Часть 3

In the first section of the third book, and according to the above account - in the sixth, there are seven heresies along with schisms, and the order is as follows: 1) Avdians. Apostasy and schism, not heresy. They lead a comfortable lifestyle, adhering to the faith in everything, like the Catholic Church. Most of them live in monasteries. Many apocrypha are used immoderately; they do not pray with us, blaming our bishops, rich people and others. Easter is celebrated especially, at the same time as the Jews. They have something unique in their teaching; they like to argue, very roughly explaining the expression: according to the image. 2) Photinians. This Photinus, being from Sirmium, wandered here in our time. He thought in the same way as Paul of Samosata, but they have something different: they claim that Christ completely received his beginning from Mary. 3) Marcellians. They started receiving treatment from Marcellus of Ancyra in Galatia. There was a rumor that at the beginning he thought very similar to Sabellius. Despite the fact that he often defended himself and defended himself in writing, many accused him of remaining with the same opinions. It is likely, however, that having changed their opinions, he or his disciples corrected themselves, because some Orthodox Christians came to his defense for him or for his disciples. 4) Half-Aryans. They recognize Christ as a creature, but they do not call Him that in the exact sense and not as one of the creatures. We call Him, they say, Son; but so as not to attribute suffering to the Father through the birth of the Son, we call Him created. In the same way, it is quite definitely taught about the Holy Spirit that He is a creature; denying the consubstantiality of the Son, they want to call Him co-existent; some of them were rejected by the cultish ones. 5) Doukhobors. They think correctly about Christ, but they blaspheme the Holy Spirit, teaching that He is a creature, and not being God, but created, received this name in an improper sense, due to its activity; He, they say, is only a sanctifying power. 6) Aerians. This Aerius came from Pontus and is still alive to tempt people. He was a presbyter under Bishop Eustathius, accused of Arianism; Since this Aerius was not installed as a bishop, he taught many things contrary to the church. By faith he is the most perfect Arian, but he also teaches what is unnecessary against them. One should not, he says, make offerings for the dead, nor fast on Wednesday, Friday and Pentecost; forbids celebrating Easter, and although he preaches renunciation of the world, he fearlessly allows all kinds of meat-eating and pleasures. If any of his followers wants to fast, he says, let him fast not on set days, but when he wants, for you are not under the law. He also says that a bishop is no different from a presbyter. 7) Aetians. Descended from Aetius, a Cilician, who was a deacon under George, the Arian bishop of Alexandria. They are also called Anomeans, and some Eunomians, from a certain Eunomius, who was a student of Aetius and is still alive. Eudoxius was also a like-minded person, but out of fear of Tsar Constantine, he separated from them and even excommunicated Aetius. Eudoxius, however, remained an Arianist, although he did not follow Aetius. These Anomeans, who are also Aetians, completely alienate Christ and the Holy Spirit from God, claiming that the Son of God is a creature, and they say that He does not even have any likeness to the Father. They want to explain the nature of the Divinity with the help of Aristotelian and geometric syllogisms and through them to prove that Christ could not have come from God. And those descended from Aetius, the so-called Eunomians, rebaptize all those who come to them, not only the Orthodox, but also the Arians themselves, turning, as rumor goes, the legs of those being baptized upward and the head downward. They consider falling into fornication or another sin as nothing, for, they say, God does not require anything except remaining in their imaginary faith. These seven heresies are contained in the third part of the book, and in general order, in the sixth section. About the split of the Obdians, 50th (70th) The Avdians or Odians constitute a special institution. Retiring from the world, they live in monasteries, have communities in deserts and near cities, in the suburbs, and everywhere they form separate dwellings or communities. This Obadiah, their head, appeared in the time of Arius, when a council of bishops was assembled against Arius and condemned him. He came from Mesopotamia and was a man known in his fatherland for his purity of life, zeal for God and faith. Often observing what was happening in the churches, he denounced the bishops and elders to their faces, telling them: this should not be like this, this should not be done in this way. He said this as a man who loves the truth, and what is characteristic of people who love and freely speak the truth and lead a very strict life. Therefore, seeing such abuses in the churches, as I said, he was forced to speak out in reproof and did not remain silent; if he saw that someone from the clergy was devoted to greed, a bishop, or a presbyter, or another member of the church, he resolutely spoke against this, and if he saw that someone was devoted to effeminacy and luxury, or was damaging anything in the church teachings and decrees of the church, this man, unable to bear all this, pronounced, as I said, an accusation. And all this was unpleasant to those who led a disapproving life. As a result of this, he was subjected to insults, curses, hatred, and enduring these attacks, persecution and dishonor, he remained in communion with the church for quite a long time, until finally some, who had suffered greatly from him, for this reason expel him. But he did not restrain himself, but tried even more to express the truth, without moving away from the union with the one holy Catholic Church. When he, along with his followers, began to be frequently beaten and endured great suffering, he, burdened by previous insults, made the following decision: he separated from the church, and with him many others fell away from it. Thus he made a division, although he did not deviate from the faith in anything; on the contrary, both he himself and his followers believed very correctly; and if one can argue with him and his followers, then this dispute does not concern many subjects. In his confession of faith about the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, he completely agrees with the Catholic Church and adheres to the Orthodox teaching itself, and in everything else that concerns life, he is worthy of surprise; for he himself, the bishops, presbyters and all others under his influence earn their living by working with their own hands. Subsequently, after his removal from the church, he was ordained bishop by another bishop, who had the same displeasures and separated from the church. But since, having started to talk about him, I deviated somewhat to the side, having corrected this, I again return to what follows in order. I am talking about some expressions of Divine Scripture, explained by him rudely, ignorantly and impudently. For example, the words: according to the image that God gave to Adam, he and his followers stubbornly want to refer to the body; The words: Let us make man in our image and likeness (Gen. 1:26), followed by the words of Divine Scripture: And God created man, and took away dust from the earth (Gen. 2:7). since, he says, God called man created from the earth, then look, he very rightly called all this earthly man; This means that He said in advance about this very earthly thing that it would be created in the image of God. As I said, it is rude and ignorant to determine in which part of a person the image of God is contained, and if it is necessary to name a part, then in this expression there will be many things that contradict human reason and give rise to many objections: for we will either make God visible and corporeal, if we think that the image of God is contained in the body corporeally and visibly, or, by saying this, we will make man equal to God. Therefore, it should not at all determine or strive to reveal in what part the image of God lies, but we must admit that the image of God is generally found in man, so that we do not lose the grace of God and do not turn out to be unbelievers of God. For what God says is true, although some words are beyond our understanding. To deny the image of God is contrary to faith and the holy Church of God. For every man is obviously created in the image of God, and no one who has hope in God will deny this, although some invent fables for themselves, separating themselves from the church and from the paternal tradition of the prophets, the law, the apostles and evangelists. Thus, the Obedians are disposed to argue about this more than is proper and go against church tradition, which believes that every man is created in the image of God, and does not allow that the image of God is in any part of man. Both those who admit the fabulous teaching regarding this subject, and those who deny it, cannot prove anything. Some say that the image lies in the soul, thinking that one can only infer about the image in the body. And such people do not understand that inferences are made about the soul, if only one needs to pay attention to the inferences, and not simply, with a sincere thought, turn to God and believe that what God says is the truth, known only to Him alone, who knows all truth. Others say that the image of God is found neither in the soul nor in its body, but in virtue. And others believe the image of God is not in virtue, but in baptism and in the grace received at baptism, in accordance with what has been said: as we have put on the image of earth, let us also put on the image of heaven (1 Cor. 15:49). Others again do not agree with this either, but want to say that the image of God was in Adam; but when he turned out to be disobedient and ate from the tree and was expelled from paradise, he lost the image of God. And these people have a great passion for inventing fables, to whom one must not yield for an hour (Gal. 2:5), neither to these nor to those who say this way or that way, but one must believe that the image of God is in man, and, moreover, in the whole man, and not just in man. And where the image of God is located and where it lies is known to the only God himself, who by his grace bestowed his image on man. For man has not lost the image of God, although he has humiliated the image of God by desecrating himself with reckless deeds and incurable sins. This is what the Lord says to Noah after Adam: Behold, I have given you everything, like a herbal potion. Slaughter and eat. Do not eat meat in the blood of the soul, for I will exact your souls. Whoever sheds the blood of man on earth, his blood will be shed in its place: for I have created man in the image of God, and I will require your blood from everyone who sheds it on the face of the earth. (Gen.9:3-7; Acts 10:13). Do you see that the existence of the image of God is recognized in man after the tenth generation from Adam? Although David, after a long time, says by the Holy Spirit: “Every living man is all vanity” (Ps. 38:6), yet even after him the Apostle says: “A man should not grow long hair, this is the image and glory of God” (1 Cor. 11:7.14). But even after him, Jacob, speaking about language, says: evil is uncontrollable, filled with deadly poison. With this we bless God and the Father and with this oak are men who were in the image of God; It is not proper, my brethren, for such things to happen (James 3:8–10). See how the teaching of those who say that Adam lost the image of God has fallen. And when they say that the image of God is in the soul, they reason and defend it this way: it is invisible, just as God is invisible; she is capable of acting, moving, thinking and concluding, and therefore she has the image of God, because she imitates God on earth, setting in motion, doing and creating many things that man does with rational power. And these people find themselves constructing syllogisms. For if therefore the soul is called created in the image of God, then it cannot be the image of God because God is numerically higher than the soul and is in the highest degree incomprehensible and inaccessible to our mind, knows everything - the past, the present, the visible and the invisible, the limits of the earth and the depths of the abyss, and the heights of heaven, and everything that exists; He embraces everything and Himself is not encompassed by anything. The soul is confined to the body and does not know the depths of the abyss, and does not know the breadth of the earth, and does not know the limits of the universe, and has not reached the heights of heaven, and does not know what will happen, or what is happening, and what was before it. And a lot of similar things can be said about her and other things. Moreover, it has divisions, but God is indivisible; for the Apostle says: the word of God is living and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and brain, and is judged by the mind and the understanding of the heart. And there was no creature revealed before Him, and so on (Heb. 4:12,13). You see that the teaching about this has fallen too. And the teaching of those who say that the image of God is in the body turns out to be untenable. For how is it possible for the visible to be similar to the invisible, the corporeal to the incorporeal, the tangible to the elusive? We see with our own eyes what is ahead, but we do not know what is behind; in God there is neither passion nor lack; but everywhere He is light, everywhere sight, everywhere glory. God is Spirit, the Spirit that is higher than all spirit, the Light that is higher than all light. Everything He created is inferior to Him in glory. The One Trinity is incomprehensible and is in an indescribable and incomprehensible glory. As for those who say that the image of God is in virtue, then virtue is impossible without keeping the commandments; and in virtue people differ greatly among themselves, for the types of virtues are numerous. We ourselves know that there are some confessors who gave up their body and soul for the confession of their Master and, having remained in purity, acquired the true faith, were distinguished by piety, love of mankind and reverence, spent time in fasting, in all kindness and in all deeds of virtue. But it happened that they also had shortcomings: either they were inclined to blame, or used the name of God in an oath, or talked idle, or got angry, or acquired silver and gold and the like, which reduces the measure of virtue. What shall we say? Did they really acquire the image of God through virtue, and because of a few human shortcomings, this image was in them only in appearance and was not perfect in them? So again Avdian’s teaching turned out to be untenable. And the teaching of those who say that the image of God is given in baptism falls greatly. For neither Abraham, nor Isaac, nor Jacob, nor Elijah, nor Moses, nor Noah and Enoch who lived before, nor the prophets: Isaiah and others were baptized. So what? Did they really not have the image of God? Thus, one can point out quite a lot of objections to the Obdians, who argue by positing the image of God in the body. The Obedians also cite some other evidence from the divine Scripture, saying: the eyes of the Lord look upon the poor, and his ears listen to their prayer (Ps. 10:4). And again: the hand of the Lord has created all this (Is. 41:20); again: was it not my hand that created all this, you stiff-necked people? And again: heaven is my throne, and earth is the footstool of my feet (Is. 66:1, etc.), and everything that is written about God in this way, for example: I saw the Lord of hosts sitting on a throne, high and exalted (Is. 6:1); and his head is like clean wool, and his clothing is like snow (Dan.7:9). Do you see how they say that the body is made in the image of God? Here they argue strongly and strain their evidence beyond human strength. They say that the Lord appeared to the prophets and appeared as He wanted, being omnipotent in everything. And we do not deny that the prophets saw God, and not only the prophets, but also the apostles. For Saint Stephen the First Martyr says: Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God the Father (Acts 7:56). But the all-holy God, with his power, is loving towards his own creation, so that some of the unbelievers would not think that what is said about God exists only in words and is not true, and what God proclaimed in words is not fulfilled in practice. The Apostle says: it becomes the one who comes to God to believe, for He is, and He is a rewarder of those who love him (Heb. 11:6). So, in order to encourage the man He created, God reveals Himself to His saints and those worthy to see Him, so that they may know God by nature, be established in their thoughts and hope truly, and proclaim Him truly and certify the believing person. Meanwhile, the sons of the Hellenes have an idea of ​​God in words and in imagination. But we truly know the true God, the truly existing one, the king, the incomprehensible one, the Creator of all things, the one God, and from Him the only begotten Son, in no way different from the Father, and His Holy Spirit, in no way different from the Father and the Son, as we have said in detail about faith in God when considering each heresy. We have often said and do not deny that God appeared to people. For if we began to deny the Divine Scripture, then we would not be just and would find ourselves falling away from the truth. If we rejected the old covenant, we would not belong to the Catholic Church. The Gospel says: God is seen nowhere, the Only Begotten Son of that confession (John 1:18). And the Divine Scripture also says: God appeared to Abraham, who was in Mesopotamia (Acts 7:2). And the Lord himself says in the Gospel: for their angels see the face of my heavenly Father (Matthew 18:10). But maybe someone will say that the Divine Scripture says that the prophets saw God, but only with their minds, as can be concluded from the words: Their angels see the face of my heavenly Father, and also from the following: blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God (Matthew 5:8). If someone combines these sayings in his thoughts, he would perhaps say that everyone sees God with their minds, and not with their eyes. But this is refuted by the word of God, spoken by the prophet Isaiah: O accursed me, for I was touched, as a man having unclean lips, among men having unclean lips, I live and have seen the Lord of Hosts before my eyes (Is. 6:5). He did not say: with his mind or thought, but with his eyes, confirming the truth and certainty of faith. So what do we say? The Gospel says that God is nowhere to be seen, but the prophets, apostles and even the Lord himself claim the opposite. Does Divine Scripture really contradict itself? It won't happen. But it is true that the prophets and apostles saw God, they saw as much as they could see and as far as it was possible for them, and God appeared to them as he wanted; for all things are possible with Him. And that God is invisible and incomprehensible is clear and recognized by everyone; but, on the other hand, He is strong to do what He wants, for no one will resist His will. So He is invisible by nature and incomprehensible in glory. When He desires to appear to man created from Him, nothing can resist His will. For the Divinity is not subject to such constraint that it cannot do what it wants, or do what it does not want (because the one who does what it wants is omnipotent), but He does what is appropriate for His Divinity; and in general there is nothing that would hinder His will, so that He could not fulfill what He wants, in accordance with His Divinity. However, it is impossible to see God and the visible is not able to see the invisible. But the invisible God, in His love for mankind and omnipotence, deigns to strengthen the weak with His strength, so that it can see the invisible. And it sees the invisible and limitless, but not as limitless, but as far as the nature of the powerless, reinforced for the perception of the strong, can accommodate. So, in the Divine Scripture there will be no disagreement and no belief will be in conflict with another. The matter, as I have often explained by example, seems like this: if someone looked at the sky through the smallest hole and said: I see the sky; then he would not lie, because he really sees the sky. And if someone smart said to him: “You have not seen the sky,” then he would not lie, because the one who says that he sees does not lie, and the one who told him that he does not see the sky also speaks the truth; for he sees neither the longitude nor the breadth of the sky. And the one who saw told the truth, and the one who objected that he did not see, did not lie, but was fair. Often we, standing on the top of a mountain, see the sea. And if we say that we saw the sea, we will not lie; and if someone on the contrary says: you haven’t seen the sea, he won’t lie either; for what is its breadth, what is its length and depth, and where are the limits of the abyss - this, being a man, he cannot know. If this is how things go with us in relation to creatures, is it not much more so in relation to the grace that God bestowed on the prophets and apostles? They really saw God and did not see it, but they saw how much nature could bear, and that was by the power of grace with which the Almighty strengthened them in everything, for the sake of their love for man who truly served Him. But if anyone thought that God had hands, or eyes, or something else, because in this form He appeared to the prophets and apostles, such people, carried away by a passion for controversy, are exposed to the truth. But what is said in Divine Scripture, one must believe that it is really so, and how it happens, He alone knows. There is no doubt that He really appeared, but He appeared as He wanted, and when He appeared, He truly appeared. For God can do everything, and nothing is impossible for Him. He is incomprehensible, being a Spirit inaccessible to the mind, he embraces everything, but he himself is not embraced by anything. And as is the Father, such is the Son, such is the Spirit according to Divinity. The One Only Begotten, having come into the world, put on flesh, in which he was resurrected, which he united in spiritual unity with the Divine and sat down in glory at the right hand of the Father, according to the Scriptures (Eph. 2:6; Heb. 8:1). And just as He is incomprehensible and inaccessible to understanding, so everything that is said about Him is true; just as God is incomprehensible, so everything that is said about Him is incomprehensible; but incomprehensible in relation to what God is in himself and how He is in incomprehensible glory. To the best of our ability, we expressed it for the glory of God in human language. For we cannot use for this purpose other sounds than those that are given to us by God to a certain extent, although with our minds we imagine incomparably more about God. But our lips, confined to a certain extent and constrained by bodily organs, cannot express as much as the mind comprehends. Therefore, God condescends, accepting from us the title of Him and praise, even when it extends beyond our strength, not so that we give anything to God, but so that we glorify God to the best of our ability, think piously about Him and do not fall away from His grace and truth. - Having spoken in this way about Obadiah himself and the Avdians, we outlined their speeches, which they themselves retold in simplicity and which they adhere to stubbornly and with efforts reaching the point of indecency. But they also have many other things, for which they stand especially strongly, causing division of the church, and with which they, intimidating others, often distract from the church, bending men and women to their side. For they want to celebrate Passover together with the Jews, that is, they try to prove that it is necessary to celebrate Passover at the same time when the Jews prepare unleavened bread for themselves, and this is because this was once the custom in the church. But they slander the Orthodox in this matter, saying: since the time of Constantine, you, out of partiality towards this king, abandoned the custom of the fathers regarding the Easter holiday and changed the day to please the king. And some, in their arrogance, also claim: when Constantine’s birthday was celebrated, then you moved the celebration of Easter to this time. If Easter was celebrated every year on the same day and on the same day it was decided to celebrate it by a council convened under Constantine, then their words would be convincing. But since every year there cannot be the same distribution of time, their words turn out to be unfair. For the king was not concerned about his birthday, but about the unity of the church. Indeed, through the above-mentioned most God-loving and ever-blessed Constantine, God accomplished two great things for us - firstly, he convened an ecumenical council, issued a creed drawn up in Nicaea, attested by the signature of the assembled bishops, deposed Arius and preached the pure faith to everyone; 2ndly, through them I corrected the matter regarding Easter for our unity. For from ancient times and for a long time there were disagreements in the church regarding this subject, and every year there was mockery: because, arguing heatedly with each other, some celebrated Easter a week earlier, others a week later, so that some celebrated it before everyone else, others in the middle, and others after all - at the end. In a word, there was great disorder and confusion, as many scientists are not unaware of the confusion that occurred at different times in church teaching on the issue of this holiday. Even in the times of Polycarp and Victor, the Eastern, disagreeing with the Western, did not want to accept conciliatory messages from each other. The same thing happened in other times, namely, in the times of Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria and Criscentius, when they wrote letters to each other and argued among themselves. And this has continued until our time, since the confusion occurred after the time of the ordination of the circumcised as bishops. Therefore, the bishops gathered from everywhere, having examined the matter in detail, with common consent, decided to celebrate Easter in accordance with the definition and church observance. To confirm their teaching, the Avdians refer to the Apostolic Constitutions, which are questioned by many; but they cannot be rejected, for they contain everything related to church decorum and there is nothing damaging to faith, its confession, church government and rules. The saying cited to confirm the teaching about Easter is poorly interpreted by the above-mentioned Avdians and, out of ignorance, misunderstood. For in the same Decrees the Apostles make the following definition: you shall not make up definitions, but keep a feast when your brethren who are of circumcision do so; do 315 with them. They did not say: your brethren who are circumcised, but from circumcision, in order to show that those who passed from circumcision into the church from that time became leaders, and so that some would come into agreement with others, namely, so that some would not celebrate the holiday at one time, and others at another. For their whole concern was to unite the church, so that there would be no schisms and divisions. The Obedians, not understanding the thoughts of the Apostles and the words cited in the Decrees, wondered whether they should not celebrate the Passover together with the Jews. At the same time, fifteen of the circumcised became bishops, and when bishops from the circumcision were installed in Jerusalem, the whole world had to follow them and celebrate the Passover with them, so that there would be unanimity, and a single confession, and a single celebration of the holiday. But the care of the fathers to lead the thoughts of people to church unity, which could not be realized for so long, by the grace of God reached its fulfillment under Constantine for the sake of unanimity. The saying in the Constitutions of the Apostles was used for the sake of unanimity, as they themselves testify, saying: even if they were mistaken, let you not care about it. However, in the very words spoken there, there is a refutation for Avdian. For it says that in the midst of the celebration of unleavened bread a vigil should be kept; and this could not possibly be in the church definition. In the question of the celebration of Easter, three circumstances are connected: the movement of the sun, which determines the day of Sunday and the month, and the revolution of the moon, which is taken into account by the establishment of the law, so that the Easter lamb is slaughtered on the fourteenth day of the moon, as the law said. 316 So, the Passover cannot be celebrated unless the equinox has passed, which is not observed by the Jews; Yes, they don’t even want to be precise in this matter, because everything is upset and in disarray. However, if there is such precision regarding this issue, then it was expressed by the apostles not for the sake of this issue, and not for the sake of accuracy, but for the sake of unanimity. And if the apostles commanded to celebrate the holiday together with the enemies of Christ, as the Obdianas strive to prove, 317 isn’t it all the more necessary to celebrate it in agreement with the church, so as not to destroy the unanimity of the church? How can you do this? For the apostles themselves say that when they feast, you, while fasting, cry for them, because on the day of the feast they crucified Christ; and when they weep, eating unleavened bread with bitter herbs, you feast. But it happens that they eat unleavened bread on the day of the Lord; for when evening comes on the Lord's day, they can season the passover; and after the evening, when the Sabbath has passed, they cannot do this. And after the slaughter of the lamb, when they awaken to the feast, how can we weep and fast on the Lord’s Day, hearing what the apostles say in the Constitutions: he who embitters his soul on the Lord’s Day is cursed by God? Do you see what severity and what rebuff they have when the matter cannot be accomplished according to the apostolic word? The whole truth of the command lies in the intention, and from the Apostolic Decrees it is clear that it was given for the sake of unanimity, as the connection of speech shows. We celebrate Easter after the equinox, even if they do it too, since they often celebrate it with us. And when they celebrate Passover before the onset of the equinox, they do it alone. And if we celebrated Easter with them, then we would happen to celebrate two Passovers in one year - after the equinox and before the equinox; and next year we wouldn’t celebrate Easter at all. Thus, our entire establishment would turn out to be a work of error, and not the truth, because before the equinox the end of the year has not yet arrived and the annual cycle of time appointed by God for people is not fulfilled unless the equinox passes. Much could be said about how beautifully the fathers arranged, or better yet, through them, God himself established in the church the most accurate and true celebration of this all-honorable and all-holy holiday, so that it would take place after the equinox, when it is necessary to celebrate it on the fourteenth day of the moon, so that we would not celebrate it on the fourteenth day itself. For among the Jews only one day is observed; We have not one, but six, a whole week. Therefore, the law itself says, extending the limits of time: take for yourself a sheep of the first year, without blemish, completely, from the tenth day of the month, and it will be kept for you even to the quarter-tenth day, and slaughter it in the evening on the fourteenth day of the month, that is, the moon (Ex. 12:5-7). And the church observes the custom of celebrating the holiday of Easter, that is, the week 318 appointed by the apostles themselves in their Decrees, from the second day of the week, when they bought the lamb. And if the fourteenth day of the moon falls on the second day of the week, then the slaughter of the lamb begins on that day; 319 in the same way, 320 if it falls on the third day of the week, and on the fourth, and on the fifth, and on the eve of Saturday and on Saturday, 321 - because six days are appointed for the completion of this matter. 322 For neither from the sixteenth nor from the ninth 323 day of the moon can we begin the week of dry eating and Easter, called Holy, but from the tenth to the onset of the fifteenth, which is located between the two currents of night and day. 324 This is how this number of fourteen days of the moon is observed; however, the onset of the fifteenth day is added to it for the sake of the necessary accuracy of the solar course after the equinox and the lunar course during the fourteenth day and the full week until Sunday; we begin the count from the tenth day of the moon, on which the lamb was chosen and whose letter signifies the name of Jesus, 325 since by His name was taken a type of His lamb, destined from the tenth day. But neither from the beginning of the sixteenth day, nor from the ninth day of the moon can we begin or end accounts. For the years of the sun and moon, due to the difference in their course, being significantly delayed, produce this inequality. This was not determined by God for temptation, but was arranged by Him with precision, according to His wise order, which He introduced into His world, establishing the limits of the luminaries, and times, and months, and years, and solar movements - this is all a consequence of providential care for people, stemming from His love for mankind. A solar year consists of three hundred and sixty-five days and three hours, and a lunar year consists of three hundred and fifty-four days; therefore, an extra eleven days and three hours remain from the lunar revolution. 326 Therefore, in the first year there are eleven so-called epacts 327 and three hours; in the second year - twenty-two days and six hours; in the third year - thirty-three days and nine hours; and thus one month is formed, the so-called intercalary month; for thirty days are inserted, and three days and nine hours remain. These latter, added to 11 days and three hours from the fourth year, make 14 days and 12 hours. When another 11 days and 3 hours are added, 25 epact and 15 hours are formed. When another 11 days and 3 hours are added in the sixth year, 36 days and 18 hours are formed, which make up one intercalary month. Thus, after three years, two months are inserted: one month in the first three years, and another in the second three years. There are still 6 days and 18 hours left from Epact. Added to 11 days and 3 hours of the seventh year, they amount to 18,328 epacts and 21 hours. By adding to them in the eighth year again 11 days and 3 hours, we get 28 days, epacta 329 and 24 hours, which make 2 days. These hours added to 28 days make up a full 30 days. Thus, in the eighth year, 30 days increase - one month in two years. Consequently, over the entire eight-year period 330, 90 days, or three full intercalary months, accumulate; it is from the first two triennia that one month is formed and one month from the last two years. In these three intercalary, tripartite months, the difference between Easter occurs among Jews and Christians and others. 331 This is the difference between the mentioned Avdians. They mislead husbands and wives and boast that in this regard they act in accordance with ancient tradition and apostolic decrees; Meanwhile, they do not observe any precision and do not understand the obvious care expressed in the Apostolic Decrees, which they discovered not at all in order to show that the Jews correctly celebrate the holiday, but to suppress the passion for disputes of those of whom each wants to do it in his own way, and not in agreement with everyone. For Christ desires a single Easter, approves of such, and accepts the one who celebrates it without dispute and together with those who celebrate it with precision, together with the entire holy church, which celebrates the holiday in various ways. And for there to be a disagreement regarding Easter since the time of Constantine is obviously slander. Before Constantine there were discords and served as a subject of ridicule, since the Greeks spoke and laughed at the discord in the church; but under Constantine, through the efforts of the bishops, this disagreement was destroyed and general agreement arrived. What could be more useful and pleasant than if the people from the extreme limits of the earth are freed in one day to serve God and all together perform a vigil and spend the same days in vigil, prayer, unanimity, worship, fasting, dry eating, cleanliness and other godly deeds befitting this all-honorable day? But I think enough has been said about Avdian's disagreement on this subject. This old man Obadiah, as a result of the bishops' denunciation to the king, was exiled by the king to the borders of Scythia for tearing the people away from the church. Living there (I can’t say about the number of years) and penetrating even further, into the inner countries of the Goths, he proclaimed the Christian teaching to many of the Goths. From him, in Gothia itself, monasteries, monastic life, virginity and strict asceticism began. This community truly leads an amazing way of life, and everything in their monasteries is going well, except for disputes regarding the change in the time of celebrating Easter and the unreasonably understood teaching about the image of God. The most terrible and terrible thing is that the Avdians do not pray with any of the Orthodox, even if he was distinguished by honest behavior, had nothing worthy of accusation, could not be convicted of fornication, or adultery, or covetousness, but only because he is in communion with the church. It is truly terrible to change the name of Christians of the holy church, which has no other name than the name of Christ and Christians, and to be called by the name of Obadiah, to hold meetings and desire to bear the name of a simple person, even if this sect was distinguished by impeccability of life and all justice. After the death of Lydius, many bishops joined his company, and first of all a certain Uranius in Mesopotamia. He attracted some from Gothia and installed them as bishops: such was a certain Silouan and some others, some of whom had already died, and by the way Uranius, who was famous among this sect. After the death of these bishops, Uranius and Silouan of Gothia, many separated, and the society of Avdian reached a small number within the borders of Chalcis and within the Euphrates. For not only many of them, but also our Christians who lived there were expelled from Gothia when the great persecution from the pagan gift came and became terrible; and due to hatred of the Romans because the Roman emperors were Christians, the entire Christian race was expelled from these countries. But the root of wisdom and the planting of faith were not completely destroyed: because, although it seemed that everyone was expelled, several people remained there, for the source of faith cannot disappear. Many of the Avdians, having left the Goths and our countries, came here and have lived here since that time for four years. And on Mount Taurus, in Palestine and Arabia, the monasteries of the same Avdians were destroyed; and they were very common. Now there are not many people and monasteries left, in almost only two villages and in the regions mentioned above, in the extreme reaches of Chalkida and on the other side of Damascus and Mesopotamia, where to this day, as I said, they live in small numbers. But enough, I think, to talk about them. Having left them, I will move on to the next one in order, so as not to ignore anything that has happened in the world, in the area of ​​​​divisions, disputes, disagreements and schisms; for although they do not completely deviate from faith and morality, however, everything that has separated and become known in life, if possible, will not be left unattended by us. Against the Photinians, 51st (71st) Photinus, from whom the Photinians descended, became famous at the same time and was a bishop of the holy Catholic Church; but, exalted with great pride, he surpassed in fury all those who had come before him and went further in his thoughts about the Son of God than Paul of Samosata, spewing out unfounded blasphemous speeches. He came from Sirmium. He spread these tares throughout the world and is still alive to this day. He was expelled by the Western Council of Sardica for the blasphemy he spewed. He asserts that Christ did not exist from eternity, but received a beginning here from Mary; From then on, he says, when the Holy Spirit descended on Him, He was born of the Holy Spirit. And about the Holy Spirit, this daring inventor and measurer of inexplicable heavenly objects thinks that He is Christ’s. This Photinus was talkative and sharp-tongued, and with his speeches and resourcefulness in words he could deceive many. He was often denounced by many even after his defensive speech delivered at the Council of Sardica, when he was called upon by the bishops to give an account of the evil faith he had spread. He begged Emperor Constantius, as if he had been deposed in vain, to again appoint judges for him, before whom he could prove that he had been deposed incorrectly. Therefore, the emperor at that time sent judges and listeners for the defense he was preparing - Thalassius, Datian, Cerealia, Taurus, Marcellian, Evantius, Olympius and Leontius; Vasily Ankirsky is entrusted with asking him questions and refuting what he will defend and assert. Fotin had a considerable conversation with Vasily, but like a bad woman who rubbed her face for embellishment, during the conversation he cited sayings that were inconsistent with the true meaning, but which he deliberately distorted in favor of his thoughts. Through the insinuation of his voice and through resourcefulness in constructing his speech, with his tongue he won over the listeners in his favor and boastfully announced, this brave man, that he would present a hundred evidence in favor of his opinion. But many argued against him for a long time, as we found in the records of his conversation with Basil, which were ordered to be compiled by the cursive writers Anisius, the deacon Basil, Callicrates, the clerk of the prefect Rufinus, Olympius, Nikita and Basil, who kept memorial records, Eutychius and Theodulus, the notaries of Basil. One list of them, sealed, was sent to Emperor Constantius, and the other remained at the council, which was presided over by Basil; the third, also sealed, was taken by secular officials; they contain the unclean teaching of Photinus. When Basil asked, as the Divine Scripture teaches about the Lord God the Word, whether the Only Begotten existed before the ages and together with the Father, Photin agreed with this, but with the distinction that he attributed one thing to Christ, and the other to the Word in the highest sense. For, he says, with the words: Let us make man in our image and likeness (Gen. 1:26) The Father turned to His Word. So what? - The Word, he says, was in the Father, but the Son was not. And again: the Lord waits on the Lord (Gen. 19:24), that is, the Word who is in the Father; and again: I saw him coming on the clouds, like the Son of man (Dan.7:13). This, according to him, the prophet said, foretelling that then, as a Son, He did not exist, but that Christ, born of the Holy Spirit and Mary, was to be called Son after being born from Mary and appearing in the flesh; everything, says Photinus, is constantly attributed to the Son according to some preconceived idea. The Son did not yet exist, but the Word existed, just like the word in me. I have already said that Photinus had thoughts that were partly similar to the teachings of Paul of Samosata, and in other thoughts he even surpassed him. But he himself will refute himself, reaching the extreme denial of the Divine and the completely strange thought of eternal life. For if the Son of God is of recent origin in Divinity, then David is older than him and has an advantage over the One who created him. This is how Photinus himself reasoned, not paying attention to the Divine Scripture and, in accordance with his perverted thought, pointed to what the Apostle said: the first man is from the earth with a ring; the second man, the Lord, is from heaven (1. Cor. 15:47). But the word of truth immediately contradicts him and exposes his darkened mind; for the holy Apostle speaks of two men: of the first man Adam he says that he is ringed from the earth; and about the second, that he is from heaven. And although he calls him a man, he does not say that the flesh came down from heaven, but he himself admits that it is from Mary. And he does not say that the flesh, but the second man is from heaven, that is, the Word came down from heaven and dwelt in us (John 1:14), as it is written. If the Lord existed before, then He also remains now, Who invented every way of cunning (Bar.8:37). And that He exists truly, Divine Scripture does not doubt this: for the following words indicate that He existed before and invented every way of cunning, and the following words follow: He appeared on earth (Bar. 3:38), which indicates His future appearance in the flesh. But that it was as if He brought man with Him from heaven, as the heretics say, the Apostle does not say this, but calls him man because of His union with the flesh and means the time that passed between Adam and the incarnation; He calls Him a man from heaven in the sense that the Divine Word came from heaven and became flesh, as it is said: The Word became flesh, and this is not in the sense that the heretic understands, that the Word came from the Father and became flesh; the heretic interpreted it so incorrectly, in accordance with his perverted thoughts. If Adam existed before the Word existed; then who created Adam and all the former creations of God before him? To whom did the Father speak: Let us create man? For no one ever turns to his inner or outer word for advice, but turning to his one-natural, holy Word, the Father with all wisdom draws up a plan for the future creation of man, so that we may learn that the Son exists from the beginning with his Father and so that we do not think that our Creator is of recent origin, but that He and the Father always existed before the ages, as John testifies, saying: in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was to God (John 1:1). But this deceiver says: I myself say that Tin existed from the beginning, but not the begotten Son of God. But if the Son of God does not exist, his work is in vain, his plan and hope and reasoning are in vain; for he says no more than what the Jews who did not recognize Him said. The Gospel does not say about Him: in the beginning there was the Word and the Word was in God, but the Word was with God; and does not say that only there was in God, but that the Word was God. In man, the word, which always exists internally and is pronounced, cannot be called a man, but only the word of a man. But if there was no one begotten, as he says, and if the Son of God, God the Word, did not yet exist, then by whom were all things produced? since the Gospel says: all things were by Him and without Him they were nothing. But Photinus says: “just as a person does what he wants through the word, so the Father, through his own Word, which is in Him, created everything.” But what does the Lord say in the Gospel: the Father works hitherto, and I work. (John 5:18)? This does not mean that the Father does not take part in the activity of the Son, nor does it mean that the Son is alien to Him and does not participate in the creation of the Father. For all creatures that exist came together from the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; through the Son, all things came from the Father, and He brought all things together with the Father and the Holy Spirit: by the Word of the Lord the heavens were established, and by the Spirit of His mouth all their power (Ps. 32:6). Therefore, the Lord, knowing and foreseeing, as God, the thoughts of people who are mistaken and how everyone will be inclined to depart from the truth, spoke with a warning to the Jews: the Son cannot do anything for himself, unless he sees the Father doing it (John 5:19). And this does not mean that He first looks, then does, but that He has everything in Himself and does what He wants. How is this possible Fotin? Or who sowed these tares in you against us? Who prepared this poison for people? Where did the evil intention come to you to allow a blasphemous thought against your Lord? Have you not been convinced by Abraham, who said to the Lord: Judge of all the earth, wilt thou not execute judgment? (Gen.18:25)? Let this convict you that the Son has come in him, and not as any spoken word, but as the hypostatic God the Word. And in order to understand to you, imaginary philosopher, the purpose of what happened in this phenomenon, the Lord, as if imprinting it in the Divine Scripture, showed us His dignity, saying: The Lord rained down on Sodom and Gomorrah a bogeyman and fire from the Lord from heaven (Gen. 19:24). He did not say: the word of the Lord, but: the Lord is from the Lord, just as David says: the Lord spoke to my Lord (Ps. 109). And that he turns out to be the Son not only after his fleshly coming, David also says that He exists from eternity: from the womb before the star he gave birth to Thee (Ps. 109:3). No one will accept your teaching about the Holy Spirit, a talkative person who stands among the idle and empty people; for the Holy Spirit can be neither more nor less: who, it is said, took this delight out of your hands (Is. 1:12)? The Holy Word itself convicts you when it speaks of the Holy Spirit; Confessing Him to be one with Himself in Divinity, He says that He comes from the Father and will receive from Mine (John 15:26). And how much other evidence there is! However, it is obvious to everyone that your blasphemy comes from error, and not from truth; it is clear not only to the wise, but also to those who are a little versed in the Divine Scripture. Therefore, I do not recognize the need for many testimonies and a lengthy refutation, because your ranting and malice are easily refuted; Therefore, I consider what has been said against you sufficient; like a weak and powerless insect crawling out of the ground, or like a worm living in the ground, crushed under the heel of the words and the truth of God the Word, I leave you. For in a short time the heresy of this lost one was dispelled. Therefore, having called on God for help as usual, I will move on to the following heresies. Against Marcellian, 52nd (72nd) At the same time (for all these heresies were at one time) Marcellus appeared in Ancyra and lived to our time; he died a little more, or a little less, two years ago. And he caused some division in the church at that time; but he expressed one insignificant thought, becoming like Sabellius and Novatus. The Arians were irritated against him for his dispute and disagreement with the Arians. Some blamed him for the way I said that he had adhered to the Sabellian error. Others, on the contrary, defended him, saying that it was unfair, but that he lived impeccably and argued that he thought correctly. Therefore, there was a great disagreement regarding him. His innermost thoughts are known only to God. However, his followers, instructed by him, either not understanding his thoughts, or without revealing his real teaching, did not want to confess three hypostases, as the truth contains, namely that the Divinity is one, one glory, that the Trinity is consubstantial and does not differ in any way in its glory, that the Trinity is perfect, and one Divinity, one power, one being, that there is no fusion or subordination in it. And Marcellus, according to some, wishing to say more than this, seemed to think like Sabellius. Therefore, he was convicted of heresy and numbered among the heretics. Next, I will present an exposition of the doctrine, which, in his justification, Marcellus himself compiled for Blessed Julius, Bishop of Rome. From his apology and from the message it will be revealed that he thought differently, contrary to the true faith. For if he did not think differently, then why should he begin to defend himself? If he had not expressed non-Orthodox thoughts, which confused some, then what could have prompted him to this apology? Here is a list of his letters. List of letters from Marcellus, whom the council deposed for not being Orthodox. Ch. 2 “To the most blessed concelebrant Julius, Marcellus wishes health in Christ. since some of those previously condemned for an incorrect faith, whom I denounced at the Council of Nicea, dared to write to your Piety against me, as if I thought incorrectly and disagreed with the church, trying to place their guilt on me; then I found it necessary, having gone to Rome, to convince you to call those who wrote against me to you, so that as soon as they arrive, I could expose them that what they wrote against me is false, that they still remain in their previous error and have committed terrible insolence against the churches of God and us, their leaders. But since they did not want to come, although you sent presbyters to them, and I lived in Rome for a year and three whole months, then before leaving here, I considered it necessary to give you a written statement of my faith, written in my own hand with all the truth, as I learned and as I learned from the divine Scriptures, and to remind you of what is badly interpreted by them, so that you would know what words they use to deceive their listeners, they want to hide the truth. For they say that the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, is not the own and true Word of the Almighty, but that He is a different Word from Him and a different wisdom and power. They say that He, after He appeared, was called from the Father Word and wisdom and power, and accordingly they think that He is a different hypostasis, different from the Father. From what they write, it is revealed that the Father existed before the Son and that the latter is not the true Son from God, but just like all created things. They also dare to assert that there was a time when He did not exist, that He is a creature, a work, thus separating Him from the Father. So, I am convinced that those who say this are alien to the Catholic Church. Following the Divine Scriptures, I believe that there is One God and His only begotten Son - the Word, always inherent in the Father and never having the beginning of being, truly existing from God, uncreated, uncreated, but always existing, always reigning together with God and the Father, whose kingdom, as the Apostle testifies, will have no end (Luke 1:33). He is the Son, He is power, He is wisdom, He is the own and true Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, the indivisible power of God, through whom all creation came into being, as the Gospel testifies, saying: in the beginning was the Word, and the Word to God, and God was the Word (John 1:1 and gave). He is the Word, about whom the evangelist Luke testifies, saying: for he delivered unto us from the first the visionaries and servants who were the Word (Luke 1:2). David also said about Him: My heart will vomit out the good word (Ps. 44:2). So our Lord Jesus Christ teaches us in the Gospel: I departed from the Father... and I go (John 16:28). He, in the last days, descended for our salvation and was born of the Virgin Mary, and became a man. “Therefore I believe in God Almighty and in Christ Jesus, His only begotten Son, our Lord, born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, who was crucified and buried under Pontius Pilate, and who rose from the dead on the third day, who ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father, from whence He will come to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit, in the holy church, remission of sins, resurrection of the body, eternal life. And that the Divinity of the Father and the Son is inseparable, we learned this from the Divine Scriptures. For if anyone separates the Son, that is, the Word of God Almighty, he must either admit that there are two Gods, which is recognized as contrary to Divine teaching, or admit that the Word is not God, but this also turns out to be contrary to right faith; because the evangelist says: and God is the Word. I have been truly taught that the Son is the power of the Father, inseparable and indivisible. For our Savior Lord Jesus Christ Himself says: the Father is in me and I am in the Father (John 14:10): I and the Father are one (John 10:24); and again: seeing Me, seeing the Father (14:9). Having accepted this faith from the Divine Scriptures and having learned it from our ancestors according to God, I preach it in the Church of God and now I have written to you, leaving a list of this with myself. And I ask you to write copies of it in a letter to the bishops, so that those who do not know me closely will not believe what they write about me and will not be misled. Goodbye". Whether the contents of this letter are correct, let those who are able to do so read it and discuss what is said in it; and whether there are any errors in it, let them judge. We do not want to say more than what we know and what has reached us. For if this letter is correct in content, then let the readers and listeners think again whether he was not in vain, whether he was not reckless in recognizing the need to defend himself, unless he really said some embarrassing words that forced him to come out in defense of what he said. It could also happen that, after falling into error, he wanted to defend and justify himself through a letter, or in a letter he embellished his words in order to cover up what he said, so that, as a result of her excommunication, he would fall away from the general meeting and the decree of the bishops. This is what has reached us about Marcellus. I myself once asked Blessed Pope Athanasius what his opinion was about this Marcellus. He neither defended him nor treated him hostile towards him; but only, smiling, secretly expressed that he had not gone far in error, and considered him justified. I will also suggest what some found in the writings of Marcellus himself and which seemed to them worthy of reproach and, arguing with him, they themselves wrote works against him. Others, because those who wrote against him subsequently turned in the other direction, for the sake of denunciation, attacked what they had written against Marcellus, and in their writings spoke out against the disagreements that had occurred between Acacius, Basil of Galatia and George of Laodicea with the aim of denouncing the same Acacius. For this one, on the basis of the writings of Marcellus, spoke against Marcellus. Without omitting anything true in this whole matter, we will show that we do not despair of correction and do not want to agree with those who deviate from the truth. From Acacius's objections to Marcellus we cite the following: After misinterpreting the sayings in the book of Proverbs, Marcellus, speaking a lie against God, raising his horn high and reaching the middle of the essay, offers the following words of Asterius: another is the Father, who begot from Himself the only begotten Word and the firstborn of all creation (Col. 1:15), one of one, perfect of the perfect, the Lord of the Lord, the God of God, in essence, will, power and glory an indistinguishable image. Having cited these words and being dissatisfied with the expression: an image that is no different, that is, a reflection and a clear imprint of the Divine being, etc., he calls this opinion unfit and, expressing his displeasure, writes the following: these expressions clearly expose his wicked opinion about the Divine. For how can the Lord and God born, as he himself said before, be the image of God? For another is the image of God, another is God, so if He is an image, then it is not the Lord and not God, but the image of the Lord and God. If He is truly the Lord and truly God, then the Lord and God cannot be the image of the Lord and God. And further: he does not want the Son to be anything of what I said above, since he says that He is an image. So, if He is the image of a being, then He cannot be an independent being; and if He is the image of will, then He cannot be independent will; and if He is the image of power, then He is no longer power; and if He is the image of glory, then He is no longer glory. For He is not the image of himself, but of someone else. At the beginning of the book, you, Marcellus, first praised these words, and now you rejected that God is from God the Word that exists - the Son and one from one, and perfect from perfect, and thus clearly betrayed your wicked teaching about the Divinity. Because you recognized the image of the great God as alien to life, divinity, power, glory and essence, your wicked tongue should have been cut out when you uttered such a word against the Lord and finally showed such an ungodly soul. For having attributed lifelessness to the image of God, you do not recognize Him as Lord, nor God, nor essence, nor will, nor power, nor glory. You want this image to be alien to movement, considering it as if soulless and lifeless, depicted externally, just as an image composed only by human art is soulless, and you do not want to admit that He is the living image of the living God, that the image of essence is essence, that the same image of will, power and glory is the same will and power and glory. And to say that He is not different in anything does not mean that He is not born, but only that He is a completely true and exact likeness of the Father in goodness, divinity and every action. Then a little later: let your lips be dumb and flattering, speaking untruths against God through pride and humiliation. (Ps. 30:19). For one Father gave birth to one Only Begotten, although you do not like this, but like something else. The Son did not come from the beginning of the eons of Valentinus, but from the one Father has birth: and the perfect begat the perfect: for there is nothing imperfect in the Father, therefore in the Son: but the perfection of the Son is the true generation of the perfection and all-perfection of the Father. And the King gave birth to a King; for it is in accordance with piety that God should reign; since the Son was born before the ages and the King submitted to that King by whom everything else is governed, and voluntarily acknowledged the submission, the Father gave birth not to a subject, but to the King of his kingdom, which has neither the beginning of days nor the end of existence. For His dignity did not come from outside, but belongs to Him essentially, just as it belongs to the Father who gave birth to Him. Therefore it is written: And of His kingdom there will be no end (Luke 1:33). In the same way we confess that the Lord begets the Lord and God the God. To put it briefly: we say that He is the image of being, and will, and power, in glory, not soulless and dead, but substantial and gifted with will, and strength, and glory. For strength does not give birth to powerlessness, but independent strength; and glory does not give birth to infamy, but independent glory; and the will does not give birth to something alien to the will, but to an independent will; and essence does not give birth to something alien to the essence, but to an independent essence. This means that the Word is an image, God, living wisdom, hypostatic, self-existent, the active Word and the Son. This means that this is the same wisdom in which one rejoices every day... When God rejoices he completes the universe (Proverbs 8:30). And you, Marcellus, rejecting this before men, will be rejected by it yourself before the Father in heaven (Matthew 10:33); You will also be rejected before the church, which is under heaven and which writes about you everywhere on earth: hear the word of the Lord. Write this man who is rejected, because his seed will not multiply, who has authority in Judah, who will sit on the throne of David (Jer. 22:40). After Marcellus cited other words from Asterius, Acacius adds, saying: Having therefore admitted this and continuing to deny that Our Savior is the image and essence and only begotten Son of the Father, and the firstborn of every creation, and perfect from perfect, unique from unique, King from King, and Lord from Lord, and God from God, in a word, the unchangeable image of the Divine being and will, and power and glory, - you, in a few words, having rejected Him before men and therefore destined to be rejected before His Father, you directly write the following: these words clearly show his wicked opinion about the divinity of the Father and the Son. By denying this, you clearly exposed your contrary to Orthodoxy, perverse and impious opinion about the deity and essence of Christ. And then he adds the words of Marcellus: it is absurd what Marcellus writes further: he does not admit anything that he said before. For you say that the Son is the image of all these properties. So, if He is the image of a being, then He can no longer be an independent being; and if it is an image of will, then it can no longer be independent will; and if the image is of power, then it is no longer power, and if the image of glory is no longer glory; for the image is not an image of oneself, but of someone else. All this, Marcellus, is absurd and false. For Asterius attributes to him everything that he said before, saying: The King begot a King, the Lord - the Lord, God - God. And thus he destroys your soulless image, which, in your opinion, was created only by human art. For he says that the Son is a living image of all these properties and an imprint of the living image of the One who gave birth, and that the image of a being is an independent being, the image of the will is an independent will, and the forces are an independent force, and the glory is an independent glory and the image not of oneself, but of another. But you, not recognizing the Son as God from God, light from light, power from power, do not recognize the Son as God, nor light, nor power, nor will, nor being, nor glory, but some kind of body, as a result of which you wickedly allow the destruction of all these properties at the end of the world. And you deny the word of Scripture: God is the Word (John 1:1), but you either give the Son of God one name, or call it one of the people, as if God gives birth to a Son of a different kind. A son only by adoption, according to the words of Scripture: they begat sons and raised them up (Is. 1:2) and again: they received the Spirit of sonhood (Rom. 8:15) and again: offer the sons of God to the Lord (Ps. 28:1). So, when Asterius calls the Son of the Father the unchangeable image of being and power, and will and glory, he says that the Fatherly properties are completely inherent in the Son and that in the Son the intelligible properties of the Father are imprinted or given to Him, and not others that are different from Him. So, he attributes to the Son everything that he previously said. For he does not at all have in his mind an image painted with paints, and does not allow the participation of a third painter, so that he would depict, as if with paints, in another place the qualities of the Son, different from the Father, and call it the Son. You say this either after thinking or without thinking. So, if the Son is an image of an essence, then it is as if he cannot be an independent essence; and if He is the image of will, then it is as if He cannot be an independent will. And in our opinion, if He is a living image of an essence, then perhaps He is an independent essence. So, we call the image of essence essence due to the perfect similarity of life and activity. We also call the image of the will will, the great counsel of an angel (Is. 9:6) and the image of power and glory - power and glory. And all this is confirmed by the words of Christ: just as the Father has life in himself, so the Son also has life in himself, and also: as the Father raises the dead and lives (John 5:21.26). The words: like - taco represent the exact expression of the similarity and similarity of the image. And a little later he says: “God the Word, that is, Jesus, who gives life, beauty and goodness, is himself not alien to life, beauty and goodness and cannot be thought of with the properties of deadness or non-existence, but the Fatherly properties are reflected in him, so that He is not another with different properties of the image; but in His essence are His properties, and in His properties is His essence. And the image of another, not being an image of itself, as you believe, carries in itself the properties of the prototype. represents a difference, but one that is the same as the similarity. For He is not the image of himself, but of another, that is, the image of the invisible God. So, the Son is the image of the Father, alive and living, endowed with movement and activity and will and glory, not soulless and not motionless and not one who would have existence and be described in another, but would not be in motion in itself and through itself. He is not a different image, but this exact resemblance does not produce the Father, but the Son, who is similar in everything.” Here the words of Akaki end. But now the Orthodox and our brothers and confessors say that from some of the disciples who remained after Marcellus they received an exposition of the confession of his faith. I offer it here, although I have not mastered the subtlety of speech. Here is a list from it: “To the most venerable and holy bishops exiled to Diocaesarea for the Orthodox faith in your Savior Jesus Christ: Eulogia. Adelphius, Alexander, Ammonius, Harpokration. Isaac, Isidore, Annuvion, Pitim, Euphrates, Aaron, the presbyters of Ancyra and Galatia: Photinus, Eustathius, another Photinus, Sigerius, and the deacon Hyginus, and the subdeacon Heraclides, and the reader Elpidius and the defender 332 Cyriacus wish to live well in the Lord. “When we came to your Piety from the above-mentioned homeland of yours to make you a befitting visit, and when we were asked by your reverence how we maintain our faith, we, having accepted your thoughtful question, which you proposed, meaning those who were very willing to recklessly tell lies about us, considered it necessary to completely certify you of this not only with sociable letters written to us by the blessed Pope Athanasius, which we showed you, but also this confession, written by us, so that you can see that we do not think and have never thought of anything other than the universal and ecclesiastical faith established in Nicaea. This is what we confess to the best of our ability, cursing those who dare to call the Holy Spirit a creature, and the Arian heresy, and the Sabellian heresy, and the Fotinian heresy, and Paul of Samosata; - and do not recognize under the Holy Trinity the independently existing three persons, indescribable, consubstantial, coeternal and perfect. We also curse those who call the Son an expansion, or a contraction, or an action of the Father, as well as those who do not confess God the Word, the Son of God, as the pre-eternal and co-eternal Father, the independently existing and perfect Son and God. Whoever says that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one and the same, let him be anathema. Whoever ascribes a beginning or an end to the Son of God and the Word, or to His kingdom, let him be anathema. Whoever says that the Son or the Holy Spirit is a part of the Father, and admits that the Son of God came from the being of the Father before any thought, let him be anathema. Regarding the incarnation of the Word of God, the only begotten Son of God, we confess that the Son of God became man without sin upon taking on all human nature, that is, the rational and thinking soul and human flesh. We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Creator of all things visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten, begotten of the Father, that is, from the being of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, uncreated, consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things in heaven and on earth were created. For us, for the sake of men and for our salvation, who came down, and became incarnate, and became man, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven, coming to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit. Those who say that there was a time when He did not exist, and that before His birth He did not exist, and claim that He came from non-existence, or from another hypostasis or essence, or that the Son of God is subject to transformation or change - all such are cursed by the Catholic and Apostolic Church. I Fotin, presbyter of the Ancyra Cathedral Church, believe and think as written above. I Sigerius, presbyter of the same church, believe and think as written above. I Gigin, a deacon of the same church, believe and think as written above. Heraclides, a subdeacon of the same church, I believe and think as written above. I Elpidias, a reader of the same church, believe and think as written above. I am Kyrian, a defender of the same church, I believe and think as written above.” This is what they wrote to the confessors and Fathers. So, if, in the judgment of reasonable people, this statement of faith can be considered among the best, then so be it. And if in this very imposition, when analyzing it, there is something erroneous and incorrect, then let it be so in the opinion of those who are wise. Having conveyed the above account of Marcellus, I will leave it and consider the following heresies in order. Against the Semi-Arians, 53rd (73rd) With the help of God, we overthrew the daring teaching of Arius and those who followed him; I mean not only Photinus, but also a little in the teaching of Marcellus, in which he apparently wavered and which he first vomited, like a drunken man (oh, when his followers would correct themselves, if they could correct themselves!). But through the word of God, which is sharper than any sword, sharper than ever (Heb. 4:12), having cut off the tares of the teachings that originated from Arius himself, let us consider how the heresy of Arius himself took off in some, called semi-Arians. Although they renounce his name, they are clothed in him and in his wicked teaching and, with a feigned appearance, put on a completely different mask, just as is done by actors on stage during a dramatic performance, when they cover their faces with other people’s masks and from behind a mask retell the shameful and depraved content of a comedy, or with body movements and gestures they represent the fables of their ancient poets. So these too wish to deceive the simple-minded; although they themselves are the same in appearance, and in disposition, and in wicked teaching as Arius and the Ariomanites, nevertheless, through crafty flattery they want to cover up the perverse teaching they profess. Although they recognize the Son of God as a creature, in order to deceive and give some meaning to the Son of God, they flatteringly and slyly say to those who are horrified by such a teaching: we do not call Him a creature, as one of the creatures, nor a generation, as one of the generations. And the word: consubstantial is completely rejected as alien to Divine Scripture. But we spoke about this very thoroughly in our speech against Arius. However, the leaders of this semi-Aryan heresy (I mean Basil and George) offer an expression similar to this, and say: we do not call Him consubstantial (ὁμοούσιον), but co-essential (ὁμοιούσιον). Since the time of the council, they have separated from the Arian heresy itself; their leader turned out to be the same Basil of Ancyra and also George, bishop of Laodicea and Daphne at Antioch, that is, Coelesyria. And they think about the Holy Spirit in the same way as the Doukhobors. While with some shyness and hesitation, as if ashamed to directly call the Son a creature (although they think so), for the sake of human fear they introduce the word: subsistent, saying that He is not a creature, like one of the creatures - regarding the Holy Spirit they do not hesitate, but rush at Him mercilessly, like mad dogs, and call Him without any reservations a creature and affirm that He is alien to the Father and Son. And lest anyone say that we are saying this out of slander, I will offer here one epistle of Basil and another of George of Laodicea, written together with Basil and his like-minded people. These are the messages: The Holy Council, which gathered in Ancyra shortly before Easter from various dioceses, wishes the Lord good health to the most respected gentlemen and unanimous concelebrants living in Phenicia and other places, who think the same as us. After the test, as if by fire, of the church faith by persecution for faith and after what happened in Constantinople in the case of Marcellus; after the exposition of the faith at the council that met in Antioch on the occasion of the renovation of the church, and then in Sardica: after the faith flourished there again; After what happened in Sirmium in the case of Photinus, and finally after we have expressed thoughts about each member of the faith due to the issue of disagreements with the east that arose in Sardicia, we beg you to calm down, keep peace and direct yourself to the service of God, since the unity of the church from east to west took place during the pious reign of our Sovereign Constantius and temptations were eliminated. But since the devil, apparently, does not cease to act through his instruments, so that what was proclaimed by the Lord and preached in the same spirit by the holy Apostle, as if as a warning to the faithful, would be rendered invalid, and he is plotting something new against the church faith and, having enticed some with a false form of piety, through them he invented foul talk (1 Tim. 6:20) against what was accepted. the church of the kindred union of the Only Begotten Son of God with the Father, then we, hearing that some have previously retired to Antioch, Alexandria, Lydia, and Asia and there throw sparks of wickedness into the souls of simple people, we hope, due to the audacity of wickedness and such shamelessness of them, to destroy the invented heresy with the assistance of local colleagues and destroy evil. since those who came from the above-mentioned places and from Illyricum proclaim that the inventors of this evil are making efforts to boldly harm many and produce bad leaven among them, we are no longer able to postpone further, but having read the letters of our like-minded colleague George, the bishop of the Laodicean church, from which lists were attached, as well as reverently accepting the testimonies of those who swore by God before us, as far as it was possible time, since the holy day of Easter was approaching, we gathered as many of us could gather (for many were prevented by winter, as they explained in letters), and tried to put something of their own into the accepted form of faith, and as carefully as possible to explain the faith of the Catholic Church in the Holy Trinity in accordance with other definitions, namely with the confession of faith set forth, as we said above, in Antioch during the renovation of the church, also in Sardica, which was accepted by the council in Sirmium, and in accordance with the conciliar reasoning there. In this type of new teaching, as we said above, we expressed only what the Holy Spirit inspired us with. And we ask you, most venerable co-servants, that after reading this, you let it be known that you are committed to the faith handed down by our fathers, and that we also think and believe in agreement with you, so that those who dare to introduce such wickedness will be convinced that we, having accepted the faith, as if a kind of inheritance, preserved from the times of the Apostles through our fathers to the present time, - either having been ashamed, they have corrected themselves, or, if they remain in wickedness, were expelled from the church, since they themselves are preparing apostasy for the son of iniquity, who boldly threatens to sit in the church of God. We have faith in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. For this is how our Lord Jesus Christ taught his disciples, saying: Go and teach all languages, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). Therefore, having been reborn into this faith, we must piously understand the concepts expressed by these names. For he did not say: baptizing them in the name of the incorporeal and the incarnate, or the immortal and having experienced death, or the unborn and the begotten, but in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, so that hearing these names taken from natural objects, we would imagine the Father as the author of an essence similar to Him, and hearing the name of the Son, we would understand the Son to be similar to the Father, of whom He is the Son. So, we believe in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, not in the Creator and the creature. For one thing is the Creator and the creature, and another is the Father and the Son; because each of these names differs in concept. And since by saying: creation, I thereby say that the Creator also exists before it, then the word: Son, borrowed from corporeal objects, after purifying our understanding of the passions and flows characteristic of bodily fathers and sons, gives us the concept of the existence of an incorporeal Son from the incorporeal Father. Therefore, George added the concept of the creature, transferred from the corporeal, and since the concept of the creature alone does not give the idea of the Son, then distinguishing something in the concepts of the Creator and the creature, precisely in the concept of the Creator in comparison with the creature - dispassion, and in the concept of the creature - something dumb, produced by the impassive Creator at His will, from the concepts of the Father and the Son, the Creator and the creature, he formed for us the perfect and pure concept of the Father and the Son. For, after the removal from the creature of existence outside, of materiality and other things that comprise the name of a corporeal creature, what will remain from the creature, I say, is one pure and perfect concept of the creature in the created, according to which the Creator wanted to create the Created. So, if we separate all this from the concepts of the Creator and the creature, we get one concept of the impassive and perfect Creator, and of the stout creature that He wanted to bring into being; therefore, from the names father and son, since we are taught to believe primarily in the Father and the Son, we must piously accept this single concept. Therefore, if in this case, in the idea of ​​the Father in relation to the Son, we abstract passion and flow, and if we think that the Son did not arise through a seed and is not perfected by the bodily forces of nature, always directed towards increase and decrease, which are the properties of everything corporeal, then we will get one concept of the like. For just as by abstracting everything from the concept of creation, let us say again, one obtains the impassibility of the Creator, and in the creature, in accordance with His will, perfection and plumpness: so in the same way in the concepts of the Father and the Son, by abstracting everything corporeal, one obtains one origin, by birth, of a being similar and essentially living; since every father is thought of as the father of an entity similar to himself. But if, along with all the signs abstracted from the physical names of father and son, the thought in our mind about the similarity in essence of a living being with the father is abstracted, then neither the Father nor the Son will remain the subject of thought, but the Creator and the creature, or any other names that do not provide anything explanatory on their own. And thus God will be the Creator, but not the Father, because the father is not called the father of an action, but of an essence similar to it, which occurred as a result of such an action, as is clearly seen from natural concepts. And God, who performs many actions, with one activity is thought of as the Creator of heaven and earth and everything that is in them, just as he is the Creator of the invisible, and the Father of the Only Begotten is thought of not as the Creator, but as the Father who gave birth. If, however, someone, as a result of the assumption regarding bodily fathers and sons, fearing that the incorporeal would not suffer something, giving birth in such a way that what is born was imperfect, and having in mind other things that happen to a bodily father and son, would reject the relationship of kinship in the concept of the Father and the Son: then he would call the Son like any other creation, but no longer the true Son. Such a one at least called Him surpassing everything in his greatness, as for example. the sky surpasses the mountains or hills, he would nevertheless reduce Him to the race of creatures, even if He imagined Him to be superior to them in His greatness. Even if he imagined Him to have become the first of necessity, even if He served in the creation of all other creatures, nevertheless, by this he would not separate Him from the concept of creation. It is as if there is no difference if someone takes coal from the altar with tongs, and not with the hand itself, through which the art of blacksmithing forges iron (for both tongs and hand-forged iron belong to the class of creations). So He, through whom all things were created, will be no different from creatures, if He is not the Son: this is what natural reason teaches. Having been created, He will be the first of creatures and an instrument for the Creator, through Whom the Creator does everything. And let no one think falsely to derive the concepts of the Father in the proper sense and the Son in the proper sense from the so-called ordinary sons, since in this sense there will be many sons of God. This is what it says: I begot sons and raised them up, but they rejected me (Is. 1:2); and again: is not one the father of you all (Mal.2:10)? And again: the little ones received Him, and gave them the realm to become children of God; who was not born of carnal lust, nor of manly lust, but was born of God (John 1:12,13). In addition, it is also said about inanimate objects: the birth of drops of dew (Job.38:28). This further proves that He is the Son of God not by a general name, just as those, being creatures, do not have participation, as such, in the special, unique name of the Son. The Church believes that God is not only the Creator of creatures (for this is recognized by both Jews and Greeks), but that He is also the Father of the Only Begotten, having not only creative activity, by which He is thought of as the Creator, but also a special power that gives birth to the Only Begotten, by which He is thought of by us as the Father of the Only Begotten. Teaching us this, blessed Paul writes: For this reason I bow my knees to the Father, from whom the whole family in heaven and on earth is named (Eph. 3:14). For just as those who have sons in the likeness of their own essences are called earthly fathers, so the Father in heaven is also called Father, from whom the fathers on earth received the name according to essence, since he has a Son begotten of Him completely, to the likeness of His essence. And the concept of the so-called sons of God cannot be applied to the Only Begotten in a figurative sense. For just as a box in the proper sense refers to a container made of beech, in a general and improper sense this name is transferred to boxes made of lead, copper and any other substance: so the words: the one who gave birth to drops of dew should not be understood in the essential sense (for the name of birth is used here in the improper sense of creation): exactly the same in the expression: the sons gave birth and raised up (for here too this name is used in an improper sense to denote favor and honor); the same thing in the expression: give them the realm to be children of God (for this is also taken in the sense of virtue and imitation of God on the part of the creature). This is not how one should understand the only begotten, but He is called so in the proper sense, as One from One, similar in essence to the Father, from Whom the Son is begotten and is called and thought of. And if someone, due to the impossibility of comprehending this with reason, being unable to draw a conclusion, had the idea of ​​attributing suffering, or separation, or expiration to the Father, and rejecting faith, which contains the pious thought of the Father and the Son, began to demand from us reasonable grounds: then we can also demand from him an explanation of how God could be crucified on the cross? And how is it possible that the exuberance of the Gospel preaching in the absence of syllogisticism in it, as those who imagine themselves to be the wise of this world think, is there a wiser man, whom blessed Paul does not even honor with a word? With this power, alien to the art of dialectics, he put to shame the wisdom of the mighty in dialectics: for he said: I came to tell you the mystery of God, not in the wisdom of the word, lest the cross of Christ be vain (1 Cor. 1:17; 2:1). wisdom of the word, so that the cross of Christ will not be vain. And if in this case he answers something, then he answers not in the wisdom of the word, but with a power alien to dialectics, exposing all inferential wisdom as madness, recognizing faith alone as leading to the salvation of those who accept the sermon. He does not answer the question: how does the Father dispassionately give birth to the Son, so that the mystery of the sonship of the Only Begotten from the Father is not erased, but exposes the foolish wisdom of the wise, as it is written: where is the wise man, where is the scribe, where is the questioner of this age (1 Cor. 1:20)? And he does not speak in the wisdom of the word, so that through assumptions from reason the pious concept of the Father and the Son would not be eradicated, but he preaches to the faithful without dialectical assumptions that the Father and the Son are impassive, that the Father from Himself, without flow or passion, begot the Son - a Son similar to the Father in essence, Perfect from the Perfect and Only Begotten. For it is absurd that one who hears that wisdom comes from the all-wise God, just as he knows that He is the Father of the wisdom begotten from Him, should attribute any passion to wisdom itself, when he himself wants to represent wisdom in essence similar to the All-Wise. For if the All-Wise God does not achieve wisdom and is not conceived by us as having become wise, but is Himself unconditionally wise in its very essence, then the Son is such a Wisdom that is conceived not as an ability, but as an essence in itself, originating from the essence of the All-Wise. This Wisdom is the Hypostatic Son, an entity similar in essence to the All-Wise Father, from Whom Wisdom, the Son, came. Therefore, blessed Paul, well educated in the knowledge of the Hebrew language, from the same Spirit who spoke in the Old and New Testaments, usually borrows the same concepts, for example. from two psalms, of which one says: your fate is many in the deep (Ps. 35:7), and in the other: your paths are in many waters and your footprints are not known (Ps. 76:20). He modified the expression about the destinies of God as follows: instead of: the abyss of much - oh the depth of wealth! Instead: your paths are in many waters and your footprints are not known - unsearchable. Instead - your judgments are many and deep - His judgment is not tested (Rom. 11:33). Having just as accurately learned from Wisdom herself the mutual relation between her and the Father and her relation to everything that exists, he presented to us in his writings the doctrine of the Father and the Son and of what came from the Father through the Son. For whereas Wisdom says: I am the wisdom of all, counsel, etc. (Proverbs 8:12), and turning to the Word, by which all things are accomplished, he adds: by me are kings, etc. (v. 15) and again: if I tell you what has happened to me, I will remember what has been cut off from time immemorial (v. 21), and while He says: The Lord created Me, the beginning of His ways in His works, before the world was the foundation of Me, before the age gives birth to Me (vv. 22, 25), - the Apostle instead of the word: beginning put the word: first, instead of: begets Me - begotten, instead of the whole sentence: having created Me the beginning of his ways, begets Me he wrote: the firstborn of all creation, and instead of: the foundation - in Him all things were created : instead of Me and so on. For even thrones, for dominions, for beginnings, for powers, all things were created by Him and in Him (Col. 1:15 et seq.). And so, when all the apostolic expressions literally agree with the expressions of Wisdom, i.e. the beginning with the first, gives birth - with the first-born, having created Me the beginning of the paths into his works - with the first-born of all creation, and when instead of the basis of Me the Apostle put: By Him was created and instead by Me - By That: then it is obvious that the image is presented here not in the sense of passion, but is put in place of the words: I am wisdom. And just as the Son is the Wisdom of the All-Wise, the essence of the essence: so the image is similar to the essence. In this sense, the image of the invisible God, who is the Son, is also understood. So we accept all these equivalent expressions: instead of the Wise - God, instead of Wisdom - the Image, instead of the beginning - the first, instead of the one who gives birth - the born; instead of the whole expression, that is, instead of - the beginning of his ways created Me into his own affairs and gives birth to Me - the firstborn of all creation; instead of: the basis of Me is what was created, instead of: By Me - all things by and about Him. From this it is clear that the Apostle exposes before everyone the error of those who hear that the Son is the image of the Invisible God, and yet decide to so shamelessly speculate against the similarity of the Son to the Father in essence. And not only Paul, but also before him John, truly the son of thunder, in the veils of wisdom, as if from some clouds, loudly emitted to us in the same way a pious thought about the Son. So, look how he also conveyed in the Gospel preached to us from him what he was taught from Wisdom. For, while Wisdom says: having made me the beginning of my ways, he used the word: in the beginning, saying: in the beginning was the Word; instead of: having created me, God was; so that we understand the Word, impassive from the Father, not as a spoken word, but as an independent hypostasis. Instead: be with Him (Prov. 8:27) - to God, instead of: By Me (from eternity) - all things were by Him and without Him they were nothing; instead of the basis - there was a hedgehog, in That there was life - with which the words are equal: By this all things were created; instead of: Wisdom created for herself a house - the Word became flesh: instead of: building with Him (Prov. 8:29) - the Son cannot do anything for Himself, unless He sees the Father doing what He does, the Son also does the same (John 5:19). Thus, to prove the similarity in essence of the Son to the Father, we have testimony from the mouth of two and three witnesses; for one calls the Son the Wisdom of the Wise, another calls the Only Begotten Word of God God, and the third calls the Son of God an image, so that the concepts: the Word of God and Wisdom and Image are exactly the same, as said above, and by all of them the Son of God and the Father is designated in essence. Moreover, the word of God brings us, just like Thomas, to the perception of the reality of the similarity of the Son to the Father in essence, when it says: just as the Father had life in Himself, so did the Son give life in Himself. (John 5:26). For if the words: as the Father has, are understood to mean that He has life not in another (for there is no other - the Father, and another - life in Him, so that one is understood as having, the other - having; but the Father Himself is inseparably life, and as He Himself has it, so He gave it to the Son, that is, inseparably, like the Father), then it is obvious that the Son, who thus has life, has it not without birth and not separately, but equally in everything to essence, and inseparably, like the Father. Moreover, it is clear that something like this cannot at all be identical with what it is like: the proof of this is that the Son of God, being in the likeness of humanity, although he became a man, did not become identical with man in everything; being in the likeness of the flesh of sin (Rom. 8:3), although He was in the passions that serve as the cause of sins of the flesh, such as for example. hunger and thirst and so on, but was not identical with the flesh of sin. Thus, these Apostolic testimonies proclaim the similarity of the Son with the Father in essence. For, as in the likeness of humanity, He, although He was a man, was not a man in everything - a man in the perception of human flesh, since the Word became flesh - but was not a man, since He was not born like people, that is, not from seed and copulation. Thus, He - the eternal Son - is God, since He is the Son of God, and at the same time He is also a man, since He is the son of man. He is not one and the same with God the Father who gave birth, just as he is not one and the same with man, since he was born without flow and passion, without seed and desire. He was also in the likeness of the flesh of sin, since in the flesh he suffered hunger and thirst and sleep - by which passions the body is aroused to sin. However, being exposed to the above-mentioned passions of the flesh, He was not aroused by them to sin. Thus, being both the Son of God, in the image of God, and being equal to God, He had the properties of Divinity, in essence, being incorporeal and similar to the Father in Divinity, both in incorporeality, and in actions; but at the same time he was like flesh, since he was flesh and was subject to the sufferings of the flesh. However, He was not one and the same with her; since, being God, He is not the image of God, but God, not equal to God, but God, without being, however, autocratic, like the Father. So, He was not a man in terms of inclination to sin, but was like a man in activity: for what the Father creates, the Son does likewise. Therefore, during his life here, He, like those living in the flesh, began to move, but not sinfully. For it is absurd to imagine that He passed from a state of nature into a state contrary to nature, that is, from God, having become the son of man, he became like the sons of nature, that is, natural people, in that which was above nature in Himself, and in that which was natural in Himself, He was not like the Father by nature, being a god born of God. And it is obvious that those who do not recognize the Son as similar to the Father in essence, recognize Him no longer as a Son, but only as a creature, and the Father - not as a Father, but as a Creator; since the concept: similar does not lead to the identity of the Son with the Father, but to the idea of ​​similarity in essence and of an inexpressible, impassive relationship with Him. So, I will say again, as expressions: in the likeness of humanity and in the likeness of the flesh, sin leads, on the basis of what has been said, to the concept not of identity with man, but of likeness in essence: just so the Son, like the Father who gave birth, will have his essence not in identity with the Father, but only in likeness. And if someone, listening to the wisdom of the world, which God has put to shame, does not heed the wise preaching of the Word and does not with faith confess the similarity in essence of the Son with the Father, and only falsely calls the Father and the Son, but in reality does not confess either the Father or the Son, but only the Creator and the creature, who generalizes the concept of the Father and the Son with the concept of other creatures and wants to philosophize that the Son is the first of creatures or out of necessity, or out of superiority of greatness, and does not profess the church faith in the Father and the Son, and decides to preach the gospel contrary to how the Apostles preached this to us - let him be anathema! And following blessed Paul: we have foretold and now say again (Gal. 1:9), and forced by necessity we say: if anyone, hearing about the one wise Father and Wisdom - His Only Begotten Son, considers Wisdom to be one and the same with the one Wise One, denying the existence of the Son - let him be anathema! And if anyone, hearing about the All-Wise Father and the Wisdom of His Son, recognizes this very wisdom to be in essence not similar to the wisdom of the All-Wise God, such as he who does not honor the All-Wise as the true Father of wisdom, let him be anathema! And if anyone, understanding the Father as God, and representing God the Word who existed in the beginning as identical with that God of Whom He was Word and God, such as does not recognize Him as the true Son, let him be anathema! And if anyone, hearing about God the Word, the Only Begotten Son of God, Who has the Word and God, this God and the Word of the Father, considers this God and the Word of the Father to be in essence not similar to God and the Father, Who in the beginning had the Only Begotten God the Word, such as he who does not honor Him as the true Son, let him be anathema! And if anyone, hearing that the Son is the image of the invisible God, considers this image identical with the invisible God, such as he who does not confess Him to be the true Son - let him be anathema! And if anyone, having heard about the Only Begotten Son that He is the image of the invisible God, recognizes the Son, Who is the image of the invisible God, Whom He is imagined to be an image in essence, as dissimilar in essence, as one who does not recognize the true Son, let him be anathema! And if anyone, hearing the Son saying: Just as the Father has life in himself, so did the Son also have life in himself (John 5:26), considers the one who received life from the Father and confesses: I live for the Father’s sake (John 6:57), identical with Him who gave life, let him be anathema! And if anyone, hearing the words: just as the Father has life in Himself, so the Son also has life in Himself, considers the Son not similar in essence to the Father, testifying that he understands as it is said, let him be anathema! For it is obvious that since the life conceived in the Father signifies essence, and since by the life of the Only Begotten we mean the essence born of the Father, then the particle: thus means the similarity of essence with essence. And if anyone, hearing His words: He created Me, and also: He gives birth to Me, thinks that both of them do not refer to the same essence, but considers the words identical: He gives birth to Me with the words: He created Me, such as one who does not recognize on the basis of these two expressions: He created Me and gives birth to Me as a dispassionately perfect Son, and who confesses Him only as a creature, and not at all as a Son, contrary to the pious thought conveyed by wisdom in these two expressions, anathema be it! And if anyone hears that the Son reveals to us His essentially likeness to the Father in these words: just as the Father had life in Himself, so He gave the Son also to have Life in Himself, and teaches about likeness in action in these words: what the Father does, the Son does likewise, and meanwhile allows one likeness in action, and the likeness of the Son in essence, which is the most important member of our faith, rejects such as depriving himself of eternal life, which consists in the knowledge of the Father and the Son - let him be anathema! And if anyone! declaring that he believes in the Father and the Son, he considers the Father to be the Father not of essences similar to Him, but of actions, such as one who dares to utter vile nonsense regarding the essence of the Son of God (1 Tim. 6:20) and denies that He is the true Son - let him be anathema! And if anyone, thinking that the Son is essentially similar to the Father, Whose Son is understood, recognizes the Son either as identical with the Father, or as a part of the Father, considering the incorporeal Son to have come from the incorporeal Father through flow or passion, like bodily sons; - anathema be it! And if someone, for the reason that the Father is never thought of as the Son and the Son is never thought of as the Father, considers the Son to be different in relation to the Father, because it is as if Another is the Father and Another is the Son, as it is said: Another is the One who testifies of Me, and again, the Father who sent Me bears witness (John 5:32.36), and if such, on the basis of the pious church concept of the properties of the persons of the Father and the Son, fearing that the Son is not thought of as identical with the Father, says that the Son is not essentially like the Father - let him be anathema! And if anyone thinks of the Father of the Only Begotten Son as the Father in time and does not believe that pre-eternally and contrary to all human ideas about time, the Only Begotten Son dispassionately came from the Father, such as transgressing the apostolic sermon, which rejects the times regarding the Father and the Son and correctly teaches us: in the beginning was the Word and the Word was to God and God was the Word - let him be anathema! And if anyone recognizes the Father as the oldest in time, the Only Begotten Son who came from him, and the Son as the youngest of the Father in time, let him be anathema! And if anyone transfers the eternity of the Hypostasis of the Only Begotten Christ, who came from the Father, to the unborn essence of God, such as admitting the Son-Father, let him be anathema! And if anyone recognizes the Father as the Father of the Only Begotten Son only by power, and not by power and together by essence, such as accepting only power and generalizing Him with other creatures, and not recognizing Him as the true, natural Son from the Father, let him be anathema! And if anyone, recognizing the Father both in power and in essence as the Father of the Son, nevertheless considers the Son consubstantial and identical with the Father - let him be anathema! Signed: Basil, Eustathius, Iperechius, Aetius, Eorticus, Gymnasius, Memnon, Eutyches, Severinus, Eutyches, Alcimides, Alexander: I believe as it is written and confirm with my signature. Memorandum of Vasily and George and their followers The name of the essence is not found either in the Old or in the New Testament, but its meaning is found everywhere, and above all in those words that God said when sending Moses: thus spoke the sons of Israel: He is (Ex. 3:14). Here, first of all, the Father is meant, from Him all the fatherland in heaven and on earth is named (Eph. 3:15). He did not come from anyone, but is the culprit of everything that exists. But since the Son is also He and has received fellowship in this, Paul of Samosata and Marcellus in the words of the Gospel of John: in the beginning the Word found a reason for not recognizing the Son of God as truly the Son, but having received a reason in the name: Word, they wanted to say that the Son of God is speech and sound coming from the mouth. On this issue, in order to prove that the Son has a hypostasis, is really existing and is He, and not a saying, the Fathers who condemned Paul of Samosata were forced to call the Son an essence, showing by this name of essence the difference between what does not exist in itself and what exists. For the saying itself is something non-existent and cannot be the Son of God - since in this case there would be many sons of God: for it is known that the Father says many things to the Son, for example: let there be a firmament, let there be lights, let the earth bring forth, and also: let us create man. So, the Father speaks to the Son, and the words of God that he speaks to the Son are not the sons. But the Son, with whom the Father speaks, is, among other things, piously called bread, and life, and resurrection; is also called the Word, since it is the interpreter of the will of God. So, so that heretics, deceiving the simple, do not consider the Son identical with the words spoken from God, the Fathers, showing the difference between the Son of God and the words of God, called the Son, as I said, the essence. Thus they established the distinction that although God is and the words that He spoke exist, they are not the essence of God, but verbal actions. The Son, being the Word, is not a verbal action of God, but being the Son is an essence. But although the Father is this, and the Son is this, the Son is nevertheless in such a way that he has a related existence from God, and the Son is conceived by the Word not as words spoken from God; for they have their being in him who speaks, and He has his being in that he is born of the Father, listens to the Father, and serves the Father. So, the Fathers called this hypostasis essence. Therefore, we understand the Son to be like the Father in everything, fighting the heresy that has arisen in the church in our days. For the present heresy also declares that the Son is like the Father in will and action, but in other respects is not like the Father. Today's new heretics define that the will of the Son and the action of the Son are similar to the will of the Father and the action of the Father, but the Son Himself is not like the Father. And therefore they agree to recognize the will of the Son and the action as similar to the will of the Father and the action, but they do not agree to recognize the Son as similar to the Father, since they assert that the Son was not born of God, but is only a creature and is distinguished from other creatures by the fact that it surpasses them in greatness, and that He came into existence first of all, and that God used His service in the creation of other creatures. since, say the heretics, God created other creatures through the Son, but the Son Himself not through anyone, but He Himself created Him and made Him superior in greatness and power to all creatures, for this reason He called Him the Only Begotten Son. We, the followers of the Catholic Church, having accepted the confession of faith from the Divine Scriptures, maintain that the Father is the Father of the Son who is like Him, and the Son is like the Father, of whose Father He is thought to be the Son. We decree this and thus clear our minds from the errors of Sabellius and others and think that neither the Son can be the Father, nor the Father can be the Son, but the Son is the Son and the Father is the Father, and not the Son. For this is the exact difference of persons, according to which the Father is always the incorporeal and immortal Father; and the Son is always the Son and never the Father; we say: always in the sense that His Hypostasis is not subject to the limitations of time and is incomprehensible; by the will of the Father He took on flesh and suffered death for us. Despite this correct distinction, these strange champions of heresy try to put two points into play: firstly, not to use the names: Father and Son, but unbegotten and begotten, thinking in this way to introduce heretical wisdom into the church. These wise men know in divine matters that the name: unborn is lower than the name: Father, because by unborn is meant that which is not born, but it does not in any way indicate whether it is the Father. The name: Father is more complete than the name: unborn. For in the unbegotten, I say, the power of the Father is not expressed, but in the name: Father, it is expressed both that the Father is not the Son, if the expression Father is understood in its proper sense, and also that He is the author of the Son similar to Him. This is the first thing. And the second is that (as they try to assert) they had already written about the Son before them, that He was in essence similar to the Father, which is what they really intended to condemn the Church for when they stole from the venerable Bishop Hosea some letters in which the expression: dissimilar essence is found. But when those who returned from the east to Sirmium, together with others, accepted the wickedness of this heresy, so as not to fall under responsibility for those who dared to oppose the Eastern faith, they insisted that the name of the essence, which was used by the fathers for the above reasons, be removed from church teaching, hoping through this to strengthen their heresy. At the same time, they hoped that if the name of essence was removed, then, considering the Son to be similar to the Father only in will and action, they would be able - when the name of essence was no longer used - to say that in being and in existence the Son is not like the Father. But the defender of the truth, reproaching the wise in their deceit (1 Cor. 3:19), is God, who before the pious king 333 through the lips of the faithful directly confessed the relationship of His Only Begotten with Him, namely, that the Son is in everything like the Father: and the king himself, as a pious one, also thought about the Only Begotten Son of God fighting for him and, thinking so, the pious He determined with his lips as we Orthodox believe, namely, that the Son is like the Father in everything; with its help, the trick against the church faith, which wants to destroy the name of the essence, will not succeed, so that when the word “essence” is not uttered by the lips, the heresy hidden in the hearts will act freely. But to those who write that the Son is similar in will and not similar in essence, let us say in advance: if they, without deceit and sincerely, recognize the Son as similar in everything, then when they try to banish the name of essence from use, their attempt will turn out to be completely empty. They gained nothing when they were forced to confess the Son to be like the Father in everything. For if the Son, as they recognized, is in everything like the Father, as indeed he is, it means that he is similar not only in will and action, as they define, but also in existence, and hypostasis, and being, like the Son. This expression: in everything at once embraces everything and does not allow any difference, when it is recognized by everyone that neither the Father Himself is like Himself, nor the Son is like Himself, but the Son is like the Father, and thereby that He is like the Father in everything, He is the Son, and not the Father. As perfect from the perfect Father, He, before every idea and every thought, before times and centuries, was born in the likeness of the Father, in a way that only the Father, who dispassionately begot Him from Himself, and the Son, who had being from Him, and the one to whom He will reveal, that is, to whom of us He grants in the contemplation of Himself, knows worthily to understand His Father. And let the name of the hypostases not confuse anyone. Eastern people use the name hypostases to explain the essential and truly existing properties of persons. For although the spirit is the Father, the spirit is the Son, the spirit and the Holy Spirit: however, from here it is not thought that the Son is the Father. There is also a Spirit who is not thought of as the Son, which he is not, but exists independently as the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit is neither Father nor Son, but the Holy Spirit, given from the Father through the Son to the faithful. Therefore, the properties of the independently and truly existing Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, as we said, the Eastern rightly call the hypostases of persons who exist independently, without recognizing these hypostases as three principles, or three gods. For they anathematize those who say that there are three gods. They do not recognize the Father and the Son as two gods, but confess that there is one Godhead, which embraces everything through the Son in the Holy Spirit; they profess one Godhead, one kingdom, and one rulership. At the same time, they piously distinguish persons in the properties of hypostases, that is, they represent the Father as independently existing with paternal authority, and they recognize the Son as part of the Father, but purely born of the Father, perfect from the perfect, and existing independently. They also confess the Holy Spirit, whom Divine Scripture calls the Comforter, and recognize that He independently exists from the Father through the Son. Just as the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth, teaches us the truth, which is the Son (for no one can speak of the Lord Jesus exactly by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3): so the Son, who is the truth, taught us to piously know that the true God is His Father, when he said: he who has seen Me has seen the Father (John 14:9). Therefore in the Holy Spirit we worthily understand the Son, and in We honor the Only Begotten Son worthily and piously; and this is the seal of faith, with which seal the Savior and Lord Jesus Christ commanded to baptize, saying: Go and teach all languages, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). Although we have spoken above at greater length about the similarity of the Son with the Father in everything, however, we will set it to our work and now briefly note that the Apostle, who called the Son the image of the invisible God and thereby taught that the Son is like the Father, in another place conveyed to us how we should think about the Son. In his epistle to Philippise, he says: He who was in the form of God was not equal to God by admiration, but was made less than himself, and took on the form of a servant, becoming in the likeness of humanity (Phil. 2:6,7); and in the Epistle to the Romans he says: For what is weak in the law, in which the flesh was weak, God sent His Son in the likeness of the flesh, and regarding sin, judge sin in the flesh. (Rom.8:3). Thus, by these two testimonies from the two epistles we are taught from the concept of the corporeal to the pious concept of the similarity in the incorporeal Father and Son. For the expression - we took on the form of a servant - and: becoming in the likeness of humanity - shows that He took flesh from the Virgin; Therefore, the flesh that the Son of God took on is the same as human flesh. The expression - in the likeness of humanity means that He was not born from a seed, like people, and not from male copulation. In the same way, the Son, being a spirit, and spiritually begotten of the Father, in the spirit is one and the same with the spirit, as in the flesh, having come from the flesh of Mary, is one and the same with the flesh. But since He was born of the Father without seed, suffering and division, then He is similar to the Father, and not identical, and the Son according to the flesh is only in the likeness of humanity, but not in everything one and the same with man. Thus, in his letter to the Philippiseys, the Apostle taught us how the hypostasis of the Son is similar to the hypostasis of the Father. For He, as a spirit, comes from the Father: and on the basis of the concept of spirit He is one and the same with the Father, just as on the basis of the concept of flesh He is one and the same with man, however, not identical, but similar, because that spirit, which is the Son, is not the Father; likewise, the flesh that the Word received did not come into being through seed and lust, but as the Gospel teaches us. Through this, precisely as was said before, the Son taught us how the Son, in his being and in his independence, is in everything like the Father. And how He is like in will and action and deeds, we learn from the Epistle to the Romans, where it says: in the likeness of the flesh of sin, judge sin in the flesh (Rom. 8:3). For this flesh, which the Son of God received, although it was identical with the flesh of sin and, like it, inclined to greed, to thirst and to sleep, like all flesh, was not thereby aroused to sin. Therefore, it is said: in the likeness of the flesh of sin, which is similar to the following saying: even as the Father does this and He does the same. For the Father, being a spirit, creates autocratically, and the Son, being a spirit, does not create autocratically like the Father, but likewise. Thus, as flesh, He is one and the same with man, and as spirit, He is one and the same with the Father; since He was born without seed, He is not one and the same with man, but similar; in the same way, since the Son did not come into existence through flow and passion, He is not one and the same with man, but similar. since He is in the likeness of the flesh of sin, He is not one and the same with the movements of the flesh, but similar. since, as the Son, being in the likeness of movement, He acts servantly, and not in the same way as the Father, who acts autocratically: what the Father does, this He also creates, but not like the Father, but likewise. And it is clear from this that the Son is like the Father in everything, just as a son is like the father from whom he is legitimately born. For it is absurd that He, the Son of God, existing before the ages and by nature God from God the Father, when He became prenaturally man from Mary, should become like natural people in that which is prenaturally in Himself; It would be contrary to nature that when He, being God, became man, He would not be by nature like the Father who gave birth to Him. For if in that which is supernatural with Him, He is like those with whom it is natural; then all the more so in that it is natural in Him that He is like His Father, from Whom He was born by nature and lawfully. So, that the Son is in every way like the Father, this is suggested in Scripture. He is conceived as similar in accordance with the concept of similarity, which the Apostle revealed in the previously mentioned places. He is similar, since there is Life from Life, Light from Light, True from the True, Wisdom from the All-Wise. In a word, from the Scriptures it is clear that He is similar not only in action and will, but also in being, and essence, and existence, in everything like the Father who begat Him, as a son to a father. If the new heretics, arguing with us, use the expressions: unborn and begotten, then we will say to them: since you maliciously do not accept the name of essence used by the fathers, as not contained in Scripture; then we will not accept the name: unborn, not contained in Scripture. The Apostle speaks about the incorruptible, invisible and immortal, but nowhere does Scripture call Him unborn. Moreover, as was said above, the name: unbegotten does not at all designate the concept of the Father, and the name: begotten does not at all designate the Son himself, but gives a general idea about everything that is born. For whoever said: born, indicated by this that something had happened, but did not at all express the thought of the Son, Who is thought to have come from eternity. Therefore, we, imagining the Son of God existing from eternity, do not accept this name, because the name Father and Son denotes a different kind of relationship. Therefore, if we only use the name of the Father, we already have in the name of the Father at the same time an implied concept of the Son; for the father of the son is called father. And if we only named the Son, we already have the thought of the Father: because the son of the father is called son. For one is connected with the other, and the relationship between them is inseparable. If we have only uttered one of them, then at the same time the thought of another comes: and not only the name, but with the name and affinity by nature. By imagining God as the Father in our minds, we imagine the Father of God, and by imagining the Son of God, we imagine God, called the Son of God, similar in nature to the One Whom He appears to be the Son. But the unborn is not called the unborn of the begotten, nor the begotten the begotten of the unborn. So, since the names: unbegotten and begotten do not express their relationship with each other, nor their nature, and yet the property of the Son is generalized with other works: then we do not accept these names, so that through this trick we do not fall into wickedness, but we will always sacredly use the names of Father and Son. And this is because, firstly, that we, who were called from among the Gentiles, were not baptized into the unbegotten and the begotten, but into the Father and the Son; because nowhere in Scripture is it found that the Son calls his Father unbegotten, but always calls God the Father, and himself always the Son of God. Few places should be indicated here: for example, we hear that He says: if you loved me, you rejoiced quickly, because I go to My Father (John 14:28); and again: His Father is holy and sent into the world, you are angry with me, you have already said: I am the Son of God (John 10:36); and again: I departed from the Father, and I go: I departed from the Father, and came into the world, and again I leave the world and go to the Father (John 16:28). The same is Peter’s confession: You are the Christ, the Son of God (Matthew 17:5). And the Father said from above: This is My beloved Son (Matthew 3:17). For this reason, when the Father mentioned the Son and the Son about the Father in this way, and when we are sealed with these names (I will say again), we will always use them, denying foul talk (1 Tim. 6:20) directed against the Apostolic Faith. For what the Father said: in the lordships of the saints from the womb before the star gave birth to you (Ps. 109:3), it is said necessarily and eliminates the idea of ​​​​community with the creatures of the Son of the Father, Who was actually and actually born of Him; what the expression indicates: from the womb. In the same way, the Son, having said: The Lord created Me, so that we would not suspect the nature that generalizes Him with other creatures, of necessity added: before all the hills He gives birth to Me (Prov. 8:25), presenting to us a pious and dispassionate concept of his sonship from God the Father. So the names: Father and Son, once and for all, due to the above-mentioned holy affinity of Him with God, revealed to you the meaning of the word: born. And the entire New Testament is filled with the names of the Father and the Son. But in order for the inventors of this new heresy to become known from their own testimony, we will indicate for the sake of brevity a little of the much that they wrote on this subject. On the basis of this, the Orthodox, having understood the whole meaning of the heresy, as I believe, will of necessity draw up a decision so that those who wrote this anathematize it and cast out their teaching from the area of ​​the Apostolic Faith, just as they will condemn to anathematization those who think and teach in the same way as them. In actual words they write this: I wanted to convey to you as briefly as possible the beautiful divine sayings. Those who think that the Son retains the likeness of the Father in essence have departed from the truth by the very name: unbegotten, condemning the like in essence. And they also say: the Son is and is recognized by birth as lesser than the Father, therefore he cannot preserve similarity in essence with the unborn, but only preserves the will of God pure, bearing it in his hypostasis. Therefore, he preserves the likeness not in essence, but in the reasoning of will: because as God willed, such God made Him. And one more thing: don’t you yourself admit with me that the Son in essence is not like the Father? - And in another place: when it is admitted that the Son, who has life not from his own nature, but by the power of the unborn, is infinite, and the unborn nature is infinitely above all power; then do those who replace the pious doctrine of another essence with the doctrine of the similarity of essence clearly show themselves to be wicked? - And one more thing: the name: Father indicates not the essence, but the power that, before all ages, produced the Son - God the Word, Who always contains within Himself this essence and power granted to Him forever. And one more thing: if they want the name “Father” to mean essence, and not power, then let them call the hypostasis of the Only Begotten by the name of the Father. Now against the present heretics we will say the following: you wrote that the Son is like in will and not like in essence. Therefore, contrary to this, we wrote that it is similar not only in imitation, but also in essence. So, since you were the first to make a mention of essence, saying that He is not similar in essence, and for this you are trying to destroy the name of essence, so that you can say that the Son is like only in will, then, if you really agree that the Son is like the Father in everything, anathematize those who recognize the difference in likeness, and write this: if anyone says that the Son is not in everything like the Father, as the son is like the father, but is like only in will, but in essence not similar, let him be anathema! Moreover, if they want to mention the name of the essence and betray their own signatures, then, mentioning the name of the essence everywhere, let them confess together with the Fathers that not only by will, but also in being, and in hypostasis, and in existence, in a word, in everything, the Son is like the Father, as the son is to the father, as the Divine Scriptures say. To the stated faith that the Son is like the Father in everything, they subscribed as follows: Mark, Bishop of Arethusia, I believe and philosophize as it is written above. And the others present also signed. But Valens signed this: that we signed the above statement on the night before the onset of Pentecost, those present and the pious king know this, to whom I testified both in writing and not in writing. After this, when Valens, according to custom, signed and added to the signature that the Son is like the Father, and did not add the expression: in everything, and showed to those in what sense he agreed with what was written above and how he understood the expression: ο῾μοούσιον, and when the pious king noticed this and forced him to add the expression: in everything, then he added this too. But Vasily came to suspect that the expression: in everything, he added, understanding it in its own sense, and since Valens and his followers tried to get this presentation in order to present it to the Arimian council; then Vasily signed this: Vasily, Bishop of Ancyra, I believe and agree with what is written above, confessing the Son to be like the Father in everything; in everything - that is, not only by will, but also by hypostasis, and existence, and being; I confess Him in accordance with the Divine Scriptures, as Son, as spirit from spirit, life from life, light from light, God from God, true Son from the true Father, Son - wisdom from the all-wise God and Father, in a word - Son in everything like the Father, as the son is to the father. And if anyone considers Him similar only in one thing, as is written above, I recognize him as alien to the Catholic Church, because he does not recognize the Son, in accordance with the Divine Scriptures, as similar to the Father. This signature was read and given to Valens in the presence of Mark, George, Ursacius, Germanus, Hypatian, and many bishops, presbyters and deacons. We have brought these messages so that each of the inquisitive, seeking the truth of faith, can see that it is not without reason that we speak against some, but we try to base ourselves on actual evidence. However, the Half-Arians themselves again separated from their like-minded people, due to the hatred and envy inherent in people, mocking each other and wanting to excel over each other. Then part of those semi-Arians who were on the side of Vasily, George, Silouan and others took power, having with them, as if the right hand, King Constantius. Then Eudoxius, George of Alexandria and Euzoius of Antioch took over; and Basil in George of Laodicea with his followers began to have less importance, although before they were very strong. Of these, some again separated from this heresy and the council, and thus the Arian sect split into three parts. Acacius, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, together with Meletius and Uranius of Tyre and Eutyches of Eleutheropolis, out of envy and hatred of Cyril of Jerusalem, stood against Basil, George of Laodicea, Silouan of Tarsus, Eleusius of Cysia, Macedonia of Constantinople, Eustathius of Sebastia and Anianus of Antioch. Having rebelled against them, Akaki took up arms against them and caused great unrest. Thus it happened that those who had the same opinion then began to adhere to different confessions, disagreeing among themselves, and finally, having separated, they split into three factions. Akaki and his followers did not recognize the Son as consubstantial, did not recognize him as a creature, as one of the creatures, and although they remained the same, due to the circumstances of the time they hid their thoughts and were silent about calling the Son a creature, but in essence they were quite the same as the Arians. But at that time they hid and did not think of anything else but to somehow resist, and this for the sake of those who stuck to them and were Orthodox by origin, and then became hypocrites, submitted to the will of the king and were afraid of him and had enmity against each other: Eutyches of Eleutheropolis, from Blessed Maximus of Jerusalem, bishop-confessor, who accepted the pure faith in Orthodoxy, pestered Akaki because of enmity with Cyril. Having been Orthodox for some time, he became a hypocrite in order to retain the throne, like many other Palestinian bishops. For their sake, Akaki and his followers, having the same fierceness and frantic malice, for a time did not put their teaching into practice at all, neither affirming nor denying. But when, by order of King Constantius, the bishops gathered in Seleucia, called wild, in Isauria, they proposed a different confession of faith, and not the Orthodox and beautifully composed one, which was established by the fathers in the city of Nicaea, and they expressed it feignedly, as if out of simplicity. We believe in one God, the Almighty Father, and so on, and in the Son of God (that’s all, and they didn’t say anything important). Subsequently, in order to express their hypocrisy, they said: the word: consubstantial, as alien to Divine Scripture, we reject, and we anathematize those who say that the Son is not like the Father. It was a trick of cunning hunters. After the discussions they had with each other, they began to teach that the Son of God, although he is a creature, is like the Father in the sense that he walks among people. For artists make statues and images from gold, or silver, or other substances, or depict them with paints on wood and achieve a likeness, although this is not at all the same as the original. This was their trick: to recognize the Son as similar to the Father, but only so that He would not have the Divinity of the Father at all. Some of those who were with them, because of the time of trouble that had come, accepted this and most of them agreed with them, and some, as was later discovered, agreed out of ignorance. Among them were: Patrophilus of Scythopolis and then Philip, who was appointed successor to the above-mentioned, and many others who adhered to this heresy. Now, after their death, when their evil faith has spread widely, they raise their hand with insolence, and, not encountering any obstacles, openly preach their idea, not restrained by any shame and not curbed by any command. So that it does not seem to anyone that we are speaking without reason, I will offer here the doctrine set forth by the adherents of Acacius, along with the signature of the persons who were at that council. Here it is. We, the bishops, gathered from various dioceses in Seleucia of Isauria, by order of our most pious king Constantius, in accordance with the royal will, decided the following: Yesterday, which was before the fifth calends of October, we used all our efforts to maintain peace in the church with all decorum and firmly establish the rule of faith, in accordance with the prophetic broadcasts, as our most God-loving king Constantius commanded, and not to introduce anything into the church faith except the divine Scriptures. But since some at the council insulted some of us, blocked the lips of others, not allowing them to speak, some were forcibly removed, and those expelled from various dioceses were taken to their side, and those appointed contrary to the rules were brought with them, as a result of which the assembly was filled with confusion everywhere, as the most famous Comite Leon and the glorious prefect of the region Lauricius saw with their own eyes: for this reason we declare that we do not shy away from presenting the real doctrine compiled during the renovation of the church in Antioch. Our fathers themselves gathered at that time to study this issue. since many were confused by the words: consubstantial and similar in essence, both in former times and now, and since even to this day they say that some introduce something new, saying that the Son is not like the Father; Therefore, we reject the word: consubstantial, as alien to Scripture, and the word: unlike, we anathematize, just as we consider all those who think so to be alien to the church. And we clearly confess the similarity of the Son with the Father, in agreement with the Apostle, who says about the Son: who is the image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15). We confess and believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, visible and invisible. We also believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, dispassionately begotten of Him before all ages - in God the Word, God from God, light, life, truth, wisdom, power, by whom all things came into being, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible. We believe that at the end of the ages, for the destruction of sins, He took flesh from the holy Virgin and became man, suffered for our sins, was resurrected, and having ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. We also believe in one Holy Spirit, whom our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ called the Comforter, promising, upon His Ascension, to send Him down to the disciples, Whom He sent, through Whom He sanctifies the believers in the church, and those baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. And those who preach anything else, contrary to this faith, are recognized by the Catholic Church as alien. That the doctrine previously expounded in Sirmium under our pious king is equivalent to this doctrine, those who read this doctrine know. Signed by those present: Basil, Mark and George, Bishop of Alexandria; Pancratius and Hypatian and quite a few Western bishops. I, George, Bishop of Alexandria, have stated my confession of faith in this way, and I confess and think as proposed here. I, Akakios, Bishop of Caesarea, have set forth my confession of faith and I confess and think as proposed here. Uranius, bishop of Tyre, Eutyches, bishop of Eleutheropolis, Zoilus, bishop of Larissa of Syria, Seras, bishop of Paretonium in Libya, Paul, bishop of Emisium, Eustathius, bishop of Epiphanius, Irenaeus, bishop of Tripolis of Phoenicia, Eusebius, bishop of Seleucia of Syria, Eutychian, bishop of Patara in Lycia, Eustathius, bishop of Pinar and Didyma, Basil, Bishop of Caunia in Lydia, Peter, Bishop of Hippia in Palestine, Stephen, Bishop of Ptolemais in Libya, Eudoxius Bishop, Apollonius, Bishop of Oxyrhynchus, Theoctistus, Bishop of Ostrakin, Leontius, Bishop of Lydia, Theodosius, Bishop of Philadelphia in Lydia, Thebes, Bishop of Polychaland in Lydia, Magnus, Bishop Themisian in Phrygia, Evagrius, bishop of the islands of Mytilene, Kirion, bishop of Dalichia, Augustus, bishop of the Euphrates, Polydeuces, bishop of the second Libyan diocese, Pankratius, bishop of Pilusium, Philikad, bishop of Augustus in the Phrygian diocese, Serapion, bishop of Antipyrgus in Libya, Eusebius, bishop of Sebaste in Palestine, Iliodorus, bishop of Sosusa of Pentapolis, Ptolemy, Bishop of Thmuy in Augustonica, Avgar, Bishop of Cyra Euphrasian, Eczeresius, Bishop of Geras, Aravion, Bishop of Andraia, Charisius, Bishop of Azoto, Elisha, Bishop of Diocletianople, Germanus, Bishop of Petra, Barochius, Bishop of Arabia. All bishops are 43. – Here is the end of the exposition of the faith of the above-mentioned Poluarians and Arians. You, intelligent people, having examined this and other statements of faith, notice how frivolous the beginning of their contrary teaching is, how incorrect it is and in no way agrees with the divine confession of faith. The Lord says: if you hear in your ears, preach on the housetops (Matthew 10:27); The holy Apostle also says: speak the truth to everyone who is sincere (Eph. 4:25); and the Prophet, exposing their evil intentions, says: He speaks peaceably to his neighbor, but in his heart he has enmity or malice (Ps. 27:3,4). Such are these adherents of Akaki. When they parted ways with Basil and his followers, they, wishing to sever the connection with the true confession, composed a false confession of faith, easily refuted and destroyed everywhere, so that they could persuade whomever they wanted to seduce with such a statement to recognize their confession of faith as correct. And if they were to discover the poison of their malice, then they would find a statement of faith that leans on both sides and can present a confession of faith consistent with each of their intentions. But since a division occurred between Acacius and the other two parties from those present at the council (for we said that the Arian sect split into three parts), Eudoxius, Germanus, George of Alexandria and Euzous of Antioch separated into one party: Basil, Eleusius, Eustathius and George of Laodicea, Silouan of Tarsus, Macedonius of Constantinople and many others also separated to another party, and finally Acacius, as I said above, Meletius, Eutyches and some others formed a special party. The whole affair was full of deception. Although each of them thought the same way as the other, but, due to the hatred of one for the other, they fell apart into private arguments, because Cyril of Jerusalem was angry with Eutyches, and Eutyches with Cyril. Cyril was at one with Basil of Galatia and Ashan, who was appointed bishop of Antioch, and George of Laodicea. But why waste my time analyzing games and talking about them? I would rather proceed to refuting them and destroying the treachery of each of them; However, first of all, I must talk about what happened subsequently, because this will lead to the discovery of honesty in some and malice in others. Meletius was appointed to the episcopal see in Antioch by Acacius. From that time on, Acacius had the intention of at least somewhat deviating from their evil teaching and presenting himself as Orthodox, since he established the aforementioned Meletius in his place. This Meletius, appointed by the adherents of Acacius, was considered by them to be a follower of their opinion, but he did not turn out to be such, as many say. Now those who joined him and his party from the time he was expelled and deposed from his throne, during the long persecution, converged on him and for God's sake joined the Orthodox. There were many people in this party at the council, and they, having appointed bishops for themselves, marvelously confessed the doctrine of the Son and did not reject the word: consubstantial, but said that they were ready, if a perfect council was formed, to recognize the word: consubstantial, and in no way reject it. And so this is what happened to the aforementioned, most venerable Meletius, who was appointed by the Arians, adherents of Acacius, to conduct the first conversation in the church, as the beginning of his duties towards the Antiochians. Many say that he conducted this conversation in an Orthodox manner. I will offer his conversation here. Here she is. The last word is better than the beginning (Eccl. 7:9), says the wise Ecclesiastes, because it is better and safer to stop talking about a dispute than to begin. Especially when the same Ecclesiastes says: the wisdom of the poor is despised, and his words are not obeyed (Eccl. 9:16). Since the body is not one member, but many, and all members take care of each other so that there is no disorder in the body, and the head cannot say to the legs: I have no need of you, but God dissolve the body, giving greater honor to the worst (1 Cor. 12:24), then it is self-evident that when the whole body moves, each member cannot help but move. How shall I begin my speech to you? Isn’t it clear that it is fitting for every beginner to make both word and deed the beginning and end of the world, to begin with it and to end with it? For the Apostle says that this will be beneficial for salvation, with the help of our prayers and with the assistance of the Spirit, which Jesus gives to those who believe in Him. And if anyone speaks of edification, or consolation, or the joy of love, or fellowship of the spirit (1 Cor. 14:3 - Phil. 2:1), all this comes from the peace that is in God. This is not available to everyone indiscriminately, but to those who love the law, as the Prophet says; he understands not a physical law, which contains the image and shadow of the future, but a spiritual one, which wisely reveals the fulfillment of what was foretold. Peace, he says, is abundant for those who love you, and there is no temptation for them (Ps. 119:165). From this it is clear that the temptation is on those who have hated the world. Those who wish to free themselves from this must put before themselves the love of God, as if some kind of shield: For this is our peace, having made both one, and having destroyed the middle wall of the fence: having abolished the law of the commandments of the teachings through enmity with one’s flesh (Eph. 2:14-15). And it is impossible to fulfill the commandment of the Lord if the love of God does not precede: if you love me, says the Lord, keep my commandments (John 14:15); and if the commandment does not illuminate, then neither the eyes nor the heart are illuminated. The commandment of the Lord, says the Prophet, is bright, enlightening the eyes (Ps. 18:9). And he who does not have Christ speaking within himself will not utter the word of truth, as the Apostle says: Because of temptation, you seek Christ speaking in me (2 Cor. 13:3), or better: not only speaking, but also showing mercy. And let Thy mercy and Thy salvation come upon me, says the Prophet: and I will answer the word of those who reproach me (Ps. 119:41-42). This would not have happened if someone had not sought justification (v. 48). Those who are not so inclined are characterized by shame in reproach, so that they cannot say: take away the diarrhea and humiliation from Me (v. 22). From their lips the word of truth is heard, that the one who prays needs nothing more than this: do not take away the words of truth from my lips (v. 43). When does this happen? When a person does not keep the law, I will take it away, when he does not go into the wideness (Ps. 119:44-45). He must enlarge the heart who wishes to accommodate Christ, who dwells among us, whose glory is preached not only by people, but also by the heavens: for the heavens will tell the glory of God (Ps. 18:2), says the Prophet; or better, as the Father Himself says: This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased (Matthew 3:14). He cannot be confessed by the one who speaks untruths to his neighbor (Ps. 72:8), who would call his neighbor to the society and title of opponents of Christ, abandoning the society and the name Christian; about such it is said: do not touch my anointed (Ps. 104:15); and the Apostle says: let him who is a liar be cast aside, for Jesus is not the Christ; This one is the Antichrist. Discard the Son, nor the Father, Imam: but he who confesses the Son, also confesses the Father. For if you have heard from the first, let it abide in you, and if you have heard from the first, let it abide in you, and you will also abide in the Son and Father. (1 John 2:22–24). Then you will remain when you confess not only before God and the chosen angels, but also before kings, and you will not be ashamed: and you will not be ashamed of the words of your testimonies before kings (Ps. 119:46). I say, let us confess that the Son of God is God from God, one from one, the only begotten from the unborn, the beautiful birth of the one who begat, the Son worthy of the beginningless, the inexpressible interpreter of the ineffable, the Word, the wisdom and the power of Him. Who is above wisdom and power, above what the tongue can utter, above what thought can touch - a birth that is perfect and abiding from the perfect and abiding in identity, not coming from the Father, inseparable and not divisible, but dispassionately and whole from Him who lost nothing that He had. This Son is and is called the Word, and is not thought of as the voice or speech of the Father, for he exists by himself and acts, and all things were created by him and about him (Col. 1:16). In the same way, being also wisdom, He is not represented by the thought of the Father, nor by the movement and action of the mind, but by birth, similar to the Father and the exact image of the Father; for God the Father, as it were, sealed Him. He does not exist in another so that he does not exist in himself, but there is an active birth that created all this and always preserves it. This is enough to free us from the error of the Hellenes, from Jewish superstition and heretical evil. Since some, having perverted the meaning of the words found in the Scriptures, interpreting them differently than they should, and not understanding either the power of words or the nature of things, dare to reject the deity of the Son, being tempted by the word: creation, found in Proverbs: The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works (Prov. 8:22), whereas they should have followed the life-giving spirit, and not the writing that kills (for the spirit gives life - 2 Cor. 3:6): then we also dare to reason a little about this, not because this was not completely said by those who spoke before us (it would be crazy to say this), and not because you need a teacher (for you yourself are taught by God), but so that it becomes clear to your consciousness that we want to convey to you a spiritual gift. Believe that neither in other places of Scripture, nor in this place, there are no words of Scripture that contradict each other, and only for those who are not sound in faith and weak in mind do they seem contradictory. No example can be found in the world that would be satisfactory in itself for a clear representation of the nature of the Only Begotten. Therefore, Scripture uses many concepts and names about the Only Begotten, so that somehow, through what is characteristic of us, we can understand what is above us, and through the known, imagine the unknown, and imperceptibly, little by little, move from the clear to the hidden. And so believers in Christ must believe that the Son is like the Father, since He is the image of Him who is above all; He is the One who is through all (Eph. 4:6); By Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth. He is an image not like the soulless image of an animated one, and not like a work of art, or the performance of an action, but the birth of the one who gave birth; and it is unfair to designate the birth of the Only Begotten before the ages by the features of bodily human birth. Following the example of the wisdom of the Father, which embraces all human thoughts, the Son is not alien to personality and independent existence, therefore Scripture uses two expressions: creation and birth; The expressions: created and begotten do not mean that apparently the opposite is said about the same thing, but the word: created means that the Son is hypostatic and eternal, and the word: begotten is the difference and special property of the Only Begotten. I have died from the Father and am going - (John 16:28), says the Lord. The very name: wisdom is enough to exclude any thought of suffering. But where do we strive, as if not remembering the one who said: oh! the depth of the riches and wisdom and mind of God! for His judgment was not tried and His ways were not explored (Rom. 11:33)? We have a teacher of the Spirit of truth, whom the Lord gave to us after He ascended into heaven, so that we may know what God has given us: which we speak, not in the words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, spiritual with spiritual judgment (1 Cor. 2:12-13), - Whom (the Spirit) we serve and worship, for whose sake we are subjected dishonor. By whom the prophets preached, by whom the righteous were guided, by whom we are led to the Son. But why do we dwell so much on the nature of the Son? Do we speak to you as carnal and not as spiritual? To others, what is said applies: You cannot say that you are spiritual, but that you are carnal (Cor. 3:1). But there is a fear that we will not fall into the abyss of wickedness from the curiosity of the incomprehensible and from the study of the inaccessible: the river: I will become wise, and this has gone far from Me, even more than I have been: and the depth of the abyss is whoever finds it (Eccl. 7:24-25). Let us remember the one who says: we understand in part, and we prophesy in part: when that which is perfect has come, then what is in part will be done away with (1 Cor. 13:9-10); If anyone thinks that he knows something, he does not have it in his mind, as he should understand. (8:2). Therefore, we must beware lest, being forced by something to talk about what we cannot talk about, we lose the ability to talk about what we can. One must speak out of faith, and not believe because of what they say: in believing, even in speaking, says the Prophet (Ps. 116:1). So, if we are curious, but are not able to say anything about our own birth, and meanwhile we attempt to investigate about the birth of God, is there no danger that He, who gives not only the language of teaching, but also the knowledge of how we should speak, condemns us to silence in our desire to speak? This is what happened to blessed Zacharias, who, not believing the gospel about the birth of a son, testing the grace and power of God with human thoughts, and wondering with himself: is it natural for an old man to have children from an old woman, what does he say? Why do I mean this? Because I am old, and my wife has become mature in her days. In response to this, he heard: behold, you will remain silent, and you cannot speak (Luke 1:18–20). And he did not speak after he left the church. Therefore, leaving the debate about subjects that raise doubt and about what is beyond our understanding, let us stick to what we received from our ancestors. For who is so bold that he would boast of knowledge, when he himself was worthy of revelation, caught up to the third heaven and heard unspeakable verbs, and was disciplined by the dirty trick of the flesh, so as not to be arrogant (2 Cor. 12: 2.4.7)? And the Prophet, having said: in faith, in the same words, added: I humbled myself, not just, but greatly. (Ps. 116:1). For the closer one considers himself to knowledge, the more he must think within himself that he is a man. Listen to what the Prophet says about this: I Reh in my frenzy: every man is a lie. (Ps. 116:2). So, having for ourselves a teacher of truth, let us no longer be guided by human teachers, but let us reflect on ourselves, and we will not be curious about the properties of Divine objects, or about anything else, since it is impossible to explain the birth of the Son, nor to speak about the manner of His birth from the Father, but for teaching, consider it sufficient that all things were, and without him nothing was (John 1:3). May the Lord grant us that we think like Abraham, who says: “Now have I begun to speak to my Lord, for I am earth and ashes” (Gen. 18:27), and that we should not exalt ourselves like the cedars of Lebanon, because straight and peaceful wisdom does not consist in the pretentious words of human wisdom, but in those taught by faith (1 Cor. 2:13). May the Lord grant us not to doubt, but, whatever we do, to please God, the Father and with him the Son in the Holy Spirit, glory, power, honor and strength now and ever and unto ages of ages. - Amen. Here is the end of Meletiev's confession. Many of the Arians considered it necessary to transfer Meletius from the Pontic country, but not to joy and peace for themselves, but to sorrow. Then they incite the king against him and denounce him that he does not recognize the Son as a perfect creature, and overthrow him from the pulpit. And at night they exiled this man, but to this day he remains here in his fatherland - a venerable and desired man, especially because we have now heard about his virtues, and that those under his rule in Antioch now profess the true faith, neither completely nor even slightly, without mentioning the name of the creature, but confessing as consubstantial the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, three hypostases, one being, one deity, as the true one teaches the faith handed down from our ancestors, prophetic, evangelical and apostolic, which was confessed by our assembled fathers and bishops at the Council of Nicaea under Constantine the Great and Most Blessed King. ABOUT! May the most venerable Meletius himself profess the same faith as those professed by those under his control in Antioch and in some other places! There are some, apparently having fellowship with him and his council, who blaspheme the Holy Spirit, and speaking correctly about the Son, the Spirit is recognized as a creature completely alien to God. We will all talk about this as carefully as possible later when refuting their heresy. This man is revered among us, as I said, due to such a rumor spread about him. For his life is commendable in other respects as well; He was of an honest disposition and was very loved by the people for his life, glorified by everyone. But some, I don’t know why, whether driven by envy or hatred, or wanting to exalt themselves, told something about him, precisely as if the uprising against him occurred not because of Orthodoxy, but over, they say, church affairs and a quarrel that occurred between him and his clergy - and therefore also, as if he accepted some into communion, whom he had previously excommunicated and anathematized. But we do not allow this at all, especially because subsequently, every day at his council, his correct actions and true confession of faith were demonstrated, as I showed above. In this case, as much as our strength allows given our weakness, we must adhere to the truth in everything. I don’t dare say that maybe something escaped Meletius with the speed of his speech, or maybe the word escaped him out of simplicity - God knows that. However, in one part of his speech there are two or three places worthy of reproach: firstly, what is said in general about creation, he means about the Son of God and his Divinity, although the whole point here is only in the name; secondly, what he says: “above wisdom” and something else. Having said little to refute their teaching, let us leave further talk about it. Tell us, what is it that disgusts you to call the Son consubstantial? Confess openly to us, so that we know that you are our own and not strangers. For copper can be similar to gold, and tin to silver, and lead to iron. But we will not be deceived by your intricate and roundly composed false speech. For if, wanting to deceive, you come up with false pretexts, arguing that you should not use the word: consubstantial, so that through this we do not merge the Son with the Father, or the Spirit with the Son and Father, then in this case your intricate speech falls. For we do not say: co-existent (ἁμαύσιοσ), but consubstantial (ὁμούσιος), so as not to recognize the Son in any way different from the Father, and we confess Him as God, truly begotten of the Father, and not from elsewhere and not from nothing, but having come from the Father before time and without beginning, and begotten inexplicably, always existing with the Father, never ceasing to exist, neither great-grandfather nor brother, but born. For the word: ὁμῦ denotes two hypostases that are not alien by nature. Therefore, here the Holy Spirit established the union of truth through the lips of those who introduced this word. You see that you have no reason or opportunity to speak against Orthodoxy and confuse those who accept from you in their ears the speech you have invented, that is, that if someone used the word: consubstantial, he would seem to recognize the merger. This won't happen. For the word: consubstantial denotes two persons and shows that the one who is born is not alien to the Father. And you, having invented the word: subsistent, will be exposed by the name of the essence and will be condemned by your most changed confession of faith, thinking not what you say, but falsely teaching what you think. For in saying that the Son is not at all from the Father, and yet is similar to Him, you have departed far from the truth. No matter how anyone wants to decorate something made from any substance, he will not make it identical to the prototype. It's a matter of work. And what is born from someone retains a similar and identical type of relationship with the one who gave birth. So, if the Son was not born from the Father himself, but existed outside of Him, in your opinion, although He would be subsistent by grace, you did not give Him anything, and you yourself were deprived of His grace. If he does not honor the Son as he honors the Father, the wrath of God remains on him, says the Holy Apostle (John 5:23; 3:36). And again: I have departed from the Father and am going (16:18); and again: I am in the Father and the Father is in me; and again it said: Philip! seeing me, seeing the Father (14:10). Speaking about this many times, we think that what has been said here is enough to root out the evil faith that arose from them, since this can refute the above-mentioned Semi-Arians, and the adherents of Acacius and others who separated from them, who formed a different creed in Isaurian Seleucia, set forth by them contrary to the true faith, which we, wanting to make known, above presented in full, as it was written on behalf of everyone after confessions of Basil of Ancyra and George of Alexandria. So that they do not think that I, as if out of oblivion, left aside this creed, which imperceptibly causes terrible harm, but which, due to the circumstances of the time, hypocritically wears a bridle on the lips, I will say a few words against this creed and against those who composed it, the aforementioned: Acacius, Euzoia, Eutyches and others. Although the present statement of faith clearly shows their deviation from confessing the truth, however, so that some cannot say that we are speaking against them for slander, we will show what was revealed over time and revealed at their aforementioned council. From their midst came their disciple Euzoius of Caesarea, who succeeded Acacius after Philumenus Cyril of Jerusalem was appointed to this department, and then Eutyches Cyril the Elder was appointed there, and finally Gelasius, the son of his sister, was appointed there by Cyril of Jerusalem. When these three did nothing due to a mutual quarrel, the aforementioned Euzoius was again appointed there. From their party also came Gemelliv, Philip and Athanasius of Scythopolis, who no longer secretly, but with impudence, as people who know nothing good, not only preach the teachings of Arius, but also defend their heresy and persecute those who teach the truth, having the intention of overthrowing it not only with words, but exposing the faithful to enmity, abuse and swords. They caused such insults not only in one city or country, but in many. Such was Lucius in Alexandria, who caused so much harm to those who truly confessed the Son of God. Who among those who have Divine wisdom does not see their actions together every day, namely how they publicly preach that the Son of God is a creature, and the Holy Spirit a creature, completely alien to the Divine essence? As for Eudoxius, from the time that George of Alexandria ended his life so shamefully, he received primacy and enjoyed the favor of those in power. Eudoxius, who belonged to the party of Hypatius and Eunomius, stood in plain sight with the help of servility, but was exposed, but in secret he did not stop philosophizing in accordance with the Anomeae. He brought forward those who had once been expelled for such an abyss of wickedness, namely: Dethmophilus, Hypatius and Eunomius, disciples of Aetius, who was appointed deacon by George of Alexandria and was once expelled to the Taurian region, from whom the Anomian teaching originated. From this one thorny substance and from one root, like offspring, arose both various schisms and their evil faith, which, with the interpretations of their evil heresy perverted at different times, extending more and more for the worse, spewed out poison throughout the whole world. But we will talk about the Anomeev sect later. And now, thinking that enough has already been said about this, we, having struck and pushed away, as it were, a terrible serpent and trampled down his slain one, will turn to the following heresies, calling upon God to help us to complete the undertaking. Against the Doukhobors, 54th (74th) From these Half-Aryans and from the Orthodox, some strange people degenerated, consisting of two breeds and half-beasts in the genus of Centaurs, or Pans, or Sirens, as the writers of fables presented them to us. Some of them descended from Arius and recognize the Son not entirely as a creature, but as a Son who came into being without flight. And time, in their opinion, is, of course, that which has flowed from the creation of heaven to the present day. In fact, they do not deviate from the opinion first expounded by Arius, namely, that there was a time when the Son did not exist. Saying that He exists before all times and that all things were created by Him, they at the same time blaspheme the Holy Spirit. Others, thinking correctly and orthodoxly about the Son, namely that He was always with the Father and never ceased to exist, but was born without beginning and without flight from the Father, blaspheme the Holy Spirit, not classifying Him in Divinity with the Father and the Son. We have discussed this many times and in each heresy we have presented a lot of direct evidence that He is called Lord along with the Father and the Son. For the Spirit of the Lord fills the world (Wisdom 1:7), the Spirit of truth, the Spirit of God (John 16:13; Rom.8:9). He is called the Spirit of the Lord (Luke 4:18), proceeding from the Father (John 15:26) and receiving from the Son (16:14), bestowing gifts in various ways as He wills (1 Cor. 12:11), testing the depths of God (1 Cor. 2:10), being with the Father and the Son, baptizing, sealing, perfecting imprinted. However, so that I do not take on the work here again, I will offer what I have already said in a large essay on faith, written in Pamphylia, to refute the blasphemers of the Holy Spirit, for the teaching of readers and for the joy of those worthy of the Holy Spirit. Here it is. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ has appeared, punishing us, so that, having rejected ungodliness and worldly lusts, we may live chastely, piously and righteously in this present world, awaiting the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ, Who gave Himself to eat for us, that He might deliver us from all iniquity and purify for ourselves a chosen people, zealous for good deeds ( Titus 2:11-15), having destroyed the handwriting against us by the scholars, which was not contrary to us, he was taken out of the midst, nailing it to the cross: he dragged away the principalities and powers, brought them to shame with boldness, exposing them to himself (Col. 2:14,15), and smashed the gates of brass and broke the ropes of iron (Ps. 106:16), then showed the light of life, stretching out his hands, guiding, pointing to the ladder to heaven and deigning to dwell in paradise again. So He dwelled in us (John 1:6) and gave us justification by the law of the Spirit, so that we might know Him, or about Him, which is the beginning and the end of life. The law of righteousness, the law of faith, the law of the spirit, free from the law of the sinful flesh, has appeared to us. Therefore I delight in the law of God according to the inner man (Rom. 7:22); Christ is within us, if he dwells in us. But having died, He became for us the way of life, so that those who live live not for themselves, but for Him who died for us and rose again (2 Cor. 5:15) the author of life. He remembered the oath that he had sworn for many years, according to David (Ps. 88:4). God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their sins to them (2 Cor. 5:19), as he deigned that all fulfillment should dwell in him, and thereby reconcile everything to himself, having pacified it with the blood of the cross (Col. 1:19). So He came to watch the fulfillment of the times, as it was announced to Abraham and the other saints, to preside over all things in Him, both in heaven and on earth (Eph. 1:10). During the long-suffering of God, there was discord and enmity, but He reconciled in the body of his flesh (Col. 1:22), making both one (Eph. 2:14). For our world has come, destroying the mediastinum of the fence, having destroyed enmity with its flesh, having abolished the law of the commandments of the teachings, so that it might create both into one new man (15); He commanded that the tongue be an heir, a steward, and a partaker of the promise (Eph. 3:6), saying: Come to me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest (Matthew 11:18). And so, when I was weak in the flesh, the Savior was sent to me in the likeness of the flesh of sin (Rom. 8:3), fulfilling such a dispensation, in order to redeem me from slavery, corruption and death. And righteousness and sanctification and deliverance came to me (1 Cor. 1:30): righteousness, because by the power of faith I destroyed sin; sanctification, because He freed me by water and by the Spirit and by His word; deliverance, because he gave himself and his true lamb’s blood as a ransom for me, for the cleansing of the world, for the reconciliation of all things in heaven and on earth (Col. 1:20), fulfilling at a certain time the mystery hidden from time immemorial and from generation to generation (26). He will transform the body of our humility, so that it will be consistent with its glory, according to its action, which can enable and subdue all things (Phil. 3:21): for in this lives all the fulfillment of the physical Divinity (Col. 2:9). So the friend of wisdom and Divinity is Christ, who intercedes and reconciles everything in Himself to God, who does not impute sin (2 Cor. 5:19), who fulfills the hidden mysteries, with faith in His covenant, foretold by the law and the prophets, is proclaimed as the Son of God and is called the Son of David. For both: God and man was the intercessor of God and men (1 Tim. 2:5), the true house of God, the holy priesthood (1 Peter 2:5), the dispenser of the Spirit, regenerating and renewing all things to God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt in us, and we saw his glory, like the glory of the only begotten from the Father (John 1:6). Just as rain, penetrating trees and plants, gives them a body and fruit in accordance with nature, so that in an olive tree there is fatty oil in accordance with its essence, and in grapes there is sweet wine, on a fig tree sweet figs grow, and in each seed, according to its type, vegetation multiplies: so, I think, the Word of God became flesh in Mary and in the seed of Abraham, according to the promise, man was revealed. Found the Messiah about whom Moses wrote (John 1:45). And Moses said: Let my message come down like rain, and like drops falling on the earth (Deut. 32:2); let it fall like dew on the fleece (Ps. 71:6). Wool that receives dew increases the splendor of the fleece, and the earth that receives rain increases the hope of the farmer to produce fruit by accepting the rain, at the command of the Lord, giving the plants strong growth, and longs to receive even more rain from Him. So did the Virgin Mary when she said: how do I know that this will happen to me? I heard in response: The Spirit of the Lord will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you: likewise, what is born of you will be holy, and will be called the Son of the Most High (Luke 1:34,35). Christ speaks in the person of an Angel and forms himself in his own form as a Master, taking on the form of a servant (Phil. 2:7). And Mary will receive the Word at conception as the earth receives rain. And God, who accepts the nature of a mortal, reveals himself as a holy fruit. From the Virgin, like the earth and the fleece that received Him, came this fruit of the true hope and expectation of the saints, as Elizabeth said: blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb (Luke 1:42). All this was accepted by the human nature of the Word, which suffered, being impassive. He is the living bread that came down from heaven (John 6:51) and gives life. He is the fruit of the true olive tree, the anointing oil and composition that Moses transformed (Ex. 30:25.37). He is the true vine (John 15:2), which is cultivated by the Father alone, who bore us grapes of joy. He is living water, which a thirsty man, having received, never thirsts again, but it abides in his belly, flowing into the eternal belly (John 4:13,14). Having accepted the offspring from Him, the new farmers handed it over to the world, and the old farmers tore it out and destroyed it through unbelief. He sanctifies the nations with his blood; He leads those who are called to heaven by the eternal Spirit. Those who are led by His Spirit (Rom. 8:14), those who live for God, but those who do not are doomed to death and are called natural or carnal (1 Cor. 2:14). So He destroys the works of the flesh, which are the stronghold of sin, and by His grace He mortifies the members of death. He commands us to receive the Holy Spirit, which we did not have, who gives life to me, who died of old, and which, if I do not receive, I will die. For without His Spirit everyone is dead. Therefore, if His Spirit is in us, He raised Him from the dead and will give life to our dead bodies through His living Spirit in us (Rom. 8:11). But I think that both, Christ and His Spirit, dwell in the righteous man. If it is believed that Christ is from the Father, that is, God is from God, and that His Spirit is from Christ, or from both (as Christ says: whoever comes from the Father comes and also: He will receive from what is mine (John 15:26–16:14), 334 and Christ is from the Holy Spirit (for it is said by the voice of an Angel: that which is born in her of the Spirit is Holy (Matthew 1:20): then the sacrament that redeemed me I mean by faith and single hearing and love for Him who has come to me, Christ proclaims Himself, the Holy Spirit reveals Himself to be worthy. In the Holy Scriptures the Trinity is proclaimed to us with faith, when we hear the symbols, without searching, without dispute. From faith itself, grace-filled salvation is true without the works of the law, as it is written (Rom. 3:22); Gal.2:16): from the hearing of faith the Spirit of Christ is given to those who are being saved. The Catholic faith, as I think taught from the Scriptures, is expressed in the language of the preachers like this: three holy, three together holy, three existing, three existing together, three shaped, three conformable, three acting, three acting together, three hypostatic, three co-hypostatic, united with each other. This Trinity is called Holy, in which there are three persons, but one agreement, one Divinity, the same power, the same essence, like from like, in which the equality of the same grace of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit operates. And how it is, it is left to Him to teach. No one knows the Father except the Son, nor the Son except the Father, and even if the Son reveals him (Matthew 11:27); reveals through the Holy Spirit. So these three expressions, either from Him, or from Him, or from Him, are thought in a worthy manner in relation to Each, as Persons reveal Themselves. Such are light, fire, spirit and other similar names for visible objects, as the person who deals with this is able to understand. That God, who at the beginning said: let there be light, and let this visible light be, has enlightened us to see the true light, which enlightens every man coming into the world (John 1:9). Send your light and your truth, says David (Ps. 42:3). The Lord Himself said: in the last days I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and their daughters will prophesy and their young men will see visions (Joel 2:28; Acts 2:17). Here the prophet shows us three faces of holy service, since from the hypostasis the third hypostasis arises. Therefore I say that Christ, the minister of the circumcision according to the truth of God, may fulfill the promises (Rom. 15:8). And that the Holy Spirit serves together with Him, we received this from the Divine Scriptures. Christ is sent from the Father, and the Holy Spirit is also sent. Christ speaks in the saints, and the Holy Spirit speaks. Christ heals, and the Holy Spirit heals. Christ sanctifies, and the Holy Spirit sanctifies. Christ baptizes in His name, and the Holy Spirit also baptizes. This is what the Scriptures say: send forth Your Spirit and renew the face of the earth (Ps. 103:30); this is similar to the words: I finish your word and I fade away (Ps. 147:7). To those who serve the Lord, it is said, and to those who fast, the Holy Spirit says: Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work for which I called them (Acts 13:2); this is similar to the words: the Lord said: go into the city and there it is said that you should do, they were sent by the Holy Spirit, descending into Seleucia (Acts 9: 6; 13: 4). Likewise, Christ says: Behold, I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves (Matthew 10:16). The Holy Spirit was pleased to impose no other burdens than these needy ones (Acts 15:28): like this it is said: I say not I, but the Lord: a wife shall not separate from her husband (1 Cor. 7:10). They passed through Phrygia and the Galatian country, forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak a word in Asia, but having come to Mysia, I tried to go to Bithynia and the Holy Spirit did not forsake them (Acts 16:6,7). Likewise, Christ said: as you go, baptize all languages ​​(Matthew 28:19), and do not carry a feast, a staff, or boots (Luke 9:3; 10:4). And it is said that Paul commanded by the Spirit not to go up to Jerusalem, and Agabus said: Thus saith the Holy Spirit: The man whose belt is (Acts 21:4.11). This is similar to what Paul said: because you are tempted, seek Christ speaking in me (2 Cor. 13:3); or: remember the words of the Lord, as he himself said: it is better to give than to receive (Acts 20:35). And again: now I am bound by the Spirit to come (v. 22). Likewise it is said: Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ (Phil. 1:1). Just as the Spirit bears witness to me throughout all the cities (Acts 20:23). This is similar to the words: The Lord is my witness, that I do not lie (Gal.1:20). The words: in power according to the Spirit of holiness (Rom. 1:4) are similar to what was said: Holy One, rest in the saints (Is. 57:15). The words: and circumcision of the heart by the Spirit (Rom. 2:29) are like the words: and he was circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of sin, in the circumcision of Christ (Col. 2:11). The words: if the Spirit of God dwells in you (1 Cor. 3:16) are like the words: as you have eaten Christ, walk in him (Col. 2:6). And again: The Spirit of the Lord is in me and His word is in my mouth (2 Samuel 23:2). Also, the words: the firstfruits of the Spirit (Rom.8:23) are similar to the words: the firstfruits of Christ (1 Cor.15:23). The words: but the Spirit himself intercedes for us (Rom. 8:26) are similar to the words: who is at the right hand of God, who intercedes for us (v. 34). The words: let the offering of the tongue be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 15:16) are similar to the words: The Lord sanctify you, that you may be pure and without stumbling on the day of the Lord (1 Thess. 5:23; Phil. 1:10). The words: He revealed to us to eat by His Spirit (1 Cor. 2:10) are similar to the words: When it pleased God, who chose me from my mother’s womb, by His grace to reveal His Son in me (Gal. 1:15,16). The words: we do not receive the spirit of the world, but the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:12) are similar to the words: test yourselves whether Christ is in you (2 Cor. 13:5). The words: you are the church of God and the Spirit of God lives in you (1 Cor. 3:16) are similar to the words: I will dwell in them and walk around, and I will be their God and these will be my people (2 Cor. 6:16). Scripture produces justification and grace from both (i.e., from Christ and the Holy Spirit): justified by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God (1 Cor. 6:11). In a similar way it is said: having been justified by faith, peace be upon God by our Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:1). No one can speak of the Lord Jesus except by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3). And one more thing: no one can receive the Holy Spirit except from the Lord (John 20:22); divisions of gifts are, and the same is the Spirit and divisions of ministries, and the same is God, working all in all (1 Cor. 12:4-6). And again: from glory to glory, even as from the Spirit of the Lord (2 Cor. 3:18). And also the words: do not offend the Holy Spirit, by whom you are marked on the day of deliverance (Eph. 4:30) are similar to the words: if we provoke the Lord, food is stronger than him (1 Cor. 10:22)? The words: The Spirit clearly speaks (1 Tim. 4:1) are similar to the words: this says the Lord Almighty (Hag. 2:6). The words: My Spirit will abide in the midst of you (ibid.) are similar to the words: if anyone opens to me, I and the Father will make an abode with him (Apoc. 3:20; John 14:23). Isaiah says: and the Spirit of God is upon him (Is. 11:2), and Christ says: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me for the sake of anointing me (Luke 4:18); and also: Jesus of Nazareth, whom God anointed with the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:38): or: The Lord sent me and his Spirit (Isaiah 48:16). The voice of the Seraphim is clear, crying out: Holy, Holy, Lord of hosts (Is. 6:3). If you hear the following expressions: he was exalted by the right hand of God and received the promise of the Spirit from the Father (Acts 2:33), or: wait for the promise of the Father, even if you heard (Acts 1:4), or: the Spirit led him into the wilderness (Mark 1:12), or, as Christ himself says: do not worry about what you say, for the Spirit will speak in you ( Matthew 10:19,20), or: if I cast out demons through the Spirit of God (Matthew 12:28), or whoever blasphemes the Holy Spirit, there is no remission, and so on (Mark 3:29), or: Father! in your hands I commend my spirit (Luke 23:46), or: growing up as a child and strengthened by the Spirit (Luke 1:80), Jesus, filled with the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan (Luke 4:1), Jesus returned by the power of the Spirit (Luke 4:14), or: what is born of the Spirit is spirit (John 3:6), - then all these expressions are similar to the following: in that belly (John 1:4), or: I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Comforter, the Spirit of truth (John 14:16), or: Ananias! Because Satan caused your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and then: you did not lie to man, but to God (Acts 5:3,4). This means that the Holy Spirit is God from God and God to whom the villages withheld the price lied. And again: He appeared in the flesh and was justified in Dus (1 Tim. 3:16). I have nothing more to say than this. And the Son is God; The Apostle says: From them is Christ according to the flesh, who is God above all (Rom. 9:5). It also says: Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved. And he spoke the word of the Lord to them, and I brought them into my house, set a table for them, and the whole house rejoiced, believing God. (Acts 16:31,32.34). Or: in the beginning there was the Word and the Word was to God and God was the Word (John 1:1). Or: let the teachings of our Savior beautified (Titus 2:16). Or: the grace of our Lord and Savior Christ appeared to all mankind, punishing us; waiting for the blessed hope and the manifestation of the glory of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ (vv. 11:13). Or: this is the ministry of the Spirit and the Word: take heed, it is said, to yourselves and to all the flock, in whom the Holy Spirit has appointed bishops to shepherd the church of God (Acts 20:28). This is similar to the words: I give thanks to Christ Jesus our Lord who strengthens me, because He was faithful, putting me in service (1 Tim. 1:12). So the Son and the Holy Spirit, as proven, act together with the Father: by the Word of the Lord the heavens were established, and by the Spirit of his mouth all their power (Ps. 33:9). We worship the Holy Spirit, for those who worship God must worship in the Spirit and in truth (John 4:24). If truth acts together with the Spirit, then creation does not produce creation, neither the Divinity is created, nor God is known as limited in measure or volume; for He is indescribable, cannot be contained, cannot be comprehended, but embraces all the works of God. But one should not render service to the creature: for having served the creature more than the creator, he became a fool (Rom. 1:25). Indeed: how foolish is it not for a creature to attribute deity and violate the commandment of the Father, which says: Hear unto Israel, the Lord thy God is one, there shall not be a new God to thee (Deut. 6:4; Ps. 80:10)? In the holy Scriptures the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are called by different names; The Father is called the Almighty Father, the Father of all, the Father of Christ, and the Lord is called the Word, Christ, the Son, the true light. The Holy Spirit is the Comforter, the Spirit of truth, the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ. So what? And God the Father is, of course, like light, but like light, excessively brilliant, like power and wisdom. If God the Father is light, then the Son is light from light and therefore in the living light is unapproachable (1 Tim. 6:26). God in general is power, and therefore is the Lord of powers. God is also wisdom, and thus the Son is wisdom from wisdom, in whom all the treasures of wisdom are hidden (Col. 2:3). God is also life, therefore the Son is life from life: I am the truth and the life (John 14:6). The Holy Spirit is from both, spirit from spirit. The Spirit is God, the Divine, the dispenser of gifts, the truest, the enlightening, the comforting, the announcer of the will of the Father. For just as the Son is a great angel of counsel (Is. 9:6), so is the Holy Spirit. We, it is said, have received the Spirit of God, that we may know that which is given to us by God, which we speak not in the wisdom of those who have been taught, but in the manifestation of the Spirit of God, discerning the spiritual by spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:12,13). But someone will say: So we say that there are two Sons? How can this be when the Son is the only begotten? Moreover, who are you who answers against God (Rom. 9:20)? If Scripture calls the Son who came from the Father, and the Holy Spirit from both, then these three persons, understood as saints only by faith, luminous and givers of light, have educational activities and, in the light of faith, maintain agreement with the Father himself. Listen: the Father truly is the Father of the Son, the whole light, and the Son is the Son of the true Father, light from light, not like created or created beings only in name, and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth - the third light from the Father and the Son. The rest are all called sons by adoption, or by comparison, or by calling, and not by an action similar to the action of the Son, or by strength, or by light, or by thought, as it is said: sons have begotten and raised up (Is. 1:2), or: I am God of nature and sons of all the Most High (Ps. 82:6), or: he who has begotten drops of dew (Job 38:28), or: the whole fatherland in heaven and on earth is worthless (Eph. 3:15), or: I establish the thunder and create the wind (Am. 4:13). The True Father did not begin to be a Father in the same way as other fathers or patriarchs, and will never cease to be a Father. For if He began to be the Father, then the Son would once have been the son of another father before the Father of the Only Begot existed. Like fathers, children are thought of as fathers, and to discover the true Father-ancestor one must go to infinity. And the true Son did not just begin to be a Son, like other children by adoption. If He began to be the Son, then there was once a time when the Father of the Only Begotten did not exist. And the Spirit of truth is not a created or produced being, like other spirits. And the angel of great counsel (Isa.9:6) is not called in the same sense as other angels. They have a beginning and an end, and They (the Son and the Holy Spirit) have incomprehensible power and authority. They created everything, cooperating with the Father for endless ages, and created everything as they pleased. The created things serve Them and all creatures honor Them. They heal their creations, and these receive healing from them. They are judged according to their deserts, and They carry out righteous judgment. They exist in time, and They are outside of time. They enlighten everyone, and They are enlightened. They call babies to the heights, and they are called from the Perfect One. They give to everyone, they receive gifts. And in general to say: they sing holiness in the heavens of heavens and in other invisible places, and They, worthily hymned, give gifts to the worthy. Scripture speaks of many spirits: angels make their spirits and their servants a flame of fire (Ps. 103:4); and again: all spirits praise the Lord (Ps. 150:6). The gifts of discerning of spirits are given to the worthy (1 Cor. 12:10). Some spirits are heavenly, rejoicing in the truth, others are earthly, subject to deception and error, others are underground, children of the abyss and darkness: and I pray to him, says the Gospel, that he will not send them into the abyss (Luke 8:34). In the same way, Christ commanded the spirits and cast out the spirits with a word and did not allow them to speak (Mark 1:25). It also speaks about the spirit of judgment and the spirit of heat (Ps. 4:4), it also speaks about the spirit of the world: we do not receive the spirit of the world (1 Cor. 2:12), and about the spirit of man: who knows what is in man, even the spirit of man living in him (v. 11). The spirit that walks and does not return is also mentioned (Ps. 77:39): the spirit passes through it and is not (Ps. 103:16); and again: take away their spirit and they will disappear (Ps. 103:29). And one more thing: souls obey the prophecies of the prophet (1 Cor. 14:22). And again: behold, there is a lying spirit before the Lord, and the Lord said to him: In what way will you deceive Achaab? And he said: I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of the prophets (1 Kings 22:21,22). Mention is also made of the spirit of compunction (Rom. 11:8), the spirit of fear (1 Tim. 1:7), the spirit of inquisitiveness (Acts 16:16), the spirit of wickedness (Hos. 4:12), a stormy spirit (Ps. 10:6), a loud spirit (Job 8:2), a sick spirit (Luke 13:11), an unclean spirit, a deaf spirit, a mute spirit (Mark 9:25), a humming spirit (Mark 7:32), a fierce spirit, which is called legion (Matt. 8:28; Luke 8:30), and finally the spirits of evil (Eph.6:11). Smart people will find countless testimonies about spirits. But just as there are many sons by adoption, or by name, and not true ones, who are inclined to sin, because they have a beginning and an end, so there are very many spirits by adoption or by name, who are inclined to sin. But the Holy Spirit is the one spirit from the Father and the Son, the true Spirit, the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of grace. Each good is given differently: to the spirit of wisdom, to the spirit of understanding, to the spirit of power, to the spirit of healing, to the spirit of prophecy, to the spirit of knowledge, to the spirit of knowledge, other gifts, as the Apostle says: there is one and the same Spirit, dividing as He wills (1 Cor. 12:8-11). And David says: Your good Spirit will guide me (Ps. 142:10); or: The Spirit, where it wills, breathes (John 3:8). With these words, Scripture points us to the truth of the Holy Spirit: you hear his voice, but do not know where it comes from and where it goes. And also the words: unless you are born of water and the Spirit are similar to the words of Paul: in Christ Jesus have you been born (1 Cor. 4:15). About the Spirit, the Lord said: When the Comforter comes, whom I will send to you, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he testifies about me. (John 15:26). And the imam has many more words to say, but you cannot bear them now, but when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you into all the truth: not from yourself, for he has spoken, but when he hears, he has spoken, and the one who comes will tell you. He will glorify me because he will receive what is mine, and will tell you everything (John 16:12–14). So, if the Spirit proceeds from the Father and receives from Mine, as the Lord says, then just as no one knows the Father except the Son, nor the Son except the Father (Matthew 11:27), and the Spirit, I dare say, no one knows except the Son, from whom He receives, and the Father, from whom He proceeds, just as no one knows the Son and the Father, except the Holy Spirit, who truly glorifies Them, teaching testifying to everything about the Son, the Spirit, who is from the Father, who is from the Son, the only guide to the truth, the interpreter of holy laws, the expounder of the spiritual law, the mentor of the prophets, the teacher of the apostles, the illuminator of gospel dogmas, the selector of saints, the true light from the true light. And the Son is natural, the true Son, the legal Son, one from one; The Spirit is with Him, but is called the Spirit. This God is glorified in the church - always the Father, always the Son, and always the Holy Spirit, high from high and highest, having immeasurable reasonable glory, to whom is subordinated the created and created and everything in general that is subject to measurement and volume. But in Moses the One Deity is predominantly proclaimed, in the Prophets the Duality is predominantly preached, and in the Gospels the Trinity is revealed, which, according to times and generations, is more conducive to knowledge and faith for the righteous. This knowledge of immortality comes from faith itself, or sonhood. But first, it expresses the justifications of the flesh, as if erecting the outer fence of the church under Moses, and then it sets out the justifications of the soul in prophecies, as if decorating the Sanctuary, and thirdly it sets out the justifications of the spirit, in the Gospels, as if arranging for its own habitation a purgatory and the Holy of Holies. Instead of the holy tabernacle, the holy Church, we have one Righteous One dwelling in it. In Him dwells one incorruptible Deity, one inconceivable, incomprehensible, inexplicable, invisible Deity, one who knows himself, manifesting himself to whomever he wants, raising, predetermining, glorifying, raising from hell, sanctifying, uniting for his glory and faith these three: heavenly, earthly and underworld, spirit, soul, flesh, faith, hope, love, past, present, future, age of ages, ages of ages, Sabbaths of Sabbaths, circumcision of the flesh, circumcision of the heart, circumcision of Christ in putting off the body of sin (Col. 2:11). In general, the Divine purifies for itself everything invisible and visible, thrones, dominions, principles, authorities, powers. In everything is the same wisdom and holy voice, from glory to glory, proclaiming: holy, holy, holy (Is. 6:3), and proclaiming the Father in the Son, the Son in the Father with the Holy Spirit, to whom be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. And the believer will say this: let it be, let it be! This is what, in our humility, having written briefly about faith in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, we outlined and proposed from what we had previously said. Now, to strengthen our lives, let us continue to piously present evidence and, based on the direct meaning, expound the doctrine of the Divine. Many previous testimonies have proven that the Only Begotten acts together with the Father and does and bestows equally in everything, since He is from the Father and is not alien to the power and divinity of the Father, but is consubstantial with the Father. And not only the Son, but also the Holy Spirit acts together with the Son and the Father and equally accomplishes, bestows and encourages as He wants, since He also essentially comes from God and is not alien to the Father and the Son, but is consubstantial with the Father and the Son, and this is clear to everyone in all respects and has already been proven and will be proven by so many testimonies. And now, for the opponents and enemies of the Holy Spirit, having presented pious evidence from the direct meaning and testimony of the same Divine Scripture about the Holy Spirit alone, let us apply them in great detail to the previous testimonies, following the true teaching about the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the only one, worshiped by all, desired by all creatures and beings, not equaled with anyone, neither with an angel nor with another spirit, but the only one. For although there are many spirits, He is the highest of all spirits, since He exists eternally from the Father, and not from other beings that came from nothing. There are many spirits, but the Holy Spirit is one, just as there is one God and one only begotten Son of God. So is the Holy Spirit of God - from God and in God. The Only Begotten Son is incomprehensible, and the Spirit is incomprehensible; He is from God and is not alien to the Father and the Son. He is not in fusion with the Father and the Son, but the Trinity is eternally one and the same being, a being not other from the Divinity and the Divinity not other from the being, but the Divinity Itself, and from the same Divinity the Son and the Holy Spirit. And the Spirit is the Holy Spirit and the Son is the Son. The Spirit proceeds from the Father and receives from the Son, testing the depths of God, exalting the works of the Son in the world, sanctifying, making saints through the Trinity. By name He is the third, since the Trinity is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, as it is said: as you go, baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. He is the seal of grace, the union of the Trinity, not alien to sanctification, not distinguished by naming, not alien to the gift, but one God, one faith, one Lord, one grace, one church, one baptism. (Eph.4:5). The Trinity exists forever, as I have said many times, and the Trinity never receives addition: it is sweet to confess and speak without being satisfied. Sweet, says the Prophet, is your word to my throat (Ps. 119:103); and if words are sweet, then how much more so is the holy name: the Trinity, the source of all sweetness. The Trinity is numbered as follows: Father and Son and Holy Spirit. The Trinity is unmerged and is not separated from its unity, but in a perfect hypostasis - a perfect Father, a perfect Son, a perfect Holy Spirit, Father and Son and the Holy Spirit. And again: the Spirit disposes of gifts; divisions of gifts are, and the same is the Spirit, and divisions of ministries are, and the same is the Lord, and divisions of actions are, and the same is God, working all in all (1 Cor. 12:4-6). If so, then let us beware of falling away from the truth, but let us confess the truth, not interceding for God, but thinking piously, so as not to perish. For it is impossible to speak about the Trinity, or to think of anything created or natural, but the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit were eternal. The Son is not a brother of the Father and is not merged with Him, and the Spirit is neither merged nor a brother of the Father and the Son. But the Son was born of the Father and the Spirit came from the Father, and the Trinity inexplicably abides in the same glory, and the Son incomprehensibly exists also with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and the Trinity will never cease to be the same eternal. So the Father is eternally unbegotten and uncreated and incomprehensible; The Holy Spirit is always unborn, uncreated, not a brother, not a great-grandfather, not a grandson, but from the same being with the Father and the Son. Such is the Holy Spirit. Spirit is God. Evidence of our firm faith is found throughout Scripture. Of the many, I will, if possible, offer a few, so that in the present case I do not leave the doctrine of the Spirit without evidence. First of all, the Father speaks about the coming of the Son: I will put my Spirit on my side and proclaim judgment with my tongue (Is. 42:1). With these words He preaches the Holy Spirit as true God to all the faithful for salvation. The Only Begotten, adding to the same testimony, says: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, for the sake of anointing me (Is. 61:1). By this testimony of Christ about His fleshly coming, confirmed by the Holy Spirit and proclaimed to the faithful, it is clearly confessed that the Spirit is not alien to God. And the Lord also speaks about the Spirit: The Spirit of my Father speaks in you (Matthew 10:20). And again, in order to show that the Spirit is not alien to the Divinity of God, the Lord breathed into the faces of the disciples and said: receive the Holy Spirit (John 20:22). And again, in order to show His equality and oneness with His Holy Spirit and the Father, He says: if you love me, keep my commandments, I will pray the Father and He will give you another Comforter (John 14:15,16); as if the Lord Himself is the Comforter and the Holy Spirit is likewise the Comforter. The Apostles, showing that the Spirit is not a slave, but of one and the same Godhead, point to its independent dominion, saying: and the Holy Spirit said: set apart Barnabas and Saul for the work that they called, etc. (Acts 13:2). And the Apostle speaks clearly about Him: The Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom (2 Cor. 3:17); and one more thing: you are the church of God and the Spirit of the Lord lives in you (1 Cor. 3:16). And so, if we are called the church of God because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, then who will dare to reject the Spirit and alienate Him from the essence of God, when the Apostle clearly says that we have become the church of God because of the Holy Spirit indwelling the worthy? In what way will the Spirit, testing the depths of God, be alien to God? Do not tell me: he tests (1 Cor. 2:10), but does not yet know how some dare to blaspheme and destroy themselves. since they, too, must say about the Father, what is written about Him, namely, that He will experience the secret of the womb (Prov. 20:27). If you think ungodly, because about the Spirit the word “to know” is not added to the word: “to experience,” then you would begin to think ungodly about the Father, being forced to pronounce the same opinion about Him, because in relation to the Father, who tests the secret womb, it is not added that He knows. And there was no need to say this when the foreknowledge of God is clearly shown, and the perfect meaning is contained in the word: to test. Thus, the Spirit and the Son and the Father should be attributed to one knowledge and foreknowledge, since the Holy Trinity obviously has perfection and identity. And a lot can be said, about this, and a lot of evidence from the Divine Scripture can be cited, and thus bring work to the readers. But we, in refuting every heresy, said quite a lot, and by the power of God we refuted all the weak heresies, and proved that they are alien to the truth and each of them blasphemes and denies the truth either in small or in large ways. So they, in vain blaspheming against the Lord and the Holy Spirit, will not receive, according to the Lord, remission of sins either here or in the next century, (Matthew 12:32) being struck by the truth itself, as if by a terrible one-horned serpent. Such is the meaning of blasphemy that it can harm the entire body. And we believe the word of the Crucified One and the true confession of the Only Begotten, that whoever blasphemes against the Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the next, as I said. Trampled and defeated, they are powerless against the truth. All heresies are truly the gates of hell, but they will have no power against the stone, that is, the truth. If some of them wanted to say: we ourselves profess the faith set forth at the Council of Nicaea; show me, on its basis, that the Holy Spirit is numbered with the Divine, then they will be convicted by this faith. There was no research about the Spirit then. What is subject to research at a certain time, the councils formulate a firm definition of that. Since Arius extended blasphemy against the Son, therefore, the ranting about this took place with the utmost care. However, look at the confession itself: you will not find in it those who say anything blasphemous against the Spirit, Doukhobors or those who are alien to His gift and sanctification. For first of all, the presentation affirms the truth, and does not deny it: we believe in one God the Father, the Almighty; It’s not just said we believe, but we believe in God. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, it is not just said, but we believe in God. And in the Holy Spirit it is not just said, but into one glorification and into one union of the Divinity, and into one consubstantial, into three perfect ones, one Divinity, one essence, one glorification, one dominion, which is shown by the words: we believe, and we believe, and we believe. This refutes their teaching. And how long shall I continue to speak, when I consider what has been said against them to be sufficient for those who love the truth? Therefore, I will leave this heresy, praying to God to grant us the usual help to refute all of them, so that, by His power, having accomplished what was promised, we may thank Him for everything. Against Aeriya, 55th (75th) Another certain Aerius also created great evil in the world, having gone mad in mind and exalted in thought. Every heresy occurred due to the evil intent of people who appeared from the beginning until recently, or as a result of vanity, or pride, or the passion of lust, or envy of others, or ardor, or recklessness. All this blindness is from the devil, not because the devil has the power to deceive someone who does not want to, but because everyone becomes guilty of committing sin for himself, but in temptation, as the Apostle says, manifestations happen (1 Cor. 11:19). This Aerius is still alive: he is completely Arian, he thinks no differently from Arius, and has even surpassed Arius in his thoughts. He is sharp-tongued and armed with words to such an extent that he attracted to himself crowds of the deceived and many people scratched in hearing (1 Tim. 4:3) and loose in mind. He invented a lot of fabulous and empty things, and although this made smart people laugh, he nevertheless deceived and captivated many. He was a companion of Eustathius, bishop of Sebastia, which is in the region called Pontus, or lesser Armenia. The aforementioned Eustathius and Aerius labored together. When Eustathius was elevated to the episcopate, Aerius really wanted the same, but did not achieve it. This is where envy arose. Eustathius seemed to be attached to Aerius: he soon made him a presbyter and entrusted him with a hospice house, which in Pontus is called a poor hospital. Such houses are set up by the heads of churches out of love for welcoming strangers, and they place crippled and infirm people there and provide them with maintenance if possible. Since Aerius’s indignation did not go away, daily discord and discontent arose between him and Eustathius: unkind words and slander came from Aerius against Eustathius. Bishop Eustathius, having summoned Aerius, caressed him, admonished him, threatened him, scolded him, advised him, but could do nothing. What had been arranged at first began to fall into great disorder. Finally, leaving the poor shelter, Aerius retired. From then on, wanting to find some pretext against Eustathius, as against an enemy, or to shoot an arrow at him, as at an enemy, he scouted and, finally, slandering Eustathius to everyone, said: he is no longer like that, but has become inclined to collect money and all kinds of property. Such were the slander from Aerius. Eustathius, indeed, having church needs in his hands, could not act otherwise, and the words of Aerius seemed plausible. Maybe someone will think why, speaking against Aerius, we expose Eustathius, do we not consider Eustathius worthy of praise? Many people are surprised by his life and behavior. Oh, if only he thought correctly in relation to faith! But he himself adhered to Arius from beginning to end, and the sorrows of persecution did not correct him. For he was expelled along with Basil, Eleusius and others. It seems that Liberius also went to the blessed Pope of Rome in an embassy along with other bishops and signed the exposition of the Council of Nicea and the Orthodox Confession. But then, as if having come to his senses and having risen from sleep, he again turned to Arian evil. However, we are talking about Aeria, so we must turn to him again. For these reasons, Aerius refuses control. Leaving the poor house, he attracted many men and women to himself and withdrew with them from churches, fields, villages and cities. Often this multitude of people spent time in the fields, in the open air, covered in snow, hiding under rocks and running away into the forests. Aerius's teaching was so crazy that a person cannot imagine. He said: “What is a bishop in comparison with a presbyter? He is no different from him: one rank, one honor and one dignity for both; the bishop lays hands, the presbyter also lays hands, the bishop teaches forgiveness, the presbyter also teaches; the dispensation of ministry is carried out by the bishop, and the same by the presbyter; the bishop sits on the throne, and the presbyter also sits.” Thus He deceived many who mistook Him for a leader. He also said: “What is Easter, which is celebrated among you? After all, you will follow the fables of the Jews; We should not celebrate Easter, because Christ was devoured for us (1 Cor. 5:7).” Then he also said: “On what basis do you remember the names of the dead after death? If a living person prays and gives away his property, what good does it do to the deceased? If the prayer of those here is useful for those there, then let no one live piously and do good, but let him make friends for himself in any way, even by winning them over with money, or before his death he will beg his friends, and they will pray for him, so that he does not suffer there and is not tortured for the grave sins he has committed. And the post was established unnecessarily. This was instituted by the Jews under the yoke of slavery: for the law does not lie with the righteous, but with a troubled father and mother and the rest (1 Tim. 1:9). If I want to fast, I will choose a day myself and fast freely.” Therefore, it is customary for the Aerians to fast more on Sundays, and to eat food on Wednesdays and Fridays. Often, however, they fast on Wednesdays, though not by prescription, but by their own free will. And on the days of Easter, 335 when we have slumbers, observance of cleanliness, ill-suffering, dry eating, prayers, vigils and fasts and all sorts of soul-saving memories of the holy passions, they will buy meat and wine from early morning and, having filled their stomachs, laugh loudly, mocking those who perform holy service on the week of Easter. Although they lead a hermit’s lifestyle, they have no asceticism, and they adhere to meat-eating and wine-drinking a lot, and only very few among them, of their own free will, wish to live differently. But most of them eat abundant food, meat dishes and drink wine, as I have said many times. This is what Aerius spewed into the world. His thoughts and unbelief are also revealed in the insane teaching that his evilness introduced among people. Let us proceed to refute it and, having said a little, leave it. That everything about him is full of recklessness is clear to those with intelligence. He says that a bishop and a presbyter are one and the same. How is this possible? The episcopal rank gives birth to fathers for the church, and the presbyteral rank, being unable to give birth to fathers, gives birth to children for the church through the bath of regeneration, and not fathers or teachers. And how can you supply to an elder who does not have the right to ordain? Or how can a presbyter be called equal to a bishop? Aerius was seduced by his mockery and envy. To deceive himself and his listeners, he presents what the Apostle writes to elders and deacons and does not write to bishops. He says to the bishop: do not neglect your gift that lives in you, which you received through the hands of the priesthood (1 Tim. 4:14). And in another place he addresses bishops and deacons (Phil. 1:1): this means that a bishop is the same as a presbyter. And this person, who does not know the sequence of truth and has not studied ancient history, does not understand that the holy Apostle wrote according to random circumstances, when preaching was still young: where bishops had already been installed, he wrote to bishops and deacons. The apostles could not suddenly arrange everything; There was a need, first of all, for elders and deacons, and through these two degrees it was possible to perform church duties. And where there was no one worthy of the bishopric, there remained a place without a bishop; Where there was a need and there were people worthy of bishoprics, bishops were appointed there. Since there were few people and there was no one among them to appoint as presbyters, they were content with one local bishop. And without a deacon it is impossible for a bishop to be. Therefore, the holy Apostle took care that the bishop had deacons to serve. The Church had not yet received a complete structure, which is why its position was such at that time. In every business, not everything is there from the beginning, but over time everything is arranged to satisfy needs. In the Old Testament, Moses is sent to Egypt with one rod. When he entered Egypt, Aaron, his brother, sent from God, joined him. Then, when his brother received confidence from him, at that time the elders and leaders of the people gathered to him. After this, when the matter was established and his forces increased, he crossed the sea. And they were not yet under the law until the Lord called Moses to the mountain. He gives him the tablets and shows him how to build the tabernacle, and appoint leaders, leaders of tens, leaders of fifties, leaders of hundreds, leaders of thousands (Ex. 18:25). Do you see how things are gradually expanding? See, says the Lord, that you create everything in the image shown to you on Mount Sinai (25:40). You see how the law added: a seven-branched lamp, long priestly vestments, bells and cassocks, amices and heads, withered and a combination of various stones, bowls, incense, lavers, altars, dishes, masmarof, i.e. sprinklers, midikof, i.e. mugs, mahonof, i.e. bases 336 and the rest of what the law says, cherubim and other things, the ark of the covenant, the bier and the rings, the tabernacle, the coverings and scarlet skins, hinges, etc., the door guards, the forged and curved pipes, gold and silver, copper and horn, and everything else that the law says, various sacrifices and institutions. Since this did not exist at the beginning, is it possible that after all this was introduced, the matter did not receive a device? This is how we should judge what is written by the Apostle, namely, that such was the order until the church spread, until it came to its measure, until the rational order was very correctly established by the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This is how the teaching of Aerius falls. And that a bishop cannot be the same as a presbyter, the Divine Word of the Holy Apostle teaches about this, who exactly is a bishop and who is a presbyter. He says to Timothy, the former bishop: do not do dirty tricks to the elder (presbyter), but comfort him, as he would his father (1 Tim. 5:1). Why is it instilled in the bishop not to do dirty tricks to the presbyter, if he did not have authority above the presbyter? And he also says: blasphemy against the presbyter was not accepted quickly, unless in the presence of two or three witnesses. (19) He did not say to any of the presbyters: they did not accept blasphemy against the bishop, and did not write that any of the presbyters did not accuse the bishop. Do you see how great is the fall of anyone shaken by the devil? Let us look and consider other parts of his teaching. And first of all, let's talk about Easter. He quotes the words: Our Easter was devoured and Christ was quickly devoured. Let's see if the one who said this celebrated Passover. It is said: being anxious, let him celebrate Pentecost in Jerusalem (Acts 20:15). What Pentecost would Paul have celebrated if he had not celebrated the Passover? Who in all the countries of the universe will not agree that Wednesday and Friday is a fast established in the church? If we need to talk about the Apostolic Decrees, then why is fasting prescribed there on Wednesdays and Fridays, excluding Pentecost? And regarding the six days of Passover 337 why do they command that absolutely nothing should be taken except bread, salt and water? And what day to celebrate and how to allow fasting on the coming Sunday is obvious to everyone. Which of them is more knowledgeable? Is it a deceived person who has just appeared and is still living, or are the witnesses who lived before us, who held the church tradition before us, who received it from their fathers, who also learned from those who lived before them, just as the church still holds the true faith and traditions, having received them from its Fathers? So again Aerius’s opinion about Easter falls. If the Apostles had not spoken about this subject, i.e., Wednesdays and heels in the Constitutions, then we would have had other evidence from everywhere. However, they write about this exactly. And the church accepted this, and agreement followed throughout the world before Aerius and from him the Aerians appeared. It seems that he received his name justly: for he has an unclean spirit, from the airy (ἀερίων) spirits of malice that settled in him to fight the church. Then, as for the remembrance of the names of the departed, what could be more useful than this, what is more opportune and more amazing than the faith of living people, that those who have departed are alive and have not turned into non-existents, but exist and live with the Lord, that in this way the pious teaching is conveyed that there is hope for those who pray for the brethren, as if they had set out on a journey. The prayer offered for them is useful, although it does not eliminate all guilt, because it is useful because living in the world, we often stumble involuntarily and voluntarily, and in order to identify what is more perfect. We remember both the righteous and sinners, sinners because we ask them for mercy from God, and the righteous, fathers, prophets, apostles, evangelists, martyrs, confessors, bishops and hermits and their entire order, in order to honor the Lord Jesus Christ, separate him from the order of people and give him respect, having in mind that the Lord is incomparable with any of the people, even if each of the people had countless deeds righteousness. For what comparison can there be when one is God, the other is man, one in heaven, the other on earth with the remains of the body left on earth, except for those who rose up and entered the palace, as the Holy Gospel says: many bodies of the saints arose and went down with Him into the holy city (Matthew 27:52,53). What holy city is this talking about? The speech here refers to both cities - the one here and the one above. That they first ascended with Him to the local Jerusalem is clear. But before the Savior ascended into heaven, no one ascended there until they ascended with Him: no one ascended into heaven except the Son of Man who came down from heaven (John 3:13). But we have indicated two opinions about this in our place. And if anyone says whether it is true that He ascended in Jerusalem, let him know that on that day the Lord appeared with the closed door, where he gathered the disciples and said to them: Peace be with you (John 20:19). But I will return again to what I spoke about in order, namely, that the church necessarily performs this commemoration, having received tradition from the fathers. Who can break a mother's commandment, or a father's law? Solomon says: Hear, son, the words of your father, and do not deny your mother’s commandments (Prov. 1:8). These words show that the Father, that is, God and the Only Begotten and the Holy Spirit, taught both in writing and not in writing, and that our mother church had covenants laid down in her, indestructible, incapable of being destroyed. That these covenants were established in the church and are all beautiful and amazing - of this again we convinced the most erring one. Having left him and crushed him with firm church teaching and the power of God like a beetle, or a fly, or a gadfly, let us move on to the next heresies, calling on God for help. Against Anomeev, 56th (76th) There are also some heretics called Anomeans. They just appeared. Their leader was a certain deacon Aetius, promoted to this rank for his talkativeness by George of Alexandria, a former bishop of the Arians and Meletians. During the time of Julian, as I showed above, George was solemnly carried around the city on a camel; At first he was surrounded by pagans and suffered a lot from them, solemnly, as I said, he drove through, was beaten with rods, then he was dragged almost through the entire city, and so he died, and after death he was burned and, together with many bones of birds and animals, turned to ashes, and his ashes were scattered to the wind. This was his end. Maybe someone will say this about the deceased: does it mean he is a martyr when he suffered so much from the pagans? If he had a feat for the truth and if he had happened to suffer this from the pagans out of hatred and for the confession of Christ, of course, he would have been placed among the martyrs and, moreover, not small ones. But this happened to him not for the confession of Christ, but for the great violence that he inflicted on the city and the people during his bishopric, stealing from the citizens the property they had inherited from their parents. We are not slandering this person; for he did a lot of harm to the Alexandrians, such as taking all the saltpeter and swamps with papyrus and reeds and salt lakes at his mercy, and decided to dispose of it and deliver everything to himself. He had such a shameful greed that he did not neglect even insignificant things: so he decided to have a certain number of bearers of the bodies of the dead, and it was impossible to carry out the bodies of the dead, and especially foreigners, without people assigned to him. He did this not out of curiosity, but as I said, for the sake of income. If anyone buried the body himself, he was in danger. Thus, from each deceased he received some kind of profit. I am silent about something else, namely: how this man lived in luxury and other vices and cruelty. The Alexandrians, and especially the pagans, who were angry with him for all this, finally brought him to death. The Alexandrians killed him as soon as they heard about the death of Constantius. I had no other excuse to talk about George, except that Aetius was appointed deacon by him. This Aetius, until adulthood, is said to have been completely ignorant of worldly sciences. After living some more, he studied in Alexandria with an Aristotelian philosopher and sophist and, having studied dialectics, decided to present the doctrine of God in figures. In freedom, he studied and sat at it continuously from morning to evening, studying and trying to achieve speaking about God and making definitions about Him through geometry and figures. Having become a complete Arian and adhering to the frantic teachings of the Arians, he, from dealing with them, became even more harmful and daily sharpened his tongue against the Son of God and the Holy Spirit. Some accused him and denounced him to Constantius, and he was exiled to the Taurus. Here he spread his wicked teaching, displaying it with insolence, and, raising his head with great shamelessness, continuously spewed out his evil teaching. He dared to call the Son unlike the Father and not identical with the Father in Divinity. And we ourselves do not adhere to the likeness; for we know that the Son is superior to the Father, being identical and equal with Him in Divinity and not at all different. Although many things are likened to God, however, this is not the same thing, it is not equal to the Divine: so man is created in the image and likeness, but he is not the same with God in equality. Likewise, the kingdom of heaven is like the grain of a pea (Matthew 13:31), but the grain is not the same as the kingdom and does not belong to the same leaven. It is similar to ten other virgins and the ruler of the house, but only similar, and not one and the same. And since the Son is similar to the Father, and more than similar, because He is one and the same with the Father and equal to the Father, then we try to prove not only His likeness, but His identity and equality, as God from God and the Son from the Father, and not other in essence, but born of Him. This is what we say about the Holy Spirit. But this brave Aetius did not want to honor the Son with likeness to the Father. But we, based not only on similarity, truly profess the doctrine of faith and honor the Trinity. Silver is like tin, and gold is like copper, and lead is like iron, and precious stones are like glass, but this likeness does not denote nature, but only comparison. As for the Scripture, which confesses the Son as the image of the invisible God, then we, having studied by the grace of God the power of the Divine Scripture, where it is said to the Pharisees: you do not know the scriptures, nor the power of God (Matthew 22:29), we learned the double meaning of this word. However, to explain this expression, we will point out its incorrect use between people. It is said: the image of man and the image unlike. One image is drawn with paints, and the other is produced by the generative power of consubstantiality, since the begotten Son bears a distinctive sign in comparison with the Father. In it the reflection, the identity, the consubstantial beings, and the imprint of the Father are revealed. And so the only begotten Son of God is, in our opinion, one and the same with the Divinity and dignity of the Father and is equal to Him in true image and likeness, not one that would change, but unchangeable, as the Son truly and consubstantially begotten of the Father. We think the same about the Holy Spirit, that He proceeds from the Father, although He is not born, because the Son is the only begotten. But this Aetius, strongly desiring to oppose the confession of the truth, attempts to recognize the Son as unlike the Father. Other Arians received cause for error from Lucian and Origen and were at one with Asterius the Sophist, who fell away during the persecution that took place under Maximian. Some of them, as I showed above when considering heresies, recognized the Son of God as a creature and taught that the Holy Spirit is a creature of creation, and some said that the Son is like the Father, although they recognized Him as a creature. But Aetius, adding his own wickedness to all their lies, clearly revealed the cruel and shameless teaching against the Lord. And to tell the truth, the refined teaching of this Aetius, also called Anomeus, is in direct contact with those who admit that the Son is a creature. For everything that is created is not like Him who created it, although it is made like it by grace. And the Creator is not similar to what was created, although he tried to decorate it with various beauties, unless some similarity and reflection are imprinted in it only through comparative contemplation. The teaching of Aetius was valid among the Arians, who recognized the Son of God and the Holy Spirit as created, but subsequently being deprived of communication from the Arians themselves, namely from Eudoxius, Minophilus and others, he exposed them before the king, saying: as they all think, so I think, what I say directly, they hide, and what I openly declare and confess, they all say the same, but secretly. The then king was not against the acting of the Arians, but thought that they taught piously. However, he indignantly refused to recognize the Son of God as a creature and therefore ordered Aetius to be sent into exile, as stated above. This is where the heresy began, and from one assumption, rising in thought to a greater work of evil, Aetius terribly wounded both his soul and those who believed him. After that, he became so carried away by daydreaming that both himself and those taught by him began to say: “I know God so well and understand Him so well that I don’t know myself as much as I know God.” We heard a lot more about him, namely how terribly the devil managed to destroy the souls of the people he captured through him. For they have no concern either for the holiness of life, or for fasting, or for the commandments of God, or for anything else that is prescribed from God for people to live. But they have a ready word for anything. It also happens to them that with a person who dumped all the cargo from the ship, but left one thing that was lying in the ship, for example. an earthen vessel, or some other one, as if he could, with the help of one vessel, sail the entire sea and receive salvation from drowning; and when it accidentally falls out and the person does not receive the benefit from the vessel that he expected, then, swallowed up by the waves, he has lost both the goods and his own safety. Such is Aetius and the Anomei who descended from him: exposing the saying spoken by the Lord in the Gospel, they quote words, but their power is misunderstood and they are mistaken. When someone meets them and reminds them of the commandments, they say to this: God does not require anything else from us except that we know Him, just as Christ said: Father! grant them life to have within themselves: this is life, that they may know the one true God, and whom Jesus Christ sent (John 17:3). We heard from some, who heard directly from Aetius himself, how some of them were caught in fornication with a woman and were condemned for this. But Aetius did not take this strictly, but on the contrary grinned, saying: it doesn’t mean anything; this is a bodily need and function, the same as picking your ear (I’m ashamed to say how this dirty man expressed himself); Taking a feather or a twig, we pick in the ear and thus stop the itching in it: this is how it happens by nature, and whoever does this does not sin. And this man said many things and taught falsely and wickedly, so that from the very deeds it turned out who he was. But the words of the Lord will give us clear light, Who said: Take heed from lying prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves: by their fruit you will know them: do you gather grapes of thorns, or figs from thorns (Matthew 7:15,16)? Likewise, his insolence of senselessness, when he opened his unbridled lips against the Lord and is not ashamed to blaspheme his Lord, is exposed here and there, so that reasonable people, having tasted the fruits of his unbridledness and deceit, would not begin to collect similar fruits. For grapes cannot be gathered from thorn bushes, just as holiness cannot come from evil teaching. So, this is what happened and happened to Aetius, as we heard. In his teaching, as I said, there is a lot that appeared as a result of his violent pride, which dared to rebel against the Lord, but I will offer a little of the many, and to refute this I will say what the Lord will give. This Anomeus shows a distortion of faith and a choice of words: the words are taken from Scripture, but they contain the wrong meaning and have a different power, yet they are not accepted in the same way. At the beginning, he reasons like this: “the unborn cannot be like the born, because both are distinguished by the very name: one is unborn, the other is born.” All this is stupid and led Aetius to madness. If we begin to look for a parent for the unborn, so as not to lose the true opinion of Christ, then there will no longer be one Father, and not the father of the father, but endless fathers of fathers, and there will no longer be one God, eternally existing, having nothing before Himself and always abiding, from whom the true, only-begotten Son was born and exists and the Holy Spirit, who came from Him, but there will be many gods sought, and thus everything will finally be a deception, and not the truth. But we need, as indeed, to know the one God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom is the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and receives from the Son. This is one Deity, one God, one Lord, Father and Son and Holy Spirit. Neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit is any fusion with the Father, but the Father is the Father, the Son is the Son and the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit, three perfect ones, one Deity, one God, one Lord, as we have many times conveyed such praise about God when considering all heresies. So, since there is one God, it is impossible to assume another God than the existing one; The Father is wonderfully unbegotten and uncreated, and the only begotten Son of God, born of Him, is not unlike Him in everything, but is identical with the Father and equal to Him in every dignity, although He is begotten and He is unbegotten. If He completely begot the Son from Himself, then it is impossible for the Son not to be equal and similar to the Father. For everything that gives birth gives birth to something similar to itself, and not only similar, but also equal by identity. Man gives birth to man and God-God; man is from bodily copulation, and God inexplicably alone gave birth to the Only Begotten, neither by any outflow, nor by compression, nor by expansion. But being a spirit, the Father, without beginning and childlessness, gave birth to a Son from Himself, similar to Him in everything and equal, as the Holy Gospel says: I seek Him to kill Judas, because not only did He destroy the Sabbath, but He also called Himself the Son of God, creating equal things with God (John 5:18). How then is He not like the Father and not equal with Him in everything, when He has life in Himself and says: just as the Father raises the dead, so the Son also raises the dead (John 5:21)? And he also says: he who has seen me has seen the Father (14:9). The One who shows Himself to the Father and says: He who knows Me knows the Father, and also: He who has seen Me sees the Father cannot be distinguished. That He is not different from the Father is indicated by the Father and the Son: Let us make man in our image and likeness (Gen. 1:26). So, if the Son were not like the Father, then how would man be created in the image and likeness? The Father did not say: Let us make man in my image, or in your image, but in our image. In words: in our image He showed not only the equality and likeness of the Son with the Father, but also that the Son is identical with Him in everything and does not differ from Him. How can the Son not be equal and similar when He says: I am in the Father and the Father in me (John 14:10)? He not only says this in the Gospel, but Isaiah, who prophesied by the Holy Spirit, knew that the Son is in the Father and is not alien to the Father and is not different from Him, as his words show, which in Hebrew are read as follows: fou saarim, uavoton sadik, somir, emmunio, esrosmooh, fezar salom salom, hivak vatou, vetuv Valdonai addof, chivaia adonai sodolemim. 338 According to the translation of Aquila, it reads like this: open the gates, so that a righteous people who keep the faith, a fortified building, a fence of the world, may enter in, because they trust in it; trust in the Lord forever, for in the Lord is the Lord who established the ages. The seventy reads like this: open the gates, so that he who keeps the truth and accepts the truth and keeps peace may enter in, as he has trusted in you, O Lord, for ever, the great and eternal God. (Isa. 26:2–5). Let the reader notice that in seventy instead of: in the Lord it is written: Lord and Great. And how long can we talk about this? But I am afraid not to cause unnecessary burden by continuing to talk about this subject. In the Divine Scripture everything is clear for those who want to approach the word of God with a pious thought and not plunge themselves into the abyss of death under the influence of the devil, like this pitiful Aetius and the people who believed him, who took up arms against the truth more than all those who came before them, blasphemers against God and His faith. But this is not the only reason why we said that the Son cannot be unlike the Father. He is not only similar, but also equal, identical in Divinity, identical in eternity and power. We do not call Him identical (ταὐτούσιον), so that with this word, used by some, we do not become like Sabellius. But we call Him identical in Divinity, essence, and power, equal in everything to the Father and His Holy Spirit. We call Him consubstantial (ὁμούσιον), as the holy faith contains, in order by the particle: ὁμἔ to clearly designate the perfection of persons, namely, that the Son is from the Father, perfect from the perfect, perfect and the Holy Spirit. These people will be caught by one, two, three pieces of evidence. If the Son is recognized as born of the Father, then by necessity he will be recognized as similar to the One who gave birth. It is obvious that, calling the Son a generation, Aetius understands and believes that He is a creature, that He is called the Son only by grace, as this connoisseur of the heavenly limits, the divider of the indivisible and the measurer of our salvation in Christ, thought of. But the teaching of all such people who admit that the Son is a creature will fall; so his teaching will fall. I will ask him in all fairness: tell me: what are you saying about the Son of God? Do you call Him a creature or a creature? If you consider Him to be a creature, do not slyly cover up the insult by calling Him the offspring of the Father. For everything created is not begotten; and if begotten, then uncreated. And so stop saying the word: born, for it is not typical for you to utter with your lips even in one word the utterances of truth. But express all your cunning, so that we may know who you are, and thus escape your deceit, the trapper of souls and the deceiver of those who believe in you! Do you worship the Son of God, or do you not? Yes, he says, I worship Him. Do you worship God or not? Yes, he says, I worship God. What kind of God will this be, whom you call created and worshiped? It is as if the worshiped God created only One and commanded Him to be worshiped, while the One who created himself does not want to make everything else an object of worship, but condemns those who worship, teaching through the law: do not make your own likeness, lest you worship him, neither in heaven, nor on earth, nor in the waters (Ex. 20:4). And the Apostle says: having served the creature more than the Creator and become a fool (Rom. 1:22.25). Why does he not command us to worship all this? Does God have partiality? It won't happen! By the fact that one must be worshiped, He showed that the worshiped is completely different from the creation, and the creation that is worshiped is different from the worshiped Lord, the Son of God, begotten of the Father. And because the Son was born of Him and is similar and equal to Him, He is the one we worship from all. Through Him He created all things, and without Him nothing came into being (John 1:6). In Him and in His Holy Spirit, who came from Him and received from the Son, the Father created and established everything: by the word of the Lord the heavens were established, and by the spirit of His mouth all their power (Ps. 32:6). When the Only Begotten said, as I said above: that they may know the one true God, and whom Jesus Christ hath sent (John 17:3), He separated himself from creation. So the Apostle says: there is one God, of whom we are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, of whom we are all things (1 Cor. 8:6). Do you see how he pointed to the one God the Father and the one Lord born of Him? He did not say: there is one God and one Lord with everything that came from him, but: there is one Lord, who is everything. If there is one Lord, by whom everything was created, then He is not one of all, but is the Creator of everything, the Creator of everything created. The Son, born of the Father and descended from the Father, by whom all things were created, is not like everything, since He is the creator of everything; since there is one God the Father, of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus, who is all things. The above words are connected by the words one and one, and the words: from the same and from the same clearly indicate the Son who came from the Father; the words: they all amazingly explain that the Son is different from other beings, and thereby show that the Father exists and the Lord exists, the Only Begotten Son from the Father. The Apostle said this at the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for this reason there was no need to mention the Spirit, not because the Spirit is not glorified to the Father and the Son, and not because He is designated among all creatures created by the Son. It was enough that in the firm confession of the Son He was numbered with the Father and the Son in the following words: as you go, baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). So, when the Apostle spoke, or better, when the Holy Spirit spoke in him, He did not speak about Himself; because knowledge about it was clear and was not questioned by the Jews. The announcement of it was postponed until another time, so that the Holy Spirit would not testify about Himself. The Apostle was led by the Holy Spirit and spoke about the Father and the Son, so that the Trinity would be indicated, ever present and never ceasing to exist. Do not be surprised when you hear: there is one God, from whom are all things, and one Lord, who is all things. Having called the Son Lord, the Apostle did not at all deny that the Lord is also God; and having said: there is one God who is all, he did not deny that one and the same is God and Lord. For together the Lord and God, and God and the Lord, and there is no disagreement in the words truly proclaimed to us from God through the Apostles for our salvation. But Anomeus and those who descended from him, leaving the path of truth, got lost, poorly understanding the sayings of God, and finally, deviating into reasoning and ranting about words, their minds retreated from the truth and fell away from heavenly things. If they wanted to devote their minds to the enlightenment of the Gospel, every word would expose them. For nowhere does the Only Begotten, after He came in the flesh, say: The Father who created Me sent Me; and the Father nowhere, neither in the Gospel nor in the Old Testament, says: I created you a Son, but it says: the Father sent me (John 5:36), and again: from the Father I departed and go (16:28), and I am still in the bosom of the Father (1:18) and again: the Word is to God and God is the Word (1:1). And many things can be thought about regarding our salvation, so as not to be carried away by the cunning teaching of this devil. For the devil, wanting to destroy the human race out of envy of man’s glory, came up with various cunning means, firstly, ignorance, secondly, idolatry, then a bad way of life, and now, finally, deception and deception through heresies, in order to turn man away from heavenly things in every possible way. This is how much the mind of our dimension can say against you, Anomeus! It is admirable for you to be called Anomeus, that is, dissimilar, because in both morals and thought you have departed from people who possess the wisdom of God and have the true faith. It is not because you have become unlike people that you have allegedly succeeded in good, but because you have deviated from the path of truth and therefore have become unlike the sons of the church; Having desired to call the Son of God, equal to the Father, unlike the Father, you yourself have become unlike, having earned this name and not being like those saved in God. But in order not to waste time in studying his questions, we will expose his teaching with his own words, which he himself expressed in some dialectical writings. He displayed a dialectic full of deception in his work, which does not contain a single word of impeccable and pure faith, perfected by the Holy and meek Spirit. But first of all, I considered it necessary to place here his entire work that has reached us, in order to make a refutation against him through himself. This is the work of Anomeus Aetius Since, during the persecution opened against us by our contemporaries, some of them, having privately seized for themselves, along with many others, an essay written by us about the unborn and begotten God and spoiled it with insertions and abbreviations, published it, changing the order established there, then when one of the scientists came to us and brought it to us, I considered it necessary, as a writer, having cleared this essay, to send it to you, all pious ascetics and ascetics, so that you can know that our work was written according to the thoughts of the Holy Scriptures. With its help, with brief remarks you will be able to stop every person who shamelessly decides to object to you about the unborn and begotten God, and most of all the above-mentioned people. I arranged it in the form of verses, adding objections and decisions, with proofs conveniently understandable and clear, and beginning with a speech about the unborn God. 1. If the unbegotten God can make the begotten unbegotten, then, if every essence is unbegotten, not one of them will differ from another in its insubordination. Thus, how can anyone say that one essence changes, another changes, unless he admits that God does not produce from a ready-made substance? 339 2. If the ungenerate God is above all cause, therefore He would be above birth. If He is above every cause, it is obvious that He is above birth. For he did not receive existence from another cause and did not give existence to himself. 3. If He Himself did not give existence to Himself, not because of the weakness of nature, but because He transcends every cause, then who will admit that the generated nature has in essence no difference from the generated one, when such a nature does not allow birth? 4. If God infinitely abides in the ungenerated nature, and if what is begotten remains infinitely begotten, then the wrong opinion about the consubstantial and subsubstantial will be eliminated; but since both natures constantly remain in their own dignity of nature, they remain incomparable in essence. 5. If God is unbegotten in essence, then what is begotten was not born by the dissolution of essence, but it was produced arbitrarily. For no pious teaching allows for one and the same essence to be both born and unborn. 6. If the unborn were born, what prevents the born from becoming unborn? Because every nature strives more for what is characteristic of itself than for what is unusual. 7. If God is not entirely unbegotten, then nothing essentially prevents him from begetting. If He is wholly unborn, then He did not dissolve His essence at birth, but by His own will brought into being what was born. 8. If the unborn God is fully endowed with the power of birth, then what was born is not essential, since His entire essence has the property of giving birth, and not being born. 9 . If the essence of God, having changed into another form, is called begotten, then His essence is not unchangeable, because the creation of His own Son was accomplished through change. 10. If the essence of God is unchangeable and above generation, then what pertains to the Son must be recognized by name alone. 11. If in the unborn God generation was contained, as it were, in a seed, then after birth from outside, having received an increase, it would, so to speak, mature. Therefore the Son is perfect, not from that by which he was born, but from that from which he received increase. For that which receives an increase from what is akin to it, as consisting of it, usually takes advantage of the name perfect. 12. If the generation was perfect, then the generation was perfect in the unborn, and not from the fact that the unborn gave birth to it. For the begotten nature cannot be in the unbegotten essence, since it would be and would not be one and the same. For what is begotten is not unbegotten, and the unbegotten was not begotten, because to attribute to God any part that is not like it means to inflict blasphemy and insult on Him. 13. If God Almighty, who has an unbegotten nature, does not know in himself a begotten nature, and the Son, who has a begotten nature, knows himself as He is, will it not then be of one essence a lie when One recognizes Himself as unbegotten, and the other as begotten? 14. If the concept: unborn does not mean the essence of God, but this incomparable name is a human invention, then God, not having in his essence the superiority corresponding to this name, for inventing the concept: unborn, should be grateful to those who invented it. 15. If ungeneracy is attributed to God from outside, then those who attributed it are superior to the One to whom they attributed, giving Him a name, the highest of His nature. 16. If unborn nature is not inferior to generation, then it is as we say; and if it is inferior to birth, then the suffering state of birth would be superior to the being of God. 17. If the begotten is unchangeable by nature because of the one who gave birth, then the unbegotten is an unchangeable essence, not by will, but by the dignity of the essence. 18. If the concept: unborn means essence, then it is rightly distinguished from the essence of the begotten. If the unborn does not mean anything, then even more so does what is born mean nothing. How will nothing be opposed to nothing? 19. If the word: unborn is opposed to the word: begotten, then when the utterance of this word is followed by silence, the hope of Christians, based on different pronunciation, and not on the nature of things denoted by names, appears and disappears. 20. If ungeneracy does not add anything more to the superiority of the essence, in comparison with birth, then the Son, being superior to the Father only in name, will find those who called Himself (unborn) God and His Father better, and not Himself called. 21. If the unborn essence is superior to birth, since it has an original superiority, then it is the unborn self-existence. For it is not by its own will that it is superior to birth, but by nature. Therefore, God, being a unique unborn essence, does not allow any mind to think about the birth of Himself, but rejects the desire of all research and all thought towards the born. 22. If the concept: unborn means deprivation in relation to God and there is nothing unborn, then what kind of mind would take away anything from a non-existent? And if it means something existing, then who can separate from what exists what it is - from itself? 23. If deprivation is the deprivation of a property, then unbornness in God is either a deprivation of a property, or a property contrary to deprivation. But if it exists, a deprivation of a property, then how will that which is not inherent in God be reckoned with Him? 24. If unbornness is a property, then it is necessary to presuppose a born entity, so that, having received this property, it could be called unborn. 25. If the born essence participated in the unborn, then, having lost its property, it lost its unbornness. And so the essence would be born, and unbornness would be a property. 26. If birth indicates a transition, then obviously it means a certain property, whether it will be a transformation from some essence, or will it be what is called birth. 27. If ungeneracy is a property and birthlessness is a property, then essences are prior to properties, and properties, although they are second, are preferable to essences. 28. If the ungenerated is the cause of the begotten in relation to being, and the begotten, containing its cause in its essence, points to an essence, and not to a property, borrowing nothing from the ungenerated nature, then how could the ungenerated essence not be an essence, but a property? 29. If every essence is unborn, such as the essence of God Almighty, then how can one call one essence passionate and another impassive? If, due to the state of ungenerated nature, one essence remains alien to quantity and quality and, simply put, any change, and the other is subject to suffering, then if we recognize it as unchangeable in essence, it is necessary to assume that the above-mentioned difference occurs by chance, or it would be more appropriate to call the active essence ungenerated, and the changeable essence generated. 30. If the ungenerated nature is the cause of the generated, while the ungenerated is nothing, then how can nothing be the cause of what happened? 31. If ungeneracy is deprivation, and deprivation is the loss of a property, and loss completely destroys an object, or changes it into another, then how is it possible to attribute the name of the changed property, that is, ungeneracy, to the essence of God? 32. If unbornness indicates a deprivation not inherent in God, then how can we say that He is unborn and not begotten? 33. If unbornness is only a name in relation to God, and this name elevates the being of God above all that is born, then the human name is more honorable than the being of the Almighty, since it adorned God the Almighty with incomparable superiority. 34. If a cause is associated with everything that is born, and the ungenerated nature has no cause, then ungeneration does not indicate a cause, but signifies a being. 35. If everything that happened came from another, and the unborn being did not come either from itself or from another, then unbornness necessarily expresses the essence. 36. If an ungenerated being appears in the essence of a begotten being, as a cause that has immutability in comparison with any cause, then it is an incomparable self-essence, not externally manifesting inaccessibility, but itself being incomparable and inaccessible to anything, since it is ungenerated. 37. If the Almighty transcends all nature, then he excels because of ungeneracy, which is the cause of existence for everything that is born. But if unbornness does not express essence, then from where will the nature of born objects receive its preservation. 38. If nothing invisible exists in the seed before itself, but exists in a separate nature, then how is it that the ungenerate God, being free from separation, sees his essence in the begotten as the second, then as the first in the ungenerated, in accordance with the order of numbers of the first and second. 39. If God abides in the ungenerate nature, then the knowledge of himself in generation and ungeneration must be taken away from him. If we allow the extension of His essence in the unborn and the begotten, then He will not recognize His essence, distracted by birth and unbornness. 40. If birth, although it participates in the unborn, remains endlessly in the nature of the born, then it recognizes itself in an imperfect nature, without being aware of its participation in the unborn. For it is impossible to have knowledge of oneself both as an unborn and as a born entity. 41. If the ungenerated is something unimportant due to its tendency to change, then the dignity of nature consists in the unchangeable essence, and meanwhile the ungenerated essence is recognized as superior to any cause. 42. If the unborn is removed from all cause, and there are many unborn, then they will have an unchangeable nature. For it cannot be allowed that, having become a participant in the general and particular nature, one essence created, and another was produced. 48. If every essence is unborn, then none will differ from another in its non-subordination. How can anyone say that one changes, the other changes, if he does not admit that God does not produce from a ready-made substance? 340 44. If every essence is unborn, then every essence is unchangeable. And if an essence has the property of immutability, then spontaneous action and suffering must be attributed to it. 45. If there are many unborn and unchangeable, then it will be impossible to calculate their differences. For it is impossible to count what is different, either in general or in particular, since every difference indicates some separation of the cause from a separate ungenerated nature. 46. If the unborn and God mutually point to the same thing, then the unborn is the parent of the unborn. If the unbegotten points to one thing, and God to another, then it is not inappropriate for God to give birth to God, since both received being from the ungenerated essence. 47. If there was nothing before God, as indeed there was nothing, then God and the unborn mean the same thing, since what is born does not admit of ungeneration, and therefore cannot be called together with God and its father. May the self-begotten God, called the one true God from Jesus Christ whom he sent, truly existing before the ages and truly begotten hypostasis, keep you unharmed from ungodliness in Christ Jesus our Lord, through whom is all glory to the Father, now and ever, and to the ages of ages. Amen. This is the beginning of the corrupting opinions of Aetius, of which only a part has reached us and which are subject to our refutation. They say that he wrote three hundred chapters like these, full of all kinds of blasphemy. If the beginning of this work, which Aetius compiled and wrote with deceit to the detriment of some, boasting that it contains good and graceful things, is read by an experienced and knowledgeable person, he will find that it resembles the remains and bones of a dead and rotten corpse of a snake. Therefore, having collected from beginning to end the words of Divine Scripture, healing according to the action of God, in our refutation we will give an antidote to those who wish to be cured of its poison. Against each position of his syllogistic chapters we will offer a refutation in the following form. Preface by Anomea Aetia. Since, during the persecution opened against us by our contemporaries, some of them, having stolen, along with many others, an essay we had deliberately written about the unborn and begotten God and spoiled it with insertions and abbreviations, published it from afar, changing the order established there, then when one of the scientists came to us and brought it to us, I considered it necessary, as a writer, to clean up this essay and send it to you - all pious ascetics and ascetics, so that you may know that our work was written according to the thoughts of the Holy Scriptures. With its help, with brief remarks you will be able to stop every person who shamelessly decides to object to you about the unborn and begotten God, and most of all the above-mentioned people. I arranged it in the form of verses, adding objections and decisions with proofs that are intelligible and clear, and starting with a speech about the unborn God. Refutation. 1. I will make a refutation of the words of your dialectical and syllogistic boastful and empty essay, without omitting or putting in second place any of the many long or short provisions presented by you. And first of all, writing to the ascetics and ascetics of your party, you said that the part of the essay that you had in your hands and which consists of your questions was stolen by some contemporaries, but you can be convinced from your essay itself; that this name: kidnapper, rather belongs to you and those taught by you, not to say, carried away into error. The holy faith of God exists from the beginning and always; it is ancient and not aging, it abides constantly, is established on a solid foundation and holds on, having its flightless Lord. Therefore, she is not temporary, but always exists, cohabiting with angels and adorning saints to generation and generation. But you are a temporary man, deceived by error and exalted in your mind, and you drove the cattle of your flock in disorder into thorny pasture. None of the ancients thought according to yours, Aetius; you write against your contemporaries, but you yourself are a modern man, not an ancient one. Immediately at the beginning of the introduction, when you said that you wrote an essay about the unborn and begotten God, you amazed everyone with such a brilliant beginning of your speech, and I will make your reasoning, filled with so many new words, funny. 2. Which of the children of Christians who have the saving teaching of God, attracted by your fabulous nonsense, leaving the ever-present God and His Holy Spirit, will come over to your side and begin to listen about the born God, so that he himself may become one of the fools, learning to worship the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever, amen (Rom. 1:25)? We do not have a God created or made, but uncreated and uncreated, born of the Father without beginning and without flight. And if you are cunning, wanting to ambiguously call what was born (γεννητὸν) what happened (γενητὸν), I will not accept your speech, even if you do not think that the Son is less than the Father due to birth from the Father. For thorns do not produce grapes, nor figs from burrs (Matthew 7:16): neither can correct teaching come from an erring person. And the Lord imposed silence on the demons who confessed him as Christ (Luke 4:41). You say that your essay is written in accordance with the thought of the Divine Scriptures: tell me, which Divine Scripture taught us to worship the created God? And that God is unborn is obvious to everyone: but this is not literally found in Divine Scripture; despite this, to think and speak piously about God in this way is a solid foundation in correct and pious consideration and in reason itself. You also say that you composed chapters like verses so that the ascetics and ascetics you call, or better yet, participants in your errors, could learn how to answer every objection in a short and rounded speech. Therefore, we, small and simple and unimportant, but inferior to many people in the Holy Church of God, will approach these unsubstantiated and very empty chatter. 3. Hitherto, our humility has raised an objection to your preface. Now I turn in order to the beginning of your chapters and against each position and chapter I will offer objections from the Divine Scriptures and from sound reason and the resolution of your logical questions, so that the servants of God and ascetics of the truth, having read and understood all your absurdity, will laugh and say: the contempt of your heart has done this to you (Obd. Art. 3): you have declared in your mind: I will rise against you. the sky and above the stars of heaven I will set my throne; I will sit on the highest mountain, on the high mountains even to the north, I will look up above the clouds and I will be like the Most High. Now you will descend to hell, to the foundations of the earth, and so on (Is. 14:13–15). Here is the very beginning of the chapters of Aetia. Aetia chapter 1. If the unborn God can make the born unborn. Refutation. First of all, it is impious to think about God as if there is something impossible for him. True, there is only something unbecoming of His Divinity, and this is not because He could not do it, but because God, for whom nothing is impossible, does not become, for example, evil, since evil is impossible for His Divine and omnipotent goodness and for Himself, as good. And, in addition, if God had recognized it as good to make what was born unborn, and yet could not bring this good into action well, then there would have been a loss of power in Him, since He wanted to do what was supposed to, but could not. If the unborn is good and the begotten was born good in its order, since the state of the begotten is good, since it comes from the good God and is recognized as such by Him, then God will not want to make the well-born unborn, because He recognized that in this form it is good. Since the state of good does not change, not because of impossibility on the part of God, but because it is good in this form, then the unbegotten God is good, and everything that has come from Him in its order is good, although it has not received the name of the unbegotten. God did not produce the created gods in order to destroy the desire for the superiority of one over another, by calling one greater, the other less, while the Divinity is not named. For if one God is ungenerated, the other God is begotten, then in the absence of communication of natures it is impossible by nature to have communication in the dignity of a name, unless by some exceptional mercy, namely by participation, the greater grants this to the lesser: and the lesser sometimes himself will not call himself by the name of the greater, fully knowing that he is alien to this dignity and name by nature. Everyone will tell you, Aetius: God is the 6th Word, but the Word did not become God. How could Christ have this most noble name by nature and be equal to the Father, if something had been done in the dignity of Christ? Or how can one cut off the words: God be, when the word: be does not allow us to accept any, even accidental, division of time? Know, then, that the beginningless and unbegotten God gave birth from Himself to a God similar to Himself, and not only similar, but also equal in everything, and He did not create Him, so that, because He was created and made unlike Him, He would not destroy the name: God, because of His difference and otherness. It is impossible for the one who gives birth to give birth to something different and unequal to himself, and for the one who is born to be different from the one who gave birth. Therefore, the Son retains identity with the Father by nature, in accordance with the Gospel testimony: everything that the Father has is mine (John 17:15), that is: the Father is God, God and I, the Father is life, and I am life, and everything else that befits the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit in one Godhead, since the Trinity has nothing different, and we are established in the perfect the knowledge that the hypostatic Word of the Father and the hypostatic Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son exist without beginning and without flight. Aetia chapter 2. If the ungenerate God is above all cause, therefore He would be above birth. If He is above every cause, it is obvious that He is above birth. For the Son did not receive existence from another cause, and did not give existence to Himself. Refutation. If the unbegotten God is above all reason, and the one begotten from Him is born unworthy of Him, and not in equality, yet is contained in the excellent name of the Father; in this case, the one who is born brings dishonor to the one who gave birth, having the dignity of a different name compared to the created creatures and not, like other creatures, giving honor to the Creator. For other creatures besides Him give honor to the Creator, not being equal to the Creator, and not being called by the name of the Creator, but being created as slaves for the glory of the Creator, so that from the glorious creations we comparatively perceive the advantage and superiority over them of Him who is higher than these glorious works. And the one who is not called by a common name with others and, by being of the same essence with the most excellent, is brought with him into the unity of dignity, if he has any difference from the most excellent, then he will necessarily make a diminution of dignity in the most excellent, precisely because the communion of the born with the most excellent has some difference. Therefore, the branch like from like and equal from like is understood by our faith not according to carnal understanding, but as God from God, Light from Light, as the hypostatic Word of the Father, so that the immutable glory of the most excellent is preserved, because the most excellent does not have for himself a culprit, but from himself begets an equal in a pure and unattainable being, the consubstantial and hypostatic Son of God, Who is not a soulless image, but expresses the race of the Father, as Divine Scripture says, leaving the one born in equality with the one who gave birth to the image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15). And so that no one would think that the image differs from the original, the Father Himself, considering the correctness of our thoughts, said in advance: let us create man in our image and likeness (Gen. 1:26). Here He did not separate Himself from the Son, but used the same expression, referring to two: let us make man, in order to designate two. Myself and the Son, or the Holy Spirit, I would say. And in order to show the equality of the image, he did not put two words, but spoke about one image, and in the word: ours he pointed to two, namely, that man is not created in the image of one, but is an image of the likeness and equality of two, so that it would be completely clear that everything that is most excellent in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit remains in identity and does not change. For the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit did not receive from another nature and did not give another nature participation in his nature and dignity, and not as a result of any section or flowing out the origin of the Only Begotten and the Holy Spirit from the Father and made a change in nature, but just as from the beginning the most excellent nature of the Father was always unbegotten and uncreated, so He clearly declared to us that He is from from eternity He brought forth from Himself the most excellent Son and the Holy Spirit without any change. Aetia, chapter 3. If He Himself did not give existence, not because of the weakness of nature, but because He transcends every cause, then who will admit that the generated nature has in essence no difference from the generated one, when such a nature does not allow birth. Refutation. You should, Aetius, who is busy with heavenly things and imagines his work as pitiful, curb the extreme wickedness of your daring mind, so that we do not seem to be raging with you and defeated by such fearlessness, but advising you and ourselves what is necessary for piety. For when you, with great error of course, but at the same time with feigned piety, represent God in the most necessary and characteristic of God as unlike and unequal to those born of Him, then by the very thing that is completely uncharacteristic of God, you preach Him as similar to that which is not characteristic of His Divinity. And above all, to plunge into such depths of thought about God is the fruit of wickedness and an even more frantic mind. For having said that He is the cause of Himself, or that He gave Himself existence, you struck yourself with two evil suspicions, searching and searching about God, how He existed, namely whether He always existed, whether He gave existence to Himself, or exists by chance. I am horrified and trembling, following your wicked reasoning. Leave this alone, and let us too, who always think thoroughly and righteously about God and believe that He has always been God. Unwisely speaking and concluding, as if in order to show great honor to God, you said that He did not give existence to Himself. According to you, He did not give himself existence if saving faith depends on reasoning and syllogisms, when the word takes its likeness from the lowest and most miserable bodies. None of the creatures is a cause for itself and has not given itself existence, from animals to man, from people to angels. For nothing that was created gave itself existence, but received the beginning of existence from the One Existing One. Beware, then, of forcing yourself to reach for more through the conclusions you have invented, contrary to nature. You will then be completely amazed, since the Only Begotten is equal and similar to the Father, although he has this dignity from the Father by descent, or birth. Therefore, He will not differ in any way in equality with the Father, as well as in likeness. The created cannot give itself existence, while the most excellent and perfect in everything did not have a beginning from anyone from time immemorial, for it did not begin to be, but always was and always exists, although it remains in identity and does not give itself existence. In this case, one should not seek mutual statements, but have pure contemplation, in accordance with piety. And again: when you said: if He did not give existence to Himself, not because of the weakness of nature, but because He transcends all reason,” then you yourself know that it is not because of weakness that the name of the Son belongs to Him, but because it has the dignity of consubstantiality, befitting Him together with Him who gave birth. Therefore, just as it is entirely fitting for the Father to transcend every cause, so it is fitting for the one Son, who came from the one Father and with the one Spirit, to also have one Divinity, which cannot admit of any cause for itself, not because of weakness, but because it surpasses everything that has come from non-existence. The Divinity is one, counted in the single name of the Trinity and proclaimed to the enlightened in the single sealing of the names of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and does not contain anything different from itself: so that the true words: Father, Son and Holy Spirit fully represent the equality of the naming. You also said: “Who will admit that produced nature has essentially no difference from what happened, when such nature does not allow birth? And you do not notice and have not noticed that you have made yourself alien to the knowledge of Divine truth, not being taught the truth by the Holy Spirit; but with the help of worldly wisdom, turned into madness (1 Cor. 1:20), trying to ascend to the highest. Therefore, the first consequence will be that you yourself will hear that everything with you is vanity: for God knows the thoughts of the wise, for they are vanity (Ps. 93:11), because He who begat the hypostatic Word begot Him equal to Himself and not different from His Divinity, not because of the difference of the Begotten, but because it would be completely indecent for us to think that He Himself begat a Son unworthy of Himself Himself and not equal and subordinate to the Parent. Therefore, He said that through the Son and the hypostatic Word all things came into being (John 1:3), so as not to consider Him among the number of created beings, but in the Father as similar and equal, for the reason that this corresponds to the name of the Father, always truly existing in essence, not extraneous, but true, as the Son of one essence, begotten of Him. Aetia chapter 4. If God endlessly abides in the ungenerated nature and if what is born endlessly remains begotten, then the wrong opinion about the consubstantial and subsubstantial will be eliminated; but since both natures constantly remain in their own dignity of nature, they remain incomparable in essence. Rebuttal 4. If God, as you say, infinitely and constantly abides in ungenerated nature, and the nature of God eternally, endlessly retains its dignity, not for any other reason, but because He is God in Himself and is eternal in Himself, then the Begotten must also be consubstantial, since It received from you the name of the infinite, as you cunningly gave this name to the Son, convincingly reasoning about His nature: for you gave it name and forced to confess in everything the inaccessible and immense name of the infinite. And so how is it that what is born will not be of the same essence? When it seemed that you were speaking in jest, trying to insult the truth by means of a name used for evil, you are exposed from the very words that you said: because either you will attribute an end to Him whom you blaspheme as different in nature, or, having defined Him as infinite, you will be forced to represent Him in everything unchangeable and not different from nature, worthy, without beginning, since the truth does not allow us to count the Son having an end, because His kingdom, says Scripture, will have no end (Luke 1:33), due to the fact that He always reigns with the Father and with His Holy Spirit. Everything that has a beginning will also have an end, if he who ascribes existence to the one who perceived the beginning desires it; but what is accepted in relation to everything else cannot be accepted in relation to the Son: for He is always from Being, never ceasing His being. Therefore, He was, and is and will be consubstantial, one from the one and not differing from Him in any way in essence, but according to the dignity of the names, the Divinity abides in identity, and without fusion, and without giving Himself the beginning of being, and without accepting into Himself anything dissimilar to Himself, it always exists and never ceases to be, befitting Himself, always abiding and never ceasing to be in dignity the Father with the Son and the Son with the Father and the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son: for the Trinity is incomparable with Itself, not accepting any division in dignity. Aetia chapter 5. If God is unborn in essence, then what was born was not born by the dissolution of essence, it was produced arbitrarily. For no pious teaching allows for one and the same essence to be both born and unborn. Rebuttal Often you came to us with expressions: born and unborn, vainly in the name of God, while you buried your mind in all iniquity. And this (name) is desired for everyone who has a deficiency, being an abundance in what he lacks, for consolation, even when, if he had not received it, he would only wear it on his lips. And you, since you are godless, boast in pronouncing His name, although in words, since you did not actually acquire Him through fear, faith, hope and love for Him. Or, perhaps, it was enough for you to pronounce this name once, and not exceed the limit established in the sequence? The Savior’s indication of you is clear, that by their fruit you will know them (Matthew 7:16), in that you are clothed in sheep’s skin, but inside you are a predator and like a wolf (cf. v. 15): for if you were born of the Holy Spirit (cf. John 3:6) and taught from the prophets and apostles, then you should have passed from the beginning of the book of Genesis to the time of the book of Esther, that is, the twenty-seven books of the Old Testament, counted among the twenty-two, also the four holy Gospels, and the fourteen epistles of the holy Apostle Paul and containing a description of the events of times before or contemporary to them, the Acts of the Apostles, conciliar epistles James, Peter, John and Jude, the Apocalypse of John and the Book of Wisdom, i.e., Solomon and the son of Sirach 341 and in general all the Divine Scriptures, will expose yourself in the fact that you came to us with a name that is not mentioned anywhere in them, although not indecent, to God, but pious in relation to Him, I mean the name of the Unbegotten, nowhere in the Divine Scripture unspoken. Of course, no one has ever been so crazy as to think that God was born; but there was also no need for the Father alone, for the sake of the One begotten of Him, to be called God the unbegotten, lest anyone should think that this applies not only to the Father alone, but also to the Son and the Holy Spirit, since right reason and the Holy Spirit instruct all sons of truth not to consider this a matter of surprise, but to recognize it as consistent with what the intellect directed towards piety requires and what lies in it itself regarding God. Since He is the unbegotten, and this is confessed by all of us, although there is no literal confirmation of this name from Scripture, but only from ourselves, through inferences, then this teaching of piety should know that it is such: for why will there be a division of being in the begotten, if in truth it deserves the name begotten in the natural and ineffable, befitting God and untimely and without beginning begotten of Him in the sense, true and not false? Hence we consider His being neither created nor alien, as created, but essentially begotten and not other than the One who gave birth. Therefore, it remains uncreated and not created, but born from the very essence of God, not subject to time: for He who gave birth in truth did not submit to time in order to produce a temporary being: because as is the Begotten, so is the Parent, and as is the Parent, such is the Begotten. Aetia chapter 6. If the unborn were born, what prevents the born from becoming unborn? Because every nature strives more for what is characteristic of itself than for what is unusual. Rebuttal If the unborn created and did not give birth, so that both names are taken as identical and one is not related to the other as truly opposite, then the power of the property of one or the other is established on the difference, without adding anything from one to the other, except the power to surpass, as the author, by the dignity of nature, everything created from Him. Since the middle between the one who has creative power and the created, the Creator and the created, is occupied by some other name, approaching the name - unborn, but moving away from the name of the Creator, then it is impossible, Aetius, to merge everything and hide from oneself the inclusion of the name perfect in the true property of the always existing and uncreated Son in His relation to the Father; It is impossible for an unborn and uncreated nature to ever become created and, as if repenting of what was created, to return again to its ungeneration, although you weave us countless Aristotelian questions, leaving a simple and pure teaching from above and from the Holy Spirit. Aetia chapter 7. If God is not entirely unbegotten, then nothing essentially prevents Him from giving birth. If He is completely unborn, then He did not dissolve His essence in birth, but by His own will produced what was born. Rebuttal And God is wholly unbegotten and uncreated, and he who is born of Him is not created and is diminished by you - the carnal and spiritually agonized Aetius (1 Cor. 2:14), the Holy Spirit, who has a unique and special proceeding from Him, not likened to many things created by Him and through Him and from Him (cf. Col. 1:16). Therefore, neither He should be recognized as having anything in common with everyone, nor anyone as sharing His dignity: for everything disappears and moves away and leaves all conclusive guilt from this teaching saying of the Divine Scripture: no one knows the Son except the Father, nor the Father except the Son, and to him it will be revealed (Matthew 11:27). He reveals through the Holy Spirit not to those who make conclusions about Him, but to those who sincerely and completely believe in Him. And you cannot test His destinies, nor explore His ways, according to what is written (Rom. 11:33), although you would come to us, a pitiful little man, in my opinion, with countless idle talk. Aetia chapter 8. If the unborn God is fully endowed with the power of birth, then what was born is not essential, since His entire essence has the property of giving birth, and not being born. If the essence of God, changed into another form, is called begotten, then His essence is not unchangeable, because the creation of His own Son was accomplished through change. If the essence of God is unchangeable and above generation, then what pertains to the Son must be recognized by name alone. Rebuttal It would be necessary not only for you, Aetius, but also for every heretic to be denied at the first punishment, as the holy and wise word commands (Titus 3:10): for you are already self-condemned, bringing destruction upon yourself and not being forced by others. Who will be merciful to someone who is evil to himself and is not good to anyone (Sir.15:5)? But so that you do not recognize the false teachings you have cultivated in the world as great and capable of being contrary to the truth, we ourselves will patiently continue to cut off your thorny roots with a sharp sword on both sides, with the word of Christ (Heb. 4:12), sound in relation to God, with a perfect and true confession: for glory to the merciful God, who showed you what you are; taking the place of Judas, who was numbered among the disciples, but separated, not having the mind of Christ, but from Satan, who accepted the renunciation of his Master! For you only confess in words that you have the Son of God in your mind. And what is the need for a conversation with you, when you remain in everything alien to Christians, prophets, apostles and evangelists, martyrs and all the saints, who can easily expose you on the day of judgment in the fact that they endured to death being tortured, scourged, cut up, subjected to beasts and fire and killed with the sword, so as not to deny the Son as the Son of God and the truly begotten of Him? for the Father can only give birth to one Only Begotten, and not another after one, and to bring forth 342 the Holy Spirit, and not another Spirit; for those who are produced and always produced from Him, He is the Creator and Creator. Therefore, there are not many Sons begotten and not many Spirits emanating from Him, but the same Divinity always abides and is glorified in the Trinity, and is never added to, nor ceases from, nor taken for what once did not exist. Therefore, the dignity of the Begotten does not consist in mere naming, although He had many brothers after Him like Him, as can be seen from what has been said: He begat sons and was exalted (Is. 1:2) and also: He who begat drops of dew (Job. 38:28) and also: from him the whole fatherland in heaven and on earth is named (Eph.3:15) and also: is not your Father one (Matthew 23:9)? and then: my son, Jacob (Isa. 41:8) and again: my firstborn Israel (Ex. 4:22): for all these, being raised from non-existence to being by a simple word, are not essentially made (sons) in the true name, but in an improper sense and by grace. Therefore, through one, not by grace and not by mere name, who is called the Son, but by the Son in truth, all things were created, from One through One, with the Spirit proceeding from Him and receiving from Him. Aetia chapter 9. If in the unborn God the generation consisted, as it were, in a seed, then after birth from outside, having received an increase, it would, so to speak, mature. Therefore the Son is perfect, not from that with which He was born, but from that from which He received increase. For that which receives an increase from what is akin to it, as consisting of it, usually takes advantage of the name perfect. Rebuttal 1. If the Parent does not confess as incorporeal, then let everything with you be a dramatic composition. By composing a drama, you do not frighten anyone else, but you remove your own mind from true confession: for from Himself God, being perfect, begot a perfect Son, not other than nature, since he is not unbecoming of the Parent and does not need to receive an increase from without: because there is nothing more after the essence of God, so that He could give this to the needy in addition to perfection. Always incorporeal, always by the power of birth inherent in Him, He gave birth to the incorporeal, always truly perfect - perfect, being God - the Spirit and having given birth to the Spirit, the hypostatic Word. Everything is absurd with you Aetius, who soars into heaven and explores opinions about God on the basis of conclusions and your talkative reasoning, because to him who created everything from non-existent and is able to do everything perfectly according to one model, who has no need to perceive any appendage and who affirmed this, you attribute the idea of ​​the need to join Divinity for the exaltation of His being and not You equate Him even with what was created from Him: for having created it from the beginning perfect, He determined by the law of His wisdom that what increases from it would need to be increased, such as everything that was and is in order, such as the sky, the earth, the water, the air, the sun, the moon, the stars, and that which is born from the waters, even to man himself. He did not create the heavens imperfect, nor the earth even more imperfect, but the perfect earth, the perfect heavens, which were then invisible and unstructured due to the lack of the decoration that He intended to make for it. Together he created both water and the primordial light, creating everything through the true, uncreated and life-giving Light, and then - what grows from the earth; but first of all the firmament. Nothing was half-perfect, but everything was perfect; for it is said: let the earth bring forth the former herb that sows seed in its likeness on the earth, and a fruitful tree, and its seed in it according to its likeness in the earth (Gen. 1:11). And do you see how everything produced did not immediately require the perception of any appendage, but immediately, by the command of God, turns out to be courageous, so to speak, and perfect? What was given to man, subordinated to him, and even in its seeds given to him for possession, was given imperfectly, so that man would know the One who always benefits and brings existence to everything, being above everything and making the appendages of each creation useful to him. 2. God gave man the earth with seeds, making it, so to speak, his footstool and handing it over to him, as it were, a mother’s womb, so that what was cast through him with understanding onto the earth in seeds from the perfect works of God, such as trees and other works, having himself collected in small parts, as it were, pebbles from perfect works and putting into this earth, he received an appendage from the perfect God to increase, so that what he had created would increase in appearance. sown; so that, having come to know the Giver of this appendage, he considers Him the Creator and does not fall away from the truth. Noah, even if he planted grapes, it is not written that he was the creator of this plant, but a man the worker of the earth (Gen. 9:20): for there is another who gives originality to the future, and another is a man who received from Him existence and trust for cultivating the earth, so that one would cultivate an appendage that needed improvement, and the other would bestow perfection through an appendage to what was created from Him and growing in perfection. This also happens in relation to animals and birds, livestock and reptiles and sea animals. Everything in the beginning was perfect by the will of the One who commanded it, but now it needs an addition by the will of wisdom; for the sake of the spiritual benefit of man ruling the earth, for the knowledge of the highest God above all, the giver of the ability to inseminate and the appendage of growth, God and Lord. Therefore, the heavenly and not sown by human hands, not giving birth and not being born, God left in perfection: for it does not incline the thoughts of man to slander and the pride of vanity, as can be said about the sun, moon and stars: because the moon does not change in the manner of its movement through birth, damage and increase, but through the fact that it establishes and shows the times that God has established for the luminaries. And so, how did God want to make the corporeal and the subject and subject to damage directly perfect, and begot Him whom He begot from Himself, One from the One, always existing with Him who begat Him, in need of an appendage? And so stop, Aetius, offering us empty Aristotelian words, since for us, who are not deceived by them, the true teaching of our Lord is sufficient, saying: I departed from the Father, and I go (John 16:28), since the power of this saying does not lie in its abuse, but means the essence of perfection and Divine dignity. Aetia chapter 10. If the generation was perfect, then the generation was perfect in the unborn, not because the unborn gave birth to it. For a begotten nature cannot be in an unbegotten essence, since it would be and would not be one and the same. For that which is begotten is not unbegotten, and that which is not begotten was not begotten, because to attribute to God any part unsimilar means to inflict blasphemy and insult upon Him. Rebuttal Aetius introduces objections, wishing to comprehend God with inferential names of human invention, and with his sayings, as it were, trying to belittle the firm hope of obvious certainty, comparing the unlike with the unlike and falsely contrasting the saying with the saying, in order from here to forcibly draw the conclusion that the Son is not like the Father, which is impossible. But he will be caught by the very conclusions that the world has taught. He says: if the begotten is perfect, then the begotten is contained in the unborn, and not from the time the unborn begot it: for the begotten nature cannot be contained in an unborn being; otherwise being and non-being would be one and the same: because what is born is not unborn, and what is not born was not born, since the recognition of any part in God as not like contains blasphemy and insult against Him. He is fully convicted of perverting words, since the Son cannot be other than like the Father and unequal to Him in perfect Divinity: for if he speaks completely forcedly, then he turns the words he expresses against himself, constantly speaking about the begotten and the unbegotten. From this it is learned about both the created and the uncreated that one cannot have communion with the other in dignity, which consists in complete worship: because if the dissimilar is fully worshiped, equated with the dissimilar, then there will no longer be a difference between the words: one and all, since the dissimilar cannot stand still in its dignity, although in glory it is one and surpasses everything dissimilar to it due to the dissimilarity of everything to one, separating it all from one. And let it not be that the sun, the moon, the stars, the earth, or anything even lower than this are worshiped, and that this precisely be one with one spirit, which is one Trinity, and one Divinity, and one worship. Is it really true that if we conclude this way, then it means to be in the truth when the words: one and all are not alike, and one Son is not equal to all, in a figurative sense, called sons? For He is not with everyone, but through Him they all exist. So, what was first stated by Aetius himself as impossible and serving as an insult and a form of blasphemy against God because of the part in him about which he spoke (which is not a part of difference, but of equality, since the Divinity is even indivisible into parts, but always perfect, with three perfect persons, one Divinity), that is, a part not similar, then on the contrary, it confirmed us in the truth of the confession of our faith, so as not to think and believe people who have already been convicted by virtue of their recklessness The Hellenic assumption that all creation must be worshiped, not like the Father who is worshiped in the Son, and the Son in the Father with the Holy Spirit, to whom be glory forever. Aetia chapter 11. If God Almighty, who has an ungenerated nature, does not know in Himself a begotten nature, and the Son, who has a begotten nature, knows Himself as He is, will not then the consubstantials be a lie when One recognizes Himself as unbegotten, and the Other as begotten? Rebuttal Aetius said that God Almighty, who has an unborn nature, does not know in Himself a born nature - and turned out to be the divider and predeterminer of the nature of God, trying, being a man by nature and yet wanting to know what is above nature, to know it not on the basis of Scripture, but on the basis of the conclusions of the human mind. Constantly and from the beginning of his words, no longer like the ancient Arians, he wants, albeit secretly, to call the Son the only begotten. In everything, you sons of truth, see how everywhere he wants the Son to be alien to the Father and not fully participate in the Divine essence, as he always boldly expresses: for when he says that the Father knows Himself unbegotten and does not know Himself in the parental nature (capable of being born), then in vain does he even call the Son Son in one simple phrase. His word will be refuted: for the Father is the unbegotten, and from all eternity begot the Only Begotten, being of a nature appropriate to Himself, in the generation of the Only Begotten alone and in the generation of the Spirit, there is one Parent to the One Only Begotten, who coexists with the unbegotten Son, being a Spirit, who also begot the Spirit, but not being a body divided bodily, diminished or increased, and subject to division. Therefore, all others who have given birth and are born need many things, but here the dignity of the One with the One is not similar to all existing things. Therefore, He Himself, who was begotten in an incomprehensible way, was born as one who was not begotten, as befitting the Parent. And He no longer begets, that is, essentially, so that by the fact that He does not give birth essentially and by the fact that the Father is not begotten, on both sides all the glory of dignity is preserved in one unity of the dignity of God the perfect Father, and the perfect Son and the perfect Holy Spirit. And therefore, neither Divine Scripture nor pious reason, taught to think piously about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, glorify the Trinity and worship Her, having received grace from God, recognizes consubstantiality as a lie. Aetia chapter 12. If the concept: unborn does not mean the essence of God, but this incomparable name is a human invention, then God, not having in His essence the superiority corresponding to this name, for the invention of the concept: unborn, should be grateful to those who invented it. Rebuttal And the concept: unborn, as we said when competing with Aetius, and which we do not deny, although it is not used in Divine Scripture, it was nevertheless piously invented. Calling the Father unbegotten, we also confess Him to be unbegotten; We also do not deny that the Son is begotten, but not created: for if we have made the determination that the Son is begotten, then we cannot deny that He has his being from God the Father, Who by birth begot Him, and did not create. Since you want to lead yourself astray from the true path, arguing all the time and at random about the begotten and the unborn (for you do nothing else), then listen to what has been said about human inferences, about objections based on inferences and human superstition: a man has a diligent mind to think evil from his youth (Gen. 8:21). We ourselves will say that it is much more indecent for the uncreated God to create the created and for the uncreated to create. It is impossible to suppose that one who was not created created what was created and one who was not born created the future, if, according to Aetius, it is indecent for the unborn to give birth. since creatures are visible and what exists in nature for the most part appears before our eyes, without making indecent the uncreated God by what was created from Him, so that the transfer of an incomparable (name) to the changeable state of the created is no longer considered indecent by Aetius, instead of what is proper, one must look for another God, not created, but another created and able to create in his own likeness. For something created and capable of creating, but not original, but created, one must look for another culprit for this and present him as something other than this. And great will be the vanity of thoughts of deep error, since their reason is not established on good foundations, but fulfills what was said on itself: the servants of God have become foolish and every man has become possessed of understanding (Jer. 51:17; cf. 10:14): for no one lives for himself and dies for himself (Rom. 14:7). And no one can know anything without the help of God, who revealed to us His true faith in the words: This is My beloved Son: Hear ye (Matthew 17:5) and without the help of him who was born of Him, who revealed His Father to us and said: I am gone from the Father, and I go (John 16:28). And it is not from the name of the human that God has this incomparability, and on the other hand, from this incomparability the dignity of the true hypostatic Word of God, without beginning, consubstantially begotten of the Father, is not overthrown, just as for neither one nor the other of these names God does not owe gratitude to the invention of the human mind: for He does not accept the Divinity, in addition to what He has, a dignity or annex, on the contrary, the Divinity itself to all bestows from His fullness (cf. John 1:16), always remaining in identity and not diminishing, but in its own being always bearing the dignity of name, and power, and being. Aetia chapter 13. If birth is not attributed to God from outside, then those who attributed it are superior to the One to whom they attributed, giving Him a name, the highest of His nature. Rebuttal No one is greater than God, this is my word to Aetius, who thought so. This is what the truth says, for how can anyone be more excellent than God, when everything came into being from Him? Since God is the author of the creatures created from Him, rational and irrational, visible and invisible, He is superior to them all, although rational beings also have the right understanding of piety in order to partially render Him the best honor. But all the creatures gathered together and represented in an even greater number, straining their strength to praise God, do not contain within themselves the perfection of His glory, since This supreme being surpasses the mind of His subordinate beings, although in strength and beyond strength they strain to the hymnology of the most excellent being: for It is superior not in word, but in power, name and mind. Moreover, the praise of the most excellent from the beings subordinate to Him will not distinguish between one incomparable and another of the same kind: for it knows the most excellent in the Father, which consists in His unbegottenness, as well as the most excellent thing begotten of Him. Therefore, the right understanding, given from God to people, confesses the Son to be consubstantial, so that, having thought about the dissimilarity of the Son with the Father, it does not create a separation in the most excellent and pure perfection, according to the power of knowing that truly the one born from the one who begot without comparison rises above all minds in His superiority. Aetia chapter 14. If the unborn nature is not inferior to the born, then it is as we say; and if it is inferior to birth, then the suffering state of birth would be superior to the being of God. Rebuttal 1. To talk about a passive state in God is completely impious: for the Divinity is not at all encompassed by passions, and since It is higher than what is found in the soul of each of us individually, then in any case the word of Aetia is refuted: because everything that happens passionately in us happens dispassionately in God. We partly have a passion to want something, I don’t say to want to be pious, but to want to do something that is above our nature, due to the impossibility of accomplishing the corresponding desire, such as for a person to fly, rush in the air, comprehend the veins of the depths of water, see the foundation of the earth, and the like. But to the extent that I contain something passionate, God contains something impassive. Therefore, whatever He wants, He can do, since His nature does not oppose the will, but our nature, insofar as we have a desire for the impossible, opposes the will. And if we said that God does what He wants, then let no one think that He does in this way what is inappropriate for Him. In no case: for He wants what He does according to His dignity, and neither the will in Him opposes the possibility, nor the possibility is opposed to the will, not because He cannot, but because He does not want. 2. After recognizing such dispassion in God, and vice versa passion in us and other creatures, if one happens to reason in this way, another passion must truly be recognized, and then a second and third one must also be assumed. In passion we give birth and are born, since our nature and that of other begotten and begetting creatures allows for division and flow, expansion and contraction, increase and decrease, and everything else that is combined with passion for such a reason. In God, however, there was none of this at the birth of the Son: for if any of these were in God, according to their opinion, serving to overthrow the Begotten, then we will make an objection against them from the other side, which lies in ourselves, namely, that in us, in the passion of giving birth and being born, there is another passion in creating something, and we suffer at the time when we both give birth and are born. You think of God as the Creator, and not the Parent; but in order to deny the truth of the birth of the Son and overthrow the true teaching about this, you introduce passion into the concept of birth and secretly transfer the same passion to the creature, which really belongs to God, but with the exception of passion; no! for we do not attribute passion to Him, confessing Him to be the Creator of all things. We also do not think about passion in relation to Him, confessing Him in truth to have begotten the true Son without beginning and without time. Therefore, we recognize His nature as incomprehensible and not involved in passions. For this reason, we confess Him as both an impassive Parent and an impassive Creator: for He gave birth to the Only Begotten without suffering and brought forth His Holy Spirit from Himself without undergoing division, and He created what was created and what is being created without fatigue, not possessed by passion. He does what he wants, befitting of His Divinity, not first wanting to find out through reflection whether what is being done should be done, nor wanting to do anything and not being able to fulfill what is being done due to the opposition of the will from passion. Everything is in His power: to will, to do, to give birth to the Only Begotten, to create everything, since the Divine nature and dignity are above all the conclusions of Aetius and the conditions of the human condition; since God is also superior to every thought, not subject to passion, but above all passions and every mental idea. Aetia chapter 15. If what is born is unchangeable by nature because of the one who gave birth, then what is not born is an unchangeable essence, not by will, but by the dignity of the essence. Rebuttal How long will he (Aetius) tell us the same thing and not go beyond what was previously stated, for what he said at the beginning is the same thing and speaks about the same thing to the end, and nothing else, not revealing secrets to us, not about God, as he promises, teaching us, not proclaiming to us the faith, with the help of which the apostles acted and calling it a firm confession of truth, raised the dead and cleansed lepers and other all the evidence consistent with this They showed true action, but vain and full of boasting conclusions that did not go beyond the limits of identity, and nothing else. Therefore, we ask the reader not to be angry with us for what he reads, if we ourselves repeat the same thing, forced to speak against his identity. The Begotten is unchangeable, as befits the Divine, and the Parent is unchangeable, as likewise befits His unchangeable nature. He who gave birth abides, always having that which is born of Him, not allowing in the creatures created from Him any thought of knowing the Father without the Son, and without the Father knowing His begotten and perfect Spirit, which proceeds from the Father and receives from the Son (John 15:26; 16:15). And this befits the dignity of the being of God - not to need the addition of any dignity, but to have it eternally in its own identity. Aetia chapter 16. If the concept: unborn means essence, then it is rightly distinguished from the essence of the born. If what is not born does not mean anything, then what is born does not mean anything. How will nothing be opposed to nothing? If the word: unborn is opposed to the word: begotten, then when the utterance of this word is followed by silence, the hope of Christians, based on different pronunciation, and not on the nature of things denoted by names, appears and disappears. Rebuttal How do those who know how to amaze the minds of the inexperienced tend to use evidence against themselves? Thus Aetius, placing all hope in a single saying, and not in the truth, boldly came to proclaim it to us, not being ashamed to confess the Son of God and God the Father with mere words, while we first of all confess the natural Father and the natural Son and the natural Holy Spirit: for with the Trinity nothing else can be compared. And therefore, in truth, consubstantial is the affirmation of our confession, which is not destroyed by one saying, which can be or not be, what is the opinion of Aetius about the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; for there is truly a true Father and a truly true Son and a true Holy Spirit, even if he (Aetius) sowed countless vain conclusions. The Divine Word says this about such people: I will reject the understanding of the prudent (1 Cor. 1:19; fn. Is. 29:14) and: The Lord knows the thoughts of men, as if they are vanity (Ps. 93:11) and so on. Aetia chapter 17. If unbornness does not add anything else to the superiority of essence, in comparison with birth, then the Son, being superior to the Father only in name, will find those who called Himself (unborn) God and His Father better, and not Himself named. Rebuttal Even though Aetius offered us countless dramatic works, no pious reason would agree with him that those who received existence from Being were superior to Him: for he himself (Aetius) admits that they received existence through Him. And not by pronouncing only the name, but as the true (Son), born of the true (Father), those who have been blessed by Him with the dignity of Christians are called Begotten, for the true knowledge of Him they are called taught through the Father, and not of flesh and blood (fn. Matt. 16:17; Gal. 1:16; 1 Cor. 2:10), and for this they are justly blessed, such as, for example, who knew Him as Christ, with adding the words: Son of the living God (Matthew 16:16). Those of the spiritual Aetius, who do not accept the spiritual, strive spiritually. And although the Son, being the Spirit and the Only Begotten, says: I go to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God (John 20:17), however, both of these names cannot be equated with foreign names, since the truth always abides and teaches us to truly discern the clarity of the necessary order in relation to the Son of God. The expressions: My Father and your Father do not refer to their flesh: for how can God, not clothed with flesh, be the Father of the flesh? In the same way, the saying: My God and your God should not refer to the Divinity of the Son and not to the sonship of the disciples, but with the saying: To My God and your God, being true in everything, He confirmed the disciples mysteriously in the thought of His incarnation. Speaking the words: To My Father and to your Father, He seemed to say this: because of My fellowship with Him by nature and My fellowship with you, in which fellowship to be, I have given you power to dwell with you out of love for mankind, according to what was said: I have given them the realm to become children of God (John 1:12). Therefore, He Himself, appearing among them, took on the form of a servant (Phil. 2:7), again joining the new, but in such a way that the ancient remains in identity and does not pass into fusion; the sons of men, through this communion, pass into a state of non-corruption, but are not united with Him to the point of consubstantiality; and when it is said that He took on the form of a servant, the word: He took on denotes something new, and the saying: in the form of God (v. 6) means that He has not undergone change. And since this is so and so clearly confessed in perfect knowledge by those taught by God, then neither the saying: My God and your God, nor the other: My Father and your Father, can, by the similarity of the name, separate the pure being from communion with the one corresponding to it and from the advantage of the own property of the Father in relation to the Son and the Son in relation to the Father and the Holy Spirit in the same way. Aetia chapter 18. If the unborn essence is superior to birth, since it has an original superiority, then it is the unborn self-existence. For it is not by its own will that it is superior to birth, but by nature. Therefore, God, being a unique, unborn essence, does not allow any mind to think about the birth of Himself, but rejects the desire of all research and all thought for what is born. Rebuttal Aetius continues to torment us, forcing us, as I said, to often speak the same thing due to the same word that passes through him from beginning to end about the same thing. Faith, which saves everyone who is faithful, has never consisted of the subtlety of human reasoning: because human reasoning is not reliable and cannot extend to the infinity of God’s being. For the whole life-giving mystery of Christ's salvation is a stumbling block for Jews, and foolishness for Greeks, but for us, who are called Jew and Greek, Christ is God's power and God's wisdom: for God's sake man is wiser, and God's weakness is stronger than man (1 Cor. 1:23-25). And so, who would not place Aetius among the Jews for the temptation of his conclusions and among the Hellenes because, because of his arbitrary wisdom, he considers the truth of God to be madness? for only one is the highest of all creation, and the Creator of creation, and the Creator of everything. Not because He is superior to what He has produced, He does not create or create what He has produced, for He does not envy His own goodness; because it has in itself self-goodness, which is superior to everything and is not overwhelmed by passions, envy or ill will. And He created the existing from the non-existent: because what He produced, subordinate to His incomparable Divinity, was not invented against Him as created by Him, but for His glory, for the demonstration of His unenvious Divinity, which, being self-goodness and self-existent, partaking of what He created from the non-existent, desired His existence and the participation of each of the created beings, according to His state, His gift. For example, the luminaries were given light, the sky was given the beauty of decoration, the earth and others, by His will, were given parts of virtue, the angels and other holy powers were given incorruptibility, and to man the dignity of the image and the gift of life, knowledge, and rational ability. And not only by His will, with slowness, so to speak, or with a change of decision and deliberative reasoning, but out of self-goodness: for self-goodness is characteristic of Him in maintaining, creating and accomplishing everything in an appropriate manner. Therefore, just as this did not cause any indecency to His goodness, but served to glory and the knowledge of His unenvy, combined with praise, for the knowledge and feeling of the creatures He produced, so the glory of His Divinity is not received from outside (for the Divinity never needs the addition of glory, but there is glory itself, and virtue itself, miracle itself and praise itself), precisely in the fact that the Father gave birth, although He Himself is not born, so that from always of the existing source flowed an eternal source, co-existent with Him and existing from Him, a source from a source, and God from God, and light from light, not beginning to be, not subject to time, but together having truly the Father, just as the Father has, together truly the Son, not unbecoming of the Father and not destroying anything from His incomparability: for here there is not any bodily division, but the hypostatic Word, God who is from the Father, the Spirit from the Spirit, and God from God, excluding any inferential assumption, being life for the faithful and all, the Father through Him and from Him, who believe and know and do not consider the power of God and God's wisdom, which surpasses all research and all reasoning, as madness, especially for corrupt people, as Aetius himself involuntarily admitted. Aetia chapter 19. If the concept: unborn means deprivation in relation to God and there is nothing unborn, then what kind of mind will take away nothing from the non-existent? And if it means that something exists, then who can separate from the existing that which it is - from itself? Rebuttal 1. What the external (that is, pagan) dialecticians talk about deprivation, Aetius brings to us, taking it as if it serves to knowledge of God and to benefit; but first of all, he does not know what the concept of deprivation is accepted among outsiders. According to the teachings of dialectics, the word: deprivation is not applied to everything, but only to that which, by its nature, has acquired something. To such, after it, having possessed something by nature, passes into the opposite state, the concept of deprivation is attached; to someone who has not changed his state yet. Just as no one will say about a stone that it is blind (for one who had the ability to see, and then lost his sight, receives the name blind; if, for example, a bird, or a person, or cattle, since they are able to see, are deprived of this ability, they are called blind in the sense of being deprived of sight), so we will not call a stone not angry, or kindly, or not envious: for it is incapable of this by nature; about a person or animal that has the ability to become angry when they are not angry, this can be said in the sense of being deprived of this, but about those who are not capable of this, it cannot be said. 2. This is how one should accept things about God. And since our word refers to Aetius, we turn to him with a question: tell us, Aetius, do you recognize God as incomparable with all those who do not exist from the same being, or do you dare to count Him among everyone? And if you number Him among all those who exist not from His essence, but from what does not exist and are produced from Him through the One who exists from Him in essence, except for Him alone and the Holy Spirit, who exists from the essence of the incomparable Father and His only begotten Son, 343 then your confession is the most insane. Then how will there already be one of all, by whom everything is produced from non-existent? This is impossible; and you yourself wouldn’t say this. since He cannot be recognized as similar or equal to those produced from Him from things that do not exist, it cannot be accepted that He would endure anything similar to those who are not like Him, who are characterized by the opposite in deprivation: for the visible does not exist from itself and being did not receive from itself, but by the gift of grace from the one who gave it. In the visible, produced from the non-existent, there is suffering when something is deprived of what was in it by the gift of the impartial giver and does not have existence from anyone and cannot be deprived of anything. And so, if this Son, or the Father, or the Holy Spirit is not equal to this, and the Son is different from this, not called by an equal name, but having a chosen and incomparable name, being the very good of the self-good, then what confusion can there be with that which has the opposite deprivation? Therefore, the speech of Aetius, who brings to us the concept of deprivation, is unnecessary, since the unborn Son does not have the dignity that belongs to Him due to the deprivation of creatures, but independently and especially, in itself, befitting His essence and Divinity. So God is not angry not in relation to anger, but because He Himself is not angry, and is not begotten because He Himself is not begotten, although the Son is begotten of the unbegotten. Therefore, the expression: deprivation is in vain applied to a Being, which, in the opinion of the one who uses this expression, is incomparable with others: for nothing else can be equal to the Begotten, nor does the Unbegotten convey to the created His own consubstantiality, not because the Almighty is powerless, but because without the strong does not reach the Almighty because of the superiority of the one God and His only begotten Son with the Holy Spirit. Aetia chapter 20. If deprivation is the deprivation of a property, then not being born in God is either a deprivation of the property, or a property contrary to deprivation. But if it is a deprivation of a property, then how will that which is not inherent in God be reckoned with Him? If unbornness is a property, then it is necessary to presuppose a born entity, so that, having received this property, it could be called unborn. If the begotten essence participated in the unborn, then, having lost its property, it lost its unbornness. And so the essence would be born, and not birth-property. If birth indicates a transition, then obviously it means a certain property, whether it will be a transformation from some essence, or will it be what is called birth. Rebuttal 1. Having long been fighting for the assumption of deprivation together with those alienated from the faith, Aetius himself, along with them, armed himself against the faith, saying nothing from faith and not remembering what was said to those who utter idle talk and do not hold on to the beginning of faith, precisely what the Word of God tells them incriminatingly: I Rech in my anger: every man is a lie (Ps. 116:2), and after that even that: I humbled myself greatly (v. 1). Now, again revolving in the same thing, bringing with us the burden of the concepts of deprivation, naming and property, and the conclusions of unreliable human opinion, and the spiritually challenged is careful not to put a limit to his own striving, which stems from human cunning, allowing himself to say what he wants about God. But we, although we have talked a lot about the concepts of deprivation, are forced again to remain with the same things and revolve around refuting them. Due to the similarity in direction and identity of his concluding word, a strong and previous refutation would be sufficient to be directed against both objections. But since neither a stubborn horse should be left unbridled when it either rushes through an abyss or begins a rapid run, nor should a person who says the same thing against faith ought to yield, so as not to speak against him, then we will also say: if deprivation is the taking away of a property, then unbornness in God is either a deprivation of a property or a property contrary to deprivation. And one more thing: if it is a deprivation of a property, then how will that which is not inherent in God be included in it? 2. Whether you reason one way or another, Aetius, about God, and assume properties in Him, in any case, your reason will be deprived: for no matter how much your heart ascends to God, unless you believe in Him and marvel at Him and glorify Him with all your thoughts, you will be exposed in your powerlessness to conclude about God and His Son and the Holy Spirit; May God not expose you and turn out to be a liar, according to what is written (Ps. 116:2). In us, both properties, desires, and thoughts are unstable, since we are of the same nature and being. And there we are talking about the nature and being of God. And we should not compare the incomparable God with our nature, because we hear the words: nature and nature, being and being. In the same way and in everything that you, Aetius, could say about God; in everything, too, His unmixing with anyone, incomparability, perfection in Himself, the absence of need for anything: for He is self-feeling and self-will. Therefore, having incomparably begotten the incomparable only-begotten Son, He Himself did not deprive Himself of His essence, nor did He deprive Him of one of the only begotten His own essence, nor of the Holy Spirit, which has no equality with anything else, either in dignity or in nature or in anything else. God did not deprive Himself of anything, neither in property nor in essence of His incomparable Divinity, nor did He begotten of Him, as I said, did not lose the dignity and equality of the Father, being incomparable, nor did the Holy Spirit, incomparable with anything, - the perfect Trinity, the perfect Father, the perfect Son, the perfect Holy Spirit, who represents neither fusion nor mixture, not having in Himself anything subordinate, so that, when distinguishing something, the incomparability did not disappear, or during the change there was no deprivation of being, which, although you retain it, is only in words, and not in truth, or, as it were, only in passing by one name, so-called, and not in reality in reality, as in any case your mind thinks, trying to move away from the word of faith, that it is fitting for one who comes to God to believe, as it is, and the rewarder is to those who seek Him ( Heb.11:6), which cannot be accomplished in the Father alone: for he who does not have the Son does not have the Father, and he who has the Son cannot do this without the Holy Spirit. 3. The Father is in truth the true God, as the Son, who knows the Father, testifies (cf. 1 John 5:20). And the Son is the true light, known and witnessed by the Father (Matthew 3:17; 17:5). And the Spirit is the true Spirit, not alien, but proceeding from the Father and receiving from the Son. And this eliminates all the inferential fables of your words, Aetius, and cannot convince us to be disciples of your mentor Aristotle, and to abandon the teaching of those enlightened by the Spirit of God, fishermen unlearned in the Word and simple people, but messengers of truth in the power of God with which they were awarded: for the kingdom of God does not consist in conclusions and not in arrogant words, but in power and truth. And we have already heard your word enough about the deprivation of properties and positions, and about a born being and an unborn being, accepting or not accepting something, and together with a property suffering the negation of a property, and about a born being woven in here, and about the property of an unborn and about a born, casually named, but signified in one property and signifying a property passing from some being, although and called born, as you said: for your mind speaks the same thing about the same thing, without ceasing to direct speech against the same thing. Aetia chapter 21. If ungeneracy is a property and birthlessness is a property, then essences are prior to properties, and properties, although they are second, are preferable to essences. If the ungenerated is the cause of the begotten in relation to being, and the begotten, containing its cause in its essence, points to an essence, and not to a property, borrowing nothing from the ungenerated nature, then how could the ungenerated essence not be an essence, but a property? Rebuttal 1. As you see, lovers of truth, Aetius is again trying to construct for us a speech considering the properties in God and in that which is lower than God. And he puts one thing first, another second. Meanwhile, in God it is not (permissible) legal to accept the first or the second even in words: for in God everything is together and does not need addition. Therefore, the pious mind does not allow what is born to be thought of as being produced in time: because in God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, that is, in the existent Trinity, which is the existent God, is called the existent Father and the existent Son, with the Existence the existent, begotten without beginning and timelessly, as it is said: with You is the source of life (Ps. 35:10) and: in Your light we will see light (ibid.) and: who is in the bosom of the Father (John 1:18) and: in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was to God, and God was the Word (v. 1); and about the Holy Spirit in the same way: My Spirit shall remain in your midst (Hag.2:6). You see that there is nothing new in the Trinity. Therefore, neither essence precedes property, nor property precedes essence. We do not mean the property as the fragile so-called properties that have a change in each of those with positive properties, if you, Aetius, force us to talk about the property in relation to God. And there is nothing in God that is more preferable, or after being born, but there is something that befits dignity for praise; one Divinity and one glorification and one honor, that they honor the Son as they honor the Father (John 5:23) and let them not slander the Spirit in view of the word of threat, not remitting them of this sin either in this age or in the next (Matt. 12:32). Therefore, it is proper not to think anything different about the Trinity, not to devoutly, not to glorify; but in the Father to name the Father, in the Son - the Son, in the Holy Spirit - the Holy Spirit, and so glorify in truth, since in the manner of worship befitting the one Trinity, giving Her respect and recognizing Her dignity constitutes the necessity of true faith. And neither the unborn does not need the begotten, so that something could be brought into His being, and so that the begotten would clearly be the originator of the being for Him, nor is the being of the begotten a property of the nature of the unborn, and is not called so. 2. The Trinity does not need anything and does not accept the addition of anything: for, since the Trinity Itself has always existed, and there was nothing of what was created, then, in order to receive for himself anything, as if by lot, besides this, the Father did not think about adding any name, nor about adding anything to His dignity, through the Son creating heaven and earth and everything visible and invisible, and by His Spirit established all the power of what He had created, so that from the creation what was created and the product of what was produced was for the benefit of the Father who bears the name of the Creator and Maker, or there was a thought about some addition to the Son, through Whom and from Whom what was created was produced, or to the Holy Spirit, in Whom what was established was confirmed. And God did not turn from property to property and changed both in nature and in essence, as if by reflection and change: for He always had in Himself a creative and perfect power, not needing the addition of any glory. And just as in the reasoning of creatures no one should think about God that the addition of property and dignity is the dignity of the being and glory of God, so Aetius will also be refuted, who wants to conclude about God on the basis of introducing to us the concepts of the ungenerated and the begotten, property and essence, when all created beings are recognized as truly existing and are presented as such not for the increase of the glory of God, who does not need anything. Likewise, in relation to the Only Begotten and His Holy Spirit, one should not equate them with created beings: for it is impossible to say this. Meanwhile, Aetius comes to us, bringing with him conclusions about sublime objects and boldly reaching out to the high and drawing conclusions from lower creatures, although he finds nothing corresponding to his concluding word: for human wisdom passes away and human concluding speech is buried; because his spirit will go out, and he will return to his dust (dn. Eccl. 3:20–21; 12:7; Ps. 103:14–16; Job 10:9). All the subtleties of human inferences pass away, and together with people with the inferential art of Aetius and his cunning preparations against faith. Faith, hope, and love, which serve as the subject of his conclusions, remain, according to what is written (1 Cor. 13:13). Aetia chapter 22. If every essence is unborn, such as. the essence of God Almighty, then how can one call one essence passionate and another impassive? If, due to the state of ungenerated nature, one essence remains alien to quantity and quality and, simply to say, any change, and the other is subject to suffering, then if we recognize it as not unchangeable in essence, it is necessary to assume that the above-mentioned difference occurs by chance, or it is more appropriate to call the active essence ungenerated, and the changeable - generated. Rebuttal 1. We do not call every being unbegotten and not every being begotten of God, because He who begat the one born of Him and sent from Him His Holy Spirit, the Spirit who partakes of that which belongs to the Son, did not beget all, but one, which is why He is the Only Begotten, and sent one from Him, which is why He is the Holy Spirit. He created through one and established in one all, both those who give birth and, after creation, those who are born, and those created, but neither those who give birth nor those who are born. And the uncreated being of the Trinity is far removed from those created by the Trinity, but not born of the Trinity. Therefore, the Trinity has impassibility and immutability, yet the lower of the Trinity is subject to suffering, unless the Impassive One grants, to whom He deigns to unenviably bestow, impassivity through incorruption. They have incorruptibility not because of the incorporeality of nature, but because of the independence of the good and impassive God. And the suffering of the Only Begotten in the flesh does not produce suffering in His Divinity, although true faith and true confession teach that the impassive God, being the Word, suffered. The One and the Same remains in dispassion, having not suffered any change or alteration in His nature. Therefore, being Wisdom and an impassive God, and knowing that by His suffering He saves those held by the passions of death, He did not send an ambassador, not an angel, and not, as before Him, prophets, but the Lord Himself came and, having taken upon Himself passion, truly suffered, while His Divinity remained impassive: for coming in the flesh did not diminish the power of His Divinity. According to His Divinity, He continued to do the works of God, not tolerating obstacles from the flesh, forbidding the wind, waves and sea (Luke 8:24), calling Lazarus from the dead with His own power (John 11:43) and doing countless other things and more. Meanwhile, He allowed things to happen that were related to the flesh, such as the devil to tempt Him, and people to strike Him, and those gathered against Him to seize Him, so that in a passionate nature the impassive one would suffer, remaining dispassionate in His Divinity, not alien to the impassive God, but voluntarily doing all this in accordance with His wondrous sacrament. So God the Father with the Only Begotten Himself and His Holy Spirit, the Trinity is always perfect and impassive, one Divinity will support everything, one God, one Dominion, since one and the same God will support everything. 2. And He is not subject to suffering because He will contain everything, since what He holds is subject to suffering: for the God of all is both within everything and outside everything, not being mixed with anything. Hence, neither because He is everywhere, nor because He is outside of everything, nor because He sustains everything, nor because everything moves in Him (cf. Acts 17:28), suffering is not applied to the impassive God. In the same way, neither because He begat the Only Begotten, nor because the Only Begotten was begotten, nor because His Holy Spirit was sent from Him, suffering does not apply to the Holy Trinity: for neither the Holy Spirit descending in the form of a dove on the Jordan is passionate (Matthew 3:16), nor the Only Begotten, baptized and touched by John, nor the Father crying from above with a voice audible to people: This is My Son, listen to Him (v. 17 fn. 17:5). And so the Son is unchangeable. And the unbegotten Father and the begotten Son are impassive, and the Spirit is dispassionately generated. But while everything else is created, the perfect Trinity remains in Its quantity and uncreated name, so that neither that which is most excellent is changed, nor that which is begotten is subject to suffering: for neither is He who begat subject to suffering, nor is that which is begotten bodily, but is Spirit from the Spirit and Son from the Father. In the same way, the Holy Spirit proceeding from Him, the Spirit of the Father, the Spirit of Christ, not created, unborn, not fellow, not ancestral, not grandchild, since the being of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is incomparable, surpasses every thought and every mind, not only, I would say, of men, but also of angels: for neither the Only Begotten, nor His Father, nor His Holy Spirit suffered change from passionless suffering. The Only Begotten in the flesh and the appearance of His Holy Spirit in the form of a dove and the dispassionate utterance from above of the voice of the Father into the ears of men. In the same way, the created angels, and the heavens, and the earth, and everything else did not produce change or suffering in the one who created them, but all this is a wondrous mystery, according to what has been said: O the depth of the riches and wisdom and understanding of God (Rom. 11:33)! Aetia chapter 23. If the ungenerated nature is the cause of the generated, and meanwhile the ungenerated is nothing, then how can nothing be the cause of what happened? Rebuttal The unborn nature is not in the same way with everyone, but in a different sense it is the unborn nature in relation to the begotten Only Begotten and to the Holy Spirit who proceeded from Him; and it serves as the culprit of them not in the same way as existing in relation to non-existent: for neither is He who was born from non-existent, and He who gave birth is not non-existent, nor is the Holy Spirit who proceeded from Him; Otherwise, the cause of everything is existence. Therefore, the Holy Trinity always abides in His own glory, being always corresponding to each name of His dignity; for through Her and not without Her the things that did not exist came into being. Therefore, the Father Himself is not the author of what happened, but the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit created everything. If the Son were alien, as if he were from the author, then He would have come along with everyone and be equal to them. And God would be the author of the Produced, not by birth, but by creation; and it would be impossible for One to be called born, while the rest are creatures, but either everyone should be called born together with Him, or He should be called creation equally with everyone. And there would be nothing special in Him if the One were equated with everyone from the point of view of origin from non-being, if, I say, not only the angels were equated with their Creator and Creator - the Only Begotten, but also people, and cattle, and everything that is infinitely lacking in His nature and dignity. Existing together with the Existing, He was truly untimely born from Him, not from something that does not exist, but from Him; Likewise, His Holy Spirit is not alien to His essence and is not, as it were, produced to help God, as Aetius says. Aetia chapter 24. If ungeneracy is deprivation, and deprivation is the loss of a property, and loss completely destroys an object, or changes it into another, then how is it possible to attribute the name of a changeable property, that is, ungeneracy, to the essence of God? Rebuttal If by you, Aetius, and from your time, the opinion about God on the basis of your conclusions has been presented for the glory of God, according to the words you said above, then I myself, continuing the debate with you, with the help of God, will pronounce the same thing as what you say, because none of the ancient in the Old and New Testament, the holy apostles or prophets, thought so as you, who placed yourself above God Himself and free from delusion. By you and from your time, the Divinity, according to your word, as if in addition to faith in Him, accepted this inferential art of yours, which is the whole teaching about the deprivation of the unborn and about the begotten, and about the complete loss of property, and about change, and about the name of God corresponding to His essence. For it is not because God is the Creator of everything that came after His Only Begotten and His Holy Spirit, for the sake of the composition of what was created, the concept of deprivation of what is not inherent in God was invented, or the recognition of what was in Him was accepted in relation to Him, so that what was created after would bring to God the best, and what was presented would be pure as a result of deprivation and His immutability in comparison with it; but because He Himself, who always exists, is the complete glory, completely incomprehensible to everything created by Him, striving to glorify Him to the best of its ability, glorified by the angels in the language of angels, which the Apostle proclaims as the highest language of man (1 Cor. 13:1), and in the language of man, lower than that language, in its measure, and, if possible, by even lower human beings. And in each creature, not entirely according to its place in nature, the doxology decreases or changes; but this doxology in itself remains unchanged; all creation is deprived only of the ability to extend into infinity in its glorification, since the highest being always surpasses every mind and does not experience transformation or change or success from what is attributed to Him by everyone as inherent in Him: for the Divinity itself is above all, incomparable with anything and glorified. Aetia chapter 25. If unbornness indicates a deprivation that is not inherent in God, then how can we say that He is unborn and not begotten? Rebuttal Unbornness truly exists; but is not called anywhere either a prophet, an apostle, or an evangelist. And it would not be surprising to use this expression about God: for it is inherent in the pious mind according to the most natural law of its thinking. But you, Aetius, having introduced it into our use, think that you are bringing with you something amazing. You have merged and mixed the pious law of nature and the law of faith, given from God for the improvement of the human race, planning to equate in dignity the born with the unborn, so that what is worshiped for you, unlike (ἀνόμοιος), turns out to be equal to what is unlike what you preach. So, if you worship the Father by name alone, then you are feigning honor to Him. And if you worship the Son, recognizing Him as unlike the Father, then you merge in worship, giving the unlike one honor equal to the One who is not like Him. If, due to the prejudice of your unbelief, you refuse to worship the Son, then you will be exposed by everyone, not recognizing adequately from everyone what is worshiped and recognized as equal (to the Father): for it is said; let all the angels of God worship Him (Heb. 1:6). And Mary and all His disciples worshiped Him, gloriously risen in the flesh: for He has no name either made or created; He is known to be begotten of the Father and He is worshiped as being from being, as well as the Holy Spirit who proceeded from Him: for they recognize Him in essence as alien to what is produced, since He is not produced or created, but begotten of the Father. Therefore, having worked very hard and spent a lot of time and brought in new alien words, you, Aetius, will worship Him: for it is fitting for all to stand before His judgment (2 Cor. 5:10) and for every tongue to confess, that the Lord Jesus Christ is not alien to God, but to the glory of God the Father, according to what is written (Phil. 2:11) and believed. Aetia chapter 26. If unbornness is only a name in relation to God, and this name elevates the being of God above all that is born, then the human name is more honorable than the being of the Almighty, since it adorned God the Almighty with incomparable superiority. Rebuttal Ungeneracy in God is not just one simple name and is not applicable to the created by its essence. Therefore, the name of a creature is not a designation of a name alone. If, however, another name is sought between the unbegotten and the created, which is the Son, and, moreover, not created, then to whom should this chosen name be attributed? And if we make it common between the Son and the created that the middle name is not called by mere simple naming, and just as in the ungenerated and the creative and the created these names are not taken for mere simple naming, and in the begotten and the Son these names are not accepted for mere naming, then in vain what is slandered by Aetius in his conclusions will only indicate a merger, since a truly created being, and not by just one such a name cannot be equated with the name of the Son. Since the Son Himself does not accept the naming of the Son as a mere name. And since the only-begotten Son and the Holy Spirit are not non-existent and not called by mere naming, they are united in glory with the Father and do not merge with the naming of creatures: for the Divinity does not need exaltation as non-existent and does not require height, even if by some who are in ignorance and was not elevated, and the essence of the Divinity is not confirmed by the mere utterance of His name on the part of some. And let not this utterance be boasted by men or other creatures, as giving glory to God, as if he needed it, or as adorning God Almighty, the God of worship: it knows God as its Creator and Creator. Without a doubt, it does not consider itself glorious and capable of adorning its own Creator: because otherwise it would consider itself worshiped if it did not worship the worshiped. And in vain is your speech directed against everyone, Aetius. Aetia chapter 27. If a cause is associated with everything that is born, and ungenerated nature has no cause, then ungeneracy does not indicate a cause, but signifies a being. Rebuttal And with everything that is born there is a reason connected, and we do not recognize this as learned from you: for true faith foresees this and confesses and teaches in advance that God is completely free from any reason, is not mixed with anything and is not subject to any comparison. Therefore, we ourselves do not worship all the lower beings of God Himself, since it is fitting to show respect only to the unsubordinate, the Father unbegotten, and the Son begotten of Him, and the Holy Spirit from Him and through the Only Begotten, since in the Trinity there is nothing created and subject to a cause: for in the Trinity there is nothing that is not, just as in the rest that is subject to a cause and appointed by a cause (to being). Therefore, the Trinity, not subject to such a cause, taught Her only to worship without sin, since She alone is guiltless (free from cause). Everything else is subject to cause, since it is produced and created, but the Father is not created, having a Son begotten of Him, but not created, and the Holy Spirit, proceeding from Him and not created. And in this state of affairs, neither the worshiped Son, although He has the Father as a parent, nor the Holy Spirit are subject to the suffering inherent in what happens from a cause, nor the rest of the creatures created from the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are free from suffering, since they have a cause of being. But it is clear that the Only Begotten and His Holy Spirit, as well as the Father, are free from the suffering inherent in that which has a cause, because the Son is a begotten being, and not a created one. And neither the Son, as a result of being born, will suffer, as having a cause, nor the Holy Spirit, since he comes from the Father: for the Father, since he begat and brought forth from himself, created everything else, after the Son and the Spirit, is not subject to the suffering of a cause, although everything else in creation or generation is subject to suffering. So, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are innocent, but the Trinity itself is the cause of everything, creating together and creating together, but in itself ignorant of anything created or created. Aetia chapter 28. If everything that happened came from another, and the unborn being did not come either from itself or from another, then unbornness necessarily expresses the essence. Rebuttal And this again Aetius brings to us, reporting it as something new and unheard of, in order to appear as the inventor of the dialectical art of inference, only unnecessarily pointing out that which is not questioned and is constantly confessed in the Catholic Church, as not contrary to the truth in itself. Everything that happened came from another, but the unborn being did not come from itself or from another, if unbornness necessarily expresses the essence. And what is more necessary than this? for the name of the essence, always used by the Anomeans and Arians themselves, was cunningly borrowed by Aetius, and apparently forced by the truth, he confessed. And so, since ungeneracy is an essence that from Itself, and not from something that does not exist, immaculately and dispassionately gave birth to the Only Begotten, untimely and without beginning, and from Itself brought forth the Holy Spirit, and not from something that does not exist, it is clear that in the Holy Catholic Church the Trinity is Orthodox preached as consubstantial, while nothing created can be called by this name, because in no way by nature, nor by honor, there is anything like the Only Begotten and the Holy Spirit: for the rest is all created from non-existent and is not worshiped, but the Trinity is always there, the Father, the perfect Father, and the Son, the perfect Son, begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit, the perfect Spirit, who came from the Father and received from the Son. And everything in Divine Scripture and holy faith is clear to us, and nothing is direct or contradictory or confusing. Aetia chapter 29. If an ungenerated being appears in the essence of a begotten one, as a cause that has immutability in comparison with any cause, then it is an incomparable self-essence, not externally manifesting inaccessibility, but itself being incomparable and inaccessible to anything, since it is ungenerated. Rebuttal Aetius often rushes around with the same thing, as I myself have often said, leading us only to work, and nothing more. Therefore, in the present case, we have the need to put in the work and repeat the same thing for the same thing, as long as it pleases him: for if for the being that is begotten, the unbegotten is the begetter, then there will be no difference in dignity from the fact that the Parent gives birth to the begotten, since He begat Him from Himself essentially, Spirit from Spirit, and not body from body. Therefore, the Parent is incomparably appropriate to the Begotten and the Begotten to the Begotten: for the Divinity does not need an addition, so that at one time the Father should be called Father, but at another time not; and the Son from the union from above appeared, as if at one time not existing, and then existing. Therefore, God the Father and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are self-essence, and not another essence: for the Son is not fellow in relation to the Father or born after, but in an inexplicable respect the name of the Father is coeval with the consubstantial Son and really befits the Father and the Son, having come from Him, through Him and from that which is His, His Holy Spirit. Therefore, in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit there is something unapproachable for everything that is lower than Him and created by the Trinity Itself. The Trinity is not impregnable to Itself: for It is uncreated, and unproduced, and incomparable. Therefore, nothing can be equal to the Father and be worshiped by Him from what is derived from non-existent, and not begotten: for He never said to any of those produced: sit at My right hand (Ps. 109: 1; fn. Matt. 22:44 and paras). And the Only Begotten did not say about anyone: he who has seen Me, the form of the Father (John 14:9), and: I am in the Father, and the Father in Me (v. 10) and: no one knows the Son except the Father, nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and if He reveals it to him (Matthew 11:27). It is revealed through the Holy Spirit, who knows and teaches, and proclaims in the world what pertains to the Son (cf. John 14:26 and 15:26), and who probes the very depths of God and I (1 Cor. 2:10). That is why He says: whoever does not honor the Son as he honors the Father, the wrath of God abides on him (John 5:23 and 3:36). And he did not say: whoever does not honor the angels as he honors the Father; neither did he say again: whoever does not honor the Son, but the Son as the Father. In the same way, the one who utters blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven either in this age or in the next (Matthew 12:31,32), in order to thereby indicate the inaccessibility and incomparability of the Trinity in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Aetia chapter 30. If the Almighty surpasses all nature, then he surpasses because of ungeneracy, which is the cause of existence for everything that is born. But if unbornness does not express essence, then from where will the nature of born objects receive its preservation? Rebuttal It is proper to speak and confess, and to hold such an opinion that the Almighty surpasses all nature, from whom the Only Begotten God, the Word and His Holy Spirit, inexplicably came to us. And for this reason, we unwaveringly attribute deity not to creatures, so as not to be foolish, but we glorify the Trinity, the Son with the Father and His Holy Spirit, which surpasses all nature, as not begotten and not created. since both the Only Begotten and the Holy Spirit are not of a different nature, but God is from God, and Light is from Light; with the Father Almighty, and the Only Begotten Himself bears the name Almighty, as the Divine Scripture clearly indicates (cf. Apoc. 16:14 and John 5:17): for the Only Begotten is not alien to the dignity of the Father, but has a dignity completely corresponding to Him, as the holy Apostle expressively testifies for me, who spoke in the Holy Spirit about the sons of Israel; of whom, he says, he served, and the commandments and their fathers, from whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is God blessed above all forever, Amen (Rom. 9:4,5). Therefore, the Only Begotten is both worshiped and God, just as the Holy Spirit is the Divine Spirit, and after the Holy Trinity there is no other God. The Almighty Father and His Only Begotten Son Jesus Christ, befitting the dignity of the Father, and called the Father of the age to come (Is. 9:6), befitting His Holy Spirit because of uncreatedness, the Trinity is always revealed and cognizable, in which Trinity for everything that is produced lies the cause, although It also points to a pure essence and incomparable with anything, the Father in the Son, the Son in the Father with the Holy Spirit, since She always has in Herself the eternity of Her existence; from this Trinity comes the preservation of all produced objects. Aetia chapter 31. If nothing invisible exists in the seed before itself, but exists in a separate nature, then how is it that the ungenerate God, being free from separation, sees His essence in the begotten as the second, then as the first in the unbegotten, in accordance with the order of numbers of the first and second? Rebuttal 1. Aetius should have outlined and made clear his questions in advance, especially that expression that is subject to censure and does not have a full remedy in similarity, since neither one nor the other of what he named can be equated with one another. For he came to us with the names of many invisible beings, since the invisible are not only spiritual animals, I mean the Seraphim and Cherubim, but also angels and spirits and some other creatures, on which it is truly fulfilled that there is nothing in them in seed: because no one will say that invisible beings are bodies. And they do not give birth and are not born, but it is clear that they were created by the will of the ever-existing Deity, and each of the created beings received as an inheritance from the virtue that the Being gave to them in the abundance of His unenvious love for mankind, and each received into possession what was assigned to it, and in this abides. But God is free from every cause, having everything in Himself, not with delay or repentance, but in time began to have His Son or Holy Spirit; but in a manner befitting one who always has a Son, having a begotten Son and, moreover, the only begotten; He who always has the Father in Himself has Him, always having the Holy Spirit, who is from the Father and receives from the Son. 2. And neither in dishonor, nor in the application of glory does the fullness (perfection) of the always existing Divinity lie. Since nothing created exists forever, has the Trinity ever seen Itself in less completeness? or did she previously see herself in less fullness, but now, with an addition to her being, as needing something, after the creation of what was created, she saw herself in a more abundant application of glory or fullness? And on all sides there is not a single place of refuge left for those who want to oppose the truth and expose inferential human inventions, since the dignity of God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit exceeds any mind of angels and their highest beings, and even more so - human nature: the thoughts of men are fearful (Wis. 9:14) and their thoughts are perishable, clothing themselves in inferences and co-findings. Thus, others, motivated by their own conclusions, as if in some sophistic assumption, ask the solution to the question of evil, where it came from, others - where and why the devil appeared, others about man who had to sin, for which God created him as such, and having created him as such, for which purpose he then accuses him, so that everyone, tormented in their thoughts, would recognize themselves as corruptible and give honor and knowledge to the Father and The Son and the Holy Spirit, that is, the one Trinity, demanding from Her the knowledge of the true faith and receiving it, so that they do not try to exceed their own measure, but learn to silence blinded thoughts and not to philosophize with an excited tongue and unreasonable thoughts, but to be wiser by the more reasonable saying of the Holy and Divine Scripture, which teaches not to philosophize more than it is appropriate to philosophize, but to philosophize in chastity (Rom.12:3). Aetia chapter 32. If God dwells in unborn nature, then the knowledge of Himself in generation and ungeneration must be taken away from Him. If we allow the extension of His essence in the unborn and the begotten, then He will not recognize His essence, distracted by birth and unbornness. If birth, although it participates in the unborn, remains endlessly in the nature of the born, then it recognizes itself in an imperfect nature, without being aware of its participation in the unborn. For it is impossible to have knowledge of oneself both as an unborn and as a born entity. If the ungenerated is something important because of its tendency to change, then the dignity of nature consists in its unchangeable essence, and yet the ungenerated essence is recognized as superior to any cause. Rebuttal 1. It is certain that God abides in the ungenerate nature; the Father who created and created all things that exist, who begot from Himself the Son, consubstantial with Himself and befitting His eternity, and the Holy Spirit proceeded from Him, befittingly remaining in consubstantiality with Him. And since the Trinity created from non-existent things that exist, visible and invisible, the new name of the created is not destroyed corresponding to the dignity of God, that is, the eternity of things. The highest and all-surpassing essence is taken away from the created, as not being consubstantial with it, but having itself called it from non-existence to being. Therefore, the begotten Son is befittingly contemplated as having come, not from what is not, but from what is, and the being does not suffer either extension or contraction; but being the Spirit, the Father truly gave birth to the Spirit of the Son, and brought out the Holy Spirit from Himself and does not know Himself and does not know His essence, whether it is contracted, or expanded, or subject to dissection (for it is very unreasonable to admit all this regarding God, just as it is not reasonable for the Divinity, Which is the Holy Spirit, not to know Itself). And just as the unborn does not participate in the begotten in consubstantiality, so the begotten does not possess eternity together with the Father (for the Father knows the Son and the Son knows the Father, Matt. 11:27; cf. Luke 10:22, etc.), since the Trinity always endlessly remains uncreated, and exists endlessly, and since the Only Begotten is born from the always existing, truly existing, and in own perfect nature. Therefore, He knows Himself, and neither the Son knows the unbegotten being of the Father, nor the unbegotten being of the Son begotten of Him, since the only begotten Word of God is certain, saying: no one knows the Father except the Son, nor the Son except the Father (Matthew 11:27). 2. Therefore, let the decision declared by the foolish Aetius, as a judge, be erased, that it is impossible to have about oneself (knowledge) both as an unborn and as a begotten entity: for the Only Begotten has already destroyed this judgmental word of his, saying that the Father knows Himself, and no one else, embracing with these words the existence of His Holy Spirit, as in another place he says that the Spirit of the Father will teach you (John 14:26). If the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father, then He does not know the Father. And having said: no one knows the Father except the Son, He indicates Himself and the Father and the Holy Spirit, surpassing everything else that did not exist eternally, but was produced. And if He noted in advance that He always knew the Father, then in vain Aetius approaches us with empty words, clearly showing everyone that he is reasoning as a man, carnally driven and being spiritual in relation to the one who knows Himself, and the Father, and His Holy Spirit. So God is removed from all cause, not only the Father, but also the Son and the Holy Spirit, since the Divinity of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is confessed as superior to all cause. Aetia chapter 33. If the unborn is taken away from every cause, and there are many unborn, then they will have an unchangeable nature. For it cannot be allowed that, having become a participant in the general and particular nature, one essence created, and another was produced. Rebuttal It is recognized that the unborn is excluded from any cause, because one thing is the unborn and the worshiped, and the worshiped is excluded from the number of worshipers. What is worshiped is the Trinity, a real unit, and in one name countable there is the Trinity, the Father and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, which did not acquire something alien to Itself in Itself, but in a fitting manner the Father begot the Son, and did not create it: for that which is begotten is always the Parent, because It is begotten of the Existing One, just as the Holy Spirit went forth from Him, since the Trinity is in one not created unity, while everything else was created from the Trinity Itself from non-existence. Hence the one Trinity is God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, not having in Itself anything alien to Itself, not created, not begotten, not produced, the Trinity not created, but creating, not having in Itself the name of creation, but creating, one existing, and not many. Everything else produced from Her exists in abundance, but is not counted among Her; therefore, it is not intended for communication, being of a different nature with an incomparable essence. Therefore, in the essence of God there is not any nature created, but creative for everything that cannot join in one essence with the incomparable and one essence of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, as She (the Trinity) Herself clearly reveals to those who have accepted the knowledge of the truth, that She alone serves as an object of worship, and not all, just as She alone baptizes in Her name (Matthew 28:19), and not all. Aetia chapter 34. If every essence is unborn, then none will differ from the other in its insubordination. How can anyone say that one changes and the other changes, if he does not admit that God does not produce from a ready-made substance? Rebuttal Each of those who rebelled against the truth, having collected a few words for themselves in order to cause surprise with them, seemed to act on some in the sense of refuting the true teaching and led them away from the path of life and brought destruction. So this Aetius now, without actually saying anything with the words he just said, apparently strikes simple-hearted people with amazement, speaking to the point of excess about what has already been said to him, and just as he is accustomed to often pronouncing the same name, so is he currently using it. Not every essence among the most intelligent people is recognized as unborn, because otherwise every one would be considered Divine. If not all essences are considered Divine, but only one is preferable to all, which is the one Divinity in the Trinity, then what else will remain for this foolish one (Aetius) that could amaze the sons of truth? There will also be a difference between one essence and another, because the Trinity creates, but everything else is created by It. And She is an unsubordinate essence, but what She produces is subordinate. And this changes, She has an imperishable nature, always changing what She changes and having the power to produce from non-existent essence and being: for this befits God, so that what He produced not from a ready-made substance and from a non-existent and brought into existence He could change as He wants according to the schedule. Aetia chapter 35. If every essence is unborn, then every essence is unchangeable. And if an essence has the property of immutability, then spontaneous action and suffering must be attributed to it. If there are many unborn and unchangeable, then it will be impossible to calculate their differences. For it is impossible to count what is different, either in general or in particular, since every difference indicates some separation of the cause from a separate ungenerated nature. Rebuttal Not every essence is unborn: it is unreasonable to have this in thought, and such a thought and saying is the fruit of Hellenic unreason, whether it is expressed affirmatively or interrogatively by Aetius. But obviously it's questionable. So let him ask the children of the Hellenics about this. And let them formulate a question for him from inferences, claiming that some kind of matter is contemporary with God. But if he agrees with them, then let you be exposed along with them, since truth accepts only one creator, and since only in one essence is the perfect Trinity, not countable by fusion. All other things are produced, both created and not ungenerated. But since the Divinity is not created, the Father begetting, the Son begotten and the Holy Spirit sent from the Father Himself and receiving from what belongs to the Son, everything else is created, and since the unchangeable God remains in power, so, however, that in the Trinity with a fitting image all the Divinity is raised to the Father, both in the types of justification and steadfastness of the truth of the unity of the Divinity, and in the types of the elimination of polytheism, then immutability remains in force, and at the same time, in a manner decent to common sense, the relationship of the Son and the Holy Spirit to the Father is established. If this is so, then from the very beginning the insidious design of the question falls away: for there are not many unchangeables, but one Trinity in one, and one Divinity in the Trinity. Everything else is far away, since neither it in itself has the ability to suffer or act, nor the Holy Trinity can suffer in doing anything, being completely dispassionate and worshiped, I mean the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit: for God created everything through the Son, but not the Son, since He is not among all this; He cooperates with the Father and we worship Him. Likewise, the Holy Spirit was not created by the Father, for it is not counted among everything, but confirms the power of everything and is worshiped by the Father. Of all the things subordinated to the industry of the One, every being moves and acts, suffers, and so on. Therefore, the Trinity alone is unchangeable in Itself, yet everything else produced from It is changeable: for it is neither contemporary nor coeternal with It. The Trinity alone is eternal and unbegotten, since the Son was born timeless and without beginning, always exists, and never ceases to be. Hence the Divine Word unshakably taught to recognize the Father as the head, and not the beginning of the Son (1 Cor. 11:3), due to consubstantiality. And the Holy Spirit eternally exists and was sent from the Father, but always abides with the Father and did not begin to be from time. Aetia chapter 36. If the unborn and God mutually point to the same thing, then the unborn gave birth to the unborn. If the unbegotten points to one thing, and God to another, then it is not inappropriate for God to give birth to God, since both received being from the ungenerated essence. If there was nothing before God, as indeed there was nothing, then God and the unborn mean the same thing, since the begotten does not admit unbornness, and therefore cannot be called together with God and its father. Rebuttal 1. Where will Aetius order us to acquire the meaning of the questions and reasoning he proposes? And if he claims that from reasoning and inferences, then what we have gained by our thinking will fall with him: because no one can ever comprehend God with the help of inferences, and cannot tell the building to him who created him, why he created me according to what is written (Rom. 9:20). But from pious reason and just steadfastness it must go back to the teaching of the Holy Spirit as revealed in the Holy Scriptures. And since the eternal word of Scripture teaches us about those who serve the creature that they are fools (Rom. 1:25.22), then does not Aetius also turn out to accept the creature for God, worshiping it and honoring it? Meanwhile, true faith rejects worship in the created and creation in the worshiped: for if there is absolutely no difference in this, then for those who give honor to the creature there will be nothing preferable in Christianity, and such faith will be more idolatry than worship of God, because the pagans worship the sun, and the moon, and the powers, heaven and earth, and other creatures. And the wondrous superiority of creatures does not make any difference between them, and the peculiarity of some of them will not produce a difference in equality as a consequence of the same name, even if they differed from others in superiority: for One is the one who created both, and assigned to each of them the difference not of a name, but of a being, because in everything created the creature is called slave, and not free. And if the slave in one part is worshiped, then in the other part the worship will not differ in any way, although it is in a subordinate state: for it is equal to the highest creature, having received as its inheritance being from the non-existent from the Existing. Hence ungeneracy befits God and God is ungenerate. Therefore, we call that which is begotten not a work or a creation, but the Son, essentially begotten of the Father in purity, consubstantial with the Father and worshiped by Him, and the Holy Spirit who proceeded from Him and is not alien to Him, and therefore worshiped. The name of God is not attributed to any other created being, due to the difference in unbornness, since existence from non-existence is determined for him. But the Trinity has eternal existence and is not another thing, God and another ungenerated. 2. You, Aetius, even acknowledge the Son to be born of the Father feignedly, and not in truth: for everything that is born is not created, and everything created is not born. If what is born is called created, then it is created in a different sense, as for example one can say: people give birth to people, but it cannot be said that they create them; in the beginning they themselves were created from God. Therefore, what is born by them is still created from God, and God Himself is not created, but He begot Himself a Son and did not create it, and does not beget Him differently from His being. And so, how, when the Father remains uncreated, will what is born of Him be created? If what is begotten by Him is created, then It can no longer be called begotten. And such an absurd opinion causes a lot of controversy. And it is not fitting for God to once be without a Son, and then to be called Father after the birth of the Son. And it is indecent for the Son that time should come before Him: because in this case time will be greater than His greatness. But it is also fitting for the Father to always have, in the identity of His virtues, an unceasing and eternal being. And that before God there was nothing is also clear. And so God, as Aetius said, and the unborn mean the same thing. And thus, entangled in his own contradictions, does he not blame himself more than he affirms his teaching? For if God together with God, as indeed, exists, then He allows ungeneracy in the concept of the begotten Son, Who in His concept also includes the concept: God. Together with the Father, the God begotten of Him, and not created, and with the Father, the worshiped God the Word is proclaimed, although Aetius does not imagine this, when all creatures worship the Son and every tongue confesses that Jesus Christ is to the glory of God the Father (Phil. 2:11), to whom be glory to the Father in the Son with the Holy Spirit forever and ever. Amen. Aetia's greeting at the end May the self-begotten God, therefore called the one true God from Jesus Christ whom He sent, truly existing before the ages and truly begotten hypostasis, keep you unharmed from ungodliness in Christ Jesus our Savior, through whom is all glory to God and the Father, both now and forever and ever. Amen. More refuted. 1. And at the end, writing to his congregation, which he calls fighters, Aetius did not stop using such wicked words, but in his greeting he showed his teaching alien to the truth; for he says: May the self-born God keep you unharmed, not seeing that with one word he resolved all his scattered research here and there; because, having said in the above chapters about the unborn God that He did not foresee that He did not create Himself, here he brings to us the concept of self-birth. Every (human) mind is in oblivion of itself in order to be exposed in error. For this he says: therefore he is called the one true God. According to his own style and thought, he either denies that the Son is God, and therefore in vain he slanders the name, calling himself the name of a Christian, or although he considers the Son to be God, he is not the true one, and therefore he will have one true God and one not true. By the subordination of one under the other, he equally places the Holy Spirit in a lesser and lower rank, or will again recognize a lesser God, or, not counting Him among the Trinity, in any case, this pitiful little man will be alien to Christians, and already the most perfect Hellene could be declared among the Sadducees, alien to the Holy Spirit, as it really is; we classify him among the Hellenes, since he affirms that there is one great God, and one small, one true, and one untrue, as the Hellenes admit, calling one great God (that is, Zeus), and others small. Meanwhile, Divine Scripture clearly denounces him and says both about the Father that He is the true God (1 John 5:20), and about the Son that He is also God (ibid.; cf. John 1:1); and about the Father that God is light (1 John 1:5), about the Son: he is the true light (John 1:9), and about the Holy Spirit that He is the Spirit of truth (15:26; 16:13). And so in truth the Trinity is proclaimed among us in wisdom and depth of wealth (Rom. 11:33). 2. After this, in order, he says: from Jesus Christ who was sent. And he was not ashamed to deprive the Only Begotten of the name of God, worthy of Him, but used only a simple name (Jesus Christ), as he admitted in the above chapters, showing honor to the Son in the name by simple naming. However, to say that He truly came into existence before the ages is truly a born hypostasis. Let him keep, he says, from wickedness. And every vicious woman has the habit of elevating and praising her way of life before others. So Aetius, not seeing how wicked he has become, considers himself pious, just as those possessed by insanity consider themselves sane, while others are crazy. Then, having said: in Christ Jesus, he did not dare to add: our Lord, but only pretended to say: in our Savior. And finally he says: through whom is all glory to the Father, now and always and unto ages of ages, Amen. And even the words: he used all glory in order to take away honor and glory from the Son, which none of the pious and those who received the gift of true faith from the Holy Spirit would ever allow. 3. We undertook all this to refute what Aetius said in 37 chapters with dialectical art and with the help of inferences of human deception. We exhort you to read this carefully, and you will directly recognize, children of Christians, and servants of Christ, and sons of truth, all his earthly idle talk and teaching alien to the Holy Spirit. He did not dare, even in one word, to mention the Divine word, or any saying of the Old or New Testament, neither from the law, nor from the prophets, nor from the Gospel, nor from the apostolic writings, nor to bring the testimony of any of the patriarchs, nor the Savior Himself, nor the Father, nor the saying of the Holy Spirit spoken through the apostles or through the prophets, so that through this he would be fully exposed before the friends of the truth in that he is in everything alien to God and His faith. I think that we have sufficiently countered him and his definitions with evidence, if possible, using a simple word, but borrowed from the Divine Scriptures and the most pious reason. And since in the refutations against him we discussed faith quite clearly, we consider this sufficient so that, having added something, we would not create any unnecessary difficulty in reading. But taking up the word again, I will briefly say not much against the fact that he, having become proud of his mind, after expressing his monstrous faith and hatred of Christ and his Holy Spirit, dared in his proud mind to think and with his own lips and the lips of those taught by him to arrogantly express blasphemy. 4. This man (Aetius) himself and those taught by him imagined themselves to be higher than any man in that they supposedly knew God not only by faith, but also by knowledge by nature, as I mentioned above about them, saying that they not only know God in knowledge by faith, but in the same way as someone can know everything visible and tangible with his hands, as for example, if someone took with his hands a stone or a tree or an instrument from any other substances. So this impudent one said: I know God as much as I know myself, and I do not know myself as much as I know God. However, speaking and listening to crazy things serves to deceive many, and to ridicule for the rational ones: for who among those who have been subjected to mental damage and frenzy cannot attract others to the same madness, especially those who follow and obey them? If someone asked him and his followers: do not tell me that you have known the incomparable and incomprehensible God, not perceived by sight, but known by faith by His servants, but tell me about the foundations of the earth, about the storehouses of the abyss, about the veins of the sea, about the place of hell, about the measures of the air, about the form and breadth of the heavens, about what is the top of the highest and the aisle of the lowest, what lies to the right and what to the left, about creation creatures and themselves and about things that cannot be expressed by number and measurement on earth (if they hear this as we heard from those deceived by him), then, feigning evasion to sophistical excuses, they say, having learned from him, that all this is corporeal, and we cannot know it. We clearly know God, who created it, what He is like, and how He exists, and what qualities He has, and who He is. Who, having heard this, does not immediately subject it to ridicule? For it is completely absurd that he says that he knew and accurately understood the Artist, both incomparable and inexplicable (and if he said that he knew and precisely understood by faith, he would not have dared and they would not have dared to say that they knew Him as if by touch), but produced by the incomparable Himself, which in appearance can be a subject of surprise for those who see, he says, like his like-minded people, he does not know, while in particular, everywhere the Divine Scriptures clearly preach about God that He is invisible and incomprehensible, and is not comprehended by the mind, but is only known in truth by faith, as He is and is a rewarder of those who love Him (Heb. 11:6). 5. When someone who has a correct opinion about the glory of God, about faith and love and incomprehensibility says to them: we know the incomprehensible God, the invisible, ineffable God, we truly know Him, but as invisible and incomprehensible, then this one, who brings us a new art of competing, mockingly and chatteringly, as if telling some fable, dares to say: to whom are you and your faith likened? - A virgin defamed, but blind and deaf and dumb, who is known to everyone who knows her only because she is defamed; when asked about who defamed her, she does not hear, and cannot even know about it, for she did not see the one who defamed her, due to blindness, and cannot declare, due to dumbness. But this, on the contrary, can be attributed to him and to his speech, according to what is written: his illness will turn on his head (Ps. 7:17) and: he will fall into the pit that he has made (v. 16) and the like: for he is like a man blind from birth, who speaks and talks a lot, and hears and knows the names of white and black, blue and green, and red, and other various colors, light and darkness, the names of which are heard, but does not know what the species is and cannot fully interpret it, for the reason that from the beginning he was born blind, also does not know the difference between each quality of colors, nor their types, because the mutual distinction of the names of each of them is possible with the help experience produced through the sense of vision, but for someone who does not know their form from the beginning, it is not possible to make such an experience either with the help of speech or through the sense of touch and touch. Thus, as those who are blind from birth talk about this, and knowing that black is opposed to white, green to blue, that then purple and scarlet and other colors are distinguished, asked by us about the quality of the species and the color of each quality, they can neither say about this nor be taught from us, but only through words they lead their minds to conviction, however, they deceive those who listen, as if they are perfectly able to distinguish colors, although they speak only in words, having no knowledge of the subject by its very incomprehensibility for them: so this one comes to us with words about God and speaks with mockery about the defamation of a dumb and deaf and blind girl, rather he himself is defamed by his blasphemy and possessing ignorance, as if blind from birth, speaking about God, but only in words, but in fact preparing those taught by him to shamelessness. 6. Nothing is untouchable for their insolence. Thus they blaspheme the names of the prophets and apostles. When those who are accused by someone are pressed, they immediately run away, jump back and say: the apostle said this as a man, or in other words: why are you giving me sayings from the Old Testament? And it is not surprising that if, according to the saying of the Savior, the lord of the house of Beelzebub was harmed, how much more than his household (Matthew 10:25). For if the Lord Himself and His true glory are denied, how much more are His prophets and apostles? Reaching even greater madness, those taught by him and their successors, a certain Eunomius, falsely so called, 344 living to this day, dared to do great evil: he rebaptized those who had already been baptized, not only from those who came to him from the Orthodox and heretics, but also from the Arians themselves. He rebaptizes them in the name of God, not created, and in the name of the Son, created, and in the name of the Spirit of the Illuminator, created from the Son, also created. And so that the whole work of their deception, charlatanism and stagecraft could be seen, so that it would be clear that the teaching they proclaim is not the teaching of faith, but the work of imitators in theatrical art (comedians), some argued that he baptizes those who cross with their heads, legs up, and heads down, and thus forcing them to take an oath promise not to deviate from his so intricate heresy. They also say that Aetius himself, after the death of Constantius, was summoned from exile by the then reigning Julian, while still a deacon of his heresy, and was elevated to the rank of bishop by the bishop of his own heresy. This is what has come down to us about Aetius and his disciples, to whom some have attached the name Anomeans, 345 due to the fact that they thought wickedly even more and more terrible than the heresy of Arius. Having examined as much as possible this heresy, with God's help, piece by piece, like some many-legged reptile called scolopendra and julus, 346 having been trampled under the foot of truth and erased by the true confession of the Only Begotten, with the usual thanksgiving to God, as having received strength from Him to help our weakness, we now move on, beloved listeners, according to our strength and understanding, to further the proposed order of heresies, calling, as I said, the Master Himself to be present with us in indicating and refuting them, so that by His power we can fulfill the promise of our smallness and weakness. In the second section of the same third book, and according to the above count of the number of sections - in the seventh, which section is the end of all creation, there are four heresies: 1. Dimirites, who profess the imperfect incarnation of Christ. Of these, some dared to call the body consubstantial with the Divinity, and some denied that Christ took on a soul, while some, relying on the saying: The Word became flesh (John 1:14), denied that He took flesh from created flesh, that is, from Mary, but stubbornly said one thing: that the Word became flesh; Finally, for what reason, I don’t know, they began to assert that He did not perceive mind. 2. Aiticomarianites, who say that Holy Mary Ever-Virgin, after the birth of the Savior, cohabited with Joseph. 3. Kolliridians, in the name of the same Mary, bringing on one appointed day of the year some cookies (kollirida), to which we gave the name Kolliridian. 4. Massalians, what does praying mean? Adjacent to them are the former Hellenic heresies, the so-called Euthymites, Martyrians and Satanians. This is both the table of contents of the seventh section and the end of three books. All heresies together are 80. And at the end of the third book, the sections of the seventh are added in conclusion: the confession of faith of the Catholic Church, the defense of the truth, the preaching of the Gospel of Christ and the image of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, which, having existed from time to time according to the succession of times, was most clearly revealed in the coming of Christ in the flesh. Against the Dimirites, so called by some, who profess the imperfect incarnation of Christ, heresy 57th (77th) Following those listed above, from the prejudices of some, another heresy, difficult for us to understand and alien to faith, was born, I cannot say for what reason, but perhaps only because it was allowed by the devil, who constantly disturbs human nature and fights against it, who puts his bitter poison into beautifully prepared dishes and thus, as if adding bitterness to honey, and, moreover, through some marvelous in the height of life and people constantly praised for their Orthodoxy. This is the work of him, who from the beginning was envious of our father Adam and is at enmity with all people, as one of the sages said that envy is always hostile to great success. 347 So here too, through great men, he introduced some errors, so as not to leave us and the Holy Church of God carefree, but constantly worried and at war. For some, who both left us and were, moreover, in great honor, always exalted with praise both among us and among all the Orthodox, were pleased to deny the mind in Christ, who came in the flesh, and to say that Christ, our Lord, who came, took on flesh and soul, but did not accept the mind, that is, did not become a perfect man. I don’t know how to say what they brought from this for the human race, or from whom of those who were before them they learned this - what useful things they acquired from this, or bestowed on us and their listeners, and the holy Church of God, except that they caused confusion and division in us, sorrow and loss of the sweetness of mutual consent and love. For, having abandoned the following of the Divine Scriptures, righteousness and the profession of innocence, the prophetic, evangelical and apostolic faith, they brought to us sophistic and fabulous teaching, and with it many disasters, fulfilling on themselves what was said: some will depart from sound teaching, listening to fables and vanities (St. 2 Tim. 4: 3,4; 2:16). Elder and venerable, always beloved for us and for Pope Athanasius of blessed memory, as well as for all Orthodox, Apollinaris of Laodicea, it was who in the beginning conceived and brought this teaching. And at the beginning, hearing this from some of those taught by him, we did not believe whether he, being such a man, truly brought this teaching to light, patiently waiting with hope until we knew the matter exactly. We said that the children who came to us from him, not understanding the depth of the teaching of such a learned and wise man and teacher, came up with this on their own, not being taught from him, since there was a lot of disagreement among those who came to us. For some of them dared to say that Christ brought the body from above; these strange opinions, remaining in the human mind, make incredible progress. Others of them also denied that Christ took a soul. Some even dared to call the body of Christ consubstantial with the Divine. And they brought the upper countries into great confusion, for which reason there was a need to convene a council and anathematize them. But memorial records were also compiled, lists of which were sent to Pope Athanasius of blessed memory. In view of these memorable notes, the blessed one himself was forced to write a letter against those who spoke such with threatening words, sending it to the most venerable Bishop Epictitus, because he asked him to give an answer to those who caused confusion. Having clearly written about faith in this epistle, the blessed one himself declared those who affirmed this and caused confusion to be heretics. From what message I considered it necessary to offer the list here in its entirety. Here it is: Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria to Epictitus, Bishop of Corinth. I thought that all the idle talk of all, no matter how many heretics there are, was stopped by the council that took place in Nicaea: for the faith confessed there by the fathers on the basis of the Holy Scriptures is sufficient to overthrow all ungodliness and to establish pious faith in Christ. Therefore, even now, when there were various councils in Gaul, Spain and great Rome, all who came together, by a common decision, as if moved by a single spirit, anathematized those who were still hiding and who thought like Arius, I mean Auxentius of Milan, Ursacius, Valens and Gaius from Pannonia. And because they came up with the names of councils, they wrote everywhere that not a single council in the Catholic Church should be called, except the one in Nicaea, which triumphs over all heresy, especially the Aryan, for which it was then primarily convened. So, how, even after this, do some attempt to enter into disputes or research? If they are from the Arians, then it is not surprising if they slander what is written against them, since when the Greeks hear that idols are a language of silver and gold, the work of human hands (Ps. 184:15), they consider the teaching of the Holy Spirit about this to be madness. If they are one of those to whom it seems that they rightly believe and love what their fathers have revealed, then such, wanting to overthrow everything with their research, do nothing more than, according to what is written, intoxicate their friends with muddy corruption (Hab. 2:15) and enter into disputes of words for no other purpose than the ruin of the unspoiled (2 Tim. 2:14). So I am writing this, having read the memorial notes sent by your piety, which I should not have written, so that there would not even be a memory of it in posterity. For who has ever heard anything like it? Who taught or learned? For from Zion shall the word of the Lord proceed, and the law of God from Jerusalem (Isa. 2:8). Where did this come from? What hell spewed out the word that the body received from Mary is consubstantial with the Divinity of the Word? or that the Word was changed into flesh and bones, into hair and into a whole body, and changed in its own nature? And who in general among Christians has heard that the Son wore a body ghostly, and not according to nature, or who was so wicked as to say and think that His very Divinity, consubstantial with the Father, was circumcised, and that from what was perfect came the imperfect, and that what was nailed on the tree was not the body, but the very essence that is creative for all nature? Who, hearing that the Word, not from Mary, but from His own essence, transformed Himself into a passionate body, would call the one who says this a Christian? And who invented this lawless wickedness in order to come to the conclusion and say that he who affirms the birth of the body of the Lord from Mary thinks in the Divinity no longer a Trinity, but a quaternity? Those who reason in this way seem to say that the flesh in which the Savior put on Mary belongs to the essence of the Trinity. Where have some spewed out such impiety as the above, in order to assert that the body is not younger than the Divinity of the Word, but has always been co-eternal with it, since it consists of wisdom itself? How did the so-called Christians dare to doubt that the Lord, who came from Mary, is the Son of God in essence and nature, and in the flesh from the seed of David and from the flesh of Holy Mary. Who were so bold as to say that Christ, who suffered in the flesh and was crucified, was not the Lord and Savior, God and the Son of the Father? Or how do they want to be called Christians who say that the Word descended on a holy man, as if on one of the prophets, and did not Himself become a man who received a body from Mary, but that another was Christ, and another was the Son of God, before Mary and before the ages the Son of the Father? Or how can those who say that one is God and another is the Word of God be Christians? All these various things said in the memorials have one and the same thought, tending towards wickedness. For this reason, those who boast about the confession of the fathers, compiled at Nicaea, disagree and compete among themselves. And I was surprised at the patience of your piety and the fact that it did not stop those who said this, but offered them pious faith, so that they either listened and calmed down, or, contradicting, were called heretics. For the above is unspeakable and unheard of among Christians, but in everything it is alien to the apostolic teaching. That is why I revealed their teaching, as has been said, writing it into this epistle, so that only those who hear about it could see the shame and wickedness contained in it. And although in many ways it would be necessary to accuse and expose the shame of those who invented this, it would be good to limit the message to this and not write anything more. For defects that are so clearly revealed should not be revealed further and dealt with, so that they are not considered dubious by disputable people. It would be enough to answer this and say that this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, and this is not how the fathers thought. But so that even from complete silence the inventors of evil do not give themselves a reason for shamelessness, it would be good to bring to mind a little from the Divine Scriptures; for perhaps, although thus ashamed, they will cease from these nasty fabrications. Where did you get the idea to assert that the body is consubstantial with the Divinity of the Word? It’s good to start with this so that when the instability of this is shown, everything else will turn out to be so. So this cannot be deduced from the Scriptures, for they say that God was in a human body. But the fathers who met at Nicaea also expressed that it is not the body, but the Son Himself who is consubstantial with the Father. And then, according to the Scriptures, He is confessed as having come from the being of the Father, and the body from Mary. Therefore, either reject the Council of Nicaea and accept it as heretics, or, if you want to be children of the fathers, do not think otherwise, contrary to what they wrote. For you can see the recklessness of such an opinion from the following: if the Word is consubstantial with the body that has a nature from the earth, and the Word, according to the confession of the fathers, is consubstantial with the Father, then the Father Himself will be consubstantial with the body that originated from the earth. And why else do you reproach the Arians, who say that the Son is a creature, when you yourself say that the Father is consubstantial with creatures, and move on to another impiety, claiming that the Word turned into flesh and bones, into hair and nerves, and into a whole body and changed in its own nature? In this case, it is timely to say directly that It came from the earth: for the nature of the bones and the whole body is from the earth. So, what is your madness if you are fighting against yourself? By saying that the Word is consubstantial with the body, you equate one with the other, and by saying that It turned into flesh, you are inventing a change in the Word Itself. Who will continue to endure when you even just say this? You are slipping into wickedness more than any heresy. For if the Word is consubstantial with the body, then the mention of Mary and the need for her are unnecessary, since the body could have existed eternally before Mary, just like the Word Itself, if, in your opinion, It is consubstantial with the body. What would be the need for the coming of the Word, if It either clothed itself in one essence with Himself, or, having changed in its own nature, became a body? For the Divinity did not assume Himself in order to be clothed with that which is consubstantial with Himself; but the Word, which atones for the sins of others, did not sin, so that, having changed into a body, He could offer Himself as a sacrifice for Himself and redeem Himself. This is not true; no! From the seed of Abraham he receives, as the Apostle said, but from here he must become like the brethren in every way (Heb. 2:16,17) and receive a body similar to us. For this purpose Mary also truly served, so that He would receive it from her and offer it as his own for us. And Isaiah pointed to her prophetically, saying: Behold, the Virgin will conceive and give birth (Is. 7:14). Then Gabriel is sent to her not just as a virgin, but as a Virgin betrothed to her husband, in order to show from the very name of the betrothed that Mary is truly a man. And the Scripture mentions the birth and says: He entwined Him (Luke 2:7) and they were blessed with the breast that He pissed (Luke 11:27). A sacrifice was also made, since the opening that was born was false (cf. vv. 23‒24). All these were signs of the Virgin giving birth. And Gabriel did not hesitate to preach the gospel to her, saying not simply: what is being born in you, so that they would not think that the body is brought from outside into her, but: from you, so that they would believe that what is being born comes from her by nature, since nature clearly shows that it is impossible for the body of a virgin who does not give birth to bear milk, and it is impossible for a body that has not previously been born naturally to be nourished with milk and twisted. It is circumcised on the eighth day; Simeon took him in his arms; It became a child, grew, was ten years old and reached the thirtieth year (Luke 2). For the very essence of the Word, unchangeable and immutable, having changed, was circumcised, as some assume, since the Savior Himself says: see Me, for I am and do not change (Luke 24:89; Mal.3:6); and Paul writes: Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever (Heb. 18:8); but in the body that was circumcised, worn, eaten, labored, nailed to the tree and suffered, there was the dispassionate and incorporeal Word of God. This body was laid in the tomb when He Himself, being in spiritual prison, came down to preach, as Peter said (1 Peter 8:19). What especially shows their madness is that they say that the Word was turned into bones and flesh. For if this were the case, then there would be no need for a coffin. Then the body itself would have come down to preach to the spirits in hell, but now He Himself came down to preach, and Joseph wrapped the body in a shroud and laid it on Golgotha ​​(Matthew 27:59), and through this it was shown to everyone that the body was not the Word, but was the body of the Word. And it was this body, resurrected from the dead, that Thomas touched and saw on it the nail ulcers, which the Word itself endured, seeing them nailed on His own body and, having the power to hinder, did not hinder: but on the contrary, the incorporeal Itself, It assimilated to Itself what belonged to the body as His own. When, for example, His body was beaten by a servant, He, as if suffering Himself, said: Why do you beat Me (John 18:28)? And untouchable by nature, however, he said: I put My hair on my wounds, and I did not turn My face away from spitting (Is. 50:6). For whatever the human nature of the Word endured, the Word, coexisting with it, transferred to Himself, so that we could partake of the Divinity of the Word. And there was something strange in the fact that He was suffering and not suffering; suffering, because His own body suffered, and He remained in the suffering body itself; - not suffering, because the Word, being by nature God, is impassive. And He was incorporeal in a passionate body, and the body contained within itself the impassive Word, which destroyed the infirmities of the body itself. And He did this, and was such in order that, having accepted what is ours and sacrificing it, He Himself would die and then, having clothed us with His own, give the Apostle the opportunity to say: it is fitting for this corruptible to be clothed with incorruptibility, and for this dead thing to be clothed with immortality (1 Cor. 15:53). And it wasn't just speculative, as some else thought; no! but since the Savior in truth became a real man, the salvation of the whole man was accomplished. For if the Word were only supposed to be in the body, as they think, and what is supposedly expressed is a ghost, then what is called the salvation and resurrection of men, according to the teachings of the most wicked Manichaeans, turns out to be ghostly. But our salvation was not a ghost and was the salvation not of just the body, but in truth of the whole person, that is, the soul and body in him. And so the body of the Savior, which He accepted, according to the Divine Scriptures, from Mary, was truly human and true. It was true because it was identical with ours: for Mary was our sister, because we are all from Adam. And let no one doubt this, remembering what Luke wrote. For after the resurrection of Christ from the dead, when it seemed to some that they did not see the Lord in the body of Mary, but instead contemplated the spirit, He said: You see My hands and My nose and the wounds of the nails, for I Himself am. Touch and see that the spirit does not have flesh and bones, but you see that it has Me. And these rivers, showing them hands and noses (Luke 24:39,40; cf. John 20:25). With these words, at the same time, those who dare to say that the Lord has changed into flesh and bones can be convicted; for He did not say: as you see Me being flesh and bones, but: having, so that they would not think that the Word Himself turned into these, but believe that He had this both before death and after the resurrection. Since this has such clear proof for itself, it would be unnecessary to touch upon other proofs and deal with them, since the body in which the Word was was not consubstantial with the Divinity, but was truly born of Mary, and the Word itself was not turned into bones and flesh, but was in the flesh. For the saying of John: The word became flesh (John 1:14) has the same meaning as can be found in a saying similar to this. So Paul writes: Christ was a curse against us (Gal.3:13). And just as He Himself did not become a curse (curse), but only because it is said: He was a curse, because He accepted the curse for us, so He became flesh not because He turned into flesh, but because He took on flesh for us and became a man. And therefore the saying: The Word became flesh is equivalent to the saying: I became man, according to what was said in Joel: I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh (2:28). This promise was not for the dumb, but for men, for whose sake the Lord also became man. If this saying has such a meaning, then in any case, those who thought that the flesh was of itself before Mary, and the Word before her had a human soul and always abided in it before His coming, will justly condemn themselves. But let those who say that the flesh does not accept death, but has an immortal nature, cease. For if she had not died, then how would Paul have conveyed to the Corinthians what he also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures (1 Cor. 15:3)? How then would He have been resurrected completely if He had not died first? And those who even allowed the idea that instead of the Trinity there could be a quaternity, if they say that the body was received from Mary, will be very ashamed. For if we call the body consubstantial with the Word, then the Trinity remains the Trinity, since no alien Word is introduced into it, but if we call the body received from Mary man, then since the body is essentially alien (to the Word) and the Word abides in it, it necessarily turns out, instead of the Trinity, to be a quaternity, due to the addition of the body. So those who talk about this do not notice how they stumble over themselves; because even if they did not say that the body was received from Mary, but argued that it is consubstantial with the Word, nevertheless, in this very thing they are being hypocritical, so that they would not be considered to think so, they would be convicted for their madness, allowing the quaternity. For just as the Son, being, in their opinion, consubstantial with the Father, is not the Father Himself, but is called the Son, consubstantial in relation to the Father, so the body consubstantial with the Word is not the Word Himself, but different in relation to the Word; if it is different, then, in their opinion, their Trinity will be a quaternity. For it is not the true, truly perfect and indivisible Trinity that receives addition, but one invented by them. And how can those who imagine something other than the true God be Christians? You can also see their madness in their other wisdom. If, on the basis of the fact that the body of the Savior exists and is called in the Scriptures received from Mary and human, they think that instead of the Trinity we are talking about a quaternity, with the so-called addition to the body, then they are very mistaken, equating creation with the Creator and assuming that the Divinity can receive addition. And they do not understand that the Word became flesh not to be added to the Divinity, but that the flesh might be resurrected; and the Word came from Mary, not that he might become better, but that the human race might be redeemed. And how can a body redeemed by the Word and quickened by Him add divinity to the Word that quickened it? On the contrary, a great addition was made to the human body itself from the communication and unity of the Word with it: from mortal it became immortal; being soulful, it became spiritual, and originated from the earth and passed through the gates of heaven. The Trinity, even after the Word receives the body from Mary, is a Trinity that does not accept either addition or separation, but is always perfect, and in the Trinity one Divinity is recognized, and thus one God, the Father of the Word, is preached in the Church. In view of the same reasons, those who once said that he who came from Mary is not Christ Himself, the Lord and God, will remain silent after this: for if God were not in the body, how could he who came from Mary immediately be called Immanuel, who is, so to speak, God with us (Matt. 1:28; cf. Is. 7:14)? If the Word were not in the flesh, then how would Paul write to the Romans: from whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is God blessed above all forever, Amen (9:5)? So, let those who previously denied that the Crucified One is God confess their error, convinced by all the Divine Scriptures, especially by Thomas, who, after seeing the marks of the nails on Him, exclaimed: My Lord and my God (John 20:28)! For, being God and Lord of glory, the Son was in an ingloriously nailed to the cross and dishonored body. But the body suffered, pierced on the tree, and blood and water flowed from its ribs, and the church of the Word was filled with the Divine. Therefore, the sun, seeing its Creator undergoing this in a body subject to reproach, hid its rays and darkened the earth. The body itself, having a mortal nature, rose above its nature for the sake of the Word that dwelt in it, became free from natural corruption and became a vestment for the Word. Having clothed the Word that exceeds man, it became immortal. But about the fact that some imagine and say that just as the Word was in each of the prophets, so the Word descended on a certain man born of Mary, it is unnecessary to argue, since their madness clearly exposes itself. For, if It came down in this way, then why was It Itself born of the Virgin, and not of husband and wife, as each of the saints was born? Or, since the Word came down in this way, why is it not said about the death of everyone that it was suffered for us, but only about the death of This One? If the Word descended on each of the prophets, then why is it said about the One who came from Mary that He came alone at the end of the ages (Heb. 9:26)? Or, if the Word descended on Him in the same way as on the former saints, why were all the other dead not resurrected, but the One born of Mary was resurrected for three days? Or again, since the Word descended on Him just as on others, why is One born of Mary called Immanuel, as if the body was born from Her filled with the Divinity? For Emmanuel is interpreted: God is with us. Or why, if He descended in this way, when each of the saints eats and drinks and gets tired and dies, it is not said that he is riding and tired and dying, but only One is said to be born of Mary? For what this body endured is spoken of as if the Word Himself endured it. And while about all others it is said only that they came into being or were born, about the One only born of Mary it is said: and the Word became flesh (John 1:14). From this it is clear that the Word descended on all others to prophesy, but the same Word, having received flesh from Mary, appeared as a man, being by nature and essentially the Word of God, and by the flesh of the seed of David and of the flesh of Mary became man, as Paul said (Rom. 1:8; Gal. 4:4, etc.). The Father pointed him out to the Jordan and to the mountain, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. (Matthew 3:17; 17:5). The Arians rejected this One, but we recognize and worship Him, not dividing the Son and the Word, but knowing that the Word Himself is the Son, through Whom everything happened, and we became free. Therefore, we were surprised how such a disagreement arose between us about this. But thank God, as much as we were saddened when reading the memorial notes, we were just as happy about their end. For those who were outraged in their faith withdrew in agreement and were reconciled to the profession of the pious and orthodox faith. This is what made me, who had previously thought about the matter a lot, write this little, since I reasoned that silence would not lead to sorrow instead of joy for those who gave us a reason to rejoice with their consent. So, I ask first of all your favor, and then the listeners, to accept this message with a good conscience, and if there is anything lacking in it for piety, correct it and reveal it to me; if something, as if written by a simpleton, is written inappropriately and inappropriately to the dignity of the subject, then recognize this as a consequence of our weakness in the word. Be healthy! So, when we brought this message, we, based on what we heard from them or from others, decided to write against them; and since it has become clear to everyone that we have not slandered anyone, I will set about refuting them, so that no one on any side should suspect us of slandering our brothers, although I still beg them to correct what seems to upset us, so that neither they harm us, nor we them. For we have often sent ambassadors to them and exhorted them, and continue to exhort them, to cease strife and follow the Divine decree of the apostles and evangelists and fathers, and the confession of faith simple, firm, unshakable and most truthful in everything. Meanwhile, others told us out loud that it was not this flesh of ours, nor one similar to ours, that the Lord accepted when He came, but something different from ours. And oh that they would say this to praise and glory! And we ourselves say that His body was holy and undefiled: for He committed no sin, lest flattery be found in His mouth (1 Peter 2:22). This is clear to everyone who speaks and thinks piously about Christ. However, although we say that His immaculate body, which He accepted, is identical with ours, yet this very body of us who have sinned is much lower and worse, not because it was completely different from His body and others, but because of our sins and falls; because the Lord did not take another body and we have another, but the same body was preserved in Him and remained blameless. Others of them, hitherto drawn by strife and led by strange opinions, and not by the teachings of the fathers, and not holding to the Head of faith, from which the whole body is composed and knit together by touch and connections, God works, as the Apostle says (Eph. 4:16), but perhaps allowed their ears to be confused by the suggestions of some alien people who come closer to Valentine, Marcion and the Manichaeans, they themselves invent falsehoods, as if in honor of Christ, rather than the truth. When they hear from us that Christ had our body, they immediately turn to their own fables, corresponding to their ambition, saying that He had nails and flesh, and hair, and everything else, not the same as we have, but had other nails and other flesh, and everything else was not of the same quality as ours, but different in comparison with ours; With these vain words, following the example of Valentine and other named heresies, they slyly seem to want to honor Christ. When we begin to recognize everything in Christ as perfect, these people (it has been written in detail about those who care a lot and do nothing), frightening the minds of unspoiled people, immediately say: so, He did not need the usual things for the flesh, i.e., excrement and other things? This seems wise to them, but it turns out to be dangerous and generally idle talk, as the prophet says: who is this delicacy from your hands (Isa. 1612)? For about which of the saints and prophets, who of course were men and not gods, and the evangelists and others, consisting of soul and body, who were without any doubt similar to us, was anything written regarding such things? Is it not rather that Scripture testifies to something more honorable regarding the saints, and even more so regarding the Lord Christ? Let these monsters of sheep, scarecrows of doves, persecutors of the lambs and flocks of Christ tell us, where did Moses eat for forty days? Where did Elijah perform his natural functions at the stream of Harath, when, at the command of God, he ate bread in the morning and meat in the evening from the offering of ravens (1 Kings 17:6)? It would be strange if Scripture spoke about this, just as it is strange now to study about that. And what is the use of this or what is the acquisition? This will only serve as a reason for unbelief on the part of preconceived opinion, with the help of empty talk and vain corruption. Let them tell us again: how did God, when He willed, do so that for forty years the hair did not grow, nor the shoes wear out, nor did the clothes of the children of Israel wear out or become dirty? Did they also come down from heaven? Were they also gods? But they are not praised, but in many ways they irritated God. Were they not servile to us? But God wanted to show through this that with Him, and with His permission, everything may or may not happen. And so that, on the other hand, because of the miraculous actions that took place among them from God, that is, that their hair did not grow and their clothes did not wear out, etc., and that the bread of angels was poisoned by man (Ps. 77:25), not attributing these supernatural actions to them themselves - to assure us of this, the Divine Scripture says: let everyone take an iron stigma (spatula) for himself in his belt, and when he sits down, He will dig a hole for them and bury his dung, because the people are holy and the Lord dwells among the army (Deut. 28:13,14). To this the Jews add the legend that this typical phenomenon lasted among them only for some time, precisely as long as God wanted to show this miracle among them, and that although they ate both meat and quails, they did not have to have a natural need. And if the Jews, for the sake of the glory of their fathers, either with a rich addition of fiction, or in truth, this is revealed, although they themselves knew that those they glorified were both people and corruptibles, consisting of flesh, blood and soul, and not gods: then who can bear hearing from these people such daring speeches about Christ, the Word of God who came from above and His glorious and true in the flesh coming? At His coming, what was said was fulfilled: He who has been tempted in all things is like man, except of sin (Heb. 4:15). Therefore, although He truly had our flesh, it was possible for Him not to do what seems humiliating to us, but to do what was honorable and completely befitting of the Divine, just as the sons of Israel did not have their hair grow and their clothes did not become dirty; and this all happened to them, according to legend. And that Christ had clothes prepared by people is beyond doubt, for having divided His garments, the casting of lots was cast for His clothes (John 19:24; sn. Ps. 21:19). If the clothing was prepared by people, then it was obviously made of wool and flax; and made from flax and wool it was something soulless and insensitive. But when He wanted to show the power of His Divinity, then, having been transformed, He showed His face like the sun and His garments like snow (Matthew 17:2). For everything is possible for the Almighty so that with one wave and beyond expectation even the insensitive and lifeless can be turned to glory and splendor, just as, for example, it was with the rod of Moses and with the shoes of the children of Israel. Everyone also recognizes that the Apostles were holy people, that their bodies were perishable, like ours, but incorruptible for the sake of the glory of God that dwelt in them. And one shadow of Peter healed all the sick who were brought (Acts 5:15); also the leaders and Ubrists performed miracles from Paul’s clothes (19:12). And why are these people so curious about God, making some shameful assumptions about something about which there was never any need for any conversation with a prophet, an evangelist, an apostle, or another writer? But no matter how much they speak of this kind, and even if they invent dozens of bad speeches, they will not overthrow our fatherly faith, which truly proclaims Christ. For Christ was born in the flesh in truth from the Ever-Virgin Mary through the Holy Spirit, and immediately after conception is called Immanuel, which means: God is with us (Matthew 1:23). And it is no longer born again. Then the Youth fled with Joseph and Mary to Egypt, because the youths were looking for the souls (2:20), since He, being in the flesh, could have been killed. But He received worship from the Magi as the true God, born in the flesh, and, moreover, not ghostly. Having returned from Egypt, because of Joseph’s fear, He did not ascend to Jerusalem for the sake of Archelaus, since the Youth could have been detained and suffered prematurely what He had to endure later. Moreover, He was rebuked by John (3:14), when the servant recognized Him as the Master, that He was truly God made man; but the Master did not accept honor from His servant in those forms, in order to fulfill all righteousness (v. 15) in the flesh, in true and perfect incarnation, leaving us a saving example in this. Moreover, He was weary from the journey and not only was he weary, but he was also sitting (John 4:6). Therefore, since He truly became man, He cried out, saying: Come, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest (Matthew 11:28), in order to show that His Divinity is strong enough to give rest to the whole multitude of those who inhabit the world who come to Him. And He was tempted by the devil and remained for forty days without eating or drinking (4:2), in order to show that His Divinity does not need anything. For He endured without experiencing a feeling of hunger, as, on the contrary, happens to us with a person who abstains philosophically, constrains himself and makes an effort on himself; but with Christ it was without any deprivation, because of His true Divinity. But follow, says Scripture, a hunger in order to show the true incarnation of the Divine, who allowed humanity to be involved in the blessed and true needs so that the true sequence of the actions of the Divine does not destroy true humanity. Likewise, at the fig tree He became hungry (Matthew 21:18; and Mark 11:12) and created true clay (John 9:6). But he spoke a word to the fig tree as God did, and it came true (Matthew 21:19 and Mark 11:20). And on the ship he rebuked the wind, and it ceased (Luke 8:24). Through spitting and clay, by the word of His Divinity and the spitting of His humanity and also clay, just as it was at the creation of Adam, He gave the missing member to the man born blind; for in Him all things were perfect; He suffered in the flesh, but in Godhead He was impassive until He rose from the dead, no longer suffering at all and no longer dying at all (cf. Rom. 6:9). If some, for the reason that He did not take on a body from a man’s seed, consider this body to be different, not entirely similar to our body; then to this we must say that as soon as it is recognized that it came from Mary, then it was already ours, for Mary was no different in relation to the body than we are. And Adam did not come from the seed of a man, but was created from the earth; but because he was from the earth, and not from the seed of a man; he was not at all different from us in body. For we too were born of him and are not different from him in body, although we were born of the seed of a man and the foal of a woman. But some, who often philosophized about this and kept it in mind, evaded the subject, and some of them themselves, who came to us, in many other ways empty talk, slandered a man glorified with great praises, 348 and, as I think, either through simplicity, or inconsistency, or going beyond their own boundaries and divulging what they heard from him, they caused confusion, indeed more than should have been expected. But I have said enough about their excess of idle talk so far, since readers understand that we did this neither out of envy nor out of hatred for the mentioned husband. We even beg him not to separate himself from the Church of Christ and from all the sweetness of brotherly fellowship, but to put aside stubbornness in arguing about this teaching and turn to something better according to what has been said: turn, turn to Shunammite, 349 turn and we will see in you (Song. 6:12). However, I will return again to the subject, as the sequence requires. Not only does he himself not want to teach about the coming of Christ perfect in the flesh, but he also rejects others from salvation, instilling fear and saying that they should not teach that Christ assumed perfect humanity, as if on the basis of what was said: accept the meek Lord (Ps. 147:6). But there is nothing surprising, and no one can show any difference in saying that the Lord took on flesh or that He accepted perfect incarnation, or, as often happens among us, using any other similar expressions. For receive, it is said, the meek Lord, and: they will receive me from the flocks of sheep (Ps. 78:70) and: they are taken (Acts 1:9) and: they call two men: men of Galilee, why are you standing? This one is exalted from you (v. 11; cf. 10). 350 And the word perceive makes absolutely no difference in the expressions: perceived, or: accepted, or: reproduced His humanity in Himself. This expression will not frighten us from those who want to rebel against ordinary people. This is how we should speak, and let no one think that we are slandering or mockingly saying these words about such a subject. For I often hesitated to write about this, lest anyone might think that we were rebelling against him out of enmity: because no one has harmed us in any way, humanly speaking, or stolen anything of ours in the world. But already having in mind not to write, I was forced by the truth itself to write, so as not to pass the attention of any of those who thought something contrary to faith; and pious readers will subsequently see that our word does not come from worldly jealousy. On the contrary, this man would bring us a lot of benefit, both in relation to the world and in relation to love, if he unanimously agreed in everything with the holy Church of God, and did not introduce alien teachings. And so whether from him himself, or from his disciples, his teaching, which they understood differently, is divulged as if in passing in this form and under such a pretext, I cannot say. But we often reflected and were amazed that for the sake of this teaching they erected such stubborn strife and struggle, even to the death. And already from this we learn that they probably divulge this teaching with some special hidden thought. If you ask any of them, they all answer differently. Some say that the Lord accepted an imperfect incarnation and that He became an imperfect man. since this was not accepted by many, they subsequently began to pretend to hide it, somehow we learned exactly from their lips. When we were in Antioch, we happened to be with the most important of them, among whom was Bishop Vitaly, a most reverent man in life, in behavior and treatment. And when we spoke to him, advising and exhorting him to agree with the Holy Church in his beliefs and leave the controversial word, Vitaly answered: what is it between us? - He had a quarrel with some respected and famous husband, Bishop Pavlin, as well as Pavlin with Vitaly, called by us. So, we wanted to bring both of them to peace; because it seemed to both of them that they were preaching the Orthodox faith, and each had a disagreement over one issue: Vitaly reviled Peacock for some supposedly Sabellian teaching. Therefore, when we arrived there, we refrained from perfect communication with Peacock until he convinced us otherwise with the help of a written statement of faith, which he had compiled even earlier in view of defending himself before Athanasius of blessed memory. He brought and handed over to us a copy of it with a signature made by the hand of our father Athanasius, of blessed memory, containing a clear teaching about the Trinity and together about the meaning of the incarnation of Christ, which I present below. Here it is: A copy of the confession of faith, written by the hand of Bishop Peacock. I, Bishop Paulinus, think as I received from the fathers, that the perfect Father exists and exists hypostatically, and the perfect Son exists hypostatically, and the perfect Holy Spirit exists hypostatically. Therefore, I accept the prescribed interpretation of three Hypostases and one Hypostasis or Essence, and those who think this way: for it is pious to think and confess the Trinity in one Divinity. And about the incarnation of the Word of the Father, which happened for our sake, in the same way as prescribed, that is, that according to John, the Word became flesh (John 1:14), and disagrees with the wicked, who say that He suffered a change, but that for our sake He became a man, being born of the holy Virgin and the Holy Spirit; for the Savior did not have a soulless, insensitive, or mindless body. And by the hand of Bishop Athanasius it was added: for it was impossible that the body of the Lord, who became man for your sake, should be devoid of mind. Therefore, I anathematize those who reject the faith confessed at Nicaea and who do not confess that the Son came from the essence of the Father, or is consubstantial with Him. I also anathematize those who say that the Holy Spirit is a creature that came into being through the Son. I also anathematize the heresy of Sabellius and Photinus and all others, following the faith set forth in Nicaea and everything prescribed. We also said to brother Vitaly and those of like mind with him: what do you say? If there is anything between you, make it right. He answered: let them speak. And they said that they did not teach that Christ became a perfect man. But he immediately answered: Yes, we confess that Christ accepted perfect humanity. It was amazing to those who heard it, and they were filled with joy. But we, knowing the meaning of such speeches, covered with a plausible pretext, attracted the minds of our brethren, insisted on accuracy, asking: in the proper sense do you confess Christ to those who have taken flesh? He answered: yes. – What about the reception of flesh from the Holy Virgin Mary without the seed of a husband and through the Holy Spirit? “He confessed that too.” Did God, the Word, the Son of God, who descended to earth, really take flesh from the Virgin? - He firmly agreed to this too. And then we were in great joy, because from some of the previously mentioned children who came to us in Cyprus, we heard that the reception of flesh from Mary was not fully confessed by them. When this most reverent man himself confessed that our Lord Jesus Christ received flesh from Mary, he was also asked by us whether He also received a soul. He agreed to this with equal firmness that he should not say otherwise, but should be truthful in everything: for he who writes to people about the truth must direct his entire mind to have the fear of God before his eyes and not mix anything fictitious with the gospel of Scripture. So Vitaly confessed that Christ also accepted the human soul; for he said: Yes, Christ was a perfect man. Then, after we asked him about soul and flesh, we also asked whether Christ who came accepted the mind? But he denied, he immediately said: no. Then we turned to him with a question: how do you say that He became a perfect man? And he revealed to us the own meaning of his understanding; we say, he said, that He is a perfect man, ascribing to Him the Divinity instead of the mind, and in addition flesh and soul, so that He would be a perfect man, consisting of flesh, soul and the Divinity posited instead of the mind. When his ambition was thus revealed, we reasoned a lot about this and proved from Scripture what we should confess, namely, that God the Word accepted everything completely and completed the entire economy in the flesh and after the resurrection from the dead united the flesh with the Divinity in perfection, so that it has no other, but all gloriously spiritualized, united in itself with its own Divinity, and all perfection is completed in one Divinity, and now He sits in heaven at the right hand of the Father on the throne of glory of His eternal dominion and kingdom. After all these debates, we stood up, not convinced on either side due to the stubbornness in the debate. And we noticed that they were not talking about one mind, but that in addition to the mind they had another thought: for once they did not recognize the fact that Christ took a soul. But when we objected and said: what is mind? Do you think that He is a hypostasis in man? So, is man diverse? Then some thought that the mind is a spirit, which in Divine Scripture is always attributed to man. When we showed that the mind is not spirit, since the Apostle clearly says: I will sing with the mind, I will sing with the spirit (1 Cor. 14:15): then there were many speeches about this; but we could not convince them, who love disputes. Then, when we still said to some: what then? Do you affirm that the mind is a hypostasis? And some of them said that he is not a hypostasis because we convinced them that they should not think that he is the so-called spirit of man, because of what was said: I will sing with the mind, I will sing with the spirit, and when they had nothing to say about this, then we began to say: if the mind is not a hypostasis, but the movement of our entire hypostasis, and you call Christ from this side the mind: then you are inventing a Christ who is not hypostatic and only on words and ghostly allowing the appearance of His coming in the flesh. To this they could not give an answer. And then our situation became very sad for us; because such controversies have been sown between the above-mentioned and praiseworthy brothers so that the above-mentioned human enemy the devil will always cause discord among us. And for this reason, brothers, there is great harm to thought; because if there had not been any talk about it at first, everything would have been very simple. What benefit did this innovation bring to the world, or to the church? Didn't it, on the contrary, bring harm, giving rise to hatred and confusion? As soon as this doctrine appeared, it became dangerous; for it does not lead to a better path of salvation. Because if someone, not only in this, but also in some incomparably less important part, does not confess the truth, then this is already a denial (of the dogmas of faith), since even in the slightest one should not deviate from the path of truth. So we will speak against this opinion, not wanting either to deviate from our way of life, or to abandon the rule of the holy Church of God and its confession. For this was never said by any of the ancients, neither by the prophet, nor by the apostle, nor by the evangelist, nor by any of the interpreters until our times, and only in our time did such a cunning word come out of the mouth of the above-mentioned learned man (Apollinaris). And this man received his education not by chance, having started it with the preparatory sciences and Hellenic teachings and being skilled in all dialectical and sophistic art, and in other respects he was the most honest in life, and was always loved by the Orthodox, being ranked among the very first until the very preaching of this teaching. He even suffered exile for his disagreement with the Arians. But what should I say? Our sadness is great and our life is miserable, because the devil always usually annoys us, as I have already said many times. So I will begin to talk about this subject, so that, as I said, I do not omit anything from the truth. What benefit did denying the mind bring to us in Christ who came in the flesh? If your thought is generally directed towards, so to speak, rendering a service to our Lord Jesus Christ and God the Word and the Son of God, only so that we do not talk about His taking on the mind, so as not to allow the thought of diminishing His Divinity: then much more should be given preference to the Manichaeans, Marcionites and other heretics who did not want to assimilate His flesh, so as not to diminish His Divinity. But truth does not receive its strength from human desire, but from the Wisdom that governs it and the incomprehensible economy. Therefore, when we confess and teach in this way in disagreement with Manichaeus (for he does not show mercy when he teaches in praise of Christ to say that He did not take flesh, but falls even more from the truth, recognizing the coming of Christ in the flesh as illusory), then in the present case this vulgar speech of our brothers will be an empty merit before Christ. For both they and we have a correct confession about the flesh of Christ, if only they did not want to think differently, since some of them were often carried away, forced by the force of evidence, and denied that Christ accepted the true flesh, and some, as I said above, dared to say that the flesh is consubstantial with His Divinity. But we will not talk about them, since they changed their minds and were convicted of such absurdity by those who among themselves think well about the flesh. However, in any case, the most reverent Apollinaris himself will probably not deny this. So, if the Word who came to earth truly took flesh from Mary, not from the seed of a man, but from the Holy Spirit, and was truly carried in the womb and created a body for Himself, like God and the Creator of the first-created man and everything: then through this the Word who came was not diminished, but remained in his own unchangeable nature. For, having taken on flesh, It did not undergo change as being consubstantial with God the Father and did not become alien to the Father and His Holy Spirit. So, if it is clearly confessed that Christ took on flesh and grew, then He is no longer without a soul, for everything that grows, except for the motionless, consists of soul and body, according to what was said: Jesus excelled wisdom and age (Luke 2:52); here age is indicated due to the flesh, but growth, as I said, takes place in the soul and body. After the words: advanced in age, then it is added: and in wisdom. But being the Wisdom of the Father, how could He succeed in wisdom if the vessel containing it was alien to the human mind? And if He were without a mind, how could wisdom prosper in soul and body? Do you see how violent the thought of those who reject the mind is? But the opponent says: I only deny that He took on a human mind; because otherwise we recognize Him as lustful and irritable, since we have a lustful mind. Generally speaking, people have many vain thoughts, as it is said: God made man simple, reasonable, and sought for himself many thoughts (Eccl. 7:30). But if, admitting that He took on the human mind, we attribute to Him those things that relate to our shortcomings, then even more so, recognizing that He took on our flesh, if we believe their words, we will attribute to Him in part also disparagement in the flesh, which may not happen! Thus, just as the Word who came to earth in the flesh did not suffer disparagement, although he had true flesh, so in his mind he did not think of anything unbecoming of His Divinity. But the Lord who came in the flesh did everything that was blessed for the flesh, soul and mind of man, so as not to disrupt the order of His true coming in the flesh. And the blessings were: hunger, thirst, fatigue, sleep, travel, sorrow, crying, indignation. All this, which happened in order in Him, was blessed in relation to His true coming in the flesh. It is not written that He desired evil desires, but had good desires, as He said: I desired this Passover to eat with you (Luke 22:15). Desire comes not from the Divine, and not from the flesh alone, nor from the irrational soul, but from the perfect man, consisting of body and mind, and everything that appears in man. The Word that came had all this: body, soul, and mind, and everything that makes up a person, except sin, except shortcomings, according to what was said: He was tempted in all sorts of ways, as a man except sin (Heb. 4:15). If He was tempted in everything, then everything had the coming Word. But although He had everything, yet it all did not prevail in Him, and He kept it all blameless, being perfect God, born of the flesh and filling all things perfectly; He was, as it were, the artist of His complete vessel, and neither the flesh was distinguished by any incongruous action, nor the mind was carried away by any other thought similar to ours. For our mind was not created in order for us to sin, but in order to discern from the actions that are directed in one direction or another that they are perfect and to distinguish the doing of righteousness from what is opposite to it. For the mind reasons with words, but the throat eats food (Job 12:11; cf. 34:3). The eye notices, but the mind perceives. So the mind, given to us by God, is in us the ability of sight, taste and discrimination, and it often does not agree with what is always done unless a person wants. The flesh is always, throughout Scripture, condemned for the lust that abides in it. However, in general, it is not the word of Scripture that condemns the flesh itself, but condemns only what is done by it, as the Apostle said: for we know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh (Rom. 7:18), because it comes from the flesh. And in order to refute the opinion of heretics, so that they would not think that the flesh has lost hope of resurrection from the dead, he says: it is fitting for this corruptible to put on incorruption, and for this dead one to put on immortality (1 Cor. 15:53), so that he who rejects the works of the flesh, which Scripture usually calls flesh, will not be considered as rejecting the hope of the resurrection of the flesh. For he clearly condemned the evil deeds that occur in it, and called the flesh itself a holy church in the one who sanctified his flesh according to what is written: but this faith is pure before God and the Father, to visit the orphans and widows in their affliction and to keep from the world no defilement (James 1:27). And in another place: blessed are those who keep their flesh clean. 351 Often speaking against the flesh, Scripture teaches us that from it lusts and pleasures grow, but Scripture does not say anything against the mind, but on the contrary says: I will sing with the mind, I will sing with the spirit (1 Cor. 14:15) and also: if I sing with the spirit, then my mind is unfruitful (v. 14). You see that the fruit was in him - in the mind. And even though there was no fruit, the Apostle did not place mind among the sins, but on the contrary noticed that fruit comes through it. What is it that weakens the power of the Divinity of our Lord? What darkened His power in the womb of the Holy Woman, the womb of the Virgin, the outcome of childbirth, the embrace of Simeon, the greetings of Anna, being carried in Mary's arms, the touch of a harlot, the hair of a woman touching His feet, or tears, or the position in the grave? For the shroud that wrapped itself around His body did not suppress His pure and greatest power; Even in the womb, the former John leapt, rejoicing at the coming to him of his Master, carried in the womb of the holy Virgin. Having been born and lying in a manger, He did not hide from the face of the Angels. Hosts of Angels were sent to accompany the coming of the King of the ages; songs of victory were sung; peace was proclaimed among the shepherds. What darkened His power? Even when He was a baby, carried in his arms, the sign of a star from the east appears, then follows the coming of the Magi, worship and gift-giving, the king’s questioning of the scribes, an answer about Him, confession. All this and everything else that followed, according to the Gospels, how could it be contrary to His Divinity? What kind of cover did the taking on of the flesh produce in Him, as it happens with us? He forbids disturbances and winds and the sea, and the power of His Divinity is not restrained by the flesh, doing what is in accordance with the nature of the Divinity. And while the flesh is a burden and heaviness, He is not delayed by heaviness: for He walks on the waters as the unchangeable God, abiding in the flesh, but unchangeable by the flesh. And he cries with a voice: Lazarus, come out (John 11:43), having no opposition in His flesh, and the Divinity was not enslaved to the perfect incarnation in the flesh. And I could have said a lot of things. Christ rises from the dead, breaks the barriers of hell, took and brought out captives from there, and having risen for three days in this holy flesh, holy soul and mind and in the whole vessel, in union with the Divine, He appeared as a perfect man, uniting humanity with His Divinity, after which death does not possess Him (Rom. 6:9). Having united with the Divinity, He made the rough body thin, entering through a closed door (John 20:19), and upon entering, showing flesh and bones, in order to reveal His saving power, to confirm our hope that the Word who came to earth accomplished everything, and in this very body, gloriously ascending, sat down at the right hand of the Father, not suffering obstacles from the burden, not remaining outside the body, but having erected spiritual body. If our body is sown into corruption and raised into incorruption, a spiritual body is sown, and a spiritual body is raised (1 Cor. 15:42): how much more should we think this way about the body of the consubstantial Son of God? Therefore, what was said was fulfilled: do not let Your saint see corruption, and do not leave My soul in hell (Ps. 15:10). I have said all this about His perfect incarnation, so that some would not think that He, having assumed perfect flesh, fulfilled the unreasonable demands of the flesh. None of the pious believers thinks or speaks about Him like that. If no one thinks of Him that He did foolish deeds of the flesh, then they should not think that He did foolish deeds of the mind. And that the coming Word became completely human is clear. And if we say: completely, then we affirm that there are not two Christs, not two Kings of the Son of God, but the same God and the same man, not as if dwelling in man, but Himself wholly became human, not a former man and then achieving the perfections of Divinity, but God, who came down from heaven and in Himself reproduced His own humanity, by the power of His Divinity, as Scripture says: The Word became flesh. It is said: The Word became flesh, so that some would not think that man was first, and Christ came into man; therefore the Divine Gospel put the Word first, and then confessed the flesh, saying: The Word became flesh. For it is not said: the flesh became the Word, in order to show the first Word who descended from heaven, who for Himself made flesh from the wombs of the Holy Virgin and completely reproduced all humanity in Himself; because although it is said: The Word became flesh, this does not mean that the Word turned into flesh and thus the Word became flesh or that the Divinity changed into flesh, but that along with the Divinity the Word who came God accepted his own humanity. And Jesus, it is said, increased in age and wisdom (Luke 2:52). Not having a human mind, how could He prosper, as I have already said, and as the holy prophet of God Isaiah testifies to this Word, who said: “Behold, my beloved Child will understand, and I am well pleased in Him” (42:1; cf. Matt. 12:18; 3:17, etc.)? Don't you see that the saying: He will understand refers to the perfect incarnation? For no one can understand without having a mind; but on the Divinity this cannot be accomplished, because the Divinity, which is the mind itself, does not need understanding, and does not need wisdom, like Wisdom Self; but the saying: understands is accepted about the human mind. Moreover, how did He hunger, tell me? If He were only flesh, how could He remember greed? And if He consisted of one soul and body - a soul that did not have the rational ability of the mind, human thinking - I mean not bad, but directed towards a blessed need, as befits the Divine - then how could He hunger or think about greed? How could He grieve, tell me, if His soul had no mind, or reflect, if His soul was unreasonable, or if His flesh was soulless? He could not fall into sorrow or despondency. There are many more things that, when we reflect on them, we should know that cunning wisdom is unnecessary and is more striking to those who want to think about what is higher than they should, and who do not moderate themselves to the extent indicated to us in the admonition made by the Holy Apostle, who said not to philosophize rather than to philosophize (Rom. 12:3). But some sayings of Scripture are opposed to us, such as: we are the mind of Christ imams (1 Cor. 2:16), and they say: do you see that the mind of Christ is different in comparison with ours? Oh, great human simplicity! Everyone relies on what he wants in Scripture, and in what he wants to appear wise, he turns out to be ignorant. But although we are ignorant in word, but not in mind according to what has been said (2 Cor. 11:6), and being very mediocre, we are surprised at such people who direct their minds to the sciences, yet in our minds there is a state of bewilderment as to why they take this saying entirely as confirmation of their generally so fruitless controversy, while in fact there is not even the appearance of any connection with such a teaching. For we, it is said, are the mind of Christ imams. What is Christ, one must ask them, or what is the mind of Christ? Here, as it turns out, they think that one thing is Christ, and another is His Divinity. If instead of the mind they accept Christ, and by Christ they call the coming of Christ alone in the flesh, then by this they are trying to lead us to another search. That Christ, from the time of his fleshly coming, began to be clearly called God the Word and the Son of God, is obvious. And if this was preceded by evidence that He was called Christ even before coming in the flesh, then after coming they were fulfilled, since neither the Divinity is separated from the name of Christ, nor was His coming and incarnation in the flesh called without such a name, as it is said: Do not say in your heart: who will ascend into heaven? That is, bring Christ down: or who will descend into the abyss? that is, to raise Christ from the dead (Rom. 10:6,7)? And He Himself also says: let them know the one true God, and Him you have sent, Jesus Christ (John 17:3). The words: you sent refer to a message from above, but should not be separated from what Peter said: Jesus of Nazareth, a man who showed signs and wonders among you, whom God anointed with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:22; 10:38), and the like. Therefore, our dear brethren, wanting to introduce their controversial opinions into everything, not without boldness, also preach that His Divinity also suffered, based on the saying: if they had understood, they had not crucified the Lord of glory (1 Cor. 2:8). Some of the disciples of Apollinaris, not understanding this, as I think, and spouting this along with other errors, want to appear wise. I would be surprised if he himself said so. It would not be surprising if the Divine Scripture said that the Lord of glory was crucified. For we also confess the Lord of glory and at the same time His coming in the flesh; because His coming in the flesh is inseparable from His Divinity, since both presuppose a blessed foundation for themselves, and the whole work of the incarnation is united for us in one economy and one perfection. Christ is preached and believed among us as capable of suffering, not as one who suffered in Himself, and not in such a way that Another is the one who suffered and the Other is the Lord, nor so that the Divinity suffered; but in such a way that our Lord Jesus Christ suffered, while His Divinity remains unchanged and impassive, suffers in the flesh and yet remains impassive. For if Christ died for us and really died, then His Divinity did not die, but He died in the flesh, according to what was said: being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the Spirit (1 Pet. 3:18) and again: Christ suffered for us in the flesh (4:1). It is marvelous that He is confessed by us both to those who truly suffered and to those who are truly dispassionate, since His Divinity did not suffer because of immutability, dispassion and consubstantiality with the Father, but the flesh suffered, but in such a way that the Divinity was not separated during the time of suffering from His humanity; because both Divinity and humanity were present when Christ suffered on the cross in the flesh, but remained dispassionate in Divinity, so that we would no longer have justification in the flesh only, but in Divinity, and so that in Divinity and in the flesh, in both together, our salvation would be accomplished. For Christ for us is not a simple man, but the hypostatic Word, incarnate and God, made truly man, since we have hope not in man, but in the Divine, and we have a God who does not suffer, but is impassive, but who did not accomplish our salvation without suffering, but in dying for us and in sacrificing Himself to the Father for our souls, who cleansed us in His blood, who opened the handwriting on us and nailed him to the cross, as Scripture teaches us everywhere (Col. 2:14; Heb. 9:12. 26.28 and many others). And a lot could have been said to me in confirmation of this, if there was a need for it. In other places, clarifying this idea about our undoubted salvation, we also said that just as the sprinkling of blood causes specks to appear on clothing, and the body of the wearer of the clothing is not dipped in blood, however, the sprinkling of clothing is not imputed to the clothing, but to the person wearing it: so the suffering did not fall on the Divinity, but took place in humanity, however, it was not imputed to humanity alone, but so that in the economy of salvation The saying was not fulfilled: cursed is everyone who trusts in man (Jer. 17:5), and it was imputed to the Divine, although the Divine does not suffer, so that salvation through Christ's suffering would be attributed to the Divine by the Holy Church of God. But again I am afraid that anyone who loves to chase after words will not want to draw more conclusions than the possibility that the comparison I made makes possible. For even in Scripture not every parable is accepted in its full meaning, as for example the scale of the lions of Judah (Gen. 49:9) is accepted only in relation to the advantage of strength and the royal position of the animal, but not to its dumbness and predation. So it is in relation to clothing, not in the sense of dressing and undressing, but, firstly, according to what has been said: having been clothed with beauty (Ps. 92:1), and, secondly, having been clothed with strength and girded (ibid.), in which the word of the most holy Apostle is fulfilled: that to whom He dies no more, death does not possess Him (Rom. 6:9). While this has this meaning, our brethren want to cite the saying in support of their teaching: we are the mind of Christ, imams (1 Cor. 2:16). By their speech in which this opinion is expressed, they lead us to assume that they mean some other mind of Christ. If they do not think that the Divinity exists outside of humanity, but that there is only one economy, then what is special about the so-called mind of Christ? Doesn’t God the Word exist in Himself, having no human mind in His coming in the flesh, as they say? Does Christ have another mind besides the Hypostasis of His Divinity? Or does Divine Scripture have the custom of speaking to us in words in an improper sense when presenting what happens to us? And indeed, every pious person lives not according to the human mind, but according to the mind of Christ, according to the mind, which is filled with understanding from Christ, is rightly attributed to Christ, dwells in Christ through the confession of faith, and through Christ is saved by righteous deeds. This is the mind of Christ, which can be in us and yet does not force Christ to be in a certain place: for the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit exist everywhere and dwell in us spiritually if we are worthy of Him, since there is no place that would contain Him and His Father and His Holy Spirit, but by the power of His Divinity He appears in everything and is not confused with anything due to the fact that His essence has nothing in common and is incomparable with anything else, and that His Divinity is pure and immense. But when the Apostle says: we are the imams of the mind of Christ, then what will we understand? Did the Apostle have his own human mind? Or, by carrying the mind of Christ within himself, did he lose his own mind, and instead of his own had the mind of Christ? Not really. Each of those who hear this will agree that he had his own mind and together carried within himself the mind of Christ, which adorned him with godliness and knowledge, and heavenly cohabitation with God. Therefore, if he, having his own mind, carried within himself the mind of Christ, then Christ the Word Himself was a mind, if one should say so, since some were pleased to call the mind God. But neither I nor any of the sons of the Church honor our mind as a hypostasis, but consider it a certain power given to us by God and existing in us. I call Christ Hypostasis, as all the faithful confess; I confess Him to be both God and Lord, born of the Father, Perfect from Perfect, Light from Light, and God from God. And yet, on the same basis, He, being the mind in Himself, as the holy Apostle teaches about Him, saying: we are the mind of Christ, imams, and He Himself had His own mind and those testified by Him. And they were filled with the mind of Christ so that His grace could be accomplished in them. So, nothing deviates from the comparison we have proposed in understanding this about Christ, namely, that He, being God in Himself, although He was involved in the human mind, as He was also involved in flesh and blood, and had a human soul, was not enslaved by the mind. For if the Apostle, who received from nature his own human mind and, in addition, another mind from participation in the gift, talent and grace, no longer lived according to his own mind, but with the excellent guidance of nature was adorned with the mind of Christ: then how much more is God the Word, who has all perfection in Himself, being Self-perfect, Self-God, Self-power, Self-mind, Self-light, had completeness, or better yet, perfection in the mind and in the whole body, in His own By the coming of the flesh, He brought salvation to us in everything! So, one must reject such a teaching, which has no dogmatic meaning, and must also beware of admitting that in Christ not everything is perfect and sinless. For the Word who came truly created everything, fulfilling what was written about Him, according to the Scripture: behold, the Virgin will conceive with child (Is. 7:14) and so on; truly It was carried in the womb, just as it was not ghostly, but truly it was conceived in the womb, dwelled in the flesh truly, had flesh and soul truly and mind in truth and everything that is truly human, except sin. And It was born from a virgin’s womb and from the holy Virgin truly, and not from the seed of a man, truly had flesh and a soul and a mind, as I said, truly passed along the paths of birth, and was truly wrapped in a manger, was carried by Mary, went to Egypt and then was brought back from Egypt, returned to Nazareth, came to the Jordan and was baptized by John, Then he was tempted by the devil, truly he chose disciples and preached the kingdom of heaven; and everything else turns out to be truly former. Having also been betrayed by Judas, and captured by the Jews, It was brought to Pontius Pilate and condemned to death by him; truly devoted to the cross said: I am thirsty, give me something to drink (John 19:28); having taken the ocet with bile and tasted it, she took no more drink; nailed to the cross, It truly cried out: Or, Or, lima sabachthani (Matthew 27:48) and then truly bowed its head and gave up the ghost (v. 50). After that, His body was truly taken down from the cross and truly taken and wrapped in a shroud from Joseph, and it was truly laid in a tomb, to which the stone was rolled. Then, by His Divinity and soul, It descended into hell and, having loosed those bound in it by His strength and power, He came out from there as God the Word with the holy soul, together with which He delivered them from captivity, having truly risen for three days with body and soul and truly with all its composition. Then, for forty days, He was with the disciples and, having blessed them on the Mount of Olives, truly ascended into heaven, while His disciples looked on until He was truly lifted up by clouds, after which He sat down and sits at the right hand of the Father, truly, with the very body and Divinity in perfect humanity, with which He united everything together and into one spiritual perfection, being God sitting in glory to judge the living and dead, for which he has to come in truth. And there is nothing in Him that deviates from the truth, but everything, being perfect, is complete and perfect in Him. Believing that we had discussed this well so far, we considered what was said about it sufficient. And what other idle talk we have heard from those who uttered it, they must now be shown. And although we did not believe that this was what they themselves said, we will not remain silent about what we heard. So some even dared to say that some of them teach about Mary that after the birth of Christ she cohabited with her husband Joseph. I'm surprised if they say that. There are others who say this, whom we also counted among the schismatics in the letter that we wrote to some living in Arabia, at their request, against those who say this. There we said a lot about this to refute them. In my place I will offer, with God's help, a refutation of this particular heresy. Others said that the elder (Apollinaris) said that on the first resurrection we will complete a thousand-year period, in which we will live the same way as now, for example, observing the law and other things and everything that is now used in the world, that is, we will participate in marriage, circumcision and other similar things. We don't quite believe that he taught this; but, as some have argued, he seemed to express it. However, what is written about this millennium is precisely in the Apocalypse of John, and that this book enjoys the trust of very many, especially pious ones, this is certain. But very many who read this book, moreover reverent ones, knowledgeable in spiritual subjects and accepting what is spiritually presented in it as true, admit that this must be explained with a deep understanding of the meaning: for not only is this said there in a deep sense, but also much more. But at the present time I only briefly touch on this in my speech as a reminder, so that the pious know that anyone who wants to transgress the boundaries of God’s holy church and prophetic and apostolic tradition, the hope of faith and teaching, the mind from one unimportant assumption and a short word, through thoughtlessness and, perhaps, deviation from the consistency of thinking, can turn to great idle talk, slippery assumptions, incongruous and strange research and genealogy endless, according to the saying of the Apostle (1 Tim. 1:4). That the teaching about the thousand-year period is very meaningless and does not need interpretation, this is clear to everyone who has meaning, so such wisdom and such assumption of their mind does not even need to be examined. For if we are raised again to be circumcised again, on what basis did we not receive circumcision before? In this case, for this purpose, those who have long recognized its perfection and anticipated the perfection in this life from the future perfection are more necessary than us. 352 But why then what is said by the Apostle: if you are circumcised, Christ will profit you for nothing (Gal. 5:2) and: if you are justified by the law, you have fallen from grace (v. 4)? And how will what the Lord said be fulfilled: for in the resurrection they neither marry nor commit violence, but are made equal by an Angel (Matthew 22:30 and Luke 20:36)? But the sayings: You will sit at My Father’s table, eating and drinking (Luke 22:30) and: Whenever I drink new with you in the kingdom of heaven (Mark 14:25), with the addition of the words: new and: at the table of the kingdom, they have a different meaning. Yes, and we ourselves, taught from Divine words, affirm that there will be some communion of immortal nutrition and food, about which it is said: the eye has not seen, nor the ear heard, and the heart of man has not breathed what God has prepared for those who love Him (1 Cor. 2:9). But they say that at first, during the millennium, we will enjoy natural pleasures without labor and sorrow, and after the millennium we will participate in what is said in the words: which eye has not seen and ear has not heard. But this speech of theirs contradicts the entire teaching of Scripture. The law did not lead anyone to perfection, and yet we are commanded to observe it after the resurrection; the holy law, given from the Lord, through Moses we were brought into Christ (Gal. 3:24); How many lower people had perfected themselves, he had the task of leading them to the most perfect; when the perfect Christ and Master came, He received from the hand of the child-giver the law of the child-givers, that is, the Church, consisting of the faithful, like a holy virgin, and when we, through the law, the nurturer, came to know the One who is greater than the law, that is, the Perfecter Jesus. After this, how will not the teaching of those who say that after the perfection given by Christ, the need for a schoolmaster again arise, so that we can return to the beginning of writing and teaching and laying on of hands, according to what is written (Heb. 5:12 and 6:2) will not seem to be the result of feeble-mindedness and simplicity? Meanwhile, the Apostle clearly tells us: everything that decays and grows old is near corruption (8:13), which is said about the Old Testament and the law; For what we offer, he says, to the priesthood, is changed according to need and law (7:12). If the old covenant has been changed and a new one has been established, then who so boldly reintroduces the old one into use for us, turning the new one into obsolescence, preparing a fall from grace and trying to turn us away from the fruit of Christ’s merits? Having briefly explained this and considering the explanation sufficient, in view of the scope of the entire creation, let us move on, beloved, to what follows, calling on God as an assistant, according to custom, to expound the remaining heresies, to narrate them and refute them. Against Anti-Dicomarianites, 58th (78th) From this heresy, which some call the Dimirite, or which denies the mind in the human nature of Christ, some other disturbances arose, especially in Arabia; This was reported to our humility by some reverent people. And although we previously wrote an epistle on this subject, yet here, when calculating the heresies in order, we will present this very epistle against the said heresy, adding to it or subtracting from it what follows, according to reasoning. Some of the anti-Dicomarianites, having, as it were, enmity towards the Virgin and wanting to humiliate her glory, whether motivated by some kind of envy or delusion, and out of a desire to harm the souls of people, dared to say that Holy Mary, after the birth of Christ, cohabited with her husband, that is, with Joseph himself. And they say, as I said above, that this opinion was expressed by the elder Apollinaris himself, or by one of his disciples; but I doubt it. And I need to talk about those who say this. And in order not to take on secondary work, I will present in sequential order the message written to the Arabian country, which I mentioned above. Here it is: To my most honorable masters and most beloved children, and true brothers, and fellow Orthodox Christians from priest to layman, and to the catechumens in Arabia, Epiphanius, the least of the bishops, wishes you well. Nowadays there is something that should be both surprising and not surprising. Be surprised, because in our time everything is fulfilled; and not be surprised, because this must be fulfilled. For now, from human reasoning and reflection, false wisdom daily arises among us more and more, striving for the worse and abandoning the Apostolic teaching, as the most holy Apostle predicted: for some will depart from sound teaching, listening to fables and the teaching of demons, and so on (1 Tim. 4:1; sn. 1:4.10). People are trying more to see if they can somehow find and invent evil ways than to fulfill the commandment that teaches us to seek what is good and favorable (cf. Phil. 4:8), or that says: let the word be mixed with salt, that he may give grace to those who hear (Col. 4:6). And oh, if only we would think about where it comes from that evil is renewed among us every day, and that we ourselves will be like the uneducated, not heeding the words of the Divine and prophesied! This must be fulfilled. For in all parts of faith what is said must be fulfilled: When the Son of man comes, will he find faith on earth (Luke 18:8)? Because to what extent has man's evil mind come from his youth (Gen. 8:21)? What parts of the faith did it not destroy? In what teaching does slander not upset that which is beneficial? Meanwhile, it would be most decent and in accordance with the structure of rational nature to think more about what is honest (Phil. 4:8) and try to be diligent about it, even if it was contrary to nature, rather than, intensifying to strive for the worse, turning the true into the dishonest. And after everything has become overflowing in our time, both blasphemies and everything alien to the Holy Spirit, people turn to other news. Some blaspheme the Father, the God of all and the Creator, these are the so-called Gnostics. Others, called Marcionites and Archontics and the Manichaeans who followed them, but without some righteous look of God received the name of the furious 353 - all these, with most of the other heretics, I mean Cainites, Sitians, Melchizedekians, Kolorvasians, Kerdonians and others, utter blasphemy against the Father of all, denying that He is God, who spoke in the law and prophets and righteously worshiped from all creatures, as the Creator and Creator. Along with veneration, they try to destroy dominion, denying the truly Existing, and inventing in their fabulous minds another non-existent, so that they may fall away from the Existing and the imagined cannot be found. So the idle talk and sowing of the devil used to produce such confusion of thoughts and darkness, through blasphemous thoughts rousing the minds of created people to fight against their Master with evil fabrications and denials. But even from this, some dared to move on to another wickedness, denying the only Lord who redeemed them, the only begotten Child Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, truly existing, born of the Father without beginning and without flight, always existing from the Father and existing with the Father, begotten incomprehensibly and immaculately, consubstantial with the Father and not different from the Father. Having gone mad, they, like mad dogs, bark at their own Lord; similarly, the Jews, who did not know Him from the beginning, were called psynemia (Is. 56:10), rightly awarded this name by the prophet for their shameless striving against the Lord and His coming, as can actually be seen: for they say that mad dogs are called dumb for the reason that they become toothless from the mind that leaves them. It's the nature of dogs when they become rabid. Having once known their master and his sons, the household and all the relatives of the householder, when they are seized by rage, they change their appearance when looking at them and rebel against their very relatives, in front of whom they once caressed their tails, wagging their tails as a sign of submission. So the Jews, who were awaiting the coming of Christ, who were preparing to receive the Bridegroom, who wanted to see the prophets, who promised to obey the words of the Divine, who entered into such a covenant with Moses: intercede for us before the Lord and: “Everything the Lord speaks to you, we will hear, and we will do” (Deut. 5:27), when they saw their Master come, they did not know the image those signs of truth that, before His appearance in the flesh, the prophets outlined, described, proclaimed, designated, and first of all said to Him: Who is this one who speaks blasphemies (Luke 5:21)? And in other cases, without shame, they dared to say that He had a demon (John 10:20; 7:20 and 8:48); They also called Him a Samaritan without blushing (8:48). And finally, as I said before, like mad dogs, they rose up against Him and nailed His hands: just as a dog in a rage, attacking its masters, is not ashamed to tear their faces, so they delivered up their Lord to be crucified, and the prophets and household members of the same Lord ⸻ sawed some, stoned others, and killed others with the sword ( Hebrews 11:37). And after those, now in the same way, these new Jews, guided by the same rules, some, like natural Jews, denied His coming in the flesh, while others now deny the perfect equality of the Son of God with the Father, frantic and maddened, constantly affirm that He is a creature and a creature and in everything alien to the Father. Of these, some more, abandoning the above-mentioned blasphemous teachings and contemplating, so to speak, the very heavenly nature, and ascending to heights, and doing a lot of this, and as if descending from heaven, with self-confidence proclaim and strengthen to assert that the Holy Spirit must be excluded from the persons of the Divinity. They do not deny the Father and the affinity of the Son with Him, but they enter on another path, so that what has been said is completely fulfilled: faith perishes from their mouth (Jer. 7:28). For in relation to the Holy Spirit, who is not alien to the Father and the Son, who exists from the same Divinity and cannot be alien to the Divinity, what do they want to do, if not to command rather by God, as if they themselves had the power, and not to receive commands from Him? Because without shame they call the Spirit alien, and a slave, and a creature, and recent in origin, and a creature, and if anything else shameful can be added to the opinion about Him, they invent freely. since the present world is so affected by the incurable ulcer of unbelief that the lawlessness that destroys people has not omitted anything in order to reach the level of evil-mindedness, unbelief and ignorance: then those who escaped the blasphemy of the Holy Trinity were drawn away by an idle and malicious thought to something else so that no one will escape error. For I hear that someone is thinking something vain about Holy Mary Ever-Virgin and dares to attack her with some blasphemous thought; so that our time is in all respects like a destructive serpent and a poisonous beast, hiding in the darkness and rushing at everyone with the purpose of biting, one ⸻ in the face, another ⸻ the heel, another ⸻ the hand: so that no one may escape the bite of unbelief, so that he who thinks that he has escaped in one thing will not be delivered from the poison in another, and he who has sound faith in one thing, will allow himself to be harmed in some other way. Where does this malice come from? Where does such audacity come from? Doesn’t the very name testify, doesn’t it convince you, you ambitious one? Who ever, or in what way, dared to pronounce the name of Saint Mary and the questioned did not immediately add the name: Virgin? From the very applications to names, signs of perfection are revealed. The righteous receive the dignity of names in a manner appropriate to each and in a way that corresponds to himself. Thus, Abraham was given the title: Friend of God (James 2:23) - and it will remain indestructible; Jacob's name is Israel (Gen. 32:28), and it will not change; To the apostles - Boanerges, that is, the sons of Thunder (Mark 3:17), - and it will not be taken away; and Saint Mary is the Virgin, and this name will not change: for the saint remained immaculate. Isn't nature itself teaching you? Oh new madness, oh new things! But there are many other things that the fathers did not dare to do in ancient times: and now one blasphemes the coming of Christ in the flesh, telling lies about His very Divinity, another considers the work of the entire incarnation insufficient, another is worried about the resurrection of the dead, another about something else. And just to say how restless our age is, when life is in danger and is surrounded everywhere by bad seeds of opinions and thoughts of evil coming from the devil! How do they dare to touch the immaculate Virgin, who was worthy to be the dwelling place of the Son of God, chosen for this purpose from the countless multitude of Israelites, in order to be worthy to serve as the vessel and dwelling place of the one God who was born? I heard from someone that some dare to talk about her, as if she lived with her husband after the birth of the Savior. And I'm not surprised. For the ignorance of those who do not know exactly the Divine Scripture and are not closely acquainted with history turns them from one to another, and those who want to track down the truth with their own mind are diverted to the side. First of all, when the Virgin was handed over to Joseph, to which the necessity of her position led her, she was not handed over for cohabitation, to tell the truth, because he was a widow; but is legally called her husband. And the Jewish tradition directly testifies that the Virgin was handed over to him not for marriage, but so that she would be preserved as a witness to the future, so that the economy of her coming in the flesh would not be in doubt, but would be confirmed in truth without the participation of the seed of the husband, by the power of the Holy Spirit. For how could such an old man have a Virgo as his wife, having been widowed for so many years after his first wife? This Joseph, the brother of Cleopas, was the son of Jacob, called Panthir. Both of them were born from Panfir by name. Joseph had his first wife from the tribe of Judah, and she bore him six children, four male and two female, as explained in the gospels of Mark and John (Mk. 3:31 et al. 6:3; Matt. 13:55,56; cf. John 6:42). He had as his firstborn Jacob, called Oblius, which means: the wall, who was also called the Righteous and was a Nazirite, which means: holy. And he was the first to receive the episcopal see, since he was the first to be entrusted by the Lord with his throne, 354 and was called the brother of the Lord, as the Apostle agrees with this, as he says in one place: but the Apostle did not see anyone else except James, the brother of the Lord, and so on (Gal. 1:19). He is called the Brother of the Lord because of his common upbringing, not by nature, but by grace. For Mary, joined to Joseph, only seemed to be her husband’s wife, but did not have cohabitation with him in body. On this basis, the closeness of the relationship between the sons of Joseph and the Savior reaches the name of brothers, or better, imputed to brotherhood; just like Joseph himself, having no participation in the birth of the Savior according to the flesh, is considered to be in the position of His father according to the economy, as the Evangelist Luke says about the Savior Himself, who is supposedly the son of Joseph (3:23); So Miriam herself said to Him, according to the Gospel of Luke: Behold, I and your father sought you painfully (2:48). So who would call Joseph the father of the Lord, Who by no means had Himself the culprit in him, and precisely because His incarnation was without the seed of a man? But according to God’s vision, things took this position. Joseph gives birth to the aforementioned Jacob when he was about forty years old, or maybe more or less that. After him a son is born called Josiah; then after him Simeon; then Judas and two daughters: Mary and Salome. And then his wife died. And many years after that he receives Mary as a widow, being a man about eighty years old and even more. Now when he accepts Mary, as the Gospel says: Mary was betrothed (Matthew 1:18); but it is not said: after her marriage. And in another place: and without knowing her (v. 25). One must be surprised at all those who seize every bad pretext for investigating the causes of what is not needed, and for researching about what cannot be sought, and from the essential they turn to stupid questions, so that the destruction of unbelief and blasphemy touches us from everywhere due to the dishonor inflicted on the saints. And first of all, the following exposes them from all sides: first, that the elder, who was over eighty years old, did not take the Virgin in order to use her, but on the contrary, she was entrusted to him to protect her virginity; secondly, that they themselves were both righteous in everything. And having heard that what was conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit, after such a dispensation of God, he would no longer dare to encroach on the use of a vessel that was worthy to contain Him Whom Heaven and Earth cannot contain because of the abundance of His glory. For if even now the virgins, in His name, vied with each other to remain in perfection, purity and continence, then were not Joseph and Mary herself even more devout, putting everything in their hearts, as it is written (Luke 2:19)? And is it again possible that, after such a great dispensation of God, the elder cohabited with the Virgin, pure and honored, with a vessel that contained the Inconceivable One and received such a sacrament of the sign of heaven and the salvation of man? Can't we prove that the Virgin remained completely pure? Let them directly show us that after the birth of Our Savior, Mary gave birth to other children! Let the inventors, writers and compilers of deception and malice call their names! But they can't prove it. For the Virgin did not cohabit with her husband; no! Because if she gave birth to children, always being with the Savior Himself, then it would be said that her children were also with her. They are misled by what is said: behold, your mother and your brothers stand outside, looking for you (Luke 8:20). But they do not know what was written before this: neither his brethren believed in him (John 7:5). For in the past we were amazed at what was written so simply in the Divine Scriptures, but now, having understood everything, we thank God, who confirmed the truth of all Scripture, apparently in short words, set in the Divine Scripture. Constantly hearing about Jacob that he was called the brother of the Lord, we said with surprise: what need is there? and now we have learned why the Divine Scripture said so in advance. This, of course, is said so that when we hear: behold, your mother and your brothers are standing outside, looking for You, we understand that it is being said about Jacob and the other sons of Joseph, and not about the sons of Mary, who did not exist. For it is known that Jacob was the oldest at the time of the coming of the Lord in the flesh. But Scripture also speaks about His brothers themselves, exposing the heretics and naming by name James, Josiah, Simeon, Judas, Salome and Mary (fn. Mark 6:3 and 15:40) so that they understand whose son He was and from what mother Jacob was, and also so that they understand by age who is older: because Jesus was crucified in the thirty-third year of his incarnation; The reign of Herod, son of Archelaus, was at that time in the twentieth year. In the thirty-third year of the reign of the first Herod, son of Antipater, the Savior was born in Bethlehem of Judea, which year was the forty-second of the reign of Augustus. After two years had passed, He was transferred by Joseph to Egypt, because because of what the wise men had said to Herod, Herod was looking for the Child (to kill Him). He goes to Egypt and spends another two years there. Then King Herod dies in the thirty-eighth year (of his reign); and he was succeeded by Archelaus his son, who reigned for nine years. After this, the work of salvation is completed, Jesus is given over to the cross, in the eighteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, while the reign of Agrippa, called the Great, or Herod the Younger, son of Archelaus, was the twentieth year. We have not heard from anywhere that Joseph was still producing children at this time. Moreover, after returning from Egypt, he himself lived for a short time. For the Savior was four years old, and Joseph more than eighty-four, when he arrived from the land of Egypt. But even after that, Joseph lived another eight years. And in the twelfth year of the Savior’s life, when they were ascending to Jerusalem, Joseph and Mary looked for Him when they did not find Him on the way back, as the Gospel of Luke testifies (2:42-45). In the following years, Joseph died, and Jesus was no longer raised by Joseph, but only in Joseph’s house. Therefore, the Gospel no longer says that His father, and His mother, and brothers came, but: behold, your mother and your brothers are standing outside. Also, when they said to Him in Galilee: no one, doing this, 355 wants to be in secret: if you do this, show it to yourself (John 7:4), then it is not said that His father and His brothers told Him this, but (only) His brothers (v. 3), since Joseph was no longer alive. Then, at his very death, when the Savior was hanging on the cross, as it is written in the Gospel of John, the Lord turned, as it is said, in the form of the disciple whom he loved, and said to him about Mary: Behold your mother, and to her: Behold your son (John 19:26,27). If Mary had children and if she had a husband, then on what basis would Jesus hand Mary over to John, and John to Mary? Why doesn’t he rather hand it over to Peter or Andrew, Matthew and Bartholomew? It is clear that to John, because of virginity. For he said: behold your mother, ⸻ although she was not the matter of John himself in the flesh, ⸻ in order to show the Mother herself as the leader of virginity, since life came from her. To John, although alien in the flesh, the Lord spoke this way in order to teach him to honor His own Mother, for from her the Lord Himself was truly born in the flesh, so that no one would think that the work of the incarnation is only a ghost and not the truth. Because if she had not truly been His Mother according to the flesh, who gave birth to Him, then he would not have taken care of her in order to convey to the Ever-Virgin, who became the Mother, according to the economy, and a wondrous vessel, alien to uncleanness, because of the honor that belongs to Him. The Gospel says: And from that day John gave drink to himself (John 19:27). And if she had a husband, had a house, children, then she would have retired to her own place, and not to someone else’s. But let this not turn into detriment for some and let them not think, out of malicious suspicion, to take this as a reason to think in themselves about the so-called women of their steps and lovers. For there the works were carried out according to the economy, so that these works were separated from all other concerns that should be observed according to the command of God. And besides, when this happened, and John took her to him, she no longer remained with him. And if some think that we are mistaken, then let them search the Scriptures, and they will find no information about the death of Mary, or whether she died, or that she did not die, or whether she was buried, or that she was not buried. And when John undertook a journey through Asia, it is also not said anywhere that he took the holy Virgin with him; but Scripture simply kept silent about this due to the extreme nature of the miracle, so as not to amaze the human mind. I do not dare to speak, but reflecting on the matter, I remain silent. However, perhaps we will find somewhere traces of the holy and blessed Virgin, when nothing can be found about her death. For in one place Simeon says about her: and a weapon will pierce your very soul: for let the thoughts of many hearts be revealed (Luke 2:35), and in another, ⸻ in the Apocalypse of John, it is said: and the serpent rushed against the woman who had given birth to a man: and eagle wings were given to her, and she was taken into the wilderness, so that the serpent would not snatch her away (12:13,14). Maybe it came true on her; but I do not confirm this definitively, and I do not say that she remained immortal; but I don’t claim that she died either. For Scripture stands above the human mind and has left this unknown, since the Virgin was an honest and most excellent vessel, so that no one would remain in the assumption of anything carnal about her. And so whether she died and was buried, we do not know, but she remained alien to carnal copulation. May we not think otherwise. And who, having inflicted mental harm on himself, would want to admit any blasphemous guess and open his lips, loosen his tongue and move his lips to reveal an evil thought, and also, instead of hymns and praise, invent impudent speeches, madly revile the Holy Virgin and not honor the venerable vessel. If we need to take this matter into consideration from another side, then we will also touch upon the properties of objects of visible nature. They say, for example, that a lioness does not give birth more than once, and the reason for this is this: this animal is the most voracious, red-haired in appearance, strongest in strength, so to speak, the most royal race among other animals. Then she is conceived by one husband and carries the injected seed in the womb for twenty-six months, so that due to the long period of time, the lion cub grows in the womb to perfection, to the point that it already has all the teeth before it leaves the womb, has large claws, hard so-called canines, and dog teeth and molars, and other things that this animal has. Thus, during his stay in the womb, he, by jumping, moving and in other ways, with the help of his claws, tears apart and torments the womb and womb that bears him. Therefore, when the time of birth comes for his mother, the womb on that very day becomes free from any exhaustion associated with pregnancy. And along with childbirth, the womb and the womb are also released, as naturalists say, so that neither her sexual desire awakens unless some effort is made, nor can she still conceive even if she were forced to have intercourse, since she has neither a womb nor a womb. Thus, this very legend gives us the opportunity to find some idea about its similarity with the case under study, more to the benefit than to the harm. For if Jacob mysteriously says: the tabernacle of the lions of Judah (Gen. 49:9), thereby calling Christ, and if in the Apocalypse of John it is said: behold, the lion has overcome, who is from the tribe of Judah and from the seed of David (5:5), and the Lord is likened to a lion, not by nature, but for the sake of the image and for the sake of the royal dignity of the animal, of all animals the most courageous and strong in everything other things that are most pleasant to look at: then could I not call the one who gave birth to Him a lioness? In any case, where can a lion be born if his mother is not called a lioness? A lioness does not have a second conception: therefore, Mary no longer knew another conception, and the Holy Virgin did not know carnal cohabitation. But let's look at the matter from a different angle. The virgin followed Jesus, always being with Him. Jesus was called to marriage (John 2:2) and His mother was there (v. 1). and brethren (v. 12), but Joseph is not mentioned. What is it to me and to you, wife? My hour has not come, Jesus told her (v. 4). He did not say: what is it to me and to you, people? At the cross of the Savior stood: Mary Magdalene, Mary of Cleopas, Mary ⸻ mother of Rufus and the other Mary and Salome and others (fn. John: 19:25; Matthew 27:55 et al.; 28:1; Mark 15:40; 16:1, etc.). However, it is not said whether Joseph was there, or Jacob ⸻ brother of the Lord. This latter died at the age of ninety-six, having remained a virgin; there was no cut on his head; he did not use baths, did not eat animals, did not put on a second garment, wore a single worn linen cloak, as it is said in the Gospel: the young man ran and left the shroud in which he was clothed (Mark 14:52.51). Here are the three who led such a life: John and James, the two sons of Zebedee, and James, the son of Joseph, the brother of the Lord, because of their life and upbringing together with him, because he had him in the position of brother, for the sole reason that Joseph had a close relationship with Mary, as betrothed to him. Only this Jacob was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies once a year, because he was a Nazirite and was involved in the priesthood. Hence Mary was a relative of Elizabeth in two ways; and Jacob was distinguished by the dignity of the priesthood, since only two tribes were mated with one another: the royal with the priestly and the priestly with the royal; so in ancient times, during the exodus of the Jews from Egypt, Nahshon, the ancestor of the tribe of Judah, took the eldest daughter of Aaron (Ex. 6:23). 356 Many of the heretics do not know the genealogy of the Savior according to the flesh and because of this ignorance they do not believe, and think that this contradicts the truth, saying: how can she who came from the tribe of David and Judah be related to Elizabeth, who came from the tribe of Levi? This Jacob wore a golden coat 357 on his head and, when there was no rain, he raised his hands to the sky and prayed, and immediately the sky gave rain. He never wore woolen clothes. His knees became hard, like the knees of camels, from their constant bowing before the Lord, due to an abundance of piety. He was not called by name, but his name was: Righteous. He never washed in a bathhouse and did not eat animals, as I said above. He did not tie up his sandals. And much could be said about this man and his virtuous life. And so you see that Joseph’s house was most glorious in every way. For if Joseph’s children also knew the rite of virginity and the duty of the Nazarenes, how much more could this old man and honest man know how to keep the Virgin pure and honor the vessel in which the salvation of people was contained? Doesn’t his very nature show us that he was an old husband, much older than the Virgin in age, was great among men, faithful in his lifestyle, reverent in appearance? For the Gospel says that he, being a man who feared God, was looking for an opportunity to let her in (Matthew 1:19). Jacob, the brother of the Lord and the son of Joseph, died in Jerusalem, having lived after the ascension of the Savior for a little more or less than twenty-four years, being about ninety-six years old, struck in the head with a fuller's rolling pin and thrown down from the wing of the church; but having gone down, he was not injured in any way: kneeling down, he prayed for those who overthrew him, saying: Let them go, for they do not know what they are doing (fn. Luke 23:34). Simeon, his grandson, the son of Cleopas, standing in the distance, said: stop it! Why do you stone the righteous? Here he is in prayer for you, asking for your good. This is how his martyrdom took place. So, if Joseph’s son was so old, then what can we say about his father, who saw terrible events: the angels accompanying the birth of his son, singing from heaven and saying: glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men (Luke 2614)? And when the shepherds came to the den in which He was born and announced this, and Elder Joseph heard, even after some time, about such great signs and wonders: how could he dare to reproach and insult the holy body in which God had dwelt? From this body came the dispensation for us of the coming of Christ in the flesh; from it was formed for us holy, immaculate flesh, united with the deity of the Savior, as the Angel Gabriel testified to this, saying: The Spirit of the Lord will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you: likewise, what is holy and born of you will be called the Son of God (Luke 1:35). How would Joseph dare to cohabit with such a great holy Virgin Mary? And what good is it for us to find out whether he cohabited with her - which will not happen! How much better is it for us to commit such matters to God than to strive intensely for the worst? Because it is not written to us that if we do not believe that Mary again cohabited with her husband, then we will not have eternal life, but will fall under judgment. Everyone knows this. And it is written: whatever is lovely, whatever is righteous, whatever is honorable (Phil.4:8), let us give grace to those who hear (Eph.4:29). Meanwhile, people have abandoned what is necessary, ⸻ what relates to the truth of faith, what consists in glorifying God, and wherever possible they try to invent, alas! – harmful to oneself, whereas Scripture does not speak of that. If Scripture spoke about this, we would recognize the truth and not think about it at all. Isn't marriage fair? Isn't the bed clean? Is there not a bed opposite that is undefiled (Heb. 13:4)? Is marriage adultery? If the prophets and high priests abstained from it, it was for the sake of higher service. And Moses, after he began to prophesy, no longer cohabited with his wife, did not conceive or give birth to children, since he spent most of his life with the Lord. For otherwise how could he have spent forty nights and forty days on Mount Sinai (Ex. 24:18), being in marital cohabitation? or how could he be ready for the economy of God, which took place over the course of forty years in the wilderness, and engage in sacred deeds? How could he explain Divine mysteries and converse with God while continuing to be married? For if the holy Apostle speaks clearly about us, so that this may happen until the time comes, let us continue in prayer (1 Cor. 7:5), then how much more should this word be true in relation to the prophets? So Mary is a prophetess; for it is said: He went in to the prophetess, and was conceived in her womb, and gave birth to a son. And the Lord said to me: Narcis is his name: quickly captivate, brazenly plunder, and so on (Is. 8:3). The prophecy here means the entrance of Gabriel to Mary, when he came in to tell her that she was about to bear the Son of God, the Savior of the world, not from the seed of a man, but from the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:26-35). Likewise, Philip, the evangelist, had four prophetic daughters (Acts 21:9), and they were awarded the prophetic gift for the reason that they were virgins. In the same way, when Thekla meets Saint Paul, she is released from marriage, although she had for her betrothed a man of the most handsome appearance, the foremost in the city, very rich, the noblest in life and the most noble; but the saint despises earthly things in order to be the owner of heavenly things. 358 If these did this, how much more so than Mary, on whom all the wondrous dispensation was accomplished? So how else can I lead their thoughts to good and drive away the darkness from those who have conceived something terrible, as it is written: sickness is conceived, and iniquity is born (Ps. 7:15)? Because they truly conceive the disease of inventions, and give birth to the lawlessness of blasphemy. But let no one think so and, trying to sow delusion in himself in another way, let him not say the following: why did the Gospel say that Mary was found in her womb by the Holy Spirit, before she had not even dreamed of it (Matthew 1:18)? So copulation was expected, and that’s why it’s said: never even dreamed about it before? And in another place, too, the Gospel again says: and they were found with child before they entered into each other (Matthew 1:18); or: and gave birth, and not knowing it (v. 25); or: give birth to your firstborn son, and without her knowing; and one more thing: without knowing her, Dondezh gave birth to her first-born son (Matthew 16:25; fn. Luke 2:7). But those who take it upon themselves to analyze the thought of the Scriptures and attempt to explore the sublime and deepest in it, do not know that the real legend does not have such a meaning. For if Mary had given birth again, then the names of the other brothers would have to be said. And if the Only Begotten is the firstborn of all creation (Col. 1:15), then do not be embarrassed; for it is not said that Mary gave birth to her firstborn, ⸻ but: without knowing her, Dondezh gave birth to her son (Matthew 1:25). And it does not say: his firstborn, but his firstborn. Because by the saying: his son, His birth from her according to the flesh is meant, and to the name: firstborn is not added his own, but only: firstborn. He is what the Apostle calls the firstborn of all creation and is not united with creation, but born before creation (Col. 1:15). And the Apostle did not call him the first-born, but the first-born, so the very reading leads to the best and safest path, imagining first the saying of the first-born, and then the speech about the subordinate creature (Col. 1:15); The saying: the firstborn refers to the Son, and the creation ⸻ was created by the Son. So: give birth to your firstborn son, ⸻ firstborn, not in the sense that she had to give birth to another. And without knowing her. How could he know that his wife would accept such grace? or how could he know that the Virgin would be glorified with such glory? He knew her to be a woman by the structure of her body and having a female gender by nature, descended from her mother Anna and father Joachim, a relative of Elizabeth, coming from the house and lineage of David, but he did not know that anyone would be honored on earth with such glory, and especially not a woman. So, he did not know her until he saw a miracle; I didn’t even know the miracle with her until I saw the One born of her. When she gave birth, he also knew the honor of God given to her, namely that she heard the words: Rejoice, full of grace: the Lord is with you (Luke 1:28). She was foreshadowed by Eve, in the prototype receiving the name mother of the living (Gen. 3:20). She was called the mother of the living, and, moreover, after committing a crime, she heard the words: you are earth, and you will go back to earth (Gen. 3:19). It is surprising that after the crime she received this great name. And from the external side, from that Eve, every human birth on earth began. In the same way, life itself was truly born to the world from Mary, so that Mary, having given birth to the Living One, would also become the matter of the living. So, the matter of the living, Mary, is called representatively. For it is said about two wives: Who gave the woman wisdom to eat, or cunning to eat (Job 38:36)? Because the first wise Eve sewed sensual clothes for Adam, whom she made naked: this work was given to her. Since nudity occurred through her, it was given to her to clothe the sensual body due to sensual nakedness; Mary was given by God to give birth to us a Lamb and a Sheep, and from the glory of this Lamb and Sheep, as from a fleece, a garment of incorruptibility was wisely made for us by His virtue. But something else is surprising in relation to these two wives: Eve and Mary, ⸻ to think about it. Eve was the cause of death for people; for through her death entered the world (cf. Rom. 5:12). And Mary became the cause of life: through her life was born to us. And for this reason the Son of God came into the world, and: where sin abounded, grace abounded (v. 20); and from where death came, life came, so that instead of death, life would be born, destroying the death that came from the woman, that is, He who was born to us from the woman was like Life. And since there Eve, while still a virgin, revealed a deviation towards disobedience: here again, through the Virgin, obedience to grace was revealed, when the descent from heaven of the Incarnate and eternal life was announced. There God said to the serpent: And I will put enmity between you, and between her, and between your seed, and between that seed (Gen. 3:15). But the wife's seed is nowhere to be found; Therefore, only allegorically, Eve refers to the enmity between the one born from her and the serpent and the devil and envy who was in the serpent. But everything cannot be fulfilled perfectly in Eve, but truly had to be fulfilled in the holy Seed, the chosen, the only one, revealed only from Mary, and not from conjugation with her husband. For her Son came to break the power of the dragon and the writhing serpent that runs and says that he has taken possession of the whole universe. For this purpose the Only Begotten came from the woman, to destroy the serpent, that is, evil teaching, corruption, deception, error and lawlessness. He is truly the one who opens the mother’s womb (Ex. 13:2; cf. vv. 12 and 13). For all the firstborn, no matter how many of them were born, to put it more modestly, could not fulfill this, except for one Only Begotten, who opens the womb of the Virgin. This was accomplished in Him alone, and in no one else. And from the very subject of the discussion one can see this. For the saying (of Scripture) is taken from Mary, and will be applied by me to the Church: for this reason a man will leave his father and his mother, and will be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh (Gen. 2:24). And the holy Apostle says: this mystery is great: I speak into Christ and into the church (Eph. 5:32). Pay attention to the accuracy of the Scriptures: about Adam it is said that God created him (Gen. 2:7), but about Eve it is no longer said that she was created, but built: taking, it is said, one from his ribs, and creating him to be a wife (Gen. 2:21,22), 359 to show that the Lord formed a body for Himself from Mary, and from His very rib the Church was built, since His ribs were pierced and The sacraments of blood and water became redemption for us. 360 Joseph, however, knew Mary, but not by any knowledge of bodily use, not by the knowledge of copulation. He knew, honoring her as venerable from God; for he did not know that she had received such glory until he saw the Lord born of a woman. And it is written: before she even dreamed of being found in the womb (Matthew 1:18), so that the opinion of those who think that the sacrament of God was accomplished as a result of communication with her husband would not ever prevail; for it is said: before what was expected happened; but this was not the case. Yes, even if the Virgin had been expected to cohabitate with Joseph, ⸻ which, however, could not have happened due to his old age, ⸻ then the scripture warns us, instilling in us and directing our thoughts in such a way that the event of the Divine Birth that took place then can convince us that the husband did not even approach the Virgin for cohabitation; and the Angel convinced Joseph not to have the same opinion about the Virgin that he had. For what was said above: she had not even dreamed of before, in which what was expected but not accomplished is represented, is similar to the following: the righteous man sought an opportunity not to expose her, but to let her go (Matthew 1:19), since by denouncing her he would have been disgraced, which, however, was not the case. So the Angel teaches him, saying: do not be afraid to accept Mariam your wife (v. 20), who has not yet been a wife and although you suspect a fall, she is not such in reality as you imagine her to be, and so on. Right after that he says: what was born in her (v. 20), as about one who has already been born, and then again: she will give birth to a son (v. 21), as about the future; because that's how it was. But this foreshadowing was made for reassurance, just like that: it had never even been dreamed of before. And it is enough for us that this did not happen at all, until she gave birth to her first-born son (v. 25), which should be explained in the same sense, and refers to the knowledge of the wondrous thing about the Virgin, honored by God. But in view of what has been said, let no one think: before, I never even dreamed that they would get together later. No one can indicate or prove this, whereas in order to prove the virgin birth of the Savior, Scripture gave confirmation for this. So: without knowing it, in relation to glory; He is called the firstborn, since the firstborn exists before the existence of all creatures and is the firstborn in many brethren, according to the Apostle (Rom. 8:29); not in relation to descent from Mary, as if there were other children from her, but in relation to those who were worthy to receive adoption through Him, although according to the flesh He was truly her Son, so that only the illusory nature of the flesh would not be assumed. But He is called the firstborn and son of the Virgin herself not because she, as I said, had other children. This is similar to the expression: firstborn, used before the incarnation. Being truly the firstborn Son of the Father far before the existence of every creature (cf. Col. 1:15), He is called firstborn not because after Him others were born from the Father; for He had no second brother, since He is the only begotten. So when he appeared in the flesh, He always was and is as much as Mary’s firstborn, as much as Mary’s only begotten, not having a second brother from her. And let those who think up something more harmful to themselves than something useful, shut up! Please, let this not happen again, let it not happen! He who honors the Lord also honors the saint; He who does not honor a saint does not honor his Lord. May Mary be in herself a holy Virgin, a holy vessel! The opposite of this serves us to harm, not to benefit; and we must reason about this more piously, so as not to allow ourselves to become arrogant, discordant and verbose; because for every idle word we will give back according to the Scripture (Matthew 12:36). Let's take care of ourselves, let's look closely at our affairs! Let us not transfer what is characteristic of us onto the saints, and we will not use what is characteristic of us to measure what belongs to the saints. Some, carried away and striving for immoderate voluptuousness and having a corrupting thought in themselves, want to defame the saints in the form of a plausible defense of their own evil and weak thoughts. To such the Apostle says: I would that they all might be as I was (1 Cor. 7:7). In what other sense does he use these words: like and az, if not in the sense of purity? But for the sake of fornication let every man have his own wife (v. 2). The pronoun is omitted here. The speech here is accusatory and more exhorting. The apostle meant to say: fornication for your sake; but he omitted the word: yours, so as not to seem to say this to insult anyone. Meanwhile, this was said in condemnation of some who did not want to serve God, after they began to live according to the law and wisely use their vessel for childbearing. Our ancient fathers also used this, as we find in one place of scripture: And Rebekah had property from one bed (Rom. 9:10). Nothing has been added to the saying: from one thing, said piously, and this shows the righteousness of the conception; for it is testified that Isaac, after he received two children from Rebekah (Esau and Jacob), no longer cohabited with her. Our mind easily and willingly turns more to the bad than to the necessary, because our human thought is shaky and does not quickly direct its desire to the right path of the Lord, but on the contrary, it deviates now to the right, now to the left and with difficulty fulfills what was said by Solomon: do not turn aside either on the right hand or on the skin (Proverbs 4:27). Moreover, our evil revolves around the same thoughts and prompts our sound mind to take other paths. Therefore, one must be careful that excessive praise of the Virgin does not serve as a temptation for anyone to create a new invention. Those who blaspheme the Son of God, as I explained above, sought to make Him alien to the Divinity of the Father by nature. Others, who thought even differently, as if prompted to honor Him as much as possible, said that the Father is one and the same, the Son is one and the same, and the Holy Spirit is one and the same. But in both delusions the ulcer is incurable. So in relation to the holy and blessed Ever-Virgin, some dared to insult her, saying that she allegedly cohabited in the flesh with her husband after the greatest and pure economy of the Lord, that is, His incarnation. And this is the most wicked of all errors. But just as we recognized those who dared to do this and frivolously gave themselves up to sin, we were surprised to hear something else. Some people who are mad in their opinion about the holy Ever-Virgin herself have tried and are trying to put her in place of God and talk about her, carried away by some kind of insanity and mental damage. They say that this idle talk was brought to Arabia by some women who came from the Thracian countries, that in the name of the Ever-Virgin they make an offering of some kind of cookies and have meetings at which, in the name of the Holy Virgin, they try beyond all measure to indulge in lawless and blasphemous deeds and in her name they make sacrifices through women, that everything is wicked and lawless and far from what was proclaimed by the Holy Spirit, so that all this work the devil and the teaching of the unclean spirit. And on them what was said is fulfilled: the nations will depart from sound teaching, heeding fables and the teaching of demons (Tim. 4:10; cf. 1:4.10); They will, it is said, serve the dead, just as they were given honor in Israel. Thus, the glory of the saints who lived at a certain time, directed towards God, served as a reason for error for others who did not see the truth. In Sikim, that is, in present-day Naples, 361 the local residents offer sacrifices in the name of the Virgin, under the pretext that Jephthah’s daughter was once sacrificed to God (Judges chapter 11). For the deceived, this served as the vice of idolatry and vain worship. Also, the daughter of Pharaoh, who honored the servant of God Moses and took him out of the water and raised him (Ex. Chapter 2), for the sake of the boy who later became glorious, the Egyptians, beyond what was due, honored instead of God, and passed on this bad tradition to the senseless in the form of worship. And they worship this Fermuti, the daughter of Amenophis, the then Pharaoh, because, as I said above, she raised Moses. And many similar things in the world served to deceive the deceived, while it was not the saints who were the perpetrators of temptation for anyone, but the human mind itself, which does not remain in a calm state, but turns to the evil one. Therefore, did the holy Virgin die and be buried: in glory is her rest, in chastity is her death and in virginity is her crown; and if she is killed, as it is written: and a weapon will pierce her soul (Luke 2:35), and in this case, with the martyrs, her glory and in bliss is her holy body, through which the Light shone to the world. Or maybe she survived because God will not fail in everything he wants to do (Luke 1:37): for no one knew about her death. In general, one should not honor the saints beyond what is due, but honor their Lord. Therefore, let the delusion of the deceived cease! For Mary ⸻ is not God, and did not receive a body from heaven, but from the copulation of husband and wife, and according to the promise, like Isaac, she was prepared to participate in the economy of God. Let no one make sacrifices in her name, for by doing so he destroys his soul; but on the other hand, let him not dare to insanely insult the Holy Virgin! She did not cohabit with her husband according to the flesh either after or before the conception of the Savior. It won't happen! According to our own reasoning, we wrote this little for those who want to know the truth of Scripture and not abuse words in vain, or arm their tongues with blasphemy. If some want to resist and not accept what is beneficial, but on the contrary listen to what is harmful, then let it be said to us who are humble: hear and hear, and do not repent and do not repent (Ezek. 3:27); Let such a person not cause trouble either to the Apostles or to us. For we, who knew the most honest and useful for the church, said about the holy Virgin, calling upon her who was favored in everything, according to Gabriel: Rejoice, full of grace: the Lord is with you (Luke 1:28). If the Lord is with her, then how can she be in a different relationship? How can one protected by the Lord come close to the flesh? Saints are in honor; their repose in glory; their departure from here is complete; their lot is in bliss, in the abodes of the saints; their face is with angels; life,⸻ in heaven; occupation,⸻ in the Divine Scriptures; glory in endless and constant honor; reward is in Christ Jesus our Lord, through whom and with whom be glory to the Father with the Holy Spirit forever, amen. All brothers greet you. Convey our greetings to all your brothers, the faithful, the Orthodox, who abhor arrogance, hate communication with the Arians and the insolence of the Sabellians; but they honor the Trinity of one essence, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, three hypostases, one being, and one Divinity, in short, one doxology, and do not hesitate in their opinion about the saving economy of our Savior and about His coming in the flesh, but believe in the perfect incarnation of Christ, Who is perfect God and at the same time perfect man, who without sin received the very body from Mary, who accepted both the soul and the mind, and everything that a person consists of, except sin; Who does not consist of two beings, but there is one Lord, one God, one King, one Bishop, God and man, man and God, not two, but one, united not to the point of merging, nor to the point of loss of personal existence, but as perfectly as required by the great economy of grace. Be healthy! Satisfied with this list of messages, very suitable for refuting the heresy considered, and considering this to be sufficient for the present time, we overcame this heresy, like a reptile emerging from a hole, with the help of God through reasonable teaching and the power of God, spreading in the world, as it were, the incense of styrax in the virtue of the holy children of virginity, which began with Saint Mary. With the help of the Light that shone from it to the world, having exposed this heresy and showing the evil poison of its disastrous wickedness, let us now move on to other heresies in order, with God’s help, to complete this entire creation. Against the Kolyridians sacrificing Mapia, 59th (79th) After the above, rumors reached us about another heresy, which we already mentioned not much earlier in the message written to Arabia about Mary. 362 This heresy appeared in Arabia from Thrace and the upper parts of Scythia and was brought to our ears. In the eyes of reasonable people, she also turns out to be ridiculous and worthy of contempt. But we will begin to expose her and reason about her: because she, like others like her, will be recognized as containing more foolishness than wisdom. For just as the above-mentioned heretics, who have thought up something offensive about Mary, sow harmful thoughts in the minds of people, so these too, deviating in the other direction, find themselves on the edge of destruction, so that the saying of some of the pagan philosophers will be fulfilled for them: extremes meet; 363 because there is the same harm in both of these heresies: both when they humiliate the Holy Virgin, and when, on the contrary, they glorify her beyond her due. And who teaches this if not women? For the female sex is prone to fall, unreliable and cowardly. And it seems that the devil spewed out this very thing through women: just as earlier through Quintilla, Maximilla and Priscilla he spewed out absurd teachings, 364 so now. Some women, having decorated a chariot or a quadrangular seat, spreading a white linen on it on one of the holidays of the year, offer bread for several days and make a sacrifice in the name of Mary. Then they all partake of the bread, as we partly talked about in the letter written to Arabia. Now let us speak more clearly about this and, having asked God for help, we will, if possible, add a refutation, so that, having cut off the roots of this idolatrous heresy, with the help of God, we can turn some away from such madness. So, servants of God, let us take the spirit of courage and dispel the madness of these women. For all this is a woman’s invention and the illness of the newly seduced Eve, or better yet, the flattering promise of the serpent, the seducing beast, who spoke to her, bringing nothing with him and not fulfilling the promise, but only causing death, calling non-existent things existing and, through the vision of a tree, producing disobedience and aversion from the truth itself and turning to manifold things. What the deceiver sowed can be judged by his words: you will be like gods (Gen. 3:5). So the spirit of these women is seduced by the pride of the above-mentioned beast, with which it naturally causes death, as I have often said. First of all, if we immediately survey everything that has happened from time immemorial to this day, then who will not understand that this is the teaching and hidden action of demons and an attempt alien to common sense? From time immemorial, a woman has never performed a sacred act; even Eve herself, although she committed a crime, did not dare to commit such an unholy deed; in the same way, not one of her daughters, while Abel soon performed sacred acts to God, and Cain slaughtered sacrifices before the face of the Lord, however unpleasant to Him, and Enoch pleased God and was transfigured (Gen. 5:22.24), and Noah brought thanksgiving offerings to the Lord from the excess of what was stored in the ark, presenting evidence of gratitude and confessing thanksgiving to Him who saved him. Likewise, righteous Abraham performs sacred acts to God and Melchizedek, the priest of the Most High God (Gen. 14:18), and Isaac turns out to be pleasing to God, and, as best he could, offered a sacrifice on a stone, pouring oil from a vessel on it (Gen. 28:18). Of his sons, Levi turns out to have received the continuous priesthood. From the same family were those who assumed the priestly rank: Moses, the prophet and priest, Aaron and his children Eleazar and Phinehas, and Ithamar, his grandson. But why should I talk about the multitude of those who served God in the Old Testament? So, for example, Ahitov is a priest, as well as the Corites, Gersonites and Merarites, who were honored to be in the Levitical rank (Num. Ch. 3), the house of Elijah (1 Samuel 1) and those who followed him from his kinship in the house of Abimelech and Abiathar - Hilkiah and Buzi until Jesus - the great priest and Ezra - the priest and others. And nowhere is it said that a woman should serve as a priest. Let me move on to the New Testament. If it had been established by God that women should serve as priests, or do anything canonical in the Church, then most of all in the New Testament it would be necessary to invest with the rank of priesthood Mary herself, who was worthy to receive in her bosom the King of all, the God of heaven, the Son of God; whose womb became a church and was prepared for the dwelling of the Lord in the economy of the incarnation according to the love of God and the amazing mystery. But God did not favor it that way. She was not even entrusted with baptism, even though Christ could have been baptized from her rather than from John. However, John, the son of Zechariah, invested with the power of remission of sins, performed baptism in the desert; His father was a priest before God and during the incense he saw a vision (Luke 1:10 and gave). Peter and Andrew, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas, Thaddeus and James Alpheus, Judas Jacob and Simon the Canaanite and Matthew, chosen to complete the twelve (Acts 1:26), - all these were chosen as Apostles, ministering the gospel throughout the whole earth (Rom. 15:16), together with Paul and Barnabas and others, and being the leaders of the sacraments together. with James, brother of the Lord and first bishop of Jerusalem. From this bishop and from the above-named Apostles, the succession of bishops and presbyters in the house of God was established; but nowhere is it said that a woman was included among them. Byahu, it is said, Philip has four daughters who are prophets of the gospel (Acts 21:9), but not priests. And Anna was a prophetess, daughter of Phanuel (Luke 2:36), but the priesthood was not entrusted to her; for it had to be fulfilled it is written: Your sons will prophesy, and your daughters will see dreams, and your young men will see visions (Joel 2:28; Acts 2:17). And that the rank of deaconesses exists in the Church, it is not for the priesthood and not for entrusting them with anything like that, but for the sake of protecting the honor of the female sex, either during baptism, or during the supervision of suffering or illness, and at the time when the body of a woman is exposed, so that it is not visible to the men performing the priesthood, but only by the deaconess, who receives an order from the priest to take care at the right time for the woman when the body is exposed. her, which very prudently and in accordance with church decree supports both the deanery of the institution (deaconesses) and church improvement. Therefore, the word of God does not allow a woman to speak in church or to rule over her husband (1 Cor. 14:35). Yes, and a lot can be said about this. It should also be noted that as long as there was a need for the church rank of deaconesses, the Church called them widows, and even older ones - elders, but never commanded them to be presbyters or priestesses. Even deacons in the church rank are not vested with the right to perform any sacrament, but only to serve in the performance of the sacraments. Where did this new fable come from again? Where does this blindness of women and female fury come from? Where does this evil come from, again brought up by a woman, pouring feminine thoughts into our minds and producing a kind of voluptuousness that attempts to force the unfortunate human nature to move beyond the limits of the intended goal? But let us accept the spirit of Job; let us arm ourselves with the firmness of a fighter; Having received his righteous answer into our mouths, we ourselves will say: I alone from the foolish women exclaimed ecu (Job.2:10). For won’t this seem crazy to everyone who has meaning and has acquired it in God? Isn't this an idolatrous act and a devilish attempt? because the devil always, under the pretext of justice, sneaking up on the human mind, giving divine honor to mortal nature, presented humanoid figures before the eyes of people with the help of various arts. And those who served as objects of worship died, and their images, which never lived (for what never lived can be dead), are offered for worship, so that the mind, moving away from the one and only God, falls into fornication, like a common harlot who is inflamed with extreme indecency for intercourse with many and rejects the chastity of legal marriage with one husband. Truly, the body of Mary was holy; and yet she is not God. Truly the Virgin was a virgin, and a venerable one; however, she was not given to us for worship, but she herself worships Him who was born of her according to the flesh and who descended from heaven from the bosom of the Father. Therefore, the Gospel protects us, speaking in the words of the Lord himself: what is it to me and to you, woman? My hour has not come (John 2:4), what does it have to do with the words: what is it to me and to you, woman? He called her a wife so that no one would consider the Holy Virgin to be superior to what is proper, as if predicting the schisms and heresies that would take place on earth, so that some, being overly amazed at the Holy Virgin, would not fall into the vanity of such heresy. The entire teaching of this heresy is worthy of contempt and is, so to speak, an old woman's fable. And what Scripture taught this? Which of the prophets commanded to worship a man, not to mention a woman? Although Mary is a chosen vessel, a woman by nature is no different from others, but in mind and feeling she is honored with glory, like the bodies of the saints and, more to say, for her praise, like Elijah, who was a virgin from the womb, and remains so forever, and was taken into heaven without seeing death (2 Kings 1:2); and like John, who reclined on the breasts of the Lord and loved Him (John 13:23; cf. 21:20); and like Saint Thecla, to whom Mary is much more revered for the sake of the economy which she was worthy of. But neither Elijah should be an object of worship, although he is alive; nor John, although through his own prayer he made his death amazing and, moreover, received grace from God; and neither Thekla nor any of the saints should be worshiped. Let not the ancient delusion prevail over us - to leave the living God and worship the things created by Him: having served, it is said, the creature is considered more than the Creator, and is a fool (Rom. 1:25. 22). For if God did not allow the angels to worship, then how much more so than the one born from Anna and given to Anna from Joachim, given to the father and mother according to a promise for the sake of their prayer and all kinds of care, and born no other than by human nature, like everything, from the seed of a man and the womb of a woman. Although the history of Mary and tradition report that it was said to her father Joachim in the desert: your wife has conceived; however, this did not happen without the marriage union and not without the seed of the husband. But what was to come was foreshadowed by the sent Angel, so that there would be no doubt about what had actually come into the world and what had already been determined by God and was born to a righteous man. And everywhere we see the Scriptures talking about this. Thus Isaiah foretells what will be fulfilled in the Son of God, saying: Behold, the Virgin will conceive in her womb and give birth to a son, and they will call his name Immanuel (7:14; St. Matthew 1:23). But since the one who gave birth was a Virgin and the one who is carried in the wife is interpreted: God is with us, then, so that in the soul of the prophet there would be no doubt about the truth of the event, the prophet sees it in a vision and, prompted by the Holy Spirit, narrates and says: and he went in to the prophetess (Is. 8:3), pointing to the Gospel story about the entry of Gabriel, who was sent from God (Luke 1:26) to announce the entry into the world and birth from Mary of the Only Begotten Son of God. And in the womb you conceived, says the prophet, and gave birth to a son. And the Lord said to me: Narcis is his name: quickly captivate, brazenly plunder: before you know how to call a child father or mother, he will receive the power of Damascus, and the covetousness of Samaria, and so on (Is. 8: 3,4). But all this had not yet been accomplished, but had to be fulfilled on the Son of God and would come true about 1600 years later. And the prophet contemplated what was to happen after so many generations as having already happened. Was it a lie? - Yes, it won’t! What was ordained by God was undoubtedly preached as if it had already been accomplished, so that the truth would not remain untrue and so that doubt would arise in the mind of the prophet that such an amazing and astounding sacrament would take place. Don’t you notice the very sermon related to this, as Saint Isaiah himself says: like a sheep that is led to the slaughter, and like a lamb that is silent before its shearers, so it does not open its mouth... Who can confess His generation? for His belly will be lifted up from the earth... And I will give the evil one instead of burying Him, and so on (53:7-9). Look how he talks about the previous one as about the next one, and explains the subsequent one as if it had already happened, saying: like a sheep being led to the slaughter. It is spoken of as of the past; for it is not said that what Isaiah proclaimed is known and has not yet been led, but the prophet spoke about how the deed had already been accomplished. The mystery of God is immutable. But starting from him, the prophet no longer speaks as if it had happened, so as not to again give rise to error; but he says: His belly will be lifted up from the earth. In these two ways, he shows the truth, namely in the word: knowing - what has already happened, and in the word: grounding - what was fulfilled after that, so that from what has happened, you understand the truth and firmness of the promise of God, and from what has happened, you can draw a conclusion about the time of the revelation of the mysteries. Likewise, about Mary, the Angel predicted what her father, who entered his own home, would receive from God, precisely what was asked through the petitionary prayer of his father and mother: behold, your wife has conceived in her womb, in order to firmly strengthen the mind of the believer in the promise. Meanwhile, this has served as a source of confusion for some. It is impossible for anyone to be born on earth contrary to human nature. It was fitting for Him alone to do this; only to Him alone did nature yield. He, as the Creator and Ruler of everything, formed Himself from the Virgin, as if from the earth, God descended from heaven, the Word clothed with flesh from the holy Virgin. Despite this, the Virgin should not serve as an object of worship: she should not be made God, sacrifices should not be made in her name, and women should not be appointed to the priesthood again after so many generations. God did not please this to happen either in Salome or in Mary herself; He did not allow her to perform baptism or blessing the disciples; He did not command anyone to rule over the earth, but only wanted it to be holy and worthy of His kingdom. Neither the so-called (Rom. 16:13) mother of Rufus, nor the women who followed from Galilee (Luke 23:55), nor Martha, the sister of Lazarus, Mary, nor any of the holy women who were honored to be saved by His coming and served Him from their property, nor the woman of Canaan (Matt. 15:22), nor the one who was bleeding and healed (Luke 8:47). ), none of the other wives living on earth ordered to acquire this dignity. So where do we get this circling dragon? Why is the evil advice being renewed? In honor let Mary be: but we must worship the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; Nobody should worship Mary. I don’t tell my wife, but also my husband; Only God can assimilate this sacrament; even the angels give way to God in such praise. So, let the evil written in the hearts of those who go astray be blotted out! May the evil fruit of the tree disappear from your eyes! May creation turn again to the Lord! may Eve and Adam turn to the veneration of the One God! Let her not be guided by the voice of the serpent, but let her remain steadfast in the commandment of God: You shall not eat of the tree (Gen. 2:17; 3:3)! The tree was not error, but through the tree the disobedience of error was accomplished. Let no one suffer from error because of Saint Mary! For although the tree is red, it is not a food (Gen. 3:6); although Mary is very beautiful, and holy, and venerable, she is not for worship. These women renew the cup brought to Fate and prepare a meal for the demon, and not for God, according to what is written (1 Cor. 10:20). And they feed on the bread of wickedness, as the Divine Word says: And their wives knead flour, and their sons gather wood, that they may make unleavened bread for the host of heaven (Jer. 7:18). May the lips of such women be blocked from what Jeremiah said, and may they not confuse the universe! Let them not say: we honor the queen of heaven (Jer. 44:17ff); for Taphnas saw their vengeance, and the places of Magdala accepted their bodies to rot (v. 1 and dal). Don't trust the woman, Israel! Avoid the advice of an evil woman! for the wife catches the honest souls of her husbands; its nose brings those who use it to death to hell. Do not be evil to your wife: for honey drips from the lips of a harlot's wife, even though your throat delights for a while: but you will find something bitterer than gall, and a sharper sword than a two-handed sword (Prov. 5:5.3,4). Do not trust this evil woman, because every heresy is an evil woman, and especially this female heresy, which came from the one who seduced the first wife. So, we must honor our mother Eve, as created by God, but not listen to her, so that she does not convince her children to eat from the tree and break the commandment. Let her herself repent of her idle talk, let her turn back, ashamed and clothed with fig leaves (Gen. 3:7)! Let Adam also know her and let him no longer obey her! for obedience to error and the advice of a wife that is contrary to good causes death to her own husband, and not only to her husband, but also to her children. Eve perverted the creation of God by crime, being excited by the words and promise of the serpent, having gone astray from the commandment of God and having entered on a different path of understanding. Therefore, the Lord and Savior of all, wanting to heal the disease, recreate what was overthrown and correct what was insufficient, since death entered the world from a wife, He Himself was born from a virgin wife, in order to destroy death and fill what was missing and perfect what was diminished. And evil turns to us again to introduce insufficiency into the world; but neither young men nor old men obey women, because of the chastity bestowed from above. The Egyptian woman does not play with the chaste Joseph and does not corrupt him, although she used the greatest cunning to seduce the boy (Gen. 39). A person who has received prudence from the Holy Spirit does not play and does not lose chastity, so as not to humiliate his nobility: he leaves his clothes and does not destroy his body, runs away from the place itself so as not to fall into the net; punished temporarily and reigns forever; is thrown into prison; but for him it was more desirable to remain under guard and in an uncovered corner, rather than with a contentious and pagan wife (Proverbs 21:9.19). And how much more can you say? Whether worshiping Mary herself, these idle women bring her cookies, or attempt to bring this above-mentioned, empty offering for her, both are absurd and alien to common sense and, being carried out at the behest of demons, are hypocrisy and deception. In order not to be lengthy in words, I will be satisfied with what has been said. May Mary be honoured, let us adore the Lord! The righteous do not give anyone cause for error: God is not the tempter of the evil, and He does not tempt anyone, nor His servants, to deceive. Everyone is tempted from his own lust by attraction and deception. Lust also gives birth to sin: when sin is committed, it gives birth to death (James 1:13-15). Considering what has been said about all this, beloved, to be sufficient and having crushed with the word of truth this, so to speak, beetle, golden in appearance, and yet winged, so to speak, and flying, carrying within itself real poison and destruction, let us move on to one more remaining unexamined heresy, calling on God to act as intercessor and to examine the parts of the truth and so that He will make perfect our refutation of what is contrary to it. Against the Massalians, with whom the Martyrians from the Hellenes, Euthymites and Satanians are in contact, 60th (80th) Shamelessness is insatiable and recklessness knows no measure, but it extends its thoughts to everything and opens its mouth to harm the offspring of Adam and Noah, destroying chastity in various ways and scattering lustful thoughts among those who are damaged in various ways. After those heresies, some other heresy arose before us, insane and full of all sorts of recklessness, completely ridiculous, having an untenable way of thinking and consisting of deceived men and women. They are called Massalian, which means those who pray. 365 They existed somewhat earlier, approximately from the time of Constantius, and they exist to this day. There are also others, also called Massalian Euthymites, who, as I most likely think, began to zealously imitate that heresy. But they came from pagans, did not belong to Judaism and were not Christians, did not come from the Samaritans, but are really pagans, and although they say that there are gods, they do not worship any god, but give honor to only One, calling him Almighty. Having built themselves some houses, or large premises, like forums, they called them chapels. In ancient times, between the Jews and Samaritans, there were places of prayer outside the city, as we find in the Acts of the Apostles, where it is said that the purple-seller Lydia met with those accompanying St. Paul, and the Divine Scripture tells that there was supposed to be a prayer book (16:14. 13). And the Apostles came and taught the women who were gathered at that time. There was also a place of prayer in Sikimi, in what is now called Naples, 366 outside the city, in a field, approximately two signs of distance, 367 built in the form of a theater without a roof and in the open air by the Samaritans, who imitated the Jews in everything. These original Massalians, descended from the pagans who were before the present ones, descended from the name of Christ, themselves built in some countries premises called chapels and prayer rooms. In other places, having built for themselves something in the likeness of a church, they gather there in the evening and at dawn with many lighted lamps and candles and for a long time sing to God some mournful songs and praises, composed by capable people, deluding themselves with the hope that with these songs and praises they are propitiating God. All this causes blind ignorance, covered with self-conceit, to make mistakes. Recently one of these buildings was struck by lightning, I can’t say in what place, but I think we heard that it was in Phenicia. And some zealous rulers killed many of them because they distorted the truth and imitated the way of life of the Church, not being Christians and not coming from Jews. I think that the military leader Luppikian was one of those who incited the pagans against the same Euthymites, for which reason they developed a new error. For some, having taken the bodies of those killed then for such pagan wickedness and buried them in certain places, chant the same hymns there and called themselves Martyrians, of course for the sake of those who suffered for idols. Some of them, thinking even more deeply, and out of their stupidity, having only reason as an adviser, said: Satan is great and very powerful and commits a lot of evil against people. Why don’t we quickly resort to him and worship him, and don’t honor him, and don’t turn to him with a prayer, so that for our obsequious service he would not harm us, but would spare us when we become his slaves? Thus they called themselves Satanians. We have combined their heresy into one with those of the above-mentioned, about whom we now intend to speak, since they equally, going out into the open, devoted time to prayer and singing. However, all this, being very funny, turned out to be harmless, since it could not deviate the mind from the truth; because they were not Christians, but complete pagans. And now they are called Massalians for those customs; They have neither beginning nor end, nor head nor root, but in everything they are not firm, they do not know from whom they came, and they are deceived, having absolutely no basis in name, nor in legality, nor in position, nor in legislation. Apparently they, both men and women, believe in Christ, saying that they have renounced the world and left all that is theirs. When summer time comes, they all sleep together, men with women and women with men, in the wide streets, because they say that they have no acquisitions on earth. They are impudent and stretch out their hands to beg, as if they do not have food and money. But their speeches exceed any measure of madness. Whichever of them you ask, everyone calls himself whatever you want: if you call him a prophet, they will say: I am a prophet; whether you call him Christ, he asserts; I am Christ; – whether he is a patriarch, he shamelessly calls himself by the same name; Whether he is an angel or not, he also calls himself. Oh, sheer human folly! They do not know fasting at all; but after spending time in prayer from the second hour or from the third, or even at night, if they want to eat, then they calmly do everything: they eat and drink. I don’t know exactly about the students’ activities and their lust. However, they are not free from this either, since they tend to go to bed all together, both women and men. They are also found in Antioch, where they moved from Mesopotamia. They received this disastrous teaching from the excessive simplicity of some brothers; for some of our brothers and Orthodox Christians, not knowing the measure of living in Christ, did not understand the commandment to renounce the world, to renounce one’s own property and money, to sell property and give to the poor, to take up the cross and to follow the truth, not to be lazy or idle and untimely, nor to become like a drone bee, but, on the contrary, to do everything with one’s own hands, like the Holy Apostle Paul, renounced the world, but a preacher of the truth, whose hand served not only himself, but also those who were with him (Acts 20:34) - although these latter were not inactive, they were at work with him, as he boasts in one place and very clearly teaches, saying: let him who does not labor lower eat (2 Thess. 3:10). Some of the above-mentioned brothers, perhaps taught by Manes, who, as they say, came from Persia, taught what they should not. So the word of God commands to look after those who do nothing; Meanwhile, the minds of some are misled by the word of the Savior: do not do the things that perish, but abid in eternal life (John 6:27). They think that what perishes is a good work which we do for the sake of righteousness; such a thing was manifested in Abraham when he prepared the calf (Gen. 18:7); also in the widow’s care for Elijah (1 Kings 17), in Job’s disposal regarding his children and property, and in the work of all God’s servants who worked with their own hands for the sake of righteousness, such as, for example, to help the needy. This is how they work for righteousness in every monastery in the land of Egypt and in all countries. Just as a bee, having wax on her feet for making, and a crumb of honey in her mouth, with her buzzing voice, in her own way, sings praises to the Lord of all, just as Solomon testifies that she is honored by the wisdom of her work (Prov. 6:8): so the servants of God, truly founded on the solid stone of truth and firmly building their house, do their smallest works with their own hands. according to each person's skill. With their lips they pronounce almost all of the Divine Scripture, tirelessly and not lazily perform frequent vigils, being sometimes in prayers, sometimes in psalmody, incessantly attend ordinary meetings established by law, constantly spend certain hours at intervals in continuous prayers to God. With humiliation, great humility and heavy sighing, they send these prayers to God and work with their own hands, as I have already said, and after spiritual work, so as not to be in need and not to fall into human pretense, not to give the wicked the opportunity to speak the truth that people who are not free from uncleanness, who have become rich through unrighteousness and have acquired wealth at the expense of the poor, do not lack bread, while others, not being able to obtain daily food from righteous labors, are forced, due to a lack caused by inaction, to resort to the meals of the rich. Therefore, the word of God teaches, saying: do not covet the food of the rich, for they have a false stomach (Proverbs 23:3). And in another place: the calico should be prepared for you. If ecu is the most insatiable, do not covet it (vv. 2-3). For by this the youths in Babylon became famous, refusing the royal meal and preferring to be content with vegetables rather than meals and dishes, withdrawing from glory, just as Moses was more willing to suffer with the people of God than to enjoy the treasures in Egypt (Heb. 11:25ff.; sn. Ex.2ff.). By working with his own hands, he achieved prophecy. Being noble and adopted by the king's daughter, he became a shepherd of sheep, so that we do not eat bread in idleness (Ex. 3), as our father Jacob also teaches, saying to Laban: Give me something to do so that I can earn my bread. And he again received an order from his father-in-law to feed the flocks (Gen. 29), so that the righteous would not eat bread in idleness. The apostles were commanded to be content with preaching the word of God, so that they would not be carried away by other matters, moving from city to city and from one place to another, to preach: for the worker of his wages is worthy (Matthew 10:10; fn. Luke 10:7); and again: it is enough for him who makes his own food (1 Tim. 6:8). In the same way, to shepherds, for the sake of their unceasing care for people and church governance, and continuous service, the word of God says: who feeds the flock and does not eat its milk? or who plants grapes and does not partake of its fruit (1 Cor. 9:7)? And one more thing: the working farmer must first of all partake of the fruits (v. 10; fn. James 5:7; Sir.6:19). The Word of God says this so as not to leave the presbyter or bishop in need of daily food, encouraging people to give from righteous labors to the priests what is necessary for their food through firstfruits and offerings and other things, to which they have the right, as those appointed by God to lead the people, but they do not use this in excess, promising to perfectly please God. And among the priests of God themselves, there are those who imitate in the preaching of the word of God their holy father in God in Christ - I mean the Holy Apostle Paul - and they, if possible, although not all, but the majority, work with their own hands, whatever craft they find, consistent with their dignity and continuity of care for the church. They mean that, in addition to the word and preaching, their consciences rejoice when they receive fruits from their own hands and satisfy themselves and the brethren who need to receive something, for example, firstfruits and offerings and the very things obtained by the labor of their hands. Out of an abundance of love for God and their neighbors, they give to them voluntarily, although they are not forced to do so, and are not condemned, but carry out righteous labors and church activities and, receiving food according to their deserts, take on the labor voluntarily. For their divine soul, confirmed in the fear of God and having received knowledge from the Holy Spirit, longs for the riches of heaven, which consists in righteousness, which they achieve through praise and glorification, great deeds, practice in the Holy Scriptures and the words of God, psalmody and church meetings, holy fasts, purity of good living and voluntary work with their hands for the sake of righteousness. However, our equally venerable brethren who are in the monasteries of Mesopotamia, called mandras, are distinguished in a different way: 368 they let their hair grow like women’s and walk publicly in hair shirts. Meanwhile, they should have been modest children of the Holy Virgin, the mother of our Church, sitting at home, secretly serving God, who sees in secret and rewards openly, according to what is written (Matthew 6:6); they should be decent for the sake of the world, and not desire to receive rewards and gratitude from those who see them. It is alien to the Catholic Church and the apostolic preaching to wear a hair shirt in public and to have uncut hair, for a man, it is said, should not grow hair, this is the image and glory of God (1 Cor. 11:14. 7). What is worse and more disgusting than this? The beard - the image of the husband is cut off, and the hair on the head is grown. Regarding the beard in the Apostolic Constitutions, the word of God and teaching prescribes not to spoil it, that is, not to cut the hair on the beard, but also not to wear long hair, like harlots, and not to give access to vanity under the guise of righteousness. 369 This was fitting for the Nazarenes only for the sake of the type: the ancients were guided by the types of the future and wore hair on their heads as a result of a vow, and this until the promise of peace came and was fulfilled, that is, until the Head appeared - Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and the Ever-Bearing One was recognized in the world, although he was not recognized by all humanity, but only by some who believed in Him, so that when we recognize the Head, we do not disgrace our heads. For the Apostle does not actually speak about the head of everyone, but from it he carries out the work of reproaching Christ; he says; Or is it not natural to teach us that if a man grows his hair, it is dishonor for him (1 Cor. 11:14)? And this dishonor is not praiseworthy, just like the one about which it is said: you despised shame. This is not some kind of good deed for God, although it is undertaken for the sake of God; but this custom persists after the legal image has passed and the truth has appeared. The Apostle says: if anyone imagines being controversial, we are not imams of such a custom, lower than the church of God (1 Cor. 11:16). So, he removes those who do and act in this way, and persist in stubbornness, from the apostolic law and from the church of God. But we are forced to say this about the above-mentioned Massalians, because they, too, having received from there an illness of thought and having perverted their minds, deviated from the truth. This is how heresy arose, consisting of terrible inaction and other evil deeds. This is what we have heard about these people who have become a disgrace to the world and spew out unclean thoughts and words, but are bankrupt and hopeless and have become outside the building of God (1 Cor. 3:9). Therefore, having said a little about them, we will immediately begin to refute them. And first of all, for women to be together with men, fair grounds for this are not indicated in the ancient custom of those in natural marriage; but one husband must be in marriage with one wife, as Adam was with Eve, Sarah with Abraham, Rebecca with Isaac. And if some of the forefathers had two or three wives, then these wives were not in the same house; for this is the type of cohabitation that occurs among pigs, and such is the cohabitation of cattle. But these heretics force us to even greater amazement when they declare that they do not have cohabitation with wives, while, on the contrary, they commit even more shameful things and reveal their complete shame. Even if they had wives, they should keep them separately, and not all together. If they are in a marriage, then they should not have to commit the coupling of husband and wife, established by God, which must be done with decency, honesty and prudence, at their own discretion in front of everyone. And if some, maintaining themselves in purity and abstinence, separated from their wives, then these too violated their righteousness through foolishness and their virtuous life through careless and reckless action, while neither the apostles did this, nor did the prophets who were before the apostles establish this. Moses in the desert, having begun a hymn, sings a song to God after crossing the sea, saying: Let us sing to the Lord, for gloriously we shall be glorified; horse and rider were thrown into the sea (Ex. 15:1). The men, but not the wives, also cried out with him, in order to show their modesty and proclaim the height of the good order in the law of God. Following this, he says: Mariam took the tympanum and went before the women and said: Let us drink to the Lord, so that we may be glorified (vv. 20-21). And the women cried out in the same way along with her, who was of the same sex and somewhat superior to them, in order to show how unreasonable and unclean the idea of ​​​​a different teaching of people doing such things in a disorderly mixture. In addition, the prophet says about the resurrection: and they will mourn according to the tribes: tribe against tribe: the tribe of Nathan for themselves, and their wives for themselves: the tribe of Judah for themselves, and their wives for themselves, and so on (Zechariah 12:12,13). So the apostles prescribed for the Church; so the Lord commanded in the Gospel, presenting us with an example in one wife, saying to Mary: touch me not, for lest I sigh unto the Father (John 20:17). In the same way, Gehazi approaches the Sumanite woman, pushing her away from Elisha’s feet, so that she would not disturb the order and offend the prophetic order (2 Kings 4:27). But the prophet, moved by the Holy Spirit, saw the Sumanite woman grieving and, for the sake of consolation, he transgressed the order and endured this in good time for the sake of consoling the woman, considering the woman’s touch of his feet, contrary to custom, to be consistent with her spiritual unhappiness and grief. But why should I say much about those who imitate dogs and compete with pigs? As for calling oneself Christ, who among those who have sense does not think this is madness? Or when one of them says: I am a prophet; then in what way do they show the appearance of prophecy? Or what miraculous work have they accomplished, like Christ? If each of them is Christ himself, then in which Lord does he hope and in whom does he believe? What is the teaching of the foolish? But enough will be said about this heresy. With this may our entire creation on heresies be sealed and completed. Since God accompanied us and helped us, we must confess this with all our souls and with all our thoughts and thank the Lord Himself for the fact that with His help we were honored to fulfill the promise we made, I mean the narrative we compiled about heresies and their refutation; and together we discovered what was happening in each of them, as far as was possible with our weak human powers. As soon as we learned of the eighty heresies that had spread in the world, learned their number, names, and some of them the main provisions, evidence and properties, and showed their origin and causes unapologetically, we were overly amazed by what was said in the Divine Scripture: sixty are queens, and eighty concubines, and young men, of whom there is no number. My dove is one, my perfect one (Song. 6:7,8). So, we first spoke about these eighty, as it were, concubines: barbarism, Hellenism, Scythia, Judaism and Samaritanism, which names are not the names of either legal wives, or those who received a dowry from the king, or those who have the right to inherit along with their children by agreement. In reality, there are seventy-five heresies and their mothers are five, namely: Hellenism, from which the Hellenes descend; Judaism, from which Jews and heresies; the Samaritan heresy, from which Samaritanism, and finally Christianity, from which they broke off, like branches, separated heresies, named after the name of Christ, but not belonging to Him; on the contrary, some were very far removed from Him, and others, for the most insignificant reason, became, together with their children, aliens and outsiders of His inheritance, since they were not legal, but were outside and only bearing the name of Christ. It now remains for us to present only the testimony of the truth, of the only dove praised by the Bridegroom. As soon as we have leisure, then, after a fiery prayer to God, in our place we will make a shortened in reasoning, but firm on the basis of tradition defense of the truth, although it appeared not after, but earlier and was already mentioned by us before all heresies in the speech about the incarnation of Christ. But she is the first - the holy bride betrothed to Christ after the Incarnation and His coming, who was created with Adam, preached among the patriarchs who were before Abraham, and after Abraham was sealed by faith, revealed by Moses and predicted by Isaiah, but appeared in Christ and abides with Christ, and in the end she is to be praised by us. For one who enters a competition must first of all establish himself in wrestling, labor and other exercises of competition, so that later, having received the crown, he will spend his life in joy with the crown. But the crown is not the last, but what is presented in the struggle, and in the end it is given to the joy and gladness of the one who has worked. Having said this about this, we will move on to the above words to show what eighty concubines and sixty queens are, and what one virgin is, pure and together a bride, and a dove, and a lamb, what is the holy city of God and faith and the establishment of truth (1 Tim. 3:15), and a solid stone, which the gates of hell cannot overcome (Matt. 16:18). By calling and calling on God in everything, we achieved the fulfillment of the promise, I mean the reasoning against all heresies, which we brought to the Massalian heresy. And having trampled it, as it were, with the boots of the Gospel, like a many-legged chameleon, disgusting, ugly and breathing a stench, let us give thanks for everything to God, the Father in the Son, the Son in the Father, with the Holy Spirit forever and ever, Amen. A brief true word about the universal faith in the Apostolic Church Having sorted out in our work the many different, diverse, divided into many parts, proceeding from bad intentions and reckless teachings of opponents, and dividing them according to types and kinds, by the power of God we exposed their insignificance and emptiness and, having swam across the boundless waves of blasphemy, slander and the most disgusting sacraments of every heresy, and with great difficulty resolving those that arose from everywhere objections and having conquered their wickedness, we finally approached the quiet lands of truth after we crossed the entire stormy space and withstood all the storm, boiling and heaving of the waves, rolling, so to speak, and the wreck, after we saw the shallows, and the ledges, and the places of origin of animals, we subjected all this to experimental research, and having now seen the peaceful harbor into which we are hastening to enter, we again turn to prayer to God. We rejoice that we have calmed down from all fear and trembling and seasickness, that we are in the best condition, enjoying the breath of a quiet breeze and, strengthened in spirit, have come to a quiet haven. We have been exposed, to tell the truth, to many misfortunes and extraordinary insults, we have passed, so to speak, land and sea, uneven ground, difficult desert places and the dangers of the above-mentioned depths of the sea, but we have finally seen the city and are hastening to it, this holy Jerusalem, and the Virgin of Christ and the bride, the solid foundation and rock, our honorable mother, the bride of Christ, crying out in good time: come, let us ascend to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob and will tell us his way, and so on (Is. 2:3). So, children of Christ, sons of God’s holy church, who have graciously read this work about the eighty heresies and, together with me, have crossed the abyss of the above-mentioned absurd teachings, and have crossed such a terrible and waterless desert, let us call on the Lord of all! We have long desired this, and in every place of discussion about these heresies, we felt as if in Marah (Ex. 15) and in thirst when we wandered through this terrible impenetrable desert and constantly encountered the false teaching of the heretics. And now let us exclaim ourselves: in the same way that the trees desire for the springs of water, my soul desires for you, God (Ps. 41:2); and again: when will I come and appear to the face of God (v. 3)? Therefore, we will rather call on Him, but not in the same way as the Bridegroom and the Lord, and the Master, and the King, and God, and the Champion called the bride, but we will call as His servants, in agreement with Him and ourselves saying: come from Lebanon, bride: for all good is ecu, and there is no vice in you (Song. 4: 8.7). You are the paradise of the great Artist, the city of the holy King, the bride of the undefiled Christ, the pure Virgin, betrothed in faith to the Husband alone, glorious, penetrating like the morning, kind like the moon, chosen like the sun, fearful like the sun (6:9); pleased by queens, sung by concubines and praised by daughters (cf. v. 8), rising from the wilderness (3:6), made white and strengthened by her brother (8:5), breathing peace, rising from the desert like a stalk of smoke burning myrrh and frankincense, from the incense of the myrrh-maker who gave his incense (3:6)! Seeing Him, she said: Thy name is poured out in peace. For this reason I loved Thee (1:2). You have become at the right hand of the King, robed in gold and speckled (Ps. 44:10.14); You have nothing dark, you were once blackened, but now you are beautiful and white (Song.1:4,5)! Oh, if only, having resorted to you, we would renounce the hated heretical acts that we had hitherto encountered, calm down from their stormy anxiety and rest in you, our holy mother Church, in your holy teaching and in the holy and only true faith of God! But I will begin to tell wonderful things about this holy city of God; for the glorious word was spoken about him, as the prophet says: “Glorious was the word spoken about you, city of God” (Ps. 86:3). This is unattainable for all people, alien to unbelievers, but for people who are faithful and follow the truth, it is partly achievable, in accordance with the promise that this will be given to them from their Master in the kingdom of heaven, where the holy Virgin and heir herself with her Bridegroom in heaven received a lot and inheritance. First of all, we must recognize that God is God for all of us, born of this holy Church: this is the first proof of the truth and confirmation of the faith of this one Virgin, the holy and gentle dove, about whom the Lord by the Spirit revealed to Solomon in the Song of Songs and said: sixty are queens, and eighty concubines, and young men, of whom there is no number. One is My dove, My perfect one (6:7,8), with a twofold repetition: Mine and Mine. For His dove and His perfect; since others, although they are called that way, are not His essence, but she is called that way twice. Of the others he did not say: My eighty concubines; However, for the sake of the glorious name, he gave special honor to the queens; he declared the concubines completely alien. Having indicated exactly the number of them, we are forced in this place to turn to the study of the highest meaning, in order not to omit this as unimportant, but through true intuitions to examine the words with the help of the true Scriptures; because in any case the written number should not be ignored, and what is contained in the number cannot be anything in vain, and what is written cannot be considered idle. Queens are souls already previously named in the genealogy; for the king is accompanied by many multitudes, and since the king is the head, just as in the body, although there are many members, starting from the head the whole body is considered one person; So, depending on one king, the whole multitude of those subject to the king must be in accordance with him alone. Thus, the race of Christ is called a queen, not because, as it were, the whole race reigned, but because one race, having come to know the Lord, under the name of a husband, bears the rank and very dignity of a king. So, for example, Adam and his entire family together with him will be considered the queen, and his primacy and patriarchal power, reigning together with those who are united with him by the knowledge of God and for the reason that he was honored to be the first-created, and also because he was the first to show repentance, as is known from history. Then after him was Seth and all the people of his family, and Enosh, and Cainan, and Maleleel, and Jared, and Enoch, and Methuselah, and Lamech, and Noah. The number of these saints, numbered separately by generation, is shown in Matthew. He lists sixty-two clans and patronymics by the names of the most famous men who had knowledge of God, or for some other distinction who became involved in royal glory and greatness; the counting is carried out until the coming of Christ. From Adam to Noah there were ten generations, and from Noah to Abraham ten more; from Abraham to David - fourteen; from David to the captivity (Babylonian) - fourteen and from the captivity to Christ - fourteen (Matthew 1). Thus, from Adam to Christ there are sixty-two genera, which for the sake of brevity are counted as sixty. For in the desert, although there were seventy-two date stalks, the Scripture named only seventy (Ex. 15:27). And those called to the mountain are mentioned as seventy, although together with Eldad and Modad there were seventy-two (Numbers 11:27). And those who translated the Bible under Ptolemy, although there were seventy-two, but for the sake of brevity we are used to saying: translation of seventy. So now, I think, sixty queens are called, by excluding the superfluous and missing numbers, the average number sixty for the prototype and elevation of the mind to perfect contemplation; since by six tens a six-day period is fulfilled, so that from each generation the number of holy souls reigning in God by faith is made up. Therefore, in Cana of Galilee there are six stone waterpots, which, when empty, were filled again, containing two or three measures (John 2:6,7), which refers to the measure of the fullness of the Old and New Testaments and the Trinity. In these waterpots, filled for the joy of marriage and the sons of men, the water was turned into pure wine. Hence, mathematicians call a hexagon a figure measured by three and seven in the number twenty-one. This hexagon denotes the completeness of all visible space, because the quadrilateral contained in it makes, so to speak, a quaternary number, and the base and top, in the form of a roof, make the number six. In order not to make the speech extensive, I recognize as sufficient what is said about the sixty queens, that is, about the generations numbered before the coming of Christ. How many generations there were after Christ and before now, this is known only to the Lord Himself. For no one has given or arranged these numbers by generation, and yet the number of queens is complete and, as it were, sealed until the time of His fleshly coming. For the rest of the time after this, living writers or compilers of memorial records, or chroniclers, or historians no longer calculate genera, but the succession of kings and times according to the number of years of each king, so that from all this a reasonable person can very easily understand that, according to this study, all time is reduced to the number of sixty-two genera before Christ, because after Christ, as is clear from this reasoning, the times of the world, which was completed in unity, are no longer calculated by genealogies. time, designated according to the unchanging definition of the will of God; The same will determines the end of the age and the transition to the future age. Therefore it is said: My dove is one, My perfect one (Song. 6:8), since everything ends before her: and times, and summers, and years, and the distances of generations, whether according to kings, or according to consuls, or according to Olympiads, or according to the time of government, the century will be reckoned. The eighty concubines are those who are in the interval between the time of the queens and before the kingdom of Christ, that is, the faith, this bride and maiden, not vile and dove, the only one of the mother and parent. The Church came from one faith, was born through the Holy Spirit, and has one single parent. And all those who came after her and before are called concubines, who were not completely alien to the covenant and inheritance, but did not receive the gift from the Word and did not receive the Holy Spirit into themselves, but only had communion with the Word in their conscience. Jews express themselves beautifully about a concubine, calling her felegesfa: feleg means half, esfa means wife, 370 so that a concubine is like half of a wife. For as for the Lord, He called everyone into the free light, saying: since you have light in yourselves, walk in the light (John 12:35); and the holy Apostle says; you are sons of the day and sons of light (1 Thess. 5:5); and the Divine Scripture also says: everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light (John 3:20). Likewise, concubines are not explicitly, not completely, and not with a dowry, taken by their husbands and, even if they had physical cohabitation with them, they cannot have honor, title, constancy, as well as the dowry they brought with them, marriage gifts and rewards, and the intimacy of a legitimate wife. So, the heresies numbered in order are concubines, as I said above, and let no one be surprised that there are eighty of them, although each of them is called by different names in each country. But it should also be noted that often some kind of heresy, having divided itself, falls into many parts and names. And no wonder: this really happens. We also find the number: eighty-one: one - for the sake of one, singled out from all, who became the property of one Bridegroom and is honored by Him with the following name: one is My dove; and also: My perfect one, while all concubines are not noble and are not distinguished by gentleness, purity and meekness. Starting from barbarism and Scythianism and ending with the above-mentioned Massalians, their number is seventy-five. Adjacent to them are: Hellenism, from which the Hellenic heresies originated; Judaism, from which are the Jewish heresies, and Samaritanism, from which are the Samaritan heresies. If you add these three to the number seventy-seven, you get the full number eighty. Behind this remains one, that is, the holy, universal Church, and Christianity, truly at first so called with Adam and before Adam, and before all ages with Christ, by the will of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and with all those who pleased God in any way, which constituted the object of faith, and at the time of His coming into the world was clearly revealed, and now, after all these heresies, concubines, we are again sung as the order of speech requires it. The Word itself in the book of the Song of Songs counted it this way, saying: sixty queens, and eighty concubines, and young men, of whom there is no number. But My dove, He says, is one, My perfect one: one is its mother, chosen by the one who gave birth to her (6:7,8). And finally, he shows how she will be found by everyone, as the most honorable of all and ruling over all and for Him the only chosen one, whose children are the heirs of the King, and true children, as children of promise, and not the children of a slave (Gal. 4:28-31), and not the children of a concubine, or others, without number indicated. For if Abraham also had children from his concubine Keturah, then the children of Keturah do not turn out to be joint heirs with Isaac, but received only gifts (Gen. 25:6), as if by will, so that this image would lead us to the highest meaning of speech, so that no one would despair of the calling of Christ. The gifts that Abraham gave to Ishmael and the sons of Keturah were an image of future benefits received when souls converted to faith and truth. Hagar, the slave (Gal. 4:22) and expelled by Abraham (v. 30), who is the image of lower Jerusalem, enslaving her children (v. 25), about whom it is said: I rejected your mother (Hos. 2) and one more thing: I gave the book of lasciviousness (Matt. 19:7; Deut. 24:1-3) into her hands - this slave, I mean Hagar, for the sake of a figurative indication of the hope of conversion, he gives a bottle of water in order to show the power of the bath of restoration (Titus 3:5), given as a gift of life to the unbelievers and for the conversion of all nations to the knowledge of the truth. The sons of Keturah had gifts of money, gold and silver, clothing and everything that Abraham had secretly put in their sacks: Lebanon, myrrh and gold, which he received from the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah, when Hodollogomor, Barsah and other kings took captive the Sodomites, Gomorrites and others, received horses and many captive people as booty and plundered the property of each of them, a lot of money and other things (Gen. 14). Abraham himself, when he returned from the defeat of the kings, did not dare to reject what was already intended for the Lord God, but gave it as a gift, along with others, to his sons from Keturah, as we found information about this in the traditions of the Jews. 371 At the time of the coming of Christ, the same children of Abraham from Keturah, expelled by Abraham, departed and settled in the Arabian borders of the country of Magodia, that is, the Magi (magi) who came through the succession of genera from their seed, seeing the star, came and brought Christ to Bethlehem the same gifts and giving in communion with the same hope (Matthew 2). The Prophet gives a clear idea of ​​these gifts, saying: before the child knows to call father or mother, he will receive the power of Damascus, and the gain of Samaria before the king of Assyria (Is. 8:4); for all this in the time of Abraham, as I said above, was taken from Damascus and Samaria by the coming kings. So when did He receive these gifts, before you can call them father or mother, if not when the wise men came and opened their vaginas, or treasures, as is read in some copies, and brought myrrh, frankincense and gold (Matthew 2:11)? Do you see how the words of truth and the sequence of events agree? how are these heresies also concubines, and their children accepted the gifts? They, who took one name, only called by the name of Christ, only accepted a few sayings from the Divine Scripture, in order to understand the truth through them, if they want; if they do not want to, but will return to Herod (and they were told not to return to Herod, but to retire to their fatherland in another way, v. 12), and if they do not fulfill what was commanded, then the gifts are in vain for them, just as for those (the Magi) coming (to Christ) if they return to Herod, because like this, the same heresies distort the teaching of the Divine words. So these are the eighty concubines, the number of which is indicated. And queens are numbers according to the generations of the soul, that is, men and patriarchs; youths, of which there are no number, mean philosophical sects scattered throughout the world and the way of life of each soul, both commendable and non-commendable. But who can count the diversity of this world? How many other teachings arose among the Hellenes after the four most remarkable ones mentioned above! Moreover, even after those heresies and the various souls and minds that followed them, how many sects, in youthful arrogance, were created, in accordance with their will? Like, for example, those who are called Pyrrhonians and many others, whose names and opinions I will give in order and separately. And although many of them have come to my attention, what part is this of all those in the world? Of these, there are Hellenic ones, of which I will be the first to cite from the very beginning the opinion and teaching of Thales of Miletus. Thales of Miletus himself, one of the seven wise men, declared water to be the beginning of everything. From the water, he says, everything happened and will be resolved again into the water. Anaximander, the son of Praxiades and also of Miletus, argued that the beginning of everything is the infinite: everything comes from it and everything is resolved into it. Anaximenes, son of Euristatus, also of Miletus, says that the beginning of everything is air, and that everything came from it. Anaxagoras, son of Igisivul, from Klazomen, argued that the beginning of everything is similar particles (omyomeria). Archelaus, the son of Apollodorus, and according to some of Milton, the Athenian naturalist, says that everything came from the earth; for she is the beginning of everything, as he asserts. Socrates, the son of Elvagl, or Sophroniscus, and the midwife Phenareta, a teacher of morality, said that a person should be concerned only with what concerns himself, and nothing else. And Pherecydes said that the earth came into being first of all. Pythagoras of Samos, son of Mnisarchus, argued that the unit is God and without it nothing happened. He also said that one should not sacrifice animals to the gods or eat anything animate, as well as beans, and that wise men should not drink wine; said that everything under the moon is passionate; and that which is above the moon is impassive; He also said that the soul passes into many animals; He ordered his disciples to remain silent for five years and finally called himself God. Xenophanes, son of Oreumenes, of Colophon, argued that everything came from earth and water; nothing that exists, as he said, is true; Thus, the immutable is unknown to us, and in everything, especially in the invisible, we encounter only the apparent. Parmenides, the son of Pyrite, a native of Eleates, also said that the beginning of everything is infinity. Zeno of Elea, a herist 372, like another Zeno, says that the earth is motionless, and that no place is empty. He says this: what moves moves either in the place where it is, or in the place in which it is not; but it does not move either in the place where it is, or in the place in which it is not: therefore nothing moves. Melissus, the son of Iphagen, a Samian by birth, argued that everything is one and nothing is fragile by nature, but everything is destroyed by force. Leucippus of Miletus, and according to some Eleatic and also a herist, argued that everything lies in the infinite, and that everything exists only illusory and imaginary, and nothing truly exists, but appears like an oar in the water. Dimocritus, son of Damasippus, from Abdera, argued that the world is infinite and lies above the void; He also argued that there is one end to everything, and that complacency is the best, and sorrow is the limit of evil; what seems fair is not just, but what is unjust is contrary to nature; He said that laws are an evil invention, and that a wise man should not obey the laws, but live freely. Metropolitan of Chios claimed that no one knew anything; but what we think we know, we don’t know for sure, and we shouldn’t trust our feelings, because everything exists only in ghosts. Protagoras, son of Menander, from Abdera, argued that there are no gods, and that God does not exist at all. Diogenes of Smyrna, and according to some of Cyrene, thought the same as Protagoras. Pyrrho of Elis, having compiled a summary of all the teachings of other sages, wrote objections to them, refuting their opinions, and did not bow to any teaching. Empedocles, son of Meton, from Agrigentum, introduced the four primordial elements: fire, earth, water and air, and said that before the elements there was enmity. For at first, he asserts, everything was divided, but now it has been united, as he says, by the power of mutual friendship. So, according to his teaching, there are two principles and two forces: enmity and friendship, of which one is connecting, and the other is dividing. Heraclitus, son of Bleson, of Ephesus, said that everything consists of fire and will again be resolved into fire. A certain Prodicus calls the four elements gods, followed by the sun and the moon; for from them, he said, life force flows into everything. Plato the Athenian said that God, matter and form exist, and the world is produced and subject to corruption; he calls the soul unborn, immortal and divine; says that it consists of three parts: reasonable, irritable and lustful; He also said that marriages and wives should be common to everyone, and no one should have one wife for himself, but he who wishes must cohabit with those who wish. Aristippus of Cyrene, who was gluttonous and lusty, argued that pleasure is the final goal of the soul, and that whoever enjoys is happy, and whoever does not enjoy at all is very unhappy and ill-fated, as they say. Theodore, nicknamed an atheist, argued that words about God were idle talk, for he thought that there was no Divinity and for this reason he convinced everyone to steal, break an oath, rob and not die for the fatherland; he said that there is one fatherland for everyone - peace; He said that only the happy are good, but that the unfortunate should be avoided, even if he were a wise man, and that the unreasonable and rebellious should be considered a rich man. Igisius of Cyrene argued that there is neither friendship nor gratitude; for this, according to him, does not exist, but either the one in need gives thanks, or the one who receives something better benefits; He also said that it is good for a bad man to live, and for a wise man to die, so for this some called him persuading him to death. Antisthenes, from a Thracian mother, and the Athenian himself, first a Socratic and then a cynic, argued that one should not compete with another in atrocities or adopt shameful things from one another; – that the city walls are unreliable against the internal traitor; the walls of the soul are unshakable and indestructible. Diogenes, a cynic from the city of Sinope, which lies near Pontus, agreed with Antisthenes in everything. He argued that good is bearable for every wise man; everything else is either nothing, or just idle talk. Cratis of Thebes of Viotia, also a cynic, said that poverty is freedom. Arcesilaus argued that truth is achievable only for God, but not for man. Carneades thought the same as Arcesilaus. Aristotle, son of Nicomachus, according to some, was a Macedonian from Stagira; and as others say, he is a Thracian by birth. He said that there are two beginnings of everything; God and matter; and that what is above the moon is controlled by Divine providence, and that what is below the moon exists without providence and is carried about by some unreasonable desire, as if by chance; he also says that there are two worlds: a higher and a lower; the highest is incorruptible, and the lowest is perishable; and that the soul is the entelechy of the body. 373 Theophrastus of Heresia thought the same as Aristotle. Strato, from Lampsacus, said that heat is the cause of everything; He also said that the parts of the world are infinite and that no animal has abilities. Praxiphanes of Rhodes thought the same as Theophrastus. Critolaus, the Facilitate, thought alike with Aristotle. Zeno, of Citium, a Stoic, argued that the gods should not build churches, but have the Divinity in the mind alone; even more than that, consider the mind to be God, for it is immortal; the dying should be thrown to animals or into fire; use your favorites without hindrance. He also said that everything is controlled by the Divine; the causes of things are partly in us, and partly not in us, that is, some of the affairs depend on us, while others do not depend on us; He also spoke about the separation of the soul from the body and called the soul a perennial spirit; He also said that it is not entirely incorruptible, for from longevity it is exhausted until it disappears, as he claims. Cleanthes says that the good and the beautiful consist in pleasure; he called only the soul a man, and the gods, he said, are mysterious images and sacred names; He called the sun a flame, the world - a place of initiation into the sacraments, and those inspired by the Divine - their performers. Perseus taught in the same way as Zeno. Chrysippus of Soleia wrote that laws mean nothing: sons, he said, should have copulation with their mothers, and daughters with their fathers. For the rest, he agreed with Zeno of Kitia. In addition, he said that you can eat human flesh; He also said that the ultimate goal of everything is voluptuousness. Panaetius of Rados said that the world is immortal and does not age; he accepted prophecy as nothing and rejected what was said about the gods: for he said that speech about God was idle talk. Posidon of Apamea says that the greatest good for people is wealth and health. Athenodorus of Tarsus thought alike with Chrysippus and taught alike with Zeno. Epicurus, the son of Neocleus, raised in Athens, led a lustful life and was not ashamed to publicly cohabit with dissolute women. However, we talked about it before. 374 In addition, he said that there are no gods, but that everything is governed by one chance, and nothing in life is voluntary: neither learning, nor education, nor anything else, but everything is involuntary for everyone. Therefore, one should neither blame anyone, as Epicurus asserts, nor praise him, for everyone does this involuntarily. He also said that one should not be afraid of death; asserted, as I said before, that everything is composed of atoms and that the world is in infinite space. These are the Hellenic philosophers who have come to our attention. As for the opinion of others living in the barbarian land, in Hellas and in the country of Rome and in other places of the universe, in the Indian tribe there are seventy-two absurd philosophical sects, gymnosophists and Brahmans (they alone are worthy of praise), then false Brahmans, carrion eaters, cold-blooded people and the insensitive, about whom and about the vile deeds committed by them we considered it unnecessary to speak specifically and worthless: so great is the depravity in these people, and so many bad deeds in them. It is said that there are still six different heresies in Media; and then in Ethiopia and among the Persians, in Parthia, Elamitis, the Caspian Sea, in the German country, in Sarmatia, between the Davni, 375 among the Zacchus 376 and the Amazons, among the Laz 377 and the Ivirians, 378 and the Vosporins, 379 among the Giles, 380 Sers 381 and other peoples, what a variety of laws and what an immeasurable multitude philosophical sects and heresies! This is how Sersky men braid their hair, and when they sit at home, they anoint themselves with incense and pamper themselves in order to please women; and women, on the contrary, cut the hair on their heads, wear a man's belt and do all the things related to cultivating the land. Among the Giles, contrary to common sense, those who do evil are praised by the laws themselves. And the Greeks have so many sacraments and rituals! Thus, the women who celebrate the Megarian festivals and Thesmophoria 382 differ from each other in the ritual. There are also other sacraments - the Eleusinian ones in honor of Dio 383 and Ferefatta, 384 in which shameful acts and, more modestly speaking, the nudity of women take place in secret places; in this case there are timbrels, sacrificial biscuits, a circular movement, a basket, dressed wool, a cymbal and a special drink prepared in a glass. There are other sacraments - the Pythian in honor of Archemorus 385 and the Isthmian in memory of Athamas 386 and Melicertes, the son of Ino. 387 And how many men and women wore a male member made of a fig tree and how many student rituals were performed at the same time! And people who serve Rhea cut off the male reproductive member from children and leave them without any sign of reproductive parts, so that, not being born women, they cannot be men. There are others - servants of Dionysus: 388 they initiate the Kuretes into the sacraments and into the division of sacrificial meat, wear a wreath of snakes and exclaim: wa, wa! 389 whether calling on Eve, deceived by the serpent, or pronouncing the name of the serpent in Hebrew with a thick aspiration of sound. For in the word: Eve with a thin aspiration the Jews mean the name of a wife, and with a thick aspiration: hevia - a snake. What else can I say? I don’t have time to talk about the inexpressibly numerous differences between people in virtue and depravity. So, for example, how many in the Egyptian country perform the sacraments in honor of Kronos, who bind themselves with iron chains, wear long hair and dirty and funny clothes, put rings in their nostrils on every holiday of Kronos in the so-called Asti (this is the main city between the villages in the place called Prosonitis), and this at a time when they perform lawless celebrations at a national assembly and with applause and orgies commemorate frantic sacred rites! But these people are completely lost. And others have so many similar things! Such, for example, are the inhabitants of the province of Vutia or the town of Vuto itself 390, who feed Harpocrates, 391 already old men who, on the sacred day of the month, are excited by the demon to perform fantastic and conceded rites of Or. 392 Each of the citizens, and, moreover, already extremely old, together with young men of the same way of thinking and people of other ages, starting with youth, as well as the priests of Horus and Harpocrates himself, having shaved the hair on their heads, without shame they assume a slavish, disgusting and boyish appearance. They indulge in games, and in the eyes of reasonable people, who recognize them as having given themselves over to the demon, they appear frantic, insane and worthy of laughter. They rush quickly, and having first smeared their faces with barley and wheat flour and other edible items, they plunge their faces into a boiling cauldron and thus, with a false miracle, excite the people into a frenzy, and, having removed the flour from their faces with their hands, they pass it on to each of those who asked, to receive health and as a cure for illness. If I were to begin to talk about the Memphians and Heliopolitans performing orgies, 393 driving themselves into a state of frenzy with the tympanum and flute, about the Corytids and Trieritids, 394 in Vathia and Menufitida, 395 going beyond the limits of shame and feminine decency, then what an abundance of words and what an extensive essay would be required in order that after the presentation of the above-mentioned Could I add heresies to an unspeakable multitude of them? Yes, even if I took on this excessive work, I would have to leave an imperfect overview of them; since it is said: they are young, they are without number (Song. 6:7). These include rites performed in the cities of Sais, Pelusium, Wuvast and Abida; 396 the sacred groves of Antinous, 397 and the sacraments performed in them, then the sacraments in Farvita or the goat rites in Mendis, 398 the sacraments performed in Vouspris, Sevennit and Diospolis. 399 Thus, for example, some perform rites over a donkey in honor of Seth, or Typhon, others perform festivities in honor of Tithramva, meaning Hecate, others in honor of Eneffa, others perform the service of Fermufi; and others - Isis. 400 And how much more can we talk about such things, the description of which separately would take a lot of time. Therefore, in general, the speech can be completely concluded with the words: young people, there are no numbers. And as for many other mysteries, heresy leaders and dissenters, their leaders among the Persians are called maguseans, among the Egyptians prophets, organizers of inaccessible and sacred mysteries and magi, among the Babylonians ⸻ gazarins, sages and spellcasters, among the Indians ⸻ evilei and brahmans, while the Hellenes have sacred secrets and church keepers, many cynics and the beginning of the leaders of an untold number of other philosophers. The so-called Magusei among the Persians, about whom I spoke above, abhor idols, nevertheless worship idols: fire, moon and sun. Still others in Hellas, called Mises and Avias, eat horse milk and live in a completely wild country. And how many great names the human mind can collect and show how diverse are those young people who are praised and there is no number of them! Of these, some truly deserve praise, while others do not deserve it, some, according to their own considerations, make up a law and strictness of life for themselves, and openly walk around with long hair, while other holy brethren sit at home in hair shirts and sprinkled with ashes; Still others spend their lives in extreme severity and fasting, and in labors for the sake of God, with youthful zeal and a perfect conscience towards the Bridegroom; others, as I said above, do not act correctly, but due to some prejudice of the mind, stubbornly, with youthful recklessness, contrary to the truth. So Zacchaeus, who recently died in a mountainous country near Jerusalem, spent his life without praying with anyone at all; At the same time, he, being a layman, boldly touched the holy mysteries and recklessly decided to perform sacred acts. Another one, who was once a man distinguished by the height of his life, who lived in a monastery in the Egyptian desert, and another who lived on Mount Sinai, ⸻ both of them were carried away by dreams to the point that, not having accepted episcopal ordination, they decided to sit on the pulpit themselves and perform episcopal deeds. Others, ⸻ and there are quite a few of them, ⸻ out of youthful recklessness, dared, contrary to the provisions of the law, to castrate themselves. Others, apparently also youthfully courageous, among the Orthodox, contrary to the rules of the church, dare to hold meetings and even without the permission of the ecumenical council to rebaptize those who come to them from the Arians, when this matter, as I said, has not yet been decided by the council, since people still live mixed, and many of them are Orthodox, but hypocritically do what is characteristic of priests, until the excommunication of such blasphemous heresy follows and a ruling will be made against her. From these thus crossing with their own power, information has reached our ears about a certain presbyter living in the Lycian country. There are also some in other places, of which each prays on his own, and not with anyone at all. Others, contrary to the decree of the Church, put chains around their necks. Therefore, at the end of the whole discussion, I spoke about youths who have no number, and, according to their own considerations, act youthfully, not for the good or improvement of themselves in various types of wisdom: in prudence, courage, chastity and justice; Some of them act more youthfully stubborn than others and turn themselves away from the truth, so that they are countless. But one dove and holy virgin ⸻ The Church confesses God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; the perfect Father, the perfect Son and the perfect Holy Spirit; Trinity consubstantial and Trinity unmerged; but the Son, truly begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit not alien to the Father and the Son; The Trinity, always existing and never in need of addition, not having in itself anything subordinate, but being raised to one unity and to one principle of God and the Father. By this Trinity, ⸻ the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, everything was created, not once existing, neither existing with God, nor existing before Him, but brought from non-existence into existence by the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. This Father and Son and Holy Spirit has deigned from time immemorial to appear to His saints in visions, as far as each one could comprehend according to the gift communicated to him by God, which He bestowed upon each of those honored, such as, for example, to contemplate the Father, as far as each one could hear His voice and contain it. So through the mouth of Isaiah He said: Behold, My beloved Servant will understand (Is. 52:13). This is the voice of the Father. So Daniel saw the Old One day (Dan.7:9). This is the vision of the Father. So the prophet also said: I have multiplied visions, and in the hands of the prophets I have become like them (Hos. 12:10). This is the voice of the Son. And Ezekiel says: and the Spirit took me and brought me out into the field (Ezekiel 3:12.22). This refers to the Holy Spirit. And a lot of similar things can be said, but we have cited not much from memory, only partly, in passing; and to demonstrate the properties of the Church, we will offer two sayings from the countless number of sayings contained in the Divine Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. The Church confesses that the Lord Himself created the body of Adam and breathed into him the breath of life (Gen. 2:7), creating Him a living soul; that the law was given to Moses by God Himself, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, one Divinity; - that the prophets were sent by the same Deity; that our God Himself is the God of the Jews and Christians, who called to the justification of the Jews who did not deny the coming of our Lord Jesus, who saves everyone who lives according to His true faith and does not deny the truth of the preaching of His Gospel teaching. For the Only Begotten has come, truly has come: this is how our mother the Church maintains. She is a quiet haven of peace, joy, breathing the incense of Cyprus 401 in the grapes (Song. 1:13); she brings us a vine of blessing and gives us a drink that relieves diseases every day ⸻ the blood of Christ, pure and true. The Church teaches that Christ was truly born of the Ever-Virgin Mary, that He took on a body truly, and not ghostly - true flesh, true body, with bones, veins and everything that we have, not differing in anything from us, except in the glory of His holiness and Divinity and in the fact that He is a vessel of holiness and truth. Everything about Him is completely sinless, and He has a truly human soul and a truly human mind; but at the same time we do not claim that the mind is a hypostasis, as others say. There was no stain of sin in Him: His lips did not lie, His lips did not utter flattery (1 Peter 2:22), His heart was not inclined to irritation, His mind was not turned aside to what is indecent to think about, His flesh did not do what pertains to carnal pleasure. He is God, perfect from eternity, who did not come only to live in man, but is the Word Himself made man, not changed by nature, but co-assuming His own humanity into Divinity. He was truly in the womb of the Virgin and came out of the womb by the ways of birth shamelessly, purely, undefiled; was raised and taken into the arms of Simeon and Anna; was carried by Maria, and having begun to walk, went on a journey, became a youth, strengthened in age, and had everything in Himself perfectly, counted by the number of years and by the number of months. He was with child, born of a woman, and was under the law (Gal.4:4); came to the Jordan, was baptized by John, although he did not need to be washed, but did it for the sake of the order required by His humanity, not wanting to violate the legal righteousness, so that, as He Himself said, all righteousness would be fulfilled (Matthew 3:15), and in order to show that He had put on true flesh, true humanity. He descended into the water, giving more than receiving, delivering rather than lacking, sanctifying it and clothing it with power in the image of Him who was to be perfected in Him, so that those who truly believed in Him and had the true faith would know that He truly became man, was truly baptized, and thus, through His condescension, they themselves, approaching Him, accepted the power of His descent and were enlightened by His light, in which they would be fulfilled. prophetic saying: in the change of power, in the granting of salvation from the power of the bread received from Jerusalem, and from the strength of the water. Here in Christ the strength of bread and the strength of water are established, so that it is not bread that is strength for us, but the strength that comes from bread; Bread is food, but it contains the power to give life. And water is not only to make us clean, but so that through the power of water, through faith, activity, hope, performing the sacraments and invoking the name of the sanctifying One, we achieve the accomplishment of salvation. Christ came out of the Jordan, heard the voice of the Father (Matthew 3:17), spoken in the ears of the disciples who were there, in order to show who was being witnessed; Meanwhile, the Holy Spirit descended in the form of a dove, as we said in discussions about many heresies. In order for the Trinity to be recognized as unmerged, the Spirit took the form of a dove in its own hypostasis, and the Spirit sat on Jesus and descended on Him so that He could be seen, so that His flesh, as holy and God-loving and pleasing to God, would be witnessed by the Father and the Spirit, so that the Father would be preached as having favored and announced the fleshly coming of the Son, so that the Son would be revealed as true, and so that what was said would be fulfilled: and for this reason he appeared on earth, and lived among men (Bar.3:38). After He came out of the Jordan, He was undoubtedly and truly tempted by the devil in the wilderness and after the hunger (Matthew 4:2) in accordance with the order and truth of the carnal advent. Then he chose disciples, preached the truth, healed diseases, slept, hungered, traveled, performed Divine signs, raised the dead, gave sight to the blind, strengthened the lame and paralytic. Just as He preached the gospel of truth, the kingdom of heaven and His love for mankind and the Father and the Holy Spirit: so He truly endured suffering for us in the flesh and in perfect incarnation, suffering truly on the cross, while the Divinity abided with Him, but did not turn into a passive state, but remained impassive and unchanged. At the same time, two sides of the matter are clearly understood: Christ suffers for us in the flesh, but remains dispassionate in the Divinity; not so, however, that man was in himself and the Divine in Himself, but the Divinity was co-present, but did not suffer because of the purity and incomparability of His being. Christ suffered in the flesh and was put to death in the flesh, but He always lives in the Divinity and raises the dead. His body was truly buried and remained for three days soulless, lifeless and motionless, wrapped in a shroud, laid in a tomb, imprisoned under a stone, with seals applied; The Deity itself was not imprisoned or buried; but It, with a holy soul, descended into the underworld and brought out captive souls from there, crushed the sting of death (I Cor. 15:55,56), dissolved constipations and indestructible faiths (Ps. 106:16) and resolved the diseases of hell with its own power; came out of hell with his soul; His soul did not remain in hell, nor His flesh in the form of corruption (Acts 2:81; sn. 27 and Ps. 15:10). The deity resurrected this flesh, or the Lord God Himself, the Word and Son of God, resurrected with soul and body, and with all the vessel; so that finally this vessel united with the spirit, and the body itself became spiritual, once subject to touch and given over to scourging, by the free will of the Divine, allowed to be tempted by Satan and subjected to greed, sleep, toil, sorrow and lamentation. This most holy body was finally united with the Divine, so that the Divinity was forever united with the body that had suffered such suffering. For Jesus rose again and united it in Himself, into one spirit, into one unity, into one glorification, into one His Divinity. He truly appeared and was touched by Thomas (John 20:27 and gave), together with the apostles he ate and drank, and stayed with them forty days and forty nights (Acts 1:3). He entered the house with the door closed (John 20:19.26), and when he entered, he showed His sinews and bones, the nail wound and the place where the spear had been pierced, and thereby made it clear that the body itself was true, but was only united into one unity and one Divinity, no longer expecting suffering, no longer dying, as the holy Apostle says: Christ is risen to him who no longer dies: death has no power over Him (Rom. 6:9). Thus, the one who was subjected to suffering appeared impassive, that is, the Divine with body and soul and everything characteristic of man, in short, God himself. Having ascended into heaven, He sits at the right hand of the Father in glory (Heb. 1:3; 8:1), not having laid aside the body, but having formed it into the spiritual, in the perfection of one Godhead. Likewise, our bodies, now sown by souls, are about to rise spiritually, now sown in corruption, are about to rise in incorruption, now sown in death, are about to rise up in immortality (1 Cor. 15:42.44.53). If our bodies are like this, then to what extent does that holy, inexplicable, incomparable and pure body, united with God, finally the only and uniform body, prevail? The Apostle also testifies to this, saying: although we understood according to the flesh of Christ, now we understand no one (2 Cor. 5:16); saying this, he does not separate the flesh from the Divinity, but presents it as existing and united with God, but no longer existing according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit, as he says (Rom. 8:1), according to the spirit of the holy thing from the resurrection of the dead of our Lord Jesus Christ (1:4). The Church confesses Him together with God, impassive and suffered, buried and resurrected, and ascended in glory, coming to judge the living and the dead, as I said, truly, of whose kingdom there will be no end (Luke 1:33). And our holy mother the Church believes this, just as it was truly preached and truly commanded that we will die and rise again with this body, with this soul and with all our vessels, so that everyone may receive what we have done (2 Cor. 5:10). For that the resurrection of the dead, eternal damnation, the kingdom of heaven, rest for the righteous, the inheritance of the faithful, and a common face with the angels who kept faith, purity, hope and the commandments of the Lord is true, this is both preached and confirmed, and serves as an object of faith, because these will rise to eternal life, according to what is written in the Gospels (fn. John 5:29 and Matt. 25:46). What both the Apostle and all the Holy Scriptures say is true, even if it were accepted otherwise by unbelievers and those with bad understanding. For us, this is faith, this is honor, this is our mother Church, saving by faith, supported by hope and accomplished by the love of Christ in confession, in the sacraments and in the cleansing power of baptism, as it is said: as you go, baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19), in the name of the Divine Trinity, which has nothing different in its name; but so one God is preached and proclaimed to us in the law and the prophets, in the gospels and the apostles, in the Old and New Testaments, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, not the Divinity representing in Himself any fusion, but a truly perfect Trinity: a perfect Father, a perfect Son and a perfect Holy Spirit, one Godhead, one God, to whom be glory, honor and dominion forever and ever, amen. Such is the faith and action of our lives; it is a statement of truth; this is the Virgin of Christ and the gentle dove; this is life, hope and the affirmation of incorruption. But I beg all of you readers of this work to be lenient towards my humility and the weakness of my weak mind, which has already become numb from the great poison of heresies, felt disgusted with it and seems to spit it out and vomit it out. I beg you to forgive me for the fact that I verbally treated some cruelly and called some vagabonds, charlatans, lost ones and seducers. Although we do not have the custom of frivolously ridiculing anyone, because of the great severity of this poison, we found it necessary to address them with such words in order to eliminate the thought of some who might think that by the fact that we do not clearly reveal them, although we have revealed their teaching and actions, we partly agree in thought with the false teaching contained in each of the heresies. I also made a small preface at the beginning of the essay, warning about this very thing and asking for leniency, so that no one would attack us for being a nuisance, thinking that we are resorting to ridicule because we are being overcome. In the preface, we also showed what heresies we intended to talk about, how many books we divided the entire work into, how many and what kind of heresies we intended to talk about in each book; and here I mention the same again in order that readers everywhere may benefit. Only three books were written in seven branches. The first book contains 46 heresies, arranged according to the number of names and the connection of the first heresy with the second, and so on until the last one contained in the book, so that the first book in three sections contains 46 heresies; the second book contains 23 heresies in two sections, and the third book contains 11 heresies in two sections. So, I exhort and ask all of you, who participated in our work and generously opened and read this work of ours, to gain benefit from it, and to remove the evil of heresies from your mind. For we have not revealed them for harm, but for benefit and as a warning against falling under the spell of the above-mentioned heresies. Then, having read this entire work or individual parts of it, pray for us and ask that God give us a part in the holy and one universal and apostolic Church, true, life-giving and saving, and that He may deliver us from all heresy. And if, as people, we could not fully comprehend the incomprehensible and inexplicable Divinity, but, being in a difficult situation in the protection of God, were forced to express ourselves in human terms and were carried away by courage, then if God forgives, forgive you yourself. And again pray that the Lord will give us that for which we asked Him, a part in His holy faith, one, free from all contradiction, and grant remission of many of my sins in Christ Jesus our Lord, through whom and with whom be glory to the Father with the Holy Spirit forever, amen. So, we briefly spoke about what this one universal Church contains in relation to faith, the kindly dove, one of her husband, as it is said: My dove is one, and also about the multitude of youths, of which there is no number, as well as about the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, about the fleshly and perfect coming of Christ and about other members of the faith. Now I need to add a little more about the decrees of the Church and partly about the type of those decrees, about what was actually preserved in it and is being preserved either by command or by free election, since God is pleased with the virtue that He teaches. And first of all, the foundation, so to speak, and the step in it is virginity, in which they strive, which is observed and glorified by many. The same virginity is accompanied by solitude, observed by very many monks and nuns. It is followed by abstinence, placed on the same path. Then widowhood with a careful and not nasty lifestyle. These degrees are followed by honest marriage, enjoying all honor, especially in monogamy and keeping the commandments. If someone, after the death of his wife, or any wife after the death of her husband, would like to enter into a second marriage, then this is permitted only after the death of the first husband or first wife. The crown of all these degrees, or mother, so to speak, and parent, is the holy priesthood, which is entered for the most part from virgins; and if not from virgins, then from monastics; and if there were no monastics capable of this service, then those who abstain from their own wives, or those widowed after monogamy. The Church does not allow a second-wed to be accepted into the rank of priesthood, even if he abstained from his wife or was a widow, I mean the rank of bishop, presbyterate, deacon and subdeacon. This order of the priesthood is followed by the institution of readers, to which persons can be elected from all conditions, that is, from virgins and monastics, and abstaining from their wives, and widowed and still in honest marriage; and if there was a need, then even from those who entered into marriage with the second after the death of the first wife. For a reader is not a priest, but, as it were, a scribe of the word of God. There are also deaconesses who are appointed to serve only women, for the sake of decency, when the need is urgent, at baptism, or when examining their bodies; They themselves are also monogamous and abstinent from their husbands, or widowed after their first marriage, or ever-virgin. They are followed by spellcasters and translators from one language to another, either in readings or in conversations. Finally, the workers who care for the bodies of the dead, the gatekeepers and all other positions of the deanery. Sacred meetings were established by the apostles on Wednesday, Friday and Sunday; On Wednesdays and Fridays there is fasting until the ninth hour, 402 since at the onset of Wednesday the Lord was taken and crucified on the cross on Fridays. And the apostles gave us the command to keep fasts on these days in fulfillment of what was said: when the Bridegroom is taken away from them, then they will fast in these days (Luke 5:85). And not so that we would do what was pleasing to the One who suffered for us, fasting was established for us, but so that we would confess that the suffering of the Lord, which He accepted for us, serves for our salvation, and so that these fasts would be for us before God a propitiation for our sins. This fast is observed throughout the year in the holy universal Church, I mean on Wednesdays and Fridays until the ninth hour, except for the fifty days of Pentecost alone, on which days there is no kneeling and no fasting is established. Instead of meetings at the ninth hour, which take place on Wednesdays and Fridays, on other days, as on Sunday, there are morning meetings, and in addition, on the 50 days of Pentecost, as I have already said, there is no such thing, and also on the day of Epiphany, when the Lord was born in the flesh, it is not allowed to fast, even if this day happened even on Wednesday or Fridays. But by good will, the ascetics of the Church constantly, except on Sundays and Pentecost, fast and constantly perform vigils; and the holy universal Church considers all Sundays to be joyful and holds meetings on them in the morning, but does not fast, since it would be inconsistent to fast on Sunday. The Church also tends to observe the Pentecostal Day, which precedes the seven days of Holy Pascha, spending it in fasting, but not entirely on Sundays, even on the Pentecostal Day itself. In addition, the entire people spend six days of Easter 403 in dry eating, that is, then eating only bread, salt and water around the evening. The more diligent ones double, triple, and quadruple their fast, and some remain without food for a whole week until the roosters crow on Sunday. There are six vigils, and six meetings, too, and during the entire Pentecost from the ninth hour until the evening. In some places the vigil is held only on the night of Thursday to Friday and Sunday; and in some places the sacrament of the Eucharist is celebrated on Thursday at the ninth hour, and thus there is a dismissal, since those present at the service were in a dry state. In other places there is no celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist, except only at the onset of Sunday, when dismissal occurs around the time of rooster crowing; this happens on Sunday and on the solemn and great day of Easter, as established. Other sacraments, such as baptism and sacred sacraments, are performed in the same way as the Gospel and Apostolic tradition contains. As for the deceased, commemorations are performed in their name, consisting of prayers, worship and the sacrament of the Eucharist. Moreover, in the Holy Church there are constantly morning hymns and morning prayers, and at the same time also luminary psalms and prayers. Of the monastics, some live in cities, and some even live in monasteries and retreat far from the world. Some wanted to wear long hair on their heads, of course, for the sake of a special way of life, for their own reasons, since neither the Gospel prescribed this, nor did the Apostles accept it. The Holy Apostle Paul rejected this custom. Other praiseworthy kinds of life are observed in the same universal Church, for example, when they abstain from all kinds of meat, four-legged animals, birds and fish, eggs and cheese, as well as other various kinds of life, because everyone receives a reward according to his labor (1 Cor. 3:8). Moreover, some abstain from all this; and others eat only the meat of four-legged animals, but eat the meat of birds and everything else; others also abstain from poultry meat, and eat only eggs and fish; others do not even eat eggs. Some stick to fish food, while others abstain from fish, but take cheese; others do not even accept cheese. Some even abstain from bread; others from tree fruits and boiled. Many sleep on the ground. Some don't even put on shoes. Some wear a secret hair shirt, and it is good if they wear it for the sake of virtue and repentance; for it is indecent to appear in a hair shirt openly in front of everyone, as some do; and it is also indecent, as we said, to walk openly and in chains, as some liked. Quite a lot of people abstain from baths. Some have renounced the world so much that they have invented for themselves some easy and uncomplicated crafts, just so as not to spend an idle life and not eat bread for nothing. Very many strive in psalmody and unceasing prayer, in reading the Holy Scriptures and in memorizing them. As for hospitality, love of humanity and mercy to all, this fruit of the holy universal and apostolic Church has been preached to everyone. Instead of the old-fashioned circumcision, she has baptism in Christ. Allows rest on Great Saturday instead of Little Saturday. Abstains from communication with all heresies. Prohibits fornication, adultery, debauchery, idolatry, murder and all lawlessness, sorcery, witchcraft, stargazing, fortune-telling, observation of lots, spells and the wearing of amulets, or so-called phylacteries; 404 prohibits shows, horse races, hunting and musical entertainment; all slander, slander, all rivalry, blasphemy, injustice, covetousness and usury. He does not approve of profiteers and considers them the poorest of all. He accepts offerings from people who do not offend others, who do not act lawlessly, but who live righteously. He commands that prayers be sent to God unceasingly, with all constancy, intense attention and kneeling on set days, night and day. In some places they also hold meetings on Saturdays. Not everywhere, but among the best people there is a custom of not swearing at all, nor reproaching, nor cursing at the command of the Savior Himself (cf. Matt. 5:34 et al.), nor lying, as much as possible. Many people sell their property and give it to the poor. Such is the image of this holy Church with its faith explained above, and such are the laws observed in it. This is the image of the Church, made up of the Law and Prophets, Apostles and Evangelists, like some kind of good antidote, composed of many incense for the salvation of those who use it, by the will of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. These are the properties of this honored bride of Christ. This is her dowry and covenant of inheritance; such is the will of her heavenly Bridegroom, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom and with whom be glory, honor and power to the Father with the Holy Spirit forever and ever, amen. All the brethren who are with us testify to you their respect, especially Anatoly, who with great labor and good will tried to write and correct these remarks and books against eighty heresies, and with him Hypatius, the most honest deacon, who made a list of these books in notebooks, for which you will pray, most honest and truly most desired brethren. The peace of our Lord Jesus Christ and grace and truth according to His command be with you all, most loving and beloved brethren, amen. End of the third part of Saint Epiphanius against heresies. Table of contents, or a brief repetition of what is contained in Panaria Since we have decided to announce to you the names of heresies and reveal the lawless acts of heretics as poison and destruction, but at the same time to offer an antidote, healing for those wounded and protective for those who are exposed to wounds: then we will call our book Panarius, or a box of medicines for those wounded by these snakes. This book consists of three parts and contains eighty heresies, which are like the likeness of beasts or snakes. After considering eighty heresies, a single foundation of truth is presented, and together the saving teaching, the rule of faith and the bride of Christ, the Holy Church, existing from eternity, but with the coming of Christ in the flesh over time, revealed among the above-mentioned heresies, and we considered in the memoirs of Christ’s preaching. 405 We spoke about it briefly and extensively, in accordance with the teachings of the apostles, after considering the wickedness of heresy, and we did this as if to refresh those who had undertaken the work of reading works on heresies. We ask all of you, dear readers of the Philosophy, to pay attention to the preface and the subsequent exposition on heresies, and the confession of truth, and the teaching about the true faith of the holy universal Church. What is contained in our entire creation is set forth in the three above-mentioned books: the first, second and third, which three books we have divided into seven sections, each section containing a certain number of heresies and schisms, and all of them together are eighty. Their names and teachings are as follows: barbarism, Scythianism, Hellenism, Judaism, Samaritanism. From them later came the rest of the sects. Before the coming of Christ, the following arose from barbarism and Scythian superstition, Hellenism and others: Pythagoreans, Peripatetics, Platonists, Stoics, Epicureans. In addition, the Samaritan heresy and its four denominations arose from Judaism: Gorofin, Sevuei, Dosithei, Essin. Follows the above-mentioned Judaism, which received its distinctive feature from Abraham and spread through the law given to Moses and from Judah the son of Jacob or Israel through David, who reigned over them and from the same tribe who descended, inherited the name of Judaism. From this Judaism came the following seven heresies: Scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, Imerobaptists, Ossenes, Nazarenes, Herodians. Following these heresies, over time, the saving economy of our Lord Jesus Christ appeared, or His coming in the flesh, the gospel teaching and preaching of the kingdom, this only source of salvation and the true faith of the universal and apostolic Church. Heresies that contained only the name of Christ, and not faith, were rejected and separated from it: Simonians, Menandrians, Sathornilians, Basilidians, Nicolaitans, Gnostics, they are also Stratioticians, as well as Thebionites, called by some Coddians and Worvorians, by others Socrates, and by others Zacchaeus; Carpocrats, Kerinthians, they are also Merinthians; Nazarenes, Ebionites, Valentines, Secundians, with whom Epiphanes and Isidore are related; Ptolemies, Marcosians, Colorasians, Heracleonites, Ophites, Kayans, Sethians, Archontics, Cerdonians, Marcionites, Lucianists, Appellians, Sevirians, Tatians, Encratites; the heresy of the Frigs, consisting of Monianists and Taskodrugits; the Pepusians, who are also the Priscillians and Quintillians, with whom the Artothirites are connected; the fourteeners who celebrate Easter on the same day of the year; alogues who do not accept John's Gospel and the Apocalypse; Adamians, Sampsei, they are also Elkesites; Theodotians, Melchisidekians, Bardisianists, Noetians, Valisians, Kafarians, they are also Novatians, Angeliki, Apostolics, they are also Apotactics; Sabellians, Origenists, they are also disgraces; Origenists, also known as adamants; heresy of Paul of Samosata, Manichaeans, also known as Acuanites; Hierakites, Meletians, Egyptian schism, Arians, they are also Ariomanites; the schism of the Obdians, Photinians, Marcellians, Half-Arians, Doukhobors, blaspheming the Holy Spirit of God; Aerians, Aetians, they are also Anomeans, with whom Eunomius is connected; Dimirites, who do not profess the perfect incarnation of Christ, they are also Apollinarians, who claim that Saint Mary Ever-Virgin, after the birth of the Savior, cohabited with Joseph, whom we called anti-Dicomarianites; in the name of the same Mary the Mother of God those who offer sacrifice, who are called collyridians; the Massalians, with whom the Martyrians are related, descended from the Hellenes, as well as the Euphimites and Satanians. Now, going back and sorting out the heresies in the book, I will show in this table of contents how many of these eighty heresies are contained in the first book, then in order in the second and third; and also regarding each of the seven sections contained in three books, how many heresies are contained in them. Namely, in the first book there are three divisions, and there are forty-six heresies with their names, I mean barbarism, Scythianism, Hellenism, Judaism and Samaritanism. In the second book there are two branches, twenty-three heresies. In the third book there are two branches and eleven heresies. In the first section of the first book there are twenty heresies, which are: barbarism, Scythianism, Hellenism, Judaism; various sects among the Hellenes: Pythagoreans or Peripatics, Platonists, Stoics, Epicureans; Samaritan heresy, originating from Judaism; The Samaritans have the following four divisions: Gorofin, Sevuei, Essin, Dosithei; There are seven Jewish heresies, namely: Scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, Imerobaptists, Ossenes, Nazarenes, Herodians. In the second section of the first book there are thirteen heresies: Simonians, Menandrians, Sathornilians, Basilidians, Nicolaitians, Gnostics, they are also Stratioticians, the same are Thebionites, some are called Secundians, others Socrates, and others Zacchaeus; Carpocrats, Kerinthians, they are also Merinthians; Nazarenes, Ebionites, Valentines, Secundians, with whom Epiphanius and Isidore are connected; Ptolemies. In the third section of the same first book there are thirteen heresies: Marcosii, Colorasii, Heracleonites, Ophites, Kayans, Sethians, Archontics, Cerdonians, Marcionites, Appellians, Lucianists, Sevirians, Tatians. Here is the table of contents of the three sections of the first book. The second book has two sections. And in the first section of the second book, and in the fourth in order of counting from the beginning, there are eighteen heresies, namely: encratites; the heresy of the Frigs, which consisted of Montanists and Taskodrugits; the Pepusians, who are also the Quintillians, with whom the Artothirites are connected; the fourteeners who celebrate Easter on the same day of the year; alogues who do not accept John's Gospel and the Apocalypse; Adamians, Sampsei, they are also Elkesites; Theodotians, Melchizedekians, Vardisionists, Noetians, Valisians, Kafars, Angeliki, Apostolics, they are also Apotactics, Sabellians, Origenists Shamniki, Origenists Adamantiki. In the second section of the same second book, and according to the above account in the fifth, the five heresies are as follows: Paul of Samosata, Manichaeans, they are also Acuanites; Hierakites, Meletians, who caused a schism in Egypt; Arians. Here is the table of contents of the sections of the second book. Likewise, in the third book there are two branches. In the first section of the third book, in the sixth according to what we said above, there are the following seven heresies: the Obdians, Photinians, Marcellians, Semi-Arians, Doukhobors, blaspheming the Holy Spirit of God; Aerians, Aetians, they are also Anomeans. And in the second section of the same third book, the seventh according to the division we have said, there are four heresies, namely: the Dimirites, who do not profess the perfect incarnation of Christ, and they are also the Apollinarians, who claim that Saint Mary Ever-Virgin, after the birth of the Savior, cohabited with Joseph, whom we called anti-Dicomarianites; in the name of the same Mary they offer sacrifice, who are called collyridians; Massalians. Finally, a defense of the right faith and truth with an abbreviated word that there is a holy universal and apostolic Church. Here is the table of contents and description of the entire work on the eighty heresies and the defense of the truth, that is, the one universal Church. The proposed work is composed of three books and divided into seven sections. Let us now make another table of contents for the first section of the first book, which contains a denunciation of twenty heresies. Firstly, the ancestors of all heresies and the original names from which others arose are the following: Barbarism. This heresy lasted from the days of Adam in ten generations until Noah. It was called barbarism because the people of that time did not have any kind of leader or one consent, but everyone controlled himself, and the law for him was to prefer his own will. Scythia - existed from the days of Noah and after that until the construction of the pillar and Babylon and after the pandemonium for a few years, that is, until Peleg and Ragab (Gen. 11:18ff). Having fled to the country of Europe, the Scythians settled in the Scythian region among the local tribes from the time of Terah (v. 26); at first they painted and made images of rulers or sorcerers they had revered since ancient times, who had done something memorable in life, respected for their strength and physical strength, and then, from the time of Terah, the father of Abraham, they introduced the making of idols into idolatry, honored their forefathers with statues, began to make likenesses of the dead, first with the help of meager art, and then in relation to every kind of art: house builders hewed stone, silversmiths, goldsmiths, as well as carpenters and others, each dressed their own material. The Egyptians, and with them the Babylonians, Phrygians and Phoenicians, became the first founders of this worship of God, the making of idols and the performance of sacraments; from them most of the institutions passed to the Hellenes from the time of Cecrops and after him. And subsequently, and much later, Kronos, Rhea, Zeus, Apollo and others were proclaimed gods. The Hellenes received their name from a certain Hellene, one of the inhabitants of Hellas, who gave the name to the country itself, while others say from an olive tree (ἐλαία) that grew in Athens. The leaders of the Hellenes, as actual history shows, were the Ionians, named after Jonah, 406 the son of one of those who built the pillar. Due to the division (μεμερισμένη) of languages, they are also called Meropes. Subsequently, much in later times, Hellenism turned into heresies, I mean the Pythagoreans, Stoics, Platonists, Epicureans and others. But at the same time, these peoples had reverence for God and natural law, from the foundation of the world until the last times, remaining in a special separate form among barbarism, Scythianism and Hellenism, until they entered into unity with the godliness of Abraham. After this, Judaism, from the time of Abraham, receiving a special character and spreading through Moses, the seventh from Abraham, through the law given to him by God, from Judah, the fourth son of Jacob, called Israel, through David, the first king from the tribe of the same Judah, inherited its full name. The various sects among the Hellenes are as follows: Pythagoreans or Peripatetics. They taught about the monad and about providence, they forbade making sacrifices to the gods, eating animate beings and drinking wine. They argued that, starting from the moon and above, everything is immortal, and what is below is mortal. They taught about the transmigration of the souls of some bodies into others, even into the bodies of animals and wild animals. Their teacher Pythagoras, who remained silent, called himself a god. Platonists believed that there was God, matter and species; that the world is produced and subject to decay, but the soul is unborn, immortal and divine; that there are three parts in it: reasonable, irritable and lustful. They taught that everyone should have common wives, and that no one should have one of his own, but those who wished should enter into an alliance with those who wished. They also taught about the transmigration of souls into different bodies, even into the bodies of wild animals, and also that many gods originated from one. The Stoics teach that everything is a body, and this sensory world is recognized as God. Some argue that His nature consists of a fiery essence. They teach that God is the mind and, as it were, the soul of all existing space, heaven and earth; that His body, as I said, is the universe, and His eyes are the luminaries; that everyone’s flesh perishes, and everyone’s soul passes from body to body. The Epicureans argued about atoms and indivisible bodies, consisting of similar indefinite number of parts, that they are the beginning of all things; taught that the highest bliss is in pleasure, and that neither God nor Providence controls the universe. Samaritanism, and from it the Samaritans. This heresy originated from Judaism before heresies appeared among the Hellenes, and before their teachings were formed, however, after the establishment of worship of God among the Hellenes, precisely from the time of Nebuchadnezzar and the captivity of the Jews. Being immigrants from Assyria to Judea, the Samaritans accepted one Pentateuch of Moses, when the king sent it to them from Babylon through a priest called Ezra. They have everything in common with the Jews, except that they abhor the pagans and do not touch anything else, and except for denying the resurrection of the dead and other prophecies that came after Moses. There are four Samaritan interpretations: the gorofins, who celebrate holidays at times other than the Sevuei; Sevuei, who differ with the Gorofinians regarding the same holidays; Essins, who do not oppose either one or the other, but indifferently celebrate with whom they have to; The Dositheans, following the same customs as the Samaritans: they keep circumcision, the Sabbath and other statutes, use the Pentateuch, strictly observe the rule of abstaining from eating animate foods, and spending their lives in constant fasting. Some of them maintain virginity, while others maintain abstinence. They also believe in the resurrection of the dead, which is alien to the Samaritans. Scribes, who were lawyers and guardians of secondary laws or traditions of the so-called elders, who with excessive zeal observed arbitrarily accepted liturgical rites, which they did not learn from the law, but for themselves they composed rites as if they were legal and righteous. Pharisees, which means separated, leading the highest life and seeming more righteous than others. They, like the scribes, recognize the resurrection of the dead, the existence of angels, and the Holy Spirit. Their life is special: they observe abstinence until a certain time, also virginity, fasting twice a week, cleansing mugs, dishes and bowls, as well as, like the scribes, declaring, first fruits, continuous prayer, arbitrary superstition prescribed the outer appearance of clothing, consisting of a robe similar to a surplice and dalmatic, or sleeveless clothing, with expanded storage ( Matthew 23:5), that is, stripes of scarlet, embroidery and buttons on the embellishment of the robe, which served as a sign of the abstinence they maintained until the time. They introduced the doctrine of birth and fate. The Sadducees, which means the most truthful, were descended from both the Samaritans and the priest Zadok. They denied the resurrection of the dead, did not recognize either an angel or a spirit, but in everything else they were Jews. Imerobaptists, who were Jews throughout, but argued that no one would receive eternal life if they did not wash themselves every day. Ossins, which means the bravest. They fulfilled everything according to the law, but also used other scriptures that appeared after the law, but rejected most of the later prophets. The Nazarenes, which means unbridled, prohibit all meat-eating, do not eat animate things at all, in the Pentateuch the holy names of the patriarchs before Moses and Joshua are accepted and believed in, meaning Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the elders, as well as Moses himself, Aaron and Jesus. They teach, however, that the Pentateuch is not the scripture of Moses, and they claim that instead of this they have other scriptures. The Herodians were Jews in all respects, but they recognized Herod as Christ and gave honor to the latter and ascribed the name of Christ. Here is the first section, containing a denunciation of all twenty heresies; here is also a discussion about the coming of Christ and an exposition of the confession of truth, the one and only true faith of God. What has been presented so far has been a refutation of the twenty heresies that existed before Christ and a word about faith and the coming of Christ in the flesh. When the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ soon followed in the flesh, it overtook the above-mentioned seven heresies in Jerusalem, and His power quenched and scattered these heresies. All other heresies occurred after His coming - after the annunciation of Mary in Nazareth and the conception of the Word, who came down from heaven from the bosom of the Father, begotten before eternity and without beginning, but who came in the last days, God the Word, truly begotten of God the Father, consubstantial with the Father and in no way different from the Father, but immutable and unchangeable, completely impassive, but compassionate with our race, who came down from heaven, conceived in the womb not from the seed of a man, but truly from the Holy Spirit, who took a body from Mary, created for himself flesh from holy wombs, took on the human soul and mind, and everything that is a person, united in himself with his divinity. This God the Word, born in Bethlehem and circumcised, was brought to Jerusalem, received here into the arms of Simeon, confessed by Anna the prophetess, daughter of Phanuel, and was carried to Nazareth. The next year he came (to Jerusalem) to appear before the Lord, for the sake of kinship he was taken by the Mother to Bethlehem, then again he was taken to Nazareth. During the second year he again came to Jerusalem, carried by His Mother; in Bethlehem with His Mother and Joseph, already an old man, but who did not leave Mary, he entered the house and here in the second year after His birth he was found (by the Magi), accepted gifts, and that same night, by revelation from an Angel to Joseph, he was taken to Egypt and from there again, after two years, he returned when Herod died, and Archelaus became his successor. The Savior is born in Bethlehem of Judea in the thirty-third year of Herod, and in the forty-second year of King Augustus, and departs to Egypt in the thirty-fifth year of Herod, and returns from Egypt after the death of Herod. Therefore, in the thirty-seventh year of the same reign of Herod, the Lord was a youth of four years old, when Herod, having completed thirty-seven years, ended his life. Archelaus reigns for nine years; at the beginning of his reign, Joseph with Mary and the Youth, hearing that Archelaus was reigning, withdrew to the countries of Galilee and settled in Nazareth. Archelaus gave birth to Herod the younger, and Herod, by succession, reigned in the ninth year of the reign of his father Archelaus. Thirteen years were then considered from the coming of Christ in the flesh. In the eighteenth year of Herod, called Agrippa, Jesus began preaching and then received baptism from John, and preached the summer pleasantly (Luke 4:19), not encountering contradictions from anyone (2:34), neither from the Jews, nor from the Greeks, nor from the Samaritans, nor from any other people; then in the second year he preached, encountering controversy, when the reign of the same Herod was in its nineteenth year, and the Savior was in its thirty-second year. In the twentieth year of Herod, called the tetrarch, saving suffering and dispassion took place, tasting death on the cross, when the Lord suffered truly, but remained dispassionate in Divinity. Christ, who suffered for us in the flesh, says the Divine Scripture (1 Peter 4:1), and again: He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the Spirit (3:18), and so on. He is nailed to the cross, buried, with Divinity and soul descends into the underworld, takes captivity, and rises three days later with the same holy body, 407 uniting the body with Divinity, no longer suffering, no longer possessed by death, as the Apostle says: death does not possess Him (Rom. 6:9). In truth, the same body, the same flesh, the same soul, also everything, and no other body, but the same thing, the Lord clothed with power and united in one unity, in one Divinity, making the flesh incorruptible, the bodily spiritual, the gross subtle, the mortal immortal, who did not see corruption at all, since His soul did not remain in hell (Acts 2:31); His body did not deviate, although partially, towards sin, His mind was not defiled by turning to the worse; on the contrary, He took upon Himself everything human, but kept everything perfect, since the Divine gave a place to true needs, bodily and spiritual, and from the human mind, receiving certification in true incarnation: this means hunger and thirst, crying and sorrow, tears and sleep, fatigue and repose. This is not a type of sin, but a sign of true humanity itself, and the Divinity truly inherent in humanity does not tolerate what is characteristic of humanity, but on the contrary, the Divinity deigns to do what is blessed and is outside of sin and turning to the worse. But He rose again and entered through the door of the prisoners in order to present to the refined a rough body that had meat and bones. When He entered, He showed hands and feet, and pierced ribs, bones and sinews, and so on, as proof that what was visible was not a ghost. Thus, by Himself He fulfilled the promise of our faith and hope, having accomplished everything, both eating and being with the disciples, not illusory, but truly; and instructing, he taught to preach truly the Kingdom of Heaven, giving the disciples to understand the great and most important mystery, and saying: teach tongues (Matthew 28:19), that is, turn the nations from vice to truth, from heresies to the one Godhead, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, in the Lord the name of the Trinity, the holy and royal seal, in order to show by this naming, that there is no change in the oneness. For those who are baptized are commanded to be baptized in the name of the Father (undoubted doxology), in the name of the Son (the name lacking in nothing), in the name of the Holy Spirit (indissoluble unity, not alienated from the one Divinity). He ascended to heaven with the same body and soul and mind, uniting them into one unity and into one spiritual Hypostasis, and having completed their deification, He sat down at the right hand of the Father. He sent throughout the whole world as preachers: Simon Peter, Andrew his brother, James and John, the sons of Zebedee, whom He had chosen long ago, Philip and Bartholomew, Matthew and Thomas, Judas and Thaddeus, Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who became His traitor, as well as seventy-two others, of whom seven were appointed for the care of widows: Stephen, Philip, Prokhor, Nikanor, Timon, Parmen and Nikolai. Besides them, Matthias, instead of the last Judas, was numbered among the twelve apostles; after all these Mark, Luke, Justus, Barnabas and Apollos, Rufus, Niger and the rest of the seventy-two. And after all of them, Paul, the most holy apostle, choosing with His own voice from heaven, sent as an apostle and at the same time a preacher of the pagans and a performer of apostolic ministry. Paul meets Luke, one of the seventy-two who were scattered, and makes him his companion and co-worker in the gospel. Thus has the work of the gospel been accomplished even to this day. With this, let me finish my talk about the twenty heresies and about the Gospel enlightenment of the world, presented in order and in abbreviation, accomplished through Christ and His disciples. It would be possible to collect more similar things and add predictions and prophecies from the law and psalms and other books, see the whole sequence and connection, and understand exactly that they are not false, but true and foreshadowed throughout the Old Testament, and the coming of Christ and the gospel teaching are undoubted. But so that nothing too extensive comes out of this work, I will be satisfied with what has been done so far. Going further, I will also describe opinions that have appeared in the world for a bad purpose. This is what is contained in the second part of the first book, which deals with thirteen heresies. Of these, the first heresy is that of Simon the Magus, who appeared soon after Christ, when the apostles were still preaching, and from whom those who adhere to his heresy are called Simonians. He left Samaria, from the village of Gitfa, and took upon himself the name of Christ. He taught sex, vile copulation, without discrimination between women. He rejected the resurrection of bodies and said that the world is not from God. He gave the image of himself and the harlot Helen who was with him, as if of Zeus and Athena, to his disciples for worship. He called himself Father to the Samaritans, and Christ to the Jews. The Menandrians descended from a certain Menander, who differed in some ways from the Simonians and said that the world was created by angels. The Satornilians intensified the work of the Simonians in Syria, but to greater amazement they preach something different against the Simonians; they received their origin from Satornilus, who himself, like Menander, argued that the world was brought into being by angels, but only seven, contrary to the will of the Highest Father. The Basilidians were also dedicated to Basilides, who, together with Satornil, studied with the Simonians and Menandrians, holds the same way of thinking with them, but in some ways differs from them. He says that there are three hundred and sixty-five heavens, and gives them angelic names. Therefore, he says, the year consists of so many days, and the name Avrasax 408 also contains the number 365 and is a sacred name. Nicolaitans - from Nicholas, who was appointed apostle to widows. Out of jealousy for his wife, he, together with others, taught his followers to perform the practice of the student and introduced the names: Kavlakah, Prunik and other barbaric names. The Gnostics, who accepted the same heresies, themselves most furiously indulge in shame, in Egypt they are called Stratiotics and Thebionites, in the upper parts of Egypt - Secundians, and in other parts Socrates, in others - Zacchaeus, others call them Coddians, others call them Worvorites. Carpocrates from some Asian Carpocrates, who taught to commit every kind of student and every sinful deed. If someone, he said, does not go through everything and does not fulfill the will of all the demons and angels, then he cannot ascend to heaven and surpass the principalities and powers. He also said that Jesus took upon himself a rational soul, knew and proclaimed above things here, and if anyone is able to act like Jesus, such a one is not lower than Him. But Carpocrates denied the law, together with the resurrection of the dead, as did the heretics descended from Simon. His follower was Marcellina in Rome. Having secretly made images of Jesus, Paul, Homer and Pythagoras, Carpocrates burned incense and worshiped them. Cerinthians and Merinthians, Jews descended from Cerinthus and Merinthians, who boasted of circumcision and said that the world was brought into being by angels, and Jesus was called Christ for his success. The Nazarenes confess Jesus as the Son of God, but in everything they live according to the Law of Moses. The Ebionites are close to the Cerinthians and Nazarites mentioned above, and in some ways they are joined by the heresies of the Sampseites and Elkesites. They say that Christ and His Holy Spirit were created in heaven, that Christ came to earth first in Adam, and from time to time he put off this Adam and put on him again. This, they say, He did at His coming in the flesh. Being Jews, they nevertheless use the Gospels. They abhor meat-eating. I consider water to be God, and about Christ, as I have already said, they claim that in His fleshly coming He clothed Himself with man. They often wash themselves in the waters, in summer and winter, precisely for sanctification, like the Samaritans. The Valentinians deny the resurrection of the flesh, reject the Old Testament and the prophets, although they read it, and what can be interpreted in accordance with their heresy, they accept. But they introduce some other fables, inventing the names of the thirty aeons of both sexes, collectively brought into being by the Father of all, and they are revered as both gods and aeons. And they say about Christ that He brought a body from heaven and passed through Mary as if through a pipe. The Secundians, with whom Epiphanes and Isidore are in connection, themselves admit the same couples, thinking like Valentinus, and interpreting others somewhat differently from him. In addition, they teach students how to study. Incarnation and they deny. The Ptolemies are also students of Valentinus, and Flora is related to them. And they talk about the couples the same way as Valentinus and the Secundians, but in some ways these also differ from them. Here is the table of contents of the thirteen heresies of the second section of the first book. In the third section of the same first book there are thirteen other heresies as follows: Marcosia. A certain Mark was a fellow student of Kolorvas. He also introduces two principles. Rejects the resurrection of the dead. Somehow, ghostly, with the help of witchcraft, changing the liquid in the vessels into blue and crimson, he initiated seduced women into his secrets. Like Valentine, he also wanted to produce everything from the twenty-four elements. Colorvasia. And this Kolorvas, in exactly the same way expounding the same thing, but slightly distinguishing it from other heresies, I mean the heresies of Mark and Valentinus, taught differently about the generation of aeons and octagons. Herakleonites. They also talk fabulously about eights, but differently from Mark, Ptolemy, Valentine and others. In addition, they make, like Mark, a cleansing libation of oil, balm and water over the heads of the dying, pronouncing some Jewish words over the head of those being cleansed from sins. Ophites glorifying the serpent and worshiping him as Christ. They keep the reptile in some kind of box. The Kayans, together with the previous heresies, reject the law and the Speaker of the law, deny the resurrection of the flesh, glorify Cain, saying that he had the greatest power, at the same time they adore Judas, as well as the host of Korah, Dathan and Abiron, and even the Sodomites. Sethians. These, on the contrary, glorify Seth, claiming that he arose as a result of the repentance of the highest Mother, who, after the rejection of Cain and the murder of Abel, entered into an alliance (with the highest Father) 409 and produced a pure seed - Seth, from whom the entire human race then descended. And they themselves taught about principles and powers, and about everything that others teach about. Archontics. These again trace everything back to many principles, and say that everything that exists was brought into being by them. They are also caught in some shameful acts. The resurrection of the flesh is rejected and the Old Testament is perverted. They use the Old and New Testaments, cunningly adapting each saying to their way of thinking. The Kerdonians descend from Kerdon, who took part in the error of Herakleon, but moved from Syria to Rome and offered his preaching during the time of Bishop Iginus. This heretic admits two principles opposing one another, says that Christ is not born, and, like others, rejects the resurrection of the dead and the Old Testament. Marcionites. Marcion, coming from Pontus, was the son of a bishop, but, having molested a girl, he fled because he was excommunicated by his father from the Church. Having come to Rome, he asked for repentance from those in charge of the Church at that time, but did not receive it; rebelling against faith, he began to teach, introducing three principles: good, just and evil; He also taught that the New Testament is alien to the Old and to the One who spoke in it. Resurrection of the flesh is rejected. Allows not only one baptism, but two and even three after the falls. For those who died catechumens, he gives baptism to others. And women are allowed to teach baptism without fear. Lucianists. Lucian, someone ancient, and not the one who was now in the time of Constantine, taught about everything in accordance with Marcion, but taught about other things and unnecessarily against Marcion. Appellians. And this Apelles, like Marcion and Lucian, teaches, denigrating all creation and the Creator. But he does not teach about three principles, like them, but about one beginning and about one highest and unnamed God, who created another. And this one, brought into being, turned out to be evil, created the world according to his malice. Sevirians. A certain Sevirus, also following Apelles, rejects wine and grapes, saying that they came from the dragon-like Satan; and he rejects the woman, saying that she originates from an evil force. He also introduces some names of princes and some secret books. Like others, he rejects the resurrection of the flesh and the Old Testament. Tatiana. Tatian flourished at the same time as Saint Justin the Martyr, and after the death of the martyr and philosopher Justin, corrupted by the teachings of Marcion, he became his disciple and taught the same things as him and something else against him. They said that he came from Mesopotamia. Here is the table of contents of the first book in three sections, containing a denunciation of forty-six heresies. In the first section of the second book, in the fourth in order of counting from the beginning of the sections, there are eighteen heresies, namely: Encratites, constituting a branch of the heresy of Tatian. They reject marriage, recognizing it as a satanic act, and also prohibit the consumption of animals. The Phrygian heretics, who are also Montanists, accept the Old and New Testaments, but in addition to the prophets they introduce other prophets: they boast of a certain Montanus and Priscilla. Pepusians, they are also Quintillians, with whom the artothirites are related. Some of them are Phrygian heretics, and some teach something different from them. They honor as a shrine some desolate city of Pepuza between Galatia, Cappadocia and Phrygia and recognize it as Jerusalem (there is, however, another Pepuza). Women are given leadership and priesthood. During initiation into their sacraments, a child is killed. 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 understanding. Fourteeners. They celebrate Easter on the same day of the year, and on whatever day the fourteenth day of the moon falls, whether on Saturday or on the Lord's Day (Sunday), on that day they fast and hold a vigil together. Those we call alogs are those who reject the Gospel of John and the Word preached in it from above from the Father who came and was born before eternity, not accepting the Gospel of John and his Apocalypse. The Adamians, which some call the heresy of the living Adam, contain a teaching more worthy of laughter than seriousness. Naked, as if from a mother's womb, men and women come together in one place and thus perform readings, prayers and all that. It’s as if they lead a monastic and abstinent life, do not accept marriage, and consider their church to be paradise. The Sampsei or Elkesei still live in Arabia, a country lying above the Red (Dead) Sea. They were deceived by a certain false prophet Elkesei, from whose family there had previously existed two women, Marfus and Marfina, whom the heretics worship as goddesses. With these heretics everything is very close to the teaching of the Ebionites. Theodotians, followers of Theodotus, a Byzantine tanner. He stood high in Hellenic education. During the days of the then persecution, he was captured along with others, and one fell away, while they accepted martyrdom. Since he was reproached for deviating from this, because of the accusation that he had renounced God, he intended to say about Christ that He was a simple man, and taught so. Melchizedekians. These honor Melchizedek, claiming that he is a certain force, and not a simple person, and everyone dared to build on his name. Vardisianists. This Bardisau came from Mesopotamia, at first he adhered to the true faith and shone with wisdom, but deviating from the truth, he taught very close to Valentinus, with the exception of some parts in which he differs from Valentinus. Noetians. This Noet was from Smyrna in Asia. Having become exalted with pride, he and some others began to teach that Christ is the Son-Father, and that one and the same is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. He called himself Moses, and his brother Aaron. Valicia. These, as it has come down to us, inhabit Waqafa, the main settlement of Philadelphia in Arabia. They emasculate those who come to them and enjoy their hospitality. And most of them themselves are eunuchs. They also teach something else that is full of heresy, they destroy the law and the prophets and introduce some other religious practices. The Kafars are related to the Roman Novatus. They completely reject second marriages and do not accept repentance. Angeliki. These are completely gone now. They boasted that they were in the rank of angels and bore the name of angels. The Apostolitics, also known as the Apotactics, are located in Pisidia. They accept only those who have renounced the world, and they themselves make a vow to this. They approach the Enkratites, but they think differently from them. Sabellians. They are similar in opinion to Noet, except that they say that the Father was not harmed. Origenists, descended from a certain Origen. These are disgraceful people who do what is inadmissible to talk about and submit their bodies to corruption. The Origenists are different, from the writer Origen, nicknamed Adamantine. They reject the resurrection of the dead and teach that Christ and the Holy Spirit are creatures; paradise, heaven and everything else are interpreted allegorically and they dare to say that the kingdom of Christ will have an end. These are the eighteen heresies contained in the first section of the second book. And in the second section of the same second book, in the fifth according to the above account, the following five heresies are contained: Paul of Samosata, former bishop of Antioch the Great. He claims that Christ almost does not exist in reality, imagining that He is the word spoken by the mouth and here came from Mary. Although He was announced prophetically in the Divine Scriptures, He did not exist and only began to be from Mary through the incarnation. Manichaeans and Acuanites, disciples of the Persian Manes. They call Christ a ghost, worship the sun and moon, pray to the stars, powers and demons; introduce two principles - evil and good. They say that Christ appeared ghostly and suffered imaginary. The Old Testament and the God who spoke in it are blasphemed; They say about the world that not all of it, but part of it came from God. Hierakites - from Hierax, from Leontopolis in Egypt, some teacher who rejected the resurrection of the flesh. They use the Old and New Testaments, but they completely reject marriage, they accept monastics and virgins, abstinents and widows, and they say about children who have not yet reached adulthood that they are not involved in the Kingdom of Heaven, as they have not labored. The Meletians constitute a schism in Egypt, not a heresy. They did not pray with the fallen during the persecution, but now united with the Arians. Arians, they are also Ariomanites. They call the Son of God a creature, and the Holy Spirit a creature of a creature; claim that Christ the Savior received from Mary only flesh, and not soul. This Arius was a presbyter of the Alexandrian Church. Here is the table of contents of the five heresies of the second part of the second book, and from the beginning in order of the fifth. The first section of the third book, the sixth according to the above account, contains seven heresies with schisms, and the order is as follows: Avdians, renegade and schism, not heresy. They lead a comfortable lifestyle, adhering to the faith in everything, like the universal Church. Most of them live in monasteries. They use many apocrypha immoderately, do not pray with us, blaming our bishops, rich people and others. Passover is celebrated specially, at the same time as the Jews. They have something peculiar in their teaching; they like to argue, very roughly explaining the expression: according to the image (Gen. 1:26,27). Photinians. This Photinus, being from Sirmium and wandering here in our time, thought like Paul of Samosata, but differs from him in some ways. He also states that Christ received his beginning from Mary. Marcellians, from Marcellus of Ancyra in Galatia. There was a rumor that at the beginning he thought very similar to Sabellius. Despite the fact that he often defended himself and defended himself in writing, many accused him of remaining with the same opinions. It is likely, however, that having changed their opinions, he or his disciples corrected themselves, because some Orthodox Christians came to his defense for him or for his disciples. Half-Arians. They recognize Christ as a creature, but they do not call Him that in the exact sense and not as one of the creatures. We call Him, they say, the Son, but so as not to attribute suffering to the Father through the birth of the Son, we call Him created. In the same way, they directly teach about the Holy Spirit that He is a creature, denying the consubstantiality of the Son, they want to call Him co-essential; some of them were rejected by the cultish ones. Doukhobors. They think correctly about Christ, but they blaspheme the Holy Spirit, teaching that He is a creature, and not being God, but created, received this name in an improper sense, due to its activity; He, they say, is only a sanctifying power. Aerians. This Aerius came from Pontus and is still alive to tempt people. He was a presbyter under Bishop Eustathius, who was accused of Arianism and deprived of his bishopric. When Aerius was not appointed bishop instead of Eustathius, he began to teach many things contrary to the Church. By faith he is the most perfect Arian, but he also teaches what is unnecessary against them. He says that one should not make offerings for the dead, nor fast on Wednesdays, Fridays and Pentecost, he forbids celebrating Easter, and although he preaches renunciation of the world, he fearlessly allows all kinds of meat-eating and pleasures. If any of his disciples wants to fast, he says, let him fast not on set days, but when he wants. He also says that a bishop is no different from a presbyter. Aetian, from Aetius the Cilician, who was a deacon under George, the Arian bishop in Alexandria; They are also called Anomeans, and some call them Eunomians, from a certain Eunomius, who was a student of Aetius and is still alive. Eudoxius, an Arianist, was also in connection with them, but out of fear of Tsar Constantine, he separated from them, and only Aetius was excommunicated. Although Eudoxius remained an Arian, he did not follow Aetius. These Anomeans, as well as the Aetians, completely alienate Christ and the Holy Spirit from God, claiming that the Son of God is a creature, and they say that He does not even have any resemblance to the Father. They want to explain the nature of God the Father with the help of Aristotelian and geometrical inferences and thus prove that Christ could not have come from God. And the so-called Eunomians, who descended from Aetius, rebaptize everyone who comes to them, not only Orthodox, but also Arians. They cross themselves as the rumor goes, turning the legs of those being baptized upward and their heads downward. They consider falling into fornication or another sin to be nothing, for, they say, God does not require anything except remaining in their faith. These are the heresies of the first section of the third book, the sixth in general order. In the second division of the same third book, in the seventh according to the above division, which division is the end of all creation, there are four heresies, and the order is as follows: Dimirites, they are also Apollinarians, professing the imperfect incarnation of Christ. Of these, some call the body consubstantial with the Divine. And some of them even dared to say that Christ did not take on a soul and denied this; some, relying on the saying: The Word became flesh (John 1:14), denied that He took flesh from created flesh, that is, from Mary, but stubbornly said one thing: that the Word became flesh; Finally, for what reason I don’t know, they began to assert that He did not perceive mind. Anti-Dicomarianites, who say that Saint Mary Ever-Virgin, after the birth of the Savior, cohabited with Joseph. Kolliridians, in the name of the same Mary, bringing certain cookies (collyridians) on one appointed day of the year. According to this action of theirs, we gave them a name, calling them collyridians. Massalians, which means those who pray. Adjacent to them are the so-called Euthymites, Martyrians and Satanians from the former Hellenic heresies. This is both the table of contents of the seventh section and the end of three books. All heresies together are 80. And at the very end of the third book, the section of the seventh, in the conclusion are added: the confession of faith of the universal Church, the defense of the truth, the preaching of the gospel of Christ and the image of the universal Church, which, having existed from time immemorial, according to the succession of times, was most clearly revealed in the coming of Christ in the flesh. How many great examples the human mind can collect, and among those who are praised, show what differences there are in young people, they are countless! For some of them are worthy of praise, while others are unworthy. Some, out of their own considerations, choose a harsh lifestyle and law for themselves and publicly walk around in long hair, others in hair shirts, and other brethren sit at home in hair shirts and sprinkled with ashes; Still others spend their lives in extreme fasting and labor, with youthful zeal and perfect conscience towards the Bridegroom; others, as I said above, do not act correctly, but due to some prejudice of the mind, stubbornly, with youthful recklessness, contrary to the truth. So Zacchaeus, who recently died in a mountainous country near Jerusalem, spent his life without praying with anyone at all. At the same time, he, being a layman, boldly touched upon the holy mysteries and recklessly decided to perform sacred acts. Another man, who was once a man, apparently distinguished by the height of his life, lived in a monastery in the Egyptian desert, and another monk who lived on Mount Sinai - both of them were carried away by dreams to the point that, having not accepted episcopal ordination, they decided to sit on the pulpit themselves and perform episcopal affairs. Others, and there are quite a few of them, out of youthful recklessness, dared, contrary to the provisions of the law, to castrate themselves. Others, apparently also youthfully courageous, among the Orthodox, contrary to the rules of the church, dare to hold meetings and even without the permission of the ecumenical council to rebaptize those who come to them from the Arians, when this matter, as I said above, has not yet been decided by the council, since people still live mixed, and many of the Orthodox are hypocritically doing what is characteristic of priests, until the excommunication of such blasphemous heresy follows, and a determination will be made against her. From these people who rebaptized in this way, information came to our ears about a certain presbyter who was in the Lycian country. There are also some in other places, of which each prays on his own, and not with anyone at all. Others, contrary to the decree of the Church, put chains around their necks. Therefore, at the end of my discussion, I spoke about youths who have no number and, according to their own judgment, act youthfully, not for the good or improvement of themselves in various types of wisdom: in prudence, courage, chastity and justice. Of these, some act more youthfully stubborn than others and turn themselves away from the truth, so that there is no number of such. But one dove and holy virgin - the Church confesses God, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, the perfect Father, the perfect Son, the perfect Holy Spirit, the Trinity of one substance - the Son truly begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit not alien to the Father and the Son; The Trinity is always existing and never accepts addition, not having in itself anything subordinate, but being raised to a single unity and one principle of God and the Father. By this Trinity, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, everything was created, which once did not exist, neither existing with God, nor existed before Him, but brought from non-existence into existence by the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. This Father and Son and Holy Spirit deigned to appear to His saints in visions, as far as each one could comprehend according to the gift of the omnipotent Divinity, which He gave to each of those honored, such as to contemplate the Father, as far as anyone could hear His voice and contain. So through the mouth of Isaiah he said: Behold, My beloved Servant will understand (Is. 52:13). This is the voice of the Father. So Daniel saw the Old One (Dan. 7:13.9). This is the vision of the Father. So the prophet also said: I multiplied visions, and in the hands of the prophets I became like (Hos. 12:10). This is the voice of the Son. And Ezekiel says: And the spirit of God took me, and brought me out into the field (3:12.22). This is said about the Holy Spirit. And a lot of similar things can be said, but we cited a little from memory only partially, in passing, and to demonstrate the properties of the Church we will offer two sayings, from the countless number of sayings contained in the Divine Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. The Church confesses that the Lord Himself created the body of Adam and breathed into him the breath of life (Gen. 2:7), creating him a living soul, and that God Himself gave the law to Moses, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, one Divinity; that the prophets were sent by the same Deity; that our God Himself is the God of Jews and Christians, who called for the justification of the Jews who did not deny the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, who saves all who live according to His true faith and who do not deny the truth of preaching His true and evangelical teaching. For the Only Begotten has come, truly has come: this is how our mother the Church maintains. She is a quiet haven of peace, joy, breathing the incense of Cyprus in the grapes (Song. 1:13); she brings us a vine of blessing and gives us a drink that relieves diseases every day - the blood of Christ, pure and true. The Church teaches that Christ was truly born of the Ever-Virgin Mary, that not from the seed of a husband, but from the holy Virgin herself, He received a body truly, and not ghostly - true flesh, true body, with bones, sinews and everything that we have, not differing in anything from us, except in the glory of His holiness and Divinity and in the fact that He is a vessel of holiness. Everything about Him is completely sinless, and He truly had a human soul; At the same time, we do not claim that His mind is a hypostasis. There was no stain of sin in Him, His lips did not lie, His lips did not utter flattery (1 Peter 2:22), His heart was not inclined to irritation, His mind was not turned aside to what is indecent to think about, His flesh did not do the things of the flesh. He is God, perfect from eternity, who did not come only to live in man, but is the Word Himself made man, not changed by nature, but co-assuming His own humanity into Divinity. He was truly in the womb of the Virgin, he was carried in the womb for a certain time, he was born by the ways of birth shamelessly, purely, undefiled. Then he was raised and taken into the arms of Simeon and Anna, was carried by Mary, and having begun to walk, went on a journey, became a youth, strengthened in age and had everything in Himself perfectly, counted by the number of years and by the number of months. He was with child, born of a woman, and was under the law (Gal.4:4); came to the Jordan, was baptized by John, although he did not need to be washed, but did it for the sake of the order required by His true incarnation, not wanting to violate the lawful truth, so that, as He Himself said (Matthew 3:15), all righteousness might be fulfilled, and in order to show that He had put on true flesh, into true humanity, He descended into the water, giving more than receiving, delivering rather than needing Himself, sanctifying it and clothing it with power in the image of Him who would be perfected in Him, so that those who truly believed in Him and had true faith would know that He truly became man, was truly baptized, and thus, through His condescension and themselves approaching Him, they would receive the power of His descent and be enlightened by His light, in which the prophetic saying would be fulfilled: into a change in power, into the granting of salvation from the power of the bread received from Jerusalem, and on the strength of the water. Here in Christ the strength of bread and the strength of water are established, so that it is not bread that is strength for us, but the strength that comes from bread; Bread is food, but it contains the power to give life. And water is not only to make us clean, but so that by the power of water, through faith, activity, hope, performing the sacraments and invoking the name of the sanctifying One, we achieve the accomplishment of salvation. Christ came out of the Jordan, heard the voice of the Father (Matthew 3:17), spoken in the ears of the disciples who were there, in order to show who is being witnessed, while the Holy Spirit descended in the form of a dove, as we talked about in discussions about many heresies. In order for the Trinity to be recognized as unmerged, the Spirit took the form of a dove in its own hypostasis; and the Spirit sat upon Jesus and came close to Him, so that He might be seen, so that His flesh, as holy and beloved of God, might be testified by the Father and the Spirit, so that the Father might be preached as being well pleased and proclaiming the coming of the Son in the flesh, so that the Son might be revealed as the true Son, and so that what had been said would be fulfilled: And therefore He appeared on earth, and lived among men ( Var.3:38). After He came out of the Jordan, He was undoubtedly and truly tempted by the devil in the wilderness and after the hunger (Matthew 4:2), in accordance with the order and truth of the carnal advent. Then he chose disciples, preached the truth, healed diseases, slept, hungered, traveled, performed Divine signs, raised the dead, gave sight to the blind, strengthened the lame and paralytic. Just as He preached the gospel of truth, the Kingdom of Heaven, His love for mankind, and the Father and the Holy Spirit: so He truly endured suffering for us, in the flesh and in perfect incarnation, suffering truly on the cross, while the Divinity remained with Him, but did not turn into a passive state, but remained impassive and unchanged. At the same time, two sides of the matter are clearly understood: Christ suffers for us in the flesh, but remains dispassionate in the Divinity; However, it is not so that man was in himself, and the Divinity in Itself, but the Divinity was co-present, but did not suffer because of the purity and incomparability of His being. Christ suffered in the flesh and was put to death in the flesh, but in the Divinity he always lives and raises the dead. His body was truly buried and remained for three days soulless, lifeless and motionless, wrapped in a shroud, laid in a tomb, imprisoned under a stone, with seals applied; The Deity itself was not imprisoned or buried, but It descended with a holy soul into the underworld, brought captive souls out of there, crushed the sting of death (1 Cor. 15:55,56), dissolved constipation and indestructible beliefs and resolved mortal illnesses with its own power; came out of hell together with his soul, and His soul did not remain in hell, nor His flesh in the form of corruption (Acts 2:31; sn. 27 and Ps. 15:10). The Divinity resurrected this flesh, always co-present with it, or the Lord and God and the Word of the Son of God rose with it, with soul and body and all vessel; so that finally this vessel united with the spirit, and the body itself became spiritual, once subject to touch and given over to scourging by the free will of the Divine, allowed to be tempted by Satan and subjected to greed, sleep, toil, sorrow and lamentation. This most holy body was finally united with the Divine, so that the Divinity was forever united with the body that had suffered such suffering. For Jesus rose again and united it in Himself, into one spirit, into one unity, into one word, into one His Divinity. He truly appeared and was touched by Thomas (John 20:27 and gave), ate with the apostles and stayed with them for forty days and forty nights (Acts 1:3). He entered the house with the door closed (John 20:19. 26), and when he entered, he showed his veins and bones, the nail wound and the place where the spear had been pierced, and thus made it clear that the body itself was true, but only united with the one Divinity, no longer expecting suffering, no longer dying, as the holy Apostle says: the Lord has risen to him who dies no more: death has no more of Him (Rom. 6:9). Thus, the subject of suffering always remains dispassionate, the Divine - with body and soul and with everything characteristic of man, in short: God-Self. Having ascended into heaven, He is seated at the right hand of the Father in glory (Heb. 1:3; 8:1), not putting aside the holy body, but forming it into a spiritual body, in the perfection of one Godhead. So it is with our bodies: those now sown in souls are about to be raised in spiritual ones, now sown in corruption are about to rise up in incorruption, now sown in death are about to rise up in immortality (1 Cor. 15:42, 44, 53). If our bodies are like this, then to what extent does that holy, inexplicable, incomparable and pure body, united with God, finally unique and uniform, prevail? The Apostle testifies to this, saying: although we understood according to the flesh of Christ, now we understand no one (2 Cor. 5:16); saying this, He does not separate the flesh from the Divinity, but presents it as existing and united with God, but no longer existing according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit of holiness from the resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord from the dead (Rom. 1:4; 8:1). The Church confesses Him together as God, impassive and suffering, buried and resurrected, and ascended in glory, coming to judge the living and the dead, as it is said, truly, His kingdom will have no end (Luke 1:33). And this holy mother our Church believes, as it was truly preached and truly commanded to her, that we will all die and rise with this body with this soul, with all our vessels, that everyone may receive what we have done (2 Cor. 5:10). That the resurrection of the dead, eternal damnation, the Kingdom of Heaven, rest for the righteous, the inheritance of the faithful and the common face with the angels who kept faith, purity, hope and the commandments of the Lord - that all this is true - this is both preached and confirmed, and serves as an object of faith, because some will rise to eternal life, and others to eternal damnation, according to what is written in the gospels (fn. John 5:29 and Matthew 25:46). What the apostle and all the Scriptures say is true, even if it were accepted otherwise by unbelievers and those with bad understanding. For us, this is faith, this is honor, this is our mother Church, saving by faith, supported by hope and accomplished by the love of Christ in confession, in the sacraments and in the cleansing power of baptism, as it is said: as you go, baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19), in the name of the Divine Trinity, which has nothing different in name; but so that one God in the law and the prophets, in the gospels and the apostles, in the Old and New Testaments is preached to us, proclaimed and serves as the object of faith, the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit, not the Divinity representing in Himself any fusion, but a truly perfect Trinity, a perfect Father, a perfect Son, a perfect Holy Spirit, one Godhead, one God, to whom be glory, honor and power now and always and to the ages. centuries. Amen. In the Apostolic Constitutions known to us there is no place cited by St. Epiphanius. These three points are outlined more clearly in Chapter 50 of the heresy. 3, namely: 14th day of the moon, spring equinox on Sunday. In the Apostolic Decrees, on the contrary, it is forbidden to celebrate Easter together with the Jews; in chapter 17 of chapter 5 of the book it reads: “And so you, the 6th army, redeemed by the blood of Christ, must celebrate the days of Easter with precision with all zeal after the equinox, so that you do not remember the same suffering twice in a year, but so that you remember the One who died once in a year once without observing from now on, in order to celebrate with the Jews; for we now have no communication with them, because they are mistaken in the calculation of time itself, considering it correct, as in all respects they have gone astray and have moved away from the truth.” St. Epiphanius here means the week preceding the bright resurrection, or passionate week. That is, the remembrance of the Passion of the Lord, or Holy Week. Starts on the second day of the week, Monday. St. Epiphanius does not mention here the first day of the week, Sunday, because if the 14th day of the moon falls on Sunday, then Holy Week begins not on the previous Monday, but on the next, otherwise Bright Sunday would fall on the 14th day of the moon. That is, to remember the Passion of the Lord. It is difficult to reconcile this with the above: because if the 14th day of the moon falls on Saturday, then, as St. himself claims. Epiphanius, the remembrance of the Passion of the Lord begins on the previous Monday, that is, on the ninth day of the moon. It is not clear what St. Epiphanius means when he speaks of two currents - night into day. Perhaps he wanted to more accurately define the period in which Holy Week could begin. This period lasts, in his opinion, from the morning of the 10th day of the moon until the morning of the 15th; thus, he is among two limits: the first limit is the night from the 9th to the 10th day, and the second is the 15th day of the moon, since Holy Week begins not in the middle of the day, but in the morning. That is, the Greek letter: ι, meaning 10. The numbers given are not entirely accurate. The solar year (from one spring or autumn equinox to the next) lasts 365 days, 5 hours, 48 ​​minutes 48 seconds, and the lunar year, consisting of 12 synodic months (each month from new moon to new moon), lasts 354 days, 8 hours, 38 minutes, 36 seconds. Thus, the annual difference between both is 10 days and 21 hours. Actually: epacts, ἐπαϰταὶ; but since it is subsequently said that this quantity and 24 hours constitute two days, one must think that this should mean one extra day, one epacta. What St. Epiphanius means by adding one epacta here is difficult to decide. Perhaps he meant that since the lunar month lasts not exactly 30 days, but 29 ½, meanwhile in the 3rd and 6th years the intercalary month was assumed to be 30 days, hence the difference of one day, one epacta, was formed. But in this case, this epact should have been added not in the 8th year, but in the 6th. Instead of an eight-year period of lunar years, the first Ecumenical Council established a 19-year period for determining the day of Easter, which much more accurately corresponds to the actual movement of the moon. According to this period, the day of Easter celebration is still determined in the Orthodox Church. When Easter is celebrated in the intercalated 13th month of the moon, it occurs before the vernal equinox: this is why there is a difference with those who celebrate Easter after the vernal equinox. Προστάτης, the defender of the church standing before a civil court, elected from the laity, is the same as ἔϰδιϰος. The Eminence Macarius, referring to this place, explains its meaning this way: “It can rightly be said about the Holy Spirit that He is from both, from the Father and from the Son, but only in different senses; is from the Father, as having the same nature with Him and as coming from Him and being sent into the world; is from the Son, as having one and the same nature with Him, as having learned from Him the teaching for preaching to people, and as being sent and distributed to people from Him.” In support of this explanation, the Most Reverend Macarius cites the words of Mark of Ephesus, who says at the Council of Florence that to be from someone does not necessarily mean to come from someone, or to borrow being, but is used in another sense, for example, in the sense of the sameness of properties and nature, as for example, in the words of the Savior: you are of this world, but you are not of this world (John 8:23). Right Dogma. Theology vol. 1. p. 254. By Easter, St. Epiphanius means Holy Week. See the Avdian heresy (Works of St. Epiphanes, book 2, 1881, p. 260). The word μασμαρὼϑ was used by seventy interpreters in verse 19 of chapter 52 of the book of the prophet Jeremiah. They left here without translation the Hebrew, which in the previous, eighteenth verse they correctly translated with the word φιάλαι, cups, as they translated it in other places, for example: Num.7:13.19; Exodus 38:3 et al. The reason why the LXX, in translating Jer. 52:19, stopped at a word whose meaning they knew, and wished to convey only the sounds of this word in Greek letters, was probably that they read the word they were parsing differently from how it is now read in the Hebrew text. In their code, the word had such a form that the translators could not give it any definite meaning and therefore limited themselves to conveying the sounds of an incomprehensible word in Greek letters. The translators did the same with the preceding word of the same verse: instead of translation, they put the Greek letters ἀπφὼϑ. To explain the word μασμαρὼϑ, it would be unfair to assume, as some do, that the translators read here the word , in the place of which they allegedly put a consonant: μασμαρὼϑ. It is impossible to think so, because in the previous, eighteenth verse of LXX they did not leave the word without translation, although inaccurate. St. Epiphanius gives the word μασμαρὼϑ the meaning: δωληστήρια, that is: sieves, sieves, or generally tools for sifting, straining. Giving such meaning to the word being analyzed, St. Epiphanius is obviously guided by the reading of the word according to the Hebrew text, but with some modification of the reading. Instead he reads and derives the meaning of the word from the root meaning: sowed. The word (singular) is used Ex.19:7, meaning: sown. St. Chrysostom gives the meaning to the word masmarof: ῤαντιστὴρ τοῦ αἴματος – sprinkled blood. To the word μιδιϰὼϑ St. Epiphanius rightly gives the meaning of κύαϑοι, mugs, glasses. This word LXX is usually translated from Hebrew, found both in the prophet Jeremiah in the same place (52:19) and Exodus 25:29; 37:16; Number 4:6. Μιδιϰὼϑ is probably a reading spoiled by scribes; it could easily have been formed from μινιϰὼϑ, a reading closer to the Hebrew. Μαχαωνὼϑ, to whom St. Epiphanius rightly gives the meaning: βάσεις, substitutions, is the rendering of the Hebrew word in Greek letters. This Hebrew word in the LXX translation is sometimes left untranslated: e.g. in chapter 7, book 3. Kings several times set μεχωνὼϑ (cf. 2 Kings 16:17); sometimes it is translated by a word that has a general and insufficiently defined meaning: έτοιμαςία (Zechariah 5:11; in Slavic - preparation); and in the twentieth verse of the same 52nd chapter of the book of St. Jeremiah, which, obviously, is guided by St. Epiphanius, when listing the accessories of the Old Testament sanctuary, the word in the Greek translation corresponds to the word ϑαλάσση, sea, put as a result of the incorrect translation of the word preceding it. Reading μεχωνὼϑ is more correct than reading μαχωνὼϑ; Perhaps here, too, the fault of the incorrectness belongs to the copyists of St. Epiphany. These Hebrew words are written in Greek letters by St. Epiphanius. The Latin translator made the transcription in Latin letters. In the Hebrew original the text reads: That is, whoever claims that God the Father made the Son from the unborn, trace. made a change in Him, he must admit that He produced the Son from nothing (not from a ready-made substance): because that which exists originally (essence) exists independently and traceably. cannot be changed by anything else. This provision is a repetition of provision No. 1, with the exception of the first words, which are not in the present provision and which, however, are important for the completeness of the meaning. To the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments of St. Epiphanius also adds the last two named non-canonical books as worthy of reading, in view of the respect they enjoyed in the ancient church. Actually: to rain, to irrigate with rain. This passage seems to favor the Roman Catholic dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son (qui procedit a Patre Filioque); but the saying used here without limitation, indicating the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Son, by comparing it with many other, more accurate and definite places of the translated creation of St. Epiphany should only mean what the Son of God Himself expressed about the Holy Spirit, who said: He (that is, the Spirit of truth) will glorify Me, for He will receive from Mine, and will proclaim it to you. All that the Father has is Mine: for this reason I have decided that He will receive it from Mine and will tell it to you (John 16:14-15). The name Eunomius (Eὐνμιος) means: well-behaved, well-ordered. The name Anomeus actually means: unlike (ανoμοιος). This was the name given to heretics who recognized God the Son as not similar to God the Father in essence, not consubstantial with Him. The very names: scolopendra (from σχόλοψ - splinter, sting) and iul (fluff, for example on a beard) indicate a genus of poisonous stinging reptiles, to which St. Epiphanius likens the Anomeans. The thought, if not expressed exactly in these words, then in similar ones, is expressed by some ancient writers, for example: Dimosthenes (De corona), Ovid (Metamorph. lib I et 2), etc. Of course Apollinaris, mentioned at the beginning of the section. This is how this name appears according to the Vatican list of the Greek Bible; in the Alexandrian list of the LXX translation, from which the Slavic translation was made, it is listed as follows: Σουλαμῖτις (Shulamitino) The meaning of this entire quotation will be clear to us if we pay attention to the fact that the words: receive, perceive, taken and ascended in Greek are designated by one word: ἀναλαμβάνω. There is no such saying in all of Holy Scripture; but there are sayings that contain a thought similar to that expressed by these words of St. Father. This is for example Matthew 5:8; Rom.12:1; 1 Thessalonians 4:3,4; 1 Timothy 5:22 et seq. Of course, the Jews fulfilled the law of circumcision. Μανιώδης - raging, frantic, insane. Sn. Acts 12:17;15:13;21:18; and Jos. Josephus, Antiquities, XX, 9; Evsev. church history II, 23; Easter chronicle p. 382 ed. ‒ Boinsky et al. We are talking about the miracles that the Lord performed in Galilee. In the indicated place in the book of Exodus it is actually said that Aaron, and not Nahshon, took Elizabeth, and that in addition, Elizabeth was the daughter of Amminadab and the sister of Nahshon, and not the daughter of Aaron. On the turban, the head decoration that belonged to him by right of the high priesthood. The item was with the inscription: the shrine of the Lord, about which see Ex. 39:30,31 according to the Russian translation of the Bible. It is not included in the Slavic account of poems. See Acta Panli et Theclae y Grabia in Spicilegium. ss. Pafrom t. I. Oxoniae, 1700. In the Slavic Bible, in both cases, one word is used, created, but in the Greek text it is precisely the difference that St. points out. Epiphanius, because in the first case the word ἔπλασεν is used, and in the second ᾠϰοδόμησεν. The first word is used in a technical sense about stucco work, and the last one - about the construction of buildings, houses, etc. That is, communion and baptism. Here, of course, is Naples (Flavia Neapolis) of Samaria, ancient Shechem. See Jos. Flavius, On the Jewish War I, 2. 3; Ancient IV, 8, etc. Against the Anti-Dicomarianites, ch. 23. The saying is found in the philosopher Plato in Book VIII of his Republic. See heresy 28 and 29, and in general, order 48 and 49, ch. 1 and 2. The name Massalian (ןיילצמ) comes from the Hebrew word אלצ – to ask, to pray. Which Naples is meant here, see the note to page 272 of this volume. These signs were usually stones Μάνδρα means: fence, walled place, monastery. Heb. פִּלֶּגֶשׁ (Gen.22:24; 25:6) and more fully, with the addition of אִשָּׁה – wife (Judg.19:1), comes from פָּלַג – to divide, whence chald. פֵּלַג – half (Dan.7:25). See Vegeschith rabbah in Genes. 25 cap. The philosophers of the Megarian school, who had a particularly developed art of arguing, dialectics, were called herists (disputants). Aristotle calls the soul entelechy (constancy, continuity) of the body, as the beginning that connects all functions of organic life into one common, purposeful activity. Residents of southern Italy, in Apulia. Inhabitants of Numidia, in Asia Minor. Lazy people in Colchis, in the Caucasus. Residents of what is now Spain. Coastal inhabitants of the Thracian (Black) and Cimmerian (Azov) seas. Inhabitants of northern Media, on the southern shore of the Caspian Sea. Residents of Seriki, in eastern Asia. Celebrations in honor of Demeter or Ceres. Cersephone or Proserpina. Son of Eolov, king of Orkhomen, father of Phrixus and Hella. Solemn cry in the festivals of Bacchus. Near the mouth of the Nile, in Egypt. Son of Isis, God of silence among the Egyptians. Son of Osiris and Isis (see Herod. 1,144.156). Memphis and Iliopolis are cities in Egypt. About those serving Kore and Bacchus. Areas in lower Egypt. Antinous was a handsome young man from Bithynina, a favorite of the Emperor Hadrian, who died in the prime of his life and was recorded among the gods, by order of Hadrian. Farwit and Mendis are cities in lower Egypt. Cyprus is an incense tree. By our calculation until the third hour in the afternoon. Of course it's Holy Week. Storehouses (Matthew 23:5) For an explanation of the word, see below, page 370. See the works of St. Epiphany part 1, page 94. According to the Slavic Bible: Job, Genesis 10:2. Although from the original it would be necessary to translate: “spirit”, however, both in meaning and in relation to the parallel present place in part 1, page 97, it is necessary to translate: “body.” For an explanation of the name, see part 1, page 103 note. Compare works of St. Epiphany part 2, page 2. You might be interested in: