In the Divine nature, since all the perfection of good things is revealed in it, according to the word of God, it is impossible, as far as we understand, to find a way of preference. In Them, neither excess nor lack of power, and glory, and wisdom, and love for mankind, or in general anything understood as good, is conceivable; on the contrary, all the good things that the Son has belong to the Father, and everything that belongs to the Father is seen in the Son.

How then shall we be justified, giving great honor to the Father? If we comprehend the royal power by understanding according to its worth, then the Son is the King. If we imagine the judge in our minds, then the whole judgment belongs to the Son. If our soul is occupied by the greatness of creation, then "all things were by Him" (John 1:3). If we understand the cause of our life, we know that true life has descended even to our nature.

And if we have known the repose from darkness, then we will not know the true light, by which we are freed from darkness. But if wisdom seems precious to anyone; then Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God (1 Corinthians 1:24). And so, since our soul, in justice, as much as is possible for it, is filled with wonder at such and such great miracles of Christ, what can we imagine an excess of honor, given primarily to the Father alone, in which it would be proper for the Lord not to have a part?

For this very human veneration of the Godhead, considered in the proper sense, is nothing other than a loving affection and confession of the good things inherent in Him, and it seems to me that love is prescribed in the word of God, when it is said: "Thus should the Son be honored, as the Father is honored." For the law, commanding to love God with all one's heart and with all one's strength, prescribes that such honor should be given to Him; and here the word of God, legitimizing equal love, says thus: The Son must be honored as the Father is honored.

This method of honoring was also performed before the Lord by the great David; in the preface to a psalmody, confessing that he loved the Lord, and enumerating the reasons for love, he calls God "strength, strength, refuge, deliverer, God, helper, hope, defender, horn of salvation", intercessor and similar names (Psalm 17:2-3). Therefore, if the Only-begotten Son was not made this for people, then let the exaggeration of the honor given for this be stopped, according to the law of heresy.

But if we believe that all this, and that which is still higher, and is called the Only-begotten God, according to every conception of good work and good thought, being equal to the greatness of the goodness that is in the Father, then how can anyone call it justified either not to love such a person, or not to honor the beloved? For no one will say that love should come from the whole heart and from all the strength, and honor from the half.

Therefore, if the Son is honored with all the heart, because all love is dedicated to Him, then what invention can invent anything greater than this veneration, when the whole heart, as much as it contains, brings honor to Him to such an extent as a gift of love? Wherefore it is vain who, in the presence of what is revered by nature, teaches about what is preferable, and by such a comparison stops the thought on what is unworthy of honor. 25.

Of the creature it may justly be said "this is older," because the sequence of deeds is shown in the order of days, and of the creation of man some will say, "so much did the heavens precede it," and measure the time that has elapsed in the meantime by the distances of days. In the first nature, which is above all conception of time and cannot be contained in any comprehensible conceiving, one thing to imagine as having anticipated the passage of time, and another as late, belongs to the wisdom now revealed.

For He who affirms that the Father is older than the Hypostasis of the Only-begotten affirms nothing else than that the Son Himself is younger than that which was created by the Son; if only it is fair to say that all ages and all temporal distances are produced after the Son and by the Son. And in addition to this (which most exposes the absurdity of the teaching) on the basis of this, it is not only to the Son that some temporal beginning of existence is ascribed, but in consequence of this they do not spare the Father, and affirming of Him that He had a beginning in time.

Ибо если прилагает­ся какое-либо указание, означающее рождение Сына, то явно определит оно начало и Отчей ипостаси. Но не неблаговременно, может быть, для ясности тщательнее иссле­довать сие учение. Выдающий за догмат, что жизнь Отца старше жизни Сына, некоторым расстоянием времени отделяет Единородного от Сущего над всеми Бога, о сем же среднем между Ними расстоянии предполагает, что оно есть нечто или беспредельное, или заключенное в некоторые пре­делы и определенное явными признаками.

Но назвать Его беспредельным не позволяет мысль о среде, которая непременно ограничит в уме и поня­тие об Отце, и понятие о Сыне; да и самой этой среды не поймет ум, пока беспредельное ни с одной стороны не будет определено и понятие об Отце сверху не преградит продолжения беспредельному, и понятие о Сыне сни­зу не пресечет беспредельности, потому что самое понятие беспредельно­го требует того, чтобы всюду разливаться естеством и ни откуда никаким пределом не быть ограниченным. Посему (

в рассуждении Отца и Сына твердым и непреложным да пребудет понятие бытия!) никакой не будет возможности расстояние сие представлять себе беспредельным; напротив того, по всей необходимос­ти, Единородного представляют они себе в определенном некоем рассто­янии от Отца. А это, как утверждаю, значит, что по учению сему и Сый над всеми Бог не от вечности, но возымел начало с некоей определенной точки времени.

Такова моя мысль, которую сказываю; к объяснению же оной известными примерами, чтобы посредством видимого соделалось для нас ясным и неизвестное, присовокуплю: по Моисееву писанию ут­верждая, что после неба в пятый день сотворен человек, сим словом, не произнося вслух, утверждаем также, что за пять до сего дней неба еще не было; так совершающееся после чего-нибудь предшествующим ему рас­стоянием времени определяет существование и того, что умопредставля­ется бывшим прежде.

Если же примером сим недостаточно уяснили мы свою мысль, то можем разумеемое нами представить иначе, говоря, что закон дан через Моисея по истечении четырех сот тридцати лет от обето­вания Аврааму. Если, от закона возвратившись назад и протекши мыслью предшествующее ему время, достигнем предела поименованному числу лет, то ясно поймем, что до сего времени обетования Божия еще не было.