Книга первая

Truly accurate and God-scientific is the mind of the holy Evangelists, as if from a hill and a place of contemplation of a magnificent spectacle, seeing from everywhere what is necessary for the listeners and with some intense diligence catching what it considers useful for those who thirst for a true understanding of the Divine dogmas and with good intentions exploring the meaning hidden in the Divine Scriptures. This is because the Spirit reveals (the truth) to those who are not engaged in empty research and are not carried away by the intricate deceptions of thoughts more than to those who rejoice in the truth, since it neither “enters into an evil soul” (Wis. 1:4), nor, on the other hand, allows precious pearls to lie at the feet of pigs (Matt. 7:6), but with all favor speaks with the simplest souls, as having a completely artless movement and those who refuse excessive speculation, which constantly happens to be “amazed” (Eccl. 7:17) and, due to tortuosity, deviate from the straight and royal path, for “he who walks in hope, those who walk simply,” according to the word of Solomon (Prov. 10:9). If the holy Evangelists have very amazing accuracy in their writing - for “it is not they who say,” according to the word of the Savior (Matthew 10:20), “but the Spirit of the Father is in them,” then with all the thoroughness, the writing of John should be placed above surprise by the one who turns his gaze to the sublimity of his contemplations, to the sharpness of his mind and to the consistent and consistent presentation of his thoughts. In the explanation of Divine dogmas, they (Evangelists), of course, are similar to each other and, as if starting from the line 13, rush towards the same goal, but their (external) image of the word is somewhat different. They seem to me to be similar to those who were commanded to gather in one city, but they did not agree to go along the same high road. Thus, other Evangelists, as can be seen (in their Gospels), speak with great precision about the carnal genealogy of our Savior and either in order lower the descendants of Abraham to Joseph 14, or vice versa - they raise the ancestors of Joseph to Adam 15, and blessed John did not care much about this, but through a seemingly flaming and fiery movement of the mind he decided to touch the very objects that exceed the human mind and dares to explain the ineffable and ineffable birth of God the Word. He knew, of course, that “the glory of God covers the word” (Proverbs 25:2), that Divine dignity is beyond our understanding and words, and that the properties of the Divine nature are extremely difficult to express in words and explain. But since it was necessary, as it were, to measure the sky with the palm of one’s hand and, with insignificant human strength, to approach subjects that are inaccessible and difficult to explain for everyone, so that it would not be easier for the heresy teachers to attack the simpletons in the event that there was no voice of the saints, who were “self-seers and ministers of the Word” (Luke 1:2), stopping (the voice) the evil-mindedness of those (heretical teachers), then he quickly turns to himself the most important of the Divine dogmas, exclaiming: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was to God, and God was the Word: This (This) was in the beginning to God” (John 1:1-2). But I think that those who study the Holy Scriptures should also take from everyone (other sacred writers) words that turn out to be relevant and useful: thus collecting together and bringing to a single goal and thought the various contemplations of many, they will ascend to the proper measure of knowledge (cf. Eph. 4:13) and, imitating the industrious and wise bee, build the sweet honeycomb of the Spirit. Some of the industrious people say that after the crucifixion of our Savior and his ascension into heaven, some false shepherds and false teachers, like wild beasts, rushed upon the flock of the Savior, causing considerable confusion, “speaking from their hearts,” as it is written, “and not from the mouth of the Lord” (Jer. 23:16), - even more, not from their hearts alone, but from the teachings of their father, obviously the devil. “After all, if no one can say anathema to Jesus” (1 Cor. 12:3) except Beelzebub, then how can our word about them be untrue? And what is spewed out on their own heads by those who ignorantly and impiously assert that the Only Begotten Word of God, the eternal light, in whom we all “move and are” (Acts 17:28), was first called into existence only when a person was born through the Holy Virgin and, having assumed this common form (to all people), “appeared on earth,” as it is written, “and lived with men” ( Var.3:38). Those who have such a way of thinking and dare to slander the ineffable and eternal birth of the Son, the prophetic word reproaches in this way: “Now come ye, the sons of iniquity, the seed of adulterers and harlots: in what do you delight, and against whom do you open your mouth, and against whom do you put out your tongue” (Is. 57:3-4)? The tongue, obviously, does not carry out good things from a good heart, but spews out the poison of the foul-killing serpent, about which the Psalmist seems to speak to the one and above all God: “Thou hast erased the heads of the serpent from the waters” (Ps. 73:13). 16 Since there was considerable confusion among the believers about this, and the harm from the temptation, like an ulcer, devoured the souls of the simple - for some, distracted by the chatter of those heretics from the true dogmas, really thought that the Word was only then called to the beginning of being, when he became a man - then those of the believers who were wiser, having gathered and come together, approached the disciple of the Savior, then there is to John himself, I say, and they told him about the illness that was depressing the brothers - they revealed to him the empty talk of the heresy teachers and fervently begged him to help them with his own light-guiding through the Spirit and to extend a saving hand to those who had already been caught and fallen inside the devil’s snares. Having grieved for the dead and perverted in mind, the Student also considered it very inappropriate not to take any care for subsequent generations, and turned to writing a book. At the same time, he allowed the other Evangelists to narrate in more detail what could be said for humanity about His legal and natural genealogy and birth. He himself very ardently and very courageously rushes against the idle talk of those introducing such false teachings, saying: “in the beginning was the Word.” That the Only Begotten Age is eternal and before John 1:1. In the beginning was the Word What do you say to this, introducing to us a new and recent Son, so as not to believe at all that He is God, for “there will not be a new God in you” (Ps. 80:10), as the Divine Scripture says? How can he not be new if he was born in recent times? And did he not tell a lie when he said to the Jews: “Truly I say to you, before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58)? After all, it is obvious, of course, and indisputable for everyone, that Christ was born of the Holy Virgin long after the blessed Abraham. How then can the true meaning of the expression be preserved: “who was in the beginning” if the Only Begotten received existence at the end of the ages? Notice from what follows what absurdity the denial of the eternal existence of the Son and the idea that He received existence in later times leads to. But we must again turn to the most precise study of the saying of the blessed Evangelist: “in the beginning was the Word.” There is nothing older than the beginning, if one maintains the definition of the concept of the beginning in itself; for there can never be a beginning of a beginning, or if something else is thought and taken before it, then it will, of course, cease to be a true beginning. Otherwise, that is, if it is assumed that something pre-exists the real beginning, our discussion of it (the beginning) will go on to infinity, since another beginning will always precede, producing what our research will be about. So, according to precise and correct reasoning, there should not be a beginning, but speech about it should go into the vast infinity. And since the constant movement back (towards the infinite beginning) has no end and exceeds the measure of centuries, the Son cannot appear to have occurred in time, but, on the contrary, exists eternally together with the Father. After all, “was” in the beginning. If “was” in the beginning, then tell me, what kind of mind can surpass the meaning of this “was”? When can this “was” stand at the end, as it were, if it always precedes the next thought and anticipates the concept that follows it? Amazed by this, the prophet Isaiah says: “Who can confess His generation? As if His belly were lifted up from the earth” (Is. 53:8). Truly, the word about the birth of the Only Begotten will rise from the earth, that is, above all reason on earth and above every word, so that in the end it is inexplicable. If He is higher than our mind and words, then how can He be created when the mind inherent in us is able to determine created objects both in time and in word? Another contemplation on the same thing: In relation to the Only Begotten, it is by no means possible to take “beginning” in the sense of “beginning in time,” since He is before all time and has an eternal existence, and, moreover, the Divine nature cannot have an end, for it always remains identical to itself, according to what is sung in the psalms: “You are the same, and your years will not fail” (Ps. 101:28). So, from what beginning, measured by time and quantity, can the Son come, who cannot reach the end, being God by nature and therefore crying: “I am life” (John 14:6)? After all, the beginning in itself cannot at all be conceivable as existing except in view of its own end. And just as the beginning is called in relation to the end, so, conversely, the end (is the end) also in relation to the beginning - and here we denote the beginning in time or quantity. So, if the Son is older than the ages themselves, then He cannot be subject to origin in time, but always “was” in the Father as in the source, according to what He said: “I went out from the Father 17 and came back” (John 8:42). If the Father is understood as the source, then “the Word was” in Him, existing as wisdom, and power, and mark, and reflection, and image of Him ( Heb.1:3; cf. Luke 11:49, 9:35; Matt.11:19) And if there was no time when the Father was without the Word and wisdom and mark and reflection, then it is necessary to recognize that the Son, who is all this (i.e. Word, wisdom, image and reflection) also exists eternally, if. would he not be depicted according to the beauty of Him of Whom He is the image? There is, of course, no obstacle to conceiving the existence of the Son in the Father as in the source, for the name of the source here means only “being-from-what.” 18 The Son “is” (exists) “in the Father” and “from the Father”, not having received existence from outside or in time, but being in the essence of the Father and from it shining, like from the sun, for example, its reflection, or like its inherent warmth from fire. In these examples one can see how the one, although born from the one, always coexists and is inseparably inherent in it, so that without the other one cannot exist on its own and retain the true property of its own nature. How can the sun not have a reflection? Or is the reflection not in the sun that emits it? And how can there be fire if it does not have the property of warming? Where does heat come from, if not from fire or from something else that is not far removed from the essential property of fire? Just as in these examples the existence in something of that which is from it does not destroy its coexistence, but shows that what is generated coexists with the generator and has inherited the same nature with it, so it is with regard to the Son; for if it is thought and called existing in the Father and from the Father, then it is not alien, or alien with Him, or as if second after Him, the Son must be, but existing in Him, and always co-existing, and appearing from Him, according to the ineffable image of the Divine birth. And that among the sacred writers God and the Father is called the beginning of the Son by “being-from-what” alone, about this listen to the Psalmist, who through the Holy Spirit foretells the second appearance of our Savior and speaking, as it were, to the Son himself: “The beginning was with You in the day of Your power, in the lordship of 19 Your saints” (Ps. 109:3). The day of the Son's power is the one when he will judge the whole world and reward everyone according to his deeds. But He will come even then, without a doubt, being in the Father and having the Father in Himself and, as it were, the beginningless beginning of His own nature, by one, of course, only “being-from-what,” since He exists from the Father. “In the beginning was the Word.” Many and different meanings are presented to us by the “beginning” about which we are discussing here, trying from everywhere to catch what serves for the benefit and with all care pursuing 20 the true understanding of Divine dogmas and accuracy in the mysteries (of Divine revelation), for the Savior nowhere says: “search” the Holy “Scriptures, because in them you think you have eternal life, and they are the witnesses of Me” ( John 5:39). Therefore, one can think that the blessed Evangelist here means the Father by “beginning,” that is, power over everything, so that the Divine nature appears above all, having under His authority 21 all created things and, as it were, sitting on those called by Her to being. It was in this “beginning” above all and in everyone that “the Word was,” not together with all (creatures) under the power of it (the beginning), but outside of everything in it by nature, as an eternal fruit, having, as it were, the most initial place, the nature of the One who gave birth, therefore, as born free from the free Father, it must have with Him authority over everything. It is therefore necessary to consider what meaning this saying will have even with such an understanding of the “beginning”. Some, as we said above, boldly asserted that the Word of God was then first called into being, when It, having received the church 22 from the Holy Virgin, became man for our sake. But what would happen if the Son had such a nature or was created and created and of the same nature with all other (creatures), to whom, with all justice, the origin from non-existence is assimilated 23 and (acquired) both the name of slaves and actual slavery? What created thing can safely refuse slavery to the God who rules over all? What does not submit to the ruler over all, and dominion, and dominion, which Solomon himself points to in one place, saying: “For in righteousness the throne of rulers is prepared” (Prov. 16:12). Yes, the throne of the “beginning” 24 is prepared and highly adorned with righteousness, obviously the beginning is above all. And what kind of throne is this that we are now talking about? Listen to God about this, speaking through one of the saints: “Heaven is My throne” (Is. 66:1). Therefore heaven is prepared for righteousness, that is, the holy spirits living in heaven. So, since it was inevitable to admit that, together with other creatures, the Son is subordinate to God and the Father, as being in a state of service and, like other creatures, being over the power of the “beginning”, if He, as those false teachers assert, was born in a later time and is one of those created in time; then, of necessity, the blessed Evangelist strives all the more strongly against the false teachers, distracts the Son from all slavery, shows Him to have appeared from a free and ruling Essence and affirms that He exists in Her by nature, saying: “in the beginning was the Word.” To the word “beginning” he considered it necessary to add “be” so that it would be understood not only as a glorious beginning, but also as eternal, for the “be” used here raises the thought of the contemplator to some deep, incomprehensible, ineffable and timeless birth. After all, this “be”, used indefinitely 26, in what place can it stop, if it tends to always precede the subsequent thought 27 - and where one might think that it has its ending, it makes this ending the beginning of further movement (thought)? So, “the Word was in the beginning,” that is, as already existing “in the Beginning,” 28 over and from everything, having by nature a sovereign dignity. And if this is true, then how can it already be created or created? And where this “be” is, how can “not be” penetrate 29 - or what place can it finally have in relation to the Son? That the Son, being both God and consubstantial with the Father, exists in his own hypostasis, likewise the Father John 1:1. And the Word be to God Having already sufficiently proven that the ignorant opinion of those who think in the above manner is distinguished by emptiness and removed from the truth, and through the saying “in the beginning was the Word,” having blocked all access to those who say that the Son is from non-existence, and having decisively destroyed all their idle talk in this, now turns to another similar and most persistent heresy. And just as a certain experienced and at the same time patient gardener with great pleasure indulges in labor with a pick and, girded around the loins and clothed in his appropriate rural clothes, uses all his efforts to present the appearance of the garden free from unpleasant thorns, constantly destroys one thorn after another and, constantly going around, with the sharp tooth of the pick, digs up and uproots the unnecessary plant; so blessed John, carrying in his mind “the living, active and sharpest word of God” (Heb. 4:12) and far-sightedly and insightfully seeing everywhere the harmful shoots of the evil of those who think differently, almost runs towards them and quickly cuts them out from everywhere, providing the readers of his works with a means of maintaining themselves in the right faith. Notice again the wisdom of the Spirit-Bearer. In the preceding words he taught that the Word was in the beginning, that is, in God and the Father, as we said. since he had an enlightened view of the mind and, one must think, knew that some would arise who, out of great ignorance, would say that the Father and the Son are one and the same, and would distinguish the Holy Trinity only by names, not allowing existence in their own (special) hypostases, so that the Father would actually be thought of as a Father, and not as a Son, and the Son would exist again in the same proper (special) way as a Son, and not as a Father, which is in reality; then it was necessary to arm oneself against this heresy, as if it had already appeared and was erected at that time, or had no time to be, - and in order to destroy it, to the words “in the beginning was the Word,” he immediately adds: “The Word was to God,” considering it necessary to use this “be” everywhere because of His pre-eternal birth, while calling the Word being “to God,” indicates that something is one and itself the self-existent (hypostatically) is the Son, and the other again is God and the Father, “to whom” the Word was. For can a single “number” 30 be conceivable as existing “to itself” or “within itself”? And that the teaching of heretics turns out to be ignorant about this too, we will reveal this in the following reasoning, having made an accurate study of the sought-after subject. Proof with reasoning (from reason) and evidence from Scripture that the Father in his own (special) hypostasis, and the Son in the same way, together with Whom obviously should be revered as God and the Holy Spirit, although now there is no research about Him The Son is consubstantial with the Father and the Father with the Son, which is why they have the most perfect likeness, so that in the Son the Father is contemplated, and in the Father the Son and One shines in the Other, just as the Savior Himself says in one place: “He who has seen Me in the form of My Father” (John 14:9), and again: “I am in the Father and the Father in Me” (John 14:10-11; cf. John 10:38 ). But if He is in the Father, and also has the Father in Himself, with all accuracy, as has already been said, Himself being imprinted in the image of the One who gave birth and Himself again with the most complete authenticity depicting in Himself the One who gave birth; then, for this reason, He will not lose His special existence (hypostatic), nor again will the Father cease to exist in Himself (hypostatic). And this most perfect resemblance and resemblance will not produce any confusion of hypostases, so that the Father who gave birth and the Son born from Him are thought to be one “in number,” but the identity of nature must be confessed in both, as, without a doubt, the One and the Other should exist separately (hypostatically), so that the Father is truly thought of as Father and the Son as Son. And if in this way the Holy Spirit is counted among Them and together with Them the Holy Spirit is revered as God, then the Holy and Worshiped Trinity will have Its fullness. Other. If the Son Himself is also the Father, then what is the meaning of the difference in names? If he did not give birth at all, then why is he called Father? And how is he (called) a Son if he was not born of the Father? These names in themselves necessarily require such reasoning. Since the Divine Scriptures preach that the Son is born, and this is in fact so, then He, therefore, exists in Himself (hypostatically). Likewise, the Father exists separately if one comes from another, as the begotten in relation to the begetter. Other. Blessed Paul in his Epistle to the Philippians says about the Son: “Whoever is in the form of God is not equal with God through admiration” (Phil. 2:6). Who, therefore, is the One who did not want to consider it robbery to be equal with God? Is it not necessary to assert that One One exists, He Who is “in the image of God,” and another again He Whom was the image? This is obvious to everyone and is recognized by everyone. So, the Father and the Son are not one thing and identical in number, but they coexist separately and are contemplated in each other, according to the identity of essence, although One is from One, that is, from the Father, the Son. Other. I and the Father are one (John 10:30), said the Savior, obviously as knowing both Himself as specially existing and the Father. If in fact this were not so, then why, using the expression corresponding to the unit, did he not say: “I and the Father are one “am”? If he uses the plural here, then it is finally obvious that he refutes the opinion of those who think differently, for “esma” could not correctly be used about one thing. Other. At the creation of man, the voice of the Speaking God is heard: “Let us make man in our image and likeness” (Gen. 1:26). If the fullness of the Holy Trinity, so to speak, is reduced into a single something in number and the wicked destroy the existence of the Father and the Son in Their Own Self, then who says to whom: “Let us make man in Our image”? After all, if it really were as those wicked people chatter, then it would be appropriate to say: “Let us make man in My image and likeness.” If now the writer of the book does not say this, but the creation assimilates many in number and uses: “in our image,” then through this, as if with a great and strong voice, he cries out that the number (of persons) of the Holy Trinity exceeds one. Other. If the Son is a “reflection” of the Father (Heb. 1:3), as light from light, then how can He (the Son) not be different from Him (the Father), as having a special existence? After all, what is reflected can become such only from another, that is, from the reflector, and not from itself. Other. Declaring about Himself that He is from the essence of God and the Father, the Son says again in one place: “I went out from the Father and came again, and again I go to the Father” (John 8:42, 16:28). How can there not be another next to Him, namely hypostasis and number, when all reasons force us to think that what has come from something is different in comparison with what it came from? Therefore, the opposite teaching about this is not true. Other. We are justified by believing in God the Father and in the Only Begotten Son and in the Holy Spirit, which is why the Savior Himself commanded 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). If, therefore, the difference in names does not introduce anything at all into our thinking, but the Son can be called Father and, by calling His Son, one can point to the Father, then what was the need to give the command to be baptized not into the Unity, but into the Trinity? since the conversation about the Divine nature reaches up to a triple number, then, of course, it is obvious to everyone that each of those counted exists in its own special hypostasis, so that, without changing at all in nature, it ascends to the one Divinity and has the same worship. Other. Divine Scripture says that the cities of Sodom were burned as a result of the wrath of God. Explaining how Divine wrath was brought upon them, and clearly pointing to the image of destruction, it says: “The Lord will rain fire and a bogey on Sodom from the Lord” (Gen. 19:24), which was a fate quite fitting for those accustomed to committing these (Sodom) sins (Ps. 10:6). Which Lord, from which Lord, sent fire and burned the cities of Sodom? It is obvious that the Father, doing everything through the Son, since He (the Son) is His (the Father’s) strength and muscle, forced Him to rain fire on the Sodomites. When in this way the Lord from the Lord sends fire upon them, then why should not others - as far as this relates to a special (hypostatic) existence - have the Father next to the Son and also the Son next to the Father? After all, one of the one is designated here. Other. Moved by the prophetic spirit and through it foretelling the future, the blessed Psalmist thought that the human race could be saved in no other way than through the appearance of the Son of God alone, who has the power to easily transform everything according to His desire. Therefore, he prayed that the Son would be sent to us, as the only one who could save those who were under the power and cruelty of the devil, and said, as it were, to God and the Father: “send Your light and Your truth” (Ps. 43:3). And what kind of light this is and what truth, listen to the Son Himself about this, saying: “I am light,” and: “I am the truth” (John 8:12, 14:6). If the light and truth of the Father, that is, the Son, are sent to us, then how is it that He is not another next to Him, according to a special (hypostatic) existence, although He is one with Him by identity of essence? And if some think that this is not so, but that the Father and the Son are one and the same, then why did the Spirit-Bearer not use another form of prayer, exclaiming: “Come to us, O light and truth?” since he says: “after,” he obviously knew that someone else was the Sender and another was the Sent. And the image of the message must be thought in a way that befits God. Other. The Divine Scriptures say that through the Son all things were created, visible and invisible, in heaven and on earth (cf. Col. 1 and John 1:3), and, believing this in the correctness of thoughts, we, worshipers of truth, enter into the dogmas of piety. Let us examine this “through the Son” and find out what thought it brings to us. Obviously, it makes one think of the Creator and Performer as another certain one, and as another certain one - the One through Whom everything is accomplished. After all, this “through the Son” necessarily contains the representation of two persons - or let them say how this “through the Son” can actually and truly be accepted in the act of creating something as one in number and identical in quantity, if no one else is thought of and does not cooperate? But our enemy, I think, will in no way be able to achieve this. Since the Holy Scriptures themselves preach, and we believe - as, I believe, they do - that the Father has accomplished all things through the Son, is it not necessary to think that the Father exists separately and by Himself, and the Son again in the same way - which does not prevent the Holy Trinity from being contemplated in the identity of essence? That the Son is also God by nature, and in no way less or like the Father The Spirit-Bearer knew that in the last times some would arise who would slander the essence of the Only Begotten and deny the Lord who redeemed them (2 Pet. 2:1), since they would think that the Word that appeared from God and the Father is not God by nature, but they would introduce to us some kind of counterfeit and false-named (Word), although clothed with the name of sonship and Divinity, but in reality not having this. Those who instill the Jewish wickedness of Arius into their minds do something similar, which is why even from a dead heart they utter not the life-giving word of pious contemplation, but one that is directed and leads to death. Truly “the arrow that pierces their tongue, the flattering words of their mouth” (Jer.9:8). How would someone already resist the words of truth and would say to the holy Evangelist like this: “Yes, there was a Word to God, so be it; I agree with your writings about this. Let the Father exist and exist separately and the Son just as separately. But what kind of nature should we think the Word exists in? After all, “to be towards God” does not at all include an indication of the essence. And since the Divine Scriptures preach one God, we attribute this to one Father, to whom the Word came.” What does the Preacher of Truth say to this? - Not only: “there was the word “to God”, but “it was also “God”, so that through being “to God” we would recognize another existing next to the Father and so that they would believe that the Son exists separately and by Himself, - and through being “God” he was considered consubstantial (with the Father) and existing from Him by nature, as God and coming from God. After all, if everyone recognizes the Divinity as one, then it is impossible for the Holy Trinity not to ascend to the most perfect identity of nature and thus not to ascend to the unity of the Divinity. So, “was” and God - did not become (God) later, but again “was”, if, without a doubt, eternal existence must necessarily belong to the Divine being (“God”), since what happened in time or from perfect non-existence translated into being could not be God by nature. If, in this way, the Word of God through this “be” appears to have eternity, and through this “be God” - one in essence with the Father, then those who think that He is less in some way or even not similar to the One who gave birth will be guilty of some kind of punishment and retribution, and are not afraid to reach such wickedness that they already dare to say such things to others, “not understanding what they say or about them.” affirm" (1 Timothy 1:7)! But that He who is from Him and the true Son is by no means less than the Father, we can also learn from the following reasoning. Other. The Divine Scriptures call the Son by many and different names. Thus, they say that He is the wisdom and power of the Father, according to what Paul said: “Christ is the power and wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:24). It is also called His light and truth, according to what has been said: “Live me in Your righteousness” (Ps. 119:40), for the Father gives life in Christ to those who believe in Him. It is also called the advice of the Father, according to what was said: “You have instructed me with Your advice” (Ps. 72:24), and again: “The advice of the Lord endures forever” (Ps. 32:11). So, if the Son is all this for God and the Father, then let the adherents of Ari's delusion and the followers of his madness tell us: how can He be less than Him? After all, if it were so, as they say, then it would turn out that the Father is not completely wise, not completely strong, not completely light, not completely truth, not completely righteous, but not perfect in advice, just as the Son, being less than the Father, will not really turn out to be perfect - the Son, who is all this for Him (the Father). But it is wicked to think or say so. The Father is perfect because He has everything in Himself in a perfect manner. Perfect, therefore, obviously, is the Son, wisdom and power, light and truth, righteousness and counsel of the Father, He Who represents perfection in His Parent, how can he be thought of as less? Other. If the Son, being less than the Father and God, receives worship from us and from the holy Angels, then we will find ourselves serving two Gods, since the imperfect with the perfect cannot at all ascend to the identity of nature. Great is the difference that separates objects that are not identical in nature. But we have faith not in many gods, but one God and Father, to unity with Whom the Son and, obviously, the Holy Spirit ascend. There is, therefore, no longer any lack in the Son, for how can He allow less to be unified with the perfect Father, being by nature united with Him in the identity of essence. Other. If the Son is fullness, for “of His fullness we have received all things” (John 1:16), then how can He allow anything less? After all, opposites are not compatible with each other in one object at the same time. Other. If the Son, being less, fills everything, then where will the greater of the Father fit? It is necessary to say this by way of similarity with corporeal objects, as an example, although advantage and diminution in incorporeal objects are thought of differently. Other. If God is above every name, and the Son, being His heir, cannot be perfect because He is less, then there is nothing great in being above everything, that is, God. But it is absurd to think or speak like that. Therefore, the Son is perfect, as being above every name and God (Phil. 2:9-10). Other. If the Divine nature is not subject to quantity, 32 and less is characteristic of being found in quantities, then how can the Son, being God by nature, be conceived of as less? After all, He will not be beyond quantity, even if they say that He has less only in comparison with the Father. Other. Blessed John says of the Son that he “gives the Spirit beyond measure” (John 3:34), obviously to the worthy. If, therefore, there is no measure in the Son, then, therefore, he is immeasurable and, like God, transcends any concept of quantity. How can the Immeasurable be less? Other. If the Son is less, and the Father greater, then, obviously, in different ways and according to the measure that each has, They must act in sanctifying us. And the Father must sanctify more, and the Son less, and according to His own measure. But in this case, the Spirit will also be twofold, namely, the lesser in the Son and the greater in the Father. And those who are sanctified by the Father will be sanctified perfectly, but those who are sanctified through the Son will be imperfectly sanctified. But there is great absurdity in this thought: for there is one Holy Spirit, one and perfect sanctification, naturally given from the Father through the Son. Consequently, He who has the same action as the perfect Father and possesses the Spirit of the Parent, good by His nature, living and hypostatic, as, without a doubt, the Father, cannot be less. Other. If, according to Paul, the Son was “in the image and equality of the Father” (Phil. 2:6), then in what way is He less than Him? After all, the work of dispensation with the flesh and the humiliation called for this reason, which is going to end at His second coming from heaven, will not deprive the Son of His inherent (Divine) dignity, for “he will come,” without a doubt, as we heard Him say, “in the glory of His Father” (Mark 8:38). How is it possible that the least of Him is in the glory of the perfect Father? Other. God and the Father says somewhere through one of the prophets: “My glory I will not give to another” (Is. 48:11). Therefore, those who wickedly dishonor the Son, and through Him also the Father, for “whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father” (John 5:23), must ask: the Son, being, as they assume, less than God and the Father, is he consubstantial with Him or not? And if they say that He is of the same essence, then why in vain do they assimilate anything less to Him? After all, beings of the same essence and nature cannot at all have more in relation to themselves, that is, in reasoning about the way of being, which is what needs to be proven. But perhaps they will not agree and will not recognize the Son as consubstantial with the Father, as lesser, in their opinion: in this case He will be completely different and alien to the Father. But how does He have His glory? For “to him was given,” as blessed Daniel says, “honor and a kingdom” (Dan. 7:14). Or God and the Father turns out to be deceiving, saying: “My glory I will not give to another” (Is. 48:11). Or, if He is true, and gave His glory to the Son, then, consequently, the Son is not another, different from Him, being the fruit of His essence and genuine generation. And He Who is identical with the Father by nature, how, finally, can He be less than Him? Other simple and sketchy notes If the Father is Almighty, and likewise the Son is Almighty, then how is He less than Him? After all, the imperfect, if reasoned consistently, cannot reach the measure of the perfect. And if the Father is Lord, and likewise the Son is Lord, how is He less than Him? After all, He will not be completely free if He is less (the Father) in dominion and does not have full dignity in Himself. And if the Father is light, and likewise the Son is light, how is He less than Him? After all, He will not be completely light, but will be partially enveloped in darkness, and the Evangelist will turn out to be a liar, saying: “His darkness is not enveloped” (John 1:5). And if life is the Father, and life is likewise the Son, then how is He less than Him? After all, there will not be life in us perfectly, even if Christ dwells in the inner man, but those who believe are partly dead, if the Son is not life in a perfect way and has less (the Father). since it is appropriate to distance ourselves as far as possible from these absurdities, we say that the Son is perfect, equal to the perfect Father in identity of essence. Other. If the Son is less than the Father and therefore not consubstantial, then, consequently, He is different in nature and completely alien; So, not the Son, but not even God at all. But how is He who is not from the Father called Son, or how is He already God Who is not from God by nature? (What do those say in this case who claim that those who did not accept faith in the Son believe in the Father, but on the contrary, those who killed Him?) Since we have faith in the Son, then we, apparently, are still in error, not knowing the true God. But this is ridiculous. By believing in the Son, we believe in the Father and, of course, in the Holy Spirit. Consequently, the Son is not alien to God and the Father, as lesser, but one with Him, because from Him by nature and therefore equal and perfect. Other. If the Son is truly God the Word who has risen from God the Father, then it is absolutely necessary for opponents, even against their will, to admit that He exists from the essence of the Father; for this signifies true sonship. Then: how can such a Son be less than the Father, if He is the fruit of the essence, in no way allowing anything less in Himself? After all, in God everything is perfect. And if He is not from the essence of the Father, then, therefore, He is not the Son, but, as it were, some kind of counterfeit and falsely named one. And the Father Himself, if He should justly and truly be called Father, how could He be thought of as Father if there were not a Son by nature, for whose sake He is the Father? But this is ridiculous. God is the true Father, as all the Holy Scriptures cry out about this. Consequently, the Son is certainly from Him by nature. And if so, then no less, for he is consubstantial as the Son. Other. God does not have the name of fatherland or fatherhood from us, but we, on the contrary, find ourselves receiving it from Him. The word of Paul is true when he exclaims: “The whole family in heaven and on earth is called unworthy” (Eph. 3:15). Since God is the most ancient of all, it is obvious that by imitation and resemblance to Him we are called fathers, being created in His image. Therefore, tell me: finally, in what way are we, created in His likeness, by nature the fathers of our own children, if this is not in the original Image in which we were formed? How could one agree that the name of fatherland or fatherhood was passed on to everyone from God if He is not in reality the Father? If this were so, then the essence of the matter turns out to be completely perverted and we would rather, in our likeness, give Him the title of Father than He would give us. The heretic must necessarily agree with this reason, even involuntarily. So, the witness of the truth is deceived, saying that “the whole family is from Him, in heaven and on earth” (Eph. 3:15). But it is quite absurd to say this; for he who dares to say speaks the truth: “Or are you looking for proof whether Christ speaks in me” (2 Cor. 13:3)? The name of the fatherland passes from God to us. So, by nature He is the Father of the Word, and He gave birth, without a doubt, not unlike Himself, if He (the Son) has less than He (the Father), for we, created in His likeness, do not have such children, born of ourselves, but completely equal to us in nature. Other. Let not the heretic, varied in words, lie against the truth, not recognizing the Word of God as the Son; let him not bestow upon Him an empty honor based only on words, saying that He is not from the essence of the Father. How then is the Son, if not such by nature? Therefore: either, having taken off the mask of hypocrisy, let them openly slander, not recognizing Him as either God or Son, or let them not think that He is less than the One who gave birth, if, exposed by all the Divine Scripture and amazed by the words of the saints, they are ashamed of the truth and call Him Son and God. Can the Word, being God, have anything less than God the Father? And although He is called a man of man and is the Son, He will not be less than the Father, precisely by being a man; for a man, as a man, cannot be less or more than a man, as, for example, an Angel is an Angel, like an Angel, or anything else that exists in relation to something of the same nature and inheriting the same essence. So, if He truly is the Son, then it is necessary to say that He is from the essence of the Father and has in Himself by nature all its properties. And if the Father is God by nature, then, obviously, there is God by nature and the Word born from it (the Divine nature). How then will He be God less than God, when this being God must be identical? Other. Where, I ask, do you have the audacity to say that the Son is less than the One who begat Him? In what respect can He be less? Regarding the time of being, I believe no one will assume, not even a very big idle talker; for the Son is pre-eternal and is Himself the Creator of the ages, and rightly it should be possible to think of that which has the oldest birth of all time, not at all subject to determination by time. But quantity in relation to greatness cannot be less, for the Divine nature is conceived and exists as immeasurable in greatness, not subject to definition by quantity and incorporeal. How, then, can there be less in the Begotten? Finally - by glory, perhaps, someone will say, by strength, by wisdom. In this case, let them say: how great is the Father in this and how much of all this is in Him, if it is already necessary to say this, so that then the Son, as measured in comparison with the Father, can be thought of as lesser. And if the Father possesses benefits inaccessible to our perception and immeasurable, far exceeding the measure of our reason, then why do the Arians, who frivolously dare to do everything, call the Son lesser, to the perversion of His inherent dignity by nature? After all, the lesser turns out to be such by contrast with the greater - and, given the immeasurable dignity of the Father, what proof can there be that the Son has less? Other. It is truly possible to say with all truth about the vileness of the wicked heretics: “Those who are our fools have attacked us” (Deut. 32:31). Are they not filled with all ignorance, not knowing 33 “neither what they say nor what they affirm” (1 Tim. 1:7), as Paul says? And for what they, in our opinion, should be condemned is this: if they say that the Son is truly God, born of God the Father, and thus believe, then how is He less than the Father? After all, a great absurdity of thoughts should arise from this, completely filled with blasphemy, which others, perhaps, will refuse to even listen to. If the Son, being God by nature, has in Himself anything less, then it is necessary to think that there is something greater than God. Thus, the essence of the Father is not conceived of as perfect 34 in all respects, although it will be by nature God, but He Himself will also be subject to progress towards greater things, since in the Son, as in His image, He Himself will appear with such an essence that allows less in itself. This will turn out to be the case in relation to power, even if it has not yet happened, since the perceptive ability of everyone must, of course, perceive everything that is characteristic of it to perceive, and cannot refuse it when time demands it. But the great thing about this turns out to be blasphemy; for neither the Father can go to anything greater, nor can the Son have anything less in Himself, because He is God by nature. Therefore, the Son, being God Himself by nature, cannot allow anything less in Himself, lest, through the ignorance of the heretics, the invented word be considered a slander of the highest Essence above all. Other. If, being by nature the Son of God and the Father, the Word begotten of Him is less than Him, either in respect of the dignity due to God, or as not immutable by nature, or by any kind of minority, then this will be a slander not so much of Him as of That Essence, from Which He is, as we believe, to be, as soon as It turns out to beget less or worse in comparison with Himself, although this is not allowed even by the created and created essence, for everything that bears fruit always gives birth to something similar to itself. If they say that the Divine nature of the Father lies above all suffering, then, obviously, it must be outside the reservation in this and, as the prototype of our goods, cannot give birth to a lesser Son, but equal and consubstantial, so that God, who is so superior to us, does not turn out to be lower even than us. Otherwise – through reduction to absurdity. Showing Himself equal to God and the Father, Christ says in one place to His disciples: “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). How then, being such by nature, as He himself truly attests to this, will he have less in Himself, through the thoughtlessness of some? For if He, being the lesser, shows the Father in Himself, so that there is no difference between them, then this lesser must be attributed to the Father, as serving in a genuine way for the Son. But this is ridiculous. Therefore, no less is the Son, in whom the perfect Father is depicted. Other. And how can the Son have less than what is in the Father, if He says with all truth: “All that the Father has is Mine” (John 16:15), and again to the Father and God (turning): “All that is mine is Yours, and all that is Yours is Mine” (John 17:10)? After all, if, in the unreasonable opinion of some, the Son is really less, then since He speaks the truth to the Father: “Mine is thine and thine is mine,” this lesser will relate to the Father, and the greater in the same way to the Son, since the state of affairs turns out to be indifferent, if in each of them there is something inherent in the Other, and what belongs to the Father, then also to the Son, and vice versa, what is an inherent property of the Son, then also belongs to the Father. Therefore, nothing will prevent us from calling the Father less than the Son, and the Son greater than the Father. But it’s the height of absurdity to even think of something like that. Therefore, He is equal and no less than He who has the same benefits of 36 essence with the Father. Other - from the same. If everything that the Father has undoubtedly belongs to the Son, and in the Father there is (only) what is perfect, then the Son will also be perfect, having the properties and advantages (essences) of the Father, and therefore no less, as the heretics wickedly think. Otherwise - through reduction to absurdity, with the addition of inference. Let those who pour out an unquenchable flame on their heads and refuse to be right-thinking in Divine dogmas, inventing twists of various conclusions to deceive and destroy the inexperienced, tell us: is the Father better than the Son, as having more before Him, if (the Son) is less, as they chatter, or not? But I probably believe that they will say: better (Father). And in this case, let them answer: what will the Father find superfluous in possessing this greater 37 if He is not better? After all, if there is nothing like that at all, then every reproach against the Son (that He is less than the Father) is finally destroyed. If, on the contrary, there is very much, therefore, He (the Father) is already better, as having more, then let them answer and teach us, if they are truly wise: why did the Father, having begotten the Son, begot Him not equal to Himself, but lesser? After all, if it turned out to be better to give birth to a Son equal to Himself in everything, then who could prevent this from happening? And if there is something that necessarily prevents, then even involuntarily they will have to admit that there is something greater than the Father. If there was nothing at all preventing him, and He, having the power and knowing that it was better to give birth to an equal Son, wanted to (give birth to) a smaller one, then it turns out that there was envy and ill will in Him, for He did not want to give the Son equality with Himself. Thus: either powerless or envious in the birth (of an equal Son) the Father must turn out to be, according to reasoning compiled from inferences, if the Son has less, as they teach. But this is absurd, for the Divine and simple (uncomplicated) nature is above any lack. So, the Son is no less, so He is not deprived of equality with the Father, Who was in no way powerless to give birth to a Son equal to Himself, nor could envy be an obstacle for Him to desire the best. Other. The Savior Himself says in one place that He is in the Father, and likewise the Father is in Him (John 10:38). But, as it is, of course, obvious to everyone (this is the presence of the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father), one should not understand that just as a body is contained in a body or a vessel in a vessel, so the Father is contained in the Son, or the Son is in some (externally sensory) way placed in the Father, but the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father appear in perfect identity of essence, in the unity and likeness of nature, just as if someone, contemplating his appearance in an image and marveling brought to perfection by the resemblance of his face, he would loudly and quite truly say to someone: I am in this mark and the mark is in me. Or in another comparison - as if the quality of the sweetness of honey, being endowed with language, would say about itself: I am in honey and honey is in me; or again: if heat naturally occurring from the fire, emitting a voice, I am in the fire and the fire is in me. Each of the named objects turns out to be separated only in thinking, but one by nature, and one comes from one from a certain inseparable and continuous origin, which is why it seems to be separated from what it is in - however, although it allows such an image of mental representation of itself, one turns out to be in the other and both are essentially identical. So: if, according to the identity of essence and the most perfect likeness in reflection, the Father is in the Son, then how can the Greater in the Lesser, according to their teaching, the Son, be contained and be visible? since everything is in Him, then, of course, the Son is perfect - the Receiver of the Perfect and the Reflection of the Great Father. Against those who dare to say that there is another internal (ἐνδιάϑετος) and natural (φυσιϰός) in God and the Father “Word” and another - called in the Divine Scriptures “Son”. Such malice belongs to the Eunomians John 1:2. This (this) was in the beginning to God In these words, the Evangelist made, as it were, a kind of table of contents 38 before what had already been said. Having added “This,” he finds himself exclaiming, as it were: The Word that was in the beginning with the Father, being God from God, is this, and not another, about which we are destined to (make) a glorious work. 39 Not in vain, it seems, he added again to what was said: “This was in the beginning to God.” As he was led by the Divine Spirit to the knowledge of the future, he knew, as I think and how this can be asserted with all truth, that certain agents of destruction, the snares of the devil, the snares of death, would appear into the dwellings and to the bottom of hell, dragging those who, out of ignorance, listen to what they spew out of the heart of the evil one. They will rise up and claim on their own heads that there is another Word in God and the Father, and another 40 very similar and similar to the internal one is the Son and that Word through whom God makes everything, so that it is thought of as the Word of the Word, the image of the image and the reflection of the reflection. Therefore, as if having already heard their blasphemies and rightly rebelled against the absurd follies of their writings, the blessed Evangelist, after having already defined and, as appropriate, shown that the one and only and true from God and in God and to God is the Word, after this he adds: “This was in the beginning to God,” as the Son, obviously, to the Father, as natural 41, as from His essence, as The Only Begotten, - “This”, in the absence of the second. But since we, trying to reveal everything related to such wickedness, consider it necessary to present their blasphemy in all its nakedness, for the safety of the simple - for the one who recognizes it will be careful and jump over, as if over a snake hiding in the middle of the road; then we will necessarily have to present their opinion as if in the form of an opposition 42 - and in the future it will receive proper refutations through such evidence as the God who makes everything wise will give us. Eunomius's opinion on the son of God “The Only Begotten,” he says, “the Son of God is not in itself and in the proper sense His Word, but the inner Word of God and the Father moves in Him and always exists, and the Son who is called begotten of Him, receiving His inner Word, knows everything, having learned (through this inner Word), and in His likeness is called and is the Word” 43. Then, to confirm, as he thinks, his wickedness and perverse thoughts - and “with captives,” as it is written (Proverbs 5:22), “his sins” the unfortunate one is “laden” - he drags in this kind of conclusion: “If the Word,” he says, “in God and the Father, natural and internal, is the Son Himself, and He is consubstantial with Him who gave birth, then what prevents the Father from being and being called the Word, as consubstantial with the Word?” And again. “If the Word is the Son of God and the Father, and besides Him there is no other (Son of the Word), then through what Word,” he says, “is the Father found saying to Him: “Thou art My Son, this day I begot Thee”? Obviously, it was not without the Word that the Father had conversations with Him, since everything that is said is said, of course, in the word, and not otherwise. And the Savior Himself says in one place: “I know” the Father, “and I keep His word” (John 8:55). And again: “the word that you hear is not Mine, but the Father’s who sent Me” (John 14:24). If, therefore, the Father converses with Him through the word and He (the Savior) Himself says that he keeps the word of the Father, then again that it was not His word, but the word of the Father that the Jews heard, then shouldn’t he, he says, without any hesitation admit to everyone that the other is the Son, distinct from the internal or existing in the mental movement of the Word, of which the external Word 44 and revealing (outwardly) the essence of the Father, that is, the Son, is called partaker and fulfilled? A fool attracts this kind of evil and is not ashamed to contradict all the Divine Scriptures, revealing to himself as true what is written: “When the wicked comes into the depths of evil, he is negligent” (Prov. 18:3). And indeed, this fighter against God went very deep into evil as a result of madness, abandoning the straightforwardness of the truth and being bent by the rottenness of his reasoning; for from what follows we learn that the Only Begotten Son of God the Father is himself 45 His Word. A refutation of Eunomius’ malice follows The stupid heretic is incomprehensible, for how can “wisdom enter into an evil soul” (Wis. 1:4)? Or what, tell me, could be more evil than those who, according to what is written, turn their ears away from the truth and hastily turn to the fables of their own inventions (2 Tim. 4:4), so that those who do not speak from the Divine Scripture would rightly hear: “Discipline those who prophesy from their hearts” (Ezek. 13:3), “and not from the mouth of the Lord” (Jer. 23:16)? For who, speaking from the mouth of the Lord, “speaks anathema to Jesus” (1 Cor. 12:3)? And this is done by some, shamelessly trampling on the dogmas of piety and, as one of the holy prophets said, “corrupting all that is right” (Mic. 3:9); for they say that another is the natural and internal Word in God and the Father, and another again - called the Son and the Word - and in proof of their own, as opinions think, or rather, unbridled wickedness, they cite the words of our Lord Jesus Christ in conversations with the Jews: “I keep the Father and His Word” (John 8:55), and in addition, what was said to Him from the Father: “from the womb before the Virgin I gave birth.” Thee" (Ps. 109:3). Spewing poison from their father (the devil), they interpret it this way: if the speaker is another, different from the one with whom he is talking, and the Father talks with the Son through the word, then, therefore, another, different from Him, is the natural (internal) Word - That in Which (through Whom) the Father conducted conversations. And again: if, he says, the Son Himself has nowhere certified that He keeps the Word of the Father, then how can the one who keeps it not be different from the one being kept? But to answer against all this, I think, is not at all difficult, since the Lord “will give the word to those who bring good news with much power” (Ps. 67:12). Those who suffer from such foolishness should remember (the words) of the speaker (sage): “those who have forsaken the right path to walk in the paths of darkness” (Prov. 2:13), and we should cry out to the Master of Secrets in heaven: “Turn away your eyes, so as not to see vanity” (Ps. 119:37). And indeed, vanity and chatter, and nothing else, is their ignorant idle talk. After all, not as having in Himself any other (different from Himself) Word of the Father, the Son said that he kept the word of the Father - and did not at all claim that he came to us, bringing (with Himself) as if some kind of leader 46, but as the only Word, by nature existing in the Father and, on His part, also having the Father in Himself, without any mediation of anyone else: “Az,” he says, “in Father and Father in Me" (John 10:38), - not a natural (internal) and not any other Word, but "the Father in Me." How should we understand what He said to the Jews, someone quite legitimately asks us? To this end, let us express those truths that come to our minds. The Savior taught the disobedient people of the Jews and, little by little, distracting his listeners from the lawful worship, he often proclaimed: “I am the truth” (John 14:6), as if saying: throw off the legal yoke, accept worship in the spirit, so that the shadow may finally pass away, let the type be removed - the truth will shine. But it did not seem to everyone that He was doing the right thing, eliminating the commandments of Moses and leading to the truest (teaching), so that some already cried out: “If this man had been from God, he would not have broken the Sabbath” (John 9:16), which was a direct accusation of sin against Him who did not know him. Responding to such madness of the Jews, He speaks without any boasting and humbly and secretly wants to teach that the Son, who knew no sin, could not do anything other than what was pleasing to God and the Father, so that, speaking more clearly: “I know no sin,” he would not again incite them to stone Him; for immediately, inflamed with anger, they began to attack Him, saying: “It is characteristic of God Alone not to sin, but you, being a man, do not speak what is fitting for God alone.” They did this another time, saying that it was fair to stone Him, because, being a man, He makes Himself God (John 10:33). The Savior, secretly, as having become a man and being under the law together with those under the law, said that He kept the Word of the Father (John 8:55), saying thus: “I will by no means transgress the will of the Father - sin consists in transgressing the Divine law, and I do not know sin, being by nature God - thus teaching, I do not offend the Father.” However, let no one reproach Him who is a Lawgiver by nature, but because of His similarity with us He was the Executor of the Law. And He knows the Father, he says, not simply, like we do, only this one thing and nothing more, since there was God, but claims that from the fact that He is Himself, He understands the nature of the Father. since He knew that He who gave birth cannot be subject to change, he obviously knew that He Himself was unchangeable (as the One who was born) from the Unchangeable Father. And about something that does not know change, how could it be said that it sins in some way, and not vice versa - it invariably remains in the advantages of its nature? So, in vain is the opinion or even the accusation of the Jews who thought that the Son thinks something other than the will of the Father; for He keeps, as He says, His Word and by His very nature cannot sin, since He knows that the Father cannot tolerate this, to Whom He, as the True Son, is consubstantial. But since to object to this they also use the saying: “From the womb before the morning star I gave birth to Thee” (Ps. 109:3), then also in view of this it is appropriate for us to reveal the teaching of piety 47 . Just because the Father speaks this way to the Son, one cannot at all think that a natural (internal) Word exists in Him, and the Son must be represented as something else, different from That (internal Word). But first, let us turn our attention to the fact that the prophet, who spoke mysteries in the spirit, presents to us the face of the Son and introduces Him to those who hear from the Father: “Thou art My Son” (Ps. 2:7) and what follows. Constructed in a human-like manner, this saying does not at all force us to present two Words, but, explaining the inevitability of such a way of speech as applied to us, we with all justice must blame for this the weakness of our own nature, which has neither words nor intuitions that could accurately express the mysteries that exceed us or be able to explain with complete perfection the (incomprehensible) properties of the Divinity. We must admit that the Divine nature exceeds our mind and our word, so that speech about it (the Divine nature) must be understood not as it is said, of course, but as it befits and as it requires. And if some of the wicked heretics think that we unjustly abuse such words, and do not allow us to rise above the humanity of such sayings, then we should rightly listen (to the following): let the Father who gives birth be thought like us, so that the womb and suffering 48 at birth are not denied to Him, for He says to the Son: “From the womb I gave birth to Thee.” But perhaps quite the opposite - they will say that in the likeness with us the true birth of the Son by the Father is signified here. So let that saying be understood in a pious manner, 49 even though it is spoken humanely, and thus their tart and impious objection is resolved. That's enough, I think. But since we have suggested objections invented due to their obstinacy, as if to drive away a certain crowd of enemies with the correctness of pious dogmas, we will oppose them with refutations, offering them (dogmas) in an order corresponding to each objection (heretics), and with the strongest evidence we will arm them with the always victorious truth. In this case, again, the objection on the part of those (heretics) will be raised before the evidence refuting it, as an incentive to subject the subject to the most precise study and, like a rapidly flowing stream, captivating readers with a full desire to learn the refutation (objections). Objection or opposition on the part of heretics “If,” he says, “in God and the Father there is no other Word, consubstantial and internal, except the Only Begotten Son from Him, who, in imitation of That (internal) One, is also called the Word, then something absurd will result from this - and we, who think to think right, will need to admit that if the Word is consubstantial with the Father and the Father with the Word, then there is no longer any obstacle to the Father being and being called the Word, as consubstantial To the Word." In no way, dear ones, are we forced to think that the Father must be thought of and called the Word, or to believe the possibility of this just because He is consubstantial with the Word; for objects of the same nature, of course, should not allow themselves to be transformed into each other and accept any confusion of one with another, so that the designated objects can be reduced from a plurality into a unit or, for example, from a binary into a unit. If the forefather Adam was consubstantial with the child born from him, then therefore the father will not pass into the son and the son will also not turn into the father, but with the same essence 50 each will have his own special 51 property - and everyone born from the father must be thought of as a son, just as the parent of someone turns out to be the father. And if you consider your interpretation of this to be wise and consubstantial forces the consubstantial to be one with the consubstantial and does not allow any difference to exist, so that each exists in itself, and not in what it is in, then what forced the Judge of all not to punish the father for the son, and not to subject the son to punishment for the father? For the “soul,” he says, “that sins, shall die: the son shall not bear the sin of his father, and the father shall not bear the sin of his son” (Ezek. 18:20). So, just as the word of the Righteous Judge neither lowers the father, who is of the same essence with the son, to the place of sonship, nor raises the son to the position of fatherhood, but knows both separately, neither this turning into this, nor that turning into that, although both have one essence; then it is clear from here that nothing forces us to transform God and the Father into the being of the Word, although He is consubstantial with the Word, but, without a doubt, remains Himself, that is, the Father, although He who is born of Him is thought of and exists as the Word and therefore as the Son, so that in this way the Divinity does not appear even lower than us. Otherwise, in accordance with the objection, through reduction to absurdity As having no difference 52 with His Father, being the most accurate image and mark of His hypostasis (Heb. 1:3), the Son turns out to be saying to his disciples: “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). But if, being such, He is consubstantial with the Father, and consubstantial objects allow themselves to be mixed with each other, then nothing, apparently, will prevent the Son, as consubstantial with the Father, from being represented by the Father, and there is no obstacle for Him to pass into this, since consubstantial things can serve as a sufficient basis for such a transformation or rearrangement. Therefore, let the Son be thought of as the Father and, as such, let him say to the real Father: “From the womb before the morning star I gave birth to Thee” (Ps. 109:3), - let him take upon himself every saying generally appropriate to the Father. And as soon as this happens, then everything will be mixed up and what has always been the same, that is, the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity will ultimately be reduced into one, if on the basis of consubstantiality the inherent and special (personal) property of each (Person of the Holy Trinity) is destroyed and the identity of nature will subvert the difference of persons. But this is absurd. Consequently, the Father, as being consubstantial with the Word, cannot be the Word, but must remain unchanged, being what it is, although He has the same nature or consubstantiality with His Word. So, finally, their objection turns out to be empty. Other. If every word is the word of someone, that is, emanating from the tongue or from the heart, regurgitating and wearing it out, and the Father is the Word, since he is consubstantial with the Word, then he will already be the Word of Himself, and no one else, or does not exist at all; for how will there be a Word when there is no one to whom the Word belongs? But this is ridiculous; for the Divine and uncomplicated nature cannot at all be involved in non-existence 53, nor can the Father pass into the Word, although he is consubstantial with the Word, but remains the Father, whose Son is also the Word. Other. If we believe that the Divine nature does not allow any transformation or change in relation to its essence, then how can the Father, as if leaving His place, turn into the being of the Word? After all, He will be involved in the change, as having undergone this out of necessity, but will not be the same as having not preserved what He was from the beginning. And if this is absurd, since changeability is completely alien to the Divine nature, then the Father, therefore, cannot undergo transformation into the Word, but will always be the Father, possessing, like God, immutability and immutability. Other - from the same, interpretative 54 The only begotten Word of God and the Son, showing Himself to be the true God from the true God the Father, says: “all that the Father has, they are Mine” (John 16:15). But although the Son is the heir of all the properties inherent in the Father by nature, existing from Him by nature, he can never become the Father, for this is one of the properties inherent in the Parent, and the Son will remain, not deprived of anything inherent in the Father (by nature), although not thought of as a Father, but having in Himself in a perfect way all the properties and characteristics of the Father’s essence. Applying the same reasoning to the person of the Father, we say that He has all the properties of the nature of the Son, however, he cannot at all pass into sonship and into the being of the Word, but, as unchangeable by nature, remains what he is, so that, in addition to being God and the Father, He also exists as unchangeable, having unchangeable in Himself the Word that came from Him, that is, the Son. Other. The Lawgiver and God accused some through the holy prophets, saying: “There is no separation between the holy and the profane” (Ezek. 22:26). In reality, there turns out to be a great difference of morals between them, or even opposition among those who want to judge correctly. But if we allow the mixing of objects of the same essence with each other by nature, and if beings with their special and indivisible hypostases pass into any other being of the same genus or species; then what, in this case, distinguishes the wicked from the saints, since there is no difference between them in personal properties, but by the identity of essence one lies in the other? Then for us everything will be mixed with everything without any distinction - and the traitor Judas will be Peter or Paul, as one in essence with Peter and Paul, and Peter, in turn, or Paul will be Judas, as one in essence with him. But it makes no sense to think so, and the identity of essence cannot at all destroy the differences between beings of the same type or homogeneity. Likewise, our weakness before the Divine essence cannot at all force us to have God and the Father and be called the Word only because He is consubstantial with the Word. He always remains the Father, without any harm to the distinction of personal being from the identity of essence and without harm to the identity of essence from personality, - and in this He does not in the least prevail over the Son, on the contrary, He reveals Him to be true and has from Him by nature the immutability and immutability of the Begotten - and, since He Himself especially (personally) and only One has sonship, He does not turn into the Father, just as the Father does not turn into the Son. Another objection or opposition on the part of heretics “It is unfair,” they say, “you attack, as wrong-minded, those who say that in God and the Father there is another internal Word besides the Son, although you hear Him in the Gospel narratives clearly saying: “I know the Father and His word” (John 8:55). If He, as He Himself affirmed, kept the word of the Father, then, without a doubt, it was necessary to be different in comparison with it (the Word), since the one who keeps it must be distinguished as another in relation to the one kept.” Various decisions follow, showing clearly that the Word is the Son of God the Father If the Only Begotten Son of God and the Father Himself is not His Word, but there exists in God some other (Word) besides Him, which is called internal, then let those who hold the opposite opinion tell us: is the Word invented out of ignorance by them hypostatic or not? If they say that It exists by itself in its own hypostasis, then, without a doubt, they will have to admit the existence of two Sons. And if they say that It is not hypostatic, in the absence of any mediation and separation between the Son and the Father, then how will it be the third from the Father, and not vice versa - directly, like the Son in relation to the Father? Other, through the same contemplations Opponents assert that in God and the Father there is an internal Word, through which, according to their most absurd assumption, the Son knows the will of the Father. But how much stupidity there is in their teaching about this, it deserves consideration. We must reason about this subject in this way: the name “Father” in relation to the Son does not admit of the need for any incidental mediation, for what kind of mediation can there be from the Father to the Son or vice versa - from the Son to the Father? But if, according to their unreasonable teaching, the Son is separated from the Father by the mediating will and the inner Word, which they call the interpreter of it (the will of the Father), then the Father will no longer be completely thought of as the Father, and neither the Son as the Son, as soon as we think of both the will of God and the Word that reveals it as existing in our own hypostases. And if we assimilate to them a non-hypostatic existence, and the Son, therefore, is in God and the Father directly and inseparably, then where will the internal Word be or what meaning will 56 have, conceived as another besides the Son? Otherwise, through reduction to absurdity We believe that the Holy and Worshiped Trinity is consubstantial, even if the madness of the heretics did not want this. But consubstantial, I believe, must admit similarity to each other in everything, in relation to natural properties. If, therefore, according to the foolish teaching of some, there exists in God and the Father some other internal Word besides the Son, then the Son, of course, will have in Himself an internal Word, since He is the image of Him (the Father) and the exact outline of the hypostasis, as it is written (Heb. 1:3). And like Him the Holy Spirit will also have it, based on the same considerations. Hence the Trinity has become for us in a double form and the Divine nature appears already in addition. But this is ridiculous. In simple essences there is nothing else besides them, nothing, therefore, will prevent the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity from being united inseparably, without any mediation. Other – interpretative (from Scripture) When Divine Scripture puts names with members preceding them, then it denotes something unified, which alone in its own and true sense is what it is called. And when he does not attach a member, he makes a general indication of everything that is denoted by the name. So, for example, “many gods” are called - πολλοί ϑεοί (1 Cor. 8:5). But when spoken with the member ὁ ϑεός, it indicates only one God, true and in its own sense, while this name used simply and without a member can designate one of those named so by grace. And also ἄνϑϱωποι πολλοί - many people; but when the Savior speaks to a member of ὁ ὑιὸς τοῦ ἀνϑϱώπου - “Son of Man,” he designates Himself as chosen (and different) from thousands (all other people). With such a meaning and use of names in Divine Scripture, how, therefore, should we understand the expression: “in the beginning was the Word” - ἐν ἀϱχῆ λόγος? If this signifies every word of God as existing in the beginning, then let the proof be on their side, but we will turn out to be idle talkers. And if the Evangelist, placing a member in front (ὁ before λόγος), points to the one and proper Word, exclaiming: “in the beginning there was ὁ λόγος,” then why argue in vain, introducing another Word, only to remove the Son from the essence of the Father? Therefore, those who understand the absurdity of this must renounce the folly of those who think differently. Another, proving that it is not according to the inner Word, as those assert, that the Son is formed, but He is the image of the Father Himself If the Only Begotten Son of God, in their opinion, is and is called the Word because, receiving the inner Word of the Father, He is, as it were, formed according to Him (the Word), then why does He not say to His disciples like this: “I and the Word of the Father are one, whoever has seen Me has seen the Word of the Father”? since, bypassing everything, One likens Himself to One Father, then, in the absence of any mediation between Them in relation to similarity, the Son must be thought of as similar to the Parent Himself and to no one else except Him. Opposition from opponents “We find the Son different,” they say, “different from the inner Word of God, listening in this not to our own thoughts, but to contemplations from the Divine Scripture. In fact, what will we say when we hear the Son saying to the Father: “Glorify Your Son” - and the Father on His part answering and saying: “I will both glorify and again glorify” (John 12:28)? Should we not agree that the Father answers the Son, of course, in the Word? How else, besides the Son, should there be that (Word) through whom the Father answers Him (the Son)? Various refutations follow. The wicked heretics deserve surprise, or rather lamentation, and what is said in the Prophets should be said about them: “do not weep for the dead, but weep for him: weep with weeping” (Jer. 22:10) - about the one who thinks and says such things about the Son, for what could be sadder than to suspect the truth and authenticity of this voice of the Father, which (voice) was heard by more than one The Savior, but also the multitude of Jews standing around, even the choir of holy disciples? They should, on the contrary, imagine the inherent advantages of the Divine, and not try to subject to our laws that which is above us. The bodily voice and sound, launched into the air through the lips or published through some other instrument, strikes the hearing of the body. The will of the Father, rotating in sounds inexpressible through the voice and, as it were, in the mind, is known only by the Son who naturally exists in Him, as His wisdom. It is absolutely incredible to suppose that God uses speech through sound, if we think to preserve in the Supreme Nature properties that exceed creation. However, our Lord Jesus Christ Himself did not say that this was the very voice of God and the Father, but He does not show Himself to those in need of interpretation from someone else in order to know the will of the Father, saying: “This voice was not for My sake, but for your sake” (John 12:30). Shouldn’t you, dear ones, if you think about Him correctly, rather say this: “Have you heard the voice of the Father with Me?” Now, giving a completely opposite meaning to this, He does not say that He Himself had a need for a voice, but, on the contrary, claims that it (the voice) was for those - and was not “proclaimed” from the Father, but “was” and “for those.” And if God and the Father does everything through Him (Col. 1:16), then, without a doubt, this is also through Him, or rather, He Himself was this voice, explaining the intention of the One who gave birth not to Himself - for He knew as the Son - but to the hearing of those standing around, so that they might believe. Other. If the Son, they say, needed some kind of natural (internal) word in order to learn from him the will of God and the Father, then what will happen to Paul, who says: “Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:24)? How is it that the Son is the wisdom of the Father, if, being deprived of wisdom, he receives perfect (knowledge) from another through teaching what he obviously does not know? Or will it not be necessary to affirm that His wisdom is not perfect in the Father? And if the Son is the wisdom of the Father, then how can a will be conceived as different from Him? After all, then it will be necessary to assert that the will of God and the Father is not accomplished in wisdom. But the greatness lies in this wickedness and such reasoning turns out to be complete blasphemy. So, not as one receiving teaching from another, the Son knows the will of His Father, but Himself, being the Word, and Wisdom, and Will, “tests all things, even the deep things of God” (1 Cor. 2:10), as it is written in one place about the Spirit. Other. The Holy Scriptures present to us the Son as the “image” and “exact mark” of the Father (Heb. 1:3), and the Savior Himself in one place says: “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). But if, having such a similarity with Him, He does not know from Himself what is in Him (the Father), and in order to find out it needs, as it were, explanations from another, then the Father Himself will have to be considered the same, if He (the Father) has a similarity with the Son, but He Himself will also need an interpreter of what is unclear in the Son. And thus, in addition to the absurdities that follow from this, the Divine nature turns out to be part of our ignorance. But since it is wicked to think this way, one should turn to the godly teaching, for it turns out to be excellent and in agreement with the truth. Other. “All things,” says blessed Paul, “the Spirit searches, even the deep things of God” (1 Cor. 2:10), and besides: “Who can know anything from man that is in man, even the spirit of man that is in him? In the same way, no one knows the message of God, but the Spirit of God who is in Him” 57 (1 Cor. 2:11). Thus, the Holy Spirit, who searches everything, is (the Spirit) not only of the Father, but also of the Son, but how, finally, can He, who by nature has in Himself the Spirit who knows everything, not know anything that is in the One who gave birth? Therefore, it will be unnecessary to think that the Son recognizes the will of the Father through another, and, without a doubt, the need for the vainly mediating Word will be abolished, according to their ignorant teaching, for the Son knows everything from Himself. Other – through reduction to absurdity Those who accuse the essence of the Only Begotten, saying that He does not know the will of the Father and for knowledge uses, as it were, some kind of teacher, another Word invented by them, which they call the internal, let them tell us, if they think to maintain their opinion about this: will they assert that the internal Word exists by nature equal to the Son - for it must assume that It already exists in itself hypostatically - or unequal, but is it worse or even better? And if they recognize Him as lesser, then they will dishonor the Father Himself, for then there must be in Him something worse than Him and different from Him, that is, the inner Word. And if they do not call Him worse, but present Him to be better than the Son, then the Father will be charged in two ways for the Son: first, He will be found to have given birth to something worse than He is Himself, and then He Himself, in addition, will have a better internal Word, since the Father is consubstantial with the Son, Who, in their opinion, is lower than the Word. But our opponents must, of course, renounce both blasphemy and say that the internal Word of the Father is essentially equal to the Son. This is how the question is resolved. How, in fact, will one teach the other, as one who knows the one who does not know, if both are equal in nature? Thus, given the complete impotence of their reasoning, in the end it would turn out to be unnecessary to invent a mediator between the Father and the Son, on the contrary, it is necessary to believe that He Himself is existing in God the Father, God the Word, Who was in the beginning. Other. “In the Son,” says blessed Paul, “the treasures of all wisdom and all knowledge are hidden” (Col. 2:3). But if he says this truly, then how could we suppose Him to still need teaching from another, or in whom we will finally find the perfection of knowledge, if He who has all knowledge gains wisdom from another? And in general, can what is wise be wisdom? But since we need to listen not to their words, but to the sayings through the Spirit, the Son, as Paul says, has in Himself “treasures of wisdom and all knowledge,” then from no one else should He learn wisdom, but, being in the Father, He knows all the Father’s things as His Wisdom. That the Son is by nature the Creator together with the Father as existing from His essence, and not as a servant acceptable (for this) John 1:3. Everything came into being (through Him), and without Him it became nothing 58 Having refuted the intricately woven objections of the wicked heretics and weaved us a subtle and precise word about the Only Begotten, the blessed Evangelist moves on to another network of the devil, composed of primordial deception and bringing upon us the sting of polytheistic delusion, which “has brought down many” (Prov. 7:26) and, having invented the way of destruction and opened a wide and spacious door death, gathered a great many human souls into hell, provided the devil with, as it were, abundant food, and brought him “food” to the “chosen ones” (Hab. 1:16). since the children of the Hellenes, studying the wisdom of the world and abundantly introducing into their minds the spirit of the prince of this age, were carried away into polytheistic error and turned away from the beauty of truth - some, like those walking in blindness and darkness, were cast into a pit from their own ignorance, serving soulless idols and a tree saying: “Thou art my 59 God,” and to a stone: “Thou hast begotten me” ( Jer. 2:27), and others, although also falling into related errors, but indulging in a more subtle error, thought that they should serve “the creature instead of the Creator” (Rom. 1:25), and only the Divine nature gave due glory to the elements created by it; then the Theologian considered it necessary to point us to the Only Begotten as the Creator and Creator by nature, saying that “all things were through Him, and without.” “Nothing” passed into being, in order to block their deceptions from further progress and to show the ignorant the Creator of all beings - and through what the creature calls created, through this very clearly teach that the other is different from it - the One who calls to being and with ineffable power transfers from the non-existent the existing to the being. After all, in this way it was already possible, from the beauty of creatures, to respectively contemplate the Artist and to know the true God, through Whom everything has already happened, and what has happened is preserved. It is this Gospel teaching that I consider necessary to set forth against the false teachings of the Hellenes, and for this very reason, we think, by the holy voice (of the Evangelist) the Only Begotten was introduced as Creator and Maker. Since we should also keep in mind the false interpretations of heretics, I consider it necessary to say a little again against those under their influence. “Everything,” he says, “came into being through Him, and without Him nothing came to be.” And this dignity inherent in the Divinity is appropriated by the Son, showing Him in all respects to be consubstantial with the Parent God and saying that everything inherent in Him (the Father) by nature is also in the Son, so that He (the Son) is thought of as God from God in truth, and not, like us, having an acquired title and bestowed on us by grace alone, according to what was said: “Az rekh: you are God and son of the Most High all" (Ps. 82:6). After all, if “all things were made through Him,” then He Himself must be different from everything, for in the word “all” there is nothing that is not contained in everything, as, no doubt, Blessed Paul understood the word “all.” Thus, in one of the Epistles, speaking about our Savior and saying that everything is put under His feet, he very well adds: “for having said 61 “all things,” he left nothing not subject to Him” (Heb. 2:8). So, since we believe that everything came into being through the Son, we should not think that He Himself is one of all, but we will consider Him to lie outside everything and, separating Him from the nature and homogeneity of created beings, we must confess that He is finally nothing else than God from God by nature. In fact, what kind of gap could be allowed between God and creation - I mean not in relation to essence, for in this respect the gap is enormous, but based solely on the mental representation of something else that exists? 62 Or what other place will the Son have, surpassing the nature of creatures, even more - Himself being the Creator? After all, everything happened through Him, as through the power, as through the wisdom of God and the Father, not hidden in the nature of the One who gave birth, as, for example, the wisdom and power inherent in man are hidden, but existing separately and in itself (hypostatically) and, moreover, however, originating from the Father in the ineffable manner of birth, so that the power and wisdom of the Father were understood as the truly existing Son. But if the blessed Evangelist says that everything “through Him” happened, then this expression (δί αὐτοῦ), I believe, will not do any harm to the true teaching about Him. After all, if it is said that what exists came into being “through Him,” then therefore the Son, of course, will not at all be presented to us as a servant or executor of someone else’s will, so that he can no longer be thought of as the existing Creator by nature, or as receiving the power from someone else to create creation, but on the contrary, Himself and Alone being by the Power of God and the Father as the Son, as the Only Begotten, makes everything, with the assistance, obviously, and co-presence To him the Father and the Holy Spirit, for all things are from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. And the Father is co-present with the Son, we think, not as powerless to create anything that exists, but as wholly existing in Him (the Son) by the identity of essence and by His immediate proximity to what came from Him by nature - just as, for example, we can say that the fragrance of a flower is co-present by the action of the fragrance and the flower itself, since it comes from it by nature. But in these objects, example has, of course, only a small significance, while the Supreme Nature must be above even this comparison, allowing from it (for comparison with itself) only small features of contemplation. Otherwise, how will we understand the saying: “My Father is working hitherto, and I am working” (John 5:17)? After all, the Son says that God and the Father do not separately and by Himself do anything regarding what exists; in the same way, He Himself, says, does it without the Father and with the indifference, so to speak, of the essence from which He exists. In that case, there would, of course, be two, and not one Creator, as each of the two does separately. And besides, it will be possible to admit that the Father might not always have the Son in Himself, and the Son, in the same way, will not always have the Father in Himself, if it is entirely possible for each of them to act in relation to something that exists separately and separately, as we have already said before - and the Son, of course, will turn out to have said untruthfully: “I am in the Father and the Father in Me” (John 10:38). Of course, not only by the likeness of the essence, as a mark, we must contemplate the Son in the Father or vice versa - the Father in the Son as a prototype, but we must accept as the Son, from the essence of the Father through the birth of the One who shone forth and as in it and from it personally existing and as the self-hypostatic God of the Word - also (we must imagine) the Father in the Son, as in a consubstantial generation, co-naturally, and for the sole reason that why He is and is thought of as different (namely as the Father), that is, separately. The Father remains precisely what He is (the Father), although He exists co-naturally in the Son, just as the sun, we say, exists in a reflection. Likewise, the Son cannot be thought of as anything other than what He is (the Son), although He exists co-naturally in the Father, just as his reflection is in the sun. Thus, since the Father is and is thought of as truly the Father and the Son is also and is thought of as the Son, obviously together with the Holy Spirit, then therefore the number of the Holy Trinity goes back to the same Divinity. Otherwise, how could it be at all possible to think that God exists alone, if each of the persons of the Holy Trinity stands out in the most perfect individuality and, completely separated from the co-nature with another person and the unity of essence, can be called God? So, in relation to the self-hypostaticity of being, we must distinguish between the Father, the Son and the Spirit, without confusing the differences in the persons and names of Each, but preserving for each to be specially and be called what He is, and thus believing - but at the same time raising them to the unity of the Divinity by nature and refusing to imagine their existence as completely different, since the Son is called the Word, wisdom, reflection, mark and power of the Father (1 Cor. 1 and Heb. 1:3). It is called Word and Wisdom because He is from the mind and in the mind directly and inseparably, and because, so to speak, the penetration of the mind, wisdom and word into each other, for the mind in the word and wisdom and the word in the mind are mutually revealed, without any mediation or separation between each other. Power is again (called), since it is inseparably present in those who by their nature have it, and cannot at all be separated from them, as if as a random accessory, without destroying the object possessing it. It is also called a mark because it is always co-natural and cannot be separated from the essence of which it is a mark. So, since one exists in the other naturally and necessarily, then when the Father acts, the Son obviously also acts, as His power is natural, essential and hypostatically existing. In exactly the same way, when the Son acts, the Father also acts, as the source of the Creative Word, inherent naturally in His Own Generation, just as fire is present in the heat emanating from it. It is obvious from this that the accusation of opponents against the Son turns out to be futile, representing Him to us as the Creator according to teaching 63, moreover, even as a servant, based on the words of the blessed Evangelist: “all things came into being through Him, and without Him nothing came into being.” It is the wicked heretics who are surprised at me, and very much so. Everything that, in their opinion, supposedly reduces the dignity of the Only Begotten and reveals Him to be second in dignity and inferior to the Parent; in accordance with their goal, they grab onto everything with great zeal and collect the drugs of their rigidity from everywhere. On the contrary, everything that is said soundly and rightly and exalts the Son to the glory of the Father, they cover everything with very deep silence, thus having only the one and only goal of subjecting the Son, glorified by all creation, to vain reproach. Thus, hearing the words that “all things happened through Him,” they willingly attach to Him the name of service, dreaming of the Son as a slave instead of a free man and a servant instead of a ruler. On the contrary, learning that “without Him nothing happened,” they do not ascend to any great and wonderful idea about Him, and meanwhile, since God and the Father is not in the habit of creating otherwise than through His own Son, who is His wisdom and power, the Evangelist says that absolutely nothing happened without Him. Therefore, the Only Begotten is also the glory of God and the Father, for, as the Creator, He is glorified through the Son, accomplishing everything (through Him) and bringing non-existent things into being. You can understand this “without Him there was nothing” even better if you carefully consider what was said at the creation of man: “Let us make man,” he says, “in our image and likeness” (Gen. 1:26). In this saying, one can clearly see that there is nothing humiliating in the Son, as in a servant, according to their teaching; for God and the Father does not command the Word: “Create man,” but as co-existent by nature and as an inseparably co-existing co-worker, He made Him an accomplice of His intentions for man, not preceded by any reflection on the knowledge of the Son, 64 but as the mind is detached inseparably and timelessly by the inscribed and co-existent Word. However, in relation to the Divine, this reasoning can again be applied in a meaning that exceeds this comparison. And the Father does with His Son, we affirm, not as two thinking separately, so that we mean not two gods, and not as one and the other are one, so that neither the Son into the Father, nor the Father into the Son is reduced, but, on the contrary, exactly in the same way as, it can be recognized, the reflection from the light is co-present with the light from which it (the reflection) is emitted. Here, in our mental image, it seems that what gives birth is, as it were, separate from what is born and what happens, inseparably, but both are one and the same by nature and one does not exist without the other. But God again must be higher than this, since He is even super-existent, and among created objects there is not a single one completely similar to Him, so that something could be taken as a completely accurate image of the Holy Trinity, according to the exact teaching of dogmas. If they think that the expression δι’ οὗ - “through Him”, used about the Son (“everything “through Him” came into being”), places His essence below equality with the Father and natural likeness, so that He is rather a servant than the Creator, then let the foolish consider it and give us an answer: what should we think about the Father Himself and how we will represent Him when the Holy Scripture uses Him as well? also δι’ οὗ – “through Him”? Thus it is said: “God is faithful, “through whom” (δι’ οὗ) you were called into the fellowship of His Son” (1 Cor. 1:9), and: “Paul is an apostle of Jesus Christ “through the will” (διὰ ϑελήματος) of God” (2 Cor. 1 and Eph. 1:1), and to some others Paul writes in the Epistle: “The same now shall a servant bear, but a son: if he be a son, and an heir through God” (διὰ Θεοῦ – Gal.4:7) 65 . All this is said in relation to the person of God and the Father, and no one, of course, will reach such madness, unless he is like-minded with the previously named (heretics), to decide to assert that even the glory of God itself, both in name and in fact, is subject to service, as soon as this “through him - τὸ δι̕ οὗ” is applied to Him (God). Holy Scripture sometimes uses expressions indifferently, without harming the subject at all, but applies expressions to the designated objects as if in application and such, through which it wants to understand the subject in the best possible way. However, it is also useful to say that “the glory of the Lord covers the word” (Proverbs 25:2), for all the power of words is small for an accurate explanation of the ineffable and divine glory. Therefore, we should not be tempted by the smallness of words, but we should recognize that the Divine and ineffable Nature exceeds both the power of the tongue and the acuity of any mind - and thus we will not fall into wickedness. That life is by nature the Son, and therefore not created, but from the essence of God and the Father John 1:3–4. Before long, in Tom's life 66 The blessed Evangelist continues to speak to us about God the Word. And it seems to me that he beneficially concerns everything that is inherent in Him by nature, in order to put to shame the fury of those who think differently, and those who want to adorn themselves with the right faith to strengthen it with contemplations - not those who make up improbabilities from the “words of wisdom” of the world, but those who reverently contemplate the beauty of the truth “in the manifestation of the Spirit” (1 Cor. 2:4). And what exactly he wants to teach in the above saying is this. In the previous saying, he showed us the Son as the creator and by nature the creator, saying that everything came into being through Him and without Him nothing was called into being. since it not only gives the creature a calling to existence, but also contains what has happened through Himself, as if mixing, so to speak, Himself with that which does not by its nature have eternal existence, and becoming life for what exists, so that what has happened remains and remains within the limits of its nature; then he considers it necessary to say: “what happened was life in Him.” Not only does he say: “through Him all things came into being,” but if anything “came into being,” then “there was life in Him,” 67 that is, the Only Begotten Word of God, the beginning and creation 68 of everything visible and invisible, in heaven and on earth and under the earth (Phil. 2:10; cf. Col. 1:16). Himself being life by nature, He bestows being and life and movement on creatures in various ways (cf. Acts 17:28), not by means of any division or change entering into each of the beings that are different in nature, but the creation itself is diversified by the ineffable wisdom and power of the Creator - and one life of all, entering into each being (created), as much as it is due and as much as it can perceive. since what is transferred from non-existence to being must be destroyed and everything that has a beginning tends to an end - it is characteristic of the Divine and All-Supreme Nature alone not to begin from any beginning, and to exist endlessly, then the Creator in some way bypasses the weakness in created beings and artificially, as it were, arranges eternity for them. After all, the constant succession of each of the similar creatures and the natural transitions into each other of beings of the same type and homogeneity, always striving for a further (continuous) flow, make creation always obvious and preserve the Creator God always existing. This means that each of the creatures sows a seed within itself according to its kind and likeness, as the Creator ineffably commanded (Gen. 1:11–12). So “there was” “life” in everything, which is what the interpreted saying means. But, my dear, you can again say to the heretic who is fighting with the truth: what will you say against this when you hear the Spirit-Bearer saying that in all created beings “there was Life,” that is, the Word, which “was in the beginning”? Do you really even now dare to say that the Son is not from the essence of God the Father, so as to be understood as having come into existence and being created? And is it possible not to cry out against your ignorance, and, moreover, with all justice? After all, if the Word was in creatures, as life by nature, mixing Itself into (created) beings through communion, then, consequently, It is something else, different from that in which It is recognized as present. But who is by nature other than what the creature is, how can He not be God who exceeds it? If you remain in your shamelessness and do not stop thinking that the Son is created, existing in creatures as life, then, firstly, He will be thought of as existing in Himself and in Himself, and then, at the same time, as participating in Himself and as life, just as, being in creatures, He Himself is considered one of them. But the adversary himself will see, without a doubt, how foolish it is to think like that. So, if the life-giving Word participates in creatures, then It Himself should not be among those with whom it participates, but obviously there is another, different from those (creatures). And if so, then it is not created, but, as life by nature, (is present) in them. We will also understand this through the following reasoning. Reasoning or inference If the Son is not from the essence of God and the Father, but He (God) placed Him, according to their teaching, outside (Himself), then, consequently, He came into existence and was created. But in this case, how can he who is among creatures give life to everything? What superiority then (over creatures) will we find in the Divine nature? Or how could the wisest Paul say something amazing about God by nature, that He gives life to all things (1 Tim. 6:13)? After all, if the Son, being created, vivifies everything, then the creature vivifies itself, without at all needing for this the God who created it. And therefore, in God there is nothing greater than creation, for it acts no less than God could. But this is ridiculous. Therefore, the Son is not created, but, on the contrary, God (He is) and therefore is life by nature. Other. The Psalmist is overly amazed, and quite rightly, at the Divine nature and assimilates the most incomparable dignity to it, saying: “As you have the source of life” (Ps. 35:10). But if the Father created the Son and does not have Him from His essence, and yet He (the Son) gives life to creatures and, as the Life-Giver, is life by nature, then why does the Psalmist still strain himself, saying that God alone has a source life? After all, the nature of creatures allows the same thing, if the Son gives life, although not being the Divine essence, according to the foolish teaching of some. But this is absurd. Therefore, the Son is life by nature, as God from God and life from life. Other. If the Son, being life by nature, is created and created, as not having, according to the assumption of those heretics, being from the essence of God and the Father, then the nature of creatures will allow for itself the possibility of being and being called life. But then everything will be life in relation to at least the possibility, if it does not yet have this in reality, since what any being is born to be, so, without a doubt, it should be, even if it has not yet been, for it has in its nature the possibility (power) for this. When, therefore, “being life” is the common property of the creature, and by no means the property of just one person, then why does the Son in vain magnify Himself, saying: “I am life” (John 14:6)? After all, He should rather have said this: “I am (together with) life with you.” This would, of course, be truer if He, being truly created, is at the same time life. since He assimilates “to be life” to Himself alone, as His own good, it is finally obvious that He places Himself not among creatures, but in the Divine essence of the Father, to Which “to be life” belongs by nature. Other. That which participates in life is not itself life in the proper sense, for it turns out to be something else that exists in Him. If therefore the Son, as life, is given to creatures, then He must be different, different from what participates in Him and needs life. Thus, He is not created and does not require life from another. Therefore, in the end, He must be God as the Life-Giver. And if so, then it must be recognized from the essence of the Father, if we worship the one God and serve no one else other than Jehovah. Other. By accurately examining the nature of what exists, we find only God and creation, and nothing else besides this. What is outside the existence of God by nature is, of course, created. And what is not part of creation, then, without a doubt, belongs to the Divinity. After we have considered all this properly, let those who deprive the Son of the essence of God and the Father tell us: how could He give life as life, if this very property has (only) the Divine nature, which does not allow it (else) in anything else? And if, being created, it can also be life, then the grace of this advantage must, of course, extend to all creatures, and then everything will be life by nature. But in this case, what need will they have for the communion of the Son, or what advantage will they gain from this? After all, they themselves have this property of being life by nature. But such reasoning is not true; as being in need of life, the creation must participate in the Son. Consequently, the Only Begotten is life by nature and therefore does not stand among creatures, but ascends to the nature of Him who begat Him, for the Father also is life by nature. Other. The Son, being life by nature, is either distinct from creation, obviously by nature, or of one nature with it. If He is of the same nature and consubstantial with her, then will He not turn out to be uttering a lie when He says: “I am the bread of life, come down from heaven and give life to the world” (John 6:48, 33)? After all, a creature can already be life in itself - and life does not have to be a part of life in order to turn out to be life. If he is not of the same nature, then he cannot be created, taking away from creation his own property (to be life by nature); for a creature cannot be life by nature, but, on the contrary, it needs life and (only) participates in it. Other. If the Son, being life by nature, is of one nature with creatures, then just as He, according to the teachings of the heretics, is not from the essence of God and the Father, then why does the blessed Psalmist say that “the heavens will perish and wear out like a garment,” but He assimilated His special advantage, exclaiming like this: “But you are the same, and your years will not fail” (Ps. 101:28; Hebrews 1:12)? Either he will perish and become impoverished with us as one of one nature, and should no longer be conceivable with life, or the natural union with Him should attract us to an eternal and unchanging existence, to an inexhaustible number of years and to being life. But He is eternal and unchangeable, but we will become impoverished, therefore, He is not created like us, but if He is from life by nature, 70 then He Himself, as life, must revive those who need life. Other. If nothing participates in itself, and yet creation participates in the Son as life; then, therefore, He Himself is not a creature, but neither is creation the life that the Son is. Other. If there is another to give life and another to be given life, like action and suffering, then the Son gives life, and the creature is given life; then, therefore, the Son and the creature are not the same thing, since that which acts is not identical with that which is acted. That the Son is Light by nature, and therefore not created, but from the essence of God and the Father, as true Light from true Light John 1:4. And the belly is a light man And in these words, the blessed Evangelist introduces us to the Son as God by nature and essence, 71 heir of the blessings of Him who gave birth. Having previously taught that He, as life by nature, was in everything that happened through Him, containing it, and life-giving, and with indescribable power, granting the transition from non-existence to being, and preserving what happened, He now turns to a different structure of thoughts, taking care everywhere, as much as necessary, to guide us to the perception of the truth. So, the Word dwelt in creatures as life, since man among them on earth is such a living being 72, which is rational and verbal, possesses intelligence and knowledge and partakes of Divine wisdom, then the Spirit-Bearer considers it necessary to clearly show us the Word as the Giver of wisdom in people, so that God and the Father can be understood through the Son as being all in all (1 Cor. 15:28), as life in those who need life, as light again and life in those in need of life and light. And therefore he says: “and life was the light of men,” that is, God the Word, who gives life to everything, life in all beings, illuminates the rational-verbal living being and generously bestows understanding on those capable of understanding, so that what is said to the creature may be preserved and have power: “For what have you that you have not received” (1 Cor. 4:7)? After all, created and created nature itself does not possess anything, but even if it turned out to have something, then this, of course, is from God, who gives both being and “how” 73 every creature should be. Well, again, with the word life, he uses the verb “be - ἦν” in order to everywhere designate the eternal existence of the Word and to stop the chatter of madmen, presenting to us the Son from non-existence (brought into being), which turns out to be contrary to all Divine Scripture. But we have already discussed sufficiently about the eternity of the Word with the Father, both in the present book and in the work called “Treasury” 74 - and now, we think, there should be silence about this. On the contrary, we will try to gain benefit both for ourselves and for subsequent readers, with the help of God, who opens both the door and the mouth for reasoning. So, what will the Christ-fighter tell us again, having learned that “life was the light of men,” that is, the ever-living God the Word? What reasoning will reflect us when we present the following evidence? If the Son is not God by nature and not the fruit of the essence of Him who gave birth, if the true Light did not shine for us from the true Light, but He also stands outside (the Divine essence), according to your ignorant teaching, then, consequently, He is of the same nature with creatures and will in no way escape being created. How, O filled with all madness, does He illuminate, and they (creatures) are illuminated by Him? Isn't there one that illuminates, and the other that is illuminated? But it is obvious and clear to everyone: if we recognize the same in relation to both the quality of essence and the way of being, then what more will be illuminated in the Mighty; and vice versa: what less will be in those who need light? Both will apply to both together and to each separately: and that which needs light will be light, and the light will not be distinguished from what is illuminated. But this turns out to be a big confusion of concepts, and common sense forces us to separate each of the two named concepts and for what is being served to assimilate its own special nature, different from what is being served. Consequently, the Son is not of one nature with creatures, but must have the essence of the Father, being the true Light from the true Light. It is not difficult, of course, to apply here our previous reasoning, in which we proved that the Son is life by nature and that He is different from that in which He dwells, and thus reveal in this chapter the proper understanding of the subject. But in order not to leave this work to others and not to seem overwhelmed by laziness, I myself will again try to apply here the image of previous conclusions. Just as there, being life by nature, He is different, different from what He “was - ἦν” 75, so here, called “the light of men” and really being it, He will turn out to be different, different from what needs light and participates in it. From what follows we learn this in the most precise way. Proof by inference that the illuminating Son is different in nature from the illuminated creature If in the saying under consideration the Word is depicted as light by nature, communicating Himself to beings through the sacrament, then He must therefore be recognized as different from what He is. And the One who by nature is different from what is the participatory and sanctified creation of Him - isn’t this already the God who exceeds all? Other. If the opponent of God says that the Son, being Light by nature, as a created being, is among creatures, illuminating what is in need of light, then, firstly, He must be conceived as existing in Himself, and then, in addition, will be a participant in Himself and light, just as it must be assumed that He Himself, being in creatures, is one of them. But “he who is trained 76 in wisdom” (Ps. 89:12), as it is written, undoubtedly sees how much absurdity such an opinion contains. So, if through communion the Word illuminating them is present in creatures, then It Itself will no longer be among those who participate and are illuminated, but is obviously different from them. And if so, then, therefore, it is not created, but (is present) as light by nature and the God of those who need light. Other. If the Son is not from the essence of God and the Father, but God placed Him, as they teach, outside Himself, then, consequently, He is created and created. But how can there be among creatures the One who illuminates them? What advantage, then, will we find in the Divine nature? Or how does the wisest Psalmist say, as something most wonderful, about God by nature: “in Your light we will see light” (Ps. 35:10)? After all, if the Son, being created, illuminates everything, then creation will illuminate itself, without at all needing for this the God who created it. Consequently, there will be nothing greater in God before creation, and it will act no less than God can. But this is absurd, therefore the Son is not created, but, on the contrary, (is) God and therefore light by nature, like the Father. Other - from the same. If the Son, being the light of God and the Father, according to what was said: “in Your light we will see light” (Ps. 35:10) and: “Let Thy light and Thy truth” (Ps. 42:3) be created and brought into existence 77, then nothing will prevent, according to exactly the same similarity 78, calling all created things the light of God and the Father. After all, if the nature of created beings fully allows this, then this will be a common possibility for all, and not a property of the Son alone. But this is absurd, for it is fitting for the Son alone to be called and to be the light of God and the Father. Consequently, He is not created, but is Light, as God from God, illuminating through Him that which needs light. Other. If the Son, being Light by nature, is not from the essence of the Father, but received existence from the outside, according to the ignorant teaching of opponents of God, then, consequently, He is of one nature with creatures and is a brother, as standing outside the Divine essence. But in this case, how is He called and is Light, while about the holy Baptist it is said: “there shall be no light” (John 1:8), although the blessed Baptist can (according to their teaching) be light, and not only how soon is it possible for the created Son to be Light by nature? After all, what is once put into nature must, without a doubt, be common to everything involved in it, as the consistency of thinking requires. But in fact, John is not light, but Light is the Son; therefore, He is different in nature and not of the same nature as creatures. Other - from the same. If the Son, being Light by nature, is created and created, as having no existence from the essence of God and the Father, according to the assumption of some, then the nature of creatures will have to allow for the possibility of being and being called light. But then everything will be light in possibility, for whatever it is innate for a known being to be, that, without a doubt, it must be, even if it has not yet been. If, therefore, being light is a general property of the nature of creatures, and not an exclusive property of any one creature, then why does the Son in vain magnify himself, saying about Himself: “I am light” (John 8:12, 9:5, 12:46)? After all, He should rather have said: “I am (together with) the light with you.” since He assimilates this as His own good, to Himself alone, without yet admitting any of the others, it is finally obvious that He places Himself not in the ranks of creatures, but in the Divine essence of the Father, To which by nature the being of light also belongs. Other. That which participates in light is not itself light in the proper sense; for something that exists in another turns out to be another 79 . If, therefore, the Son, as Light, is communicated to creatures, then He must be distinguished from Him who participates in Him and needs the light. Therefore, he is not created and has no need, like creatures, to be illuminated by another, and therefore, in the end, there is God and can illuminate. If so, then it must be thought that we are born from the essence of the Father, how soon we worship the One God and serve no one else other than Jehovah. Other. By accurately examining the nature of everything that exists, we find only God and creation, and nothing else besides this. What stands outside the being of God by nature is, of course, created. And what is not part of creation, then, without a doubt, belongs to the Divine. When we have thought about all this in the best possible way, we can ask those who deprive the Son of the essence of God and the Father: how could He illuminate like light, if this very property is possessed (alone) by the Divine nature, which does not allow it in anything else? If the Son, being created, can also be light, then the gift of this advantage will, of course, extend to all creatures, and everything will be light by nature. But in this case, what need will they (the creatures) have for communion with the Son, or what advantage will they find in this, if they themselves, by their nature, can be light, which, without a doubt, the Son is in them? 80 But the creature needs an illuminator, not having it in itself. Consequently, God by nature is the Son and therefore is light, as being able to illuminate what needs light. Other. The Son, being light by nature, either differs from creation, obviously in essence, or is of one nature with it. If He is of the same nature and consubstantial, then in vain, one might think in this case, He addressed us with the words: “I have come into the world as light” (John 12:46); for creation in itself can already be light, and yet light must not be involved in light in order to be thought of as light. And if He is not of the same nature, the creature needs light, hearing: “What you have, what you have not received” (1 Cor. 4:7), then, of necessity, the Son can no longer be created, attracting to Himself from the creation His own property (to be light by nature), for a creature cannot be light by nature, on the contrary, it needs light and only participates in it. Other. If nothing is a partaker of itself, and yet the creature is a partaker of the Son as Light, then, consequently, He Himself is not a creature, but neither is the creature the Light that the Son is. Other. If there is something to illuminate, and another to be illuminated, like action and suffering - and the Son illuminates, and the creature is illuminated, then, consequently, the Son and the creature are not the same, since the active is not the same as the active. John 1:5. And the light shines in the darkness 81, and the darkness does not embrace it 82 And through these words the wise Evangelist hastens to explain to us the contemplation contained in the preceding words. For a true understanding regarding God the Word, that He is truly the light of men, he considered it insufficient for listeners to hear these words alone: “and life was the light of men,” for it was necessary (to foresee) that there would appear some who, without proper study, would assimilate these words and would try to spread and teach others that although the Word of God is truly light, He is not the giver of light to everyone, but only to those whom He Himself desires, testing those who deserve it and worthy to accept such a high gift. The nature of other rational creatures either, as if from its own seeds, collects the power of understanding, or God and the Father puts mind and meaning into it, as if the Son were not able to do this. So that in this way God the Word Himself clearly appeared as the One who was in God and the Father and the life and light not only of some part of creatures, and others are not, but, according to some ineffable way of communion, as wisdom and reason - which in rational beings is called light - communicating Himself to all creatures in general, so that rational beings had reason and were capable of thinking had thinking, being unable to be such in any other way; He considers it necessary to say that “the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.” With great precision, he exclaims to his listeners something like this: I said, dear ones, willingly teaching you the truth that life was the light of men, not so that any of these predominantly words would conclude that only those who turn out to be righteous and good receive illumination from Him as a reward, but so that you learn again that how the Word is life in all creatures, it is obvious, since it animates the capable to life, in the same way there is It and the light in them, since He reveals that it is capable of understanding and reflection by what it is. After all, God and the Father is all in all through the Son in the Spirit (1 Cor. 15:28). Darkness is the name given to nature in need of illumination, that is, created in general. After he called Him light, indicating that the rational creature is different from Him, as needing Him and participating in Him, he turns the meaning of what is designated to the opposite 83, in our understanding, not without a purpose, but, without a doubt, had in his mind the thought that the nature of creatures, which does not exude anything at all from itself, but absolutely everything, both being and well-being, receiving from the Creator, rightly hears: “that do you have what you did not receive” (1 Cor. 4:7)? And since, in addition to everything else, she obviously receives the very light God-given, as if she does not have it, and light does not come from itself, then how can she not be the opposite (of light)? Or shouldn't it be called "darkness"? Convincing, even more so, absolutely necessary proof that creation is darkness, and God’s Word, on the contrary, is light, is this “light shines in darkness.” After all, if the nature of creatures receives God's Word through communion, as light or as from light, then, obviously, it itself receives as darkness. The Son shines in her like light in darkness, although darkness knows no light at all. This, I think, means: “the darkness did not overcome him.” The Word of God shines on everyone capable of illumination and illuminates in general everything that has a nature capable of illumination; but It is not known by darkness, for the rational nature existing on earth, that is, man, once served “the creature instead of the Creator” (Rom. 1:25). So, (man) “did not perceive the light,” that is, he did not recognize the Creator, the source of wisdom, the beginning of reason and the root of thinking. However, according to the love of man (God), creatures have light and, along with their transition into existence, they bring with them the power of reason, as it were, cast into them. Again, here it should be noted that no reason allows us to consider the Son of God to be created or created, but (in this regard) He is completely removed from us and surpasses the nature of creatures, being completely different from what they are, and far removed (from them) in the quality of essence, just as, without a doubt, light is not the same with darkness, but is even opposite (to it) and separated (from it) by an incompatible difference of a completely different nature. But having already given sufficient reasoning about this in our previous studies, we will add the rest of the following later. John 1:6–7. There was a man sent from God, his name was John: this one came as a testimony, that he may testify of the Light 86 In the preceding words, having carefully expounded the doctrine of God the Word and precisely revealed that by which He is by nature the Son of God the Father, He now tries to give evidence to His words from witnesses. Since, according to what was said from God through Moses: “By the mouth of two and three witnesses every word will stand” (Deut. 19:15; cf. Matt. 18:16), it is prudent to attract the blessed Baptist to himself and bring a truly reliable witness. He did not consider it necessary, even though he was a very respectable person, to demand faith beyond the law from the readers of his writings about our Savior and to believe him only in the narration of subjects that exceed our mind and understanding. So, the blessed Evangelist himself testifies that “there was the Word in the beginning, and God was the Word, and there was in the beginning to God,” and that “all things came into being through Him,” and It was in creatures as life, and that “the light of men was life,” in order through all this to show that the Son is God by nature. The divine Baptist also testifies in agreement with him, crying: “Prepare the way of the Lord, make right the paths of our God” (Matthew 3:3; Mark 1:3; John 1 and Isaiah 40:3). After all, everyone will say that the true God is the One in Whom by nature the dignity of “lordship” is present, 87 and in no one else it can be present in its own and true sense, as soon as “we have one God and Father and one Lord Jesus Christ,” according to the words of Paul, “and if many are called gods by grace and lords, both in heaven and on earth, but one true God is with the Father, the Son” (1 Cor. 8:6, 5). So, here is the most venerable pair of holy witnesses, and the faith of what is said (by them) should not at all be suspected, since it is completed both by the testimony of the law and is confirmed by the fame of the persons (witnesses). After all, it was truly difficult for the blessed Evangelist to say anything about himself and touch on his own merits, and, indeed, it was not prudent, for, of course, he could rightly hear: “You testify about yourself, and your testimony is not true” (John 8:13). Therefore, he leaves it to those who know him to judge him, and he himself turns to the name of the same name 88, doing this very beautifully, and says that he was “sent” “from God.” Indeed, it was appropriate to show that the holy Baptist does not arbitrarily and not out of self-proclaimed zeal begin to testify about our Savior, but obeys the highest decrees and serves the Divine will of the Father. Therefore he says: “There was a man sent from God, his name was John.” One should pay attention to how true, precise and corresponding to the nature of each of the designated objects he used the expression. Thus, about God the Word everywhere he consistently uses “be – ἦν”, meaning His eternity and eldership before every temporal beginning, not allowing Him to be considered created; for what always exists can it be thought of and happened? And about the blessed Baptist he appropriately says: “there was a man sent from God” - as about a person having a created nature. And quite correctly and accurately, as it seems to me, the Evangelist says here not just “appeared,” but by adding the word “man” he refutes the reckless assumption of some. A rumor had already spread among many (at that time), saying that the holy Baptist was in fact not a man by nature, but one of the holy Angels in heaven, who took advantage of a human body and was sent to preach from God. As a pretext for such an opinion of them about him, they also invent what God said: “Behold, I will send My angel before You, who will prepare Your way before You” (Mal.3:1; Matt.11:10; Mark 1:2; Luke 7:27). But those who think so are swept away from the truth, not realizing that the name “Angel” denotes service rather than essence, just as, without a doubt, in the story of blessed Job, “Angels” (messengers) come running one after another, reporting on various misfortunes and being the ministers of those most terrible troubles (Job 1ff.). The wisest Paul himself defines something similar for us regarding the holy Angels, saying in his Epistle this way: “Are not all souls of service sent into service for those who want to inherit salvation?” (Hebrews 1:14). So, through the voice of the Lord, the blessed Baptist John was called an Angel, not because he is an Angel by nature, but because he was sent to “proclaim” (εἰς τὸ ἀγγέλλειν) and cry: “prepare the way of the Lord” (Is. 40:3; Matt. 3:3; John 1 and par.) 90 He also very beneficially asserted that this messenger (Angel) was sent from God, showing his testimony to be the most reliable. And in fact, someone sent from God to preach, of course, would not have declared anything else in his teaching that would not have been consistent with the will of the One who entrusted this embassy to him. So, a God-taught witness is true, which, I think, is what the expression means: “sent from God.” Likewise, the wisest Paul, telling us that he was “sent through Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:1), asserted that he learned the meaning of the sacrament from no one else, but “through the revelation” of Him who sent (Gal. 1:12), in the expression “sent through Jesus Christ,” at the same time inseparably pointing to revelation. 91 So, the teaching of God must necessarily be combined with the message from God. And that it is most common for servants of truth to be alien to lies, this is beyond doubt. That man also had a “name,” says “John.” The person sent had to be identified by a name, which, I think, conveys great authenticity to the word. After all, the Angel “Gabriel” is (was) “standing before God,” as he himself says (Luke 1:11, 19) - when he preached to Zechariah about the birth of a son from Elizabeth, then in addition to what he said about this, he also added that John would be his name (Luke 1:13, 63). It is obvious, of course, and everyone recognizes that he was so named by an Angel by Divine will and command. But should not one who has been crowned with such honor from God already be recognized as above all praise, and at the same time most venerable? That is why the Evangelist considers it beneficial and necessary to make a mention of the name (of the Baptist). And since the Evangelist added to the testimony that the Holy Baptist was sent from God: “that all may believe through him,” we must again give an answer to the question that our opponents can raise against us, namely: why did not everyone believe the one sent from God? Was he really powerless to convince some who was destined for this through a higher determination? We will answer you, dear ones, not to the negligence of John, we should attribute the blame for this, but to blame the stubbornness of those who did not believe. After all, as regards the intention of the preacher and the purpose of the messenger from above, no one should be uninvolved in the teaching, nor remain an unbeliever. But since the mood of the listeners is different and everyone has the power of their own choice, some withdrew from what was useful and did not accept faith. Therefore, we must say to them, according to what is written by the prophet: “Hear and let him hear, and he who does not repent, let him not repent” (Ezek. 3:27). John 1:7. This one has come as a testimony, let him testify to the Light 92 This “this” contains an expressive reference to the valor and glory of the person; for “he is from God,” he says, “sent,” - he 93 rightly amazed all of Judea with the holiness of life and extraordinary asceticism, foreshadowed by the voice of the holy prophets and in Isaiah called “the voice of one crying in the wilderness” (Is. 40:3), and in blessed David: “a lamp prepared for Christ 94” (Ps. 131:17 ). “This one has come as a testimony, let him testify of the Light.” And here the Word calls God Light and shows that He alone is Light and that this very Light actually exists alone, together with Which there is nothing else that would have the power to illuminate and would not need light. So, the Word of God is alien and, so to speak, alien in nature in relation to creation, just as it is really and truly Light in its own sense, and creation participates in the Light. And whoever does not already stand in the ranks of creatures and is therefore thought to be of another nature, how could He be created, and not vice versa - how, finally, could He not be within the limits of the Divinity and not have the nature of a Parent? 95 John 1:8. Not without the light, but let it testify to the Light Having preferred life in cities to staying in the desert, showing amazing strength in asceticism and reaching the very pinnacle of righteousness in people, the Baptist quite rightly aroused surprise at himself and was considered by some even to be Christ Himself. Thus, the leaders of the Jewish hosts, having come to such a guess thanks to his inherent advantages in virtue, send some to him, commanding him to ask him if he is Christ (John 1:19-25). So, not knowing that many were talking idle talk about him, the blessed Evangelist considers it necessary to add: “not without this light,” in order to eradicate the error regarding this, and again give some credibility to what was sent from God for testimony. Indeed, is not he very exalted, is he not admirable in all respects, who was distinguished by righteousness, so much so that he portrayed Christ Himself and, because of the considerable beauty of reverence, was finally revered even as the light itself? So, “he was not,” he says, “he is light,” but he was sent as a testimony “of the Light.” Saying “Light” – τὸ φῶς, with the addition of a member, clearly indicates the One True Light. And that the blessed Baptist or even each of the saints can rightly be called light, we will not deny this, because of what our Savior said about them: “you are the light of the world” (Matthew 5:14). It is also said about the holy Baptist: “I have prepared a lamp for My Christ 96” (Ps. 131:17), and: “he is a lamp of burning and shining: but you will rejoice in the hour in his light” (John 5:35). But although the saints are light and the Baptist is a lamp, we must not, however, lose sight of the grace and gifts given to them from the Light. 97 After all, light is not their own in the lamp and the illumination is also not its own in the saints, but with the radiance of truth they turn out to be shining and luminous and the “luminaries” are “in the world, containing the word of life” (Phil. 2:15–16). )? So, one in reality is the true Light, illuminating, not illuminated - and if, due to participation in this one (Light), something else is called light, then it must be conceivable (as such only) by imitation of That (Only Begotten). About the fact that the Son of God alone is the true Light, and creation is not, being (only) involved in the Light, as something that happened John 1:9. Be the true light The Divine Evangelist usefully returns to the explanation of what has been said and clearly distinguishes the true Light, that is, the Only Begotten, from that which is not such, that is, created beings. What is clearly distinguished is that which is by nature from that which is by grace, from that to which it is communicated, that which is communicated, that which gives itself to those in need from that which is given. And if the Son is the true Light, then there is, therefore, besides Him, no true Light, and creation neither in itself has the ability to be and be called light, nor can it produce light as a fruit of its own nature, but both from non-existence it is, and without being light, it can rise to being light through the perception of the brilliance of the true Light and through the illumination of the participation of the Divine nature, by imitation of it, to be called, and at the same time to be light. And the Word of God is essentially light, not being such only as a result of communion by grace and having this dignity in Itself not as an accident or something that came as grace, but as an unchangeable fruit of an immutable nature and an inalienable good, passed from the Father to the Heir of His essence. The creature cannot achieve being light in this way: it, as something that does not have, receives; like darkness, it is illuminated; He has acquired grace, and according to the love of the Giver, he has dignity. Thus, the Son is the true Light, but the creature is by no means. With such a difference and such a far distance between the Son of God and creation, in relation to the identity of nature, shouldn’t we assume with all justice that they are talking nonsense, and even more so, those who will call Him created and put the Creator of all things on a par with creatures will be beyond all common sense, not seeing, as it seems to me, to what wickedness this insolence can lead them, “who do not understand what they say, nor what they claim” (1 Timothy 1:7). And that for us, who are accustomed to more accurately examine the truth in the words presented, the Son, that is, the “True Light,” will not at all turn out to be created, or created, or generally co-natural with the creature in any respect - everyone can see this from everywhere and very easily, and no less from the following reasoning, collected for the understanding of the words presented. Reasoning or inference by means of which one can learn that the Son alone is the true Light, but the creature is not, and why he is not of the same nature with it If the Son, being a reflection of the glory (Heb. 1:3) of God and the Father, is therefore the true Light, then He should not be of the same nature with the creation, so that the creation would not be considered a reflection of the glory of God and the Father, having the ability to be by nature what the Son is. Other. If all creation can be true Light, then for what reason is this applied to the Son alone? After all, according to the law of equality, it would be necessary, of course, for creatures to be given the opportunity to be the true Light. However, this will not befit any of the creatures, but only the essence of the Son is spoken of. Consequently, in its proper and true sense it should be used only about Him, and not at all about creatures. In what way, then, will He be co-natural with the creature, and not vice versa - above the creature, as existing above it together with the Father? Other. If the untrue light is not one and the same with the true Light, for the designation of both has some difference, 98 and the Son is called “true Light” and He is such by nature; then the creature, therefore, will not be “true Light.” Therefore, things that are so different from each other are not of the same nature as each other. Other. If not only the Only Begotten is the true Light, but creation can also be the true Light, then for what reason does He “illuminate every person who comes into the world”? As soon as the created essence has this in itself, it was already unnecessary for it to be illuminated through the Son. However, He “illuminates”, and we all participate in Him. Consequently, in terms of the quality of essence, the Son and the creature are not the same, just as that which participates is not identical with that which communicates. Other. If to be the “True Light” does not belong to the Son alone by nature, but creation also has it (the light), then, as I think, what the Psalmist said to some will turn out to be unnecessary: ​​“Come to Him and be enlightened” (Ps. 33:6); for, of course, the true Light cannot be light by communion with someone else and shine with radiance from another; on the contrary, it must receive perfect purity from its own nature. But we see that man needs Light, being of a created nature, and the Psalmist expresses the truth, calling, as it were, to the Word of God: “For You enlighten my lamp, O Lord my God, enlighten my darkness” (Ps. 17:29). Consequently, we are not the true Light, but we participate in the illuminating Word and are by nature alien to the true Light, which is the Son. Other - from the same. If the human mind is called a lamp, according to what is sung in the Psalms: “For you have enlightened my lamp, O Lord” (Ps. 17:29), then how can we be the true Light? After all, light was brought and given to the lamp. And if the darkness that exists in us is enlightened only by the Only Begotten, then isn’t He, on the contrary, the true Light, and we are not? If this is true, then how can He, who is so superior to it, be of the same nature as the creature? Other. If being the true Light can belong to a creature, as, without a doubt, to the Son, then the “true Light”, obviously, will be a person, being a part of it (the creature). But in this case, to whom did God and the Father promise through the holy prophets, saying: “And the Sun of Righteousness will shine upon you who fear My name” (Mal.4:2)? Well, did the true Light really need the Shining Sun? But God and the Father promised to give it to us, of course, as those in need, and having accepted it, we were illuminated. Consequently, the Only Begotten, in relation to natural identity, is different from us and from creation (in general), being the “True Light” and having the nature of illuminating those in need of light. Other. If not only the Son is the “True Light,” but creation also has it (Light), then, obviously, he will be in us. But what reason, in this case, prompted the saints to cry out to God: send Thy light and Thy truth (Ps. 42:3)? What benefit, tell me, did they think they would bring to us when they so often uttered such voices? After all, if they knew that a person has a need for Light and requires sharing it from another, then how can anyone truly say that he himself is the “True Light”? And if he (the person) did not need the illuminating Word, then why did they call in vain on someone who could not bring any benefit? But it cannot be said that the minds of the saints deviated from the truth, and again God and the Father Himself, as those in need of light, sends us the Son. Consequently, the Only Begotten is different in nature from creation, as an illuminator from those in need of light. Other. If we see a creature in need of Light, and the Only Begotten illuminates it, then the creature itself does not lead itself to the Light; therefore, she is not the “True Light” like the Son. Other. If the natural and true Light is not darkened, and the Only Begotten is the “True Light” and creation is also the “True Light”, then why does Scripture say about the Son: “His darkness is not comprehended”, and about us Paul: “in them the god of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelievers” (2 Cor. 4:4), and again the Savior Himself: “while you have the light, walk in the light, so that darkness has not overcome you” (John 12:35). It is, of course, obvious to everyone that if some of us had not been embraced by darkness, the Savior would not have said something like this. How can the Only Begotten and the creation be identical in nature - unchangeable with the changeable, not allowing any deficiency with the darkened and able to receive illumination, inherent, obviously, as an addition, and not by nature. innateness of his nature in itself? Other. If not only the Only Begotten is the “True Light,” but creation has it (the light), as being of one nature with Him, then how can we cry out to God and the Father: “in Your light we will see light” (Ps. 35:10)? After all, if we are the true Light, then how can we be illuminated in another? And if we say this as having a need for the incoming light, then obviously we will not turn out to be the true Light. Therefore, we are not of the same nature with the Word, which is so superior to us in nature. The other is interpretive. Our Lord Jesus Christ is found saying in the Gospels: “This is judgment, because light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light; for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light and does not come to the light” (John 3:19–20). But if the Only Begotten is the “True Light” and creation can just as well be the true light, then why does He come to illuminate it, while it loved darkness? And how can she not come to the light at all, if she herself is the “True Light”? After all, what is inherent in objects by their nature has this innate affiliation 99 - but what is chosen at will does not have such stability. So, for example: it is not as a result of his own will that everyone acquires the existence of a rational person, for he has this by nature, but according to his own desire, everyone can be either bad or good, and in the same way it is in the power of everyone to love what is right or the opposite. If therefore the creature is “light” by nature, for this name denotes “true (Light)”, then why does it not come to the light, or how can it love darkness, obviously as it cannot by nature be “True Light”, but, on the contrary, makes a freely arbitrary choice of the best or the worst? Thus, our opponents must either dare to assert that the Son has no natural advantages over the creature, so that their blasphemy is more clearly exposed and so that they hear from everyone: “The Lord will consume all flattering lips, a lofty tongue” (Ps. 11:4), - or, if they clearly admit that these qualities are inherent in Him by His essence, let them not unite with Him into the unity of nature a creation that does not have this, as just now proven by us. Other. If not only the Word of God is the “True Light,” but like Him, creation can also be the “True Light,” then for what reason does he say: “I am the light of the world” (John 8:12)? Or how can we be deprived of the most excellent advantage of nature, if we too can be true Light, just as (every) created entity has it (light)? If the Only Begotten speaks the truth: “I am the light of the world,” then, obviously, a creature can be light only by receiving it from Him, and not otherwise. And if so, then she is not of one nature with Him. Other. If not only the Son is the true Light, but this is also characteristic of creatures, then what shall we say in the case when the wisest Peter writes to us in his Epistle: “But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people to gain, so that you may proclaim the valor of Him who called you out of darkness into His wonderful light” (1 Peter 2:9)? What kind of darkness is there in us, or what kind of darkness have we found ourselves in, if we ourselves are the true Light? And how could we be called to the light if we were not in darkness? But neither does the preacher of truth speak a lie, who dares to say: “Do you seek proof of what Christ says in me” (2 Cor. 13:3). And we are called “into His wonderful light” (1 Pet. 2:9), therefore, out of darkness, and not otherwise. And if this is true, then creation is not the true Light, but the Son alone is actually and truly Light, while created objects are by participation in Him, and therefore they are not of the same nature (to Him). Other proofs with the addition of sayings (of Scripture), through the simplest reflections, lead readers to the confession that the Son of God alone is the true Light, while the nature of creatures is illuminated by the message (light) from Him, not being able to be Light in essence, like He The psalmist says: “Let the light of Your countenance shine upon us, O Lord” (Ps. 4:7). What kind of face is this of God and the Father, whose light is marked on us, if, without a doubt, it is not the Only Begotten Son of God, His invariably exact Image and therefore saying: “He who has seen Me in the form of the Father” (John 14:9)? He is marked to us by the fact that He showed us to be conformed to Himself (Rom. 8:29) and through His Spirit 100 depicted illumination, like a Divine image, for those who believe in Him, so that they themselves could already (in a figurative sense) be called gods and sons of God after Him (Ps. 82:6; John 10:34, 1, etc.). But if any of the creatures were the “true light,” then how could He be signified to us? After all, “light shines in darkness,” according to the true word of the Spirit-Bearer (John 1:5), - for light in light how can it be light? Other. The psalmist says: “light has risen to the righteous” (Ps. 96:11). If (to the righteous) one who has and does not need, then it (the light) is superfluous, and if, as to one who does not have, the light shines, then, consequently, the Only Begotten is Light, while creation only participates in the Light and is therefore alien in nature. Other. The psalmist says: “You have not conquered the earth with your sword, nor have their arm saved them: but Your right hand, and Your arm, and the light of Your face” (Ps. 43:4). The enlightenment of the face of God and the Father here again refers to the revelation from the Son through the Spirit and the guidance of each of the beings, which alone saved Israel and freed them from the cruelty of the Egyptians. If, therefore, not only the Only Begotten is the “True Light,” but exactly the same dignity is inherent in creatures, then why are those about whom we are talking (the Israelites) not saved by their own light, but find themselves supplied by the application of a seemingly alien and necessary 101 light? But it is obvious that the Only Begotten shined on those in need of light, and therefore He, and only one, is the “True Light,” and creation receives grace from Him. And if so, then how, finally, could she be of one nature with Him? Other. The psalmist says: “Blessed are the people who cry: Lord, in the light of Your countenance they will walk” (Ps. 89:16). Why, on the contrary, cannot they walk in their own light? And why, tell me, receiving enlightenment from another, they can hardly arrange salvation for themselves, if they themselves really are the true Light, as, without a doubt, is the person of God and the Father, that is, the Son? But, I believe, and through this it is clear to everyone that the Word gives enlightenment to the creature as being in need, and it, having received what it does not have, is saved. How, then, can the Only Begotten and what happened through Him be identical in essence? Other. The psalmist says: “A light appears in darkness for the upright” 102 (Ps. 112:4). How in general is it that the right one was in darkness, being himself the “True Light,” just as the nature of creatures has this in the same way as the Only Begotten? If the light is sent to those who are right, as if they do not have it, then many words will not be required from us, but the very nature of things will cry out that what is perfect cannot be identical in essence with what is in need - with what requires (is not identical) what gives from the abundance. Other. “Shine, shine, O Jerusalem, for your light has come, and the glory of the Lord has come upon you” (Is. 60:1). If the nature of creatures has light in itself, and as such, in fact, that is, “True Light,” we recognize the Only Begotten, then how could Jerusalem need the One who illuminates it? since it (Jerusalem) receives illumination as grace, then, consequently, the Son alone is the “True Light,” illuminating it (Jerusalem) and giving what it does not have. And if so, then is He not, without a doubt, different in nature in relation to that (Jerusalem)? Other. Behold, you are given for the covenant of generations into the light of tongues (Is. 42:6). How, in general, did a rational creature on earth (pagans) need light, if being the “True Light” is inherent in it by nature? But God and the Father gives her, of course, as one who does not have, his own Son, and she, having received in this way, will in fact cry out both about the poverty of her own nature and about the abundant dignity of the Illuminating Word. Other. And now to the house of Jacob, come, let us walk by the light of the Lord (Isa. 2:5). Why, on the contrary, do these not follow their own light, but the Only Begotten bestows upon them, imparting His own good to His essence? But those who rely on their own good (light) do not lend themselves to others - therefore, as those who do not have, they are in the habit of doing this. Other. The Savior says: “I am the light of the world: he who follows Me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life” (John 8:12). Let the creature dare to emit the same voice (about itself), if it itself is the true Light. If she is horrified by this verb, then in reality she will be far from this, having confessed the “true Light,” that is, the Son. Other. The Lord says: “As long as you have light, believe in the light, so that you may be sons of light” (John 12:36). So, did those who are light by nature really lose the light because of their unbelief, if it is generally possible for a created essence to be the true Light? And how can this ever be? After all, the deprivation of what is inherent in someone in essence cannot happen by any means. negligence, but (it is possible to lose only) the acquisition of which is accomplished by desire and the absence of which or presence occurs without the destruction of the object (possessing it). For example: a person is intelligent by nature, and a shipbuilder is by desire, or weak in body by chance. Therefore, he cannot be unreasonable at all, but through negligence he can lose his shipbuilding experience, just as he is able to ward off the suffering that has happened, improving (his health) with treatment. So, what. inherent in someone essentially, it has rooted stability 104. If, therefore, the nature of creatures can generally be “True Light,” then how do those who do not want to believe lose the light, or how can believers become sons of light? After all, if they themselves are light by nature, then, consequently, they will be called sons of themselves. And what will be the reward for believers? After all, those who have not accepted the faith are also sons of themselves! From such reasoning, reaching the understanding of the truth, let us say that only the Only Begotten is the “True Light,” while creation needs light and is therefore foreign. Other. Jesus said to them: The light in you 105 is still a little while: walk until you have the light 106, lest darkness overcome you (John 12:35). You can skillfully apply the above reasoning to this saying; for what is light by nature can never be enveloped in darkness. Other. John says: “Speak in the light of being, but hate your brother, who is still in darkness” (1 John 2:9). Consequently, the light is present in us by our pre-election - and by desire, and not by essence, it is present in creatures, if the one who hates his brother is in darkness. The One of Only Nature is Light in essence, for it has this dignity not as the fruit of pre-election. Therefore He who is so superior to them is not the only begotten of creatures. Something else, related to this. He who loves his brother remains in the light (1 John 2:10). Love brings light to creatures that obviously do not have it. And the Only Begotten is Light. Consequently, He is different from what He is as a result of love. That the human soul neither pre-exists the body, nor is incarnated (in the body) as a result of early sins, as some think John 1:9–10. It also enlightens every person coming into the world. (In the world without) 107 The Theologian is firm (in his teaching about God the Word), for he considers it necessary to say not only that the Only Begotten is the “True Light,” but he immediately adds proof to what has been said, as if exclaiming with a strong voice: He is, I say, the true light, “which enlightens every man who comes into the world.” So, is it really possible, someone who is accustomed to heeding Divine dogmas without research will ask, do Angels not enlighten the minds of people? And Cornelius, tell me, through whom did you learn that the baptized receives salvation from God (Acts 10ff.)? Didn’t Manoah, Sampson’s father, receive foreknowledge of the future through the voice of an Angel (Judges 13ff.)? Likewise, does not Zechariah the prophet clearly proclaim to us: “And the angel said to me: I will show you what these things are” (Zechariah 1:9)? And again speaking the same words, does not it clearly indicate that the Angels revealed to his mind the knowledge of the hidden? For he says: “And behold, an angel stood by me, and another angel came out to meet him, and said to him: fathers and kings to this young man, saying: Jerusalem will be populated fruitfully from the multitude of men and beasts that are in the midst of it” (Zechariah 2:3-4). And the wisest Daniel, who was rewarded with wonderful visions, does not receive an explanation of what is visible through the Angels? Listen to what he says: “And it came to pass when I saw Daniel the vision, and sought the vision, and there stood before me like an image of a man. And I heard the voice of a man in the midst of Ubal, and calling, and saying: Gabriel, tell him the vision” (Dan.8:15-16). So, Angels can also enlighten. And not only they, but also man receives enlightenment from man. So, the inquisitive eunuch, not understanding the prophecies about our Savior, doesn’t he say to Philip: “I pray thee, about whom the prophet speaks? Whether about yourself, or about someone else” (Acts 8:34). And those who turn to teachers of life, I think, do it for no other reason than precisely this one thing. But why should we dwell on this, when we can, in addition to this, cite as proof the words of our Savior to the holy apostles: “you are the light of the world” (Matthew 5:14)? Naturally, anyone can express such bewilderments. But against this he will hear the following from us. We see everything created, my dear, as complex and there is nothing simple in it. Therefore, who can communicate wisdom to others, if he is created, is not wisdom itself, but a servant of the wisdom inherent in him? After all, the wise is wise in wisdom, and whoever teaches others to understand is not understanding itself, but the mediator of the understanding inherent in him, for they too are wise through understanding. Likewise, the one who can enlighten others should not be thought of as light in the proper sense, but only as a dispenser of the light that is in him, through teaching, sending it to others and communicating to others the good that he has received. That is why it was said to the holy apostles: “Tuna you will eat, you will give to you” (Matthew 10:8). Whatever was good for them, all of this, of course, is God-given. And in general, the nature of not only people, but even the holy Angels cannot boast of its own blessings, for along with the calling to existence, each being has from God the very way of being, and we should not imagine anything essentially present in them that would not be a gift of the mercy of the Creator and would not be rooted in the grace of the Creator. So, since all creatures are complex, the light cannot be in them either simply or uncomplicated, but together with everything else they have light by participation and through receiving from God. On the contrary, the true Light is the one that enlightens, and is not enlightened by another, as the Only Begotten is, represented with a simple and uncomplicated nature, for the Divinity is alien to any complexity. This is certainly true. But the enemy can again tell us: if the saints were not light by nature, then for what reason did the Savior not call them partakers of the light, but called them light? How will a creature have a different nature, different from Him, if both Himself is called Light, and rational creatures (are called) - “you are the light of the world,” the disciples heard (Matthew 5:14)? But why, dearest one, let us tell him again, we are called sons of God and gods in the Divine Scriptures, according to what was said: “Az reh: we are gods and sons of all the Most High” (Ps. 82:6)? Really, having ceased to be by nature what we are, we must rise to the Divine and ineffable essence - and, having deprived the Word of God of true sonship, instead of Him we will sit down to the Father and make the grace of Him who honored us (with it) an excuse for impiety? It won't happen. But the Son must invariably be with those properties that are inherent in Him - we are sons by adoption and gods by grace, not unaware of what we are. In the same way, we believe, the saints are light. I think that you should pay attention to the following. After all, rational creatures enlighten (others), being enlightened (themselves), through the communication of teachings poured from one mind to another - and such enlightenment should rightly be called rather teaching or revelation. But the Word of God “enlightens every person who comes into the world,” not through teaching, as sometimes Angels or even people, but, on the contrary, like God, through creation, puts in each of those called to existence the seed of wisdom or knowledge of God and gives birth to the root of reason and thus makes a rational animal, revealing him to be a participant in His own nature and sending into his mind, as it were, certain light-like pairs His ineffable brilliance, in which He Himself knows the way and manner, which I consider it not superfluous to say. Therefore, the forefather Adam does not appear in time, as we do, having acquired wisdom for himself, but is perfect in reason immediately from the first times of being, preserving within himself the enlightenment given to his nature from God, still uncontaminated and pure, and having the dignity of his nature unspoiled. So, the Son enlightens as the Creator, being Himself the true Light, but the creature shines by participating in the Light, which is why it is called light, ascending to the one who exceeds its nature by the grace of Him who glorified it and crowned it with various honors, so that each of those awarded such honor with all justice should step into the middle and, offering prayers of thanksgiving, finally sing with a great voice: “Bless my soul the Lord and not forget all His rewards - He who cleanses all your iniquities, who heals all your ailments, who delivers your belly from corruption, who crowns you with mercy and bounties, who fulfills your good desires,” for indeed “the Lord gives alms” (Ps. 102:2-6), making small and insignificant things by nature great and worthy through His goodness. to him, as, without a doubt, God deigned to adorn us abundantly with His own blessings, 109 which is why he calls us gods and light and all sorts of other blessings. Then what does (the Evangelist) say besides this? As in "in the world." And the Theologian usefully adds this, imparting to us here the most necessary teaching. because he said: “It is the true Light that enlightens every person coming into the world,” but for the listeners it was not very clear whether the “man” coming into the world is enlightened by the Light or whether the true “Light” itself, as if passing from some other place into the world, enlightens all people; then the Spirit-Bearer considers it necessary to reveal the truth to us and explains the meaning of his sayings, immediately speaking about the Light, “what is in the world,” so that the expression ἐϱχόμενον εἰς τὸν ϰόσμον 110 you understand about man and in order to thereby more clearly indicate the illuminated nature, how called from non-existence to existence. The former non-existence can, after all, be imagined in the mind as a kind of place for creatures, from which they, in some way passing to being, receive another place in existence. Therefore, it is quite natural and characteristic of human nature that it is enlightened from the very first times and, simultaneously with the structure of its existence, receives understanding from the light existing in the world, that is, from the Only Begotten, Who fills everything with the ineffable power of Divinity, is co-present with the Angels in heaven, dwells among the inhabitants of the earth, does not leave hell itself deprived of His Divinity, and, being present everywhere in everything, is absent from nothing, so that the wise Psalmist, marveling at this with all justice, says: “Where shall I go from Thy spirit, and where shall I flee from Thy presence? Even if I ascend to heaven, Thou art there; Even if I go to hell, there you are; If I take up my wings early and dwell in the last seas, then Your hand will guide me and Your right hand will hold me” (Ps. 139:7-10). The Divine hand embraces every place and every creature, preserving the existence of creatures, and containing life to those in need of life, and all spiritual light to those capable of understanding. But He Himself, as we have already said, does not reside in a place and is not subject to local movement, for this is a property of bodies, but, on the contrary, fills everything as God. But to this, perhaps someone will say: what, most noble one, will we answer when they put before us the sight of Christ saying: “I have come into the world as a light” (John 12:46)? Or when the Psalmist exclaims: “Send forth Your light and Your truth” (Ps. 42:3)? Here He Himself clearly says that He came into the world, obviously as not existing in it - and the Psalmist also begged to send someone who was not yet present, judging by the manner of speech and the meaning of the embassy to us. Let us answer this that the Theologian, assigning divine dignity to the Only Begotten, says that He is always in the world, as life by nature, as Light in essence, filling creation, as God, being unlimited by place, immeasurable by distance, not limited by quantity, not encompassed by anything at all, not needing to move from place to place, but abides in everything and deprives Himself of nothing. And if he asserted that He came into the world, although He was present in it, then this is in relation to His incarnation. He “appeared on earth and among human beings” (Bar. 3:38) with the flesh, making through this His presence in the world most obvious - and, once accessible (to the mind alone), becoming visible even with the most bodily eyes, imparted to us a more, so to speak, strong sense of 111 knowledge of God, being cognizable through wonderful and great deeds. In the same way, the Psalmist prays to send the Word of God to us to illuminate the world, as it seems to me, not in any other way, but in the same way 112. But I believe that the inquisitive must, in addition, pay attention to the fact that the mind is sharper than any word and the movement of thought is faster than the tongue. Therefore, with the subtlety of the mind and its rapid movement, we can contemplate the varied beauty of the Divine nature, but we can only speak about it in a human form and in our likeness, since language cannot extend to the full expression of the truth. Therefore, Paul, the administrator of the sacraments of the Savior, asked for a word from God “at the opening of his mouth” (Eph. 6:19). So, the poverty of our speech should not in the least harm the natural virtues of the Only Begotten, but we should think about Him in a godly manner, which, out of necessity, is said in a human form - whether by Him Himself (said) for our sake, or by the saints about Him - according to the limitations of our nature. What has been said seems to be quite sufficient to explain these words. But since I think that the reed, serving the Divine dogmas, should overcome laziness, then, again offering the same reading, we will examine more precisely how the saying “coming into the world” should properly be understood in relation to a person. After all, “there was light in” him (the world), as the Evangelist himself has already testified, and it is not “light” that comes into the world, but, as we affirm, an enlightened “man”. Therefore, some say, “spouting from their hearts, and not from the mouth of the Lord,” as it is written (Jer. 23:16), that the souls of people, before the creation of bodies, pre-existed in heaven, living for a long time in incorporeal bliss and enjoying true good in purity. But since satiety with the best (state) began to enter into them and, finally inclining towards the worse, they began to descend to lawless thoughts and desires, the Creator, rightly indignant, sends them into the world - clothed them with bodies from the earth, forcing them to carry this burden, and, as if confining them in some cave of lawless pleasures, decided to punish them (souls) through the very test of their (sensual pleasures), how much bitter passion for the worse and complete disregard for the good. And to prove such a ridiculous fable, they first of all grab onto this very saying that we are now interpreting: “It is the true Light that enlightens every person who comes into the world.” And besides, they cite some other evidence from Divine Scripture, such as: “before even those who have sinned, let us humble ourselves” (Ps. 119:67). Not ashamed of their chatter, they say: “before humility”, that is, incarnation, the soul, it is said, sinned, which is why it was rightly humiliated, bound by death and corruption, just as Paul calls the body in the same way, saying: “I am a damned man: who will deliver me from the body of this death” (Rom. 7:24)? If, they say, the soul sins before humiliation, then it comes into the world, obviously, as a pre-existing one, for how could something that did not yet exist sin? It comes into the world, obviously, moving from certain places. Chatting such nonsense contrary to the dogmas of the Church and clogging the ears of the simpleton with the absurdities of empty interpretations, they will rightly hear: “It is cruel to those who prophesy from their hearts and do not see at all” (Ezek. 13:3). Indeed, having contrasted the visions and fortune-telling and prophecies of their hearts with the words of the Spirit, they do not feel what terrible consequences their enterprise must reach in view of the words of the Psalmist to God: “Thou art terrible, and who will resist Thee because of 113 Thy wrath” (Ps. 75:8). And that it is very absurd to think that the soul pre-exists and that it is sent down into earthly bodies for previous sins, we will try to prove this, to the best of our ability, through the following reasoning, knowing what is written: “Give wine to the wise, and the wisest will: tell the righteous, and he will take it” (Proverbs 9:9). Reasoning or proving by inference 1. If the soul of man pre-existed the structure of bodies and, according to some, having deviated towards evil, as a punishment for sin it is cast into the flesh, then why, tell me, does the Evangelist say that it is illuminated when it comes into the world? This matter (illumination), I think, is honor and the communication of bright gifts, and whoever receives honor is not punished, and similarly, it is not the one who turns out to be a participant in Divine blessings who is subject to punishment, but who falls under the wrath of the punisher. since “the person coming into the world” is not subject to anger, but, on the contrary, is enlightened, it is obvious from this that the one who is honored with the body does not incarnate as a punishment. Other. If before the body the soul was already a pure spirit, in bliss, but through infatuation it fell into evil and for this reason ended up in the flesh, then how does “one who comes into the world” become enlightened? After all, it is necessary to say that before coming (into the world) he is deprived of light. And if so, then how was he already pure in spirit who only begins to become enlightened when he comes into the world, and not without flesh? Other. If the soul of a person pre-existed the body and therefore already existed as a pure spirit, possessing within itself an attraction to good, but as a result of turning to evil it is sent to the earthly body and, once in it (the body), is subject to the requirement to no longer desire to sin; then doesn’t he (the spirit) endure untruth, receiving a command to do this not primarily when he was most capable of virtue, not yet bound by the shortcomings of the body, but when he found himself in the mire of sin, then he is forced to do it at an untimely time? After all, the Divine cannot sin against timeliness, nor can it ever allow untruth, which is by nature incapable of untruth. Therefore, it is timely and justly required of us not to sin when we are with the flesh, having only this very time of existence, in which we come into the world with the body, leaving the previous non-existence, as it were, a certain place and from it moving to the beginning of existence. Other. What is the point, I will readily ask them, to send a soul that has sinned before (the creation of) bodies into a body, so that by experience it will learn the vileness of its lusts? And they are not ashamed to express this, although it should have been the other way around - to distract her even from the very vision of evil, and not to cast her into the very depths of vile passions. That would be more of a treatment than this. So, if in order to experience the passions of the body, the soul through incarnation becomes accessible to all sorts of vices, then no one will praise such a corrector who harms the vicious with what he imagined helping. And if in order to stop passions (the soul is sent into the body), then how could it free itself from them, falling into the very depths of lust, and not vice versa - rejecting even the very beginning of vice, when it turned out to be alien to the attraction to sin? Other. If the soul sinned in pre-existence and for this is clothed with flesh and blood, having undergone this as punishment, then would it not be proper for those who believe in Christ and for this have received remission of sin to immediately leave their bodies and throw away what clothed them as punishment? Otherwise, tell me, how does a person’s soul have complete remission (of sin) if it remains subject to punishment? But we see that believers are so far from wanting to be separated from their bodies that the rebellion of the flesh is included in the confession (of faith) in Christ 114. Thus, something that is honored by a confession of faith and, through a return to life, testifies to the Divine power of the omnipotence of the Savior, cannot be used as punishment. Other. If in pre-existence, according to their teaching, the soul sinned and was united with the body for this, then for what reason does the law command the gravest crimes to be awarded death, but leaves the one who has sinned nothing to live? After all, it would be necessary, of course, on the contrary - those guilty of heinous crimes should be left to live in their bodies so that they would suffer greater punishment, and those who are innocent should be freed from their bodies, as soon as incarnation serves as a punishment. But it happens the other way around - a murderer is sentenced to death, but a righteous person does not suffer anything in the body. Therefore, the incarnation does not serve as a punishment. Other. If for previous sins the souls were subjected to incarnation and the nature of the body is thought of as a punishment for them, then what benefit did the Savior bring to us by abolishing death? On the contrary, does not corruption show us mercy by destroying the body that serves us as punishment and putting an end to wrath against us? Therefore, one might say, it would be more appropriate to give thanks to corruption than, on the contrary, to Him who imposes unceasing punishment on us through the resurrection from the dead. But we give thanks (to God) as having been freed from death and corruption through Christ. And therefore, incarnation does not serve as a punishment for the human soul. Otherwise - through the same reasoning. If the souls of people, as punishment for past sins, are united with earthly bodies, then why, tell me, will we confess gratitude to God, who promises us resurrection? After all, this turns out to be a renewal of punishment and a restoration of sorrow. And if prolonged punishment should seem bitter to everyone, then the resurrection of bodies serving as punishment for unfortunate souls will be unbearable. But nature has the resurrection from Christ as a gift of renewal to blessedness. Therefore, calving does not serve as a punishment. Other. As if a great and longed-for triumph for us, the prophetic word is nowhere preaching: “They will rise from the dead and rise up from their graves,” it is said (Is. 26:19). But if the unfortunate souls of people were imprisoned in bodies as punishment, then wouldn’t the prophet, on the contrary, grieve, crying about this as if on behalf of God? How can a sermon that proclaims to us the continuity of sorrows be good? On the contrary, if he wanted to please those sent into bodies because of sin, he would have to say this: the dead will not be raised, but the nature of the flesh will perish. But he, on the contrary, rejoices, announcing, according to the will of God, that there will be a resurrection of bodies. And how, finally, can the body, in which we rejoice and God is pleased, serve as punishment, as some foolishly teach? Other. Nowhere did God, blessing blessed Abraham, give a promise that according to the countless number of stars there would be his seed (Gen. 15:5). If the teaching is true that the soul, having sinned before the body, is sent as punishment to the earth and to the flesh, then God promised the righteous a despicable crowd of criminals moving away from good, and not at all a seed involved in blessing. But in reality, God says this to bless Abraham. Thus, the existence of bodies is freed from any accusation. Other. The race of the Israelites extended to a great and innumerable multitude. Justifiably amazed at this, the priestly leader Moses blesses them, saying: “And behold today, as the stars of heaven are in multitude: the Lord God your father will add to you, that you may be in thousands” (Deut. 1:10-11). But if it were a punishment for the souls of people to be with their bodies in the world and they had to, coming out of their purity, put on flesh, then this speech of Moses rightly turns out to be more of a curse than a blessing. However, this is not so, but it serves as a blessing. And therefore, the incarnation does not at all have the meaning of punishment. Other. God does not deign to listen to those who decide to ask badly - and the disciple of the Savior will be a true witness for us, saying: “You ask and do not receive, you ask evilly” (James 4:3). Therefore, if the incarnation of the soul serves as a punishment, then wouldn’t it be necessary to assert that Hannah, the wife of Elkanah 115, deviated far from what was proper, sending such an intense prayer to God “for the seed of a man” (1 Samuel 1:11)? Therefore, she asked for the descent of (any) soul and its descent into the body? And how could God even give her a son - Saint Samuel, if (any) soul had to sin in order for it, having put on a body, to fulfill the woman’s request in this way? But this was given by God, who is accustomed to give only good things, and, having graciously listened to her (Anna), thereby reveals her prayer free from any reproach. Consequently, the incarnation is not due to sin and does not serve as punishment, as some think. Other. If the body is given to the soul of a person as a punishment, then what made Hezekiah, the good and wise king of Jerusalem, not without bitter tears, beg for the death of the flesh to be diverted from him and to hesitate in fulfilling the punishment, but to ask for the addition of years to him (Isa. 38 et seq.), even though it was necessary, if he really was a good king, on the contrary, not to shy away from death, but to consider union with the body a burden, and it is for this latter, and not for the opposite, confess thanksgiving (to God). And did not God promise him as a grace, saying: “Behold, I add to Your years fifty years” (Is. 38:5), although this promise, if those false teachers truly preach, would be an addition of punishment, and not a benefit? But this promise was a gift from above and the addition of years was grace; therefore, their incarnation does not serve as a punishment for souls. Other. If a body was given to a man’s soul as a punishment, then what grace would God give to the eunuch 116, who brought Jeremiah out of the pit (prison), saying: “And I will give your life as a gain, and I will save you from the Chaldeans” (Jer. 39:18, cf. Jer. 45:5)? Rather, he should have been allowed to die in order to honor him by freeing him from bonds and punishment. How, tell me, did he benefit the young men of Israel, saving them from the flames and inhumanity of the Babylonians (Dan.3)? Why did he snatch the wise Daniel from the ferocity of the lions (Dan.6)? But by doing this, He undoubtedly benefits and is glorified through this. Consequently, the dwelling (of the soul) in the body does not serve as a substitute for punishment, so that honor and punishment do not turn out to be one and the same with God. Other. That one day before the Divine Throne there will be a test of what everyone has done during his life, teaching about this, Paul says: “For it is fitting for us all to appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that everyone may receive what he has done with the body, either good or evil” (2 Cor. 5:10). If, however, for actions performed only through the body, everyone is either punished by the Judge, or is awarded due honor, and no recollection of former sins or accusations will be made for what was done before being (in the body), then how can one allow, like some, the pre-existence of the soul and its humiliation due to sin, which determines only the time with the flesh, since it is subject to judgment for only what it did with the body? Other. If souls are sent into bodies as a result of early sins, then how could Paul tell us in the Epistle: “present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God” (Rom. 12:1)? After all, if (bodies) are given to unfortunate souls as punishment, then how can we present them to God in the stench of fragrance? How can that be pleasing (to God) by which we are punished? Or what dignity at all can something that is punishment and has sin as its root admit? Other. Pointing out that because of the transgression in Adam, corruption extends to the whole nature of man 118, Paul says: “but there is a kingdom of death from Adam even to Moses, and upon those who did not sin according to the likeness of Adam’s transgression” (Rom. 5:14). How can he say that death reigned over those who had not sinned, if the dying body was given to us for early sins? Where are these non-sinners anyway, if incarnation and being with the body in this life serves as punishment for sins and a previous crime? Thus, the opponents' objection turns out to be unreasonable. Other. One day, the disciples asked the Savior a question about one who was blind from birth: “Rabbi, who sinned, whether this one or his parents, because he was born blind” (John 9:2)? since in the prophetic books it is written about God that He is “the father who bears the sins of his children” (Ex. 20:5; Num. 14:18; Deut. 5:9; Jer. 32:18), the disciples assumed that the man suffered for this reason. What does Christ have to do with this? Truly I say to you 119: “Neither will this one sin, nor his parents, but let the works of God be revealed in him” (John 9:3). How could He put them outside of sin, although they were not innocent in life? Being human, they were undoubtedly guilty of sins. But it is obvious and clear that the speech goes back to a time before their existence, when they, not yet existing, did not sin, so that Christ also might be true. Other. The blessed prophet Isaiah, explaining the reason for the creation of the earth, says: “You did not create it in vain, but to inhabit it” (Is. 45:18). The earth was supposed to be inhabited and filled, of course, not by pure spirits and not by disembodied and disembodied souls, but by those possessing bodies corresponding to it (the earth). Therefore, the Divine will would have to lead souls into sin, so that the nature of bodies would appear and thus finally the earth would not be created “in vain.” But this is absurd, therefore, the advantage is the opposite. Other. Wisdom, the artist of all things, speaks of Himself in one place in the book of Proverbs: “I was the one who rejoiced in her,” obviously the Creator of all things, “and rejoiced every day before him at all times, rejoicing when he finished the world, and rejoicing in the sons of men” (Proverbs 8:30–31). If, therefore, God, having finished the universe, greatly rejoices at the structure of man, then will not the one who makes the soul guilty of former sins and claims that for this reason it is clothed with a body and thus subjected to punishment be deprived of all intelligence? Wouldn't God then be the creator of the prison rather than the creator of the universe? And will He not, contrary to His nature, rejoice in the punishment of the guilty? And how could He finally be good, rejoicing at such lawlessness? But God, of course, is good and therefore is the Creator of good, therefore, the incarnation cannot be a punishment. Other. If the soul of a person, for the sins that preceded its existence in the world, is punished by uniting it with the flesh and the body serves as a reward for it, then for what reason was the flood brought on the world of the wicked, and the righteous Noah was saved, and he has this from God as a reward for his faith? Shouldn’t those, on the contrary, have committed grave wickedness live in the body for a longer time in order to endure greater punishment, and those who are good should be freed from the bonds of the flesh and receive removal from the body as a reward for piety to God? But I think that the Creator of all things, being good, imposes a sentence appropriate to each kind of people. since, being just, he punishes the wicked with death, and life with the body, on the contrary, pleases the righteous, then bodies, therefore, do not serve as punishment for the souls of people, so that God does not appear unjust, punishing the wicked with grace, but, on the contrary, considering the righteous to be punishment. Other. If the soul descended into the flesh and body, suffering punishment for previous sins, then how (will it be true that) the Savior “loved” (John 11:36) Lazarus, resurrecting him and once freed from his bonds, forcing him to enter them again? But he did this for the good and, as a friend, Christ honored the deceased by raising him from the dead. Therefore, the objection of the opponents is in vain. Other. If, as those talkers say, the body is given to the soul as a punishment, invented for its previous sin, then sin, therefore, introduced the nature of human bodies. But again: “death is through sin” (Rom. 5:12). Sin itself, thus, appears to be armed against itself, resolving what was in the beginning to follow, and therefore Satan was divided against himself, and “what will his kingdom become” (Luke 11:18), according to the word of the Savior? But to think so, of course, is unfounded; therefore the opposite is true. Other. God created everything in incorruption and “He did not create death” (Wis. 1:13), “but through envy of the devil death came into the world” (Wis. 2:24). But if it is true that the body is given to the human soul as punishment, then for what reason, tell me, will we blame the envy of the devil for bringing an end to our suffering and destroying the body that serves us as punishment? And why in general will we give thanks to the Savior, who through the resurrection binds us again to the flesh? But we rightly give thanks, and the envy of the devil introduced suffering into nature, causing corruption to bodies. Consequently, the body does not serve as punishment and is not retribution for our original sin. John 1:10. And the world came into being (through Him) With perfect clarity, the Evangelist points out here that the world was created through the true Light, that is, through the Only Begotten. Although at the beginning, expressively calling Him the Word, he firmly expressed that everything happened through Him and without Him nothing passed into being, and thereby pointed to Him as the Creator and Creator; but it was now necessary to repeat this again and expressively, so that there would be no room for error and death for those who are accustomed to pervert the correctness of Divine dogmas. since he said about the Light that “he was in the world,” then our Evangelist, so that anyone, taking what was said to absurd thoughts, would not classify the light as one of the separate parts of this world, such as, for example, the sun, moon, stars, which are in the world and precisely as parts of the world and as members of one body, considers it beneficial and necessary to immediately introduce the Only Begotten as the Creator of creatures and the Organizer of the whole world, through this again confirming us and leading to a non-false and correct perception of the truth. And in fact, who can be so undeveloped or have such simplicity of mind as not to imagine Him, of Whom it is said that the world came into existence, to be completely different from the world, and not to place the creation in its own place, and not to separate the Creator from it and not to imagine His Divine nature? After all, what was created must be different in nature from the Creator, so that the creator and the created do not turn out to be the same; for if it is thought of as one and the same, without any difference in relation to the way of being, then the created will rise to the nature of the Creator, and the Creator will descend to the nature of creatures - and then there will be no one who has the power to create creatures, but this power will appear to be inherent in creatures, as soon as absolutely nothing will separate them from their consubstantiality with God. Thus, in the end, the creation will be the creator of itself and the Evangelist will find himself assigning an empty dignity to the Only Begotten, saying that “there was in the world and the world came into being through Him.” But he knows the One by nature Creator of everything. Therefore, among those who have the right faith, the Creator, God and the creature are by no means considered to be the same creation, but it must slavishly obey, recognizing the limit of its nature - and the Son must reign over it, alone with the Father, having omnipotence and the power to “call things that are not as if they are” (Rom. 4:17) and with ineffable power to translate what does not yet exist to being. And that the Son, being by nature God, is completely different from creation, having already sufficiently explored this in the work “On the Holy Trinity,” we will not say anything here beyond what has already been said. However, it is beneficial to add that, saying that the world was created through Him, thereby leads us to think about the Father and to “He through Whom” (created), to add “He from Whom” (created), for all things are from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit (cf. 1 Cor. 8:6, 11:12; Rom. 11:36; 2 Cor. 5:18). John 1:10. And the world does not know Him The Spirit-Bearer again vigilantly hurries to warn the intricacies of some, and again the method of his speculation deserves surprise. He called the Son the true Light and certified that He enlightens every person who comes into the world, and in addition, he says that He was in the world and the world came into being through Him. But here one of the opponents could tell us: if the Word, dear ones, was Light and if it enlightens the heart of every person, obviously, to the knowledge of God appropriate to people, and if it has always been in the world and the very Creator of it, then how could it not have been known, and, moreover, for such a long time? Consequently, not only did it not enlighten, but even the light itself did not exist at all. It is against such thoughts that the Theologian ardently rebels, saying: “The world does not know Him.” It was not through His own fault, he says, that He was not known, but the world must blame its own weakness for this. After all, the Son enlightens, but the creature does not receive grace. She was given sight in order to understand the existence of God by nature, but she did not use the good that was given to her for her benefit, she stopped at the contemplation of creations alone, did not reach beyond the limit of created beings, frivolously abused enlightenment, neglected the gift, to which, in order not to fall, Paul commands his disciple to “be vigilant” (2 Tim. 4:5; 1 Timothy 4:14). So, the depravity of the enlightened says nothing against the light. Just as the light of the sun rises for everyone, but the blind man does not use it, which, however, cannot serve as a basis for us to blame the sun’s radiance, but, on the contrary, we must blame the lack of vision for this, for one illuminated, and the other did not perceive the illumination; So, I think, we should think about the Only Begotten, that He is the true Light, but “the god of this age,” as Paul says, “blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that the light should not shine in them” of the knowledge of God (2 Cor. 4:4). We think that the blindness to which man has fallen, according to these words, is not to such an extent that he reaches the point of complete deprivation of light, for in his nature, without a doubt, God-given reason remains, but he extinguishes it to an ineffective state, as if extinguishing it with his passions for vices and the measure of grace melts away. That is why the wisest Psalmist, when he introduces such a person to us, rightly prays for enlightenment, saying to God like this: “Open my eyes, and I will understand Your wonders from Your law” (Ps. 119:18); “The law is for my help” (Is. 8:20), igniting the Divine light in us and removing from the eyes of the heart, as if some kind of pus, the darkness that envelops us due to primordial ignorance. Thus, the world is accused here of ingratitude and, at the same time, of insensibility, as having not known its Creator and not having shown the good fruit of enlightenment, so that finally it would also be true again what is said in the prophetic voice about the children of Israel: “I waited to create 121 grapes, but create thorns” (Is. 5:4). Indeed, the true knowledge of the Only Begotten, like a grape hanging from a branch, that is, the human mind, was the fruit of enlightenment, and not the opposite, that is, recklessness, leading to the lie of polytheism, growing in us like sharp thorns and striking the mind to death with lies. John 1:11. When He came, His own did not receive Him The Evangelist continues to reveal that the world has not known the Enlightener, that is, the Only Begotten, and from the worst sin of the Israelites (passing on) he tries to confirm the guilt of the pagans and points to the disease of ignorance and unbelief that has embraced the whole world. He very skillfully approaches the conversation about the incarnation and, from pure theology, finally turns to an explanation of the economy according to the flesh, which the Son accomplished for us. There is nothing surprising, he says, if the world did not recognize the Only Begotten, as having withdrawn from the understanding befitting man and not knowing that He existed and was in honor, and having become like foolish beasts, as the divine Psalmist said (Ps. 48:13), when even the people most chosen by Him as His own before all others rejected Him who appeared in the flesh and did not want to accept Him Who had come for the salvation of all, the Rewarder. for faith the Kingdom of Heaven. Notice how irrefutable the Evangelist’s word about this turns out to be. He accuses the world of not having “recognized” the Enlightener at all, as if through this he was seeking fair condescension towards him and presenting solid reasons for the grace bestowed upon him. And about the Israelites, who were placed as His property, he uses: “they did not accept.” And this is because it was unfair to say: “they did not know,” since both the ancient law preached and the prophets after him led them to true knowledge. Therefore, both strict judgment against them and, without a doubt, kindness towards the pagans are just. The world, that is, the pagans, having lost their closeness 122 to God through their passion for depravity, therefore did not even know the One who enlightened them. And those who, through the law, possessed knowledge and were chosen to a way of life pleasing to God, finally voluntarily fell into error, not accepting the Word of God, which was already known to them and dwelt among them as their own. Of course, the whole world is “his own” to God, by creation and translation into existence from Him and through Him (Rom. 11:36; 1 Cor. 8:6). But Israel should preferably be called the property of God and inherit this glorious honor, both because God chose holy fathers from among her, and because she is called the firstfruits and firstborn of the children of God. “My firstborn son Israel,” God says in one place to Moses, whom God again, dedicating as His only and chosen one, calls His people, saying to Pharaoh, the ruler of Egypt: “Let my people go” (Ex. 8:1). Also, another true testimony from the books of Moses proves that Israel was the property of God: “whenever,” it is said, “having divided the languages ​​on high, as if the sons of Adam were scattered, you set boundaries for the languages ​​according to the number of the angels of God: and the portion of the Lord, his people Jacob, became his inheritance Israel” (Deut. 32:8-9). He came to him, as if into his own lot and into his own already 123, saying: “I was not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 15:24). Since he was not accepted, he transfers grace to the pagans, and the world, having not known Him at first, is enlightened through repentance and faith, and Israel again plunges into the darkness from which He rescued it. That is why the Savior said: “I came into this world for judgment, so that those who do not see may see, and those who see will be blind” (John 9:39). John 1:12. The little ones received Him, and gave them the realm to become children of God, believing in His name The judgment is truly righteous and godly. The Firstborn Israel is rejected because it did not want to remain in the relationship with God, did not accept the Son who came as one of his own, rejected the Giver of nobility, rejected the Giver of grace, and the pagans accepted through faith. Therefore, Israel should rightly have retribution for its madness, weep for the lack of blessings, receive the bitter fruit of its disobedience, losing its sonhood. The Gentiles should enjoy the benefits of faith, receive glorious rewards for their obedience and be transplanted into the place of that (Israel). They are cut off from the wild olive tree and, contrary to nature, are grafted into a good olive tree (Rom. 11:24). Israel will hear: “Alas, the sinful tongue, the people full of sins, the evil seed, the sons of iniquity, who have abandoned the Lord and angered the Holy One of Israel” (Is. 1:4), and to the Gentiles one of Christ’s disciples will say: “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for gain, 124 to proclaim the virtues of Him who called you out of darkness into His wonderful light" (1 Peter 2:9). since they received the Son through faith, they receive the power to be made among the “children of God.” The Son gives that which alone and by nature constitutes His power, offering (this power) into communion and performing this work as an example of His inherent love for mankind and love for the world. After all, “those who bore the image of the ring” could not avoid corruption otherwise than through the fact that the beauty of the “image of heaven” was revealed to us through the calling to adoption (1 Cor. 15:49). Having become partakers of Him (Heb. 3:14) through the Spirit, we have received a seal in likeness with Him and are ascending to the original form of the image in which, as Divine Scripture says, we were created. Thus, once again having finally received the original beauty of our nature and transformed in accordance with this Divine nature, we will overcome the evil that has befallen us as a result of our crime. So, we ascend to supernatural dignity through Christ, but we will also become sons of God, not without any difference from Him, but only through grace in imitation of Him. He is the true Son, who comes from the Father, and we are adopted by love for mankind, receiving as grace (dignity expressed in the words): “Az reh: you are gods and sons of all the Most High” (Ps. 82:6). The created and serving creature is called to the supernatural (adoption to God) by the simple beck and will of the Father, and the Son is God and Lord not only by the will of God and the Father, and this very being of God and the Son was not acquired by Him only by the will (of God the Father), but, having shone from the very essence of the Father, it has its own (the essence of the Father) property by nature. So again He turns out to be the true Son, being such in comparison with us; for what is by nature differs from what is by adoption, and what is true from what is imitative: we received the name of sons by adoption and imitation, and He, therefore, is by nature and true, to whom we, and having become such, represent the opposite, acquiring this good by grace, instead of natural dignity. John 1:13. Who was not born of blood, nor of carnal lust, nor of manly lust, but was born of God Those who are called, he says, through faith in Christ into adoption as sons of God, have been stripped of the evils of their own nature and, clothed, as if in a bright robe, with the grace of Him who worthy (of them), ascend to a dignity that exceeds their nature; for they are no longer called children of the “flesh,” but begotten of God by adoption. Notice how careful the Evangelist was in his words. since he intended to say that those who believed were “born of God,” so that no one would think that they were in the proper sense born from the essence of God and the Father and achieve the most perfect resemblance to the Only Begotten, or about Him (as well as about them) it is only said in relation: “from the womb before the star I begot Thee” (Ps. 109:3), and thus He would ultimately be relegated to the nature of creatures, even if was called born of the Father, considers (in view of this) necessary for us to use this precaution. Having said that the power to become children of God was given to them from Him who is the Son by nature, and indicating by this that they received this (sonship of God) by adoption and grace, he then safely uses the expression: “were born of God” in order to show the greatness of the grace of God and the Father given to them, as if accepting into His natural property what is alien (to Him) and elevating the servile into the master. nobility, out of ardent love for him. But what, perhaps, will someone say, what advantage or what is special about those who believe in Christ compared to Israel, when he (Israel) is called born of God, according to what was said: “they begat sons and were exalted, but they rejected Me” (Is. 1:2)? To this, I think, it should be said, firstly, that “the shadow of the law of the good things to come is not the very image of things” (Heb. 10:1), and this (sonship of God) he (the law) gave to the Israelites not in truth, but as if written among them in an image and an external sign “until the time of correction” (Heb. 9:10), as it is written, when those who were finally to appear in the truest and most appropriate way They call God the Father because of the dwelling in them of the Only Begotten Spirit (Son of God). Those had the “spirit of work in fear,” and these had the “spirit of sonhood” in freedom, “for whom we cry: Abba, Father” (Rom. 8:15). So, through faith in Christ, the people who were to be exalted to adoption as sons of God were predestined in it (Israel) as if in shadows, just as the circumcision of the spirit, we think, is prefigured in their ancient circumcision of the flesh. And in general, to say that everything we did was educational for them. Let us also add to what has been said that Israel was prophetically called to adoption through the mediator Moses, which is why they were baptized into him, as Paul says, “in the cloud and in the sea” (1 Cor. 10:2), and were transferred from idolatry to the law of slavery through the commandment given to them through the Angels in writing (Gal. 3:19; Acts 7:53). And those who by faith in Christ ascend to adoption as sons of God are baptized not into anything created, but into the Holy Trinity Itself, through the Mediator the Word, uniting humanity with Himself through His unity with the flesh and being united naturally with the Parent, since He is God by nature. Thus, through communion with the True Son, the slave achieves sonship, called and, as it were, raised to the dignity inherent in Him (the Son) by nature. Therefore we are and are called born of God, having received regeneration through the Spirit through faith. But since some, with danger to themselves, dare to lie both about the Only Begotten and about the Holy Spirit, saying that He (the Holy Spirit) is created and created, and completely deprive Him of one essence with God and the Father, then we, contrasting the unbridled language of their language with the teaching of the right faith, will present considerations that are useful for ourselves and for readers. If, dear ones, His (God’s) own Spirit is not God and not from God, and therefore essentially inherent in Him, but there is something else, different from Him and not alien to the same nature with creatures, then how is it said about us, born through Him (the Spirit), that we were “born of God”? After all, we will have to assert that either the Evangelist is telling a lie, or, if he is true - as is the case in reality and no other way - the Spirit must be God and from God by nature, Whose (Spirit) communion is rewarded through faith in Christ, we become partakers of the Divine nature and are called born of God and therefore are called gods, not only by grace flying into a glory that exceeds us, but as already having God dwelling and living in us themselves, according to what is read from the prophet: “for I will dwell in them and resemble them” (2 Cor. 6:16; Lev. 26:12). Otherwise, let those filled with such ignorance tell us how, according to Paul, we turn out to be churches of God, having the Spirit dwelling in us (1 Cor. 3:16), if He (the Spirit) is not God by nature? If He is a creature and created, then for what guilt does God “ruin” us, as “those who destroy the church of God” (1 Cor. 3:17), when we desecrate our body, in which lives the Spirit, who has all the natural properties of both God the Father and the Only Begotten? Otherwise, how will the Savior prove to be true, saying: “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word: and My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our abode with him” (John 14:23) and abide in him, although it is the Spirit who lives in us and through Him we believe to have both the Father and the Son in us together, as John himself said again in the Epistles: “of this we understand that We abide in Him and He in us, as He has given us of His Spirit” (1 John 4:13). How in general can He (Spirit) be called the Spirit of God, if He (Spirit) is not from Him (God) and is not in Him by nature and is therefore God? After all, if, being created, as they say, He is, however, the Spirit of God, then nothing prevents other creatures from being called spirits of God, for this possibility must also extend to them, as soon as it is admitted that the created essence is the Spirit of God. It would, of course, be necessary to develop a long discussion about this and, through many proofs, to refute the folly of the wicked heretics, but, having already given a sufficient discussion about the Holy Spirit in the book “On the Holy Trinity,” we will not therefore now talk much about this. John 1:14. And the Word became flesh Through these words he has already directly begun to speak about the incarnation, for he clearly reveals that the Only Begotten became the son of man and was called. It is this, and nothing else, that the saying means: “The Word became flesh.” This is the same as if he said more directly: “The Word became man.” By saying this, he does not introduce anything strange or unusual for us, since Divine Scripture often names a whole person according to flesh alone, 125 as read by the prophet Joel: “I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh” (Joel 2:28). One cannot, of course, think that the prophet says that the Divine Spirit will be communicated only to soulless human flesh - such an interpretation should turn out to be ridiculous - but, taking the whole according to its part, he calls man according to the flesh. That’s how it was supposed to be, and no other way. And for what reason, this, it seems, needs to be said. Man is an animal, although rational, but complex, namely from the soul and the fleeting of this and earthly body. When he was created by God and brought into existence, not having by his own nature incorruptibility and indestructibility, for this essentially belongs to God alone, he was sealed with the spirit of life, receiving in likeness with the Divine this good that exceeds his nature: “I breathed into his face,” it is said, “the breath of life, and he became a living soul” (Gen. 2:7). When he was punished for a crime, then, rightly hearing: “You are earth, and to earth you shall go forth” (Gen. 3:19), he was deprived of grace, and the spirit of life departed from the earthly body, that is, the Spirit of the One who says: “I am life” (John 14:6), and the animal (man) falls to death according to the flesh alone, while maintaining the immortality of the soul, since it was said to the flesh alone: “You are earth and you will return to earth.” Therefore, it was fitting that what was most endangered in us should be saved the sooner and again called to immortality by reuniting with life by nature. The one who fell into illness had to find liberation from the illness. It was fitting that this should finally stop: “you are earth and you will go back to earth,” when the fallen body was ineffably united with the life-giving Word. The flesh that became His (flesh) was destined to receive immortality from Him. Indeed, it would be very strange if fire could impart into a combustible substance the sensual quality of its inherent power (to burn) and, as it were, transform into itself that to which it is communicated, but to think about the Word of God, which exceeds all, that It cannot impart His goodness, that is, life, to the flesh. For this reason, I believe, it is precisely for this reason that the Holy Evangelist, denoting the animal (man) primarily by its passive side, says that the Word of God became “flesh”, so that one could contemplate together the ulcer and the medicine, the painful and the Physician, the one who deviated towards death and the One who raises to life, the one overcome by corruption and the One who drives away corruption, subject to the power of death and the Conqueror of death, deprived of life and the Giver of life. The Word, he says, did not come into the flesh, but “became flesh,” so that you would not think that It appeared in the same way as in the prophets or other saints, but It truly “became flesh,” that is, a man, which we just talked about. Therefore, God is by nature in the flesh and with the flesh, having it as His own (flesh) and (at the same time) Thought of as something else, different from it and in it and with it Worshiped, according to what is written in the prophet Isaiah: “high men will come to You, and You will be slaves, and after you they will follow, bound by hand ties 126, and they will worship you, and in You They will pray, for there is God in you, and 127 unless you have God” (Is. 45:14). They say that God is in Him, without separating the flesh from the Word, and on the other hand they assert that there is no other God but Him, uniting with the Word what is carried (by Him) as His own, that is, the church from the Virgin, for Christ is one of both. For our benefit, the Evangelist explains in detail what he said and reveals more clearly the meaning of his reasoning. since he said that the Word of God became flesh, lest anyone, out of his great ignorance, suppose that It came out of His own nature and turned into flesh, having undergone what was (for Him) impossible, for the Divinity is alien to any change and transformation into anything else, in relation to the way of being, - very well the Evangelist immediately added that “and dwelt in us,” so that, understanding the two designated objects - the one who dwells, and that in which dwells - you did not think that It (the Word) turned into flesh, but It only “dwelled” in the flesh, using as its own body the church received from the Holy Virgin. “In Him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:9), as Paul says. However, he very usefully asserts that the word “dwelt” in us, revealing to us here a very deep secret. After all, we were all in Christ, and the common face of humanity goes back to His face 128, which is why He is called the last Adam, as enriching everything for prosperity and glory by the community of His nature (with people), just as the “first Adam” did for corruption and dishonor (1 Cor. 15:47-49). So, “in” all “(us)” the Word “dwelt” through One, so that the dignity of the One “called” (defined) “Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness” (Rom. 1:4) passed on to all humanity, - thus, to us, thanks to One of us, the said was extended: “Az rekh, you are gods and sons of all” ( Ps.82:6). Thus, slavery is truly liberated in Christ, ascending into a mysterious unity with Him who bore the “form of a slave” (Phil. 2:7), and in us - by imitation with Him alone for the sake of kinship in the flesh. Otherwise, for what reason did he “receive not angels, but the seed of Abraham, why should he become like his brothers in everything” (Heb. 2:16-17) and become a true man? Isn’t it clear to everyone that He descended into slavery, not gaining anything for Himself through this, but He gave Himself to us, “so that through His poverty we might become rich” (2 Cor. 8:9) and, ascending through likeness with Him into His own and excellent good, we turned out to be gods and children of God through faith? And this is because He who is the Son by nature and God “dwelt in us,” and therefore in His Spirit “we cry: Abba, Father” (Rom. 8:5). The Word dwells as in all in one church, received for our sake and from us, so that, having everyone in Himself, “he may reconcile all in one body to the Father” (Eph. 2:16-18), as Paul says. John 1:14. And we saw His glory, the glory as the only begotten of the Father, filled with grace and truth Having said that the Word became flesh, that is, man, and having reduced Him to brotherhood with slaves and creatures, He nevertheless leaves His Divine dignity intact and again shows Him filled with His inherent Fatherly quality; for the Divine nature itself is constant, cannot be transformed into anything else, on the contrary, it is always the same and remains in its own advantages. Therefore, although the Evangelist says that the Word became flesh, he does not affirm that It was overcome by the infirmities of the flesh, nor that It was deprived of its original strength and glory, as soon as it was clothed with our weak and inglorious body. We saw, he says, “His glory,” incomparable with the glory of others and such as should be recognized as becoming the “Only Begotten” Son “from” God the “Father,” for It (the Word) was “full” of both “grace” and “truth.” Looking at the choir of saints and weighing the wonderful deeds of each of them, everyone will rightly see with surprise and joy the inherent merits of each (saint) and, of course, will say that they are filled with the glory of God. About the glory and grace of the Only Begotten, theologians and witnesses say that it was contemplated not as comparable with the glory of others, but as completely superior and superior in incomparable advantages, having not a moderate grace, as someone else would give, but as completely perfect and true, that is, not external, not from the outside, as if as an addition, acquired, but essentially inherent and as a fruit A paternal quality, which by nature passed on to the Son begotten of Him. If anyone wants to explore this saying through more extensive reasoning, then let him consider for himself those wonderful deeds that were accomplished both by each of the saints and by our Savior Christ - and he will find such a great difference between them, which we have already spoken about. And besides, this. Those are like faithful servants in the house, and He is “like a Son in the house” (Heb. 3:6) “His” (glory: “His”). About the Only Begotten the Divine Scripture says: “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord” (Ps. 117:26), and about the saints God and the Father (says): “And all my servants the prophets have sent to you” (Jer. 7:25). They received power from above, and He, as the Lord of hosts, says: “If I do not do the works of My Father, you do not have faith in Me: if I do, if you do not believe Me, believe in My work” (John 10:37-38). Therefore, if from the very works the Only Begotten turns out to be the same in power as the Father, then accordingly He should be exalted with equal glory, as the Performer of equal works. And, having appeared in the flesh, He will, of course, surpass those called to brotherhood to the extent that God by nature is superior to people and to the extent that the True Son is superior to sons by adoption. Since blessed Luke writes: “Jesus abounded in wisdom and grace” (Luke 2:52), it should be noted here that the Spirit-Bearer said that “full of grace” has “the glory of the Son 129.” How, then, can that which is complete succeed, or what application can that at all admit of, beyond which there is nothing? Therefore, His success is not spoken of as the Word-God, but because, causing more and more astonishment to Himself, He through His deeds appeared most gracious to those who looked, and what succeeded, as one might more accurately say, was the state of those who were amazed, and not the Perfect One Himself in relation to grace, like God. What has been said will serve to benefit, although it represents a deviation from the subject. John 1:15. John testifies of Him and calls out 130 The wise Evangelist again continues the sequence of his thoughts and harmoniously adds the following speech, as necessary, to what was said before. since he said about the Son of God that “we have seen His glory, the glory of the Only Begotten from the Father,” then, so that he does not turn out to be saying this in the singular, since the expression “videhem” does not correspond to one person, he attracts a witness of the same name, who has the same piety with him. Thus, he says, I testify, for I saw what I said, and the Baptist testifies in the same way. A glorious pair of spirit-bearers and a glorious pair of men brought up in the truth and knowing no deception! Look how expressively he told us this. He not only says that John “testifies” about Him, but also considers it necessary to add that “and he cried out” (exclaimed), borrowing a figure of speech from the expression: “The voice of one crying in the wilderness” (Is. 40:3). And this is very wonderful, for he allowed the possibility that one of the opponents would say: when did the Baptist testify about the Only Begotten, or to whom did he report this? So, he “exclaims”, he speaks, that is, he does not speak in secret, he does not testify quietly and in a whisper, but you hear him crying louder than a trumpet. I am not the only one who, having heard this, speaks, but this word is widely spread to everyone, a glorious preacher, a famous voice, a great and not unknown Forerunner. John 1:15. This one, he was killed: he who came for me, was before me, as if he were before me Having named a like-minded witness of the same name and showing that he had a great voice in the ministry of preaching, he usefully adds the content of the testimony, for it (the content) primarily contained the entire meaning of the testimony. What shall we find, this John cries out for the Only Begotten? “Behind me, He who comes before me has become, because before me 131 he was.” A deep speech and requiring a lot of research about himself. The simple and accepted meaning of this saying is approximately this. As for the time of birth with the flesh, the Baptist preceded the Savior, and Emmanuel, as blessed Luke narrates, followed, as it were, (after the Baptist) and, walking behind, appeared a full six months after him. This, some think, is what John says, so they understand the saying in this way: “he who came behind me,” according to the time of age, “has become ahead of me.” But to those who devote themselves to Divine contemplation with more intense attention, one can see, firstly, that such an interpretation introduces insignificant thoughts into us and deviates far from the main subject of speech. After all, the Holy Baptist was taken as a witness not in order to show Christ as subsequent or, on the contrary, previous, by the time of birth, but as (together with the Evangelist) beholding “His glory, the glory as the only begotten from the Father - full of grace and truth.” What meaning could be applied to such an untimely and inappropriate narrative (about the time of the birth of the Savior and Baptist)? Or how can they interpret it clearly for us, taking the saying to mean a certain amount of time, that is: “behind me, the one coming in front of me has become”? Let us assume, as is indisputably true, that the Lord, as appearing second in time according to the flesh, comes behind the Baptist, but how will He also be ahead of him, obviously in time? After all, the order and sequence of speech that must correspond to the preceding words leads us to such a thought. But I think it is clear to everyone that such an interpretation cannot be accepted; for what follows something in time can never precede what precedes it. So, it is completely absurd and completely incredible to think that the Holy Baptist said about time according to the flesh: “He who came behind me was found to be ahead of me.” On the contrary, understanding this in accordance with the purpose proposed to us by the saying, we think that it is said here in exactly this way: the blessed Baptist skillfully raises the word from the usual way of speech to the spiritual property of objects and, as if from some similarity with us, comes to the explanation of the most sublime thoughts. Usually it almost always happens that the leader is more glorious than those who follow him, and the followers are lower than the leaders. So, for example, someone who is experienced in the art of coppersmith, or construction, or weaving, seems to be the leader and turns out to be superior to the one who is thought to follow him in learning and moving towards perfect knowledge (of the art). But when such (a student) surpasses the skill of the teacher and, having left him behind, begins to work better, then without hesitation, I believe, the defeated (teacher) will say about the student who has surpassed him: “The one coming in front of me has become behind me.” According to this example, transferring the meaning of this reasoning to our Savior Christ and the Holy Baptist, you will have a correct understanding (of this saying). Take first everything pertaining to each (Christ and the Baptist). The Baptist aroused astonishment in everyone, acquired many disciples, he was surrounded by a great crowd of those being baptized, but Christ, although His superior, remained in obscurity, and it remained hidden that He was the true God. since he remained in obscurity, when the Baptist aroused surprise to himself, he seemed to be walking behind Him: He walked a little behind him who, however, had the highest degree of honor and glory among people. But “he who came behind became in front,” appearing taller and greater than John. Christ, through his works, was already revealed as God, and the Baptist, not exceeding the measure of humanity, finally finds himself “behind.” So, the blessed Baptist mysteriously said: “Behind me He who came before me has stood” - instead of: He who was once behind my honor has appeared most glorious and surpasses the measure (of glory) befitting me and inherent in me with incomparable advantages. Thus understanding this saying, let us find him (the Baptist) a witness to the glory of the Only Begotten, and not an untimely interpreter of useless objects. The name of Christ greater than himself, although he had great holiness than others, finally, could it be, if not evidence of His considerable glory? John 1:16. Yako pervee" (literally: first) "mene be." Having said that “he became ahead of me,” he must add: “because he was first before me,” appropriating Him with the oldest glory and asserting His primacy over everything, not as something that came in time, but as inherent in Him from the beginning, as God by nature. “He was,” he says, “me first” instead of: forever and always higher and more glorious. By comparing (Christ) with one of the creatures (the Baptist), the superiority (of Christ) over all (creatures) is decided; for we should not see the great and wonderful dignity of the Son in this alone, that He surpasses the glory of John, but in the fact that He surpasses every created essence. "For 132 from His fulfillment we all received In these words, the Evangelist presents the testimony of the Baptist as true and gives clear proof of the superiority of our Savior and the superiority of His essence over every creature, both in glory itself, of which we are now specially speaking, and in relation to all other, numerous and wonderful, blessings (His nature). Excellently, he says, and quite truly, as it seems to me, the Baptist says about the Only Begotten: “as he is greater than me,” that is, much higher and more excellent; since “all of us,” who are canonized as saints, have been enriched by His own good, and human nature is adorned rather by His advantages than by its own when it turns out to have something worthy of glory, for “from the fullness” of the Son, as from an unceasing source, the flowing alms of Divine gifts enters every soul that turns out to be worthy to receive. And if the Son communicates from the fullness of nature, and the creature receives, then how, finally, could He be thought of as having the same nature as others, and not one that befits the Only Begotten of the Father, who has superiority over all (creatures) as the fruit of his own nature and superiority (over everything created) - as the dignity of the Father’s nature? I think that the wisest Paul, reasoning about the nature of everything, was moved through this to true thoughts and finally said this to creation: “What have you received that you have not received” (1 Cor. 4:7)? After all, along with being, both well-being and being of this or that kind are given to the creature from God; it has nothing from itself, but grows rich only in the bounties of the Giver. It should again be noted that he calls the Son “complete,” that is, perfect in everything, and so far from any need that he can give to everyone without experiencing a decrease and always maintaining unchanged the greatness of his advantage. John 1:16–17. And 133 grace came with grace, for the law was given by Moses (through Moses), grace and truth came into being by Jesus Christ (through Jesus Christ) Having said that the glory of the Only Begotten turned out to be brighter than the glory of all people, and pointing out the greatness of His holiness, incomparable with all saints, through those who have reached the highest degree of virtue, he tries to give proof of the proposed thought. Thus, the Savior says about John: “Amen, amen, I say to you: the pain of John the Baptist is not born among those born of women” (Matthew 11:11). But he already presented this such a great and worthy competition, as he himself says, exclaiming and saying in a great voice: “Whoever came for me came before me, as he was greater than me.” If the glory of John is lower and inferior to the Only Begotten, then is it not necessary to think that none of the other saints can equal the Savior Christ in glory and greatness of deeds? So, those saints who were at the time of the coming (of Christ), not surpassing the valor of John and achieving the glory inherent in him, together with him, of course, must be found lower than Christ, just as the blessed Baptist himself, who had reached the pinnacle of blessings and possessed all kinds of advantages, receives the sentence to be lower than Christ, not through the voice of another, but he himself sealed 134 his work, speaking like a saint, truly. since Emmanuel was to appear as the greatest and highest of the most ancient saints, the blessed Evangelist considers it necessary to turn to the first high priest Moses, to whom it was said from God: “I know you above all, and grace was given to me” (Ex. 33:12). And that he was known by God more than everyone else, we can also learn this from the following: “if it be”, - he says, - “your prophet is to the Lord 136, I am known to him in a vision and in a dream I will speak to him, not as 137 My servant 138 Moses is faithful in all My house: I will speak to him mouth to mouth 139 in reality and not by divination” (Num. 12:6-8). Although the all-wise Moses had such great superiority over the most ancient saints, the Evangelist represents the Only Begotten as the highest and most glorious in all respects, so that he may appear “first in all” (Col. 1:18), as Paul says. That is why he says: “and grace for grace, because the law was given through Moses, grace and truth were revealed through Jesus Christ.” I think that the blessed Evangelist wants to express something like this. The great Baptist, he says, made a true confession about the Only Begotten, clearly declaring: “He who came was behind me and stood before me, because I was first, for from His fullness we have received everything.” And let no one think that the Only Begotten surpasses only John or the other saints who were at the time of the coming (of Christ), - He also surpassed in glory the most ancient ones, who shone with holiness in the times preceding the coming. So, he will see, he says, Him far superior to the dignity of Moses, although this one, in comparison with them, acquired the highest degree of holiness, for the Lawgiver clearly stated that he knew him “more than all” (Ex. 33:12). So John was convicted in his own voice that he was walking behind the glory of Christ. But Christ comes (= “coming”) “behind” his (John’s) glorification, about which there is no doubt or contradiction to the truth. But how can we know that the high priest Moses himself was lower than the glory of the Lord? Let the inquisitive, he says, explore the gospel “grace instead of legal grace” given to us through the Savior - through Moses. Then he will see the Son as more excellent insofar as He proves to be legislating what is best in comparison with the institutions of the Law and introducing everything generally more perfect than that of Moses. Thus, “the law,” he says, “was given through Moses, grace and truth were revealed through Jesus Christ.” And what is the (immediate) difference between law and grace through the Savior, this should also be inquired into by the lover of research and the friend of good works. We will say a little instead of a lot, believing that the number of considerations related to this is infinitely large. So, the law condemned the world, for God “shut up” through it “all under sin” (Gal. 3:22), as Paul says, and showed us guilty of punishments; on the contrary, the Savior frees it (the world), for He “came not to judge the world, but to save the world” (John 12:47). The law also gave grace to people, calling for the knowledge of God, and distracting those who were lost from serving idols, and in addition, also showing evil and teaching good, although not perfectly, but educationally and fruitfully; But truth and grace through the Only Begotten introduces good to us, not in images and not, as it were, in the shadow of what is useful, but in the clearest and purest decrees and guides us to a perfect knowledge of faith. The law gave the spirit of slavery to fear, but Christ (gave) the spirit of adoption to freedom (Rom. 8:15). In the same way, the law introduces circumcision according to the flesh, which means nothing, for “circumcision is nothing” (1 Cor. 7:19), as Paul writes to some; Our Lord Jesus Christ brings circumcision in spirit and heart through faith (Rom. 2:29). The Law baptizes the defiled with water alone, the Savior - “in the Holy Spirit and fire” (Matthew 3:11). The Law introduces into the tabernacle as a type of truth, the Savior lifts it into heaven itself and introduces it into the truest tabernacle (Heb. 9:24), “which the Lord set up, and not man” (Heb. 8:2). It is not difficult to add many other proofs to those presented, but one must appreciate the measure. However, we consider it useful and necessary to point out that Blessed Paul in a few words resolved the sought-after subject, saying about the law and grace of the Savior: “For if there is glory in the ministry of condemnation, much more abounds in the ministry of justification in glory” (2 Cor. 3:9). He calls the ministry of condemnation the commandment of Moses, and the ministry of justification he calls grace from the Savior, by which he also acquires the advantage that it is acquired in glory, excellently determining the nature of objects, like a spirit-bearer. So, since the condemning “law was given” through Moses, and the justifying “grace” appeared “through” the Only Begotten, how can He, he says, not surpass in glory the One through Whom the best was laid down? So the Psalmist will speak the truth in the Spirit, exclaiming that our Lord Jesus Christ surpasses all together the glorious multitude of saints, for “who,” he says, “will be made equal to the Lord in the clouds, or who will be made like the Lord among the sons of God” (Ps. 88:7)? Thus, the spiritual clouds, that is, the holy prophets, should give superiority to Christ and not at all think that one can compete with Him in equal glory, as soon as the lowest place is assigned even to the one known from God above all (Ex. 33:12), that is, Moses. Those to whom the name of the sons of God is applied, who lived at the time of the coming (of Christ), should not be unconditionally likened to the Son by nature, but should be aware of their measure, when the holy Baptist himself expressively spoke about himself that he stood behind - the Baptist, about whom the Leader of the heart says: “there was no rising in those born of women of the pain of John the Baptist” (Matthew 11:11). So, the blessed Evangelist expresses the truth, saying that he saw “His glory, the glory as the only begotten of the Father,” that is, one that can befit the Only Begotten Son of God the Father, and not at all those called to brotherhood with Him, of whom He is the firstborn. That the Only Begotten (is) only one by nature from the Father, as (being) from Him and in Him John 1:18. No one has seen God anywhere 141: The Only Begotten God 142, Who is in the bosom of the Father, That confession Pay attention here also to the foresight of the Spirit-Bearer. He did not know that someone, more strictly examining the sayings regarding the Only Begotten, can, of course, say, turning to the Evangelist: you said that “you saw His glory, the glory as the Only Begotten from the Father” - then, since it was necessary to tell us a subtle explanation about this and express the superior and Divine dignity (of the Only Begotten), you used evidence from His superiority over Moses and John, as if it was impossible to see His glory otherwise, although the blessed prophet Isaiah says: “I saw the Lord” of hosts “sitting on the throne, high and exalted, and the house of His glory was filled: and the Seraphim stood around Him, six kril to one and six kril to another, and two veils for the face 143, and two veils for the feet 144, and two fly: and I cried to one another and said: Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord of hosts, the whole earth is filled with His glory” (Is. 6:1-3); Ezekiel also clearly and loudly told us that he could see the Cherubim, who had a firmament hanging, as if in the form of a sapphire, over their heads, and on the throne was the likeness of the Lord of hosts, speaking literally in these words: “and behold,” he says, “a voice above the firmament of being above their head 145 and above the firmament even above their head, like a vision of stone sapphire, the likeness of a throne on it, and on the likeness of a throne the likeness of a man from above. And I saw like the vision of an elector 146 from the vision of the loins and above, and from the vision of the loins and even down to the bottom, and I saw like the vision of fire, and the light around it, like the vision of an arc, when there is rain on the clouds in 147 days, such a standing 148 light around: this vision was the likeness 149 of the glory of the Lord” (Ezek. 1:25, 2:1). So, since it was not difficult to expect that not a few of the ignorant could tell us something similar, the blessed Evangelist hastens to put an end to their objection, saying: “No one has ever seen God,” for the “Only Begotten” Himself, being “God who exists” in the bosom of God and the “Father,” told us this “explanation,” very clearly telling the priest Moses that no one will see “the face Mine, and he will live 150" (Exodus 33:20), and also once to His disciples: "No one has seen the Father, but he who is from God, in this sight of the Father" (John 6:46). Only by the nature of the Son we see the Father, and, moreover, precisely in the way one can imagine, according to the Divine properties, the possibility of seeing the Divine nature and being visible, but to no one else from being. Therefore, the word of the holy prophets is by no means false when they exclaim that they have seen the Lord of Hosts, for they do not affirm that the nature of God can be contemplated as it is in its very essence, but, on the contrary, they themselves clearly exclaim: “This is a vision of the likeness of the glory of the Lord” (Ezek. 2:1). So, the appearance of the Divine glory was displayed covertly in the likeness of our objects and was, or rather, a likeness, as if imprinting on the board the glory characteristic of the Divine, since its true essence exceeds the boundaries of our mind and word. In view of this, the Evangelist turns out to be very wise if, in addition to the words: “and we have seen His glory, the glory of the Only Begotten from the Father, filled with grace and truth,” he cites evidence of His superiority over all. Just as “from the beauty of creatures accordingly” (Wis. 13:5) the power of the Creator of all is contemplated and “the heavens” silently “tell the glory of God, but the firmament proclaims His handiwork” (Ps. 18:2), so again the Only Begotten must turn out to be the highest and most excellent in glory - like God, He surpasses the perceiving power of the eye, but is thought of and glorified according to His properties, in which He is superior to creation. I believe that it is precisely this idea, and not another, that the interpreted saying contains. But we must also pay attention to the fact that he calls the Son “Only Begotten God,” and says that He is “in the bosom of the Father,” so that He would again appear to be outside the same nature with creation, and to have a special existence from the Father and in the Father. After all, if He really is “the Only Begotten God,” then how can He not be different in nature compared to those who are gods and sons by adoption? The Only Begotten cannot be conceived (as one) among many brothers, but as the only one from the Father. And since, according to Paul, although there are many or are called both in heaven and on earth gods (1 Cor. 8:5), the Son is “the Only Begotten God,” then, obviously, He must be apart from others and not belong to the number of gods by grace, but, on the contrary, be true (God) together with the Father, which Paul, following the above words, affirms: “for us there is one God the Father, from Him everything, and one Lord Jesus Christ, who is all things” (1 Cor. 8:6). Since God the Father alone is by nature, the Word that is from Him and in Him should not remain outside of being-God, being adorned with the (Divine) properties of the One who gave birth and essentially ascending to equal dignity (with Him), precisely in relation to being-God by nature. That is why He says that He is in the bosom of the Father, so that you again understand being in Him and from Him, according to what was said in the Psalms: “from the womb before the morning star I gave birth to Thee” (Ps. 109:3). As here the expression “from the womb” actually means the true birth “from Him,” as if again in likeness with us, for children born from people come from the womb; so when he uses the expression “in the womb”, it is as if he wants to expressly indicate the birth of the Son by the Father’s womb, like a God-befitting radiance and an ineffable certain procession to his own hypostasis, having (the womb) at the same time Him in himself, since it was not through cutting off or separation through the body that the Divine Birth (Son) came from the Father. About this, the Son also says in one place that He is in the Father and, on His part, has the Father in Himself (John 14:10–11), for the very property of the Father’s essence, naturally passing on to the Son, reveals the Father in Him; Likewise, again, the Father has the Son in Himself, as rooted in the immutable identity of essence and as born from Him, however, not through separation or local distance, but as existing (in Him) and always existing (with Him). This is how we must piously understand the saying that the Son is in the bosom of the Father, and not as some of those who are accustomed to fight against God interpret, “on whom is righteous judgment” (Rom. 3:8): they pervert everything that is right, according to the word of the Prophet (Mic. 3:9), deceiving the ears of the simple and carelessly “sinning against the brothers for whom Christ died” (1 Cor. 8:12). However, it is necessary to say about how they think and speak and try to teach others. If the holy Evangelist says that the “Son” is “in the bosom” (womb) of God and the “Father,” how the children of the Church correctly understand this and on this basis they affirm that He exists from the Father and in the Father, and with all justice they try to preserve the true image of birth, but, on the contrary, those, intoxicated with ignorance, immediately ridicule this and even dare to say this: “You are talking nonsense, for you have an indecent idea about God, thinking that by means of the saying about the birth of the Son in the bosom of the Father, the birth from His essence is indicated, and unreasonably assuming that He is the fruit of Uncreated Nature. Or, they say, you didn’t hear in the Gospel parables when Christ Himself spoke about the rich man and Lazarus, that Lazarus died and was carried by the Angels “into the bosom of Abraham” (Luke 16:22)? Will you conclude from the fact that Lazarus found himself in the bosom of Abraham that he exists from him and in him by nature, or will you rightly refuse to say so and agree with us that by the bosom we mean love? Therefore, we affirm that the saying about the existence of the Son in the bosom of God and the Father is used instead of the expression: “in love,” just as He Himself in one place says: “The Father loves the Son” (John 3:35).” But if those who love abuse and are capable of nothing but reproach think to amaze us with such words, then we, for our part, can, in spite of them, oppose the right teaching of truth. Lono, dear ones, in your opinion means love, as we just heard from you. But if “God love the world” (John 3:16), according to the word of the Savior, and “the Lord loves the gates of Zion” (Ps. 87:2), according to the holy Psalmist, then shall we really dare to say that both the world itself and the gates of Zion are in the bosom of God and the Father? And on the other hand, when he says to the high priest Moses: “Put your hand into your bosom” (Ex. 4:6), then tell me, is he really commanding him to love his hand and not hide it? Then, will we not find ourselves subject to great ridicule for this, and even more, will we not fall into impiety against the Father Himself, claiming that everything is in His bosom, and imparting to all other creatures the exclusive quality of the Only Begotten, so that the Son has nothing greater than creation? So, having said goodbye to their ignorant opinion, let us move on to the correct disclosure of the truth in the sense that when the Son is said to be in the bosom of the Father, it refers to Him (the Son) as being from Him and in Him. Having carefully examined the meaning of thoughts (of this saying), we will find that this is really so and not otherwise. “The Only Begotten,” he says, “God, who is in the bosom of the Father, is the One who confesses.” As soon as he called “the Only Begotten” and “God”, he immediately added: “being in” the bosom of the “Father”, so that the Son would be understood as naturally existing from Him and in Him, using “the bosom of the Father” instead of “essence” and taking a comparison from bodily objects; for visible phenomena sometimes serve as images of spiritual objects, and what happens to us guides us to an understanding of what is higher than us. Thus, physical objects are often taken as an image and convey to us the understanding of the most sublime speculations, although at one time they are understood in the same way as it seems to be said, 151 which, I think, is what was said under Moses: “Put your hand into your bosom.” Also, the expression that Lazarus was in the bosom of Abraham does not in the least harm our teaching, but, on the contrary, is consistent with it and corresponds to our speculations. After all, the Scripture says almost this: Lazarus, who died and renounced life with his body, was carried into the bosom of Abraham, instead: placed among the sons of Abraham, for God made him a Father of many nations, as in one place it is written about him: “As the father of many the tongue set thee” (Gen. 17:5; cf. Rom. 4:17). John 1:19–20. And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews 152 sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem 153 and asked him: “Who are you?” And confession and not denying: and confession that I am not 154 Christ The Evangelist remembers his words and, with commendable diligence, explains to us more fully what he had previously pointed out briefly and in general (vv. 6–7 and 15). Having said that “there was a man sent from God, his name was John: this one came as a testimony, that he might testify to the Light,” he now considers it necessary to cite the very content of the testimony that was from him. When, he says, the guardians of the Jewish by-laws sent priests and Levites to him with orders to ask what he would say about himself, then he confessed precisely and very clearly, casting aside all shame for the sake of the truth, for he said, “that I am not Christ.” Thus, I, says (the Evangelist), the writer of the book (of the Gospel), do not lie when I say about Him: “he was not the light, but let him testify of the Light” (v. 8). John 1:21. And I asked him: what the hell? 155 Are you Elijah? 156 And 157 of the verb: not. Are you a prophet? 158 And answering: neither As if by way of explanation, having said again: “I confessed that I am not Christ,” he is trying to show when or how this confession was made, and, it seems to me, he wants to reveal the foolishness of the Jews. Indeed, “professing to be wise, they are fools” (Rom. 1:22) and, arrogantly arrogating to themselves the knowledge of the law, spreading the commandments of Moses everywhere and claiming that they (the Jews) accurately interpret the words of the Prophets, however, they are exposed as complete ignoramuses through those questions that they unreasonably propose (to the Baptist). After all, the priestly leader Moses, saying that the Lord would appear as a prophet, predicted to the children of Israel that “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers; Then blessed Isaiah, introducing us to the Forerunner and Harbinger as “The Voice of One Crying in the Wilderness,” says: “Prepare the way of the Lord, make His paths right” (Is. 40:3, quoted from: Matt. 3:3). And with him the third prophet Joel 159 speaks about Tishbite, and this was Elijah: “And behold, I send you Elijah the Tishbite, who will arrange the heart of a father towards a son, and those who are opposed in the wisdom of the righteous, lest I come 160 and destroy the earth to the end” (Mal.4:4-5 and Luke 1:17). So, although it was announced only about three who were to come, that is, about Christ (Messiah), John and Elijah, the Jews, however, expect the coming of many, so that they would hear rightly: “You are mistaken, not knowing the scriptures” (Matthew 22:29). So, having questioned the blessed Baptist and learned that he was not Christ, they continue: “What then? Are you Elijah? And when he said that “there is no”, then they should finally ask about the Forerunner, for this still remained (after the question about Christ and Elijah). But they ignorantly return to Christ (the Messiah) Himself, declared in the law to be a prophet, for notice what they say, not knowing the writings of Moses: “Are you a prophet?” And he “answered: no,” since he was not Christ (Messiah) himself, as he had previously claimed. What do you say about yourself? – I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness (John 1:22–23) He strongly denounces them as knowing nothing and confirms with prophetic testimony the ministry or appointment entrusted to him. I came, he says, for nothing other than to say that the Waiting Lord is already at the door, even more so - inside the door - be ready to follow the path that He will show; You have followed the path of Moses, take the path of Christ - the choir of holy prophets foretold you about this path. Comparison of sayings about the path of Christ Isaiah: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob, and he will tell us his way, and we will walk in it” (Isaiah 2:3). He: “There will be a completely pure way, and the way will be called holy, and there will be no lion there, nor any evil beast,” not one “will go up there; He: “I will give Zion a beginning, and I will call Jerusalem 161 to the way” (Is. 41:27). He: “And I will cause the blind to walk in a way that they do not know, and I will make them to walk in paths that they do not know” (Is. 42:16). Jeremiah: “Stand on the path and ask about the eternal paths of the Lord: and you will see which is the good way, and walk in it, and you will find cleansing for your souls” (Jer. 6:16). And what kind of “good way” this is and purifies those who walk on it, let Christ Himself say about this: “I am the way” (John 14:6). And the letter came from the Pharisees (John 1:24) And those sent from the Jews were Levites and some of the priests. By their questions they exposed themselves in ignorance, since they imagined that one person was Christ (the Messiah), and the other a prophet proclaimed in the law, and therefore, after the holy Baptist said: “I am not the Christ,” they asked: “Are you a prophet” (vv. 20-21)? But the crowd of Pharisees is caught in the fact that they considered themselves, more than they really were, to have an exact knowledge of Divine words; for “what” do you “baptize” at all, they say, “if you are not Christ, nor Elijah, nor a prophet?” They also turn out to be suffering from considerable madness against John, for they do not, as they should, deign to place him among those expected, but due to the illness of pride they have absorbed, they consider him nothing, although he is foretold through the voice of the prophet. Hearing that “I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord” (John 1:23; cf. Matthew 3 and Isaiah 40:3), they, not accepting this word, almost even shamelessly forbid it, saying, as it were: there is nothing in you worthy of faith, not even anything amazing or great - “why” are you “baptizing?” Why, being nothing, are you even doing such a thing? This is the custom of the wicked Pharisees - to belittle those who are already present, and pretend to prefer those who are coming; for in order to always have respect from the Jews and provide themselves with income, they do not want to glorify anyone else (except themselves). So they killed the Heir Himself, saying: “Come, let us kill Him and keep His inheritance” (Matthew 21:38). I baptize with water 162 (John 1:26–28) The blessed Baptist bears the (speech) of his critics kindly, and the explanation he gave in his words about himself very expediently turned into the subject of a saving sermon. He already teaches, although against their will, those sent from the Pharisees, that Christ is already inside the door. I, he says, introduce child-rearing baptism, for the beginning of repentance, washing with water those defiled by sin and teaching them to ascend from the lowest to the most perfect; for it was necessary to put into practice what I was sent to preach - “prepare,” that is, “the way of the Lord.” But the Giver of the greatest and most wonderful and the Giver of every perfection in good “stands in the midst of you 163,” not yet known by reason of the vestment of the body, so superior to me, the Baptist, that I should not consider myself worthy to be with Him even as a servant. This, I believe, means the words: “I am not worthy” 164 to untie “his sandal strap.” By expressing the truth, he also does something else useful, namely: he convinces the arrogant Pharisee to be humble, and presents himself as an example of this. “This,” he says, “in Bethabara 165 happened on the floor of the Jordan (beyond the Jordan), conveying, as it were, a sign of an accurate and subtle memory; for we all have the custom of remembering in stories about the most important objects and the places in which they happened to be. Or pillars and obstacles from where the competitive race began. Genuinely: “God”, but in parallel. 16 "Father" So some, and others and glory: “in lighthouse.” There are also discrepancies among St. Kirill. Authentic: ϰυνὸς δίϰην ἰχνηλατῶν. Μοι - some, and others and glory. μοῦ - Mine. That is without definition, independently. That is The Logos was already or existed in God, as the beginning of everything, before the creation of finite beings in time began. And not by essence or nature. Those. characteristic of the character and principles of the Judeo-rabbinic doctrine of God and His mediator Memra the Word, whom rabbinic theology was inclined to represent as a personal being, inferior to the Supreme Being. The opposite of Judaism or, in general, the Semitism of Arianism and Antiochism was a false teaching, influenced by the principles of Hellenism and Greek philosophy, which destroyed the distinction of the Divine Hypostases in the difference only in the names or manifestations of one Divine Person. Those. quantitative definitions and measurements. In Greek in the original: “not understanding - glory.” In essence, of course, and not in hypostasis. Those. immeasurably high properties. Those. what will be the surplus of this more? Those. different from the first one. Those. as the true Son, having one nature and one being with God the Father - ἔμφυτος. This false teaching is the application to Christianity of the doctrine of the Logos of the Alexandrian Jew Philo, who lived almost simultaneously with Christ. Λόγος ἐνδιάϑετοϛ - The internal word and λόγος πϱοφοϱιϰός - The spoken or external word: terms and concepts borrowed from Philo and found among the Stoics. Αὐτοϰυϱίως, i.e. Himself and in the truest sense. Those. listening to the suggestions of another, different from Himself, the inner Word of God. Those. Orthodox teaching. Literally: may He not be denied from the womb and suffering. Those. Ps.2 “Thou art My Son,” etc. Literally: with the unity of essential quality (or quality of essence). Those. in essence, not in personality. Those. cease to be what it is, or: the Father is the Father, and the Son is the Son. Ἔμφυτον, literally: innate. St. Cyrus cheat as in German: τὸ ἐν αὐτῷ. Regarding the peculiarities of reading St. Kirill of this place, see note. next chapter. [In modern Synod. ts.-sl. lane instead of "god" the word "father". – Ed.] Ἐν γàϱ τῷ εἰπεῖν - in the word, through the saying, vm. authentic: ὑποτάξαι – “subordination, in submission.” Those. although the distance between God and creation is essentially great, we cannot imagine any intermediary being between God and creation - an average between God and creation (which, however, Philo taught - μεϑόϱιος φύσις). Those. from God, or the inner Word, and not from His Divine nature. Those. that knowledge which the Son possesses, without the mediation of another, different from the Son, inner word. So some are ancient. Greek codd. Vulg. Copt. vm.: ϑεοῦ διά (Ἰησοῦ) Χϱιστοῦ, like other Greek. and glory: “Heir of God Jesus Christ.” Literally in Russian: “what happened, (that) was life in Him,” or: “(that) was life in Him.” So "code." Alex. (apparently) and some. some Mayusk., nek. Italian, "transl.:" Car. Sire. (Kuret.?) Ethiopian. (apparently), "heretics:" Naass. and Perata at Hippol., Valens. and Hercules. in Irin., Theodotus in Klim. and "church writing." , except Kir: Klim. Al., Orig. Evs. Gilar. Ambr. Aug. and others, - here we can add those who quote: ... οὐδέ ἕν without further: ὃ γέγονεν, apparently separating these words from the previous ones and relating them to the following, like one Ital. Tatian, Theophilus. Irin. Cyrus. Jer., Athan., Tert. and others, also in Slavs. Reims Gospel, in the Glagolitic section (Sylvester, p. 46, column a. lines. 18). Accepted reading, which follows. and glory and Russian: “and without Him nothing that happened happened. In Him was life” built. in plural Mayusk. one Italian (in appearance), Vulg. ed. Sire. Jerus. (?), Copt., Ign. distribution ed., Just. Did. Efr. Zlat. Epiph. Theodorit., Theod. Pug., Nonn, Theophylact, and according to evidence. Ambr. - Alexandrians and Egyptians. They read without any indication of how the sayings should be divided: codd. Syn. Wat. and others. Sir. "Sch" and "p" (but in the edition of both as Hierus. - with a separating sign after ὃ γέγονεν) Arm. Slav. Also VM. “be” – ἦν, like kodd. Al. Wat. and more May Vulg. Copt. Sire. (Sch. and Wh.) Theodotus at Klim., Klim himself. Orig. Evs. Zlat. Nonnus, Theodoret, Irin. Cyprus. in ed. etc. - read. ἐστί – “there is” Sin. D. codd. mentioned by Origen, Italic codd. Car. Sire. (Kur.) Valens. at Ir. Naass. and Per. at Ippol. Klim. in other cities Cyprus. in the RKP. Gil. Aug. etc. See Tisctendorf's Novum Testamentum graece, ed. VIII major. Ἔι τι γέγονεν, ἦν ἐν αὐτῷ ἡ ​​ζωή vm. authentic ζωή, so that the possibility opens up to think that “ἐν αὐτῷ – “in Him” St. Kirill referred to “ὃ γέγονεν – “what happened”, i.e. to creatures, and “ζωή – “life”” was considered subject and attributed to the Logos, i.e. Logos as life was in creatures. However, the speech is not entirely definite, and ἐν αὐτῷ is grammatically difficult to attribute to ὃ γέγονεν, one would expect ἐν τόυτῳ. Therefore, it can be understood this way: “what happened, there was life in Him,” and this way: “if anything happened, there was life in Him.” Σύστασις – state, composition, installation. ξωογονοῦντος, and other reading: ξωοποιοῦντος. Οὐσιωδῶς, essentially, substantially. Those. "About the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity." Migne, t. 75. Πεπαιδευμένος - so some, others: πεπεδημένους, glory. “chained” in the text, “and punished” - below the line. Earlier in Chapter VI in parallel. place instead of: “in another” it reads: “in Him.” Maybe you should: in yourself. Φάινει and Russian, but slav.: “shines”, as if it stood: φάινεται. Κατέλαβεν - found 15 times in the New Testament, and everywhere with the meaning: to embrace, embrace, grasp, take possession of, take into one's possession, in general and abstractly, like John 1:5, 12:35; Rom.9:30; 1 Cor.9:24; Phil.3:12, (bis). 13, - or externally, like Mark 9:12; John 8:3–4; 1 Thess. 5:4, - or spiritually - in the sense of comprehending, understanding - everywhere in Acts 4:13, 10:34, 25 - on Wednesday. hall. with ὅτι or wine. with undefined and in Ephesians 3c indirect. question. Therefore, Slav.: “embraced”, Russian: “embraced” - accurately convey the term (Galich. Evangel. 1144: “comprehensively”). So is "Vulg." comprehenderunt, and "Sire." Chicken Pesh. and "Afraata" (Tatsianov Diatessaron) ed. "Parisot", pag. 22.lin. 21 and pag. 27.lin. 5: אדדכה ("afel") means: "comprehendit eam", as in Parisot and Walton, and not "vicit eam", as in the translation. Zahn (Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutest. Kanons, 1 Th. Tatian’s Diatessaron, p. 113). We probably have the same inaccuracy in the Latin translation from the Armenians. in Evangelii concordantis expositio facta a S. Ephraem – ed. Moesinger, p. 5. 6 and in interpretation: "pugnaverunt" (tenebrae) "contra illam." Those. from light (the Word of God) turns thought to darkness (creatures). The Holy Father understands ϰατέλαβε in the sense of mental-spiritual perception, as in Acts 4:13, 10:34, 25 and Eph.3:18. Here and in the following text the words are omitted: ἵνα πάντες πιστεύσωσιν δι’ ὐτοῦ. But in interpretation they are given and interpreted. See note. to next text. Those. to be the Lord - meaning: (the way) “of the Lord.” And not ἦν, i.e. not “was” or “existed,” but “happened, appeared.” Wed. the difference between these verbs in use about the Logos and creatures in v. 1–4 and art. 14 – about the Logos becoming flesh. In Slavic this distinction is partly maintained through “be” and “byst”, but in Russian it is not maintained, although it can be maintained in “was - was” and “became, appeared, happened.” This opinion belongs to Origen (In Johannem II. 24. Migne XIV. 164. C-D, ib. cap. 25. Migne 169. C-165. B-108. C, etc.) Cf. Hieron. In Agg. 1, 13. Migne XXV. 1399–1400, – In Malach. praef. Migne, XXV. 1541, – Epist. ad. Evang. et ad Algas. Migne 73. 122 (t. XXII). Wed. notes to our translation of the interpretation of St. Cyril on Haggai 1 (part 10, pp. 424–425) and Malachi, preface (part 11, pp. 234–235). Those. mission or apostleship and revelation are inseparably connected with each other and one presupposes the other. In the previous and here he omits: ἵνα πάντες πιστεύσωσιν δἰ αὐτοῦ - “that all may believe through him.” This omission may attract attention because St. Irenaeus omits these words (Lib. III., cap. 11. § 4. ed. Stieren, p. 465: fuit homo missus a Deo – erat ei nomen Ioannes: hic venit in testimonium, ut testaretur de lumine. Non erat ipse lumen, sed ut testaretur de lumine.) Also in some. manusk. code. 235 and Ald. Prius at Tischend. 8th ed. This may lead to the idea that in the codex from which the text was copied in the interpretation of St. Kirill, these words were omitted. But St. Kirill read them, as can be seen from his interpretation given on them. Perhaps the indicated St. Kirill's objection and the difficulty arising here forced some to omit these words. [He means John the Baptist. - "Ed." ] Χϱιστῷ – in glory: “to the anointed one.” Literally: and not be filled with the good nature of the One who gave birth. Those. by grace they receive communion with the Light. Those. created beings are not called “true Light”, but “lamp” or only “light” and so on. Those. firmly and constantly embedded in the very nature of the object. Maybe instead of τοῦ ἰδίου we should read: τὸν ὠιδιον, i.e. φωτισμόν, - and translate it like this: and through the Spirit he drew His illumination... That is not innate to him. Ἐξανέτειλεν as one code. St. Kir.: acc. Greek LXX (and Heb.), - and reading other codes. St. Kir.: ἐξαπέστειλουν should be considered a mistake. Ἕως as some, but others: ὥς – Sin. Alex. Wat. other plural Those. it is embedded permanently and inalienably. The words: “in the world there would be,” although they are not read here, they are in the general index of chapters (see p. 436 translation), and the following text begins with: “and the world would be” (see below in this chapter after paragraph 24). ̕ Αποϰάλυψιν personal: revelation. Those. good qualities and names. Since φῶς is neuter, the participle ἐϱχόμενον can be agreed not with the nearest ἄνϑϱωπον, like all ancient translations and writers, but with the further φῶς, like Theodore Mops. and some new Παχυτέϱαν τῆς ϑεογνωσίας τῆν αἴσϑησιν. ᾽Απὸ τῆς ὀϱγῆς σοῦ like some, but glory. ἀπὀ τότε ἡ ὀϱγή σοῦ, as others: “from this is Thy wrath.” Those. in their creeds. Τοῦ Έλιϰανὰ (vm. Έλϰανά) ἡ γυνή al.: “daughter of Phanuel.” Ebed-melech - Jer.38ff. Literally: “what through the body corresponds to what he did, either good or evil.” Those. for the entire human race. These words are not in the original. Ψιλόν - without content, inactive, not implemented in practice and in reality. Τοῦ ποιῆσαι acc. Syn. Alex. and many more etc. But slav.: “let him do” = ἵνα ποιήσῃ, as some. min. codd. at Pars. Set Orig. You. Vel. Zlat. and ancient lat. at Sab. Εἰς πεϱιποίησιν – Panda. and St. Al.: “to supply” vm. other ancient texts and now: “updates.” Literally: a whole animal. So Sin. Alex. and others some; but glory. acc. Vatik. and others adds: “and they will come to You” - ϰαὶ διαβήσονται πϱὸς σέ. So Sin. Wat. etc., but glory. acc. Alex. and others add: “rekut” – ἐϱοῦσιν. Those. Christ - as the second Adam - represents in His person all redeemed humanity. It should be noted that instead of authorit. πλήϱης, i.e. Λόγος, no. some read: πλήϱη, i.e. δὸξαν. Omitted: λέγων – “verb”, as in some. Literally: “first me”, – Old Slavic: “first.” Ὅτι read. acc. Syn. Wat. and many others vm.: ϰαὶ – and like Alex. and many others and glory Nek. ancient slav. lat. Arm. Ethiopian. op.: ϰαὶ – i. Those. sealed the verdict. At St. Cyrus. vm.: ἔχεις read.: εὕϱες, as very little. Slav.: “in you is the prophet of the Lord” - there are rare different interpretations: ἐξ ὑμῶν, ὑμῖν, in vobis, inter vos. Ως lowering. Wat. but Alex. cheat Greek: ἐν ἔιδει ϰαὶ οὐ δι’αἰνιγμάτων. Τῇ διαϰονοίᾳ – Sin. Alex. and many others vm.: ἡ διαϰονία slav. Russian acc. Wat. etc. So some are ancient Slavic, and others: “no longer.” St. Alexy: “God has never been seen before...” Θεός – Sin. Wat. Copt. Sire. (on the field) Irin. (in one place), Theodotus at Klim. Klim himself. Orig. Did. and others vm.: ὑιός – Alex. and more Greek and lat. Vulg. Sire. (Kur. and r in the text). Sire. Jerus. Arm. Irin. (in other words) You. Vel. Zlat. Theodoret and Tert. and many others In Vat. here the verse ends and there are no words: “and above the firmament, even above their head.” And in Alex. how famous Before these words it was added: “Whenever they stood, the hussy flew down and shouted at them.” So is Vatik, but Alex. and some other approx. like the famous one: “like a vision of fire around him.” At St. Kirill: "vision." So is Vat., but glory. like Alex: "similarity." Those. no one can see God and live, or: no man can see God. Those. with a literal historical meaning, sayings can have an ideological, spiritual and educational meaning. So Ostrom. Mariin. Zograf. Galich. and other ancient and St. Alexy instead of now: "Jew." Wat. and some approx.: πϱὸς αὐτὸν, as, apparently, St. Kirill in the interpretation, and glory. Yuryev. So Sin. Alex. Vat., but Slav. as well as no. and in Cyrus. option: "some az." Mariin. Zograf. Galich. other approx.: you are, and Ostrom. Legal and others: “Who are you?” But St. Al.: "What the hell?" - no increase. Without συ with Sin. and others no. But now. glory approx. "you" acc. Alex. and to many. At St. Al. there is, but in Ostrom. Mar. Zogr. Gal. etc. no. Cheat. ϰαι acc. Alex. Wat. and many more No cheat. Syn. and some Συ – “you” cheat. and ancient Slav. and St. Al., but now. omitted. It is noteworthy that the ancient Jews also considered Malachi identical with Ezra, an opinion shared by Jerome. Some considered the prophet to be an Angel. St. Ambrose of Milan quotes the prophet under the name of Ezekiel. See our notes on the translation of the interpretation of St. for details. Cyril on Malachi, preface. and 1:1–2 (Part 11, pp. 234–237). For discrepancies regarding this place, see ibid., p. 331–333. Παϱαϰαλέσω, slav.: “I will console.” Ἐν ὕδατι -Ostrom. Mar. Zogr. Gal. St. Al. vm. now: "in the water." Nek. approx.: ὑμᾶς, like Zogr. Assem. Galich. Nikol., but Ostr. and St. Al. no cheat acc. best Greek Στήϰει, and others: ἔστηϰεν and ἐστήϰει. Cheat. ἱϰανός, like Matthew 3:11. So, according to one RCP. at St. Kirill acc. many codd. and Sir. (Cur.). But in other RCPs. St. Kirill read: βηϑανία acc. ancient Codd., Lat. Vulg. Sire. (sch and p – text) and many others. The latter is followed by Ostrom. Mar. Zogr. and others ancient Slav., but now. glory follows Const. 1383 and later. At St. Alexy is not clear about the last letters: “in Vifa...” but by all indications it should be read: “in Bethany.” You might be interested in: