Oration IV Against the Arians

1. The Word is God from God; for “the Word was God,” and again, “of whom are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.” And since Christ is God from God, and the Word, Wisdom, Son, and Power of God, for this reason one God is proclaimed in the divine Scriptures. For the Word, being Son of the one God, is referred back to him whose he is; so that Father and Son are two, but the unity of the Godhead is undivided and unsplit. So too one could speak of “one origin” of the Godhead and not two origins; hence there is, properly speaking, a “monarchy.” And from this very origin the Word is by nature Son, not subsisting by himself as another origin, nor having come to be outside it, lest by this otherness there should be a rule of two or of many; but he is the own Son, own Wisdom, own Word of the one origin, existing from it. For according to John, in this “beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God.” For the origin is God; and since he is from it, therefore “the Word was God” as well. And as there is one origin, and in this sense one God, so the substance and hypostasis that really, truly, and actually is, which says, “I am he who is,” is one and not two, so that there may not be two origins; and from the one, by nature and truly, is the Son, the Word, the Wisdom, the Power, which is its own and inseparable from it. And just as there is not another substance, lest there be two origins, so the Word from the one is not something dissolving or a mere significant sound, but a Word with substance and a Wisdom with substance, which is truly the Son. For if he were not a Word with substance, God would be “speaking into the air,” and would have a body no different from men. But since he is not a man, his Word could not be according to the weakness of men either. For as the origin is one substance, so its Word and Wisdom is one, with substance and subsisting. For as he is God from God, Wisdom from the wise, Word from the rational, and Son from the Father, so he is subsistent from a hypostasis, substantial and existing in substance from a substance, and being from being.

2. For if he were not a Wisdom with substance, a Word existing in substance, and a Son who is, but simply wisdom, word, and son in the Father, the Father himself would be composed of wisdom and word. And if so, the absurdities mentioned before will follow: he will be his own Father, and the Son will beget himself and be begotten by himself; or else Word, Wisdom, and Son are only a name, and the one of whom these things are said, or rather who is these things, does not subsist. And if he does not subsist, the names would be idle and empty, unless one were to say that God is wisdom-itself and word-itself. But if so, he would be his own Father and Son: Father when wise, Son when Wisdom. But these things are not in God as some quality; away with the thought, it is unfitting. For God will be found to be composed of substance and quality, since every quality is in a substance. On this view the divine unity, which is undivided, will appear composite, cut into substance and accident. So we must ask these reckless men: “The Son was proclaimed as God's Wisdom and Word; how, then, is he so? If as a quality, the absurdity has been shown; if God is wisdom-itself, the absurdity that follows from this has been stated in the case of Sabellius.” So he is an offspring, in the proper sense, from the Father himself, according to the example of light. For as light is from fire, so the Word is from God, Wisdom from the wise, and Son from the Father. For in this way the unity remains undivided and whole, and its Son, the Word, is not without substance nor non-subsistent, but truly substantial. For if it is not so, everything that is said would be said in thought only and merely in words. But if the absurdity that follows from “in thought only” must be avoided, then the true Word is substantial. For as there is truly a Father, so truly there is Wisdom. In this sense, then, they are two, since the Father and the Son are not the same, as Sabellius says, but the Father is Father and the Son is Son; but one, since the Son is by nature of the substance of the Father, being his own Word. This is what the Lord said: “I and the Father are one.” For neither is the Word separated from the Father, nor was or is the Father ever without Word. So the Word is God, and the Father is not without Word; therefore he said, “I am in the Father, and the Father is in me.”

3. And again, Christ is the Word of God. Did he, then, subsist of himself and, having subsisted, attach himself to the Father? Or did God make him and name him his own “Word”? If the first, I mean “he subsisted by himself and is God,” there would be two origins; and he would naturally not be the Father's own either, since he would belong not to the Father himself but to himself. But if he was made from outside, he would be a creature. It remains, then, to say that he is from God himself. And if so, what is from someone is one thing, and that from which it is another; in this sense, then, they are two. But if they are not two, but the names are said of the same, then the same will be cause and caused, begotten and begetting, which has been shown to be absurd in the case of Sabellius. And if he is from him but is not another, he will be both begetting and not begetting: begetting because he brings him forth from himself, not begetting because he is not other than himself. And if so, the same would be called “Father” and “Son” in thought only. But if this is unfitting, they would be two, Father and Son; and one, because the Son has been begotten not from outside but from God. And if anyone shrinks from saying “offspring,” and says only that the Word exists with God, let him fear lest, shrinking from what Scripture says, he fall into absurdity, introducing a God of two natures. For by not granting that the Word is from the unity, but saying simply that a Word is attached to the Father, he introduces a pair of substances, neither of which is Father of the other. The same holds of Power. One may see this more clearly if one considers it in the case of the Father. For there is one Father, not two, and from the one is the Son. As, then, there are not two Fathers but one, so there are not two origins but one, and from the one is the Son, with substance. But the Arians must be questioned the other way round; for those who Sabellianize must be refuted from the notion of the Son, and the Arians from the notion of the Father.

4. We must say, then: Is God wise and not without Word, or, on the contrary, without wisdom and without Word? If the second, the absurdity is immediate. If the first, we must ask how he is wise and not without Word: did he have the Word and the Wisdom from outside, or from himself? If from outside, there will be someone who gave them to him first, and before he received them he was without wisdom and without Word. But if from himself, it is clear that he is not “from nothing,” nor “there was once when he was not”; for he always was, since he whose image he is always exists. But if they say, “He is wise and not without Word, but he has his own wisdom and his own Word in himself, not Christ, but the one in which he also made Christ,” we must say that, if Christ came to be in that Word, clearly all things did too; and that Word would be the one of whom John says, “All things came to be through him,” and the psalmist, “In wisdom you made all things.” And Christ will be found to be lying when he says, “I am in the Father,” since another is 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 became flesh, but Christ is not the Word in the Father through whom all things came to be, then Christ did not become flesh, but Christ was perhaps named “Word.” And if so, first, he would be other than the name; and then all things did not come to be through him, but in that other, in whom Christ too came to be. And if they say that wisdom is in the Father as a quality, or that he is wisdom-itself, the absurdities stated above will follow; for he will be composite, becoming his own Son and Father. But we must refute and shame them by showing that the Word in God could not be a creature nor from what is not; and since there is once a Word in God, he would be Christ himself, who says, “I am in the Father, and the Father is in me,” who is therefore also only-begotten, since no other was begotten from him. This one is the one Son, who is Word, Wisdom, Power; for God is not composed of these, but is their begetter. For as he creates the creatures by the Word, so, according to the nature of his own substance, he has the Word as offspring, through whom he creates, makes, and governs all things. For all things came to be by the Word and the Wisdom, and by his ordering the whole universe endures. The same holds of “Son”: if God is without offspring, he is also without activity; for the Son is his offspring, through whom he works. If not, the same questions and the same absurdities will follow for these shameless men.

5. From Deuteronomy: “But you who are attached to the Lord your God are all alive this day.” From this one can 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 am in the Father, and the Father is in me”; but originated things, when they advance, are attached to the Lord. For the Word, as his own, is in the Father; but originated things, being outside, are attached, as being foreign by nature but attached by choice. For a son by nature is one with his begetter; but one made a son from outside will be attached to the family. For this reason he at once adds, “What great nation has a God drawing near to it?” and elsewhere, “I am a God who draws near.” For he draws near to originated things, as being foreign to him; but he does not draw near to the Son, as his own, but is in him. And the Son is not attached to the Father, but exists with him. Hence Moses says again in the same Deuteronomy, “You shall hear his voice and be joined to him.” And what is joined is joined from outside.

6. But against the weak and human notion of the Arians, who suppose the Lord to be in need when he says, “It was given to me,” and when Paul says, “therefore he highly exalted him,” and, “he sat down at the right hand,” and such things, we must say that our Lord, being the Word and Son of God, bore a body and became Son of Man as well, so that, having become mediator between God and men, he might minister the things of God to us and ours to God. So when he is said to hunger, weep, and grow weary, and to cry “Eloi, Eloi,” he receives from us these human sufferings, which are ours, and brings them to the Father, interceding for us, so that in him they may be done away with. And when it is said, “All authority was given to me,” and, “I received,” and, “therefore God highly exalted him,” these are gifts from God to us, given through him. For the Word was not in need, nor has he ever become so; nor, again, were men able to supply these things for themselves; but they are given to us through the Word. For this reason they are imparted to us as though “given” to him. For this is why he became man: so that, as given to him, they might pass over to us. For a mere man would not have been counted worthy of them; and again the Word alone would not have needed them. So the Word was joined to us, and then imparted authority to us and “highly exalted” us. For the Word, being in man, “highly exalted” man; and since the Word was in man, man “received.” Since, then, when the Word was in the flesh, man was exalted and received authority, these things are referred to the Word, since they were given because of him; for these gifts were given because of the Word in man. And as “the Word became flesh,” so man has received what comes through the Word. For all that man has received, the Word is said to have received, to show that man, though not worthy to receive as far as his own nature goes, has nevertheless received because of the Word who became flesh. So if anything is said to be “given” to the Lord, or anything of the kind, we must understand that it is given not to him as needing it, but to man through the Word. For everyone who intercedes for another receives the favor himself, not needing it, but because of the one for whom he intercedes.

7. For just as he takes our weaknesses, not being weak, and hungers, not hungering, but sends up what is ours to be wiped out, so in turn he himself receives the gifts from God given in place of the weaknesses, so that man, joined to him, may be able to share in them. So the Lord says, “All that you have given me I have given them,” and again, “I pray for them.” For he prayed for us, taking up what is ours, and he gave what he received. Since, then, when the Word was joined to man, the Father, looking to the Word, granted man to be exalted, to have all authority, and all such things, for this reason everything is referred to the Word himself, and what we receive through him is as though “given” to him. For as he became man because of us, so we are exalted because of him. So there is nothing absurd if, just as he humbled himself because of us, he is also said to have been highly exalted because of us. So “he granted him” means “to us because of him,” and “he highly exalted” means “us in him.” And the Word himself, when we are exalted, receive, and are helped, gives thanks to the Father as though he himself were exalted, receiving, and helped, referring what is ours to himself and saying, “All that you have given me I have given them.”

8. Eusebius and his followers, the Ariomaniacs, while giving the Son a beginning of being, pretend not to want him to have a beginning of kingship. But this is ridiculous; for whoever gives the Son a beginning of being clearly gives him a beginning of reigning as well; so that they are blind, confessing what they deny. And again, those who say that “Son” is only a name, and that the Son of God, that is, the Word of the Father, is without substance and without subsistence, pretend to be angry with those who say, “there was once when he was not.” This too is ridiculous; for those who do not give him being at all are angry with those who give it to him at least in time. So these too, by rebuking others, confess what they deny. And again, Eusebius and his followers, confessing a Son, deny that he is Word by nature, and want the Son to be called “Word” in thought only; while the others, confessing a Word, deny that he is Son, and want the Word to be called “Son” in thought only, both walking on empty air alike.

9. “I and the Father are one.” You say either that the two are one, or that the one has two names, or again that the one has been divided into two. If the one has been divided into two, what is divided must be a body, and neither part complete, for each is a part and not a whole. If the one has two names, this is the device of Sabellius, who says that the Son and the Father are the same, and abolishes each: the Father when there is a “Son,” and the Son when there is a “Father.” But if the two are one, then necessarily they are two, but one in Godhead, and in the Son's being “of one substance” with the Father, and in the Word's being from the Father himself; so that they are two, because there is a Father and a Son, who is the Word; but one, because there is one God. For if it were not so, he should have said, “I am the Father,” or, “I and the Father am.” But as it is, in “I” he signifies the Son; in “and the Father,” the one who begot him; and in “one,” the one Godhead and his being of one substance. For it is not, as the Greeks hold, that the same is wise and wisdom, or that the same is Father and Word; for it is unfitting for him to be his own Father. But the divine teaching knows Father and Son, wise and Wisdom, God and Word; yet in every way it keeps him undivided, unseparated, and without partition in all respects.

10. And if anyone, hearing that the Father and the Son are two, slanders us as proclaiming “two gods” (for some invent such things for themselves and at once laugh, saying, “You speak of two gods”), we must say to such people: If one who acknowledges Father and Son speaks of two gods, it is time for one who says “one” to abolish the Son and Sabellianize. For if one who says “two” speaks like a pagan, then one who says “one” speaks like Sabellius. But this is not so, far from it! Rather, just as one who says “Father and Son are two” speaks of one God, so let one who says “one God” think of the Father and the Son as two, being one in Godhead, and in the Word's being from him undivided, indivisible, and inseparable from the Father. Let a human example serve: fire and the radiance from it are two in being and in being seen, but one in that its radiance is from it and undivided.

11. 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 were waiting for our creation, in order either to “put him forth,” according to these men, or to “create” him, according to those. So the Arians grant more to us than to the Son; for they say that we did not come to be for his sake, but he for ours, if indeed he was created and came to subsist for this purpose, that God might create us through him. And these men, equally or even more impious, give less to God than to us. For we are often active even while silent, by thinking, so that we form images from what we think. But they want God to be inactive when silent, and to have power only when speaking, if indeed he could not make while silent and began to create when speaking. It is fair to ask them whether the Word, being in God, was complete, so as to be able to make. If he was incomplete while in God, and became complete when begotten, we are the cause of his completeness, if indeed he was begotten for us; for it was for us that he gained the ability to make. But if he was complete in God, so as to be able to make, his begetting is superfluous; for he could create even while in the Father. So either he has not been begotten, or he has been begotten not for us but because he is always from the Father. For his begetting shows not our creation but his being “from God”; for he existed even before our creation.

12. They will be shown to be equally daring about the Father. For if, while silent, he could not make, he must have gained power by begetting, that is, by speaking. And where did he gain it from, and why? But if he could make while having the Word in himself, he begets superfluously, since he could make even while silent. Then, if the Word was in God before he was begotten, then once begotten he is outside and external to God. And if so, how does he now say, “I am in the Father, and the Father is in me”? But if he is now in the Father, then he always was in the Father, as he now is, and it is superfluous to say, “He was begotten for us, and after us he runs back, so as to be as he was.” For he was not what he is not now, nor is he what he was not; but he is as he always was, being the same and in the same respects; otherwise he will appear incomplete and changeable. For if what he was, he will be later, as though he is not so now, it is clear that he is not now what he was and will be. I mean: if he was in God before and will be again afterwards, it is clear that the Word is not now in God. But the Lord refutes them, saying, “I am in the Father, and the Father is in me”; for he is now as he always was. And if he is now as he always was, it is clear that he was not begotten at one time and not at another, nor was there at one time stillness in God and at another speech; but there is always a Father, and a Son who is his Word, not “Word” in name only, nor the Word “Son” in thought only, but being of one substance with the Father, not begotten for us, for we came to be for him. For if he was begotten for us, and we were created in his being begotten, and creation holds together by his begetting, but he runs back so as to be what he was before, then first the one begotten will again be not begotten. For if his going forth is begetting, his running back in turn is the end of the begetting; for when he has come to be in God, God will be silent again. And if he is silent, there will be what there was when he was silent, stillness and not creation; so creation will cease. For just as when the Word went forth creation came to be and existed, so when the Word runs back creation will not exist. What need, then, was there for it to come to be, if it will cease? Or why did God speak, only to be silent afterwards? Why did he put forth one whom he calls back? Why did he beget one whose begetting he meant to end? And what will be afterwards is unclear: either he will be silent forever, or he will beget again and devise another creation (for he will not make the same one, or else the one that had come to be would have remained), but another; and consistently he will end this one too and devise another, and so to infinity.

13. He perhaps took this from the Stoics, who firmly hold that God “contracts” and again “expands” with the creation, and comes to rest without end. For what is broadened is broadened from narrowness, and what is expanded is expanded from being contracted; it is itself the same, and does nothing more than undergo a change. If, then, the unity was broadened and became a trinity, and the unity is the Father, while the trinity is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then, first, the unity, being broadened, underwent a change and became what it was not; for it was broadened, not being broad. Next, if the unity itself was broadened into a trinity, and the trinity is Father and Son and Holy Spirit, then the Father himself became Son and Spirit, as Sabellius says; unless the unity he speaks of is something other than the Father. In that case he ought not to say “broadened,” but that the unity makes three, so that there is a unity, and then Father, Son, and Spirit. For if it was broadened and extended itself, it would itself be what was extended. And the trinity, once broadened, is no longer a unity; and while a unity, it was not yet a trinity. So he who was Father was not yet Son and Spirit; and having become these, he is no longer Father only. Anyone who says these things would be speaking falsely, bringing in a body for God and making him subject to change. For what is being broadened but a change in what is broadened? Or what is broadened but what was not so before but was narrow? For it is the same thing, differing from itself only in time.

14. The divine apostle knows this too, writing to the Corinthians, “Do not be narrowed in us; be broadened, you too, Corinthians.” For he advises the same people to change from narrowness to breadth. And just as, if the Corinthians, having been narrowed, were broadened again, they would not become other people but would still be Corinthians, so if the Father was broadened into a trinity, the trinity is again the Father alone. And he says the same again: “Our heart has been broadened”; and Noah says, “May God broaden Japheth”; for the heart is the same, and Japheth is the same, in the broadening. If, then, the unity broadened, it would broaden for others; but if it broadened itself, it would itself be what was broadened. And what is that but the Son and the Holy Spirit? It is good to ask one who says such things: What is the activity of this broadening? Or, in plain truth, why was it broadened at all? For what does not remain the same, but is broadened later, must necessarily have a cause for which it was broadened. If, then, it was so that Word and Spirit might be with him, it is superfluous to say “a unity, and then it was broadened”; for Word and Spirit did not exist later, but always, so that God may not be without Word, as the Arians say. So if Word and Spirit always existed, it was always broad, and not first a unity. And if it was broadened later, the Word too is later. And if it was broadened because of the incarnation, and became a trinity then, then before the incarnation there was not yet a trinity. And the Father will appear to have “become flesh,” if he himself, being the unity, was broadened in the man; and perhaps there will then be a unity, and flesh, and third, Spirit, if indeed he himself was broadened; and it will be a trinity in name only. And if it was broadened in order to create, that is absurd; for it was possible for it to make everything while remaining a unity. For the unity did not need broadening, nor was it weak before being broadened. It is absurd and impious to think or say this of God. And another absurdity will follow. For if it was broadened for the sake of creation, and while it was a unity there was no creation, but after the consummation it will again be a unity after broadening, creation too will be destroyed. For just as it was broadened in order to create, so when the broadening ceases, creation too will cease.

15. Such absurdities, then, confront those who say that the unity “was broadened” into a trinity. But since those who say this dare to divide Word and Son, and to say that the Word is one and the Son another, and that the Word came first and then the Son, come, let us look at these points too. Their daring takes different forms. Some say that the man whom the Savior assumed is himself the Son; others that both together, the man and the Word, became Son when they were joined; and there are others who say that the Word himself became Son when he became man: “For from being Word,” they say, “he became Son, not having been Son before but only Word.” Both are Stoic ideas: to say that God is broadened, and to deny the Son. But it is especially senseless to name him “Word” and 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, why do they not see that what exists from someone is the “son” of the one from whom it is? Then, if God is Father of the Word, why would the Word not be Son of his own Father? For one is and is called “father” whose son there is; and one is and is called “son” of him whose father he is. So if God is not Father of Christ, neither would the Word be Son; but if God is Father, the Word would naturally be Son too. And if he is later Father and first God, this is the mind of the Arians; and then it is absurd for God to change, for that belongs to bodies. And if they argue that, as in the case of creation, he became maker later, one must know that the change belongs to the things that came to be later, not to God.

16. If, then, the Son too were a work, the Father might well be Father later in his case too; but if the Son is not a work, then the Father always was, and the Son always was. And if the Son always was, he would be the Word himself. For if the Word were not Son, and someone were bold enough to say this, he would call either the Word “Father,” or the Son better than 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 the one who is in the Father), or, if the Word is other than the Son, the Word would be the Father, in whom the Son is. But if the Word is not Father but word, the Word would be outside 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; there must be one, and that is the Son, who is only-begotten. And again, if the Word is one and the Son another, the Son will be found better than the Word; for “no one knows the Father except the Son,” not “the Word.” So either the Word does not know, or, if he knows, “no one knows” is false. The same holds of “He who has seen me has seen the Father,” and, “I and the Father are one”; for these are the words of the Son, and not of the Word, according to them. And this is clear from the Gospels. For according to John, when the Lord said, “I and the Father are one,” the Jews “took up stones to stone him. Jesus answered them, ‘I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these 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 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 am not doing the works of my Father, do not believe me; but if I do them, even if you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.’” Yet, as far as the surface of the words goes, he said neither “I am God” nor “I am the Son of God,” but, “I and the Father are one.”

17. So the Jews, when they heard “one,” thought that he had said, as Sabellius would, that he was the Father. But our Savior points out their sin by reasoning that, “even if I had said God, you ought to have known what is written, I said, you are gods”; then, explaining “I and the Father are one,” he gave the Son's unity with the Father, saying, “because I said, I am the Son of God.” For even if he did not say it in so many words, he applied the meaning of “we are one” to the Son. For nothing is one with the Father except what is from him; and what would be from him but the Son? So he adds, “so that you may know that I am in the Father and the Father is in me.” For explaining “one,” he did not say that he is the very thing with which he is one, but that the union and inseparability lie in his being in the Father and the Father in the Son. For in this he overturns Sabellius, by saying not “I am the Father” but “the Son of God,” and Arius, by saying “we are one.” If, then, the Son is one thing and the Word another, it is not the Word who is one with the Father, but the Son; nor is it he who “has seen” the Word who “has seen the Father,” but he who has seen the Son. And when this is shown, either the Son is greater than the Word, or the Word has nothing more than the Son. For what is greater or more complete than “one,” and “I am in the Father and the Father in me,” and “He who has seen me has seen the Father”? For these too are the words of the Son. So the same John says, “He who has seen me has seen him who sent me,” and, “He who receives me receives him who sent me,” and, “I have come as light into the world, so that everyone who believes in me may not remain in darkness”; and, “If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. The word that he hears will judge him on the last day, because I am going to the Father.” He says that the preaching 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 sin; but now they will have no excuse,” he says, having heard my words, through which those who keep them reap salvation.

18. Perhaps they will shamelessly say that this saying belongs not to the Son but to the Word. But from what was said above it became clear that the speaker is 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. For the same John says earlier, “For God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone who believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not judged; but whoever does not believe has already been judged, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God. And this is the judgment: that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, for their works were evil.” If the one who says, “For I did not come to judge the world but to save it,” is the one who says, “He who sees me sees him who sent me,” and the one who came to save the world and not to judge it is the only-begotten Son of God, it is clear that it is the same Son who says, “He who sees me sees him who sent me.” For the one who says, “He who believes in me,” and, “If anyone hears my words, I do not judge him,” is himself the Son, about whom it says, “Whoever believes in him is not judged; but whoever does not believe has already been judged, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.” And again, “And this is the judgment” of the one who does not believe in the Son, “that the light has come into the world,” and they did not believe in him, that is, in the Son. For he would be “the light that enlightens every man coming into the world.” And as long as he was on earth in his incarnation, he was light in the world, as he himself said, “While you have the light, believe in the light, so that you may become sons of light; for I,” he says, “have come as light into the world.”

19. Since this has been shown, then, it is clear that the Word is the Son. And if the Son is the light that has come into the world, then beyond dispute the world came to be through the Son. For at the beginning of the Gospel, the evangelist, speaking about John the Baptist, says, “He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.” For, as we said before, Christ himself was “the true light, which enlightens every man coming into the world.” For if “he was in the world, and the world came to be through him,” then he must be the Word of God, of whom he also said that all things came to be through him. For either they will be forced to speak of two worlds, one made through the Son and the other through the Word; or, if the world is one and the creation one, it follows that the Son and the Word before all creation are one and the same, for it came to be through him. So if all things came to be through the Son as through the Word, nothing contrary will appear; indeed it would be the same to say, as “in the beginning was the Word,” that in the beginning was the Son. And if, because John did not say “in the beginning was the Son,” they say that what belongs to the Word does not fit the Son, it is time for what belongs to the Son not to fit the Word either. But it has been shown that “I and the Father are one” belongs to the Son, and his being the one “who is in the bosom of the Father,” and “He who sees me sees him who sent me”; while it is common to the Word and the Son that the world came to be through him. From this it is shown that the Son exists before the world; for the maker must exist before the things that come to be. And what is said to Philip would not, according to them, belong to the Word but to the Son. For Jesus said, it says: “Have I been with you so long, and you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, Show us the Father? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on my own; but the Father who dwells in me does the works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is 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, this I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.” So if the Father is glorified in the Son, the one who says, “I am in the Father and the Father is in me,” would be the Son; and so too, “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” For the very one who says these things shows himself to be the Son by adding, “so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.”

20. If, then, they say that the man whom the Word wore is himself the only-begotten Son of God, and not the Word, then consistently the man would be the one who is “in the Father,” in whom the Father too is “in him”; and the man would be the one who is “one” with the Father, and “who is in the bosom of the Father,” and “the true light.” They will be forced to say also that the world came to be “through” the man, and that the man is the one who “came not to judge the world but to save” it; and that he existed even before Abraham came to be. For “Jesus,” it says, “said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I am.” And how is it not absurd, on their view, to say that one who came from the seed of Abraham forty-two generations later existed “before” Abraham came to be? And how is it not absurd, if the flesh that the Word wore is the Son, to say that this flesh from Mary is that through which the world came to be? And how will they explain “he was in the world”? For the evangelist, signifying the Son's existence before his birth according to the flesh, went on to say, “he was in the world.” And if the Word is not the Son, but the man is the Son, how can he save the world, being himself one of the world? And if they are not ashamed at this, where will the Word be, when the man is “in the Father”? And in what rank will the Word stand in relation to the Father, when the man and the Father are “one”? And if the man is only-begotten, in what rank will the Word be? Either one will say that he is second, or, if he is above the only-begotten, he would be the Father himself. For just as the Father is one, so also the only-begotten from him is one. And what more has the Word than the man, if indeed the Word is not the Son? For it is written that the world came to be through the Son and through the Word, and creating the world is common to the Word and the Son; but seeing the Father is no longer written of the Word, but of the Son; and saving the world is no longer said to be through the Word, but through the only-begotten Son. “For Jesus said,” it says, “Have I been with you so long, and you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father.” And it is not written that the Word knows the Father, but the Son; and it is not said that 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, according to them, the Son is one and the Word another? For the command is that we believe, not in the Word, but in the Son. For John says, “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; but whoever disobeys the Son will not see life.” And holy baptism, in which the foundation of our whole faith is anchored, is given not “into the Word,” but “into the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” If, then, according to them, the Word is one and the Son another, and the Word is not Son, baptism has nothing to do with the Word. How, then, according to them, is the Word with the Father, when he is not with him in the giving of baptism? But perhaps they would say, “The Word too is included in the name of the Father.” Why, then, not the Spirit too? Or is the Spirit outside the Father? And the man (if the Word is not Son) is named after the Father, and the Spirit after the man; and the unity, according to them, is no longer broadened into a trinity, but into a tetrad: Father, Word, Son, and Holy Spirit. Put to shame by this, they take refuge in something else and say that “not the man by himself whom the Lord wore, but both together, the Word and the man, are the Son; for both joined are named Son,” as they say. Which, then, is the cause of which, and which made the other Son? Or, to put it more plainly, is the Word called Son because of the flesh, or the flesh called Son because of the Word? Or neither of these, but the coming together of both? If the Word is Son because of the flesh, the flesh must be Son, and all the absurdities follow that were stated above from calling the man Son. But if the flesh is called Son because of the Word, the Word, existing before the flesh, was certainly Son. For how can anyone make others sons, not being a son himself, especially when there is a father? If, then, he makes sons for himself, he would be Father himself; but if for the Father, he must be Son, or rather he must be the Son, because of whom the others too are made sons.

22. For if, while he is not Son, we are sons, God would be our Father and not his. How, then, does he claim him rather as his own, saying, “My Father,” and, “I came from the Father”? For if he is the common Father of all, he is not his Father alone, nor did he alone “come out from the Father.” He does say that he is sometimes called our Father too, because he “has shared in” our flesh. For this is why the Word became flesh: so that, since the Word is Son, God might be called our Father too because of the Son who dwells in us. “For he sent,” it says, “the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father.” So the Son in us, calling on his own Father, makes him be called our Father too. Indeed, of those in whose hearts the Son is not, God would not be called Father. If, then, the man is called Son because of the Word, then, since the ancients were called “sons” even before the incarnation, the Word must necessarily be Son before his coming as well. For “I begot sons,” it says; and in Noah's time, “the sons of God, seeing”; and in the Song, “Is not he your Father?” So there was also the one who is truly Son, because of whom those too were sons. But if, again according to them, neither of these is Son, but the Son is so because of the coming together of both, then necessarily neither is Son, I mean neither the Word nor the man, but some cause for which they were joined; and so the cause of the joining, which makes the Son, will come first. So in this way too the Son existed before the flesh. When this is said, they will take refuge in something else, saying that “neither the man is Son, nor both together, but the Word was simply Word in the beginning, and when he became man he was then named Son; for before his appearing he was not Son but only Word; and as the Word became flesh, not having been flesh before, so the Word became Son, not having been Son before.” Such is their nonsense; but it has a clear refutation.

23. For if he became Son simply by becoming man, the becoming man is the cause. And if the man is the cause of his being Son, or both together, the same absurdities will confront them. Then, if he was first Word and later Son, he will appear to have known the Father later and not before; for he does not know him as Word but as Son: “for no one knows the Father except the Son.” And this will confront them too: that he came to be “in the bosom of the Father” later, and later he and the Father became “one,” and later came “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” For all these things were said of the Son. From this they will be forced to say, “The Word was nothing, but only a name.” For he was neither in us with the Father, nor did anyone who had seen the Word see the Father, nor was the Father known to anyone at all; for the Father is known through the Son, as it is written, “and anyone to whom the Son reveals him.” And since the Word was not yet Son, no one yet knew the Father. How, then, was he seen by Moses, how by the fathers? For he himself says in the Kingdoms, “I revealed myself plainly to all your fathers.” And if God was revealed, it is clear that there was the Son who reveals, as he himself says, “and anyone to whom the Son reveals him.” It is impious and senseless, then, to say that the Word is one and the Son another. It is good to ask where they got such a notion. They say that it is “because the Old Testament speaks not of the Son but of the Word”; and for this reason they firmly suppose the Son to be later than the Word, “because he was spoken of not in the Old but only in the New.” This is what they impiously say. For, first, to divide the Testaments and not have the one hold to the other is the practice of Manichaeans and Jews, the former opposing the Old and the latter the New. Then, on their view, if what is in the Old comes earlier in time, and what is in the New is later, and times are judged from the writings, then “I and the Father are one,” and “only-begotten,” and “He who has seen me has seen the Father” must in turn be later; for these are attested not from the Old but from the New.

24. Not so; truly much is said about the Son in the Old Testament too: for example, 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 those who shall be changed, for the sons of Korah, for understanding, a song concerning the beloved”; and in Isaiah, “I will sing to the beloved a song of the beloved concerning my vineyard. The beloved had a vineyard.” And who would the beloved be but the only-begotten Son? As also in the hundred and ninth, “From the womb, before the morning star, I begot you,” about which more will be said later; and in the Proverbs, “before all the hills he begets me”; and in Daniel, “and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of God”; and many others. If, then, antiquity comes from the Old Testament, the Son too would be ancient, being made clear in many places in the Old. “Yes,” they say, “it is there, but let it be taken prophetically.” Then it could also be said that what is said about the Word is said prophetically; for it cannot be one way for the one and another for the other. For if “You are my Son” refers to the future, so clearly does “By the Word of the Lord the heavens were made firm.” For it did not say “came to be,” nor “made.” And that “made firm” refers to the future, it says: “The Lord has reigned,” and then, “For he has made firm the world, which will not be moved.” And if “concerning the beloved” in the forty-fourth psalm refers to the future, so clearly does what follows, “My heart has poured forth a good Word.” And if “from the womb” refers to a man, then so does “from the heart.” For if the womb is human, the heart too is bodily. But if “from the heart” is eternal, “from the womb” is eternal too. And if the only-begotten is in the bosom, the beloved too is in the bosom. For only-begotten and beloved are the same, as in “This is my beloved Son.” For he did not say “beloved” wishing to signify his love toward him, lest he seem to hate the others; but he was making known that he is only-begotten, to show that he alone is from him. So the Word, wishing to signify to Abraham what “only-begotten” means, says, “Offer your son, the beloved.” And it is clear to everyone that Isaac alone was from Sarah. So the Word is Son, not having lately become or been named Son, but always Son. For if he is not Son, he is not word either; and if not word, not Son either. For what is from the father is son. And what is from the Father but the Word, who came forth from the heart and was begotten from the womb? For the Father is not Word, nor is the Word Father; but one is Father and the other Son; and one begets, the other is begotten.

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.