20. If then they say that the Man whom the Word wore, and not the Word, is the Son of God the Only-begotten, the Man must be by consequence He who is in the Father, in whom also the Father is; and the Man must be He who is One with the Father, and who is in the bosom of the Father, and the True Light. And they will be compelled to say that through the Man Himself the world came into being, and that the Man was He who came not to judge the world but to save it; and that He it was who was in being before Abraham came to be. For, says Scripture, Jesus said to them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am [3358] .' And is it not absurd to say, as they do, that one who came of the seed of Abraham after two and forty generations [3359] , should exist before Abraham came to be? is it not absurd, if the flesh, which the Word bore, itself is the Son, to say that the flesh from Mary is that by which the world was made? and how will they retain He was in the world?' for the Evangelist, by way of signifying the Son's antecedence to the birth according to the flesh, goes on to say, He was in the world.' And how, if not the Word but the Man is the Son, can He save the world, being Himself one of the world? And if this does not shame them, where shall be the Word, the Man being in the Father? And where will the Word stand to the Father, the Man and the Father being One? But if the Man be Only-begotten, what will be the place of the Word? Either one must say that He comes second, or, if He be above the Only-begotten, He must be the Father Himself. For as the Father is One, so also the Only-begotten from Him is One; and what has the Word above the Man, if the Word is not the Son? For, while Scripture says that through the Son and the Word the world was brought to be, and it is common to the Word and to the Son to frame the world, yet Scripture proceeds to place the sight of the Father, not in the Word but in the Son, and to attribute the saving of the world, not to the Word, but to the Only-begotten Son. For, saith it, Jesus said, Have I been so long while with you, and yet hast thou not known Me, Philip? He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father.' Nor does Scripture say that the Word knows the Father, but the Son; and that not the Word sees the Father, but the Only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father.
21. And what more does the Word contribute to our salvation than the Son, if, as they hold, the Son is one, and the Word another? for the command is that we should believe, not in the Word, but in the Son. For John says, He that believeth on the Son, hath everlasting life; but he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life [3360] .' And Holy Baptism, in which the substance of the whole faith is lodged, is administered not in the Word, but in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. If then, as they hold, the Word is one and the Son another, and the Word is not the Son, Baptism has no connection with the Word. How then are they able to hold that the Word is with the Father, when He is not with Him in the giving of Baptism? But perhaps they will say, that in the Father's Name the Word is included? Wherefore then not the Spirit also? or is the Spirit external to the Father? and the Man indeed (if the Word is not Son) is named after the Father, but the Spirit after the Man? and then the Monad, instead of dilating into a Triad, dilates according to them into a Tetrad, Father, Word, Son, and Holy Ghost. Being brought to shame on this ground, they have recourse to another, and say that not the Man by Himself whom the Lord bore, but both together, the Word and the Man, are the Son; for both joined together are named Son, as they say. Which then is cause of which? and which has made which a Son? or, to speak more clearly, is the Word a Son because of the flesh? or is the flesh called Son because of the Word? or is neither the cause, but the concurrence of the two? If then the Word be a Son because of the flesh, of necessity the flesh is Son, and all those absurdities follow which have been already drawn from saying that the Man is Son. But if the flesh is called Son because of the Word, then even before the flesh the Word certainly, being such, was Son. For how could a being make other sons, not being himself a son, especially when there was a father [3361] ? If then He makes sons for Himself, then is He Himself Father; but if for the Father, then must He be Son, or rather that Son, by reason of Whom the rest are made sons.
22. For if, while He is not Son, we are sons, God is our Father and not His. How then does He appropriate the name instead, saying, My Father,' and I from the Father [3362] ?' for if He be common Father of all, He is not His Father only, nor did He alone come out from the Father. But he says, that He is sometimes called our Father also, because He has Himself become partaker in our flesh. For on this account the Word has become flesh, that, since the Word is Son, therefore, because of the Son dwelling in us [3363] , He may be called our Father also; for He sent forth,' says Scripture, the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father [3364] .' Therefore the Son in us, calling upon His own Father, causes Him to be named our Father also. Surely in whose hearts the Son is not, of them neither can God be called Father. But if because of the Word the Man is called Son, it follows necessarily, since the ancients [3365] are called sons even before the Incarnation, that the Word is Son even before His sojourn among us; for I begat sons,' saith Scripture; and in the time of Noah, When the sons of God saw,' and in the Song, Is not He thy Father [3366] ?' Therefore there was also that True Son, for whose sake they too were sons. But if, as they say again, neither of the two is Son, but it depends on the concurrence of the two, it follows that neither is Son; I say, neither the Word nor the Man, but some cause, on account of which they were united; and accordingly that cause which makes the Son will precede the uniting. Therefore in this way also the Son was before the flesh. When this then is urged, they will take refuge in another pretext, saying, neither that the Man is Son, nor both together, but that the Word was Word indeed simply in the beginning, but when He became Man, then He was named [3367] Son; for before His appearing He was not Son but Word only; and as the Word became flesh,' not being flesh before, so the Word became Son, not being Son before. Such are their idle words; but they admit of an obvious refutation.
23. For if simply, when made Man, He has become Son, the becoming Man is the cause. And if the Man is cause of His being Son, or both together, then the same absurdities result. Next, if He is first Word and then Son, it will appear that He knew the Father afterwards, not before; for not as being Word does He know Him, but as Son. For No one knoweth the Father but the Son.' And this too will result, that He has come afterwards to be in the bosom of the Father [3368] ,' and afterwards He and the Father have become One; and afterwards is, He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father [3369] .' For all these things are said of the Son. Hence they will be forced to say, The Word was nothing but a name. For neither is it He who is in us with the Father, nor whoso has seen the Word, hath seen the Father, nor was the Father known to any one at all, for through the Son is the Father known (for so it is written, And he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him'), and, the Word not being yet Son, not yet did any know the Father. How then was He seen by Moses, how by the fathers? for He says Himself in the Kingdoms, Was I not plainly revealed to the house of thy father [3370] ?' But if God was revealed, there must have been a Son to reveal, as He says Himself, And he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him.' It is irreligious then and foolish to say that the Word is one and the Son another, and whence they gained such an idea it were well to ask them. They answer, Because no mention is made in the Old Testament of the Son, but of the Word; and for this reason they are positive in their opinion that the Son came later than the Word, because not in the Old, but in the New only, is He spoken of. This is what they irreligiously say; for first to separate between the Testaments, so that the one does not hold with the other, is the device of Manichees and Jews, the one of whom oppose the Old, and the other the New [3371] . Next, on their shewing, if what is contained in the Old is of older date, and what in the New of later, and times depend upon the writing, it follows that I and the Father are One,' and Only-begotten,' and He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father [3372] ,' are later, for these testimonies are adduced not from the Old but from the New.
24. But it is not so; for in truth much is said in the Old also about the Son, as in the second Psalm, Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee [3373] ;' and in the ninth the title [3374] , Unto the end concerning the hidden things of the Son, a Psalm of David;' and in the forty-fourth, Unto the end, concerning the things that shall be changed to the Sons of Korah for understanding, a song about the Well-beloved;' and in Isaiah, I will sing to my Well-beloved a song of my Well-beloved touching my vineyard. My Well-beloved hath a vineyard [3375] ;' Who is this Well-beloved' but the Only-begotten Son? as also in the hundred and ninth, From the womb I begat Thee before the morning star [3376] ,' concerning which I shall speak afterwards; and in the Proverbs, Before the hills He begat me;' and in Daniel, And the form of the Fourth is like the Son of God [3377] ;' and many others. If then from the Old be ancientness, ancient must be the Son, who is clearly described in the Old Testament in many places. Yes,' they say, so it is, but it must be taken prophetically.' Therefore also the Word must be said to be spoken of prophetically; for this is not to be taken one way, that another. For if Thou art My Son' refer to the future, so does By the Word of the Lord were the heavens established;' for it is not said were brought to be,' nor He made.' But that established' refers to the future, it states elsewhere: The Lord reigned [3378] ,' followed by He so established the earth that it can never be moved.' And if the words in the forty-fourth Psalm for My Well-beloved' refer to the future, so does what follows upon them, My heart uttered a good Word.' And if From the womb' relates to a man, therefore also From the heart.' For if the womb is human, so is the heart corporeal. But if what is from the heart is eternal, then what is From the womb' is eternal. And if the Only-begotten' is in the bosom,' therefore the Well-beloved' is in the bosom.' For Only-begotten' and Well-beloved' are the same, as in the words This is My Well-beloved Son [3379] .' For not as wishing to signify His love towards Him did He say Well-beloved,' as if it might appear that He hated others, but He made plain thereby His being Only-begotten, that He might shew that He alone was from Him. And hence the Word, with a view of conveying to Abraham the idea of Only-begotten,' says, Offer thy son thy well-beloved [3380] ;' but it is plain to any one that Isaac was the only son from Sara. The Word then is Son, not lately come to be, or named Son, but always Son. For if not Son, neither is He Word; and if not Word, neither is He Son. For that which is from the father is a son; and what is from the Father, but that Word that went forth from the heart, and was born from the womb? for the Father is not Word, nor the Word Father, but the one is Father, and the other Son; and one begets, and the other is begotten.