Слово 25. На [слова]: «Перворожденъ всея твари» 997 , [о том,] что Сын – не тварь

Objection from Christ-fighters. If, they say, the Son is not a creature, He would not be called “the firstborn of all creation”; for, as having a great affinity 998 with the created things, even though He were the first of them, and exists before all, They are called by this name. Rebuttal to this. It is not difficult to object to such attacks by heretics. If the name “First-Born” classifies the Son among the creatures, then the name “Only Begotten” in every way removes Him [from the number of creations]. For just as no one would be called “firstborn” unless he had many brothers, among whom he is the firstborn, so he would not be the only begotten if he were not the only one who is not numbered among the others. How is He both the firstborn and the only begotten? After all, both this and this [definition] must be preserved. Since the divine Scripture calls Him by both names, it is necessary to ask those who accurately understand the divine Scriptures how He is the firstborn, and [at the same time] in some way also the only begotten. So, He is the Only Begotten - since He is the Word [born] from the Father, having no brothers by nature and not being ranked with anyone else; for the Son of God is one and only. And He is not simply and not absolutely the firstborn, but in many brothers 999, as it is written. And when did He become our brother, if not when He took on our flesh? Therefore, He then became the firstborn when He revealed many sons of God by grace. OTHER. “The firstborn of all creation” He is called not as being the first in time from it, nor as one who is of the same essence with the creatures, but, as has already been said, because of [His] condescension to the creation and likening us. However, it would be good to observe [how] He is called the Only Begotten, and [how] the First-Born. So, when He is called the Only Begotten, no reason is added to this why He is the only begotten. He is called that way, but he is called absolutely: “The Only Begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father” 1000. When the divine Scriptures call Him the Firstborn, they immediately cite those among whom He is the firstborn: “Firstborn in many brethren” 1001, and “Firstborn from the dead” 1002. After all, since it was fitting for the Son of God, Who by nature belongs to primacy, not to lose it even when He became man, He, in justice, and having accepted the likeness to us, takes primacy in relation to all creation. For due to the fact that He became a man, He will not be less than anyone in terms of the dignity due to the Divine nature, but even so He will take precedence and lead all creation in general, since He is its Creator and Lord. So the evangelist says: “We have seen his glory, the glory of the Only Begotten from the Father” 1003. OTHER. If, according to Pavlov’s words, He created all things 1004, then He will be different in relation to everyone. For, having said “all kinds,” he left nothing outside [this definition], no matter what came into being thanks to Him. Therefore, the Son will not be a creature, but rather the Creator of all things, as it is written. After all, the Divine Scripture did not say that He is the firstborn of other creatures, so that He would not really be thought of as existing from among them, but says that He is the Firstborn of all creation, so that thanks to this - when all the scattered creation, so to speak, is put together - He would be considered different in relation to it. And what exists outside all creation cannot be a created essence, but will be different in comparison with it. And that is why the divine Scripture, well aware of this observation, did not call Reuben the firstborn of all the children of Jacob, so that he would not be thought of as different from them, but says with all accuracy that he is the firstborn of Jacob and his brothers 1005. OTHER. If some, because the Son is called the firstborn of all creation, try to number Him among the creation, then He will also be among them. If we agree to this, then He will be the firstborn of Himself, since, being the firstborn of all creation, He Himself [in their opinion] is among all. This means that He will be both first and second in relation to Himself. If, due to the fact that He is the firstborn of all creation, we think of Him as being outside of everything, then He will be before all (πρῶτος τῶν πάντων) 1006. And if He is counted among “everyone,” then He will be second in time in relation to Himself: this way – first, and that way – second. OTHER. If, due to the fact that He is called the firstborn of all creation, He will also be one of the creatures, and [at the same time] all of them were 1007, then He will be, in your opinion, the creator of Himself, and the creator is created, moreover, by Himself. After all, if He is among everyone, and everything is through Him, then what is said will be true. And if all creation was fulfilled in Him 1008, then how can He be one of all who allows everyone to be fulfilled? OTHER, said narratively, according to pious speculation, according to which He is thought to be the First-Born. “Firstborn in many brethren” 1009, since He became like us in everything except sin, and since He took on our flesh, calling ourselves our brother, He is rightly so called. “The firstborn and from the dead” 1010, for He was the first to resurrect His flesh into incorruption and the first to ascend it into heaven. That’s why he says: “I am the way” 1011, and “I am the door” 1012. For through Him human nature learns to follow a new path of resurrection, and, as if through a certain door, enters the same heaven. OTHER, about how to piously understand [the expression]: “The firstborn of all creation” 1013. Because of the love of mankind of the Father, which He has for all His creations, the Son called Himself the firstborn of all creation, and out of condescension 1014 towards the created ones, He almost refuses to count Himself among them, so that, since He is called the firstborn of them, for His sake even that which comes after Him would be saved. For if in every way it is fitting for Him to be the firstborn, then in every way those of whom He is the firstborn remain. So, He is the Only Begotten by nature, since He is the only one who exists from the Father, God from God, Light from Light 1015 shining, and the First Begotten - for our sake, so that all creation would be, as it were, grafted into an immortal root and grown from the Ever-Bearing One. For everything was the same, and took place forever, and is preserved by Him. OTHER. If, because He is called the firstborn of all creation, we number the Son among creation, as being by nature a creation, then He will be the first of it in time, but akin to it by nature and, since He is a creation, similar to [all] others. Consequently, He will be akin to dumb animals, birds and fish. For these, although small, are nevertheless parts of the whole creation. But this is absurd. Therefore, it will be pious to think of Him as the firstborn among many brothers, because [many] by grace were called to adoption. And He will be supreme over all creation, as He existed before it and brought it into being, without Himself being a created essence. OTHER. He is called the firstborn in many brethren because those saved by Him are called to adoption as sons of God; and also the firstborn or firstfruits from the dead - because He first rose [from death] into incorruption; Likewise, the fact that He was created as the beginning of paths 1016 is said because through Him everyone can strive for salvation. That for no other reason is He called the Only Begotten than because He is the only one truly begotten Apology literally. If He is the Only Begotten because He was created without the mediation of [anyone], then He was created involuntarily (ἀβουλήτως γέγονεν); and if there is not one of those created for whom the will of God does not serve as a mediator, then He is not the Only Begotten because He was created without mediation, but because He alone is the fruit of the Father. OTHER. If He is the Only Begotten because, in your opinion, He alone was created by Him, then He who created only Him, and not everyone, will not be the Creator of all. If the Father is the Creator of everything in general - for from Him is everything - then the Son, therefore, is the Only Begotten, not as the only one who existed, but as the only one born by nature. OTHER. If He is the Only Begotten because He alone was created by one [only the Father], and just as the sun alone creates the day, then the day will also be called the only begotten [child] of the sun. And if someone became the inventor of one [any] art or the author of one painting, then his only children will be the only [works] that he created. If no one has ever called the work [of this same author] the only begotten [to the author], then how will the Son be thought of by the Only Begotten as created, and not as begotten? OTHER. If He is called the Only Begotten, not as the only begotten, and not created, and Jephthah’s daughter is also called the only begotten, 1017 then she too will be his only work, and not his begotten. Or, if we recognize her as the only begotten because she alone was born from her father, then the Son, obviously, will be the Only Begotten because He alone from birth is the heir of the Father's essence. OTHER. If He is the Only Begotten because He is the only one created as such, and the sun is the only one created as it is, then it will also be the only begotten. If, although many creatures are created in the singular, they are not called the only begotten, then, therefore, the Only Begotten [is also called so] not as the only one created as such, but as the only one begotten. OTHER. If He is the Only Begotten because He alone prevails over all, and the Father also prevails over all, then He [i.e. e. Father] can be called the Only Begotten. If He is not the Only Begotten, although He is superior to everyone, then the Son is the Only Begotten, not because of superiority over the created ones, but because of His birth from the Father. OTHER. If He is the Only Begotten because He alone is the messenger of the Father’s wills, and our (i.e., rooted within us) word is the only thing that proclaims the wills of [our] mind, then He too can be called the only begotten son of the mind. If from all eternity no one has called the word, which reveals the secret thoughts of the mind, the only begotten, then how is the Son the Only Begotten, as a proclaimer, and not, rather, as begotten? OTHER. If He is the Only Begotten because He alone is the Creator of those who come after Him, then He will have no one creating with Him, no one who has created anything, except the Father alone. If by Him all things were created, as by Wisdom, and by Him the heavens were established, and by the Spirit of God all their power 1018, then it is unnecessary to call Him the Only Begotten, as being the Creator of those who come after Him, and not as the only Creator, born by nature from God. OTHER. If the only thing created, and not the only thing truly begotten, is the only begotten, then Sarah’s son is not the only begotten, since he was not created by her, but begotten. OTHER. If He is the Only Begotten because His Father alone existed, then He Himself will no longer be the firstborn, since the other brothers are not from the Father. If He is truly the firstborn, preeminent in all things, 1019 then He is, therefore, not only the Only Begotten as the one who came into existence, but as the only good Fruit born of the good Father. OTHER. If the First-Born (πρωτότοκος) from God, as born the first of many, is also the first-born of the Virgin, then He must also be from Her, as it were, the first of the rest. If He, being the only one, and not before others, born from Mary, is called Her firstborn (πρωτότοκος) 1020, then, therefore, He is firstborn from God, not as the first of many, but as the only one born. OTHER. If He is the Firstborn because He was born first of all others, and what is born first does not differ from those born after Him from the same [parent], then the Son, therefore, will not be better than those who come after Him. If what creates differs in everything from what is created, and the Son creates, then He must differ from everyone; and how then will He be the firstborn of His creations, Who was the first to give them the name “son”? OTHER. If the first are recognized as the culprits of the second, and first there was God and the Son of God, then it means that the Son is also the culprit of those [sons] about whom we are speaking, as [being] from Him. Therefore, the author of the second sons, if he is called the Firstborn, is not as one who began to exist before them, but as the One who first became for them the author of the name “son.” OTHER. If He is the First-born because He was created first, and the one who created something first, and not the only one, usually creates others after the first [work], then the Son, then, did not create anything. Since He created, it is not because He was created that He is the firstborn, but because He created all things, even in heaven and on earth 1021. OTHER. If He came into being for the sake of bringing creation into existence, then He should be grateful to them, since they became the cause of His emergence. OTHER. If the Son creates because the creature could not withstand the own action of the Uncreated, then the Son would be a kind of mediating force, and He Himself would not be uncreated - for the creation would not have endured Him - nor, again, from among the created, for [then] He Himself would not have withstood the Uncreated. And since He is neither one nor the other, then it remains to confess that He is a product of unborn nature. OTHER. The objection seems to be from among the Eunomievs. If the Son, he says, is the true God, then how does the Divine Scripture, which says: “The Firstborn of all creation,” 1022 count Him among the created? After all, it is in every possible way necessary for Him to be by nature the same as those of whom He is the first. Rebuttal to this. Profane speech and fraught with great absurdity. After all, if the Son will necessarily be like those created after Him, since he is also called the firstborn of them, and not only man was created, but also many and various animals, then it is time for you, Christ-fighters, who without fear indulge in wickedness, to [directly] say that the Son is by nature the same as the dumb animals. Consequently, He will not necessarily be akin to those whom He is called the firstborn. He is called so because the divine Scripture thereby shows us that we are all in the Son and through the Son are called to an equal position with Him (σχῆμα), being by grace proclaimed sons of God. And He is the Firstfruits of the grace given to us, out of love for mankind, likening to Himself those created by Him. And the very fact that He is the first shows Him as the true image of the Father. For just as the Father says that He is the first, so the Son, being the exact image and likeness of the first Father, is called and is the first. For in Him abides the first Father, and He likewise abides in the first Father, and through Him all beings and rational [creatures] are called to adoption. OTHER. If the fact that the Son is called “the first-born [of all] creation” (πρῶτον τῆς κτίσεως), certainly forces Him to be akin to those who arose after Him, and to be such by nature, which are those who are second in time, then what will you say when the Father says about Himself: “I first, and Az to this day » 1023 ? Is it possible that you will also attribute to Him a created essence, having conceded to Him only in time the primacy over created things, and rank Him among the created? But I think no one will reach such madness as to dare to even imagine this. Therefore, just as the fact that the Father is called first does not make Him considered akin to all that comes after Him, so the Son, even though He is called “the first-born [of all] creation,” will not necessarily be one of the creatures. But just as the Father, showing Himself to be the beginning of everything, says: “I am the first,” so the Son is called the first-born of all creation. For this is all that was, and He is the beginning of all creatures, as the Creator and Creator. The Greek text says "εὐγένειαν" - "nobility", but the general meaning of the phrase encourages us to read here "συγγένειαν", as in the Latin PG translation this word corresponds to "affinitatem". John 1:18. {In the original - the Only Begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father - the word “God” is not italicized, since in the Church Slavonic and Synodal translations it is “Only Begotten Son”. However, the compilers of the critical edition of the Greek text NA27 chose as the main option the “Only Begotten God”, as attested in the best manuscripts, as well as in the holy fathers, including in this place by Cyril.} Gen.35:23; 49:3; Ex.6:14; Numbers 1:20; 26:25 ; 1 Par. 5:1,3. In Russian it is possible to say only “the first of all,” but the preposition “from” seems to place this first inside the set, so we had to deviate from the literal translation, replacing the ordinal number “first” with the adverb “before.” The original text says “συγκαταβᾶσα”, but this is an obvious typo, and we read this place: “τῇ πρὸς τὰ πεποιημένα συγκαταβάσει”. You might be interested in: