Athanasius of Alexandria, Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos)

§§1–5. The substantiality of the Word proved from Scripture. If the One Origin be substantial, Its Word is substantial. Unless the Word and Son be a second Origin, or a work, or an attribute (and so God be compounded), or at the same time Father, or involve a second nature in God, He is from the Father’s Essence and distinct from Him. Illustration of John x. 30, drawn from Deut. iv. 4.

1. The Word is God from God; for ‘the Word was God1452 John i. 1.,’ and again, ‘Of whom are the Fathers, and of whom Christ, who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen1453 Rom. ix. 5..’ And since Christ is God from God, and God’s Word, Wisdom, Son, and Power, therefore but One God is declared in the divine Scriptures. For the Word, being Son of the One God, is referred to Him of whom also He is; so that Father and Son are two, yet the Monad of the Godhead is indivisible and inseparable. And thus too we preserve One Beginning of Godhead and not two Beginnings, whence there is strictly a Monarchy. And of this very Beginning the Word is by nature Son, not as if another beginning, subsisting by Himself, nor having come into being externally to that Beginning, lest from that diversity a Dyarchy and Polyarchy should ensue; but of the one Beginning He is own Son, own Wisdom, own Word, existing from It. For, according to John, ‘in’ that ‘Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,’ for the Beginning was God; and since He is from It, therefore also ‘the Word was God.’ And as there is one Beginning and therefore one God, so one is that Essence and Subsistence which indeed and truly and really is, and which said ‘I am that I am1454 Exod. iii. 14.,’ and not two, that there be not two Beginnings; and from the One, a Son in nature and truth, is Its own Word, Its Wisdom, Its Power, and inseparable from It. And as there is not another essence, lest there be two Beginnings, so the Word which is from that One Essence has no dissolution, nor is a sound significative, but is an essential Word and essential Wisdom, which is the true Son. For were He not essential, God will be speaking into the air1455 1 Cor. xiv. 9., and having a body, in nothing differently from men; but since He is not man, neither is His Word according to the infirmity of man1456 Or. ii. 7.. For as the Beginning is one Essence, so Its Word is one, essential, and subsisting, and Its Wisdom. For as He is God from God, and Wisdom from the Wise, and Word from the Rational, and Son from Father, so is He from Subsistence Subsistent, and from Essence Essential and Substantive, and Being from Being.

2. Since were He not essential Wisdom and substantive Word, and Son existing, but simply Wisdom and Word and Son in the Father, then the Father Himself would have a nature compounded of Wisdom and Word. But if so, the forementioned absurdities would follow; and He will be His own Father, and the Son begetting and begotten by Himself; or Word, Wisdom, Son, is a name only, and He does not subsist who owns, or rather who is, these titles. If then He does not subsist, the names are idle and empty, unless we say that God is Very Wisdom1457 Or. ii. 19, n. 3, and below, §4. and Very Word. But if so, He is His own Father and Son; Father, when Wise, Son, when Wisdom; but these things are not in God as a certain quality; away with the dishonourable1458 §9. thought; for it will issue in this, that God is compounded of essence and quality1459 Cf. ad Afros. 8.. For whereas all quality is in essence, it will clearly follow that the Divine Monad, indivisible as it is, must be compound, being severed into essence and accident1460 Cf. Euseb. Eccl. Theol. p. 121. His opinion was misstated supr., p. 164 sq. note 9.. We must ask then these headstrong men; The Son was proclaimed as God’s Wisdom and Word; how then is He such? if as a quality, the absurdity has been shewn; but if God is that Very Wisdom, then it is the absurdity of Sabellius; therefore He is so, as an Offspring in a proper sense from the Father Himself, according to the illustration of light. For as there is light from fire, so from God is there a Word, and Wisdom from the Wise, and from the Father a Son. For in this way the Monad remains undivided and entire, and Its Son, Word not unessential, nor not subsisting, but essential truly. For were it not so, all that is said would be said notionally1461 Cf. ii. 38, n. 2. and verbally1462 Cf. i. 52, n. 1.. But if we must avoid that absurdity, then is a true Word essential. For as there is a Father truly, so Wisdom truly. In this respect then they are two; not because, as Sabellius said, Father and Son are the same, but because the Father is Father and the Son Son, and they are one, because He is Son of the Essence of the Father by nature, existing as His own Word. This the Lord said, viz. ‘I and the Father are One1463 John x. 30.;’ for neither is the Word separated from the Father, nor was or is the Father ever Wordless; on this account He says, ‘I in the Father and the Father in Me1464 Ib. xiv. 10..’

3. And again, Christ is the Word of God. Did He then subsist by Himself, and subsisting, has He become joined to the Father, or did God make Him or call Him His Word? If the former, I mean if He subsisted by Himself and is God, then there are two Beginnings; and moreover, as is plain, He is not the Father’s own, as being not of the Father, but of Himself. But if on the contrary He be made externally, then is He a creature. It remains then to say that He is from God Himself; but if so, that which is from another is one thing, and that from which it is, is a second; according to this then there are two. But if they be not two, but the names belong to the same, cause and effect will be the same, and begotten and begetting, which has been shewn absurd in the instance of Sabellius. But if He be from Him, yet not another, He will be both begetting and not begetting; begetting because He produces from Himself, and not begetting, because it is nothing other than Himself. But if so, the same is called Father and Son notionally. But if it be unseemly so to say, Father and Son must be two; and they are one, because the Son is not from without, but begotten of God. But if any one shrinks from saying ‘Offspring,’ and only says that the Word exists with God, let such a one fear lest, shrinking from what is said in Scripture, he fall into absurdity, making God a being of double nature. For not granting that the Word is from the Monad, but simply as if He were joined to the Father, he introduces a twofold essence, and neither of them Father of the other. And the same of Power. And we may see this more clearly, if we consider it with reference to the Father; for there is One Father, and not two, but from that One the Son. As then there are not two Fathers, but One, so not two Beginnings, but One, and from that One the Son essential.

4. But the Arians we must ask contrariwise: (for the Sabellianisers must be confuted from the notion of a Son, and the Arians from that of a Father:) let us say then—Is God wise and not word-less: or on the contrary, is He wisdom-less and word-less1465 Or. i. 19, n. 5.? if the latter, there is an absurdity at once; if the former, we must ask, how is He wise and not word-less? does He possess the Word and the Wisdom from without, or from Himself? If from without, there must be one who first gave to Him, and before He received He was wisdom-less and word-less. But if from Himself, it is plain that the Word is not from nothing, nor once was not; for He was ever; since He of whom He is the Image, exists ever. But if they say that He is indeed wise and not word-less, but that He has in Himself His own wisdom and own word, and that, not Christ, but that by which He made Christ, we must answer that, if Christ in that word was brought to be, plainly so were all things; and it must be He of whom John says, ‘All things were made by Him,’ and the Psalmist, ‘In Wisdom hast Thou made them all1466 John i. 3; Ps. civ. 24..’ And Christ will be found to speak untruly, ‘I in the Father,’ there being another in the Father. And ‘the Word became flesh1467 John i. 14.’ is not true according to them. For if He in whom ‘all things came to be,’ Himself became flesh, but Christ is not in the Father, as Word ‘by whom all things came to be,’ then Christ has not become flesh, but perhaps Christ was named Word. But if so, first, there will be another besides the name, next, all things were not by Him brought to be, but in that other, in whom Christ also was made. But if they say that Wisdom is in the Father as a quality or that He is Very Wisdom1468 §2., the absurdities will follow already mentioned. For He will be compound1469 §9, fin., and will prove His own Son and Father1470 §10.. Moreover, we must confute and silence them on the ground, that the Word which is in God cannot be a creature nor out of nothing; but if once a Word be in God, then He must be Christ who says, ‘I am in the Father and the Father in Me1471 John xiv. 20.,’ who also is therefore the Only-begotten, since no other was begotten from Him. This is One Son, who is Word, Wisdom, Power; for God is not compounded of these, but is generative1472 iii. 66, n. 3. of them. For as He frames the creatures by the Word, so according to the nature of His own Essence has He the Word as an Offspring, through whom He frames and creates and dispenses all things. For by the Word and the Wisdom all things have come to be, and all things together remain according to His ordinance1473 Ps. cxix. 91.. And the same concerning the word ‘Son;’ if God be without Son1474 Or. ii. 2, n. 3., then is He without Work; for the Son is His Offspring through whom He works1475 Or. ii. 41; iii. 11, n. 4.; but if not, the same questions and the same absurdities will follow their audacity.

5. From Deuteronomy; ‘But ye that did attach yourselves unto the Lord your God are alive every one of you this day1476 Deut. iv. 4..’ From this we may see the difference, and know that the Son of God is not a creature. For the Son says, ‘I and the Father are One,’ and, ‘I in the Father, and the Father in Me;’ but things originate, when they make advance, are attached unto the Lord. The Word then is in the Father as being His own; but things originate, being external, are attached, as being by nature foreign, and attached by free choice. For a son which is by nature, is one1477 i. 26, n. 2. with him who begat him; but he who is from without, and is made a son, will be attached to the family. Therefore he immediately adds, ‘What nation is there so great who hath God drawing nigh unto them1478 Deut. iv. 7, LXX.?’ and elsewhere, ‘I a God drawing nigh1479 Jer. xxiii. 23, LXX.;’ for to things originate He draws nigh, as being strange to Him, but to the Son, as being His own, He does not draw nigh, but He is in Him. And the Son is not attached to the Father, but co-exists with Him; whence also Moses says again in the same Deuteronomy, ‘Ye shall obey His voice, and apply yourselves unto Him1480 Deut. xiii. 4.;’ but what is applied, is applied from without.

Κατὰ Ἀρειανῶν λόγος.
Ἐκ θεοῦ θεός ἐστιν ὁ λόγος· καὶ «θεὸς γὰρ ἦν ὁ λόγος»· καὶ πάλιν· «ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστός, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας· ἀμήν». Καὶ ἐπειδὴ ἐκ θεοῦ θεός ἐστι καὶ τοῦ θεοῦ λόγος, σοφία, υἱὸς καὶ δύναμίς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός, διὰ τοῦτο εἷς θεὸς ἐν ταῖς θείαις γραφαῖς καταγγέλλεται. Τοῦ ἑνὸς γὰρ θεοῦ υἱὸς ὢν ὁ λόγος, εἰς αὐτόν, οὗ καὶ ἔστιν, ἀναφέρεται· ὥστε δύο μὲν εἶναι πατέρα καὶ υἱόν, μονάδα δὲ θεότητος ἀδιαίρετον καὶ ἄσχιστον. Λεχθείη δ' ἂν καὶ οὕτως· μία ἀρχὴ θεότητος, καὶ οὐ δύο ἀρχαί, ὅθεν κυρίως καὶ μοναρχία ἐστίν. Ἐξ αὐτῆς δὲ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἐστι φύσει υἱὸς ὁ λόγος, οὐχ ὡς ἀρχὴ ἑτέρα καθ' ἑαυτὸν ὑφεστὼς οὐδ' ἔξωθεν ταύτης γεγονώς, ἵνα μὴ τῇ ἑτερότητι δυαρ χία καὶ πολυαρχία γένηται, ἀλλὰ τῆς μιᾶς ἀρχῆς ἴδιος υἱός, ἰδία σοφία, ἴδιος λόγος ἐξ αὐτῆς ὑπάρχων. Κατὰ γὰρ τὸν Ἰωάννην «ἐν» ταύτῃ «τῇ ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν»· θεὸς γάρ ἐστιν ἡ ἀρχή· καὶ ἐπειδὴ ἐξ αὐτῆς ἐστιν, διὰ τοῦτο καὶ «θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος». Ὥσπερ δὲ μία ἀρχή, καὶ κατὰ τοῦτο εἷς θεός, οὕτως ἡ τῷ ὄντι καὶ ἀληθῶς καὶ ὄντως οὖσα οὐσία καὶ ὑπόστασις μία ἐστὶν ἡ λέγουσα «ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν», καὶ οὐ δύο, ἵνα μὴ δύο ἀρχαί. Ἐκ δὲ τῆς μιᾶς φύσει καὶ ἀληθῶς υἱὸς ὁ λόγος, ἡ σοφία, ἡ δύναμις ἰδία ὑπάρχουσα αὐτῆς καὶ ἐξ αὐτῆς ἀχώριστος. Ὥσπερ δὲ οὐκ ἄλλη, ἵνα μὴ δύο ἀρχαί, οὕτως ὁ ἐκ τῆς μιᾶς λόγος οὐ διαλελυμένος ἢ ἁπλῶς φωνὴ σημαντική, ἀλλ' οὐσιώδης λόγος καὶ οὐσιώδης σοφία, ἥτις ἐστὶν ὁ υἱὸς ἀληθῶς. Εἰ γὰρ δὴ μὴ οὐσιώδης εἴη, ἔσται ὁ θεὸς λαλῶν εἰς ἀέρα καὶ σῶμα οὐδὲν πλέον ἔχων τῶν ἀνθρώπων. Ἐπειδὴ δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄνθρωπος, οὐκ ἂν εἴη οὐδὲ ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ κατὰ τὴν τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀσθένειαν. Ὥσπερ γὰρ μία οὐσία ἡ ἀρχή, οὕτως εἷς οὐσιώδης καὶ ὑφεστὼς ὁ ταύτης λό γος καὶ ἡ σοφία. Ὡς γὰρ ἐκ θεοῦ θεός ἐστι καὶ ἐκ σοφοῦ σοφία καὶ ἐκ λογικοῦ λόγος καὶ ἐκ πατρὸς υἱός, οὕτως ἐξ ὑποστάσεως ὑπόστατος καὶ ἐξ οὐσίας οὐσιώδης καὶ ἐνούσιος καὶ ἐξ ὄντος ὤν. 2 Ἐπεὶ εἰ μὴ οὐσιώδης σοφία καὶ ἐνούσιος λόγος καὶ ὢν υἱός, ἀλλ' ἁπλῶς σοφία καὶ λόγος καὶ υἱὸς ἐν τῷ πατρί, εἴη ἂν αὐτὸς ὁ πατὴρ σύνθετος ἐκ σοφίας καὶ λόγου. Εἰ δὲ τοῦτο, ἀκο λουθήσει τὰ προειρημένα ἄτοπα· ἔσται δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς ἑαυτοῦ πα τήρ, καὶ ὁ υἱὸς αὐτὸς ἑαυτὸν γεννῶν καὶ γεννώμενος ὑφ' ἑαυτοῦ· ἢ ὄνομα μόνον ἐστὶ λόγος, καὶ σοφία, καὶ υἱός, οὐχ ὑφέστηκε δέ, καθ' οὗ λέγεται ταῦτα, μᾶλλον δὲ ὅς ἐστι ταῦτα. Εἰ οὖν οὐχ ὑφέστηκεν, ἀργὰ ἂν εἴη καὶ κενὰ τὰ ὀνόματα, ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ ἄν τις εἴποι αὐτοσοφίαν εἶναι καὶ αὐτολόγον τὸν θεόν. Ἀλλ' εἰ τοῦτο, εἴη ἂν αὐτὸς ἑαυτοῦ πατὴρ καὶ υἱός· πατὴρ μέν, ὅτε σοφός, υἱὸς δέ, ὅτε σοφία. Ἀλλὰ μὴ ὡς ποιότης τις ταῦτα ἐν τῷ θεῷ· ἄπαγε! ἀπρεπὲς τοῦτο· εὑρεθήσεται γὰρ σύνθετος ὁ θεὸς ἐξ οὐσίας καὶ ποιότητος. Πᾶσα γὰρ ποιότης ἐν οὐσίᾳ ἐστίν. Κατὰ τοῦτο δὲ ἡ θεία μονὰς ἀδιαίρετος οὖσα σύνθετος φανήσεται, τεμνομένη εἰς οὐσίαν καὶ συμβεβηκός. Πευστέον οὖν τῶν προπετῶν· ὁ υἱὸς σοφία καὶ λόγος ἐκηρύχθη τοῦ θεοῦ· πῶς τοίνυν ἐστίν; Εἰ μὲν ὡς ποιότης, ἐδείχθη τὸ ἄτοπον· εἰ δὲ αὐτοσοφία ὁ θεός, καὶ τὸ ἐκ τούτου ἄτοπον εἴρηται παρὰ Σαβελλίῳ. Οὐκοῦν ὡς γέννημα κυρίως ἐξ αὐτοῦ τοῦ πατρὸς κατὰ τὸ τοῦ φωτὸς παράδειγμα. Ὡς γὰρ ἀπὸ πυρὸς φῶς, οὕτως ἐκ θεοῦ λόγος καὶ σοφία ἐκ σοφοῦ καὶ ἐκ πατρὸς υἱός. Ταύτῃ γὰρ καὶ ἡ μονὰς ἀδιαίρετος καὶ ὁλόκληρος μένει, καὶ ὁ ταύτης υἱὸς λόγος οὐκ ἀνούσιος οὐδὲ οὐχ ὑφεστώς, ἀλλ' οὐσιώ δης ἀληθῶς. Ἐπεὶ εἰ μὴ τοῦτον ἔχει τὸν τρόπον, εἴη ἂν πάντα, ἃ λέγεται, κατ' ἐπίνοιαν καὶ ἁπλῶς λεγόμενα. Εἰ δὲ φευκτέον τὸ ἐκ τῆς ἐπινοίας ἄτοπον, ἄρα ἀληθὴς λόγος οὐσιώδης ἐστίν. Ὥσπερ γὰρ ἀληθῶς πατήρ, οὕτως ἀληθῶς σοφία. Κατὰ τοῦτο οὖν δύο μέν, ὅτι μὴ κατὰ Σαβέλλιον ὁ αὐτὸς πατὴρ καὶ υἱός, ἀλλ' ὁ πα τὴρ πατήρ, καὶ ὁ υἱὸς υἱός, ἓν δέ, ὅτι υἱὸς τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός ἐστι φύσει, ἴδιος ὑπάρχων λόγος αὐτοῦ. Τοῦτο ὁ κύριος ἔλεγεν· «ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν». Οὔτε γὰρ ὁ λόγος κεχώρισται τοῦ πατρός, οὔτε ὁ πατὴρ ἄλογος πώποτε ἦν ἤ ἐστιν. Καὶ ὁ λόγος οὖν θεὸς καὶ ὁ πατὴρ οὐκ ἄλογος· διὰ τοῦτο «ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοὶ» εἴρηκεν. 3 Καὶ πάλιν ὁ Χριστὸς λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν. Πότερον οὖν ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ ὑπέστη καὶ ὑποστὰς προσκεκόλληται τῷ πατρί; ἢ ὁ θεὸς αὐτὸν πεποίηκε καὶ ὠνόμασεν ἑαυτοῦ λόγον; Εἰ μὲν οὖν τὸ πρῶτον, λέγω δὴ τό· ἑαυτῷ ὑπέστη καὶ θεός ἐστιν, δύο ἂν εἶεν ἀρχαί, οὐκ ἔσται δὲ εἰκότως οὐδὲ τοῦ πατρὸς ἴδιος διὰ τὸ μὴ αὐ τοῦ τοῦ πατρός, ἀλλ' ἑαυτοῦ εἶναι· εἰ δὲ ἔξωθεν πεποίηται, εἴη ἂν κτίσμα. Λείπεται δὴ ἐξ αὐτοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ λέγειν αὐτόν. Εἰ δὲ τοῦτο, ἄλλο ἂν εἴη τὸ ἔκ τινος, καὶ ἄλλο τὸ ἐξ οὗ ἐστιν· κατὰ τοῦτο ἄρα δύο. Εἰ δὲ μὴ δύο εἴη, ἀλλ' ἐπὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ λέγοιτο, ἔσται τὸ αὐτὸ αἴτιον καὶ αἰτιατὸν καὶ γεννώμενον καὶ γεννῶν, ὅπερ ἄτοπον ἐπὶ Σαβελλίου δέδεικται. Εἰ δὲ ἐξ αὐτοῦ μὲν ἔστιν, οὐκ ἄλλο δέ, ἔσται καὶ γεννῶν καὶ μὴ γεννῶν· γεννῶν μέν, ὅτι ἐξ αὐτοῦ προφέρει, μὴ γεννῶν δέ, ὅτι μὴ ἄλλο αὐτοῦ ἐστιν. Εἰ δὲ τοῦτο, εἴη ἂν κατ' ἐπίνοιαν λεγόμενος ὁ αὐτὸς πατὴρ καὶ υἱός. Εἰ δὲ ἀπρεπὲς οὕτως, εἴη ἂν δύο, πατὴρ καὶ υἱός, ἓν δέ, ὅτι ὁ υἱὸς οὐκ ἔξωθεν, ἀλλ' ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγέννηται. Εἰ δὲ φεύγει τις τὸ λέγειν γέννημα, μόνον δὲ λέγει ὑπάρχειν τὸν λόγον σὺν τῷ θεῷ, φοβηθήτω ὁ τοιοῦτος, μὴ φεύγων τὸ ὑπὸ τῆς γραφῆς λεγό μενον ἐμπέσῃ εἰς ἀτοπίαν, διφυῆ τινα εἰσάγων τὸν θεόν· μὴ διδοὺς γὰρ ἐκ τῆς μονάδος εἶναι τὸν λόγον, ἀλλ' ἁπλῶς κεκολλῆσθαι τῷ πατρὶ λόγον, δυάδα οὐσίας εἰσάγει, μηδετέραν τῆς ἑτέρας πατέρα τυγχάνουσαν. Τὸ αὐτὸ δὲ καὶ περὶ δυνάμεως. Φανερώτερον δ' ἄν τις ἴδοι τοῦτο, εἰ ἐπὶ πατρὸς λάβοι· εἷς γὰρ πατὴρ καὶ οὐ δύο, ἀλλ' ἐκ τοῦ ἑνὸς ὁ υἱός. Ὥσπερ οὖν οὐ δύο πατέρες, ἀλλ' εἷς, οὕ τως οὐ δύο ἀρχαί, ἀλλὰ μία, καὶ ἐκ τῆς μιᾶς οὐσιώδης ὁ υἱός. Πρὸς Ἀρειανοὺς δὲ ἀνάπαλιν ἐρωτητέον· τοὺς μὲν γὰρ Σαβελλίζοντας ἀπὸ τῆς περὶ υἱοῦ ἐννοίας ἐλεγκτέον, τοὺς δὲ Ἀρειανοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς περὶ πατρός. 4 Λεκτέον οὖν· ὁ θεὸς σοφὸς καὶ οὐκ ἄλογός ἐστιν, ἢ τοὐ ναντίον, ἄσοφος καὶ ἄλογος. Εἰ μὲν οὖν τὸ δεύτερον, αὐτόθεν ἔχει τὴν ἀτοπίαν· εἰ δὲ τὸ πρῶτον, ἐρωτητέον, πῶς ἐστι σοφὸς καὶ οὐκ ἄλογος· πότερον ἔξωθεν ἐσχηκὼς τὸν λόγον καὶ τὴν σοφίαν ἢ ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ; Εἰ μὲν οὖν ἔξωθεν, ἔσται τις ὁ προσδεδωκὼς αὐτῷ, καὶ πρὶν λαβεῖν ἄσοφος καὶ ἄλογος· εἰ δὲ ἐξ αὐτοῦ, δῆλον ὅτι οὐκ ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων, οὐδ' ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν· ἀεὶ γὰρ ἦν, ἐπεὶ καὶ οὗ ἐστιν εἰκών, ἀεὶ ὑπάρχει. Ἐὰν δὲ λέγωσιν, ὅτι σοφὸς μὲν ἔστι καὶ οὐκ ἄλογος, ἰδίαν δὲ ἔχει ἐν ἑαυτῷ σοφίαν καὶ ἴδιον λόγον, οὐ τὸν Χριστὸν δέ, ἀλλ' ἐν ᾧ καὶ τὸν Χριστὸν ἐποίησεν, λεκτέον, ὅτι, εἰ ὁ Χριστὸς ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ λόγῳ γέγονεν, δῆλον ὅτι καὶ τὰ πάντα. Καὶ αὐτὸς ἂν εἴη, περὶ οὗ λέγει Ἰωάννης· «πάντα δι' αὐ τοῦ ἐγένετο» καὶ ὁ Ψαλμῳδὸς δέ· «πάντα ἐν σοφίᾳ ἐποίησας». Εὑρεθήσται δὲ ὁ Χριστὸς ψευδόμενος «ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρί», ὄντος ἑτέρου ἐν τῷ πατρί· καὶ «ὁ λόγος δὲ σὰρξ ἐγένετο» οὐκ ἀληθὲς κατ' αὐτούς. Εἰ γὰρ, ἐν ᾧ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο, αὐτὸς ἐγένετο σάρξ, ὁ δὲ Χριστὸς οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν τῷ πατρὶ λόγος, δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο, ἄρα ὁ Χριστὸς οὐ γέγονε σάρξ, ἀλλ' ἴσως ὠνομάσθη λόγος ὁ Χρι στός. Καὶ εἰ τοῦτο, πρῶτον μὲν ἄλλος ἂν εἴη παρὰ τὸ ὄνομα· ἔπειτα οὐ δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο τὰ πάντα, ἀλλ' ἐν ἐκείνῳ, ἐν ᾧ καὶ ὁ Χριστός. Εἰ δὲ φήσαιεν ὡς ποιότητα εἶναι ἐν τῷ πατρὶ τὴν σοφίαν ἢ αὐτοσοφίαν εἶναι, ἀκολουθήσει τὰ ἄτοπα τὰ ἐν τοῖς ἔμ προσθεν εἰρημένα. Ἔσται γὰρ σύνθετος καὶ αὐτὸς ἑαυτοῦ υἱὸς καὶ πατὴρ γινόμενος. Πλὴν ἐλεγκτέον καὶ δυσωπητέον αὐτούς, ὅτι ὁ ἐν τῷ θεῷ λόγος οὐκ ἂν εἴη κτίσμα οὐδὲ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος. Ὄντος δὲ ἅπαξ ἐν θεῷ λόγου, αὐτὸς ἂν εἴη ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ λέγων· «ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί», ὁ διὰ τοῦτο καὶ μονο γενὴς ὤν, ἐπειδὴ οὐκ ἄλλος τις ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἐγεννήθη. Εἷς οὗτος υἱός, ὅς ἐστι λόγος, σοφία, δύναμις· οὐ γὰρ σύνθετος ἐκ τούτων ὁ θεός, ἀλλὰ γεννητικός. Ὥσπερ γὰρ τὰ κτίσματα λόγῳ δημιουρ γεῖ, οὕτως κατὰ φύσιν τῆς ἰδίας οὐσίας ἔχει γέννημα τὸν λόγον, δι' οὗ καὶ δημιουργεῖ καὶ κτίζει καὶ οἰκονομεῖ τὰ πάντα. Τῷ γὰρ λόγῳ καὶ τῇ σοφίᾳ τὰ πάντα γέγονεν, καὶ τῇ διατάξει αὐτοῦ δια μένει τὰ σύμπαντα. Τὸ αὐτὸ δὲ καὶ περὶ υἱοῦ· εἰ ἄγονος, καὶ ἀνενέργητος ὁ θεός· γέννημα γὰρ αὐτοῦ ὁ υἱός, δι' οὗ ἐργάζεται. Εἰ δὲ μή, αἱ αὐταὶ ἐρωτήσεις καὶ τὰ αὐτὰ ἄτοπα τοῖς ἀναισχυν τοῦσιν ἀκολουθήσει. 5 Ἐκ τοῦ ∆ευτερονομίου· «ὑμεῖς δὲ οἱ προσκείμενοι κυρίῳ τῷ θεῷ ὑμῶν, ζῆτε πάντες ἐν τῇ σήμερον». Ἐκ τούτου δυνατὸν εἰ δέναι τὴν διαφορὰν καὶ γνῶναι, ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι κτίσμα ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ. Ὁ μὲν γὰρ υἱὸς λέγει· «ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν» καί· «ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί»· τὰ δὲ γενητά, ὅτ' ἂν προκόπτῃ, πρόσκειται τῷ κυρίῳ. Ὁ μὲν γὰρ λόγος ὡς ἴδιος ἐν τῷ πατρί ἐστιν· τὰ δὲ γενητὰ ἔξωθεν ὄντα πρόσκειται ὡς τῇ μὲν φύσει ἀλλότρια, τῇ δὲ προαιρέσει προσκείμενα. Καὶ γὰρ καὶ υἱὸς μὲν ὁ φύσει ἕν ἐστι μετὰ τοῦ γεννῶντος· ὁ δὲ ἔξωθεν υἱοποιούμενος προσκείσεται τῷ γένει. ∆ιὰ τοῦτο καὶ εὐθὺς ἐπιφέρει, ὅτι «ποῖον ἔθνος μέγα, ᾧ ἐστιν αὐτῷ θεὸς ἐγγίζων»; καὶ ἀλλαχοῦ· «θεὸς ἐγγίζων ἐγώ». Τοῖς γὰρ γενητοῖς ἐγγίζει ὡς ξένοις αὐτοῦ οὖσιν, τῷ δὲ υἱῷ ὡς ἰδίῳ οὐκ ἐγγίζει. ἀλλ' ἐν αὐτῷ ἐστιν· καὶ ὁ υἱὸς οὐ πρόσκειται, ἀλλὰ σύνεστι τῷ πατρί. Ὅθεν καὶ πάλιν λέγει Μωσῆς ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ ∆ευτερονομίῳ· «τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ ἀκούσεσθε καὶ αὐτῷ προστεθήσεσθε». Τὸ δὲ προστιθέμενον ἔξωθεν προστίθεται.