Oration IV Against the Arians 15–24

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.