Discourse Against the Arians, Book 4

The Word is God from God; for 'the Word was God,' and again, 'From whom are the Fathers, and from whom is Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.' And since Christ is God from God, and God's Word, Wisdom, Son, and Power, only One God is therefore declared in the divine Scriptures. For the Word, being Son of the One God, is referred to Him from whom He also is; so Father and Son are two, yet the Monad of the Godhead is indivisible and inseparable. And in this way too we preserve One Beginning of Godhead and not two Beginnings, which is why there is, strictly speaking, a Monarchy. And the Word is by nature Son of this very Beginning — not as if He were another beginning, existing by Himself, nor as having come into being outside that Beginning, or from that difference a Dyarchy and Polyarchy would follow; but He is the very Son, the very Wisdom, the very Word of the one Beginning, existing from It. For, according to John, 'in' that 'Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,' for the Beginning was God; and since He is from It, 'the Word was God' too. And as there is one Beginning and therefore one God, so that Essence and Subsistence which indeed, truly, and really is, and which said, 'I am who I am,' is one and not two, so that there may not be two Beginnings; and from the One, a Son in nature and truth, is Its own Word, Its Wisdom, Its Power, and inseparable from It. And just as there is no other essence, or there would be two Beginnings, so the Word who is from that One Essence does not dissolve, nor is He a sound that signifies something, but is an essential Word and essential Wisdom, which is the true Son. For if He were not essential, God would be speaking into the air and having a body, in no way different from human beings; but since He is not a man, neither is His Word subject to human weakness. For as the Beginning is one Essence, so Its Word is one, essential, and subsisting, and so is Its Wisdom. For as He is God from God, Wisdom from the Wise, Word from the Rational, and Son from Father, so He is Subsistent from Subsistence, Essential and Substantive from Essence, and Being from Being.

For if He were not essential Wisdom and substantive Word, and an existing Son, but simply Wisdom, Word, and Son in the Father, then the Father Himself would have a nature compounded of Wisdom and Word. But if so, the absurdities mentioned before would follow: He will be His own Father, and the Son begetting and begotten by Himself; or Word, Wisdom, and Son are names only, and the one who owns, or rather who is, these titles does not subsist. If, then, He does not subsist, the names are idle and empty, unless we say that God is Wisdom itself and Word itself. But if so, He is His own Father and Son: Father when Wise, Son when Wisdom. But these things are not in God as some quality — away with the dishonorable thought! — for it will end in this: that God is compounded of essence and quality. For since all quality is in an essence, it will clearly follow that the Divine Monad, indivisible as it is, must be compound, divided into essence and accident. We must ask these headstrong men, then: the Son was proclaimed as God's Wisdom and Word; how, then, is He such? If as a quality, the absurdity has been shown; but if God is that Wisdom itself, then it is the absurdity of Sabellius. Therefore He is such as an Offspring, in the proper sense, from the Father Himself, according to the illustration of light. For as there is light from fire, so from God there is a Word, Wisdom from the Wise, and from the Father a Son. For in this way the Monad remains undivided and whole, and Its Son is a Word not without essence, not without subsistence, but truly essential. For if it were not so, all that is said would be said notionally and in words only. But if we must avoid that absurdity, then a true Word is essential. For as there is truly a Father, so there is truly Wisdom. In this respect, then, They are two — not because, as Sabellius said, Father and Son are the same, but because the Father is Father and the Son is Son; and They are one because He is Son of the Essence of the Father by nature, existing as His own Word. The Lord said this: 'I and the Father are One'; for neither is the Word separated from the Father, nor was or is the Father ever without His Word; for this reason He says, 'I in the Father and the Father in Me.'

And again, Christ is the Word of God. Did He, then, subsist by Himself and, subsisting, become joined to the Father; or did God make Him or call Him His Word? If the former — I mean, if He subsisted by Himself and is God — then there are two Beginnings; and moreover, as is plain, He is not the Father's own, since He is not from the Father but from Himself. But if, on the contrary, He was made from outside, then He is a creature. It remains, then, to say that He is from God Himself; but if so, what is from another is one thing, and what it is from is a second; according to this, then, there are two. But if They are not two, but the names belong to the same one, cause and effect will be the same, and begotten and begetting, which has been shown to be absurd in the case of Sabellius. But if He is from Him and yet not another, He will be both begetting and not begetting: begetting because He produces from Himself, and not begetting because it is nothing other than Himself. But if so, the same one is called Father and Son only notionally. But if it is improper to say so, Father and Son must be two; and They are one because the Son is not from outside, but begotten of God. But if anyone shrinks from saying 'Offspring' and only says that the Word exists with God, let such a person fear that, shrinking from what is said in Scripture, he may fall into absurdity, making God a being of double nature. For by not granting that the Word is from the Monad, but speaking simply as if He were joined to the Father, he introduces a twofold essence, with neither of them Father of the other. And the same goes for Power. And we may see this more clearly if we consider it with reference to the Father; for there is One Father, not two, and the Son is from that One. As, then, there are not two Fathers but One, so there are not two Beginnings but One, and from that One the essential Son.

But we must ask the Arians the opposite question (for the Sabellianizers must be refuted from the idea of a Son, and the Arians from that of a Father). Let us say, then: Is God wise and not without Word, or, on the contrary, is He without wisdom and without Word? If the latter, there is an absurdity at once; if the former, we must ask how He is wise and not without Word. Does He possess the Word and the Wisdom from outside, or from Himself? If from outside, there must be someone who first gave them to Him, and before He received He was without wisdom and without Word. But if from Himself, it is plain that the Word is not from nothing, nor did He once not exist; for He always was, since the one whose Image He is always exists. But if they say that He is indeed wise and not without Word, but that He has in Himself His own wisdom and His own word, and that this is not Christ but that by which He made Christ, we must answer that if Christ was brought into being in that word, plainly all things were too; and it must be the one of whom John says, 'All things were made through Him,' and the Psalmist, 'In Wisdom You have made them all.' And Christ will be found to speak untruly when He says 'I in the Father,' since there is another in the Father. And 'the Word became flesh' is not true according to them. For if the one in whom 'all things came to be' Himself became flesh, but Christ is not in the Father as the Word 'through whom all things came to be,' then Christ has not become flesh, but perhaps Christ was merely named Word. But if so, first, there will be another besides the name; and next, all things were not brought into being through Him, but in that other, in whom Christ too was made. But if they say that Wisdom is in the Father as a quality, or that He is Wisdom itself, the absurdities already mentioned will follow; for He will be compound, and will turn out to be His own Son and Father. Moreover, we must refute and silence them on the ground that the Word who is in God cannot be a creature or out of nothing; but if a Word is in God at all, then He must be Christ, who says, 'I am in the Father and the Father in Me,' who is therefore also the Only-begotten, since no other was begotten from Him. This is the One Son, who is Word, Wisdom, and Power; for God is not compounded of these, but generates them. For as He makes the creatures by the Word, so, according to the nature of His own Essence, He has the Word as an Offspring, through whom He makes, creates, and administers all things. For all things have come to be by the Word and the Wisdom, and all things together remain according to His ordinance. And the same goes for the word 'Son': if God is without a Son, then He is without Work; for the Son is His Offspring, through whom He works. But if not, the same questions and the same absurdities will follow their audacity.

From Deuteronomy: 'But you who held fast to the Lord your God are alive, every one of you, this day.' From this we may see the difference and know that the Son of God is not a creature. For the Son says, 'I and the Father are One,' and 'I in the Father, and the Father in Me'; but originated things, when they make progress, are joined to the Lord. The Word, then, is in the Father as being His own; but originated things, being external, are joined to Him, as being foreign by nature and joined by free choice. For a son by nature is one with the one who begot him; but one who is from outside and is made a son will be joined to the family. That is why he immediately adds, 'What nation is so great as to have God drawing near to it?' and elsewhere, 'I am a God who draws near'; for He draws near to originated things as being strangers to Him, but He does not draw near to the Son, as being His own; He is in Him. And the Son is not joined to the Father, but coexists with Him; which is also why Moses says again in the same Deuteronomy, 'You shall obey His voice and cling to Him'; but what clings, clings from outside.

But in answer to the weak and human notion of the Arians, who suppose that the Lord is in need when He says, 'is given to Me' and 'I received,' and when Paul says, 'Therefore He highly exalted Him' and 'He set Him at the right hand,' and the like, we must say that our Lord, being Word and Son of God, bore a body and became Son of Man, so that, having become Mediator between God and human beings, He might minister the things of God to us and ours to God. When, then, He is said to hunger, weep, grow tired, and cry 'Eloi, Eloi,' which are our human passions, He receives them from us and offers them to the Father, interceding for us, so that they may be annulled in Him. And when it is said, 'All authority is given to Me,' 'I received,' and 'Therefore God highly exalted Him,' these are gifts given from God to us through Him. For the Word was never in need, nor has He come into being; nor again were human beings sufficient to provide these things for themselves; but they are given to us through the Word; therefore, as if given to Him, they are imparted to us. For this was the reason for His becoming man: so that, being given to Him, they might pass on to us. For mere man would not have become worthy of such gifts; and again, the Word alone would not have needed them. The Word, then, was united to us, and then imparted power to us and highly exalted us. For the Word, being in man, highly exalted man himself; and when the Word was in man, man himself received. Since, then, with the Word being in flesh, man himself was exalted and received power, these things are referred to the Word, since they were given on His account; for these gifts were given on account of the Word in man. And as 'the Word became flesh,' so man himself also received the gifts that came through the Word. For all that man himself has received, the Word is said to have received, so that it might be shown that man himself, though unworthy to receive as far as his own nature is concerned, has still received because of the Word made flesh. So if anything is said to be given to the Lord, or the like, we must consider that it is given not to Him as needing it, but to man himself through the Word. For everyone who intercedes for another receives the gift in his own person, not as needing it, but on account of the one for whom he intercedes.

For just as He takes on our weaknesses without being weak, and hungers without hungering, but offers up what is ours so that it may be abolished, so He Himself also receives the gifts that come from God in place of our weaknesses, so that man, being united to Him, may be able to share in them. That is why the Lord says, 'All things that You have given Me I have given to them,' and again, 'I pray for them.' For He prayed for us, taking on Himself what is ours, and He was giving what He received. Since, then, with the Word united to man himself, the Father, looking at Him, granted that man should be exalted, have all authority, and the like, all the things we receive through Him are referred to the Word Himself and are as if given to Him. For just as He became man for our sake, so we are exalted for His sake. It is no absurdity, then, if, just as He humbled Himself for our sake, so He is also said to be highly exalted for our sake. So 'He gave to Him' means 'to us for His sake'; and 'He highly exalted Him' means 'us in Him.' And the Word Himself, when we are exalted, receive, and are helped, gives thanks to the Father as if He Himself were exalted, received, and were helped, referring what is ours to Himself and saying, 'All things that You have given Me I have given to them.'

Eusebius and his associates, that is, the Ario-maniacs, attributing a beginning of being to the Son, still pretend not to want Him to have a beginning of kingship. But this is ridiculous; for whoever attributes a beginning of being to the Son very plainly attributes a beginning of reigning to Him too; so blind are they, confessing what they deny. Again, those who say that the Son is only a name, and that the Son of God, that is, the Word of the Father, is without essence and does not subsist, pretend to be angry with those who say, 'Once He was not.' This too is ridiculous; for those who give Him no being at all are angry with those who at least grant that He exists in time. So these too confess what they deny, in the very act of condemning the others. And again, Eusebius and his associates, confessing a Son, deny that He is the Word by nature, and would have the Son called Word only notionally; while the others, confessing Him to be Word, deny that He is Son, and would have the Word called Son only notionally — both equally without a leg to stand on.

'I and the Father are One.' You say either that the two things are one, or that the one has two names, or again that the one is divided into two. Now if the one is divided into two, what is divided must be a body, and neither part is perfect, for each is a part and not a whole. But if, again, the one has two names, this is the device of Sabellius, who said that Son and Father were the same, and did away with each: with the Father when there is a Son, and with the Son when there is a Father. But if the two are one, then necessarily they are two, but one according to the Godhead, and according to the Son's coessentiality with the Father and the Word's being from the Father Himself; so that there are two, because there is a Father and a Son, namely the Word; and one, because there is one God. For if not, He would have said, 'I am the Father,' or 'I and the Father am'; but in fact by the 'I' He indicates the Son, by 'and the Father' the one who begot Him, and by 'One' the one Godhead and His coessentiality. For the Same is not, as the Gentiles hold, both Wise and Wisdom, or the Same both Father and Word; for it would be unfitting for Him to be His own Father. But the divine teaching knows Father and Son, Wise and Wisdom, God and Word, while it always keeps Him indivisible, inseparable, and indissoluble in all respects.

But if anyone, on hearing that the Father and the Son are two, misrepresents us as preaching two Gods (for this is what some imagine, and immediately mock, saying, 'You hold two Gods'), we must answer such a person: If acknowledging Father and Son is holding two Gods, it immediately follows that, to confess only one, we must deny the Son and Sabellianize. For if speaking of two is falling into paganism, then if we speak of one we must fall into Sabellianism. But this is not so — perish the thought! But just as, when we say that Father and Son are two, we still confess one God, so, when we say that there is one God, let us consider Father and Son as two, while They are one in the Godhead and in the Father's Word being indissoluble, indivisible, and inseparable from Him. And let fire and the radiance from it serve as a comparison for human understanding: they are two in being and in appearance, but one in that its radiance is from it indivisibly.

They fall into the same folly as the Arians; for the Arians too say that He was created for us, so that He might create us, as if God waited until our creation for His going forth, as the one party says, or His creation, as the other says. The Arians, then, are more generous to us than to the Son; for they say that we did not come to be for His sake, but He for ours — if, that is, He was created and came to exist for this reason, so that God might create us through Him. And these men, as irreligious or more so, give less to God than to us. For we often, even when silent, are still active in thinking, so as to form the results of our thoughts into images; but they would have God inactive when silent and exerting strength only when He speaks — if, that is, He could not make when silent, and began to create when speaking. For it is fair to ask them whether the Word, when He was in God, was perfect, so as to be able to make. If, on the one hand, He was imperfect when in God, but became perfect by being begotten, we are the cause of His perfection — that is, if He has been begotten for us; for He has received the power of making on our behalf. But if He was perfect in God, so as to be able to make, His generation is superfluous; for even when in the Father He could make the world; so either He has not been begotten, or He was begotten not for us, but because He is always from the Father. For His generation shows not that we were created, but that He is from God; for He existed even before our creation.

And the same presumption will be proved against them regarding the Father; for if He could not make when silent, He must have gained power by begetting, that is, by speaking. And where has He gained it from? And why? If He could make when He had the Word within Him, He begets needlessly, being able to make even in silence. Next, if the Word was in God before He was begotten, then, once begotten, He is outside and external to Him. But if so, how does He now say, 'I in the Father and the Father in Me'? But if He is in the Father now, He was always in the Father, as He is now, and it is needless to say, 'He was begotten for us, and He goes back after we are formed, so that He may be as He was.' For He was not anything that He is not now, nor is He what He was not; He is as He always was, in the same state and in the same respects; otherwise He will seem imperfect and changeable. For if He will be afterward what He was, as if He were not so now, it is plain that He is not now what He was and will be. I mean, if He was in God before and will be again afterward, it follows that the Word is not in God now. But the Lord refutes such people when He says, 'I in the Father and the Father in Me'; for He is so now, as He always was. But if He is so now, as He always was, it follows not that He was begotten at one time and not at another, nor that there was once silence with God and then He spoke, but that there is always a Father, and a Son who is His Word — not a Word in name alone, nor the Word a Son in idea only, but existing coessential with the Father, not begotten for us, for we are brought into being for Him. For if He were begotten for us, and we were created in His begetting, and creation exists in His generation, and then He returns so that He may be what He was before, first, the one who was begotten will be unbegotten again. For if His going forth is generation, His return will be the end of that generation; for when He has come to be in God, God will be silent again. But if He is to be silent, there will be what there was when He was silent: stillness and not creation, for creation will cease to exist. For just as creation came to be and existed when the Word went forth, so when the Word withdraws, creation will not exist. What use, then, is there in its coming into being, if it is to cease? Or why did God speak, only to be silent then? And why did He send forth One whom He recalls? And why did He beget One whose generation He willed to end? Again, it is uncertain what He will be. For either He will always be silent, or He will beget again and devise a different creation (for He will not make the same one, or what was made would have remained; He will make another); and in due course He will bring that to an end too, and will devise another, and so on without end.

Perhaps he borrowed this from the Stoics, who maintain that their God contracts and expands again with creation, and then rests without end. For what is expanded was first contracted; and what is spread out was at first drawn together; and it is what it was, and merely undergoes a change. If, then, the Monad, being expanded, became a Triad, and the Monad was the Father, and the Triad is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then first the Monad, being expanded, underwent a change and became what it was not; for it was expanded, though it had not been expanded before. Next, if the Monad itself was expanded into a Triad, and that Triad is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then Father, Son, and Spirit turn out to be the same, as Sabellius held — unless the Monad he speaks of is something besides the Father, and then he ought not to speak of expansion, since the Monad was to make Three, so that there was a Monad, and then Father, Son, and Spirit. For if the Monad were expanded and spread itself out, it must itself be what was spread out. And a Triad, once expanded, is no longer a Monad, and while it is a Monad, it is not yet a Triad. And so the one who was Father was not yet Son and Spirit; but once He has become These, He is no longer only Father. And anyone who told such a lie would have to attribute a body to God and represent Him as subject to change; for what is expansion but a change in what is expanded? Or what is the expanded but what was not so before, but was contracted? For it is the same thing, differing from itself only in time.

And the divine Apostle knows this when he writes to the Corinthians, 'Do not be narrow toward us, but open yourselves wide, Corinthians'; for he urges the same people to change from narrowness to expansion. And just as, supposing the Corinthians, being narrow, were expanded in turn, they would not have been other people but still Corinthians, so if the Father was expanded into a Triad, the Triad again is the Father alone. And he says the same thing again: 'Our heart is opened wide'; and Noah says, 'May God enlarge Japheth'; for the same heart and the same Japheth are present in the enlargement. If, then, the Monad expanded, it would expand for others; but if it expanded for itself, then it would be what was expanded; and what is that but the Son and Holy Spirit? And it is fair to ask him, when he speaks this way, what the activity of this expansion was, or indeed why it took place at all. For what does not remain the same, but is expanded in the course of time, must necessarily have a cause of expansion. If, then, it was so that Word and Spirit should be with Him, it is beside the point to say, 'First a Monad, and then expanded'; for Word and Spirit did not come afterward, but always were, or God would be without His Word, as the Arians hold. So if Word and Spirit always were, it was always expanded and was not at first a Monad; but if it was expanded afterward, then there is a Word only afterward. But if it was expanded for the Incarnation and then became a Triad, then before the Incarnation there was not yet a Triad. And it will even seem that the Father became flesh, if, that is, He is the Monad and was expanded in the Man; and so perhaps there will only be a Monad, flesh, and, third, Spirit — if, that is, He was expanded Himself — and there will be a Triad in name only. It is absurd too to say that it was expanded in order to create; for it could, remaining a Monad, make all things; for the Monad did not need expansion, nor did it lack power before being expanded; it is surely absurd and impious to think or speak this way in the case of God. Another absurdity will follow too. For if it was expanded for the sake of creation, and while it was a Monad creation did not exist, but at the Consummation it will be a Monad again after expansion, then creation too will come to nothing. For as it was expanded for the sake of creating, so, when the expansion ceases, creation will cease too.

Such absurdities will follow from saying that the Monad is expanded into a Triad. But since those who say this dare to separate Word and Son, and to say that the Word is one and the Son another, and that first there was the Word and then the Son, come, let us consider this doctrine too. Now their presumption takes various forms: some say that the man whom the Savior assumed is the Son; others, that both the man and the Word became Son when they were united. And others say that the Word Himself became Son when He became man; for from being Word, they say, He has become Son, not being Son before, but only Word. Now both are Stoic doctrines, whether saying that God was expanded or denying the Son; but it is especially absurd to name the Word and yet deny that He is Son. For if the Word is not from God, they might reasonably deny that He is Son; but if He is from God, how do they not see that what exists from anything is son of the one it is from? Next, if God is Father of the Word, why is the Word not Son of His own Father? For one is, and is called, father whose son it is; and one is, and is called, son of another whose father it is. If, then, God is not Father of Christ, neither is the Word Son; but if God is Father, then the Word is reasonably also Son. But if there is a Father only afterward, and first God, this is an Arian thought. Next, it is absurd that God should change; for that belongs to bodies. But if they argue that in the case of creation He became a Maker afterward, let them know that the change is in the things that came to be afterward, and not in God.

If, then, the Son too were a work, God might well begin to be a Father toward Him as toward others; but if the Son is not a work, then the Father always was, and the Son always was. But if the Son always was, He must be the Word; for if the Word is not Son — and this is what someone dares to say — he holds either that the Word is the Father or that the Son is superior to the Word. For since the Son is 'in the bosom of the Father,' necessarily either the Word is not before the Son (for nothing is before Him who is in the Father), or, if the Word is other than the Son, the Word must be the Father in whom the Son is. But if the Word is not Father but Word, the Word must be external to the Father, since it is the Son who is 'in the bosom of the Father.' For not both the Word and the Son are in the bosom, but one must be, and that one the Son, who is Only-begotten. And it follows for another reason, if the Word is one and the Son another, that the Son is superior to the Word; for 'no one knows the Father except the Son,' not the Word. Either, then, the Word does not know, or, if He knows, it is not true that 'no one knows.' And the same with 'Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father' and 'I and the Father are One'; for this is said by the Son, not the Word, as they would have it, as is plain from the Gospel. 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, I have shown you many good works from My Father; for which of those works are you stoning Me? The Jews answered Him, We are not stoning You for a good work, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a man, make Yourself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, You are gods? If He called them gods to whom the Word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken, do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, You are blaspheming, because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me. But if I do them, even though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.' And yet, as far as the surface of the words indicated, He said neither 'I am God' nor 'I am the Son of God,' but 'I and the Father are One.'

The Jews, then, when they heard 'One,' thought, like Sabellius, that He was saying that He was the Father; but our Savior shows their error by this argument: 'Even if I had said God, you should have remembered what is written: I said, You are gods.' Then, to clear up 'I and the Father are One,' He has explained the Son's oneness with the Father in the words, 'because I said, I am the Son of God.' For even if He did not say it in words, He has still referred the meaning of 'are One' to the Son. For nothing is one with the Father except what is from Him. And what is from Him but the Son? And therefore He adds, 'so that you may know that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me.' For in explaining the 'One,' He said that the union and inseparability lay not in This being That with which It was One, but in His being in the Father and the Father in the Son. For in this way He overthrows both Sabellius, by saying 'I am' not the Father but 'the Son of God,' and Arius, by saying 'are One.' If, then, the Son and the Word are not the same, it is not the Word who is one with the Father, but the Son; nor has whoever has seen the Word 'seen the Father,' but 'whoever has seen' the Son. And from this it follows either that the Son is greater than the Word, or that the Word has nothing beyond the Son. For what can be greater or more perfect than 'One,' and 'I in the Father and the Father in Me,' and 'Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father'? For these sayings too belong to the Son. And so the same John says, 'Whoever has seen Me has seen Him who sent Me,' and 'Whoever receives Me receives Him who sent Me'; and, 'I have come as a light into the world, so that whoever believes in Me should 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. The word that he will hear will judge him on the last day, because I am going to the Father.' The preaching, He says, judges the one who has not kept the commandment; 'for if,' He says, 'I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have had sin; but now they will have no excuse,' He says, having heard My words, through which those who keep them will reap salvation.

Perhaps they will be shameless enough to say that this saying belongs not to the Son but to the Word; but from what came before, it appeared plainly that the speaker was the Son. For the one who says here, 'I did not come to judge the world but to save it,' is shown to be no other than the Only-begotten Son of God by the same John's saying earlier, 'For God so loved the world that He gave His Only-begotten Son, so that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but so that the world might be saved through Him. Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the Name of the Only-begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation: that light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.' If He who says, 'For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it,' is the Same as He who says, 'Whoever sees Me sees Him who sent Me,' and if He who came to save the world and not to judge it is the Only-begotten Son of God, it is plain that it is the same Son who says, 'Whoever sees Me sees Him who sent Me.' For He who said, 'Whoever believes in Me,' and 'If anyone hears My words, I do not judge him,' is the Son Himself, of whom Scripture says, 'Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the Name of the Only-begotten Son of God.' And again: 'And this is the condemnation' of the one who does not believe in the Son, 'that light has come into the world,' and they did not believe in Him, that is, in the Son; for He must be 'the Light that enlightens everyone who comes into the world.' And as long as He was on earth according to the Incarnation, He was Light in the world, as He said Himself: 'While you have the light, believe in the light, so that you may become children of light'; for 'I,' He says, 'have come as a light into the world.'

Since this has been shown, then, it follows that the Word is the Son. But if the Son is the Light that has come into the world, beyond all dispute the world was made through the Son. For at the beginning of the Gospel the Evangelist, speaking of John the Baptist, says, 'He was not that Light, but came to bear witness about that Light.' For Christ Himself was, as we have said before, the True Light that enlightens everyone who comes into the world. For if 'He was in the world, and the world was made through Him,' He is necessarily the Word of God, of whom the Evangelist also bears witness that all things were made through Him. For either they will be forced to speak of two worlds, so that the one may have come into being through the Son and the other through the Word; or, if the world is one and creation one, it follows that Son and Word are one and the same before all creation, for it came into being through Him. Therefore, if all things came to be through the Son as they did through the Word, it will not be contradictory, but even identical, to say, for instance, 'In the beginning was the Word' or 'In the beginning was the Son.' But if, because John did not say, 'In the beginning was the Son,' they maintain that the attributes of the Word do not fit the Son, it immediately follows that the attributes of the Son do not fit the Word. But it was shown that 'I and the Father are One' belongs to the Son, and that it is He 'who is in the bosom of the Father,' and 'Whoever sees Me sees Him who sent Me'; and that 'the world was brought into being through Him' is common to the Word and the Son; so that from this the Son is shown to be before the world, for the Maker must necessarily be before the things brought into being. And what is said to Philip must belong, according to them, not to the Word but to the Son. For 'Jesus said,' says Scripture, 'Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father. How, then, can you say, Show us the Father? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in Me? The words I speak to you I do not speak on My own; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me because of the works themselves. Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in Me will also do the works that I do, and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father. And whatever you ask in My Name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.' Therefore, if the Father is glorified in the Son, the Son must be the one who said, 'I in the Father and the Father in Me,' and who said, 'Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father'; for the very one who spoke this way shows Himself to be the Son by adding, 'so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.'

If, then, they say that the Man whom the Word wore, and not the Word, is the Only-begotten Son of God, then it follows that the Man must be the one who is in the Father and in whom the Father is; and the Man must be the one who is One with the Father, who is in the bosom of the Father, and the True Light. And they will be forced to say that the world came into being through the Man Himself, that the Man was the one who came not to judge the world but to save it, and that it was He who existed before Abraham came to be. For, says Scripture, Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.' And is it not absurd to say, as they do, that one who came from the seed of Abraham forty-two generations later existed before Abraham came to be? Is it not absurd, if the flesh that the Word bore is itself the Son, to say that the flesh from Mary is that through which the world was made? And how will they keep 'He was in the world'? For the Evangelist, to indicate the Son's existence before His birth according to the flesh, goes on to say, 'He was in the world.' And how, if the Son is not the Word but the Man, can He save the world, being Himself part of the world? And if this does not shame them, where will the Word be, if the Man is in the Father? And where will the Word stand in relation to the Father, if the Man and the Father are One? But if the Man is Only-begotten, what will be the place of the Word? Either one must say that He comes second, or, if He is above the Only-begotten, He must be the Father Himself. For as the Father is One, so the Only-begotten from Him is One; and what does the Word have above the Man, if the Word is not the Son? For while Scripture says that the world was brought into being through the Son and the Word, and making the world is common to the Word and to the Son, Scripture still goes on to place the sight of the Father not in the Word but in the Son, and to attribute the saving of the world not to the Word but to the Only-begotten Son. For, it says, Jesus said, 'Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father.' Nor does Scripture say that the Word knows the Father, but the Son; nor that the Word sees the Father, but the Only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father.

And what more does the Word contribute to our salvation than the Son, if, as they hold, the Son is one and the Word another? For the command is that we should believe not in the Word but in the Son. For John says, 'Whoever believes in the Son has everlasting life; but whoever does not believe the Son will not see life.' And Holy Baptism, in which the substance of the whole faith is lodged, is administered not in the Word, but in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If, then, as they hold, the Word is one and the Son another, and the Word is not the Son, Baptism has no connection with the Word. How, then, can they hold that the Word is with the Father, when He is not with Him in the giving of Baptism? But perhaps they will say that the Word is included in the Father's Name? Why, then, not the Spirit too? Or is the Spirit external to the Father? And is the Man (if the Word is not Son) named after the Father, but the Spirit after the Man? And then the Monad, instead of expanding into a Triad, expands according to them into a Tetrad: Father, Word, Son, and Holy Spirit. Put to shame on this ground, they resort to another, and say that the Son is not the Man whom the Lord bore by Himself, but both together, the Word and the Man; for both joined together are named Son, as they say. Which, then, is the cause of which? And which has made which a Son? Or, to speak more clearly, is the Word a Son because of the flesh? Or is the flesh called Son because of the Word? Or is neither the cause, but the coming together of the two? If, then, the Word is a Son because of the flesh, the flesh is necessarily Son, and all the absurdities follow that have already been drawn from saying that the Man is Son. But if the flesh is called Son because of the Word, then the Word, being such, was certainly Son even before the flesh. For how could a being make other sons without being a son himself, especially when there was a father? If, then, He makes sons for Himself, then He is Father Himself; but if for the Father, then He must be Son, or rather that Son because of whom the rest are made sons.

For if we are sons while He is not Son, God is our Father and not His. How, then, does He claim the name instead, saying, 'My Father' and 'I came from the Father'? For if He is the common Father of all, He is not His Father only, nor did He alone come out from the Father. But he says that He is sometimes called our Father too, because He has Himself come to share in our flesh. For this is why the Word has become flesh: so that, since the Word is Son, He may also be called our Father because of the Son dwelling in us; for 'He sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts,' says Scripture, 'crying, Abba, Father.' Therefore the Son in us, calling on His own Father, causes Him to be named our Father too. Surely God cannot be called Father of those in whose hearts the Son is not. But if the Man is called Son because of the Word, then, since the ancients are called sons even before the Incarnation, it necessarily follows that the Word is Son even before His coming among us; for 'I begot sons,' says Scripture; and in the time of Noah, 'When the sons of God saw'; and in the Song, 'Is He not your Father?' Therefore there was also that True Son, for whose sake they too were sons. But if, as they say again, neither of the two is Son, but it depends on the coming together of the two, it follows that neither is Son — I mean, neither the Word nor the Man — but some cause because of which they were united; and accordingly that cause which makes the Son will precede the uniting. Therefore in this way too the Son existed before the flesh. When this is pressed, they will take refuge in another pretext, saying that neither the Man is Son, nor both together, but that the Word was indeed simply Word in the beginning, and when He became Man, then He was named Son; for before His appearing 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. Such is their idle talk, but it is easily refuted.

For if He has become Son simply when made Man, the becoming Man is the cause. And if the Man, or both together, is the cause of His being Son, then the same absurdities follow. Next, if He is first Word and then Son, it will appear that He came to know the Father afterward, not before; for He does not know Him as Word, but as Son. For 'No one knows the Father except the Son.' And this too will follow: that He has come afterward to be 'in the bosom of the Father,' and afterward He and the Father have become One, and 'Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father' holds only afterward. For all these things are said of the Son. So they will be forced to say that the Word was nothing but a name. For neither is it He who is in us with the Father, nor has whoever has seen the Word seen the Father, nor was the Father known to anyone at all; for the Father is known through the Son (for so it is written, 'and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him'), and, since the Word was not yet Son, no one yet knew the Father. How, then, was He seen by Moses, and by the fathers? For He says Himself in the Kingdoms, 'Did I not plainly reveal Myself to the house of your father?' But if God was revealed, there must have been a Son to reveal Him, as He says Himself, 'and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him.' It is irreligious, then, and foolish to say that the Word is one and the Son another; and it would be well to ask them where they got such an idea. They answer: because no mention is made of the Son in the Old Testament, but of the Word; and for this reason they are confident in their opinion that the Son came later than the Word, because He is spoken of not in the Old but only in the New. This is what they irreligiously say. For, first, to separate the Testaments so that the one does not agree with the other is the device of Manichees and Jews, the one of whom oppose the Old and the other the New. Next, on their showing, if what is contained in the Old is of older date and what is in the New of later date, and times depend on the writing, it follows that 'I and the Father are One,' 'Only-begotten,' and 'Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father' are later, for these testimonies are cited not from the Old but from the New.

But it is not so; for in truth much is also said about the Son in the Old, as in the second Psalm, 'You are My Son; today I have begotten You'; and in the ninth the title, 'To the end, concerning the hidden things of the Son, a Psalm of David'; and in the forty-fourth, 'To the end, concerning the things that shall be changed, for the Sons of Korah, for understanding, a song about the Well-beloved'; and in Isaiah, 'I will sing to my Well-beloved a song of my Well-beloved about my vineyard. My Well-beloved has a vineyard.' Who is this 'Well-beloved' but the Only-begotten Son? As also in the hundred and ninth, 'From the womb I begot You before the morning star,' which I will speak about later; and in the Proverbs, 'Before the hills He begot me'; and in Daniel, 'And the form of the Fourth is like the Son of God'; and many others. If, then, antiquity comes from the Old, the Son must be ancient, since He is clearly described in the Old Testament in many places. 'Yes,' they say, 'so it is, but it must be taken prophetically.' Then the Word too must be said to be spoken of prophetically; for this is not to be taken one way and that another. For if 'You are My Son' refers to the future, so does 'By the Word of the Lord the heavens were established'; for it does not say 'were brought into being,' nor 'He made.' But it states elsewhere that 'established' refers to the future: 'The Lord reigned,' followed by 'He so established the earth that it can never be moved.' And if the words in the forty-fourth Psalm, 'for My Well-beloved,' refer to the future, so does what follows them: 'My heart uttered a good Word.' And if 'From the womb' relates to a man, so does 'From the heart'; for if the womb is human, the heart is bodily too. But if what is from the heart is eternal, then what is 'From the womb' is eternal. And if the 'Only-begotten' is 'in the bosom,' then the 'Well-beloved' is 'in the bosom.' For 'Only-begotten' and 'Well-beloved' are the same, as in the words 'This is My Well-beloved Son.' For He did not say 'Well-beloved' wishing to indicate His love toward Him, as if it might appear that He hated others; He made His being Only-begotten plain by it, to show that He alone was from Him. And so the Word, wishing to convey the idea of 'Only-begotten' to Abraham, says, 'Offer your son, your well-beloved'; but it is plain to anyone that Isaac was the only son from Sarah. The Word, then, is Son, not lately come to be or named Son, but always Son. For if He is not Son, neither is He Word; and if He is not Word, neither is He Son. For what is from the father is a son; and what is from the Father, but the Word who went forth from the heart and was born from the womb? For the Father is not Word, nor is the Word Father; but the one is Father and the other Son, and the one begets and the other is begotten.

Arius, then, raves in saying that the Son is from nothing and that once He was not, while Sabellius also raves in saying that the Father is Son and, again, the Son is Father — One in subsistence, Two in name; and he raves too in using the grace of the Spirit as an example. For he says, 'As there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit, so too the Father is the same, but is expanded into Son and Spirit.' Now this is full of absurdity. For if it is with God as it is with the Spirit, the Father will be Word and Holy Spirit, becoming Father to one, Son to another, and Spirit to another, adapting himself to the need of each; Son and Spirit in name indeed, but in reality Father only; having a beginning in that He becomes a Son, and then ceasing to be called Father; made man in name, but in truth not even coming among us; and untruthful in saying 'I and the Father,' while in reality being the Father Himself — along with the other absurdities that follow in the case of Sabellius. And the names of Son and Spirit will necessarily cease once the need has been supplied; and what happens will be nothing but make-believe, because it has been displayed not in truth but in name. And when the Name of Son ceases, as they hold, the grace of Baptism will cease too, for it was given in the Son. Indeed, what will follow but the annihilation of creation? For if the Word came forth so that we might be created, and when He had come forth we existed, it is plain that when He withdraws into the Father, as they say, we will no longer exist. For He will be as He was; so too we will not exist, as we did not exist then; for when He has no longer gone forth, there will no longer be a creation. This, then, is absurd.

But John makes it clear in his first Epistle that the Son has no beginning of being, but was always with the Father before He was made man, writing this: 'That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched, concerning the Word of Life — and the Life was revealed, and we have seen it, and we bear witness and declare to you that Eternal Life which was with the Father and was revealed to us.' While he says here that 'the Life' did not 'become' but 'was with the Father,' at the end of his Epistle he says that the Son is the Life, writing, 'And we are in Him who is True, in His Son Jesus Christ; this is the True God and Eternal Life.' But if the Son is the Life, and the Life was with the Father, and if the Son was with the Father, and the same Evangelist says, 'And the Word was with God,' the Son must be the Word, who is always with the Father. And just as the 'Son' is 'Word,' so 'God' must be 'the Father.' Moreover, the Son, according to John, is not merely 'God' but 'True God'; for according to the same Evangelist, 'And the Word was God'; and the Son said, 'I am the Life.' Therefore the Son is the Word and Life who is with the Father. And again, what is said in the same John, 'The Only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father,' shows that the Son always was. For the one whom John calls Son, David mentions in the Psalm as God's Hand, saying, 'Why do You not stretch out Your Right Hand from Your bosom?' Therefore, if the Hand is in the bosom, and the Son is in the bosom, the Son will be the Hand, and the Hand will be the Son, through whom the Father made all things; for it is written, 'Your Hand made all these things,' and 'He led out His people with His Hand' — therefore, through the Son. And if 'this is the change of the Right Hand of the Most High,' and again, 'To the end, concerning the things that shall be changed, a song for My Well-beloved,' then the Well-beloved is the Hand that was changed, of whom the Divine Voice also says, 'This is My Beloved Son.' This 'My Hand,' then, is equivalent to 'This My Son.'

But since there are ill-instructed people who, while resisting the doctrine of a Son, think little of the words, 'From the womb, before the morning star, I begot You,' as if this referred to His relation to Mary, claiming that He was born of Mary 'before the morning star,' since to say 'womb' could not refer to His relation to God, we must say a few words here. If, then, because the 'womb' is human, it is therefore foreign to God, plainly 'heart' too has a human meaning, for whatever has a heart has a womb too. Since, then, both are human, we must deny both, or seek to explain both. Now as a word comes from the heart, so an offspring comes from the womb; and just as, when the heart of God is spoken of, we do not think of it as human, so if Scripture says 'from the womb,' we must not take it in a bodily sense. For it is the custom of divine Scripture to speak of and indicate in human terms what is above man. So, speaking of creation, it says, 'Your hands made me and fashioned me,' and 'Your hand made all these things,' and 'He commanded and they were created.' Its language about everything, then, is fitting: attributing 'proper relation' and 'genuineness' to the Son, and 'the beginning of being' to creation. For the one God makes and creates; but Him, the Word or Wisdom, He begets from Himself. Now 'womb' and 'heart' plainly declare what is proper and genuine; for we too have this from the womb, but we make our works with the hand.

What, then, they say, does 'Before the morning star' mean? I would answer that if 'Before the morning star' shows that His birth from Mary was wonderful, many others besides have been born before the rising of the star. What, then, is said that is so wonderful in His case, that He should record it as some special privilege, when it is common to many? Next, to beget differs from bringing forth; for begetting involves the primary foundation, but bringing forth is nothing other than the production of what exists. If, then, the term belongs to the body, let it be noted that He did not receive a beginning of coming to be when He was announced to the shepherds by night, but when the Angel spoke to the Virgin. And that was not at night, for this is not said; on the contrary, it was at night that He came out of the womb. Scripture makes this distinction, and says on the one hand that He was begotten before the morning star, and on the other speaks of His coming out of the womb, as in the twenty-first Psalm: 'You are the one who drew Me from the womb.' Besides, He did not say 'before the rising of the morning star,' but simply 'before the morning star.' If, then, the phrase must be taken of the body, then either the body must be before Adam, for the stars were before Adam, or we have to investigate the meaning of the words. And John enables us to do this, when he says in the Apocalypse, 'I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and may enter the city through the gates. Outside are the dogs, sorcerers, the sexually immoral, murderers, idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood. I, Jesus, have sent My Angel to testify to these things in the Churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright Morning Star. And the Spirit and the Bride say, Come; and let whoever hears say, Come; and let whoever is thirsty come; and whoever wishes, let him take the water of life freely.' If, then, 'the Offspring of David' is the 'Bright Morning Star,' it is plain that the flesh of the Savior is called 'the Morning Star,' which the Offspring from God came before; so the meaning of the Psalm is this: 'I have begotten You from Myself before Your appearance in the flesh'; for 'before the Morning Star' is equivalent to 'before the Incarnation of the Word.'

So in the Old too, statements are plainly made about the Son; at the same time, it is superfluous to argue the point. For if what is not stated in the Old is of later date, let those who are so argumentative say where in the Old mention is made of the Spirit, the Paraclete. For there is mention of the Holy Spirit, but nowhere of the Paraclete. Is the Holy Spirit, then, one, and the Paraclete another, and the Paraclete the later one, as not mentioned in the Old? But far be it from us to say that the Spirit is later, or to distinguish the Holy Spirit as one and the Paraclete as another; for the Spirit is one and the same, then and now sanctifying and comforting those who receive Him, just as one and the same Word and Son led even then to adoption as sons those who were worthy. For sons under the Old were made such through no one other than the Son. For unless there was a Son who was from God even before Mary, how is He before all, when they are sons before Him? And how is He also 'Firstborn,' if He comes second after many? But neither is the Paraclete second, for He was before all, nor is the Son later, for 'in the beginning was the Word.' And as the Spirit and Paraclete are the same, so the Son and Word are the same. And just as the Savior says about the Spirit, 'But the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My Name,' speaking of One and the Same and not distinguishing, so John describes it similarly when he says, 'And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten from the Father.' For here too he does not distinguish, but bears witness to the identity. And just as the Paraclete is not one and the Holy Spirit another, but one and the same, so the Word is not one and the Son another, but the Word is Only-begotten; for he speaks of the glory not of the flesh itself, but of the Word. Whoever, then, dares to distinguish between Word and Son, let him distinguish between Spirit and Paraclete; but if the Spirit cannot be distinguished, neither can the Word, who is also Son, Wisdom, and Power. Moreover, even the Greeks, who are skilled in phrases, know that the word 'Well-beloved' is equivalent to 'Only-begotten.' For Homer speaks this way of Telemachus, the only son of Ulysses, in the second book of the Odyssey: Over the wide earth, dear youth, why seek to run, An only child, a well-beloved son? He whom you mourn, divine Ulysses, fell Far from his country, where the strangers dwell. Therefore one who is his father's only son is called well-beloved.

Some of the followers of the Samosatene, distinguishing the Word from the Son, claim that the Son is Christ and the Word is another; and they base this on Peter's words in the Acts, which he spoke well but they explain badly. It is this: 'The Word He sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ; He is Lord of all.' For they say that since the Word spoke through Christ, as in the case of the Prophets with 'Thus says the Lord,' the prophet was one and the Lord another. But against this it is fitting to set the words in the first Epistle to the Corinthians: 'waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will also confirm you to the end, blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.' For just as one Christ does not confirm on the day of another Christ, but He Himself confirms on His own day those who wait for Him, so the Father sent the Word made flesh, so that, having been made man, He might preach by means of Himself. And therefore he immediately adds, 'He is Lord of all'; but the Lord of all is the Word.

'And Moses said to Aaron, Go to the altar and offer your sin offering and your burnt offering, and make atonement for yourself and for the people; and offer the offering of the people, and make atonement for them, as the Lord commanded Moses.' Notice here that, though Moses is one, Moses himself speaks as if of another Moses: 'as the Lord commanded Moses.' In the same way, then, if the blessed Peter speaks of the Divine Word too as sent to the children of Israel through Jesus Christ, it is not necessary to understand that the Word is one and Christ another, but that they were one and the same because of the uniting that took place in His divine and loving condescension and becoming man. And even if He is considered in two ways, it is still without any division of the Word, as when the inspired John says, 'And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.' So the followers of the Samosatene, understanding badly and wrongly what was said well and rightly by the blessed Peter, do not stand in the truth. For Christ is understood in both ways in Divine Scripture, as when it calls Christ 'God's power and God's wisdom.' If, then, Peter says that the Word was sent through Jesus Christ to the children of Israel, let him be understood to mean that the incarnate Word has appeared to the children of Israel, so that it may correspond to 'And the Word became flesh.' But if they understand it otherwise and, while confessing the Word to be divine, as He is, separate from Him the Man He has taken, with whom we also believe that He is made one, saying that He has been sent through Jesus Christ, they are unknowingly contradicting themselves. For those who in this passage separate the divine Word from the divine Incarnation have, it seems, a degraded notion of the doctrine of His having become flesh, and entertain pagan thoughts, as they do, thinking that the divine Incarnation is an alteration of the Word. But it is not so — perish the thought!

For in the same way that John here proclaims that incomprehensible union — 'what is mortal being swallowed up by life,' indeed by Him who is Life itself (as the Lord said to Martha, 'I am the Life') — so when the blessed Peter says that the Word was sent through Jesus Christ, he also implies the divine union. For just as a person hearing 'The Word became flesh' would not think that the Word ceased to exist, which is absurd, as has been said before, so too, hearing of the Word who has been united to the flesh, let him understand the divine mystery as one and simple. More clearly and indisputably than all reasoning, however, what was said by the Archangel to the Bearer of God herself shows the oneness of the Divine Word and Man. For he says, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the Power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the Holy One who will be born of you will be called the Son of God.' The followers of the Samosatene, then, irrationally separate the Word, who is clearly declared to be made one with the Man from Mary. He is not, therefore, sent through that Man; rather, He sent in Him, saying, 'Go, teach all nations.'

And this is the usual way of Scripture: to express itself in plain and simple phrases. For so too in Numbers we will find, 'Moses said to Raguel the Midianite, the father-in-law of Moses'; for there was not one Moses who spoke and another whose father-in-law was Raguel, but Moses was one. And if in the same way the Word of God is called Wisdom, Power, Right Hand, Arm, and the like, and if in His love for humankind He has become one with us, putting on our first fruits and blended with them, then the other titles too have naturally become the Word's own. For John's saying that in the beginning was the Word, that He was with God and was Himself God, and that all things were made through Him and nothing was made without Him, shows clearly that man too is the work of God the Word. If, then, after taking man into Himself when he had been weakened, He renews him again through that sure renewal to endless permanence, and is therefore made one with him in order to raise him to a more divine lot, how can we possibly say that the Word was sent through the Man who was from Mary, and count Him, the Lord of Apostles, with the other Apostles — I mean the prophets — who were sent by Him? And how can Christ be called a mere man? On the contrary, being made one with the Word, He is reasonably called Christ and Son of God, since the prophet long ago loudly and clearly attributed the Father's subsistence to Him, saying, 'And I will send My Son Christ'; and at the Jordan, 'This is My Well-beloved Son.' For when He had fulfilled His promise, He showed, as was fitting, that He was the one He said He had sent.

Let us, then, consider Christ in both ways: the divine Word made one in Mary with what is from Mary. For in her womb the Word fashioned His house for Himself, as at the beginning He formed Adam from the earth — or rather, more divinely. Solomon too speaks openly about this, knowing that the Word was also called Wisdom: 'Wisdom built herself a house.' The Apostle interprets this when he says, 'We are that house,' and elsewhere calls us a temple, insofar as it is fitting for God to dwell in a temple; and through Solomon He commanded the ancient people to build its image out of stones, which ceased when the Truth appeared. For when the ruthless men wanted to prove the image to be the truth, and to destroy that true dwelling which we firmly believe His union with us to be, He did not threaten them, but, knowing that their crime was against themselves, He said to them, 'Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up.' He, our Savior, surely showed by this that the things people busy themselves with carry their own dissolution with them. For unless the Lord had built the house and guarded the city, the builders labored in vain and the guards kept watch in vain. And so the works of the Jews are undone, for they were a shadow; but the Church is firmly established; it is 'founded on the rock,' and 'the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.' It was theirs to say, 'Why do You, being a man, make Yourself God?' and the Samosatene is their disciple; and so it is fitting that he teaches his heresy to his followers. But 'we did not learn Christ this way, if indeed we heard' Him and were taught by Him, 'putting off the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts,' and taking up 'the new, which is created after God in righteousness and true holiness.' Let Christ, then, be reverently considered in both ways.

But if Scripture often calls even the body by the name of Christ — as in the blessed Peter's words to Cornelius, when he teaches him about 'Jesus of Nazareth, whom God anointed with the Holy Spirit,' and again to the Jews, 'Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested to you by God,' and again the blessed Paul to the Athenians, 'by that Man whom He appointed, giving assurance to all by raising Him from the dead' (for we often find the appointment and the mission synonymous with the anointing; from which anyone who wishes may learn that there is no disagreement in the words of the sacred writers, but that they merely give various names to the union of God the Word with the Man from Mary, sometimes calling it anointing, sometimes mission, sometimes appointment) — it follows that what the blessed Peter says is right, and he proclaims the Godhead of the Only-begotten purely, without separating the subsistence of God the Word from the Man from Mary (perish the thought! For how could he, who had heard in so many ways, 'I and the Father are one,' and 'Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father'?). In this Man, after the resurrection too, we know that He came to the whole band of the Apostles when the doors were shut, and dispelled everything in it that was hard to believe with His words, 'Touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see that I have.' And He did not say 'this' or 'this Man whom I have taken to Myself,' but 'Me.' So the Samosatene will gain no allowance, refuted as he is by so many arguments for the union of God the Word — indeed, by God the Word Himself, who now brings the news to all and assures them by eating and by allowing them the touching of Him that took place then. For certainly the one who gives food to others and those who give it to him touch hands. For 'they gave Him,' Scripture says, 'a piece of broiled fish and some honeycomb,' and when He had 'eaten before them, He took the rest and gave it to them.' Look: though not in the way Thomas was allowed, He still gave them full assurance in another way, by being touched by them. But if you want to see the scars now, learn from Thomas: 'Reach out your hand and put it into My side, and reach out your finger and see My hands.' So says God the Word, speaking of His own side and hands, and of Himself as whole man and God together; first giving the Saints even a perception of the Word through the body, as we may consider, by entering when the doors were shut, and next standing near them in the body and giving full assurance. This much may be fittingly said to confirm the faithful and correct the unbelieving.

And so let Paul of Samosata also be corrected on hearing the divine voice of Him who said 'My body,' not 'Christ besides Me, who am the Word,' but 'Him with Me, and Me with Him.' For I, the Word, am the anointing, and the Man is the one who has the anointing from Me; He could not, then, be called Christ without Me, but only being with Me and I in Him. Therefore the mention of the mission of the Word shows the uniting that took place with Jesus, born of Mary, whose Name means Savior, for no other reason than the Man's being made one with God the Word. This passage has the same meaning as 'the Father who sent Me,' and 'I did not come on My own, but the Father sent Me.' For he has given the name of mission to the uniting with the Man, in whom the Invisible nature might be known to people through the visible. For God does not change place, like us who are hidden in places, when He displays Himself in His existence in the flesh in the manner of our littleness; for how could He, who fills heaven and earth? But because of the presence in the flesh, the just have spoken of His mission. Therefore God the Word Himself is Christ from Mary, God and Man; not some other Christ, but One and the Same: He who was from the Father before the ages, and He too who was from the Virgin in the last times; invisible before, even to the holy powers of heaven, but visible now because of His being one with the Man who is visible; seen, I say, not in His invisible Godhead, but in the working of the Godhead through the human body and the whole Man, which He has renewed by making it His own. To Him be adoration and worship, who was before, and is now, and always will be, to all ages. Amen.