A a person, even as He is not a man; nor could His Word be according to the weakness of men. For just as the principle is one essence, so one is the essential and subsistent Word of it, and the Wisdom. For as from God there is God, and from the wise there is Wisdom, and from the rational a Word, and from the Father a Son; so from a subsistence there is a subsistence, and from an essence an essential and substantial [Word], and from Him who is, One who is. B 2. Otherwise, if the Wisdom and the Word were not essential, and if the Son were not of its essence, but Wisdom, and the Word, and the Son were simply in the Father, then the Father Himself would be composite of Wisdom and the Word. But if this is so, the previously stated absurdities will follow: He will be His own Father, and the Son Himself is the one begetting Himself, and is begotten by Himself; or else He is merely a name, a Word, and Wisdom, and Son, while He of whom these things are said, or rather He who is all these things, will not be subsistent. If, therefore, nothing is subsistent, then those names are vain and useless, unless perhaps someone should say that God Himself is Wisdom itself and the Word itself. But if this is conceded, He will truly be His own Father and Son; Father, indeed, when He is called wise; Son, when He is called Wisdom. But let it not be that these are in God as a quality! Away with this! It is unworthy of God; for God will be found to be composite from an essence and a quality. C For every quality is in an essence. And according to this the divine Monad, being indivisible, will appear composite, divided into essence and accident. We must therefore ask these rash men: The Son has been proclaimed the Wisdom and Word of God; in what way, then, is He this? If as a quality, the absurdity has already been shown. But if God is Wisdom Himself, then the absurdity resulting from this has been spoken of by Sabellius. Therefore, [He is] as an offspring properly from the Father Himself, according to the example of light. For as light is from fire, so the Word is from God, and Wisdom from the Wise, and from the Father the Son. For by this means the Monad remains indivisible and whole, and its Son, the Word, is not lacking in essence, nor is He non-subsistent, but is truly essential. For if He were not in this manner, then everything that is said would be by way of conception and said simply. But if the absurdity that arises from a mere conception is to be avoided, then the true Word is essential. For just as He is truly Father, so is He truly Wisdom. D According to this, therefore, they are two, because the Father and the Son are not the same, as Sabellius contends, but the Father is Father, and the Son is Son; and they are one, because the Son is by nature Son of the essence of the Father, existing as His own proper Word. This the Lord was saying: *I and the Father are one.* For neither is the Word separated from the Father, nor was or is the Father ever without the Word. The Word, therefore, is God, and the Father is not without the Word; for this reason He said, *I am in the Father, and the Father in me.*
A Furthermore, since Christ is the Word of God, did He exist from Himself, and then, existing, become joined to the Father? Or did God make Him and name Him B His own Word? If the former is conceded—that is, if He existed from Himself and is God—then there will be two principles; nor will He be the Father's own, and deservedly so, since He is not of the Father Himself, but of Himself. But if He was made from without, He would certainly be a created thing. It remains, then, to say that He is from God Himself. But if this is true, then that which is from something else is one thing, and that from which it is is another; and consequently, it must be admitted that there are two. For if there were not two, but these were said of the same thing, then the same thing would be its own cause and effect, the same would be what is begotten C and what begets—which, indeed, has been shown to be absurd, as it flows from the error of Sabellius. But if He is from Him indeed, yet not something other than He, it follows that He is the same, both begetting and not begetting: begetting, because He brings Him forth from Himself; not begetting, because He is not other than He is. If, however, this last point is admitted, it is gathered that He is called Father and Son only by a mental distinction. But if that is absurd, then Father and Son will be two. Likewise, they will not be the same, because the Son is not from without, but is begotten of God. If, however, anyone shrinks from calling the Word "offspring" or "begotten," and thinks He should merely be said to exist with God, let such a person beware lest, by shrinking from the term used in Scripture, he fall into an absurd opinion, by which he introduces a duality of nature into God. For if he does not grant that the Word is from the unity but only that He has been joined with the Father, he certainly admits two essences, neither of which is the parent of the other. The same must also be said concerning virtue or power. But this will be understood more easily if viewed in the Father. For there is one Father, not two, but from the one is the Son. As, therefore, there are not two Fathers, but one, so there are not two principles, but one; and from the one D the Son essentially exists. Yet again, let us question the Arians. For as regards the followers of Sabellius, they must be refuted from the notion of the Son: the Arians, however, from the notion of the Father.
4. Therefore, let us argue thus: Either God is wise, and is not without the Word or Reason; or, on the contrary, He is unwise and without Reason. If the second is admitted, its absurdity is self-evident; but if the first is conceded, one must again ask in what way He is wise, and not without Word or Reason: does He have wisdom and the Word from without, or from Himself? If He has them from without, then someone else gave them to Him, and before He received them He was unwise and without Reason. But if He has the Word from Himself, it is manifest that He is not from nothing, nor was there ever a time when He was not; for He always existed, seeing that He whose image He is always exists. But if they answer that God is indeed wise and not without Word or Reason, yet not [the Christ], as theologians are wont to speak in the schools...
and that He has within Himself His own wisdom and His own Word, but not the Christ—then it must be said that, if Christ was made in that Word, undoubtedly all things were also made in the same, and that this is the very Word of which John says: "All things were made through Him," and the Psalmist: "In wisdom You have made all things." Nay, even Christ Himself would be found a liar when He says, "I am in the Father," since someone else is in the Father. Furthermore, the statement, "The Word became flesh," would be false according to their view. For if that Word in whom all things were made became flesh, but Christ is not the Word in the Father through whom all things were made, then Christ did not become flesh; rather, perhaps, Christ was merely called the Word. But if this is so, in the first place, He would be someone other than He whom the name signifies; and in the second place, all things were not made through Him, but rather in that in which Christ Himself was also made. B But if they say that wisdom is in the Father by way of a quality, or that He is wisdom itself, the absurdities we mentioned above will necessarily follow: namely, that He is composite, and that He becomes both Father and Son of Himself. But they must be refuted and convinced that the Word who is in God cannot be a creature, nor from non-being. If the Word is once and for all in God, He must be that Christ who says, "I am in the Father, and the Father in Me," who on that account is also the only-begotten, because no other was begotten from Him. This one is the Son, who is the Word, wisdom, and power; for God is not composed of these, but is their begetter. For just as He produces created things by His Word, so according to the nature of His own essence He begets the Word, through whom He also creates, fashions, and governs all things. For by the Word and by wisdom all things were made, and by His ordering the universe remains. The same must be said regarding the Son; for if God is sterile and inactive, it is because the Son, through whom He acts, is His offspring. But if not, the same questions and the same absurdities will follow for those who are shameless.
5. "Deuteronomy: But you who cleave to the Lord your God, are alive every one of you this day." From these C words it is possible to discern the difference, and to know that the Son of God is not a creature. For the Son says, "I and the Father are one," and, "I am in the Father, and the Father in Me"; whereas created things, when they make progress, cleave to the Lord. For the Word, as being His own, is in the Father; but created things, inasmuch as they exist externally, cleave to Him; being, by nature, alien, but by will D attached.
A Hence He immediately adds: *What nation is so great, to whom God draws near?* And elsewhere: *I am a God drawing near.* For He draws near to created things, as being foreign to Him; but to the Son, as being His own, He does not draw near, but is in Him. Nor does the Son cleave, but is together with the Father. Hence again Moses says in the same Deuteronomy: *You shall hearken to His voice, and to Him you shall cleave.* Now that which cleaves, cleaves from without.
B 6. Now concerning the weak and human opinion of the Arians, because they suspect that the Lord was in need from these words of His, *Data est mihi* (Power has been given to me), and *I received*, and even if Paul says, *For this reason He exalted Him*, and, *Sat at the right hand*, and others similar: it must be answered that our Lord, being the Word and Son of God, wore a body, and also became the Son of man, so that, having become a mediator between God and men, He might supply to us the things of God, and offer to God the things of men. Therefore, when He is said to hunger, and to weep, and to be weary, and to cry out, *Eloi, Eloi*—which are human characteristics and our sufferings—He accepts them from us and offers them to the Father, interceding for us, so that in Him they may be wholly blotted out. But by these words, *Power has been given to me*, and, *I received*, and, *For this reason God exalted Him*, are signified the gifts conferred upon us by God through Him. C For the Word was not needy, nor did He ever become so; nor, on the other hand, were men capable of procuring these things for themselves; but through the Word they are given to us; whence those things, as though given to Him, are imparted to us. For indeed, for this reason He became man, so that they, as if given to Him, might be transferred to us. For a mere man would never have been worthy to receive these; nor, again, could the pure Word be in need of them; the Word was therefore joined to us, and then He made us partakers of power and exalted us. For the Word, indeed, existing in man, exalted the man, and with the Word likewise existing in man, the man received. Because, therefore, when the Word was in the flesh, man was exalted and received power, for this reason these things are referred to the Word, since they were given on His account; for on account of the Word who was in man were these gifts given. D And just as the Word became flesh, so also did man receive the things through the Word. For all things that man has received, the Word is said to have received, so that it might be shown that [man] is not worthy
to receive them, as far as pertained to his own nature, yet he has received them through the Word made flesh. Hence, if it is said that something is given to the Lord, or anything of the sort, one must understand that it is not given to Him as though He were in need, but to man through the Word. For everyone who intercedes for another himself receives the gift—not that he is in need, but for the sake of him for whom he intercedes. Thus, while not weak, He takes on our weaknesses, and while not hungry, He hungers, in order that by offering our concerns to the Father, He might blot them out; thus, in return for these weaknesses, He Himself receives gifts from God, so that man, being joined to Him, might be able to partake of them. The Lord therefore says: *All that You have given Me, I have given to them*; and again, *I pray for them*. For He prayed for us, taking upon Himself our own, and He distributed what He received. Since, therefore, the Word being joined to man, the Father, looking toward the Word, bestowed upon man the being exalted, the possessing all power, and such things; for this reason, all things are referred to the Word Himself, and are as if given to Him, which we receive through Him. For just as He became man for our sake, so we are exalted through Him. There is nothing absurd, then, if, just as for our sake He humbled Himself, so also for our sake He is said to be exalted. He bestowed therefore upon Him—that is, upon us through Him—so also [does He] exalt—that is, us in Him. Moreover, the Word Himself, when we are exalted, receive, and are aided, gives thanks to the Father as if He Himself were exalted, receiving, and being aided, referring our experiences to Himself and saying: *All that You have given Me, I have given to them*.
C 8. The Arians, the followers of Eusebius, while granting that the Son has a beginning of existence, pretend that they do not wish Him to have a beginning of kingship. But this is ridiculous. For he who gives a beginning of existence to the Son, it is manifest that he also gives Him a beginning of reigning; so that while confessing what they deny, they prove themselves blind. And again, those who say that [the title] "Son" is merely a name, and that the Son of God—namely, the Word of the Father—is empty of essence and subsistence, pretend to be indignant against those who say, *“There was when He was not.”* But this too is ridiculous. For those who do not grant Him existence at all are indignant at those who grant it to Him at least in time. Thus these also confess what they deny when they rebuke others. Furthermore, those around Eusebius, while confessing He is the Son, deny that He is by nature the Word, and wish for the name of Word to be granted to the Son only by way of idea; while others, acknowledging the Word...
A, 9. (50) "I and the Father are one." You say that the two are one, or conversely that the one is divided into two. Now if the one has been divided into two, there must be a body that has been divided, and neither is perfect, since each is a part and not the whole. But if the one is adorned with a double name, this is the doctrine of Sabellius, who teaches that Father and Son are the same, and destroys both, the Father when he speaks of the Son, and the Son when he speaks of the Father. But if the two are one, it is necessary that they be two, but one in respect of the Godhead, and that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, and that the Word is from the Father himself; so that they are two because there is both Father and Son (which is the Word), but one because there is one God. For if it were not so, He should have said: "I am the Father," or "I and the Father am." But as it stands, in the word "I," He signifies the Son; in the words "and the Father," He signifies the begetter; and in the word "one," He signifies the one Godhead and their consubstantiality. For the same is not, as the Gentiles think, wise and wisdom, or the same is not Father and Word; for it is unfitting for Him to be His own father. But divine teaching knows Father and Son, wise and wisdom, God and Word; and yet maintains B them to be altogether indivisible, inseparable, and undistinguished in every way. 10. If anyone, hearing that the Father and Son are two, should slander us as if we were introducing two gods (for some fabricate such things for themselves, and immediately deride us with these words: "You assert two gods"), it must be said to such men: If he who acknowledges Father and Son says there are two gods, then he who believes that there is one must, by repudiating the Son, stand with Sabellius. For if the one who says there are two is a Gentile, then he who says there is one is a Sabellian. But the matter is not so; God forbid! But just as he who acknowledges Father and Son to be two confesses that there is one God, so let him who believes in one God hold that there are two, Father and Son, being one in the Godhead, and in that the Word is from Him, indivisible and undissevered and inseparable from the Father. Let us use a human example: fire and the radiance from it are indeed two in that they exist and are seen, but they are one in that D the radiance is from it and cannot be separated from it.
A 11. These men fall into the same madness as the Arians. For they too say that the Word was created for our sake, in order that He might create us; as if God were awaiting our creation, so that He might either put Him forth, according to the former, or create, according to the latter. The Arians, therefore, grant more to us than to the Son; for they say that we are not for His sake, but He for our sake—if, that is, He was created and came into being in order that God might create us through Him. But these men, with equal or even greater impiety, grant less to God than to us. For we often act even while silent, simply by thinking, in such a way that the things we think of are expressed even in images and likenesses; but these men wish that God, when silent, does nothing, but only when speaking has the power to act—if, indeed, when silent He could do nothing, and only when speaking began to create. B It is just to ask them whether the Word, when He was in God, was perfect, so as to be able to act. If He was imperfect when He was in God, and became perfect when He was begotten, then we are the cause of His perfection, if indeed He was begotten for our sake; for it is for our sake that He received the power to act. But if He was perfect in God, so as to be able to act, then His generation is superfluous; for He could create even while in the Father. Thus, either He is not begotten, or He is not begotten for our sake, but because He is always from the Father. For His generation does not indicate our creation, but that He is from God; for He existed even before we were created.
12. Furthermore, they will surely venture to say the same things about the Father. C For if the Father cannot act while silent, it is necessary that by begetting, that is, by speaking, He should have received power. And whence and through what did He receive it? But if He could act while having the Word within Himself, then He begets in vain, since He can act while silent. Furthermore, if, before He was begotten, the Word was in God, then now that He is begotten, is He outside and apart from God? If this is true, how does He now say: "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me" (John XIV, 10)? If He is now in the Father, then He was always in the Father, just as He is now; and it is futile to say that He was begotten for our sake, and to have recourse to what comes after us, in order that He might be as He was. For He was not what He is not now, nor is He now what He was not; but He is as He D always was, and exists in the same way and in the same manner. Otherwise, He will appear imperfect and mutable. For if, what He was...
To those who say that the Word was in God in silence, but was later put forth for our sake so that we might be created.
A It will be so hereafter, as if He is not now what He was and will be. I say this: If He was in God before, and will be again hereafter, it is clear that the Word is not in God now. But the Lord refutes them, saying: "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me." For thus He is now, just as He was always. And if He is so now, just as He was always, it is clear that at one time He was not being begotten, and at another time He was; nor was there at one time silence in God, and at another time He spoke; but He is always Father, and the Son is His Word—not Word by name only, nor is the Word Son by mere conception 71, but He exists as consubstantial with the Father; and He was not begotten for our sake, for we came to be for His sake. For if He was begotten for our sake, and in His being begotten we were created 72, and the creation subsists by His generation, then He reverts so that He may be what He was before. First, then, the One who was begotten will again not be being begotten. For if His procession is generation, then His retraction is the end of that generation; for when He again returns into God, God will be silent. And if He is silent, there will be what there was when He was silent: silence, and not creation; therefore, the creation will cease. For just as the creation came to be and existed when the Word went forth, so too, when the Word returns, the creation will no longer exist 73. What need then was there for it to come into being, if it is to cease? Or why did God speak, only so that He might be silent thereafter? Why did He put forth the One whom He then calls back? Why did He beget, if He willed that His generation should have an end? And what will be hereafter is uncertain. For either He will be silent forever, or He will beget again, and will conceive of another creation; for He will not make the same, for had He, the one that came into being would have remained 74; but He will conceive of another; and consequently He will end this one too, and conceive of another, and so on into infinity.
B 13. Perhaps this opinion of his stemmed from the school of the Stoics, who think that God is contracted and expanded along with created things, and that He rests infinitely. For that which is expanded is expanded from a narrow state, and that which is extended is extended from a contracted state; and this is the same thing, suffering nothing other than a certain affection. If, therefore, the Monad, having been expanded, has become a Trinity; and if the Monad is the Father, while the Trinity is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit 75—first of all, having been expanded, it evidently suffered an affection and became what it was not. For, having been expanded, it was not being broad...
A Then, if the Monad itself was expanded into a Trinity, and the Trinity is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then the same person, according to Sabellius, has become Father, Son, and Spirit, unless the Monad spoken of by him 77 is something other than the Father. It would not then have been necessary to say that it is expanded 78, but rather that the Monad is the producer of the three, so that there is a Monad, and then also a Father, and a Son, and a Spirit. For if it was expanded and extended itself, it itself would be that which was extended. And the Trinity, having been expanded, is no longer a Monad; but being a Monad, it was not yet a Trinity. And the Father, therefore, being such, was not yet Son and Spirit; but having become these, he is no longer only the Father. A man would be speaking falsely in saying these things, introducing a body to God and making him susceptible to passion; for what is expansion but a passion of that which is expanded? Or what is that which is expanded 79, if it was not such before, but happened to be narrow? For it is the same thing, differing from itself only in time 80. 14 And the divine Apostle B knew this, writing to the Corinthians: "Do not be constricted in us; be expanded also you, Corinthians." For he counsels the same people to change from narrowness into expansion. Just as if the Corinthians, having been expanded 81, were once again constricted, they would not be others, but would still be Corinthians; so if the Father were expanded into a Trinity, the Trinity would once again be the Father alone. He says the same thing again: "Our heart is expanded" 82; and Noah says: "May God expand Japheth" 87; for the same heart and the same Japheth exist in the expansion. If, therefore, the Monad expanded, it would have expanded into others; but if it itself 83 expanded 84, it itself would be that which was expanded. And what is this, if not the Son and the Holy Spirit? It would be good to ask him who speaks such things: What is the effect of such an expansion? Or, as if before the truth, why was it expanded at all? For that which does not remain, but is later expanded, must needs have a cause through C which it was both expanded and... 14 It was not unknown to the divine Apostle who writes to the Corinthians: "Do not be coangustated in us, but be ye dilated, Corinthians" 85. He was surely exhorting them to transfer themselves from narrowness into breadth. But if, having been coangustated, the Corinthians were afterwards dilated, they would not be other than the Corinthians they had always been; so if the Father were dilated into a Trinity, the Trinity would certainly be, once again, only the Father. He says the same thing again: "Our heart is dilated" 86. Noah also says: "May God dilate Japheth" 87. For it is the same heart, and the same Japheth, in the dilation. If, therefore, the Unitas dilated, it would surely be the very thing that was dilated. But what is that, if not the Son and the Holy Spirit? It will not be beside the point to ask him who feels this way, what the effect of such a dilation is, or rather (as if in the presence of truth), why the Unitas was dilated at all? For that which does not remain the same, but is afterwards dilated, must needs have a cause through
A which it was dilated. If, therefore, it was dilated so that the Word and the Spirit might be with it, it is redundant to say [it was] a Monad, and then that it was dilated. For the Word and the Spirit are not later, but eternal, lest – according to the Arians – God should be without a Word. So, if the Word and the Spirit were always, it was always dilated, and was not first a Monad. But if it was dilated later, the Word too is later. And if it was dilated on account of the assumption of humanity, and the Trinity came to be then, then before the incarnation there was not yet a Trinity. But the Father too will appear to have become flesh, if he himself, being a Monad, was dilated in man; and perhaps, hereafter, there will be [a] Monad, and flesh, and a third, the Spirit, if he himself was dilated; and it will be a Trinity by name only. But if it was dilated for the sake of creating, that is absurd. For it was possible B for the Monad, remaining itself, to do all things; for the Monad was not in need of dilation, nor was it weak before it was dilated. For this is absurd and impious to think and to say regarding God. And another absurdity will follow. For if it was dilated for the sake of creation, and while it was a Monad, there were no created things, then again it will be a Monad after the completion of the dilation, having been removed from dilation; and the creation will be removed also. For just as it was dilated for the sake of creating, so, the dilation ceasing, the creation also will cease; and the created things will likewise cease to exist.
15. These absurdities, therefore, arise from that opinion C in which the Monad is said to be dilated into a Trinity. But since those who hold such views dare to divide the Word and the Son, and to claim that the Word is one thing and the Son another, and that the Word is prior and the Son subsequent; come now, let us reflect on these things as well. Various indeed is their rashness. For some wish the man whom the Savior took upon himself to be the Son; others think that both together, namely the man and the Word, became the Son when they were joined. Others, however, consider the Word himself to have become the Son when he was made man: for they say that the Son came to be from the Word, whereas before he was not the Son, but only the Word. But both errors are Stoic, D both the saying that God is dilated and the denying of the Son. But it is very foolish that, while they acknowledge and name the Word, they deny that he is the Son. For if the Word were not from God, they might not undeservedly deny that he is the Son; but if he is from God, why do they not perceive that that which exists from something is the son of that from which it exists? Furthermore, if God is the Father of the Word, why should the Word not also be the Son of his own Father? For the Father...
is, and is called, the son of him whose father he is; and the son is, and is called, his whose father he is. If therefore God is not the Father of Christ, neither could the Word be the Son. But if God is the Father, then the Word is also rightly the Son. But if He is called Father later, while He was God in the beginning, this is the very doctrine of the Arians. Furthermore, it is absurd for God to be changed, for that is a corporeal thing; but if they imagine that in the way He became a creator of created things later, it is something to know that mutation pertains not to God, but to those things which are brought into existence later.
B 16. Therefore, if the Son were a work, he would rightly be called an effect of the Father; but if the Son is not a work, then the Father is always, and the Son is always. And if the Son is always, he must be the Word himself. For if the Word were not the Son—and someone might be bold enough to say this—he must either call the Word the Father, or the Son superior to the Word. For since the Son is in the bosom of the Father, it must be that either the Word does not exist before the Son—for there is nothing before Him who is in the Father—or, if the Word is something other than the Son, it follows that the Word would be the Father Himself, in whom the Son is. But if the Word is not the Father, but the Word, then the Word would be outside the Father, while the Son is in the bosom of the Father. For both of them, Word and Son, are not in the bosom, but it must be one, and that one the Son, who is the Only-begotten. Again, if the Word is one thing and the Son another, the Son will be found to be superior to the Word; for no one knows the Father except the Son, not the Word. Therefore, either the Word does not know, or if He knows, the statement "No one knows" is false. The same applies also to the words, "He who has seen me has seen the Father," and "I and the Father are one." For these are the sayings of the Son, and not of the Word, according to them; and this is clear from the Gospels. For according to John, when the Lord said, "I and the Father are one," the Jews took up stones to stone Him. Jesus answered them: "Many good works I have shown you from the Father; for which of these works do you stone me?" The Jews answered Him: "For a good work we do not stone you, but for blasphemy, and because you, being a man, make yourself God." Jesus answered them: "Is it not written in your law, that I said, ‘You are gods’? If He called them gods, to whom the Word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken; Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into
A the world, do you say that I blaspheme, because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though you will not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father. Yet, as far as the obvious sense is concerned, He did not say, I am God, nor that He was the Son of God, but, I and the Father are one.
17. The Jews indeed, at this word, *one*, thought that He had said He was the Father, just as Sabellius thinks. But our Savior refutes their sin with this reasoning: Even if I had said that I was God, you ought to have remembered what is written: *I said, You are gods*. Then, further explaining the words, *I and the Father are one*, He teaches that the mutual unity of the Son and the Father is indicated by these same words, when He says, *Because I said, I am the Son of God*. For although He did not express it in these words, yet He referred to the Son Himself what is signified by these words, *we are one*. Nothing is *one* with the Father, except that which B is from the Father Himself. What, then, could be from the Father Himself other than the Son? And so He concludes, *That you may know that I am in the Father, and the Father in me*. For, when explaining what this *one* was, He did not say that He is one with Him in the sense of being the same thing; rather, He spoke of their *being* in one another—He in the Father, and the Father in the Son—in which mode, evidently, they are joined together, and can never be separated. For indeed, in this place, He also overturns the error of Sabellius, since He did not say, I am the Father, but, I am the Son of God; and Arius, when He says, *We are one*. If, therefore, the Son is one thing, and the Word is another, then it is not the Word that is one with the Father, but the Son; nor does he who has seen the Word see the Father, but he who has seen the Son. Since these things are shown, either the Son is greater than the Word, or C the Word has nothing more than the Son. For what could be greater or more perfect than that which is signified by these expressions: *One*, *I in the Father, and the Father in me*, and, *He who has seen me, has seen the Father*? For these are the words of the Son. The same John therefore says: *He who has seen me, has seen Him who sent me*; and, *He who receives me, receives Him who sent me*; and, *I have come a light into the world, that everyone who believes in me may not remain in darkness*; and, *If anyone hears my words, and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world*. But the word which he hears, that will judge him at the last day, because I go to the Father. He declares that he who has not kept the commandment is to be judged by the preaching. For, He says, if I had not D come and spoken to them, they would have no sin; but now they will have no excuse, having heard my words.
by which those who keep them harvest salvation. A 18. Perhaps, then, they may shamelessly contend that these voices are not the Son’s, but the Word’s. But from what was said above, it became clear that it is the Son who is speaking. For the one who says here, "I did not come to judge the world, but to save it," is shown to be none other than the only-begotten Son of God. For John himself B says in the foregoing: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; but he who does not believe has already been judged, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil." If the one who says, "For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it," is the same one who also says, "He who sees me, sees Him who sent me," and if the One who came to save the world and not to judge it is the only-begotten Son of God, it is clear that it is the same Son who says, "He who sees me, sees Him who sent me." For even he who says, "He who believes in me," and, "If anyone hears my words, I do not judge him," is the C Son, of whom He says these things: "He who believes in Him is not judged; but he who does not believe has already been judged, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God." And again, "And this is the judgment of him who does not believe in the Son, that the light has come into the world, and they did not believe Him," that is to say, the Son. For He Himself would be the light that enlightens every man coming into the world; and as long as He remained on earth according to the incarnation, He was light in the world, as He Himself said: "While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light. For I have come as light," He says, "into the world." 19. Since this, then, has been demonstrated, it is clear that the Son is the Word. But if the Son is the light that has come into the world, then, beyond D contradiction, through the Son the world came to be.
For in the beginning of the Gospel, the Evangelist says concerning John the Baptist: A *He was not the light, but that he might bear witness of the light.* For, as we have said before, the light itself is Christ the true light, which illuminates every man coming into the world. For if He was in the world, and the world came to be through Him, it is necessary that He be the Word of God, concerning whom he also said that all things came to be through Him. For they will be forced to acknowledge either two worlds, that one B might have been made through the Son, and another through the Word; or if there is one world and one creation, it follows that the Son and the Word are one and the same before all creation, seeing that all things have been made through Him.
Therefore, if all things have been made through the Son just as they were through the Word, nothing contrary will appear, but rather it will be entirely the same to say, *In the beginning was the Word*, as to say, In the beginning was the Son. But if they say that because John did not say, In the beginning was the Son, the properties of the Word do not befit the Son, then it is time for them to say that the properties of the Son do not befit the Word. But it has been demonstrated that these words belong to the Son: *I and the Father are one*; C and *He who is in the bosom of the Father* is He; and this: *He who sees me, sees Him who sent me*. However, it is common to both the Word and the Son that the world came to be through Him, from which it is shown that the Son existed before the world; for it is necessary that the maker exist before the things that are made.
Furthermore, according to their opinion, it follows that what was said to Philip belongs not to the Word, but to the Son. For, as the Evangelist narrates, Jesus said: *So long a time I have been with you, and you have not known me, Philip? He who has seen me, has seen the Father. And how do you say, Show us the Father? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me? The words that I speak to you, I do not speak from myself; D but the Father who remains in me, He does the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me. Otherwise, because of the works themselves, believe me. Amen, amen I say to you, he who believes in me, the works that I do he also will do, and he will do greater than these, because I go to the Father. And whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.* Therefore, if the Father is glorified in the Son, then the Son is undoubtedly the one who said: *I in the Father, and the Father is in me*, and, *He who has seen me, has seen the Father*. For He himself is the one who says these things.
B 20. If, therefore, they contend that the man whom the Word bore is the only-begotten Son of God, and not the Word, then it follows that the man is he who is in the Father, and in whom the Father is; and that man would be one who is himself and the Father as one, and he who is in the bosom of the Father, and the true light. They will be forced, even by this man, to say that the world was created through him, and that the man is he who came not to judge the world, but to save it; and that he is the one who existed even before Abraham was born. For Jesus, he says, said to them: *Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am*. How, then, is it not absurd, according to them, to say that he who was born of the seed of Abraham after forty-two generations existed before Abraham was born? And how is it not absurd, if the flesh which the Word wore is the Son, to say that this is the flesh from Mary, through whom the world was made? What, then, will they say regarding the words, *He was in the world*? For the evangelist, to signify that the Son existed before he was born according to the flesh, added these words: *He was in the world*. But if the Word is not the Son, but the man is the Son, how can he save the world, when he himself is also of the world? But if they should persist in their impudence regarding these things, where will the Word be, if the man is in the Father? And what number will the Word be in relation to the Father, when the man and the Father are one? If the man is the only-begotten, what number will the Word be? For either someone will say he is the second, or, if he is above the Only-begotten, he would certainly be the Father. For just as the Father is one, so also the Only-begotten born of him is one. And what more does the Word have than the man, if the Word is not the Son? For it is written that the world was made through the Son and the Word, and it is common to the Word and the Son to create the world; but that it is the Father who is seen is not written as being through the Word, but through the Son; and that the world is saved is said to be not through the Word, but through the only-begotten Son. For, he says, Jesus said: *Have I been so long a time with you, and you have not known me, Philip? He that seeth me, seeth the Father*. And it is not written that the Word knows the Father, but the Son; nor is it said that the Word sees the Father, but the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father.
21. Furthermore, does the Word contribute more to our salvation than the Son, if, according to them, the Son is one thing and the Word is another? For the command is that we believe not in the Word, but in the Son.
A For John says: *He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not believe in the Son shall not see life.* Furthermore, holy baptism, in which the constitution of our whole faith is placed, is not given into the Word, but into the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. If, therefore, according to them, the Word is one thing and the Son is another, and the Word is not the Son, then baptism has nothing to do with the Word. How then is the Word, according to them, together with the Father, when in the giving of baptism he is not together with Him? But perhaps they will answer that the Word is contained in the name of the Father. Why then not also the Spirit? Or does the Spirit exist outside the Father? Then, if the Word is not the Son, man will have to be named after the Father, and the Spirit after man; and the unity, according to their opinion, will no longer expand into a Trinity, but into a Quaternity, namely, into the Father, the Word, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. B But shame compels them to flee to another refuge. They say, therefore, that it is not the man—whom the Lord bore—separately, but both together, both the Word and the man, that is the Son: for, as they say, both joined together are called the Son. Who then of the two is the cause of the other? Which of them made the other the Son? Or, to speak more plainly, is the Word the Son because of the flesh? Or is the flesh called the Son because of the Word? Or rather, is neither the cause of the other being called Son, but only the meeting of both? But if they answer that the Word is the Son because of the flesh, then certainly the flesh must necessarily be the Son; from which answer all those absurdities will follow which have been said above to arise from the opinion of those who affirm that the man is the Son. But if the flesh is called the Son because of the Word, then the Word was the Son even before the flesh. For how can it be that he makes others sons, who is not himself a son, especially when a father exists? Truly, if he makes himself also a son—or rather, if he himself is the true Son—then he must necessarily be named Father; if [he is] to the Father, he must be the Son. C But he [is] himself [the Son] above all, because of whom other sons are made.
22. But if he is not the Son, and we are sons, God will be the Father of both, not his [the Son's] but ours. Why then does He claim this for Himself as something proper in these words, *My Father*, and, *I came forth from the Father*? For if He is the common Father of all, He is not his Father alone, nor did he alone come forth from the Father. Sometimes, however, He teaches that He is also called our Father, on account of His communion with our flesh. For this reason the Word was made flesh, so that, because the Word is the Son, by means of the Son who dwells in us He might also be called our Father. For, He says, D He sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba, Father." Therefore, the Son who is in us...
calling upon His own Father, causes Him to be called our Father as well. Indeed, those in whose hearts the Son is not, God cannot even be called their Father. If, therefore, the human being is called "Son" because of the Word, it is A absolutely necessary that, since the ancients were also called sons before the Incarnation, the Word was Son even before His coming. For He says: "I have begotten sons" (Isa. 1:2); and in the story of Noah: "The sons of God saw" (Gen. 6:2); and in the Canticle: "Is not He Himself thy Father?" (Deut. 32:6). Consequently, the true Son, for whose sake they also were sons, already existed. But if, according to them, neither of these is the Son, but He is constituted by the union of both, then of necessity neither is the Son—I mean neither the Word nor the human—but some cause exists for which they were joined. And thus the cause of the union, which makes the Son, will be prior. Therefore, from this answer it also follows that the Son existed before the flesh.
But when these things have been demonstrated, they seek another escape: namely, they say that it is not the human being nor both together that is the Son, but the Word, who in the beginning was merely B Word; and when He became human, He was then named "Son." For before the manifestation, they say, He was not Son, but Word only. And just as the Word became flesh, not being flesh before, so the Word became Son, not being Son before. These are their absurdities, but they have an evident refutation.
23. For if, in general, the becoming human is the cause of His having become Son, and if the human being, or the union of both, is the cause of His being Son, then the same absurdities will follow. Next, if He was Word first and Son later, He will appear to have known the Father later and not before. For He does not know as Word, but as Son. For no one knows the Father except the Son (Matth. 11:27). It will also follow from C this that it was later that He came to be in the bosom of the Father, and later that He and the Father became one, and later that "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). For all these things were said of the Son. From these points, they will be compelled to say that the Word was nothing, but a mere name only. For neither was He with the Father in us, nor did he who saw the Word see the Father, nor was the Father known to anyone at all; for the Father is known through the Son; for thus it is also written: "And to whomsoever the Son shall reveal him" (Matth. 11:27). But if the Word was not yet Son, then no one yet knew the Father. How then did He appear to Moses? How then did He appear to the fathers? For He Himself says in the Books of Kings: "I was revealed unto all the fathers of you." But if God was revealed, it is manifest D that it was the revealing Son who was the revealer, as He Himself says: "And to whomsoever the Son shall reveal..."
It is therefore both impious and foolish to say that the Word is one thing A and the Son is another. And it is well to ask whence they have derived such a notion. They say, indeed, that it is because there is no mention in the Old Testament of the Son, but only of the Word, and B for this reason they maintain that the Son is posterior to the Word, because it was not in the Old, but in the New Testament alone that He was spoken of. Those men speak impiously. For, in the first place, to divide the Testaments, and not to hold one to be consequent upon the other, is the practice of Manichaeans and Jews, of whom the former oppose the Old Testament, the latter the New. Then, according to them, if the things that exist in the Old Testament are prior in time, and those which are contained in the New Testament are more recent, and if times are judged by the Scriptures, then of necessity those things must be more recent: "I and the Father are one," and "the Only-begotten," and "He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father"; for these things are not testified from the Old Testament, but from the New.
C 24. But it is not so; for in truth, even in the Old Testament, many things are said about the Son: as in the second Psalm, "You are my Son, this day I have begotten you"; and in the ninth, the inscription, "Unto the end, concerning the hidden things of the Son, a Psalm of David"; and in the forty-fourth, "Unto the end, for them that shall be changed, to the sons of Core, for understanding, a song for the Beloved"; and in Isaiah, "I will sing to my beloved a song of the Beloved concerning my vineyard; a vineyard was made for the Beloved." And who would the Beloved be, if not the only-begotten Son? As also in the hundred and ninth Psalm, "From the womb, before the morning star, I have begotten you," D of whom there will be opportunity to speak later. And in Proverbs, "Before all the hills He begets me"; and in Daniel, "And the appearance of the fourth is like the Son of God," and many other things. If, therefore, antiquity is sought from the Old Testament, it must surely be confessed that the Son is ancient, since He is commemorated in many places of the Old Testament. "It is so," they say, "but these things were spoken prophetically." Therefore, those things concerning the Word were likewise spoken prophetically. For one thing is not said prophetically, and another thing not. For if these words, "You are my Son," signify something in the future, it is evident that the word, "By the Word of the Lord the heavens were established," is also to be understood in the same way.
For he did not say, "they were made," nor "he made." But that the word "he established" is to be understood of the future, he says: "The Lord has reigned," then, "For he has established the inhabited world, which shall not be shaken." A And if what is in the forty-fourth Psalm, "For the Beloved," pertains to the future, it is evident that what follows, "My heart has brought forth a good Word," pertains to it also. And if "from the womb" denotes a human being, then so does "from the heart." For if the womb is something human, then the heart [(67)] is also something corporeal. But if what is poured forth from the heart is eternal, then that which is born from the womb must also be understood as eternal. Similarly, if the Only-begotten is in the bosom, the Beloved is also in the bosom. For the Only-begotten and the Beloved are the same, as in the text, "This is my beloved Son." For he did not wish to signify the love toward him [(68)] when he said "Beloved," lest he seem to hate others; but he was indicating the Only-begotten, that he might show him to be the only one from himself. And thus, when the Word wished to signify the only-begotten to Abraham [(69)], he says: "Offer your son, the beloved one." It is clear to everyone that Isaac alone was born of Sarah. B Therefore, the Word is Son, not having become or been named Son just now, but is always Son. For if he is not Son, he is not Word either; and if he is not Word, he is not Son. For that which is from the Father is Son. And what is from the Father if not the Word, who came forth from the heart, and was begotten from the womb? For the Father is not the Word, nor is the Word the Father; but the one is Father, and the other is Son; and the one begets, and the other is begotten.
25. Arius is certainly insane when he says the Son is from things that are not, and that there was a time when he was not. Sabellius is likewise insane when he teaches that the Father is the Son, and conversely that the Son is the Father, one in hypostasis but two in name; C he is insane also in using as proof [(71)] the grace of the Spirit; for he says [(72)]: "As there are divisions of gifts, but the same Spirit; so the Father is the same, but is stretched out into Son and Spirit." This is full of absurdity. For if the case is the same for God [(73)] as it is for the Spirit, then the Father will be Word and Holy Spirit, at one time becoming [(74)] Father, at another Word, at another Spirit, adapting himself to the need of each; and he would be Son and Spirit only in name, but in reality only Father, having a beginning to his becoming Son, and ceasing to be called Father; and [(75)] having become man in name, but in truth not having dwelt among us; D who by his mere
falsity speaks, saying, *I and the Father* (for he who indeed is the Father himself says this), and all other absurdities that follow the error of Sabellius. A Necessarily also the name of the Son and of the Spirit will vanish, once its use is completed; and henceforth what has been done will be nothing but a game, since it did not exist in truth but only in name. But if, according to their opinion, the name of the Son is deleted, the grace of baptism will also vanish, since it was given into the Son. What indeed will follow from this, except the destruction of created things? For if the Word went forth so that we might be created, and we exist because he went forth: certainly, as he returns to the Father, as they say, we shall cease to exist. For he will be as he was before; likewise, we shall be nothing now, just as we were nothing before. For if he does not go forth any longer, no created thing will exist.
26. But these things are indeed most absurd. That the Son had no beginning of existence, but has always existed with the Father even before the human nature was assumed, is evident from these words of the first Epistle of John: *That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; and the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and announce unto you the eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us.* B Here, when John says that the life was not made but was with the Father, at the end of the Epistle he declares that the Son is this very life, in these words: *And we are in the true One, in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.* If then the Son is the life that is with the Father, since the same John says, *And the Word was with God*, it follows that the Son is in reality the Word who is always with the Father. And as the Son is the Word, so God himself is the Father. Moreover, according to John, the Son is not only God, but true God. For as the same John says, *And the Word was God*; the Son likewise says, *I am the life.* C Therefore the Son is the Word and the life which is with the Father. Again, what is read in the same John, *The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father*, is an argument that the Son has always been. For him whom John calls the Son, the same David calls his hand in these words of the Psalm: *Why dost thou turn thy hand and thy right hand from the midst of thy bosom?* D Wherefore, if the hand is in the bosom, and if he whom John calls the Son is the same as he whom he calls the Word and the life—for John says that the only-begotten Son is in the bosom of the Father—it is clear that the Son is always in the Father.
A
The Son is likewise in the bosom; the Son therefore is himself the hand, and the hand in turn is the Son, through whom the Father made all things. For your hand, he says, has made all these things [note: Isa. LXVI, 2], and, with his hand he led out the people [note: Deut. VII, 8]—that is, through the Son. Again, if this [is] the change of the right hand of the Most High [note: Psal. LXXVI, 11]; and again, for the end, for those who shall be changed, a song for the Beloved [note: Psal. XLIV, 1]—the Beloved is therefore the hand that was changed, concerning whom the divine voice also speaks: This is my Son, the Beloved [note: Matth. III, 17]. Therefore, "my hand" and "This is my Son" are the same thing.
B 27. Furthermore, because some ignorant persons, denying that he is the Son, make light of these words, *From the womb before the morning star I have begotten you*, wishing them to be understood as referring to Mary, and claiming that he was begotten from Mary before the morning star; and because they say that it is not fitting to speak of a womb in the case of God—it is necessary to say a few things about this. If, therefore, because the womb is something human, they wish on that account to exclude it from God, undoubtedly "heart" also signifies something human. For whoever has a heart must necessarily also have a womb or belly. Since both of these are members of human beings, one must either do away with both, or search for the meaning of both. For just as the Word proceeds from the heart, so the offspring arises from the womb. C And just as, when a heart is attributed to God, we do not conceive of it in a human way; so if Scripture uses this expression, *from the womb*, it is not to be understood as something bodily. For it is the custom of divine Scripture to express and signify things that are above man in a human manner. Indeed, speaking of creation, it says: *Your hands have made me and fashioned me* [note: Psal. CXVIII, 73]; and, *My hand has made all these things* [note: Isa. LXVI, 2]; and, *He commanded, and they were created* [note: Psal. CXLVIII, 5]. Therefore, it appropriately signifies in each case: concerning the Son, what is his own and genuine; but concerning creation, the beginning of its existence. D For it makes and creates the one, but it begets the Word, the Wisdom, from itself. For "womb" and "heart" signify what is proper and genuine. Indeed, we ourselves have what is genuine from the womb, but we accomplish our works by hand.
28. What then, they say, [is meant by] *before the morning star*? To which I would answer: if they think that by these words, *before the morning star*, his miraculous birth from Mary is signified, many others were born before the rising of that star. What then is there to wonder at in this saying, that he mentions it as something exceptional, when it is common to many? Then, too, to beget is different from to bring forth. For to beget is to begin to produce something; but to bring forth is nothing other than to draw out what already exists. If, therefore, in the case of the body...
A this phrase is appropriate, it must be known that it did not then begin its generation when it was announced to the shepherds at night, but when the angel spoke to the Virgin. And it was not night at that time; for it is not said that it was night when he came forth from the womb. Scripture observes this distinction, and says that he was begotten "before the morning star," while it calls his coming forth from the womb the "proceeding," as in the twenty-first Psalm: "Thou art he that drew me out of the womb." Furthermore, it did not say "before the rising of the morning star," but simply "before the morning star." If, therefore, the text is to be understood of the body, it must be that the body existed before Adam; for the stars existed before Adam. Or else we must seek the meaning of the letter, which we can obtain from John; for in the Apocalypse he says: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. Blessed are they that wash their robes, that their power may be upon the tree of life, and that they may enter the city through the gates. Without are dogs, and sorcerers, and fornicators, and murderers, and idolaters, and every one who makes and loves a lie. I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify these things to you in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright and morning star. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come; and let him that hears say, Come; and let him that thirsts come; and let him that wills take the water of life freely." If, therefore, the offspring of David is that "bright and morning star," it is evident that the Savior himself, in that he is flesh, is called the morning star, before whom he existed, in that he is begotten of God; so that the meaning of the Psalm is: "Out of myself have I begotten thee before thy appearance in the flesh." For the words, "before the morning star," are equivalent to these: "before the incarnation of the Word." C
29. It is therefore evident that the Old Testament also makes mention of the Son. But it is altogether superfluous to contend about these matters. For if those who are so stubborn wish to maintain that things not found in the Old Testament are newer, let them answer where in the Old Testament mention is made of the Paraclete Spirit? It makes mention, indeed, of the Holy Spirit, but nowhere of the Paraclete. Is the Holy Spirit, then, one thing, and the Paraclete another, and the Paraclete a newer thing, D since he is not in the Old Testament?
A Verily, let it not be said that the Spirit is newer; nor let one divide him and say that the Holy Spirit is one thing and the Paraclete another. For the Spirit is one and the same, both then and now sanctifying and consoling those who are receptive to him, just as the Word himself, the Son, was also then leading the worthy into adoption as children. For there were indeed children in the Old Testament, who attained this dignity through none other than the Son. If the Son of God did not exist before Mary, how is he before all things, when there were children before him? How, then, is he also the Firstborn, if he is found to be after many? But neither is the Paraclete posterior, for he was before all things; nor is the Son newer; for "In the beginning was the Word." And as the Spirit and the Paraclete are the same, so are the Son and the Word the same. And as the Savior says concerning the Spirit: "But the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name," saying the same thing and not dividing them; so John, describing the same thing, says: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father." B And here, too, he did not divide them, but declared their identity. And it is not that the Paraclete is one thing and the Holy Spirit another, but they are one and the same; so too, the Word is not one thing and the Son another, but the Word is the Only-Begotten. For he did not speak of the glory of the flesh itself, but of the Word himself. Whoever, therefore, dares to divide the Word and the Son, let him also divide the Spirit and the Paraclete. But if the Spirit is indivisible, the Word—being the same as the Son, and wisdom, and power—is also indivisible. Moreover, even the Greeks, who are skilled in language, know that to say "Only-Begotten" C is the same as saying "beloved." For Homer says, regarding Telemachus, the only-begotten son of Odysseus, these words in the second book of the Odyssey:
Telemachus, why, my dear child, do you revolve this in your mind? Why do you desire to go over much land, Being the only beloved one? But the godlike Odysseus has perished far from his fatherland, In the land of strangers.
Thus, he who is loved alone by his father is called "beloved" [or "only-begotten"].
30. Some of those from Samosata, dividing the Word from the Son, maintain that the Son is Christ, but that the Word is something else; and they take as their pretext for this error the words from the Acts, which... D
Peter rightly brought forth, but which they interpret perversely; A they are as follows: “The Word sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ: this is the Lord of all.” For they assert that the Word spoke through Christ just as He did through the prophets, saying: “Thus saith the Lord,” as though the prophet were one person and the Lord another. But to this it is B appropriate to set against them the passage from the first Epistle to the Corinthians: “Waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall also confirm you unto the end blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.” For just as it is not one Christ who confirms the day of another Christ, but He Himself who confirms those who are waiting in His own day, so the Father sent the Word made flesh, that having become man He might preach through Himself. Hence he rightly adds, “This is the Lord of all”: and the Word is the Lord of all.
31. “And Moses said to Aaron: Approach the altar, and perform the sacrifice C for your sin, and offer your burnt offering, and pray for yourself and for your house, and perform the gifts of the people, and pray for them, as the Lord commanded Moses.” See here, although Moses is one, yet he himself speaks as though of another Moses, “As the Lord commanded Moses.” Thus, therefore, even if the blessed Peter says that the divine Word was sent to the children of Israel through Jesus Christ, it is not on this account to be thought that the Word is one thing and Christ another, but that He is one and the same, on account of His union, clearly, with the human nature D which He assumed by His divine kindness and mercy; and while He may be understood in a twofold way, it is not in such a way that the Word is conceived as separate, just as the divine John teaches when he says, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” Therefore, since the disciples of Samosata understand perversely and wrongly that which was clearly and rightly spoken by the blessed Peter, it is plain that they do not stand in the truth. For Christ in Sacred Scripture is signified to be both, as when it is said, “Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.” Wherefore, when Peter says the Word was sent to the children of Israel through Jesus Christ, let this be understood to signify that the Word made flesh appeared to the children of Israel, so that it may be in harmony with John who says, “And the Word was made flesh.” But if they explain that saying otherwise, and that the divine Word is, as it
A is in truth, confessed to be divine, they separate from it the man assumed by it, to whom it is believed to be united, saying that he was sent through Jesus Christ, not perceiving that they are uttering things contrary to themselves. For those who here separate [the Word] from the divine incarnation, holding Him to be divine, consider Him to be lessened when they hear that He became flesh; and thus they think as the pagans do, just as in fact they do think, suspecting the divine incarnation to be a change of the Word.
32. But it is not so: far from it! For just as John here preaches the ineffable union, since the mortal was swallowed up by life, and by Him who is life itself, as the Lord said to Martha, “I am the life” (24); so also when the blessed Peter says that the Word was sent through Jesus Christ, he signifies His divine union. For just as one who hears the words, “The Word was made flesh,” would not thereby suppose that the Word no longer exists—which is absurd, as has been said—so also he who hears of the Word united to the flesh ought to understand it as a divine, one, and simple mystery. B And more clearly and indisputably than any reasoning, the words spoken by the archangel to the Theotokos (27) herself will demonstrate the unity of the divine Word and man. For he says (28), “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore also the holy thing which is to be born (29) will be called the Son of God.” Foolishly, therefore, do the Samosatenes divide the Word, when it is clear from these words that He was united to the man assumed out of Mary. Therefore He was not sent through him; but [God] sent in him, when He said, “Go, make disciples of all nations.”
33. It is the custom of Scripture simply and without ornamentation to express its words. For thus also in the book of Numbers one will find: “And Moses,” he says, “said to Raguel the Midianite, the father-in-law of Moses” (31). C For it was not one Moses who was speaking, and another whose father-in-law Raguel was, but Moses was one (32). For if the Word of God is likewise named Wisdom, and Power, and Right Hand, and Arm, and such things; and if He has kindly united Himself to us, putting on our first-fruits, and being mixed with them (33), then the Word Himself has justly and deservedly obtained the rest of the names. For when John says (34) that in the beginning [he was the Word],
and that he was with God, and was God, and that all things were made by him, and without him nothing was made, he clearly shows that man also is a work of the Word of God. If, therefore, he took upon himself man who had become corrupt, in order to refashion him by His own sure renewal so that he might remain forever, and for this reason He was united to him to raise him to a more divine state, how can it be said that the Word was sent by the man taken from Mary? And how can one number the Lord of the Apostles among the other apostles, namely the prophets, who were sent by Him? Or can a mere man be called Christ? Certainly not; but when united to the Word, he may justly and deservedly be called Christ and Son of God, the prophet clearly proclaiming the Father’s substance concerning Him long ago, and saying: "And I will send my Son, the Christ." B And at the Jordan also this voice was heard: "This is my beloved Son." For having fulfilled the promise, He rightly showed that this is He whom He had said He would send.
54. We understand, therefore, that Christ is the divine Word united to the man taken from Mary, in Mary. For in her womb the Word fashioned for Himself a house, just as He had fashioned Adam from the earth of old—or rather, in a more divine way, concerning which Solomon also speaks, knowing that the Word is called Wisdom, saying clearly: "Wisdom hath built herself a house," which the Apostle interpreting says, "whose C house we are," and elsewhere he calls it a temple, inasmuch as it is fitting for God to dwell in a temple; the figure of which He had commanded the ancient fathers through Solomon to build of stones: whence, the truth having appeared, the figure ceased. For since the faithless Jews wished the figure to be the truth itself, and to overturn the true building, which we faithfully believe to be the union of the Word with human nature, the Lord threatened them with nothing; but since He knew well that their rashness would recoil upon themselves, He said this to them: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." By which words the Savior clearly showed that the works of men are dissolved by themselves and of their own accord. For "unless the Lord build the house, and keep the city, in vain do they labor who build, and they watch who keep it." D Therefore, that which was of the Jews has been utterly dissolved, since it was only a shadow; but the Church has been established, for it is founded upon the rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It was theirs to say, "How do you, being a man, make yourself God?" Of these, the disciple…
Samosatensis; hence he rightly reports to his own people what is from him. But we have not learned Christ in this way, if indeed we have heard him and have been taught by him, having put off the old man which is corrupted according to the desires of error, and having put on the new man which is created according to God in righteousness and holiness of truth (47). Christ therefore should be piously understood as comprising both.
B 55. Moreover, Scripture often calls Christ his own body, as when the blessed Peter, teaching Cornelius (48) about Jesus of Nazareth, whom God anointed with the Holy Spirit; and again to the Jews, Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God among you; and again the blessed (49) Paul to the Athenians: "In a man, whom he has ordained, having given faith to all, by raising him from the dead." Thus, we frequently find that the designation and the mission (50) are the same thing as the anointing; from which it is permitted to him who wishes to learn that there is no disagreement in the words of the saints, but they designate the union of the Word of God with the man from Mary in different ways, sometimes calling it anointing, sometimes mission, and at other times (52) designation. What is therefore said by the blessed Peter is correct (53), and proclaims the divinity of the Only-begotten in its purity, not separating the hypostasis of the Word of God from the man from Mary—far be it! For who would dare to do that, who has frequently heard, "I and the Father are one," and, "He who has seen me has seen the Father"? Hence, also after the resurrection, the same body entered in to the whole company of the apostles while the doors were shut; C and so that this might not seem incredible to anyone, he removed the difficulty by saying, "Touch me and see, for a spirit has not flesh and bones, as you see me having" (55). He did not say, "Touch this one, or the man whom I assumed," but "Touch me." Hence, the Samosatene will be able to find no pardon, being refuted by so many arguments regarding the union of the Word of God; and by the Word of God himself, who is now offering the inquiry to all, and confirming it by both allowing them to eat and to touch him, which indeed also happened. For in any case, the one who was giving the food, or those who were giving it, touched his hands. "For they gave him," he says, "a piece of broiled fish, and of a honey D comb" (56), and having eaten before them, taking the rest he gave to them.
Behold then, if not as he acted toward Thomas, yet he certainly provided them with certainty by another method, by offering himself to be touched. But if you also wish to see the scars (57), learn from Thomas, to whom the Lord says, "Reach hither thy hand, and thrust it A into my side, and reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands" (58). God the Word, calling his own side and hands his own, shows himself to be entirely both man (59) and God at once, at that moment granting to the holy ones the perception of the Word through the body, as it is possible to understand, by having entered when the doors were shut; and immediately standing present with the body, he provided the certainty. Let these things be said moderately to the faithful for confirmation, and to the unbelievers for correction.
56. Let Paul of Samosata also be corrected (60), having become an auditor of the divine voice of the Savior, when he says, "My body," and not "Christ who is another (61) besides me who am the Word," but "he is with me, and I with him." For I, the Word, am the anointing, and that which is anointed by me is the man; therefore, Christ would by no means be called so without me, but because he is with me and I am in him. The mission, therefore, of the Word being signified, denotes the union with Jesus from Mary, who is interpreted as Savior, for no other reason than that he is united to the Word of God. The same passage signifies the same thing as these words, "The Father who sent me" (62), and, "I have not come of myself, but the Father sent me" (63). For the union with man, with whom it was possible for the invisible nature to be known to men through the visible, he called a mission. For God surely does not change places (64), as we do who hide ourselves in places, being shown by the fashion of our smallness through the existence which is in the flesh (65); for how would he do so, he who fills heaven and earth? But for the sake of his presence in the flesh, the righteous used the word mission. Therefore, God the Word is the same. Christ then is the God-man from Mary; Christ is not some other, but one and the same; he who is before ages from the Father, he who in the last days is sprung from the Virgin; invisible before (67) even to the holy powers in heaven, but visible now because of the union with the seen man; seen, I say, not by the invisible divinity, but by the operation of the divinity through the human (68) body and the whole man.