ON ARIAN THE FOURTH HOMILY

1) The Word is God from God, and God is the Word (John 1:1); and again, "Their fathers, and of whom is Christ, who is God over all, blessed for ever, Amen" (Romans 9:5). And since Christ is God from God and the Word of God, Wisdom, Son and power, then in the Divine Scriptures the one God is proclaimed. For the Word, being the Son of the one God, is raised to Him Whose Word He is, so that the Father and the Son are two and together an indivisible and indestructible unit of the Godhead. It can also be said that there is one principle, and not two principles of the Godhead. Hence unity of command in the proper sense. From this principle there is the Word, the Son by nature, who did not come into existence by Himself, as the other principle, and who did not proceed outside of this principle (otherwise, this difference would produce dual beginnings and multiple beginnings), but of one principle his own Son, his own Wisdom, his own Word, existing from this principle. For, according to what John said, in this beginning was the Word, and the Word was to God. The beginning is God. And since the Word is from this Beginning, therefore God is the Word. But as there is one Principle, and therefore God is one, so truly, truly, and truly existent essence and hypostasis is one, namely, that which says: I am He (Exodus 3:14), and not two essences; otherwise there will be two principles. From the one essence there is the Word, Wisdom, its own and inseparable Power, by nature and truly the Son; but just as there is no other essence, so that there are not two principles, so from one essence there is not a word to be resolved, not just a significant voice, but an essential Word, an essential Wisdom, that is, truly the Son. And if the Word were not essential, then God would speak to the air, and would have had a body in no way superior to man's. Since God is not a man, then His Word cannot be like human weakness. As the beginning is one essence, so is the one essential and independent Word of this essence and one Wisdom. As from God is God, from the Most Wise is Wisdom, from the Verbal is the Word, from the Father is the Son, so from the Hypostasis is the Hypostatic, from the Essence is the Essential and Self-Existent, from the Eternal is the Existent.

2) If Wisdom is non-essential, the Word is not self-substantial, the Son is not being, but simply Wisdom, and the Word, and the Son in the Father, then the Father Himself will be composed of Wisdom and the Word. But if this is admitted, then the inconsistencies said before will follow: the Father will be the Father of Himself, the Son begetting Himself and being born of Himself. Or the name alone is the Word, Wisdom, and the Son, and He of Whom this is said is not independent, or rather, Who is all this. And if he is not independent, then the names are vain and devoid of meaning, unless anyone says that God is the source 456 Wisdom and the outflowing Word. In the same case, He is His Own Father and Son; and the Father, when He is all-wise, and the Son, when He is Wisdom. But this is not a quality in God. No, such a thought is indecent, because otherwise God will be composed of essence and quality, because every quality exists in essence. And as a consequence of this, the indivisible Divine unit will turn out to be complex, dissected into essence and accidental. Therefore it is necessary to ask these impudent ones: it is preached about the Son that He is the Wisdom of God and the Word of God. How is that? If as a quality, then the incongruity of this is shown. And if God is the source of Wisdom, then the resulting incongruity is expressed by Sabellius.

Consequently, the Son is preached as in the proper sense being born from the Father Himself, in the likeness of light. For as light comes from fire, so is the Word from God, Wisdom from the All-Wise, the Son from the Father. In this sense, the Unity is indivisible and whole, and Her Son is not non-self-existent, not independent, but truly essential Word. And if we imagine it in a different way, then everything that is predicated about the Son will be predicated by invention and unfounded. If, however, the inconsistencies arising from invention are to be avoided, it follows that the true Word is essential; as the Father is truly, so is Wisdom true. Wherefore, though there are two of them, for the Father and the Son are not one and the same, as Sabellius teaches, but the Father is the Father, and the Son is the Son; nevertheless, they are one, because the Son, according to the nature of the Father, is essence, the Father's own Word. This is what the Lord said: I and the Father are one (John 10:30). The Word is inseparable from the Father, and the Father has never been and never is without the Word. Therefore the Word is God, 457 and the Father is not without the Word. That is why the Son said: "I am in the Father, and the Father in Me" (14:11).

3) And again: Christ is the Word of God. And so, did He come forth from Himself, and, having been established, cleaved to the Father? Or did God create Him and call Him His Word? If the first, that is, Christ by Himself and is God, then there will be two principles, and it is unjust to call the Son properly belonging to the Father, because He is not of the Father, but of Himself. But if he was created by himself, then there will be a creature. Therefore, it remains, of course, to say that He is from God Himself. And if so, then he who is of someone will be different, and he from whom he is will be different; and as a consequence of this there will be two. And if it is not two, but it is said of one and the same thing, then one and the same thing will be both the cause and the effect of the cause, and the begotten and the begetter; the incongruity of this is proved by the teaching of Sabellius. If Christ is of the Father, and not anything else of Him, He will be both begetting and not begetting; to those who give birth, because He produces Himself from the Father, and to those who do not beget, because there is no other thing from Him. If this is so, then one and the same thing is said by the imagination of the Father and the Son. But if this is unseemly, then there will be two, the Father and the Son, but together and one, because the Son is not born of God, but of God.

But if anyone avoids this saying, "birth," and says only that the Word exists with God, let him fear it, lest, by avoiding what is used in the Scriptures, he fall into incongruity and introduce some dual God. For by not agreeing that the Word is from One, but simply by joining the Word to the Father, he introduces two essences, neither of which is the Father of the other. The same must be said of the Force. But everyone will see this more clearly if he applies it to the Father. The Father is one, 458 and not two Fathers, but of this one is the Son. And just as there are not two Fathers, but one, so not two principles, but one, and from this one principle is the essential Son. But when speaking to the Arians, questions must be perverted, because the Sabellians must be refuted from the concept of the Son, and the Arians from the concept of the Father.