Message in Arian. Word 1st

“The Epistle to the Arians” (4 Words) is the main dogmatic work of St. Athanasius the Great, representing a complete and comprehensive refutation of Arianism and a presentation of the Orthodox teaching about the deity of the Word and the Holy Trinity. This work was probably written by St. Athanasius in 356-361. during his third exile. The Arian Epistle has been called a classic exposition of the doctrine of the second Person of the Holy Trinity and a source of theology. The first word (64 chapters) contains a presentation of the Arian teaching (based on the book of Arius “Thalia”), emphasizing its novelty. Arianism is opposed to the true and catholic teaching transmitted by the fathers. The book contains a defense of the definitions of the Council of Nicea about the uncreatedness of the Son and the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. The 2nd (82 chapters) and 3rd (67 chapters) words represent a detailed analysis of the texts of Holy Scripture (mainly Proverbs 8:22, one of the main arguments of the Arians in favor of the creation of the Son-Wisdom) regarding the birth and incarnation of the Son, the relationship between the Son and the Father. The 4th word (36 chapters), according to most researchers, does not belong to St. Afanasy. The book sets out the teaching about the personal properties of the Son of God, about the mutual relationship between the Father and the Son. The author especially proves that the Word is not a simple quality of the Father, not another principle existing in itself, but the own birth of the Father’s nature, different from him, but not separate, and refutes Sabellius and Paul of Samosata. 1) There are those heresies that have retreated from the truth with deliberate fury, and their wickedness has long been obvious to everyone. For it goes without saying that the inventors of this “came out... from us,” as Blessed John wrote (1 John 2:19), because according to their wisdom they did not belong to us and are now not with us. Why, as the Savior said, without gathering with us, they “scatter” with the devil (Luke 11:23), lying in wait for those who have been put to sleep, so that, having infused their destructive poison into them, not alone, but together with them, they will suffer death. And one of these heresies, namely the last one, which has now appeared as the forerunner of the Antichrist and is called Arian, as insidious and cunning, noticing that its older sisters, that is, other heresies, are given over to obvious shame, acts hypocritically, like its father the devil, hiding behind the sayings of Scripture, and again strives to enter the paradise of the Church, so that, pretending to be faithful to Christianity, since nothing in it has a solid foundation, by the plausibility of his false reasoning, he has deceived some into thinking contrary to Christ. She has already misled other foolish people who were not only corrupted by hearing, but, following the example of Eve, took it and tasted it and, finally, in their ignorance they consider bitter things sweet and call vile heresy beautiful. Therefore, convinced of this by you, I consider it necessary to reveal the folds in the chest of this vile heresy and show the stench of its recklessness, so that those who are still far from it will already flee it, and those deceived by it will repent and with open eyes of the heart understand that just as darkness is not light and lies are not truth, so the Arian heresy is not good; On the contrary, those who call the Arians Christians are in a great and extreme error, as they have not read the Scriptures and do not know Christianity and the Christian faith at all. 2) Why, having noticed the similarity in heresy with pious faith, do they talk nonsense, as if heretics do not affirm anything bad? Truly, this means the same thing as calling Caiaphas a Christian, classifying Judas the traitor among the apostles, asserting that those who asked Barabbas instead of the Savior did nothing wrong, proving that Hymenaeus and Alexander are well-meaning people, and the apostle lies against them. But a Christian cannot listen to this patiently, and whoever dares to say this, no one will assume that he is in his right mind. Instead of Christ, they have Arius, like the Manichaeans, Manichaeus, and instead of Moses and other saints, they look for some Sotad, ridiculed by the pagans, and the daughter of Herodias. For Arius imitates the unsteady and effeminate manner of speech of one, writing to Thalia, and competes with the other in dancing, dancing and winning his blasphemies against the Savior, which is why those who fall into his heresy are corrupted in mind and reckless, the name of the Lord of glory is changed “in the likeness of the image of corruptible man” (Rom. 1:23) and instead of Christians are already called Arians, which serves as a sign of wickedness. Let those who are blamed not invent excuses for themselves, and let not those who are blamed lie against those who are not like them, calling Christians also by the name of teachers, in order to make one think that Christians themselves call themselves that. Let them not get off with jokes when they are shamed by their defamatory name. If they are truly ashamed, then let them hide or abandon their wickedness. The faithful have never yet received names from their bishops, but have been named by the Lord, in whom we believe. The blessed apostles were our teachers, and they served the Gospel of the Savior, but it was not from them that we received our name, but from Christ we are Christians and are called Christians. Those who derive the beginning of their imaginary faith from others, rightly, just as their creation borrows its name from them. 3) And truly, when we were all from Christ and were called Christians, Marcion, who invented the heresy, was cast out in ancient times. Meanwhile, those who remained with the one who cast him out retained the name of Christians, and those who followed Marcion began to be called not Christians, but Marcionites. So Valentinus, Basilides, Manichaeus, Simon the Magus passed on their name to their followers, and some are called Valentinians, others Basilidians, others Manichaeans, the last Simonians, others from Phrygius Catafriges and from Novatus Novatians. Likewise, Meletius, deposed by the bishop and martyr Peter, no longer called his own Christians, but Meletians. So, when Alexander, of blessed memory, bereft Arius, those who remained with Alexander retained the name Christians, and those who agreed with Arius gave the name of the Savior to us, who were of the same mind with Alexander, and they themselves began to be called Arians. So, after the death of Alexander, those who were in communion with his successor Athanasius and those with whom Athanasius himself was in communion, observe the same rule, and just as none of them bears the name Athanasiev, so Athanasius does not borrow his name from them, but again, according to custom, they are all called Christians. Although we have successors to teachers and become their disciples, however, since they teach us the teaching of Christ, we nevertheless remain and are called Christians. The followers of heretics, although they have thousands of successors, certainly bear on themselves the name of the one who invented the heresy. So, after the death of Arius, although many of his students became his successors, those who adhere to Aryan thoughts, borrowing their fame from Arius, are called Arians. And here is an amazing proof of this: even now pagans who enter the Church, abandoning pagan superstition, receive a name for themselves not on behalf of those who announce them, but on behalf of the Savior, and instead of pagans they begin to be called Christians. Those who go to the Arians, even those who go from the Church to heresy, leave the name of Christ and are called Arians as not containing the faith of Christ, but having become heirs of Aryan madness. 4) Therefore, how can those who are not Christians, but Arians, be Christians? Or why will those who rejected the apostolic faith and became inventors of new evils belong to the Universal Church? They abandoned the words of the Divine Scriptures and call Ariev’s Thalia new wisdom, in which they are right, because they proclaim a new heresy. Why would anyone be surprised that when many have written many works and a great number of conversations on the Old and New Testaments, and in none of them is Thalia found, you won’t even find it among the staid of the pagans, and unless something like this is sung among them among drinking parties, during fun, with applause and jokes, to excite laughter in others, the wonderful Arius, without choosing something honest to imitate, did not even Knowing what the staid among the pagans did when they stole a lot from other heresies, he was jealous of the ridiculousness of Sothas alone. And what, when he wanted to mock the Savior, could he have done better than to express the pitiful wisdom of his wickedness with these careless and free verses? As according to the outcome of the word, says Wisdom, the man will be known (Proverbs 29:20); so in these works of Aryan one can recognize the relaxation of the soul and the corruption of the mind in the writer. And although, like a serpent, this insidious one was perverted here and there, nevertheless, he could not hide that he had fallen into the deception of the Pharisees. For just as those, wishing to remain in lawlessness, showed outwardly that they were studying the words of the Law and, wanting to renounce the expected and coming Lord, hypocritically called Him God and denounced themselves, saying blasphemously: why “Thou art this man, make God for yourself” and say: “I am one and the Father” (John 10, 30, 33), so this self-proclaimed teacher and Sotadov the imitator Arius, although he pretends to talk about God and quotes sayings from the Scriptures, nevertheless denounces himself in everything that he, Arius, is an atheist, denying the Son and classifying Him among the creatures. 5) This is the beginning of the Ariev Thalia and the Ariev idle talk, effeminate both in the manner of speech and in the size of the verse. “From God’s chosen ones by faith, wise men, holy children, upright, who have received the Holy Spirit of God, partakers of wisdom, educated men, taught by God and wise in all things, I learned this. Following in their footsteps with one mind, I came, publicized everywhere, having suffered much for God’s glory, and having learned wisdom from God, I gained knowledge.” The disgusting and evil curses he proclaimed in Thalia are as follows: “God was not always the Father, but it was when there was only God and there was no Father yet, but later He became the Father. There was not always a Son. since everything came from nothing and everything that happened is creation and work, then God’s Word itself came from non-existence and was when there was no Word. It did not exist until it happened, and It had the beginning of creation. There was only one God, says Arius, and there was no Word and Wisdom yet. Then, desiring to create us, he created one and called Him Word, Wisdom and Son, so that through Him he could create us.” Therefore, he says that “there are two wisdoms: one proper and co-essential with God, but the Son was born of this wisdom and, as a partaker of it, is called only Wisdom and Word. For Wisdom, he says, came into being from wisdom according to the will of the all-wise God.” Likewise, he asserts that “in God there is another word besides the Son, and the Son, as a partaker of it, is again called by grace the Word and the Son himself.” Their heresy is also characterized by this wisdom, expressed in their other writings, namely, that “there are many powers, and just as one by nature is actually God’s and eternal power, so Christ is again not the true power of God, but He is also one of the so-called powers, among which “springs and caterpillars” are called not only power, but also “great power” (Joel 2:25). ). There are many other powers similar to the Son, about which David sings, saying: “The Lord of hosts” (Psalm 23:10). And like all these powers, the Word itself is changeable by nature, but by its own freedom, as long as it wants, it remains perfect, and when it wants, it can change, because It, like us, is of a changeable nature. Therefore, says Arius, God, having foreseen that the Word would be perfect, previously bestowed upon Him this glory, which man subsequently began to have for virtue, why for His deeds, which God foreknew, He created that He has become such now.” 6) He also dared to say that “The Word is not the true God, and if it is spoken by God, it is not by the true God, but by the participation of grace; like all others, so It is only said by name by God. And just as all are alien and not like God in essence, so the Word is alien to the Father’s properties and in everything unlike the Father’s essence, but is in fellowship with things that have come into being and with creatures, and is one of them.” Moreover, having become the successor of the devil's insolence, Arius wrote in his Thalia that “The Father is invisible to the Son and that the Word cannot completely and accurately see and know His Father, but what He knows and sees, He knows and sees according to His measures, just as we know according to the measure of our strength. For the Son, says Arius, not only does not know the Father exactly (He lacks the strength to comprehend this), but the Son himself does not know his own essence.” And Arius also says that “separate by nature, disunited, separated, alien and not involved in one another are the essences of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and, as he himself put it, to infinity in everything they are not similar to each other in essence and in glory; at least the Word, he says, as far as the likeness of glory and essence is concerned, is completely alien to both, both the Father and the Holy Spirit.” In these words the wicked one expressed himself and asserted that “the Son exists separately by himself and is completely unrelated to the Father.” And this is only part of Aryan’s fables, which are contained in his funny composition. 7) Who, after listening to such speeches and such a tune from Thalia, would not justly hate Arius, who, as if in a spectacle, jokes about such subjects? Who does not see that for show he only names God and talks about God, like a serpent giving advice to his wife? Who, reading the continuation of Thalia, will not see his wickedness, as it later became clear the delusion into which the cunning serpent led his wife? Who would not be amazed by such blasphemies? “The sky was horrified,” as the prophet says, “and trembled greatly” (Jer. 2:12) from the crime of the Law, and even more the sun, indignant and not tolerating the bodily insults inflicted on the common Lord of all, which He voluntarily suffered for our sake, turned away and, withholding its rays, brought about that day not illuminated by the sun. As a result of Ariev's blasphemies, will not all human nature be struck dumb, will not the hearing be blocked, will the eyes be closed, so as to come to the impossibility of hearing anything like that and seeing the one who wrote it? The Lord Himself will not even more rightly cry out against these as the wicked and at the same time ungrateful, which He predicted through the prophet Hosea: “Woe to them, for they have fled from Me: they are fearful, for they are dishonorable towards Me: I have delivered, and these have spoken lies against Me” (Hos. 7:13), and a little lower: “And have thought evil against Me. I have been led astray into nothing” (Hos. 7, 15, 16). Having turned away from the existing Word of God and having invented for themselves a word that does not exist, they fell into nothingness. That is why the Ecumenical Council cast out Arius, who said this, from the Church and, not tolerating wickedness, anathematized him, and the Aryan delusion was already recognized as a heresy, containing something greater than other heresies, and therefore it was called anti-Christ and recognized as the forerunner of the Antichrist. And although, as I said before, such a judgment pronounced on an evil heresy is most sufficient to convince everyone to flee from it, however, since some of those called Christians, either out of ignorance or hypocrisy, as was said before, recognize the heresy as indifferent to the truth and those who are wise are called Christians, then, having interrogated them, we will reveal as much as we can the insidiousness of the heresy, so that at least those stopped by this They stopped their mouths and fled from heresy, as from the face of the serpent. 8) If, on the basis that some sayings of the Divine Scripture are written out in Thalia, and its blasphemies are considered blessings, then, of course, seeing today’s Jews reading the Law and the Prophets, they will renounce Christ with them, and perhaps, having heard the Manichaeans pronouncing some passages from the Gospels, they will renounce with them both the Law and the Prophets. If they are so worried and talk idlely out of ignorance, then let them learn from the Scriptures that the devil, who invented heresies, because of the stench of his own malice, uses the sayings of Scripture in order, under the cover of them, with his poison, to deceive the simple-minded. This is how he seduced Eve. Thus he produced other heresies. So now Arius has convinced him to pretend and speak apparently against heresies, in order to quietly sow his own heresy in the minds. But even in this way this insidious one did not hide. For his wicked teaching about God's Word, he soon lost all confidence, and it became clear to everyone that he was not knowledgeable in other dogmas and was only pretending, and did not reason correctly about anything. For can one truly teach about the Father who denies the Son, who taught the revealed teaching about the Father? Or can he who blasphemes the Word, the giver of the Spirit, have the right to philosophize about the Spirit? Who will believe him, who talks about the Resurrection, when he denies Christ, who became for us “the firstborn from the dead” (Col. 1:18)? Is it possible that, completely unaware of the sincere and true birth of the Son from the Father, he did not have a sinful thought about the coming of the Son in the flesh? So the Jews of that time, having renounced the Word and saying “not the imams of the king, only of Caesar” (John 19:15), were suddenly deprived of everything and were left without a lamp of light, without the fragrance of the world, without the knowledge of prophecy, without the truth itself, and now, understanding nothing, they walk as if in darkness. Who ever heard anything like this? Or where or from whom did the bribed and flattering defenders of heresy hear this? Who, teaching the catechumens, told them something like this? Who told them that, having left the service of the creature, you again begin to serve the creature and the work? If they themselves admit that they have now heard this for the first time, then let them not deny that this heresy is alien to us and not borrowed from the Fathers. What was not borrowed from the Fathers, but is now only invented, can it be anything other than what Blessed Paul predicted: “in the last times some will depart from the sound faith, heeding spiritual flattery and the teaching of demons, in the hypocrisy of a liar, having their conscience seared” (1 Tim. 4:1, 2) and “turning away from the truth” ( Tit. 1, 14). 9) Behold, with boldness from the Divine Scriptures we propose pious faith and, as if on a candlestick, we place a lamp, saying: the true by nature and most sincere Son of the Father, actually belonging to the Father’s essence, the only-begotten Wisdom, the true and only Word of God is He, not a creature, not a work, but the own birth of the Father’s essence. Therefore He is true God as consubstantial with the true Father. All others, as he said: “Az reh: you are gods” (Psalm 82:6), have this grace from the Father only through the communion of the Word through the Spirit, because He is the “image of the hypostasis” of the Father (Heb. 1:3), light from light, power and true image of the Father’s essence. The Lord also said this: “He who has seen Me in the form of the Father” (John 14:9). He always was and is, and was not when He was not. Just as the Father is eternal, so His Word is eternal, or His Wisdom is eternal. What will they present to us from this reprehensible Thalia? Or let them first read it, imitating the custom of the one who wrote it, so that at least the ridicule of others will teach them how deeply they have fallen, and then let them speak. But what can they say from it? Isn't that the same thing? “God was not always the Father, but later became one; The Son was not always there; He did not exist until He was born. He is not from the Father, but came from non-existence; does not actually belong to the Father’s essence, because there is a creature and a work. Christ is not the true God, but He is also deified by communion. The Son does not know the Father exactly, the Word does not see the Father completely, the Word does not understand and does not know the Father exactly. Christ is not the true and only Word of the Father, but by name he is only called the Word and Wisdom, and by grace he is called the Son and by power. He is not immutable, like the Father, but changeable by nature, like creatures, and is not sufficiently acceptable for the perfect knowledge of the Father.” A truly strange heresy, which has nothing plausible in itself, and represents the Existing as not existing, and instead of praise, spews out only blasphemy! If someone who understands what was said by both is asked, what faith will he choose or whose speech will he call befitting of God? It would be better if those who indulge in wickedness say that it is proper to answer those asked about God (because “God is the Word” (John 1:1))? For from this the whole dignity of both of the proposed teachings will become known. What is decent to say? “Was” or “wasn’t”; “always” or “until it came into being”; “forever” or “from then on” and “afterwards; truly" or "by assimilation, by participation" and "by imagination"? Should the Word be called one of creation or should it be united with the Father? What to assert: either something that is not essentially like the Father, or something that is similar and actually is the Father’s Word? Is it that It is a creature, or that creatures received existence through Him? Is it that It is the Father's Word, or that, besides Him, there is another word, and from this other word and from another wisdom It came, and by name only it was called Wisdom and the Word, became a partaker of that first wisdom, and after it occupies second place? 10) Whose sayings contain theology and prove that our Lord Jesus Christ is God and the Son of the Father? Is it in those that you vomited, or in those that we have brought and offer from the Scriptures? If the Savior is not God, not the Word, not the Son, then let both the pagans, and now the Jews, and you be allowed to say whatever you want. If He is the Father’s Word and the true Son, and God from God, “and above all... blessed forever” (Rom. 9:5), then other sayings and Ariev’s Talia, as an example of evil and as full of all wickedness, are they not worth destroying and blotting out? Whoever this Thalia falls into the hands of, he “does not know that her earthly ones perish and are found in the depths of hell” (Proverbs 9:18). And they themselves know this, but they hide it like insidious ones, not daring to say it, but instead they say something else. For if they say it, they will be condemned. If they arouse suspicion towards themselves, they will be swept away from everyone with reproofs from the Scriptures. Therefore, as the sons of this age, with deceit, lighting their imaginary lamp, filled with the oil of the wild olive, and fearing that it will not go out soon (for it is said: “the light of the wicked goes out” - (Job 18:5)), they hide it under a cover of hypocrisy and say otherwise, or promise the intercession of friends, or frighten them with Constantius, so that those who enter their society under hypocrisy and promises will not saw the filth of heresy. And therefore, again, is not this heresy worthy of hatred, when it, as devoid of all boldness, even hides itself and is warmed by them, like a snake? Where did they get these sayings from? Or did they borrow from whom and dare to say such things? They cannot say that any person told them this. Which of the people, Hellenic or barbarian, dared to say about the God he professed, that He was one of the creatures and did not exist until He was created? Or who will not believe the God in Whom he has believed when He says: “This is My beloved Son” (Matthew 3:17), and will begin to assert: He is not a Son, but a creature? Most likely, everyone will be indignant at those who utter such crazy speeches. But even in the Scriptures there are no pretexts for this. It has already been and will now be proven many times that this is alien to God’s words. So, since it remains to be said that, having borrowed this from the devil, they went mad, because he is the only sower of such teachings, then let us resist him, because we have a fight with him in the person of these heretics; Let us resist so that when, with the Lord’s help, the devil is struck down by denunciations, and the heretics are ashamed, seeing the one who sowed heresy in them brought into difficulty, and although they learned late that, being Arians, they are no longer Christians. 11) You have said how the devil inspired you, and you think what happened when the Son did not exist. For first of all, this veil of your fiction must be removed from you. Tell me, blasphemers and evil-doers, what happened when the Son was not? If you call the Father, then your blasphemy is greater. For it is impermissible to say that He once existed or to designate Him by this “no time.” He always exists, He exists now, He exists during the existence of the Son, He is the Son and the Father of the Son. If you say that the Son was in this “once time” when He was not, then the answer is unreasonable and meaningless. For in what way was He and was not? Why, in order to get out of this difficulty, it is necessary to tell you: there was once a time when there was no Word. For in essence this means your very adverb “once.” And what else you said when you wrote: the Son was not until He was born - this means the same as what you said: there was once when He was not. For both the first and last sayings mean that there was a time before the Word. Where did you find this? “In this way” and you, like the “pagans”, have rebelled and are taught “vain” sayings “against the Lord and against His Christ” (Psalm 2:1,2)? None of the Holy Scriptures said anything similar about the Savior, but most of all he uses the words: “always, eternally, always abides with the Father.” For it is said: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was to God, and God was the Word” (John 1:1), and in the Apocalypse it says the following: “He is, and He is, and He is to come.” wrote: “From them is Christ according to the flesh, who is blessed above all God forever” (Rom. 9:5), and to the shame of the pagans he said: “For what was invisible to Him, from the creation of the world was thought by the created, is visible the essence, and His everlasting power and Divinity” (Rom. 1:20). And Who is God's power, he again teaches, saying: “Christ. God's power and God's Wisdom" (1 Cor. 1:24). For by saying this, it does not mean the Father, as you often repeated, saying to each other: the Father is His ever-present power. But in reality it’s not like that. The apostle did not say: God Himself is power, but His power is. It is obvious to everyone that the saying “His” does not mean “He” and also does not mean something extraneous, but rather something that actually belongs to Him. Read these sayings in connection and turn to the Lord: “The Lord is the Spirit” (2 Cor. 3:17), and you will see what the Son means here. 12) For having mentioned creation, the apostle accordingly writes about the power of the Creator in creation, that is, about God’s Word, by which “all things were” (John 1:3). If creation by itself alone and without the Son is sufficient to lead to the knowledge of God; then be careful that you do not fall, thinking that the creation was brought into being without the Son. If the creation is brought into being by the Son, “and all things are made in Him” (Col. 1:17), then he who looks at the creation correctly, of necessity, sees the Word that created it, and through the Word begins to understand the Father. If, according to what the Savior said, no one knows the Father except the Son, and if the Son reveals it to anyone (Matthew 11:27), and to Philip’s question: “show us the Father,” the Lord did not say: look at the creation, but: “he who sees Me, sees the Father” (John 14:8, 9), then Paul rightly accuses the pagans that, considering the harmony and order in the creation, they do not They think about the Creator of creation - the Word, because creatures proclaim their Creator, so that through them they will understand the true God and stop serving the creatures. The Apostle, making reference to the Son, said: “and His everlasting power and Divinity” (Rom. 1:20). The saints, saying: “This is the first age” (Psalm 54:20), “With whom you made the worlds also” (Heb. 1:2), nevertheless, again preach the good news about the eternal existence and eternity of the Son, which means that He is God. Isaiah says: “Eternal God... who has formed the ends of the earth” (Is. 40:28). Susanna said: “Eternal God” (Dan. 13:42). Baruch wrote: “I will cry out to the Eternal in my days” (Bar. 4:20), and a little lower: “for I have trusted in the Eternal for your salvation, and joy will come to me from the Holy One” (Bar. 4:22). since, writing to the Jews, the apostle says, “Who is the radiance of glory and the image of His hypostasis” (Heb. 1:3), and David in the eighty-ninth psalm sings: “And bring the glory of the Lord ... upon us” (Psalm 89:17), and “in Your light we will see light” (Psalm 35:10), then will anyone be so foolish as to doubt eternal existence of the Son? For when has anyone seen light without the brightness of radiance, so that he could say about the Son: it was when He was not, or was not until He was born? And what was said to the Son in Psalm 144, “Your kingdom is the kingdom of all ages” (Psal. 144, 13), does not allow anyone to imagine even the slightest duration during which the Word would not exist. For if all duration is measured by centuries, and the Word is the King and Creator of all ages, then since there is not even the slightest duration before the Word, it is necessary to call it madness when they say: there was, when the Eternal was not, and the Son from what did not exist. And since the Lord Himself says: “I am... the truth” (John 14:6), he does not say: “I have become the truth, but I always am,” and also says: “I am the shepherd” (John 10:14), “I am the light” (John 8:12), and also: “you say that I am teacher and Lord: and you say well that I am” ( John 13:13), then hearing that God, the Father’s Wisdom and the Father’s Word, speaks of Himself in this way, who else will doubt the truth and not immediately believe that the word “I am” signifies the eternal and beginningless existence of the Son? 13) Therefore from what has been said it is clear that the Scriptures, speaking about the Son, show His eternity. And that the sayings used by the Arians: “there was not, until, when,” the same Scriptures are used about creatures, this will also be clear from what follows. For Moses, narrating the beginning of our existence, says: “and every herb of the herb, before even being on the earth, and every grass of the herb, before even vegetating: no rain... God on the earth, and man did not do this” (Gen. 2, 5), and in Deuteronomy: “when the Highest divided the tongues” (Deut. 32, 8). The Lord himself said: “Because they loved Me quickly, they rejoiced, because I am going to the Father: because the Father... I am sick. And now I have spoken to you, before it will not even be: that when it comes, you will have faith” (John 14:28, 29), and about creation he speaks through Solomon: “before the earth was created, and before the depths were created, before there was a spring of water, before the mountains were raised, before all the hills He brought forth Me” (Proverbs 8:23-25). And - “before even Abraham was not, I am” (John 8:58). About Jeremiah he says: “Before I created you in the womb, I knew you” (Jeremiah 1:5). David sings: “Lord, you have been our refuge forever and ever: before even the mountains were not, and the earth and the world were created, from everlasting to everlasting you are” (Psalm 89:2,3). In Daniel: “Susanna cried out with a great voice, and said: Eternal God, the knower of the hidden things, who knew all things before their being” (Dan. 13:42). So: “there was no time until he came into being, when,” and all similar expressions are proper to use about created things and about creatures that came from nothing, but they are alien to the Word. If the Scriptures use these expressions about creatures, but about the Son the expression “always,” then it means, God-fighters, that the Son did not come from nothing. The Son is not at all one of the created beings, but He is the Father’s Image and the eternal Father’s Word, not ever not existing, but always present as the eternal Radiance of the eternal Light. Why do you imagine times before the Son? And why, after the passage of time, do you blaspheme the Word by which the ages also came into existence? How did a time or age come to pass when, in your opinion, the Word had not yet appeared, by whom “all things... were, and without Him nothing came into existence”? Or why, when implying time, do not say clearly: there was a time when there was no Word, but you hide the name “time” to deceive the simple-minded, but you do not hide your thought at all, even if you hide it, you cannot hide? For again you signify times, saying, “It was, when it was not; was not until he was born.” 14) After these proofs, they say with even greater shamelessness: “If there was no time when He was not, but the Son is eternal and abides with the Father, then by this you affirm that He is no longer the Son, but the brother of the Father.” O foolish and stubborn ones! If we called Him only eternally coexistent with the Father, and not the Son, then their feigned fear of God would be somewhat more plausible. If, calling Him eternal, we confess Him to be the Son of the Father, then how can the Begotten be honored as the brother of the Begotten? And if our faith is in the Father and the Son, then what kind of brotherhood is there between Them? Or how can the Word be called the brother of the One whose Word it is? They do not make this objection as if they were ignorant, because they themselves see the truth. But this is a Jewish excuse, an excuse, as Solomon said, of those who want to “separate themselves” from the truth (Proverbs 18:1). The Father and the Son were not born from any pre-existing principle to be called brothers by Him, but the Father is the beginning and the parent of the Son, and the Father is the Father, and was no one’s son, and the Son is the Son, and not the brother. If it is called the eternal Birth of the Father, then it is said perfectly, because the essence of the Father was never incomplete, so that what actually belonged to it would come to it later. The Son was not born as man from man, so that he would appear later than the Father’s being; He is the Birth of God and, as the truly existing Son of the ever-existing Father, exists eternally. It is common for people to give birth in time due to the imperfection of nature, but God’s Birth is eternal due to the eternal perfection of nature. Therefore, if He is not the Son, but was made from something that does not exist, then let them first prove this and then, imagining Him as a creature, cry out: there was once when He did not exist, because creatures, having no prior existence, were brought into existence. If He is the Son (for this is what the Father says, the Scriptures cry about this), and the Son is nothing other than that which is begotten of the Father, and that which is begotten of the Father is His Word, Wisdom and Radiance, what should one say? Is it not that those who assert: there was once, when there was no Son, like some thieves, steal the Word from God and say directly against Him that He once existed without His own Word and without Wisdom, that there was once light without a ray, there was a waterless and dry spring? Although they pretend to be afraid to use the name time in order to avoid reproaches, they say that the Son is before time, however, by allowing some kind of duration in which they represent Him as non-existent, they mean nothing more than time, and, by attributing to God existence without the Word, they are terribly ungodly. 15) If, not wanting everyone to openly condemn them, they also confess the name of the Son, but deny that He is the own birth of the Father’s essence, as if it were impossible for this to exist without the assumption of parts and divisions, and nevertheless also deny that He is the true Son, calling Him Son only by name, then aren’t they seriously sinning by representing the Incorporeal as inherent in bodies and, due to the weakness of their nature, denying that by nature actually belongs to the Father? It remains for them, not understanding how God exists and what the Father is like, to deny Him, because the Father’s Birth is measured by the unreasonable. But although for such a disposition of spirit and for the fact that they consider the existence of the Son of God impossible, they are worthy of regret, however, justice requires asking and convicting them, which, perhaps, will bring them to their senses. If, in your opinion, the Son is from non-existence and was not until he was born, then, without a doubt, He is called by the sacrament the Son Himself, and God, and Wisdom, because by the sacrament all other beings are both sanctified and glorified as sanctified. Therefore, it is necessary to tell you, whose partaker is He? All other beings are partakers of the Spirit; Whose partaker do you think the Son will be? Are you a partaker of the Spirit? But the Spirit Himself receives more from the Son, as the Son said (John 16:14), and it is unreasonable to assert that the Son is sanctified by the Spirit. Therefore, the Son is a partaker of the Father; this alone remains to be said out of necessity. What exactly does the Son partake of or where does he partake from? If this was thought up by the Father from outside, then the Son will no longer be a partaker of the Father, but of this one who was from outside, and, having this before Him, the Son will no longer be second after the Father and can be called not the Son of the Father, but the Son of that of which, having become a partaker, He is called both Son and God. Even if this is absurd and ungodly, because the Father also says: “This is My beloved Son” (Matt. 3:17), and the Son confirms that God is His own Father (John 8:54), then it is clear that the Son does not partake of anything external, but of the Father’s essence. But again, if what the Son partakes of constitutes something other than the essence of the Son, then an equal incongruity is encountered, because again something mediating is found between the Father and the essence of the Son, whatever that essence may be. 16) since such speculations are absurd and clearly contrary to the truth, it is necessary to say: what is from the Father’s essence is completely the Father’s own Son. For the expression: God gives Himself in full communion is equivalent to this: God gives birth, and what is meant by the word “give birth” if not the Son? All beings, by the grace of the Spirit bestowed by the Son, become partakers of the Son Himself, and from this it clearly follows that the Son Himself is not anyone’s partaker, but what others partake of from the Father, that is the Son. For of those who partake of the Son Himself we say that they are partakers of God. And this means what Peter said: “that you may be partakers of the Divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4), as the apostle says: “Do you not know that you are the church of God” (1 Cor. 3:16), and for we are “the living church of God” (2 Cor. 6:16). And looking at the Son Himself, we see the Father, because to understand and comprehend the Son means to acquire knowledge of the Father, since the Son is the own birth of the Father’s essence. And just as none of you would call giving yourself into communion a suffering state or a division of God’s essence, for it has been explained and recognized without contradiction that God gives himself into communion, and giving himself into communion and giving birth are one and the same thing, so birth is not suffering and a division of one blessed essence. Therefore, there is nothing incredible in the fact that God has a Son, the birth of His own essence, and, speaking about the Son and about birth, we do not mean either suffering or the division of God’s essence, but moreover we recognize the Most Sincere, True and Only Begotten of God and believe in Him. Since this has been made clear and proven that the Son is the birth of the Father’s essence, no one will doubt it, but, on the contrary, it will be obvious to everyone that this Birth is Wisdom and that Word of the Father, about Whom and through Whom the Father creates and produces everything. It is also that Radiance of the Father, with which the Father enlightens everything and reveals Himself to whomever He wants. It is His mark (χαρακτὴρ) and the Image in which the Father is contemplated and known, why the Son and the Father are one. For whoever sees the Son sees the Father also. It is Christ, by whom all things were redeemed, and by whom the Father also brought forth a new creation. And since such is the Son, it is indecent and even extremely dangerous to say that He is a product of non-existence and that He did not exist until He was born. Whoever speaks in this way about the own Birth of the Father’s essence extends blasphemy to the Father Himself, and about Him having the same thoughts that he falsely imagines about His Birth. 17) Although this alone is sufficient to overthrow the Arian heresy, however, its wrongheadedness can be seen by anyone from the following. If God is the Creator and Maker, and creates creatures through the Son, and it is impossible to see anything brought into being otherwise than by the Word, then is it not blasphemy, when God is the Creator, to assert that there never was His creative Word of Wisdom? This means the same thing as saying: God is not the Creator, does not have a creative Word of His own, but has arisen from outside, is alien to Him, and dissimilar in essence to the One by whom God creates. Then, let them tell us, or better yet, let them at least from this see their wickedness, with which they say: it was when it was not, and it was not until it was born. If the Word is not eternally co-inherent with the Father, then the Trinity is not eternal, but was formerly a Unity, and through addition subsequently became a Trinity, and only with the passage of time did the knowledge of theology increase and become complete. And again: if the Son is not the own birth of the Father’s essence, did not come from non-existence, then the Trinity was made up of non-existent, and it happened when there was no Trinity, but there was a Unity, and once there was an incomplete Trinity, once it became complete, and precisely, It is incomplete until the Son comes into being, but it became complete when it came into existence. And what has already been created is ranked with the Creator, what did not once exist becomes an object of divine knowledge and is glorified along with the eternally Existing One, and, what is even more important, the Trinity turns out to be unlike Itself, made up of extraneous and alien natures and essences! And this means the same thing as calling the Trinity created. What kind of godliness is this, unlike itself, but replenished with the passage of time and which was once not so, but after some time became so? One might think that it will still receive an increase, and this will extend to infinity, just as it was once formed through addition at the very beginning. But there is also no doubt that it may decrease, because what is added, as is obvious, can also be taken away. 18) But this is not so. Let this not happen! The Trinity is not created, but the eternal and one Divinity in the Trinity and the one glory of the Holy Trinity, and you dare to dissect It into different natures. When the Father is eternal, you say about the Word seated with Him: it was when He was not. When the Son sits with the Father, you plot to remove Him from the Father. The Trinity creates and creates, but you are not afraid to reduce Her to the ranks of those created from nothing, you are not horrified to equate slave creatures with the glorious Trinity and to place the King of the Lord of Hosts at the same time with his subordinates. Stop confusing the incompatible, or better yet, confuse the non-existent with the existing. To say this does not mean to give glory and honor to the Lord, but to disgrace and dishonor Him. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father. If now theology is complete in the Trinity, and this is the true and only godliness, and it is the best of all and is the truth itself, then this should always have been so, so that the best and the truth itself were not something subordinate and the fullness of theology was not composed through additions. So this was meant to be eternal. And if it was not eternal, then even now theology should not have been like that, but what you assume it to be at the beginning, so that even now there would not be a Trinity. But no Christian will tolerate such heretics. For it is characteristic of the pagans to introduce the created Trinity and equate It with creatures. Only creatures admit shortcomings and additions to themselves. The Christian faith knows the unchangeable, perfect and always the same blessed Trinity, and does not add anything more to the Trinity, and does not imagine that It was ever insufficient, for both are evil, and therefore recognizes It as not allowing into It any admixture of created things; worships Her, preserving the inseparability and unity of Her Divinity; and just as he flees Arian blasphemies, so he confesses and knows the eternal existence of the Son. For He is eternal like the Father, and His Word is eternal. And we will see this in the following. 19) If God is the Source of wisdom and life and is called by these names, as He says through Jeremiah: “You have forsaken the fountain of living waters” (Jer. 2:13), and also: “the throne of glory is exalted... the place of our holiness, the hope of Israel, O Lord! Let all who forsake Thee be ashamed, let all who retreat to the earth be written, for having forsaken the source of the life of the Lord" (Jer. 17:12, 13), and in the book of Baruch it is written: "They have forsaken to nature the Source of wisdom" (Bar. 3:12), then life and wisdom should not be alien, but inherent in the essence of the Source, and not be ever deprived of being, but always have being. And the Son says: “I am... life” (John 14:6), and: “I am the wisdom of all the counsel” (Proverbs 8:12). Therefore, is he not ungodly who says, “It was when the Son was not?” This means to say: it was when the Source was dry, without Life and without Wisdom. But such a source will no longer be a source. He who does not emanate from himself is no longer a source. What inconsistencies are there in this? God gives a promise to those who do His will that they will be like a spring in which the water does not fail, saying through the prophet Isaiah: “And you will be satisfied as your soul desires, and your bones will become fat, and you will be like a watering heap, and like a spring where the water does not fail” (Is. 58:11). They dare to blaspheme God, both the so-called and real source of Wisdom, saying that he was once waterless and poor in his own Wisdom. But what they say is false, but the truth testifies that God is the eternal Source of His Wisdom. And since the Source is eternal, then Wisdom must also be eternal, because by Her all things were created, as David sings: “Thou hast created all things by Wisdom” (Psalm 103:24), and Solomon says: “God founded the earth with Wisdom, but prepared the heavens with Reason” (Proverbs 3:19). And this Wisdom is the Word, and as John says: “all things were by Him, and without Him they were nothing” (John 1:3), and this Word is Christ. For “there is one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we are with Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by Him are all things, and we by Him” (1 Cor. 8:6). If “everything is by Him,” then He Himself cannot be counted among everyone. Whoever dares to say about Him, “who is all”, that He is the only one of all, will, without a doubt, conclude the same about God, from “who is all.” If anyone flees such a conclusion as absurd and distinguishes God from all created beings, then he should also say about the only begotten and the Father’s own essence, the Son, that He is different from all created beings. And when He is not one of all, then it is impermissible to say about Him: it was when He was not; and: was not until he was born. For it is proper to use such expressions about creatures, and the Son is the same as the Father, He is the own birth of His essence, the Word and Wisdom. This is the property of the Son in relation to the Father, and this indicates the Father's own to the Son, which is why it is impossible to say that God was ever without the Word, and it is also impossible to say that the Word ever had no being. For why is the Son, if not from the Father? Or why the Word and Wisdom, if not always the property of the Father? 20) Was there ever a time when God was without His property? Or why can anyone talk about their own as something foreign and alien? Everything that is created is not in the least similar in essence to its Creator, but outside of Him, by His grace and will, it was created by the Word, which is why again, if the Creator wishes, it can cease to ever exist, because created beings have such properties. And who actually is the Father’s essence (for it is already recognized that such is the Son), is it not impudent and wicked to say that He is from something that does not exist and was not until He was born, but happened by chance, and again may never exist? As soon as such a thought comes to anyone, let him imagine that this takes away perfection and completeness from the Father’s essence. And again, everyone will see even more clearly the inconsistency of heresy if he brings to himself the thought that the Son is the image and radiance of the Father, and the mark, and the truth. If, as soon as there is Light, there is already His Image - Radiance, and as soon as there is a Hypostasis, there is also Its entire Mark, and as soon as there is a Father, there is also Truth, then let those who measure the Image and Mark of the Divine by time understand what ditch of wickedness they are falling into. If the Son did not exist until he was born, then there was not always truth in God. But to say this is impious. since there was a Father, there was always truth in Him, that is, the Son, who says about Himself: “I am... the truth” (John 14:6). since there was a Hypostasis, then, without a doubt, there immediately had to be Her Image and outline, because the Image of God is not written outside, but God Himself is the parent of this Image and, seeing Himself in It, rejoices in It, as the Son himself says: “Az beh, rejoiced in Him” (Proverbs 8:30). When did the Father not see Himself in His Image? Or when he did not rejoice, so that he dared to say to someone: The Image came from non-existence, and the Father did not rejoice until the Image came into being? And how would the Creator and Creator see Himself in the created and created essence? The image must be the same as His Father. 21) So, let us consider the properties of the Father in order to find out about the Image, whether it is truly the Father’s image. The Father is eternal, immortal, powerful, He is Light, King, Almighty, God, Lord, Creator and Creator. The same must be in the Image, so that he who sees the Son really sees the Father. If the Image is not like that, but on the contrary, as the Arians philosophize, the Son is created and not eternal, then He is not the true image of the Father, unless without shame they begin to assert that naming the Son as an image is not a sign of similarity, but only His name. But this, Christ-fighters, is again no longer an image or a mark. For what is the similarity between that which comes from nothing and the Creator who brings it into being out of nothing? Or what similarity is possible between the Existing and the Non-Existent, which already has the defect that it never had existence and is placed among the things created? The Arians, wanting to represent the Son in this way, came up with their own conclusions and said: “If the Son is the birth and image of the Father and is like the Father in everything, then without a doubt, just as the Son is born, so He Himself must give birth and become the Father of the Son, and also the one who is born of the Son must himself give birth, and so on ad infinitum. For this only shows the likeness of the begotten to the begotten.” Truly, the inventors of blasphemies are these atheists, who, in order not to recognize the Son as the Image of the Father, imagine something corporeal and earthly about the Father Himself, attributing to Him sections, outflows and inflows. So, if God is the same as man, then let him be a parent like man, so that the Son also becomes the father of another son, and then let the sons descend from each other in order, so that, according to the heretics, the succession of the gods will increase to a multitude. But if God is not the same as a person (and this is indeed the case), then one should not imagine anything human about Him. Irrational animals and people, by the power of the creative principle, are born by succession from each other, and the one who is born, having been born from the father born, in accordance with the order of things, becomes the father of another, having this in himself from the father from whom he himself came, which is why between them there is no father in the proper sense and no son in the proper sense, and the names “father” and “son” are not something permanent for them, because the same is the son of the one who gave birth and the father of the one who was born by him. But this is not how we should understand the Divinity. God is not like man, because the Father is not from the Father, and therefore He does not beget a Father who will give birth, and the Son does not come from the Father by process, and He is not born from the Father who is begotten, and therefore He is not born in order to give birth. And therefore, in the Divinity alone, the Father is in the proper sense the Father, and the Son in the proper sense the Son, and for Them alone it is constant - the Father always be a father and the Son always be a son. 22) Therefore, he who inquires why the Son cannot give birth to a son, let him ask: why did the Father not have a father? But both questions are absurd and full of all sorts of wickedness. Just as the Father is always a father and was never a son, so the Son is always a son and will never be a father. In this, moreover, it is revealed that the Son is the mark and image of the Father, remains what He is, and does not change, but has the identity of being from the Father. Therefore, if the Father changes, then let His Image also change, for as He gave birth, such is His Image, such is the Radiance. If the Father is unchangeable, and remains what He is, then, of necessity, His Image remains what He is, and will not change. The Son is from the Father, therefore He is nothing other than that, but that which actually belongs to the Father’s essence. Consequently, the foolish came up with this in vain, intending to steal His Image from the Father in order to compare the Son with creatures. So, the Arians, according to the teaching of Eusebius, numbering the Son among the creatures and considering Him the same as the things He created, retreated from the truth, picking up cunning sayings for themselves, as they went everywhere at the beginning when they invented only this heresy, and to this day, not in small numbers, they catch youths in the market places and offer them questions not from the Divine Scriptures, but, as if from the abundance of their hearts pouring out, they say: “Did the existing one create from the existing things the non-existent or the existing? Did He create him to exist or not to exist? And one more thing: is there one unborn or two unborn? And the Son is free, we do not change according to our own will, being changeable by nature, because He is not a stone, which in itself remains motionless.” Then they come to the women and ask them their indecent questions: “Did you have a son before you gave birth? Just as you did not have a son, so the Son of God did not exist until he was born.” Playing with such sayings, these dishonest ones jump, likening God to men, and, calling themselves Christians, change the glory of God “into the likeness of the corruptible image of man” (Rom. 1:23). 23) Such speeches should not be answered, they are so unreasonable and meaningless. But so that their heresy does not seem to have anything solid in itself, it would not be indecent to, at least casually, accuse them of this, and especially for the sake of women, whom they easily deceive. But, saying this, they should have asked the architect: can anything be built without ready-made substances? Just as you cannot, so God could not create the universe without ready-made matter. They had to ask every person: can you exist outside of space? Just as you cannot, so God cannot exist otherwise than in a certain space. By proposing such questions, perhaps they would be ashamed of those listening. Why, when they hear that God has a Son, do they look at themselves and deny the Son, and when they hear that God creates and creates, do they not contrast this with something human? In their discussion of creation, they had to imagine everything in a human way and assume a ready-made substance for God, and therefore deny that God is the Creator and grovel with the Manichaeans. If the concept of God exceeds all this, and everyone, hearing about God, believes and knows that God exists, not as we exist, but exists as God and creates, not as people create, but creates as God, then it is obvious that he gives birth, not as people give birth, but gives birth as God. For it is not God who imitates man, but rather, on the contrary, people, since God in his own and only sense is the true Father of His Son, and they themselves are called the fathers of their children, because “from Him the whole family in heaven and on earth is named” (Eph. 3:15). And what they say, while it remains unexamined, seems also to be said rationally. If anyone examines this with reason, he will find that they are worthy. great laughter and reproach. 24) The first question they propose, firstly, is not smart and unclear. They do not indicate who they are asking about, so that the person being asked can give an answer, but they say simply: He who is not existing? Who, Arians, is this Being and what is this non-existent? Or who is and who is not, and what is called being and not being? For it is possible for the Existent to create both the non-existent and the existing and the previously existing. The woodcutter, goldsmith, and potter each process, according to their own art, the substance that existed before them, creating from it the vessels they please. And the God of all things Himself, having taken the existing and already created dust from the earth, forms man, but the earth itself did not exist before, but subsequently God brought it into existence by His Word. Therefore, if they ask this way, then it is clear that the creature did not exist until it was created, and people process already existing substance, and their reasoning will turn out to be untenable, because, as we said, both existing things are produced, and non-existent things are also produced. If they talk about God and His Word, then let them add to the question what is missing and ask like this: Was the real God ever without the Word? Was there Real Light without Radiance? Or has God always been the Father of the Word? Or another way: did the existing Father create the non-existent Word or does he always have the Word with Him, the own birth of His essence? Then it will be seen that they enter into inquisitive research and dare to invent knowledge about God and about that which is from Him. For who will allow them to say that God was once without the Word? So they again fall into the same inconsistency as before, although they try to avoid this and cover it up with their own speculations, but they cannot. For no one at all wants to listen to their doubts, as if God was not always the Father, but became Him later, which is why they imagine that there was once no His Word, while before many accusations were presented against them, and John says: “in the beginning was the Word” (John 1:1), and Paul writes: “Who is the brightness of glory” (Heb. 1:3), and “he who is above all is God blessed forever, Amen” (Rom. 9, 5). 25) It would be better for them to calm down, but since they do not stop, then in response to such a shameless question of theirs, others, like them, have ventured to propose their own question in the hope that, not seeing a way out of such absurdities, they will retreat, ceasing the struggle with the truth. Therefore, another, having first asked for God’s mercy with fervent prayers, will meet them with this question: did the existing God, without existing, become God or exist before being made? Therefore, having existed, did He create Himself, or did He, having previously been nothing, suddenly reveal Himself? Such a question is absurd, truly absurd and full of blasphemy, but similar to their question. For whatever they say, it is all full of all wickedness. If it is blasphemous and very wicked to ask such questions about God, then it is just as blasphemous to ask in a similar way about His Word. However, in order not to give room to such an unreasonable and meaningless question of theirs, it is necessary to answer this way: God is eternally existing, and therefore, since there is always a Father, His Radiance, that is, His Word, is eternal. And one more thing: the existing God has from Himself the existing Word, and the Word did not appear later as if it did not exist before, and the Father was never without the Word. Insolence against the Son entails blasphemy against the Father, as if He had imagined Wisdom, the Word, the Son from outside. For as soon as you name any of this, according to what has been said, you mean Birth from the Father, which is why such a question of theirs is untenable, and this is fair. For, denying the Word, they have no understanding in the matter. As if someone, seeing the sun, began to ask about its radiance and said: the existing sun, whether non-existent or already existing, produced the radiance, then they will think of such a person that he does not have common sense, but is mad, because he imagines that something that is entirely of light exists outside the light, and asks about this: at such a time, where, when, was it created? Thus, he who argues in this way and proposes such questions about the Son and about the Father all the more reveals in himself even greater madness, because the Word, which is from the Father, brings into Him from the outside and, imagining Birth by nature as a work, says: it was not until it was begotten. However, let them hear in response to this question that the real Father created the real Son. For “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14), and He, the real Son of God, at the end of the ages created also the son of man; unless, in accordance with Samosatsky, they will assert that the Son did not exist until he became a man. To answer their first question, this is enough from us. 26) But you, Arians, remembering your own sayings, say: Did He who exists in non-existent have a need when creating the universe, or did He need something that exists? You said: out of things that do not exist, you prepared for yourself an instrument, the Son, so that with Him you could create all things. So which is better? Having a need or satisfying a need? Or do both make up for each other's shortcomings? For by asserting something like this, you further show the weakness of the one who prepared it, namely, that He alone did not have the strength to create the universe, but invents for Himself an instrument from the outside, like a woodworker or a shipbuilder who is unable to work something without an ax and a saw. Therefore, what is more wicked than this? And should we even dwell on this as something difficult, when what we have said before sufficiently shows that what they represent is one dream? As for their other very unskillful and unreasonable question, which they propose to women, then it would also not be necessary to answer it more than what we have already said above, namely, that Birth from God should not be measured by human nature. However, in order for them to admit themselves guilty of this too, it would be good to meet them again with a question borrowed from them. In general, if parents are asked about their son, then let them judge where their child came from. If the parent did not have a son until he gave birth, then when he already has, he does not have it from outside and not as something alien, but from himself, as the property of his essence and an image similar to himself, which is why the son is seen in the father and the father is seen in the son. Therefore, if from human examples they borrow the concept of the time of giving birth, then why don’t they borrow from the same examples the thoughts about the natural connection of children with their parents and about the belonging of one to the other, but, like snakes, they collect from the earth only what is suitable for poison? When they asked their parents and said, “You didn’t have a son until you gave birth,” they should have added and said: if you have a son, are you really buying him from the outside, like a house or some other property? And the father will answer you: “The son is not from the outside, but from me; what is external constitutes my property, and it passes from one to another, and the son is from me, the property of my essence, is similar to me, and did not come from another in me, but was born by me. Therefore, all of me is in him, being myself what I am.” This happens in reality, and although the parent differs in time, like a person who himself happened in time, he would always have his child coexistent with himself if nature had not put barriers and prevented the possibility. For Levi was already in the loins of his great-grandfather before he was born and his grandfather begat him. Therefore, when a person comes to the right age and nature gives him the opportunity, then, after the removal of natural obstacles, he soon becomes the father of a son descended from him. 27) So, if you asked parents about children and knew that natural children do not come from outside, but from parents, then let them confess about the Word of God that It is entirely from the Father. And when asking about time, let them also name what hinders God. For by this very thing, which was asked as if in mockery, the wicked should be exposed. Therefore, let it be said that it is an obstacle for God to always be the Father of the Son. For it has already been recognized that there are things that are begotten of the Father. And in order for those who reason in this way about God to completely admit themselves guilty, for this, as women were asked about time, let them also question the sun about its radiance or the source about what flows from it and learn that the radiance and stream, although they are the essence of generation, are always with those from whom they come. If such parents, in relation to their children, have the intention that they should be like this by nature and always, then why, supposing God to be something less than the things created, will they not express their wickedness more clearly? If they do not dare to say this openly and confess about the Son that He is not from the outside, but from the Father and by nature His birth, and nothing serves as an obstacle to God (God is not like man, He is greater than the sun, and even more so the God of the sun), then it is clear that the Word is from God and always co-essential with the Father, by whom the Father brought everything that does not exist into being. Therefore, that the Son is not from something that does not exist, but is eternal and from the Father, this is shown by the fact itself. And the question of heretics, proposed to parents, exposes their maliciousness. For they saw that, in accordance with their nature, they were finally put to shame even as far as time was concerned. 28) And that God’s birth should not be applied to human nature and think that the Son of God is a part of God or that birth in general means some kind of suffering, we previously spoke about this above. And now we repeat the same thing: God is not like a person. People give birth painfully, being transient by nature and waiting for time due to the weakness of their nature, but this cannot be said about God. God is not composed of parts, but, being dispassionate and simple, He is dispassionately and indivisibly Father to the Son. And to this again we have strong testimony and proof in the Divine Scriptures. For the Word of God is the Son of God, and the Son is the Father’s Word and the Father’s Wisdom. But the Word and Wisdom are not a creature and not a part of the one whose Word it is, and not a birth accompanied by suffering. Scripture, combining both, called it the Son and by this preaches the true birth from essence by nature, and so that no one would assume this birth to be human, and again signifying the essence of the Son, it says that He is the Word, and Wisdom, and Radiance. For from this we conclude about dispassion, about eternity, and about the beauty of birth. For what is the suffering and what part of the Father is His Word, Wisdom and Radiance? And this can be found out without meaning to them. For just as the wives were asked about their son, so let the husbands be asked a question about the word and learn that the word they utter is not their suffering and not a part of their mind. If this is the word among people who suffer and are composed of parts, then why do they imagine suffering and parts in the incorporeal and indivisible God, so that, apparently afraid of such an idea, they deny the true birth of the Son by nature? And just as it has already been sufficiently proven above that birth from God is not suffering, so now it is especially proven that the Word is born without suffering. But let them hear the same about Wisdom. God is not like a man, and in this regard let them not imagine anything human about Him. People were also created to be receptive to wisdom, but God does not partake of wisdom from anyone; He Himself is the Father of His Wisdom, and those who partake of it are usually called wise. And Wisdom itself is not suffering, not a part, but the Father’s own birth. Therefore, God is always the Father, and it was not later that this name came into being: “Father,” in which case one could consider God to be changeable. For if it is beautiful for God to be a Father, then there would not always be beauty in Him. 29) But they say: “God is always the Creator, and it was not later that the creative power arose into Him. But since He is the Creator, is it therefore true that creatures are eternal, and it is not permissible to say about them: they did not exist until they were created? O senseless Arians! In what way are the Son and the creature similar to each other, so that we can tell you the same thing about the Father and about the creators? Why do they remain in their ignorance, when in the previous one so much difference was shown between Birth and creation? Therefore, the same thing must be repeated again: the creation, as has already been said, is outside the Creator, and the Son is the own birth of the essence. Therefore, there is no need for a creature to always exist. When the Creator wants, then he produces. But birth is not subject to will, but on the contrary, it is the property of the essence. It is possible to be and be called the Creator when there are no works, but it is impossible to neither be called nor to be the Father when there is no Son. But if they inquisitively ask why God, who always has the power to create, does not always create, then this daring question is characteristic only of the insane. “Who understands the mind of the Lord? Or who will be His adviser? (Rom. 11:34). “The food says to the poor man: why did you create me?” (Rom. 9:20). But so that we do not remain in silence, having even a weak argument, let them listen. If it is always possible for God to create, then creatures could not be eternal, because they are from nothing, and they did not exist until they were created. And what did not exist until it was created, how could it co-exist with the eternally existing God? Therefore, God, having in mind what was beneficial for creatures, when he saw that they, being created, could remain, then he created everything. And just as He could have sent His Word at the very beginning, under Adam, or under Noah, or under Moses, but He sent it only at the end of the ages, because He saw it as beneficial for all creation, so He created creatures when He wanted and when it was useful for them. And the Son, being not a work, but the property of the Father’s essence, always abides. And since the Father always exists, then there must always be that which actually belongs to His essence, that is, His Word and Wisdom. Creatures, even if they did not yet exist, would not diminish the Creator, because He has the power to create when He wants. And if the Birth of the Father were not always with the Father, then this would already be a diminishment of the perfection of the Father’s essence. Therefore, when God willed, then creatures were created by His Word, and the Son is always the own birth of the Father’s essence. 30) As much as this pleases the believers, it saddens the heretics, who see that their heresy is collapsing. For this again their question, expressed as follows: is the uncreated one or two uncreated, shows in them a mind that is wrong, but dangerous and full of cunning. It is not to the honor of the Father that they propose this question, but to the dishonor of the Word. And if anyone, not knowing their cunning, gives the answer: the uncreated is one, they immediately vomit out their poison, saying: “Consequently, the Son is from among the created, and we have well said that He was not until He was born.” Everything is mixed up and thrown into disorder in order to only distance the Word from the Father and the Creator of all things, to classify them among the creatures. Therefore, firstly, we are worthy of condemnation for the fact that, condemning the bishops who met at Nicaea for the words they used, which were not taken from Scripture, although not blasphemous, but serving to overthrow their wickedness, they themselves fell into the same guilt and uttered words not taken from Scripture, inventing insults to the Lord, not knowing what they were saying or confirming. At least, let them ask the pagans from whom they heard this saying (because this is their invention, not Scripture), and having learned what meanings the saying has, they will see that if they talk about something, they don’t know how to ask about it well. And I learned for their sake that something that has not yet been made, but can be made, is called uncreated; for example, a tree has not yet been made, but can become a boat. And uncreated is also called something that has not been made and can never become, for example, a triangle is a quadrilateral and an even number is odd. For a triangle has never been and never will be a quadrilateral, and an even number has never been and will never be odd. And what is also called uncreated is something that exists, but did not come from anyone and, in general, has no one as its father. And the insidious sophist Asterius, the defender of this heresy, adds, saying in his work: “The uncreated is that which is not created, but always exists.” Therefore, they had to ask the question, having first determined in what sense the word “uncreated” was meant, so that the person asked would answer correctly. 31) If they think that they are asking a good question by saying whether the uncreated is one or there are two uncreated, then let them first hear, as ignorant, that there are many uncreated and that the uncreated is nothing, and there are many things that can happen, and what cannot happen is, according to what has been said, nothing. If Asterius also wants that not a creature, but always an existing being, be uncreated, and they propose a question, then let them hear more than once, but many times, that in this sense the Son is called uncreated, because He is not a creature or a work, but is eternally inherent in the Father, as has already been proven, although they have repeatedly refused this, just to say against the Lord: He is from nothing, and He did not exist until He was born. Therefore, if, having lost their support in everything, they want to propose a question, meaning by uncreated that which exists, but is not begotten by anyone and has no father, then let them hear that we, in this sense, have one and only uncreated Father, and having heard this, they will gain nothing more for themselves, because calling God uncreated in this sense does not prove that the Son was created, since from the previous proofs it is clearly clear that the Word is the same as He is. and the One who gave birth to Him. So, if God was not created, then the Image of the Uncreated was not created, but His is the birth, that is, His Word and Wisdom. For what is the similarity between the created and the Uncreated? And we won’t be too lazy to repeat the same thing again. If they want the created to be similar to the Uncreated, so that whoever looks at one sees the other, then it doesn’t take long to tell them that the Uncreated is the image of creatures, so everything is already mixed up with them: created things are equated with the Uncreated, the Uncreated is overthrown, because it is measured by creatures, if only they could bring down the Son into the ranks of creatures. 32) But I think that they will not want to say this yet if they listen to the sophist Asterius. For, although he tries to defend the Arian heresy and says that the uncreated is one, nevertheless, contrary to them, he asserts that the Wisdom of God is uncreated and without beginning. Here is part of what he wrote: “Blessed Paul did not say that he preaches Christ, this God’s power and this God’s Wisdom; he does not say without this addition, “God’s power and God’s wisdom” (1 Cor. 1:24), preaching that there is another power of God Himself, innate and uncreatedly co-existing with Him.” And a little later he says: “Although His eternal power and Wisdom, which according to the arguments of truth turns out to be without beginning and uncreated, without a doubt, can be one and the same.” Although he did not understand the apostolic saying well and recognized two wisdoms, nevertheless, calling the wisdom co-inherent in God uncreated, he expressed that the uncreated is not one, but there is also another uncreated thing with it, because what is co-inherent is not co-inherent with itself, but with another. Therefore, or, having obeyed Asterius, let them no longer ask: is there one uncreated thing or are there two of them, so as not to enter into a fight with Asterius with their doubts; or, if they oppose him, then let them not rely on his book, so that, biting each other, they do not destroy themselves mutually. Let this be briefly said to their ignorance, but to their insidious will, is anyone able to say anything sufficient? And who would not justly hate them for such madness? since they no longer have the freedom to say: the Son is from something that does not exist and was not until he was born, they came up with the phrase “uncreated” so that in front of simple-minded people, calling the Son created, would again mean the same positions: from something that does not exist and never was. For they signify created things and creatures. 33) If they stood firmly in what they say, then they should stick to it and not interfere with their thoughts, distorting them in many different ways. But they do not want this, thinking that it will not be difficult to achieve everything if they protect themselves with the word: “uncreated,” covering their heresy with it. For this very saying has its meaning not in relation to the Son, which thought they dispel, but in relation to created things. Something similar to this can be seen in the words: Almighty and Lord of hosts. For if the Father has power over everything and dominates through the Word, and in the kingdom of the Father the Son reigns and has power over everything, as the Word and as the Image of the Father, then it is clear that here the Son is not counted among all creatures, and God is not called Almighty and Lord in relation to Him, but in relation to what is created by the Son and over which God rules and dominates through the Word. And the designation: “uncreated” has a meaning not in relation to the Son, but in relation to what was created by the Son. And it is rightly used about God, because God is not only created beings, but He is their Creator and Maker through the Son. But just as the name “uncreated” has a meaning in relation to created beings, so the name Father refers to the Son. And whoever calls God Creator, Creator and Uncreated, he means and imagines creatures and created beings, and whoever calls God Father, he also imagines and sees the Son. Therefore, others will marvel at their persistence in wickedness, because although the name “uncreated,” as has been said, has a good meaning and can be used piously, yet in their heresy they pronounce it to dishonor the Son, not unaware that whoever honors the Son honors the Father, and whoever dishonors the Son dishonors the Father (John 5:23). If they were concerned about glorifying and honoring the Father, then (which would be both better and higher) they should acknowledge and call God Father rather than give Him that name. For calling God uncreated from the works He performed, as it is said, they call Him only Creator and Creator, thinking that from this name they can, at their pleasure, give the name of creation to the Word. And whoever calls God Father gives Him this title from the Son, not without knowing that, since there is a Son, then what was created was necessarily created by the Son. And they, calling God uncreated, give Him a name only from works, and they themselves do not know the Son, just like the pagans. And whoever calls God Father gives Him this title from the Word; cognizing the Word, he recognizes the Creator in the Word and understands that “all things were made” by Him (John 1:3). 34) Therefore, is it not more pious and consistent with the truth to give the name to God from the Son and call Him Father, rather than to name Him from works alone and to call Him uncreated? For this last name, as I said, indicates only each individually and all the works in general, created by the Word by the will of God. But the name Father receives meaning only from the Son and is limited to Him. But as much as the Word is superior to created things, so much and to an even greater extent will the title of God Father be superior to the title of uncreated things. And just as the last name is not taken from Scripture, it is suspicious and has different meanings, why the one asked about it rushes back and forth in thought, so the name Father is simple, used in Scripture, much more accurately and points only to the Son. And the word: “uncreated” was invented by the pagans who do not know the Son; the name: “Father” is known from our Lord and given by Him. For He Himself, knowing Whose Son He is, said: “I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me” (John 14:10), and: “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9), and: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). And nowhere is it visible that He called the Father uncreated, but even when teaching us to pray, He did not say: when you pray, say: Uncreated God, but on the contrary, He says: “Whenever you pray, say: Our Father who is in heaven” (Luke 11:2). And to this he wanted to direct the most important thing in our faith, commanding us to be baptized not in the name of the uncreated and created, not in the name of the Creator and creation, but in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Thus, being secretly taught, we, creatures, finally become sons of God and, pronouncing the name of the Father, we recognize from this name the Word that exists in the Father himself. So, it has been proven that their attempt to introduce the phrase “uncreated” is in vain and has no other basis than their arbitrariness. 35) As for the question they propose, whether the Word is changeable, then it is in vain to enter into an investigation about this. For it is enough to write down only their sayings to me to show the audacity of their wickedness. They talk idle talk, offering the following in the form of questions: “Is the Son free or not? Is he good by choice, as a result of freedom, and, if he wants, can change, having a changeable nature, or, like stone and tree, does not have free will to move and bend to one side or the other? It is not alien to their heresy to speak and think like this. For having once imagined God from the non-existent and created Son, as a result of this they collected similar sayings as decent creatures. But since, arguing with those who adhere to church teaching and hearing from them about the true and one Word of the Father, heretics dare to talk about Him like this, has anyone seen a teaching more vile than this? Who, hearing only this, although he can challenge them, will not be indignant, will not block his ears, amazed by the new sayings that they pronounce and which he himself hears, sayings that in themselves and in their very pronunciation are filled with blasphemy? If the Word is changeable and can come into different states, then where will It stop, what will be the end of Its growth? Or how can the mutable be like the Immutable? How will he who has seen the changeable think of himself that he has seen the Unchangeable? And what state must He come to in order to be able to see the Father in Him? For it is clear that man will not always see the Father in Him, because the Son is constantly changing and has a nature that does not remain in one state. The Father is unchangeable, does not exist in different states, for he is always the same, always the same. If, in their opinion, the Son is changeable and not always the same, but by nature is constantly in a new state, then how can He, in such a position, be the image of the Father, not having in Himself the likeness of immutability? And in general, how does He remain in the Father, having a wavering will? Or maybe, as someone who changes and prospers from day to day, He is still imperfect? But may such madness of the Arians perish, may the truth shine, and may their foolishness be revealed! For how can one who is equal to God be imperfect? Or how will He be changed who is one with the Father, who is the own Son of His essence? since the Father’s essence is unchangeable, then its own Birth will be unchangeable. If this is so and they falsely attribute changeability to the Word, then let them know to what danger their word leads. From the fruit the tree is known, therefore he who has seen the Son has seen the Father, and the knowledge of the Son is the knowledge of the Father. 36) Therefore, the Image of the unchangeable God will be unchangeable. For “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, and forever” (Heb. 13:8). And David, singing about Him, says: “In the beginnings, O Lord, You founded the earth, and the works of Your hand are the heavens. They will perish, but You remain: and all the robe they wear, and like the garment I wear, they will be changed. You are the same, and Your years will not fail” (Psalm 101:26–28). And the Lord Himself speaks about Himself through the prophet: “You see, you see, for I am” (Deut. 32:39), “and I do not change” (Mal. 3:6). Although others may say that this should be understood about the Father, it is nevertheless proper to say this about Himself and the Son, especially since, having become a man, He shows His identity and His immutability to those who think that, having taken on flesh, He changed and became something else. The saints, and especially the Lord, are more worthy of faith than the evil thoughts of the wicked. For in the cited passage from the hymn, Scripture, meaning by heaven and earth everything created and calling every creature and their nature changeable and perverted, excluding the Son from this, shows by the fact that He is not created at all, and even more so by Him everything else changes, and also teaches that He does not change, saying: “But you are the same, and Your years will not fail” ( Ps. 101, 28). This is fair. For created beings, coming from nothing, and which did not exist until they were created, because they come into being from nothing, have a changeable nature, but this Son is from the Father and actually belongs to His essence, unchangeable and immutable, like the Father Himself. For it is impossible to say that from the unchangeable Essence the changeable Word and the changeable Wisdom are born. For why even the Word if we change it? And why is Wisdom already if it is subject to change? Do they really want this to be, as it were, accidental in essence, just as in some indivisible being there is by chance some predisposition and capacity for virtue, and this is called the Word and the Son and Wisdom, which is why it can be taken away from this being and given to it? They often expressed similar speculations, but this is not a Christian faith. This does not show that there is truly God's Word and truly God's Son, that Wisdom is true Wisdom. For something changeable, passing through different states and not remaining in one and the same, how can it be true? And the Lord says about Himself: “I am... the truth” (John 14:6). If the Lord himself says this about Himself and shows His immutability, and the saints, having learned the same, testify to this, and according to the very concept of God this is recognized as pious, then where did the wicked come up with this when they took it? Consequently, from the heart, as from an infected member, they vomited it. 37) But since they put forward Divine words in their defense and strive to interpret them according to their own understanding, it is necessary to answer them to such an extent as to defend the passages of Scripture and show that they contain the right meaning, while heretics understand these sayings poorly. And so they say that it is written by the Apostle: “In the same way God has highly exalted Him, and given Him a name above every name: that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth” (Phil. 2:9, 10), and by David: “Because of this anointing of You, O God, Your God is more than a partaker of the oil of joy” (Psalm 44:8). Then they add, as if saying something wise: if “for this reason” he was lifted up and received grace, “for this reason” he was anointed, then he received a reward for his will. And if we acted at will, then, without a doubt, we are changeable by nature. And Eusebius and Arius dared not only to say this, but also to write it, and their followers are not lazy in proclaiming this among the marketplaces, not noticing what madness lies in their words. For if, as a reward for his will, he received what he has, and would not have had it if he had not brought into action what was required, then, having received this for virtue and perfection, he is therefore rightly called both Son and God, but is not the true Son. What comes from someone by nature is true birth. Such was Abraham's Isaac and Jacob's Joseph. Such is the radiance of the sun. But those who are called sons because of virtue and by grace have instead of nature only grace, as a result of receiving this name, and are different from what has been given to them. These are the people who received the Spirit by communion, about whom God said: “They gave birth to sons and raised them up, but they rejected Me” (Isa. 1:2), of course, because they were not sons by nature. And as soon as they changed, the Spirit was taken away from them, and they were rejected, but those who repented will receive them again and, having given them light, will again be called sons by God, who first gave them this grace. 38) Therefore, if they speak of the Savior in the same sense, then it turns out that He is not true God, not the true Son, is not like the Father and does not have God as His Father at all in its very essence, but only by the grace given to Him, but in essence has God as the Creator of His existence, like all creatures. And if He is such, as the heretics claim, then it will also be revealed that in the beginning He did not have the name of the Son, if only He received it as a reward for His deeds and success, and precisely for nothing else, but for what He showed when He became a man and took on the “form of a servant.” For then, as he became “obedient even unto death,” it is said of Him that He was exalted and received grace, that is, the name, “that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow” (Phil. 2:7, 8, 10). What was He before, if now He was exalted, now He began to be worshiped, now He was called Son, when He became man? It is clear that He did not perfect the flesh at all, and even more so He Himself was perfected by the flesh, if, according to their malicious teaching, He was then exalted and called the Son when He became a man. So, what was He before this? Again there will be an urgent need to ask them about this, so that the end of their wickedness can be seen. If the Lord is God, the Son, the Word, but was not this until He became a man, then either He was something else, different from this, and subsequently became a partaker of this for virtue, as we have already said, or it is necessary to tell them something else (let it be addressed to their heads!), namely, that before this He was not and by nature is completely a man, and not something more. But this is not church teaching, but the wisdom of Samosatsky and modern Jews. Why do they, thinking like Jews, not be circumcised like the Jews, but hypocritically hide behind Christianity and fight against it? If the Son was not, or even was, but was perfected later, then how did “all things come to be” (John 1:3)? And how could the Father rejoice in Him, if He is imperfect? And He himself, if he has only now become perfect, how did he “rejoice before” the Father before (Prov. 8:30)? If after death He had already received veneration, then how do we see that Abraham worships Him in the bush and Moses in the bush? How did Daniel see that “there are thousands and thousands who serve Him” (Dan. 7:10)? If, according to the heretics, He has now become perfected, then why, mentioning His pre-worldly glory before the world, did the Son Himself say: “Glorify Me, Father... with the glory which You had before the world did not exist” (John 17:5)? If now he is exalted, in their opinion, then why, first of all, “bow down the heavens and come down,” and also: “give the Most High His voice” (Psalm 17:10, 14)? Consequently, if the Son had glory before the creation of the world, and was the Lord of glory and the Most High, and came down from heaven, and was always worthy of worship, then He did not perfect Himself when He descended, but rather He Himself perfected those who needed perfection. And if he condescended to perfect others, then he did not accept the title of Son and God as a reward, but rather He Himself adopted us as sons to the Father and deified men, becoming a man Himself. 39) Having not been a man before, he later became God, but this God, later became a man in order to deify us. For if, when he became a man, he was then called Son and God, and before He became a man, God called the ancient peoples sons and made Moses god to Pharaoh, and about many gods the Scripture says: “God of a hundred in the assembly of gods” (Psalm 82:1), then it is clear that after these He was called Son and God. Therefore, what about “all That... and That... above all”? Or why is He “the firstborn” of “all creation” (Colossians 1:15–17), having first been called sons and gods? Why are the first communicants not communicants of the Word? This opinion is untrue; it is an invention of those who are Judaizing today. How could anyone even recognize God as the Father? For sonhood would be impossible without the true Son, because the Son Himself says: “no one knows the Father but the Son, and whom the Son wills to reveal” (Matthew 11:27). And how would deification be possible without the Word and before the Word, when He Himself says to the brothers of these heretics - the Jews: “If they speak of the gods, the word of God comes to them” (John 10:35)? And if all those who were called sons and gods on earth and in heaven were adopted and deified by the Word, and the Word is the Son Himself, then it is clear that everything is by Him, and He is before all, it is better to say, He is only the true Son and the only true God from the true God, who did not receive this as a reward for virtue and was not anything else, but by nature in essence the existing Son and God, because He is the birth of the Father's essence. And therefore there is no doubt, and in likeness to the unchangeable Father the Word is unchangeable. 40) Hitherto, based on the very concepts about the Son, as much as the Lord gave us, we reflected their unreasonable inventions. But it would be good to offer Divine words, so that the immutability of the Son, the immutable nature of the Father in Him, as well as the evil wisdom of the heretics, would be proven even more powerfully. Thus, the apostle, writing to the Philippians, says: “Let these things be taught in you, even in Christ Jesus, who is in the image of God; not by admiration of Nepscheva to be equal to God: but He humbled Himself, taking on the form of a servant, becoming in the likeness of humanity, and being found in the image of a man: He humbled Himself, becoming obedient even to the point of death, the death of the cross. Therefore God also highly exalted Him, and gave Him a name that is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil. 2:5-11). What could be clearer and more convincing than this? Not starting from a lower level, he became more perfect, but on the contrary, being God, he took on the “form of a servant,” and by this acceptance he did not become perfect, but “humbled Himself.” Therefore, where is the reward for virtue in this? Or what prosperity and perfection can there be in humiliation? If He, this God, became man, and it is said about Him who Descended from on high that He ascends, then where should God ascend? since God is the Most High, it is clear again that the Word of this God must also be the Most High. Therefore, how much more can He who is in the Father and in everything like the Father be exalted? Consequently, He does not need any increase and is not what the Arians suppose Him to be. For if the Word descended to exalt Himself, and this is the meaning of Scripture, then what was the need at all to humble Himself in order to strive to accept what the Word already had? And what kind of grace did the Giver of grace receive? Or how he received the venerable name, who was always worshiped in His name. And before becoming a man, the saints call: “O God, in Thy name save me” (Psalm 53:3), and also “these on chariots, and these on horses: but in the name of the Lord our God we will be magnified” (Psalm 19:6, 8). This is how the patriarchs worshiped Him, and about the angels it is written: “And let all the Angels of God worship Him” (Heb. 1:6). 41) If, as David sings in the seventy-first psalm, His name remains before the sun and before the moon throughout all generations (Psalm 71:5), then how did He receive what he always had, even before he received it now? Or how is He exalted when He is the Most High before He was exalted? Or how did He accept venerability even before He accepts it now, always being venerable? This is not a hidden word, but God's secret. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was to God, and God was the Word” (John 1:1). But for our sake subsequently, “The Word became flesh” (John 1:14). And now what is said “exalted” does not mean that the essence of the Word is exalted, because it has always been and is equal to God. On the contrary, this is the ascension of humanity. This was not said before, but when “the Word became flesh,” so that it would be clear that the words “humbled” and “exalted” refer to human nature. For whatever is characterized by humility can also be exalted. And if, as a result of taking on the flesh, it is written “humbled,” then it is clear that the word “exalted” refers to the flesh. Man also had a need for this due to the humility of the flesh and death. since the Word, being the image of the Father and immortal, took on the form of a servant and for our sake as a man in His flesh endured death, in order to thus bring Himself to the Father for us through death, then it is said about Him that for our sake and for us He was exalted as a man, so that just as by His death we all died in Christ, so in Christ Himself we were exalted again, being raised from the dead and entering into heaven, “where Jesus the forerunner appeared for us” (Heb. 6:20), “not in contrast to the true ones, but in heaven itself, now let the face of God appear for us” (Heb. 9:24). If now Christ has entered into heaven itself for us, although before this He was forever Lord and Creator of heaven, then it is written that He is now ascended for us. And how He, the “holy” of all, says again to the Father that He sanctifies Himself for us (Jn. 17:19), not in order for the Word to become holy, but in order for Him to sanctify us all in Himself, so understand the predicate now “exalt Him”: not in order to exalt Him (for He is the Most High), but in order to become His righteousness for us, and for us to be exalted in Him and enter into the heavenly gates, which He again opened for us at the proclamation of the previous ones: “Lift up your gates, O princes, and lift up the everlasting gates, and the King of glory will come in” (Psalm 23:9). For here too the gates were not closed to Him - the Lord and Creator of all things, but this was written for our sake, by whom the door of heaven is closed. Therefore, just as in terms of humanity, because of the flesh that He bore on Himself, it is said about Him, “Lift up the gates,” and as about the man who enters, “He will enter,” so again in terms of Divinity, because the Word is God, it is said about Him: “He is the Lord and King of glory.” The Spirit foretold the same ascension taking place in us, in the eighty-eighth psalm, saying: “And in Thy righteousness they will be exalted: for Thou art the praise of their strength” (Psalm 89:17, 18). If the Son is truth, then it is not He who needs to be ascended, but we are ascended by righteousness, that is, by Him. 42) And this: “given to Him” was written not for the sake of the Word Himself, because again, before It was made by man, as it is said, both the angels and all creation worshiped Him because of the unity of properties with the Father, but this again was written for our sake and for us. Just as Christ died and was exalted as a man, so it is said of Him as a man that He accepts what He always had as God, so that such bestowed grace would be extended to us. For the Word, having received a body, did not diminish to the point of needing to receive grace, but rather deified what it put on, and bestowed this to the human race to a greater extent. Just as the Son, being the Word and in the form of God, is always worthy of worship, so He became man and was named Jesus, but, nevertheless, all creation is under His feet and in this name bows its knees before Him and confesses that the Word became flesh and suffered death in the flesh, but this happened not to the disgrace of the Divine, but to the “glory of God the Father” (Phil. 2:11). And the glory of the Father is that man who was created and lost was found, and man who was killed was given life and became God’s church. since the heavenly powers, angels and archangels, both always worship Him, and now worship the Lord in the name of Jesus, then this grace and our exaltation belong to us, that the Son of God, having become man, is worthy of worship, and the heavenly Powers will not be surprised, seeing how all of us, “His masters” (Eph. 3:6), are introduced into their domain. But this would not have happened otherwise if He had taken on the “form of a servant” in the “image of God” and had not “humbled Himself” (Phil. 2:6, 7, 8), allowing the body to even accept death. 43) So, what, according to people for the sake of the cross, is “more than God” (1 Cor. 1:25), has become the most honest. For in Him our resurrection is kept. Not only Israel, but all nations, as the prophet predicted, are leaving their idols, they are coming to know the true God of the Father of Christ, the demonic dreaming is brought into inaction, and they worship the One true God in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. And by the fact that they worship the Lord, who appeared in the flesh and was named Jesus, and believe that He is the Son of God and that through Him the Father is known, it is clearly shown, as it is said, that it was not the Word, since He is the Word, who received such grace, but we received it. For by affinity with His body we have become the church of God, we have already been made sons of God, which is why we already worship the Lord in us, and those who look at us proclaim, as the apostle said, that “Truly God is” with these (1 Cor. 14:25), just as John in the Gospel says: “And the little ones received Him, that He might give unto them to become children of God” (John 1, 12), and in the epistle he writes: “We understand this, that it abides in us from His Spirit, which He gave us to eat” (1 John 3:24). A sign of His revealed goodness is that we are exalted, because the Supreme Lord dwells in us and grace is given for our sake, because the Lord who distributes grace has become a man like us. The Savior Himself “humbled Himself” by accepting our humble body. He took on the “form of a slave,” putting on flesh enslaved by sin. And although He Himself did not accept from us anything that would serve for perfection (because God’s Word has no need for anything), nevertheless, through Him we have become all the more perfect, because He is “the light... enlightening every man who comes into the world” (John 1:9). And in vain do the Arians rely on this word “in the same way” when Paul says: “in the same way God has highly exalted Him” (Phil. 2:9). For the apostle did not say this as a sign of reward for virtue and perfection in His success, but shows the reason for the perfect ascension in us. What does this mean? Is it not that in the form of God this Son of the High Father humbled Himself and became a slave in our place and for us? For if the Lord had not become man, then we would not have been delivered from sins and would not have risen from the dead, but would have remained dead under the earth, would not have been ascended to heaven, but would have remained lying in hell. Therefore, for our sake and for us it is said: “exalt” and “gift”. 44) Therefore, I believe that this meaning of the saying is the most ecclesiastical. However, another may look for another meaning in this saying, explaining it in the opposite way to the previous one, namely: this does not mean that the Word Himself ascends, since He is the Word, because He, as was said a little earlier, is the Highest and like the Father, but this saying, because of His humanity, points to the Resurrection from the dead. Therefore, the apostle, having said: “He humbled Himself even to death,” immediately added: “The same He exalted,” wanting to show that if as a man He is said to have died, then as a life He is exalted by the Resurrection. For “He who came down is” and He who rose again (Eph. 4:10), He came down bodily, but He rose again, because God was in the body. And therefore, he himself again added the word “the same” in the same sense to designate not a reward for virtue or success, but the reason why the Resurrection took place and why, when all people from Adam until now died and remained dead, He alone rose unharmed from the dead. The reason for this, as He Himself said before, is that He is God and became man. All other people, descending only from Adam, died, and death reigned over them (Rom. 5:14). And this second man is from heaven, because “the Word became flesh.” And about such a Man it is said that He is from Heaven and is Heavenly, because the Word descended from Heaven, which is why He does not possess death. For although He humbled Himself, allowing His own body to accept even death, because it was accessible to death, He was nevertheless exalted from the earth, because the Son of God Himself was in the body. Therefore, what is said here: “even so God has exalted Him,” is equal to what Peter said in Acts: “God raised Him up, having resolved the diseases of mortals, as if I had no more power to keep Him from being there” (Acts 2:24). For just as Paul wrote, “in the form of God” He became man and “humbled Himself even to death... and God also exalted Him,” so Peter says: since He was God and became man, but signs and wonders showed everyone who saw that He was God, then for this reason “I do not withstand His being with might” (Acts 2:24) in death. But it was impossible for man to reach such perfection, because death is characteristic of man. Therefore the Word, being God, became flesh, so that, having died in the flesh, He might by His power give life to all. 45) since it is said that He ascends and that “God is given to Him,” and heretics consider this a deficiency or a suffering state for the essence of the Word, then it is necessary to say why this is said. To those who ascend, He is spoken of “from the lowest parts of the earth” (Eph. 4:9), because death is also signified by His death. Both are said about Him, because it was He, and not another, who owned the body that was lifted up from the dead and taken into heaven. And again, since the body belongs to Him, and not outside the body is the Word Himself, it is rightly said that with the ascended body He Himself as a man is ascended because of the body. Therefore, if He did not become a man, then let this not be said about Him. And if “the Word became flesh,” then it is necessary that both the Resurrection and Ascension were predicable about Him as a man, so that just as the death predicated about Him was the atonement for human sins and the destruction of death, so the Resurrection and Ascension predicated about Him through Him remained reliable for us. In both respects, the apostle said: “God has exalted Him,” and “God has given Him”, in order to further show that it is not the Father who became flesh, but that His Word became man, and It is human, as it is said, and receives from the Father, and is exalted by Him. It is clear that no one can doubt that if the Father gives anything, he gives it through the Son. It is surprising and can truly lead to amazement that the Son Himself is said to receive the grace that He gives from the Father, and by the ascension that the Son accomplishes through the Father, it is as if the Son Himself is ascended. For the same one who is the Son of God became also the son of man. And as the Word He gives what is from the Father, because everything that the Father creates and gives, He creates and communicates through Him, and as the Son of man He is said to be humanly accepting what is from Him, because the body does not belong to another, but to Him, and the body, as it is said, is characteristic of receiving grace. For he received man at his ascension, and his ascension was his deification. The Word itself always had this according to His Father’s Divinity and perfection. 46) Therefore, what was written by the apostle, containing such a thought, denounces the wicked, and what was said by the hymnist again has the same right meaning. And although heretics have reinterpreted it, the psalmist proves that this understanding is pious, for he says: “Thy throne, God, is for ever and ever; the scepter of righteousness is the scepter of your kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and thou hast hated unrighteousness: therefore for the sake of Thy anointing, O God, Thy God is more than Thy partaker with the oil of joy” (Psalm 44:7, 8). Look, Arians, and at least learn the truth from this. The psalmist called us all partakers of the Lord. And if the Lord were one of those who do not exist and one of the created, then He Himself would be one of the participants. But since he praises Him as the eternal God, saying, “Thy throne, God, is for ever and ever,” yet all the rest represents Him as partakers, what should we understand? Is it not that He is abolished from all created things and alone is the true Father’s Word, Radiance and Wisdom, in which all creatures participate and are sanctified by the Spirit from Him? And here he is anointed, but not in order to become God, because he was before this, and not in order to become a King, because he reigns forever, being the Image of God, as this saying shows, but this is again written in relation to us. The kings of Israel, when they were anointed, then became kings without having been kings before, such as David, Hezekiah, Josiah and others. On the contrary, the Savior, although He is God and always reigns in the kingdom of the Father, and Himself is the giver of the Holy Spirit, is now said to be anointed, so that again, when it is said about Him that He is anointed by the Spirit as a man, He can also prepare for us humans both the ascension and resurrection, and the indwelling and appropriation of the Spirit. Making this clear, the Lord Himself said in the Gospel of John, “I have sent them into the world, and for them I have sanctified myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth” (John 17, 18, 19). By saying this, He showed that He Himself is not the one who is sanctified, but the one who sanctifies, for He is not sanctified by others, but He sanctifies Himself, so that we may be “sanctified in truth.” He who sanctifies Himself is the Lord of sanctification. How is this accomplished? In what sense does this mean? Isn't that the point? “I, the Word of the Father, myself give the Spirit to myself, who have become man; I sanctify myself with it, who have become man, so that through me, the truth (“your word is truth” (John 17:17)) all may be sanctified.” 47) If He sanctifies Himself for our sake and does this when He became a man, then it is clear that the descent of the Spirit that happened on Him in the Jordan was a descent on us, because He bears our body on Himself. And it was not for the perfection of the Word, but for our sanctification again, so that we would partake of His anointing and it could be said about us: “Do you not know that you are the church of God, and the Spirit of God lives in you” (1 Cor. 3:16)? For when the Lord as a man is baptized in the Jordan, we are washed in Him and by Him; and when He receives the Spirit, through Him we become spiritual recipients. Therefore, He is anointed not in the same way as Aaron, or David, or all the others were anointed with oil, but differently, “more than all His partakers, with the oil of joy”; and this is the Spirit, as He Himself, interpreting, says through the prophet: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, for the sake of Me anointing” (Isa. 61:1), just as the Apostle said: “For God has anointed Him with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 10:38). Therefore, when was this said about Him, was it not when, having become incarnate, He was baptized in the Jordan and the Spirit descended on Him? The Lord Himself says: The Spirit “will receive of Mine” (John 16:14), and: “I will send Him” (John 15:26), and He said to the disciples: “Receive the Holy Spirit” (John 20:22). And yet about Him, Who, as the Word and Radiance of the Father, gives the Spirit to others, it is now said that He is sanctified for the same reason that He became man and His body was sanctified. From Him we began to receive the anointing and seal, as John says: “And you have the anointing of the Holy One” (1 John 2:20), and the Apostle: “And you have been marked with the Holy Spirit of promise” (Eph. 1:13). Therefore, this was said for our sake and about us. Therefore, does this show any success in perfection or any reward for virtue or simply for the works of the Lord? If you had not been God, you had become God; if you had not reigned, you had been elevated to the kingdom, then your word would have had some shadow of probability. And if He is God and the throne of His kingdom is eternal, then how can God prosper? Or what did He who sat on the Father’s throne lack? If, as the Lord Himself said, His is the Spirit, He receives from Him, and He sends the Spirit, then it is not the Word, since He is the Word and Wisdom, that is anointed with the Spirit given from Him, but the flesh that He has taken upon Himself is in Him and is anointed by Him, so that the sanctification accomplished over the Lord as over man may be accomplished by Him over all people. It is said: “The Spirit... does not speak of Himself” (John 16:13), but the Word gives the Spirit to those worthy. And this is similar to the above saying. Just as the apostle wrote: “Who in the form of God was not equal to God by admiration, but was made less than Himself and received the form of a servant,” so David sings that the Lord is the eternal God and King, but was sent to us and took on our mortal body. For he makes this clear when he says in the psalm: “myrrh and stakti and casia from Your garments” (Psalm 44:9). Nicodemus also shows this “even about Mary,” when the first “came... bringing a mixture of humility and aloin, like a hundred liters” (John 19:39), and the latter brought “the aromas that they had prepared” for the burial of the Lord’s body (Luke 24:1). 48) What again is the success of the Immortal, who has taken upon Himself mortal things? Or what is the perfection of the Eternal, clothed in the temporal? What greater reward is possible for the eternal God and King who exists in the bosom of the Fathers? Don’t you see that this was written for our sake and about us, so that the Lord, who became man, would make us, mortals and temporary ones, immortal and bring us into the eternal kingdom of heaven? Are you not ashamed, slandering Divine sayings? When our Lord Jesus Christ came, we were perfected, freed from sin, and He remains the same and has not changed (we must repeat this again) from becoming a man, but, as it is written, the Word of God “endures forever” (Is. 40:8). Without a doubt, just as before becoming man, being the Word, he gave the saints the Spirit as His own, and having become man, he sanctifies everyone with the Spirit and says to the disciples: “receive the Holy Spirit.” He gave the Spirit to Moses and the other seventy (Num. 11:25), and through Him David prayed to the Father, saying: “Do not take Your Holy Spirit from Me” (Psalm 50:13). And having become a man, He said: “I will send you the Comforter... the Spirit of truth” (John 15:26), and sent it because He is the true Word of God. Therefore, “Jesus Christ, yesterday and today, the same and forever” remains unchanged (Heb. 13:8). He both gives and receives: he gives as God’s Word, he receives as a person; It is not the Word as the Word that is perfected, for He had everything and always has, but people are perfected, in Him and through Him having the firstfruits of reception. For when He is now said to be anointed humanly, we will be anointed in Him; and when He is baptized, we are baptized in Him. Yet the Savior makes this even clearer, saying to the Father: “And I have given the glory that you have given to me, that you may be one, as we are one” (John 17:22). Therefore, He asked for glory for us, for us it is said about Him: “received”, and “freely”, and “exalted”, so that we would receive, so that it would be given to us and we would be exalted in Him, just as He sanctifies Himself for us, so that we would “be holy” in Him. 49) If, because of what was added in the psalm: “for this sake of the anointing of you, your God, God,” from the saying “for this sake” they again borrow a pretext to confirm their thought, then let these ignoramuses in the Scriptures and these inventors of wickedness recognize that here again the word “for this sake” does not mean the reward of virtue or the works of the Word, but the reason for His coming to us and for us accomplished on Him anointing of the Spirit. David did not say: “For the sake of Your anointing, that You might become God, or King, or Son, or Word,” this was before this, and always is, as has been proven. But more than that he says: “Since You are God and King, then “for this reason” you are anointed, because it belonged to no one else to bring man to unity with the Holy Spirit, like You, the Father’s Image, in Whom we were created in the beginning. For Thine is also the Spirit. The nature of created beings is not sufficient for this, because the angels became criminals, and people fell into disobedience.” For this there was a need for God Himself (the Word is God) to free those who were under the oath. Therefore, if He were one of those who do not exist, then He would not be Christ, Himself being the One of all and a partaker. But since He is God as the Son of God, the King and eternal as the Radiance and Image of the Father, then it is right that He is the awaited Christ, whom the Father foretells to people, revealing to His saints and prophets, so that just as through Him we were created, so in Him deliverance from sins would be accomplished for all, and He would reign over all. This is the reason for the anointing that took place on Him and the appearance of the Word in the flesh. Having seen this, the psalmist, when he sings of His Divinity and the Fatherly Kingdom, proclaims: “Thy throne, God, is for ever and ever: the scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Thy kingdom”; and when he announces His coming to us, he says: “For this reason, for the sake of anointing You, God, your God, is more than Your partaker with the oil of joy” (Psalm 44:7,8). 50) What is surprising or incredible if the Lord, the Giver of the Spirit, says He Himself is anointed by the Spirit, when again, due to the demand of need, He does not deny calling Himself after His humanity and less than the Spirit? For when the Jews said that He was casting out demons about Beelzebub, He answered and said in rebuke of their blasphemers: “Shall I cast out demons about the Spirit of God” (Matthew 12:24, 28). Now the Giver of the Spirit says that He Himself casts out demons about “Dus.” This is not said otherwise than because of the flesh. since human nature in itself is not sufficient to cast out demons, but can only do this by the power of the Spirit, therefore, as the man said: “If I through the Spirit of God will cast out demons.” Of course, making it clear that blasphemy uttered against the Holy Spirit is more important than blasphemy against His humanity, he said: “Whoever speaks a word against the Son of man” will receive absolution (Matthew 12:32). Such were those who said: “Is this not the son of Tekton?” (Matthew 13:55) But those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit and attribute the works of the Word to the devil will suffer inevitable punishment. Thus, the Lord spoke to the Jews as a man, but to His disciples, revealing His Divinity and greatness and making it clear that He Himself was no less than the Spirit, but equal to Him, He bestowed the Spirit and said: “Receive the Holy Spirit” (John 20:22), and: “I will send Him”; and: “He will glorify Me,” and: “he will hear and say the words to have” (John 16, 13, 14). Therefore, here the Giver of the Spirit Himself, the Lord, does not deny saying that He, as a man about the “Dus,” casts out demons. In a similar way, Himself being the giver of the Spirit, since, as John said, He became flesh, He did not refuse to say: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, for the sake of My anointing” (Isa. 61:1), in order to say through this that for sanctification we also need the grace of the Spirit and cannot cast out demons without the power of the Spirit. By whom and through whom should the Spirit be given, if not through the Son, when He is the Spirit of the Son? Could we ever have received the Spirit if the Word had not become man? And just as what the apostle said shows that we would not have been delivered and exalted if He had not taken on the “form of a servant” in the “form of God,” so David shows that we would not have become partakers of the Spirit and would not have been sanctified otherwise if the Giver of the Spirit the Word had not said about Himself that He would be anointed with the Spirit for us. And we are securely accepted, because He is said to be anointed according to the flesh. For as soon as the flesh was sanctified in Him first, and through it He is revealed to those who have received the Spirit as a man, then after Him we also have the grace of the Spirit, receiving from His fulfillment. 51) And the words: “thou hast loved righteousness, and thou hast hated untruth,” are added in the psalm not, as you again think, to designate the changeable nature of the Word, but, on the contrary, by this they more clearly make clear the immutability of the Word. since the nature of created beings is changeable, and, as it has been said, some have transgressed, others have disobeyed the commandment, and their activity is impermanent, but it is often possible for what is now good to subsequently change and become different, and therefore what was hitherto righteous after some time turns out to be unrighteous, then again there was a need for the Immutable, so that people would have for themselves the immutability of the truth of the Word as an image and example in virtue. The same understanding for sane people has a good reason. since the first Adam changed and death entered the world through sin, it was therefore fitting for the second Adam to remain unchanged, and if the serpent began to attack again, then the seduction of this serpent would have no power, and due to the immutability and immutability of the Lord, the serpent became weak in its attacks for everyone. For just as with the crime of Adam, sin spread to all people, so, since the Lord became man and cast down the serpent, the same strength will pass to all people, which is why each of us will say “we do not understand his thoughts” (2 Cor. 2:11). Therefore, the Lord, always and by nature unchangeable, loving truth and hating untruth, is rightly anointed and Himself sent, so that He, who remains one and the same, having accepted the changeable flesh, both condemn the sin in it and make it free, after which it would be possible for us to fulfill the legal truth in it and come to the state of saying: “we are not born in the flesh, but in Dus, because the Spirit of God lives in us” ( Rom. 8, 9). 52) Therefore, it is in vain for you, Arians, that such an assumption is now made, and in vain you present the sayings of the Scriptures as a pretext. The Word of God is unchangeable, always the same, and, moreover, as unchangeable as the Father. For otherwise how is It like the Father, if not to the same extent unchangeable? Or how will the Son also have everything that the Father has, if He does not have the immutability and immutability of the Father? Not as being subject to laws and having an inclination towards both, He loves one thing and hates the other, so that out of fear of being subjected to a fall He would not allow something bad to happen. It is also impossible to imagine Him as otherwise changeable. On the contrary, as God and the Father’s Word, He is a righteous and love-loving judge, or better yet, the Giver of virtue. since He is righteous and holy by nature, it is said about Him that He loves truth and hates unrighteousness, or, which means the same thing, loves and accepts the virtuous, but turns away and hates the unrighteous. For the Divine Scriptures say the same about the Father: “The Lord is righteous, and you will love righteousness” (Psal. 10:7), and: “You have all hated those who do iniquity” (Psalm 5:6), and: “The Lord loves the gates of Zion”, and does not value “the villages of Jacob” (Psalm 86:2), and: “You will love Jacob, but you will hate Esau” (Mal. 1:2). And in Isaiah God says the same thing: “I am the Lord, love righteousness, and hate the spoils of unrighteousness” (Is. 61:8). Therefore, let them accept those sayings, just like these, because they are also written about the Divine Image; or let these, like those, understand badly and imagine the Father to be changeable. But even if it is unsafe to hear others say this, then we adhere to a good understanding when we understand what is said about God, that He loves truth and hates “robberies from unrighteousness,” not in the sense that He has an inclination towards both and can even accept the opposite, why He chooses one and does not choose the other (this is characteristic of created beings), but in the fact that as a Judge He loves and accepts the righteous, but He is far from the wicked. It would be appropriate to imagine something similar about the Divine Image, namely, that it also loves and hates, for the nature of the Image must be the same as the Father of the Image, although the Arians, being blind, do not see in the Divine words either this Image or anything else. Confused by their favorite opinions, or better to say, by their extravagance, they again resort to the sayings of the Divine Scriptures and, as usual, without delving into them, they do not see the meaning contained in them, but, as if having made for themselves some rule of their own wickedness, they incline all the words of God towards it, which is why, when they are just spoken, they are worthy of hearing this one thing: “You are deceived, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God" (Matthew 22:29). And if they stand their ground, they should again be ashamed and hear: Render what is human to man, “and what is God’s to God” (Matthew 22:21). 53) That's what they say. In Proverbs it is written, “The Lord made Me the beginning of His ways for His works” (Prov. 8:22), and in the Epistle to the Hebrews the apostle says: “Being so much better than the angels, the name of the inheritance is much more glorious than theirs” (Heb. 1:4), and a little lower: “The same, holy brethren, the title of heavenly partaker, understand the messenger and saint of our confession Jesus... is faithful to Him who created Him” (Heb. 3:1, 2), and in Acts: let it be known to you all, “that all the house of Israel, for God created both the Lord and His Christ, this Jesus, whom you crucified” (Acts 2:36). In any case, repeating these passages and erring in their understanding, they concluded from them that the Word of God is a creature and a work, one of the created beings. This is how they deceive foolish people, presenting these sayings as a pretext and, instead of the true meaning contained in them, spreading their own heretical poison. For if they had understood, they would not have spoken wickedly about the Lord of glory and reinterpreted what was beautifully written. Therefore, if, having clearly already adopted Caiafin’s disposition, they decided to Judaize, and therefore do not want to know what is written that God will really dwell on earth (Zech. 2:10), then let them not enter into the study of the apostolic sayings, because this is not typical for the Jews. If, also, joining the godless Manichaeans, they deny what was said: “The Word became flesh,” and the coming of the Word in the flesh, then let them not cite passages from Proverbs, because this is unusual for the Manichaeans. If, for the sake of argument and the selfish gain that they acquired from this, and also for the sake of imaginary love of glory, they do not dare to deny what was said: “The Word became flesh,” because it is written, then let either the sayings written about this correctly understand the coming of the Savior in the body, or, if they deny this understanding, they deny at the same time that the Lord became man. For it is indecent both to confess that the Word became flesh and to be ashamed of what is written about Him, and therefore to pervert the meaning of what is written. 54) It is written: “He was only the best of angels” (Heb. 1:4). This needs to be considered first. And as one should and even must do with every place of Divine Scripture, so here one must correctly interpret under what circumstances the apostle said this, about what person and subject he wrote it, so that the reader, in this or in another place, not knowing anything of what was said, does not remain far from the true meaning. Knowing this, that inquisitive eunuch asked Philip to say: “I pray thee, about whom is the Prophet saying this? Is it about yourself, or about someone else?” (Acts 8:34). He was afraid that, having interpreted what he had read about the wrong person, he would deviate from the correct meaning. And the disciples, wanting to know the time of what was being said to them, begged the Lord, “saying: tell us, when will this happen? and what is the sign of Your coming?” (Matthew 24:3). And they, hearing from the Savior about the end of the world, wanted to know the time itself in order not to be deceived themselves and to be able to teach others. And indeed, having learned about this, they corrected the Thessalonians, who were ready to fall into error. Therefore, when someone acquires perfect knowledge about something like this, then he will have a correct and sound understanding of faith. And if anyone interprets something similar about someone else, he will soon fall into heresy. Thus, Hymenaeus and Alexander were mistaken in time, saying that the resurrection had already taken place, and the Galatians, after the proper time, began to love circumcision. And the Jews were and are still in error regarding the person when they think that it is said about one of them: “Behold, a virgin will be with child and give birth to a Son, and they will call His name Immanuel, which is what is said: God is with us” (Matthew 1:23, Isa. 7:14), and when the words: “A prophet... God will raise up for you” (Deut. 18:15) are considered to have been said about one of the prophets, and hearing: “Like a sheep led to the slaughter” (Is. 53:7), they do not learn from Philip, but assume that this is said about Isaiah or about one of the other former prophets. 55) Having undergone the same thing, the anti-Christ fighters fell into a vile heresy. If these foolish people had known the person, the subject, and the time in the apostolic saying, they would not have become so ungodly when interpreting the human about the Divine. This can also be seen if someone interprets the beginning of the passage well. The Apostle says: “God spoke in many ways and in many ways in ancient times by the Father as a prophet; in these last days he spoke to us in the Son” (Heb. 1:1,2). Then, after a few words, he continues: “Having made the purification of our sins, he sat on the right hand ... of the majesties on high, being better than the angels, the name of the inheritance being much more glorious than theirs” (Heb. 1, 3, 4). So, the apostolic saying recalls the time in which God spoke to us in the Son, when the cleansing of sins was also accomplished. When did he speak to us in the Son? And when is the cleansing of sins accomplished? When did you become a man? Is it not after the prophets? Isn't this the last of the days? Then, since we are talking about the economy of our salvation, speaking about the last times, in connection with this I mentioned that in former times God did not remain silent, but spoke to people through the prophets. And since the prophets also served, and the Law was spoken through angels (Gal. 3:19), but the Son also came and came to serve, then of necessity he added: “he was better than the angels,” wanting to show that as much as the Son is different from the servant, the ministry of the Son became better than the service of slaves. Therefore, the apostle, distinguishing between the Old Testament and New Testament ministries, boldly writes to the Jews and says: “Only the best was the angels.” Why didn’t he say completely comparatively “more, or being more honest,” so that no one would conclude about the angels as if they were of the same kind with Him, but said: “better,” in order to make it clear the difference of the Son by nature from created beings. And we have proof of this in the Divine Scriptures. David sings the psalm: “better is one day in Your courts than a thousand” (Psalm 83:11). And Solomon proclaims: “Receive punishment rather than money, and the mind is tempted more than gold. Better is the wisdom of precious stones, but every honest thing is not worthy of it” (Proverbs 8, 10, 11). And indeed, are not wisdom and stones extracted from the earth different in essence and nature? What is the relationship between the courts of heaven and the dwellings of earth? Or what is the similarity between the eternal and spiritual and the temporal and mortal? And in the same sense, Isaiah says: “This is what the Lord says: the people will keep My Sabbath and choose what I will, and keep My covenant; I will give them a name in My house and in My fence, the best of sons and daughters; I will give them a name forever, and it will not fail” (Isaiah 56:4,5). So, the Son has no affinity with the angels. And if there is no affinity, then the word “best” is said to designate not comparison, but differentiation, because the Son is by nature different from the angels. And the Apostle himself, interpreting the word: “best,” places this superiority in nothing other than the difference between the Son and created beings, saying that He is the Son, and those are “ministers” (Heb. 1:14), and that just as the Son sits at the right hand of the Father, so they, being ministers, stand, are sent and serve. 56) since this is written in this sense, then this, Arians, means that the Son is not created, but more than others with created beings, actually belongs to the Father, “He is in the bosom of the Father” (John 1:18). And what is written here: “being” does not mean that the Son was created, as you think. For if he had simply said: “having been” and remained silent, then the Arians would have had an excuse. since he had previously called him the Son, having shown in the entire section of speech that He was different from created beings, then he placed the word “having been” unresistingly, but to “having been” he added “best,” because he considered this saying indifferent, knowing that about the one confessed by the most sincere Son to say: “was” is equivalent to the word: “was born” and is the best. For the one who is born, it makes no difference whether someone says: “became” or “made”; that which is brought into being as a creature cannot be called begotten, unless after the creatures have become partakers of the begotten Son and are themselves called begotten not by their own nature, but because they have become partakers of the Son by the Spirit. This usage is also known in Divine Scripture. It speaks of created beings: “all things were by Him, and without Him they were nothing” (John 1:3), and: “thou didst create all things by Wisdom” (Psalm 103:24). About the sons who were born: “Job had seven sons and three daughters” (Job 1:2), and: “Abraham was a hundred years old when Isaac became his son” (Genesis 21:5). And Moses said: If any have sons. Therefore, if the Son is different from created beings and is one own birth of the Father’s essence, then the pretext of the Arians, pointing to the word: “being”, is in vain. For if those who are ashamed of this will become even stronger and say that these sayings are used comparatively and therefore those compared are homogeneous, which is why the Son is of angelic nature, then let them first be put to shame by the fact that they compete with Valentinus, Carpocrates and other heretics and say the same thing with them. For Valentinus called the angels homogeneous with Christ, and Carpocrates asserts that the angels are the creators of the world. Having learned from them, perhaps the Arians also compare angels with God’s Word. 57) But let the Psalmist put to shame those who are led by such ideas, who says: “Who can be like the Lord among the sons of God?” (Psalm 88:7). And: “Who is like You in God, Lord” (Psalm 85:8). Let them hear and at least learn from this that, as is generally accepted, comparisons are usually made between similar ones, and not between heterogeneous ones. No one compares God with man and man again with dumb people and trees with stones, due to the dissimilarity of nature. But just as God is not comparable, so man is compared with man, tree with tree, stone with stone. And about these no one will say: “better” (τὸ κρεῖττον), but perhaps: “more” (τὸ μᾶλλον), and: “more” (τὸ πλέον). So, Joseph was more beautiful than his brothers, and Rachel was more beautiful than Leah (Gen. 29, 30). “And star from star” is no better, but rather “differs in glory” (1 Cor. 15:41). About things that are dissimilar, when someone compares them with each other, “better” is said to denote their differences, as is said about wisdom and about stones (Proverbs 8:11). If the apostle had said: the Son comes before the angels much more, or there are many more of them, then you would have an excuse to say that the Son is compared with the angels. But now, saying that He is the best and as many more glorious than the Son, as the Son is distinguished in glory from the servants, shows that He is different from the angels by nature. And again, saying that He founded everything, shows that He is different from everything created. If by nature He is different from creatures and inexistent with them, then what comparison or similarity of His essence with created things is possible? For if they again invent something similar, then Paul will reprove them, saying this: “To whom did the angel say: Thou art my son, this day have I begotten Thee... And to the angel he says: Create angels his spirits, and scorch his servants with fire” (Heb. 1, 5, 7). 58) About created things he says that they were created and are works; turning to the Son, he calls Him not a work, not created, but an eternal King, Creator, saying: “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever”, and: “In the beginning Thou, O Lord, Thou didst founded the earth, and the works of Thy hand are the heavens: they shall perish, but Thou abidest” (Heb. 1:8, 10, 11). From this, if they wanted, they could understand that another is the Creator, and others are creatures; and the first is God, and the last came and was created from nothing. The predicate now: “they will perish” does not mean that the creature is destined for destruction, but by indicating the end it makes clear the nature of created things. What can perish, although it will not perish by the grace of the One who created it, nevertheless, came from nothing and testifies to itself that it once did not exist. since this is the nature of created things, then for this very reason it is said about the Son: “But you remain” in order to show His eternity. since He does not have the possibility of perishing, as created things have, but has eternal existence, then what is said about Him: “He was not until He was born” is alien to Him; characteristic of Him is eternal existence and coexistence with the Father. So, if the apostle had not written this in his epistle to the Hebrews, then his other epistles and all Scripture would truly have forbidden us to imagine anything similar about the Word. since the Apostle also wrote, and in the previous one it was proven that the Son is the birth of the Father’s essence and that He is the Creator, other things are created by Him, that He is the Radiance, the Word, the Image and the Father’s Wisdom, and created things are lower than the Trinity and are auxiliary, then the Son is foreign and of another essence with created things, but is more peculiar to the Father’s essence and similar to the Father. Therefore, the Son Himself did not say: My Father is better than Me, lest anyone suppose that the Son is alien to the Father’s nature, but said: “greater” (John 14:28) not by any magnitude and not by time, but because of His birth from the Father. But with this saying again, “there is pain,” he showed the distinctive property of the essence. 59) And the apostle himself, not wanting to mainly compare the essence of the Word with created things, said: “he was only better than the angels” (because comparison has no place here: another is the Word, another is the angels); but having in mind the coming of the Word in the flesh and the dispensation accomplished by Him then, I wanted to show that the Word is not like those who were before, so that to the extent that the Word by nature is different from those who were sent by Him, in the same and to a greater extent from Him and through Him the former grace became better than the angelic service. It was common for slaves to demand only fruits, but it was common for the Son and Master to forgive debts and replant the vineyard. And what was added by the apostle shows the difference between the Son and created things, for he says: “For this reason it is fitting for us to pay more attention to what we hear, lest we fall away. If the word spoken by the angels was quickly known, and every crime and righteous disobedience would be accepted as a reward, how shall we escape from our heedless salvation, which began to be spoken from the Lord by those who heard it announced to us” (Heb. 2:1-3). If the Son had been one of the created, he would not have been the best of them, and for His sake no greater punishment would have been imposed for disobedience. For during the ministry of the angels, relative to each of them, those who transgressed the Law could have greater or lesser guilt, but there was one Law, and there was one punishment for those who transgressed it. since the Word is not one of the created things, but the Father is the Son, then to the extent that He Himself is the best and what He has perfected is better and higher, to the same extent the punishment will be more severe. Let them consider the grace bestowed by the Son and let them know, just as works testify of Him, that He is distinct from created things, that He is the one true Son in the Father, and the Father in Him (John 17:21). The Law was spoken by angels and did not bring anyone to perfection, having need of the coming of the Word, as Paul said. The coming of the Word completed the Father's work. And just as death reigned then from Adam to Moses, so the appearance of the Word brought death into inaction. We no longer all die in Adam, but we are all made alive in Christ. Then “from Dan to Bathsheba” (Judges 20:1) the Law was proclaimed, and in Judea alone “God was known” (Psalm 75:2), but now “their message has gone out into all the earth” (Psalm 18:5), and the whole earth is full of knowledge of God, the disciples of Christ taught all nations, and now what is written is fulfilled: “and they will all be taught by God” (John 6, 45, Isa. 54, 13). And what was shown then served as an image, but now the truth has appeared. And again, the apostle himself subsequently interprets this more clearly, saying: “According to a better covenant, Jesus became the helper” (Heb. 7:22), and also: “Now you have received a better service, since he is an intercessor for a better covenant, who was established by better promises” (Heb. 8:6), and: “The law has committed nothing, but the introduction of a better hope” ( Heb. 7:19), and then he says: “There is need for us to be purified by these heavenly ones, but by the heavenly ones better than these” (Heb. 9:23). The word best, both now and in all places, the apostle applies to the Lord as better and different from created things. For in Him is made the best sacrifice, in Him is the best hope, through Him are the best promises, best not only because they are compared as great with something small, but because by their very nature they are different from the former. For He who built all these things is the best of all created things. 60) And again, this saying “he was a handyman” signifies the guarantee He gave for us. And just as, being the Word, “the flesh was” and the saying “was” we relate to the flesh, because it received being and is a creature, so here it is said “to be” so that we take this saying in its final meaning, since He became a man. Let those who are stubborn know it and let them renounce such evil of theirs. Let them hear that Paul does not mean by this the bringing into being of His essence, for he knows that the Word is the Son and Wisdom, and Radiance, and the Image of the Father, and even now the expression “was” refers to the ministry of the covenant, by which death, which once reigned, was brought into inaction. And the ministry He performed became better, because “in the weakness of the law, in which your flesh was weak, God sent His Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom. 8:3), that is, he removed from it the Fall, the captive of which was always the flesh, which is why it did not accept the Divine thought, and having brought the flesh itself to the point of acceptability of the word, he made it so that we no longer walk in the flesh, “but in the Spirit,” and often say about ourselves: “we are not in the flesh, but in Dus” (Rom. 8:9). And the Son of God came into the world, “not... let the world judge,” but rather redeem everyone and “let the world be saved by Him” (John 3:17). For then the world was judged as guilty by the Law, but now the Word took upon itself the judgment and, having suffered in the flesh for all, granted salvation to all. And with this in mind, John cried out: “The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (John 1:17). But grace is better than Law; reality is better than shadow. 61) The best, as was said, could not be done through anyone other than through the Son, who sits at the right hand of the Father. What does this mean if not the sincerity of the Son and the fact that the Divinity of the Father is also the Divinity of the Son? For in the kingdom of the Father, the reigning Son sits on the same throne with the Father, and the Word contemplated in the Divinity of the Father is God, and whoever sees the Son sees the Father (John 14:9), and thus there is one God. Sitting on the right hand does not make the Father sit on the left, but what is right and worthy in the Father, the Son also has, and says: “All that the Father has is Mine” (John 16:15). Therefore, the Son, sitting at the right hand, also sees the Father at the right hand, although as one who has become a man he says: “I have seen the Lord before me, as he is at my right hand, so that I will not move” (Psalm 15:8). And this again shows that the Son is in the Father, and the Father in the Son. since the Father is in the right hands, so is the Son at the right hand. And since the Son sits on the right hand, the Father is in the Son. And just as the angels serve, ascending and descending (John 1:51), so it is said about the Son: “and let all the angels of God worship Him” (Heb. 1:6). When the angels serve, then they say: “I have been sent to you” and “The Lord has commanded.” And the Son, although according to humanity he says about Himself that He was sent, and comes to do work and serve, nevertheless, as the Word and Image, He says: “I am in the Father and the Father is in Me,” and: “He who has seen Me, has seen the Father,” and: “The Father abides in Me, It is He who does the works” (John 14:9-11). For everything that is contemplated in this Image is the essence of the Father’s work. This is enough to shame those who rebel against the truth itself. If, however, since it is written “the best was,” they do not want to accept the expression “being” as a predicate about the Son as equivalent to the expressions “he became” and “is,” or, because of the performance of a better service, they do not want to accept and understand this expression “being” in the meaning that we said, but they think from this expression to conclude that the Word is called having received being, then let them hear it again in short words, when they have forgotten what was said. 62) If the Son is one of the angels, then the phrase “having been” will refer to Him in the same way as to them and He will not differ in any way from them by nature, on the contrary, either the angels will be sons, or He will be an Angel, and together they will sit together at the right hand of the Father, or with all the angels the Son will stand as a ministering spirit, like them sent into service. If Paul distinguishes the Son from created beings, saying: “To whom did the angel say, ‘Thou art my Son?’” (Heb. 1:5) - and the Son creates heaven and earth, and the angels are brought into being by Him; The Son sits with the Father, and the angels stand in service, then for whom is it not clearly visible that the apostle did not use the expression “having been” not about the essence of the Word, but about the service that was performed by the Word? For just as, being the Word, “he became flesh,” so, having become a man, he became in service as much better than the service that was through the angels, as the Son is distinguished from slaves and the Creator from created things. Therefore, let them cease to take the phrase “being” to refer to the essence of the Son, because the Son is not from among the created; and let them know that the saying “being” denotes the ministry and the former dispensation. And how He became the best in service, being the best of created beings by nature, this is shown by what we said before. And I think it will shame them. If they persist, then in accordance with the case, out of their insane audacity, give them an answer, and counter them with similar sayings used about the Father Himself, so that those who are ashamed will restrain their tongues from evil and know in what deep folly they are. So, it is written: “Be God my protector and a house of refuge to save me” (Psalm 30:3), and also: “The Lord is a refuge for the needy” (Psalm 9:10). And many places similar to these are found in the Divine Scriptures. Therefore, if they say that this was said about the Son (which, perhaps, is most true), then let them admit that the Saints desire to have Him as a protector and a house of refuge not as a creature, and therefore let them accept the sayings: “being, creating, creating” in relation to His human coming. For then He became a protector and a house of refuge, when “you bore our sins... in your body on the tree” (1 Peter 2:24), and said “come to me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28). 63) And if they say that these sayings are used about the Father, then, since it is written here: “be and be,” will they really dare to assert that God was created? Of course, they will dare to do this when they think about His Word in this way. The sequence of thoughts requires them to assume the same thing about the Father that they imagine about His Word. But let it never even occur to any of the believers that anything like this comes to mind! For the Son is not from among the created, and also what is written and said here “be” and “be” does not mean the beginning of being, but the help provided to those in need. God always exists and is always the same, but people were created by the Word subsequently, when the Father himself desired. God is invisible and unapproachable to created beings, especially to people existing on earth. Therefore, when people, exhausted, call, when the persecuted have a need for help, when the oppressed pray, then the Invisible One as a lover of mankind reveals Himself in His good deeds, which He shows through His own Word and in this Word Himself. And the consequences of this theophany already satisfy the needs of everyone; for the weak it comes with strength, for those who are persecuted it is a refuge and a house of salvation, for the oppressed it says, “yet I say unto the river, Behold, I have come” (Isa. 58:9). And what the Son does to help everyone, everyone says about this: “God has become this to me,” because help from God Himself is given by the Word. This is also known in common human speech, and this way of expression is recognized by everyone, no matter who it is, as excellent. Often people help people too. Another helped the oppressed, like Abraham Lot, another opened his house to the persecuted, like Obadiah - to the sons of the prophets, another gave rest to the wanderer, like Lot of Angels, another provided the needy, like Job, to those who asked him. And as those who were blessed, if one says: “So-and-so became my helper,” and if another says: “He became my refuge, and his provider,” saying this does not mean the beginning of being and not the essence of those who benefited, but the very benefit they provided to those in need; Thus, when the saints speak of God “be” and “wake,” they do not mean any beginning of existence, because God is beginningless and uncreated, but the salvation He has wrought for men. 64) since we understand it this way, we should maintain the same meaning, just as “be” and “wake” are said about the Son. Therefore, hearing what was said: “being better than the angels” and “being”, we should not assume any beginning of the existence of the Word and not at all imagine the Word as one of the created ones, but understand what Paul said about ministry and economy when the Word became man. For when “the Word became flesh and dwelt in us” (John 1:14), when He came to serve and give salvation to everyone, then He became salvation for us, life was for us, and cleansing was for us, then His dispensation for us became better than that of the angels, and the Word became the way, became the resurrection. And just as what was said: “become my protector in God” does not mean the origin of the essence of God Himself, but, as explained above, His love for mankind, so now the sayings: “who was the best of the Angels”, and: “was”, and: “the best hand and hand of Jesus” do not mean the essence of the created Word (let this not be!), but His good deed shown to us by His incarnation, although heretics will remain ungrateful and persistent in wickedness. You might be interested in: