Oration III Against the Arians 1–9

The Ariomaniacs, it seems, having once decided to become apostates and transgressors of the truth, are eager to draw upon themselves the saying, “When the ungodly comes into the depth of evils, he despises”; for they neither stop when refuted nor feel shame when at a loss, but, like “the face of a harlot, they have become shameless toward all” in their impieties. For the sayings they put forward as pretexts—“The Lord created me,” and “having become better than the angels,” and “firstborn,” and “being faithful to him who made him”—have a correct sense and show piety toward Christ; yet, I do not know how, they again, as though drenched with the serpent's venom, not seeing what they ought to see nor understanding what they read, and as though belching it up from the depth of their impious heart, have now begun also to disparage what the Lord said, “I am in the Father and the Father in me,” saying, “How can this one be contained in that one, and that one in this one? Or how at all can the Father, who is greater, be contained in the Son, who is less? Or what is wonderful in the Son's being in the Father, when it is written of us too, ‘For in him we live and move and have our being’?” They suffer this in keeping with their ill will, thinking that God is a body, and not understanding what “true Father” and “true Son” are, nor what “light invisible” and “eternal” and “its invisible radiance” are, nor what an invisible “subsistence,” an incorporeal “impress,” and an incorporeal “image” are. For if they knew, they would not revile “the Lord of glory” with laughter, nor, taking incorporeal things in a bodily way, misinterpret what is well said. It should indeed have been enough, on hearing these words spoken by the Lord, simply to believe, since the faith of simplicity is better than the persuasiveness that comes from curious inquiry; but since they have attempted to profane this too for their own heresy, it is necessary to refute their ill will and to show the sense of the truth, at least for the security of the faithful. For it is not, as they think, that they are packed into each other when it is said, “I am in the Father and the Father in me,” as though they were filled from one another like empty vessels, so that the Son fills the Father's emptiness and the Father the Son's, and neither of them is full and perfect (this is proper to bodies, so that even to say it is beyond impiety); for the Father is full and perfect, and the Son is “the fullness of the Godhead.” Nor again is God in the Son in the way that he comes to be in the saints and strengthens them; for the Son himself is the Father's power and Wisdom; originated things are sanctified by participation in him in the Spirit, but the Son himself is not a son by participation; he is the Father's own offspring. Nor, again, is the Son in the Father as in the saying, “in him we live and move and have our being”; for he himself, as from the fountain of the Father, is the life in which all things are given life and hold together; for life does not live in life—otherwise it would not be life—but rather he himself gives life to all things.

Let us also look at what the advocate of the heresy, Asterius the sophist, says; for he too, emulating the Jews in this, has written as follows: “For it is quite clear that he said he is in the Father, and the Father again in himself, for this reason: that he says that neither the word which he was delivering is his own, but the Father's, nor are the works his own, but the Father's, who gave the power.” If a little child had said this in simplicity, he would have been excused because of his age; but since the one who wrote it is the so-called “sophist,” who professes to know everything, how much condemnation does such a man deserve? And how does he not show himself a stranger to the apostle, being puffed up in “persuasive words of wisdom,” and thinking he can deceive by them, “not understanding either what he says or the things about which he makes assertions”? For what the Son said as proper to and fitting only for the Son, who is Word and Wisdom and image of the Father's substance, this man brings down to all the creatures, and makes common to the Son and to them. And the lawless man says that the Father's power receives power, so that it follows from his impiety to say that the Son was made a son in a Son, and that the Word received the Word's authority; and he no longer wishes him to have said these things as Son, but ranks him too, like all the things made, as one who learned. For if it was because the words he delivered were not the Son's but the Father's, and likewise the works, that he said, “I am in the Father and the Father in me,” then—since David says, “I will hear what the Lord God will speak in me,” and Solomon, “My words have been spoken by God,” and Moses ministered the words that came from God, and each of the prophets spoke not his own words but those that came from God, “Thus says the Lord,” and the saints said that the works they did were not their own but those of God who gave the power (as Elijah and Elisha called on God that he himself might raise the dead, and Elisha, when he had cleansed Naaman of his leprosy, says to him, “that you may know that there is a God in Israel,” and Samuel too prayed God in the days of harvest “to give rain,” and the apostles said that they did the signs not “by their own power” but by the grace of the Lord)—then clearly, according to him, such a saying would be common to all, so that each could say, “I am in the Father and the Father in me”; and he would no longer be the one Son of God and Word and Wisdom, but would himself be one out of many.

But if the Lord had spoken in this sense, he ought not to have said, “I am in the Father and the Father in me,” but rather, “I too am in the Father, and the Father is also in me,” so that he would have nothing proper and exceptional toward the Father as Son, but would have the same grace in common with all. But it is not as they think; for not thinking that he is a genuine Son from the Father, they lie against the genuine one, to whom alone it is fitting to say, “I am in the Father and the Father in me.” For the Son is “in the Father,” so far as one may understand it, because the whole being of the Son is proper to the Father's substance, as radiance is from light and a river from a spring; so that whoever sees the Son sees what is proper to the Father, and understands that the Son's being, being from the Father, is thus in the Father. And the Father is “in the Son,” because what is proper to the Father and from him is what the Son is, as the sun is in its radiance, the mind in its word, and the spring in the river; for so whoever contemplates the Son contemplates what is proper to the Father's substance, and understands that the Father is in the Son. For since the form and Godhead of the Father is the being of the Son, it follows that the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son. That is why, having first said, fittingly, “I and the Father are one,” he added, “I am in the Father and the Father in me,” so as to show both the identity of the Godhead and the unity of the substance.

For they are “one,” not as one thing divided into two parts and being nothing but one; nor as one thing named twice, so that the same one becomes at one time Father and at another his own Son—for Sabellius was judged a heretic for thinking this. But they are two, because the Father is Father and is not also Son, and the Son is Son and is not also Father; but the nature is one (for the offspring is not unlike the one who begot him, since he is his image), and all that is the Father's is the Son's. Therefore the Son is not another God either; for he was not devised from outside, since otherwise there would certainly be many gods, if a Godhead foreign to the Father's were devised. For although the Son is other as offspring, he is the same as God; and he and the Father are “one” in the propriety and kinship of nature and in the identity of the one Godhead, as has been said. For the radiance too is light, not second to the sun, nor another light, nor light by participation in it, but wholly its own offspring. And such an offspring is necessarily one light; and no one would say that these are two lights, but that sun and radiance are two, and one is the light from the sun that illuminates all things in the radiance. So too the Godhead of the Son is the Father's; hence it is also indivisible; and so “there is one God, and there is none other besides him.” Since, then, they are one, and the Godhead itself is one, the same things are said of the Son as are said of the Father, except for being called “Father.” For instance, “God”: “and the Word was God”; “Almighty”: “Thus says he who was and who is and who is to come, the Almighty”; “Lord”: “one Lord Jesus Christ”; being “light”: “I am the light”; wiping out sins: “But that you may know,” he says, “that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins”; and whatever else you may find. For “all things,” says the Son himself, “that the Father has are mine,” and again, “Mine are yours.”

He who hears the things of the Father said of the Son will thus see the Father “in the Son”; and he will behold the Son “in the Father” when the things said of the Son are also said of the Father. And why are the things of the Father said of the Son, except because the Son is an offspring from him? And why are the things of the Son proper to the Father, except again because the Son is the proper offspring of his substance? And being the proper offspring of the Father's substance, the Son fittingly says that the things of the Father are his own; hence, fittingly and consistently, after saying, “I and the Father are one,” he added, “so that you may know that I am in the Father and the Father in me”; and to this again he has added, “He who has seen me has seen the Father”; and there is one and the same sense in these three sayings. For he who has thus known that the Son and the Father are one knows that he is in the Father and the Father in the Son; for the Godhead of the Son is the Father's, and it is in the Son; and he who has grasped this is persuaded that he who has seen the Son has seen the Father; for in the Son the Father's Godhead is contemplated. One may understand this more closely from the example of the king's image. For in the image are the form and shape of the king, and in the king is the form that is in the image. For the likeness of the king in the image is exact, so that whoever looks at the image sees the king in it, and again whoever sees the king recognizes that he is the one in the image. And because the likeness does not vary, the image might say to one who wished to see the king after seeing the image, “I and the king are one; for I am in him and he in me; and what you see in me you behold in him, and what you have seen in him you behold in me.” He who does homage to the image, at any rate, does homage in it to the king as well; for the image is his form and shape. Since, then, the Son too is the image of the Father, it must necessarily be understood that the Godhead and propriety of the Father is the being of the Son. And this is the meaning of “who, being in the form of God,” and “the Father in me.”

The form of the Godhead is not partial; the fullness of the Father's Godhead is the being of the Son, and the Son is wholly God. That is why, being equal to God, “he did not count it robbery to be equal to God”; and again, since the Godhead and form of the Son belong to none other than the Father, this is what he said: “I am in the Father.” So “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself”; for the Son is what is proper to the Father's substance, in whom creation was reconciled to God. So what the Son worked are the Father's works; for the Son is the form of the Father's Godhead, which worked the works; and so he who sees the Son sees the Father; for the Son is and is contemplated in the paternal Godhead, and the paternal form in him shows the Father in him; and so the Father is “in the Son.” And the propriety and Godhead from the Father in the Son shows the Son in the Father, and his being for ever undivided from him. And he who hears and sees that the things said of the Father are said of the Son, not as added to his substance by grace or participation, but because the very being of the Son is the proper offspring of the Father's substance, will rightly understand what is said, as I said before, “I am in the Father and the Father in me,” and “I and the Father are one.” For the Son is such as the Father is, by having all that is the Father's; that is why he is also signified together with the Father. For no one could say “Father” if there were no son. But one who calls God “maker” does not necessarily also indicate the things made; for he is maker even before the things made; but one who says “Father” at once signifies with the Father the existence of the Son as well. That is why he who believes in the Son believes in the Father, for he believes in what is proper to the Father's substance; and so the faith in one God is one; and he who worships and honors the Son worships and honors the Father in the Son. For the Godhead is one; and therefore the honor is one and the worship is one, which is given to the Father in the Son and through him; and he who worships thus worships one God; “for God is one, and there is none other besides him.” When, therefore, the Father is called the “only” God, and it is said that there is one God, and “I am,” and “besides me there is no God,” and “I am the first, and I am after these things,” it is rightly said; for God is one and only and first. But it is not said to do away with the Son—God forbid!—for he too is in the one and first and only, as being the only Word and Wisdom and radiance of the one and only and first. And he too is first, the fullness of the Godhead of the first and only, being whole and full God. So it was not said because of him, but to deny that there is another such as the Father and his Word; and the sense of the prophet is plain and evident to all.

But since the impious, bringing forward these texts too, blaspheme the Lord and reproach us, saying, “See, God is called ‘one,’ and ‘only,’ and ‘first’; how do you say that the Son is God? For if he were God, he would not have said, ‘I alone,’ nor that ‘God is one,’” it is necessary to state the sense of these sayings too, as far as possible, so that all may know from these as well that the Arians are truly fighters against God. If, then, there is rivalry between the Son and the Father, let him hear such words; and if the Father looks on the Son as David heard about Adonijah and Absalom, let him speak and utter such words to himself, lest the Son, calling himself God, lead some away from the Father. But he who knows the Son knows the Father all the more, since the Son reveals him to him, and in the Word he will see the Father all the more, as has been said; and the Son, when he came, glorified not himself but the Father, saying to the one who came to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but one, God,” and answering the one who asked which commandment in the law is greater, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one Lord,” and saying to the crowds, “I have come down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the Father who sent me,” and teaching the disciples that “My Father is greater than I,” and “He who honors me honors him who sent me.” If the Son is such toward his own Father, what opposition is there, that anyone should draw such a suspicion from such sayings? Besides, if the Son is the Word of the Father, who is so senseless, except the Christ-fighters, as to think that God spoke such things to disparage and do away with his own Word? This is not the mind of Christians—God forbid! These things were not written because of the Son, but to do away with the falsely named gods fashioned by men; and the sense of such sayings has a reasonable cause.

For since those devoted to the falsely named gods turn away from the true God, therefore God, being good and caring for human beings, calling back those who had strayed, says, “I am God alone,” and “I am,” and “Besides me there is no God,” and similar sayings, so as to discredit the things that are not and turn all to himself. It is as if someone, when it is day and the sun is shining, were to paint a piece of wood, without even a semblance of light, and say that this image is the cause of light; and the sun, seeing this, were to say, “I alone am the light of day, and there is no other light of day besides me.” He would say this not with regard to his own radiance, but with regard to the error caused by the painted wood and the unlikeness of the vain semblance. So too with “I am,” and “I alone am God,” and “There is no other besides me”: they are said to draw men away from the falsely named gods, so that they might learn that he is henceforth the true God. Indeed, in saying these things God spoke through his own Word—unless the Jews of today add this too, that he did not speak these things through the Word; but so it has been said, however the devilish may rage. For “the word of the Lord came” to the prophet, and these things were heard. And if the Word was his, and these things were said through him, and there is nothing that God says and does which he does not say and do in the Word, then these things were not said because of him, you fighters against God, but because of things alien to him and not from him. For according to the image mentioned, if the sun spoke those words, he would refute the error not as having his radiance outside himself, but as showing his light in the radiance; and he would say such things. So such sayings are not meant to do away with the Son, nor are they said because of him, but for the rejection of falsehood. At any rate, God did not speak such words to Adam in the beginning, although the Word, “through whom all things came into being,” was with him; for there was no need, since idols had not yet come into being. But when men rose up against the truth and named for themselves as “gods” whom they would, then indeed there came to be need of such words for the doing away of the gods that are not. And I would add that such sayings were spoken beforehand also against the folly of the Christ-fighters, so that they may know that whatever “god” they devise outside the Father's substance is not true, nor the image and son of the only and first.

If, then, the Father is also called “the only true God,” this is said not to set aside him who says, “I am the truth,” but again to do away with those who are not by nature true, as the Father and his Word are. For so the Lord himself at once added, “and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” If he were a creature, he would not have added this and numbered himself with his creator; for what fellowship has the true with the untrue? But as it is, by joining himself to the Father, he showed that he is of the Father's nature, and gave us to know that he is the true offspring of the true Father. John, having learned this, taught it, writing in his letter, “And we are in the true one, in his Son Jesus Christ; this is the true God and eternal life.” And when the prophet says of creation, “who alone stretched out the heaven,” and God says, “I alone stretched out the heaven,” it has become clear to all that in the “alone” the Word of the Only one is also signified, in whom “all things came into being, and without him not one thing came into being.” So if the heaven came into being through the Word, and yet he says, “I alone,” then together with the Only one the Son too is understood, through whom the heaven came into being; so too, if it is said, “One God,” and “I alone,” and “I am the first,” the Word is understood as being with the one and only and first, as the radiance in the light. And this could not be understood of any other, but only of the Word. For all other things came to subsist from what is not, through the Son, and are separated from God by a great distance in nature; but the Son himself is from the Father, a natural and true offspring. And so the very saying which the senseless thought to put forward in defence of their heresy, “I am the first,” rather refutes their ill will. God says, “I am the first, and I am after these things.” If, then, he is called “first” of these things as numbered with those after him, so that they are second to him, then on your view he too will be among the works, preceding them only in time; but this alone exceeds all impiety. But if it was to show that he is not from anyone, nor anyone before him, but that he is the beginning and cause of all, and to do away with the myths of the Greeks, that he said, “I am the first,” it is clear that the Son too is called “firstborn” not because he is numbered with creation, but to show that all things are created and made sons through the Son. For as the Father is “first,” so he too is first, as image of the first and because the first is in him, but an offspring from the Father; and in him the whole creation is created and made sons.