However, we must see how what has been said is confirmed by the authority of the divine Scriptures. Thus, the Apostle Paul says that the only-begotten Son is the image of the invisible God and that He is the firstborn before all creation (Col. 1:15), and in the Epistle to the Hebrews he writes that He "is the radiance of glory and the image of His hypostasis" (Heb. 1:3). Also in the Wisdom called Solomon's Wisdom we find the following image of the Wisdom of God. It "is the pair of the power of God, and the pure outpouring of the Almighty of glory; For this reason nothing is defiled and attacks Ia. For the radiance is the everlasting light, and the mirror of God's unblemished action, and the image of His goodness" (Wis. 7:25-26). Wisdom, we repeat, has its existence only in Him Who is the beginning of all things. From Him was born all wisdom, because He is the only Son by nature, and therefore is called the only-begotten.

Let us also see how we should understand that the Son is called the image of the Invisible One – this is, of course, in order to find out in what sense God is justly called the Father of His Son. And first of all, let us consider what people usually call images. Sometimes an image is called that which is usually depicted or carved on some material, i.e. on wood or stone. Sometimes the begotten is called an image in relation to the begotten, precisely when the traits of the begat are exactly similar to those of the begotten. In the first sense, in my opinion, an image can be called a person created in the image and likeness of God. This is what we will consider more thoroughly when, with God's help, we explain the passage from the Book of Genesis related to this. The second meaning of the image is applicable to the Son of God, of whom we are now speaking, in view of the fact that He is the invisible image of the invisible God, just as Seth, according to the historical narrative, is the image of Adam. In fact, it is written thus: "And Adam begat Seth, in his own image and after his likeness" (Gen. 5:3). This image contains (an indication of) the unity of the nature and essence of the Father and the Son. For if all that the Father does is done in the same way by the Son, then the image of the Father in the Son is imprinted precisely in the fact that the Son does everything in the same way as the Father from Whom He is born, as if it were a certain will of Him, proceeding from thought. And I think that the will of the Father is sufficient for the realization of that which the Father wills, for in His desire He uses, of course, not any other means, but that which is indicated by the counsel of His will. And so the hypostasis of the Son is born from him. This, of course, must be agreed first of all by those who admit that there is nothing that has not happened, that is, that is not begotten, except God the Father alone. However, we must beware lest we fall into the absurd fables of those who invent for themselves some kind of outflow, and at the same time divide the divine nature into parts and divide God the Father in Himself, whereas even to think slightly about this about an incorporeal being is not only extremely impious, but also to the last degree foolish, in any case, completely contrary to reason, to think the division of the incorporeal nature in essence. On the contrary, just as the will proceeds from the intellect, and yet does not separate any part from it, nor is it itself separated from it, so it must be thought that the Father begat the Son, this image of Himself; therefore, just as He Himself is invisible by nature, so He gave birth to an invisible image. In fact, the Son is the Word, and therefore nothing sensual should be thought of in Him. The Son is Wisdom, and in Wisdom nothing corporeal can be conceived. He is the true light, enlightening every man who comes into the world (John 1:9), but He has nothing in common with the light of this sun. Thus, our Saviour is the image of the invisible God the Father; in relation to the Father Himself, He is the truth; in relation to us, by whom He reveals the Father, He is the image through which we know the Father, Whom no one else knows but the Son, and he to whom the Son wants to reveal Him knows. He reveals the Father when He Himself is the object of knowledge, because whoever knows Him also knows the Father, as He Himself says: "He who has seen Me has seen the Father" (John 14:9).

(From Jerome's letter to Avitus: "The Son, who is the image of the invisible Father, is not truth in comparison with the Father; but to us, who cannot perceive the truth of the almighty God, He seems to be the image of the truth; for the height and majesty of the Most High is known in the Son in a certain way limited").

But since we have quoted Paul's saying that the Son is the radiance of the glory of God and the image of His hypostasis, let us see what idea should follow from this saying. "God," according to John, "is light" (John 1:5). Thus the only-begotten Son is the radiance of this light, which illuminates all creation and proceeds from Him, inseparable, just as radiance proceeds from light. The work of light must be understood in accordance with the above considerations about the sense in which the Son is the path leading to the Father, in what sense He is the Word who explains and offers to the rational creature the mysteries of wisdom and knowledge, in what sense He is the Truth, and the Life, and the Resurrection. Thus, through radiance it is known and felt what light itself is. This radiance, which for the weak and fragile eyes of mortals (men) seems comparatively acceptable and soft, and little by little as it were teaches and prepares them to perceive the brilliance of the light itself, removing from them everything that hinders their sight, according to the word of the Lord: "First take the beam out of thy eye" (Luke 6:42), makes them capable of perceiving the glory of light, and thus becomes. as if it were a kind of intermediary between people and the Light.

(From Jerome's letter to Avitus: "God the Father is an incomprehensible light. Christ in comparison with the Father is a faint radiance, which seems great to us, because of our weakness").

But, according to the words of the Apostle, He is not only the radiance of Glory, but also the imprinted image of His essence and even His hypostasis. Therefore, it seems to me that it is not superfluous to pay attention to the sense in which any other essence and hypostasis, besides the very essence of God, can be called His image. The Son of God, Who is called the Word of God and His Wisdom, alone knows the Father and reveals Him to those whom He wills, that is, to those who can be made capable of receiving the Word and Wisdom itself. And so, see if He can not be called an imprinted image of His essence and even hypostasis, because He makes it possible through Himself to comprehend and know God? In other words, can He not be called the imprinted image of the essence of God, that, being Wisdom, He first of all reflects in Himself all that He wishes to reveal to others, and on the basis of which these latter know and comprehend God? And in order to make it even clearer in what sense the Saviour is the image of the essence and hypostasis of God, we will use an example, which, it is true, does not fully and not in the proper sense designate the object in question, but it seems that we will apply it in clarifying, at least, the proposition that the Son of God, being the image of God, humbled Himself and through His very humiliation tries to show us the fullness of the Godhead. Suppose, for example, that a statue has been made, which, in its size, occupies the whole circle of the earth, and in its immensity is inaccessible to no one's observation; Let us suppose that there is another statue, in the arrangement of the limbs and the features of the face, similar in appearance and material in all respects to the first, but not of such enormous size. Then people who cannot see and contemplate the first, huge statue, when they see the second, smaller one, can admit that they have seen that statue, because the smaller statue does not differ from the large one at all in the outlines of the limbs and face, in appearance and material.

(From Jerome's letter to Avitus: "He gives the example of two statues, a larger one and a smaller one; the first fills the world and, due to its size, seems to be invisible, while the other is accessible to the eye; with the first statue he compares the Father, with the second the Son").

In the same way, the Son of God, having humbled Himself in His equality with the Father and showing us the way to the knowledge of Him, is made an imprinted image of His essence, so that we, who have not had the opportunity to see the glory of the wondrous light inherent in the majesty of His Godhead, may have access to the contemplation of the divine light at the sight of His radiance, by virtue of the fact that He is made for us by this radiance. Of course, the comparison with statues, borrowed from material objects, has an application in explaining only that the Son of God, having dwelt in the smallest form of the human body, reflected in Himself the immeasurable and invisible majesty of the Father, owing to the similarity with His works and power. That is why He said to His disciples: "He who has seen Me has seen the Father", "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). In the same sense, we must also understand the words: "The Father is in Me, and I in Him" (John 10:38).

Теперь посмотрим и то, как нужно понимать слова Премудрости Соломона, который так говорит о Премудрости: «Она есть пар силы Божия, и излияние Вседержителя славы чистое, и сияние света присносушного, и зерцало непорочно Божия действия, или силы, и образ благостыни Его» (Прем. 7.25-26). По изображению Соломона, Премудрости Божьей присуще в частичном виде все то, что, по его определению, принадлежит Богу. А он упоминает о силе Божьей, о славе, вечном свете, действии и благости. Он называет Премудрость паром, но не славы Всемогущего, и не вечного света, и не действия Отца, и не благости Его, потому что неприлично было приписать пар чему-нибудь из всего этого, а вполне верно говорить, что Премудрость есть пар силы Божьей. Итак, нужно представить себе ту силу Божью, которая составляет основу деятельности Бога, при помощи которой Он устраивает, содержит и управляет всем видимым и невидимым; это – та сила, которой достаточно для всех существ, о которых промышляет Бог и к которым ко всем Он близок, как к одному. Именно от всей этой безмерно великой силы (происходит) испарение и, так сказать, мощь, сама имеющая свою собственную ипостась. Хотя эта мощь происходит от самой силы, как хотение от мысли, однако и самое хотение Божье становится тоже силою Божьей. Таким образом, происходит другая сила, существующая в своей особенности, или, по выражению Писания, некоторое испарение первой, нерожденной силы Божьей, от нее получающее свое бытие, – и нет времени, когда ее не было бы. В самом деле, если бы кто захотел сказать, что сначала она не существовала, а потом получила бытие, то пусть скажет причину, почему Отец, давший ей существование, не сделал этого прежде? Если он укажет какое-нибудь начало, когда это испарение произошло от силы Божьей, то мы снова спросим, почему же оно не произошло прежде этого, указанного им начала; и так, постоянно спрашивая о предшествующем и простирая вопросы дальше и дальше, мы придем, наконец, к такой мысли: так как Бог всегда мог и хотел, то никогда не должно было и не могло даже существовать никакой причины тому, чтобы Бог не имел всегда того блага, которого Он хотел. Отсюда ясно, что этот пар силы Божьей, не имеющий никакого начала, помимо Самого Бога, существовал всегда и (для него) не могло быть никакого другого начала, кроме Самого Бога, от Которого он и существует, и рождается. Согласно же апостолу, который говорит, что «Христос есть Божия сила» (1Кор. 1.25), этот пар нужно признать не только паром силы Божьей, но и силою от силы.

Рассмотрим еще слова «излияние славы Вседержителя чистейшее» и, прежде всего, подумаем о том, что такое слава всемогущего Бога, а потом также размыслим и относительно того, что же такое излияние ее. Как никто не может быть отцом, если нет сына, и никто не может быть господином без владения, без раба, так и Бога нельзя назвать всемогущим, если нет существ, над которыми Он проявил бы власть, и поэтому, для откровения божественного всемогущества, необходимо должно существовать все. Если же кто-нибудь подумает, что были когда-нибудь века, или протяжения времени, или что-нибудь другое в том же роде, когда сотворенное еще не было сотворено, то, без сомнения, он покажет этим, что в те века или протяжения времени Бог не был всемогущим и сделался всемогущим только впоследствии, когда явились существа, над которыми Он мог бы владычествовать. А это в свою очередь значило бы, что Бог испытал некоторое усовершенствование и от худшего состояния перешел к лучшему, так как быть всемогущим для Него, без сомнения, лучше, чем не быть таким. Но не глупо ли думать, что Бог сначала не имел чего-нибудь такого, что иметь было достойно Бога, но получил это только потом путем некоторого усовершенствования? Если же нет такого времени, когда Бог не был бы всемогущим, то необходимо должно существовать и то, чрез что Он называется всемогущим, и Бог всегда имел то, над чем владычествовать и что подлежало управлению Его как царя или главы.

(Из письма императора Юстиниана к патриарху Константинопольскому Мине: «Разве нелепо то положение, что Бог (сначала) не имел чего-нибудь такого, что свойственно Ему, и что стал Он иметь только впоследствии? Так как нет времени, когда Он не был бы Вседержителем, то, следовательно, всегда должно было существовать и то, чрез что Он есть Вседержитель, и всегда было подчинено Ему все, состоящее под Его владычеством »).