[3336] Vid. §20.
[3337] Vid. §21.
[3338] Vid. §22 fin.
[3339] Cf. Ritt. and Prell. (Ed. 5) §398 (?).
[3340] §§8, 13.
[3341] Cf. i. 29.
[3342] Or. i. 14, n. 4.
[3343] John i. 18.
[3344] Matt. xi. 27.
[3345] John x. 32-38
[3346] John xii. 45; Matt. x. 40; John xii. 46-48.
[3347] John xv. 22.
[3348] John xii. 47.
[3349] Ib. iii. 16-19.
[3350] Ib. iii. 18, 19.
[3351] Ib. xxii. 45.
[3352] Ib. i. 9.
[3353] Ib. xxii. 36, 46.
[3354] Ib. i. 8.
[3355] Ib. i. 10.
[3356] John x. 30; i. 18; xii. 45.
[3357] Ib. xiv. 9-13.
[3358] John viii. 58.
[3359] Vid. Matt. i. 17
[3360] John iii. 36.
[3361] Cf. iii. 11, n. 1.
[3362] John v. 17; xvi. 28.
[3363] Or. ii. 60. n. 5.
[3364] Gal. iv. 6.
[3365] Below, §29.
[3366] Is. i. 2, LXX.; Gen. vi. 2; Deut. xxxii. 6
[3367] Or. ii. 19, n. 3.
[3368] Matt. xi. 27; John i. 18.
[3369] John xiv. 9.
[3370] 1 Sam. ii. 27, LXX.
[3371] Cf. i. 53, n. 7; iii. 35, n. 5.
[3372] John x. 30; i. 18; xiv. 9.
[3373] Ps. ii. 7.
[3374] Ib. ix. title xlv. title.
[3375] Is. v. 1.
[3376] Ps. cx. 3, LXX.
[3377] Prov. viii. 25, LXX.; Dan. iii. 25.
[3378] Cf. Exp. in Ps. xcii.
[3379] Ps. xxxiii. 6; xciii. 1; xlv. 1; Matt. iii. 17.
[3380] Gen. xxii. 2.
§25. Marcellian illustration from 1 Cor. xii. 4, refuted.
25. Arius then raves in saying that the Son is from nothing, and that once He was not, while Sabellius also raves in saying that the Father is Son, and again, the Son Father [3381] , in subsistence [3382] One, in name Two; and he [3383] raves also in using as an example the grace of the Spirit. For he says, As there are "diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit," so also the Father is the same [3384] , but is dilated into Son and Spirit.' Now this is full of absurdity; for if as with the Spirit, so it is with God, the Father will be Word and Holy Spirit, to one becoming Father, to another Son, to another Spirit, accommodating himself to the need of each, and in name indeed Son and Spirit, but in reality Father only; having a beginning in that He becomes a Son, and then ceasing to be called Father, and made man in name, but in truth not even coming among us; and untrue in saying I and the Father,' but in reality being Himself the Father, and the other absurdities which result in the instance of Sabellius. And the name of the Son and the Spirit will necessarily cease, when the need has been supplied; and what happens will altogether be but make-belief, because it has been displayed, not in truth, but in name. And the Name of Son ceasing, as they hold, then the grace of Baptism will cease too; for it was given in the Son [3385] . Nay, what will follow but the annihilation of the creation? for if the Word came forth that we might be created [3386] , and when He was come forth, we were, it is plain that when He retires into the Father, as they say, we shall be no longer. For He will be as He was; so also we shall not be, as then we were not; for when He is no more gone forth, there will no more be a creation. This then is absurd.
[3381] §13.
[3382] hupostasei, iii. 65, n. 9.
[3383] i.e. Marcellus.
[3384] (1 Cor. xii. 4.) So Marcellus, §13.
[3385] §21.
[3386] ii. 24, n. 6; iv. 11, n. 4.
§§26-36. That the Son is the Co-existing Word, argued from the New Testament. Texts from the Old Testament continued; especially Ps. cx. 3. Besides, the Word in Old Testament may be Son in New, as Spirit in Old Testament is Paraclete in New. Objection from Acts x. 36; answered by parallels, such as 1 Cor. i. 5. Lev. ix. 7. &c. Necessity of the Word's taking flesh, viz. to sanctify, yet without destroying, the flesh.
26. But that the Son has no beginning of being, but before He was made man was ever with the Father, John makes clear in his first Epistle, writing thus: That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the Word of Life; and the Life was manifested, and we have seen it; and we bear witness and declare unto you that Eternal Life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us [3387] .' While he says here that the Life,' not became,' but was with the Father,' in the end of his Epistle he says the Son is the Life, writing, And we are in Him that is True, even in His Son, Jesus Christ; this is the True God and Eternal Life [3388] .' But if the Son is the Life, and the Life was with the Father, and if the Son was with the Father, and the same Evangelist says, And the Word was with God [3389] ,' the Son must be the Word, which is ever with the Father. And as the Son' is Word,' so God' must be the Father.' Moreover, the Son, according to John, is not merely God' but True God;' for according to the same Evangelist, And the Word was God;' and the Son said, I am the Life [3390] .' Therefore the Son is the Word and Life which is with the Father. And again, what is said in the same John, The Only-begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father [3391] ,' shews that the Son was ever. For whom John calls Son, Him David mentions in the Psalm as God's Hand [3392] , saying, Why stretchest Thou not forth Thy Right Hand out of Thy bosom [3393] ?' Therefore if the Hand is in the bosom, and the Son in the bosom, the Son will be the Hand, and the Hand will be the Son, through whom the Father made all things; for it is written, Thy Hand made all these things,' and He led out His people with His Hand [3394] ;' therefore through the Son. And if this is the changing of the Right Hand of the Most Highest,' and again, Unto the end, concerning the things that shall be changed, a song for My Well-beloved [3395] ;' the Well-beloved then is the Hand that was changed; concerning whom the Divine Voice also says, This is My Beloved Son.' This My Hand' then is equivalent to This My Son.'
27. But since there are ill-instructed men who, while resisting the doctrine of a Son, think little of the words, From the womb before the morning star I begat Thee [3396] ;' as if this referred to His relation to Mary, alleging that He was born of Mary before the morning star,' for that to say womb' could not refer to His relation towards God, we must say a few words here. If then, because the womb' is human, therefore it is foreign to God, plainly heart' too has a human meaning [3397] , for that which has heart has womb also. Since then both are human, we must deny both, or seek to explain both. Now as a word is from the heart, so is an offspring from the womb; and as when the heart of God is spoken of, we do not conceive of it as human, so if Scripture says from the womb,' we must not take it in a corporeal sense. For it is usual with divine Scripture to speak and signify in the way of man what is above man. Thus speaking of the creation it says, Thy hands made me and fashioned me,' and, Thy hand made all these things,' and, He commanded and they were created [3398] .' Suitable then is its language about everything; attributing to the Son propriety' and genuineness,' and to the creation the beginning of being.' For the one God makes and creates; but Him He begets from Himself, Word or Wisdom. Now womb' and heart' plainly declare the proper and the genuine; for we too have this from the womb; but our works we make by the hand.
28. What means then, say they, Before the morning star?' I would answer, that if Before the morning star' shews that His birth from Mary was wonderful, many others besides have been born before the rising of the star. What then is said so wonderful in His instance, that He should record it as some choice prerogative [3399] , when it is common to many? Next, to beget differs from bringing forth; for begetting involves the primary foundation, but to bring forth is nothing else than the production of what exists. If then the term belongs to the body, let it be observed that He did not then receive a beginning of coming to be when he was evangelized to the shepherds by night, but when the Angel spoke to the Virgin. And that was not night, for this is not said; on the contrary, it was night when He issued from the womb. This difference Scripture makes, and says on the one hand that He was begotten before the morning star, and on the other speaks of His proceeding from the womb, as in the twenty-first Psalm, Thou art he that drew Me from the womb [3400] .' Besides, He did not say, before the rising of the morning star,' but simply before the morning star.' If then the phrase must be taken of the body, then either the body must be before Adam, for the stars were before Adam, or we have to investigate the sense of the letter. And this John enables us to do, who says in the Apocalypse, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. Blessed are they who make broad their robes, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever maketh and loveth a lie. I Jesus have sent My Angel, to testify these things in the Churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star. And the Spirit and the Bride say, Come; and let him that heareth say, Come; and let him that is athirst, Come; and whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely [3401] .' If then the Offspring of David' be the Bright and Morning Star,' it is plain that the flesh of the Saviour is called the Morning Star,' which the Offspring from God preceded; so that the sense of the Psalm is this, I have begotten Thee from Myself before Thy appearance in the flesh;' for before the Morning Star' is equivalent to before the Incarnation of the Word.'
29. Thus in the Old also, statements are plainly made concerning the Son; at the same time it is superfluous to argue the point; for if what is not stated in the Old is of later date, let them who are thus disputatious, say where in the Old is mention made of the Spirit, the Paraclete? for of the Holy Spirit there is mention, but nowhere of the Paraclete. Is then the Holy Spirit one, and the Paraclete another, and the Paraclete the later, as not mentioned in the Old? but far be it to say that the Spirit is later, or to distinguish the Holy Ghost as one and the Paraclete as another; for the Spirit is one and the same, then and now hallowing and comforting those who are His recipients; as one and the same Word and Son led even then to adoption of sons those who were worthy [3402] . For sons under the Old were made such through no other than the Son. For unless even before Mary there were a Son who was of God, how is He before all, when they are sons before Him? and how also First-born,' if He comes second after many? But neither is the Paraclete second, for He was before all, nor the Son later; for in the beginning was the Word [3403] .' And as the Spirit and Paraclete are the same, so the Son and Word are the same; and as the Saviour says concerning the Spirit, But the Paraclete which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My Name [3404] ,' speaking of One and Same, and not distinguishing, so John describes similarly when he says, And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of one Only-begotten from the Father [3405] .' For here too he does not distinguish but witnesses the identity. And as the Paraclete is not one and the Holy Ghost another, but one and the same, so Word is not one, and Son another, but the Word is Only-Begotten; for He says not the glory of the flesh itself, but of the Word. He then who dares distinguish between Word and Son, let him distinguish between Spirit and Paraclete; but if the Spirit cannot be distinguished, so neither can the Word, being also Son and Wisdom and Power. Moreover, the word Well-beloved' even the Greeks who are skilful in phrases know to be equivalent with Only-begotten.' For Homer speaks thus of Telemachus, who was the only-begotten of Ulysses, in the second book of the Odyssey: