(15) Such inconsistencies will arise from the proposition that the One expands into the Trinity. And since those who assert this presume to separate the Word and the Son, and to say that the one is the Word, and the other is the Son, and first the Word, and then the Son, let us consider this also. But heretics express their bold thought in different ways: some say that the Son is the man whom the Saviour took upon Himself; the others, that both man and the Word, were then made the Son when they were united. And there are others who assert that the Word Himself was then made the Son when He became man. From the Word, they say, came the Son, being formerly not the Son, but only the Word. The Stoics are imitated in both, and affirm that God expands, and deny the Son. But it is utterly absurd that, by naming the Word, one denies that He is the Son. For if the Word is not of God, they may justly deny that He is the Son. But if He is from God, why cannot they perceive that he who exists from someone is the son of him from whom he exists? Then, if God is the Father of the Word, why should not the Word be the Son of His Father? The father is called the father who has a son; That son is called the son who has a father. Therefore, if God is not the Father of Christ, then the Word is not the Son. But if God is the Father, then in all justice the Word will also be the Son. If He is afterwards the Father, and originally God, then this is Arian wisdom. Moreover, it is not in accordance with anything for God to change: this is characteristic of bodies. If, as in relation to the creature, God became the Creator afterwards, so He became the Father afterwards, then it should be known that there subsequently took place a change of the created, and not of God Himself.

(16) Therefore, if the Son is also a product, then in relation to Him God could justly become the Father afterwards. And if the Son is not a work, then it follows. that there is always a Father and always a Son. If the Son is always, then the Son will be the Word Himself. For if the Word is not the Son (and someone has ventured to say this), then he who affirms this either calls the Word the Father, or represents the Son as more perfect than the Word. Since the Son is in the bosom of the Father (John 1:18), it is necessary either for the Word not to be before the Son, because nothing is before that which is in the Father, or, if the Word is not the same as the Son, for the Word Himself to be the Father, in whom is the Son. But if the Word is not the Father, but the Word, then the Word will be outside the Father, because the Son is in the bosom of the Father. Not both of Them, the Word and the Son, are in the bosom of the Father, but one must be in the bosom, and this one is the Son, that is, the Only-begotten. And again, if one is the Word and another is the Son, then the Son will prove to be more perfect than the Word; for no one knows the Father, not even the Word, but the Son (Matthew 11:27). Therefore, either the Word does not know the Father, or, if He does, it is falsely said, "No one knows." The same must be understood in the reasoning of what has been said: "He who has seen Me is in the form of the Father" (John 14:9), and "I and the Father are one" (10:30). These, according to the heretics, are the words of the Son, not the Word.

This is also evident from the Gospels. According to the Gospel of John, when the Lord says: I and the Father are one, having taken the stone of the Jews, that they may slay Him. Jesus answered them, "Many good deeds have been shown unto you by the Father: for what work of theirs dost thou take a stone upon me?" And the Jews answered Him, "For a good deed we do not cast a stone against Thee, but for blasphemy, for Thou, O man, hast made unto Thyself 471 God." Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'Az rekh, bozi thou?' If these are the words of the gods, to whom the word of God has been, and the Scripture cannot be destroyed: His Father is holy and sent into the world, you say, as you have spoken blasphemy, I am the Son of God. If I do not do the works of the Father, have not faith in Me: if I do, if you do not believe Me, believe in your works: that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father (vv. 30-38). However, as far as this should be understood clearly, Christ did not say this: "I am God," nor this: "I am the Son of God"; but he only said: I and the Father are one.

(17) Wherefore the Jews, when they heard this alone, thought that He, in agreement with Sabellius, was saying, "I am the Father; And our Saviour draws the following conclusion from their erroneous opinion: even if I had called Myself God, then you should have known what is written: I am God. Then, explaining what had been said, "I and the Father are one," he pointed to the unity of the Son with the Father, saying, "I am the Son of God; for if he did not say it in exact words, then the meaning of these sayings, "I am one," he explained by the saying, "Son." Nothing can be one with the Father except that which is of the Father. And what can there be of the Father, except the Son? Wherefore he adds, That ye may understand that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me. For, interpreting the saying, "One," He said that unity and inseparability do not consist in the identity of the Son with Him with Whom He is one, but in the fact that He is in the Father, and the Father in the Son. By this He refutes both Sabellius, who said: I am not the Father, but the Son of God, and Arius, who said: I am one. Therefore, if one is the Son, and another is the Word, then it is not the Word, but the Son who is one with the Father, and he who has seen not the Word, but the Son, in the form of the Father. 472 And according to this explanation, either the Son is greater than the Word, or the Word is in no way superior to the Son. For what is higher or more perfect than this, one, and I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and he who has seen Me in the sight of the Father? To the Son, as the same John says, belong the following sayings: "He who saw Me, saw Me (12:45); and, "Whosoever receiveth Me, receiveth Him that sent Me" (Matthew 10:40); and: "I have come light into the world, that whosoever believeth in Me shall not abide in darkness." And if anyone hears My words and does not keep it, I will not judge him: for I have not come, that I may judge the world, but that I may save the world. The word that heareth it judges him on the last day (John 12:46-48), as I come to the Father (14:12); preaching, He says, judges him who does not keep the commandment. For, as he says, if he did not come and spoke to them, they had no sin; but now they have no excuse (15:22), hearing my words, from which those who keep them reap salvation.

(18) Perhaps the heretics in their shamelessness will say that this is not the utterance of the Son, but of the Word. But from what has been said above, it is clearly seen that He who speaks is the Son, for it is indicated that He who says here, "I have not come to judge, but to save the world," is no one else, but the only-begotten Son of God. For the same John says above this: "Thus shall God love the world, as He hath given His only-begotten Son to eat, that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." For God did not send the Son into the world, let Him judge the world, but let the world be saved by Him. If you believe in Him, you are not condemned: but if you do not believe, you are already condemned, because you do not believe in the name of the only-begotten Son of God. And this is the judgment, for light came into the world, and loved men more than darkness, but light: for their evil deeds were (3:16-19). If He who says, "473 I have not come, that I may judge the world, but that I may save him," is the same One who says, "See Me, see Him who sent Me," but He who came to save the world, and not to condemn it, is the only-begotten Son of God, then it is evident that He who says, "See Me, see Him who sent Me," is the same Son. For He also who says, "Believe in Me," and if anyone hearkens not to My words, I do not judge him, is the same Son of Whom it is said, "Believe in Him, you are not condemned, and you do not believe, you are already condemned, because you do not believe in the name of the only-begotten Son of God." And again: this is the judgment of him who does not believe in the Son, for light has come into the world, and they have not believed in Him, evidently in the Son. For He is the light which enlightens every man that cometh into the world (1:9). And all the time that He dwelt on earth after His incarnation, the light was in the world, as He Himself said: "Until you have light, believe in the light, that you may be sons of light" (12:36). And: "I have come into the world as a light" (v. 46).

(19) Therefore, because of what has been proved, it is evident that the Word is the Son. If the Son is the light that came into the world, then it is indisputable that the world received existence through the Son. For at the beginning of the Gospel, speaking of John the Baptist, the Evangelist adds: "Not that light, but let it bear witness to the light" (1:8); for, as it was said before, Christ Himself is the true light, which enlightens every man that cometh into the world (9). For if He was in the world, and the world was by Him (10), then of necessity He is the Word of God, of Whom the Evangelist said: "All things were by Him" (3). Or the heretics will have to name two worlds, so that the one may come into being through the Son, and the other through the Word; or, if the world is one and the creature is one, then one and the same thing must be called the Son and the Word before all creation, because 474 the creature received existence through Him. Consequently, if all things were both by the Word and by the Son, then it will not be contradictory, but one and the same thing will be said: in the beginning was the Word, in the beginning was the Son.

But if, since John did not say, "In the beginning was the Son," they say that it is unseemly for the Son that which is ascribed to the Word, then behold, and that which is attributed to the Son will be unseemly to the Word. And it is proved that the Son says: I and the Father are one, that the Son is in the bosom of the Father, and He also says: See Me, He who sent Me. True, the common relation to the Word and to the Son is what has been said: the world was by Him (1:10), wherefore it is proved that the Son is before the world, for the Creator must be before the created; but what was said to Philip, according to their reasoning, would not refer to the Word, but to the Son. For it is said, Jesus said, How long have I been with you, and hast thou not known me, Philip? And how do you say, show us the Father? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words which I say unto you, I say not of myself: But the Father abide in me, he doeth works. Believe Me as I am in the Father, and the Father in Me: if not, have faith in Me for that works. Amen, amen I say unto you, believe in me, the works which I do, and that shall do, and greater than these: for I come unto my Father. And whatsoever ye ask in my name, that I will do it: that the Father may be glorified in the Son (14:9-13). Thus, if the Father is glorified in the Son, then the Son is the One who says: I am in the Father, and the Father in Me. And he saith, He that hath seen Me in the sight of the Father. For He who says these things proves of Himself that He is the Son, adding, "Let the Father be glorified in the Son."

(20) Therefore, if it is said that the man whom the Word has taken upon Himself is the Only-begotten Son of God, and that the Word is not the Son, then it follows that man is also He who is in the Father and in Whom is the Father; man is also He Who is one with the Father, Who is in the bosom of the Father, Who is the true light. And they will be forced to say that this man was the world, that this man is Who came not to judge the world, but to save it, that He was not even Abraham before. For it is said, "Jesus said to them, 'Amen, amen, I say unto you, before even Abraham was, I am' (8:58). What incongruity, because of their wisdom, is it for Him Who came from Abraham's seed forty-two generations after Abraham to say: "Not even Abraham was before, I am"? What incongruity, if the flesh which the Word took upon Himself is itself the Son, to say that the flesh of Mary is the same that the world was by her? How can this also be explained: in the world there is (1:10)? For the Evangelist, denoting that which preceded the existence of the Son in the flesh, added: in the world be. How, then, if not the Word, but man is the Son, can He save the world, being one of the things in the world Himself? If this does not bring heretics to shame, then where will the Word be when man is in the Father? By which number is the Word in relation to the Father, when man and the Father are one? If man is already the Only-begotten, who will be the Word after him? Will anyone else say that the Word is second to the Only-begotten? Or if He is higher than the Only-begotten, then He Himself is the Father. For as the Father is one, so the only-begotten of Him is one. In what way does the Word prevail over man, when the Word is not even the Son? Although it is written that the world was both by the Son and the Word, that it is common for the Son and the Word to build the world; but to see the Father is no longer ascribed to the Word, but to the Son, and the world is saved, according to what has been said, no longer by the 476 Word, but by the only-begotten Son. For it is said, Jesus said, 'How long have I been with you, and hast thou not known me, Philip?' Who saw Me in the form of the Father. And the Father, according to what is written, knows not the Word, but the Son; for it is not the Word that sees the Father, as it is said, but the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father.

21) What then does the Word bring to our salvation that is superior to the Son, if, according to them, one is the Son, and another is the Word? We are commanded to believe, not in the Word, but in the Son. For John says, "Believe in the Son, and have eternal life: but whoever does not believe in the Son shall not see life" (3:36). And holy baptism, on which the composition of all our faith rests, is taught not into the Word, but into the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Therefore, if, according to their words, one is the Word, and another is the Son, and the Word is not the Son, then baptism has nothing to do with the Word. How, then, according to their teaching, is the Word co-existent with the Father, without being co-existent with Him in the giving of baptism?

Но, может быть, скажут, что в имени Отца заключается и Слово. Итак, почему же не заключается и Дух? Или Дух вне Отца? И человек, так как Слово — не Сын, именуется после Отца, а Дух после человека? И даже еще, по учению их, Единица расширяется не в Троицу, но в четверицу: в Отца, в Слово, в Сына, в Духа Святаго?

Пристыждаемые этим, прибегают они к другому, и говорят, что не сам по себе — человек, которого восприял на Себя Господь, но то и другое вместе, и Слово и человек, есть Сын, ибо то и другое в соединении, как говорят они, именуется Сыном. Посему что же чего виною и кто кого соделал Сыном? Или, скажу яснее, ради ли плоти Слово есть Сын или ради Слова плоть называется Сыном? Или ни Слово, ни плоть, а только соединение 477 обоих именуется Сыном? Итак, если Слово ради плоти, то необходимо плоти быть Сыном; и следствием этого будут те же несообразности, какие, по сказанному прежде, вытекают из наименования человека Сыном. Если же ради Слова плоть именуется Сыном, то, конечно, и прежде плоти сущее Слово было Сыном. Ибо как можно кому-либо усыновлять других, самому не будучи Сыном, особливо когда есть Отец? Посему если Себе усыновляет, то Само Оно — Отец; а если Отцу, то необходимо Самому быть Сыном, особливо же быть Сыном Тому, Кем другие усыновляются.

22) Ибо если, когда Слово — не Сын, мы бываем сынами, то Бог наш, а не Его Отец. Почему же Себе паче присвояет, говоря: Отец Мой (Ин 5:17), и: Аз от Отца (16:28)? Если Бог — общий всех Отец, то не Его только Отец, и не одно Слово исшло от Отца. Писание говорит иногда, что Бог именуется и нашим Отцом, потому что Слово приобщилось нашей плоти. Ибо для сего Слово плоть бысть, чтобы, поелику Слово есть Сын, по причине обитающего в нас Сына Бог именовался и нашем Отцом. Сказано: посла Бог Духа Сына Своего в сердца наша, вопиюща: Авва Отче (Гал 4:6). Итак, Сын, в нас призывающий собственного Своего Отца, делает, что именуется Он и нашим Отцом. Конечно же, у кого в сердце нет Сына, Отцом того не наименуется Бог. Итак, если ради Слова человек называется Сыном, то, поелику и до вочеловечения ветхозаветные назывались сынами, по всей необходимости Слову должно быть Сыном и прежде пришествия. Сказано: сыны родих (Ис 1:2); и при Ное: видевше же сынове Божии (Быт 6:2); и в песни: не сам ли сей Отец твой (Втор 32:6). А поэтому был и истинный Сын, ради Которого и они были сынами. 478

Если же опять, по словам еретиков, ни Слово, ни плоть не именуется Сыном, дается же сие именование ради соединения обоих, то по необходимости ни то, ни другое, то есть ни Слово, ни человек не есть Сын; будет же Сыном какая ни есть причина, ради которой они соединены. Таким образом, предшествовать будет причина сочетания, которая творит Сына. Следовательно, и посему Сын был прежде плоти.

После этих рассуждений прибегают они к другому предположению, говоря, что не человек есть Сын, и ни то, ни другое вместе, но Слово. Вначале Оно есть просто Слово, а когда вочеловечилось, тогда наименовано Сыном; ибо до явления во плоти нет Сына, а есть только Слово. И как Слово плоть бысть, не быв прежде плотию, так Слово соделалось и Сыном, не быв прежде Сыном. Таковы суесловные предположения еретиков, и служащее к их опровержению само собою ясно.