Oration IV Against the Arians 25–36

25. Arius, then, is mad in saying that the Son is “from nothing” and “there was once when he was not.” But Sabellius is mad too, in saying that the Father is the Son and in turn the Son is the Father, one in hypostasis but two in name. And he is mad also in using the grace of the Spirit as an example. For he says, “As there are ‘varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit,’ so also the Father is the same, but is broadened into Son and Spirit.” But this is full of absurdity. For if it is with God as with the Spirit, the Father will be Word and Holy Spirit, becoming Father to one, Word to another, Spirit to another, adapting himself to the need of each; Son and Spirit in name, but in reality Father only; having a beginning in becoming Son, and ceasing to be called Father; become man in name, but in truth not having come among us at all; lying when he says, “I and the Father,” but in reality being himself the Father; and all the other absurdities that confront Sabellius. And the name of the Son and of the Spirit will necessarily cease when the need has been met; and what happened will then be no more than play, since it was shown not in truth but in name. And when the name of the Son ceases, according to them, the grace of baptism too will cease; for it was given “into” the Son. And what will follow but the destruction of creation? For if the Word came forth so that we might be created, and we exist because he came forth, it is clear that when he withdraws into the Father, as they say, we shall no longer exist. For he will be as he was; and so we shall no longer exist, as once we did not. For when he has no longer come forth, creation will no longer exist.

26. These things are absurd. But that the Son has no beginning of being, but always, even before the incarnation, is with the Father, John makes clear in his first letter, saying: “What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked upon and our hands have touched, concerning the Word of life; and the life was made manifest, and we have seen and bear witness and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us.” Saying here that the life did not come to be but “was with the Father,” at the end of the letter he says that the Son is the life. He writes: “And we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.” And if the Son is the life, and the life was with the Father, and if the Son was with the Father, and the same writer says, “and the Word was with God,” the Son would be the Word, who is always with the Father. And as the Son is the Word, so God would be the Father. Moreover, according to John the Son is not simply “God,” but “true God.” For according to the same writer, “and the Word was God”; and the Son said, “I am the life.” So the Son is the Word and the life that 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 exists. For the one John calls “Son,” David sings of as the “hand,” saying, “Why do you turn away your hand, and your right hand, from the midst of your bosom?” So if the hand is in the bosom, and the Son is in the bosom, the Son would be the hand, and the hand would be the Son, through whom the Father made all things. For “your hand,” it says, “made all these things,” and, “by his hand he brought out the people”; so, through the Son. And if “this is the change of the right hand of the Most High,” and again, “To the end, concerning those who shall be changed, a song concerning the beloved,” then the beloved is the hand that was changed, of whom the divine voice also says, “This is my beloved Son.” So “this is my hand” is equal to “this is my Son.”

27. But since some uneducated people, doing away with the Son's being, make light of “From the womb, before the morning star, I begot you,” as if this fitted Mary, saying that he was born of Mary before the morning star (for, they say, it could not fit God to speak of a womb), a few things must be said. If, because the “womb” is human, it is foreign to God, clearly the “heart” too has a human meaning; for whoever has a heart has a womb as well. Since both are human, one must either do away with both or seek the meaning of both. For as a word is from the heart, so an offspring is from the womb. And just as, when God's heart is spoken of, we do not understand it as human, so if Scripture says “from the womb,” one must not take it bodily. For it is the custom of divine Scripture to speak of and signify in human terms things that are beyond man. Indeed, speaking of the creation it says, “Your hands made me and formed me,” and, “My hand made all these things,” and, “He commanded, and they were created.” So it fittingly signifies in each case: for the Son, what is proper and genuine; for creation, the beginning of being. For the latter he makes and creates, but the former he begets from himself, Word and Wisdom. For “womb” and “heart” indicate what is proper and genuine. For we too have what is genuinely ours from the womb, but we make our works by the hand.

28. “What then,” they say, “of ‘before the morning star’?” I would say that, if “before the morning star” shows that his birth from Mary was wonderful, many others too were born before the rising of the star. What wonderful thing, then, has been said in his case, that it mentions him as someone exceptional, when this is common to many? Then, “to beget” differs from “to bring out”; for to beget involves a beginning of conception, while to bring out is nothing other than to bring forward what already exists. If, then, the saying fits the body, one must know that the body did not receive its beginning of coming to be when the good news was announced to the shepherds “by night,” but when the angel spoke to the virgin. And it was not night then, for it is not said so; but it was night when he came out of the womb. Scripture makes this distinction: it says that he was begotten before the morning star, but calls his coming out of the womb a going forth, as in the twenty-first psalm, “You are the one who drew me out of the womb.” Besides, it did not say “before the rising of the morning star,” but simply “before the morning star.” If, then, the text is to be taken of the body, either the body must be before Adam, for the stars are before Adam, or one must seek the meaning of the letter. And this can be learned from John. For in the Revelation he says: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. Blessed are those who broaden their robes, so that their authority may be over the tree of life, and they may enter the city by the gates. Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the sexually immoral and the murderers and the idolaters and everyone who does and loves falsehood. I, Jesus, sent my angel to testify these things to you 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 him who hears say, Come; and let him who is thirsty come; let him who wishes take the water of life freely.” If, then, the offspring of David is the bright morning star, it is clear that the Savior according to the flesh is called “morning star,” and that the begetting from God existed before it; so that the psalm means this: “I have begotten you from myself before your appearing in the flesh.” For “before the morning star” is equal to “before the incarnation of the Word.”

29. So there are statements about the Son plainly in the Old Testament too, although it is superfluous to dispute about these. For if what is not in the Old Testament is later, let those who argue so contentiously say where in the Old Testament the “Paraclete” Spirit is spoken of. For the Holy Spirit is spoken of, but the “Paraclete” nowhere. Is the Holy Spirit, then, one, and the Paraclete another, and the Paraclete later, since he is not in the Old Testament? Far be it either to call the Spirit later, or to divide him and call the Holy Spirit one and the Paraclete another. For the Spirit is one and the same, sanctifying and comforting then and now those who can receive him; just as the Word, the Son, is one and the same, leading the worthy to adoption even then. For there were sons in the Old Testament too, made children through no other than the Son. For if the Son of God did not exist before Mary, how is he “before all things,” when there were sons before him? And how is he “firstborn,” if he is found second after many? But neither is the Paraclete second, for he was before all things; nor is the Son later, for “in the beginning was the Word.” And as the Spirit and the Paraclete are the same, so the Son and the Word are the same. And as the Savior says about the Spirit, “But the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name,” speaking of the same and not dividing, so John, describing the like, says, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only-begotten from the Father.” For here too he did not divide, but proclaimed their 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 spoke of the glory not of the flesh itself, but of the Word himself. So whoever dares to divide Word and Son, let him divide Spirit and Paraclete too. But if the Spirit is undivided, the Word too is undivided, being himself Son, Wisdom, and Power. And even the Greeks, who are clever about words, know that “beloved” is the same as saying “only-begotten.” For Homer, in the second book of the Odyssey, says this of Telemachus, the only son of Odysseus: “Why, dear child, has this thought come into your mind? Where do you want to go over the wide earth, you who are the only beloved one? He has perished far from his homeland, Zeus-born Odysseus, among a strange people.” So one who is his father's only son is called “beloved.”

30. Some of the followers of the Samosatene, dividing the Word from the Son, claim that the Son is Christ, but the Word is another. They take their pretext for this from the Acts, from what Peter said rightly but they interpret wrongly. It is this: “He sent the word to the sons of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ; he is Lord of all.” For they say that the Word spoke through Christ as through the prophets, “Thus says the Lord”: the prophet was one, and the Lord another. But against this one may set, in like manner, what is in the first letter to the Corinthians: “as you wait for the revealing 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 it is not one Christ who confirms the day of another Christ, but he himself on his own day confirms those who wait for him, so the Father sent the Word become flesh, so that, having become man, he might preach through himself. At once, then, it adds, “he is Lord of all”; and the Lord of all is the Word.

31. “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 your house; and offer the gifts of the people and make atonement for them, as the Lord commanded Moses.” See here: although Moses is one, Moses himself speaks as if about another Moses: “as the Lord commanded Moses.” So too, if the blessed Peter says of the divine Word that he was “sent to the sons of Israel through Jesus Christ,” one must not think that the Word is one and Christ another, but that they are one and the same, because of the union in his divine and loving condescension and becoming man. And even if he is thought of in two ways, it is not as though the Word were separated, as the inspired John said, “And the Word became flesh,” and “dwelt among us.” So the followers of the Samosatene, understanding wrongly and crookedly what was said well and rightly by the blessed Peter, do not stand in the truth. For “Christ” is understood in divine Scripture as both together, as when it says, “Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” If, then, Peter says that the Word “was sent to the sons of Israel through Jesus Christ,” let it be understood to mean that the incarnate Word was made manifest to the sons of Israel, so that it may agree with “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 assumed by him, with whom he is believed to be united, saying that he was sent “through Jesus Christ,” they do not see that they contradict themselves. For those who here separate the divine from the divine incarnation belittle it, then, when they hear that he “became flesh,” and think like pagans, as indeed they do, supposing the divine incarnation to be a change of the Word.

32. But this is not so, far from it! For just as John here proclaims the inexpressible union, “the mortal being swallowed up by life,” and by life itself, as the Lord said to Martha, “I am the life,” so also when the blessed Peter says that “the Word was sent through Jesus Christ,” he signifies the divine union. For as one who hears “the Word became flesh” would not think that there was no longer a Word, which is absurd, as has been said, so one who hears of the Word joined to the flesh should understand the divine mystery as one and simple. More clearly, and beyond all reasoning, what was said by the archangel to the God-bearer herself would show the unity of the divine Word and the 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 is born will be called Son of God.” Senselessly, then, do the followers of the Samosatene separate the Word, who has been clearly shown to be united to the man from Mary. So he was not sent through him; rather he sent in him, saying, “Go and make disciples of all nations.”

33. It is the custom of Scripture to express its words without elaboration and simply. So one will find it in Numbers too: for it says, “Moses said to Raguel the Midianite, Moses' father-in-law.” For the Moses who speaks is not one and the Moses whose father-in-law Raguel was another; Moses was one. For if the Word of God is likewise called Wisdom, and Power, and Right Hand, and Arm, and all such things, and he has been united to us in love for mankind, putting on our first-fruits and blending himself with it, then the Word himself has fittingly received the other names too. For John's saying that “in the beginning was the Word, and he was with God, and was himself God, and all things were through him, and without him nothing came to be,” clearly shows that man too is a creature formed by God the Word. If, then, taking him into himself when he had decayed, he renews him again by his sure renewal for endless permanence, and for this reason is united to him, raising him to a more divine lot, how can one say that the Word was sent through the man from Mary, and count the Lord of the apostles with the other apostles, I mean the prophets, sent by him? And how could Christ be called a mere man? Rather, being united to the Word, he is fittingly called Christ and Son of God, since the prophet long ago clearly proclaimed the Father's own hypostasis concerning him and said, “And I will send my Son, the Christ”; and at the Jordan, “This is my beloved Son.” For having fulfilled the promise, he fittingly showed that this is the one he said he would send.

34. Let us then understand Christ as both together: the divine Word united, in Mary, with the one from Mary. For in her womb the Word formed a house for himself, as in the beginning he formed Adam from the earth, or rather more divinely. Of this Solomon too speaks, knowing that the Word is plainly called “wisdom”: “Wisdom has built herself a house”; which the apostle interprets, saying, “whose house we are”; and elsewhere he calls it a “temple,” since it is fitting for God to dwell in a temple, of which he commanded the ancients, through Solomon, to build an image of stone; so when the truth appeared, the image ceased. For when the unfeeling men wished to show the image to be the truth, and to destroy the true dwelling, which we clearly believe to be the union, he did not threaten them; but knowing that they were daring against themselves, he says to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up,” our Savior clearly showing that what men busy themselves with carries its own dissolution. “For unless the Lord builds the house and guards the city, the builders have labored in vain and the watchmen have kept watch in vain.” So the things of the Jews have been undone, for they were a shadow; but the things of the church are firmly founded: “for it has been founded on the rock,” “and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” It was theirs to say, “How do you, being a man, make yourself God?” and the Samosatene is their disciple; hence he naturally reports their views to his own followers. “But we did not so learn Christ, if indeed we have heard him and been taught by him, putting off the old man, which is corrupt according to deceitful desires, and putting on the new, created after God in righteousness and holiness of truth.” So let Christ be reverently understood as both together.

35. And if Scripture often calls the body too “Christ,” as when the blessed Peter says to Cornelius, teaching 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 a man whom he has appointed, having given assurance to all by raising him from the dead” (and we often find the appointing and the sending to be the same as the anointing; from which anyone who wishes can learn that there is no disagreement in the words of the saints, but that they name the union of God the Word with the man from Mary in different ways, sometimes “anointing,” sometimes “sending,” at other times “appointing”), then what was said by the blessed Peter is right, and proclaims purely the Godhead of the only-begotten, not separating the hypostasis of God the Word from the man from Mary. Far from it! For how could he, who had heard so often “I and the Father are one” and “He who has seen me has seen the Father”? Through this same man, after the resurrection too, he came in “when the doors were shut” to the whole company of the apostles, and removed any unbelief that remained by saying, “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 one,” or “the man of mine whom I have assumed,” but “me.” Therefore the Samosatene will be able to find no pardon, refuted by so many proofs of the union of God the Word, and by God the Word himself, who then put the question to all, and gave full assurance by eating and by allowing himself to be touched, which indeed happened. For certainly whoever gives food, or those who give it, touch hands. “For they gave him,” it says, “a piece of broiled fish and some honeycomb; and having eaten before them,” he took what was left and gave it back to them. See, then: even if not as with Thomas, yet by another way he gave them full assurance by being touched. And if you want to see the wounds, learn from Thomas: “Bring your hand,” he says, “and put it into my side; and bring your finger and see my hands.” God the Word names the side and hands as his own, and himself as wholly man and God together: at one moment the Word giving the saints perception through the body, as one may understand, by coming in “when the doors were shut,” and at once standing by with the body and giving full assurance. Let this be said in due measure for the confirmation of the faithful and the correction of the unbelieving.

36. So let Paul of Samosata too be corrected, having heard the divine voice saying “my body,” and not “the Christ, another besides me, the Word,” but “he with me, and I with him. For I, the Word, am the anointing, and the one anointed by me is the man; so he could not be called Christ without me, but being with me and I in him.” So the mention of the “sending” of the Word signifies the union with Jesus born of Mary, whose name means Savior, for no other reason than his being united to God the Word. This text means the same as “the Father who sent me,” and, “I have not come of myself, but the Father sent me.” For he called the union with the man, by which it was possible for the invisible nature to be made known to men through the visible, a “sending.” For God does not change places, as we do who are hidden in places, when he shows himself in the small form of our existence in the flesh; for how could he, who “fills heaven and earth”? But the righteous called it a “sending” because of his coming in the flesh. So God the Word himself is the Christ from Mary, God and man; not some other Christ, but one and the same. He is from the Father before the ages; he is from the virgin in the last days; invisible before even to the holy powers in heaven, now visible because of his union with the man who is seen. Seen, I mean, not in his invisible Godhead, but by the activity of the Godhead through the human body and the whole man, whom he renewed by making him his own. To him be reverence and worship, who was before, and is now, and always, and to the ages. Amen.