(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.

23) If the Word, having become man, became completely the Son, then the cause is the incarnation. But if man, or both, is the cause of the Word being the Son, then the old inconsistencies will be encountered. Moreover, if the Word first, and later the Son, then He will prove to be afterwards, and not originally knowing the Father, because it is not the Word who knows the Father, but the Son: no one knows the Father but the Son (Matthew 11:27). The following will also be encountered: the Word subsequently became in the bosom of the Father; afterwards He and the Father were made one; afterwards this also began to take place: seeing Me in the form of the Father; for all these things are said about the Son. And as a consequence of this, they will be forced to say that the Word was nothing else, but only a name; for He was not in us with the Father, he who saw the Word saw the Father below, and the Father was known by anyone in general. For the Father is known through the Son, as it is written, "And if the Son shall reveal" (v. 27); but when the Word was not yet the Son, no one knew the Father. So how did God appear to Moses and the fathers? For He Himself says in the Book of Kings, "I have made myself known to all your fathers" (1 Samuel 2:27). And if God revealed Himself, then it is evident that He who reveals was the Son, as He Himself says: "And if the Son reveals." Therefore it is impious and unwise to say that one is the Word, and another is the Son.

But it is good to ask heretics: whence do they get such an assumption? They will say, of course: "The Old Testament does not speak of the Son, but speaks of the Word; this is confirmed in the assumption that the Son is later than the Word, because the Son is spoken of not in the Old, but in the New Testament alone." This is what they say in their wickedness. First, to divide the Testaments and say that one is not connected with the other is the business of the Manichaeans and Jews, some of whom dispute the Old Testament, and others the New Testament. Then, according to them, if what is contained in the Old Testament precedes in time, and what is contained in the New is later, and by this time in the Scriptures is determined, then of necessity these sayings must again be understood about the later time: I and the Father are one, and the Only-begotten, and He who has seen Me in the form of the Father; for this is testified not by the Old, but by the New Testament.

(24) But the position of the heretics is incorrect; it is true that the Old Testament also speaks many times about the Son, for example: in the second psalm: "My Son art Thou, I have begotten Thee today" (v. 7), and in the inscription of the ninth psalm: "At the end, concerning the secret Son, a psalm to David; and in Psalm forty-four: 480 At the end, for those who are changed, by the son of Korah into understanding, a song about the beloved; and in Isaiah: I will sing to the beloved the song of the Beloved, to the vineyard. Who is this Beloved if not the only-begotten Son? So also in Psalm one hundred and nine it is said: "From the womb before Lucifer begat Thee" (v. 3), which will be spoken of later; and in Proverbs: "First of all the hills He gives birth to Me" (8:25); and in Daniel, "The fourth evil is like the Son of God" (Daniel 3:92); There are many other sayings. Thus, if the Old Testament proves antiquity, then the Son will also be ancient, clearly preached in many places of the Old Testament.

Yes, they say, "And there is mention of the Son, but prophetically." Therefore it can be said that the Word is also spoken of prophetically. For it cannot be said that one thing is said this way, and the other is said in another. If it is said of the future, "Thou art my Son," then it is evident that this is also said of the future: "By the word of the Lord the heavens are established" (Psalm 32:6). For David did not say, "He was, or he did." And what is confirmed by the word "established" signifies the future, it is said, "The Lord is enthroned," and then, "For establish the world, which is not moved" (92:1). And if the forty-fourth Psalm speaks of the Beloved about the future, then it is evident that the future is also indicated by the addition: I will regurgitate My heart the Word of goodness. And if the utterance from the womb is used of man, then it follows that the utterance of man must also be understood as of man: from the heart. If the womb is something human, then the heart is something bodily. And if speaking from the heart signifies the eternal, then the utterance from the womb also signifies the eternal. And if the Only-begotten is in the bosom, then the Beloved is in the bosom, because the sayings, Only-begotten and Beloved, 481 mean one and the same thing. For example: "This is My beloved Son" (Matthew 3:17). For it was not with the intention of expressing love for Him that he said: beloved, otherwise he would have given the idea that he hates others; but by this He expressed His begottenness, wishing to show that He was the only one of Him. Thus the Word, wishing to signify to Abraham the only begottenness, says: "Remember thy beloved Son" (Genesis 22:2); and everyone knows that of Sarah there is only one Isaac. Thus the Word is the Son, not recently produced or called the Son, but the Son who always exists. For if not the Son, neither is the Word; and if not the Word, then not the Son. What is from the Father, that is, the Son. What is of the Father, except the Word, which proceeded from the heart and was born from the womb? The Father is not the Word, and the Word is not the Father; but one is the Father, the other is the Son, the one begets, the other is born.

(25) For this reason Arius is mad when he says that the Son is of those who are not, and was when He was not. Sabellius is also mad when he says that the Father is the Son, and vice versa, the Son is the Father, one in hypostasis and two in name. He is also mad who presents the grace of the Spirit as an example and says: "As there is a division of gifts, but the Spirit is one and the same, so the Father, although one and the same, is expanded into the Son and the Spirit." Such a teaching is full of inconsistencies. For if as it is said of the Spirit, so is it understood of God, then the Father will be both the Word and the Holy Spirit, being the Father to the one, the Word to another, and the Spirit to the other, according to the need of each; and though in name He is the Son and the Spirit, yet in reality He is only the Father; As He began to be the Son, so He ceases to be called the Father, He became incarnate only in name, but in truth He did not come to earth, and falsely says: I and the Father, because in reality it is the Father Himself. From this also follow all the other inconsistencies of Savelli's wisdom. It is necessary to cease the very name of the Son and the Spirit after the satisfaction of the need. Everything that takes place will already be one game, because it did not appear in reality, but only under the name. And with the cessation of the name of the Son, according to their teaching, the grace of baptism will also cease, because it was given for the sake of the Son. And what will follow if not the destruction of creation? For if the Word came into being in order that we might be created, and because He did, then we exist, it is evident that, as the heretics say, after the return of the Son to the Father, we will no longer exist. For then everything will be what it was, and consequently we will not be, as we were not before; Since the Word no longer comes, there will be no more creation.

(26) There are so many inconsistencies in this! And that the Son has no beginning of being, but always and before the incarnation of man, is clearly expressed by John in the first epistle, saying: "Though from the beginning, when we heard, when we saw with our eyes, when we saw, and our hands were touched, O the Word of life: and the life hath appeared unto us, and hath seen, and testify, and proclaim unto you eternal life, which is with the Father, and appeared to us (1:1-2). Having said here that the life (eternal) did not come into being, but was with the Father, at the end of the epistle he says that this life is the Son; and he writes thus: and that we may be in truth, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life (5:20). But if the Son is life, and the life is with the Father, and if the Son was with the Father, John himself says: "And the Word is to God, then the Son is the Word, which is always with the Father." And as the Son is the Word, so God is the Father Himself. But the Son, according to the words of John, is not just God, but true God; and according to his own word, God is the Word (John 1:1), and the Son says: I am the life (14:6). Therefore, the Son is the Word and the life that exists with the Father. And again, what is said in the same John: "The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father" (1:18), shows that the Son always exists, but Whom John calls the Son, David sings of Him, calling Him by the hand, and saying, "Turn away Thy hand and Thy right hand from the midst of Thy bosom" (Psalm 73:11)? If, therefore, the hand is in the bosom and the Son is in the bosom, then the Son is the hand, and the hand is the Son, and by Him the Father created all things. For it is said, "Thy hand shall open all this" (Isaiah 41:20); and, Thou hast brought forth men with thy hand (Bar. 2:11), therefore thou hast brought forth by the Son. But if it is said, "And this is the betrayal of the right hand of the Most High" (Psalm 76:11), and again, "In the end, O changeable, the song of the Beloved" (44:1), then it follows that the changed hand is the Beloved of Whom the Divine voice speaks: "This is My beloved Son." This is my hand, and this is my Son.

(27) Since, however, some of the ignorant, denying the existence of the Son, do not attach importance to what has been said, "From the womb before Thee was born" (109:3), and, as if this could be applied to Mary, they say that "He was born of Mary before the morning star, but it is unseemly to ascribe a womb to God," it is necessary to say briefly to this as well. If the womb is something human and therefore alien to God, then it is obvious that the heart also means something human, because he who has a heart must also have a belly. And since both are human, it is either necessary to deny both, or it is necessary to look for the meaning of both. 484 For as from the heart is the word, so from the womb is the birth; and just as, if we speak of the heart of God, we do not think of a human heart, so if the Scripture says, "From the womb," we must understand not the bodily womb. The Divine Scriptures usually express and explain in a human way that which is higher than man. And of course, describing the creation, He says: "Thy hands have created me, and have created me" (Psalm 118:73), and "My hand has created all this" (Isaiah 66:2), and "By Him I have commanded, and I have been created" (Psalm 32:9); and speaking decently about every object, He makes it possible to understand His attribute with the Father and His sincerity, and about the creature the beginning of its existence; for God creates and builds creatures, but the Son, the Word and Wisdom, begets from Himself. But the womb and the heart express quality with the Father and sincerity, because we also have that which is born out of the womb, but we do the works with the hand.