It is time, however, to attend to what is coming today, so that you may not be weary in the field. Podvigs lie ahead of us against the enemies of the truth, against those who invent everything in order to destroy the glory of the Son of God, or rather, their own. The glory of the Son of God always remains as it is, in no way diminished by a blasphemous tongue; but those who seek to destroy Him whom they say they worship,1 cover their faces with dishonor, and put their souls to death.

So, what do they say when we reason in this way? It is said that the saying, "In the beginning was the Word," does not directly prove the eternity (of the Son), because it is also said of heaven and earth (Gen. 1:l). Oh, shamelessness and wickedness! I converse with you about God, and you point out to me the earth and the people who came from the earth. Thus, if Christ is called the Son of God and God, so man is called the Son of God and God (as for example: "I said, You are gods, and the sons of the Most High are all of you" - Psalm 81:6), will you therefore contend with the Only-begotten in sonship, and say that in this respect He has no advantage over you? No way, you say. Yet you do it, though you do not express it in words. How? You affirm that you also participate in adoption by grace, and so does He. If you say that He is the Son not by nature, you are not expressing anything else, namely, that He is the Son by grace.

However, let us also consider the testimonies that are given to us. It is said: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and empty, ..." (Gen. 1:1). Also: "There was a man from Ramathaim-Zophim, ..." (1 Samuel 1:1). Here are the testimonies they consider strong! And indeed this is strong, but to prove the correctness of the dogmas that we affirm; and for the maintenance of blasphemy (heretics) nothing can be weaker than these proofs. Tell me, what do the words "created" and "was" have in common? Or what does God have in common with man? Why do you mix that which does not tolerate mixing, merge the separate, and make the heavenly things below? Here the word "was" does not mean eternity in itself, but in conjunction with other expressions: "in the beginning was" and "the word was." Just as the expression "being" when speaking of man shows only the present time, and when speaking of God, it means eternity, so the expression "was" when speaking of our nature means the time that has passed for us, and it is precisely a certain limit of time, and when it speaks of God, it expresses eternity. Thus, when we hear about the earth and man, we should not assume anything more about them than is proper to created nature. Everything created, whatever it was, happened in time, or in a certain limit of it. And the Son of God is above not only all time, but also all ages, He is their Creator and Creator. "Through Whom," it is said, "He also created the worlds" (Hebrews 1:2). The Creator, of course, exists before His creatures. But since some are so insensible that even after that they think something lofty about their worthiness, the word of God with the expressions: "He created and man was" precedes such a thought of the hearers and destroys all shamelessness. Everything created, both earth and heaven, was created in time, has a temporal beginning, and there is nothing beginningless in them, because everything (at a certain time) received existence.

And so, when you hear the expressions, "He created the earth, and man was," you will be superfluous, weaving only useless chatter. But I will say something more. What is it? That if it had been said of the earth that in the beginning was the earth, and of man in the beginning was man, then even in this case we should not suppose anything more about them than we know about them now. The very name of the earth and of man, no matter what is said about them later, does not allow the mind to imagine anything more about them than we now know; just as the expression "The Word, even if something unimportant is said about Him," does not in itself allow us to think anything base and insignificant. And of the earth it is further said: But the earth was formless and empty, Thus, having said that God created the earth and set its proper limit, the writer of Genesis safely tells the rest of it, knowing that no one will be so senseless as to consider the earth to be uncreated and uncreated. The name earth and the expression "created" are sufficient to convince the most foolish man that the earth is neither eternal nor beginningless, but belongs to the number of things that have happened in time.

3. In addition, the expression "was", when used about the earth and man, means not just being, but in relation to man - his origin from a certain country, and in relation to the earth - the quality of its being. Thus Moses did not simply say, "The earth was," and then fell silent, but showed in what state it was even after its origin, i.e., it was formless and empty, still covered with waters and mixed with them. And of Elkanah it is not only said that he was a man, but it is added to the explanation; whence he came: from Ramathaim-tzofim. But of the Word (it is spoken) not so. I am ashamed to compare such objects with each other! If we forbid comparisons between people, as soon as those who are compared are very different from each other in merit, although their essence is the same, then where there is such an infinite distance both in essence and in everything else, is it not extreme folly to make such comparisons? But may He be merciful to us Who blasphemes them! We have not discovered the need for such reasoning, but we are given occasion for it by those who arm themselves against their own salvation.

So, what do I say? That the expression was, in relation to the Word, means, first, the eternity of His being: in the beginning, it is said, was the Word. And secondly, the same thing shows that anybody had the Word. Since God is primarily characterized by eternal and beginningless existence, this is first of all expressed. Then, lest anyone who hears that the Word was in the beginning recognize Him as unborn, such a thought is prevented by the fact that before remarking that the Word existed, it is said that it was with God. And in order that no one should consider Him to be a word only spoken or only mental, this thought is removed by the addition of a term (ό), as I have already said, and by another expression (from God to God). It is not said: it was in God ... , but: it was with God, which signifies His eternity in hypostasis. Further, it is revealed still more clearly in the addition that the Word was God. But is this not the Word created? - someone will say. If so, what prevented us from saying that God created the Word in the beginning?

Thus Moses, speaking of the earth, did not say, "In the beginning was the earth," but said that (God) created it, and then it was. What, I say, prevented John from saying in this way that in the beginning God created the Word? For if Moses feared in his discourse of the earth lest someone call it uncreated, then much more should John have feared this concerning the Son (of God), if He had been created. The world, being visible, preaches the Creator by itself: "The heavens," it is said, "proclaim the glory of God" (Psalm 18:1). But the Son is invisible, and moreover incomparably and infinitely higher than creation. If, therefore, here, where neither word nor teaching was necessary for us to acknowledge the world as created, the prophet nevertheless clearly and first of all allows us to see this, then much more would John have to say this about the Son, if He had been created.

Thus, it will be said: nevertheless, Peter expressed this clearly and definitely! Where and when? Then, when conversing with the Jews, He said: "What God has made this Jesus Lord and Christ... " (Acts 2:36). And why do you not add further words, namely: "... This Jesus, Whom you have crucified!" Or do you not know that some of the sayings refer to the incorruptible nature, and others to the incarnation? Otherwise, if you understand everything about the Divinities in this way, then you will come to the conclusion that the Divinity is also subject to suffering. If it does not participate in suffering, then it is not created. If blood had flowed from the most divine and ineffable nature, and instead of flesh it had been pierced and cut by nails on the cross, then your cunning in this case would have had a basis.

But just as the devil himself would not blaspheme in this way, why do you pretend to take upon yourself such unforgivable ignorance, with which even the demons did not cover themselves? Moreover, the words: the Lord and Christ do not refer to essence, but to dignity. The first means power, and the second means anointing. And so, what do you say about the Son of God? Even if He had been created, according to your wisdom, these sayings would not have taken place. It is impossible to imagine that He was first created, and then God appointed Him (Lord and Christ). He has an inalienable rulership, and He has it by His very nature and essence. Being asked if He was a King, He answered: "For this I was born" (John 18:37). And Peter speaks here of Him as being ordained (in the Lord and Christ), and this refers only to the Incarnation.

4. Why are you surprised if Peter says this? And Paul, conversing with the Athenians, calls Him only a man, saying: "... by means of the Man whom He had ordained, having given a testimony to all, having raised Him from the dead" (Acts 17:31). He says nothing here about the image of God, nor about His equality (with the Father), nor about the fact that He is the radiance of His glory. And so it should be. At that time it was not yet the time for such teaching, but it was desirable that they should first accept that He is a man and that He has risen. Christ Himself did so; and from Him Paul, having learned, arranged the work of his preaching in the same way. Christ did not suddenly reveal His divinity to us, but at first He was revered only as a prophet and Christ, as if He were a simple man; Only later did He appear from His deeds and words what He was. That is why Peter at first uses the same way of speaking. This was his first public preaching to the Jews. And since they were not yet able to clearly know His divinity, the Apostle addresses to them the word about the Incarnation, so that their ears, previously trained by this word, would be predisposed to other teaching. If anyone wants to read the entire sermon of the Apostle from the beginning, what I am saying will be very clear to him.

The Apostle Peter also calls Him a man, and discusses at length about His suffering, resurrection and birth according to the flesh. And Paul, when he says, "... was born of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Rom. I:3), not anything else that inspires us, namely, that the word "created" is used in relation to the incarnation, as we also confess. On the contrary, the son of thunders now speaks to us of an ineffable and pre-eternal existence; therefore, leaving the word "created," He put "was"; whereas if the Son of God had been created, this would have to be shown with precision. If Paul feared lest one of the foolish people suppose that the Son is greater than the Father, and that He who begat will one day submit to Him, for this reason he said in the Epistle to the Corinthians: "... But when it is said that all things are subject to Him, it is clear that except Him who subjected all things to Him" (1 Corinthians 15:27), although who would have thought that the Father would ever be subject to the Son, on an equal footing with all creatures? And if Paul feared such foolish opinions, wherefore he said, "Except him that subjected all things to him," it was much more fitting for John, if the Son of God had been created, to be afraid lest any one should acknowledge him to be uncreated, and this was the first thing to explain to him. But now, since the Son is begotten, neither John nor any other apostle or prophet rightly said that He was created. And the Only-begotten Himself would not fail to say this if it were so.

He who, out of condescension, spoke so humbly about Himself, would not be silent about it. I do not think it improbable that He would rather have kept silent about His greatness, which He had, than if He had not had it, He would have left it unnoticed that He does not have this greatness. This was a plausible motive for default - the desire to teach people humility, and therefore He was silent about the great things that belong to Him. And here you can't give any fair preposition to the default. If He had been created, why would He have kept silent about His origin, when He did not mention many things that really belonged to Him? He who, in order to teach humility, often spoke of Himself in a derogatory way, and ascribed to Himself that which is not really His own, He, I say, if He had been created, would not have failed to say much more about it. Or do you not see how He Himself does everything for the purpose that no one should recognize Him as unborn, and speaks and does, even to speak of Himself, apparently inconsistent with His dignity and essence, and condescends to the humility of a prophet? The saying: "As I hear, so I judge", also: "... He gave Me a commandment what to say and what to say." (John 5:30; 12:49) and the like are peculiar only to prophets.

If, therefore, in order to dismiss such a supposition, He did not mince words about Himself with such humble words, how much more would He have spoken in the same way, if He had been created, lest anyone should acknowledge Him to be uncreated, e.g., "Do not think" that I am begotten of the Father; I am created, not begotten, and I am not of the same being with Him." But He does the opposite. He uses expressions that involuntarily, even unwillingly, force one to accept a contrary opinion. Thus, He says: - "... that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me" (John 14:10, 11); See also: " ... so long have I been with you, and you do not know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; …” (v. 9); or, that all may honour the Son as they honour the Father. ... (John 5:23); “... as the Father raises the dead and gives life, so the Son gives life to whom He will." (Article 21); "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." (Article 17); "As the Father knoweth Me, even so do I know the Father; ... I and the Father are one." (John 10:15, 30). Everywhere using the expressions "as" and "so and," he shows that He is one with the Father and that He has an inseparable essence with Him. And He reveals the power of His authority both in these same sayings and in many others, for example, when He says: "Be silent, cease; I will, purify yourself; I command you, dumb and deaf spirit, to come out of it" also: "... have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not kill, ... But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without cause shall be liable to judgment..." (Mk. 4:39; Matt. 8:3; Map.9:25; Matthew 5:21). And everything else like this, which He lays down the law and works miracles, sufficiently proves His authority; or rather, even the slightest part of it can enlighten and convince people who are not entirely insensitive.

5. But such is the spirit of vanity that it blinds the mind of the people who are carried away by it, even in relation to the most obvious subjects, and induces them to contradict even the recognized truths; and others, who understand the truth very well and are convinced of it, are forced to hypocritically oppose it.