the same way, what has come out of us, although this is so in your opinion, will not be required from us (that would be foolish), and God will not return it to our composition, but, like a stain found on clothing and washed off from it for beautification, will be left without attention, and the Creator, according to the excellence of his art, will raise the clothing itself to perfection, so that it will have neither lack nor excess; for with Him all things are possible. If only this were not so, O you, who have been damaged in your mind by your verbose fabrications! - then our Savior and Lord, the Son of God, who came to confirm in us the hope that we will be alive, and who depicted very much in himself to confirm the truth of what He said to us, could put aside part of his body and resurrect part, in accordance with yours, O controversial man, with a fabulous construction and a collection of many empty considerations. But He, exposing your way of thinking, directly says: even if a grain of wheat falls on the earth and dies, He remains alone; but if it falls and dies, He creates many grains (John 12:24). What kind of grain is He talking about? It is clear to everyone and recognized throughout the world that He spoke this about himself, that is, about the body of holy flesh that he received from Mary, and about his entire human nature. With the words: fall and die, as well as with the words: where the corpse is, there the eagles will gather (Matthew 24:28), He pointed to the three-day dormition of his body, as you yourself admit. For His Divinity is not sleepy, incapable of falling, invincible, unchangeable. So, the grain of wheat died and was resurrected. But was all this grain resurrected, or was part of it resurrected? Is it another grain, different from the one that was, or the same one that was, resurrected, that is, the body that Joseph was wrapped in a shroud and laid in a new tomb? Of course you won't reject it. For whom did the angels preach to the women that He had risen? Who are they talking about: who are you looking for? Jesus of Nazareth? there is no rising, there is no place: come, see the place (Mk.16:6; Matt.28:5). As if he would say this: come, see the place and teach Origen that there is nothing left lying here, but everything has been resurrected. And so that you know that everything has been resurrected, he said: there is no cry here, in order to overthrow your idle talk by the fact that there was no part of His body left (in the tomb), but that this is the very body that was nailed, pierced with a spear, taken by the Pharisees and subjected to spitting. But why should I say a lot to denounce the idle talk of this pathetic and pompous man? Just as the Lord rose and resurrected His body, so He will also resurrect us. For on this the Holy Apostle affirms our hope, saying: Why do they say among you, that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ will not rise. If Christ does not rise, then our preaching is in vain, and our faith is in vain. We are also found to be false witnesses of God, who said that Christ had risen. Don’t resurrect him and so on. (1 Cor. 15:12–15); and finally he adds, saying: it is fitting for this corruptible to put on incorruptibility, and for this dead thing to put on immortality (v. 53). He did not say: only to a mortal, or only to a corruptible, or to an immortal soul: but to this corruptible - with this addition, and also to this mortal - with this addition. So all this grain of Him was resurrected, and not another grain different from the former was resurrected, but the same one that lay in the tomb was all resurrected. What is your idle talk based on? Divine Scripture speaks twice about grains: once in the Gospel, the other in the Apostle. The first, on the basis of what actually happened with the Lord, shows with all clarity what the prototype of the resurrection is: for the Savior, teaching and doing this, did absolutely everything for our confirmation. Thus He spoke about the grain and resurrected the grain in order to confirm in us the sure hope of the reality of our resurrection. Following Him, the Apostle, led by the Holy Spirit, telling us about the glory of the saints and the enjoyment of blessings that will be after the resurrection, in a sermon against unbelievers, again points to a grain of wheat: but you say to me: how will the dead be raised? By what body will they come (1 Cor. 15:35)? And he answers the one who says this: crazy! For he who doubts the resurrection is completely stupid and insane. Then he says: You are crazy, you will not come to life unless you die: and the hedgehog will not live, not the body of the future, but a bare grain, if it happens, wheat or other seeds. God gives him a body as he pleases, and to every seed his own body (1 Cor. 15:36-38). And you see that the body does not change. For no one, having sowed barley, seeks wheat; neither will he who sows caraway seeds find barley; but what is sown will also come up. Even if some of this remains in the ground, growth will arise from it. So also from this decaying wheat, which does not come to judgment, the remaining part is useless, but what grows from it is beautiful. He wanted to clearly prove this because of the unbelief of those who have no hope in God. Indeed, a grain of wheat is the smallest thing: where from this smallest grain do roots, and bases, and stems, and knees, and so many tubes, and tops, and husks, and ears and numerous grains come from? But to make it even clearer, we will present examples similar to it. Where did Moses, the son of Jochebed and Amram, get such strength that he, striking a stone with a rod, brought water out of a substance that was incapable of it, and turned dry into wet (Num. 20:11)? How did he strike the sea and by command divide it into twelve paths for walking on the sea (Ex. 14:21)? How did he turn the river into blood (Ex. 7:20)? Suddenly collected so many toads? Sent the skrip to the Egyptians (8:6.17)? Connected hail with fire (9:23)? To the dark and moonless night for the Egyptians was added thick darkness (10:22)? Did he strike the firstborn of Egypt with death (12:29)? Did he show the way for the people he flocked with a pillar of fire (13:21)? By prayer and petition did the angel bring down the bread (16:15; Ps. 77:25)? Sent krastel and fed them to so many thousands of men, according to the command of God (Ex.16:13; Ps.77:27)? Have you heard the voice of God? Among so many people, were you privileged to hear the voice of God and talk with God? During the course of forty days and forty nights, you did not feel the need for what was necessary for our nature (Ex. 34:28)? How did his flesh change into the brilliance of the sun and a bright ray, amazing to the people, so that the children of Israel could not look at the face of Moses (v. 30; 2 Cor. 3:7)? How did the flesh on his hand turn into snow (Ex. 4:6)? How did He command the earth to open its mouth to devour those who were with Korah, Dathan, Abiron and Abnan (Num. 16:24.32)? How did he finally hear: go up to the mountain and die there (Deut. 32:49,50), so that man does not know his burial (Deut. 34:6)? Divine Scripture means by this that the body of Moses was not buried by people, but, as one can presumably argue, by the Holy Angels. And all this happened while he was still in this world, still in this spiritual body, which had become completely spiritual. In this we received a guarantee as proof of the complete vegetation that is to take place when what has been said is fulfilled: it is sown not in honor, it is raised in glory; what is sown in weakness is raised in strength (1 Cor. 15:43). Isn't that really weak that is sown and does not know where it is sown? Isn’t it dishonorable to be placed in a coffin, covered with earth, destroyed, decaying and insensible? Isn’t it glorious that He is resurrected, abiding forever and, based on the hope of God’s love for mankind, acquiring a kingdom in heaven, where the righteous will be enlightened like the sun (Matthew 13:43), where they will be equal to the Angels (Luke 20:36), where they will rejoice with the bridegroom, where with Peter the Apostles will sit on the double throne, judging the foolish tribe of Israel ( Matthew 19:28), where will the righteous receive what eye has not seen, ear has not heard, and the heart of man has not sighed, what God has prepared for those who love Him (1 Cor. 2:9)? So our resurrection is in God; and every person will rise again, both the righteous and the unrighteous, and the unfaithful and the faithful - some to eternal life, others to eternal damnation. Silence Babylon, the ancient and again renewed confusion among us! Be still, O Sodom, and the cry of your extreme wickedness, ascending to God! For He who delivers will come from Zion, and will turn away wickedness from Jacob (Ex. 59:20): and the trumpet will sound, and the dead will rise (1 Cor. 15:52): and we will be caught up to meet Him in the air (1 Thess. 4:17). To what the most wonderful elder, blessed Methodius, said, we ourselves added something for edification; through such a connection one can see the meaning of each saying. The Holy Apostle, separating two kinds of people, unites them in one hope; words: we will be caught up in the clouds to meet Him indicates that the body truly is the same and not another; since the raptured one did not die at all; and with the words: it is not the imams who precede the resurrection of the dead, he proves that the impossible with man is easy and possible with God (Luke 18:27); for we who live are not imams before the dead and their resurrection. He pointed to the living and the raptured, so that with the word: living, to show that the bodies of the dead will rise whole; and by saying that the dead will precede those who remain alive, he showed the power of God. The dead will rise again and those in their graves will rise again, says the prophet (Is. 26:19). In order not to remain silent about the words of the prophet Ezekiel about the resurrection in his apocrypha, I will offer them here too. Allegorically speaking about the righteous judgment, in which the body will also participate with the soul, he says that one king had all his subjects in the militia, and there were only two who were not enrolled in the militia, one lame and one blind, and each of them was placed and lived separately. The king, celebrating the marriage of his son, invited everyone in his kingdom, but ignored the two crippled ones, the lame and the blind. They were indignant within themselves and intended to do evil to the king. The king had a garden, and from afar the blind man began to say to the lame man: How many pieces of bread would we have from the people who rushed to the joy? So come on, let's take revenge on him for doing this to us. Another asked: how? He said: Let's go into his garden and destroy what is there in the garden. But this one said: how can I do this when I am lame and cannot walk? The blind man answered: How can I do anything myself when I don’t see where to go? But we will manage. Having plucked some grass nearby and twisted a rope, he threw it to the blind man and said: hold it and walk along the rope towards me. When he did what he was ordered and approached him, the lame man said: well, be your legs for me and carry me, and I will be your eyes, showing you the way from above to the right and left. Having done this, they went down into the garden. Whether they caused trouble there or not, only their traces were found in the garden. When the merry guests went from the wedding feast to rest in the garden, they were amazed to find footprints in the garden and announced this to the king, saying: “In your kingdom, everyone is a warrior, and there is not a single non-military one. Where do the traces of non-military people in the garden come from? The king was surprised. And since this is spoken by a parable, obviously apocryphal, it speaks in an adaptive way to man, while nothing is unknown to God. The story goes on to say that the king sent for the lame and the blind and asked the blind man: “Didn’t you go into the garden?” He answered: alas for me, sir! You see our inability, you know that I don't see where to go. Then he approached the lame man and asked him: did you go to my garden? This one said in response: Sir! You want to grieve my soul for the sake of my inability. And the trial leads to nothing. What does a righteous judge do? Having found out how both of them agreed, he puts the lame man on the blind man and tortures them both with whips, and they cannot lock themselves up. Each of them exposes the other; The lame man says to the blind, “Didn’t you carry me and carry me out?” And the blind man says to the lame man: Were you not my eyes? Thus, at the resurrection of the dead, the body is united with the soul and the soul with the body to expose their common activity, and perfect judgment occurs for the deeds done by both, body and soul, whether they are good or bad. 276 So, those who care about their lives, see that all those who rebelled against the truth have caused injustice to themselves, just as the holy prophet David says: conceive disease, and give birth to iniquity. For everyone who gathers up for himself the disease of alien thoughts generates untruth for himself and for those who trust him: A ditch of graves and fossils, and he will fall into the pit that he has made (Ps. 7:15-16). If anyone begins to contradict all this, let him come forward and dare to oppose God. For the mighty God will not be weary, below He will hunger, below is the invention of His wisdom (Is. 40:28), according to which He resurrects destroyed bodies, saves the perishing, gives life to the dead, puts the corruptible into incorruption, the fallen grain leads to resurrection, restores what was sown and died and brings it into abundant lordship, as expressed in many scriptures, where allegorically speaking about our resurrection. So the prophet David in the psalm about the renewal of the house of David (Ps. 29), as if expecting and foreseeing the future by the Holy Spirit, blessedly said about the resurrection: I will exalt Thee, O Lord, for thou hast lifted me up, renewing my house, that is, the fallen body, and thou hast not made my enemies glad over me. In the same way, Solomon in Proverbs, preparing everything for the hope being prepared in Zion, exhorted saying: prepare for the outcome of your deeds (Prov. 24:27), calling the outcome the departure from here, and prepare, he says, for the village. He extends this suggestion to everyone, both living in the village and in the city, and to scientists and to those engaged in crafts who do not have any work in the field: for weavers, silversmiths, poets and historians, why do they need to prepare for cultivating the field? But this voice calls on everyone without distinction, saying: get ready for the village. This hints that for every person, both urban and rural, the deposition of the body is a field, there is an end, due to burial. Then, denoting the very hope of resurrection, he says: and you will build your house; He did not say: build a house. For one day man is created, during formation in the womb, when each of us during formation was carried by his own mother in the womb; and resurrection from the earth, or field, is no longer a creation, but a re-creation, as a result of the destruction that befell the body in its position in the grave, just as the Savior said: Destroy this church, and in three days I will raise it up, or build it (John 2:19). Being himself wisdom, and possessing such wisdom that there is no invention (Is. 40:28) from people, He brings our bodies out of inaccessible places, when some of them have been resolved into dust, others are in the sea, and others have been destroyed by carnivorous birds, others from beasts, others from worms. For if He brought from non-existent into being, how much more will He easily restore what exists to its own state, and this in order to determine righteous judgment, so as not to condemn one instead of another, so as not to deprive the emaciated body of reward. For if the pleasure and inheritance of the kingdom of heaven belongs to the soul alone, then let the body enjoy what it wants. Let those who are remembered with Gideon indulge in luxury and not be embittered in sheepskins and goatskins (Heb. 11:37); let John not wear himself out in vain by wearing clothes made of camel's hair; and we will not mortify our flesh in solitude and constrain our bodies with chastity. If the body, together with the soul, participates in the exploits of life, in chastity, in fasting and in other virtues, then God is not offended (Heb. 6:10), so as to deprive the reward of the one who has worked and not to reward the body that has worked together with the soul. Otherwise, the trial will be incomplete. For if the soul turns out to be completely alone, then, being judged, it can object that the guilt of sin is not in me, but from that corruptible and earthly body came fornication, adultery, debauchery; for since the body was separated from me, I have done nothing of the kind; and she will be right in defense and will not recognize the judgment of God. And if God brought one body to judgment (He can do this, as I indicated above on the basis of the words of Ezekiel. Although the matter is presented there in a parable, the image leads to an allegorical depiction of the truth expressed there precisely, namely how bone was united with bone, and composition with composition, while the bones were dry and there was no soul or driving spirit in them; despite this, the bodies, according to the word of the prophet, were immediately put together and So, if God wants, He is able to do that a body without a soul will live and move, just as the blood of Abel, being a body, cried out after his death, and not the soul, for blood is not a soul, but a visible body), then a body without a soul cannot be judged: for it can also argue that it was not I who sinned, but the soul. Since she abandoned me, because I did not commit adultery, fornication and idolatry? So, the body will object to the righteous judgment of God - and object thoroughly. For this and for many other most important reasons, God, in His wisdom, will bring our dead bodies together with our souls into rebirth, in accordance with His humane promise, so that those who have worked in holiness will receive from God every good reward, just as those who did vain deeds will be condemned, that is, the body with the soul, and the soul with the body. 277 For greater assurance in our future life, having come in the flesh and become perfectly human to establish His faith in us, the Lord, foreseeing what was to happen in you, Origen, unbelief and doubt in you and in many of the heresies of the Manichaeans and Marcionites similar to your unbelief, really did everything to confirm and strengthen faith in Him and the truth, fulfilling it on Himself. For having risen from the dead, He raised up with Him many bodies of saints, and went down with Him into the holy city (Matthew 27:52,53), as I have related in other places. The Evangelist did not say: the saints rose up, so as not to give a pretext to the machinations of ill-intention, but since doubt naturally exists among unbelievers, he tried to confirm our knowledge of the future life, and said: the bodies of the saints, and not only that the Lord raised them, but also that they appeared in multitudes in the city, and with His power the words were filled: bringing forth those bound with courage ( Ps.67:7), that is, the souls of resurrected bodies. These are prisoners of the fortress, bound in hell. He also says: those who live in the tombs, that is, the bodies of the resurrected, also grieve; did not say: over-grieved or over-grieved, but over-grieving. For those who appeared to many in the city were those who had recently died, together with those who had been dead for a long time. I think that the Lord began to perform the resurrection with Adam, and also resurrected those recently buried near Him on Calvary, Himself being crucified and fulfilling what was written: rise from sleep and rise from the dead, and Christ will illuminate you (Eph. 5:14), who was crucified for you. Since some of them were recognized by their own, they first of all terrified those who saw them; So, if a father met his resurrected son, or a brother with a brother, or a relative with a relative who had died twenty or ten years ago, he would ask in surprise: are you not so-and-so, buried by us in such-and-such a place? How did you rise and come? But the resurrected one, in turn, asks: what did you do here three days before, when the earth was shaking? They say: we captured and crucified one deceiver (Matthew 27:63), in the name of Jesus, who deceived the people, and the deception stopped. Then he confesses the mercy of the Lord and the truth and says: woe to you! You rejected the author of the salvation of the world and crucified him. He raised us up with the strong power of His Divinity and humanity, and now the Divine Scripture has finally been fulfilled: those who live in the tombs also grieve. Hearing from the resurrected that they had been resurrected by the Lord Jesus, those who decided to reject the ruler of life (Acts 3:14,15) and crucify Him were grieved even to the point of death. However, perhaps the Lord, a lover of mankind, did this for the benefit of those who saw the resurrected. For we think that many, seeing those resurrected and being touched, received benefit and believed. Therefore, you, Origenists, believe and do not destroy many through your delusion. But this is enough for me to refute the free-thinking Origen, who in vain appropriated the name of Adamantium, and to refute his absurdities and destructive teachings, which he maliciously invented against the truth in many parts of our faith. Having finished with his heresy, I will consider the others in order, asking, according to custom, God, the helper of our wretchedness, so that we may be able to resist every vain voice that rebels against the truth, and defeat it, according to the word of Saint Isaiah: every voice will rise up against you, if you overcome them all, you will be blamed for it (Is. 54:17). Thus, with the help of God we fulfilled their promise to those who wished to read intelligently for exercise in the truth and for delivering healing medicine in the form of an antidote against every beast and poisonous serpent, that is, against various types of heresies, and this Origenist toad, formed from all dampness and continuing to cry out with a cry and a loud voice. Having accepted the protective drink, that is, the doctrine of the resurrection of the Lord, we, so to speak, spat out the clinging poison of the toad and the untruth of the vile serpent. For this too happened to him with all the unfortunate consequences; and I suffer and sigh for him. Alas! How much harm you yourself have suffered and how many others you have harmed! Just like you, bitten by a terrible viper, that is, worldly education, have become poison for others. Those familiar with natural history say that a mole lives in a hole and suddenly gives birth to many children: up to five or more, and echidnas catch them. If the echidna finds a whole hole, then, not being able to devour them all, it eats one or two for its own satiation, and, having gouged out the eyes of the rest, brings food and fattens the blind until it takes and eats each of them when it wants. If someone who does not know happens to find them and takes them for food, then he takes poison from them, like a viper filled with poison. So you, Origen, having blinded your mind with the above-mentioned Hellenic teaching, spewed poison on those who trusted you and became poisonous food for them, harming many in the same way, which is why you yourself suffered harm. We said about Origen himself in previous discussions how he blasphemed the Son of God, calling Him created by God, and saying that He cannot see the Father, which is the same as the Holy Spirit cannot see the Son, and how he falsely taught that the soul pre-existed and, having sinned in heaven, was brought down into the body, and that the devil would be restored to his leadership. John the Baptist and the other saints are blessed in that they will be his (that is, the devil’s) associates in the kingdom of heaven! And that paradise and the waters above the heavens and the waters under the earth are allegorical, not reality. In the second section of the same second book, and according to the above account - in the fifth, which contains five heresies, the order is as follows: 1) heresy of Paul of Samosata. He claims that Christ almost does not exist in reality, imagining that He is the word spoken by the mouth, but was also here from Mary; what was said about Him in the Divine Scriptures was announced prophetically, but He does not exist, but appeared here from Mary from the time of the Incarnation. 2) Manichaeans, also known as Acuanites, disciples of Persian Manes. They call Christ a ghost, they worship the sun and the moon; they pray to the stars, powers and demons; introduce two principles - evil and good, which always exist. They say that Christ appeared ghostly and suffered imaginary. The Old Testament and God who spoke in it are blasphemed. About the world they say that not all of it, but part of it came from God. 3) Hierakites - from Hierax from Leontopolis of Egypt, some teacher who rejected the resurrection of the flesh. They use the Old and New Testaments and completely reject marriage, but accept monastics and virgins, abstinents and widows, and about children who have not yet reached adulthood they say that they are not involved in the kingdom because they have not labored. 4) Meletians, who constitute a schism in Egypt, and not a heresy; they did not pray with the fallen during persecution; and now united with the Arians. 5) Arians, they are also Ariomanites. They call the Son of God a creature, and the Holy Spirit a creature of creation; claim that the Savior received from Mary only flesh, and not soul. This Arius was a presbyter of Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria. Here is a list of the five heresies of the second section of the second part, and from the beginning in order of the fifth. About Pavel Samosatsky, 45th (65th) Paul, called Samosata, appeared and follows Novatus and Origen, who were later ranked among the heretics, because he dreamed highly of himself, rebelled against the truth with his vainglorious idle talk and thoughts shaken by the devil. He must be mourned as truly by the envy of the devil who fell away and fell from on high; for on it is fulfilled what has been said: the zeal of malice darkens the good, and the soaring of lust changes the mind of a gentle person (Wis. 4:12). And so this one, about whom we should talk in our presentation, Paul of Samosata, whose name we mentioned at the beginning, and about whose heresy we are making a story, was from Samosata, a city located within Mesopatamia and the Euphrates. At this time, in the days of the emperors Aurelian and Probus, he was appointed bishop of the Holy Catholic Church of Antioch. But having ascended in mind, he fell away from the truth and resumed the heresy of Artemon, who lived many years before and folded. Paul says that God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is one God; and His Word and His Spirit always exist in God, just as His own word is in the heart of man. The Son of God does not have a hypostatic existence, but in God Himself, just as Savely, Novatus, Noetus and others taught. However, this one did not teach in the same way as them, but differently from them. The Word seemed to come and dwell in Jesus, the true man. And thus, he says, there is one God, and the Father is not the Father, and the Son is not the Son, and the Holy Spirit is not the Holy Spirit, but one God the Father, and His Son in Him, as the word in man. In defense of his heresy, he points out the evidence of Scripture, namely the words of Moses: The Lord is your God. There is only one Lord. (Deut.6:4). He does not say, in agreement with Noetus, that the Father suffered, but says that the Word, having come, acted alone and ascended to the Father; and he has a lot of absurd things. Let's see if the words of this deluded man turn out to be true. He says that Christ said: I am in the Father and the Father in Me (John 14:10). And we ourselves say that God the Word is from the Father, and always exists with Him, having been born of Him, but we do not say that the Father exists without the hypostatic Word. But the Word of the Father, the Only Begotten Son, is God the Word, as Christ says: “Everyone who has confessed Me, I will also confess him before My Father” (Matthew 10:32). The expression: I am before My Father indicates the Father, who is hypostatic by nature. But the followers of Samosat, distorting Judaism and having nothing more in comparison with the Jews, should be called second Jews and Samosatians: they are nothing more than Jews, and over them they have only an advantage in name. For, denying God the Only Begotten Son and the Word, they are the same as those who rejected Him at the time of His coming, became murderers of God and the Lord and denied God. It is true, however, that they neither have circumcision, nor keep the Sabbath, nor anything else, like the Jews. Indeed, we ourselves do not say that there are two Gods or Deities, but one deity, since we do not say that there are two Fathers, or two Sons, or two Holy Spirits; but the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one Divinity, one glorified. And he says that God is one, not because the Father is the source, but that God is generally one, thereby destroying, as far as he can, the divinity and hypostasis of the Son and the Holy Spirit, and recognizing the Father himself as the one God who never begat the Son, so that the Father and the Son are both imperfect: the Father does not beget the Son, and the Word of the living God and true wisdom is barren. They think that the Word is the same as it is in the heart, and that the wisdom is the same as in the soul of a person, which everyone has who has acquired understanding from God. Therefore they say that God together with the Word is one Person, just as man is one and his word, nothing, as I said, thinking no more than the Jews, being blind in view of the truth and deaf to God’s word and to the preaching of eternal life. They are not ashamed of the true word of the Gospel, which says: in the beginning was the Word and the Word was to God and God was the Word. Everything was by Him and without Him nothing would have happened. (John 1:1.3). For if in the beginning there was the Word and the Word was to God, then it means that it exists not only by pronunciation, but by hypostasis. And if the Word is not with God, then He Who had it is no longer the Word, because He Who had it is not the Word. If He has God the Word in his heart and, moreover, unborn, then what does the saying mean: no and that God is not the Word? For the word of man is not man to man; it neither lives nor exists personally, but is only a movement of the heart, living and independently existing, but not a personal being. For at the same time as it is pronounced, immediately it is no longer there, but the speaker abides: The Word of God, as the Holy Spirit speaks through the mouth of the prophet, Your Word abides forever (Ps. 119:89). The Evangelist also speaks in agreement with this, confessing that God has appeared and come, but does not add the Father to the incarnation of the Word. For he says: The Word became flesh and dwelt in us (John 1:14), but he did not say that the Word and the Father became flesh. And he also says: in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was to God, and God was the Word, but did not say: in God was the Word. And so that some do not begin to maliciously think, turning clear and living expressions to spite themselves and to their harm (for in various forms it is revealed that the heart of a person is diligent in evil from youth) (Gen. 8:21), and do not begin to say: The Evangelist did not say: the Word is in God, as you say, but the Word is not with God: this means that the Word is not from the hypostasis of the Father, but the Word is outside of God, - for this the truth turns them back, guiding their sons to the right path and exposing thoughts that go astray from its path, and the Only Begotten himself says: I have gone out from the Father and am coming (John 16:28); I am in the Father and the Father is in me (14:10). He who spoke in the prophets about the Son, not having anything corporeal in himself, but having spiritual words, condescending to the weakness of mankind, for the tangibility of the idea of the Son, turns to what happens to us in order to depict that from Him God was truly born of God, the true God from the true God, not existing outside, but from his being, and says in David the following words: from the womb before the star was born thee ( Ps.109:3), as the seventy were translated. And other translators, for example, Aquila: from the womb of the dew of your youth that hath matured you. Symmachus: Your youth is like dew in the morning. Theodotion: from the womb from your early youth. Fifth edition: from the morning the dew came from your womb in your youth. Sixth Edition: From the womb the dew of your youth will seek you. And in Hebrew: μηρέμ μεσσαὰρ λαϰτὰλ ἱελεδεχέϑ, which clearly and undoubtedly means: from the womb before the morning star I gave birth to you. For the word: μηρέμ means from the womb; μεσσαὰρ - what is before everything, what is before the morning star: λαϰτὰλ - and before the dew, child; ἱελεδεχέϑ means: gave birth to you. This is so that you will know from this word that the hypostatic God the Word was born of the Father by nature, without beginning and before time, before anything was. For it was not the morning star that was exclusively meant here by the name of the star, although many stars came into being on the fourth day, as well as the sun and the moon, but even before that the trees and fruits, the firmament, the earth and the sky came into being, and with them the Angels came into being. For if the angels had not been created along with heaven and earth, then God would not have said to Job: when the stars were created, all my angels praised me with a voice (Job 38:7). So the word: before the morning star was put in order to express: before the existence of anything and creation. For the Word was always with the Father, since all things were made and without him nothing was made (John 1:3). Or maybe someone will say: you proved that Angels exist before the stars, while you say that they occurred at the same time as heaven and earth. Why did you make such a statement, tell us. In general, didn’t they happen before heaven and earth? For nowhere does Scripture clearly indicate the time of the creation of Angels. You have proven well that they exist before the stars. For if they had not existed, how would they have praised God when the stars were created? – And we can express any solution to the issue not from our own considerations, but on the basis of Scripture. For the Word of God makes it clear that the Angels did not come into being after the stars, nor before heaven and earth, since it is clearly and immutably said that before heaven and earth there was nothing created; that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1), when there was the beginning of creation and before that there was nothing created. So the word that is in man cannot, as I said before, be called man, but the word of man. If the Word of God is God, then It is not a hypostatic word, but a hypostatic God - the Word born from God without beginning and before time; for the word became flesh and dwelt in us, and we saw his glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father, filled with grace and truth. John testified of Him, and cried out, saying, “He who is dead, he who came after me, was before me, because he was first before me” (John 1:14,15) He came into the world, that by him the world might be saved (3:17). In the world there was no peace, and the world thereof was not known (1:10). Do you see the Only Begotten Word? Do you see that He appears full (of the grace of truth) in peace among men and has the full glory of the Only Begotten from the Father? Not as if the Father were the Word: not as if the Father appeared united with the Word, as a man appears together with his word, and his word cannot appear unless there is one who speaks the word. So what will I believe? What do I agree with? From whom will I receive life in learning? Are they from the saints and Spirit-bearing Evangelists, who spoke about the Word sent from the Father, or from these followers of Paul of Samosata, who say that God is together with the Word and the Word together with God, who claim that the Father has the same person with the Word and the Word with the Father? If there is one person, then one sends and the other is sent? For you send, says the prophet, the word and I fade away: its spirit dies, and the waters flow out (Ps. 147:7). And again: I have departed from the Father and am coming (John 16:28); and I live, and the Father who sent me lives in me (6.5.7). How is it that the one who is sent is sent and appears in the flesh? For no one has seen God anywhere, the Only Begotten God 278 who is in the bosom of the Father, that confession (John 1:18). Says: Only Begotten God; for the Word is begotten of the Father, and the Father is not begotten, therefore the Only Begotten is the Son. Divine knowledge wanted to preach its truth, in its own foreknowledge, for the protection of our souls; since it knew the madness of Samosata, and the evil-mindedness of the Arians, and the atrocity of the Anomeans, and the fall of the Manichaeans, and the malice of other heresies; That is why the divine word protects us regarding every utterance; It does not call the Father the only begotten. For how is the unborn the only begotten? And he calls the Son the only begotten, so that the Son would not be counted as the Father and so that God the Word would not be likened to a word in the heart of man. For if he is called a word, he is called so that no one would think that He is alien to the essence of God the Father, and the Word is not impersonal, but hypostatic, because He is the only begotten, filled with grace and truth. Do you see how many things serve to strengthen our lives? Therefore, the words: God is no one seen anywhere - are intended to mean the invisibility of the Father and His divinity, and to confirm the own divinity of the Son, appearing in the flesh. Besides this, how many more reinforcements can we gather and present against Samosatsky’s madness? If the Son was in the Father as a word in the heart of man, then how did He appear to speak on His own behalf? During a conversation with his disciples, He says: you have seen Me, you have seen the Father (John 14:9). He did not say: I am the Father, but the word: me means: in the Father. And he did not say: I am he; but: I came in the name of My Father (5:43). And: He is the One who testifies of Me (5:32.37). And he also says about the Holy Spirit: I will send you another comforter (14:16–15.26). Look how he uses the words: after, other, az, in order to show that the Father has a personal existence and the Holy Spirit has a personal existence. He will glorify Me, speaks of the Holy Spirit, for He will receive from Mine (16:14). And what Spirit is he talking about? Those who come from the Father will also receive from Mine. In addition, he says: the testimony will become two people, and I testify about Me, and the Father who sent Me testifies about Me (8:17. 14. 18). And how many other evidences besides these? Here He says: Confess, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you hid this from the wise and prudent and revealed it as a child. Yes, Father, for such was the favor before you. All the essence was handed over to me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father: no one knows the Father except the Son, and if the Son will reveal it to him (Matthew 11:25-27) The words: You revealed it as a child and all the essence was handed over to me by My Father in order to stop their fictitious alien speech. But look what the devil, the everlasting enemy of the human race, has engendered in them, so that they speak according to the devil’s inspiration. Against this, these servants of the Jewish heresy defend themselves, ashamed of the clear guiding teaching of the divine Gospels, so as not to seem to them to be completely opposed to the true understanding of the Gospel. They say that Jesus was a man and was inspired by the Word from above. And what He says about Himself, He says as a man. For the Father together with the Son is One God, and man reveals his own identity in the fact that He is from below (John 8:23). And thus completely two faces are formed. But how can a person be God, O stupidest of all people and alienated in mind from heavenly understanding? How can he, in your opinion, be a simple man who says: he who has seen Me as the Father (John 14:9)? For if man is the same as the Father, then the Father is not at all different from man. If God the Word, perfect as man, is at the same time perfect God from above, born of the Father, then He justly and clearly speaks about Himself, saying: He saw Me in the form of the Father, just as the Jews speak of Him. For he says: I seek to kill Him not only because he did this, but also because he called himself the Son of God, saying that He is equal with God (John 5:18). And again: saying: he who has seen Me has seen the Father. He calls the Father God, equal to himself. But man is not equal to God and is not like God, but such is he truly begotten of God the Father, God the Only Begotten Son, for Paul says of him: who was not in the form of God by being caught up, was not equal with God, but made himself a little, taking on the form of a servant (Phil. 2:6). He was in the image, it is said about Him as about God, and the image of the servant is called received from outside, and did not say that it ever belonged to him. Often, however, our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ, God the Word, speaks humanly, and often speaks in accordance with human sensations, but not when he says: I departed from My Father and am coming (for this cannot be said from the side of human nature), but when he rightly testifies, saying: if I testify about Me, my testimony is not true (John 5:31), in order to show his incarnation. On the contrary, from the side of the Divine he says; If I testify of myself, my testimony is true (8:14), to show true deity and true incarnation. And so there are not two Gods, because there are not two Fathers; and the hypostasis of the Word is not destroyed, because there is no admixture of the divinity of the Son with the Father. The Son is not of another being with the Father, but is of one essence with the Father, He cannot be another being with the One who gave birth, He is not identical in existence, but of one essence. But again we do not say that He is not one and the same in essence with the Father. For in divinity and in essence the Son is the same with the Father, and not different in comparison with the Father, and not from another hypostasis, but exactly the Son of the Father in essence and in hypostasis and in truth. But the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father, but the Son, truly begotten of the Father. Therefore, there are not two Gods, and not two Sons, and not two Holy Spirits, but one Divine Trinity, consubstantial, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. When you say: consubstantial, this does not mean confusion. For consubstantial does not mean one thing, and does not divide the essence of the true Son relative to the Father, and does not alienate the hypostasis in order to preserve consubstantiality. For the divine word does not preach two principles, but one principle. The house of Judah and the house of Israel will gather together, he says, and establish one power for themselves (Hos. 1:11). And so he who preaches two principles preaches two gods, and he who denies the Word and His hypostasis reveals Judaism. For Marcion admits two principles, or better yet three, contrary to one another. The new Jews, these Samosatians, destroy the hypostasis of the Word, which is why they also turn out to be murderers of the Lord and, by denying God, deny salvation from our Lord. So, there is one beginning, and the Son from him is an exact image, naturally reflecting his Father and similar to Him in all respects, because He is God from God, and the Son from the Father, true God from true God, and light from light, one divinity and one dignity. This is why he says: Let us make man in our image and likeness (Gen. 1:26), and not in your image, so that there is no division; and not according to my image, lest dissimilarity and inequality should be revealed: but according to our image; and it is said: Let us create, so that the Father will not be alien to what has come from Him, nor the Only Begotten will be alien to creativity. But the Father creates together with the Son, and the Son, by whom all things were, is the Creator together with the Father, and because the Son is born of Him, He is one perfect God, from a perfect Father, and one perfect Father of the perfect Son, who has the image of the Father’s perfection, the image of the invisible God, not the likeness of an image, not the image of an image, not dissimilar, but the image of the Father, in order to truly show the immutability of birth from the beginningless and eternal. So, the Son is the image of the Father. But kings, because they have an image, do not become two kings, but one king with his own image; one king, and not that either one of the two parts is not perfect, but the Father is perfect, the Son is perfect, the Holy Spirit is perfect. For I am in the Father, not as a word in the heart of man, but we know the Father who is conceived together with the Son, and the Son begotten of the Father. And the Word of God came into man, not as into a dwelling; and the Word did not appear in him after birth, and then it is as if grief again exists in God as the word does in the heart of man. For this is characteristic of demonic madness and has signs of complete denial of God. Reasoning that this little is enough to refute his heresy: for his power is not invincible and is not such that any reasonable person could not refute it: therefore, having cut off the roots of the thorns of this heretic by preaching the truth and reasoning, and extinguishing the poison, so to speak, and proving its harmfulness, we, calling for help together with the Son of the Father, who truly exists, and the Son, begotten truly hypostatic, and His Holy Spirit, the hypostatic and saving Spirit in the economy and in the work of the incarnation, having crushed, I say, with the cross, a trophy over death, the head of the instigator of this question of the new Jews, let us move on, beloved, to what follows. One viper, the so-called driina, is similar to this heresiarch; they say that driina is constantly hiding in the grass or in oak trees: that is why it is called driina (from δρυς, oak) because it loves trees and, being among the leaves falling from the trees, it matches the green-yellow color of the leaf. Although this animal does not cause such severe pain, if its poison remains in the body for a long time, it causes death. So Paul of Samosata and his heresy accepts a similar multitude of other false teachings; he put on the name of Christ, but accepted the wisdom of the Jews: he confesses Christ as the Word, but talks about Him as if he does not exist. And in many cases, he is not ashamed to show himself off. Having laid down his imaginary teaching, but in essence a delusion, at the foot of Christ, and with the medical knife of the Gospel making an incision into the wounded and extracting the poison from them, let us move on, as I said above, to the next reasoning. The Manichaeans are also called Akuanites, from a certain Veteran called Akui, who came from Mesopotamia and brought the effects of this poison to Eleutheropolis. As for the time of their lives, they preached great evil to the world after the uprising of Savely. They appeared during the time of the Emperor Aurelian, about the fourth year of his reign. This heresy, which aroused a lot of speculation and was known in many countries of the earth, as I said, began to spread from a certain Manes. This Manes, at first called Kubrick, came out of the Persian land, giving himself the name Manes, perhaps, as I think, by the will of God, having adopted for himself this name, suggestive of madness (Μανιῶδες - Manes), while he himself thought that he had assigned to himself such a name, which in the language of the Babylonians means: vessel. For Μάνη, translated from Babylonian into Greek, is expressed by the word: σκϰεῦος, vessel. But as the truth shows, he acquired the name of madness for the evil that he, a pitiful man, ardently undertook to dispel in the world. This Kubrick was the slave of a widow who, having died childless, left him an unimaginable amount of money, gold, silver, fragrances and more. And she herself received an inheritance from a certain Tervinf, who himself was a slave, but was renamed Buddha in the Assyrian language; this one himself was a slave of a certain Scythian, who came from the land of the Saracens, but was raised on the borders of Palestine, that is, in Arabia. This Scythian, having studied the Hellenic language and literature in the above-mentioned places, became strong in empty worldly wisdom. Constantly being sent on trips to the country of the Indians for trading business, he started a large trade. As a result of this, he gained a lot in the world, and even passed through Thebaid; for on the Red Sea there are various piers by which you can reach the borders of Rome; one at El, which in the divine Scripture is called Elon (Deut. 2:8). Here Solomon's ship, which sailed three years later, delivered gold and ivory teeth, fragrances, peacocks and other items. And the other pier is at Castres in the bay. The third pier is higher, at the so-called Bernice, through which, the so-called Bernice, they go to Thebaid and goods coming from India are transported there in Thebaid - or to Alexandria along the river Chrysorroe (i.e., the Nile), in the scriptures called Geon - and sent to the whole land of Egypt and to Pelusia. Thus, traveling by sea to other countries, those departing from India come with goods to the Roman region. I have tried to convey this exactly according to the duty of history, so that those who wish to know will not remain in the dark about the roots of each sect. For anyone who begins any narrative must use all possible efforts and start the matter from the roots. Through this, the narrator reaches the truth, even if he does not have the grace of style and eloquence, and reasonable people will be satisfied in their demands from the true story. - So, from the beginning, this Scythian, arrogant with great wealth and the acquisition of spices and other things from India, came to Thebaid, in a city called Ipsela, found there a dead woman, known for her bodily beauty and, captivated by her out of stupidity, took her from a brothel (for she was publicly engaged in lewdness), became close to this woman and, having freed her, married her. A lot of time passed: this libertine did not know how to restrain himself from immoderation in voluptuousness, but as an idle person and accustomed to evil from excessive attachment to pleasure, he finally came up with the idea in his mind to announce to the world the unheard of; teaching not on the basis of divine Scripture and the broadcast of the Holy Spirit, but on the basis of the pitiful reasoning of human nature, he invented the following speeches: for what reason does inequality exist in all creation around us, namely: black and white, red and green, wet and dry, heaven and earth, night and day, soul and body, good and evil, just and unjust. This is because, of course, everything consists of two principles. And the devil, strenuously fighting against human nature, gave birth to that wild wisdom in his mind in order to recognize the non-existent and deny the existing - in order to arouse a struggle in the thoughts of deluded people who think that there is something other than the Existing, and in order to produce everything, so to speak, from two roots or two principles, which is the most wicked and destructive of all. But I'll talk about this later. So the aforementioned Scythian, blinded by his mind, reasoned about this, borrowing the reasons for this from Pythagoras, and compiled four books: he gave the title to one: secrets, another - chapters, the third - the Gospel, the fourth - treasures; in them he represents a combination of two personal principles, balanced and equivalent, in every respect. With such convictions and such division into parts, he, unhappy, dreamed that he had made some great discovery in life. And he discovered truly great evil, in life for himself and for those led astray by him. When this man was in such thoughts, and heard how the prophets and the law proclaimed the creation of the world and the One and the Sovereign, who has always existed and never ceases to exist, i.e., the Father and His Son and the Holy Spirit, then carried away by some extraordinary pleasure, and at the same time mocking the coarseness of his mind, and driven by a strong desire, he took a trip to Jerusalem - this was around the time of the Apostles - so that there discuss with those preaching about the unity of command and the creation of God. Arriving there, the unfortunate man began to argue with the local elders, who lived in accordance with the law of God given to Moses, and with the prophetic teaching of every prophet: “How do you say that there is only one God, who created night and day, flesh and soul, dry and wet, heaven and earth, darkness and light”? And they clearly proved to him: for the truth is not hidden. However, the contradictor was not ashamed. Although he could not have any success, he was nevertheless driven by the shamelessness of perseverance. When he could not do anything, but was rather defeated, then with the help of the magic books that he had (for he was also a sorcerer, familiar with the wisdom of the Indians and Egyptians and with the fables of the pagans and traded in the terrible and disastrous art of sorcery), he decided to perform some kind of trick, climbed onto the roof of the house, and no matter how hard he tried, he could not do anything, but, having fallen from the house, he ended his life. And he lived there for quite a few years. He had with him only one student, the aforementioned Tervinf, to whom he handed over everything he had, as his most faithful and devoted comrade. Tervinf, after the death of Scythian, buries him in the most honorable manner and, having buried him, decides not to return to that woman who, having renounced fornication or slavery, has already married Scythian, but having taken all her property, gold and silver, etc., she flees to the country of the Persians, changing her name so as not to be captured, and instead of Tervinf, as I said above, she takes the name of Buddha. At the same time, he did not leave the bad inheritance that he inherited, namely the four books of Scythian and the practice of magic and witchcraft. For he, too, was very diligently trained in the known sciences. But when he began to rant in the country of the Persians, having settled with an old widow, and entered into a dispute about two principles with the servants at the church of Mithras and the priests of the idol, with some prophet Park and Lavdacus, and could not even challenge the main representatives of idolatry, but, struck by their reproof and suffering shame, he conceived a similar idea to the aforementioned Scythian, went up to the roof of the house, deciding to do something with witchcraft, so that no one contradicts him, but struck by the Angel, he fell down and died because he wanted to attempt sorcery. The old woman, having buried him, became the owner of his money, and without children or anyone especially close, she remained in this position for a long time. Finally, having bought Kubrick, who is also Manes, she took him into her service and at the time of her death left him the fruits of an evil inheritance, like the poison of asps, to the harm and death of many. Thus, Kubrick, who called himself Manes, lived among the Persians and talked with them. And since no one believed him, but those who heard the Manichaean teaching did not tolerate him and were all amazed at the innovation, the extreme fabulousness and empty deception; then he, seeing that his own evil word-weaving is being destroyed, being deceived by his mind, invents for himself some way through which he could establish his terrible invention. And when the rumor spread that the son of the king of Persia fell into some illness and lies in the reigning city of Persia (for Manes did not live there, but somewhere else - far from the royal city): then blinded by his wickedness, and thinking that according to the books he found after his master Tervinf - he is also Buddha - the heir of Scythian, he can prepare some medicines for the king's son, leaves his place and hurries, and boldly announces himself, promising to bring benefit. But the sorcerer’s illusory hope did not come true; he was deceived in his expectation by bringing some kind of medicinal potion to the ailing son of the king. The boy finally dies in his arms so that all his empty promises combined with lies will be exposed. When this happened, then, by order of the king, they threw him into prison. For the kings of Persia do not immediately impose punishment on those guilty of important and shameful crimes, but invent some kind of extreme death sentence with torture for those convicted. So it was now. Meanwhile, Manes - who is also Kubrick - continued to remain in prison, moreover, visited by his students. For this deceiver had already gathered for himself, so to speak, soldiers, whom he called disciples, numbering about twenty-two. Of these he chose three: a certain so-called Thomas, and Hermias and Adda, and since he heard about those widespread in Judea; and in the whole world of the sacred, that is, Christian books - the Law, the Prophets, the Gospels and the Apostles, then, having given the above-mentioned people gold, he sent them to the borders of Jerusalem. This, however, he did before he was imprisoned, when by his reasoning with the people he could not establish his teaching. Having heard about the name of Christ and His servants, that is, Christians, he decided to deceive the lost in the name of the cause of Christ. They went and immediately bought him books. Since when they returned they found him no longer free, but in prison, they arrived there and showed him the books. Having taken them and carefully examined them, he acted frivolously, mixing his lies with the truth, precisely where he found some word or name that in its appearance could represent a similarity to his opinion. In this way he tried to confirm the fiction of his embellished teaching. Meanwhile, with a strong request, he approached the warden of the prison and gave him a lot of silver, he fled, and, leaving the country of the Persians, arrived in the Roman state. When he was already between Mesopotamia and Persia, and was still in the desert, he heard about one great man, distinguished by high piety, named Marcellus, who lived in the Mesopotamian city of Kaskhare; This man was throughout a Christian and amazing in deeds of righteousness, helping widows and the poor, orphans and the needy. Manes decides to approach this husband so that, having him at hand, he could, through him, spread his power not only in Mesopotamia, but also throughout the entire environs of Syria and the Roman Empire. He writes a letter to him with Tyrvon, one of his disciples, from the borders of the Stranga River, from the so-called fortification of Aravion. This message contained the following. Take it, read it and find out the wickedness of the deceiver. “Manichaean, an apostle of Jesus Christ and with me all the saints and virgins. To Marcellus, beloved child, grace, mercy, peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ. May the right hand of light protect you from this present evil age and its attacks and from the snares of the evil one, amen. Hearing about the great love for you, I was very happy; I was sad about faith, not because of the right teaching. Therefore, having been sent to correct the human race and to spare those who fell into deception, I considered it necessary to send this message to you, for the salvation, first of all, of your soul, then of those who are with you, so that you do not hold an unreasonable opinion, as the leaders of the simplest teach, who say that good and evil come from the same thing, and introduce one principle, without reasoning and without distinguishing darkness from light, good from evil and the bad, and the outer man from the inner, as we said before, but they constantly mix and merge one with the other. But you, child, like many people, do not be judicious and simply do not combine the two, as happens, and do not blaspheme the God of goodness. For the beginning and the end and the guilt of these evils are attributed to God only by those whose end of the curse is near (Heb. 6:8). They do not believe what is said in the Gospels by our Savior Himself, the Lord Jesus Christ, that a good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor a bad tree bear good fruit (Matthew 7:18). And it’s amazing to me how they dare to call God the Creator and Creator of Satan and his evil deeds. And if only their wisdom had come to this, and they would not have said that the Only Begotten descended from the bosom of the Father, Christ is the son of a certain wife Mary, born of blood and flesh and other uncleanness of women. But in order not to use a lengthy message for a long time to use your condescension for evil, I, not having natural eloquence, will be content with this. Still, you will know when I will be with you, if only you still care about your salvation. For I do not impose bonds on anyone (1 Cor. 7:35), as many foolish people do. Think about what I say, dear child.” Having read this message, Marcellus, a most worthy man, very pious and excellent, was surprised and amazed. It happened that Archelaus, the Bishop of that city, was at home with him on the day when this servant of God took into his hands the message of Manichaeus. Archelaus, having learned the reason and read the message, gnashed his teeth like a roaring lion, and, perceiving the jealousy of God, thought to quickly go to him and seize him as a stranger from barbarian countries - where he came from - who had risen to destroy the sons of men. The prudent Markell softened the Bishop with requests, and ordered Tyrvon to go to Manes in the fortification of Aravion, where he was waiting for Tyrvon. (This fortress is located between Persia and Mesopotamia). But he refused to return to Manichaeus; and Markell, without forcing Tyrvon, sends one of his men, writing him such a message. Letter of Marcellus to Manichaeus “Marcellus, a glorious man, wishes health to Manichaeus, known through the letter. I received the message you wrote. I received Tirvon out of my friendliness, but I did not understand the meaning of the letter; When you come, won’t you explain everything in detail in words, as you promised in the letter? Goodbye". Having learned this, Manes noticed something unkind in Tirvon’s delay - (many times he deceived himself, arguing about something else contrary to reality, due to excessive confidence in his mind); however, having received a reason in the letter, he hastily came to Marcellus. And Bishop Archelaus, in addition to his word and zeal for faith, decided, if it were possible, as soon as he learned of his arrival, to immediately catch this man, like a tiger, or a wolf, or some other animal, and put him to death, so that the herd would not be damaged from the attack of such an animal. But Marcellus asked Archelaus to speak to him generously and kindly. He had already learned all the reasons for Manesov’s opinion: for Tyrvon told them, he and Marcellus, all the nonsense of heresy, namely, how Manes introduces two beginningless principles, always existing and never ceasing to exist, opposite one another, and gives one the name - light and good, the other - darkness and evil, so that they are God and the devil. Sometimes he calls both gods, the good God and the evil God. From these two principles everything seems to have its existence and origin. And one principle produces all that is good, and the other, in a similar way, produces all that is evil. In the world, these two principles have personal activity: one principle produced the body, and from the other the soul originated. This soul is in people, and in every animal, and in birds, and in reptiles, and in beasts; this is not enough: even in plants he calls the vital moisture the movement of the soul, which, he says, is also found in people. While he is telling tales and teaching, he also says something else, namely, that he who eats meat eats his soul and deserves to become something like that himself. So, if someone ate pork, he will later become a pig, or an ox, or a bird, or any of the eaten creatures. Therefore, Manichaeans do not eat animals. And if he says who planted a fig tree, or an olive tree, or grapes, or a sycamore tree, or a Persian tree, and if he himself destroyed them, then his soul is then bound by the offspring of the trees he planted and cannot free himself from them. And if he says who will marry a woman, then, after leaving this life, he moves into another body and becomes a woman himself, so that he too can marry. And if, he says, who killed a person, that soul, after the death of the body, passes into the body of a leper, or into a mouse, or into a serpent, or will be something the same as the one who was killed. He also said that the highest Wisdom of the good God wants to collect the soul, scattered everywhere: for he and the Manichaeans behind him say that the soul is a particle of the Divine and that, having separated from it and being taken captive by the princes of the opposite principle and root, it is cast into bodies; Having become the food of the people who stole it, the soul imparts strength to them with division through their bodies. Therefore, he says, the aforementioned Wisdom placed these luminaries in the sky - the sun, the moon, and the stars, arranging this mechanism through the twelve elements that the Hellenes speak of. These elements, he claims, attract the souls of dying people and other animals, if they are light, and then they are transferred to the boat. For he wants to consider the sun and moon to be transport ships. And the small ship carries the cargo for up to fifteen days, until the full moon, and thus floats, and from the fifteenth day the cargo is transferred to a larger ship, that is, to the sun. The sun - this big ship - transports you to eternal life and to the land of the blessed. Thus souls are transported by the sun and moon. About those souls who, through knowledge, have partaken of their vanity, he says that, having been purified, they will be worthy of this transmigration, invented by him. On the contrary, the soul will not be saved in any way if it does not participate in some way in this knowledge. And there is a lot of pomp in this poetry. When this was so, and Archelaus had learned everything necessary to answer the question, because he had varied knowledge about God and from conversations with Tyrvon he carefully learned everything with which this man was deceiving, then Manes came with the men who were with him. They immediately entered into a public contest in Caschara itself, having previously elected judges together to discuss the dispute - a certain one named Marsinus, Claudius, Aegialea and Cleovulus, one of whom, in addition to rhetoric, was a philosopher, another an instructor in the art of medicine, the third by natural disposition - a grammarian, the fourth a sophist. Much was said on each side; Manes expounded his fabulous teaching, and Archelaus, like an excellent warrior, repelled the arrows of his opponents with his own strength. Finally, Manes was defeated, and the judges awarded the reward to truth, which is not surprising, since truth is independent and cannot be destroyed, even if lawlessness, supported by shamelessness, opposed the law of truth; whereas a lie has neither persistence nor foundation, like a dark shadow, the unsteady and unsteady course of a snake, due to the lack of legs. After this, Manes fled, because the people wanted to stone him; and if Marcellus had not stepped into the middle and shamed the people with his respect-inspiring face, then this unfortunate man would have been killed long ago. After he left, he came to one village called Kalkhara - in Diodoris, where at that time the local presbyter - Tryphon, a very meek man, was staying. While he was with him, Manes, having taken possession of this man, although kind and amazing in piety, but meager in words, again began to brag and stir up trouble. But even at the same time, he could not, as he expected, mock the servant of Christ. For God always prepares and gives to those who hope in him the gifts of the Holy Spirit, just as He promised without falsehood: do not worry about what you say: for you will not be the ones who speak, but the Spirit of My Father who speaks in you (Matthew 10:19,20). Therefore, when he again wanted to reason with Tryphon the presbyter, and he spoke a lot on the contrary, Tryphon wrote the following about this subject to Archelaus: “A certain man has come here, like a heavy wolf, and is trying to destroy the flock. Please write to me what I should do with him, or in what words I should speak against his evil teaching. And if you were worthy to come yourself, you would make the flock of Christ and His sheep carefree.” He sent him two books to be ready to compete with Manes, but told him to wait for his arrival. Meanwhile, Manes came early in the morning to the middle of the village, inviting him to gather and call Tryphon to go to the competition. And when Tryphon appeared and answered his questions according to the understanding God had given him, and troubled the deceiver slightly, because he doubted himself; Then Archelaus appears, like a strong householder, caring for his own, and approaching with boldness, he angrily turned against the encroaching thief. As soon as Manes saw Archelaus, out of hypocrisy he flatteringly said: “let me reason with Tryphon, for your episcopal dignity exceeds me.” But he showed with an accusatory word that Manes was the greatest hypocrite, blocked his lips and, having made permission to the questions he proposed, once again brought him to shame, so that he could not open his mouth. In turn, the people, feeling jealous, attempted to lay hands on this villain. He, having escaped from the people, again went to the aforementioned fortification of Arapion. The King of Persia, having learned of the flight of Manes, sent and seized him in the above-mentioned fortification, ingloriously brought him from there to Persia and, ordering to tear off his skin with a sharpened reed stick, thus punished him. This skin, torn from it with reeds, stuffed with straw, is still in Persia. So he ended his life. That is why the Manichaeans make their beds out of reeds. So he died and left his disciples, about whom we spoke, Adda, Thomas and Hermias, who, before he accepted execution in the indicated manner, were sent by him - Hermias to Egypt, and many became acquainted with him (for this heresy is not ancient and those who knew the above-mentioned Hermias, a disciple of Manesov, told us about him); Adda was sent to the upper countries, and Thomas to Judea; from them this teaching has been strengthened there until now. Manes said about himself that he was the Comforter Spirit: sometimes he called himself the Apostle of Christ, and sometimes the Comforter Spirit. Great is the evil variety of his blindness! Now, beloved, we must finally speak against heresy and its superstition (for I have told everything that preceded historically), precisely from what the evil Manes began to teach, write and speak in his book about faith. For he published various books. One is equivalent to twenty-two letters of the Syriac alphabet, and is compiled according to the alphabet: for very many of the Persians, in addition to Persian letters, also use the Syriac letter, just as many of our peoples use Hellenic letters, although almost every nation has its own letters; some boast of the rich Syrian dialect, others of the Palmyra dialect - it and the alphabet; and there are twenty-two letters. Therefore this book is divided into twenty-two sections. He gives the title of this book: “The Mysteries of Manichaeus”, and another “Treasure”. They think that he also wrote other books - the so-called “small Treasure” and also “about Astrology”. For they have no lack of curiosity about such subjects; but Astronomy gives them a greater reason for boasting. They also use amulets, that is, pendants, and some other spells and sorceries. – This is what Manes himself begins to say in his book. “There existed God and matter, light and darkness, good and evil, completely opposite to each other, so that they had no communication with each other in anything.” This is what this deceiver says in the preface. Then his tricks begin. This book is written broadly and contains other similar thoughts, whose darkness and contradiction in words should be kept in mind from the very beginning of consideration. Although there is still a lot of idle talk and fabulous assumptions, his cunning will be revealed from the preface. For what he said: “God and matter existed” is not inferior to the empty assumption of the Hellenes. But this empty false wisdom is not difficult to expose: it is not important and can be easily resolved. For it is impossible for two eternals to exist together and at the same time, according to common sense and the rational concept of anyone who knows how to judge prudently. And this should be known to everyone who has understanding. For if two such principles are modern, then they could not differ in name, because everything modern is co-eternal. What is coeternal and always existing is God, especially because He did not receive a beginning from any cause. For nothing is eternal except God. You, a barbarian in mind and an enemy of human nature, have designated the same principles with different names. He called one light, the other darkness, one good, the other evil. And you say that they are absolutely opposite to each other in everything, so that one has nothing in common with the other. So you separate them one from the other; this is clear because, as you say, they are opposites. If they exist together, then it turns out that they are friendly and agree with each other, exist together and have communication and are not at all alienated from each other - due to the excess of community. If they exist separately from each other, then, without a doubt, each of them is finite. And everything finite is imperfect; for it is limited to finitude. Yes, and it is necessary to find a limit for distinguishing one and the other, so that both, touching each other with their limits, do not mix one with the other with their limits, do not communicate with each other and do not destroy the boundaries of opposition. And if you place something separating among both, then this separating element is no longer similar to them, but different from both; for if what separates in one part is similar to one of the two eternal principles mentioned above, then what separates will no longer be different from what is similar, but will be united with what is similar, and the union will occur through the equalized part, and there will no longer be a distinction in the distance of the two natures, one from the other. If what separates is not similar to two and does not participate in any part of one of them, then there will no longer be two eternal and always existing, but three, and no longer two principles, and not two primary, mutually opposite, but there will be a third, different, and opposite to both, dissimilar to both, separating between the two, not communicating with one or the other due to the difference in nature, and not having similarities with one or the other. So, there will be not two, but three. But then it will be necessary to look for another intermediate, a fourth one, which introduced this limit. For two could not establish this limit, or this wall, if there had not been another limit-setter who introduced a division between both. But he must be experienced in knowledge, and morally prudent, and fair, and famous, so that he can persuade both to a peaceful agreement. So there will be one limit-setter, and one dividing, and two separated by limits, and no longer only two beginnings, but also three and four. Thus, one will have to turn one's thoughts to many principles, leaving the existing to invent the non-existent. And as for the fact that this lost one is trying not to mix evil with the Divine, it is truly absurd to attribute evil to God. But in the outline of church teaching it is recognized that the Divine is completely alien and not involved in evil. For God did not create anything evil, but everything that was good (Gen. 1:31), being good by nature, incomprehensible in essence, embracing everything, and Himself incomprehensible by nothing. Thus, evil did not always exist, and did not come from God. Therefore, if evil did not exist and does not exist eternally, and did not come from God, it remains to ask how and from where what did not exist is eternal, but what had the beginning of being, ceases and perishes and does not remain until the end, received a beginning. In the meantime, let’s begin to look for this, first we need to think about what evil is and what it is and what evil consists of, and whether it is something described, whether it has, so to speak, a body or personality, and whether it can have a root. And when we consider this within ourselves, it turns out that evil has no personal existence, has no root, but is found only in bodies during practical human activity. For evil exists when we do it, and it does not exist when we don’t do it: since the mind reveals what it means to do something bad, displeasing to God, which, however, cannot contradict God or oppose the Divine. For everything that can be exterminated and destroyed by people, especially cannot resist God. At the same time, the devil should be judged in such a way that at creation he was not created evil by nature, but in time he himself intended to do evil: although it was not known what he would be like, but that he was created, out of an overabundance of truth, like everything else, good and useful: because God, out of an overabundance of goodness, wanted everyone and everything to exist, and offered his blessings to everyone, and by the will of his will allows everyone fulfill one's own desires, whatever anyone wants to do, so that God Himself is not guilty of evil and there is a difference both between those who succeed in virtue and between those who receive rewards from His philanthropy and goodness. But this crazy Manes, wanting to remove God from evil, on the contrary, attributed to Him at the same time greater evil. He is not ashamed to condemn all creation: having taken the occasion from the falls that happen to us and extending them equally to all creation, he became rather a defender and intercessor of evil, which, as he says, he rejects, but in fact, instead of hatred, he turns to him some love and sympathy, when he gives him consistency and proclaims it eternal, always existing with God and never ceasing to exist. And by these very names that he gives to evil in all his writings, he will be convicted of departing from the truth, since from the evidence he offers it is clear that what was created was created good by God. And firstly, what he called matter, then according to his own concept comes destruction, and first of all, if evil is destruction, then it would be the destruction of something. If it is the destruction of something else, but itself constantly remains, it means that from time immemorial it destroyed the existing and only existed for such a long time, manifesting the activity of its power and not being destroyed. If it is self-destruction, then, destroying, suppressing itself, destroying and destroying, it has already bent and will not stand, being destructive and destructive for itself. How did it survive, having existed for so long, according to the deceiver? At the same time, it will have absolutely no communication with life, and at the same time there will be neither life nor goodness in it. And since in each of the creations he condemned there is also good, his teaching about evil fell apart on all sides, because one of his so-called principles has communication with another; this can be said, for example, about snakes and other poisonous reptiles. For in those creatures that are created for benefit, and in his case are degraded in the very name, opposition to evil is also revealed, which can be said about snakes and others. Deadly poison comes out of them; They also contain an antidote for getting rid of death and injury to those who have been bitten. And the day is given for people to work, as well as for light and vision. But the night, which is condemned in its very name, turns out to be some kind of peace given to people by God. So, it turns out that every thing is good and cannot borrow a name from our sins, or be considered of the same name as evil. For everything is good and pleasant and nothing is worthless (1 Tim. 4:4) according to what has been said: and behold, all good is great (Gen. 1:31) and nowhere is there a root of evil. Therefore, in the beginning, God, creating the whole world according to his goodness, recognized each of the creations as good, as it is said: and God saw that he was good, in order to testify to goodness and destroy the cunning of the enemies of human nature, who, through crafty fables, intended to destroy the truth between people. On the first day he created the heavens and the earth, and the light, and the things in the earth: both sight and every good thing, says Scripture (Gen. 1:4). But didn’t He know that He would create good when, after creation, He said: This is good? This is said in order about the waters, the sea, plants, birds, reptiles and fish. For it is said of each: God saw and behold good. This is not because He did not know before, and not because after creation He learned from experience what is good, but, bearing in mind the opinion of the ill-intentioned, from the beginning of existence he predicted that everything is good and there is no evil anywhere: since according to the examination, everything is good and good and, according to the truest testimony of good, he called everything good, and this is the absence of all bad and all evil. And this is also so that with the words: everything is good, to destroy the doctrine of evil invented by people, and in order to completely destroy every evil opinion of those introducing this doctrine. Then, having reached man, he did not say: good, not because man was some kind of evil, who is the most excellent of all creations on earth, who was created by God in ineffable wisdom to possess, to whom God had to hand over into power everything that He had created, as it is said: Let us create man in our image and likeness: and let him have the fish of the sea, and the birds of the air, and the things that creep on the earth, and the cattle, and the wild beasts. and everything that is on earth (Gen.1:26). But since he was created in the image of God, Holy Scripture was content with this dignity, not considering the addition already necessary. For if he received the image of Goodness itself, that is, the Lord God, the Creator of every creature and good, from Whom every source of goodness, from Whom goodness exists in everything, then what need did he still have to hear the testimony: this is good, when he received the image of Goodness Himself? Finally, at the end of everything, after the completion of all creation, the Word of God, having sealed it, also offered testimony about all creatures, saying: and God saw everything that was created: and this was great good (v. 31) with the addition of the word: great. This was the sixth day, and the seventh was a day of rest, so that after the root of the teaching about evil was destroyed, no one would find any reason to be bold and consider evil to exist eternally. There is no space given for talking about it. For nowhere was there evil, since everything was good and came from the good God and was witnessed by Him. The name of the substance is twofold. One thing, as I said, in the opinion of this lost one, is the name of the action and decay of the destructive. And we are accustomed to calling substance that from which each thing is made among those who practice art: for example, the substance of wood, the substance of clay from which something is made, the substance of gold, the substance of silver. Substance (matter) is a certain product that accumulates in the body from spoilage of juices. Let this newly-minted soothsayer speak, proclaiming things that happened before the ages. For he dared to call himself the Spirit of Comforter - sometimes he calls himself, as I said, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, while he never took upon himself the form of a dove, and was not sent from heaven to the Apostles to endow them with the power of incorruptibility, like the Spirit of Comforter, whom the Only Begotten promised, having determined to send Him not after many of these days (Acts 1:15), but immediately after His Ascension, as he said: If I go, He will come (John 16:7). Soon after returning from the Mount of Olives, the Apostles in the upper room were filled with the Holy Spirit, as it is written: and the nations of fire appeared to them, and the house was filled with the breath of storm, and the Spirit came upon each of them, and they spoke in tongues the wonders of God, and each one heard with his own tongue. He was from all the people under heaven (Acts 2:2, 3.5.6), and each one was comforted by the Spirit, the Apostles by the gift of the Spirit, and all the nations by the proclamation of the amazing teaching of God. If this deceiver, truly insane and true to his name, had been the Comforter Spirit, whom the Lord promised to the disciples, then it would have turned out that the Apostles died without receiving the promise that they heard from the false Lord: you will not receive the gift of the Holy Spirit after many of these days (Acts 1:5). But Manes turns out to be a deceiver, having slandered Christ, as if He did not fulfill what He said. For the line of the Apostles passed, that is, from Peter to Paul and to John, who lived in the world until the time of Trajan. Jacob, the first Bishop of Jerusalem, called the brother of the Lord (the son of Joseph, born of his own wife, with his other brothers, with whom the Lord Jesus Christ, born in the flesh of the Ever-Virgin Mary, was together, had them instead of brothers, being called their brother) passed by, and His co-thrones were all the saints, and with them Simon, the son of His paternal uncle, the son of Cleopas, Joseph’s brother. I have presented below the time of their lives in order and in connection from Bishop James, that is, the Bishops who were successively in Jerusalem, and the emperors who were with each, until the time of the above-mentioned Aurelian and Probus, when this Manes the Persian became known, who brought into the world such an ugly teaching. This order is as follows: 1. Jacob, struck by the tree, suffered in Jerusalem, living until the time of Nero. 2. Simeon - crucified under Trajan. 7. John - lived until the nineteenth year of Trajan. 15. Judas - until the eleventh year of Antoninus. - These were bishops in Jerusalem from among the circumcision. And from the pagans the following: All these were before the tenth year of Antonin the pious. 23. Gaius - in the days of Verus, in his eighth year. 26. Maxim until the age of sixteen Vera. 29. Dolikhian before Commodus. 31. Diy - before the times of the North. 33. Gordius - until the time of Antoninus. 34. Narcissus - again with Mammaea's son Alexander, not the Macedonian, but a friend. 35. Alexander - with the same Alexander. Z6. Mazaban under Galle and Volusian. 37. Hymen - under Aurelian. From the ascension of Christ to Manes and the Emperors Aurelian and Probus, according to some chroniclers, 276 years passed, and according to others - 246. And from that time until now there were other Bishops: Vasa, Germanus, Macarius, Maximus, Cyril, Herennius, another Cyril, Hilarion, now the ruler of the church, accused of communicating with the Arians. And the emperors whose times coincide were as follows: first Aurelian, reigned for another year: Tacitus - six months, Cyrus, Carinus, and Numerian - two months, Diocletian - twenty years, Maximian, Licinius, Constantine, Constantius, Julian, Jovian, Valentinian, Valens, Gratian. So from the mentioned Manes to the present time, that is, until the 13th year of Valens, to the 9th year of Gratian, and to the 1st year of Valentinian the Younger - 102 years. In the fourth year of Aurelian, and during the time of the Bishop of Jerusalem Hymen, delusion was introduced into the world by the action and fabrication of the devil who lived in Manes, in order to deceive those who believed him from the truth. So his trick was exposed from everywhere, so that the minds of the sensible, having learned everything exactly, would condemn his false invention. And all his other supposed wisdom, full of idle talk, ambiguous and untenable, is ridiculed by all the smart ones. If I were to analyze them verbatim and write in refutation of all of them, then I would bring the denunciation against his writing to a greater volume. But great men have already excellently made accusatory objections against him: Archelaus the Bishop, as stated above, Origen, as I heard, Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Emes, Serapion of Tmuite, Athanasius of Alexandria, George of Laodicea, Titus and many who spoke against him. It will not be at all burdensome, even from our wretchedness, to say a little to shame this pitiful man in order to refute his erroneous thoughts in every possible way, as we have already said before. I would like to make a reproof against him not in cruel terms and could speak softly if he were not ashamed to brazenly blaspheme the Lord of all, directly denying the Creator himself, who created the entire space of heaven and earth and everything that is in them, and everything that exists in the world, and inventing some other God who does not exist, but leaving the existing one. For he fell away from the truth and a funny fable was actually fulfilled on him, like a raven holding food in his mouth and seeing the shadow of food in the water, wanting to get more food, lost the one he had, and did not acquire the one he did not have. Who will tolerate this blasphemer? For if we, having fathers according to the flesh, do not tolerate it when we hear someone reproach them, then how much more will we tolerate the blasphemies of the most harmful Manes against God, the Lord of all? And while, by the grace of God, the rains are sent by His goodness, this blasphemer is not ashamed to say that the rains are not from God, but from the outflow of the Archons. And if we talk about something else, who wouldn’t laugh when Philistion’s facial expressions 279 were perhaps more restrained than the ridiculous composition of Manes. For he fabulously teaches that there is some kind of strong man who holds the whole earth on his shoulders, and after thirty years, when, they say, one shoulder gets tired, he moves the earth to the other shoulder, and this causes earthquakes. If it were, it would be a natural thing, and no longer God’s. But the deceiver is exposed by the words of the Savior, who said: be good, as your heavenly father is, as the sun shines on the righteous and the unjust, and rains its rain on the evil and the good (Matthew 5:48,45); and again: there will be cowardice in the place and ironing and destruction (24:7). But if earthquakes occurred naturally, or usually, since earthquakes often occur in one country or another, and it often happens that for a whole year the earth shakes every night, is it really possible that when a strong man’s shoulders hurt, he, unable to withstand the work, constantly shakes? Who can tolerate such stupid speech? What other frivolous thing did he not dare say? He says that souls who have comprehended his false teaching through knowledge are taken to the moon, since the essence of their soul becomes bright. Therefore, he says, the moon is full, and when it is filled with souls who have died in the consciousness of the infidelity of his teaching, it disappears. Then, he says, they are unloaded from the moon, like from a small boat into the sun, and the sun, he says, receives them and leads them into a blissful life. Malice, always being blind, does not feel its shame, therefore it exposes itself with its own words, being unable to justify its lies. First, one man was created, Adam, from whom sons and daughters were born. And at the beginning of the world, about the hundredth year of Adam, or more or less, Abel was killed, being thirty years old, or more, or less. After him, the first killed, the primordial Adam died on earth for nine hundred and thirty years, while the sun and moon and stars from the fourth day were established in heaven and created. What can you tell us, my dear? Should we acknowledge the exposure of your senselessness? How could the moon last nine hundred and thirty years without damage and a full moon? What souls of the dead did the moon fill and abound with then? Speak. But Manichaeus did not know that there are smart people who believe not in false words, but in the truest evidence. Then let us assume that this is so, although this is not (let this not be!), and that the full moon is filled with the souls of the Manichaeans; How else would such a proposal take place? For if none of the Manichaeans died after the full moon, but there was a definite law for the Manichaeans to die until the fifteenth day of the moon, and after the fifteenth not to die until the load was removed from the moon, so that it could begin to be filled again from the new moon, this lie of theirs would be probable. But now this is not at all probable; because they die every day, and the elements established by God take their course. Thus, again this loading of the moon with souls will not take place. And some of them, according to the intention of the evil one, think that the mother of all, having ceded her power, came down from heaven to rob the Archons and steal from them the power that they received from above. He wanted to say that the Principalities and Powers, who entered into war with the living God, stole from him a great and incomprehensible power, which he calls the soul. ABOUT! Great absurdity! Anyone who is kidnapped and taken by force becomes inferior. Therefore, if the Principalities, fully armed, take over the good God and take away His power, then they will be more glorious than Him. And He, having first yielded to them, cannot again take away from them the strength that was stolen from Him, or all their weapons, since at first He was not able to resist the enemies. And besides, if he wins victory again and, having strengthened himself against his enemies, takes away the power stolen from him, then since the root of evil and the beginningless beginning still remains and cannot be destroyed at all, the Beginning, having gathered great strength in itself, will again overcome, and having strengthened in power, will again take away the power received from the good God; thus evil will always rebel against him and will never be restrained, but will incessantly snatch away and suffer plunder. And if those who are corrupted in their minds and deluded in every possible way say that if the good God had once returned to himself, at least partially, all the weapons stolen from him, then he would have destroyed and exterminated the Principalities and Powers of the opposing force - if this is so, and if the good God completely destroys them and destroys them, then the speech of this deceiver has disappeared, who says that the good God is unjust and does not condemn the sinner in court, and does not subject him to torture and does not kill. For if He tries to completely destroy and exterminate the devil, or some other opposing force, then He, in his opinion, will either no longer be good, as actually contained in his teaching, or He will destroy evil, despite the fact that he is good. And thus He will be the Lord who created heaven and earth, as He truly is, who rewards everyone according to his deeds, and according to the abundance of goodness, gives good to the good man and to the one who has labored in goodness, and will reward the one who has done evil what is worthy. Thus, his teaching has been exposed from everywhere, turning the hearts of people in the opposite direction. Now, in order, I will present literally, as follows, his opinion, from the works of Archelaus, written in his refutation, as Tyrvon himself, one of the students of the Manesovs, whom I mentioned above, revealed to him. When Bishop Archelaus and Marcellus asked Tyrvon about the teachings of Manes, Tyrvon gave the answers that I offer from his book. Here they are. The beginning of the godless teaching of Manes If you want to know the faith of Manes, listen to me briefly. He worships two gods, unborn, original, eternal, one opposite to the other. And he represents one as good, the other as evil, giving one the name of light, the other - darkness, and says that the soul in people is a particle of light, and the body is a product of matter, is a particle of darkness. He explains their union and merging, presenting both in similarity, in this way: how two kings, primordial enemies, fight with each other, and yet each owns his own part: so darkness, having prepared itself and stepped out from its limits, entered into a fight with the light. And when the good Father learned that darkness had appeared in his land, then he released from himself a force called the Mother of Life, and she produced the first man and the five elements, which are: wind, light, water, fire and matter. And having clothed himself in them, as if to prepare for war, He descended and entered into war with darkness. And the princes of darkness, fighting against him, removed something from his armor, which is the soul. At this time, the first man was greatly hampered by darkness. And if the Father had not heard his prayer, and had not sent another power emitted by Him, called the Living Spirit, and if He had not descended and given him his right hand and brought him out of darkness, then the first man would have long ago been in danger, having been defeated. From that time on He left his soul down. Therefore, when Manichaeans meet each other, they give each other their right hand as a sign that they have got rid of darkness. For in darkness, he says, there are all kinds of heresies. Then the Living Spirit created the world, and itself, having clothed itself with three other powers, descended down and carried out the Archons from there and established them on the firmament, which is their body and sphere. Then the Living Spirit created more luminaries, which are the remains of the soul, and made them go around in a circle in the firmament. And he also created the earth in eight forms. And the Strong Man from below holds it, and when he gets tired of holding it, he shakes and causes an earthquake at the wrong time. Therefore, the good Father from his bosom sent his Son into the heart of the earth and to its farthest borders, in order to satisfy his just desire. And every time there is an earthquake, it means that the Strongman either shakes from fatigue or moves the earth to his other shoulder. Then matter also created plants from itself, and when they were abducted by certain Archons, it called upon all the first of the Archons and received from them one power each and created man in the image of that first man, and united him with the soul. This is the assumption about the union of the soul with the body. And when the Living Father saw the soul constrained in the body, He, being gracious and merciful, sent His beloved Son to save the soul. He sent him for this reason, and also for the sake of the Strongman. And when the Son came, he was transformed into the form of a man and appeared to people as a man, without being, however, a man, and people thought that he was born. And so, having come, he undertakes work to save souls and built a machine with twelve vessels, which, turning in a circle, lifts up the souls of the dead. And having taken them with its rays, the great luminary purifies them and transfers them to the moon, and thus the so-called circle of the moon is filled. He calls these two luminaries ships, or transport vessels. Then, when the moon becomes full, she transports them to the east wind, and thus relieved of her burden causes damage; and then again fills the vessel, and again is loaded with souls raised in the vessels, until he redeems his own part of his soul. For every soul and every moving animal, he says, participates in the essence of the good Father. When the moon transfers the load of souls to the Aeons of the Father, they remain in the pillar of glory, which is called perfect air. This air is a pillar of light, since it is filled with souls being purified. This is the reason why souls are saved. And the reason why people die is the following: a certain maiden, beautiful, adorned and very flattering, tries to captivate the Archons, who were lifted up by the Living Spirit to the firmament and crucified there: to men she appears as a beautiful woman, and to women as a handsome and desirable man, and when the Archons see her adorned, they are wounded by love, and, unable to catch her, are greatly inflamed with love passion, so that they lose their minds. When they run up, the maiden becomes invisible, then the Great Archon lowers the clouds from himself in order to bring darkness to the world with his anger. And thus, if the clouds begin to press hard, then, like a person, he becomes exhausted from sweat, and his sweat becomes rain. In the same way, the Archon, called the Harvest, if he is carried away by a virgin, spreads a plague throughout the entire earth to kill people! This body in relation to the great world is called the world. And all people have roots below connected with those above. So, when he is carried away by a virgin, then he begins to cut off the roots of people, and when their roots are cut off, then an ulcer appears, and thus they die. And if the tops of the root shake from this work, then an earthquake occurs and follows, and at the same time the Strongman shakes. This is the cause of death. I will also tell you about how the soul is poured into five bodies. First, a small part of it is purified, then it is transferred to the body of a dog, or camel, or other animal. And if the soul has committed murder, then it passes into the bodies of lepers. If caught at the harvest, then a stutterer is sent to the body. The names of the soul are the following: mind, concept, understanding, reflection, meaning. And the reapers who reap are similar to the Archons, who have been in darkness from time immemorial, since they sat down as part of the armor of the first man. Therefore, they need to move into grass, or into beans, or into barley, or into ears, or into vegetables, so that they are compressed and chopped. He who eats bread must also, having become bread, be eaten. Whoever kills a bird will become a bird. Whoever kills a mouse will become a mouse himself. Whoever is rich in this world and leaves his body, he needs to move into the body of a beggar, so that he will walk and beg, and after that he will pass into eternal torment. Since this body belongs to the Archons and matter, whoever plants the Persian tree will need to pass into many bodies until this tree falls down. He who builds a house for himself will be scattered throughout all bodies. He who washes squeezes his soul in water. He who does not bring anything as a gift to the elect as a sign of his piety will suffer for entire generations, and will move into the bodies of the catechumens until he presents many gifts of piety. Therefore, they offer the chosen ones the best of dishes. And when they want to eat bread, they first of all pray, turning to the bread with these words: “I neither pressed you, nor ground you, nor crushed you, nor did I put you in the oven, but someone else did it and brought it to me; I eat innocent of anything.” And when he says this within himself, then he says to the catechumen: “I prayed for you,” and thus he leaves. As I told you a little earlier, if anyone reaps, he will be reaped: so, if someone throws wheat into the mill, he himself will be thrown, or whoever rolls the dough will be dumped, and whoever baked the bread will be baked. Therefore, they are prohibited from doing this. And one more thing: there are other worlds of luminaries, which, after setting in this world, rise there. And if anyone walks on the earth, he spoils the earth; whoever moves his hand, he spoils the air, because the air is the soul of people, and animals, and birds, fish, and reptiles. And if anyone is in the world, then I told you that this body is not from God, but from matter, and there is darkness, and it must be darkened. About heaven. It is not called the world. The plants in it are lust and other seductions that corrupt the thoughts of these people. The tree in paradise from which they know good is Jesus and His knowledge which is in the world. The one who receives it distinguishes between good and evil. However, the world itself is not the work of God, but it was formed from a part of matter, and therefore everything will perish. And what the Archons stole from the first man fills the moon and is cleansed from the world every day. And if a soul leaves here without knowing the truth, it surrenders to the demons so that they can tame it in fiery hell, and after punishment it moves into bodies so that it can be tamed, and then it is thrown into the great fire to the end. He says this about our prophets: there is a spirit of wickedness, or iniquity of darkness, which arose from the beginning: and therefore the deceived did not speak, for the Archon blinded their minds. And if anyone follows their words, he dies forever, tied to a block because he did not receive knowledge of the Paraclete. He commanded one of his chosen ones, no more than seven in number, the following: “When you stop eating, pray and put oil that has been cursed by many names on your head to confirm this faith.” But the names are not revealed to me: only those seven use them. And one more thing: our revered and great name: Hosts is the nature of man and the father of lust. And therefore, ordinary people worship lust, recognizing it as god. About Adam, how he was created, they say this: he who said: come, and let us make man in our image and likeness (Gen. 1:26), or in the image that we see, is the Archon, who said to the other Archons: come, give me from the light that we have received, and let us create man in the image of us, the Archons, which we see: this is the first man. And thus he created man. They also created Eve in a similar way, giving her from their lust in order to deceive Adam. And through them, by the creative power of the Archon, the creation of the world was accomplished. God has no participation in this world, does not rejoice over it, because the Archons have robbed it from time immemorial and caused it sorrow. For this reason, He sends and daily snatches away His soul from them with the help of these luminaries, the sun and the moon, and every creature is plundered. And about the one who spoke with Moses and with the Jews and the priests, he says that he was the prince of darkness, so that Christians and Jews and pagans are one and the same, because they worship the same God. He deceives them with his lusts, not being the God of truth. Therefore, those who hope in that God who spoke with Moses and the prophets will be bound together with him, because they did not trust in the God of truth: for He spoke with them according to their lusts. After all this, at the end he says, as he himself wrote: when the Elder shows his image, then the Strong Man will throw off the earth, and then a great fire will come out and consume the whole world. Then he will release a block with the New Aeon so that all the souls of sinners will be linked forever; this will happen when the idol comes. And all the creations: Jesus, who is on the small ship, and the Mother of Life, and the twelve helmsmen, and the Virgin of Light, and the third Elder, who is on the large ship, and the Living Spirit, and the Wall of great fire, and the Wall of wind, air, water and inner living fire, live with the small luminary until the fire consumes the whole world: and in how many years this will happen, I did not know. And after this, the restoration of the two natures will take place, and the Archons will dwell in their lower borders, and the Father in the highlands, having again received what is theirs. He passed on all this teaching to three of his disciples, ordering each to go to different countries. Adda received the borders of the east for his part, Thomas received the land of Syria, and Hermias undertook a journey to Egypt. And to this day they live there, wanting to establish the subject of teaching there.” I suggested this from the book of the aforementioned Archelaus. And thus the school of Manes was formed to scatter the tares in the world, and thus he spewed out the tares of his teaching. How much one can counter such slander from this shameless vain talker is obvious to everyone. Even if the speech was not smoothed out to refute it, it will be enough to disgrace him just to know that what they have the force of law is untenable and has no meaning. For he destroys the previous with the subsequent, and speaks differently about the subsequent in comparison with the previous. He wants to produce the world either from God or from the Archons, and God is not at all to blame for the fate of the world, but the world itself is perishing: he says that the firmament is the skin of the Archons, then he says that it will one day be crucified in the heights of the pole, will move and cover in the form of a cloud, rise up and strive for the vision of a maiden and the beauty of a young man. What a great shame! What is more vile, disgusting and shameful than to portray the Spirit of truth under the guise of a woman? Sometimes He says that He will one day appear to the Archons in the form of a man. It is shameful for a man to become drunk, to become like a woman, and to appear in the image of a woman: but it is much more shameful for women to become a man and bear the image of a man. Will not the Spirit of Virtue and the Divine be more offended by this inventor Manes? How then do those whose skin is flayed lust? Tell me, my dear. After they are crucified, how is their skin flayed off? And if they are crucified, how can they chase after the invisible Power? Who will endure this blasphemer, who determines to feed us with the sweat of princes and send us rain from a shameful eruption? How does he and his disciples drink this drink, drawing it from the rains? Isn’t it ridiculous for someone who, overcome by bodily needs, drinks sweat? No matter how different the sin is, the punishment for someone who sins unwittingly will not be the same as for someone who commits a sin voluntarily. Even if it were so, which let it not be (for it is a frantic deceiver who invents it), then other people, when they scoop and drink, not knowing that these are sweat and shameful eruptions, are more worthy of merciful forgiveness than the one who, vainly wounded by his conscience, through his weakness, uses this drink and satisfies the other demands of the flesh. And he has many things in which he deceived his followers through the lips of lies. Really, what about him does not deserve to be blinded? For example, he thinks that the seeds of plants, fruits and vegetables are souls; how funny it is, we will try to say against his fabulousness to expose him. If the grains of lentils, beans, peas and other plants are souls, and the soul of an ox is the same, then, according to his teaching, those who eat meat deserve more praise than those who lead an ascetic life. As can be seen from his fables, he was afraid that someone, having sat down an animate creature, an animal or something else, would himself become the same, but it happens more on the contrary. Fifty people, or a hundred, will all begin to eat the meat of one ox, as is in accordance with his empty invention; however, in reproof it must be said that fifty or a hundred people become guilty of only one soul. And whoever eats plant grains will be guilty of more than thirty and forty souls for one sip of food. And everything about him is empty and funny! To everyone who has a mind about the Lord, the evidence of truth from the truest teaching is clear. For to explain what is necessary for human life there is nothing more true than the Savior. And this barbarian who came to us, a Persian and a slave in mind - for he did not care at all that he was a slave in body - says that all souls are equal and one is in everyone, both in people and in cattle, and in animals and birds and reptiles, and in birds living in the air and in the sea, in wild animals, and in the seeds of plants, in trees and in everything else visible. But this is not how the Lord showed us. If this were so, then, having come to save humanity, He would have made efforts and care for the healing of animals and would have given resurrection to fallen animals. But this is not how he narrates and this is not how he teaches, let it not be so! But He makes it known that He saves human souls, which he briefly expressed in an allegory, saying: I came only for the lost sheep (Matthew 15:24) and with these words indicates the whole of human nature. And what else does he say? Heal all those who are brought to him by menstruation and those suffering from various ailments (Matthew 4:24). They brought to him the blind, the deaf, the crippled, the paralyzed, the infirm, and he showed benefits and healing to everyone; but nowhere is it written that animals were brought to him. And again: when He came to the country of Gergesin, as Mark says, or into the borders of Gergesin, as Luke says, or Gadarenes, as Matthew says, or Gergesin, as is in some lists - for this place was in the middle of three areas - and behold, two demons, very fierce, came from the tomb, crying out, saying: Leave for us and for you, Jesus, Son of God, that you have come torment us ahead of time? We know you. Who are you the Holy One of God? There was a herd of pigs grazing there, and the devil prayed to him, saying, if you drive us out of the people, send us to the pigs. And they rushed into the sea and died in the waters. Those who were shepherding ran and proclaimed it in the city (Matthew 8:28–33). Matthew speaks of two demoniacs, but he simply notes about pigs and does not show the number. And Mark accurately indicated the number of pigs, namely, that He came to the borders of Gergesin and the demon-possessed one, who was bound with iron snakes and broke the bonds and lived in tombs, cried out: leave what to me and to you, Jesus, the Son of God? You have come ahead of time to torment us. 280 And Jesus asked him: What is your name? And he said, “Legion, as if he had enraged many people, came into him 281.” And He begged Him not to send them out of the country, but to send them to the swine: but that herd of swine was grazing, and He commanded them to go up to the swine. And the herd rushed along the shore into the sea (it was like two thousand) and drowned in the sea. And those who shepherded them ran and proclaimed them in the city (Mark 5:1-14). Could it be that God the Word, who became man for our sake, asked out of ignorance and did not know the name of the demon before he asked? But God usually reveals what is hidden in every matter through the lips of those questioned. So here, in order to show the terrible power and multitude of demons, he makes a question, so that an amazing thing will be revealed from the lips of the possessed one. And he prayed to him, saying: do not send us into the abyss, but command us to enter into the pigs. And commanded them. And entered the pig. And the herd of swine rushed along the shore into the sea and perished in the waters (Mark 5:12ff. Luke 8:31). O great love of God! How the Lord exposes lies, and shows the truth to His servants in deeds and words and in all His care. For in fact he showed that there is not one and the same soul in people, and in cattle, and in animals. If there was one and the same soul, then why, wanting to cleanse one, or save one soul of a demon-possessed person, did he allow two thousand souls to perish at once, if the soul were the same? How does he cleanse one, or one soul, while allowing demons to enter other bodies or souls? Are not the affairs of the world clear? Are these words not brought into effect in the light? Isn't the face of truth bright? Isn’t everything clear to those who understand and right to those who gain understanding ( Proverbs 8:9 )? Who, having heard this and compared it, will not expose Manes, who sews what he should not, in order to seduce people’s minds from reality? But the deceivers speak again. I heard one ranting when he heard this very reasoning from us; Having turned, this bestial thought whether he could not object to the truth of God, and spewing out words full of mockery, he decided to act with lies against the truth and said: after all, death was useful for pigs, because souls were freed from bodies and saved. How great is the madness of those who do not see and are blind in their minds and do not accept with their sense of hearing what they themselves say! If he generally recognizes the liberation of souls from the body as salvation, then the Savior should have better sent away the demon-possessed person, so that the soul could be saved upon liberation from the human body. And He, therefore, loved the souls in pigs more than the soul of man. Why didn’t He allow the man and the pigs to throw himself into the sea and die, in order to cleanse and save all the souls of both man and pigs? But that’s not what we see; but He calls Lazarus four days old from the grave and resurrects him and returns him to the world, without wishing him harm and without causing him anything worse. For He loved Lazarus says the Scripture (John 11:36). And if he loved, then why did he force him to return to his body if it was bad? Why didn't he rather leave one day dead and freed from the body? Let no one think that Lazarus died immediately. For the Holy Gospel clearly shows that Jesus reclined and Lazarus reclined with Him; and in the legends we found that Lazarus was thirty years old when he was resurrected. And after the resurrection, he lived another thirty years and then went to the Lord, and after death his name is pronounced with praise, like others, until the day of resurrection, when the Only Begotten, as promised, will return the body to the soul and the soul to the body and will reward everyone who has done it, either good or evil (2 Cor. 5:10). ..39. If there were no resurrection of bodies, then where does the gnashing of teeth come from (Matthew 8:12)? But let some people not say again what this one who has lost his mind said, namely, that our teeth are designed for chewing. What food will we eat after the resurrection of the dead? If Jesus, after the resurrection, again ate part of the baked fish and honeycombs from the bees (Luke 24:42) and ate with his disciples for forty days (Acts 1:4), will there really be food eating then? And about food it is clearly said that blessed is he who eats bread in the kingdom of heaven (Luke 14:15). And the Lord himself promised: you will sit at my Father’s table, eating and drinking (Luke 22:30). But He alone knows about eating and drinking, because the eye has not seen and the ear has not heard, and the heart of man has not sighed what God has prepared for those who love Him (1 Cor. 2:9). And we touched on this place to clarify the difference between souls. And indeed, the truth itself and a decent example (i.e., Lazarus) prove that man has a different soul, and cattle has another, and that the Lord came to save the soul not of cattle, but of man, because cattle are not subject to judgment; but people will inherit the kingdom of heaven and people will be judged. For, says the Only Begotten, these go into eternal judgment, and these into eternal life (Matthew 25:46). What will the inventors of questions say to this? When they are brought to this and do not understand the clarity of the saying, they are annoyed, inventing objections within themselves rather than grasping what is useful for themselves, namely, that Matthew speaks of two demoniacs, and Luke tells of one. But one of the Evangelists says that the thieves crucified with Christ blasphemed him (Matthew 27:44), and the other says that not only did not both blaspheme Him, but also makes it known about the answer of one: he was superior to the other and said: neither do you fear God, for we are condemned for the same thing, but this saint did nothing. And at this he cried out, saying: Remember me, O Jesus, when thou art come into thy kingdom. And the Savior said to him: Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise (Luke 23:39.43). Apparently there is a contradiction here in Scripture, but everything is clear. For although Matthew mentions two demoniacs, Luke also mentions the same; since Scripture usually presents the causes of events, therefore Luke mentions not two, but one. Indeed, two were healed of demons, but one remained in faith, and the other apostatized. As a result of remaining in faith, he followed Jesus, as the Gospel says, wherever he was ready to go (Luke 8:38). Therefore Luke omitted the other, and mentioned only one, who was in the kingdom of heaven. And the explorer of truth will not find anything contradictory here. Here is another similar case, which is why the Gospel tells the same subject, as if having one in mind. The Lord cleansed ten lepers, and nine went away and did not give glory to God; and one returned and stayed here and was praised by the Lord, as He said: ten lepers were cleansed, why did not one of them return to give glory to God, but only this foreigner? (Luke 17:18). You see that, referring to the good feeling and deed of gratitude, he mentions one instead of ten. For the same reason, one Evangelist mentioned robbers. For we usually use the singular instead of the plural and the plural instead of the singular; we say, for example: we told you, we saw you and are coming to you: but it is not two who speak, but one who is here, one, according to established custom, speaks in the plural on behalf of many. So one Evangelist put it in the plural, and another narrates that there was only one blasphemer, and the other confessed and acquired salvation. See how the truth is evident in everything, and there is nothing contradictory in Scripture. However, considering all this in Scripture, it seems to me that we have expanded the narrative. But let there be labor for us in spreading the word, just to expose the enemies of the truth and to please its sons with the healing medicines of the truth. Let's look at other arguments of the deceiver. He says that the two covenants are contrary to each other and that the God who spoke in the law is different from the God in the Gospel. He gives this one the name of prince, and this one he calls Son and Father, his good God. Oh, if only he spoke the truth and, deluding himself, did not blaspheme himself! With this word we ourselves agree that the good offspring of the good Father, light from light, God from God, true God from true God, came to us in order to save us. At your own place, and not in someone else’s place. They didn’t accept His own. The little ones received Him, and gave them the realm of children of God, to be born not of blood nor of flesh, but of God (John 1:11). Although no one in the world was born without flesh and blood, everyone was born having flesh and blood. For what were they before they were born in the flesh, or what could we be without the flesh? since the world came from God, and we, the created ones, were born from the flesh of fathers and mothers, then the Lord came to give birth to us by Spirit and fire. We were born and no one can deny the first birth, nor that we are of the flesh. And by the second birth we were born neither of flesh nor of blood, that is, without using the help of flesh and blood, but having been born by the Spirit, we have flesh and soul, no longer carnal, but blood and flesh and soul, spiritually united. Give them the space to become children of God, that is, those who have changed their minds and pleased God with flesh and blood and soul. He who has come into his own is not a stranger, but the Lord of all. And therefore he says: He who spoke as a prophet, behold I am (Is. 52:6). And he said to the Jews: If they believed quickly in Moses, they quickly believed in me, for that is written about me (John 5:46). And again: Your father Abraham would have been glad to see my day, and he saw and rejoiced (8:56). Again: this is what your fathers did as a prophet (Luke 6:23). Also: you will be blessed when they reproach you and say that all evil is against you, you liar. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is abundant in heaven. Thus I cast out the prophets who were before you (Matthew 5:11,12). And in another place: Jerusalem, you beat the prophets and stoned the messengers, since your fellow children wanted to do so? (Matthew 23:37). The word: since it shows that he tried to gather Jerusalem through the prophets. If the word: the one who beats the prophets speaks accusatoryly, it means He cares about the prophets. And whoever cared for the prophets cared not for strangers, but for his own. And the blood will be required, he says, to be shed from the blood of Abel to the righteous Zechariah, who was killed between the church and the altar (Luke 11:50,51; Matthew 23:35). And one more thing: having taken everything and the table of the traders, he said: Do not create for my Father’s house the house that was bought (Matthew 21:12; John 2:16). And he said to Mary and Joseph: What do you seek from Me? Do you not know that in those even my Father is worthy to be me (Luke 2:49)? And the Gospel, after He said: Do not do anything to the house of my Father, the house that was bought, immediately adds: and remembering His disciples, as it is written: It is a pity for your house to tear me down. (John 2:17). And how much from the Gospels and Apostolic writings can be said to denounce the madness of Manes! And why does he want to separate the Old Testament from the new, when the Old Testament testifies to the Savior and when not only the Savior, but also the Apostles themselves recognize the Old Testament, for example, David says: the Lord said to my Lord: here is on my right hand. If he calls him Lord, what kind of son will he have (Matthew 22:44,45)? And in another place it says: when the children cried out: Hosanna to the son of David (Matthew 21:9) and Jesus did not forbid them, the Pharisees said: don’t you hear what they say? forbid them. He said to them: If these remain silent, the stone will cry out (Luke 19:39,40). He is the son of David in the flesh, and the Lord of David in spirit, therefore both names are possible and true; for nothing here is contrary to the truth. But, in order not to dwell any longer on this subject, I will be content with this evidence and move on to other issues in order to expose the deceiver. If the body is the work of one God, and the soul of another God, then what kind of communication, my dear, can there be between both of them? And I look with fear at how our small, limited mind strives to fall into such a deep abyss of assumptions. Therefore, I will restrain myself so as not to cause much trouble in reading for those who can expose the deceiver with one testimony. Participation in the same thing is not characteristic of creatures that differ from each other, but this is the work of one, or at least the action of two friendly creatures. And so if the body and soul are in union, then this is the work of one God. For there is no separation between them, because both together act in accordance and together agree on something. If, according to the teachings of Manes, the Archons, having absorbed the soul, created this body for it, like a bond, then how do they then enclose the absorbed soul in the body? For everything that is consumed is destroyed, and everything that is destroyed turns into nothingness. But what turns into non-existence and no longer exists, cannot be imprisoned in any place, and for it there is not and cannot be a place for imprisonment in bonds, since it does not exist. Having lost sight of the train of his thoughts, a person often forgets what he was talking about, and, without realizing it, again refutes what he once asserted. And Manes sometimes definitely expresses that the absorbed soul is imprisoned in the bodies of those existing here, and sometimes he asserts that it is abducted by the Archons from heaven, from the whole armor of the good God, as if it were not yet absorbed, but only taken captive. And in another place he does not say in accordance with this that she was taken captive, but expresses an opinion about her in a different way, asserting that she was arbitrarily thrown by a heavenly force in the form of bait, just as a goat is placed in a pit to catch a wild animal, so that when the latter, attracted by the bait, comes down to take the goat, capture him too. And if the mountain power, that is, the good God, or the Light, as Manes calls it, let go of the goat from its own power, then at least it caught the beast, but the goat will be eaten first, and thus the mountain power will do more harm to itself, throwing part of itself to be devoured by the beast, in order to show that with the part in which it suffered harm, it caught the beast: in this case, it would not defeat the beast as having strength and advantage and powerful in words or will, but she uses a variety of tricks and cunning to gain the opportunity to take possession of the beast. And if the beast had been completely captured, then even then she would have lost some of her own part, even if she managed to catch the beast, because the goat was eaten. If the heavenly force sent a soul here with the goal of capturing and connecting the Principles and Powers through the soul, then it did not achieve the goal it had in mind. For although she sent her soul to catch or set a net, she herself was caught and fell into the net, because having come from a pure nature, she first fell into the bonds of a material body, and then into many sinful indecencies. Thus the word of the deceiver and the teaching of the wicked are cast down on all sides. Now let us consider his teaching about the Mother of Life, regarding which he claims that she came from the emitted Force. This Mother of Life allegedly produced the first man and the five elements, which, according to him, are: wind, light, water, fire and matter: having clothed himself in them, as if to prepare for war, man descended and entered into war with darkness. The princes of darkness, fighting with him, devoured something from his armor, which is the soul. What hypocrisy of a deceiver! What an incongruous, mocking and ridiculous opinion! In retribution to God everywhere he ascribes powerlessness to Him, and everywhere he assigns ignorance to the omniscient God. For, having expelled from himself, according to him, the Mother of Life, God bears reproach, because either he did not know what was being done by the Mother of Life, or that what happened turned out to happen differently, contrary to reasonable expectation. since the one who realized that it would happen exactly this way, and meanwhile later saw that it happened differently, not according to his will, should be accused of ignorance. The Mother of Life, which he calls the power emitted from God, how shameful it is to call it the matter of life! For those who have a sound mind are not accustomed to imagine anything feminine in the deity. And this woman produced the first man, says Manes, and in general, she imagines the first man, nature and the Mother of Life in the same sense as it happens with us. For man received his name from the earth, and so did the mother, created by God for Adam, who gave birth to us from the earth. And the bestial Manes, in his own fantasy, imagines that the same thing happens in heaven as happens on earth, which cannot be allowed, as the word of God teaches everywhere; for it says: a heavenly body, and an earthly body: but one glory is to the heavenly, and another to the earthly (1 Cor. 15:40). The Apostle, of course, did not speak about what is above the heavens, but about these visible bodies, that is, about the sun, or the moon, or bodies located on the earth, and about the bodies of saints, as we humble think. Whether the Apostle, with his deepest abyss of knowledge, is talking about heavenly bodies here, we certainly do not know; but it is said that they differ a lot from the earthly ones: how, my dear, can they be likened to the earthly ones? You also say that the first man made wind, light, fire, water, matter all his weapons; in this case, if the first man is from above, and came here to equip himself with all the armor and turn it into his protection and strengthening, does it mean that what is in this world is more powerful than the one who came from above - from heaven? For water is what is visible, light is what appears, matter, in your opinion, is destroyed, wind is what we hear, and fire is what we all freely use in our needs. And if through these elements a person wages war with the princes of darkness, then tell me: how is the war waged? Who is the main military leader who gives the sign for war? Let's tear apart the phalanxes, bring together both military wings. Who will throw the first arrow at the one who violently attacked the person of the Principalities and Powers? Is the wind at war, my dear? Or is matter, in your opinion, destructible? Or fire created by the Lord for our use? Or light, in turn, giving way to darkness in the course of time established by God? Or water? How? Explain that you are talking idle talk. We see that with the help of the elements a lot of good and bad things happen. Thus, with the help of fire, sacrifices are made to idols, and fire does not refuse this and does not prevent sin. Worshipers of demons make libations with sea water, and the one who attempted to do this absurdity with water never encountered any obstacles to this. How many sea robbers killed on the seas? And even more: water does not resist the princes of evil, as you say, but rather assists them, since it is not water that is guilty, but each person is guilty of his own sin. Oh, how great is your idle talk! What benefit did the preparation of weapons and arming with the elements bring to the first man, as you say, who descended to wage war and was brought into a difficult position by darkness? For you claim that the man was down there in distress, and the Father heard his prayer, as you say, and sent another power sent out by Him, called the Living Spirit. Take off your mask, comedian Menander! Being such, you cover yourself by talking about the affairs of adulterers and drunkards: you have no modesty. By introducing Hellenic fables instead of truth, you mislead those who are carried away by you. It seems that Hesiod was wiser than you when he told fables about the origin of the gods, just like Orpheus and Euripides. For, although they told a story that was worthy of laughter, they nevertheless clearly show that, being poets, they created something that did not exist in reality: and you seem to be talking about something real, in order to create a further error. You claim that this Living Spirit, who descended below, gave his right hand and brought out of the darkness what you call the first man, who was exposed to danger in the low places, who came down to save the devoured soul and could not save, but he himself fell into danger. The one sent for salvation found himself in danger and began to need another messenger to save him. How much more in danger was the soul for which the first man sent was exposed to danger when he came? However, a second one was also sent for salvation, whom you yourself call the Living Spirit. This means that the Father changed his mind and sent an even stronger one to become the savior of the first man. Didn’t the Father know that that first man was weak and only after knowing him from experience did he release the Spirit from himself and send him, assuming that this one would save him from danger? How great is this absurdity, Manichaean, and how untenable is your idle talk of all teaching! He says that the Spirit descended and gave his right hand and brought the first man out of danger. Because of this, Manes conveyed to his disciples the secret commandment to give each other their right hand when meeting each other as a sign of supposedly deliverance from darkness. For he asserts that everything is in darkness except himself alone. And the blind, avoiding the slander of those who see, in order to avoid ridicule, spread the rumor about themselves that they see well. Then, making some other plans and constructions, as if he himself were present there, and inventing something that does not exist, he also says that then this living Spirit created the world, and, having clothed himself in three other powers and descended down, brought out the Archons from there and established them in the firmament, which is their sphere. He says: “he endured” and does not understand, the bestial one, that he is refuting himself, and condemns what he praised, and what he condemned, he praises, acting like a drunken person, or a madman and talking one thing instead of the other. For he says that the Archons, who are down in the darkness, are evil beings and this place is a place of corruption. And if from this corruption, if from the realm of darkness the Spirit forcibly lifted the Archons to the higher, more for punishment, for punishment he moved from a bad place to a higher place, then the upper will no longer be a good place, it will not contain life force, but rather death. And the lower one will no longer be a place of punishment, but rather a place of residence of some good being, from where the Spirit, wanting to move the Archons as punishment, transferred them from places pleasant and characteristic of them to a place of punishment, in order to thus punish them. And besides, if the Spirit created the world, then why do you say in another place that the world did not come from God? And if the firmament became the body of the Archons, then to what cross did he nail the Archons? For in one place you say that they are nailed to the firmament, and in another you represent this very firmament as their body. And your incoherence in words is great and has no agreement with the truth. So, in every way, you turned out to be an enemy for us, and even more so for yourself and for those who accept your opinion. Ch. 49. Further, he also says that after the Spirit crucified the Archons on the sphere, he created the luminaries, which are the remains of the soul. He does not say: soul, but the remains of the soul. What an untenable doctrine! What false and incoherent words! For every remainder is a part of the whole, and the whole is greater than the remainder. So, if the luminaries are remains, then let him show us something greater than the luminaries, so that we can see the soul. If the whole is absorbed and consumed, and the luminaries are a stop, then the very luminaries located below the crucified Archons will be absorbed, since the Archons occupy the highest position. If, as a result of the crucifixion, they can no longer hold the souls and luminaries behind them, then your absurd word has fallen, Manichaeus. Then, after the reproaches made to the Sovereign, he also teaches that Matter also created all sorts of plants from itself, and when they were kidnapped by the Archons, the great Archon called all the Archons, and the first ones at that, received from them one power each and created man in the image of that first man and imprisoned the soul in him, as if in bonds. This is the assumption about the union of the soul with the body. And when, he says, the Living Father saw that the soul was imprisoned in the body, He, being gracious and merciful, sent His beloved Son to save the soul. For this purpose, says Manes, and also for the sake of the Earth Ruler, the Son was sent. And when the Son came, He was transformed into the form of a man and appeared to people as a man, and people thought that he had been born. So, having come and completed the work to save people, he built a machine with twelve vessels, which, turning in a circle, raises up the souls of the dead. And having taken them with its rays, the great luminary purifies and transmits them to the moon: and thus the so-called circle of the moon is filled. Do you see how great is the empty chatter of this deceiver and the forgetfulness, as if from intoxication? For what he says, he consigns to oblivion, and what he apparently affirms, he changes and destroys, destroying his own teaching, expressing himself one way in one place and another in another; with the next he destroys the previous one, and what he first destroyed, he now builds again, as if in order to show that he did not compose it on his own, but prompted by an unclean spirit, he says one thing instead of the other, like those delirious in a fever. He speaks of the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ; but it happened many years after the origin of the luminaries and after the construction of the so-called machine with 12 vessels. There have always been stars in the sky, since they were created, or, if they want to call them that, the elements, or the spaces and extent of the sky. On the fourth day of peacemaking, everything was arranged perfectly, and nothing was to the detriment of what is controlled by God. The appearance of Christ in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar began with a sermon 30 years after His birth, which falls on the 5500th year from the creation of the world and the 30th year of His age, and 33 years passed before the crucifixion. How did luminaries and stars exist in the sky from the beginning? If Manes says that before this time the Son came and created them, then his idle talk is unfounded: for before the existence of man on earth, the so-called elements and the absurdly called twelve vessels, and the machine, with which he wants to fool those deceived by him with attractive names, arose. For anyone with reason, it is clear from Scripture itself and the consistent story that all the stars and luminaries came into existence on the fourth day, before the creation of Adam, the primordial man. But Manes says that the Son came in the form of a man to arrange the 12 vessels and appeared to people as a man: but he does not at all understand the economy that was from the beginning, and thinks to say something, and like a blind man who chooses his own path, he leads those blinded by him forward along the path to the false. But as soon as the truth appears and opens his eyes with the help of intelligent people, his idle talk turns into laughter. For to what kind of people did the Son appear when they did not yet exist? How did he appear in the form of a person without taking on a body? And if He fulfilled everything, appearing in a fleshly coming, and yet not being a man, then the whole thing was a ghost. So he didn’t show up and didn’t come. For if, having come, he did not really exist, then first of all he did not come. If they thought that He was a man, and yet He was not a man, then what prompted the Word of God to appear as a man when He was not? Was it only that, attracted by creditors, He wanted to cover himself with this appearance so that he could hide from those who were looking for him. If he appeared, and at the same time was not a man, then what kind of truth is this? For in truth there is no lie, as the Only Begotten says about himself: I am the truth and the life (John 14:6). Life does not include death and truth does not suffer change, so that when it upsets the truth, it does not cease to be the truth. So his pompous assumption falls at every word. For the stars were not created after the coming of Christ, and people did not exist before the origin of the stars. And here and there the erring Manichaeus was exposed, as I have already shown. As for his assumption about the moon, he claims that its circle is filled with souls. But before man died on earth, where did the circle fill from? And after the first man Adam died on earth after 930 years of life, how did one soul fill the circle? Or how did they get the name 930 years and years in general if there was no full moon and no loss of the moon? She carried out the course established for her, receiving filling not from souls, but having the command of God's wisdom. In all animals there is one and the same soul, says Manes, in order to thereby equalize the soul of man and mouse and worm and other ignoble bodies. As for other subjects in the idle talk of Manes, such as, for example, that a virgin appears to the Archons, sometimes in the form of a man, and sometimes in the form of a woman, then having in mind, probably, a hermaphrodite, he depicts the passions of his own lust, characteristic of this very demon. Then he says that when the great Archon is carried away by this so-called maiden, he descends his clouds and produces a plague, and begins to cut off the roots, and thus death occurs. But the bestial one does not know that he should rather call life what the blasphemer calls death, because through it the soul is liberated from bodies. If, in general, the presence of the soul in the body is considered by the Archons to be a prison sentence, then the Archon will never do anything to free the soul from the prison, which, according to the teachings of Manes, is forcibly held there. And how much absurdity there is in this funny teaching. And other objects are full of funny things; for example, their so-called chosen ones. And indeed they were chosen by the devil for condemnation, so that what was said would be fulfilled: and their chosen food (Hab. 1:16). For they sit like drones and do nothing, but fuss (2 Thess. 3:11) and know nothing; The Holy Apostle proclaims about them, saying, as if by prophetic knowledge, that some idle and self-indulgent people do not come from divine teaching, but are stunned by the teaching of the devil; whoever does not, let him eat (v. 10), the Apostle says about them, in order to depict the state of these careless ones. They command their catechumens to feed the elect lavishly. And they bring to their chosen ones everything that is needed, of course, so that the one who feeds the chosen souls turns out to be pious. And they, having accepted what was brought (ridiculous to say!), instead of praying for those who brought it, they impose a curse on them, testifying that they did them more evil than good: for this is what they say: “I did not sow you, nor reap, nor grind, and I did not put you in the oven. Another brought it and I ate it. It's not my fault." And thus they quietly declared their breadwinners to be villains. Yes indeed. For he who denies God, who created everything, should not cuckoldly feed on the works of God. They do not cut the bunch of grapes, but eat the grapes, in order to be completely exposed that they adhere to drunkenness rather than perceive the truth. For what is more difficult? He who picks grapes only immediately cuts off the cluster of grapes, but he who eats, by chewing and crushing each grain, gives himself much more labor and worry; thus, the one who chewed and swallowed is not like the one who immediately cut off. But they act this way just to appear to be leaders in what has a sign of truth. Then he speaks boldly about paradise, which he calls peace. In him, he says, there are trees that we consider worthy of praise, but he denies them in order to be truly deceived by the serpent; just as the terrible serpent corrupted the hearing of the gentle Eve, so his hearing is corrupted. For, says Manes, what is called the trees in paradise, this is the essence of the seduction of passions that corrupt the minds of people. And that tree in paradise from which they know good is Jesus himself, that is, the knowledge that is in the world. The one who receives it distinguishes between good and evil. Do you see how he perverts everything that is right? Meanwhile, the Apostle clearly cries out and teaches: I am afraid that, just as the serpent deceived Eve with wickedness, so will your minds decay from the purity and simplicity of Christ. (2 Cor. 11:3). See how he made him out to be a deceiver, a cunning man, and a seducer of Eve. And in another place the same Apostle says: a man should not grow his hair, for this is the glory and image of God (1 Cor. 11:14. 7). Do you see that he called the hair worn on the body the glory of God, and does not speak about the glory of God in the soul? And after this he says: Adam was not deceived, but his wife sinned. Childbearing will be saved if they continue in the faith (1 Tim. 2:14,15). See how simply the truth is preached in the divine Scripture; Therefore, it is in vain that Manes boasts so much or, rather, is an object of ridicule for those who have perfect wisdom. Then he immediately says that the world did not receive existence from God, but was formed from a part of matter. From the fact that he disagrees with himself, but in his inventions both destroys and creates, it is obvious to everyone that this is the way of thinking of an empty talker. He also talks about the transmigration of souls from bodies to bodies, which lie, as it turns out, he probably borrowed either from Platov, or from the Stoic Zeno, or from some other fanatic. For how is it possible for the soul to pass from body to body? If bodies were still formed and ready for the reception of souls, then in some way this theatrical fable would still be possible; if this seed is formed from a small drop; then how did the soul find such space in such a small body? For what is formed is formed exactly this way. In this case, his teaching is no longer valid; souls do not move from body to body. For without the union of the female with the male and the male with the female, nothing is formed in each animal. Is the soul really placed in such a position that the copulation of two bodies could confirm this invention of the deceiver? And there is a lot of absurdity in this, if you just think about it. But in order not to change our modesty, we considered it sufficient to only look at this subject from a distance. So I will move away from this pernicious opinion, for all such reasoning is inappropriate. If there is a transmigration of souls from body to body, and what was once a man later becomes a dog; then why is a dog not born from a man or from a bull? Why isn't a bird born? But if some monster ever happened to appear over a long period of time, it would happen for the sake of a sign. And nature knows its limits and does not change the nature of either man or cattle, forming it in some other way contrary to nature, but in every breed there is the same quality. And if in general no other body comes from the body instead of the known one; Isn’t it much more impossible for a person’s soul to move into another body? And why, he says, does the soul transmigrate? So that, if in a person she did not receive the knowledge of the truth, then, having been in a dog or a horse, she would humble herself and come to consciousness and then return to the human body; Thus, having received knowledge, she will be accepted into the circle of the moon. But it is strange to imagine that, having been in a person who has schools, grammars, sophists and an indescribable multitude of arts, and the ability to speak, and hearing, and intelligence, the soul remained in ignorance, and having been in a pig, it learned more; By this, Manes rather shows that his teaching about knowledge, due to his error and wickedness, is characteristic of pigs. He, speaking about the creation of Adam, substitutes one thing for the other in his error; Having said: Let us make man in our image and likeness (Gen. 1:26), he adds the words: Come, let us do what is not written, but it is written: Let us make man in our image and likeness. He is denounced by the Holy Apostle and the Lord himself in the Gospel. When the Pharisees told Him that it was not good for man to be alone (Gen. 2:18), and also that Moses commanded that the book of immorality should be given away and that the woman should be cast out (Matt. 19:7), then the Lord, denouncing the Pharisees, said: Moses wrote because of your hardness of heart, but from the beginning it was not so (Mk. 10:4,5). But He who created the male sex and the female sex created. And he said: for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and both will become one flesh, and immediately added, saying: if God has united, let not man separate (Matthew 19:4-6), showing that God, that is, His own Father, created Adam and Eve and that an honest marriage was established by Him. Following Christ and St. The Apostle, the preacher of truth, says: this mystery is great; I speak into Christ and into the Church (Eph. 5:82); The Apostle had in mind the example of Adam and Eve, created by God; When God created Adam, he said: Behold, bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. And for this reason a person will leave; and it is also said that I created him a rib for a wife (Gen. 2:22,23,24). The Apostle speaks of nothing else but this great mystery. And although he talks about the origin of husband and wife, he moves to a higher meaning through allegory. Why does Manes introduce a vile interpretation that is alien to the truth of God, blasphemously asserting that what was created by God was created by the Archon, and deviating the thought from the truth? He further says that since the soul, initially detached from heaven, causes grief to the heavenly power, therefore God each time sends and snatches away from the Archons his remains, which is the soul, with the help of these luminaries. Great are our hopes, and great is our hope, if God, the good, living and strong, cannot save, I do not say, His own power, which has been taken away from Him, but also what has come from Him and what He has created; and if not in any other way, but by secret theft, He stole from the heavenly inhabitants the power that was taken from Him, then He cannot save us, as this deceiver says. And why else should I dissect its absurdity word by word, wasting time? Like a blasphemer, this unfortunate man is not ashamed to call Him who spoke in the Law and the Prophets the prince of darkness. Blessed are our hopes if Christ, having come, encourages us to bring gifts to the prince of darkness! For having cleansed the leper, brought up in the law, he commanded him to bring a gift according to the law, saying to the leper cleansed by Him: Go, bring your gift, as Moses commanded (Luke 5:14). And the gift on the occasion of leprosy was a bird for a sacrifice and dough made from wheat flour (semidal) for a burnt offering. If this were the prince of darkness, then the Word who descended from above, the Son of God, who came, according to the word of Manichaeus, to convert man from the deception of the Archons, would not have commanded the leper he healed to be subject to them, but rather would have commanded him to leave, teaching him not to do this. since He did not come to destroy the law (for He Himself gave the law) or the prophets, but to fulfill (Matthew 5:17), so that the fulfillment of the law and the prophets would be shown in the immutability of the Gospel. Although the same God was worshiped by the prophets and the law was given from Him, yet now the same God is worshiped not with the same gifts, but with prayers and thanksgiving and other actions. For to those, as slaves, He gave difficult commands, because in this way only they could obey Him; and he gave easier commands to the disciples of the Gospel, as free ones, out of the abundance of his love for mankind. And since one is the God of both law and gospel, equal to Himself, and since neither one nor the other ministry of times has been destroyed; then one and the same God is the king of all ages, accepting service from slaves of every kind, as befits His love for mankind. Thus the error of Manes has been exposed from all sides! The Savior commands to fulfill the requirements of the law, and after he commanded to fulfill the requirements of the law, he canceled these requirements (however, he himself did not destroy them, but fulfilled them) and commanded, instead of those prescribed in the law, to bring other offerings to God, that is, offerings of piety and goodness, purity and good life. Manes also says that the old man will come and show his image in the last days, and then the Earth Ruler, seeing his face, will leave the earth and, as a result, eternal fire will consume the earth. Recognizing this earth as material, the bestial forgot that before that he called it created by the Living Spirit. At the same time, he assumes that the whole world will be consumed by fire. And after all this, he says, the restoration of the two natures to their original state will follow. About how much work was used, and despite the work, nothing was done to correct the error. If, after the creation and origin of the world, it is destroyed and destroyed, so that the prototypes remain again in the identity of two natures, that is, good and evil; then evil will be destroyed in order to return again and start a war and steal another power, so that another world will come into being again. If this does not happen, then evil has come to its senses and will not fight against good, just as the evil deity will no longer wage war against good. And if evil has come to its senses, then it will no longer be evil when it turns from the ancient malice of its nature and changes. – And if the nature of evil is changeable, then it is obvious that it will turn from evil into good; and nature, which can be transformed into good, will no longer be evil; for even now it can change, and evil, even during the existence of the world, will turn into good. Why then does he who has to change not change now? If according to God's dispensation the evil one does not change so that he can no longer do evil - this means that the evil one is not his own culprit, but his culprit is the good God, who can curb his evil and does not want to do before his time what is left to another time. If evil is completely unchanged, then it will never cease to wage war and be subject to war, and of course there will never be a restoration of the two natures, when evil will remain unchanged and will try to show malice against good and initiate war against goodness. If evil always arises from the desire for good, then it will no longer be evil, because the one who strives for good wants to acquire good for himself, so that through the nature of good and its all-armor, having acquired strength for himself, in it, as it were, he can acquire for himself honor and glory, boldness and reinforcement. For anyone who desires good, from the mere thought of good, necessarily develops a disposition towards it; and evil will no longer be evil at all when the desire for good appears. All evil harbors enmity towards good, just as good does not desire evil. If the power of both acts in any way, so that the good God steals his property, and fights with the Principalities and Powers and tears off the skin from them, and then destroys and destroys the matter originating from evil, then creates from it, then destroys, then it is obvious what stupidity and inconsistency is in the presentation of the chatter offered to us by these deceivers. Let's also talk about the nature of evil. Tell us, dear one: you came here during the time of the Emperor Aurelian, and you are telling about what happened before all centuries, when neither the prophets proclaimed this, nor the Savior himself and the Apostles taught, and you yourself lied, imposing and offering some forged books in the name of the saints; - Tell us, where did you come from, my dear, with the teaching about the ancient principle of evil? To our question whether he calls this principle changing or unchanging, we have already received the answer that he recognizes it as unchangeable or better, now changing, now unchangeable, so that it cannot change into evil, but it can change into good, and with these two provisions he brought shame to the human race; for if over the course of many and unchangeable centuries evil remained unchanged, having only this name, and no other except evil: then who, after the lapse of many centuries, changed the unchangeable nature of evil, so that it turned to something that is not characteristic of it? If it did not steal the power, did not conquer it and did not receive all the weapons for its strengthening and nutrition, but remained for many centuries without food and did not need food; then who aroused evil, which once had no need for food, to accept it, who made it seek what it had not sought before, and need what it once did not need? Has it really changed in nature? And how will you achieve immutability regarding evil? If it again returns to its previous state, not having anything to eat; then how can an evil or crafty person, having acquired the habit of eating and using food, at a later time again be without food? If one who did not have the habit of food could not stand it, but turned to obtaining food, and, having stolen his soul, brought food for himself, then even more so, one who acquired the habit of food is uncontrollable by nature and nothing will convince this sensualist, who has experienced the sweetness of food, to remain without it, as your untenable teaching wants. But leaving this place in his teaching, I will continue talking about other subjects of his idle talk. He also says that after this the Archons will be within their limits, and the Father will again receive his limits. Who is capable of measuring the border of each possession on both sides? and how will one submit who from the beginning does not submit to truth and goodness? If the good God by force forces the wicked to be content with his own limits and not to step on the possession of the good God, then why could He not do this from the beginning, before all the limits were taken away from Him? And how will they both exist together, each having a limit? If some boundaries completely belong to Him, and others not His, then the Almighty can no longer be called the Almighty and the God of all, and the evil one will no longer be subject to the Good, but each of them has his own dominion. Over what will the evil one be ruler when the world no longer exists and when there are no animals and people under his control? And how did the evil one not perish when he is matter and corruption? For if evil from ancient times was corruption and corrupts another, but does not corrupt itself, then, while corrupting another, it remains incorruptible, abides forever and is not destroyed. And since it is in constant existence, damaging others, and not itself, it will not leave anything undamaged, but, being a harm to other objects, it damages them. Meanwhile, its nature remains unchanged and will not let anything exist, but it alone remains, and what is damaged by it is destroyed. And if it is evil for itself and corruption for itself; then his being will not stand. Not only would I say this about the future, but evil would have ceased to exist long ago, destroying itself and being destroyed. Such are all the inventions of insane vanity, which, having understood, you, reasonable sons of the Holy Church of God and the Faith of the Lord, judge the deceiver and laugh at his chatter. He resorts to pretexts he has maliciously invented and to similitudes from the Divine Scriptures; but they do not have such a meaning, but are only poorly understood by them. And so let us set out exactly these passages, which he, stealing from the divine Scriptures, as I said, interprets in his own sense, although by repeatedly examining them, we have already very much exposed him. Firstly, having found the name of the Comforter in the divine Scriptures and not understanding the power of the holy Comforter, Manes transferred this name to himself, imagining that he was the Comforter. He claims that what St. Paul refers to him when the holy Apostle said: we understand in part, and prophesy in part; but when that which is perfect has come, then what is in part will be done away with (1 Cor. 13:9). But this is not at all what the Holy Apostle says about the Comforter, who was awarded this Holy Spirit after the Apostles like him, but for those, as I said, who wanted to know about the times, he tells about two worlds, about the present and the future: let nothing shake you with a word, a message... for the day of the Lord has already come, unless the son of iniquity is revealed, the man of unrighteousness, etc. (2 Thess. 2:2,3). And again, when the disciples gathered to the Savior and asked Him about His death, He said to them: You cannot understand the times and years that the Father has laid down in His power: but you will receive the power that the Holy Spirit has brought upon you (Acts 1:7). And he also said: Do not depart from Jerusalem, waiting for the promise of the Spirit as you hear (v. 4) that is, the Comforter Spirit, about whom He said: if I go, He will come to you and tell you everything (John 16:7.14). The words: he will tell you everything mean the gift that they were worthy of, namely, that the Holy Spirit will dwell in them, in order to clearly convey to them everything that they could contain in this age. Thus, having contained within themselves the Spirit of the Comforter in this life, they began to prophesy: ​​thus Agabus predicted the coming famine; and the prophets came down from Jerusalem (Acts 11:27.28). So Philip had four daughters who were soothsayers (–21:9). When they prophesy, they prophesy in part, and understand in part (1 Cor. 18:9); and what is perfect is expected with hope in the age to come, when corruptible things will be changed into incorruptibility, and mortal things into immortality (1 Cor. 15:54), when we see them face to face (–13:12); for now everything is done in fortune-telling, and there things are prepared that the eye cannot see here; there perfection is revealed, about which the ear has not heard here; there a great gift is prepared for the saints, which here does not enter the heart of man (2 Cor. 2:9). You see that Manes is not destined to know much. For how could Manes know this when he could not achieve his own goal? He tried to take Marcellus into his hands; came to Archelaus in order to defeat him, but did not have time. How can one who does not know the nearest know about the most important things? How did he not escape from the hands of the king of Persia when he was captured and subjected to punishment? But this happened so that it would become clear to those with understanding that in everything he is a deceiver. In order to confirm his teaching about the so-called duality and for some reason to make a division between the two Principles, he also wants to present evidence in the words of the Savior: a good tree cannot create evil fruits, nor an evil tree create good fruits; for by the fruit is the tree known (Matthew 7:18). Look, what frivolity, which does not in the least penetrate the depth of divine scripture. If by trees we mean those Beginnings, then they also have a gardener, and if they grow, then of course they were planted by someone, and everything planted is not without beginning, but has a beginning; and what has a beginning will also have an end. And so the evil tree did not always exist, but was planted; and the concept of a good tree cannot be attributed to any highest goodness; for there in heaven there is true goodness that does not change, and the mind of the holy God who exists in glory ineffable. Let's look and say whether this is true in the productive power of trees. If we are talking here about the devil, then we often explained that he did not come into being evil; for God did not create any evil, and this is clear to rational people. Although we are fighting against the same thing, it will not be burdensome in the present case to prove the doctrine of truth. And so in the beginning the devil was not evil, but later he became evil. That is why the word about the tree turns out to be untenable in this case. We see that Saul was also a persecutor, and then persecuted for the name of the One whom he had once persecuted. We see that Judas was chosen along with the twelve apostles, and subsequently fell away and suffered an evil fate. We see that Rahab the harlot, a stranger to the people of Israel, later repented and received the mercy of God. We see that the robber was caught in his crime and hanged on a tree and, having made a confession, entered heaven with the Lord. We see that Nicholas, a wonderful and chosen man, subsequently became evil and was placed among the heresiarchs. But why talk to me about many? What is an evil tree from which no good comes? Of course these are human affairs; for no good can come from fornication; Justice cannot come from evil envy; praise cannot come from adultery. The tree of sin itself cannot come from goodness. This is the meaning of the words: a good tree cannot produce evil fruits, nor an evil tree produce good fruits. Such, for example, is a good tree that does not bear evil fruit - hospitality; Whatever comes from hospitality, its strength does not come from malice. The same is almsgiving, purity for the sake of God, abstinence for the sake of the Master, justice for the sake of the law. Ch. 63. This is the meaning these two trees have in relation to truth and sin; Meanwhile, the rude Manes, speaking about them, wants to talk about God and the devil. It is obvious that no one will dare to say about God that He will ever do evil (let that not happen!), and no one will say about the devil that He does good. But every good comes from God, and nothing evil is created by him. - If any evil is created from the devil, then we know that through him the crown of the saints is woven and a reward is given to the victorious. This is how the teaching of Manes falls. The evil tree and the good tree are interpreted about evil and good deeds, and not about the old and new testament, as Manes thinks. Wanting to prove the assumptions about two Principles, he tries to find in the Scripture words suitable for him, namely the following: To the Jews, he says, the Lord said: you are naturally sons of the devil... He was a murderer (John 8:44), because his father was a liar. Here he blasphemes and says that the creator of heaven and earth is the father of the devil - which absolutely cannot be concluded on the basis of this saying. For if they are the sons of the devil, then his teaching about the devil collapses and Manes refutes himself, without knowing it. - This means that their souls, descended from the devil, then separated and are not the products of a higher power, according to his fable; and the soul is no longer part of the light, or its entire armor, or part of the pillar of light, or the Mother of life. If they are the sons of the devil, then Abraham their father, whose seed the Jews themselves are, is also the son of the devil, according to the word of Manes. How then does the Savior, denouncing them, say to them: you are not the children of Abraham, but the children of your father the devil? As Abraham's children were quicker, his deeds were accomplished more quickly. But you are seeking to kill me, a man who told you the truth: these things Abraham did not do (John 8:39,40). You see that the teaching here does not have its own meaning, because they are indeed the sons of Abraham, but the Lord alienates them from him for their deeds, and not for their race and origin. We have already said this above. How can part of his seed be either alien to him and part of the devil, or part of God? But this is said in the form of an accusation. For to whom one submits, he becomes a slave in activity and teaching, just as Paul says: For though many are teachers, but are not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus the gospel begat ye (1 Cor. 4:15). Do you see what he says about teaching? If Manes meant Abraham, then we would say that Abraham is from the God of light, and those born by him are from another. But it has this meaning: they imitated the murderer, imitated the betrayal of Judas, accepted the slander of the traitor, became the sons of his apostasy; he became a liar because he had an ark and stole and spoke to Christ; Hail Rabbi! and I heard my reproach: do kindly to the tenderness you came to (Matthew 26:49). This Judas imitated Cain, who became a murderer, lied before the Lord, and said: Am I the guardian of my brother? not for you where there is (Gen.4:3). And he, by imitation, became a son of the devil and by heeding the lying voice that spoke these words through the serpent: You will be like gods, knowing good and evil (Gen. 3:5). And this is the very thing that the Savior said in the Gospel: you are the sons of the devil; for he says, “Have I not chosen you twelve?” The devil is one of you (John 6:70), he is a liar and a murderer from time immemorial, because his father was a liar (John 8:40). This is how Manes' question is resolved; The Jews were not children of the devil - let them not be! For the Samaritan woman says to the Savior: Our fathers are here in this mountain bowing down: and you say that in Jerusalem there is a place where it is proper to bow down. Then, after many words, the Savior said to her: we say that we know that there is salvation from the Jews (John 4:20.22). And the Apostle also says: for the Lord has risen up from the tribe of Judah (Heb. 7:14). And much can be said about this and expose the error of Manes. He also takes the following saying: the light shines in the darkness and its darkness is not overcome (John 1:5); because, he says, the darkness drove away the light when the evil Archons began to pursue and fight with the deity. If the attacked light is driven away by darkness, then darkness is more powerful than light; since light flees from the face of darkness and cannot resist being seen due to the greater power of darkness. But in reality this is not the case. For light does not flee from darkness, but light shines in darkness and its darkness is not overcome (John 1:5). If the darkness did not embrace the light, then this is much different from the thought of Manes, who says that it not only embraced, but also stole all his weapons. Why did that which, according to him, stole all the weapons, did not in any way embrace the light? And how can light, when driven, spontaneously shine in the darkness? When the minds of people were darkened by the uncleanness of sin, God first of all sent the law, enlightening them like a shining lamp, as Peter says in his epistle: Heeding the prophetic word, like a light shining in a dark place, the star will shine forth, and the day will shine in your hearts (2 Peter 1:19). From here the light shines in the darkness - the law was given by the hand of an intercessor (Gal.3:19) through the faithful servant of God Moses. And firstly, from the earliest times there was a light that shone like a spark in the natural law; contemplating this light, Enoch pleased the Lord; Abel, led by him, pleased the Lord; with his help you learned the way. Noah found favor with God; through him Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him as righteousness (Rom. 4:3). Then the light, spreading from an insignificant spark, increased to the brilliance of a shining luminary in a dark place, that is, the light shines in the darkness - the commandment of God and the thought in accordance with goodness, shining in the heart of believers among the unclean thoughts about evil and bad deeds existing in people, idolatry, blasphemy, murder, adultery and the like. After this, a great luminary appeared, the true light, which enlightens every person coming into the world. In the world there was no world and the world was not known. When you came and didn’t accept your own people. The Elitsa accepted him and gave them the region to become children of God. (John 1:9-12). Do you see in what darkness the light shines and how the darkness has not overcome it? Namely: goodness is always sent by God to the minds of people and shining in the world is not overcome by sin. In a similar way, the same Manes takes another passage from the following speech of the Savior: like the kingdom of heaven is to a man, a householder, who sowed good seed in his village: and as a sleeping man, the enemy man and all the tares came. Then his servants said to him: Didn’t you sow good seed in the village? He said: yes! - Where do the tares come from? He answered and said, “Enemy man has done this,” and the servant said to him, “Do you want to let us weed out the tares?” He said to them: “Let the tares once have been taken away, you will also take away the wheat.” But leave until the time of harvest: and the river as a reaper: gather up the tares and bind them in sheaves, and put the wheat into the granary and prepare the tares to burn them with fire that never quenches. (Matthew 13:24–30). When his disciples asked him at home: tell us the parable of the weeds, He permits and explains, so as not to give the deceiver a reason to attack the truth. So the Lord clearly answers and says: he who sows good seed is God: and the village is the world: the tares are wicked people: the enemy of man is the devil, the harvesters are angels, the harvest is the end of the age, the wheat is good people (v. 37-З9); when the Lord commands his angels, they will gather sinners from His kingdom and hand them over to be burned. Look, sons of truth: what this Jannes and Jambres, who has again appeared among us (2 Tim. 3:8), wants to say, he speaks against himself. He denies that the world is God’s, and the Savior in this place said that the village is the world, and the householder and lord of the village is His Father and that He sowed His good seed. He did not separate souls from bodies, or bodies from souls, but said that the enemy man sowed tares, which are wicked people. He does not call people separately bodies, but spoke entirely about wicked people. In the same way, he says about the good seed that the householder sowed in his village - that these are good people. And he did not say their souls, but good people with body and soul. And so, through teaching, God sows good in people, and the devil, through evil deeds, secretly sows evil deeds in people. Neither here nor here we will find the root of evil, but only the deeds committed by us; and it is not the devil alone who is responsible for the tares sown; for he immediately notices, saying: a sleeping man, and did not say: during the sleep of the householder. For when we fall asleep for good deeds, when we neglect righteousness, when we make the mind not watchful in relation to the commandment of God, then we sow sins. Do you see that the reapers are preparing sheaves for the eternal fire? Tell me Manes, are souls bound there, are bodies burned together with the soul, or only souls? Your teaching about the purification of souls will not stand when they are given over to punishment and judgment. But enough of what has been said so far about this; for the words of truth are clear to those who understand. He also takes and offers a seemingly different saying and, without thinking about what it contains, he reinterprets the meaning of the saving teaching in the words of the Savior: the prince of this world is coming and in me he finds nothing for himself (John 14:30); and the Apostle also said: the god of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelievers so that the light of the gospel of glory will not shine (2 Cor. 4:4). And so we will see whether the prince of this world, about whom the Lord speaks, will be cast down to the underworld. If I am exalted, I will draw everyone to Myself (John 12:32). What prince of this world is He talking about? If he speaks about the devil, then why does John in the Gospel speak about the Savior: he has come (John 1:11)? We see that these two sayings are opposite to each other. The Apostle says: the whole world lies in evil (John 5:19), but the Savior is in the world (John 1:10). How will both of them fit together? If the world lies completely in evil; then where is the place in the world for the Savior to be in the world? And if what is in the world is the property of the Son of God, then what prince rules over the property of God? If what is in the world is not the Son of God’s own; then what prince of the world allows what is in the world to be the property of the Savior? If the world belongs to the Son of God, then how did He allow the prince to own his world? All the words of truth contained in Scripture are spoken with wisdom, as the Lord Himself says. John came in the path of righteousness, neither poison nor drink, but they said: have a demon. The Son of Man came, eating and drinking, and they said: Behold a man of food and drink of wine, a friend of a publican and a sinner; and wisdom was justified from her children (Matthew 11:18,19). How was wisdom justified from her children? Of course, from those who understand the words of wisdom, as the prophet says: who is wise and understands this? How right are the ways of the Lord, and the word of wisdom, and this message? And wickedness will fail in them (Hos. 14:10). In truth, Manes weakened and, together with the wicked, exalted himself in the explanation of divine and heavenly sayings. The Savior did not say much before: I saw Satan like lightning falling from heaven (Luke 10:18); and here again: the prince of this world will be cast into hell. If we were talking about Satan as already fallen, then what was the need to cast him down again? But of course you will say - into the abyss. Where did the Lord come from? If you had to ascend from the abyss; then a similar place, compared with a similar one, gives an equivalent meaning to the expression. When was He taken up on earth? He spoke of being taken to the cross and taken to heaven in order to draw everyone to himself. And why, being in heaven, did he not attract you to Himself, but came to earth? He had to come and take on human form, so that by forming for himself this holy vessel, which He received from Mary, that is, the holy body, God the Word, who came from above from the bosom of the Father, ascending with his body, would attract others like him to himself. Who is the prince of this world? When he says: the whole world lies in evil, he does not mean the sky, the earth, the sun, the moon, plants, the sea, the mountains, the air, the clouds, the wind, the stars, the birds, or anything created; no! In the human world there is excessive pride of mind, the impudence of arrogance, the arrogance of human exaltation. This prince of this world fell down due to pride. For, he says, you receive glory from one another (John 5:14), but I do not seek My glory (John 8:50). How did pride not fall? How is the prince of peace not crushed when Herod holds in custody and judges the Judge of the living and the dead and the Lord, when Pilate presides, the slave strikes the cheek, Judas betrays, Caiaphas judges, the Jews are spit on, the soldiers beat the head of Him Who with a wave can destroy heaven and earth? This pride and arrogance and glory of the people of the world is the prince of the world who has fallen to the ground. All those who have abundant honors in this world receive authority through servility, insolence, vanity and arrogance, none of which is found in the Savior; For he will not quench smoking flax, nor will he break broken reeds (Isa.42:3; Matt.12:20). But I can still talk about this. The same Manes says: it is also said: the god of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelievers so that the light of the gospel may not shine (2 Cor. 4:4). If there is a god of this world, then what did the Savior do when he came to an alien region? If he desired something that belonged to someone else, then this was out of character for Him, the good and the righteous. If he came in order to save not his own, but someone else’s, then this is typical of some deceiver who wants to outrage his neighbor’s people. If he came to save what belongs to the god of this world, then he gains favor from this god of the world by trying to save his own vessels. And if the god of this age deigns for the Savior to save what belongs to him, then He is good, rejoicing in the salvation of his property, although he cannot save it himself. And thus there will be one communion of goodness, because he who is able saves, and he who is unable to save his own rejoices in what he is saving, considering it a benefit for himself that he has what was saved intact by the good Savior. And if he offers absolutely no resistance to someone who wants to save his property, he will thank him. If he gives thanks, then he first saves the one to whom those being saved belong, in order to show goodness on the one being saved, and does not want to save only a few and leave the main one, from whom those being saved came. Otherwise, if he does not want to save him, but saves those who are from him, then he is doing something imperfect and cannot do good perfectly. If he considers it impossible to save him, because by his nature he cannot be saved, and yet he saves those who come from him, then even more so those who come from him cannot be saved, being worse than him. Moreover, if, having no property, he came to save someone else’s region in order to show himself and give his help, then how great the bewilderment would be when, unable to save his own, he came to someone else’s region to do a deed that he could not do among his own. Thus falls the doctrine expressed by Manes about the Savior and the prince of this age. And in reality there is a god of this age, but not a special god, beyond the true God, not another hypostatic God, so let it not be! For God, the ruler of all, who created the world, is one God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (Eph. 1:3) and will never cease to exist. About the god about whom the Apostle speaks, whom the infidels have chosen as their god, I say that this is not the only god of this age - let it not be! - but there are many such gods to whom the infidels have enslaved themselves and become blinded by their minds. So the Apostle says in another place: their belly is God, and their glory is in their cold (Phil. 3:19); and the Lord says in the Gospel: you cannot work for two masters (Matthew 6:24); in order to later show who these two gentlemen are, he says further: you cannot work for God and mammon. And so God is the true God, and Mammon is the god of the world. For the most part, human nature, caught by these two - mammon and the womb, becomes blind not through the fault of God, but through its own malice, since everyone, carried away by unbelief, is given over to the power of all evil. That is why the Apostle says: the love of money is a snare, the root of all evil (1 Tim. 6:10). And therefore he curses the wicked desire for idolization, saying: food for the belly, and food for the belly. God will abolish both this and that (1 Cor. 6:13), thus cursing the lusts of the belly. So the god of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelievers (2 Cor. 4:4); and in the Gospel we find that one scribe and another says: What, having created, will I inherit eternal life? He said: Honor your father and mother according to what is written (Luke 18:18); for the commandments of the Law were not alien to Him. In the same way, the Lord says that keeping the law is the inheritance of life. Then the scribe says: I created all this from my youth (Matthew 19:20). Hearing this, the Lord rejoiced, in order to show that the commandments of the law were not alien to His deity. For by saying that he rejoiced, he confirmed the agreement of the old covenant with the new covenant. But the young man says: what have you not finished yet? And I said to him: if you want to be perfect, sell what you have and give to the poor and take up your cross and come after me and have treasure in heaven. He left mourning, but was very rich (Matthew 19:21,22; Luke 18:23). After that, the Lord said: “It is more convenient for me to eat through the ears of clay than for a rich man into the kingdom of God” (Matthew 19:24). Cannot enter; because those who recognized Mammon as their god and made themselves subject to the god of this age, i.e., were blinded by the god of the age. love of money, as the Lord says: take heed of the brew of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy (Luke 12:1), and in another place: which is the love of money. And in order to show the fruits and consequences of it, he says: leaders are blind; but if a blind man leads a blind man, they will both fall into a pit (Matthew 15:14). Because the love of money, the god of this age, blinded them, and the light of the gospel did not shine in their hearts. Due to the fact that they are blinded by the love of money. It blinded Judas; it killed Ananias; it has killed many. Such is the god of this age; the people who chose him as their god showed him honor and despised the Lord, as he says: he holds himself to one, but will not care for his friends: you cannot serve God and mammon (Matthew 6:24). Do you see that the case has been solved definitely and clearly? There is no other God, neither in heaven, nor on earth, nor in any places, but one Father, from whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, from whom are all things (1 Cor. 8:6), and one Holy Spirit, in whom are all things, the ever-present Trinity, one Divinity, never receiving addition and not accepting decrease. But let us move on, beloved, to other subjects and break the snares of this beast, enemy and persecutor, comparing the strange concepts expressed by him with the true teaching for those who want to know the truth and turn their minds away from the evil teaching of every heresy. He again attacks the law and the prophets, being the enemy of the truth and the Holy Spirit who spoke in the law and the prophets, he usually speaks with his mouth widened, as always, against God - who created all things and spoke in the law and the prophets, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom the whole family in heaven and on earth is named (Eph. 3:15), says that from Him is lust, from Him is murder and everything else. So He commanded to take clothes from the Egyptians by deception, to make sacrifices for themselves, and everything else that the law prescribes, commands to kill the murderer, as if the first murder was not enough and it was necessary to commit another, as if in revenge for the first; He puts passions into the minds of people, lusting after wives and other objects. About Christ, he says, God did not prophesy much with the intention, so as not to convince many to believe. So, these are the words of the impudent Manes, which he brazenly utters against his Master. Whoever examines them carefully will find that they show nothing more than the actions of a madman. Just as someone in a state of insanity arms himself with a sword and, out of madness, wounds his body, thinks that he is taking revenge on his enemies, and does not understand what he is doing: so he arms himself against himself, not understanding the sayings that he cites against himself. For if lust is from God, and He produces lusts, then how is it that he who inspires lust writes everywhere against lusts? He says: You shall not covet your neighbor’s house, nor his ox, nor his cattle, nor his maidservant, nor his village, nor his wife, nor anything that is thy neighbor (Ex. 20:17). If He destroys lust, then He is not the leader of lust. How, says Manes, did God command the Egyptians to be robbed when the Jews came out of the land of Egypt? Truly so; for He is a righteous judge, as I have already said many times. And in order to show that He Himself does not need sacrifices, the prophet says: The house of Israel is required to offer food for fourty years? says the Lord (Am.5:25). To whom were they brought? According to those who bring it - to Him; but He commanded to make sacrifices not because he himself needed them, but in order to distract them from polytheism and accustom them to the knowledge of the one God. For when He saw that sacrifices were being made to the Egyptian deities, He inspired them so that, turning their thoughts to polytheism, they should not abandon the one true God. And when, after a long time, He turned their minds away from polytheism, having weaned them from such a custom, He then begins to cut off what was displeasing to Him and says: Bring all this censer from Sheba and cinnamon from a distant land (Jer. 6:20)? Do I eat yam meat, or drink the blood of goats (Isa.49:13)? For this I have not exacted at your hands (Isa. 1:12): but that each one should show righteousness to his neighbor and truth to his brother (Jer. 22:3). You see that over time the essence of the power of God’s commands is revealed, as He himself again says to Samuel: anoint Saul as king (1 Samuel 9:16); but then he denounces them, saying: “You anointed the king and the rulers not by me, and I did not command you (Hos. 8:4). But since their whims demanded this, God, comforting Samuel the prophet, said: “I will not disgrace you, but me,” said the Lord; however, anoint Saul, the son of Kish, with it (1 Samuel 8:7.22). God treated them like little children, so that He bore the weakness of the weak and caressed them like a baby, according to its weakness. Then he utters the most perfect: sacrifice to God is a broken spirit, a contrite and humble heart, God will not despise (Ps. 50:19); and again: devour the sacrifice of praise to God (Ps. 49:14); and similar words. Then the same Manes says: “God wanted to say a word about Christ.” Great indeed is He who spoke in the law, who knows and spoke about the future. For if He knows the future, then He is not without foreknowledge, but is God who knows the future; I wrote this in order for it to be fulfilled. If it were disgusting to Him, then He would write about it and at the same time destroy it, so that we would not believe it. And when He confirms what is to be accomplished in Christ, it means that it is the very Spirit who spoke in the law, the prophets and the Gospel; for the same agreement exists between them, as He says through Moses: The Lord will raise up for you a prophet from your brethren (Deut. 18:15); and also the Lord himself says: Moses wrote about Me (John 5:46). Again Moses says: every soul that does not listen to the prophet will be consumed (Deut. 18:19; Acts 3:23); The Lord also said: If you do not believe in the writings of Moses, how will you listen to my words (John 5:47)? So, the truth is bright from all sides, without any shade. Further, Manes calls the covenant of the law a covenant of death, because the Apostle said: if the covenant of death were written in stone, it would come to glory (2 Cor. 3:7). But this is not only what the Divine Scripture says, but also that the law does not lie with the righteous, but with the father and mother, a troublemaker, and a perjurer, and if anything else is contrary to sound teaching (1 Tim. 1:9,10). So, if there is no law for the righteous, then is the righteous a lawless one? It won't happen! But since the righteous prevents the fulfillment of the requirements of the law: there is no law for the righteous who has fulfilled the law, but it is established for the wicked, condemning those who have transgressed the law. This was the covenant: for he commanded that a murderer should be killed, an adulterer should be put to death, and a lawbreaker should be stoned. He was in glory. And truly great was his glory; for he received glory among people from their mutual unrighteousness: this was depicted in the light of a pillar of fire, in terrible trumpets that sounded loudly, in the tabernacle of testimony and in the great glory that appeared then. For it was necessary that death should precede the covenant, that having died first to sin, we might live in righteousness (1 Pet. 2:24). Therefore, Christ also bore our weaknesses and lifted up our illnesses (Is. 53:4), lifting up everything with His body on the cross, so that in Him for our sake first that which relates to death, and then that which relates to life would be fulfilled. And therefore He first dies in order to confirm the covenant of death, and then He rose from the dead in order to pass from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord (2 Cor. 3:18). For by the cross He triumphed over the principalities and powers, condemned sin by death, buried iniquity by burial, crushed the sting of death by tasting death, by descending into hell took away the spoils of hell, by His power loosed those bound, and received the trophy of the cross against the devil. And see how this glory continues from Moses to the Lord. How much more glorious will the covenant of life be when the stone is rolled away, the rocks are split, the tombs are opened, the angels shine like lightning, the women preach the good news, peace is given, the Spirit is given from Him to the Apostles, the kingdom of heaven is proclaimed, the Gospel enlightens the universe? He who descended is also the one who ascended above all the heavens, and sits at the right hand of the Father (Eph.4:10; Col.3:1). So, this covenant was not a deadly covenant, but a covenant against death; in glory was a covenant of death, so that the glory abounded against death. Then the same Manes also says: “The old and new testaments cannot be the work of one teacher: for one is growing old from day to day, and the other is being renewed from day to day, for everything that grows old and grows old is about to decay (Heb. 8:13). Therefore, that covenant belongs to another God and another teacher, and this to another God and another teacher.” But if Manes could point to two old testaments, then his words regarding the two legislators could have plausibility: in the same way, if he could point to two new testaments, his words could be accepted in reasoning. If the old covenant belongs to one, and the new to the other, the new to the good God, and the old to the evil: it means that if the good God did not know the evil lawgiver, then he did not know what he should establish a covenant, and thus took from him the pretext for preaching the doctrine, being himself inexperienced in the matter; for if he had not seen it, he would not have imitated it. And therefore, rather, the Old Testament should have been the work of a good God, so that the imitator would be an evil one, and not this true God. For the Lord says in the Gospel that if the Son sees the Father doing, he himself does the same (John 5:12). And so as not to give in to the adviser, so that the devil would not boast, he would not say that the Savior did anything on his advice, when he said to Him: Let this bread be made of stone (Matthew 4:3), the Savior did not tolerate this, so that they would not think that He had learned anything from the devil and accepted his advice. Do you see that He attributes both covenants to one God? For the Apostle says: the first covenant was given from Mount Sinai to give birth, for Mount Sinai is in Arabia (Gal.4:24). And just as there are two wives and one husband, so there are two covenants, but one God is the founder of both. And therefore he did not name two new or two old, but one old and one new, and says: the covenant is known among the dead: and the first was not without shelter, for Moses received the blood of a goat and sprinkled the same books and people: therefore the second covenant was confirmed by the death of the Savior (Heb. 9:17.19). Since both covenants are very much in agreement with each other, the first one says: The Prince of Judah and the leader of His feet will not fail, until the river that was set aside for Him will come (Gen. 49:10); and the second, that God is in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not counting their sins against them (2 Cor. 5:19). Much more could be said about this, but I’ll leave it for brevity. Manes likens the law and the prophets to trees withered and grown old, based on the following words: the law and the prophets until John (Luke 16:16). There is nothing more stupid than this. Who is not aware that when what was proclaimed by the Prophets was fulfilled, there were no more Prophets? For when the Prophets came to proclaim Christ coming from Mary, Christ had not yet come. This circumstance is similar to the following: how a king, intending to come to some country, sends horsemen, stewards, heralds ahead of him, and the closer the arrival of the gift approaches, the more messengers appear, warning his coming and announcing his arrival in the cities. But as soon as the king manages to enter the city, then what is the need for messengers? What need is there for horsemen and other harbingers of the royal coming when the king himself is in the city? So it was with the law and the prophets until John. After John preached in the wilderness and pointed out that this is the lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29), there is no longer any need for prophets to come and preach to us the coming of Christ from the virgin: but now we need heralds of His appearance to convince us of the reality of His coming, that it was previously predicted. Or just as if someone had a teacher - just as the Apostle says that the law for us was to be a teacher at the coming of the Lord (Gal. 3:24), and having reached age, he took for himself another teacher; he certainly does not reject the mentor as an enemy: so we were guided by the law and the prophets before the coming of the teacher; Having found a teacher, we do not dishonor the teacher, but express gratitude to him for guiding us in infancy and bringing us to the most perfect teaching. Or as if someone, intending to sail on the sea, had a large ship, but on a small boat sailed along the waves along the seashore, and the boat carried this person to a large ship: then this person, of course, will not leave the boat at sea because he has found a large ship, but with gratitude to the boat he takes the large ship for his safety. Or, let's put it another way, as if someone was abandoned by his own mother and was taken by someone by chance and raised over time, and later, having matured, would find out about his own father: will such a person have prudence if, because he recognized his father and receives his inheritance, he will despise his educator? Wouldn't he be much more grateful to the teacher for not allowing him to die when he was threatened with death? So we thank God, who gave the law and the prophets, we thank Him, who has worthy us of the new covenant of His Son. The same Manes says that we are the image of the Archons, and came from the Archons and were thrown to them to be devoured. There is a lot of madness in these words. We see that this is not the case in reality. Everything, no matter what is on earth, even if they are the fiercest and most ferocious beasts, does not attack its own image, but others. So, for example: lions do not devour lions because of the similarity of their appearance and nature: but when a great famine oppresses the animals in the mountains and they do not find any food for a long time, either because of snow or because of poverty from other reasons, lions live in caves and their lairs along with lion cubs and lionesses; and no beast attacks a beast similar to itself, nor a wolf attacks a wolf, unless some animal becomes enraged and, out of rage, does not know what it is doing. So, if a wolf does not devour a wolf due to the affinity of nature, then how can the Archons eat us when we have the same nature as them? Do they not caress us more in order to show that they have their own images in us? Thus, the speeches of this deceiver are exposed from all sides. Then he takes the words from the Gospel: not all can comprehend His teaching, but to them it is given to eat (Matthew 19:18). But the Savior here is not talking about teaching, but about eunuchs. If the Savior’s words here: “not all can contain” refer to His teaching: it means that if they do not contain, then they do not contain of their own will. So, they can be called worthy of praise or blame according to their own will, and the accommodation will no longer be from nature. After this, what benefit will he bring to him who proclaims this teaching? Manes's speech turned out to be untenable on all sides: for the Savior spoke not about teaching, but in relation to the equestrianism; Yes, if He spoke about teaching, then the speech of Manes would not stand. The same Manes says: He knows our people: for my sheep know me, and I know my sheep (John 10:27). But everywhere he lies. For wanting to catch souls with flattery. He pronounced this word for those who were then present at this discussion, scattering, so to speak, the bait, in order to attract them to himself with affection, so that upon joining he could be proud and say that he knew them before they came to him. But the same thing happened to him that, as the Hellenic fable tells, happened to Apollo the soothsayer: predicting the future for others, he could not predict the future for himself, but was deceived in his prophecy, falling in love with Daphne, but unable to take possession of her because of her chastity. So this Manes, prophesying that he knew his own and came with the intention of subjugating Marcellus, was deceived in his prophecy: for neither Marcellus nor any other of the people at that time listened to him. Then he says that in ancient times no one was saved, but only from the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar until his time. The king at that time was Probus, and before him Aurelian, under whom this Manes lived. But in this again, the words of the Gospel and Apostle about those who were saved before completely convict him. The Lord says: from this generation will be required all righteous blood shed on the earth from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah shed between the church and the altar (Matthew 23:25 Luke 11:51). So, where does righteous Abel come from, where does Zechariah come from, if there was no salvation and if God did not save through the law and the prophets? It is said that there is royal death from Adam to Moses (Rom. 5:14) so ​​that you know that in Moses death is weakened, but not completely destroyed. She expected Jesus, the finisher of all, when He would give himself up for humanity - the immortal would suffer death, he who would not be overcome by anyone would allow himself to be taken over, life would suffer suffering in the flesh, with death he would crush the one who had the power of death, the sting of sin and death. What finally came true: where are you, death, the sting? where is the victory (1 Cor. 15:55)? Thus, death, which reigned before Moses, was delayed and overthrown in Moses. But even before that there were the righteous: Abel and Enoch, who was translated, neither seeing death nor being found (Heb. 11:5). And this was when there was no written law yet, but only a natural one, from reason and from tradition, passed down successively from fathers to children. When the law was clearly stated, then it became, so to speak, a sword cutting through the power of sin. But with the coming of the Savior, the sting of death was crushed and death was quickly sacrificed in victory (1 Cor. 15:54). See how God saved in various ways; but the perfection of salvation was and will be in Christ Jesus our Lord, just as the Gospel says: from His fulfillment we have received (John 1:18). What is this performance? The law was given by Moses, grace and truth were given by Jesus (John 1:19): there “it was given”, here “it was given.” If from the fulfillment is the law, grace and truth of Jesus: then both the old and the new covenant are in law, grace and truth. The same Manes takes another saying from scripture, saying: Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse against us (Gal. 3:13). Let him say with what money this redemption was made, what price was given to redeem us: for it is not said bought, but redeemed. But he knows the purchase, but does not know the price: the truth knows both: for He redeemed us, and truly redeemed us from the curse, having become a curse for us. And how He bought us - this same teacher of the church immediately explains this, saying: bought with a price, with the honest blood of the Lamb, the spotless and most pure of Christ (1 Cor. 6:20; 1 Peter 1:19). So, if we are bought with blood, then you, Manes, do not belong to the redeemed, because you reject blood. Where did He buy us? Tell. Did you buy someone else's? Does this mean that our former master was in extremis and, needing payment for us, having received it, gave us to Christ? And if we are given to Christ, then we no longer belong to the former master. If the former no longer owns us, then he is deprived of his property and has no power in his own possessions. How, according to scripture, does he work in the sons of disobedience (Eph. 2:2)? But the frantic Manes does not understand at all how Christ redeemed us, nor how we are redeemed, and how He became an oath for us: he opened his mouth, but cannot confirm what he is talking about. Here we see those speaking at the time of His second coming and crying out: by eating before You and in Your name we drive out demons (Matthew 7:22; Luke 13:26). But He will say to them: get away from Me, cursed: I do not know you (Matthew 25:41). So, how is it that they confess Him and He curses them? What kind of legal oath was this? The oath of the law was a cross for crimes. If there is a sin on anyone, the law said, hang him on a tree, so that the sun does not set on him and on his corpse, but having taken it off, take it off and bury it before the sun sets: for everyone is cursed if he hangs on a tree (Deut. 21:22–24.15). So, since the oath was established for crucifixion, and He came to bear our sins on the tree, giving Himself for us: then His blood redeemed us, His body resolved our oaths, i.e. He resolved our sins by suffering on the cross and by His coming. Therefore, neither the law was a curse, nor the Gospel received a curse, nor the Lord: but through His death death for sin was abolished. He goes on to say that the law was the ministry of death (2 Cor. 3:7). But we have already talked a lot about the fact that he was not a servant of death. He did not order to kill, but commanded saying: Thou shalt not kill (Deut. 5:17). since he killed the murderer in order to destroy the effect of murder by killing one, and so that, frightened by the example of one, many would refrain from untruth - committing more murders: then for this reason the law is called the ministry of death; but not because he served death, but because he appointed death for the murderer, so that many would no longer be murderers. – And the Savior, having come, when he taught as a teacher, spending most of his time teaching the most perfect teaching in accordance with the law: do not kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness (Deut. 5:17) said: if anyone strikes you on the right side of the cheek, turn him the other too (Matthew 5:39) so that after the complete destruction of murder, the service of life will follow; for the one struck on the cheek does not incite him to kill, but removes the hand of the murderer, softening the anger in him with humility. Thus, the Old and New Testaments agree with each other in everything. Then he attempts to present, as it were, two faces to confirm his doctrine of duality, two natures, beginningless principles and roots, which we have already spoken about, wanting to prove this very thing by the difference in the objects themselves. Daring to distinguish in this way, he is not ashamed to say: the old testament said: the silver is mine, and the gold is mine (Hag. 2:9): but the new one says: blessed are the poor in spirit, for of them is the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:3). But he does not know that the Old Testament also says: rich and poor meet each other: but make both Lords (Proverbs 22:2). And the new covenant agrees in the same, pleasing both the poor by nature and the poor in spirit, so that both may have reinforcement, so that both Peter and those who were with him would show that they boast of true poverty, saying: I have no silver and gold: but I am, I give this to you: in the name of Jesus Christ, arise and walk (Acts 8:6). To prove that pleasing the poor by nature is not contrary to pleasing the poor in spirit, who, although they acquire something in a righteous manner, are poor out of humility, He spoke of them like this: you were hungry and gave me food; you were thirsty and gave me something to drink, and so on (Matthew 25:35); then he says that they did this from their estates (Luke 8:3). You see that the same Spirit points to the poor and the rich in both the old and new testaments. In the same way, the Savior praises both: for when he looked at the treasure storehouse (Mark 12:41), and looked at those putting money into the corvan, he did not forbid the offerings of the rich; for the above-mentioned poverty, he also praised the widow, who put in two mites, so that what was written would be fulfilled: the rich and the poor meet each other: but the Lord has made both. That this is really so and that the same spirit of the old and new testaments is the same, look at what the Apostle says about the ancient prophets: I don’t have enough time to tell about Gideon, Baraz, Sampson, Jephthah, David and other prophets, who walked in sheepskins and in goat skins, embittered, oppressed, sorrowful, of whom the world is not worthy ( Heb.11:32.37) For we know that Isaiah wore sackcloth, and so did Elijah. So, you see how in the Old and New Testaments the poor are blessed for piety and the rich for righteousness. The same Manes also says: “The Old Testament commands to keep the Sabbath; If anyone did not keep the Sabbath, he was stoned, which was also the case for those who gathered wood on the Sabbath (Num. 13:32). And the new covenant, i.e. The Lord said in the Gospel: I do, and my Father does. (John 5:17); also on the Sabbath the disciples plucked ears of corn (Luke 6:1); on the Sabbath He not only healed, but also said: take up your bed and go to your house (John 5:8).” What extreme ignorance! There is nothing worse than ignorance: for it has blinded many. When was the Sabbath disallowed for good reason? When, on the contrary, not only the Sabbath, but every day, was not prohibited for evil deeds? Joshua, the successor of Moses, numbered among the prophets, the chosen one of God, who with prayer stopped the sun and the moon, saying: let the sun become straight to Gibeon and the moon straight to the wilds of Aenon (Joshua 10:12), - will immediately turn out to be a violator of the Sabbath for the sake of a good cause. Jesus walks around the walls of Jericho for seven days. Since on the Sabbath it was not allowed to travel more than six certain stages, and the circumference of Jericho more than twenty stages, when they walked around Jericho for seven days, one of the days necessarily fell on the Sabbath. But this was the command of God, in order to show that He wanted to perform a miracle: for there were no cars, no rams, or any other battering weapons: but by one sound of the horn trumpet and by the prayer of the righteous man, the walls of the enemies collapsed. And they had to be punished in this way, because the sin of the Ammorites was fulfilled (Gen. 15:16). The law was a judge against unrighteousness and rewarded everyone according to his deeds, but the Ammorites remained in sins, in crime, and violated the oath with which they swore, as I have already said about this somewhere else; however, it will not be burdensome to offer the same here: because here the cunning of Manes is ready, namely, that the good God of the law robbed the Egyptians, expelled the Ammorites and Gergesites and other peoples and gave their land to the children of Israel. He said: do not covet: how did you give them what belongs to you? And the simpleton does not know that they received their own land, taken from them by force, and that this matter was decided within the limits of justice and in accordance with the oath concluded between them mutually. For Noah, who escaped from the flood with his wife and three sons and three daughters-in-law, divided the whole world to his three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth, casting lots in Rhinocorur, as the subsequent story shows: and there is nothing strange or fictitious here: for Neel is translated as Rhinokorur and that’s what the locals call him, and in translation from Hebrew it means lots, 282 because here Noah cast lots for his three sons. And the lot fell (to Ham) 283 from Rinocorur to Gadir 284 and included Egypt, Mariandina, 285 Ammon, 286 Libya, Marmarika, 287 Pentapolis, 288 Makat, 289 Macron, 290 Leptimanus, 291 Sirte, 292 Mauritania 293 to the so-called the pillars of Hercules 294 and inner Gadir: these countries lay to the south; to the east of Rhinocorur, the lot embraced Idumea, the Midianite country, Alavastrida, 295 Omirita, 296 Axomita, 297 Vugea 298 and Liba 299 to the Vactrian country. This lot determines Simova's possessions to the east. The lot fell on Shem's breadth: Palestine. Phenicia, Coelesyria, Commagene, 300 Cilicia. Cappadocia, Galatia, Paphlagonia, Thrace, Europe, Rhodope, 301 Lasia, 302 Iberia, Caspian, Cardia 303 to Media to the north; here this lot serves as the boundary of the possessions of Japheth to the north, which to the west of Europe extended to Spain and Britain and to the neighboring peoples, which were: Veneti, Daunus, Iapyges, Calabrians, Latins, Oppicians, Magardi, even to the possessions of Spain and Gaul, and countries above the Scots and Franks. When the lots were divided in this way, Noah called his three sons and bound them with an oath so that no one would enter into his brother’s lot and should not appropriate his brother’s possession for himself. But Canaan, the son of Ham, being covetous, attacked the Palestinian country and took possession of it; That’s why it was called the land of Canaan, because he settled in it, leaving his plot, since it seemed sultry to him. Having settled in the land of Silova, now called Judea, he gave birth to the following sons: Amorite, Gergesite, Perzeite, Jebusite, Hivit, Arukey, Hittite, Aseneite, Samarean, Sidonius and Philistean. Therefore, the Lord speaks in the law, showing that the sins of the Amorites in perjury were fulfilled: for the sins of the Amorites have not been fulfilled to this day (Gen. 15:16). For this reason, they stayed in the mountains and lived in deserts until they brought condemnation upon themselves and entered into war against the sons of Shem, whom they had previously offended. And he begot Arphaxad, Arpakehad - Cainan, Cainan - Salah, Salah - Eber, Eber - Peleg, Peleg - Raghav, Raghav - Serukh, Serukh - Nahor, Nahor - Terah, Terah - Abraham, Abraham - Isaac, Isaac - Jacob, Jacob - Judah, Judah - Perez, Perez - Hezrom, Hezrom - Aram, Aram - Aminadab, Aminadab - Nahshon. During the time of Nahshon, the head of the tribe of Judah, and during the time of Joshua, the sons of Shem took their land not by unrighteousness, but by justice. The walls of Jericho fell of their own accord: for justice requires vengeance for offense. The Jews walked around the walls of Jericho for seven days, and it happened to be Saturday so that righteousness might be fulfilled. But this is not the only thing that happens on Saturday. On the candlestick of the sanctuary in the tabernacle of the meeting there were seven lamps; every day all the lamps were lit equally, and not one of them was lit on any day, but every day there was the same illumination. Saturday made no exception; but she was dedicated to a good deed. Further, when absolutely no one in all twelve tribes worked on the Sabbath, one altar was not idle, as the Lord says in the Gospel: your priests in the church desecrate the Sabbath and do not blame the essence (Matthew 12:5); desecrating the Sabbath means violating it. What do they violate, if not by offering sacrifices to God, so that the altar is not without use? This is not enough: the sun rises and sets, the moon waxes and wanes, the winds blow, fruits grow, mothers give birth, and all this happens on Saturday. Therefore, the Lord, when he came, did not do carpentry, plumbing, or any other work on the Sabbath, but being God, he did the work of God and said: take up your bed and go (Mark 2:5), so that from the one who carries the bed the miracle he performed would become known, so that everyone would know him who came from heaven to help the sons of men. So, truly He came to break the Sabbath: but He could not break it if it did not belong to Him; for no one destroys someone else’s business: otherwise he will be an appropriator of someone else’s property, a steward of someone else’s property, and will initiate legal proceedings against himself. since the Sabbath actually belongs to Him, He says that the Lord is the son of man and the Sabbath (Mk. 2:28) and also: not man for the Sabbath's sake, but the Sabbath for man's sake (v. 27). So, if God created the Sabbath for man, then he honored man before the Sabbath, so that he would know peace and tranquility in the future; for this is an image of the heavenly: here - in part, and there - complete perfection. So, the Sabbath established by the law was observed until the coming of Christ: He broke this Sabbath and gave us the great Sabbath, which is the Lord himself, our rest and Sabbath. So, no one should separate the Old Testament from the new, and the new from the old: for between them there is unity and agreement. Thus, if some ignorant and inexperienced person sees two streams flowing from the same source, based on the differences in the streams, he may think that the waters in the streams are also different. But he learns the truth from the wise: “Try the water from both streams and know that, although there are two streams, there is one source.” So there is exactly one Lord, one God, one Spirit, who spoke in the law, the prophets and the Gospel. Therefore, not two old and not two new testaments; because there are not two legislators, but one, who makes old the old covenant (Heb. 8:13) and renews the new, does not completely destroy the old, but only abolishes it and transfers the inheritance of wealth to another. The same Manes cites another saying: “I am sure, he says, that only the spirit without a body receives salvation. This is what the Apostle teaches in the following words: fornication is by no means heard in you, and such is fornication, as it is not publicly known, as if someone had a desire to have a wife. And you will become proud, and no more than a poster, may the one who did this deed be removed from among you. For now, even though he is not with you in body, he who is alive in spirit has already judged him who has done this, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to those who have gathered together, you and my spirit, to deliver him over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that the spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord (1 Cor. 5:1-5). But the exhaustion of the flesh is its complete destruction. So, when the flesh is completely destroyed in the hands of the devil, and only the spirit is saved, how will the resurrection of the body, or flesh, be possible? But this complete ignorant does not know that the works of the flesh are fornication, adultery, adultery (Gal. 5:19) and the like, and the Apostle is not talking about the flesh itself here, but about the works of the flesh. For when anyone commits fornication, it is the flesh that does it; but if he acquires self-control, the flesh is no longer flesh, but is changed into spirit. This is what the Apostle says: he who from the beginning combined one and the other sex said: for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and both will become one flesh: the filthy man cleaves to one body, but cleaves to the Lord, there is one spirit (Matthew 19:4-5; 1 Cor. 6:16). This means that he who commits fornication becomes flesh; and not only the flesh itself, but everything, the soul and the rest, is made flesh: for he who clings to a harlot is made flesh, and being carnal, he is called all flesh. Cling to the Lord; there is one spirit, that is, body, soul and everything that is in man; there is one spirit in the Lord. Laying down the law about this, the same Apostle says: God put the fruits of one of them in the body, as He willed (1 Cor. 12:18). See how he recognizes God as the creator of the body and the manager of our members, as he wills, according to his wisdom and goodness. Then, as an example, he compares our body with the body of Christ: we are the body of Christ in part, and the church of God, which is the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:27; Eph. 1:22,23). So, if the body of God is the church, clinging to the spirit, that is, to the Lord, there is one spirit: then the sinner who falls away from her spirit becomes all flesh with soul and body and all that is in him. Otherwise, how is it possible for one part to be betrayed to Satan, and the other not? And the Apostle did not say: deliver the flesh to Satan, but – betray such a one. And by saying “such a one,” he betrayed the whole person with soul and entire human being. If he betrayed everything, then under the flesh he designated the whole person. Yes, the spirit, explains the Apostle, will be saved on the day of the Lord, that is, so that the church does not become guilty of the fall of fallen man and so that the whole church is not defiled by the fall of one; That’s why he says: betray the fallen one, so that the spirit, that is, the whole church, may be saved. But it is written, says Manes, that flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50). He thinks to find something for himself in these words. Truly, neither fornication, nor adultery, nor lust, nor idolatry can inherit the kingdom of heaven: this means flesh and blood. If you think that by flesh and blood we mean the flesh itself, then how can what is said be fulfilled: the little ones received Him and gave them the power to become children of God, born not of blood nor of flesh, but of God (John 1:12)? Who in the world was born without flesh? But since it was not the nature, but the thoughts that changed among those born of flesh and blood of fathers and mothers, and they were born by the second birth from the Lord through the Spirit and fire: then He gave them the realm to be children of God. So, they were born of flesh and blood, but this birth of flesh and blood is not imputed to them because of their transformation into righteousness, although they live in flesh and blood, as they say: We walk in the flesh, but do not fight according to the flesh (2 Cor. 10:3). This means that they have flesh, but it is not militant according to the flesh. So, with the words: flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of heaven, the Apostle speaks not about that flesh that has labored, been sanctified and pleased God, but about that which has known sins: otherwise how will what is said be fulfilled: it is fitting for this corruptible to put on incorruption, and for this dead one to put on immortality (2 Cor. 15:53)? Revealing this more clearly, so that some do not get lost and because of bad deeds do not despair of forming the body again during the resurrection, the same Apostle says this: put to death the creatures that are on the earth, that is, fornication, adultery, lust, etc. ( Col. 3:5 ). But listen also to those who appeared to the Galileans and said: This Jesus, whom you see ascending from you into heaven, will also come in the same way as you saw Him ascending (Acts 1:11). After all that has been said, prudent people can pay attention to all the words of truth and the words of lies of the above-mentioned Manichaeus, so that, if I did not remember any evidence, all his lies would be revealed with the help of two or three testimonies expressed by me. Passing a long, laborious path and dangerous places, we attacked a two-headed serpent and a deadly beast of Cenchrean, which is speckled with different colors to seduce those who look at it and, having a hidden poisonous source in its sting, rushes at everyone. For he is a pagan with the pagans and worships the sun, the moon, the stars and demons: a pagan, I say, this man, beloved, and his heresy conveys the teaching of the pagans: he knows the art of the Magi and revolves in it; praises astronomers, following their research with curiosity, only in words boasts of the name of Christ, like that very Cenchrean snake, which, hiding its poison, seduces with its diversity, being in the middle of the bushes and appearing similar to them. By the power of God, the rod of truth, the blood of Christ and the body truly born of Mary, the resurrection of the dead and the confession of the one God, having broken the head of this serpent in the waters (Ps. 73:14), that is, turning back this many-headed heresy and breaking the head, let us give thanks to God for this and hasten to proceed to other heresies, calling on God to be the helper of our weakness, so that Having completed what we had undertaken in God, we could finally thank God. Against the Hierakites, 47th (67th) After this wicked and more poisonous, serpentine and brutal eruption of the barbaric teachings of Manes than any heresy, someone named Hierak arose, from whom they received the name Hierakites. He lived in the Egyptian city of Leontopolis. Having received considerable information in the preparatory sciences, he began to study all the Hellenic sciences, carefully studied medicine and other sciences of the Egyptians and Greeks, probably even touching on astronomy and magic: in general, he was very knowledgeable in many sciences and skilled in writing, as his writings show. He knew the Egyptian language perfectly, because he was an Egyptian by birth; but in Greek he also expressed himself no less freely: - a capable person in all respects. He was a Christian, but did not remain in the company of Christ: he fell away from it, stumbled and went astray. With all his might, so to speak, studying the Old and New Testaments, and drawing up an interpretation of it, he, out of vanity, brought in from himself the teaching that he liked and which came to his mind. Thus, he completely rejects the resurrection of the flesh, but attributes it to the soul alone and calls this resurrection spiritual. Having collected from the Divine Scriptures all the evidence adapted to his view, he constructed absurd inventions and came up with some disapproving means to confirm his heresy. Since he was “so amazing in his asceticism and capable of persuading souls, many of the Egyptian monks were captivated by him. As for the resurrection of the dead, then - since he rejected the resurrection of the flesh - I think that he borrowed these thoughts from Origen, or vomited them out of his mind. He does not allow marriage and says that it is characteristic of the Old Testament; for Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron and all the saints, as well as Isaiah and Jeremiah, are equally revered and recognized as prophets, and says that in the Old Testament it was allowed to marry; but from the time of the coming of Christ, marriage is no longer allowed and cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven. For what, he says, has the Word come to do new? Or what new thing did the Only Begotten come to preach and accomplish? If regarding the fear of God, then this was the law; if regarding marriage, then the Scriptures announced this; if regarding envy, covetousness and injustice, all this was contained in the Old Testament. And so He came to do only one thing - to preach abstinence in the world and chose for himself purity and abstinence, without which it is impossible to achieve life. He collects evidence of this from everywhere. Thus he says: “And your holy thing, without which no one will see the Lord” (Heb. 12:14). If they say to him: how can the Apostle say: marriage is honorable and the bed is not filthy: but the fornicator and the adulterer are judged by God (Heb. 13:4), he immediately answers this like this: but not much later the Apostle says: she who has not committed herself cares for the Lord, how to please the Lord and remains a virgin: but she who has committed herself cares how to please her husband and therefore separated (1 Cor. 7:34). Thus, if there is division, then how can there be unity with division? And if she pleases not God, but her husband, then how can she acquire an inheritance from God? When the Apostle says that for the sake of fornication everyone should have his own wife (1 Cor. 7:2): he says this not in order to praise marriage after the coming of Christ, but out of condescension, so that they do not fall into great destruction. They are eunuchs who have distorted the kingdom for themselves for the sake of the heavenly one (Matthew 19:12). Again: I want, he says, that all men may be as I am (1 Cor. 7:7). Also: the kingdom of heaven is likened to ten virgins: five foolish fools and five wise men (Matthew 25:1). Both wise virgins and foolish virgins, but only virgins, are likened to the kingdom of heaven: but Christ did not say: married. He collects a lot of similar things in order to reject marriage. He does not allow children who die before the revelation of consciousness to enter the kingdom, but separates them from their supposed hope. They, he says, will not inherit the kingdom of heaven, because they have not accomplished any feat. For even if someone suffers, he will not be married, and even if he is tortured unlawfully (1 Tim. 2:5). If the ascetic does not get married when he illegally performs his feat, then how much more so are those who have not yet been called to feats. He also does not believe in the existence of a sensory paradise, just as Origen thinks, and does not allow, as I said, the resurrection of the dead with the flesh: but he calls the resurrection of the dead the resurrection of souls and conveys some kind of spiritual fable. However, no one is allowed to be among the resurrected except a virgin, or a monk, or a faster, or a widow. He does not think about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the same way as Origen, but believes that the Son is truly begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit comes from the Father. Regarding the Holy Spirit, he says, as I explained above in the Melchizedek heresy, that it is Melchizedek; because, he says, it is said of him that he intercedes for us with groanings that cannot be uttered (Rom. 8:26). Who is this? The priest abideth away (Heb.7:8); and the priest will take it out because he intercedes. This Spirit once met Abraham, and he is like the Son. Therefore, the Apostle says: without a father, without a mother, without a clergyman. Without a mother he speaks because he has no mother; without a father - because he had no father on earth. The priest remains likened to the Son of God. And talking a lot of idle talk about the Holy Spirit, he compiled a large study about it. But he wants to receive a complete confirmation of his opinion from the Anavatik of Isaiah: 304 namely, as if the so-called Anavatik says: “An angel, walking before me, pointed out to me and said: who is this on the right hand of God? I said: You know, Lord. He says: this is the beloved. But who is this other one like him, coming from the left? And I said: You know. This is the Holy Spirit speaking in you and in the prophets; and he was, he says, like a beloved.” By this he thinks to confirm what has been said: he is likened to the Son of God, and remains a priest. So, what can our mind think about this to refute this very incorrect opinion of his? Hierak died at a very old age; wrote a lot in Greek and Egyptian: he composed an interpretation and composed some fables and empty allegories about the six-day creation; He compiled other works from Scripture and composed many new psalms. Many of the sincere followers of his teachings do not eat animals. Hierak himself led a truly strict life: but his disciples after him lived hypocritically. He abstained from all food and did not even drink wine. Some say about him that, having lived for more than ninety years, he wrote books himself until the day of his death: because he was an excellent scribe and his eyesight remained strong. Now let's look at its tares. By what thought of the word of God can we bind and destroy this poisonous serpent, which, like a scorpion, strikes both in front and behind, that is, from both covenants it collects what serves to harm, not in the sense, however, that such are actually the words of the Divine, but because its perverted mind represents its light as dark? Neither honey nor other foods created by God deserve blame: they are beautiful; but when they are given to someone possessed by a fever, they turn out to be bitter in his mouth, not because, however, they turn from sweet to bitter, but because the taste of the patient makes the food offered to him bitter. Likewise, everyone who has fallen away from the truth is led astray not by the truth itself, but by the fact that he tasted the truth with bitter thoughts, and therefore it turned into bitterness for him. But let's look at the children. What do we say about the babies beaten for Christ in Bethlehem of Judea? Did they inherit the kingdom of heaven or not? They inherited because they were innocent. If they did not inherit, then the culprit for this would be the Lord himself, for whom they were killed. If they were killed for Him, without having time to accomplish feats and thereby lost their reward: then it follows that the former coming of the Lord served more to the detriment of the world; because He was the reason that these children were condemned to lose their lives prematurely and, falling under the royal wrath, did not have time to perform feats to receive the reward. Let's look at other evidence. Come to me, blessed and wise Solomon, to rebuke this Hierak. Come here, most blessed of the prophets, who received from the Lord the breadth of heart and wisdom, like the sand of the sea (1 Kings 4:29), and say what you think about the children. And he says: old age is not honest for many years, it is counted lower in the number of years: gray hair is the wisdom of man, and the age of old age is not bad. Having been well-pleasing to God, he was loved, and the living one among sinners was quickly reposed, lest malice change his mind, or flattery deceive his soul. For the zeal of evil is darkened by a good one, and the soaring of lust is replaced by a kindly mind (Wis. 4:8-12). And what he says about children, he immediately adds the following: having died in a small age, fulfill (13), i.e., as if he were saying: the one who died in his youth fulfilled long years: for his soul was pleasing to the Lord: for this reason, having suffered from the midst of wickedness. Also in Jeremiah the Lord says: before you were created in the womb, you knew you, and before you came out of the womb that sanctified you (Jer. 1:5). But let's look at the Savior himself, undeceitful lips and knowing everything. Come, Lord, and help our minds to expose Hierak and his folly. The children came, it was said, to Him, and He would lay His hand on them and bless them: but the disciples drove them away and forbade them. He said to them: leave the children and do not forbid them to come to me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 19:13). But lest they think that the kingdom of heaven belongs only to children, and not to every age, He begins with them, but gives the inheritance along with them to those like them. But if people like them have to reign, then how much more are the examples of those who are like them. Thus, his fabulous teaching fell, for the Lord has mercy on everyone: the Lord protects the little ones (Ps. 114:5); also: praise the Lord (Ps. 112:1). And the youths truly praised the Lord: Hosanna in the highest; blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord (Matthew 21:9), and again: from the mouth of a child and of those who piss you have brought praise (Ps. 8:8). There are other similar testimonies And regarding the uprising of the flesh, why do you say, wise Hierak, that there will be no uprising of the flesh? The very manner of expression indicates its force: for rising is not attributed to that which has not fallen. But what is fallen, buried, destroyed? Not the soul, but the body. The soul does not fall and is not buried. And how much can you talk about this? It does not say: the rebellion of the soul, but about the body that it rebels. And regarding election, namely, that the Savior came to choose virginity, abstinence and purity, who does not know that this election constitutes the praise of the holy, catholic and apostolic church? But even in an honest marriage, those living, each according to his own condition, can be saved. For how can one not recognize a marriage as honest and having the kingdom of heaven in God, when the Savior Himself was called to the marriage to bless it? If He had refused to come to the wedding, He would have been a destroyer of marriage and not accepting of everyone out of condescension for their weakness. So, marriage is honest, because the Lord himself established it. For this reason, he comes to the wedding in order to stop the lips of those who speak against the truth; There, in Cana of Galilee, Jesus performed the first miracle, making wine from water. For just as He came from a virgin in order to show the light that shone from a virgin in the universe, so He performed the first miracle at a marriage in Cana of Galilee, in order to honor virginity with His birth and the outpouring of light that shone from it, and to honor an honest marriage with divine signs, the first of which He performed at a marriage, turning water into wine. In the same way, if marriage were disgusting to Him, then why does the teacher of languages ​​command, saying: deny young widows: for when they become angry about Christ, they want to encroach, having sin, because they have rejected the first faith (1 Tim. 5:11)? What is he saying? Let them get married, have children and take care of the house. So, if he allows this, then how can you, Hierak, reject marriage after the coming of Christ in the flesh? You say about Melchizedek that he is the Spirit. So the Spirit came and took on flesh? This means that not only the Only Begotten was born according to the flesh, but also the Spirit. Here is Mary, who gave birth to the Savior: if the Spirit was born according to the flesh, then let Hierak say, where is she who gave birth to the Spirit? And what the Apostle said: the priest abides like the Son of God (Heb. 7:3), then here we are not talking about the Holy Spirit: for he did not say: like the Son of God, but - likened, the word - likened indicates the following: if after the time of Abraham the Spirit was likened to Christ, it means that he was not once like that, and therefore he was likened to the Son of God. And how can he be without the Father? If the Spirit exists from itself, and does not come from the own essence of the Divine; then it would be fair to call Him fatherless; for the Son is truly the only begotten, and has no brother, and is the Son of God. But if we do not call the Spirit begotten, because the Son is the only begotten, but say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and receives from me (John 16:15), as Christ says: then he who comes from the Father and receives from me cannot be without a father. If Hierak says that the Spirit is without a mother in heaven, and without a father on earth: then the same can be said about the Savior. Why does the Apostle at the end also say the following: Abraham the Patriarch, who was not considered by birth to be one of them (Heb. 7:6)? The word “to them (ἐξ αὐτῶν)” indicates exactly the meaning of the speech: for if he came from the sons of Israel, then, of course, he descended from other nations. Due to the fact that it is not written about either his mother or his father, the slanderers of the truth invent one thing or another. We found in the legends both his mother and father: he was from the family of Sidonians and Canaanites. So, the fabulous teaching of Jerak collapsed; His strict life was also in vain: for eating inanimate objects and at the same time having bad faith does not constitute a school of life and hope of salvation: all, says the Apostle, let it be to the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31). But I think enough has been said about this for him. We broke the wings of this scorpion and crushed its strength. He is truly a winged serpent and a scorpion, having various wings and flying; he imitates the virginity of the church, but does not have a clear conscience. On him and on those like him, the word of the Apostle is fulfilled: those who are burned by their conscience, who forbid to marry, and move away from the waste that God has created for consumption. It is sanctified by the word of the living God and prayer; For all things are good and pleasant, and nothing is counted with God (1 Tim. 4:2-5). The Hierakites are absolutely ridiculous in that each of them has a woman for cohabitation, and yet they usually try to prove that they have them for their service. But having broken, as I said, both its wings and the tree of life, that is, by the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, having crushed its head, let us move on to the next heresies, calling on God himself for help to refute other heresies and to destroy the empty teaching they introduce into the world. Schism of Meletius of Egypt, 48th (68th) The Meletian sect exists in the country of Egypt and is called so from a certain Meletius, who was a bishop in Thebaid and belonged to the Catholic Church and the Orthodox faith: for his faith for some time did not deviate from the holy Catholic Church. This Meletius lived and acted at the same time as the above-mentioned Hieracus and was his successor; was also a contemporary of Saint Peter, Bishop of Alexandria. They all lived during the persecution that took place under Diocletian and Maximian. But as for Meletius, his case went like this: Meletius caused a schism, but was not a traitor to the faith. During the persecution, he, together with Peter, the holy bishop and martyr and other martyrs, was captured by the then rulers of Alexandria and Egypt appointed by the king: the rulers were Kuklian in Thebaid, and Hierocles in Alexandria. Meletius and the above-mentioned martyrs, together with Peter the Archbishop of Alexandria, were imprisoned. Although Meletius seemed taller than the other bishops of Egypt and occupied second place in the archbishopric after Peter, being, as it were, his assistant: however, he was subordinate to him and related to him in church affairs. For such was the custom there that the bishop of Alexandria governed ecclesiastical affairs in all Egypt, Thebaid, Mariotte, Libya, Ammoniac, Mareotis and Pentapolis. So, all of them, captured for confession, were taken into custody and remained in custody for quite some time. Others, taken before them, were tortured, finally received a reward and died: these, like high and great people, were saved towards the end. When some were martyred, and others abandoned martyrdom and committed the wicked work of serving idols, and, of necessity, touched victims, these fallen ones, who had made sacrifices and transgressed the law, came to confessors and martyrs in order to receive mercy through repentance: some were from soldiers, others from clergy of various orders, presbyteral, deaconal and others. Then there was no small movement and confusion among the confessors: some said that those who had once fallen away and rejected, who did not remain in courage and did not accomplish the feat, should not be allowed to repent, so that the rest, least of all caring about punishment, as a result of such a quick indulgence made to them, would not be seduced, reject God and indulge in the wicked service of the pagan. This speech of the confessors was prudent. Meletius and Pyleus, and together with them many other martyrs and confessors, spoke thus. Those who said this obviously perceived zeal for God. They also said that if, quite some time after the cessation of the persecution, in peacetime the above-mentioned people are allowed to repent, and if they truly repent and show the fruits of their repentance, then even then none of the clergy should be accepted into the clergy, but, after a certain time, admit them to the church and communion and count them among ordinary people, but not clergy. And it was truth-loving and full of jealousy. But Saint Peter, as a merciful man and the father of all, asked and begged them, saying: let us accept them as repentants, assign them repentance so that they belong to the church, and let us not turn away either them or the clergy (as the rumor that has reached us says), so that through lack of courage and weakness, once shocked and shaken by the devil, due to shame and delay of time, we will not completely turn away from the truth and remain without healing, in accordance with what is written: Let not the lame be turned aside, but rather let him be healed (Heb. 12:18). So, the word of Peter was for mercy and philanthropy, and the word of Meletius and his followers was for truth and zeal. Hence, when some said this, others said another, disagreement arose, although the view of the subject on both sides seemed pious. But when Archbishop Peter learned that the Meletians had rebelled against his philanthropic desire and were even more carried away by divine jealousy, then he himself erected a curtain in the middle of the prison, stretching out the clothes, i.e. He ordered the mantle and the deacon to proclaim: those who accept my opinion, let them come to me; and those who adhere to the opinion of Meletius, let them come to Meletius. And many bishops, monks, presbyters and other ranks separated to Meletius: and under Archbishop Peter very few of the bishops and few of the other classes remained. From that time on, they each performed prayers and other sacred rites separately. Meanwhile, blessed Peter died a martyr's death, leaving Alexander as his successor in Alexandria. And so he takes the throne after the said Peter. And Meletius and many others were condemned to exile and exiled to the Phenisian mines. Then Meletius, with the confessors who were brought with him, both in prison and during the journey, in every country and in every place where he passed, appointed clergy, bishops, presbyters and deacons, and established private churches; Meanwhile, neither the followers of Meletius nor the followers of Peter, who had ancient churches, had any communication with each other. Each one wrote on his church like this: the followers of Peter, who had ancient churches, wrote like this: Catholic Church; and the adherents of Meletius: - the Church of Martyrs. Thus Meletius himself, passing through Eleutheropolis, Gaza and Elijah, ordained many. He had to live in the said mines for quite a long time. Finally, the confessors, both those who were on Peter’s side (and there were many more of them) and Meletius, are freed from the mines. And in the mines they had no fellowship with each other and did not pray together. Meletius lived in peace for quite a long time after this, so that he also flourished under Alexander, Peter’s successor, and was friendly with him. He cared about the church and the faith: for I have often said that he did not change it in anything. This same Meletius, when he was in Alexandria and lived there, having special meetings with his own, seized and presented Arius to Alexander, since it was announced that he had gone beyond the bounds of faith in his interpretations. He was a presbyter in the so-called Bykali church in Alexandria. Then there was one presbyter for each church, but there were many churches, and now there are even more. Therefore, Arius was entrusted with the church, although there was another one with him. But we’ll talk about them in more detail in their own place, when necessary. As soon as Arius was taken, Alexander immediately assembled a council of bishops, asked for a thorough study of the faith and asked Arius about the harmful teaching that had taken root in him. Arius did not deny, but brazenly answered how it was. Therefore, Alexander excommunicates him from the church, and with him a great many virgins and other clergy who were seduced by him are excommunicated. Arius then ran away and set off on his journey to Palestine. Arriving in Nicomedia, he wrote a letter from here to Alexander, saying that he was not retreating from the crazy idea of ​​his false teaching. As a result of this, after some time, through the diligence and conviction of the same Alexander, the holy bishop of Alexandria, blessed Constantine convened a council in the city of Nicaea, and the heresy of Arius was cursed after his death. For at first, in the face of the blessed Tsar Constantine, he renounced his teaching and feignedly and slyly, even with an oath, pronounced the Orthodox teaching. But the king said to him: if you truly swear, then let your oath be believed, and you will be innocent; if it is treacherous, then let the One to whom you swore punish you, which soon happened to him, as we will say later. After this, Arius, acting together with Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, who was of the same opinion with him, was presented to the same king, as if he really rejected and cursed his heresy. Therefore, the king orders and instructs Eusebius to annex it to the church in Constantinople under Alexander, bishop of Constantinople, the same name as the bishop of Alexandria. Meanwhile, blessed Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, after the death of the above-mentioned confessor Meletius, having perceived zeal against the division of the church, those who remained after Meletius, who had their own private meetings, began to disturb and forcefully force them not to separate from the one church. But they did not want this, they were indignant and caused confusion. When blessed Alexander began to oppress and coerce them more strongly, some of them, who stood high and were distinguished by life and piety, took charge and went to the palace with a request that they be allowed to have their private meetings without hindrance. There were: Paphnutius, a great hermit, who was the son of a confessor and himself somewhat participated in the confession, John, a bishop from among them, also a most venerable husband, Callinicus, bishop of Pelusia, and some others who took part in it. When they came and wanted to appear to the king, they were driven away and removed: because the courtiers, having heard the name Meletian and not knowing what it was, did not allow them to see the king. Meanwhile, Paphnutius and John and others happened to spend quite a long time in Constantinople and Nicomedia. Then they become friends with the Nicomedia bishop Eusebius and tell him about their business. They knew that he had access to Tsar Constantine, and asked him to let the Tsar know about them. Eusebius promised to report them to the king and fulfill their request, but at the same time he demands them to fulfill his request, so that they accept Arius into fellowship with them: since he brought not sincere, but feigned repentance. They make a promise, and then Eusebius introduces them to the king, explains their case, and thus the Meletians are allowed to have their own private meetings and not suffer anxiety from others. Oh, that these Meletians, who proved themselves zealots of righteousness and truth, would rather enter into communication with those who had fallen away after repentance, rather than with Arius and his followers! According to the proverb, it happened to them that while running from the smoke they fell into the fire. Arius could not have had such a position and boldness if he had not had such an incident, which to this day serves for the Arians as the reason for their evil community among themselves. So the Meletians, once extremely pure and right in faith, united with the disciples of Arius. Most of them at this time had already been defiled by the evil faith of Arius, deviating from the faith; some, although they remained in the true faith, but through communication with Arius and Arians did not get rid of their filthy impurity. So, this is the occasion on which a mutual connection took place between the Meletians and the Arians. But not much time later - (I will now tell what I promised to tell) - when Alexander, Bishop of Constantinople was forced to admit Arius to communion, when he prayed, groaned and knelt at the ninth hour on Saturday before the throne, Eusebius meanwhile said: if you do not want to voluntarily join him to the church, then without your will he will enter the church with me the next day (the day came Sunday): when, as I said, Alexander prayed and asked our Lord either to take him from here, so as not to be defiled along with Arius, who blasphemed the Lord, or to perform some extraordinary miracle - which in those days usually happened quite often - the saint's prayer was soon fulfilled: Arius, who went to a certain place at night to discharge his needs, sat down, like Judas once did. So, the end of his life happened in a stinking and unclean place. After this, his disciples undertook insidious plans against the church. Alexander of Alexandria died after the Council of Nicaea; Athanasius was not here after the death of Arius. Appointed a deacon by Alexander, he was at that time sent by him to the royal palace; for Alexander bequeathed not to appoint anyone as bishop except Athanasius, since Alexander himself and the clergy and the whole church testified in his favor. Meanwhile the Meletians; Taking advantage of the fact that there was no bishop in Alexandria (for Alexandria never had two bishops, like other cities), they installed a certain person named Theon as bishop of Egypt in Alexander’s place: but he, after staying for three months, died. A short time after Feona's death, Athanasius arrived. Then a council of Orthodox Christians gathered from everywhere, and Athanasius was installed, and the throne was given to a worthy one, for whom it had been prepared according to the will of God and according to the testimony and testament of Blessed Alexander. Then Athanasius begins to greatly worry and lament the separation of the Meletians from the Catholic Church. He persuaded and asked them, and when they did not obey, he forced and forced them by force. He often visited adjacent churches, especially those located near Lake Mareot. One day, during a Meletian meeting, a deacon from the retinue of Athanasius entered there with some of the people and, as rumor says, broke the candilo, 305 which caused a quarrel. This is where the insidious intentions against Athanasius began: the Meletians accused and slandered him of one thing or another, and the Arians assisted them and consulted among themselves out of innate hatred of the holy faith of God and Orthodoxy. And they report this to Tsar Constantine. The instigator of all their tricks and the culprit of the harm directed against the church and Pope Athanasius was the above-mentioned Eusebius of Nicomedia. So, the accusers came to the king and said that this was a vessel for secrets, which, as I said, some called a kandil; but in addition they accused him of having killed one Mareot presbyter, Arsenius, and of having his hand cut off with a sword by Athanasius’ men, or by Athanasius himself. They brought it to the palace and showed the hand itself, which was in the box. Hearing about this, the king became inflamed with anger: for this blessed one had divine jealousy, but did not know that they were slanderers due to the Arian hatred of Orthodoxy, which I spoke about above. He orders a council to be assembled in Phenicia, in the city of Tire. He ordered Eusebius of Caesarea and some others to carry out the trial. They were much more inclined towards the Arian evil teaching. Some Egyptian Orthodox bishops, subordinate to Athanasius, were also invited - famous and great men who led an excellent life in God. Among these was Blessed Potamon the Great, Bishop of Heraklion and Confessor. The Meletians were also present, especially the accusers of Athanasius. The aforesaid blessed Potamon, a zealot for truth and Orthodoxy, who spoke freely and never acted hypocritically (during the persecution for the truth, he was deprived of one eye), seeing that Eusebius was sitting and holding court, and Athanasius was standing, greatly grieving and crying about what was happening to the friends of the truth, he turned to Eusebius, loudly saying: you, Eusebius, are sitting, and Athanasius, being innocent, he is judged by you. Who can take it down? Tell me: weren’t you with me in prison during the persecution? And so, for the truth, I was deprived of an eye, and you did not find yourself suffering any damage to your body and were not subjected to torture, but remained safe and sound: how did you free yourself from prison, if not by promising those who brought upon us the burden of persecution to do a lawless deed, or even did it? Hearing this, Eusebius became indignant, and, standing up, dismissed the court, saying: if you, having come here, say this against us, then your accusers are speaking the truth about you: if you are self-ruling here, then much less in your own fatherland. After this, Eusebius and his followers undertook the following: they sent two Pannonian bishops - like-minded Aryans, Ursacius and Valens, to Alexandria and Mareota, where, they said, the above-mentioned events took place, namely regarding the vessel, and a quarrel over other matters. Having returned, they reported not as it really was, but putting one thing instead of the other, they lied and slandered the blessed Pope Athanasius, and, having invented, presented this in writing, as if the truth, to the council of Eusebius and others, as was later shown by the repentant Ursacius and Valens, who with notes came to the blessed Julius, Bishop of Rome, and begged him for forgiveness guilt: “we, they said, slandered Pope Athanasius; but you allow us to communicate and repent.” They turned to Athanasius himself with these very repentant notes. When Pope Athanasius, being in Tire, saw that a strong conspiracy was being formed against him from all sides, then before going to the court and before the slander against him was exposed to the public by the opposing side, he withdrew at night and came to Constantine in the palace and told him his case. The king, still under the influence of grief, and thinking that the accusers were telling the truth and the defender was lying, continued to be angry. When he was indignant, Pope Athanasius addressed the king with a strong speech: God will judge between me and you when you yourself agree with those who slander our regularity. After this, it happened that Athanasius, as a result of what was written to the king by the council, was condemned to exile - (they carry out this deposition in his absence), among other things, because the king, angry, was offended by him. So, he stayed within Italy for more than twelve or fourteen years. But after this, a strong rumor spread that Arseny, about whom slanderers proclaimed that he had died long ago, and whose hand was cut off, was said to have been cut off, ended up within Arabia, and that Arseny himself announced himself to Pope Athanasius, who was in exile. When Pope Athanasius secretly invited him to his place, as the rumor that has reached you says, and when Arsenius came to blessed Athanasius (and then the children of Constantine, Constance and Constantius, were here together), Athanasius showed them Arsenius alive and with both hands: why the accusers were guilty not only of slander, but also of grave-digging, because they brought a dead hand. Thus, this such an absurd fable caused universal laughter and amazement. But it is difficult to talk about the accusers, the accused and all the others, which, if we talk about in particular, I will spend a lot of time. When Constantine died, Pope Athanasius, who was in great respect, glory and love in Rome, and throughout Italy, and among the king himself, and his children, Constantius and Constance, by these two kings, after the death of Constantine the Great, returns from exile; Constantius was then in Antioch and agreed to this. We learned this from the three kings’ own letters, written to the Alexandrians and to Pope Athanasius himself. So, he again sits on the throne after his successor Gregory, sent by the Arians during Athanasius's stay in exile. But Athanasius was again slandered before Constantius Stephen and was removed. And then he was further subjected to intrigues by Leontius the eunuch and his followers. From this it happened that he was expelled and called again. So George was returned by Constantius, and Athanasius withdrew and hid for some time until George was killed. At this time, Julian reigned, who, after the death of Constantius, deviated into paganism. The Alexandrians had long been angry with George, killed him and burned him, and scattered his ashes into the air. When Julian died in Persia, Blessed Jovian, who took the throne, wrote letters full of trust to Bishop Athanasius and with great honor summoned and treated him kindly, and sent him to take his throne. Thus, the holy church, having again received its bishop, was somewhat consoled. But after the death of Jovian, blessed Athanasius was again subjected to the same persecutions, pushings and turmoil, but was not removed from the church and from his throne: because the Alexandrians interceded for him and the whole city asked for him. Although Lucius, and now still an Arian, installed in a foreign region, probably in Antioch, repeatedly asked King Valens to send him to the throne of Alexandria: but the king did not want to remove Athanasius, fearing indignation among the people. Finally, when Pope Athanasius died, Lucius was sent. He caused much harm to the church, the city, the people, the bishops, the clergy appointed by Athanasius and who received him in every church, as well as Peter, Athanasius’ successor in Alexandria. This is what has happened in Alexandria so far. Bishops, presbyters and deacons were sent into exile, others were put to death in Alexandria, others were condemned to be devoured by wild beasts, virgins were killed and many others perished. Even to this day, the Church of God is suffering disasters from the above-mentioned work of the Meletians and Arians, who created confusion in the indicated ways and established a system of evil teaching. I'm talking about the Arians. But we will talk about all this in detail when we denounce Arius. And now I will leave this subject and move on to the Arian heresy, calling on God for help before starting to fight this terrible, many-headed serpent. Against the Ariomanites (Ariaenist), 49th (69th) The times of Meletius and Saint Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, are followed in order by Arius and the Arians descended from him. It flourished during the time of the holy bishop Alexander, successor of Peter, who overthrew Arius with the help of many efforts and great councils. Alexander excommunicated him and cast him out of the church and city, like a great evil that had come to people. They say that he was a Libyan by birth, and in Alexandria he was made a presbyter and primate of the so-called Baucalian church. All churches of the Catholic faith are under the control of one archbishop, and for each of them special presbyters were appointed for the ecclesiastical needs of the inhabitants who lived near each church and in the surrounding villages, or locally called Lavra by the inhabitants of Alexandria. Arius, lived during the time of the great and blessed king Constantine, son of Constantius the elder, who was the son of king Valerian, 306 and they themselves reigned together with Diocletian and Maximian and with others. Everyone knows Konstantin, the father of Konstantsiev, Konstansov and Crispov, highly revered in Christianity and the paternal faith in the apostolic and prophetic churches, which was intact until Arius himself. It happened that he separated many people from her. In this Arius, who was a presbyter with the aforementioned Alexander, the spirit of Satan arose and aroused him, according to what is written, to raise dust against the church and ignite no small fire, which engulfed almost the entire Roman Empire and especially the eastern parts, so that even now his heresy has not ceased to fight against the true faith and the church. And at that time Arius was a presbyter and there were many presbyters with him at every church. In Alexandria there was a large number of churches, together with the church now built, called Caesarea, which was formerly the gymnasium of Hadrian, then became the gymnasium, or basilica of Licinius. Subsequently, during the time of Constantius, it was decided to build a church here, which was started by Gregory the Meletian and Arian, and completed by the blessed and father of Orthodoxy Athanasius; when it burned down under Julian, this blessed Bishop Athanasius renewed it again. There are many other churches here, as I said, such as: the church called Dionysius, Theons, Hieria and Serapion, Perseus, Disium, Mendidia. Anniana, Vavkaliyskaya and others. In one of them a certain Kolluf reigned, in another Karpon, in the third Sarmat, and that aforementioned Arius ruled one of the so-called churches. Each of them, in ordinary meetings, taught the people entrusted to him with interpretations and instilled some controversy among the people. And some stuck to Arius, others to Kolluf, others to Karpon, and those to Sarmat, when each was interpreting in his church, one here, another there, one one thing, the other another; some, due to their disposition and love for the abbot, called themselves Collufians, others Arians. And Kolluf taught something perverted, but his heresy did not survive, but soon dissipated. ABOUT! if only this had happened with insane faith, or better yet, with unbelief, even more with the malice of Arius! This old man, (Arius) pompous with pride, has gone astray from the straight path. He was tall, gloomy in appearance, behaved like a cunning snake and could, with the help of his crafty disposition, captivate any kind heart. He was always dressed in hemiphoria and colovia, 307 was sweet in conversation, always influencing souls with persuasion and affection. Therefore, he soon drew away seven hundred virgins from the church to unite with himself. There is a rumor that he also captivated seven more elders and twelve deacons. His poison even reached the bishops. For he persuaded Secundus of Pentapolis and others to act with him. When this was happening in the church, the blessed Bishop Alexander did not know it, until the aforementioned Meletius, who was himself an archbishop in the Thebaid of Egypt (the affairs of Meletius had not yet reached the point of absurd hostility), was aroused by jealousy; for he did not differ at all in faith, but only in special types of desire for justice, which is why he caused terrible harm to people, as we have already said about him. And so the Egyptian Archbishop Meletius brought this to the attention of Archbishop Alexander; and he was under the hand of Alexander. This Meletius, as I said, was a contemporary of the blessed bishop and martyr Peter. When he conveyed everything about Arius, namely that he had deviated from the truth and had desecrated and darkened many, turning those who believed him away from the right faith, then the bishop summoned Arius himself and asked about what was reported to him, whether it was so. But he did not think, was not afraid, and immediately, without blushing, spewed out all his malice, as his letter and the investigation carried out on him then show. Therefore, Alexander convenes the presbyters and some of the bishops who were there and makes inquiries and research about him; when Arius did not bow to the side of truth, he throws him out of the church and drives him out of the city. Along with him, the aforementioned virgins and clergy and many other people were excommunicated from the church. While Arius lingered in the city for a long time, the confessor and martyr Meletius soon dies. By creating a schism and enticing everyone, Arius darkened many. When he was finally captured and exposed in the city and declared an exile, he escapes from Alexandria and sets out on the road to Palestine. Having arrived there, he approached each of the bishops with guile and flattery in order to acquire many associates for himself. And some accept it, but others reject it. And then this reaches the ear of Bishop Alexander, and he writes to each of the bishops district letters, up to seventy in number, which are still kept by the good lovers, and first of all to Eusebius of Caesarea, who is still alive. Macarius of Jerusalem, Asklipius of Gaza, Logginus of Ascalon, Macrinus of Jamnia and others, also to Phenicia Zeno, the oldest bishop of Tyre and others; He also sends to Caesarea. When messages were sent out, in which those who had accepted Arius were condemned, everyone answered blessed Alexander, justifying themselves; and some wrote with slyness, others sincerely: some said that they did not accept Arius, others that they accepted him out of ignorance, and some said that by accepting him they thought to benefit him. And the content of the answers varied. Then, when Arius found out that the letters had been delivered to all the bishops, he was expelled from everywhere and no one accepted him except his companions - for the great old man Eusebius of Nicomedia, who lived with Lucian in Nicomedia, was completely devoted to him, also Leontius the eunuch in Antioch, who had not yet received a bishopric, and some others, since they were all from the same disastrous society and Eusebius held he has enough time at home - Arius, even before his arrival to Eusebius in Nicomedia, wrote letters to him filled with all sorts of nonsense and containing all his evil teachings. At this time, he processed the same opinions of his, including them in letters. I found it necessary to offer here one of these letters that has reached our hands, so that those reading can see that we have not said any slander against anyone. This is the letter. To the most beloved lord, the faithful man of God, the Orthodox Eusebius, Arius, unjustly persecuted by Pope Alexander, for the all-conquering truth, which you also defend, wishes health in the Lord. When my father Ammonius went to Nicomedia, it seemed to me prudent and proper to send you greetings with him, and at the same time remind you of the innate love and favor that, for the sake of God and His Christ, you have for the brethren, that the bishop strongly attacks us and persecutes us and directs all evil against us, so that he drove us out of the city as godless people because we did not agree with him when he publicly said: always God, always the Son, together Father, together Son; The Son coexists with God unbegotten, always begotten and unbegotten; Neither by thought, nor by any moment of time, God precedes the Son, always God, always the Son, the Son from God himself. And since your brother Eusebius in Caesarea, and Theodosius, and Paulinus, and Athanasius, and Gregory, and Aetius 308 and all the eastern ones say that God exists without beginning before the Son, they are anathematized, except for Philogonius, Hellanicus and Macarius, people who are heretical and unconfirmed in the faith and call the Son - some a regurgitation, others - unborn work. We cannot even listen to such wicked people, even if the heretics threaten us with thousands of deaths. What do we say and think, what have we taught and taught? Because the Son is not unbegotten, nor even a part of the unbegotten, in any way, nor from anything pre-existing, but that by the will and will (of God) existed before time and before the ages, the full God, the only begotten, unchangeable, but did not exist before he was born, or created, or determined, or founded. For He was not without a beginning of being. And we are persecuted because we said: the Son has a beginning, but God is without beginning. For this we are persecuted, and for what we also said: He is from non-existence. And we said this because He is not a part of God and does not come from anything pre-existing. This is why they persecute us; you know the rest; I wish you, Solukianist, 309 in the true sense Eusebius (pious), remembering our sorrows, to be strengthened in the Lord. In addition to this, we offer another letter from Arius, written by him in defense of himself from Nicomedia to the most holy Pope Alexander and sent by him to Alexandria; it is much worse than the first in terms of poisonousness and is filled with continuous blasphemous speeches. Here it is: To the blessed Pope and our bishop Alexander, presbyters and deacons rejoice in the Lord. The faith which we received from our ancestors and which we learned from you, blessed Pope, is this: we recognize one God, ungenerate, one eternal, one without beginning, one true, only immortal, one wise, one good, one ruler, one judge, ruler of all things, stewards, immutable and unchangeable, just and good, the God of the law and the prophets and the new testament, who gave birth before eternal times. The only begotten Son also created the eyelids and the rest (Heb. 1:2). He gave birth to Him not ghostly, but in truth by His will and made Him His immutable and unchangeable, perfect creation of God, not as one of the creatures, a work, but not as one of the works; not as Valentinus taught, as if this work of the Father is an emission, and not as Manichaeus, who said that this work is a consubstantial part of the Father, and not as Sabellius, who, dividing the unity, expressed himself thus: Son-Father; and not like Hierak, as if the Son came into existence as a candle from a candle, or as a lamp divided into two; and not as if the Son, who existed before, was subsequently begotten or transformed into the Son. You yourself, blessed Pope, in the midst of the church and the cathedral, have repeatedly refuted those who asserted this. But, as we said, the Son was created by the will of God before time and before ages and received life and being from the Father, and the Father imparted glory to Him. Having given Him the inheritance in everything, the Father did not deprive himself of the property of ungeneracy contained in him. For He is the source of everything. Thus there are three hypostases, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And God, as the author of everything, alone is without beginning. But the Son, not in time begotten of the Father and created and founded before the ages, did not exist before birth, but before time, begotten first of all, one came from one and only Father. He is not eternal, and not coeternal, and is not unbegotten on a par with the Father, and does not have being with the Father, as some say, introducing two ungenerate principles, but as one and the beginning of everything, He is God before all things, therefore he exists before Christ, as we learned from you, who preached this among the church. And so, since He had from God being and life and glory and everything given to him, then God is His beginning. For He rules over Him, as His God, both because He existed before Him and because the Son is from Him. If the words: from the womb (Ps. 109:3) and also: from the Father I departed and go (John 16:28), are understood by some as if He is a part of the consubstantial and, as it were, an emission, in this case the Father will be complex and divided and changeable and body and therefore the incorporeal God will endure what is characteristic of the body. I wish you, blessed Pope, to be strengthened in the Lord. Arius, Efal (according to Theodoret Aifal) Achilles, Karpon, Sarmatian, Arius presbyters; deacons: Euzoius, Lucius, Julius, Mina, Helladius, Gaius; bishops: Secundus of Pentapolis, Theon of Libya, Pistus, whom the Arians installed in Alexandria. When things were in such flux, Alexander wrote to Tsar Constantine. 310 And the blessed king, having called Arius and some bishops, made an interrogation. Arius, who had like-minded people with him, first locked himself away in front of the king, meanwhile in his soul he plotted against the church. And so calling him, blessed Constantine, as if inspired by the Holy Spirit, said to him the following words: I believe God that if you cunningly hide something and lock yourself away, the Lord of all, by whom you have sworn, will soon expose you. Here he found himself having the same thoughts and was exposed in front of the king. However, he locked himself up again and many of his intercessors worked for him through Eusebius of Nicomedia. Despite this, the king, moved by jealousy, wrote a large circular message to the entire Roman Empire against Arius and his faith, filled with all wisdom and true speeches; it is still kept by the good lovers and begins like this: Constantine the August, the Great, Arius and Arians. This bad interpreter is truly the image and idol of the devil. Then, by the way, he presents from the Divine Scripture an extensive refutation against him, and turning to him indignantly, he cited a verse from Homer, which I considered necessary to offer here; here it is: well! Arius Arey, need for shields; We ask you, don’t do this! May Aphrodite's speech restrain you! 311 After this, Arius wished to enter into communion with the church in Constantinople; Eusebius, who had great power with the king and was annoying the bishop of Constantinople on this occasion, forced him to do this, and when he did not want to unite and enter into communication with Arius and was grieved by the violent actions of Eusebius, Eusebius said to him: if you do not want this in your July, tomorrow on Sunday morning, Arius will enter the church with me, and what can you do? The most reverent and God-fearing bishop of this glorious city, Alexander (he was the same name as the bishop of Alexandria), when he heard this, spent the whole day and all night in prayer, groaning and lamenting and praying to God to either take his soul, so as not to be defiled by his communication with Arius, or to create some kind of miracle, which is what happened. For Arius at night, feeling the need to go out to defecate, went to the latrine and in this place was found in a sitting position, dead and seated. So he was found in a fetid place with his intestines coming out of him, as if he had spewed out unclean evil. When this happened, the king, taking care of the church, since many already and often began to disagree among themselves and many schisms appeared, assembled an ecumenical council of 318 bishops, whose names are still preserved. They anathematize the Aryan faith in Nicaea and profess the Orthodox faith of the Fathers, unchanging and faithful to the Apostles and Prophets. When the bishops signed this confession and cursed the Arian heresy, the council ended. At the same time, at the same council they drew up some church rules; They also drew up a decree about Easter, so that this most majestic day of God would be celebrated at one time, with one mind, since it was observed differently by some. Some celebrated earlier, others in the middle, and others after, and in general there was great confusion on this occasion. God accomplished this work for the sake of the world through Blessed Constantine. When Arius was cursed and the deed was done, Alexander ended his life in the same year and Achilles succeeded him. 312 And Theon was also appointed from the Meletians. Achilles remained a bishop for only three months and was succeeded by Blessed Athanasius, who was a deacon under Alexander and was sent to the court by him: before his death, Alexander announced that the bishopric should be given to him. In Alexandria there is a custom after the death of a bishop not to delay in installing a new one, but immediately so that it is for the sake of peace, so that there are no disputes among the people, when some want this, others want that; therefore, out of necessity, since Athanasius was absent, Achilles was installed. Meanwhile, the throne and priesthood were prepared for the one called by God and appointed by blessed Alexander. When Athanasius, a strong zealot for the faith and a sympathizer for the church, returned and was installed as bishop, and when, through the influence of the so-called Meletians, about whom I spoke above in the story about Meletius, the people separated and formed assemblies, Athanasius, wanting to introduce unity into the church, denounced, threatened and convinced, but no one listened. Therefore, for his excellent zeal, given to him by God, unrest occurred against him and intrigues were committed, so that he suffered both exile and was most unjustly overthrown due to the predominance of the Arians. But enough about blessed Athanasius. For it is briefly mentioned in the story of Meletius. Thus, Arius was excited by the devil's power and, holding himself unbridled, shamelessly, raised his tongue against his master. First of all, he wants to interpret the following passage from the parables of Solomon: The Lord made me the beginning of his ways, before all others he was the foundation, in the beginning, before he created the earth, and before he made the depths, and before the springs of waters came into being, before the mountains were raised, before he brought me forth before all the hills (Prov. 8:22-25). In this he was presented with a reason for error. And he and his disciples were not ashamed to call the creature the Word, who created everything, born of the Father before time and without beginning. From this one word, Arius and his successors, directing their evil thoughts towards many evil paths, decided to utter countless blasphemies against the Son of God and the Holy Spirit. They weakened, so to speak, the agreement and unanimity of the holy and Orthodox faith and the church, however, not through their own strength or wisdom: for few adhered to them, being deceived, but many pretended to join them, and many, without sympathizing with them, forcibly became their accomplices. There was no reason for this, but first of all a test of believers. In addition, favor from the kings, which was started by King Constantius; in all other respects, he, as the son of the great and perfect Constantine, pious and precisely preserving the right faith, was meek and good; being himself godly and good in many respects. Constantius stumbled only in that he did not follow the faith of his father - and this was not through his own fault, but through the influence of those who were called bishops only in appearance and who damaged the true faith of God, who will give an account on the day of judgment. They will give an account for the faith, and for the persecution of the church, and for the many disasters and murders that were committed for their sake in the churches, and for the countless multitudes of people who are even now enduring sorrows in the open air, and for the blessed Constantius himself, who was deceived by them, did not know the essence of the Orthodox faith, and out of ignorance submitted to them as sacred persons, not recognizing in them the charm of blindness and evil faith that came from the machinations of the devil. Secondly, their serpentine work gained strength from Eusebius, who flattered and damaged the hearing of Valens, the pious, most reverent and God-loving king. Since Valens received baptism from him, 313 for this reason they were able to stand firm. And before that, the heretics, as blasphemers of the Master and second deicides and deniers of the divine perfection in Our Lord Jesus, had long been exposed and persecuted, not saying by adults who knew godliness and the right faith with all accuracy, but by women and boys who knew the truth in part and as if by chance: and due to the patronage of the king, which serves as protection for them, they decided to all the evil that they did and are still doing in Alexandria and Nicomedia, in Mesopotamia, in Palestine, by the good pleasure of the king who is present with them. Based on the summary of the passage written in the Proverb: The Lord created me the beginning of his ways in his affairs, they come up with everything that can be consistent, equivalent and consistent with their speech, while neither these expressions nor other sayings say anything like that about the deity of the Son of God. They also have similar passages, for example, what is written by the Apostle: Receive the saint of your confession, being faithful to him who created it (Heb. 3:1,2), and what is written in the Gospel of John: this is, of whom he said: He who comes after me will be before me (John 1:27.30), and what is written in Acts: Let all the house of Israel know unto you, even as this Jesus is his. you crucified, and God created the Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36) and other similar passages, which keep in mind to repel enemies: for they are truly enemies and accusers. Probably, it is written about them and others like them: may God rise again and his enemies be scattered (Ps. 67:2). They appear to be domestic enemies, and there are no worse domestic enemies, for all the men of his house defeat a man (Matthew 10:36). Probably, this is also performed on them. They, like mad dogs, rush to hurt their enemies and say: why are you talking about the Son of God? This is their trick to inject their poison into ordinary people. And what else is needed after He is called the Son of God? O people who are smart only among themselves and who seem to be leading and knowledgeable only among their own people! What else could be added to the name of Jesus, except that He is called the true Son, descended from the Father, and unchangeable? Next they attack with mockery, saying: How can He be from God? And when they are asked: Isn’t He the Son? They recognize him by name as the Son, but in fact they deny him in their minds, wanting to call him not true, but illegal. For if, they say, He is from God and God gave birth to Him from Himself, so to speak, naturally from His own hypostasis, or from His own essence, then He was pregnant, or received a section, or expanded during birth and then contracted, or was subject to something bodily and passionate. They are absolutely ridiculous when they transfer their own onto God and want to transfer the same from themselves to God. There is nothing like that in God; for God is spirit and from Himself begot the Only Begotten in an ineffable, incomprehensible and undefiled way. Why, they say, if the Son is from His being, He does not know, as He Himself says, neither the day nor the hour: about that day or hour no one knows, neither the Angels, nor the Son, only the Father (Mark 1:3.32)? How did He come in the flesh if He is from the Father? How did this inconceivable nature take on flesh if it came from the Father by nature? And they do not know that, to their shame, they introduce such reasoning. For if, because of his difference from the essence of the Father, He put on flesh and suffered and was crucified in it, then let them show us which of the other spiritual creatures (and they exist) put on flesh: for they cannot but admit that the Son is above all. Although they call Him a creature, they recognize Him above all His creatures and, as if pleasing Him, they want to serve Him with words, as if beating with one hand and caressing with the other. They want to please Him as if of their own free will and say: we call Him a creature, but not as one of the creatures, and a work, but not as one of the works, and a birth, but not as one of the births, so that with the words: not as one of the births we deprive Him of being born by nature, but with the words: not as one of the creatures, we declare Him to be a true creature. But whatever the creature, it remains a creature, and even if it has a name a thousand times more excellent, it is equal with all creatures. Although the sun is lighter than other bodies, it cannot help but be a creature, just like a stone. And the moon, although superior to the stars, is therefore not separated from creatures. Here is all sorts of work for you (Ps. 119:91). For what exists was created by Him and serves Him, and the Only Begotten is truth and His word is truth, as He said: If you continue in my word, you will truly be my disciples, and you will understand the truth, and the truth will set you free (John 8:31). If His word is the truth and frees those who are set free, then how much more is He Himself free, being the truth and freeing the slaves who obey Him? This is because everything is subject to Him and His Father and His Holy Spirit. Further they also say: how did He inhabit the flesh if He was from the essence of the Father? Let them tell us why the Angels, who are His servants, why the Archangels and Hosts and all other spiritual beings did not take flesh? But they also say that the Spirit is lower than the Son and is a creature of another creature, that is, the Word. Why did not the Spirit take flesh when, according to Arius, His face can change more than the Son? But since the Son is the wisdom of the Father, He deigned, in His perfection, to accept our weakness, so that through Him the salvation of the world could occur. Turning good into evil, they turn out to be ungrateful and unappreciative, insulters and blasphemers of their Master. By saying other things, they think humiliatingly about Him. How do they say He was hungry if He is from the essence of the Father? For it is written about God: He neither hungers nor thirsts; below is the invention of His wisdom (Ps. 40:28), and yet He hungered and thirsted. How did He get tired from traveling and sit down when God was not bothered (ibid.)? Why did He say: the Father who sent me is sick (John 12:49; 14:28)? For there is another who sends and another who is sent. And it is obvious that the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father. We do not speak in accordance with Sabellius, who says that the Father and the Son are one and the same, since He said: he is he who sent me (John 5:32), and also: I ascend to my God and your God, to my Father and your Father (John 20:17). The disciples were not born by nature from the being of God, but He said to them: To your Father. There is great damage in the thoughts of people who say this. If He is only called by the name of the Son, and is not the Son by nature, then He is no different from all other creatures, even if He surpasses them in dignity. For, despite the fact that the king stands above the regional commanders and generals, he is nevertheless servile to others and serves together with the same creature, being mortal, like his subordinates. And although the sun and partly the moon are superior to other stars, yet even at the same time they remain subordinate to the elements and are subject to the order of one Creator and Creator - the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. And although the Angels are superior to visible beings and in the order of other beings above all, since they were created invisible and occupy the first place in the service of God with unceasing hymns, and since by grace, and not by nature, they were created by him immortal and were honored to become immortal by nature from the immortal himself and having life and immortality in himself, yet even at this they are in fear and trembling, subject to responsibility, also to the order and command of the holy Deity. Therefore, it is necessary to carefully investigate the truth that if you call Him Son, then call Him and recognize Him not just by name, but as Son by nature. And among us many are called sons without being our sons by nature, but the legitimate sons who were born from us by nature are called true sons. And if He were only called the Son, as all are called sons of God, then He would be no different from others: why is He an object of worship, like God? Therefore, according to Arius, it would be appropriate to worship all others who bear the name of sonship, since they are called the sons of God. But the truth does not have itself this way, but always knows one only begotten Son of God, whom all things serve and worship, and every knee shall bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess, as Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Phil. 2:10). And the Holy Spirit is not equal to other spirits, since He is the one Spirit of God. The Spirit who proceeds from the Father and receives from the Son. But they want Him to be a creature of creation: for they say: all things were made, and without Him were nothing (John 1:3). This means, they say, that the Spirit is one of creation, because everything was created. And these people, who have ruined their soul in vain, do not know that the other is creation, the other is the uncreated Father and Son and the Holy Spirit, the one God, the true Trinity and one in unity. And since there is one God, there are not two Fathers, not two Sons, not two Holy Spirits: and the Son is not alien to the Father, but begotten of Him, and the Holy Spirit is not alien, but the only begotten Son was born without beginning, before time, and the Holy Spirit, as the Father and the Only Begotten himself knows, is not begotten, nor created, and is not alien to the Father and the Son, but proceeds from the Father and receives from the Son. For the Scripture says: My Spirit shall remain in your midst (Hag.2:6), and also: the anointing of Christ with the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:38). If the Only Begotten Himself is anointed by the Spirit, who dares to denigrate the Holy Trinity? Further, the still frantic Arius says: why did the Lord say: what good do you say to me? God alone is good (Luke 18:19), and through this He seems to deny goodness in Himself. But who else is so good as the Only Begotten, who gave himself redemption for our souls (1 Tim. 2:6)? And these people, spiritual and carnal, driven by the Holy Spirit, do not know the power and goodness of God and the economy of the wisdom of God. (1 Cor 2:14), alienated from Him, not having the gift of the Holy Spirit, who makes every man wise. Again, Arius repeats, when the sons of Zebedee, at the inspiration of their mother, asked Jesus to seat one of them on the right hand of his kingdom, and the other on the left, He said to them: “I don’t know what I’m asking for: can you drink the cup that I have already drunk?” When did they say: yes. He said to them: For I have drunk my cup, but I cannot give it to sit on my right hand or on my left side, but I have made preparations for it from the Father (Matthew 20:22,23). In addition, the Apostle says: God raised him from the dead (Rom. 10:9), which means He had need of him who raised Him. And it is also said in the Gospel of Luke that when He went away and prayed, destined to be betrayed, an Angel of the Lord appeared, strengthening him, because he had labored and sweated, and his sweat was like drops of blood (Luke 22:43,44). Moreover, on the cross, says Arius, He cried out: or, or, lima sabachthani, which is: My God, my God, have you forsaken me (Matthew 27:40)? You see, says Arius, how He needs help. Also in the words: I am in the Father and the Father is in Me. (John 14:10), and also: we two are one, and they also shall be one (John 17:21,22) He expresses that He is one not by nature, but by like-mindedness. And besides this, they with prejudicial intent deny that He received a human soul. They admit that He had true flesh from Mary and everything that is in man except the soul, so that when you hear about hunger, or thirst, about fatigue, or travel, or sweat, or sleep, or indignation, and you say that He needed it because of humanity, they can object to you. that the flesh itself does not act here if it does not have a soul. And they really say this: does this mean His Divinity was in need? and they say this in order to call His Divinity needy, to declare Him alien to the essence and true nature of the Father. When their maliciously invented one, two or five testimonies are exposed and refuted, then, since the whole truth is proclaimed and clearly established in the Orthodox faith, I think they will be exposed before wise men who have the Divine mind, although after these decisions they will bring many more opinions invented by them. For in a few places very many passages of Scripture will be explained, having equal authority. I will begin first of all with the saying spoken by Solomon, which they seized upon in order to maliciously plant the bitter root of their teaching: The Lord made me the beginning of his ways for his works. Scripture did not repeat this saying anywhere and none of the Apostles remembered this place in order to attribute it to the name of Christ. Thus, Solomon is not speaking at all about the Son of God, although he also says: I have called the wisdom of all, counsel and understanding and understanding (Proverbs 8:12). How many times is the expression used: the wisdom of God in an improper meaning? There is only one wisdom - the Only Begotten is used in a genuine, not figurative meaning. Everything that is from God is wisdom, but there is another wisdom in the proper sense and existing above all things - that is, the Only Begotten, wisdom in truth, and not in a figurative sense, always existing with the Father, the power of God and wisdom, in accordance with what is written: For us Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:24): and again: the wisdom of the poor is made of nothing ( Eccl.9:16): also: because in the wisdom of God the world of God did not understand, He deigned to save those who believe by the violence of the Gospel (1 Cor.1:21): and again: God put on the wisdom of this world (v. 20): also: God gave the heart of Solomon like the stream of the sea, and became wiser than the sons of Anak (1 Kings 4:29.31): also: gave God filled Bezalel with wisdom and God filled the son of Uriah with wisdom (Ex. 31:1,2). And you can talk a lot about wisdom, for example: what place is knowledge and wisdom from where was it found (Job.28:12)? The glorified wisdom itself says: I have called upon the wisdom of all, counsel and reason and meaning. By me kings reign and by me nobles are magnified, and the mighty write the truth and the rulers hold the earth. I love me who love me, and those who seek me will find me. I have wealth and fame and the acquisition of many and truth. I walk in the path of righteousness and in the midst of the path of justification I live, so that I will divide the wealth of those who love me and fill their treasures with good things: I will tell you this which happens every day, I will remember it, even from the beginning of time. The Lord made me the beginning of his ways into his works. Before the age was the foundation of me in the beginning, before I could create the earth, and before I could make the abyss, before I could become a source of water, before the mountains could be raised, before all the hills I was born, and so on. (Proverbs 8:12ff.) It is obvious that when some want to speak against the meaning of this passage, opponents use the name of wisdom and the following words to object: The Lord created me and also: I am the wisdom of all. This, they say, is wisdom, which called itself: in the beginning and going further, it designates itself by saying: The Lord created me. For above he says: this is wisdom, and then he says: I will tell you this which is every day; Why does he say: The Lord made me the beginning of his ways? We have already said that many types of wisdom given at a certain time from God are used in a figurative sense, because God does everything in wisdom. There is only one existing Wisdom of the Father, this is the hypostatic Word of God. The above saying does not at all force me to attribute it to the Son of God. Solomon did not indicate this, nor did any of the apostles or the Gospel mention it. Neither the saying itself nor the direct meaning contained in it gives the right to attribute it to the Son of God. For this whole book is parables. Nevertheless, the adjectives are not the same in meaning, but one is said in words, and the other is allegorically understood in meaning. When Solomon says this, and some dare to attribute it to the Son of God, let it not be! This saying does not apply to His Divinity. It can only refer to His coming in the flesh. (For wisdom itself has created a house for itself). And it would be pious to say this on behalf of the one who became man, as if His fleshly coming announced His Divinity with the words: The Lord created me, that is, created me in the womb of Mary, the beginning of His ways into His works. The beginning of the path, the descent of Christ into the world, is the body received from Mary for His work of justification and salvation. But Arius, damaged in heart and struck as if by a terrible blow, having in his mind enmity against the Son of God, will jump out and say: and this is what is said: if I tell you what happens every day, I will remember it, even from the beginning of time. You see, he says, it is said: from the ages, and yet the coming of God in the flesh was, according to Matthew, sixty-two generations later. How can the words: from the beginning of the age refer to Him? And those who have gone astray from every path do not know the truth that the Divine Scripture, if it begins to explain everything that it wants to teach, then it always goes not directly to the most ancient and, as it were, to the head, but begins with the closest, in order to then indicate the previous, distant one. For this reason it is said: if I tell you what happens every day, and then it is added: I will remember it from the beginning. So God first showed Moses a burning fire, and then there was a vision in a bush of fire: then the Angel began to speak to him, and then the Lord came out of the bush. He himself turns to him with a question not about what he saw, but asks about what was from the beginning. For the Lord says: Behold, I will send you to the children of Israel and say to them: God the Father of our messengers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob (Ex. 3:10-15); named here Abraham, who lived five or six generations before Moses. And when he spoke about the God of the fathers, he pointed to the ancient. Moses, gifted with understanding from God, did not ask about that, but what is much higher: if I come to them and they say to me: What is His name? what river come to them (Ex. 3:13,14)? Then finally the Lord reveals: I Am (–14). So, first I started with the nearest, then I showed the further, the higher. And Luke begins with the lowest and closest: Jesus was about thirty years old, beginning, as if he were the son of Joseph, of Eli, of Matthan, of Nathan, of David, of Judah, of Jacob. Abraham, Nahor, Noah, Lamech, Enoch, Seth, Adam, God (Luke 3:23-38). And look how first he showed the carnal coming, then something distant. Also, Matthew, according to His carnal genealogy, wanting to bring the thoughts of people to the coming of Christ, did not immediately say: the birth of Jesus Christ, the son of Abraham, but first - the son of David, and then the son of Abraham, so that, by showing what was recently seen and happened in the near future, and then higher, to designate that which is above every creation and is not subject to destruction. Therefore, blessed John began (to write the Gospel) after the others, and saw people dealing with the question of the descent of Christ, and the Ebionites, who were deceived because of the carnal genealogy of Christ, known from Abraham and in Luke, traced back to Adam, he also saw Cerinthian and Merinthian, who recognized Him as a simple man, descended from copulation, and also the Nazarenes and many other heresies, having begun (to Gospel) after (since he is already the fourth to preach the gospel), he begins to convene, so to speak, those who have lost their way and were engaged in the question of the earthly coming of Christ, and seeing that some have deviated into obstinate paths and abandoned the straight and true path, he began to say to them, as it were: where are you striving? Where are you going? Return, you who follow the obstinate and seductive path that leads to the abyss. This is not tact: the Word of God, eternally begotten of the Father, did not come from Mary alone, not from the times of Joseph, her betrothed, not from the times of Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, David, Abraham, Jacob, Noah and Adam, but in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was to God, and God was the Word. Be, be and be, does not allow the thought that He ever did not exist. You see how he first points to the nearest one. So Matthew, through genealogy, seemed to show the way, but did not completely lead the genealogy from above. Mark spoke of the works he had done in the world, of the voice crying in the wilderness, of the Lord foretold by the prophets and the law. Luke, who came after, raised him from the lowest to the highest. The fourth John indicated the crown and purity of the highest order and eternally existing Deity. And what Solomon in parables calls the beginning of the ways, some, out of piety, would like to understand here the economy of the incarnation, since it also proclaims about the Divinity of Christ, namely, that the Divinity itself created the house, that the Divinity itself made flesh and human nature, as the beginning of its paths into its own works, that is, into the works of salvation and benefit of people. Then he further says: the foundation is in the beginning. Is it possible that the Son of God was founded later in relation to divinity? Let these mechanics, contemplatives of the highest, tell us by what art wisdom was created, by what instrument it was founded. But if anyone needs to talk about this, let him flee from such an abyss of blasphemy and not touch the Only Begotten Divinity, which is always with the Father and came from Him. For with the Father there was always the Word, always Wisdom, always God the Lord from God, always the true and not false light, always having from Him being and truth and life. But why talk much about this? Then (Solomon) says: My foundation is in the beginning. It is pious to understand that this indicates the human soul. The words: The Lord created me indicate the carnal incarnation of man, if one can understand it that way. And the word: foundation means that He was founded according to His soul. The word: He gives birth to me before all the hills (Proverbs 8:25) indicates His birth from eternity. And we do not say this with complete decisiveness, for it is more consistent with piety to understand them in relation to His coming in the flesh. Although we should think so, no one forces us to attribute this saying specifically to Christ. Although this saying about Christ has its own meaning, it was not spoken in the form of a prophecy, but as a result of a pious thought - not to allow any derogation in God and not to think that the Son has a divinity inferior to the essence of the Father. For some of our fathers and the Orthodox also betrayed this, meaning here His fleshly coming. This is how one should think about the words: The Lord created me and is the foundation of me. And this is a pious thought, the great fathers interpreted it this way. And if someone did not want to accept the opinion of the Orthodox, there is no point in forcing him to do so. From here, no harm can come to us from those alien to the faith and dissidents. For this will not lead us to any diminishment, since the Divinity is free and is always with the Father. And that Christ suffered, He really suffered, but did not change in nature, His Divinity remained with His dispassion. Therefore, desiring of his good pleasure to suffer for the human race (since the deity could not suffer, being in itself impassive), He, being wisdom, took on our body subject to suffering, in order to suffer in it by good will and take upon ourselves our sufferings upon the union of the Divinity with the flesh. The Divinity itself does not suffer. For how can he who said: “I live seven” (John 14:6) die? God remains dispassionate. He suffers in the flesh, so that in the dispassion of the deity, suffering is imputed to the Divine, so that our salvation lies precisely in God. He suffers in the flesh, so that we do not have a suffering God, but an impassive one, who took upon himself suffering by choice, and not by necessity. Without touching the words at all and not knowing what meaning they contained, these terrible enemies rose hastily and suddenly, looking for an excuse to harm the faith. Meanwhile, they harm themselves more than the truth. And when we came across the words: The Lord created me, they rush around as if in a sleepy delirium, bringing nothing useful to life, but only disturbing the universe. This doesn't mean that in Jewish. Therefore Aquila translates: The Lord has acquired me. Parents always say about children: I have gained, I have acquired a son. But Aquila does not accurately interpret the meaning of the saying. For the expression: I acquired a son indicates something that happened recently. There is nothing recent about God. Everyone will agree that the Son was born from the Father, and not created, born before all times and without beginning. For it is impossible to suppose a period of time between the Father and the Son, so that any part of the time precedes the birth of the Son. All this happened (John 1:3), hence the times. If time existed in the first place, then where did it come from? But if so, then it will be necessary to look for another Son, through whom time came before the Son? And there is a lot of other things that lead to endless misunderstanding in the minds of people who are curious but do nothing good. In Hebrew it reads: Adonai, t.s. The Lord, kanani, which can mean: and brought me forth as a chick, and acquired me. It would be more accurate to admit: he produced me like a chick. But what chick is not born from the nature of the one who gave birth to it? And here in carnal formations, through the copulation of male and female, children are born: so with man and with cattle and with birds and with others. Therefore, the Only Begotten, the all-perfect Wisdom of the Father, desiring to do everything for the correction of people, so that no one would attribute to Him what is not, and would not fall away from the truth, came to the human race and was born by nature from a wife, imprisoned for the time of pregnancy in the womb of the Virgin, was not conceived from the seed of a husband, so that in His carnal birth there would be no place for carnal copulation and mixing, but from the Mother he received one-form flesh and imagined in himself a perfect incarnation, not with shortcomings, but true. And it had no defects because it was not from the seed of a husband. Having everything, He had perfect flesh and nerves and sinews, and everything else like that, as well as a soul, a real, and not illusory, mind and everything that is characteristic of man, excluding sin, as it is written: tempted in all sorts of ways, as a man except sin (Heb. 4:15). He was born here according to the flesh from his mother and flesh like her, perfect and without defects, in order to show this to those who wish to see the truth, and not to be blinded by their minds. Just as He was born from above from the Father, perfect before all times and without beginning, so He was born again from the one Mother, pure and immaculate. Let us explain the words: Adonai kanani, which mean: The Lord made me like a chick. Everything that gives birth gives birth to something similar to itself. Man gives birth to man, and God gives birth to God; man gives birth physically, and God gives birth spiritually. And as the man who gives birth is, so is he who is born of him. A man who gives birth to a son is possessed by passion, but God is dispassionate and gave birth to the Son born of Him dispassionately, truly, and not ghostly, from Himself, and not outside of Himself: being a dispassionate spirit, a dispassionately begetting spirit, a dispassionate God, He gave birth dispassionately to the true God. If He created everything, and you, Arius, admit that God created everything, then He also begat the Son. If you say: if He gave birth, then He endured suffering while giving birth, then we will tell you: if He suffered while giving birth, then He also labored while creating. But it is clear that everything that He wants He has in perfection and therefore is not subject to suffering when He creates, and the Divinity does not suffer suffering when He immaculately gives birth to the Son. For the Father is unchangeable, the Son is unchangeable, the Holy Spirit is unchangeable, one being, one Divinity. But you ask me: did He give birth by will or against his will? I will not be on your side, a man of words, to think anything like that about God. For if He gave birth, not wanting to give birth, then He gave birth involuntarily, and if He gave birth, desiring to give birth, then there was a will before the Son and in the will there will be a period of time before the birth of the Son. But in God there is no time for will, no desire for reflection. He gave birth not by will and not against the will, but by nature, which is higher than will. He has a divine nature, which has no need for the decision of the will and does not do anything without will, but has everything from itself and lacks nothing. Then Arius again chases sayings, wandering throughout Scripture, and tries to find an ungodly meaning, and not the one that the Divine Scripture has: sick with a passion for research and word debates, which are not aimed at anything useful, but to the detriment of himself and those who are carried away by him into error, he grabs hold of the saying that the Lord said, blessing the disciples: Father! grant them life to have within themselves. This is the eternal life, that they may know the one true God, and whom Jesus Christ sent (John 17:3). I already had a discussion about all this in a large essay: about faith, which we, in our humility and weakness, wrote at the convincing request of the brethren and which we gave the name: Anchor. In it, my poor mind, with the help of God, labored to collect the truths of divine teaching from all Scripture. Here we have clearly offered for those who wish it a kind of anchor, the holy faith of the fathers, apostolic and prophetic, from the beginning to the present day preached in the holy church of God, in order to strengthen the thought and warn it, so that it will not be indignant at the slander of the devil and may not suffer harm from the unrest caused in the world by various heresies. So the Lord taught his disciples, saying: what you heard from the beginning abides in you. Be in Me and I in you, I in the Father and you in Me (John 15:4.14.20). These truths of faith, heard at the beginning from the Lord, abide in the holy church of God. And therefore the holy church of God and the Orthodox faith abides in the Lord, and the Only Begotten Lord is in the Father, and the Father in the Son, and we are in Him through the Holy Spirit, if we are churches containing the Holy Spirit, as the holy Apostle of God said: you are the church of God and the Spirit of God lives in you (1 Cor. 3:16). And so the Spirit is God from God; through this Holy Spirit we are called churches if we infuse ourselves with His Spirit. For the Spirit of Christ is the Spirit who proceeds from the Father and receives from the Son, as the Only Begotten himself confesses. All this, as I said, we set out in the above-mentioned work: about faith, which we sent to the borders of Pamphylia and Pisidia. And here, since in the order of research we reached the same sayings, then, of necessity, we took care to remember again, too, bearing in mind the heresiarch Arius under discussion and the Arians descended from him, in order to destroy their malice, which turns sweet into bitter, good into evil, and light into darkness. These people, who turn good into evil (Is. 5:20), have already been told of grief from the Lord through Saint Isaiah. And God is by no means the culprit of this, but each of them, through vanity, or prejudice, or arbitrary wisdom, or demonic conceit, fell away from the truth and through his wickedness brought sorrow into the world. Let us cite this saying, so that, as the holy Apostle says, we may know what was spoken by the Lord: and we have the Spirit of God, that we may know that which is given to us by God, even as we speak (1 Cor. 2:12). The Lord says this: grant them life to have within themselves. This is the eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and whom Thou didst send, Jesus Christ (John 17:3). This Arius and his like-minded people rise up again to confuse them and say: whoever prays to God and says: Father, grant them life to have in themselves, is certainly not equal to the one who gives life. If He were from the being of the Father, He himself could have given life and would not have asked the Father to give to those who receive what is given from Him through prayer. And those who have been seduced in their thoughts do not know that the Only Begotten came to become an example and salvation for us, standing in the midst of the world like an athlete in a spectacle, destroying everything that rebels against the truth and stems from unbelief, slander and the flattery of the devil, such as: idolatry, Jewish conceit, unbelief, the audacity of human wisdom. His goal was to teach people humility, so that a person would not attribute anything to himself, but would attribute everything to the Father of all. And therefore, being life, as he himself says: I am life (John 14:6), and having the power to give life, however, he does not want to violate justice, but came to bring salvation and the thought of people to a single beginning, to a single Divinity, to a single truth, to a single agreement, to a single glorification. And in front of the disciples he prays to the Father for this. What son doesn't ask his father for something? What father doesn't give to his son? What son is alien to his father by nature? Therefore, the Only Begotten Son of the Father, filled with grace and truth (John 1:14), having no need for replenishment, did not tolerate lack of truth, but was full of grace and truth. Being full, He gives and is able to give, but He wants to raise everything to the Father. For the Son glorifies the Father, and the Father glorifies the Only Begotten. I have glorified you on earth, said the Son to the Father (John 17:4). And the Father said to the Son: I have glorified you, and I will glorify you again (John 12:28). In God there is neither discord nor envy: grant them, he says, the belly to have within themselves. Being life himself, He wants to receive life from the Father and give it to the disciples, so that unity does not fall apart, so as not to give a pretext to temptation to the Jews, so that the Jews hear Him asking from the Father and giving to His disciples. How does the Son ask the Father? Is it really like someone who does not have and asks? No. By this he points to the unity of the Trinity, which perfectly bestows gifts upon the worthy recipient. And in order to show that the Divinity is one, in another place He gives, not asking the Father, but by His own authority, as a source from a source, as God from God; Thus blowing into the faces of his disciples, He said to them: receive the Holy Spirit (John 20:22). And on another occasion, he raised his hands and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” And he also says that He has life in himself, in order to give to whomever he wants: just as the Father and Imam have life in himself, so the Son also has life in himself (John 5:26). And be careful, for the sake of the glory of the Father and for the sake of one harmony and one glorification, so that the disciples do not think that the Only Begotten came to divert the thoughts of believers from the God of the law and the prophets. He, being God and foreseeing human evil, sends prayer to the Father and gives the glory that belongs to the Father, so that Manichaean, who denies the Father, would be ashamed, and in order to teach the disciples that there is one and the same Divinity in both the Old and New Testaments, so that the Jews would be put to shame, because the Only Begotten came to proclaim not any other God, but to reveal His Divinity and His Heavenly Father. Grant, he says, that they may have life within themselves, and he himself proclaimed the same life. How does He pray to the Father to give them what He himself taught and gave? What this life consists of, He finally revealed, saying: This is life, that they may know the one true God (John 17:3). Then Arius and his followers, as if they had found something contrary to the truth, attack in the said saying what Christ said about the one true God. You see, they say, the Father alone is true God. Let us also ask you: what do you say? If the one true God is the Father, what will the Son be? If not the true Son, our faith is vain, our preaching is vain. By blaspheming, you will find yourself likening the Son to inglorious and lawless idols, about which the prophets spoke so on behalf of the lost, as if each of the prophets hinted at the said saying: your fathers made for themselves false gods, and the hills were lies (Jer. 3:23). You also judge the Only Begotten, and you also shamefully reason about the One who redeemed you, if only He redeemed you. For you are not in His court, you who deny your Savior and Redeemer. If He is not the true God, then He is not worthy of worship, and if He is a creature, then He is not God, and if He is not worthy of worship, why is He preached about? Stop you, who are creating a new Babylonian confusion, you are erecting the image and likeness of Nebuchadnezzar, you are calling warriors to unity with a loud trumpet, you are leading people to destruction with your flattering words, as if with musical instruments, cymbals and psalms, you are preparing people more for serving an idol than God and the truth. And who else is true if not the Son of God? For the Scripture says: for whoever will be equal to the Lord among the sons of God (Ps. 88:7). And one more thing: it will not be counted against him (Bar.3:36). And why does he say it? So that you can see what He says about the Son. Further he says: you have invented every way of cunning and given it (–37). And then: appear on earth and live with people (–38). Isn't this true about Him? He himself says about Himself: I am the truth (John 14:6). But you will say: how does the Only Begotten, being the true God, nevertheless say: let them know you the one true God? This is so that polytheism does not come to mind, so that there is no division in life knowledge. For if the Father is the only true God, then the Son, truly begotten of the Father, is true. Giving honor to the Father and declaring Him the one true God, he showed himself to be truly begotten of the Father. Therefore, the true God is the Father, the true God is the Only Begotten Son. Where can you see this? If here He calls the Father the one true God, then consider with me other sayings. The Gospel of John says: this is the true light (1:9). What true light is this if not the Only Begotten? And the Scriptures also say about God that God is light: it does not say that God is the true light: but about the Only Begotten Son of God it is said that the Only Begotten is the true light. It is said about the Father: the true God, but it is not said that God is the true light. About the Son it is said that He is God, but to the words: the Son is God, the word “true” is not added. And where God is called light, it is not added: true light. What shall we say after this about the Father? The fact that God is the true light and it is not permissible for there to be any deficiency in the Divinity. And although it is not written about Him that He is the true light, we will sin if we say that He is not the true light, especially when it is written about the Son that He is God: and God was with the living Father, and God was the Word. It is not said that the Word was made God, but was God. From these two passages the conclusion is the same: from the fact that the Father is true God and the Son is true light, their equal dignity is revealed, and from the fact that the Son is God and God is light, their equal glorification is revealed. And nothing will lead to division and no one will contradict the truth that the Father is true God and the Only Begotten is the true Son. Then I am forced to speak about the Holy Spirit, so that by omitting this, I will not give those who wish hostility any pretext for it. So the Holy Spirit, as the Lord himself testifies of Him, is the Spirit of truth (John 14:17). The Spirit of the Father, according to the Apostle, the Spirit of Christ (Rom. 8:9). So, He is the Spirit of truth, the Spirit of God, as true God, as true light, as the Spirit of the Father, as the Spirit of the Son. For there is one Trinity, one doxology, one Godhead, one dominion. Father - Father, Son - Son, Holy Spirit - Holy Spirit: the Trinity is unmerged, indivisible in its unity, has no lack of perfection, is not different from its own properties, but in everything She is perfection, three perfect beings, one Divinity. Thus the sword fell out of the hands of the enemies. For it is thus written: the child shoots arrows (Ps. 63:8). So the children, although they want to take the arrows, they are powerless and the arrows cannot do anything in their hands. And if children become restless when using them, they are more likely to hit themselves and harm themselves, being unable to direct the arrow at others. So the Arians have taken up arms against themselves with error and will not fall among the sons of truth. Ch. 34 I will move on to other objections that they are still inventing. And above all, it is worthy of surprise what cunning they use to seduce people who are simple and inexperienced by nature. How the serpent seduced the inexperienced Eve: in the same way, if they want to attract someone to their side, first of all they use various flattery, generosity, courtesy, and then promises and threats against those who do not want to follow their teachings, for example, how dare you resist the royal decrees and the will of King Valens? What do they say we are saying? The faith is the same, but you are just being vain. Let's see if it's the same faith. They say: we confess the Son begotten of the Father and do not deny Him. But we must, they say, confess Him as a creature and a creature. There is nothing more reckless than this. For everything created is not like what is born, and what is born is not like what is created, especially when it comes to this one, pure and perfect essence. Everything was created from God; one Son of God was born and one Holy Spirit came from the Father and received from the Son (John 15:26). All other things were created, and did not come from the Father and do not receive from the Son, but arose from the fulfillment of the Son (John 1:16), as it is written: by the word of the Lord all their strength was strengthened, and by the spirit of His mouth (Ps. 33:6). But it is necessary, they say, to recognize Him as a creature because in Scripture the word “creature” is used in a figurative meaning, and in a figurative meaning the word: birth. But even if we call Him a birth, we will not speak of Him as one of the births. Therefore, if they use the word: birth, they do not mean true birth by it, but only deceive the inexperienced. We, they say, recognize Him as a creature, for Christ is called the door, and the way, and the pillar, and the cloud, and the stone, and the sheep, and the lamb, and the goat, and the bull, and the lion, and the fountain, and wisdom, and the word, and the son, and the angel, and the Christ, and the Savior, and the Lord, and man, and the son of man, and the cornerstone, and the sun, and the prophet, and bread, and king, and steward, and farmer, and shepherd, and grapes, and other names. This is how we, they say, call Him a creature in a figurative sense, and this is what we should acknowledge. Get away from here such malice and deceit! Lord forbid that any of the sons of truth should be carried away by such deception, or be convinced by such evidence to transfer the name of creation to the Son of God and recognize Him as such. Let them allow us to explain the use of these names and the thoughts contained in them. All these names are used allegorically and do not give a reason to attack the Divinity of the Son and do not represent that His essence was insufficiently honorable in comparison with the Father. If Christ is called the Door (John 10:9), then it is because through Him we enter: if - by the way (John 14:6), then because through Him we walk: if it is called a pillar (Exodus 13:21,22), then because He is the affirmation of the truth; if with a cloud, then because he overshadowed the children of Israel; if with a pillar, then because he shone with the light of fire in the desert; if with manna, then because they rejected this heavenly bread; if with bread, then because we are strengthened by Him; if with an angel, then because He is the angel of the great council. However, the name of the angel is significant. For Rahab also received angels, but those sent were not angels, but messengers about that country (Joshua ch. 2). So is the Only Begotten, since he announced to people the will of the Father, there is a great angel of counsel (Ex. 9:6), proclaiming great counsel in the world. It is also called a stone (1 Cor. 10:4), not an insensitive stone, but in a figurative sense, because He became a stumbling block for the Jews, and for us the foundation of salvation. Called the corner stone (Isa.28:16; Eph.2:20) because He combined the old and new covenants, circumcision and uncircumcision into one union. The Lamb (John 1 36) He is called because of His gentleness, and because through Him sin was destroyed from among people, when He was offered to the Father like a sheep to be slaughtered. For He, being impassive, came to suffer for us, so that we might be saved. And if anything else in the same names is found in relation to the salvation of the sons of men, then all this in the Divine Scripture is applied to Christ in an allegorical sense. What benefit could a creature bring us? What significance can it have in relation to our salvation and to the glorious incarnation and perfect Deity of God the Word? What good does it do us to call Him a creature? What will the creature do for the creatures? What good do creatures benefit from creatures? And how did God create God, giving Him for worship, when He said: Thou shalt not make any likeness unto thyself, whether there be any thing on earth, or anything in heaven, and let him not worship it (Ex. 20:4). How did He create a Son for Himself and commanded us to worship Him when the Apostle says: And He served the creation more than the creator and fool (Rom. 1:22.25)? It is foolish to recognize creation as God and to violate the first commandment, which says: Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and serve him only (Matthew 4:10). Therefore, the holy church of God does not worship the creature, but the begotten Son, the Father in the Son, the Son in the Father with the Holy Spirit. Yes, they say, but if I do not say that the Son is a creature, then by this I am allowing the Father to be diminished, while what is created does not diminish the Creator. For what is born from nature produces either contraction, or expansion, or diminution, or cutting off, or causes the one who gave birth to any of these sufferings. Great is the folly of people who think this way and want to judge the Divine by themselves and attribute their passions to God, while God is completely impassive both when he gives birth and when he creates. We, being created beings, suffer both when we give birth and when we do something we are tired. And if the Father suffers while giving birth, it means that He is also weary while creating. How can one say about God that He suffers and is troubled by doing! No, He does not bother, so it will not be so. For Scripture says that He will not labor (Ex. 40:28). God is Spirit and without beginning and before time gave birth to a spiritual being - the Son, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not created. But I will leave this speech of theirs. Let us now move on to their other speeches, expressed by them with bad intentions and praised by them, which were mentioned above. And first of all, they poorly interpret the following saying: Receive your saint as faithful to him who created him (Heb. 3:12). First of all, they reject this epistle, that is, to the Jews, denying that its content came from the Apostle, and saying that it is not his. Meanwhile, due to their special illness, as I said above, they accept this saying with evil intentions and from the words: the being is faithful to the One who created Him, they draw the conclusion that He is a creature. But if some smart person asked them, they would be confused, not knowing how to answer the question: when did our Lord take the name: Saint? For before His coming in the flesh He did not have any of these names, was not called a stone, was not led to the slaughter like a sheep, was not called man and son of man, eagle, sheep and all the other names that apply to Him after coming in the flesh. So He is called a saint because the law declared about Him: The Lord your God will raise up a prophet from your brethren (Deut. 18:15). So, the word of God clearly shows that He is called a prophet, a saint, and one who is from among us after His dwelling here. From here one can truly see how the invincible power of God and foreknowledge predicted and confirmed everything with amazing clarity in order to stop the lips that rebel against the truth. The same epistle further says this: every high priest, acceptable from man, is appointed for men, and brings gifts and sacrifices, able to suffer. Have a need for your sins (to make a sacrifice) (Heb. 5:12; 7:27). Christ, having no sin, offered himself to the Father. He is from man - according to incarnation, but not from man and has no need - according to Divinity. And about his Divinity he says: even if the Son was, but about the carnal coming: get used to these things that you suffered (Heb. 5:8). You see that everything is said about Christ clearly and there is no intricacy here. In the words: the saint's being is faithful to Him who created Him, it does not speak about the very formation of His body on earth, nor about His incarnation, nor about creation in general, but about the granting of dignity to Him after His incarnation, as in the following words: He was given a name above every other name (Phil. 2:9). And this was fulfilled not before in His Divinity, but in His present coming, when, having become man from Mary, He received a name above all other names, that is, together with God the Word He is called the Son of God. And therefore the same Apostle said in the same place: we see Jesus made less than a little by the angels for accepting death with glory and honor (Heb. 2:9), that is, the Lord and Creator of angels, terrible for angels, appeared diminished in comparison with the angels and, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, who brought them from non-existence into being is called diminished in order to make it clear that here we are not talking about His Divinity, but about His flesh. For the acceptance of death cannot relate to the Word before He took on flesh, but refers to His fleshly coming, when He was both impassive and subject to suffering, impassive in Divinity, but suffering in humanity. In Him alone both are combined: at the same time He is both the Son of Man and the Son of God. Christ is called a son in both respects. So what does it mean: He created Him? Let those who are curious from all that has been said learn that in this saying there is nothing that relates to His Divinity, but that it refers to His fleshly coming. In the words: He created Him, it does not speak of any creature or creation, but of His dignity after the Incarnation. For if anyone were to ask any king about his own son: how do you feel about him? He would hear in response: he is my son. Is he your legitimate son or an illegitimate one? The king would say: legitimate, he came from me. What have you made Him with? I made Him king. It is clear that the son is no different in dignity from his father. Having said: I made him a king, the king does not at all say by this: I created him. Having said: he did, he did not refuse to recognize him as born of himself, but clearly announced his birth, and in the word: he made him a king, indicating his dignity. So the Son of God, for those who want to receive a life, undoubtedly serves as an object of faith and worship, like the Son of the Father. And He became a saint because He, in His body, offered Himself as a sacrifice to the Father for humanity: Himself and a priest, Himself and a sacrifice. He sacrificed himself for all creation, then ascended spiritually and with glory, sat down in the flesh at the right hand of the Father, becoming a high priest forever and once passed through the heavens, as the same holy Apostle testifies about Him in the words that followed. Thus, their preconceived reasoning again fell from the Divine Scripture, which is life-giving and does not cause the faithful to stumble or blaspheme the Word of God. Then Arius remembered another saying that John said when he was in the desert and saw Christ coming: this is, about Him I Reh to you: a man is coming for me, who was before me, as he was before me (John 1:30). First of all, they change the meaning of these words, like people suffering from vertigo, and say: how can these words refer to the carnal coming, when Christ was conceived in the womb of Mary not before John? For the Evangelist says: in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent to the city of Galilee, to the betrothed Virgin to a man whose name was Joseph. And he came to her and said: Rejoice, full of grace: the Lord is with you, and so on (Luke 1:26-28). When the Virgin was embarrassed by the greeting, he said to her: Behold, you will conceive in your womb and give birth to a Son, and you will call His name Jesus. And behold, Elizabeth is your daughter, and she conceived a son in her old age, and behold, the sixth month is called unfruitful for her (Luke 1:31.36). You see, he says, six months before the Annunciation to Mary, John already existed. How then will the words: “before me” be related to the fleshly coming of Christ? Who among simple people and not quite strong in thought would not be embarrassed upon hearing such words? He cites the words of Divine Scripture, necessary, simple and life-giving, and they turn out to be most harmful for people who bring evil upon themselves, while all these sayings are illuminated by the Holy Spirit. What is missing in this saying to protect against error? John, pointing to the visible one and showing those who are looking, says: This one is, about Him I told you, He is coming for me. Who is coming if not man? None of the smart people recognizes our Lord as a simple man, except for the above-mentioned heretics: Corinth, Merinth and Ebion. But in the word: true believers recognize the Lord Himself with confidence, as John also testifies: by hearing from the beginning (1 John 1:1). Here he says that He exists from the beginning, that He is the invisible God - the Word, which we learned about from the Divine Scriptures, which the prophets proclaimed and which is sung in heaven. Therefore John says: I heard it from the beginning and saw it before my eyes. In a word: by hearing he confesses Him as God from the beginning, and by the word: by sight he means that He is a man, about whom John the Baptist said: a man is coming for me. The words: our hands touched (1 John 1:1) mean that He is God from the beginning, that He became a visible man, born of Mary, that He rose perfect from the dead, but having cast off the holy vessel He had received, His perfect humanity, so that when Thomas touched His side and the mark of the nail, he did not hesitate to confess these three truths. So, know that here the words: this one is, about Him I Reh to you, for me a man is coming, indicate His fleshly coming, and the words: as before me do not indicate His Divinity, for He was before me. In the world there was no, says the Holy Gospel, and the world was, and the world did not know Him (John 1:10). If He was in the world before John was born and conceived, was before him in the world, then this does not indicate His creation and creation, but it is said in the same way as people usually say in common parlance: I was in Jerusalem, I was in Babylon, I was in Ethiopia, I was in Alexandria, denoting by this not origin, but coming and presence. I was in Babylon or another place means: I came there. Therefore, the words: before me, indicate the coming of the Word to earth, and the words: before me, His always existing deity. The words: He who comes for me show His conception after John. And therefore the words: I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness (John 1:23) mean: I am the voice that prepares the ears of men. Those who call usually first give a loud, but not articulate voice; from afar they call those who have something to hear from them, and when they, having heard one voice, incline their attention to listening and prepare their ears, then the one who uttered the loud voice separately conveys the words that he wanted to say. So John was the voice that prepared the ears of the people. For he was not the Word, but the Word came after him, for whose sake he was the voice of preparation. Therefore he says: a voice crying in the wilderness, prepare the way of the Lord (Matthew 3:3). For the voice only prepares, but the Lord comes along prepared paths. The voice predisposes the ear, but when the ear is empty of anything, then the word enters the ear of those who receive it. And so Arius and his followers will in no way grasp the Divine truth, which always enlightens the hearts of the faithful, so that they do not deviate from the salvation achieved through the Word, the Son of God, truly uncreated and not occurring in time. But going further and following in order, we will not omit anything from what was intended above for resolution, but we will again adhere to the sequence. They find another pretext for confirming their opinion in the words of Saint Peter, in the book of Acts: let all the house of Israel know that this Jesus, whom you crucified, both the Lord and his Christ, is what God has created (2:36). And they say: here again it is written: created, and yet they do not want to consider the very saying, which explains itself: the words: this Jesus indicate the incarnation of the Lord. For from the words: whom you crucified, it is clear that this refers to the flesh that was crucified. For it was the flesh that was crucified, and therefore the Lord says in the Gospel: now you seek to kill me, a man who spoke to you the truth, which I heard from my Father (John 8:40). But however, He does not separate His humanity from Divinity. For the Divinity was not outside His humanity when it wanted to suffer, and in the suffering itself human nature was not abandoned by the Word. The Word, not subject to suffering, did not suffer, although it was present in the suffering flesh. For the true name is one for two natures, for divinity and for humanity. Christ also means the incarnation of the Word itself, and Christ also means the Lord who came in the flesh. But He suffered in the flesh, as Peter said: Christ suffered in the flesh for us (1 Peter 4:1). This indicates that the Divinity itself was not subject to suffering. And he also says: He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the Spirit (3:18). So, the words: this Jesus, whom you crucified, indicate that His holy carnal nature was not abandoned by the impassive and uncreated Word, but was united with the highest, uncreated Word. Therefore God made that which was born of Mary, united with the Divinity, Lord and Christ: for Mary was not God. Therefore, he then adds: created. So the angel Gabriel, when she asked him: how will this be, even though I have no husband, he says: The Spirit of the Lord will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you: in the same way, the holy thing to be born will be called the Son of God (Luke 1:34,35). When he said: and that which is to be born, he indisputably pointed to the Word of God, that undoubtedly He is the Son, uncreated, uncreated. The expression: He created Christ and the Lord with the addition of the words: and what is born indicates the economy of the incarnation from Mary, as all this is clearly indicated in other sayings that do not contain anything difficult. Thus, what is said here was fulfilled in His coming in the flesh and there is nothing here that would mislead people who are attentive to their own lives. For from the living Father came the living Word, the Son of the Father and not made. Everything was fulfilled in His fleshly coming, so that no one would think that the flesh is a ghost or that it is consubstantial with the heavenly Divinity, but His humanity was united into a single impassive nature, especially after the resurrection from the dead. Whoever dies no longer, it is said, death has no power over him (Rom. 6:9). For he is one Lord, one Christ, one king, seated at the right hand of the Father, at one and the same time both carnal and spiritual, one unity, one spiritual Godhead, both natures bright and glorious. But I will leave this saying, thinking that it is accurately explained, and begin to talk about others that they seek to corrupt their listeners. They also say: if He is from the essence of the Father, then how does He not know the hour and the day, but Himself, with His own elephants, admits to the disciples that He does not know what the Father knows? He said: No one knows about those days or about that hour, not the angels in heaven, not the Son, but only the Father (Mark 13:32). So, they say, if the Father knows, but the Son does not know, then how can the Father and the Son have one and the same Divinity, when what the Father knows, the Son does not know. What the Only Begotten says mysteriously and teaches in His Divine wisdom for the protection of the truest knowledge, this very thing they, not knowing that it is said in a man-imitating manner, take to their own detriment, to their own destruction, like harmful snakes, and like those caught from a cunning trapper. They do not know that a lie will not stand anywhere, while the truth corrects the ways of its sons and exposes lies. And he asked you, who from time immemorial have had a bad opinion about Christ: which is greater in nature and in relation to knowledge: God, the Lord of all, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, or that day and hour, depending and occurring on the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit? Having been decisively asked about this, they are forced by the truth itself to say that the Father is greater, and this is fair. So, if the Son says: no one knows the Father except the Son, and no one knows the Son except the Father (Matthew 11:27), then how, knowing the greater, that is, the Father, does not the Son know the less? Divine sayings are spoken by the Holy Spirit and are not understood by those who have not received the gift and grace of the Spirit. And these are precisely the above: they have a fickle mind, an unreasonable thought, and therefore fall into harmful and base delusions. They can be contrasted with what was said by the Lord Himself: be prepared (Mark 24:44). Let your loins be girded (Luke 12:25) and your lamps in our hands, and you will be like good servants, waiting for their Lord (–35.36). Like a thief in the night, so the day of the Lord will come (1 Thess. 5:2). And the holy Apostle says: you are children of darkness, but of the day, let the day come upon you like a thief (1 Thess. 5:4). Therefore, if the sons of the day are not covered in darkness, but remain ready, because they do not know the day and do not wait for the hour at which their Lord will come, then He who is himself the culprit of everything that happens to them will obviously not retreat from his servants and sons of the day with his bright Hypostasis and Divinity. But he who does not know and is in negligence will suddenly be caught, as happens to those who are ignorant of the day and unprepared. Who is so crazy that he could think of the Lord that He is the same as the people over whom He rules and taught, or that He is the same as the worst of people because of their unpreparedness and wickedness? This is all reckless. If this cannot be, especially since the continued speech turns out to contradict the usage, then we need to find some basis so that, while keeping both meanings intact from contradiction, we do not deviate from the truth. The Lord cannot lie and cannot give empty instructions for our lives. So, the Father knows, the Son knows, the Holy Spirit knows. There is nothing different in the Father in comparison with the Son, nor in the Son different in comparison with the Spirit, which we have already shown when we were faced with the need to refute each of the above-mentioned heresies with correct evidence, namely, that the Trinity is one deity and has nothing different in itself, but there is perfection in everything, three perfect persons, one doxology and one dominion. But you will tell me: why did Christ say this? I have already spoken about this saying elsewhere, but nothing prevents me from repeating the same thing again. It is blatant for me to speak about the same true sayings (Phil. 3:1), both to warn readers and to denounce opponents. The matter goes like this: here Christ brought three ranks into the middle: the Father, Himself and all the angels in heaven. He attributed knowledge to the Father, and not only points to knowledge and knowledge, but also to what is indisputably always in the power of the Father and the Son and what came and was done from them. Thus, the Father knows that day and therefore fulfilled it, carried it out and judged, as it is said in the Gospel of John: For the Father judges no one, but gives all judgment to his sons (5:22). If judgment is given to Him, then He judges. So the judge knows when that day will come. The words: he who does not believe (in the Son) is already condemned (John 3:18) indicate not that the judgment has already passed, but that he will appear in judgment once having to come, which is precisely what is represented in this saying. The Holy Scriptures indicate more than one type of knowledge. However, we will not fail to bring into clarity and understanding what we have, although often, but too briefly, presented, presenting every proof from comparisons and examples that have already been used before. So, let's take the matter from the beginning and talk about it. What do you say? Did Adam know Eve, his wife, before his disobedience and crime, or did he not know? You cannot speak contrary to the truth. If you do not want to follow the right path to understanding this, you will be exposed. It is said: besta is naked and not ashamed (Gen. 2:25). They were naked, but they were not blind. For you cannot deny this and admit that they do not see, for it is said: and a woman saw that a good tree was food and red, and she knew it (Gen. 3:6). So, Adam knew her and they knew each other. Knowing and seeing, they got to know each other and a lot of time passed when, says Scripture, Adam knew Eve his wife (4:1). In the first case, knowledge and vision are spoken of, since it is obtained through sight and understanding. And in the second case, knowledge is announced that is acquired by both vision and use. The Divine Scripture says something similar about David, who grew old: David was old and not warmed up, and his boys decided to him: let them look for the king of the maidens. And I found Avisaga Sumanityan. And quickly warmed him and slept with him. David did not know her (1 Kings 1:1-4). Did David really not know her when they lay next to each other and touched each other? But here the story is about knowledge through understanding, and not through use. The same is said about Jacob, that he tended the flocks with Rachel and Leah for seven years and knew them. When it is told about their union in an honest marriage, it is said: I knew Leah his wife. The first knowledge was knowledge through understanding and vision, the second knowledge was through use and action. Likewise, the Divine Scripture says: the knowledge of the Lord is his own (2 Tim. 2:19), not because he did not know them, as if they did not exist, but this signifies the clarity of the Lord’s understanding. And one more thing: Depart from me, workers of iniquity: we know you not (Luke 13:27). Didn’t he really know them in the sense of knowledge? But since they were not worthy of Him, He removes from them the reality of clear knowledge. And in another place: I have known you from all languages ​​(Deut. 14:2). This, as it were, deprives God of knowledge regarding all nations and the number of all mankind. But can He who knows the hair on the head of every person not know both those who serve Him and those who do not obey Him (Matthew 10:30; Luke 12:7)? Also: God knows the ways of the right hands (Proverbs 4:6). Does He really not know the way of the left? And how much can be said about the difference in knowledge! The same should be said about the Only Begotten Son of God. since the Father gave judgment to the Sons (John 5:22), then the Son attributes knowledge of judgment to the Father: no one knows that day except the Father. This must be understood in a double sense. Firstly, the Father knows exactly when this day will come, for the coming of that day and hour is in His power. Secondly, He knows him, because he handed over the execution of judgment to the Only Begotten. Thus, the same knowledge belongs to the Only Begotten Son of God, who exists as God, and is in no way different from the Father. Therefore, He knows that day and brings it out, and wears it out, and accomplishes it, and judges it, and without Him it will not come. He didn’t recognize him directly because he hadn’t judged him yet. For the wicked do not yet honor, the unrighteous covet, the fornicators, adulterers and idolaters commit iniquity, the devil has power, and heresies arise, and error operates, until the Only Begotten Son of God brings that day and gives everyone their due and knows that day, that is, makes it his power that it will come. Thus, this was fulfilled in a twofold way on the Father, and also on the Son regarding knowledge, because He does not know, but in action it has not yet been accomplished, since He has not yet judged. Among the angels, this knowledge is also denied in a double sense, because they do not yet know when that day will come, they do not know it in fact, that is, they have not done anything yet. For they have not yet received the command to come and gather the wicked like tares into sheaves and prepare them to be burned in the fire. You see, beloved and servants of God, how in vain each of those who voluntarily brought evil upon themselves took up arms, trying in different ways, each in his own way, to blaspheme the Son of God for His belittlement and humiliation. But we have sufficiently explained the meaning of this saying; Let us pay attention to their other speeches, being proud and impudent in everything, they do not think the same with the Manichaeans and many other heretics and admit the truth of the coming of Christ in the flesh, however, not in its entirety, but with a deficiency. They admit that the Savior really had flesh: but at the same time, hearing, as the Gospel says, that He was weary from the journey, and hungry and thirsty, slept and arose from sleep, they, having collected all this, transfer it to His Divinity with the intention, on the basis of these instructions, to assert that His Divinity is alien to the essence of the Father. Divine Scripture says about the Father that He does not weary, does not thirst, does not hunger: He does not weary, does not thirst, does not hunger; below is the invention of His wisdom (Is. 40:28). But since all this is accomplished in the Son, it means, they say, that He is alien to the Father in essence and nature. They even admit that this equality did not belong to the Only Begotten even before coming in the flesh. When, forced to this, they admit and admit that all this happened during His coming in the flesh, and hear that He did this in all justice because He took on flesh and put on true flesh, and not illusory, just as the driver in necessary cases is entrusted to the chariot, then they say that this is not the work of the flesh alone. The flesh of the priest by itself can neither thirst nor be weary. But they do not know, having abandoned the straight path and turned aside into the opposite paths, that the Son of God, when he came, took on not only flesh, but also soul, and mind, and everything that is characteristic of people, except sin, because he was born not from the seed of a man, but from the Holy Virgin Mary through the Holy Spirit. They do not want to admit that He accepted the soul, and through this they expose themselves, since this is the easiest to refute compared to their other idle talk. For the true God Himself, who says about Himself that He is the truth, confesses: my soul is troubled (John 12:27) and: my soul is sorrowful (Matthew 26:38), and also: the region of the imam to lay down my soul and receive it (John 10:18). Through this He showed Himself to be God with authority. A man cannot speak like this, for no one has the power to lay down his life and receive it. When He announces the soul, this shows that He truly became man, and not ghostly. And again he says: I am the good shepherd, who lays down his life for the sheep (John 10:11). And to show that this is really so, He said to the Father on the cross: I commend my spirit into your hands (Luke 23:46). When the soldiers arrived, it is said that when they saw Him, they had already died (John 19:32–33). And again: cry with a great voice, saying: either, or, lima sabachthani: it is, my God, my God, wherefore thou hast forsaken me (Matthew 27:46). We have already explained the meaning of this saying. The Gospel says the same about Him: ed. (Mark 15:37). When the truth itself says: from here, and in your hand, etc., and my soul is troubled, why would a fool believe such a trick of people who are blind and suffering from delirium and leave aside the sayings worthy of faith of God the Word, the Truth itself? Catching in every book of Scripture words that are beautifully and correctly spoken, like sea robbers who mutilate healthy bodies, they use evidence that often uses Scripture in a figurative sense. They usually take what is said in a figurative sense literally, and what is said in the literal and literal sense they understand allegorically in relation to another person. So they rush to the saying of Saint Isaiah, in which it is said on behalf of the Father: Behold my child, whom I have pleased: my beloved, my soul is well pleased (Is. 42:1; see Matt. 12:18). That these are the words of the Father is fair. How, they say, did the Father receive the soul? When we say: let this not happen, they say: does this mean this is said in a figurative sense? So, they say, and what was said about the Son was said in a figurative sense? And they think to find in this a pretext for attacking the truth, which, however, they fail to do. Truth, alien to any embellishment, stands on its own, without being diminished and without the need for embellishment. Let us consider the strength of both objections. If the Father came bodily and took on flesh and said these words, it would mean that He really has a soul. If the Father did not put on flesh and said: my soul, then it is understood about God in a figurative sense; This confirms and demonstrates His closeness to the Son. But the same cannot be said about the Son in such a case. For the Father did not take flesh, but the Son put on flesh. The Father did not become a man, but the Son became a man. Something similar is said about the Father elsewhere. Here it says: hereafter my soul was well pleased, and there: I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after my heart (Acts 13:22) and again: my heart is far from them (Isaiah 29:13). So, if we accept that in a figurative sense it is said about the soul: be pleased with my soul, then it is said in a figurative sense about the heart. And this is clear and understandable to anyone with reason. For if the Father speaks in a figurative sense about the soul, then the expression about the heart, which He did not receive (for He did not bear flesh) refers to the Father in a figurative sense. But this is not how one should think about the Son. For the Son took on flesh and the whole human condition. Whoever begins to say anything about the Son in a figurative sense, even if this thought was expressed in a small part of the word, contradicts the teaching about His personal incarnation, because the Son truly became man. If we understand allegorically what is written about the soul of the Son, then the same must be said about the heart. And we will finally come to the conclusion that everything is a ghost, not the truth. In this case, in a figurative sense it is also said about the flesh, says the inquisitive Arius. This means that the Word, having come, had no heart, no liver, no meat, no entrails, no bones, or anything like that, and all this is said allegorically and in a figurative sense, or did He already take on some strange body that did not contain anything inside? But then, how did He eat and drink? But away with such a thought! If the Father speaks of the heart and soul and this must be understood figuratively and taken in a figurative sense, then the Son must also be understood in a figurative sense, because the Arians deny that He took a soul? But they cannot in any way deny the heart in it, because they recognize that the Lord accepted everything that belongs to the body, although they accept the heart either in a literal or figurative sense; So the soul should be understood in the true sense, and not in an allegorical or figurative sense. The incarnation of Christ was perfect in body and soul, mind and heart, and in everything that is characteristic of man, except sin. He had to fulfill what is characteristic of man, and together with the perfect Divinity, accomplish salvation. But since His Divinity is in no way inferior in comparison with the perfection of the Father, then to thirst and hunger, to drink and eat, to sleep and to grieve was characteristic of His human nature, because the Divinity itself is impassive. Here again their speech about this collapsed. For the Son, being God, came in the flesh. But they say: if He is from the Father, then how did He come in the flesh? To this someone would say to them: what are you talking about angels? Everyone knows that they recognize the angels as descended from the Son; they even blaspheme about the Spirit and dare to say that He was created by the Son, whereas He is not created, comes from the Father and receives from the Son. If they dare to say this about the Holy Spirit, then when speaking about the angels, how can they deny that they, being created from the Only Begotten, received being from Him? So, the angels, being created from Him, although they are spirits, nevertheless, being His creations, are infinitely lower than Him in essence, as His works; but since they did not receive flesh, what shall we say? Is it possible that they are greater than the Son by whom they were created? Or should we also say about the Holy Spirit? Why did neither the Holy Spirit of God nor any of the angels come in the flesh and take on flesh and become human? Not because, of course, the Son put on flesh so that He would be lower than the Father (in which case both the angels and the Holy Spirit had to put on flesh), but because He, the very wisdom of the Father, and the Power, and the Word, who Himself created everything with the Father and the Holy Spirit, wanted to show that the reason for Adam’s crime was not in creation, that sin or disobedience did not come from creation, but as a result of His own will, for which He commits righteousness judgment, as Isaiah says: he will not wipe out the broken reeds, and he will not quench the smoking flax. Dondezh will bring judgment to victory, and in His name the nations will trust (Isa. 42:3,4). And David said about Him: You have conquered and never judged (Ps. 50:6). He was appointed as a judge, so that by judging righteously he might stop the mouths of those who contradict Him. For no one will be able to contradict His fair judgment. He bore the body and kept It blameless. For what was given to man in the beginning, that is, to Adam, was given by the Creator, who was not guilty of Adam’s sin, not for him to sin, but He gave him freedom, and therefore everyone himself is guilty of sin. Therefore, the Creator God the Word, a stranger to guilt, immortal and immaculate, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, created man, according to the ineffable mystery of wisdom, became human by his own will, taking upon himself everything for his creation out of an abundance of love for mankind, not out of need, but voluntarily, in order to condemn sin in the flesh, to destroy the oath with the cross, to destroy corruption by the grave, by descending with the soul into hell to crush the sting of death and destroy the union with hell. But ungrateful people turn good into evil and instead of thanking the humane, perfect and good Son, who came from the good Father, they do not give thanks to Him, but remain ungrateful, attributing suffering to His Divinity, which cannot happen, since the truth is obvious to everyone. Having thus explained this, I will again move on in order to their other provisions. They cite, misinterpreting, the saying of the Gospel: the Father who sent me (John 5:37) has pain for me (John 14:28). But, firstly, the Scripture says: it is the Father who sent me, and not he who created me. And all the divine Scriptures point to His relationship with the Father: You gave birth to Me, Father; and again: I have departed from the Father and am going (John 16:28); and again: I am in the Father and the Father in me (John 14:11): and again: the Father sent me (John 5:37); nowhere does it say: he who created Me, nowhere: he who created Me. How then do they extract from Scripture for their own benefit what is not in it? The Father who sent me is sick. -What is more important than this? What is more necessary? What is truer? Which is more appropriate? To whom is it fitting to glorify the Father, if not the true Son, born of Him? For the Father glorifies the Son and the Son glorifies the Father (John 12:28; 17:4) Therefore, in order to give us an example, the glory He gives to the Father, He unites together and into one glory with His own. The Son glorifies the Father in order to teach us that His glory is also the glory of the Father, because as He said: whoever does not honor the Son as he honors the Father, the wrath of God abides on him (John 5:23; 3:36). In what respect do they consider the Father greater than the Son? By size? Or by time? By height? By age? By dignity? But is there anything like this in God to be understood in this way? For the Divinity is not subject to time, so that He who from eternity was born of the Father could be considered inferior; neither perfection is characteristic of the Divinity, so that the Son, as being gradually perfected, could not achieve the greatness of the Father. For if the Son of God were called the Son of God because of the perfection achieved, then many would be equal to Him, and He would be called greater in dignity only because He succeeded in perfection (in comparison with others), but less than the one who previously had this dignity. But Scripture says: who will be like the Lord among the sons of God (Ps. 39:4)? While all others are called sons in an improper sense, He alone is the Son by nature, and not by grace, since He invented every way of cunning (Bar. 3:37), and no one is imputed to him (v. 36). But what do they say? The Father surpasses the Son in height. In what part of the world is the Deity located? Or is it limited by place, so that a larger outline denotes a larger size? But God is Spirit. Thus, the idle talk they invented disintegrates on all sides. Leaving this aside, let us move on, beloved, to their next points. They say that the one who sends is not like the one sent, but another is the one who sends by his own power, another is the one who is sent because he sends, and this one is sent. But if we understood the truth in accordance with them, then it would no longer be possible to attribute the entire basis of knowledge to one unity of truth and power and divinity. For if two did one thing, or two sent, then the Son would no longer be a Son, but a brother, since he would have a brother with him; He would no longer be the Son, except by confusion or adoption; He would either send himself, or both would send together, or by coming, he would mean two deities, and not one unity. So, here the sender and the sent are named, in order to show that the source of all goods is one, that is, the Father. And what comes from the source is called not by another name, but by the names of the Son and the Word, since from the source came one single source, the Son, who is eternally with the Father and born of Him: as the fountain of life is with you (Ps. 35:10). And to point to the Holy Spirit, (adds): in your light we will see light, showing that the light is the Father and the light of the Father's Son and the light of the Holy Spirit; The Holy Spirit is a source from a source, from the Father and Only Begotten; for rivers of water will flow out of his belly (John 7:38), flowing into an eternal belly (4:14); This is what the Gospel says about Saint Dus (7:39). And again pointing to his disciples that he is one in essence with the Father, he says: if anyone opens it to me, I will come in and my Father will make my abode with him (John 14:23); did not say: I will be sent from my Father, but I and the Father will come to him, since the Son knocks on the door and the Father enters with Him, since the Father is always with the Son and is never separated from the Son, and the Son is not separated from his Father. Therefore, in another place He says: I am the way, and through me they will go out to the Father (John 14:6). And so that some do not consider Him less than the Father, because through Him they enter to the Father, he says: No one will come to me unless my heavenly Father draws him (John 6:44). So the Father brings to the Son and the Son leads to the Father, and he leads in the Holy Spirit; for the Trinity always and eternally exists in the unity of the Divinity; three perfect, one Divinity. Thus their opinion also fell. They also say: in what sense did Christ say to his disciples: I ascend to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God (John 20:17)? If He confesses the Father as His God, how will He be equal to Him or truly begotten of Him? Through this they show both their complete ignorance of God and the fact that the light of the Gospel has not illuminated them at all. For whoever examines and experiences the difference between pre-eternal and temporal birth will fully recognize the power of the truth about our Savior, and about His equality with the Father. And these heretics, overwhelmed by Jewish opinions, are irritated and indignant at the Son of God, speaking the same way as the Jews; It is not because of any evil that we cast a curse on you, but because you, being a man, call yourself the Son of God (John 10:33) and are equal in creating with God. (John 5:18). So they too, having fallen into the same illness as the Pharisees and Jews, are indignant, not wanting to call the Son equal to Him who begat Him. Look at the accuracy of the Scriptures: nowhere does the divine Scripture use such an expression before His coming in the flesh; but the Father says to the Son: Let us make man (Gen. 1:20), calling the Son a fellow artist and showing that He is related to Him in equality. Nowhere did the Son say before about the Father: My God and your God. And again: and when Adam heard the voice of God going into paradise (Gen. 3:8): and again: make for yourself an ark from trees that do not rot (Gen. 6:14); also: the Lord rains down fire from the Lord (Gen. 19:24); and the Lord said to Moses: I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob (Ex. 3:6); and David says: The Lord said to my Lord: sit on my right hand (Ps. 109:1); but nowhere did the Lord say: My God and your God. And when he took on our body, appeared on earth and lived with men (Bar.3:38) and counted himself among us, then to his disciples, to whom He was to be like in everything except sin, He said: I ascend to my God and your God and my Father and your Father (John 20:17), - to my Father by nature in divinity and to your Father by grace and adoption through Me; to my God, because I have taken on your flesh, and to your God by nature and in truth. So all this is clear and obvious, and there is nothing in the Divine Scripture that contradicts or contains a form of deadly admixture, as these heretics assume, inventing something bad for themselves. I think again that I’ve talked about this enough; after this I will move on to another. They say about the Holy Spirit that He is the creature of creation, because, as Scripture says, all things were made by the Son (John 1:3). They foolishly lead some people on board, accepting this saying not as it is said, but understanding it poorly and reinterpreting what was said well, contrary to the meaning of the saying, according to their own evil intent. For the divine Gospel speaks here not about the Spirit, but about all created things, namely, that if anything was created, it received being by the Word and from the Word. For all things were, and without him they were nothing (John 1:3); This is followed by the continuation of the reading: hedgehog came to be, so that from here it would be known that everything through Him received being and without Him nothing received being. After this it is said: in that life there was no life (v. 4): for it is necessary that here too the sequence of the speech of Saint John be fulfilled, so that in the Existing One the Existing One would be recognized as completely eternal; for in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was to God, and God was the Word (v. 1) With the sayings: there was and was and: in that life was and was the true light and in the world was (v. 9.10) and everything that relates to this word: Blessed John, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, clearly shows that everything that happened through Him received existence, and above the one who received existence is He Himself, who created everything. Scripture says: everything came into existence, but does not name what exactly came into being, because then it was impossible to suspect such wickedness that some would assume here something that does not exist and blaspheme the unchangeable and immutable Holy Spirit of God. The Lord says about such people that whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven him, but whoever speaks something against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven him, either here or in the age to come (Matthew 12:32). All their reasoning is foolish. One could object to their blasphemous opinion and say: O brave sophists and perverters of words, you who want to classify the Holy Spirit of God among the things that have come into being, on the basis of what is said; that's all! After all, from the words: everything, it does not in any way follow that the Holy Spirit is included in everything. Otherwise, according to your blasphemous understanding, you or someone else worse than you should admit the idea that the Father also received existence from the Son, because the words: all that was have a comprehensive meaning. If it is blasphemous and stupid to understand this about the Father, then the same should be said about those who talk this way about the Holy Spirit, who is numbered among the Father and the Son. For if He were one of the things created, He would not be numbered with the uncreated Father and the uncreated Son: but he is numbered with each other because he was not created. For the Lord said: As you go, baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). How can the Spirit be created, of which there is evidence that He proceeds from the Father and receives me (John 15:26; 16:14), and through whom the perfect salvation of people and the dispensation of the incarnation were fulfilled for the justification of all? Anointing Him with the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:38), says Scripture about the Lord. The Father would not have anointed any creature to incarnate and unite with God the Word into one Deity; but since there is one Trinity, three perfect ones, one Divinity, then according to the economy it was necessary for this to be accomplished with the Son, so that the completely glorified Trinity would be cognizable in everything. Since against all heresies, speaking about the Spirit, we brought more than one or two testimonies that He is the Spirit of God, glorified with the Father and the Son, uncreated, unchangeable and perfect, then the teaching about this of lovers of debate fell and turned against themselves. Let's now look at their other arguments. Not prudently understanding the sayings of Scripture, they say that the Savior himself said: that you said good things: God alone is good (Matthew 19:17) and here he separated himself from the essence and hypostasis of the Father. But this is all funny. He who has given us so many blessings is not considered good by them. Who could be more wicked than such a man? He who gave up his soul for the sheep, who voluntarily came to suffer as an impassive God, who granted us remission of sins, who performed healings throughout all of Israel, who, through his goodness, gathered such a multitude of people around Him for their good, the head of goodness and the ruler of the world, the good word of the Father on high, born of the good Father, giving food to all flesh. (Ps. 135:25), who has done good for people and for all who have received existence from him, is not considered good by them? And they don’t know, as if deliberately forgetting, that the Lord spoke those words in response to the questioner, in order to destroy his proud arrogance. For the young man, excited by the scribes, exalted himself as having carefully preserved the legal truth and, proud of his righteousness and goodness, said: O good Teacher, what have I done that I will inherit eternal life? (Matthew 19:16). since he thought of himself as a man of great righteousness, the Lord, wanting to attribute all goodness to God, so that no one who bears flesh would acquire pride, said that no one is good except God: that you say good, no one is good except God alone (v. 17). He Himself, being God and good, said these words in order to destroy in those who questioned Him arrogance and conceit about their righteousness, and to convict his heart, since with his lips he called the Lord a good teacher, and yet did not remain in His good teaching. And that He is good, He Himself teaches, saying: I have done many good deeds among you; For what cause do you cast stones on me (John 10:32)? For whom is this not clear and obvious, especially when so many of His creations are truly good and called good? Divine Scripture tells of many good things; good, he says, was Saul, the son of Kish from the tribe of Benjamin: high above all people from the shoulder and up (1 Sam. 9: 1,2); and again: Samuel was good before the Lord and men (chap. 2:26); and again: the last word is better than the beginning (Eccl. 7:9): and again: open your good treasure, heavenly (Deut. 28:12). If all these creations, called good, received existence through Him and from Him, then shouldn’t we undoubtedly recognize their ancestor as good? But in order not to continue talking about this any longer (for we have spoken about this at great length), I will move on to a further analysis of each of their opinions. They, impudent, cite some more sayings, secretly all the false thought of belittling the dignity of their Redeemer, if only they are redeemed. For when the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to the Lord and asked that one of her sons should sit on the right hand, and the other on the left, when He came in his kingdom, the Lord said to her: I don’t know what she’s asking for; Can I drink the cup that Az Imam drinks? They said to Him: Mozheva; and he said to them, “For I have drunk my cup, but it is not mine to sit on my right hand and my left hand, but it has been prepared for it from my Father (Matthew 20:21,22,23). Do you see, they say, how He has no power without the Father, who has the power to give whatever He wants? But who of the prudent can understand these words in this way? For if the Son does not have authority, who has authority? The Father, says Scripture, gives life to the dead, and gives to the Son that which He also gives life to (John 5:21,22); and again: all the tree of my Father is (John 16:15); and again: all things were handed over to me by my Father (Matthew 11:27). And so, who else will doubt this? His Divine and wise word wants to express the idea that this matter occurs not according to partiality, but according to dignity. It is the Lord’s business to give, but He gives to each according to his dignity; everyone who has done the truth receives a reward according to his work. Therefore, it does not depend on Him alone to grant, but also on the one who makes himself worthy. I dare say that it does not depend on Him; although He can give, He does not want to. Likewise, not from the Holy Spirit, although the Holy Spirit can give, according to what has been said: for to everyone wisdom is given by the Spirit, but to others give birth to tongues about the same Spirit; To another speaking of tongues, to another power, to another teaching, but there is one Spirit, dividing as He wills (1 Cor. 12:8-11); It is not said: as commanded, but as he wills. And the Son lives what He wills, and the Father calls what He wills to the Son (John 6:44). And one more thing: neither the Father, nor the Son, nor the Holy Spirit calls, nor gives, nor communicates, nor bestows dignity according to the reception of persons, but according to how each makes himself worthy, that is: it is not my business to give, but if you labor, it will be prepared for you by my Father; and most importantly, I am the belly (John 11:25). Now I’ll move on to something else. They say: How do you say that the Son comes from the perfect Divinity of God? Here the Apostle says about Him that God raised him from the dead. (Rom. 4:24; 1 Cor. 15:15), and He needed God's help to rise from the dead. This means that there is one who resurrects by force, and another who is subordinate to Him, resurrected by the power of the mighty. How long should I waste time refuting the absurd opinions of people who have lost their shame? Who raised Lazarus? Who raised the widow's son at Nain? Who said to the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue: Talifah kumi, that is, arise, the damsel (Mark 5:41)? Whose name did the Apostles call upon, and the dead rise again? Since the Apostles reasoned with the Jews, who thought that the Apostles were preaching apostasy from the God of the law, and since the Holy Spirit knew that heretics would try to tear Christ away from the Father’s will, therefore these same Apostles attributed everything to one Divinity, namely that everything came into being by the good pleasure of the Father, by the will of the Son and by the good pleasure of the Holy Spirit. This means that this is not said in the sense of belittling, or weakening, or alienating the Word of God in comparison with the essence of the Father. Not so. Look at the examples, exactly as the Angel says, addressing the women who were with Mary: why do you seek the living with the dead (Luke 24:5)? You see, the living one rose with his own deity and with flesh; He was not with the dead. And what else does he say to them: there is no rising here (v. 6). He did not say: God raised Him up, not here, but He rose to show His power, namely, that He rose alive. And again the Lord himself, before his suffering, said to his disciples: behold, we are ascending to Jerusalem, and the Son of man will be crucified, and on the third day he will rise again. (Matthew 20:18,19); did not say: God will raise Him up. And He clearly foretold the authority of His power in this regard, saying: the region of the Imam is to lay down my soul and accept it (John 10:17,18). Having such power, how could He not resurrect himself? And the Apostle, in order to show that in the economy of salvation nothing happened without the will of the Father, writes: God raised Him from the dead (Acts 3:25); and in another place the Apostle says: although he died from weakness, he lives from strength (2 Cor. 13:4). And I would like to ask these people, who know exactly the meaning of the Scriptures: what weakness did the Only Begotten have, by Whom the heavens were stretched out, By Whom the heavens were created, By whose power the sun shone, the stars began to shine, By Whom all things that are not came into being? So, what kind of weakness does Scripture speak of? Is it not about the one whom the Word received, coming in our flesh, putting on it, in order to bear our weakness, just as the prophet sang about Him, saying: He received our weaknesses and bore our illnesses (Is. 53:4)? So, being life and the impassive God, He died, for the sake of our weakness, in the weakest flesh received from us: He lives from strength, for the word is living and effective and sharper than any two-edged sword (Heb. 4:12). So, He died of weakness, but He lived by the power of His Divinity, alive in our flesh, in which He suffered. Wanting to designate the good will of the Father in this economy, the Apostle said that God raised Him from the dead. They also cite another saying from the Gospel of Luke, divine and excellent, and in all respects most useful. What is this saying? When the Lord, of his own free will, intended to go to suffering, then taking the disciples with him to the mountain, at that hour retreated from them, as if casting a stone, and went away praying, saying (Luke 22:12): Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me, and let me not drink; Moreover, not as I will, but as You will (Matthew 26:39). Here they again find a pretext for their false teaching, saying: see how He speaks discriminately and points to different wills, saying: not as I will, but as You will. How, they say, can they have one and the same essence, when there is a different will in him, and another in the Father? But they do not know the full power of the words of Scripture: therefore the Apostle said: O the depth of the riches and wisdom and understanding of God. (Rom.12:33)! Where did the Lord call his own will different from the will of the Father? When he lets his disciples know: my soul is troubled; and what about the river? Father, save me from this hour (John 12:17), then he says these words in advance and using hesitant expressions: what is the river? Father save me from this hour. This, he says, is a river: but for this reason I came to this hour (v. 27). He came not unwillingly, but voluntarily, for he says above: the imam will drink the cup (John 18:11) and why should I rush until I drink it? And one more thing: the imam is baptized with baptism, and what do I want if not to be baptized (Luke 12:50)? So, if he wants and hurries and says that he has come to this, then how does he show that His will is different and that the Father’s will is different? But since He had to be betrayed from Israel, being philanthropic and sparing Abraham’s seed, He spoke these words for the sake of the people. It was the will of the Father that the economy of salvation would be fulfilled in this way, although the sons of Israel themselves were guilty of betraying the Son and were not forced by God. And the Son had no other will, different from the Father’s, but He had to show in this that He alone raises everything to the Father, so that no division would occur in one unity and economy. Further, the heretic adds the following words to this: The Lord in the Gospel of Luke during prayer is depicted as being in ascetic labor. He was covered in sweat; and, it is said, His sweat was like drops of blood falling on the ground; and the Angel of the Lord appeared to him, strengthening Him (Luke 22:43,44,45). So, these catchers of words, as if having found a pretext for attacking the enemy, quickly rushing towards us, object, saying: you see that He also needed the power of Angels; for the angel strengthened Him, for He was in the struggle. But they do not know that if all this had not happened with the Lord, He would not have said: not my will, but yours, be done; if He had not been in labor, if He had not sweated on His body, then the coming of Christ in the flesh would have been apparent and the opinion of the Manichaeans and Marcionites about its illusory nature would have been specious; His fleshly coming would be only in appearance, and not in the truth itself. But all this, for the confirmation of our life, the Lord completely took upon himself according to the economy and uttered some expressions, like an obsequious person, not feignedly, but in truth, such as: not my will be done, in order to show that He took on true flesh, and in order to expose those who say that He did not have a human mind, as well as those who do not admit that He had real flesh. ABOUT! how the divine Word, standing in the midst of the sons of darkness, illuminates the sons of truth! Look how much useful there is in these words. Incorporeal beings do not sweat; and by the fact that He had it, He showed that He had true flesh and that it was not the appearance of flesh alone that was united with the deity; for without soul and mind there is no achievement. By the fact that He was in the feat, He showed that He combined in Himself both soul, body, and mind - from which the feat comes from. And again with the words: not my will, but yours, he showed that in Him there is truly a human mind, but a sinless one. For His Divinity, since He is always in the Father and the Father in the Son and the Son in the Holy Spirit, has everything in perfection and in no way differs the thought of the Son from the thought of the Father, just as the thought of the Father from the thought of the Son: just as the thought of the Holy Spirit is in no way different from the thought of the Father and the Son. For if the Son wanted what the Father does not want, then He would be, like us, a simple man, and by the will of the Father. But that's not really the case; Let this not happen. Narrating himself as an obsequious man, He shows that His coming in the flesh was true and His incarnation was perfect, so that our salvation would be complete, and we would not understand one instead of the other and would not deviate from the truth. As for the fact that He was seen strengthened by Angels, what is more significant than this? What is more necessary? For we find here the fulfillment of what was said in the great song written by Moses, where it says: Let my message wait like rain: and after a few words he says again: Let all the sons of God worship Him, and let all the Angels of God be strengthened by Him (Deut. 32:2.43). It is not said that the Angels would give Him strength (for He did not need strengthening from the Angels), but: let them strengthen Him, that is, let them give Him their due, having confessed His power. For we, being weak, often bless God, often attribute strength to Him, not because God needs our blessing, but in order to confess His power with blessing. We thoroughly say: Your strength, Your dominion, Your honor, Your glory, Your blessing, Your strength, Your strength (1 Chronicles 29:11,12). Do we give strength to God when we say: Your strength, Your strength, Your blessing? Have we given Him power? Have we blessed God? No. But having gained strength and become strong, we confess the power of God and attribute strength to God. So the Angel, at that hour, was surprised and amazed at the excessive love of mankind of his Master, at the fact that being God, worshiped with the Father in heaven and receiving service from his own Angels, by his own free will he voluntarily decided to reach such a state and put on flesh, and not only put on, but also endure to the point of suffering for his own creation - for human nature, to be betrayed even to the cross and taste death - death godmothers, so that through Him humanity would gain victory over death, and to abolish the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil (Heb. 2:14), having triumphed over every principle and power (Col. 2:15), - the Angels, surprised and amazed at all this, glorifying and magnifying their Master, who stood in such a strange form, said to Him: Thy worship, Thy power, Your strength, Your strength, in order to fulfill what was written by Moses: all the angels of God will be strengthened by Him. You see, servants of Christ and sons of the Holy Church of God and the Orthodox faith, that in the Divine Scripture there is nothing intractable or confusing, but everything was written amazingly and completely for our salvation. But the heretics, about whom we spoke before, being in enmity with the Only Begotten Son of God and with the Holy Spirit, understand everything as enemies and falsely reason. We will not adhere to human false thinking, but we will strengthen our minds in order to glorify our Master and not understand in Him anything that belittles Him. For if the one who came to save everything had some shortcoming in himself, then how would the creature be saved from its shortcomings? And also, like enemies, these new Jews attack (for they are in the Jewish way of thinking and do not differ from them in anything except one name), rebelling against us and looking for some sayings in Scripture against the Savior in order to catch Him in the word (Matthew 22:15), as the Holy Gospel says. On the cross, they say, He said: Or, Or Lima Savachthani, which is, my God, my God, all that you have forsaken me. (Matthew 27:46). Do you see, they say, how pitifully he cries out and cries out, saying: “Where have you forsaken me?” But they do not know, having turned their heads with this poisonous fury of the Arievs and deprived of the understanding of God’s knowledge, that in the Lord everything servile to people must be recognized as relating to His true coming in the flesh. And first of all, running from one to another, they themselves forget what they think about Him, having no constancy. And how else can people who do not have common sense act? For sometimes they want to call Him Savior and Lord and Christ, and being before all ages, and the ruler of Angels and Archangels, by whom everything was brought into being - Principalities and Powers, Angels and Archangels, the heavens and everything that is in them, the earth and all people and everything that is on it, the sea and everything that is in it. But, what a great madness of people who think about him like that, and yet do not understand that he who existed before the ages by his divinity, by whom heaven and earth, Angels and Archangels, and, in short, everything that exists, visible and invisible, came into being, cannot, on behalf of his Divinity, utter the words: My God, my God, you have forsaken me! For when was the Son abandoned by the Father? When did the Son not abide in the Father and the Father in the Son? The Son and Word of God lived on earth, but at the same time had contact with heaven, and all enemies felt the fullness of His glory. He remained in the womb of Mary and became a man, but filled everything with His power. How could such and such a great one, according to his deity, speak pitifully: Or, Or lima sabachthani; What is it, my God, my God, who have you forsaken me? Moreover, when He himself says: again I am going away and will not leave you orphans, but will come to you (John 14:18); and in another place he says: Amen, I say to you: you will all be offended because of me this night (Matthew 26:37), and you will all leave me alone, but you are not one, for the Father who begat me is with me (John 16:32); and one more thing: I am leaving and will send you the Holy Spirit, who comes from the Father and receives from me (John 13:28–15:26–16.14); and again in another place: I understand (Apoc. 3:20) and if anyone opens to me, I and my Father will come in to him and make an abode with him (John 14:23). Thus He was not abandoned by the Father, just as the Father is always with the Son and the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son. What does it mean, they say, these words that He said: My God, my God, have you forsaken me? Who does not understand that these words are spoken servilely to us, from the face of His incarnate nature? For His human nature did not exist separately, as if by itself. He did not say this as if His human nature was separated from the Divinity and existed without it, as something else, separate from another, but when the human nature was united with the Divinity, there was one shrine, and His human nature knew everything in the most perfect way, since it was united with God and united into one Divinity. Seeing now that the Divinity with its soul has the intention of leaving the holy body (for the Divinity intended to accomplish everything related to the mystery of suffering and to descend with the soul into the underworld in order to bring about the salvation of those who had previously fallen asleep - I’m talking about the holy patriarchs), as soon as such an intention appeared, human nature, on behalf of the man himself - the Lord, that is, on the behalf of His humanity, proclaimed these words to its own deity: My God, my God, in everything I have forsaken you are. It had to be this, so that the divine Scriptures proclaimed about Him by His own prophets would be fulfilled: so that through His descent into hell in the form of a man, His victory over hell would be accomplished, and so that the ruler of hell and death, who out of ignorance wanted to keep man in their power, would fully know that He, by the holy Divinity in the soul, would overcome hell and destroy death, and thus what was said would be fulfilled: do not forsake my soul in hell, below let your venerable one see corruption (Ps. 15:10). But the holy God the Word did not abandon his soul, nor did His soul remain in hell. This great mystery is organized by the inseparable Trinity: Father and Son and Holy Spirit. The Son is incarnated. The Father remains disembodied; The Son, of his own free will and by the will of the disembodied Holy Spirit, appears in the flesh, but does not change. And everything together is arranged by the Trinity for the salvation of people. Just as the Lord said here: “You have forsaken me,” so in another place he says again: “The imam will not leave you, but the imam will depart from you” (Heb. 13:5); for His body had to remain in the tomb for three days, so that what was said would be fulfilled: and there would be freedom among the dead (Ps. 87:6): and again: casting away my beloved, as if I were dead, vile (vv. 6:9), and so that what was said would be fulfilled: do not let your venerable one see corruption (Ps. 15:10). He calls his body venerable and shows that His soul was not left in hell, for in it, while in hell, God the Word was, so that what was said by the Apostles would be fulfilled: that without any power I would hold Him to be hell (Acts 2:24). Is it not because, more powerfully, says Scripture, that death and hell sought to hold the soul, but His soul could not be held because of His Divinity? If the soul could not be won because of the Divinity, then how could it be said on behalf of His Divinity: My God, my God, all that thou hast forsaken me? But these words were spoken, apparently, from the face of His human nature, subserviently to us people, in order to teach us that His coming in the flesh was accomplished in truth, and not in appearance and illusory. What has risen from the earth but that which has fallen asleep in death? For, says Scripture, there is no rising here (Mark 16:6). What rebelled if not the body? This means that the body was in the tomb, and the soul came out of hell along with God the Word. Thus, in one and the same action, He accomplished the perfect resurrection by His deity, His soul, His holy body, thus uniting the entire economy into one spiritual unity, into one unity of the Divinity, into one economy, into one perfection. Therefore, it is said in the ninety-second psalm: The Lord reigned, clothed in beauty (Ps. 93:1), to show the descent of God the Word from heaven into the world and into the beauty with which He clothed himself, that is, in the flesh born of the Virgin. For although it seemed somehow despicable to the eyes of the unbelievers, it was considered magnificent by them, in order to show that His power, through the apparent weakness of the flesh, crushed the possessed power, that is, death, delivering us from sin. He carried out the entire economy of our salvation splendidly, destroyed corruption, destroyed the curse and the handwriting against us (Col. 2:14), destroyed our alliance with hell, and completed everything economically for the salvation of people. Having said: The Lord began to reign in beauty, and the Scripture then adds and repeats, saying: The Lord was clothed with strength and girded (Ps. 92:1), in order to show that the first endowment was from Mary, and the second endowment was from the resurrection from the dead, for He was the firstborn from the dead (Col. 1:13), as the divine Scripture says. Therefore, he gives some special significance to this second endowment, saying: the Lord put on strength and girded. For just as one who girds his loins tightens the garment around his loins, especially attaching it to this part of the body and connecting it with his body: so the Lord, the first time, was clothed in splendor by coming here in the flesh, and the second, as the Scripture says, he girded himself with power, having risen from the dead. For after His resurrection, His human nature is no longer subject to suffering and scourging and is not crucified, as the Apostle said about Him: He has risen and no longer dies, death has no power over him (Rom. 6:3). Therefore, the Scripture says: He girded Himself, because He united His flesh into one with the Divinity, into one unity with Him, into the divine and bodily spirit, into one perfect spiritual whole, inaccessible to resolution (since He ascended through a closed door (John 20:19), which had density and then was refined, accessible to suffering and dispassionate, having suffered in the flesh and remaining in dispassion. And although, after He entered, He showed bones and flesh, and the wound from the spear and the wound of the nail, being touched by Thomas and seen by the disciples (John 20:20.27), He entered with the door closed in order to show that He economically accomplished all the salvation of us people in one spiritual unity. But why am I wasting my time talking about this for so long? In order to often say the same thing, we are not lazy (Phil. 3:1): we often discuss this, taking care to confirm the readers in the faith, so that they may escape the snares of Arius, who surprises them with his opinions, words and reasoning. Having reasoned sufficiently about this subject, let us move on to the next. Having explained in detail most of what came to our minds from their mockery, we will show briefly or at length that one who has acquired the Holy Spirit and received a wakeful mind from the Lord cannot suspect anything unjust in the Divine Scripture, for example, any kind of suffering in the Father, or in the Son, or in the Holy Spirit. But in the Divine Scripture, the Lord himself, His Apostles and the holy prophets sent by Him, say everything that is most perfect, truly, in each place, according to the subject and in relation to the need. What David prophesied, saying in Hebrew: Or, Or, lima sabachthani (Ps. 21:1), was subsequently fulfilled by the Lord on the cross. But having uttered the words prophesied about Him: Or, Or, in the Hebrew language, as was prescribed, He concluded the speech by uttering the following words, not in Hebrew, but in the Syrian language: lima sabachthani. He used the beginning as it was written about Him, and translated the rest of what He said into another language. And He did this according to a good economy. He showed that what was said by the prophet: Or, Or was said about Him; and then He spoke the rest, no longer in Hebrew, but in Syriac, in order to humble those who were proud of the Hebrew language and to deign other languages ​​to serve for the fulfillment of what was said about Him. For He already had the intention of spreading the knowledge of Himself to all nations, and not only among the Jews. As can be seen from the entire flow of thoughts in the twenty-first psalm, everything obsequious to us is spoken from His face, as if He had come in the flesh. He came and fulfilled this, so that the narrative contained in the whole psalm completely refers to the coming of Christ in the flesh; These are, for example, the words: they divided my garments, they dug up my hands and noses, they looked and despised me (vv. 21. 19, 17) and others similar to them, which cannot be attributed to the Divinity, but only to the manifestation of the Divine in the flesh, who accomplished everything in dispassion and truth. And they also rush like frenzied dogs, possessed by rabies, and not recognizing the Master because of their rage, they attack first of all on Him and hearing from us that He is the true one, they say: this is what the Lord says in the Gospel about his disciples: you have given them to me, Father, I have kept them in the world, and also: do that they may be in Me, for I and You are one ( John 17:11,12). At the same time, they say: you see that when he says: I am in the Father and the Father is in Me (John 14:10) and we are both one, He is not talking about equality, but about like-mindedness. For how could the disciples be in Him by equality, and not by like-mindedness? But immediately the truth of God completely exposes them, because the disciples could not have fulfilled this and this could not have been said about them if the Word, having come, had not partaken of their flesh and united them in itself through adoption. That is why in the Song of Songs the Lord calls his holy church neighbor, calling to her with his holy, stimulating and exhorting voice, thus: arise, come, my neighbor, my good, my dove (Song. 2:10). Do you see how he calls her neighbor? But the church could not be called Christ’s neighbor if He had not come from above and approached her - through the flesh that was servile to us, which He assumed, so that, having gathered near Him all those who obeyed Him, He would call humanity close to Him a holy and immaculate bride. The Word, our Lord, the Only Begotten, therefore asks the Father here for disciples, so that they may be in Him, so that the Father may unite those who have become akin to Him through the perception of the flesh and His sanctified disciples into the unity of favor and adoption, so that in the Firstborn of the Father they may have the writing of the Firstborn in heaven (Heb. 12:23). And so that some, because He bore flesh, would not think that He was alien to the glory of the Father, He, in order to establish faith and true knowledge of Himself and not give any of His servants a reason to doubt Himself, and not deprive him of hope, said: that they may be one, as we are one (John 18:22). I and You are one because He is God from God and consubstantial with the Father in divinity. The words: we are one do not mean singularity, because he did not say: I am one, but I am and You, and behind that: we are one. This was said to denounce Sabellius and his school, who assumed the unity of the Son with the Father, as well as the Father with the Holy Spirit. That is why he says: “We are one,” and did not say: “I am one.” For two are perfect: the Father and the Son, but one in equality, in divinity, in one power, in one likeness. So, according to divinity, the Father and the Son are one; According to humanity, the Son and the disciples are one, since by His ineffable love for mankind, the disciples, having been awarded the calling, were brought into one unity, adoption by the good will of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Thus, the delusion of these empty people, who think poorly of their own Lord, is again exposed. But leaving this saying aside, I will move on to consider the following. Looking for some sayings for themselves, these sophists, skilled in syllogisms and in the fabrications of superstition, attack us again. Being people, they try to comprehend God through syllogisms, which the prophet denounces them for, saying: food will deceive God; You are already deceiving me (Mal.3:8). What are these brave people telling us again? We have already placed and explained their objection, which they offer us in the form of a question: Did God give birth to the Son according to his will, or not according to his will? We have shown that in God there is nothing that has the appearance of premeditation, but in Him everything is together and accomplished. He does not will before He creates, and does not speak without will, and does not first reflect on what He will prepare, and His preparation does not require prior will, so that He who was born of Him was always begotten and did not receive a beginning in time, but He who was Begotten always and continuously exists together with the Father. And here I will repeat again what I said before: the Father did not beget the Son by will, nor against his will, but by nature above will. For by nature God is above the will and all understanding and understanding. The new followers of Aristotle, as I said, invent for us another objection similar to this. They internalized its poisonousness and abandoned the gentleness and meekness of the Holy Spirit, as the Lord says: Learn from Me, for I am meek and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls (Matthew 11:29). And they, abandoning meekness, indulged in severity, following Aristotle and other worldly dialecticians. And these lovers of debate reap their fruits, not knowing any fruit of righteousness and not being worthy to have the gift of the Spirit in themselves. For when we tell them that this Son was with the living Father, [since the Father said to Moses: You said to them: This is my messenger (Ex. 3:14) and since the Gospel testifies of the Son that in the beginning was the Word and the Word was to God and God is the Word (John 1:1)] - when we say that this was with the living Father, then they object to us: what was born? Existed or non-existent? If it existed, how was it born? If it was born, then how could it have been before? Such speeches are the work of the same superstitious wisdom that deals with controversial issues, strives for the sublime, tests the heavenly and does not produce anything good. Let us tell them this: where did you get the idea to reason like this? If they say that accurate research is required by reason, then we will tell them: tell us: are you talking here about something that concerns you, or about something that concerns God? As reasonable people, they will answer that we are talking about things that concern God. So, God is no different from your properties, from your nature and essence? No, they will say, it’s different. But if the nature of God is different from your nature, then, firstly, your nature cannot comprehend what is incomprehensible about God, and secondly, it is wicked to judge God by yourself and in the likeness of your essence. For among you is born something that did not exist before because we ourselves did not exist before, but we were born from our fathers, who themselves once did not exist; the same must be true regarding the people who preceded them, even before Adam; Adam, who once did not exist, came from the earth, and the earth came from non-existence, because it existed forever. But God the Father existed forever; and as he was by nature, such he begot the Son. He begot Him who exists eternally, not a brother, but begotten of Him, similar to himself by nature, Lord from Lord, God from God, true God from true God. And as one reasons about the Father, so one must reason about the Son; what he believes about the Son, he must think the same about the Father; for whoever does not believe in the Son as he believes in the Father and does not honor the Son as he honors the Father, the wrath of God abides on him, as the divine Gospel says (John 3:36; 5:23). Thus their syllogistic reasoning fell apart again. God, being incomprehensible, gave birth to the incomprehensible God before all ages and times. And there is no distance between the Son and the Father; If you understand the Father, you also understand the Son; When you name the Son, you also indicate the Father. For with the Father the Son is conceived, and with the Son the Father is known; Otherwise, why the Son if He does not have a Father, and why the Father if He did not beget the Only Begotten? Can the Father ever not be called Father, or the Son Son, so that, as some think, the Father was from the beginning without the Son, and then, when, as if having achieved perfection, he begat the Son, after His birth he received the name Father to the Son, as if the Father, perfect and never needing perfection, is perfected in divinity? Again, wanting to reject from themselves this healing medicine and saving antidote, the stronghold of the faith of God’s holy church, they object, saying: where did we get the very name: essence? Why is the Son called consubstantial with the Father? What scripture speaks about consubstantiality? Which of the apostles said anything about the essence of God? But they do not know that, in the meaning of the word, hypostasis and essence are one and the same. For the Lord in His hypostasis is the radiance of glory and the image of His hypostasis (Heb. 1:3). So ὀσία (essence) does not mean property here, 314 but the very thing that exists, as Moses says: He sent me to the children of Israel (Ex. 3:14). So, an existent is that which exists, and an existing is the same as an essence that has being. Particle: one (ὁμῦ) does not mean one; but the expression consubstantial (ὁμοὺσιος) means two perfect beings, not different from each other and not alien to mutual unity. What is the need if, for the sake of piety, we use a special expression to seal the truth? Because without the confession of consubstantiality, heresies cannot be exposed. For just as a serpent hates the smell of mountain resin and the breath of a deer, and the smoking of agate stone, and the smoke of styrax, so Arius and Sabellius hate the word: consubstantial in true confession. But we will also tell them: even if this expression were not in the Divine Scripture (although it is there and apparently contained in the law of both the apostles and prophets, and with two or three witnesses every verb will become (Matthew 16:18), then in any case, for the sake of piety, it is permissible for us to use a useful expression for the affirmation of the holy faith. What are you saying? Tell us: how do you express yourself about the Father? Is there an uncreated Father? Of course so. For who so foolish as to doubt this? Who is so foolish as to think that the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is not an uncreated being? Of course, you yourself confess that He is neither begotten, nor created, nor created. For He has no Father before Himself, nor a certain number of years, nor a beginning by day (Heb. 7:3), therefore, if for Him there is neither a beginning of time nor an end, then without any doubt it must be admitted that He is not created. Nowhere is this written about Him, but for the sake of piety we are forced to think and speak about Him so piously, even if it was not written. In the same way, although Scripture does not mention the consubstantial by this word and direct expression, we have a need to use this word. Even if it seems that it is beyond our strength and our nature to talk about God in this way, of course the Lord himself would allow us to do this, since we do not want to defend the Divine, which does not need our intercession, but we must speak piously and think piously so as not to perish. So answer us, disciples of Arius: we all call the Father unborn and uncreated - and of course this expression is surprisingly true. But where is this found in Scripture? Specify location. These words are not in the law, nor in the prophets, nor in the Gospel, nor in the Apostles. So, if we piously use an expression that is not found in Scripture and it is accepted, being pronounced for the glory of God, then who would blame us if we, even though the expression: consubstantial was not found in Scripture, ourselves invented this word, with the help of which we could unshakably confess our saving teaching? But there is also evidence in Scripture in favor of a pious opinion, both those we cited above and many others. But I will leave this expression and move on, with God’s help, to other sayings and thoughts that they present for the capture of the inexperienced. Among other sayings from the Apostles and Gospels, which they distort according to their own understanding, putting into them the wrong meaning, they put forward the following words of the Apostle, spoken by him in the letter to the Corinthians in the chapter on the resurrection of the dead: the same end, when he gives up the kingdom to God and the Father, when he abolishes all rule and all authority and power. It is fitting for Him to reign; Dondezhe will put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy will be eliminated by death. Submit everything under His nose: never say that everything is subjugated to Him, but it is not true that everything has been subjugated to Him. When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son himself will submit all things to Him, that all things may be in God. (1 Cor. 15:24–29). So, they seize on this saying and, out of their usual enmity towards the Only Begotten, undermining His ineffable and glorious Divinity, carried away, as I have often said, by madness, they say: you see what the Scripture says: the same end, when you hand over the kingdom to God and the Father, when you abolish power and strength, for it is fitting for Him to reign, until the end of all enemies will be laid down under your feet. The expressions: befitting, Dondezh and ever betray the kingdom, mean a certain continuation of time. Further they blasphemely say that these words: until he will betray the kingdom to God and the Father, mean the cessation and destruction of the power of the reigning one. But first of all, they do not know the true meaning of these words, namely, that due to the communion of the Only Begotten with flesh and blood, He is proclaimed and spoken of in a human form and in relation to His glorious coming in the flesh, but this does not apply to His eternally perfect and glorious deity, which has no need for an increase in glory, since it is in itself glorious and self-perfect. So Christ testifies to two states of glory: He says about the new: “Glorify me, Father, with glory, since before you I had no peace” (John 17:5). And the Father, proclaiming the glory of both states, says about the first spiritual glory: I have glorified, in order to show its infinity, and about the subsequent one, due to coming in the flesh, he says: and again I will glorify (John 12:28). From here the meaning of the words of the Apostle, who proposed a dual truth about the Son of God, is clearly visible. The words: until he delivers the kingdom to God and the Father refer to the beginning of His coming in the flesh that happened in time: for the deity of the Only Begotten was always with the Father, because He is the Only Begotten God the Word, originating without beginning and without flight from the Father. Otherwise, how would what the Angel said be fulfilled: the Spirit of the Lord will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you (Luke 1:35)? He said to the Virgin Mary: give birth to a son and call his name Jesus (v. 31), in order to show that God the Word came down from above, was incarnated in the womb of this virgin and became completely human. And so that the perfect incarnation would not be separated from divine perfection, he adds and says to her: by the same thing that is born holy, he will be called the Son of God (v. 35), and after that: God will give him the throne of His father David, and he will reign in the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end (vv. 32, 33). Apparently these sayings contradict one another: it is fitting for Him to reign Dondezh, and: He will reign in the house of Jacob forever, and it is not said only forever, but forever; And again the saying: when he gives up the kingdom to God and the Father, the opposite words are: and there will be no end to His kingdom. Since completely reliable persons say both about the Lord and Christ, for the Angel Gabriel is holy, and the holy Apostle is spirit-bearing, what will those who are ignorant of this life-giving matter say? Does Scripture really contradict itself, always and in everything proclaiming the truth? Don't bother. But as we first said. in relation to the incarnation, everything has a prudent sequence. For if at a certain time the Lord betrays the kingdom, does that mean He is not yet reigning? If He does not yet reign, then how does He always appear to receive worship from Angels and Archangels, both before coming in the flesh and during this coming? So Scripture says about Him that God, when He introduces the firstborn into the universe, says: and let all the Angels of God worship Him (Heb. 1:6), and also: He is seated at the right hand of the Father (Mk. 16:19); also: Every tribe of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth will worship Him (Phil. 2:10). So the one who is worshiped from all always reigns. But if the Son always reigns, both before and now, and in the time to come, since he has not yet given up the kingdom to the Father, then what should we say? Doesn't the Father have a kingship? It won't happen. For the Son reigns together with the Father, and the Father together with the Son and the Holy Spirit. What are they saying? When He gives up the kingdom to God and the Father, does that mean He will cease to reign? It won't happen. For how will then what is said be fulfilled: and His kingdom will have no end? The above words of the Apostle were spoken by him in order to show that in the Son nothing was fulfilled or is fulfilled separately and separately from unity with the Father and from the one will of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. And here, as we see, it is said about the Son: when he delivers up the kingdom to God and the Father, when he abolishes all rule and authority and power, it is as if the Son Himself betrays the kingdom and ends all authority, and so on. And for this: it is fitting for Him to reign, Dondezhe will put all enemies under his feet, - as if the Son does everything, and lays down laws, and rules, and betrays to the Father, together with the kingdom, those subject to himself. Then the Apostle goes again to another person, different from the Father, who has subdued everything to the Son, and says: Subdue everything under His nose: the last enemy will be destroyed by death. (1 Cor. 15:27,26). It is no longer said from the person of the Father alone, and not from the person of the Son alone, but from someone mediating between the persons of the Father and the Son: the last enemy will be abolished, death: never say that all things are subjugated to Him. I would like to ask them: on whose behalf are the words spoken here? The depth of the mysteries of God spiritually judges carnal people, for the carnal man does not accept foolishness that is from the Spirit (1 Cor. 2:14). For here, if the Father says to the Son the words: always say that all things are subjugated to Him, then the story will not be enough, because the Son has subdued everything to the Father. If, on the person of the Son, it is said: “Whenever you decide everything is subdued to Him,” then the thought will be insufficient, since something slow is attributed to God the Father or the Son. So, who is it that says: that everything is conquered? The Apostle did not say: always rekosha. For. if it had been said to them: vgden rekosha and this had to do with the Son, then these words could have been applied either to the Angels or to those conquered by Him. since above the Apostle already pointed to the Son, who subdued and handed over to the Father, and to the Father, who subdued everything to the Son, then for the student of the sayings of Scripture, only the person of the Holy Spirit remains. Therefore, after the face of the Father and the face of the Son. The Apostle vaguely points to the person of the Holy Spirit, who always proclaims to us and teaches us what is proper to the Father and the Son, so that there would be no lack of perfect knowledge of both the Trinity and the glory received by the Son at His coming in the flesh. After this he says: the last enemy will be destroyed by death; the abolished enemy is bound and no longer performs the activities characteristic of itself and no longer exists, since it is abolished. So, what can they say about this, who do not know how to understand the Scriptures? Should we think of the Son in such a way that he will cease to reign? But if we understand the words of Scripture in this way, then we would admit an ungodly thought by including the Son among those subordinate to Him, since having completed the work, He would seem to have ceased to act. But let it not be so. For none of those who believe in Christ and truly hope in Him would have the idea of ​​saying or hearing anything indecent to His glory, as they are being foolish. But the Divine Scripture teaches everything: never say: everything is subjugated to Him, as if everything was subjugated to Him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will submit to him who put all things under him (vv. 27, 28). If, due to the similarity of thoughts, we add here what the Angel pointed out at the beginning, then the full power of these sayings will be revealed to us consistently and clearly. Because the Angel said something similar, above calling Him the Son (Luke 1:32), then he speaks with some addition about His coming in the flesh, pointing to the union of natures: by the same thing that is born of you (he adds) holy, he will be called the Son of God (v. 35). Expressions of this kind: the same thing that is to be born will be called the Son of God, indicate the reason why the Son himself will submit to the one who submits all things to Him. This is so that the carnal is no longer carnal in the proper sense, but united with the Divine, carnal, but united with Him in one unity, reigning with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and His kingdom will have no end. And since the Lord rose, the words began to be fulfilled: may God be all in all; for the fleshly things were spiritually united together into one His Godhead; Therefore, the Scripture says: do this in remembrance of me until the coming of the Son of man (1 Cor. 24:26) and also: you will also see Him, in the same image you saw Him going into heaven (Acts 1:11). When everything is finally accomplished and nothing remains undone, then everything will be elevated to His deity (which is meant by the words: may God be all in all), so that there is no division and no thoughts of polytheism are aroused, for the praise of the Trinity is one. The Son neither submits to the Father as an autocratic ruler, nor does he submit to Him as a slave who has no power, since He is born of the Father, of one nature and one Divinity. He submits to the Father not due to any lack, or weakness, or necessity, or the cessation of power, but as the true Son, the only begotten, eternally reigning with the Father, elevating all creation into one unity and one dignity honor and teaching his church, that God may be all in all. since there is one Divinity, one dominion, one glorification of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and the Father is decently honored by the Son, as the true Son, and the Holy Spirit, as not alien to the Father and the Son. Thus, let the speeches of those who blaspheme against the Son of God and the Holy Spirit and their hostile plans against the Son and the Holy Spirit be silenced. And now, having discovered their evil fabrications, we will refute them. They also cite some sayings from the Gospel and say: why cannot the Son do anything for himself, unless he sees the Father doing it (John 5:19)? But they do not understand these words at all, because the Father did not create in advance, and then the Son created. For what kind of heaven did the Father himself create, so that the Son, taking this first heaven as a model, could produce something similar to it? No one who thinks evil can prove this, because in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1). Likewise, at the beginning, during the creation of peace, he says: Let us create man in our image and likeness (v. 26). The Father did not say to the Son: I will do it and show you how you should do it. Then: and God created man (v. 27); It is not said: He created and showed the Son how man should be created, because the Son was not ignorant, so that He first had to learn the art, and then, in accordance with it, produce. But since the Lord came to take on our flesh, became a man, spoke among you and spoke with the Jews, who thought that he was destroying the works of the Father, then wanting to raise their thoughts to ensure that they did not stop their attention on His human nature alone, he said: the Son does nothing unless he sees the Father doing it, and thereby showed that the work of the Son is the work of the Father and that the Father is pleased with the economy of His every work. doing. And so, finally, like beasts, they attack other sayings of Scripture. being convicted on behalf of the Word of God, they will truly be struck like lightning: flash the lightning and make me wife; Let Thy arrows fall and dismay me (Ps. 143:6). They also cite another saying from the Gospel, which is related to the above: For the Father loves the Son and shows Him everything that He himself does; and more of these works will be shown to Him, so that you may wonder; and further: The Father raises the dead and gives life; This is what the Son wills and lives; and again: The Father judges no one, but all judgment is given to the Sons, so that all may honor the Son as they honor the Father (John 5:20–24). Now look, Arius, at the conclusion of our debate with you, to what end our speech has come. It is not said that some should honor and some not, but that all should honor the Son as they honor the Father. So, do not dishonor the Son, so as not to dishonor the Father. For if you think to recognize the Son as subordinate or lesser than the Father, then your opinion will offend the Father as well. For it is the same impudence on your part to think about the Son in such a way and not to honor Him as you honor the Father. Tell me, valiant man, why did the Father give Him all judgment (John 5:32)? What does He say? That is why the Son wants him, that he lives. He did not say: whom he will command to be revived. All this the Son had to receive from the Father, but not be less than the Father. This is said in Scripture primarily for two reasons: firstly, to raise our thought to one unity of the deity of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; - not to reduce the thoughts of people to division and polytheism, but to raise them to one unity, secondly, to indicate the change in glory during the fleshly coming of Christ and the union of the Divinity with Him. For He came to rejoice His disciples with a promise, about which He said that those who have not tasted death will see the Son of Man coming in His glory, that is, in the glory of the transfiguration that took place after this on the eighth day, as the Gospel says (Luke 9:27,28) or in six days, as another Gospel says (Mk.9:1,2). The Evangelists do not contradict each other here, but their accuracy is the same, always reliable, so that there is no reason for people to make mistakes in what is necessary, a person must be diligent in thinking evil from his youth (Gen. 8:2). One Evangelist said: on the eighth day, because when the Lord spoke these words, there was still some part of the day left and He counted from this day and hour, although the day was already leaning towards the ninth or tenth hour. And then, since the event itself occurred on the eighth day, at about the third or fourth hour, He called this day the eighth. Another Evangelist says with no less precision: after six days, because he did not count either the day on which the Lord spoke these words to his disciples, or the one on which he performed this deed, but only the full six days located between one day and the other. Having reached the event itself, the Evangelist conveyed the story about it in this form: Jesus gave drink to Peter and John and James, led them up the mountain and was transfigured, and His face was illuminated like the sun (the face of His flesh united with the Divine) and His vestments were white like snow (Matthew 17:1,2; Mark 1:2,3) It is obvious that the flesh that came from Mary and taken from our race, she was transformed into glory, receiving the glory of the Divine, honor and perfection and heavenly glory, which the flesh did not have before, but then received in union with God the Word. So understand the above words that the Father gave all judgment to the Sons and that he gave Him power, but He also wants and lives. In order to point to the first beginning, and to the unity of the one Divinity, and to one will, He attributes everything good to the Father, to the one beginning and the Divinity. For with three perfect hypostases, there is one Divinity of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. The flesh, received by the Lord at His coming, received, together with the Divinity, the gift of dignity and power, and perfection, and spiritual union into one Divinity given to it by the Father and the Son. With great difficulty we barely crossed this stormy sea with its cruel rising and foaming waves and terrible depths and finished the hunt for these wild animals, having burned the arrows and shields of our opponents and broken their bows with the help of correct and reasonable reasoning. Now, we are powerless on our own, but having received from God the strength and grace to crush this many-headed reptile, an ugly likeness of a water serpent, as strong with the help of God, we can sing a victorious song: we will sing to the Lord, gloriously we will be glorified; the horse and the rider were cast into the sea (Exodus 15:1) We crushed the head of the dragon on top of the flowing water (Exodus 8:6), of which these new heirs of the Jews did not want to be partakers. Directing his speech to them, the Prophet says: Because you did not desire the waters of Siloamli, flowing this way, but you desired to have Rasson king and Tabeel the son of Romeel, behold, the Lord is raising up against you the waters of mighty rivers, the king of Assyria, and so on (Is. 8:6,7). But we, having received help from the Lord and spitting from the true flesh thrown on the ground (John 9:6), and anointing our eyes with clay mixed with spitting, so that having once been in ignorance, we now knew the truth, having departed and washed in Siloam, it says: sent, that is, in the coming of the Lord in the flesh and in the perfect Divinity and having finally received our sight - no longer let us renounce the Lord, even if we were excommunicated from the congregation (John 9:22) by the accomplices of Arius and the successors of the Jews. For they, like the Jews, decided: everyone who confesses the Lord should be excommunicated from the congregation, showing that the one who has received his sight has become the accuser of them who do not see. For if their entire congregation had not been blind, they would not have separated from the congregation the one whose eyes were opened. So, let us thank the Lord for having received our sight and confessing the Lord, for healing the wounds (if only we do the work of His commandments), trampling on the serpent and crushing the head of the dragon by the power of God, to whom be glory, honor and power to the Father in the Son, to the Son in the Father with the Holy Spirit, forever and ever, Amen. Now, beloved, having left this mortified, seven-headed and many-shaped hydra, we will usually move on to the following heresies, calling on God for help, so that He will grant both us and those who wish to read this work the same zeal for the healing of the wounded and for the protection of those who have not yet experienced these evils. The end of the second part of the book. The words placed among the added characters in this entire table of contents were added to the Greek manuscript of the Moscow Synodal Library of the 12th century No. 443, on the first pages of which the abbreviated news of St. Epiphanies about heresies, placed in the table of contents prefixed to each section of his Panarius. The text of this manuscript is closer to the edition of the table of contents that we find in the book of St. John of Damascus “about heresies” (see above), rather than the one it has in printed editions of the works of St. Epiphany; closer to the same edition than to the latter, and the ancient Slavic translations found in our manuscripts of precisely these abbreviated news of “St. Epiphanius Archbishop of Cyprus on heresies”, which are set out in the table of contents (comp. for example, by hand, bibliography of Moscow. D. Ak. “The Righteous Measure.” No. 184). However, the text of the manuscript also has its own characteristics, namely, it is grammatically more correct and clearer than the printed one. Due to the comparative antiquity of this text, it seems to deserve preference over the printed edition of the table of contents; Moreover, in the newest editions it is accompanied by the indication of many options, not always, however, and not many that help bring the main text into a more harmonious form. Μαρϑίνη, ​​according to the printed edition of Panaria; according to the manuscript and according to the Damascene text μαρϑῖνα: but below in a detailed presentation of the heresy of the Sampseans (chap. 1), and also above (See Works of St. Ot. in the river translation T. 42. p. 85) - Marfina (Maρϑάνα). So according to the manuscript, and according to the Damascene text (Patrol. p. compl. series gr. t. 94 col. 712). According to the manuscript, and according to the Damascene text (I. cit. col. 713) –ἀφηνιάζοντες. The following words: τίνος ὠριγένους, according to the manuscript, are omitted. According to the translation of the seventy, these words read like this: ἐφέματος τοῦ πυῤῥοῦ, which means: red boiling. But St. Epiphanius, instead of: πυῤῥοῦ, reads: πυροῦ, which, according to the usual meaning of this word, should mean: wheat. St. Epiphanius takes this word not in this usual meaning, but in the sense of an adjective derived from the word: πιρ, fire. Τα χαρίοματα, extraordinary gifts of grace. Slich. Creation St. Father in Russian translation T. 42. p. 23. note. So, according to Scaliger’s correction; in the original text it reads chronologically incorrectly: two hundred and ninety. That is, respected by the Montanists. The word actually used in the text is: ἐφίπταμαι, leaning on. But to this reading, it seems, some should prefer the correction: ἐφάπτομαι (Alb. Jahn. symbolae in emend. et illustr. Epiph. Panaria, in Franc. Oehler. corp. hæresiolog. t. 3. pag. 40). That is, in a Montanist frenzy. Translated according to the reading of the manuscripts: περι τῆν ψυχὴν, which the newest publishers, following Petavius, apparently, without sufficiently strong motives, is corrected as follows: περιτὴν ψυχὴν. St. Epiphanius, instead of the generally accepted reading: μετὰ εὐχαριςιας, reads these words with a member: τοῖς. That is, marriage and a certain kind of marriage. Such a curse in this very form is not found in the Law of Moses. This reference to the law was probably formed through the extension of the following general curse to the particular occasion of celebrating Easter: cursed is every man who does not abide in all the words of this law that he does (Deut. 27:2; Gal.3:10). This assumption is apparently justified by the subsequent refutation of this heresy by St. Epiphany. According to our count, March 25th. According to our count, March 18th. According to our account, March 20, According to our count, March 23rd. According to the correction of Petavius; in the original: fourteenth. Also according to the correction of Petavius; in the original: evangelical. According to the Greek text, this is followed by the words: “which he called the heresy of the foolish (ἀνοήτων).” But these words, apparently, are a later insertion, as is partly indicated by the very form of the expression, and were inserted, apparently, by misunderstanding: for the name alogs, actually applied by St. An epiphany to this heresy, not entirely appropriately replaced by the name “nonsense.” (Epiph. Ep. Constantiae orr. ed. G. Dindorf. Lipsiæ. 1862. Vol. III. p. II. pag. 718). Ἁποϰρυφον - this word about the Apocalypse is used by St. fathers usually in this sense. Slich. eg St. Grieg. Nyssa “for his ordination” (Creative Holy Father in Russian translation, vol. 39, p. 367). See above. Creation.. S.O. in Russian. lane T. 42, p. 96. In the Slavic text, in accordance with the generally accepted reading of the Greek original, it reads: to Galatia; but according to some ancient codes one can also find the reading that St. defends here. Epiphanius. According to our calculations, it should be November 8th. Starting from here to the words: “The Holy Spirit” at the beginning of the next chapter is translated according to the text of the Venetian copy of Panarius. This list is older than all the currently known lists of Panarius (written in the middle of the 11th century), and seems to be the most correct of all of them, and in this place, it presents significant differences and some additions compared to the text known from previous editions, which in this place is rather vague. These differences are indicated by Ehler in the appendices to his edition of Panarius (Corp. hæresiolog. T. 2. p 3 pag. 628), and Dindorf in the newest edition of Panarius (Lipsiae 1860) included them in the text itself. We will follow this text, restored and published by Dindorf from the Vinetian copy, in our further translation, noting only the most significant of its deviations from the previously known text, which serve to correct this latter. From the previous way of life. Κλίσεις, according to the correction of Petavius; in the original the word is not entirely appropriate: ϰλήσεις (vocations). That is, after the calling of Peter by Andrei. That is, it is not canonical (ἀδιαϑετον). This was the name of such books, in contrast to those accepted into the canon, which were called ἐνδιάϑετοι. (Compare below about the Melchizedekians, chapter 2). That is. 801. coll. above page 20. The insertion made according to the text of the Venetian list begins with these words; it extends to the words: “on the Jordan to John.” From here begins the extensive insertion found from the Venetian copy of Aileron and Dindorf, extending to the 3rd section in the 22nd chapter. According to the old editions, only a few lines from this entire insert were read, constituting the 1st section of the 22nd chapter, and then not exactly in the form in which they were found in the Venetian list. According to the reading of Epiphanius's text, this particle is omitted. According to our count, January 6th. The meaning of the name is the same as Saturnalia; for Kronos and Saturn are names of the same deity. However, it is in vain that this name was attributed to the Egyptians: it is Greek. In the hymns of St. Ephraim the Syrian on the Nativity of Christ we actually meet this thought revealed in the following words: “the light prevailed, and rising gradually, proclaimed the mystery. It is already twelve days since he ascended, and this thirteenth day is the complete mystery of the birth of the Son and His twelve apostles.” (Works by St. Ephr. Sir. in Russian translation. Moscow. 1860, Part 5, p. 172) It is believed that it would be more correct to read halma (Dindorf. 1. cit. vol. 3. p. 2. pag. 729) According to the Roman fasti he is called Caius (ex fastis Capitolinis) and Publius (ex fastis Siculis). The month according to the Julian calendar began on December 27. According to the Syro-Macedonian calendar, this month corresponds to January. This month began on December 24th. According to the Venetian list: fifth (πέμπτη), but according to previous editions: sixth (5); and this last reading seems to be the best. In later, probably ecclesiastical, use, this name was assigned to January. From this it is clear that the above Hebrew name of the month is read incorrectly. Tevith is the fourth month, and the fifth is Shevat. This irregularity was noticed by Scaliger. Syromacedonian name for November. According to the Cypriot calendar, this month began on October 24th. According to the Ephesian calendar, the month of Appeleia began on October 24th. The impersonality of the speech shows that we are not talking about the Savior alone, but also about the Jews, at least some. Since, according to Jewish custom, the days were counted from the evening: then on this basis, according to Petavius, these words should be corrected as follows: the thirteenth at night, and the twelfth during the day. According to Petavius's correction, at night. According to Petavius, one should say: during the day; or, if we leave the expression of the text untouched, we must assume that in this last case we are talking about the moon according to the Nicene account, and not according to the Hebrew. According to our account. March 22. Obviously, it should mean: because the lunar year is less than the solar year (almost eleven days), and time calculation according to the lunar current should be equalized with the solar one, as it is more convenient to use. The words: “and three o’clock” seem to be an unnecessary insertion; because the year is further defined as consisting of three hundred and sixty-five days minus one hour. (For clarity, we should remember that St. Epiphanius counts twelve hours a day, cf. above p. 37). Petavius, for his part, based on various astronomical considerations about the described St. Epiphanius of the Jewish cycle, suggests that this passage should be corrected as follows: “before three hundred and sixty-five days of solar revolution, five days and one hour are missing,” and the following words should be read as follows: “there are three hundred and sixty days without one hour,” or “three hundred and sixty days and three hours without one hour,” and this deficiency relates to one year in the fourteen-year cycle, namely the last. But no matter how much work Petavius ​​puts into the explanation described by St. Epiphanius in this chapter, of Jewish time reckoning, this description, in the opinion of the best experts and experts in this matter, “is so insufficient that it is impossible to reach anything reliable from it.” This is the opinion of Fan der Hagen, repeated by Ideler (Hanilb. d. mathemat. u. techn. Chronologie v. Ludw. Ideler. Berlin. 1826, B. 2. S. 243). In this state of affairs, of course, it is fairer and safer to adhere to the text, except in those cases when inconsistencies with itself appear in it, rather than, in the form of correction, to resort to significant deviations from the text on grounds that cannot be solid simply because they are drawn from such a vague source. This is the news of St. Epiphany is so far the only one of its kind; and therefore it seems all the less convenient to explain it. According to Petavius, in this place the text should be corrected as follows: “thirty months and twenty-eight days,” or: “and twenty-eight days with three hours.” This correction seems worthy of acceptance for the following reason: according to the testimony of St. Epiphany, each of the described fourteen-year cycles has five additional months. In six fourteen-year cycles there will be thirty such additional months. But even in this case, the equation of lunar reckoning time with solar Julian reckoning will not yet be achieved. Namely, according to the account of St. Epiphany, if only the text known to us in this case is correct and understood by us correctly, and with this equation of the lunar current with the solar one, for each Julian year, for a complete equation, four hours will be missing, that is, eight of our daily allowances. After repeating the fourteen-year cycle six times, or over a period of 84 years, the number of these missing hours will increase to 336 hours. By dividing this number by 12, since this is the number of hours that St. An epiphany in a day is twenty-eight days. According to the Venetian list: seventy-one (ο ά); but this is an obvious mistake, and after a few lines it already reads: seventy-four (ο δ’), and in the twenty-eighth chapter: seventy-three (o γ’). The Venetian list omits the words: “and from the beginning....one hundred and thirty-four days.” The reason for this, perhaps, lies in the last words. But, apparently, these words are not superfluous in the text, although they are out of place here; These words probably determine the continuation of time from the day of baptism to the day of suffering. Therefore, we have every right to assume that either the words: “one hundred and thirty-four days should be moved higher and placed after the words: “from the days of baptism, which are before the day of His birth,” or, conversely, those words placed above should be moved here below, because it is incredible that St. Epiphanius truly counted “seventy-four days from the day of baptism, which is earlier than the day of birth,” namely, sixty days, whereas a few lines before this he counted seventy-four days from the date of birth. That is, the letter: μ, meaning 40. By Diendorff's correction; in other editions and manuscripts: Cammarina. According to Petavius's assumption; in the original: Βηττέω. However, it should be noted that this instruction contains insoluble difficulties. This is followed by the word in printed editions: ταῦ προπόσωνος, and according to the Venetian list: προπόρων. This strange word plunged publishers into great bewilderment, which was resolved for the most part than what they wanted to read: πρὸ πίσωνος. But this guess did not resolve the bewilderment, if not make it worse. In our opinion, since two chronological terms were indicated above, and now St. Epiphanius wants to offer an accurate account of time, then he needed to indicate from which term he was counting; and therefore it is most likely that there should be a word here showing that the counting is carried out from the first of the above terms, as can be judged by the count itself. Maybe this word is: τοῦ προ ποδὼν. Διάϰονοι; according to the Venetian list: disciples (μαϑηταὶ). Obviously, the words “three days with John” must be missing here. Ἡ ϰτησαμένη; according to the Venetian list, obviously erroneously: κτισαμένη. Τοῦ προβάτου ἡμέρα, according to the assumption of Scaliger and Eler; according to previous editions of Panarius: τοῦ προσαββάτου; according to the Venetian list: τοῦ προφήτου. The likelihood of the correction that we follow is confirmed by the fact that not much later the days of the Easter festival are given this very name: ἡμέραν τοῦ προβάτου. Week in this case, of course, means in St. Epiphany, seventh day of the week. Slich. above about the Phrygian heresy. 1. Petavius notes that the name of Domitian should be placed here. That is, the book of Ilksay. See above “about ossins” Creation. Holy Father in Russian translation T. 42. p. 83. According to the Venetian list: it will be found on you. On this occasion, Petavius ​​recalls that Zadok, who was high priest under David, was tenth after Aaron. A similar inaccuracy in the account is repeated in the genealogy of the prophet Elijah, placed in the next chapter. According to the Venetian list, according to which this place is translated: ἔι τις; this is probably read as a mistake, instead of ἤτις, as Diendorff corrects in his edition. According to the Venetian list: Amoria; but according to other lists: Moria. According to the Venetian list: Razaza; but according to other lists: Zara, and this is closer to the corresponding name in the book of Chronicles according to the translation of the seventy than the first. St. Epiphanius, no doubt, has in mind 1 Chron. 6, 1–9. But 1) the pedigree line described by St. Epiphanius, shorter than the line described in the book of Chronicles: some members of this last line are omitted; 2) in reading the names I do not always agree with the book of Chronicles. On this occasion, Petavius ​​recalls that, according to the book of Genesis (16, 16), Abraham was eighty-six years old at the birth of Ismail, which was much later than Abraham’s meeting with Melchizedek. According to the Slavic Bible, according to the Seventy, one hundred and thirty, Gen. 11, 13. According to the Venetian list of Panarius: “one hundred and five (ρέ)”, but we correct this in accordance with our Bible, because this is required by the final result, deduced at the conclusion of the entire series of these calculations. Accordingly, we correct the result in this calculation itself, which already requires correction because the figure indicated for it in Panarius’s text cannot in any way be accepted; this figure is 1130 years (χίλια ρλ). According to our Bible, having a hundred years (Gen. 11, 10). In the original, one hundred and five (ρέ), and according to the Venetian list: one hundred and nine; but both are obviously scribes’ mistakes, Δεῖ, according to the correction of Petavius, instead of: δι’manuscripts. Word: ὁδῶν, taken from previous editions of Panarius; in the text of the Venetian list it is omitted. This entire section is an addition to the previously known text of Panarius, found by Ehler in the Venetian copy, and published by him in the appendices to his edition of Panarius (Corp. hæresiolog. T. 2. r. 3. pag. 642), and Dindorf in the newest edition of Panarius included in the text itself. In the Greek text this word is preceded by the word: Μελχισεδέκ. That's probably why St. Epiphanius attributes these words to Melchizedek. This is the meaning of the name: Aching in Greek. Added from the Venetian list: ϰαι ξυλογου. According to Dindorf's edition: Christ is obviously a mistake, according to other editions: Lord. That is, vengeful deities are evangelists. This is indeed the experience, the custom of the ancients, mainly the Athenians, to cover up shameful qualities in speech with plausible names. Ancient grammarians called this an antiphrase. Phot. Biblioth. Cod. 279. This is a more accurate translation of the preposition: ἐν, which appears in the original rather than in the Slavic Bible. The words “except for a few” are an addition to the Venetian list, not found in other lists. That is, apparently, as having no sexual parts. But Petavius’s assumption is more correct that something is missing here. And perhaps it is not inappropriate to use, to clarify these words, a parallel passage from the panoplia, Niketas Choniates, cited by Ehler from Greek manuscripts in the appendices to his edition of Panarius (Corp. haeresiolog. T. 2. p. 3. pag. 645). In this place we read: “do they think similar to the Archons, Sethians and the like”? In the original: συμψελίοις. According to Ducange's explanation (in his glossar. medet inf. graecit. col. 1479), σνμψέλλιον is the same as the Latin subsellium, that is, a bench or seat of the lowest dignity. But accepting that in the present place this word should have such a meaning is prevented by the grammatical structure of speech in this place; as a result, probably, instead of reading the Venetian list: ὀπίσω συμψελίοις, according to other lists it is read: Επὶ συμψελίοις. In any case, the reading of Niketas Choniates in the above passage inspires more confidence: σύν ψελλίος; (see note 9), according to which we translate this word. Kaphara, translated from Greek, means: clean. Of course, it precedes baptism. Κνίους – added according to the Venetian list. The name of the basilisk, according to word derivation from Greek, can mean: king. According to the reading corrected by Diendorf; and according to the uncorrected one: Visikaniy. Substances are probably meant; in the Greek original it says: ἐτέρων. In the original by St. Epiphanius: ὀ τιμῶν, probably due to a copyist error. Slich. Creation Holy Fathers in Russian translation vol. 44, p. 123. That is, proceeding from the Father and receiving from the Son, as St. said from above. Epiphanius. In the Slavic Bible: planets. 2 Kings 23.5. Nsestan, or copper snake. 2 Kings 18:4. Beelzebub or Baal, the bad god. 2 Kings 1, 2. In the extract from the works of Origen, Pamphilus martyr is here instead of Istav. τρὸποις reads: τὸποις. Patrolog. curs. complete com 17 p.m. 599. In the book of Methodius about the resurrection, Aglaophon, Proclus, Auxentius and Methodius himself appear to be talking with each other. Proclus takes the side of Origen on the issue of the resurrection. In Petavius's edition, a significant omission was noticed here due to the fact that the pages in the original were interrupted. In fact, there is no omission in the work of St. Epiphanius. The continuation of the speech in Petavius’s edition is in chapter 38. In this translation, the correct flow of reasoning is restored in accordance with Dindorf’s edition and the instructions of the Slavic manuscripts of Methodius’s work. When translating this passage, the amendment proposed by Ian was taken into account. Methodius's speech from the same conversation. iPad. 10, 224. “Two people walking together, one inventing before the other what is useful for success; but even if he thought, his thoughts were slower and his spirit’s determination was weaker.” These words are taken from the Iliad. 16,672. This passage is taken by Plato from Simonides and reads in the Protagoras dialogue as follows: that is, it is truly difficult to become a good person, perfect in all respects (literally: quadrangular in arms, legs and mind) built impeccably,” Protagor 339. 13. This section, starting with the words “don’t think, listener,” and ending with the words at the end of the chapter “from us from paradise,” is not in the editions of Petavius ​​and Ehler. It is translated from Diendorf's edition. This whole separation from words is not in Petavius’s edition. It is translated from Diendorf's edition. The tributary legend about the blind man and the lame man is found in our ancient literature, in the works of Cyril, Bishop of Turov, precisely in “the parable about the human soul and the body, and about the transgression of God’s commandments, and about the resurrection of human bodies, and about the future judgment and about the martyr.” The content is the same, but more developed, and instead of the king, it seems to be the acting “man of the house”, who is called “master” and who planted the grapes. Not a word about the marriage of the royal son; but it is said that a homely man, leaving his house, placed a blind man and a lame man at the gates of the garden, being sure that they would not be able to enter the garden to steal grapes and that others would not be allowed to enter there. When leaving, the master left them plenty of food and clothing. When they sat down at the gate of the garden, the blind man asked the lame man: “What is this fragrance rushing towards me from the gate?” After this, they conspire to enter the garden, and the story goes in the same form as that of St. Epiphany. New researchers about the works of Kirill of Turov (Manuscripts of Gr. Uvarov, volume 2. St. Petersburg 1858) they say that this parable was taken by Cyril from the prologue, but they do not explain where it came from in the prologue. We see that it was known back in the 4th Christian century, and St. Epiphanius takes it from the apocrypha of the prophet Ezekiel. There is evidence that in ancient times it was known among the Jews. See Livres Sacrèes dʹOrient. r. 498. And this section is not found in Petavius until chapter 73, but it is translated according to Dindorf. This word is found in some very ancient copies of the Gospel, among other things in Sinai of the 4th century. Philistion, a mime actor who died of loud laughter. Eusebius dates his life to the end of the reign of Augustus. The Evangelist Mark does not have the words You came before your time to torment us, they are read in Matthew (8.29), and Mark says I conjure you by God, do not torment me (9.7). The words “as if many people have come into being” are read in this form in Luke (8.30), and in Mark (5:9). Rinocorura or Rinocolura is the name of a city that lay in the valley. In the Slavic translation of the Bible, this name of the valley, meaning: the stream of Egypt, is translated differently: in Numbers. 34, 5. supplied: Egyptian watercourse; Nav. 15, 4. - Egyptian wilds; 1 Kings 8, 65. - river of Egypt, 2 Chron. 7, 8. - stream of Egypt, Isa. 27, 12. - Rinokorura. Name of the valley of St. Epiphanius derives from a word that means: owned, received possession, inherited, and honors it as one word that means: possession, inheritance, inheritance. Used by St. Epiphanius, the rendering of the Hebrew word by the Greek Νεέλ is a feature of the Greek pronunciation of the Hebrew throat sound, resulting from the impossibility of accurately conveying this sound with a Greek letter and from the desire to use in the rendering a vowel that is closest in sound to the throat sound. Nowadays the stream of Egypt is called Wadi el-Arish. During the rainy season it fills with water, and during the hot season it dries out. Wadi el-Arish is located on the southwestern border of Palestine. Information about Noah's division of the land between his three sons is found in Epiphanius in a condensed form in another of his works, called ἀγϰυρωτός (Anchor ch. 112); the following is read there: “Noah, as appointed heir of the world by God, divides by lot the whole world between his three sons: the first-born Shem received the lot from Persia, Bactriana in India to the country of Rhinocorur. And this country Rinokorur lies between Egypt and Palestine opposite the Black Sea. The second son of Ham was given the lot from Rinokorur south to Gadir; the third - Japheth north of Media to Gadir and Rhinokorur." To Gadir, αϰρι Γαδειρων. Until Cadiz, a city in Spain, which, according to the concepts of the ancients, meant the extreme limits of the earth in this direction. Diodor. Sic. 5, 20 Ios. Flav. Archaeol 1, 6, 1. Mariandina, Μαρειαδυνην. The Mariandines lived in Bithynia. They think that it would be more correct to read here: Μαρεωτιϰην, which means the area lying near Lake Mareot in Egypt. Ammon region in Libya, famous for the church of Jupiter Ammon (Herod. 2, 32; Diod. Sic. 17, 50) According to Strabo (17, 1. 14), a city with a harbor in Libya, otherwise called Paraitonium. Marmarica, the region that ran towards Egypt and formed part of Cyrene, lay between Alexandria and the Pentapolis of Cyrene. Pentapolis. This was the name of the region of Cyrenaica adjacent to Egypt, from its five main cities. Makata. Ptolemy (4, 4, 10) mentions a people: Makatuts, who lived west of Cyrene. Macrona. Herodotus (3, 17) mentions the Macrovians who lived in Libya. Leptimana. Greater Leptis or Naples, a city in Libya (Strab. 17, 3. 18); it was also called Λεπτιμάγνα (Plin. 5, 4, 4. – 17, 19 – R. Mela 1, 7). Sirta. Greater and lesser Sirte (Sidra) sandy steppes on the shores of the Libyan Sea in northern Africa (Herod 9, 32. Strab. 2, 5. 20) Mauritania, in Africa. It included Fetz and Morocco and most of Algeria. The Pillars of Hercules, two mountains on either side of the Strait of Gibraltar. Alavastrida. According to Pliny, Alavastra is a city in middle Egypt Plin. 5, 9. 61); but Epiphanius is not talking about him. More precisely, here we mean the area mentioned by Ptolemy (4, 5, 27), where Mount Alavastrov is found on the shores of the Arabian Gulf. Omirita. Pliny (6, 28) considers the Omirites among the peoples of Arabia, and Ptolemy (6, 7, 2.9) indicates their place of residence in happy Arabia at the very beginning of the Arabian Gulf. Procopius also points to the same area (de bello Pers. 1, 32). Axomita. Epiphanius mentions the Auxomite region in the first book of his Panarius, where he says that after the Pandemonium of Babylon it went to Jesus, a descendant of Ham (Works of St. Epiphanes, part 1 p. 30) Procopius (de bello Pers. Lib. 1 p. 32) Calls the Ethiopians Auxomites. But since in the place under consideration Epiphanius says that Axomita fell into the inheritance of Shem, then this area should be sought in Asia, and not in Africa; but such a place name is not found anywhere in Asia. Petavius ​​thinks that the Auxomites, like the Omirites, lived initially in Arabia, and then moved to Africa, namely to Ethiopia; This is confirmed by the fact that the Ethiopians descended from the Arabians. Woogeya. In the book of Esther (3.1) Haman is called a Bogean. They think (Petavius) that he came from the now unknown town of Vugei in Syria. Others (Grotius) believe that here Βουγαῖος means the same as Βαγώας, that is, a eunuch or noble courtier in Persia. Liva. According to Polybius (5, 51) a city in Mesopotamia, but the region with that name is unknown. Commagene, region in Syria. Rhodope, according to Strabo (4, 6. 12) a city in Macedonia on the border with the Paeonia mountains. Lazia, a coastal region in Colchis inhabited by Lazami. Kardia, a city in Thracian Chersonesus under Propoptide. Anavatik, or the “ascent” of Isaiah, is an Old Testament apocrypha, which Epiphanius mentions in another place in his Panarius, precisely in the heresy of the Archontics (Chapter 2), where he says: “The Archontics use both the ascension of Isaiah and some other apocrypha.” Jerome mentions this same apocrypha (in Esa. 54, 4), calling it ascensio Esaiae. The apocrypha says that the prophet Isaiah, in rapture of spirit, ascended to the seventh heaven and contemplated the kingdom of God. Here he saw the incarnation, suffering and ascension of Jesus Christ. Κανδήλα lamp with oil, lit in a church. Such lamps were made of glass (ϰανδήλαὁαλὶνη). See Ducange Gloss. Graecit. I.p. 580. Constantius Chlorus was the son of Eutropius, not Valerian. Ἡμιφόριον according to Ducange, the same as ωμοφόριον, a cape on the shoulders, a small epancha, and among the ancient monks - a manateyka. Κολοβἴων, kolovii, or leviton, the lower clothing of priests and monks, with short sleeves that barely reached the elbows. Theodosius (according to Theodorit N.E. 1, 5, and Nicephorus 8, 9, Theodotus), bishop of Laodicea, Peacock - of Tyre, Athanasius - of Anazarb, Gregory - of Berite, Aetius - of Lida. Arius and Arians loved to boast that they were disciples of the martyr Lucian. What does St. describe here? Epiphanius, this happened after the Council of Nicaea. Likewise, the further story of St. Epiphany about the time of Arius's death, which supposedly happened before the Council of Nicea, is not correct. The progress of the case and chronological indications are more accurately presented in St. Athanasius, Socrates, Rufinus, Theodoret and Sozomen. Homer does not have such verses. The appeal to Ares of Athena, found in one place in Homer (Iliad. 5.31), can go here, but even then it is very little. Alexander's immediate successor was not Achilles, but Athanasius, as evidenced by Athanasius himself in the 2nd Apology, and Achilles was Bishop of Alexandria after Peter and was only a year old. Valens was baptized not by Eusebius, but by Eudoxius, Archbishop of Constantinople. The word: οὐσία, in addition to the meaning: essence, had the meaning of estate, property. See Luke 15:12,13. You might be interested in: