vouchsafed to man to be exalted, to have all power and the like; therefore are referred to the Word Himself, and are as if given to Him, all things which through Him we receive. For as He for our sake became man, so we for His sake are exalted. It is no absurdity then, if, as for our sake He humbled Himself, so also for our sake He is said to be highly exalted. So ‘He gave to Him,’ that is, ‘to us for His sake;’ ‘and He highly exalted Him 3,’ that is, ‘us in Him.’ And the Word Himself, when we are exalted, and receive, and are succoured, as if He Himself were exalted and received and were succoured, gives thanks to the Father, referring what is ours to Himself, and saying, ‘ All things, whatsoever ‘Thou hast given Me, I have given unto them 4,’ § 8. Arians date the Son’s beginning earlier than Marcellus, &c.
8. Eusebius and his fellows, that is, the Ario-maniacs, ascribing a beginning of being to the Son, yet pretend not to wish Him to have a beginning of kingship 5. But this is ridiculous; for he who ascribes to the Son a beginning of being, very plainly ascribes to Him also a beginning of reigning; 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 unessential and nonsubsistent, pretend to be angry with those who say, ‘Once He was not.’ This is ridiculous also; for they who give Him no being at all, are angry with those who at least grant Him to be in time. Thus these also confess what they deny, in the act of censuring the others. And again Eusebius and his fellows, confessing a Son, deny that He is the Word by nature, and would have the Son called Word notionally; and the others confessing Him to be Word, deny Him to be Son, and would have the Word called Son notionally, equally void of footing.
$$ 9, 10. Unless Father and Son are two in name only, or as parts and so each imperfect, or two gods, they are coessentia], one in Godhead, and the Son from the Father.
g. ‘I and the Father are One*.’ You say 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, that which is divided must need be a body, and neither part perfect, for each is a part and not a whole. But if again the one have two names, this is the expedient of Sabellius, who said that Son and Father were the same, and did away with either, the Father when there is a Son, and the Son when there is a Father. But if the two are one, then of necessity 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 Father, and Son, namely the Word; and one because one God. For if not, He would have said, ‘I am the Father,’ or) ‘I andi the*Pather ‘am;” but inwiact, in the ‘I’ He signifies the Son, and in the ‘And the Father, Him who begat Him; and in the ‘One’ the one Godhead and His coessentiality?, For the Same is not, as the Gentiles hold, Wise and Wisdom, or the Same Father and Word; for it were unfit for Him to be His own Father, but the divine teaching knows Father and Son, and Wise and Wisdom, and God and Word; while it ever guards Him indivisible and inseparable and indissoluble in all respects.
to. But if any one, on hearing that the Father and the Son are two, misrepresent us as preaching two Gods (for this is what some feign to themselves, and forthwith mock, saying, ‘You hold two Gods’), we must answer to such, If to acknowledge Father and Son, is to hold two Gods, it instantly 3 follows that to confess but one we must dény the Son and Sabellianise. For if to speak of two is to fall into Gentilism, therefore if we speak of one, we must fall into Sabellianism. But this is not so; perish the thought! but, 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 two, while they are one in the Godhead, and in the Father’s Word being indissoluble and indivisible and inseparable from Him. And let the fire and the radiance from it be a similitude of man, which are two in being and in appearance, but one in that its radiance is from it indivisibly.
§§ 11, 12. Marcellus and his disciples, like Arians, say that the Word was, not indeed created, but issued, to create us, as if the Divine silence were a state of inaction, and when God spake by the Word, He acted; or that there was a going forth and return of the Word; a doctrine which implies change and imperfection in Father and Son.
tr. They fall into the same folly with the Arians; for Arians also say that He was created for us, that He might create us, as if God waited till our creation for His issue, as the one party say, or His creation, as the ® Here again is the word 6o0¥c.0v. Contrast the language of Oréz. iii, when commenting on the same text, in the same way; €.g. Ev TH OvoTyTe Kal olKsudT TL THS PUTCws, Kat TH TavToryTL THS wLas OedTnTOS, § 4. 3 Cf. Or. ili. 10, note 4.
DISCOURSE =v, other. Arians then are more bountiful to us than to the Son; for they say, not we for His sake, but He for ours, came to be; that is, if He was therefore created, and subsisted, that God through Him might create us. And these, as irreligious or more so, give to God less than to us. For we oftentimes, even when silent, yet are active in thinking, so as to form the results of our thoughts into images; but God they would have inactive when silent, and when He speaks then to exert strength; if, that is, when silent He could not make, and when speaking He began to create.
For it is just 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 by being begotten became perfect ', we are the cause of His perfection, that is, if He has been begotten for us; for on our behalf He has received the power of making. But if He was perfect in God, so as to be able to make, His generation is superfluous; for He, even when in the Father, could frame the world; so that either He has not been begotten, or He was begotten, not for us, but because He is ever from the Father. For His generation evidences, not that we were created, but that He is from God; for He was even before our creation.
12. And the same presumption will be proved against them concerning the Father; for if, when silent, He could not make, of necessity He has gained power by begetting, that is, by speaking. And whence has He gained it? and wherefore? If, when He had the Word within Him, He could make, He begets needlessly, being able to make even in silence. Next, if the Word was in God before He was begotten, then being begotten He is without and external to Him. But if so, how says He now, ‘I in the Father and the Father in Me??’ but if He is now in the Father, then always was He in the Father, as He is now, and needless is it to say, ‘ For us was He begotten, and He reverts after we are formed, that He may be as He was.’ For He was not anything which He is not now, nor is He what He was not; but He is as He ever was, and in the same state and in the same respects; otherwise He will seem to be imperfect and alterable. For if, what He was, that He shall be afterwards, as if now He were not so, it is plain, He is not now what He was and shall be. I mean, if He was before in God, and afterwards shall be again, it follows that now the Word is not in God. But the Lord refutes such persons when He says, ‘I in the Father and the Father in Me;’ for so 1s He now as He ever was. But if so He now is, as He was ever, it follows, not that at one time He was begotten and not at another, nor that once there was silence with God, and then He spake, but there is ever a Father3, and a Son who is His Word, not in name# alone .a Word, nor the Word in notion only a Son, but existing coessentialS with the Father, not begotten for us, for we are brought into being for Him. For, if He were begotten for us, and in His begetting we were created, and in His generation the creature consists, and then He returns that He may be what He was before, first, He that was begotten will be again not begotten. For if His progression be generation, His return will be the close® of that generation, for when He has come to be in God, God will be silent again. But if He shall be silent, there will be what there was when He was silent, stillness and not creation, for the creation will cease to be. For, as on the Word’s outgoing, the creation came to be, and existed, so on the Word’s retiring, the creation will not exist. What use then for it to come into being, if it is to cease? or why did God speak, that then He should be silent? and why did He issue One whom He recalls? and why did He beget One whose generation He willed to cease? Again it is uncertain what He shallbe. For either He will ever be silent, or Hewill again beget, and will devise a different creation (for He will not make the same, else that which was made would have remained, but another); and in due course He will bring that also to a close, and will devise another, and so on without end?.
§§ 13,14. Sucha doctrine precludes all real distinctions of personality in the Divine Nature. Illustration of the Scripture doctrine from 2 Cor, vi. 11, &c.
13. This perhaps het borrowed from the Stoics, who maintain that their God contracts and again expands with the creation, and then rests without end. For what is dilated is first straitened; and what is expanded is at first contracted; and it is what it was, and does but undergo an affection. If then the Monad being dilated became a Triad, and the Monad was the Father™, and the Triad is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, first the Monad being dilated, underwent an affection and became what it was not; for it was dilated, whereas it had not been dilate. Next, if the Monad itself was dilated into a Triad, and that, Father and Son and Holy Ghost, then Father and Son and Spirit prove the same, as Sabellius held, unless the Monad which he speaks of is some- 7 els amerpor, ll. 68.
thing besides the Father, and then he ought not to speak of dilatation, since the Monad was to make Three, so that there was a Monad, and then Father, Son, and Spirit. For if the Monad were dilated, and expanded itself, it must itself be that which was expanded. And a Triad when dilated is no longer a Monad,.
and when a Monad it is not yet a Triad. And so, He that was Father was not yet Son and Spirit; but, when become These, is no longer only Father. And a man who thus should lie, must ascribe a body to God, and represent Him as passible; for what is dilatation, but an affection of that which is dilated? or what the dilated, but what before was not so, but was strait indeed; for it is the same, in time only differing from itself.
14. And this the divine Apostle knows, when he writes to the Corinthians, ‘Be ye not straitened in us, but be ye yourselves dilated, O Corinthians?;’ for he advises identical persons to change from straitness to dilatation. And as, supposing the Corinthians being straitened were in turn dilated, they had not been others, but still Corinthians, so if the Father was dilated into a Triad, the Triad again is the Father alone. And he says again the same thing, ‘ Our heart is dilated3;’ and Noah says, ‘May God dilate for Japheth‘4,’ for the same heart and the same Japheth is in the dilatation. If then the Monad dilated, it would dilate for others; but if it dilated for itself, then it would be that which was dilated; and what is that but the Son and Holy Spirit? And it is well to ask him, when thus speaking, what was the action 5 of this dilatation? or, in very truth, wherefore at all it took place? for what does not remain the same, but is in course of time dilated, must necessarily have a cause of dilatation. If then it was in order that Word and Spirit should be with Him, it is beside the purpose to say, ‘First Monad, and then dilated;’ for Word and Spirit were not afterwards, but ever, or God would be ‘wordless °, as the Arians hold. So that if Word and Spirit were ever, ever was it dilated, and not at first a Monad; but if it were dilated afterwards, then afterwards is there a Word. But if for the Incarnation it was dilated, and then became a Triad, then before the Incarnation there was not yet a Triad. And it will seem even that the Father became flesh, if, that is, He be the Monad, and was dilated in the Man; and thus perhaps there will only be a Monad, and flesh, and thirdly Spirit; if, that is, He was Himself dilated; and there will be in name only a Triad. It is absurd Yr.) RY 4 Gen. ix. 27, LXX, 5 évépyeca [Prolegg. ch. ii, § 3 (2) c.]
too to say that it was dilated for creating; for it were possible for it, remaining a Monad, to make all; for the Monad did not need dilatation, nor was wanting in power before being dilated; it is absurd surely and impious, to think or ° speak thus in the case of God. | Another absurdity too will foliow. For if it was dilated for the sake of the creation, and while it was a Monad the creation was not, but upon the Consummation it will be again a Monad after dilatation, then the creation too will come to nought. For as for the sake of creating it was dilated, so, the dilatation ceasing, the creation will cease also.
§§ 15—24. Since the Word is from God, He must be Son. Since the Son is from everlasting, He must be the Word; else either He is superior to the Word, or the Word is the Father. Texts of the New Testament which state the unity of the Son with the Father; therefore the Son is the Word. Three hypotheses refuted—1. That the Man is the Son; 2. That the Word and Man together are the Son; 3. That the Word became Son on His incarnation. Texts of the Old Testament which speak of the Son. If they are merely prophetical, then those concerning the Word may be such also.
15. Such absurdities will be the consequence of saying that the Monad is dilated into a Triad. But since those who say so venture to separate Word and Son, and to say that the Word is one and the Son another, and that first was the Word and then the Son, come let us consider this doctrine also. Now their presumption takes various forms; for some say that the man whom the Saviour assumed is the Son*t; and others both that the man and the Word then became Son, when they were united’. And others say that the Word Himself then became Son when He became man3; for from being Word, they say, He has become Son, not being Son before, but only Word. Now both are Stoic+ doctrines, whether to say that God was dilated or to deny the Son, but especially is it absurd to name the Word, yet deny Him to be Son. For if the Word be not from God, reasonably might they deny Him to be Son; but if He is from God, how see they not that what exists from anything is son of him from whom it is? Next, if God is Father of the Word, why is not the Word Son of His own Father? for one is and is called father, whose is the son; and one is and is called son of another, whose is the father. If then God is not Father of Christ, neither is the Word Son; but if God be Father, then reasonably also the Word is Son. But if afterwards there is Father, and first God, this is an Arian thought 4%, Next, it is absurd Vid. § 21. 3 Vid. ry 4 Cf. Ritt. and Prell. (Ed. 5) § 398 (2). id. § 22 fin.
that God should change; for that belongs to bodies; but if they argue that in the instance of creation He became afterwards a Maker, let them know that the change is in the things5 which afterwards came to be, and not in God.
16. If then the Son too were a work, well might God begin to be a Father towards Him as others; but if the Son is not a work, then ever was the Father and ever the Son’. But if the Son was ever, He must be the Word; for if the Word be not Son, and neither ‘I am God,’ nor ‘I am Son of God,’ but ‘TI and the Father are One.’
17. The Jews then, when they heard ‘ One,’ thought like Sabellius that He said that He was the Father, but our Saviour shews their sin by this argument: ‘Though I had said “God,” you should have remembered what is written, ‘‘I said, Ye 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, Iam the Son of God.’ For if He did not say it in words, still He has this is what a man waxes bold to say, (referred the sense of ‘are One’ to the Son.
either he holds that Word to be Father or the Son superior to the Word. For the Son being ‘in the bosom of the Father,’ of necessity either the Word is not before the Son (for nothing is before Him who is in the Father), or if the Word be other than the Son, the Word must be the Father in whom is the Son. 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 He 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 knoweth the Father save the Son3,’ not the Word. Either then the Word does not know, or if He knows, it is not true that ‘no one knows.’
For nothing is one with the Father, but what is from Him. What is that which is from Him but the Son? And therefore He adds, ‘ that ye may know that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me.’ For, when expounding the ‘One,’ He said that the union and the 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 thus He overthrows both Sabellius, in saying, ‘I am’ not, “the Father,” but, ‘the Sen of God;’ and Arius, in saying, ‘are One.’ If then the Son and the Word are not the same, it is not that the Word is one with the Father, but the Son; nor he that hath seen the Word ‘hath seen the Father,’ but ‘he that hath seen’ the Son. And from this it follows, either that the Son is And the same of|nothing beyond the Son.
greater than the Word, or the Word has For what can be ‘He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father,’ | greater or more perfect than ‘One,’ and ‘I in and ‘I and the Father are One,’ for this is|the Father and the Father in Me,’ and ‘ He uttered by the Son, not the Word, as they would| that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father?’ have it, as is plain from the Gospel; for|for these utterances also belong to the according to John when the Lord said, ‘I and|Son. And hence the same John says, ‘He the Father are One,’ the Jews took up stones|that hath seen Me, hath seen Him that sent to stone Him. ‘Jesus+ answered them, Many | Me,’ and, ‘ He that receiveth Me, receiveth good works have I shewed you from My|Him that sent Me;” and; “I am come Father, for which of those works do ye stone|a light into the world, that whosoever be-Me? The Jews answered Him, saying, For a | lieveth in Me, should not abide in darkgood work we stone Thee not, but for blas-|ness. And, if any one hear My words and phemy, and because that Thou, being a man, | observe them not, I judge him not; for I came makest Thyself God. Jesus answered them, |not to judge the world, but to save the world.
Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are} The word which he shall hear, the same shall gods? If he called them gods unto whom | judge him in the last day, because I go unto the Word of God came, and the Scripture|the Father 5.’ The preaching, He says, judges cannot be broken, say ye of Him, whom the|him who has not observed the command-Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, | ment; ‘for if, He says, ‘I had not come and Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the| spoken unto them, they had not had sin; but Son of God? If I do not the works of My | now they shall have no cloke®,’ He says, having Father, believe Me not. But if I do, though| heard My words, through which those who ye believe not Me, believe the works, that ye| observe them shall reap salvation.
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 intimated, He said pe ap os) 0 ay ae 2 Johni. 18.
18. Perhaps they will have so little shame as to say, that this utterance belongs not to the Son but to the Word; but from what preceded it appeared plainly that the speaker was the Son.
5 John xii. 45; Matt. x. 40; John xii. 46—48. 6 John xv. 22, For He who here says, ‘I came not to judge the world but to save’,’ is shewn to be no other than the Only-begotten Son of God, by the same John’s saying before 2, ‘ For God so loved the world that He gave His Only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not His Son intto the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. He that believeth on Him is not condemned, but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the Name of the Only-begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil3. If He who says, ‘For I came not to judge the world, but that I might save it,’ is the Same as says, ‘He that seeth Me, seeth Him that sent Me 4,’ and if He who came to save the world and not judge it is the Only-begotten Son of God, it is plain that it is the same Son who says, ‘ He that seeth Me, seeth Him that sent Me.’ For He who said, ‘ He that believeth on Me,’ and, ‘if any one hear My words, I judge him not,’ is the Son Himself, of whom Scripture says, ‘He that believeth on Him is not condemned, but He that believeth not is condemned already, because He hath not believed in the Name of the Only-begotten Son of God.’ And again: ‘ And this is the condemnation’ of him who believeth not on the Son, ‘ that light hath come into the world,’ and they believed not in Him, that is, in the Son; for He must be ‘the Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the worlds.’ And as long as He was upon earth according to the Incarnation, He was Light in the world, as He said Himself, ‘While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light;’ for ‘I,’ says He, ‘am come a light into the world ©’ 19. This then being shewn, it follows that the Word is the Son. But if the Son is the Light, which has come into the world, beyond all dispute the world was made by the Son. For in the beginning of the Gospel, the Evangelist, speaking of John the Baptist, says, ‘He was not that Light, but that he might bear witness concerning that Light‘ For Christ Himself was, as we have said before, the True Light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world. For if ‘ He was in the world, and the world was made by Him,’ of necessity He is the Word of God, concerning whom also the Evangelist witnesses that all things were made by Him. For either they will be compelled to speak of two worlds, that the one may have come into being by the Son and the other by the Word, or, if the world is one and the creation one, it follows that Son and Word are one and the same before all creation, for by Him it came into being. ‘Therefore if as by the Word, so by the Son also all things came to be, 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 shall maintain that the attributes of the Word do not suit with the Son, it at once follows that the attributes of the Son do not suit with the Word. But it was shewn that to the Son belongs, ‘I and the Father are One,’ and that it is He ‘Who is in the bosom of the Father,’ and, ‘He that seeth Me, seeth Him that sent Me3;’ and_ that ‘the world was brought into being by Him,’ is common to the Word and the Son; so that from this the Son is shewn to be before the world; for of necessity the Framer is 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 so long time with you, and yet thou hast not known Me, Philip? He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father. And how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not, that I am in the Father and the Father in Me? the words that I speak unto you, I speak not of Myself, but the Father that dwelleth in Me, He doeth the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else, believe Me for the very works’ sake. Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on Me, the works that I do shall he do also, and greater works than these shall he do, because I go unto the Father. And whatsoever ye shall ask in My Name, that will J do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son+.’ Therefore if the Father be glorified in the Son, the Son must be He who said, ‘I in the Father and the Father in Me;’ and He who said, ‘ He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father;’ for He, the same who thus spoke, shews Himself to be the Son, by adding, ‘that the Father may be glorified in the Son.’ 20. If then they say that the Man whom the Word wore, and not the Word, is the Son of God the Only-begotten, the Man must be by consequence He who is in the Father, in whom also the Father is; and the Man must be He who is One with the Father, and who is in the bosom of the Father, and the True Light. And they will be compelled to say that through the Man Himself the world came into being, and that the Man was He who came not to judge the es eee eee eee world but to save it; and that He it was who was in being before Abraham came to be. For, says Scripture, Jesus said to them, ‘ Verily, verily, [ say unto you, before Abraham was, I am %.’ And is it not absurd to say, as they do, that one who came of the seed of Abraham after two and forty generations °, should exist before Abraham came to be? is it not absurd, if the flesh, which the Word bore, itself is the Son, to say that the flesh from Mary is that by which the world was made? and how will they retain ‘He was in the world?’ for the Evangelist, by way of signifying the Son’s antecedence to the birth aceerding to the flesh, goes on to say, ‘He was in the world.’ And how, if not the Word but the Man is the Son, can He save the world, being Himself one of the world? And if this does not shame them, where shall be the Word, the Man being in the Father?| And where will the Word stand to the Father, the Man and the Father being One? But if the Man be Only-begotten, what will be the place of the Word? Either one must say that He comes second, or, if He be above the Onlybegotten, He must be the Father Himself. For as the Father is One, so also the Only-begotten from Him is One; and what has the Word above the Man, if the Word is not the Son? For, while Scripture says that through the Son and the Word the world was brought to be, and it is common to the Word and to the Son to frame the world, yet Scripture proceeds 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 Onlybegotten Son. For, saith it, Jesus said, ‘ Have I been so long while with you, and yet hast thou not known Me, Philip? He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father.’ Nor does Scripture say that the Word knows the Father, but the Son; and that not the Word sees the Father, but the Only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father.
21. 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, ‘ He that believeth on the Son, hath everlasting life; but he that believeth not the Son, shall not see lifet’ And Holy Baptism, in which the substance of the whole faath is lodged, is administered not in the Word, but in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. 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 are they able to hold that the Word*is with the Father, when