5. And perhaps someone will say: You have proved that angels exist before the stars, yet you say that they came into being at the same time as heaven and earth. Tell us why you made such a testimony. In general, did they not occur before heaven and earth? For nowhere does Scripture clearly indicate the time of the creation of the angels. You have proved well that they exist before the stars. For if they had not existed, how would they have praised God in the creation of the stars? And we can express any solution to the problem not from our own considerations, but on the basis of the Scriptures. For the Word of God makes it clear that the angels did not come after the stars, nor before heaven and earth, since it is evident that it is indisputably said that before heaven and earth there was nothing created, that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1), when there was the beginning of creation, and before that there was nothing created.

Therefore the word which is in man cannot be called man, as I said before, but the word of man. But if the Word of God is God, then He is not a non-hypostatic word, but the hypostatic God the Word, begotten of God without beginning and before time, for the word was flesh, and dwelt in us, and we saw His glory, the glory of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. John testifies about Him, and cried out, saying: "This is his own rekh, who is coming after me, was before me, as before me" (John 1:14-15). He came into the world, that the world may be saved by them (3:17). In the world there was also peace, and his world was not known (1:10). Do you see the Only-begotten Word? Do you see that it is full of [the grace of truth] in the world among men, and has the full glory of the Only-begotten of the Father? Not as if the Father were the Word; not as if the Father appeared united to the Word, as man appears with his word, and his word cannot appear unless it is in the speaker of the word. So, what will I believe? What do I agree with? From whom shall I receive life in teaching? Is it from the saints and spirit-bearing evangelists, who spoke of the Word sent from the Father, or from these followers of Paul of Samosata, who say that God is with the Word, and the Word with God, who assert that the Father has one person with the Word, and the Word with the Father? If there is only one person, then then one sends, and the other is sent? For thou shalt send, saith the prophet, a word, and I shall fade: his spirit shall breathe, and the waters shall flow (Psalm 147:7). And again: "I came forth from the Father, and I come" (John 16:28); and: "I live, and the Father who sent me lives in me" (6:5,7). In what way is he sent and appears in the flesh? For no one has seen God anywhere, but the Only-begotten God is in the bosom of the Father, that confession (John 1:18). He says: The Only-begotten God, for the Word is begotten of the Father, and the Father is not begotten, therefore the Only-begotten is the Son.

6. Divine knowledge willed to preach its truth according to its foreknowledge for the protection of our souls; since it knew the madness of Samosata, and the wickedness of the Arians, and the wickedness of the Anomoeans, and the fall of the Manichaeans, and the wickedness of the other heresies, therefore the divine word protects us in regard to every utterance, and does not call the Father only-begotten. For how is the unborn only-begotten? And He calls the Son the only-begotten, so that the Son would not be counted as the Father, and so that God the Word would not be likened to the word in the heart of man. For if it is called by a word, it is called so that no one should think that He is alien to the essence of God the Father; and the Word is not impersonal, but hypostatic, because it is the only-begotten fullness of grace and truth. Do you see how much serves to strengthen our life? Therefore the words, "God is seen nowhere to be seen," are intended to signify the invisibility of the Father and His divinity, and to affirm the Son's own divinity appearing in the flesh.

How much more, and besides this, can we gather and represent against the madness of Samosata? If the Son was in the Father as the word is in the heart of man, how did He appear to speak in His own person? During a conversation with His disciples, He says: "He who has seen Me, in the form of the Father" (John 14:9). He did not say, "I am the Father," but the word mene means, in the Father. And he did not say, "I am he," but, "I have come in the name of my Father" (5:43). And: He is the testimony of Me (5:32–37). And again he says of the Holy Spirit: "I will send you another comforter" (14:16-15, 26). See how he uses the words: after, another, az, in order to show that the Father has a personal being and the Holy Spirit has a personal being. He will glorify Me, He speaks of the Holy Spirit, for He will receive from Me (16:14). And what Spirit is he talking about? Who proceedeth from the Father, and from Mine shall receive. Moreover, He says: "Two men shall bear witness, and I bear witness of Me, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of Me" (8:14, 17, 18). And how many other testimonies besides these? Here He says: Confess, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou hast concealed this from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed it as a child. O Father, for such was thy good pleasure. All things are delivered to me by My Father, and no one knoweth the Son but the Father; nor the Father, who knows only the Son, and to him the Son will reveal (Matt. 11:25-27) the Words: "Thou hast revealed Thou as a child, and all things have been delivered to me by My Father," He said in order to put an end to their fictitious, alien speech.

7. But see what the devil, who is always the adversary of the human race, has begotten in them, so that they speak according to the devil's suggestion. Against this these ministers of the Jewish heresy defend themselves, ashamed by the clear guiding teaching of the Divine Gospels, so as not to appear to them to be completely contrary to the true understanding of the Gospel. They say that Jesus was a man and was inspired by the Word from above. And what He says about Himself, He says as a man. For the Father, together with the Son, is One God, and man reveals his own face in that He is from below (John 8:23). And, thus, quite two faces are formed. But how can a man be God, O foolish of all men, and alienated by his mind from the heavenly understanding?! How can he be a mere man, in your opinion, who says: He who has seen Me in the form of the Father?! (John 14:9) For if man is like the Father, then the Father is no different from man. But if God the Word, perfect as man, is at the same time the perfect God from above, begotten of the Father, then He justly and clearly speaks of Himself, saying: "He who saw Me in the form of the Father, as the Jews also speak of Him." For he says: "Iskahu shall kill Him, not only because he did this, but also because he called himself the Son of God, saying that He is equal to God" (John 5:18). And again, saying, "He who has seen Me in the form of the Father," He calls the Father God, equal to Himself. And man is not equal to God and not like God, but truly begotten of God the Father, God the Only-begotten Son, for Paul says of him: "Who in the image of God was not equal to God by the rapture, but made himself small, and took the form of a servant" (Philem. 2:6). He was in the image, it is said of Him as of God, but the image of the servant calls it received from without, and did not say that it ever belonged to him. Often, however, our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ, God the Word, converses in a human way, and often speaks in accordance with human sensations, but not when He says: "I came forth from My Father, and I come" (for this cannot be said from the point of view of human nature), but when He justly testifies, saying: "If I bear witness of Me, my testimony is not true" (John 5:31). in order to show his incarnation. On the contrary, from the side of the Godhead He says: "If I bear witness to myself, verily is my testimony" (8:14), in order to show the true Divinity and the true incarnation.

8. Therefore there are not two Gods, because there are no two Fathers, and the hypostasis of the Word is not annihilated, because there is no admixture of the divinity of the Son with the Father. The Son is not of any other being with the Father, but is of one essence with the Father. He cannot be another being with the one who gave birth, He is not identical, but of one essence. But again we do not say that He is not essentially the same as the Father. For in divinity and in essence the Son is the same with the Father, and not different from the Father, and not from another hypostasis, but as if the Son of the Father in essence, and in hypostasis, and in truth. But the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father, but the Son, truly begotten of the Father. Therefore there are not two Gods, nor two Sons, nor two Holy Spirits, but one Godhead, the Trinity of one essence, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. When you say: Consubstantial, it does not mean confusion. For consubstantiality does not signify one, nor does it divide the essence of the true Son in relation to the Father, nor does it alienate the hypostasis in order to preserve consubstantiality. For the Divine Word does not preach two principles, but one principle. The house of Judah and the house of Israel will be gathered, he says, and will establish for themselves one power (Hosea 1:11). Thus, he who preaches two principles preaches two gods, and he who denies the Word and His hypostasis reveals Judaism. For Marcion admits two principles, or rather three, which are contrary to one another. The new Jews, these Samosatians, destroy the hypostasis of the Word, which is why they also turn out to be murderers of the Lord and, with the denial of God, deny salvation from our Lord.

Thus, the beginning is one, and the Son is from him an exact image, reflecting his Father by nature and resembling Him in all respects, because He is God from God, and the Son from the Father, the true God from the true God, and the light from the light, one divinity and one dignity. Wherefore He says: Let us make man in our image and after our likeness (Gen. 1:26), and not in thy image, that there may be no division, and not in my image, lest unlikeness and inequality be discovered, but in our image; and it is said: Let us create, so that the Father may not be a stranger to that which came from Him, neither will the Only-begotten be a stranger to creation. But the Father creates together with the Son, and the Son, who was all things, is the Creator together with the Father, and because the Son is begotten of Him, He is one perfect God, of the perfect Father, and one perfect Father of the perfect Son, who has the image of the Father's perfection, the image of the invisible God, not the likeness of the image, not the image of the image, not dissimilar, but the image of the Father, in order to show truly the immutability of being born from the beginningless and eternal.

Thus, the Son is the image of the Father. But even kings, because they have an image, do not become two kings, but one king with his own image; one king, and not that either of the two parts is imperfect, but the Father is perfect, the Son is perfect, the Holy Spirit is perfect. For I am in the Father, not as the word is in the heart of man, but we know the Father thought together with the Son, and the Son begotten of the Father. And the Word of God came into man, not as into a dwelling; and the Word did not appear in him after birth, and then it is as if grief again exists in God as the word exists in the heart of man. For this is characteristic of demonic madness and has the signs of a complete denial of God.

9. Reasoning that this little is sufficient to refute his heresy, for his power is not invincible, nor is it such that every reasonable man cannot refute it, therefore we have cut off the roots of the thorns of this heretic by preaching the truth and reasoning, and having extinguished the poison, so to speak, and proved his harmfulness, we, calling upon the help together with the Son of the Father, who truly exists, and the Son, born truly hypostatic, and His Holy Spirit, the hypostatic and salvific Spirit in the economy and in the work of the Incarnation, having crushed, I say, with the cross, the trophy over death, the head of the stirring up of this question of the new Jews, let us pass, beloved, to what follows.

Одна ехидна, так называемая дриина, похожа на этого ересиарха; говорят, что дриина скрывается постоянно в траве или в дубах, почему и называется дрииною (от дуб) оттого, что она любит деревья и, находясь среди опадающих с деревьев листьев, подходит к зеленожелтому цвету листа. Хотя и не столь сильную боль причиняет это животное, но если яд его долго остается в теле, то причиняет смерть. Так и Павел Самосатский и ересь его принимает на себя подобное множество других лжеучений; он облекся во имя Христово, но принял мудрование иудеев; исповедует Христа Словом, но рассуждает о Нем как о не сущем. И во многих случаях он не стыдится выводить себя напоказ. Его мнимое учение, а в сущности, заблуждение, низложивши в подножие Христово и врачебным ножом Евангелия сделав надсечку уязвленным и извлекши яд из них, перейдем, как я сказал выше, к следующему рассуждению.

Против манихеев, сорок шестой и шестьдесят шестой ереси

1. Манихеи называются еще Акуанитами от некоего ветерана, именуемого Акуаем, который пришел из Месопотамии и принес в Элевтерополь действие этого яда. Что касается до времени их жизни, то они проповедали великое зло миру после восстания Сабеллия. Они появились во времена императора Аврелиана около четвертого года его царствования. Ересь эта, возбудившая весьма много толков и известная во многих странах земли, как я сказал, начала распространяться от некоего Манеса.

Этот Манес (Μάνης), сперва называвшийся Кубриком, вышел из земли Персидской, сам себе дав имя Манеса, может быть, как я думаю, по усмотрению Божию усвоив себе это имя, наводящее на мысль о безумии (Μανιῶδες — Манес), тогда как сам он думал, что возложил на себя такое имя, которое на языке вавилонян значит сосуд. Ибо Μάνη в переводе с вавилонского на эллинский выражается словом σκεῦος (сосуд). Но как показывает истина, он приобрел наименование безумия за то злоучение, которое он, жалкий человек, горячо взялся рассеивать в мире. Этот Кубрик был рабом одной вдовы, которая умерши бездетною, оставила ему невообразимое множество денег, золота, серебра, ароматов и другого. А сама она получила наследство от некоего Тербинта (ἐκ Τερβίνθου), который и сам был рабом, но переименован на ассирийском языке Буддою (Βουδδᾶ); этот и сам был рабом некоего Скютиана, вышедшего из земли сарацинской, но воспитанного на границах Палестины, т. е. в Аравии. Этот Скютиан, изучивши в вышесказанных местах язык эллинов и литературу, сделался силен в пустых мирских мудрованиях. Постоянно будучи отправляем в путешествия в страну индийцев для торгового дела, он завел большую торговлю. Вследствие этого он много нажил в мире. И проходил даже чрез Фиваиду. Ибо на Чермном море есть разные пристани, которыми можно дойти до пределов Римских; одна при Айле, которая в божественном Писании называется Элон (Втор.2:8). Сюда корабль Соломонов, ходивший чрез три года, доставлял золото и слоновые зубы, ароматы, павлинов и другие предметы. А другая пристань при Кастре в заливе. Третья пристань выше, при так называемой Бернике, чрез которую, так называемую Бернику, едут в Фиваиду и товары, приходящие из Индии, там в Фиваиде развозятся, — или в Александрию по реке Хрисоррою, то есть Нилу, в писаниях называемой и Геоном, — и отправляются во всю землю египетскую и в Пелусию. Таким образом, проезжая морем в другие страны, отправляющиеся из Индии приходят с товарами в Римскую область.

2. Я постарался передать это в точности по долгу истории, дабы желающие узнать не остались в неведении о корнях каждой секты. Ибо, приступающему к какому–либо повествованию, должно употребить возможные усилия и с корня вести дело. Чрез это повествователь доходит до истины, хотя бы и не имел изящества слога и красноречия и люди разумные будут удовлетворены в своих требованиях от истинной истории. Итак, сначала этот Скютиан, надменный великим богатством и приобретением пряностей и других вещей из Индии пришедши в Фиваиду, в город называемый Гюпсела (εἰς Ὑψηλὴν), нашел там погибшую женщину, известную красотою телесною и, пленившись ею по глупости, взял ее из публичного дома (ибо она занималась публично непотребством), сблизился с этою женщиною и, освободивши ее, сочетался с нею браком. Прошло много времени, и этот развратник не умел сдержать себя от неумеренности в сладострастии, но как праздный и привыкший ко злу от чрезмерной привязанности к наслаждению, выдумал наконец в своем уме возвестить миру неслыханное: уча не на основании божественного Писания и вещания Святого Духа, но на основании жалких умствований человеческой природы, он измыслил такие речи. По какой причине во всем окружающем нас творении существует неравенство, именно: черное и белое, красное и зеленое, влажное и сухое, небо и земля, ночь и день, душа и тело, доброе и злое, справедливое и несправедливое. Это потому, конечно, что все состоит из двух каких–то начал. А диавол, усиленно воюющий против человеческой природы, породил в уме его то дикое мудрование, дабы признавать не–сущее и отрицать сущее, — дабы возбудить борьбу в мыслях людей обольщенных, которые думают, что есть нечто кроме Сущего, и чтобы все произвести, так сказать, от двух корней или двух начал, что всего нечестивее и гибельнее. Но об этом я скажу после. Так мудрствовал относительно этого ослепленный умом вышеупомянутый Скютиан, заимствовав поводы к тому у Пифагора, и составил четыре книги. Одной дал название Мистерии (Μυστηρίων), другой — Кефалии (Κεφαλαίων), третьей — Евангелие (Εὐαγγέλιον), четвертой — Сокровище (Θησαυρόν). В них он представляет сочетание двух личных начал равновесных и равносильных во всяком отношении. С такими убеждениями и с таким делением на части он, несчастный, мечтал, будто сделал какое–нибудь великое открытие в жизни. И подлинно великое зло открыл он в жизни для себя самого и для увлеченных им в заблуждение.