1) The Arians, as it seems, having once decided to be apostates and opponents of the truth, persistently seek that what is written should apply to them: "When the wicked come into the depths of evil, he is negligent (Proverbs 18:3). Those who are rebuked do not rest, those who are led into difficulty do not feel shame, but as the face of a harlot's wife, they do not want to be ashamed of all (Jeremiah 3:3) in their wickedness. Since the sayings which they put on display, "The Lord created me" (Proverbs 8:22), and "The best of the angels" (Hebrews 1:4), and "The firstborn" (Romans 8:29), and "Thou art faithful to him who created Him" (Hebrews 3:2), have the right meaning and show a pious faith in Christ, then (I do not know why), again, as drunk with serpent poison, not seeing what should be seen, not understanding it, what they read, having spewed out from the depths of their wicked hearts, they have already begun to condemn what the Lord said: "I am in the Father, and the Father in Me" (John 44:10), saying: "How can the Son be contained in the Father, and the Father in the Son? Or in general, how can the Father, who is greater, be contained in the Son, who is smaller? Or what is surprising, if the Son is in the Father, when it is written of us, "In Him we live, and move, and are" (Acts 17:28).

They fall into this because of their wickedness, thinking that God is a body, and not understanding what the true Father and the true Son are, what the invisible and eternal Light and His invisible Radiance are, what is the invisible Hypostasis, the bodiless mark (????????, ????????) and the bodiless Image. And if they knew, they would not mock and blaspheme the Lord of glory, and understanding the bodiless bodily, they would not interpret what was said in a good meaning. Hearing this, it would be enough to know what the Lord says, and to believe, for faith in simplicity is better than superfluous verbal arguments. But since they intend to assert their heresy to mock this also, it is necessary to denounce their wickedness, and to show the true meaning for the protection of the faithful. 370

The words, "I am in the Father, and the Father in Me," do not mean, as the heretics think, that they move into one another, like empty vessels filled with one another, so that the Son fills the emptiness in the Father, and the Father fills the emptiness in the Son, and each of Them is neither complete nor perfect. For this is proper to bodies, therefore even to say this is utterly impious. The Father is complete and perfect, and the Son is the fullness of the Godhead. And again, God is not in the Son as He is in the saints, imparting strength to them, because the Son is the Father's power and Wisdom. Created beings are sanctified by the Spirit through communion with the Son, and the Son Himself is not the Son by communion, but is the Father's own generation. And again, the Son is not in the Father in the sense in which we live in Him, and move, and are, because the Son is, as from a source, from the Father, a life pouring out, by which all things are given life and exist. And life does not live another life, otherwise it would not be life, on the contrary, the Son Himself gives birth to all things.

2) Let us see what the defender of heresy, the sophist Asterius, says, for he, competing with the Jews in this, wrote the following: "It is evident that He called Himself in the Father and also the Father in Himself, meaning that the word He taught is not His, but the Father's, and the works are not His own, but those of the Father, Who gave Him power." But if he had said this simply by a lad, then it would have been excusable for his age. Since he who wrote this is a so-called sophist, who proclaims that he knows everything, what is he worthy of condemnation? And does not the Apostle show himself a stranger, exalting himself with the reproachful words of wisdom (1 Corinthians 2:4), and thinking that he can deceive with them, when he himself does not understand what he is saying and arguing about? What? 371 The Son called proper and proper to the Son alone as the Word and Wisdom and the image of the Father's essence, then Asterius refers to all creatures and makes common to both the Son and the creatures. This lawless man speaks of the power of the Father, as if it receives power into itself, so that by its wickedness it may be possible to tell him with consistency that the Son is adopted in the son, and that the Word has taken the power of the word. And he does not yet want to agree that this was said by the Son as the Son, but he also puts Him, as having learned this, on a par with all creatures.

If the Saviour said, "I am in the Father, and the Father in Me," not because the words He spoke are the words of the Son, but because they are the words and deeds of the Father, then David also says, "I will hear what the Lord God says concerning me" (Psalm 84:9), and Solomon, "My words are spoken of God" (Proverbs 31:1). And Moses was a minister of the words spoken by God, and every prophet spoke not from himself, but from God: These are the things that the Lord says, and the works that the saints did they did not call their own, but attributed to God, who gave power. For example, Elijah and Elisha called on God to raise the dead. Naaman, having cleansed him of leprosy, says Elisha, "That ye may understand that there is a God in Israel," and Samuel himself prayed to God in the days of harvest to give rain, and the apostles said that they do signs not by their own power, but by the grace of the Lord. From this it is evident that this saying could be common to all, and everyone, like the Saviour, could say: I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me. And therefore He is no longer the Son of God, the Word and Wisdom, but only among many.

(3) But if the Lord had spoken in this sense, then He would have to say not thus: I am in the Father, 372 and the Father in Me, but rather: I am also in the Father, and also the Father is in Me, so that this would show not His own and exclusive relation to the Father as the Son, but His common grace with all. But it is not said as the heretics think. Not acknowledging that He is the most sincere Son from the Father, they slander the most sincere Son, to Whom alone it is fitting to say of Himself: I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me. The Son is in the Father, as far as this can be comprehended, because the entire being of the Son actually belongs to the Father's essence, the Son is from the Father, as radiance from light, as a stream from a source. Therefore, whoever sees the Son, sees and represents what belongs to the Father. Thus, the being of the Son, being from the Father, is in the Father. And the Father is in the Son. For what is actually from the Father, that is, the Son. He is in the Son, as the sun is shining, as the mind is in the word, as the fountain is in the stream. Thus, whoever sees the Son sees and represents the essence proper of the Father, because the Father is in the Son. Since the existence of the Son is the Father's image and the Father's Divinity, it follows that the Son is in the Father, and the Father is in the Son. Therefore the Saviour, having rightly said before: "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30), added: "I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me," in order to show the identity of the Godhead and the unity of essence.

(4) They are one, not in the sense that the one is divided into two parts, which are one, nor in the sense that the one is named twice, so that one and the same is sometimes the Father, and sometimes the Son of himself; Savely, who thought so, was recognized as a heretic. On the contrary, the two are in number, because the Father is the Father, and He is not the Son, and the Son is the Son, and He is not the Father, but the nature is one, because the Birth is not unlike Him who begat and is His image, and everything that belongs to the Father belongs also to the Son. Therefore the Son is not another God, for he did not invent it on his own. Otherwise, without a doubt, there would be many gods, if an alien Divinity were invented, except for the Divinity of the Father. If the Son is anything other than begotten, then He is the same as God. He and the Father are one, as it is said by the nature and affinity of nature and by the identity of the one Godhead. For the radiance is light, and not the second thing after the sun, not another light, not light according to the communion of light, but its own creation. Such a generation is necessarily one light, and no one will say that these are two lights, but although the sun and the radiance are two, yet one is the light from the sun, shining everywhere in radiance. In the same way, the Divinity of the Son is the Divinity of the Father, and therefore it is indivisible, and thus God is one, and there is none else besides Him.

Since They are one, and the Godhead is one and the same, then, apart from the name "Father," the same is said of the Son, as is said of the Father; thus, for example, the Son is called God: and God is the Word, — the Almighty: this saith Who was, and this, and is coming, the Almighty (Apoc. 1:8), — the Lord: there is one Lord Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 8:6). It is said that the Son is light: "I am light" (John 8:12), he blots out sins: but let it be known, it is said, that the Son of man has power on earth to forgive sins (Luke 5:24). And you will find many other things. For the Son Himself says, "Everything that the Father has is mine" (John 17:15), and again, "Mine is "Yours" (v. 10).

5) Whoever hears that what is proper to the Father is said about the Son, he will also see the Father in the Son, and he will also see the Son in the Father, when the saying about the Son is also said about the Father. Why, then, is it said of the Son 374 that which is proper to the Father? Is it not because the Son is the Father's birth? Why then does that which is proper to the Son belong to the Father? Is it not because the Son is the Father's own begetting? Being the Father's own begetting, the Son rightly calls His own that which belongs to the Father.

Wherefore it is fitting and in accordance with what has been said, "I and the Father are one," he added, "That ye may understand that I am in the Father, and the Father in me," and before that he also said, "He who has seen me is in the sight of the Father" (14:9). And these three sayings have the same meaning. Thus, whoever understands that the Son and the Father are one, knows that the Son is in the Father, and the Father in the Son, because the Divinity of the Son is the Divinity of the Father, and it is the same in the Son. And whoever has comprehended this believes that he who has seen the Son is in the form of the Father, because in the Son the Divinity of the Father is contemplated.

The same can be seen more closely by some in the likeness of the royal image, because in the image there is the form and image of the king, and in the king there is the appearance of the image represented in the image, the likeness of the king represented in the image is not different from him, which is why whoever looks at the image sees the king in it, and vice versa, whoever looks at the king recognizes that he is represented in the image. And because of this indifference of similarity, one who wants to see the king after the image can say: "I and the king are one and the same, I am in him, and he is in me. What you see in me, you will see in him, and what you saw in him, you will see in me." For this reason, whoever worships the image worships the king in it, because the image is his image and appearance. Thus, since the Son is the image of the Father, it is necessary to imagine that the Divinity of the Father and what is proper to Him is the being of the Son. This is what it means: Who is in the image of God, and the Father is in Me. 375

6) And not only in part the image of the Godhead, but the fullness of the Father's Godhead is the being of the Son, and the Son is the whole God. Wherefore, being equal to God, not by the rapture of not being equal to God (Phil 2:6). And again, since the Divinity and the image of the Son belong not to anyone else, but to the Father, this is the meaning of what is said: I am in the Father. Thus, God is in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself (2 Corinthians 5:19). For the Son is the property of the Father's essence, in Him the creature is reconciled to God. So what the Son did, all that is, the works of the Father. For the Son is the image of the Father's Godhead, Who has done works. Thus, whoever looks at the Son sees the Father, for in the Father's Godhead the Son is and is contemplated, and the Father's image in the Son shows the Father in Him, and thus the Father in the Son. And the Divinity proper to the Father in the Son shows the Son in the Father, and that the Son is always not separated from the Father. And whoever hears or sees the predicate of the Father as also of the Son, not in the sense that by grace or by communion it has been brought into the essence of the Son, but in the sense that the very existence of the Son is the Father's own birth, he, according to what has been noted above, will well understand what is said: I am in the Father, and the Father is in me, and I and the Father are one. The Son is the same as the Father, because He has everything that belongs to the Father, and therefore is implied with the name of the Father, no one will call him Father when there is no Son. Whoever calls God the Creator does not necessarily mean the created, because the Creator is before creatures, but whoever calls God Father, together with the Father, gives us to understand the existence of the Son. Therefore whoever believes in the Son believes in the Father, because he believes in the proper nature of the Father. And thus, there is only faith in One God. Whoever worships the Son and honors Him, in 376 the Son worships the Father and honors the Father, because the Godhead is one. Therefore there is one honor and one worship, namely that which is given to the Father in the Son and through Him, and he who worships so worships the One God, because God is one, and there is none else besides Him.