Passage Search

After the Evangelist has taught us the three orders through the three propositions that were previously mentioned, he sums up the three under one head, saying, “The same was in the beginning with God.”Now we have learned from the three propositions first, in what the Word was, namely, “in the beginning,” and with whom he was, namely, “God,” and who the Word was, namely, “God.” It is as if, therefore, he indicates the previously mentioned God the Word by the expression “the same” and gathers the three, “in the beginning was the Word” and “The Word was with God, and the Word was God,” into a fourth proposition and says, “The same was in the beginning with God.”

(tom. ii. in Joan. c. 4) Or thus, the Evangelist having begun with those propositions, reunites them into one, saying, The Same was in the beginning with God. For in the first of the three we learnt in what the Word was, that it was in the beginning; in the second, with whom, with God; in the third who the Word was, God. Having, then, by the term, The Same, set before us in a manner God the Word of Whom he had spoken, he collects all into the fourth proposition, viz. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; into, the Same was in the beginning with God. It may be asked, however, why it is not said, In the beginning was the Word of God, and the Word of God was with God, and the Word of God was God? Now whoever will admit that truth is one, must needs admit also that the demonstration of truth, that is wisdom, is one. But if truth is one, and wisdom is one, the Word which enuntiates truth and developes wisdom in those who are capable of receiving it, must be One also. And therefore it would have been out of place here to have said, the Word of God, as if there were other words besides that of God, a word of angels, word of men, and so on. We do not say this, to deny that It is the Word of God, but to show the use of omitting the word God. John himself too in the Apocalypse says, And his Name is called the Word of God. (Rev. 19:13)

(Hom. ii. [i.] §. 4) Not asserting, as Plato does, one to be intelligence, the other soul; for the Divine Nature is very different from this... But you say, the Father is called God with the addition of the article, the Son without it. What say you then, when the Apostle. writes, The great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; (Tit. 2:13) and again, Who is over all, God; (Rom. 9:5) and Grace be unto you and peace from God our Father; (Rom. 1:7) without the article? Besides, too, it were superfluous here, to affix what had been affixed just before. So that it does not follow, though the article is not affixed to the Son, that He is therefore an inferior God. (Hom. iv. [iii.] §. 1) Or, lest hearing that In the beginning was the Word, you should regard It as eternal, but yet understand the Father's Life to have some degree of priority, he has introduced the words, The Same was in the beginning with God. For God was never solitary, apart from Him, but always God with God. (ibid. 3). Or forasmuch as he said, the Word was God, that no one might think the Divinity of the Son inferior, he immediately subjoins the marks of proper Divinity, in that he both again mentions Eternity, The Same was in the beginning with God; and adds His attribute of Creator (τδ δημιουργικὸν), All things were made by Him.

For every person imaginable would admit that the truth is one. No one would dare say, in the case of [truth] too, that the truth of God is one thing, and that of the angels is another, and that of people still another. For it belongs to the nature of beings that the truth concerning each is one.… And if truth is one and wisdom is one, the Word also, who announces the truth and wisdom simply and openly to those capable of apprehending it, would be one. And we say these things, not to deny that the truth and wisdom and the Word are of God but to show the advantage of the omission of the phrase “of God.”

CHAPTER IV. Against those who dare to say that the conceived and Natural word in God the Father is one, and He that is called Son by the Divine Scriptures another: such is the misconceit of Eunomius' party. This was in the beginning with God. The Evangelist herein made a sort of recapitulation of what had been already before said. But adding the word This, he is seen all-but crying aloud. He Who is in the beginning, the Word with the Father, He Who is God of God, He it is and none other, regarding Whom our august book is set forth. But he seems again not idly to add to what has been said the words, This was in the beginning with God. For he, enlightened by the Divine Spirit unto the knowledge of things to come, was not ignorant, as seems to me and as we may truly say, that certain would appear, perdition's workpeople, the devil's nets, death's snares leading down to the chambers and depth of hell those who from unlearning give heed to the things that them belch forth out of an evil heart. For they will rise up and be valiant against their own head, saying that one is the word that is conceived in God the Father, and that some other most similar and like to the conceived one, is the Son and Word through Whom God works all things; in order that He may be conceived of as word of word and image of image and radiance of radiance. The Blessed Evangelist then, as though he had already heard them blaspheming and with reason stirred against the absurd follies of their writings, having already defined, and by many words, as was due, shown that the Word is One, and Only and Very, of God and in God and with God, with flashing eye he adds, This was in the beginning with God, as Son, that is, with the Father, as inborn, as of His Essence, as Only-Begotten; This, there being no second. But since I deem that we ought, zealously declaring such impiety, to lay yet more open their blasphemy, for the greater security of the simpler ones (for he who has learnt it will give heed and will spring out of its reach, as though a serpent lurking in the midst of the path), needs will I expose their opinion, after the form of antithesis. For it shall receive its refutations in order, according to the modes which God who giveth wisdom to all shall grant. Eunomius' opinion as to the Son of God. "The Only-Begotten Son of God, says he, is not of very right His Word, but the conceived word of God the Father moves and is ever in Him; while the son who is said to have been begotten of Him, becoming recipient of his conceived word, knoweth all things from having learnt them and, after the likeness of the former, is called and is word." Then in confirmation, as he imagines, of his blasphemy, he weaves some such arguments of perverted ideas, that, as it is written, the wretched man may be holden with the cords of his sins. "If the Son Himself, says he, be the Word Natural and Conceived in God the Father, and is Consubstantial with Him Who begat Him, what hinders the Father too from being and being called Word, as Consubstantial with the Word?" And again: "If the Son be the Word of God the Father and there is none other than He, by means of what word, says he, is the Father found saying to Him: Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee? For it is very clear that not without a word did the Father address Him, since every thing that is uttered, is altogether uttered in word, and no otherwise. And the Saviour Himself somewhere says, I know the Father and keep His saying, and again, The word which ye hear is not Mine, but the Father's Which sent Me. Since then the Father addresses Himself to Him in word, and He Himself acknowledges, one while that He keeps the Father's word, at another again, that the Jews heard, not His word, but the Father's; how will it not, he says, be confessed beyond a doubt, that the Son is other than the word that is conceived or that stands in motion of the mind, whereof participating and replete, the utterer and exponent of the Father's Essence, that is the Son, is called word?" Such ills then does the foolish man sow to himself and gainsaying all the Divine Scriptures at once is not ashamed, showing that true is that which is written of himself. When the wicked man cometh into the depth of evils, he despiseth. For verily exceeding deep unto naughtiness hath the fighter against God of his folly dug, refusing the uprightness that is of truth, and halting with the rottenness of his own arguments. For that the Only-Begotten Son of God the Father is of very right His Word, we shall know by the subjoined. Refutation in order of the misconceit of Eunomius. Slow to learn is the silly heretic. For how into a malicious soul will wisdom at all enter? or what, tell me, can be more malicious than such men, who, as it is written, turn away their ears from the truth and run more easily unto the fables of their own cogitations, that justly too they may hear, uttering things not of the Divine Scriptures, Woe to them that prophesy of their own heart and not out of the mouth of the Lord? For who speaking out of the mouth of the Lord calleth Jesus Anathema? which thing indeed some do in unbridled haughtiness against the doctrines of piety, and as one of the holy Prophets said, perverting all equity. For they say that the natural and conceived word in God the Father is one, him that is called Son and Word again another: and they bring in support of their own, as they deem, opinion, but more truly, their unbridled impiety, our Lord Jesus Christ in His discourses with the Jews saying, I know the Father and keep His word: and moreover that which was said to Him by the Father, From the womb before the Day-star begat I Thee. Then they say belching forth the venom of their own father, If the speaker is other than he whom he addresses, and the Father addresses the Son by word, the innate word wherewith the Father conversed will be other than the Son. And again: If, says he, the Son Himself declared that He keeps the Father's word, how will not he that keepeth be other than that which is kept? To this it is perhaps not hard to reply (for the Lord will give utterance to them that evangelize with much power). But those who are sick of such unlearning ought to remember Him Who says, Ah they who leave the paths of uprightness to walk in the ways of darkness, and for us it is meet that we should cry unto our Guide Who is in the heavens, Turn away mine eyes from beholding vanity. For vanity of a truth and rubbish and nought else are the vain utterances of their uninstructedness. For not as though He had another word of the Father in Himself did the Son say that He kept the Father's word, nor yet did He declare that He had come to us, bringing him with Him as though a pedagogue, but as Alone in-being in the Father by Nature, and having again likewise in Himself the Father, none else intervening, I, says He, in the Father and, the Father in Me, not the innate, nor yet any other word, but the Father, in Me. How then ought one to conceive of what was said by Him to the Jews, may one ask us, and that with reason. To this we say with truth what comes up upon our mind. The Saviour was teaching the most incredulous people of the Jews and, drawing by little and little His hearers from the worship of the law, did ofttimes call out to them, I am the Truth, all but saying, Throw off, sirs, the yoke of the law, receive the spiritual worship; let shadow now depart, type recede afar, the Truth hath beamed. But He did not seem to all to be doing rightly, subverting Moses' precepts, yea rather leading them to what was more true, so that some even cried, If this man were of God, He would not have broken the Sabbath, which was to openly condemn of sin Him Who knew it not. To such like follies then of the Jews He replying puts away all boast in His words, and lowlily and darkly designs to teach them, that the Son Who knows not sin would not work ought other than seemed good to God the Father; lest saying more nakedly, I know not sin, He should |38 again stir them up to stone Him. For they straightway boiling with wrath would have sprung upon Him saying, Not to sin belongs to God Alone: Thou then being a Man, utter not the things that beseem God Alone. Which thing they even did at another time, saying that with reason do they stone Him, because being a Man He makes Himself God. Obscurely did the Saviour, in that He was both Man and as under the law with those who were under the law, say that He kept the Father's word, all-but saying, I will never transgress the Father's Will. For by stepping aside from the Divine law is sin born, but I know not sin Who am God by Nature. Therefore I offend not the Father in My teaching. For the rest let no one find fault with Him Who is by Nature Lawgiver, but because of His Likeness unto us is Law-keeper. But He says that He knows the Father, not simply as do we, only the very same thing more simply for that He is God, but from what Himself is does He declare that He understands the Nature of the Father. But since He knows that He Who begat Him knows not to endure change, He knows, it is plain, that Himself is Unchangeable of an Unchangeable Father. And that which knows not change, how can it be said to sin, and not rather to stand unswerving in its own natural endowments? Yain then is the accusal of the Jews imagining that the Son thinks ought beside the Counsel of the Father: for He keeps, as He says, His word, and by Nature knows not sinning: for He knows that the Father cannot suffer this, with Whom He is Consubstantial as Very Son. But since they meet this by citing what has been annexed to their objection, From the womb before the Day-star begat I Thee, come let us unfold the word of piety as to this also. For not because the Father says such things to the Son, ought we therefore to think, that there is in Him an innate word and to conceive of the Son as other than it. But first of all let us think this with ourselves that a prophet versed in uttering mysteries in the Spirit puts on for us the person of the Son, and introduces Him hearing of the Father, Thou art My Son, and what follows. And the form of speech, in that it is constructed after human |39 fashion, will not I presume at all compel us to conceive of two words, but referring to our own habits [of speech] the unavoidable arrangement herein, we shall blame, if we do rightly, the weakness of our own nature, which has neither words, nor modes of idea which accurately serve unto the mysteries that are above us, or that are adequate to express faultlessly things more Divine: and to the Divine Nature again we shall attribute the superiority over our mind and speech, not conceiving of Its relations exactly as they are spoken of, but as befit It and as It wills. Or if any of the unholy heretics imagine that we unrightly abuse such words, and do not admit that the form of speech comes up to our usage of it, they will rightly hear: Let the Father be conceived of as also begetting as we do, let Him not deny the womb and the pangs of birth. For from the womb begat I Thee, says He to the Son. But perchance, yea rather of a certainty, they will say that from the likeness to us the Father's True Begetting of the Son is signified. Therefore let the other too be piously understood, even if it be uttered in human guise, and their bitter and unholy difficulty is solved. And these things were, I suppose, sufficient. But since we thought that we ought to smite down the difficulties devised of their stubbornness (as it were some swarm of foes), with the uprightness of pious dogmas, come let us now bringing them forward in the manner befitting each, raise up against each its opponent, and with more zealous thoughts let us arm against them the ever victorious truth. The objection again, as from them, shall be set forth in order before the arguments which confute it, inciting the vigilance of the argument to proceed to more accurate test, and like the rush of some mountain-torrent, ever bearing down headlong the good readiness of the readers to desire ever to learn the answer. Oppositions or objections, as from the heretics. "If there exist not, says he, in God the Father a word essential and conceived, other than the Only-Begotten Son That |40 is of Him, Who is also called word in imitation of that one, the result will be absurd, and we who deem we think rightly must needs confess, that if the Word is Consubstantial with the Father and the Father with the Word, there is nothing yet to hinder the Father from being and being called word, as Consubstantial with the Word." Refutation of this. No argument, O most excellent, will ever constrain us to think that we ought to believe and call the Father Word, or even to believe that He could be so, because He is Consubstantial with the Word. For in no wise will things that are of the same essence admit of a mutual interchange, and receive a sort of mixture, as from one into the other, so that the things named could be reduced from many into one, or from duality into unity. For not because our forefather Adam was consubstantial with the son born of him, will father therefore advance unto son, son again mount up into father; but being one with him as far as regards the unity of essential quality, he will retain what is his own: and he who is of any father will be conceived of as a son, and again the begetter of any will clearly be father. But if ye imagine that ye are constructing a clever argument hereupon, and that consubstantiality will surely constrain consubstantial to be one with consubstantial, and will suffer no distinction to prevail, so that each should exist by itself and in whatever it is, what was it persuaded the Judge of all not to punish the father for the son, nor to demand of the son satisfaction for the father? For the soul, says he, that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son. But since the sentence of Him Who judges righteously does not bring down the father, albeit consubstantial with the son, into the position of sonship, nor yet does it bring up the son into the condition of fatherhood, but knoweth each individually, not this progressing into that, nor that stepping into this; it is I suppose evident, that no argument will constrain God the Father, because He is Consubstantial with the Word, to change into being the Word. For He abideth wholly in Himself, that is Father, even though He Who is begotten of Him be conceived to be and be Word and therefore Son, that things Divine may not appear in worse state than ours are. Another in equal guise with the objection, by the method of reductio ad absurdum. The Son, as having no difference from His Father, but being His most exact Likeness and the express Image of His Person, is found saying to His disciples, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father. But if He being thus, is Consubstantial with the Father, and things consubstantial admit of utter confusion with one another, there will be nothing it seems to hinder the Son from being conceived of as Father, in that He is Consubstantial with the Father, and capable of passing over into this, nought hindering it, if consubstantiality suffice unto this kind of change or transposition. Let the Son then be conceived of as Father, and let Him say, as now being so, to the real Father, From the womb before the Day-star begat I Thee; and let Him assume to Himself every word in short that belongs to the Father. When this at length has taken place, every thing is now thrown into confusion, and That Which ever so existeth, I mean the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity will be reduced to Unity, if That which rightly and separately belongs to Each vanishes on account of the Con-substantiality, and the sameness of nature overthrows the distinction of Persons. But this is absurd. Hence the Father will not be the Word, because Consubstantial with the Word, but will abide unchanged, being What He is, even though He have Co-nature or Consubstantiality with His Own Word. And their objection has been proved to be nought. Another. If every word be the word of some one, pouring it forth from the tongue, that is, or belching it forth and bringing it up from the heart; and the Father be Word, because He is Consubstantial with the Word: He will be His own word, or rather no one's, or will even have no existence at all (for how will there be word, when he whose word it is, is not?). But this is absurd: for never will the Divine and Untaint Nature be receptive of non-being, nor will the Father |42 ever pass into the Word, even though He be Consubstantial with the Word, but will remain Father, Whose Wordalso the Son is. Another. If the Divine Nature be believed non-recipient of all turn and change as regards Essence, how will the Father, leaving His own position, pass into being the Word? For He will be recipient of change, suffering it as of necessity, and will not be the same, as not keeping what He was from the beginning. But if this be absurd (for to change is wholly foreign from the Divine Nature), the Father will not have the change into the Word, but will be Father ever, having immutability and unchange as God. Another as of the same, at length. The Only-Begotten Word and Son of God, showing that He is Very God of Very God the Father says, All things that the Father hath are Mine. But though the Son is Heir of all the properties that are in the Father of Nature, as being of Him by Nature, yet He will never have that of being Father (for this too is one thing that belongs to the Father); but the Son will remain bereft of nought that is inherent in the Father, though He be not deemed of as Father, but having in Himself perfectly all the properties and endowments of the Father's Essence. Applying this very same method of reasoning to the Person of the Father also, we say that He has all the properties of the Son by Nature, yet not the power of passing into sonship and into being Word, but that as un-turning by Nature He remains what He is, that in addition to being God the Father, He may be also without change, having Unchanged in Himself the Word That appeared from Him, the Son. Another. God the Lawgiver found fault with certain by the holy Prophets saying, They have put no difference between the holy and profane. For great indeed is the difference or contrariety of manners which is seen between them by those who will discern. But if it be admissible to commingle the nature of things consubstantial one with another, and things that are in separate and individual persons can run off to whatever they please of congenerate or connatural;----what is there to separate the profane from the holy, if the distinction of separate being or of who one is, is never seen, but one exists in another because of sameness of essence? Be then (the knowledge in regard to each being hence indifferent), all jumbled up together, and let the traitor Judas be Peter or Paul, because consubstantial with Peter and Paul; be Peter again or Paul, Judas, because consubstantial with him. But so to think is most unreasoning; and the being of the same substance will by no means take away the difference of things congenerate or connatural from one another. Our weakness then will not so set itself to contend with the Divine Essence, as to compel God the Father to be called and be the Word, because He is Consubstantial with the Word. For He abides ever Father, in no wise able to lose the distinction of what He is in regard to this, nor yielding to sameness of Essence that He should possess nothing distinctively. And He will no way wrong the Son by this, but rather will show Him as His own, and possessing from Him by Nature the Unturning and Unchangeableness of Him That begat Him, both by His possessing properly and alone Sonship and not being changed into the Father, even as neither does He into Son. Opposition, or another objection as on the part of the heretics. "Not reasonably, say they, do ye blame as not thinking rightly those who say that the Word innate in God the Father is other than the Son, although ye hear Him clearly say in the Gospel narrative, I know Him and keep His word. But if, as Himself affirmed, He keeps the Father's word, other in all respects, I suppose, and of necessity will he be than him; since needs must the distinction of being other exist between him who keeps and that which is kept." Different solutions in order showing clearly that the Son is the Word of God the Father. If the Only-Begotten Son of God the Father is not Himself His Word, but some other than He, which they call conceived, exists in God, let those who put forth this contrary opinion tell us whether the word which is the conception of their own ignorance be hypostatic or no. For if they say that it exists of itself conceived of as in separate being, they will surely confess that there are two sons: but if they say that it has no existence, then, since nothing any longer conies between and severs the Son, how will He be third from the Father and not rather next Him, as Son with Father? Another by the same considerations. The opponents define that there is in God the Father a word, the conceived, by means of which, according to their most unlovely imagination, the Son is taught the counsel of the Father. But how great folly their dogma hereupon has, we must see. "We must consider the argument about this matter thus. The name father, has of necessity no mean in relation to the son. For what will be the mean of father as regards the son, or again of son as regards the father? But if, according to their unlearning, there severs the Son from the Father an intervening will and a conceived word, which they say is interpretative thereof, no longer will the Father be conceived of as altogether father nor yet the Son as son, if we conceive that the will of God and the word that interprets it, exist in their own hypostases. But if we grant that these are without hypostasis, then the Son is in God the Father without any thing mediate and next to Him; where then will the conceived word retire, or what place will the will have, conceived of as other than the Son? Another by the reductio ad absurdum. We believe that the Holy and Adorable Trinity is Consubstantial, even if the madness of the heretics will it not. But I think that there ought to be admitted with regard to things consubstantial, a likeness also with one another in all things, in regard to natural properties. If then there be, according to the uncounsel of some, in God the Father some conceived word other than the Son, the Son too will surely have a conceived word in Himself, as being His Likeness and the unchangeable Express Image of His Person, as it is written: the Holy Ghost will have one equally with Him, according to the equal analogy of conceptions. The Trinity then has come to be in double, and the Divine Nature is shown to be compound. But this is absurd. But in simple essences, there is nothing whatever save themselves. Nothing then will hinder the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity from being closely connected, nought intervening. Another at length. When Divine Scripture puts forth nouns with the article prefixed, then it means some one thing which alone is properly and truly that which it is said to be; but when it does not prefix the article, it makes a more general declaration of every thing that is so called, as for example (for our discourse shall attain clear demonstration) many are called gods, but when God is spoken of with the article it signifies Him Who alone and properly is so; more simply and without the article, one perchance of those called hereto by grace. And again there are many men. But when the Saviour says with the article, The son of man, He signifies Himself as one picked out of ten thousand. Since then names have this character in Divine Scripture, how ought we to understand, In the beginning was the Word? For if every word of God is hereby meant as being in the beginning, let them show it, and it is we who are the triflers. But if the Evangelist prefixing the article, signifies One and that is so properly, crying, In the beginning was the Word, why strive they in vain, bringing in another besides, only that they may expel the Son from the Essence of the Father? But we ought, considering the absurdity herein, to refuse the uncounsel of those who think otherwise. Another, showing that not after the conceived word, as they say, is the Son formed, but He is the Likeness of the Father Himself. If the Only-Begotten Son of God is and is called, according to them, therefore Word, because, receiving the conceived word of the Father, He is as it were formed thereafter, why is He not found to say to His Disciples, I and the word of the Father are one, He that hath seen Me hath seen the word of the Father? But since overstepping all things, He likens Himself Alone to the Father Alone, none intermediate coming forward to the Likeness, the Son will be conceived of as likening Himself to Him Who begat Him, and to none other than Him. Opposition, as from the opponents. "We find, they say, the Son to be other than the conceived word of God, giving heed not to our own thoughts thereon, but to considerations from the Divine Scripture. For what shall we say when we hear the Son saying to the Father, Glorify Thy Son, the Father again answering and saying, I have both glorified, and will glorify again? Shall we not altogether acknowledge that the Father replies to the Son in a word? How then is not he through whom the Father answers the Son other than He?" Different solutions to this in order. Worthy of utter marvel, yea rather of mourning too, are the unholy heretics, and moreover that one should say over them that which is spoken in the Prophets: Weep ye not for the dead, neither bemoan him, but weep sore for him that thinketh and sayeth such things respecting the Only Begotten. For what more wretched than such, if they fancied that this was actually and truly the voice of the Father, which not only the Saviour heard, but also this crowd of the Jews which stood around, yea rather the choir of the holy disciples? For they should rather have imagined God-befitting excellencies, and not have attempted to submit things above us to the laws that guide our affairs. For upon the bodily hearing strikes a bodily voice, and noise which through the lips is emitted into the air, or contrived by any other instrument. But the Will of the Father, in ineffable voice gently and as it were in the mind revolved, the Son Alone knoweth Who is in Him by Nature as His Wisdom. But to suppose that God uses a voice consisting in sound is wholly incredible, if we would retain to the Nature That is above all things Its superiority to the creation. Besides, our Lord Jesus Christ Himself says that this was not the voice of God the Father, and moreover shows that He needs no interpretation from another to be able to learn the Father's will saying, This voice came not because of Me, but for your sakes. He should rather have said, my good friends, if ye are right in holding such opinions regarding Him, Ye have heard with Me the voice of the Father; but now, turning His declaration right round to the exact contrary, He avers that He had no need of the voice, but asserts that it came rather for their sakes, not that it was uttered by the Father, but came and that for their sakes. And if God the Father works all things through Him, through Him altogether was this also, yea rather He was Himself the voice, not to Himself interpreting the disposition of the Father (for He knew it as Son), but to the hearing of the by-standers, that they might believe. Another. If they say that the Son needs some innate word, that thereby He may be taught the Will of God the Father, what will become of Paul who says, Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of God? For how is the Son the Wisdom of the Father, if lacking in wisdom He receive perfection from another, through learning what forsooth He knows not? or how must one not needs say, that the wisdom which is in the Father is not perfect? and if the Son be the Wisdom of the Father, how can His Will be conceived of as other than He? We come then to say that the Will of God the Father is not perfected in wisdom. But great is the impiety of this, and full of blasphemy the statement. Not therefore as partaker of instruction from another does the Son know what belongs to His own Father, but as Himself the Word and the Wisdom and the Will, does He search all things, yea, the deep things of God, as it is written concerning the Spirit too. Another. As the Likeness and the exact express Image of the Father do the Divine Scriptures introduce to us the Son: and the Saviour Himself saith, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father. But if with that likeness to Him, He knows not of Himself what is in Him, but needs so to speak expositions from another in order to learn it, it is time to think that the Father Himself is in the same case, if He is in the Likeness of the Son, and He will Himself too need one to unfold to Him what lies hid in His Offspring. And thus in addition to the absurdities that result from hence, the Divine Nature becomes also a recipient of ignorance. But since it is impious thus to think, we must betake ourselves to more fitting thoughts: for this clearly is what is profitable and helpful. Another. The Spirit, says the blessed Paul, searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God; and he adds, For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man but the Spirit of God That is in Him. Since then the Holy Spirit Which accurately discerneth all things, is Spirit not only of the Father, but of the Son too, how can He having within Him by Nature the Spirit Which knoweth all things be yet ignorant of ought that is in the Father? Superfluous then in truth does it plainly appear to imagine that the Son learns of another the Will of the Father; and utterly will vanish the need of a word to mediate in vain, according to their ill-instructedness. For the Son knows all things of Himself. Another, by the method of reductio ad absurdum. They who accuse the Essence of the Only-Begotten, saying that He knew not the Will of the Father, but made use of in order to learn, another teacher, the word invented by them, which they call conceived, let them tell us, if they think that their own opinion hereupon ought to prevail, whether they will say that the conceived word is by nature equal to the Son (for let it be supposed to have a separate existence of itself) or not equal, but inferior perchance or even superior. If then they suppose it inferior, they will commit impiety against the Father Himself also: for there will be of a surety in Him what is worse than He, and other than He, the conceived word. But if they do not say worse, but shall allot to it a superiority to the Son, the charge against the Son will operate two-fold against the Father. For first of all He will be found to have begotten what is in worse condition than Himself. Then moreover He too will have the conceived word superior to Him, if the Father is Consubstantial with the Son who according to them has got an inferior position. But it is likely I suppose that the opponents will start back from the blasphemy that results from either alternative: and will say that the conceived word of the Father is equal to the Son as regards essence. The question then is at an end. For how will the one teach the other, as one who knows one who does not know, if both are equal by nature? The argument of these people being then on all sides weak, it will be superfluous to imagine that the Son has any mean, and not rather to believe that He is in God the Father, God the "Word Who was in the beginning. Another. The blessed Paul says that in the Son are hid the treasures of all wisdom and all knowledge. But if he is true in saying such things, how yet shall we suppose that He needed teaching from another, or in whom shall we any more seek perfectness in knowledge, if He Who has it all is made wise by another? how is he Wisdom who is made wise? But since we must needs give heed not to their words, but to those through the Spirit, and the Son hath, as Paul saith, in Himself the treasures of wisdom and of all knowledge, not from any one else will He know the things whereby He is wisdom, but being in the Father He knows all that is the Father's, as His Wisdom.

(in loc.) The other Evangelists describe Christ as born in time; John witnesseth that He was in the beginning, saying, In the beginning was the Word. The others describe His sudden appearance among men; he witnesseth that He was ever with God, saying, And the Word was with God. The others prove Him very man; he very God, saying, And the Word was God. The others exhibit Him as man conversing with men for a season; he pronounces Him God abiding with God in the beginning, saying, The Same was in the beginning with God. The others relate the great deeds which He did amongst men; he that God the Father made every creature through Him, saying, All things were made by Him, and without Him was not any thing made.

(ii. de Trin. c. 16) Whereas he had said, the Word was God, the fearfulness, and strangeness of the speech disturbed me; the prophets having declared that God was One. But, to quiet my apprehensions, the fisherman reveals the scheme of this so great mystery, and refers all to one, without dishonour, without obliterating [the Person], without reference to timeb, saying, The Same was in the beginning with God; with One Unbegotten God, from whom He is, the One Only-begotten God.

The backward straining of our thoughts can never grasp anything prior to God's property of absolute existence since nothing presents itself to enable us to understand the nature of God, even though we might go on seeking it forever—nothing, that is, except the fact that God always is. That then which has both been declared about God by Moses, that of which our human intelligence can give no further explanation, that [is] the very quality the Gospels testify to be a property of God the only begotten since in the beginning was the Word, and since the Word was with God, and since he was the true Light, and since God the only begotten is in the bosom of the Father, and since Jesus Christ is God over all.6Therefore he was and he is, since he is from him who always is what he is. But to be from him, that is to say, to be from the Father, is birth. Moreover, to be always from him, who always is, is eternity; but this eternity is derived not from himself but from the Eternal. And from the Eternal nothing can spring but what is eternal: for if the offspring is not eternal, then neither is the Father, who is the source of generation, eternal.

But I tremble to say it; the audacity staggers me. I hear, "And the Word was God"—I, who have been taught by the prophets that God is one. To save me from further apprehension, my friend, the fisherman, needs to provide a fuller understanding of this great mystery. Show me that these assertions are consistent with the unity of God; that there is no blasphemy in them, no explaining away, no denial of eternity. And so he continues, "He was in the beginning with God." This "He was in the beginning" removes the limit of time; the word God shows that he is more than a voice; that "he is with God" proves that he neither encroaches nor is encroached on, for his identity is not swallowed up in that of Another, and he—that is, his one and only begotten Son—is clearly stated to be present with the one unbegotten God as God.

This, says he, was alone sufficient for its being understood by men; (I mean) the cup of Anacreon declaring, (albeit) mutely, an ineffable mystery. For dumb, says he, is Anacreon's cup; and (yet) Anacreon affirms that it speaks to himself, in language mute, as to what sort he must become-that is spiritual, not carnal-if he shall listen in silence to the concealed mystery. And this is the water in those fair nuptials which Jesus changing made into wine. This, he says, is the mighty and true beginning of miracles which Jesus performed in Cana of Galilee, and (thus) manifested the kingdom of heaven. This, says he, is the kingdom of heaven that reposes within us as a treasure, as leaven hid in the three measures of meal.

John wanted to persuade by using the name “Word,” as if by an analogy, that it was possible for something to be from something else without having to be separated from it by length of time.… Also, because he said “he was in the beginning,” he showed not that he was without a beginning but rather that he was coexistent from eternity with his beginning.

Wherefore does he use the substantive verb, was? That you might understand that the Word, Which is coeternal with God the Father, was before all time.

Again, to stop any diabolical suspicion, that the Word, because He was God, might have rebelled against His Father, as certain Gentiles fable, or, being separate, have become the antagonist of the Father Himself, he says, The Same was in the beginning with God; that is to say, this Word of God never existed separate from God.

This God the Word was never separated from God the Father. Since John said that the Word was also God, lest anyone be troubled by such a satanic thought: if the Word is also God, did It not at some point rise up against the Father, as the gods of the pagans in their fables, and if It separated from Him, did It not become an adversary to God? — he says that although the Word is indeed God, nevertheless It is again with God the Father, abides together with Him, and was never separated from Him. No less fitting is it to say this also to those who hold to the teaching of Arius: hear, you deaf ones, who call the Son of God a work and a creation of His; understand what name the Evangelist applied to the Son of God: he called Him the Word. But you call Him a work and a creation. He is not a work and not a creation, but the Word. "Word" is of two kinds. One is the internal word, which we have even when we are not speaking, that is, the capacity of speech, for even he who sleeps and does not speak still has the word placed within him and has not lost the capacity. So one word is internal, and the other is the uttered word, which we also pronounce with our lips, putting into action the capacity of speech, the capacity of the mental and inwardly lying word. Although, therefore, "word" is of two kinds, neither of them applies to the Son of God, for the Word of God is neither uttered nor internal. Those words are natural and ours, but the Word of the Father, being above nature, is not subject to earthly subtleties of reasoning. Therefore the cunning syllogism of Porphyry, the pagan, falls apart of itself. He, attempting to overthrow the Gospel, employed such a division: if the Son of God is a word, then He is either an uttered or an internal word; but He is neither one nor the other; therefore He is not the Word. Thus, the Evangelist resolved this syllogism in advance, having said that "internal" and "uttered" are spoken of us and of natural things, but of supernatural things nothing of the sort is spoken. However, this too must be said: the pagan's objection would have had a basis if this name "Word" were fully worthy of God and were used of Him in a proper and essential sense. But to this day no one has yet found any name fully worthy of God; nor is this very name "Word" used of Him in a proper and essential sense, but it only shows that the Son was born from the Father without passion, just as a word proceeds from the mind, and that He became the messenger of the Father's will. Why then do you, wretched one, cling to a name and, hearing of Father, Son, and Spirit, descend to material relations and imagine in your mind fleshly fathers and sons, and a wind of the air — perhaps the south wind or the north wind, or some other — producing a storm? But if you wish to learn what kind of word the Word of God is, then listen to what follows next.

Then he says, He was in the beginning with God. This is the fourth clause and is introduced because of the preceding clause. For from the Evangelist's statement that the Word was God, two false interpretations could be held by those who misunderstand. One of these is by the pagans, who acknowledge many and different gods, and say that their wills are in opposition. For example, those who put out the fable of Jupiter fighting with Saturn; or as the Manicheans, who have two contrary principles of nature. The Lord said against this error (Dt 6:4): "Hear O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord." Since the Evangelist had said, the Word was with God; and the Word was God, they could adduce this in support of their error by understanding the God with whom the Word is to be one God, and the Word to be another, having another, or contrary, will to the former; and this is against the law of the Gospel. And so to exclude this he says, He was in the beginning with God, as if to say, according to Hilary: I say that the Word is God, not as if he has a distinct divinity, but he is with God, that is, in the one same nature in which he is. Further, lest his statement, and the Word was God, be taken to mean that the Word has an opposed will, he added that the Word was in the beginning with God, namely, the Father; not as divided from him or opposed, but having an identity of nature with him and a harmony of will. This union comes about by the sharing of the divine nature in the three persons, and by the bond of the natural love of the Father and the Son. The Arians were able to draw out another error from the above. They think that the Son is less than the Father because it says below (14:28): "The Father is greater than I." And they say the Father is greater than the Son both as to eternity and as to divinity of nature. And so to exclude this the Evangelist added: He was in the beginning with God. For Arius admits the first clause, In the beginning was the Word, but he will not admit that principium should be taken for the Father, but rather for the beginning of creatures. So he says that the Word was in the beginning of creatures, and consequently is in no sense coeternal with the Father. But this is excluded, according to Chrysostom, by this clause, He was in the beginning, not of creatures, but in the beginning with God, i.e., whenever God existed. For the Father was never alone without the Son or Word, but He, that is, the Word, was always with God. Again, Arius admits that the Word was God, but nevertheless inferior to the Father. This is excluded by what follows. For there are two attributes proper to the great God which Arius attributed solely to God the Father, that is, eternity and omnipotence. So in whomever these two attributes are found, he is the great God, than whom none is greater. But the Evangelist attributes these two to the Word. Therefore, the Word is the great God and not inferior. He says the Word is eternal when he states, He was in the beginning with God, i.e., the Word was with God from eternity, and not only in the beginning of creatures (as Arius held), but with God, receiving being and divinity from him. Further, he attributes omnipotence to the Word when he adds, Through him all things came into being. Origen gives a rather beautiful explanation of this clause, He was in the beginning with God, when he says that it is not separate from the first three, but is in a certain sense their epilogue. For the Evangelist, after he had indicated that truth was the Son's and was about to describe his power, in a way gathers together in a summary form, in this fourth clause, what he had said in the first three. For in saying He, he understands the third clause; by adding was in the beginning, he recalls the first clause; and by adding with God, he recalls the second, so that we do not think that the Word which was in the beginning is different than the Word which was God; but this Word which was God was in the beginning with God. If one considers these four propositions well, he will find that they clearly destroy all the errors of the heretics and of the philosophers. For some heretics, as Ebion and Cerinthus, said that Christ did not exist before the Blessed Virgin, but took from her the beginning of his being and duration; for they held that he was a mere man, who had merited divinity by his good works. Photinus and Paul of Samosata, following them, said the same thing. But the Evangelist excludes their errors saying, In the beginning was the Word, i.e., before all things, and in the Father from eternity. Thus he did not derive his beginning from the Virgin. Sabellius, on the other hand, although he admitted that the God who took flesh did not receive his beginning from the Virgin, but existed from eternity, still said that the person of the Father, who existed from eternity, was not distinct from the person of the Son, who took flesh from the Virgin. He maintained that the Father and Son were the same person; and so he failed to distinguish the trinity of persons in the deity. The Evangelist says against this error, and the Word was with God, i.e., the Son was with the Father, as one person with another. Eunomius declared that the Son is entirely unlike the Father. The Evangelist rejects this when he says, and the Word was God. Finally, Arius said that the Son was less than the Father. The Evangelist excludes this by saying, He was in the beginning with God, as was explained above. These words also exclude the errors of the philosophers. For some of the ancient philosophers, namely, the natural philosophers, maintained that the world did not come from any intellect or through some purpose, but by chance. Consequently, they did not place at the beginning as the cause of things a reason or intellect, but only matter in flux; for example, atoms, as Democritus thought, or other material principles of this kind as different philosophers maintained. Against these the Evangelist says, In the beginning was the Word, from whom, and not from chance, things derive their beginning. Plato, however, thought that the Ideas of all the things that were made were subsistent, i.e., existing separately in their own natures; and material things exist by participating in these. For example, he thought men existed through the separated Idea of man, which he called Man per se. So lest you suppose, as did Plato, that this Idea through which all things were made be Ideas separated from God, the Evangelist adds, and the Word was with God. Other Platonists, as Chrysostom relates, maintained that God the Father was most eminent and first, but under him they placed a certain mind in which there were the likenesses and ideas of all things. So lest you think that the Word was with the Father in such a way as to be under him and less than he, the Evangelist adds, and the Word was God. Aristotle, however, thought that the ideas of all things are in God, and that in God, the intellect, the one understanding, and what is understood, are the same. Nevertheless, he thought that the world is coeternal with him. Against this the Evangelist says, He, the Word alone, was in the beginning with God, in such a way that He does not exclude another person, but only another coeternal nature. Note the difference in what has been said between John and the other Evangelists: how he began his Gospel on a loftier plane than they. They announced Christ the Son of God born in time: "When Jesus was born in Bethlehem" (Mt 2:1); but John presents him existing from eternity: In the beginning was the Word. They show him suddenly appearing among men: "Now you dismiss your servant, O Lord, in peace, according to your word; because my eyes have seen your salvation" (Lk 2:29); but John says that he always existed with the Father: and the Word was with God. The others show him as a man: "They gave glory to God who had given such authority to men" (Mt 9:8); but John says that he is God: and the Word was God. The others say he lives with men: "While living in Galilee, Jesus said to them" (Mt 17:21); but John says that he has always been with the Father: He was in the beginning with God. Note also how the Evangelist designedly uses the word was (erat) to show that the Word of God transcends all times: present, past and future. It is as though he were saying: He was beyond time: present, past and future, as the Gloss says.