Oration IV Against the Arians 1–14

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.