Fourth Oration against the Arians

 absurd, therefore a true Word is substantial. For just as He is truly Father, so He is truly Wisdom. Accordingly, then, they are two, because not acco

 Christ who says: “I am in the Father and the Father in me,” who for this reason is also only-begotten, since no other was begotten from him. This one

 to be blotted out, so also he himself again receives the gifts from God in place of our weaknesses, so that man, being joined, might be able to partak

 Let a human example be the fire and the radiance from it, two in being and in being seen, but one in that the radiance is from it and is indivisible f

 and this to infinity. 13 But perhaps he supposed this from the Stoics, who maintained that God contracts and again expands with creation and ceases in

 Savior, they say that he is the son but others say that the combination of both, the man and the Word, became son then, when they were joined. And th

 for instance: “that you may know that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me.” For in explaining the “one,” He did not say it in the sense of bein

 was made through him.” It is necessary, therefore, that he is the Word of God, concerning whom he also said that all things were made through him. For

 was said, but through the only-begotten Son. For, it says, Jesus said, 'Have I been with you so long, and you have not known me, Philip? He who has s

 the Word in the beginning was simply Word but when He became man, then He was named Son for before His appearance He was not Son, but only Word and

 of man, therefore also that from the heart. For if the womb is human, the heart too is corporeal. But if from the heart is eternal, from the womb

 shows that the Son exists always. For whom John calls Son, this one David sings of as hand, saying: why do you turn away your hand and your right han

 and let the one who is thirsty come let the one who desires take the water of life without price.” If, therefore, the offspring of David is the brigh

 is the word. 31 <From Leviticus.> “and Moses said to Aaron: Come to the altar, and make your sin offering and your whole burnt offering, and make aton

 an unending abiding and for this reason he is united, leading him to a more divine end, how is it possible to say that the Word was sent through the m

 the Samosatene will be able, having been refuted from so many things about the union of God the Word, and also from God the Word himself, who just now

Fourth Oration against the Arians

Discourse against the Arians.

The Word is God from God; for “the Word was God”; and again, “whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen.” And since Christ is God from God, and is the Word, Wisdom, Son, and Power of God, for this reason one God is proclaimed in the divine scriptures. For the Word, being the Son of the one God, is referred to Him, whose He also is; so that there are two, Father and Son, but a monad of Godhead, indivisible and unsevered. It might also be put this way: there is one principle of Godhead, and not two principles, whence properly it is a monarchy. From this one principle the Word is by nature Son, not subsisting as another principle by Himself nor having come into being from outside this one, lest by the otherness a dyarchy and polyarchy should arise, but is the own Son of the one principle, its own Wisdom, its own Word, existing from it. For according to John, “in” this “beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God”; for the beginning is God; and since He is from it, for this reason also “the Word was God.” And just as there is one beginning, and on this account one God, so the essence and hypostasis which truly and really and actually is, is one, which says “I am who I am,” and not two, lest there be two principles. And from the one, the Word is by nature and truly Son, Wisdom, Power, being its own and inseparable from it. And just as it is not another, lest there be two principles, so the Word from the one is not dissoluble nor simply a significant utterance, but is an essential Word and essential Wisdom, which is truly the Son. For if He were not essential, God would be speaking into the air and would be a body, having nothing more than men. But since He is not a man, neither would His Word be according to the weakness of men. For just as the principle is one essence, so its Word and Wisdom is one, essential and subsistent. For as from God He is God, and from the Wise Wisdom, and from the Rational Word, and from the Father Son, so from hypostasis He is subsistent, and from essence essential and in essence, and from Being He is Being. 2 For if He were not essential Wisdom and essential Word and existing Son, but simply Wisdom and Word and Son in the Father, the Father Himself would be composite of wisdom and word. If this were so, the aforementioned absurdities would follow; and He would be His own Father, and the Son Himself begetting Himself and being begotten by Himself; or Word, and Wisdom, and Son is only a name, and He does not subsist, of whom these things are said, or rather who is these things. If therefore He does not subsist, the names would be idle and empty, unless someone were to say that God is self-wisdom and self-word. But if this were so, He would be His own Father and Son; Father, when He is wise, and Son, when He is wisdom. But these things are not as some quality in God; away with the thought! This is improper; for God would be found to be composite of essence and quality. For every quality is in an essence. According to this, the divine monad, being indivisible, will appear composite, being divided into essence and accident. Therefore, one must ask the rash: the Son was proclaimed the Wisdom and Word of God; how then is He? If as a quality, the absurdity has been shown; if God is self-wisdom, the absurdity resulting from this has also been stated by Sabellius. Therefore, as a proper offspring from the Father Himself, according to the example of light. For as light from fire, so from God is the Word, and from the Wise is Wisdom, and from the Father is the Son. For in this way the monad remains indivisible and whole, and its Son, the Word, is not without essence nor without subsistence, but is truly essential. Since if it is not in this manner, all the things that are said would be according to a concept and simply spoken. But if what comes from a concept is to be avoided

1

Oratio quarta contra Arianos

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

1