Discourse III.

Chapter XXIII.—Texts Explained; Seventhly, John xiv. 10Introduction. The doctrine of the coinherence. The Father and the Son Each whole and perfect God. They are in Each Other, because their Essence is One and the Same. They are Each Perfect and have One Essence, because the Second Person is the Son of the First. Asterius’s evasive explanation of the text under review; refuted. Since the Son has all that the Father has, He is His Image; and the Father is the One God, because the Son is in the Father.

1. The Ario-maniacs, as it appears, having once made up their minds to transgress and revolt from the Truth, are strenuous in appropriating the words of Scripture, ‘When the impious cometh into a depth of evils, he despiseth965    de Decr. 25, note 2.    Prov. xviii. 3, LXX.;’ for refutation does not stop them, nor perplexity abash them; but, as having ‘a whore’s forehead,’ they ‘refuse to be ashamed966    Vid. Orat. iv. §13.    Jer. iii. 3.’ before all men in their irreligion. For whereas the passages which they alleged, ‘The Lord created me967    §8, note 8.    Supr. ch. xix.,’ and ‘Made better than the Angels968    De Decr. §31.    Ch. xiii.,’ and ‘First-born969    Jer. ii. 13.    Ch. xxi.,’ and ‘Faithful to Him that made Him970    Ib. xvii. 12, 13.    Ch. xiv.’ have a right sense971    Bar. iii. 12.    ii. 44, n. 1., and inculcate religiousness towards Christ, so it is that these men still, as if bedewed with the serpent’s poison, not seeing what they ought to see, nor understanding what they read, as if in vomit from the depth of their irreligious heart, have next proceeded to disparage our Lord’s words, ‘I in the Father and the Father in Me972    John xiv. 6.    John xiv. 10.;’ saying, ‘How can the One be contained in the Other and the Other in the One?’ or ‘How at all can the Father who is the greater be contained in the Son who is the less?’ or ‘What wonder, if the Son is in the Father,’ considering it is written even of us, ‘In Him we live and move and have our being973    Prov. viii. 12.    Acts xvii. 28. Vid. supr. ii. 41, note 11. The doctrine of the περιχώρησις, which this objection introduces, is the test of orthodoxy opposed to Arianism. Cf. de Syn. 15, n. 4. This is seen clearly in the case of Eusebius, whose language approaches to Catholic more nearly than Arians in general. After all his strong assertions, the question recurs, is our Lord a distinct being from God, as we are, or not? he answers in the affirmative, vid. supr. p. 75, n. 7, whereas we believe that He is literally and numerically one with the Father, and therefore His Person dwells in the Father’s Person by an ineffable union. And hence the language of Dionysius [of Rome] supr. de Decr. 26. ‘the Holy Ghost must repose and habitate in God,’ ἐμφιλοχωρεῖν τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἐνδιαιτᾶσθαι. And hence the strong figure of S. Jerome (in which he is followed by S. Cyril, Thesaur. p. 51), ‘Filius locus est Patris, sicut et Pater locus est Filii.’ in Ezek. iii. 12. So Athan. contrasts the creatures who are ἐν μεμερισμένοις τόποις and the Son. Serap. iii. 4. Cf. even in the Macrostich Creed, language of this character, viz. ‘All the Father embosoming the Son, and all the Son hanging and adhering to the Father, and alone resting on the Father’s breast continually.’ De Syn. 26 (7), where vid. note 3.?’ And this state of mind is consistent with their perverseness, who think God to be material, and understand not what is ‘True Father’ and ‘True Son,’ nor ‘Light Invisible’ and ‘Eternal,’ and Its ‘Radiance Invisible,’ nor ‘Invisible Subsistence,’ and ‘Immaterial Expression’ and ‘Immaterial Image.’ For did they know, they would not dishonour and ridicule the Lord of glory, nor interpreting things immaterial after a material manner, pervert good words. It were sufficient indeed, on hearing only words which are the Lord’s, at once to believe, since the faith of simplicity is better than an elaborate process of persuasion; but since they have endeavoured to profane even this passage to their own heresy, it becomes necessary to expose their perverseness and to shew the mind of the truth, at least for the security of the faithful. For when it is said, ‘I in the Father and the Father in Me,’ They are not therefore, as these suppose, discharged into Each Other, filling the One the Other, as in the case of empty vessels, so that the Son fills the emptiness of the Father and the Father that of the Son974    Supr. §15.    This is not inconsistent with S. Jerome as quoted in the foregoing note. Athan. merely means that such illustrations cannot be taken literally, as if spoken of natural subjects. The Father is the τόπος or locus of the Son, because when we contemplate the Son in His fulness as ὅλος θεός, we merely view the Father as that Person in whom God the Son is; our mind abstracts His Essence which is the Son for the moment from Him, and regards Him merely as Father. Thus in Illud. Omn. 4, supr. p. 89. It is, however, but an operation of the mind, and not a real emptying of Godhead from the Father, if such words may be used. Father and Son are both the same God, though really and eternally distinct from each other; and Each is full of the Other, that is, their Essence is one and the same. This is insisted on by S. Cyril, in Joan. p. 28. And by S. Hilary, Trin. vii. fin. vid. also iii. 23. Cf. the quotation from S. Anselm made by Petavius, de Trin. iv. 16 fin. [Cf. D.C.B. s.v. Metangismonitae.], and Each of Them by Himself is not complete and perfect (for this is proper to bodies, and therefore the mere assertion of it is full of irreligion), for the Father is full and perfect, and the Son is the Fulness of Godhead. Nor again, as God, by coming into the Saints, strengthens them, thus is He also in the Son. For He is Himself the Father’s Power and Wisdom, and by partaking of Him things originate are sanctified in the Spirit; but the Son Himself is not Son by participation, but is the Father’s own Offspring975    Isa. lviii. 11.    Vid. de Decr. 10, n. 4, 19, n. 3; Or. i. 15, n. 6. On the other hand Eusebius considers the Son, like a creature, ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς πατρικῆς [not οὐσίας, but] μετουσίας, ὥσπερ ἀπὸ πηγῆς, ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν προχεομένης πληρούμενον. Eccl. Theol. i. 2. words which are the more observable, the nearer they approach to the language of Athan. in the text and elsewhere. Vid. infr. by way of contrast, οὐδὲ κατὰ μετουσίαν αὐτοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ ὅλον ἴδιον αὐτοῦ γέννημα. 4.. Nor again is the Son in the Father, in the sense of the passage, ‘In Him we live and move and have our being;’ for, He as being from the Fount976    Ps. civ. 24.    De Decr. 15, n. 9. of the Father is the Life, in which all things are both quickened and consist; for the Life does not live in life977    Prov. iii. 19.    i.e. Son does not live by the gift of life, for He is life, and does but give it, not receive. S. Hilary uses different language with the same meaning, de Trin. ii. 11. Other modes of expression for the same mystery are found infr. 3. also 6 fin. Vid. de Syn. 45, n. 1. and Didymus ἡ πατρικὴ θεότης. p. 82. and S. Basil, ἐξ οὗ ἔχει τὸ εἶναι. contr. Eunom. ii. 12 fin. Just above Athan. says that ‘the Son is the fulness of the Godhead.’ Thus the Father is the Son’s life because the Son is from Him, and the Son the Father’s because the Son is in Him. All these are but different ways of signifying the περιχώρησις, else it would not be Life, but rather He gives life to all things.

2. But now let us see what Asterius the Sophist says, the retained pleader978    John i. 3. See Westcott’s additional note on the passage.]    συνηγόρου, infr. §60. for the heresy. In imitation then of the Jews so far, he writes as follows; ‘It is very plain that He has said, that He is in the Father and the Father again in Him, for this reason, that neither the word on which He was discoursing is, as He says, His own, but the Father’s, nor the works belong to Him, but to the Father who gave Him the power.’ Now this, if uttered at random by a little child, had been excused from his age; but when one who bears the title of Sophist, and professes universal knowledge979    1 Cor. viii. 6.    πάντα γινώσκειν ἐπαγγελλόμενος. Gorgias, according to Cicero de fin. ii. init. was the first who ventured in public to say προβάλλετε, ‘give me a question.’ This was the ἐπάγγελμα of the Sophists; of which Aristotle speaks. Rhet. ii. 24 fin. Vid. Cressol. Theatr. Rhet. iii. 11., is the writer, what a serious condemnation does he deserve! And does he not shew himself a stranger to the Apostle980    Vid. Petav. de Trin. ii. 12, §4.    1 Cor. ii. 4., as being puffed up with persuasive words of wisdom, and thinking thereby to succeed in deceiving, not understanding himself what he says nor whereof he affirms981    De Decr. §30.    1 Tim. i. 7.? For what the Son has said as proper and suitable to a Son only, who is Word and Wisdom and Image of the Father’s Essence, that he levels to all the creatures, and makes common to the Son and to them; and he says, lawless982    De Decr. §17.    παράνομος. infr. 47, c. Hist. Ar. 71, 75, 79. Ep. Æg. 16, d. Vid. ἄνομος. 2 Thess. ii. 8. man, that the Power of the Father receives power, that from this his irreligion it may follow to say that in a son983    ἄλογον. Vid. note on de Decr. §§1, 15, where other instances are given from Athan. and Dionysius of Rome; vid. also Orat. iv. 2, 4. Sent. D. 23. Origen, supr. p. 48. Athenag. Leg. 10. Tat. contr. Græc. 5. Theoph. ad. Autol. ii. 10. Hipp. contr. Noet. 10. Nyssen. contr. Eunom. vii. p. 215. viii. pp. 230, 240. Orat, Catech. 1. Naz. Orat. 29. 17 fin. Cyril. Thesaur. xiv. p. 145 (vid. Petav. de Trin. vi. 9). It must not be supposed from these instances that the Fathers meant that our Lord was literally what is called the attribute of reason or wisdom in the Divine Essence, or in other words, that He was God merely viewed as He is wise; which would be a kind of Sabellianism. But, whereas their opponents said that He was but called Word and Wisdom after the attribute (vid. de Syn. 15, note), they said that such titles marked, not only a typical resemblance to the attribute, but so full a correspondence and (as it were) coincidence in nature with it, that whatever relation that attribute had to God, such in kind had the Son;—that the attribute was His symbol, and not His mere archetype; that our Lord was eternal and proper to God, because that attribute was, which was His title, vid. Ep. Æg. 14, that our Lord was that Essential Reason and Wisdom,—not by which the Father is wise, but without which the Father was not wise;—not, that is, in the way of a formal cause, but in fact. Or, whereas the Father Himself is Reason and Wisdom, the Son is the necessary result of that Reason and Wisdom, so that, to say that there was no Word, would imply there was no Divine Reason; just as a radiance implies a light; or, as Petavius remarks, l.c. quoting the words which follow shortly after in the text, the eternity of the Original implies the eternity of the Image; τῆς ὑποστάσεως ὑπαρχούσης, πάντως εὐθὺς εἶναι δεῖ τὸν χαρακτῆρα καὶ τὴν εἰκόνα ταύτης, §20. vid. also infr. §31, de Decr. §13, p. 21, §§20, 23, pp. 35, 40. Theod. H. E. i. 3. p. 737.    ἐν υἱ& 254·, but ἐν τῷ υἱ& 254·. Ep. Æg. 14 fin. vid. Or. ii. 22, note 2. the Son was made a son, and the Word received a word’s authority; and, far from granting that He spoke this as a Son, He ranks Him with all things made as having learned it as they have. For if the Son said, ‘I am in the Father and the Father in Me,’ because His discourses were not His own words but the Father’s, and so of His works, then,—since David says, ‘I will hear what the Lord God shall say in me984    This was but the opposite aspect of the tenet of our Lord’s consubstantiality or eternal generation. For if He came into being at the will of God, by the same will He might cease to be; but if His existence is unconditional and necessary, as God’s attributes might be, then as He had no beginning, so can He have no end; for He is in, and one with, the Father, who has neither beginning nor end. On the question of the ‘will of God’ as it affects the doctrine, vid. Orat. iii. §59, &c.    Ps. lxxxv. 8, LXX.,’ and again Solomon985    §29, note.    1 Kings viii. 59, or x. 24?, ‘My words are spoken by God,’ and since Moses was minister of words which were from God, and each of the Prophets spoke not what was his own but what was from God, ‘Thus saith the Lord,’ and since the works of the Saints, as they professed, were not their own but God’s who gave the power, Elijah for instance and Elisha invoking God that He Himself would raise the dead, and Elisha saying to Naaman, on cleansing him from the leprosy, ‘that thou mayest know that there is a God in Israel986    De Decr. 22, note 9.    2 Kings v. 8, 15.,’ and Samuel too in the days of the harvest praying to God to grant rain, and the Apostles saying that not in their own power they did miracles but in the Lord’s grace—it is plain that, according to Asterius such a statement must be common to all, so that each of them is able to say, ‘I in the Father and the Father in me;’ and as a consequence that He is no longer one Son of God and Word and Wisdom, but, as others, is only one out of many.

3. But if the Lord said this, His words would not rightly have been, ‘I in the Father and the Father in Me,’ but rather, ‘I too am in the Father, and the Father is in Me too,’ that He may have nothing of His own and by prerogative987    John xiv. 6.    Or. ii. 19, n. 6., relatively to the Father, as a Son, but the same grace in common with all. But it is not so, as they think; for not understanding that He is genuine Son from the Father, they belie Him who is such, whom alone it befits to say, ‘I in the Father and the Father in Me.’ For the Son is in the Father, as it is allowed us to know, because the whole Being of the Son is proper to the Father’s essence988    Athan. argues from the very name Image for our Lord’s eternity. An Image, to be really such, must be an expression from the Original, not an external and detached imitation. vid. supr. note 10, infr. §26. Hence S. Basil, ‘He is an Image not made with the hand, or a work of art, but a living Image,’ &c. vid. also contr. Eunom. ii. 16, 17. Epiph. Hær. 76. 3. Hilar. Trin. vii. 41 fin. Origen observes that man, on the contrary, is an example of an external or improper image of God. Periarch. i. 2. §6. It might have been more direct to have argued from the name of Image to our Lord’s consubstantiality rather than eternity, as, e.g. S. Gregory Naz. ‘He is Image as one in essence, ὁμοούσιον,…for this is the nature of an image, to be a copy of the archetype.’ Orat. 30. 20. vid. also de Decr. §§20, 23, but for whatever reason Athan. avoids the word ὁμοούσιον in these Discourses. S. Chrys. on Col. i. 15.    Since the Father and the Son are the numerically One God, it is but expressing this in other words to say that the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father, for all They have and all They are is common to Each, excepting Their being Father and Son. A περιχώρησις of Persons is implied in the Unity of Essence. This is the connexion of the two texts so often quoted; ‘the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son,’ because ‘the Son and the Father are one.’ And the cause of this unity and περιχώρησις is the Divine γέννησις. Thus S. Hilary, Trin. ii. 4. vid. Or. ii. 33, n. 1., as radiance from light, and stream from fountain; so that whoso sees the Son, sees what is proper to the Father, and knows that the Son’s Being, because from the Father, is therefore in the Father. For the Father is in the Son, since the Son is what is from the Father and proper to Him, as in the radiance the sun, and in the word the thought, and in the stream the fountain: for whoso thus contemplates the Son, contemplates what is proper to the Father’s Essence, and knows that the Father is in the Son. For whereas the Form989    Prov. viii. 30.    εἴδους. Petavius here prefers the reading ἰδίου; θεότης and τὸ ἱδιον occur together infr. 6. and 56. εἶδος occurs Orat. i. 20, a. de Syn. 52. vid. de Syn. 52, n. 6. infr. 6, 16, Ep. Æg. 17, contr. Sabell. Greg. 8, c. 12, vid. infr. §§6, 16, notes. and Godhead of the Father is the Being of the Son, it follows that the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son990    John xiv. 9.    In accordance with §1, note 10, Thomassin observes that by the mutual coinherence or indwelling of the Three Blessed Persons is meant ‘not a commingling as of material liquids, nor as of soul with body, nor as the union of our Lord’s Godhead and humanity, but it is such that the whole power, life, substance, wisdom, essence, of the Father, should be the very essence, substance, wisdom, life, and power of the Son.’ de Trin. xxviii. 1. S. Cyril adopts Athan.’s language to express this doctrine in Joan. p. 105. de Trin. vi. p. 621, in Joan. p. 168. Vid. infr. ταὐτότης οὐσίας, 21. πατρικὴ θεότης τοῦ υἱοῦ, 26. and 41. and de Syn. 45, n. 1. vid. also Damasc. F. O. i. 8. pp. 139, 140..

4. On this account and reasonably, having said before, ‘I and the Father are One,’ He added, ‘I in the Father and the Father in Me,991    ὁμοίας οὐσίας. And so §20 init. ὅμοιον κατ᾽ οὐσίαν, and ὅμοιος τῆς οὐσίας, §26. ὅμοιος κατ᾽ οὐσίαν, iii. 26. and ὅμοιος κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ πατρός. Ep. Æg. 17. Also Alex. Ep. Encycl. 2. Considering what he says in the de Syn. §38, &c., in controversy with the semi-Arians a year or two later, this use of their formula, in preference to the ὁμοούσιον (vid. foregoing note), deserves our attention.    John x. 30.’ by way of shewing the identity992    De Decr. §16.    De Syn. 45, n. 1. of Godhead and the unity of Essence. For they are one, not993    De Syn. 27 (5) note 1, and infr. §40.    Infr. Orat. iv. 9. as one thing divided into two parts, and these nothing but one, nor as one thing twice named, so that the Same becomes at one time Father, at another His own Son, for this Sabellius holding was judged an heretic. But They are two, because the Father is Father and is not also Son, and the Son is Son and not also Father994    The objection is this, that, if our Lord be the Father’s Image, He ought to resemble Him in being a Father. S. Athanasius answers that God is not as man; with us a son becomes a father because our nature is ῥευστὴ, transitive and without stay, ever shifting and passing on into new forms and relations; but that God is perfect and ever the same, what He is once that He continues to be; God the Father remains Father, and God the Son remains Son. Moreover men become fathers by detachment and transmission, and what is received is handed on in a succession; whereas the Father, by imparting Himself wholly, begets the Son: and a perfect nativity finds its termination in itself. The Son has not a Son, because the Father has not a Father. Thus the Father is the only true Father, and the Son alone true Son; the Father only a Father, the Son only a Son; being really in their Persons what human fathers are but by office, character, accident, and name; vid. De Decr. 11, note 6. And since the Father is unchangeable as Father, in nothing does the Son more fulfil the idea of a perfect Image than in being unchangeable too. Thus S. Cyril also, Thesaur. 10. p. 124. And this perhaps may illustrate a strong and almost startling implication of some of the Greek Fathers, that the First Person in the Holy Trinity, is not God [in virtue of His Fatherhood]. E.g. εἰ δὲ θεὸς ὁ υἱ& 232·ς, οὐκ ἐπεὶ υἱ& 231·ς· ὁμοίως καὶ ὁ πατὴρ, οὐκ ἐπεὶ πατὴρ, θεός· ἀλλ᾽ ἐπεὶ οὐσία τοιάδε, εἷς ἐστὶ πατὴρ καὶ ὁ υἱ& 232·ς θεός. Nyssen. t. i. p. 915. vid. Petav. de Deo i. 9. §13. Should it be asked, ‘What is the Father if not God?’ it is enough to answer, ‘the Father.’ Men differ from each other as being individuals, but the characteristic difference between Father and Son is, not that they are individuals, but that they are Father and Son. In these extreme statements it must be ever borne in mind that we are contemplating divine things according to our notions. not in fact: i.e. speaking of the Almighty Father, as such; there being no real separation between His Person and His Substance. It may be added, that, though theologians differ in their decisions, it would appear that our Lord is not the Image of the Father’s person, but of the Father’s substance; in other words, not of the Father considered as Father, but considered as God. That is, God the Son is like and equal to God the Father, because they are both the same God. De Syn. 49. note 4, also next note.    Infr. 11.; but the nature is one; (for the offspring is not unlike995    Ep. Eus. 7, de Decr. 11, note 8.    ἀνόμοιον; and so ἀνόμοιος κατὰ πάντα. Orat. i. 6. κατ᾽ οὐσίαν. 17. Orat. ii. 43. τῆς οὐσίας. infr. 14. vid. ἀνομοιότης. infr. 8, c. its parent, for it is his image), and all that is the Father’s, is the Son’s996    κυρίως, de Decr. 11, note 6. Elsewhere Athan. says, ‘The Father being one and only is Father of a Son one and only; and in the instance of Godhead only have the names Father and Son stay, and are ever; for of men if any one be called father, yet he has been son of another; and if he be called son, yet is he called father of another; so that in the case of men the names father and son do not properly, κυρίως, hold.’ ad Serap. i. 16. also ibid. iv. 4 fin. and 6. vid. also κυρίως, Greg. Naz. Orat. 29. 5. ἀληθῶς, Orat. 25, 16. ὄντως, Basil. contr. Eunom. i. 5. p. 215.    Cf. in illud. Omn. 4. ‘As the Father is I am (ὁ ὤν) so His Word is I Am and God over all.’ Serap. i. 28, a; ib. ii. 2.. Wherefore neither is the Son another God, for He was not procured from without, else were there many, if a godhead be procured foreign from the Father’s997    Cf. i. 6.; for if the Son be other, as an Offspring, still He is the Same as God; and He and the Father are one in propriety and peculiarity of nature, and in the identity of the one Godhead, as has been said. For the radiance also is light, not second to the sun, nor a different light, nor from participation of it, but a whole and proper offspring of it. And such an offspring is necessarily one light; and no one would say that they are two lights998    Doctrine of the Una Res, de Syn. 45, n. 1., but sun and radiance two, yet one the light from the sun enlightening in its radiance all things. So also the Godhead of the Son is the Father’s; whence also it is indivisible; and thus there is one God and none other but He. And so, since they are one, and the Godhead itself one, the same things are said of the Son, which are said of the Father, except His being said to be Father999    Ib. 49, n. 4.:—for instance1000    Parallel to de Syn. 49., that He is God, ‘And the Word was God1001    John i. 1.;’ Almighty, ‘Thus saith He which was and is and is to come, the Almighty1002    Rev. i. 8.;’ Lord, ‘One Lord Jesus Christ1003    1 Cor. viii. 6.;’ that He is Light, ‘I am the Light1004    John viii. 12.;’ that He wipes out sins, ‘that ye may know,’ He says, ‘that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins1005    Luke v. 24.;’ and so with other attributes. For ‘all things,’ says the Son Himself, ‘whatsoever the Father hath, are Mine1006    John xvi. 15; xvii. 10.;’ and again, ‘And Mine are Thine.’

5. And on hearing the attributes of the Father spoken of a Son, we shall thereby see the Father in the Son; and we shall contemplate the Son in the Father, when what is said of the Son is said of the Father also. And why are the attributes of the Father ascribed to the Son, except that the Son is an Offspring from Him? and why are the Son’s attributes proper to the Father, except again because the Son is the proper Offspring of His Essence? And the Son, being the proper Offspring of the Father’s Essence, reasonably says that the Father’s attributes are His own also; whence suitably and consistently with saying, ‘I and the Father are One,’ He adds, ‘that ye may know that I am in the Father and the Father in Me1007    John x. 30, 38; xiv. 10..’ Moreover, He has added this again, ‘He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father1008    Ib. xiv. 9.;’ and there is one and the same sense in these three1009    Here these three texts, which so often occur together, are recognized as ‘three;’ so are they by Eusebius Eccl. Theol. iii. 19; and he says that Marcellus and ‘those who Sabellianize with him,’ among whom he included Catholics, were in the practice of adducing them, θρυλλοῦντες; which bears incidental testimony to the fact that the doctrine of the περιχώρησις was the great criterion between orthodox and Arian. Many instances of the joint use of the three are given supr. i. 34, n. 7. to which may be added Orat. ii. 54 init. iii. 16 fin. 67 fin. iv. 17, a. Serap. ii. 9, c. Serm. Maj. de fid. 29. Cyril. de Trin. p. 554. in Joann. p. 168. Origen Periarch. p. 56. Hil. Trin. ix. 1. Ambros. Hexaem. 6. August. de Cons. Ev. i. 7. passages. For he who in this sense understands that the Son and the Father are one, knows that He is in the Father and the Father in the Son; for the Godhead of the Son is the Father’s, and it is in the Son; and whoso enters into this, is convinced that ‘He that hath seen the Son, hath seen the Father;’ for in the Son is contemplated the Father’s Godhead. And we may perceive this at once from the illustration of the Emperor’s image. For in the image is the shape and form of the Emperor, and in the Emperor is that shape which is in the image. For the likeness of the Emperor in the image is exact1010    ἀπαράλλακτος, de Syn. 23, n. 1.; so that a person who looks at the image, sees in it the Emperor; and he again who sees the Emperor, recognises that it is he who is in the image1011    Vid. Basil. Hom. contr. Sab. p. 192. The honour paid to the Imperial Statues is well known. Ambros. in Psalm cxviii. x. 25. vid. also Chrysost. Hom. on Statues, passim, fragm. in Act. Conc. vii. (t. 4, p. 89. Hard.) Socr. vi. 18. The Seventh Council speaks of the images sent by the Emperors into provinces instead of their coming in person; Ducange in v. Lauratum. Vid. a description of the imperial statutes and their honours in Gothofred, Cod. Theod. t. 5, pp. 346, 7. and in Philostorg. xii. 12. vid. also Molanus de Imaginibus ed. Paquot, p. 197.. And from the likeness not differing, to one who after the image wished to view the Emperor, the image might say, ‘I and the Emperor are one; for I am in him, and he in me; and what thou seest in me, that thou beholdest in him, and what thou hast seen in him, that thou holdest in me1012    Athanasius guards against what is defective in this illustration in the next chapter, but independent of such explanation a mistake as to his meaning would be impossible; and the passage affords a good instance of the imperfect and partial character of all illustrations of the Divine Mystery. What it is taken to symbolize is the unity of the Father and Son, for the Image is not a Second Emperor but the same. vid. Sabell. Greg. 6. But no one, who bowed before the Emperor’s Statue can be supposed to have really worshipped it; whereas our Lord is the Object of supreme worship, which terminates in Him, as being really one with Him whose Image He is. From the custom of paying honour to the Imperial Statues, the Cultus Imaginum was introduced into the Eastern Church. The Western Church, not having had the civil custom, resisted. vid. Döllinger, Church History, vol. 3. p. 55. E. Tr. The Fathers, e.g. S. Jerome, set themselves against the civil custom, as idolatrous, comparing it to that paid to Nebuchadnezzar’s statue. vid. Hieron. in Dan. iii. 18. Incense was burnt before those of the Emperors; as afterwards before the images of the Saints..’ Accordingly he who worships the image, in it worships the Emperor also; for the image is his form and appearance. Since then the Son too is the Father’s Image, it must necessarily be understood that the Godhead and propriety of the Father is the Being of the Son.

6. And this is what is said, ‘Who being in the form of God1013    Phil. ii. 6.,’ and ‘the Father in Me.’ Nor is this Form1014    εἶδος, vid. infr. 16, note. of the Godhead partial merely, but the fulness of the Father’s Godhead is the Being of the Son, and the Son is whole God. Therefore also, being equal to God, He ‘thought it not a prize to be equal to God;’ and again since the Godhead and the Form of the Son is none other’s than the Father’s1015    Here first the Son’s εἶδος is the εἶδος of the Father, then the Son is the εἶδος of the Father’s Godhead, and then in the Son is the εἶδος of the Father. These expressions are equivalent, if Father and Son are, each separately, ὅλος θεός. vid. infr. §16, note. S. Greg. Naz. uses the word ὀπίσθια (Exod. xxxiii. 23), which forms a contrast to εἶδος, for the Divine Works. Orat. 28, 3., this is what He says, ‘I in the Father.’ Thus ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself1016    2 Cor. v. 19.;’ for the propriety of the Father’s Essence is that Son, in whom the creation was then reconciled with God. Thus what things the Son then wrought are the Father’s works, for the Son is the Form of that Godhead of the Father, which wrought the works. And thus he who looks at the Son, sees the Father; for in the Father’s Godhead is and is contemplated the Son; and the Father’s Form which is in Him shews in Him the Father; and thus the Father is in the Son. And that propriety and Godhead which is from the Father in the Son, shews the Son in the Father, and His inseparability from Him; and whoso hears and beholds that what is said of the Father is also said of the Son, not as accruing to His Essence by grace or participation, but because the very Being of the Son is the proper Offspring of the Father’s Essence, will fitly understand the words, as I said before, ‘I in the Father, and the Father in Me;’ and ‘I and the Father are One1017    John xiv. 10; x. 30..’ For the Son is such as the Father is, because He has all that is the Father’s. Wherefore also is He implied together with the Father. For, a son not being, one cannot say father; whereas when we call God a Maker, we do not of necessity intimate the things which have come to be; for a maker is before his works1018    Vid. supr. de Decr. 30; Or. i. 33. This is in opposition to the Arians, who said that the title Father implied priority of existence. Athan. says that the title ‘Maker’ does, but that the title ‘father’ does not. vid. supr. p. 76, n. 3; Or. i. 29, n. 10: ii. 41, n. 11.. But when we call God Father, at once with the Father we signify the Son’s existence. Therefore also he who believes in the Son, believes also in the Father: for he believes in what is proper to the Father’s Essence; and thus the faith is one in one God. And he who worships and honours the Son, in the Son worships and honours the Father; for one is the Godhead; and therefore one1019    Athan. de Incarn. c. Ar. 19, c. vid. Ambros. de fid. iii. cap. 12, 13. Naz. Orat. 23, 8. Basil. de Sp. S. n. 64. the honour and one the worship which is paid to the Father in and through the Son. And he who thus worships, worships one God; for there is one God and none other than He. Accordingly when the Father is called the only God, and we read that there is one God1020    Mark xii. 29., and ‘I am,’ and ‘beside Me there is no God,’ and ‘I the first and I the last1021    Ex. iii. 14; Deut. xxxii. 39, LXX.; Is. xliv. 6,’ this has a fit meaning. For God is One and Only and First; but this is not said to the denial of the Son1022    De Decr. 19, n. 6., perish the thought; for He is in that One, and First and Only, as being of that One and Only and First the Only Word and Wisdom and Radiance. And He too is the First, as the Fulness of the Godhead of the First and Only, being whole and full God1023    Vid. supr. 1, note 10; ii. 41 fin. also infr. iv. 1. Pseudo-Ath. c. Sab. Greg. 5–12. Naz. Orat. 40, 41. Synes. Hymn. iii. pp. 328, 9. Ambros. de Fid. i. n. 18. August. Ep. 170, 5. vid. Or. ii. 38, n. 6. and infr. note on 36 fin.. This then is not said on His account, but to deny that there is other such as the Father and His Word.

ΤΟΥ ΑΥΤΟΥ ΚΑΤΑ ΑΡΕΙΑΝΩΝ ΛΟΓΟΣ ΤΡΙΤΟΣ. Οἱ Ἀρειομανῖται, ὡς ἔοικε, κρίναντες ἅπαξ ἀποστάται γενέσθαι καὶ παραβάται τῆς ἀληθείας, φιλονεικοῦσιν εἰς ἑαυτοὺς ἑλκῦσαι τὸ γεγραμμένον· Ὅταν ἔλθῃ ἀσεβὴς εἰς βάθος κακῶν, καταφρονεῖ· οὔτε γὰρ ἐλεγχόμενοι παύονται, οὔτε ἀποροῦντες ἐντρέπονται· ἀλλ' ὡς πόρνης ὄψις, ἀπηναισχύν θησαν πρὸς πάντας ἐν ταῖς ἀσεβείαις. Καὶ γὰρ ὧν προεφασίζοντο ῥητῶν, τοῦ, Κύριος ἔκτισέ με, καὶ τοῦ, Κρείττων γενόμενος τῶν ἀγγέλων, καὶ τοῦ, Πρωτότοκος, καὶ τοῦ, Πιστὸν ὄντα τῷ ποιή σαντι αὐτὸν, ὀρθὴν ἐχόντων τὴν διάνοιαν, καὶ δει κνύντων τὴν εἰς Χριστὸν εὐσέβειαν, οὐκ οἶδ' ὅπως πάλιν αὐτοὶ ὡς περιχυθέντες τὸν τοῦ ὄφεως ἰὸν, καὶ μὴ βλέποντες ἃ δεῖ βλέπειν, μηδὲ νοοῦντες ἃ ἀναγινώσκουσιν, ὥσπερ ἐκ βάθους τῆς ἀσεβοῦς αὐ τῶν καρδίας ἐρευγόμενοι, ἤρξαντο λοιπὸν καὶ διασύρειν τὸ ὑπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου λεγόμενον, Ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ Πατρὶ, καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί· λέγοντες· Πῶς δύναται οὗτος ἐν ἐκείνῳ, κἀκεῖνος ἐν τούτῳ χωρεῖν; Ἢ πῶς ὅλως δύναται ὁ Πατὴρ, μείζων ὢν, ἐν τῷ Υἱῷ ἐλάτ τονι ὄντι χωρεῖν; Ἢ τί θαυμαστὸν, εἰ ὁ Υἱὸς ἐν τῷ Πατρὶ, ὅπουγε καὶ περὶ ἡμῶν γέγραπται· Ἐν αὐτῷ γὰρ ζῶμεν, καὶ κινούμεθα, καί ἐσμεν; Πά σχουσι δὲ τοῦτο ἀκολούθως τῇ κακονοίᾳ ἑαυτῶν, σῶμα νομίζοντες εἶναι τὸν Θεὸν, καὶ μὴ νοοῦντες μήτε τί ἐστιν ἀληθινὸς Πατὴρ, καὶ ἀληθινὸς Υἱὸς, μήτε τί ἐστι φῶς ἀόρατον, καὶ ἀΐδιον, καὶ ἀπαύγασμα αὐτοῦ ἀόρατον, μήτε τί ἐστιν ἀόρατος ὑπόστα σις, καὶ χαρακτὴρ ἀσώματος, καὶ εἰκὼν ἀσώματος. Εἰ γὰρ ἐγίνωσκον, οὐκ ἂν τὸν Κύριον τῆς δόξης μετὰ γέλωτος ἐδυσφήμουν, οὔτε τὰ ἀσώματα σωματι κῶς ἐκλαμβάνοντες, τὰ καλῶς λεγόμενα παρεξη γοῦντο. Ἤρκει μὲν οὖν καὶ μόνον ἀκούοντας ταῦτα, λέγοντος τοῦ Κυρίου, πιστεύειν· ἐπεὶ καὶ ἡ τῆς ἁπλότητος πίστις βελτίων ἐστὶ τῆς ἐκ περιεργίας πιθανολογίας· ἐπειδὴ δὲ καὶ τοῦτο βεβηλοῦν ἐπεχεί ρησαν πρὸς τὴν ἰδίαν αἵρεσιν, ἀναγκαῖον τὴν μὲν ἐκείνων κακόνοιαν διελέγξαι, τὴν δὲ τῆς ἀληθείας διάνοιαν δεῖξαι ἕνεκά γε τῆς τῶν πιστῶν ἀσφαλείας. Οὐ γὰρ, ὡς ἐκεῖνοι νομίζουσιν, ἀντεμβιβαζόμενοι εἰς ἀλλήλους εἰσὶν, ἐν τῷ λέγεσθαι, Ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ Πατρὶ, καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοὶ, ὥσπερ ἐν ἀγγείοις κενοῖς ἐξ ἀλλήλων πληρούμενοι· ὥστε τὸν μὲν Υἱὸν πλη ροῦν τὸ κενὸν τοῦ Πατρὸς, τὸν δὲ Πατέρα πληροῦν τὸ κενὸν τοῦ Υἱοῦ, καὶ ἑκάτερον αὐτῶν μὴ εἶναι πλήρη καὶ τέλειον· σωμάτων μὲν ἴδιον τοῦτό γε· διὸ καὶ τὸ μόνον εἰπεῖν τοῦτο πλέον ἐστὶν ἀσεβείας· πλήρης γὰρ καὶ τέλειός ἐστιν ὁ Πατὴρ, καὶ πλήρωμα θεότητός ἐστιν ὁ Υἱός. Οὐδ' αὖ πάλιν, ὥσπερ ἐν τοῖς ἁγίοις γινόμενος ὁ Θεὸς, ἐνδυναμοῖ αὐτοὺς, οὕ τως ἐστὶ καὶ ἐν τῷ Υἱῷ· αὐτὸς γάρ ἐστιν ἡ τοῦ Πα τρὸς δύναμις καὶ σοφία· καὶ τὰ μὲν γενητὰ μετοχῇ τούτου ἐν Πνεύματι ἁγιάζεται· αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ Υἱὸς οὐ μετουσίᾳ υἱός ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ γέννημα τοῦ Πατρὸς ἴδιόν ἐστιν. Οὐκ ἔστι δὲ πάλιν οὕτως ὁ Υἱὸς ἐν τῷ Πατρὶ, ὡς τὸ, Ἐν αὐτῷ ζῶμεν, καὶ κινούμεθα, καί ἐσμεν· αὐτὸς γὰρ ὡς ἐκ πηγῆς τοῦ Πατρός ἐστιν ἡ ζωὴ, ἐν ᾗ τὰ πάντα ζωογονεῖταί τε καὶ συνέστηκεν· οὐ γὰρ ἡ ζωὴ ἐν ζωῇ ζῇ· ἐπεὶ οὐκ ἂν εἴη ζωή· ἀλλ' αὐτὸς μᾶλλον ζωογονεῖ τὰ πάντα. Ἴδωμεν δὲ καὶ τὰ τοῦ συνηγόρου τῆς αἱρέσεως Ἀστερίου τοῦ σοφιστοῦ· γέγραφε γὰρ καὶ αὐτὸς, εἰς τοῦτο ζηλώσας τοὺς Ἰουδαίους, ταῦτα· «Εὔδηλον γὰρ, ὅτι διὰ τοῦτο εἴρηκεν ἑαυτὸν μὲν ἐν τῷ Πατρὶ, ἐν ἑαυτῷ δὲ πάλιν τὸν Πατέρα, ἐπεὶ μήτε τὸν λόγον, ὃν διεξήρχετο, ἑαυτοῦ φησιν εἶναι, ἀλλὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς, μήτε οἰκεῖα τὰ ἔργα, ἀλλὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς δεδωκότος τὴν δύναμιν.» Τοῦτο δὲ εἰ καὶ παιδάριον ἦν ἁπλῶς εἰρηκὸς, συγγνώμην εἶχεν ἐκ τῆς ἡλικίας· ἐπειδὴ δὲ ὁ καλούμενος σοφιστὴς, καὶ πάντα γινώσκειν ἐπαγγελλόμενος, ἔστιν ὁ γράψας, πόσης ἄξιος καταγνώσεως ὁ τοιοῦτος; Πῶς δὲ καὶ οὐκ ἀλ λότριον ἑαυτὸν τοῦ Ἀποστόλου δείκνυσιν, ἐπαιρόμε νος ἐν πειθοῖς σοφίας λόγοις καὶ νομίζων ἐν τούτοις ἐξαπατᾷν δύνασθαι, μὴ νοῶν αὐτὸς ἃ λέγει, μήτε περὶ τίνων διαβεβαιοῦται. Ἃ γὰρ ὁ Υἱὸς ἴδια καὶ ἁρμόζοντα μόνῳ Υἱῷ, Λόγῳ καὶ Σοφίᾳ ὄντι, καὶ εἰκόνι τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς οὐσίας εἴρηκε, ταῦτα οὗ τος εἰς πάντα τὰ κτίσματα καταφέρει, καὶ κοινὰ τῷ τε Υἱῷ καὶ τούτοις ταῦτα ποιεῖ· τὴν δὲ δύναμιν τοῦ Πατρὸς λέγει λαμβάνειν δύναμιν ὁ παράνομος, ἵνα ἀκολουθήσῃ τῇ δυσσεβείᾳ αὐτοῦ εἰπεῖν ὅτι καὶ ὁ Υἱὸς ἐν Υἱῷ υἱοποιήθη, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἔλαβε Λό γου ἐξουσίαν· καὶ οὐκ ἔτι μὲν αὐτὸν, ὡς Υἱὸν, θέλει εἰρηκέναι ταῦτα, ὡς δὲ μαθόντα καὶ αὐτὸν ὁμοίως συντάσσει πᾶσι τοῖς ποιήμασιν. Εἰ γὰρ διὰ τὸ μὴ εἶναι τὰ ῥήματα τοῦ Υἱοῦ, ἃ διεξήρχετο, ἀλλ' ὅτι τοῦ Πατρὸς ἦν, καὶ τὰ ἔργα, ἔλεγεν· Ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ Πατρὶ, καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί· καὶ ὁ μὲν ∆αβὶδ λέγει· Ἀκούσομαι τί λαλήσει ἐν ἐμοὶ Κύριος ὁ Θεός· ὁ δὲ Σολομών· Οἱ ἐμοὶ λόγοι εἴρηνται ὑπὸ Θεοῦ· καὶ ὁ μὲν Μωσῆς τοὺς παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ διηκόνει λόγους, ἕκαστος δὲ τῶν προφητῶν οὐ τὰ ἴδια, ἀλλὰ τὰ παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἔλεγε, Τάδε λέγει Κύριος· καὶ τὰ ἔργα, ἃ ἐποίουν οἱ ἅγιοι, οὐκ ἴδια, ἀλλὰ τοῦ δεδωκότος τὴν δύναμιν Θεοῦ ἔλεγον εἶναι· ὡς ὁ μὲν Ἠλίας καὶ Ἐλισσαῖος ἐπικαλούμενοι τὸν Θεὸν, ἵνα τοὺς νεκροὺς αὐτὸς ἐγείρῃ· ὅτε καὶ τῷ Ναιεμὰν λέγει ὁ Ἐλισσαῖος, καθαρίσας αὐτὸν ἀπὸ τῆς λέπρας· Ἵνα γνῷς, ὅτι ἐστὶ Θεὸς ἐν Ἰσραήλ· ὁ δὲ Σαμουὴλ καὶ αὐτὸς ἐν ἡμέραις θερισμοῦ ηὔχετο τὸν Θεὸν δοῦναι ὑετόν· οἵ τε ἀπόστολοι ἔλεγον, οὐκ ἰδίᾳ δυνάμει ποιεῖν τὰ σημεῖα, ἀλλὰ τῇ τοῦ Κυρίου χάριτι· δῆλον, ὅτι κατ' αὐτὸν κοινὴ ἂν εἴη πάντων καὶ ἡ τοιαύτη φωνὴ, ὥστε καὶ ἕκαστον λέγειν δύνα σθαι· Ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ Πατρὶ, καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί· καὶ λοιπὸν μηκέτι ἕνα εἶναι τοῦτον Υἱὸν Θεοῦ καὶ Λόγον καὶ Σοφίαν, ἀλλ' ἐκ πολλῶν ἕνα καὶ τοῦ τον τυγχάνειν. Ἀλλ' εἴπερ ἦν οὕτως ὁ Κύριος εἰρηκὼς, ἔδει μὴ εἰπεῖν αὐτόν· Ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ Πατρὶ, καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί· ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον· Κἀγὼ ἐν τῷ Πατρὶ, καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ δὲ καὶ ἐν ἐμοί ἐστιν, ἵνα μηδὲ ἴδιον καὶ ἐξαίρετον ἔχῃ πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα ὡς Υἱὸς, κοινὴν δὲ μετὰ πάντων ἔχῃ τὴν αὐτὴν χάριν. Ἀλλ' οὐκ ἔστιν, ὡς νομίζουσιν ἐκεῖνοι· μὴ φρονοῦντες γὰρ Υἱὸν εἶναι γνήσιον ἐκ Πατρὸς, καταψεύδονται τοῦ γνησίου, ᾧ μόνῳ ἁρμόζει λέγειν· Ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ Πα τρὶ καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί. Ἔστι γὰρ ὁ Υἱὸς ἐν τῷ Πατρὶ, ὥς γε νοεῖν ἔξεστιν, ἐπειδὴ σύμπαν τὸ εἶναι τοῦ Υἱοῦ, τοῦτο τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς οὐσίας ἴδιόν ἐστιν, ὡς ἐκ φωτὸς ἀπαύγασμα, καὶ ἐκ πηγῆς ποτα μὸς, ὥστε τὸν ὁρῶντα τὸν Υἱὸν ὁρᾷν τὸ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἴδιον, καὶ νοεῖν, ὅτι τοῦ Υἱοῦ τὸ εἶναι, ἐκ τοῦ Πα τρὸς ὂν, οὕτως ἐν τῷ Πατρί ἐστιν. Ἔστι δὲ καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἐν τῷ Υἱῷ, ἐπειδὴ τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἴδιον, τοῦτο ὁ Υἱὸς τυγχάνει ὢν, ὡς ἐν τῷ ἀπαυγάσματι ὁ ἥλιος, καὶ ἐν τῷ λόγῳ ὁ νοῦς, καὶ ἐν τῷ ποταμῷ ἡ πηγή· οὕτω γὰρ ὁ θεωρῶν τὸν Υἱὸν, θεωρεῖ τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς οὐσίας τὸ ἴδιον, καὶ νοεῖ, ὅτι ὁ Πατὴρ ἐν τῷ Υἱῷ ἐστι. Τοῦ γὰρ εἴδους καὶ τῆς θεότητος τοῦ Πατρὸς οὔσης τὸ εἶναι τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἀκολούθως ὁ Υἱὸς ἐν τῷ Πατρί ἐστι, καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἐν τῷ Υἱῷ. ∆ιὰ τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ εἰκότως εἰρηκὼς πρότερον· Ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἔν ἐσμεν, ἐπήγαγε τό· Ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ Πα τρὶ, καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί· ἵνα τὴν μὲν ταὐτότητα τῆς θεότητος, τὴν δὲ ἑνότητα τῆς οὐσίας δείξῃ. Ἓν γάρ εἰσιν, οὐχ ὡς ἑνὸς πάλιν εἰς δύο μέρη διαιρεθέντος, καὶ μηδὲν ὄντων πλὴν ἑνός· οὐδὲ ὡς τοῦ ἑνὸς δὶς ὀνομαζομένου, ὥστε τὸν αὐτὸν ἄλ λοτε μὲν Πατέρα, ἄλλοτε δὲ Υἱὸν ἑαυτοῦ γίνεσθαι· τοῦτο γὰρ Σαβέλλιος φρονήσας, αἱρετικὸς ἐκρίθη. Ἀλλὰ δύο μέν εἰσιν, ὅτι ὁ Πατὴρ Πατήρ ἐστι, καὶ οὐχ ὁ αὐτὸς Υἱός ἐστι· καὶ ὁ Υἱὸς Υἱός ἐστι, καὶ οὐχ ὁ αὐτὸς Πατήρ ἐστι. Μία δὲ ἡ φύσις· οὐ γὰρ ἀν όμοιον τὸ γέννημα τοῦ γεννήσαντος· εἰκὼν γάρ ἐστιν αὐτοῦ, καὶ πάντα τὰ Πατρὸς τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐστι. ∆ιὸ οὐδὲ ἄλλος Θεὸς ὁ Υἱός· οὐ γὰρ ἔξωθεν ἐπενοήθη· ἐπεὶ πάντως καὶ πολλοὶ, ξένης παρὰ τὴν τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐπινοουμένης θεότητος· εἰ γὰρ καὶ ἕτερόν ἐστιν ὡς γέννημα ὁ Υἱὸς, ἀλλὰ ταὐτόν ἐστιν ὡς Θεός· καὶ ἕν εἰσιν αὐτὸς καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ τῇ ἰδιότητι καὶ οἰκειότητι τῆς φύσεως, καὶ τῇ ταὐτότητι τῆς μιᾶς θεότητος, ὥσπερ εἴρηται. Καὶ γὰρ καὶ τὸ ἀπαύγασμα φῶς ἐστιν, οὐ δεύτερον τοῦ ἡλίου, οὐδὲ ἕτερον φῶς, οὐδὲ κατὰ μετουσίαν αὐτοῦ, ἀλλ' ὅλον ἴδιον αὐτοῦ γέννη μα. Τὸ δὲ τοιοῦτον γέννημα ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἕν ἐστι φῶς· καὶ οὐκ ἄν τις εἴποι δύο φῶτα εἶναι ταῦτα, ἀλλὰ δύο μὲν ἥλιον καὶ ἀπαύγασμα, ἓν δὲ τὸ ἐξ ἡλίου φῶς ἐν τῷ ἀπαυγάσματι φωτίζον τὰ πανταχοῦ. Οὕτω καὶ ἡ τοῦ Υἱοῦ θεότης τοῦ Πατρός ἐστιν· ὅθεν καὶ ἀδιαίρετός ἐστι· καὶ οὕτως εἷς Θεὸς, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλος πλὴν αὐτοῦ. Οὕτω γοῦν ἓν αὐτῶν ὄντων, καὶ μιᾶς αὐτῆς οὔσης τῆς θεότητος, τὰ αὐτὰ λέγεται περὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, ὅσα λέγεται καὶ περὶ τοῦ Πατρὸς, χωρὶς τοῦ λέγεσθαι Πατήρ· οἷον τὸ Θεός· Καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος· τὸ Παντοκράτωρ· Τάδε λέγει ὁ ἦν, καὶ ὁ ὢν, καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος ὁ Παντοκρά τωρ· τὸ Κύριος· Εἷς Κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός· τὸ εἶναι φῶς· Ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ φῶς· τὸ ἐξαλείφειν ἁμαρ τίας· Ἵνα δὲ, φησὶν, εἰδῆτε, ὅτι ἔχει ἐξουσίαν ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἀφιέναι ἁμαρ τίας· καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα ἂν εὕροις. Πάντα γὰρ, φη σὶν αὐτὸς ὁ Υἱὸς, ὅσα ἔχει ὁ Πατὴρ, ἐμά ἐστι· καὶ πάλιν, Τὰ ἐμὰ σά ἐστιν. Ὁ δὲ ἀκούων τὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς λεγόμενα ἐφ' Υἱοῦ ὄψεται καὶ οὕτω τὸν Πατέρα ἐν τῷ Υἱῷ· θεωρήσει δὲ καὶ τὸν Υἱὸν ἐν τῷ Πατρὶ, ὅταν τὰ λεγόμενα ἐφ' Υἱοῦ ταῦτα λέγηται καὶ ἐπὶ Πατρός. ∆ιὰ τί δὲ τὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐφ' Υἱοῦ λέγεται, ἢ ὅτι ἐξ αὐτοῦ γέννημά ἐστιν ὁ Υἱός; ∆ιὰ τί δὲ καὶ τὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἴδιά ἐστι τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἢ ὅτι πάλιν τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ ἴδιόν ἐστι γέννημα ὁ Υἱός; Τῆς δὲ οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρὸς ἴδιον ὢν γέννημα ὁ Υἱὸς, εἰκότως καὶ τὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς λέγει ἑαυ τοῦ εἶναι· ὅθεν πρεπόντως καὶ ἀκολούθως τῷ μὲν λέ γειν, Ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν, ἐπήγαγεν· Ἵνα γνῶτε, ὅτι ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ Πατρὶ, καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί· τούτῳ δὲ πάλιν προσείρηκεν· Ὁ ἑωρακὼς ἐμὲ ἑώρακε τὸν Πατέρα· καὶ ἔστιν εἷς καὶ ὁ αὐτὸς νοῦς ἐν τοῖς τρισὶ τούτοις ῥητοῖς. Ὁ γὰρ οὕτως ἐγνωκὼς, ὅτι ἕν εἰσιν ὁ Υἱὸς καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ, οἶδεν, ὅτι αὐτὸς ἐν τῷ Πατρί ἐστι, καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἐν τῷ Υἱῷ· ἡ γὰρ τοῦ Υἱοῦ θεότης τοῦ Πατρός ἐστι, καὶ αὐτὴ ἐν τῷ Υἱῷ ἐστι· καὶ ὁ τοῦτο δὲ καταλαβὼν πέπεισται, ὅτι ὁ ἑωρακὼς τὸν Υἱὸν ἑώρακε τὸν Πατέρα· ἐν γὰρ τῷ Υἱῷ ἡ τοῦ Πατρὸς θεότης θεωρεῖται. Τοῦτο δὲ καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ παραδείγματος τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ βασιλέως προσεχέστερόν τις κατανοεῖν δυνήσεται. Ἐν γὰρ τῇ εἰκόνι τὸ εἶδος καὶ ἡ μορφὴ τοῦ βασιλέως ἐστὶ, καὶ ἐν τῷ βασιλεῖ δὲ τὸ ἐν τῇ εἰκόνι εἶδός ἐστιν. Ἀπα ράλλακτος γάρ ἐστιν ἡ ἐν τῇ εἰκόνι τοῦ βασιλέως ὁμοιότης· ὥστε τὸν ἐνορῶντα τῇ εἰκόνι ὁρᾷν ἐν αὐτῇ τὸν βασιλέα, καὶ τὸν πάλιν ὁρῶντα τὸν βασιλέα ἐπιγινώσκειν, ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐν τῇ εἰκόνι. Ἐκ δὲ τοῦ μὴ διαλλάττειν τὴν ὁμοιότητα, τῷ θέλοντι μετὰ τὴν εἰκόνα θεωρῆσαι τὸν βασιλέα εἴποι ἂν ἡ εἰκών· Ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς ἕν ἐσμεν· ἐγὼ γὰρ ἐν ἐκείνῳ εἰμὶ, κἀκεῖνος ἐν ἐμοί· καὶ ὃ ὁρᾷς ἐν ἐμοὶ, τοῦτο ἐν ἐκείνῳ βλέπεις· καὶ ὃ ἑώρακας ἐν ἐκείνῳ, τοῦτο βλέπεις ἐν ἐμοί. Ὁ γοῦν προσκυνῶν τὴν εἰ κόνα, ἐν αὐτῇ προσκυνεῖ καὶ τὸν βασιλέα· ἡ γὰρ ἐκείνου μορφὴ καὶ τὸ εἶδός ἐστιν ἡ εἰκών. Ἐπεὶ τοίνυν καὶ ὁ Υἱὸς εἰκών ἐστι τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἐστὶ νοεῖν, ὅτι ἡ θεότης καὶ ἡ ἰδιότης τοῦ Πατρὸς τὸ εἶναι τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐστι. Καὶ τοῦτό ἐστιν, Ὃς ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων, καὶ, Ὁ Πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί. Οὐκ ἐκ μέρους δὲ ἡ τῆς θεότητος μορφὴ, ἀλλὰ τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς θεότητός ἐστι τὸ εἶναι τοῦ Υἱοῦ, καὶ ὅλος Θεός ἐστιν ὁ Υἱός. ∆ιὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἴσα Θεῷ ὢν, οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ· καὶ πάλιν ἐπειδὴ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἡ θεότης καὶ τὸ εἶδος οὐδενὸς ἄλλου, ἢ τοῦ Πατρός ἐστι, τοῦτό ἐστιν, ὅπερ εἶπε τὸ, Ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ Πατρί· Οὕτω Θεὸς ἦν ἐν Χριστῷ κόσμον ἑαυτῷ καταλλάσσων· τὸ γὰρ ἴδιον τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς οὐσίας ἐστὶν ὁ Υἱὸς, ἐν ᾧ ἡ κτίσις πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν κατηλλάσσετο. Οὕτως ἃ εἰργά ζετο ὁ Υἱὸς, τοῦ Πατρός ἐστιν ἔργα· τὸ γὰρ εἶδος τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς θεότητός ἐστιν ὁ Υἱὸς, ἥτις εἰργάζετο τὰ ἔργα· οὕτω δὲ ὁ βλέπων τὸν Υἱὸν ὁρᾷ τὸν Πα τέρα· ἐν γὰρ τῇ πατρῴᾳ θεότητί ἐστι καὶ θεωρεῖται ὁ Υἱός· καὶ τὸ ἐν αὐτῷ πατρικὸν εἶδος δείκνυσιν ἐν αὐτῷ τὸν Πατέρα· καὶ οὕτως ἐστὶν ὁ Πατὴρ ἐν τῷ Υἱῷ. Καὶ ἡ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς δὲ ἐν Υἱῷ ἰδιότης καὶ θεότης δείκνυσι τὸν Υἱὸν ἐν τῷ Πατρὶ, καὶ τὸ ἀεὶ ἀδιαίρετον αὐτοῦ· καὶ ὁ ἀκούων δὲ καὶ βλέπων τὰ λεγόμενα περὶ τοῦ Πατρὸς, ταῦτα λεγόμενα περὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, οὐ κατὰ χάριν ἢ μετοχὴν ἐπιγενόμενα τῇ οὐσίᾳ αὐτοῦ, ἀλλ' ὅτι αὐτὸ τὸ εἶναι τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἴδιον τῆς πατρικῆς οὐσίας ἐστὶ γέννημα, νοήσει καλῶς τὸ εἰρημένον, καθὰ προεῖπον, Ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ Πατρὶ, καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί· καὶ, Ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν. Ἔστι γὰρ ὁ Υἱὸς, οἷος ὁ Πατὴρ, τῷ πάντα τὰ τοῦ Πα τρὸς ἔχειν· διὸ καὶ μετὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς σημαίνεται. Πατέρα γὰρ οὐκ ἄν τις εἴποι, μὴ ὑπάρχοντος Υἱοῦ. Ὁ μέντοι ποιητὴν λέγων τὸν Θεὸν, οὐ πάντως καὶ τὰ γενόμενα δηλοῖ· ἔστι γὰρ καὶ πρὸ τῶν ποιημά των ποιητής· ὁ δὲ Πατέρα λέγων εὐθὺς μετὰ τοῦ Πα τρὸς σημαίνει καὶ τὴν τοῦ Υἱοῦ ὕπαρξιν. ∆ιὰ τοῦτο καὶ ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν Υἱὸν εἰς τὸν Πατέρα πι στεύει· εἰς γὰρ τὸ ἴδιον τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς οὐσίας πι στεύει· καὶ οὕτω μία ἐστὶν ἡ πίστις εἰς ἕνα Θεόν· καὶ ὁ προσκυνῶν δὲ καὶ τιμῶν τὸν Υἱὸν ἐν Υἱῷ προσκυνεῖ καὶ τιμᾷ τὸν Πατέρα. Μία γάρ ἐστιν ἡ θεό της· καὶ διὰ τοῦτο μία τιμὴ καὶ μία ἐστὶ προσκύνησις ἡ ἐν Υἱῷ καὶ δι' αὐτοῦ γινομένη τῷ Πατρί· καὶ ὁ οὕτω προσκυνῶν ἕνα Θεὸν προσκυνεῖ· εἷς γὰρ Θεός ἐστι, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλος πλὴν αὐτοῦ. Ὅτε γοῦν μόνος λέγεται ὁ Πατὴρ Θεός· καὶ ὅτι εἷς Θεός ἐστι, καὶ τὸ, Ἐγώ εἰμι, καὶ, Πλὴν ἐμοῦ οὐκ ἔστι Θεός· καὶ τὸ, Ἐγὼ πρῶτος, καὶ ἐγὼ μετὰ ταῦτα, καλῶς λέγεται· εἷς γὰρ Θεὸς καὶ μόνος καὶ πρῶτός ἐστιν. Οὐκ εἰς ἀναίρεσιν δὲ τοῦ Υἱοῦ λέγεται. Μὴ γένοιτο ἔστι γὰρ καὶ αὐτὸς ἐν τῷ ἑνὶ, καὶ πρώτῳ, καὶ μόνῳ, ὡς τοῦ ἑνὸς καὶ μόνου καὶ πρώτου καὶ μόνος Λόγος, καὶ σοφία, καὶ ἀπαύγασμα ὤν. Ἔστι δὲ καὶ πρῶτος καὶ αὐτὸς, πλήρωμα τῆς τοῦ πρώτου καὶ μόνου θεότητος, ὅλος καὶ πλήρης ὢν Θεός. Οὐκοῦν οὐ δι' αὐτὸν εἴρηται, ἀλλ' εἰς ἀναίρεσιν τοῦ μὴ εἶναι ἕτερον, οἷός ἐστιν ὁ Πατὴρ, καὶ ὁ τούτου Λόγος·