One Beginning and Its Own Word

The Word is God from God. For “the Word was God,” and again, “Of whom are the fathers, and of whom is Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.” And since Christ is God from God, and God’s Word, Wisdom, Son and Power, the divine Scriptures declare only one God. For the Word, being Son of the one God, is traced back to him from whom he also is; so that Father and Son are two, yet the Monad of the Godhead is indivisible and inseparable. In this way too we keep one Beginning of the Godhead, and not two Beginnings, and so there is, strictly speaking, a Monarchy. Of this very Beginning the Word is by nature Son. He is not another beginning, subsisting by himself, nor has he come into being outside that Beginning, or from that difference a rule of two and a rule of many would follow. Rather, he is the one Beginning’s own Son, own Wisdom, own Word, existing from it. For, as John says, “in” that “Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,” for the Beginning was God; and since he is from it, therefore also “the Word was God.” And as there is one Beginning, and so one God, so that substance and hypostasis which indeed and truly and really is, and which said, “I am that I am,” is one and not two, so that there may not be two Beginnings. And from the One, a Son in nature and truth, is its own Word, its Wisdom, its Power, inseparable from it. And as there is not another substance, or there would be two Beginnings, so the Word which is from that one substance is not dissolved, nor is it a sound that signifies something. It is an essential Word and essential Wisdom, which is the true Son. For if he were not essential, God would be speaking into the air, and would have a body, in no way different from men. But since God is not man, neither is his Word like the weakness of man. For as the Beginning is one substance, so its Word is one, essential and subsisting, and so is its Wisdom. For as he is God from God, and Wisdom from the Wise, and Word from the Rational, and Son from Father, so he is a hypostasis from a hypostasis, essential and substantial from substance, Being from Being. [a]

For if he were not essential Wisdom and substantial Word, and an existing Son, but simply Wisdom and Word and Son in the Father, then the Father himself would have a nature compounded of Wisdom and Word. But if so, the absurdities already mentioned would follow: he will be his own Father, and the Son will be begetting and begotten by himself. Or else Word, Wisdom and Son is a name only, and there is no one subsisting who owns, or rather who is, these titles. If, then, he does not subsist, the names are idle and empty, unless we say that God is Wisdom itself and Word itself. But if so, he is his own Father and Son: Father when he is wise, Son when he is Wisdom. But these things are not in God as a kind of quality. Away with the dishonoring thought! For it would end in this: that God is compounded of substance and quality. Since every quality is in an substance, it would clearly follow that the divine Monad, indivisible as it is, must be compound, divided into substance and accident. We must ask these headstrong men, then: The Son was proclaimed as God’s Wisdom and Word; how then is he these things? If as a quality, the absurdity has been shown. But if God is Wisdom itself, then it is the absurdity of Sabellius. Therefore he is so as an Offspring, in the proper sense, from the Father himself, after the illustration of light. For as there is light from fire, so from God there is a Word, and Wisdom from the Wise, and from the Father a Son. In this way the Monad remains undivided and entire, and its Son, the Word, is not without substance, nor without real existence, but truly essential. If it were not so, everything said of him would be said in thought only and in word only. But if we must avoid that absurdity, then a true Word is essential. For as there is truly a Father, so there is truly Wisdom. In this respect, then, they are two. It is not, as Sabellius said, that Father and Son are the same; it is because the Father is Father and the Son is Son. And they are one, because he is Son of the Father’s substance by nature, existing as 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 the Father ever, nor is he, without his Word. That is why he says, “I in the Father and the Father in me.” [e]

Again, Christ is the Word of God. Did he, then, subsist by himself, and, subsisting, become joined to the Father? Or did God make him, or call him his Word? If the first, I mean if he subsisted by himself and is God, then there are two Beginnings; and besides, as is plain, he is not the Father’s own, since he is not from the Father but from himself. But if, on the contrary, he was made from outside, then he is a creature. It remains, then, to say that he is from God himself. But if so, what is from another is one thing, and that from which it is, is a second; so by this reckoning there are two. But if they are not two, and the names belong to the same one, then cause and effect will be the same, and begotten and begetting, which has been shown to be absurd in the case of Sabellius. But if he is from him, and yet is not another, he will be both begetting and not begetting: begetting because he produces from himself, and not begetting because what he produces is nothing other than himself. But if so, the same one is called Father and Son in thought only. But if it is unseemly to say so, Father and Son must be two; and they are one, because the Son is not from outside, but begotten of God. But if anyone shrinks from saying “Offspring,” and only says that the Word exists with God, let him beware that, by shrinking from what is said in Scripture, he does not fall into absurdity and make God a being of double nature. For by not granting that the Word is from the Monad, but speaking as if he were simply joined to the Father, he brings in a twofold substance, with neither of them Father of the other. And the same holds of the Power. We may see this more clearly if we consider it with reference to the Father. There is one Father, and not two, but from that one the Son. As, then, there are not two Fathers, but one, so there are not two Beginnings, but one, and from that one the essential Son.

But the Arians we must question the other way round; for those who follow Sabellius must be refuted from the idea of a Son, and the Arians from the idea of a Father. Let us say, then: Is God wise and not without Word? Or, on the contrary, is he without wisdom and without Word? If the latter, there is an absurdity at once. If the former, we must ask how he is wise and not without Word. Does he have the Word and the Wisdom from outside, or from himself? If from outside, there must be someone who first gave them to him, and before he received them he was without wisdom and without Word. But if from himself, it is plain that the Word is not from nothing, nor once was not. For he always was, since he whose Image he is always exists. But suppose they say that God is indeed wise and not without Word, but that he has in himself his own wisdom and his own word, and that this is not Christ, but that by which he made Christ. We must answer that if Christ was brought to be in that word, then plainly so were all things; and it must be he of whom John says, “All things were made by him,” and the psalmist, “In Wisdom you have made them all.” And Christ will be found to speak untruly when he says, “I in the Father,” since there is another in the Father. And “The Word became flesh” is not true by their account. For if he in whom “all things came to be” himself became flesh, but Christ is not in the Father as the Word “by whom all things came to be,” then Christ has not become flesh; perhaps Christ was merely named Word. But if so, first, there will be another besides the name; and next, all things were not brought to be by him, but in that other, in whom Christ too was made. But if they say that Wisdom is in the Father as a quality, or that he is Wisdom itself, the absurdities already mentioned will follow. For he will be compound, and will turn out to be his own Son and Father. Moreover, we must refute and silence them on the ground that the Word which is in God cannot be a creature, nor out of nothing. But if once there is a Word in God, then he must be Christ, who says, “I am in the Father and the Father in me,” who is also for that reason the only Son, since no other was begotten from him. This is the one Son, who is Word, Wisdom and Power. For God is not compounded of these, but begets them. For as he frames the creatures by the Word, so, according to the nature of his own substance, he has the Word as an Offspring, through whom he frames and creates and orders all things. For by the Word and the Wisdom all things have come to be, and all things together remain according to his ordinance. And the same holds of the word “Son”: if God is without a Son, then he is without work, for the Son is his Offspring through whom he works. But if not, the same questions and the same absurdities will follow from their audacity. [g]

From Deuteronomy: “But you who attached yourselves to the Lord your God are alive, every one of you, this day.” From this we may 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 in the Father, and the Father in me”; but originated things, when they make progress, are attached to the Lord. The Word, then, is in the Father as being his own; but originated things, being outside, are attached, since by nature they are foreign, and they are attached by free choice. For a son who is so by nature is one with the one who begot him; but one who is from outside, and is made a son, will be attached to the family. That is why Moses at once adds, “What nation is there so great, that has God drawing near to them?” and elsewhere it says, “I am a God drawing near.” For to originated things he draws near, since they are strangers to him; but to the Son, since he is his own, he does not draw near, but is in him. And the Son is not attached to the Father, but coexists with him. That is why Moses says again in the same Deuteronomy, “You shall obey his voice, and apply yourselves to him”; but what is applied is applied from outside. [i]