A For that those who devised these things have gone out from us is evident, as the blessed John wrote, because their mindset neither was, nor is now, with us. Therefore also, as the Savior said, “Those not gathering with us, scatter” with the devil, lying in wait for those who sleep, so that by sowing their own poison of destruction, they may have those who perish together with them.
But since the one and most recent of the heresies, and that which has now emerged as the forerunner of the Antichrist, the so-called Arian heresy, being deceitful and cunning, observes its elder sister heresies already openly branded, it plays the hypocrite by wrapping itself in the words of the Scriptures—just as its father the devil does—and struggles to enter again into the paradise of the Church, so that, having feigned itself to be Christian, it might deceive some with the persuasiveness of its fallacious reasoning to think against Christ; for there is nothing reasonable in it. And it has indeed deceived some of the foolish already, so that they not only are corrupted in their hearing, but have also—like Eve—taken and tasted, and now, being ignorant, consider the bitter to be sweet, and call the abominable B heresy good.
I deemed it necessary, at your urging, to lay open the breastplate of this impious heresy and show the stench of its folly, so that those who are far removed from it may shun it all the more, and those who have been deceived by it may repent and, with the eyes of the heart opened, understand that just as darkness is not light, nor falsehood truth, so neither is the Arian heresy good. But even those who call these men “Christians” are greatly and exceedingly mistaken, as those who have neither read the Scriptures, nor know at all what Christianity is, and the faith contained within it.
2. For could anyone, seeing this heresy in relation to the pious faith, speak idly as if those men were saying nothing evil? This is truly the same as saying that Caiaphas was a Christian, C and accounting the traitor Judas among the apostles, and saying that those who requested Barabbas instead of the Savior did nothing evil; and D [that] Hymenaeus and Alexander...
A maintained that they were right-thinking and that the Apostle lied against them. But no Christian would endure hearing these things, nor would any person in their right mind consider the man who dares to say this sane. For instead of Christ, Arius is among them, just as the Manichaean is among the Manichaeans; and instead of Moses and the other holy men, a certain Sotades B has been discovered by them—a man who is a laughingstock even among the pagans—and the daughter of Herodias. For Arius has imitated the broken and effeminate character of the former by writing his *Thalia*, and he has emulated the dancing of this latter dancing-girl, dancing and playing in his blasphemies against the Savior, to such an extent that those who fall into this heresy have their minds distorted and become senseless, and they exchange the name of the Lord of glory for the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and finally, instead of Christians, they are henceforth called Arians, and they possess this as the badge of their impiety. Let them not invent excuses, nor, when rebuked, falsely accuse those who are not as they are by calling the Christians after their teachers in this way, so that they might appear to be Christians in name themselves; nor, C if they are ashamed of this shameful name of theirs, let them trifle. But if they are truly ashamed, let them either hide themselves or recoil from their own impiety. For never has a people received its name from its own bishops, but from the Lord, in whom we also have faith. Though the blessed apostles were our teachers and ministers of the Savior’s Gospel, we are not named after them, but we both are and are called Christians from Christ. Those, however, who have the origin of their faith from others are fittingly designated by their names, as having become their possession.
3. Indeed, since we all are and are called Christians from Christ, Marcion D, the author of the heresy, was long ago cast out; and those who remained with him who cast him out retained the name of Christians, whereas those who followed Marcion—
A on the contrary, were called Marcionites. Similarly, Valentinus, Basilides, Manichæus, and Simon Magus bestowed their own names upon their followers; and thus some are called Valentinians, others Basilidians, others Manichæans, and those others Simonians, and others still are named Cataphrygians from Phrygia, and Novatians from Novatus. In like manner also Meletius, having been cast out by Peter, the bishop and martyr, no longer called his own people Christians but Meletians. So then, when the blessed Alexander also cast out Arius, those who remained with Alexander remained Christians; but those who departed with Arius left the name of the Savior to us who remained with Alexander, and they themselves were thenceforth called Arians. Behold, then, even after the death of Alexander, those who communicate with Athanasius, who succeeded him, and those with whom the same Athanasius communicates, B maintain the same pattern; and neither do any of them have his name, nor is he himself named after them, but all are again and by custom called Christians. For even if we have successors of masters, and we become their disciples, yet because we are taught by them the things of Christ, all the same we are and are called Christians. But those, indeed, who follow the heretics, even if they have ten thousand successors, still they altogether bear the name of him who invented the heresy. Certainly, even though Arius be dead and many of his followers have succeeded him, nevertheless those who champion his opinions are known from Arius and are called Arians. And indeed, a not insignificant argument for this seems to me to be the fact C that even now those who come to the Church from the Gentiles, having dismissed the superstition of idols, do not receive the surname of those by whom they are instructed, but that of the Savior, so that those who were called Gentiles begin to be called Christians. But those who go away to them, or whoever from the Church turns aside to this heresy, cast off the name of Christ and are thenceforth called Arians, as if no longer holding the faith of Christ, but having become heirs of the madness of Arius. D
A 4. How then are those who are not Christians, but Arians, Christians? Or how do they belong to the Catholic Church, they who have shaken off the apostolic faith and become inventors of new evils, who have abandoned the oracles of the divine Scriptures, and call the Thalia of Arius a new wisdom? Not undeservedly do they say this, for they proclaim a new heresy. Wherefore one might also wonder that, when many have written very many commentaries and sermons on the Old and New Testament, the Thalia is found with no one, nor even among the more serious of the Gentile authors, but is accustomed to be used only by those who, amid their cups, sing these things in their games with applause and jesting, so that they may be laughed at by others. The wonderful Arius, having followed nothing honorable—nay, rather, being ignorant of what befits upright men—and having stolen the greatest part of other heresies, has emulated only the scurrilous facetiae of Sotades. B For what was fitting for him to do, desiring to dance against the Lord, other than to signify the wretched little words of his impiety in dissolute and luxurious modes? So that, as wisdom says, *a man shall be known by his words*; in this way through such numbers, the effeminate soul of the writer and the corruption of his mind was laid open. And indeed, the guileful man could not remain hidden: for although he has very often turned and twisted himself up and down like a serpent, yet he has fallen into the error of the Pharisees. C For as they, intending to break the law, pretended to meditate on the words of the law, and when they wished to deny the Lord who was expected and already present, they feigned that they were calling upon God, yet their impiety was none the less convicted when they said, *Why do you, being a man, make yourself God, and say, I and the Father are one?* so also the painted and Sotadean Arius feigns indeed that he speaks of God when he uses the voices of the Scriptures; but nothing prevents him from being convicted on all sides as an atheist and an impious man, inasmuch as he dares to deny the Son of God, and numbers Him among created things.
5. Therefore the beginning of the Arian Thalia D and its frivolity, which carries with it effeminate manners and melodies, is of this kind: "According to the faith of the elect of God, the learned of God, holy children, orthodox, who have received the holy Spirit of God, these things I have learned from men who are partakers of wisdom, accomplished, taught by God, and in all things wise."
A And in all things they are wise. These men I followed, sharing their opinions; I, for my part, am that celebrated man who suffered much for the glory of God, and, led by God, received wisdom and understanding. The blasphemies, however, which are uttered in that work, and which are full of impiety, are such as these: "God was not always Father; but there was a time when God was alone, and was not yet Father; later, however, He became Father. The Son was not always; for since all things have been made from nothing, and all existing things are creatures and works that have been made, the Word of God Himself was also made from nothing, and there was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten; B but He also had a beginning of being created." For, he says, "God was alone, and the Word and Wisdom were not yet. Then, having willed to create us, He then made one certain being, and named him Word, and Wisdom, and Son, so that He might create us through him." He claims, then, that there are two wisdoms, one that is His own and coexists with God, and that the Son was made in this wisdom and, by partaking of it, was named Wisdom and Word only by name. For Wisdom, he says, came into being by the wisdom of the wise God. Likewise, he says that there is another Word in God besides the Son, and that the Son, by partaking of this, was again named Word and Son by grace. C This, furthermore, is a peculiar notion of their heresy, explained in others of their writings: "namely, that there are many powers, one of which is by nature proper to God and eternal; but Christ, in turn, is not the true power of God, but is one of those which are called powers, among which even the locust and the cankerworm are called not only a power, but a great power; D while the others are many and similar to the Son, of whom David also sings, saying, 'The Lord of hosts'; and by nature, just like all others, the Word Himself is mutable, yet by his own free will, as long as he wishes, he remains good; whenever, however, he wishes, he is capable of changing, just as we are, being of a mutable nature. For this reason, he says, because God foreknew that he would be good, He anticipated this and gave him this glory, which a man also has later from virtue; so that through his works, which God foreknew, He has made him to be such as he now is."
6. D He then also dared to say that the Word is not...
the true God. But even if He is called God, he says, yet He is not true God; but by participation of grace, just as all others are, so He too is called God by name A only. And as all things are foreign and dissimilar to God in essence, so also the Word is foreign and dissimilar in all things to the essence and property of God the Father 60; but He belongs to things made and to creatures, and is one of them. And in addition to these, having become, as it were, a successor to the rashness of the devil 61, he wrote in his *Thalia* that the Father is invisible 62 to the Son, and that the Word is neither able to see nor to know His own Father perfectly and accurately; but that whatever He does know and see, He knows and sees in proportion to His own measures 63, just as we know according to our own power. For, he says, the Son not only does not know the Father accurately—for the faculty to comprehend is lacking to Him—but He does not even know His own nature 64. He adds similarly that the substances of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are by nature divided, diverse, disjointed, and foreign, and not partakers of one another: nay, as he himself says, they are infinitely dissimilar between themselves both in substance and in glory. Therefore, as far as the likeness of nature and glory is concerned, he teaches that the Word is altogether foreign to both, namely to the Father and to the Holy Spirit; for these are the very words of that impious man, who says also that the Son is divided from the Father, and is a partaker of Him in nothing. And these are indeed particles of the fables which exist in the ridiculous volume of Arius.
7. Who then, having heard the *Thalia* 65, would not rightly hate Arius, who plays with such matters as if upon a stage? Who does not recognize him, when he seems to utter the name of God and to speak about God, as the very likeness of the serpent giving counsel to the woman? And who, having read the rest that follows 66, does not see his impiety as clearly as the fraud into which the serpent craftily led the woman 67? Who, I ask, would not be stunned at these impieties? The heavens indeed, as the prophet 68 says, were stunned, and the earth trembled at the violation of the law. But the sun, more vehemently indignant, and not bearing the injuries which the Lord of us all 69 voluntarily endured for our sake in the body, turned Himself away, and by drawing in his rays deprived that day of light. But he who, to the impious…
whole nature of mankind be struck with speechlessness, and both stop its ears and close its eyes, so that it may be able to neither hear such things, nor see the one who wrote them? And how shall the Lord Himself not much more justly cry out against them, as against the impious and the ungrateful, what He also foretold B through the prophet Hosea: "Woe to them, for they have fled from me; wretched are they, because they have acted impiously against me. I, however, redeemed them: yet they have spoken false things against me." And after a few words: "And they devised evil against me, they have turned to nothing." For by turning away from the Word of God, who truly is, and by fashioning for themselves the one who is not, they have themselves fallen into nothingness. For this reason the ecumenical council cast Arius, who spoke these things, out of the Church, and anathematized him, not bearing his impiety; and thenceforth the error of Arius was considered a heresy possessing something more than the rest of the heresies, because it was also called Christ-fighting, and was reckoned the forerunner of the Antichrist. Since, therefore, as I said before, this great judgment against the impious heresy is sufficient to reach everyone and move them to flee from it, yet, because some of those who are called Christians—whether through ignorance or by pretense, as was said before—think that this heresy has no bearing on the faith, and do not hesitate to call those who think this way Christians, come, let us to the best of our ability examine them by questioning them, that we may uncover the craftiness of the heresy. Perhaps in this way, being caught C in their own trap, they may be silenced and flee from it as from the face of a serpent.
8. If, therefore, because of some phrases D of the holy Scripture in the *Thalia*, they believe that even its blasphemies are praises, surely, if they see the Jews of the present day reading the Law and the prophets, they will also, for that same reason, deny Christ together with them; and if they happen to hear the Manichaeans citing certain parts of the Gospels, it will be necessary for them to reject the Law and the prophets with them. But if, through ignorance, they are so disturbed and babble such things, let them learn from the Scriptures that even the devil, who invented these heresies, borrows phrases from the Scriptures because of the foul stench of his own wickedness, so that, having them as a covering and sowing his own poison, he may deceive the simple-minded. Thus he deceived Eve: thus he fashioned other he-
A heresies; so now too he has persuaded Arius to speak and to pose, as it were, against the heresies, in order that he may secretly introduce his own heresy. And yet, not even so did the crafty man escape detection; for having acted impiously against the Word of God, he immediately fell from everything, and it is shown to all that he was ignorant of other things as well, and that he does not hold anything at all that is true, but merely uses pretense. For how could he who denies the Son, who imparts all knowledge of the Father, speak correctly about the Father? Or how will he think rightly about the Spirit, while blaspheming the Word who grants this gift? And who will believe this person when he discourses on the resurrection, while he denies Christ, who for our sake became the first-born from the dead? Or how, having flatly ignored the genuine and true generation of the Son from the Father, will he not err also regarding His bodily advent? For thus too the Jews of that time, having denied the Word and saying, "We have no king but Caesar," were B at once despoiled of everything, and became destitute of the light of the lamp, the scent of the ointment, the knowledge of prophecy, and the truth itself, and now, understanding nothing, they walk as if in darkness. For who ever heard such things? Or from where or from whom did the flatterers and bribe-takers of this heresy hear such things? Who taught them anything like this when they were being instructed in the elements of the Christian religion? Who told them, "Having abandoned worship of the creation, come again to worship a created and made thing"? But if they themselves admit that they are now hearing such things for the first time, then they cannot deny that this heresy is foreign and not handed down from the Fathers. Now, what is not handed down from the Fathers, but has been newly devised, of what sort, I ask, must it be considered to be, if not that of which blessed Paul spoke: "In later times some will depart from the sound faith, C giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, through the hypocrisy of those who speak lies, having their own conscience seared, and turning away from the truth."
9. For we, indeed, speak freely and confidently concerning the pious faith, and we place it as a lamp upon a lampstand, saying: The Son is true by nature and is the genuine offspring of the Father, proper to His essence, the only-begotten Wisdom, and He is the true and only Word of God; He is not a created thing or a work, but the proper birth of the Father's essence. Wherefore He is true God, from a true D Father.
A existing as consubstantial. But others, to whom it was said, "I said, Ye are gods" [Ps. LXXXI, 6], have this grace from the Father only by participation in the Word through the Spirit. For He is the figure of the Father’s substance [Heb. I, 3], and light from light, and the power and true image of the Father’s essence. For the Lord Himself also said this again: "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" [John XIV, 9]. He always was and is, and never was not; for since the Father is eternal, it is necessary that His Word and Wisdom be eternal also. But what indeed can they bring forward to us from the abominable Thalia? Let them at least read it first, imitating the character of the writer, so that even if they are mocked by others, they might learn in what a fall they have collapsed, and thus then speak. And what more could they have to say from it than this: "God was not always Father, but became so afterwards. The Son was not always, for He was not before He was begotten. He is not from the Father, but He too came into being from nothing. He is not proper to the essence of the Father; for He is a creature and a work. And Christ is not the true God, B but He too was made God by participation. The Son does not know the Father accurately, nor does the Word see the Father perfectly, and the Word neither understands nor knows the Father exactly; the Word is not the true and only Word of the Father, but is called Word and Wisdom by name only, and is called Son and power by grace. He is not unchangeable as the Father, but is by nature changeable, like created things, and He lacks what is required for the comprehension and perfect knowledge of the Father." C A wonderful heresy indeed, which contains nothing credible, but feigns that He who is, is not, and perpetually utters blasphemies instead of praises. If, therefore, anyone, having examined the sentiment of both sides, were asked which faith he would choose, or whose words he would judge more appropriate to God—or rather, let the very sycophants of impiety themselves say, what it behoves one who is asked about God (for "the Word was God" [John I, 1]) to answer? For from this source the resolution of both the proposed arguments will entirely be made clear as to what it is appropriate to say: "He was" or "He was not"; D "always" or "before He was born"; "eternal" or "from when and from whom"; "true" or "by position, and participation, and according to mental conception"; to call Him one of the things that have been created, or to join Him with the Father; that He is by nature dissimilar to the Father.
A being of the Father, or being similar and proper to the Father; to be a creature, or that things were created through Him; that He Himself is the Word of the Father, or someone else besides Him, and that He was created through that other Word and through another wisdom; and B that He was called Wisdom and Word in name only, and that He was a participant of that wisdom and became second to it.
10. Whose words, therefore, are more worthy of God, and show Him to be God and the Son of the Father, our Lord Jesus Christ? Are they these which you have vomited forth, or rather those which we have spoken and say from the Holy Scriptures? If then the Saviour is not God nor Word nor Son, let it be permitted to you, just as it is to the pagans and the Jews of our time, to say whatever you please. But if He is the Word of the Father and the true Son, and is God from God, and over all blessed for ever, is it not entirely just to blot out and eradicate both the other expressions and the Arian *Thalia*, as an image of evils and full of every impiety? into which whoever falls does not know that giants perish there, and he himself runs headlong into the pit of the underworld. Nor are they ignorant of this, and hence it happens that, being cunning, they conceal it and do not dare to make it public, but use altogether different words. For if they dared to bring forth those impious words, there is no doubt that they would be condemned. Indeed, if they even came under suspicion of thinking such things, they would certainly be overwhelmed on all sides by the authorities of the Scriptures. Therefore, as children of this world, fearing lest their lamp kindled with the oil of the wild olive be quickly extinguished (for the light of the impious shall be extinguished), they hide it under the bushel of hypocrisy, speak other things, and hold up the protection of friends and the fear of Constantius, so that those who approach them might not, because of their simulation and ostentation, notice the filth of the Arian heresy. Should not the heresy, therefore, be pursued with hatred for this reason also, because it is hidden even by its own followers as if it were timid, and is nurtured like a serpent? For from where did they amass these little phrases for themselves, or from whom did they receive them, that they were not ashamed to utter them? For they could surely point to no man who handed them down. For who of men, whether Greek or barbarian, who confesses Him to be God, would dare to say that He is one of the things created, and "He was not before He was made"? Or who is there who, having believed in a God, would withhold faith from Him when He says, "This is..."
My beloved Son"—saying that He is not the Son, but a creation? For all men will be yet more indignant at them for raving about such things. But not even from the Scriptures do they have excuses. For it has been shown—and it will be shown yet again—that these things are foreign to the divine oracles. Therefore, since it remains only to say that they have received these things from the devil and have acted A madly (for he alone is the sower of such things), come, let us stand against him; for it is against him that our struggle in these matters is directed, so that, with the Lord helping us, and with him—as is his wont—prostrated by the power of arguments, they may themselves at last be ashamed as they see the one who sowed this heresy among them left at a loss, and may learn, even if late, that being Arians, they are not Christians.
B You have said and think, at his prompting, that there was once when the Son was not; for this first covering of your device must be stripped away. What, then, was this "once" when the Son was not, tell me, you who speak evil and are impious? If, then, you answer that it was "the Father," your blasphemy is greater; for it is not permitted to say that He "was once," or to imply Him in the word "once." For He is always, and is now, and is the Father of the Son, and He is the One Who Is, and the Father of the Son. But if you say that the Son was "once" when He Himself was not: C the answer is foolish and senseless. For how could He be, and yet not be Himself? Therefore, since you are at a loss in these points, it is necessary for you to say at last, "There was a time when the Word was not." For this adverb of yours, "once," signifies this by its very nature. And what you have written again, "He was not the Son before He was born," is exactly the same as what you say, "There was a time when He was not"; for both this and that signify a time before the Word. From where, then, have you discovered these things? Why have you, too, like the nations, raged and meditated upon empty words against the Lord and against His Christ? For no part of the holy Scriptures has spoken any such thing about the Savior, but rather [they proclaim] His existence "always," D His eternity, and His co-existence always with the Father. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." And in the Apocalypse He says: "He who is, and who was, and who is to come." And who would be so foolish as to take away from the One Who Is and from the One Who Was His eternity? For this is also what Paul, while rebuking the Jews in his Epistle to the Romans, wrote: "From whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed forever"; while toward the Greeks, shaming them, he said: "For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal
A power and divinity." But what is the power of God? He teaches us again by these words: "Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." For he does not mean the Father by this, as you have often whispered among yourselves, saying: "The Father is His own eternal power." It is not so; for He did not say, "God Himself is the power," but, "His power." Indeed, it is plain to all that that which is "His" is not Himself, nor is it foreign, but rather it is His own peculiar property. Further, look at the sequence of the words, and turn to the Lord: "Now the Lord is the Spirit"; and you will see that this is understood concerning the Son.
12. For since he mentions creation, he appropriately speaks of the power of the Creator in the very act of creation, which power is the Word of God, through whom all things were made. If, therefore, the nature of created things were sufficient of itself, without the Son, to make God known, take care lest you fall, thinking that creation itself was made without the Son. But if all things were made through the Son, and in Him all things consist, then he who rightfully wishes to contemplate created nature will necessarily contemplate also the Word by whom it was formed, and B will begin to understand the Father through Him. But if, according to the Savior, "No one knows the Father except the Son, and whoever the Son wills to reveal Him," and if, when Philip said, "Show us the Father," He did not answer, "Look at created things," but, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father," then rightly did Paul, rebuking the Greeks because, while contemplating the harmony and order of creation, they thought nothing of the Word who is the Creator in it (for the things made point to their Creator), say that—in order that they might through these things also perceive the true God and cease from the worship of created things—He said, "even His eternal power and divinity," so that He might signify the Son. Moreover, when the saints say, "Who exists before the ages," and, "through whom He made the ages," they none the less proclaim the Son as eternal and everlasting, and by this reasoning signify that He is God. For Isaiah says: "The eternal God who created the ends of the earth." Susanna also said: "O eternal God." Baruch likewise wrote: "I will call upon the eternal God in my days C," and after a few words, "My hope is in the eternal God, and joy has come to me from the Holy One." D
A Since, moreover, the Apostle writing to the Hebrews says: "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person"; and David sings in the eighty-ninth psalm: "And let the brightness of the Lord be upon us," and "In thy light we shall see light": who is so senseless as to doubt whether the Son has always existed? For when has anyone seen light without the brilliance of its radiance, so that he might dare to say of the Son: "There was a time when He was not," or, "He was not before He was begotten"? And the statement in the hundred and forty-fourth psalm to the Son, "Thy kingdom is a kingdom of all ages," does not allow anyone to conceive of even the slightest interval in which the Word did not exist. For if every interval is measured by the ages, and the Word is the King and Maker of all the ages, B and there is no interval even of the slightest duration before Him, it is madness to say, "There was a time when the eternal One was not," and "The Son is from nothing." Furthermore, when the Lord himself says, "I am the truth," and does not say, "I have become the truth," but always uses the word "am"—saying, "I am the shepherd," "I am the light"—and again, "Ye call me Lord and Master, and ye say well, for so I am": who, hearing such a word from the God and Wisdom and Word of the Father speaking of Himself, will still doubt concerning the truth, and not immediately believe that by the word "am," the eternal and before-all-ages, beginningless existence of the Son is signified? C
13. That the sacred Scriptures assert the Son to be eternal is evident from what has been said; but that the items which the Arians habitually mouth, saying "He was not," [and] "before," [and] "when," are affirmed by the same Scriptures concerning created things, will be shown by what is to be said next. For Moses, narrating the creation of this world, says: "And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and all the herb of the field before it sprang up: for God had not rained upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground"; and [it is said] in Deuteronomy: "When the Most High divided the nations." The Lord Himself, through His own lips, was saying: "If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for the Father is greater than I: and now I have told you before it come to pass, D that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe." Thus also concerning things created, through
Solomon A he says: "Before he made the earth, and before he made the abysses, and before the fountains of the waters erupted, and before the mountains were settled, before all the hills he begets me." And, "Before Abraham was, I am." Regarding Jeremiah, he says: "Before I formed thee in the womb, I knew thee." And David sings: "Lord, thou hast been our refuge in generation and generation. Before the mountains were brought forth, and the earth and the world were formed, from age to age thou art." And in Daniel, Susanna cried with a loud voice and said: "O eternal God, who art the observer of hidden things, who knowest all things before they come to be." Therefore, "There was a time when he was not," and "before he was born," and "when," and suchlike small expressions, are fittingly said of created things and of those which came to be from nothing, B but they are alien to the Word. But if these things are said by the Scriptures concerning things created, and when the Son is the subject they use the word "always," then, O enemies of God, the Son was not made from nothing, nor is the Son of created things at all, but is the image of the Father and the eternal Word, which certainly was not at any time non-existent, but always was, as the eternal radiance of an eternal light. Why then do you invent times before the Son? Or why do you impiously affirm that the Word existed after times, through whom the ages themselves were made? For how could time or an age exist at all, since, as you suppose, the Word through whom all things were made, and without whom nothing at all was made, had not yet arisen? Or why, when you signify time, do you not say openly: "There was a time when the Word was not"? You conceal the very name of time for the sake of deceiving C the simple; yet you are utterly unable to hide your mind and meaning, nor even by hiding can you escape detection; for again you signify times when you say, "There was when he was not," and "He was not before he was begotten."
14. Since these things are thus shown, they insult us with still greater impudence, saying: "If there was not a time when the Son was not, but he is eternal and co-exists with the Father, you no longer call him Son, but brother of the Father."
O foolish and contentious men! For if we said that He existed with the Father only from eternity, and not as Son, their feigned piety might have had some probability A of truth. But if, while calling Him eternal, we confess Him to be the Son begotten from the Father, how can the begotten be thought the brother of the begetter? And if our faith is in the Father and the Son, what brotherhood exists between them? Or how can the Word B be called brother of Him, whose Word He is? This contradiction is not unknown to them, as if it were happening from ignorance—for they themselves also perceive the truth; but it is a Judaizing pretext, and of men who, as Solomon said, wish to depart from the truth. For the Father and the Son were not begotten from some pre-existing principle, so that they might be considered brothers; but the Father is the principle of the Son and is His begetter, and the Father is Father, and has not become the son of anyone; and the Son is Son, and not a brother. But if He is called the eternal offspring of the Father, it is rightly said. For the essence of the Father was never imperfect, so that what is His own should accrue to it afterwards; nor is the Son begotten like a man from a man, so that He should be posterior to the Father’s existence; C but He is the offspring of God, and as the own Son of God who always exists, He exists eternally. For it is proper to men to beget in time, on account of the defect of their nature; but the offspring of God is eternal, on account of the always-perfect nature of God. If, therefore, He is not Son, but has become a product from non-beings, let them prove this first, and as if imagining a product, let them cry out that "There was once when He was not"—for generated things were brought into being as things that were not. But if He is Son—for this is what the Father says, and the Scriptures cry out—and "Son" is nothing other than what is begotten D from the Father; and what is begotten from the Father is His Word and Wisdom and Radiance; what must one say, except that those who say "There was once when the Son was not," like certain robbers plunder the Word from God, and speak directly against Him, that there was once a time when He was without His own Word and Wisdom, and that the light was once without radiance, and the fountain was barren and dry? For even if, fearing those who reproach them, they feign to avoid the name of time and say that He is before times; yet because they posit certain intervals in which they imagine Him not to have been, they are none the less signifying times, and by introducing irrationality concerning God, they are greatly impious.
A They even admit the name of the Son again, because they do not wish to be openly condemned by everyone, but they deny that He is the proper offspring of the Father’s substance, as if this could not come to be without the suspicion of parts and divisions; nevertheless, they none the less deny that He is the true Son, saying that He is Son in name only. How are they not greatly mistaken concerning the incorporeal, by thinking in terms of corporeal things, and because of the weakness of their own nature, denying what is by nature and properly the Father’s? It is time for them, since they do not understand either how God is or what sort the Father is, to deny Him also, since these fools measure the offspring of the Father from themselves. But although it is appropriate to pity them for being so disposed and for thinking that there can be no Son of God, it is still consistent to question and refute them, so that perhaps in this way they might come to their senses. If, according to you, the Son is from nothing, and did not exist before He was begotten, it absolutely follows that He is called Son, God, and Wisdom only by participation, for this is how all other things have been constituted and are glorified by being sanctified. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary for you to say of whom He is a participant. For all other things are participants of the Spirit; but of what, according to you, would He Himself be a participant? Of the Spirit? Yet the Spirit Himself rather receives from the Son, as the Son Himself has said, and it is absurd to say that He is sanctified by Him. Therefore, He becomes a participant of the Father—for this is what remains, and it must be said. And what, then, is this or whence is it? If it is something thought of as external to the Father, then He would no longer be a participant of the Father, but of that which came into being externally, and He would no longer be second after the Father, as He would possess that prior to Himself; nor would He be called the Son of the Father, but of that of which He is a participant, and by which He is called Son and God. But if this is absurd and impious, when the Father says, B "This is my beloved Son," and the Son Himself affirms that God is His own Father, it is clear that what is participated is not external, but is from the substance of the Father. But if this, in turn, were something other than the substance of the Son, the same absurdity will follow, with this also being found to be a midpoint between the Father and the substance of the Son, whatever that may be.
16. Since, therefore, such absurd notions, which are alien to the truth, are clearly seen to be what they are, it is necessary to say that that which is from the substance of the Father is His proper total essence— D
for to say that God is participated in at all is the same as saying that He generates. And what does 72 "to generate" signify, if not "Son"? All things, therefore, participate in the Son himself according to the grace given by Him from the Spirit; and it is manifest from this that the Son himself participates in nothing, but that which is participated in from the Father, this is the Son. For it is by participating 74 in the Son Himself that we are said to participate in God. And this is what Peter said: "that you may become partakers of the divine nature," 75 just as the Apostle also says: "Do you not know that you are God's temple?" and "For we are the temple of the living God." And by looking at the Son Himself, we see the Father. For the perception and apprehension of the Son is knowledge concerning the Father, because He is a proper offspring from His substance. Just as no one of you would say that being participated in is a passion or division of the substance of God (for it has been 76 declared and confessed that God is participated in, and that to be participated in is the same as to beget), so too generation is neither a passion nor a division of that blessed substance. It is therefore not incredible that God should have a Son, the offspring of His own substance; nor do we signify any passion or division of the substance of God when we call Him Son and offspring; but rather, recognizing Him as the genuine, true, and only-begotten of God 77, we believe in this way. Now that this has been manifest and demonstrated—that the offspring from the substance of the Father is the Son—it is no longer doubtful to anyone, but would be plain, that this is the Wisdom and Word of the Father, in whom and through whom He creates and makes all things. And this is His radiance, in whom 78 He illuminates all things and reveals Himself to whomsoever He wills; this is His figure and image, in whom He is seen and known, wherefore He and the Father are one; for he who sees Him sees the Father also. This is Christ, in whom all things have been redeemed, and again, through whom He wrought the new creation. Since the Son 79 is thus, it is not fitting, but even highly dangerous, to say of Him that He is a creature from things that are not, or "There was when He was not before He was begotten." For he who speaks thus of what is proper to the substance of the Father reaches even to the Father Himself in his blasphemy, thinking such things concerning Him as he falsely imagines concerning His offspring.
17. Now this is enough on its own to overturn the Arian heresy; yet, even from this, one might see how alien it is to the right faith. If He is a maker and crea-
creator, and if He created created things through the Son, and no created thing exists which was not made through the Son: is it not most impious, when God is the maker of all things, to argue that His maker-Word and Wisdom did not exist at some time? For it is the same as saying that God is not a maker at all, not having His own maker-Word from Himself, but that the Word in whom He creates is brought in from outside, is alien to Him, and different in essence. B Next, let them explain to us—or rather, let them perceive from this their own impiety—by saying, "There was when He was not," and, "He was not before He was begotten." For if the Word does not coexist eternally with the Father, the Trinity is not eternal. But a Monad was before, and later a Trinity came to be by addition; and, according to them, the knowledge of theology grew and was constituted as time went on. Furthermore, if the Son is not the proper offspring of the Father's essence, but was made from nothing, then the Trinity also consists of nothing; and there was a time when there was no Trinity, but a Monad. And the Trinity was sometimes imperfect and sometimes perfect: imperfect before the Son was made, perfect when He had been made. And from then on, a created thing began to be numbered with the Creator, and he who once did not exist began to be acknowledged and worshipped as God with Him who always is. C Furthermore, what is more serious, the Trinity itself will be unlike itself, seeing that it is comprised of external and alien natures and substances; which is nothing other than to say that the constitution of the Trinity is made or created. What kind of religion, then, is to be considered that which is not even like itself, but is perfected by the progress of times, and which is now one way and now another? For it is likely that it will again receive an addition, and this to infinity, just as it had its constitution by addition at the beginning. Nor is there any doubt that it can also be diminished; for it is evident that things which are added can also be taken away.
18. But may this not be so! The Trinity is not created; but there is one eternal and single divinity in the Trinity, and the glory of the holy Trinity is likewise one. Yet you dare to divide It into diverse natures; and although you concede that the Father is eternal, you say of the Word who sits with Him, "There was when He was not." Concerning the Son who sits with the Father, you intend to remove Him from Him. He is a creator and makes created things through the Son, and it is impossible to see created things coming to be except through the Word. How is it not blasphemous, when God is the Maker, to say that His creative Word and Wisdom do not exist at some time? For it is equal to saying that God is not even a maker, not having an inherent creative Word from Himself, but that it is introduced from without and is a stranger to Him, and is found to be different in essence, in which He creates. Then let them tell us, or rather let them see from this their own impiety D by saying, "There was once when He was not," and "He was not before He was begotten." For if the Word does not eternally coexist with the Father, the Trinity is not eternal; but a Monad was before, and later a Trinity came to be from an addition, and as time went on, according to them, the knowledge of theology grew and was constituted. Furthermore, if the Son is not a legitimate offspring of the Father's essence, but has come to be from non-existence, the Trinity consists of non-existence, and there was a time when there was no Trinity, but a Monad; and sometimes the Trinity was lacking, and sometimes full: lacking before the Son came to be; full when He had come to be; and henceforth even the originated is numbered with the Creator, and that which was not at one time is worshipped as God along with Him who always is, and is glorified with Him. And what is more, the Trinity is found to be unlike itself, consisting of foreign and alien natures and essences. And this is nothing other than to say that the constitution of the Trinity is originated. What kind of piety, then, is this that is not even like itself, but is fulfilled by the addition of times, and is at one time not so, and at another time so? For it is likely that it will again receive an addition, and this to infinity, just as it had its constitution from an addition at the beginning. And it is not doubtful that it is also possible for it to be diminished; for things that are added, it is clear, can also be removed. 18. This is not so; away with the thought! The Trinity is not originated; but there is one eternal and single Godhead in the Trinity, and one glory of the holy Trinity; and you dare to split It into different natures? When the Father is eternal, you say of the Word who sits with Him, that "There was when He was not"; and of the Son who sits with...
A Him, you do not hesitate to remove Him from the Father. The Trinity is Creator and Maker; yet you do not fear to cast It down among things that came from nothing, nor do you feel shame in making slaves equal to the nobility of the Trinity, and in ranking the King, the Lord Sabaoth, among His subjects. Cease mixing that which cannot be mixed, or rather, that which is not with Him who is. By saying such things, you do not bring glory and honor to the Lord, but dishonor and reproach; for he who dishonors the Son dishonors the Father. For if now theology is perfect in the Trinity, and this is the true and only piety, and this is what is right and is the truth itself, then it must surely have always been so, lest that which is right and true be thought to be something adventitious, or that the fullness of theology is constituted by an addition. This, I say, had to exist from eternity; for if it had not been from eternity, then not even now would this theology, or notion of divinity, be what it ought to be, but rather as you pretend it to have been from the beginning—so that not even now would there be a Trinity. But no Christian would endure such B heretics; for these are things specific to the Greeks, to introduce a created Trinity, and to equate it with created things. For it is the lot of created things to be subject to deficits and additions; but the faith of Christians knows the blessed Trinity to be immutable, perfect, and always the same, and neither adds anything to the Trinity nor thinks of It as ever having been deficient; for both are impious. Therefore, it acknowledges It to be unmixed with created things, while guarding the unity of Its Godhead; and worshiping It, it flees from the blasphemies of the Arians, while confessing and knowing that the Son is always. For He is eternal, as is the Father, whose eternal Word He is. But let us look at this again.
19. He is the source of wisdom and life, and is called God, as He says through Jeremiah: "They have forsaken Me, the fountain of living water"; and again: "A glorious throne is exalted, our sanctification, the expectation of Israel, O Lord; all who forsake Thee shall be ashamed; those who depart shall be written upon the earth, because they have forsaken the Lord, the fountain of life." C And in Baruch it is written: "You have forsaken the fountain of wisdom." D
A Since this is so, it would follow that life and wisdom are not foreign to the essence of the fountain, but are its own, and that they never had a beginning, but always exist. Now these are the Son, who says: "I am the life," and, "I, wisdom, have dwelt in counsel." How then does he who says, "There was a time when the Son was not," not act impiously? For it is the same as saying, "There was a time when the fountain was dry, without life and without wisdom." But such a thing would not be a fountain; for that which does not beget from itself is not a fountain. What an absurdity is filled by this! For God promises that those who obey His will shall be as a fountain whose water shall not fail, saying through the prophet Isaiah: "And you shall be satisfied, just as your soul desires, and your bones shall be made fat, and you shall be as a watered garden, and as a fountain whose water shall not fail." B But these men dare to blaspheme God, who is called and is the fountain of wisdom, saying that He was once barren and lacked His own wisdom. But the things from them are false; for the Truth testifies that God is the eternal fountain of His own wisdom. And since the fountain is eternal, it is necessary that the Wisdom also be eternal. For in It all things were made, as David sings: "You have made all things in wisdom." And Solomon says: "God by wisdom founded the earth, and prepared the heavens with understanding." And this Wisdom is the Word, and through Him, as John says, all things were made, and without Him not one thing was made; and He is Christ. For "there is one God the Father, from whom are all things, and we to Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through Him." C But if all things are through Him, He Himself would not be numbered among all things. For he who dares to say that He through whom all things exist is one of the all things, will surely think the same concerning God, from whom are all things. But if anyone rejects this as most absurd, and distinguishes God as being apart from all things, it would logically follow that the Only-begotten Son, who is proper to the essence of the Father, must also be considered apart from all things. But if He is not of the all things, it is impious to say of Him, "There was a time when He was not," and, "He was not before He was born." D For such expressions are fitly used of things that have been made, but the Son Himself is such as the Father is, whose own offspring, Word, and Wisdom of His nature He is. For this is proper to the Son in relation to the Father, and this shows the Father to be proper to the Son, so that we neither call God at any time without Word, nor the Son non-existent.
A For why is there a Son, if he be not from Him? Or why is there a Word and Wisdom, if He be not always and His own? Who can think of what is proper [to God] as if it were something foreign and of another nature? For other things, such as created beings, have nothing similar in essence to Him who made them; but they are outside of Him, brought into existence by His grace and will through the Word, so that they are able to be and to cease to be at some time, if the Maker should so will; for such is the nature of created things.
But that which is proper to the Father’s essence (for this has already been acknowledged to be the Son)—how is it not rash and impious to say that He is from things that are not, and that He was not before He was begotten, but that this has accrued to Him, and that He is able again not to be at some time? Let him who thinks this, if only for a moment, consider how the perfection and fullness of the Father’s essence is taken away. For one may see even more clearly the absurdity of this heresy if one considers that the Son is the image and radiance, the character, and the truth of the Father. For if, light existing, the radiance is its image B, and if, substance existing, the character is its perfect [image], and if, the Father existing, the truth exists—let those who measure the image and form of the Godhead by time see into what a chasm of impiety they fall. For if the Son did not exist before He was begotten, then the Truth was not always in God. But it is not permitted to say this; for the Father existing, the Truth was always in Him, which is the Son, who says: *I am the Truth*. And the substance existing, its character and image must necessarily exist at once; for the image of God is not depicted from without, but God Himself is the begetter of it, in whom He, beholding Himself, rejoices in it, as the Son Himself says: *I was He in whom He C delighted*. When, therefore, did the Father not see Himself in His own image? Or when did He not rejoice, so that one should dare to say, "The image is from things that are not," and "The Father was not rejoicing before the image came to be"? And how could the Maker and Creator see Himself in a created and generated essence? For such must the image be, as is its Father D.
A. The Father is eternal, immortal, powerful, light, King, Almighty, God, Lord, Creator (27), and Maker. These things must be in the image, so that he who has truly seen the Son may see the Father. But if this is not the case, and matters stand as the Arians think—namely, that the Son is created and not eternal—then this is not the true image of the Father, unless at last, having laid aside all shame, they should say that even for the Son to be called "image" is not a mark of like substance, but is merely a name. But this again, O enemies of Christ, is neither an image nor a character. For what likeness is there between things created from nothing and Him who created things that were not, that they might be? Or how can that which is not be similar to Him who is, when its deficiency is such that at one time it did not exist B and it is numbered among created things? The Arians, therefore, desiring Him to be such, have devised for themselves such arguments, saying: "If the Son is the offspring and image of the Father, and is like the Father in all respects, He must, of necessity, just as He has been begotten, also beget, and He Himself become the father of a son; and again, he who is begotten of Him must also beget, and he himself as well, and so on to infinity." For this, they say, shows the begotten to be like the begetter. Truly, these God-fighters are inventors of blasphemies (50), who, so that they may not confess the Son to be the image of the Father, think bodily and earthly things concerning the Father Himself, attributing to Him divisions, emissions, and influxes C. If, then, God were as a man (31), let Him even be a begetter in the way that a man is, so that the Son might become the father of another, and thus they might be generated one from another in succession, and so, according to them, that progeny would grow into a multitude of gods. But if God is not as a man—as in truth He is not—it is not permitted to think human things of Him. For irrational animals and men, by the power of their primary creation, are born one from another in succession; and he who is begotten, being born of a father who was himself begotten, fittingly becomes in his turn the father of another, having in himself from his father that power from which he himself was also made. Hence, in such beings, there is not strictly a father and strictly a son, nor is the condition of father and son stable or constant D. For the same person becomes both son and father—son, I mean, of his begetter, and father of him who is begotten from him. But in the Godhead it is not so; for God is not like man, nor is the Father from a father; wherefore He does not beget a father who is yet to be begotten (34), nor is the Son from an emission.
A For the Son is not from an emission of the Father, nor was He begotten from a Father who had been begotten; and for this reason He is not begotten unto the purpose of begetting. Hence, in the Godhead alone is the Father properly Father, and the Son properly Son; and in these alone does the condition of Father and Son stand firm and fixed, so that the Father is always Father, and the Son is always Son.
22. Therefore, let him who seeks why the Son does not have the power of begetting ask likewise why the Father did not have a father. But both suggestions are absurd and full of all impiety. For just as the Father B is always Father and can never become Son, so the Son is always Son and can never become Father. And in this He is shown all the more to be the character and image of the Father, remaining what He is and not undergoing change, but possessing from the Father the same identity. If, then, the Father is mutable, let the image also be mutable; for the image and brightness of Him stand in relation to the One who begot Him. But if the Father is immutable and remains what He is, then by necessity the image also remains what it is and will not be turned. Now, since the Son is from the Father, He will not become anything other than that which is proper to the Father’s substance. C In vain, therefore, have the senseless devised this, desiring to remove the image from the Father so that they might make the Son equal to the things that are generated. In these things, at any rate, those of the party of Arius, following the teaching of Eusebius and thinking Him to be of the same kind as the things that were made through Him, have departed from the truth. Having gathered together for themselves D words of craftiness, they went about at the beginning, when they were fabricating this heresy; and even until now, some of them meeting boys in the market-place pester them, not indeed with things from the divine Scriptures, but—as if belching out the overflowings of their own hearts (Luke vi, 45)—they say: "Did He who is make him who was not out of being, or out of non-being? Did He make him, then, who was already, or him who was not?" And again: "Is there one Unbegotten, or two? And is He possessed of free will, and does He not change by His own choice, being of a mutable nature? For he is not like a stone, remaining unmoved by itself." Then, entering in to silly women, they again utter to them effeminate words: "Had you a son before you gave birth? And just as you did not have one before, so neither was the Son of God before He was begotten." With such words do these dishonorable men dance about in mockery, and liken God to men; and while they profess to be Christians, they...
A change the glory of God into the likeness of the image of corruptible man.
23. It is true that such statements are not worth answering, so insipid and inept are they. Yet, lest their heresy should seem to possess any solidity, it is worth the effort to refute them here, at least in passing, especially for the sake of the silly women who are so easily beguiled by them. For those who say such things ought also to have asked an architect: "Can you build without a subject material?" And just as you cannot, so neither could God make all things without a subject material. They ought also to have asked every individual man: "Can you exist without a place?" And just as you cannot, so neither is God in a place. For in this way they would at least be compelled B to blush before their hearers. For why is it that when they hear that God has a Son, they look to themselves and dare to deny Him, yet when they hear that God creates and makes, they do not bring forward the same human objections? Indeed, it would have been appropriate for them, in understanding the creation of the world, to think in human terms and to supply material to God, so that by denying that God is the Creator, they might finally be confounded with the Manichaeans. But if the very notion of God compels one to think of greater things than these, and if, when a person merely hears it, he immediately believes and holds it for certain that God is not in the way that we are, but is as God, and does not create as men create, but creates as God: similarly, it is clear that He begets not as men beget, C but as God begets. For God does not imitate man, but rather men, because of God, who is properly and alone truly the Father of His own Son, have also been called fathers of their own children. For from Him every fatherhood in heaven and on earth is named. And as for the things they say, if no one examines them, they might perhaps appear to have been spoken prudently and wisely; but if anyone examines them according to reason, he will find that they have brought upon themselves nothing but much laughter and contempt.
24. For their first question is foolish and indeed obscure. For they do not signify about what they are inquiring, so that the person being asked might be able to answer; but they say absolutely, "Whether he who is, [brought into existence] him who was not," etc. Who, then, is he who is, and what are those things which D are not, O...
Arians? A For who is he who is, and who is he who was not? What things are said to be, or not to be? For he who is can make both those things which are not, and those things which are, and those things which already were. At any rate, the carpenter, the goldsmith, and the potter, each according to his own craft, uses material that exists and was there before him, and fashions the vessels he wishes out of it. But God himself, the God of all, having taken dust from the earth that already existed, fashioned man; B yet this very earth, which was not before, he later made to be through his own Word. If, therefore, they inquire in this way, it is manifest that while the creation did not exist before it was made, men work upon material that exists; and their argument shall appear inconsistent, being such that things are made and exist, and things are made and do not exist, as we have said. But if they are speaking about God and his Word, let them add what is missing C to their inquiry and let them ask in this way: Was God, who is, ever without a Word? And, being Light, was he without radiance? Or, Was he always the Father of the Word? Or again in this way: Did the Father, who is, make the Word when it did not exist, or does he always have the Word as his own offspring of his substance with him? So that it may be known that they are altogether prying into and daring to play the sophist about God D and him who is from him. For who will tolerate those who say that God was ever without a Word? For again they have fallen into the same state as before, although they have been eager to escape and conceal it with their own sophisms, yet they have not been able. For no one at all would even wish to listen to them as they stagger about, saying that God was not always Father, but became so later, so that they might also imagine that his Word also once was not, although there are many proofs aforementioned against them; and when John says, "The Word was," and Paul writes again, "Who is the radiance of his glory," and "Who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."
25. Profecto satius quidem fuisset eos prorsus silere: at quoniam nolunt quiescere, si quis impudentissimas illorum quaestiones refutare voluerit, similia vicissim ab illis audacter perquirat. Fortassis enim cum seipsos similibus viderint absurdis [in]volutos, desistent.
Much, therefore, having first implored the divine clemency with prayers, one might answer them thus: Is He who is God, who is, become, such that He was not before? Or does He exist even before He is made? Did He then, when He existed, make Himself, or is it from nothing that He is, and being nothing before, did He suddenly appear? Such a question is absurd, so I clearly confess, it is absurd and deeply impious; yet it is similar to their own question. For whichever they say, it is full of all impiety. But if it is impious, and most impious, to ask these things about God, it is surely no less an impiety to ask the same things about the Word. B Nevertheless, to overturn this foolish and insane questioning of theirs, an answer of this kind seems necessary. Surely God is always; and therefore, since the Father is always, so too is His splendor always, which is His Word. Furthermore, He who is God has the Word, which is likewise from Himself; nor is the Word something added afterward, which was not before, nor was the Father ever without the Word. For the impious audacity with which the Son is attacked rebounds upon the Father Himself, if indeed He is said to have devised wisdom, and Word, and Son for Himself from without: for whichever of these you may say, it signifies that which is begotten of the Father, as has been said. C Therefore, this question of theirs is light and futile, and justly so. For since they deny the Word or Reason, there is nothing of reason in their question. For just as if someone, looking at the sun, were to inquire about its splendor and say, "Did He who is make the splendor when it was not, or was it already?"—just as, I say, such a one would be considered not wise but stupid, because he imagines the splendor, which is from the light, to be something external, and asks about it when, where, and if it was made—so too, anyone who thinks such things about the Son and the Father, and asks in this way, is to be thought much more insane, D inasmuch as he introduces the Word, who is from the Father, as something external to Him, and calls that which is naturally begotten a creature, saying, "He was not before He was begotten." But let them also receive this response to what they have asked: The Father who is, made the Son who was. For "the Word became flesh," and though He Himself was the Son of God, He made Him, at the consummation of the ages, also the Son of man, unless perhaps, according to the Samosatene, they would say that He did not even exist before He was born as man. And as for their first question, these things are sufficient from us.
A You, O Arians, remembering your own words, answer us who now interrogate you: Did He who was, need the Son in order to create all things, or did He need Him even when He already existed? For you have said: "He prepared the Son for Himself from nothing as an instrument, that by Him He might make all things." What then is better: he who is in need, or the one who fulfills the need? Or do they both fulfill what the other lacks? For by speaking such things, you show all the more the weakness of Him who created, if He was not able to create all things by Himself alone, but thought of an instrument for Himself from outside, like some carpenter or shipbuilder who is unable to make anything at all without an axe and a saw. What then could be more impious than this? Or why must we spend time at all on these things as if they were difficult, when it is sufficient to have shown from what was said before that whatever they bring forward is merely a fantasy of their own minds?
B But toward their other very silly and foolish examination, which they propose to little women, it would not have been necessary to respond anything at all again, other than what has already been said by us, namely that we ought not to measure the generation from God by the nature of men. But that they may even in this be brought to acknowledge their own folly, it is good to answer them again from their own arguments. In general, if they inquire concerning a Son from parents, let them consider whence the child who is generated comes. For even if a parent did not have a son before he generated him, yet having acquired one, he did not have him as something from outside or foreign, but from himself, and he had an image proper to his own essence and exact, so that the son is seen in him, and the parent is viewed in the son. If therefore they take the time of those who generate from human examples, why do they not learn from these same examples that children are by nature similar and proper to their parents, but instead, like serpents, choose only what is suited for poison from the earth? And they ought, when they were questioning parents C and saying, "Did you not have a son before you generated him?", to have added and said, "If you have a son, do you acquire him from outside as you would a house or some other possession?" so that he might answer you: "He is not from outside, but from me." For possessions are indeed from outside, and they pass from one to another; but the son is from me, and is proper to and similar to my nature, not having come into me from another, but having been generated from me: wherefore I am also entirely in him, while remaining what I am. For it is so:
A even if the parent differs in time, as a man who is also himself born in time; yet he would have always had the son co-existing with him, had not nature hindered and prevented the possibility of it. For Levi was still in the loins of his great-grandfather, before he himself was begotten, and before the grandfather begat. When, therefore, a man arrives at that age in which nature provides the possibility, the man immediately becomes the father of the son who is from himself, with nature no longer hindered.
27. B Therefore, if parents are questioned by their children, and discover that they are not born of some source outside, but from their parents; let them also confess concerning the Word of God, that He is entirely from the Father. But if they raise a difficulty about time, let them say what it is that can hinder God. For it is right that they should be refuted for their impiety out of the very things which they ask mockingly. Let them say, then, what hinders God from being always the Father of the Son? For it is admitted that what is begotten is from the father. But in order that those who think such things concerning God may pass judgment upon themselves: just as they questioned women about times, so let them inquire of the sun concerning its radiance, and of the fountain concerning the river flowing from it, that they may learn that, although these are things begotten, they are C and always exist with those from which they have sprung. But if such parents have to do with their children in the way of nature and of something that is always, why, suspecting God to be inferior to created things, do they not more openly express their impiety? But if they do not dare to say this openly, and it is further granted that the Son is not born from outside, but naturally from the Father, and lastly there is nothing by which God can be hindered: (for God is not like man: indeed He is greater than the sun, or rather, He is the God of the sun;) it is transparently clear that the Word is always co-existing with the Father, both out of Him and with Him, through whom the Father made all things that were not into being. D That therefore the Son is not from non-existing things, but is eternal and from the Father, the thing itself demonstrates; and the question of the heretics to the parents
A puts their malice to shame. For they recognized what is according to nature, and thereafter were ashamed even of the matter of the times.
28. That it is impious to compare the generation of God to human nature, or to think that the Son is a part of God, or that the generation signifies any passion at all, we have already said before, and we repeat the same things now: God is not as a man. For men indeed beget passibly, having a fluid nature and awaiting times because of the weakness of their own nature; but regarding God, to say this is not possible. For He is not composed of parts, but being both impassible and simple, He is the Father of the Son impassibly and impartibly; and of this there is again a great proof and demonstration from the divine Scriptures. For the Word of God is His B Son, and the Son is the Word and Wisdom of the Father; and the Word and Wisdom is neither a creature nor a part of Him, whose Word He is, nor is He a generation according to passion. The Scripture, therefore, joining both, called Him Son, that it might announce the generation which is by nature and the true generation of the essence. And that no one might suppose the generation to be human, again, signifying His essence, it calls Him Word and Wisdom and Radiance. For from this we reckon both that the generation is impassible, and eternal, and becoming to God. What passion then, or what part of the Father, is the Word, and the Wisdom, and the Radiance? And this is possible for even those fools to learn. For as they inquired [of others] about a son C from women, so let them inquire about the word from men, that they may learn that the word they utter is neither a passion of theirs, nor a part of their mind. If, then, in the case of men, even though they are passible and divisible by nature, the word is such as this, why do they imagine passions and parts in the case of the incorporeal and indivisible God, in order that, pretending to be cautious in this way, they might deny the true and natural generation of the Son? And that the generation from God is not a passion has been sufficiently demonstrated by what has gone before; and it is now demonstrated specifically that the Word is also generated not according to passion. Let them hear the same things also regarding Wisdom: God is not as a man; let them not imagine anything human about Him in this. For men become recipients of wisdom, but God, partaking of nothing, is Himself the Father of His own D wisdom, of which those who partake are accustomed to be called wise; and
it is this same A wisdom, not an affection, not a part, but the proper offspring of the Father. For this reason He is always Father, and "Father" did not accrue to God subsequently, lest He should be thought also to be mutable. For if it is good that He should be Father, but He was not always Father, then the good was not always in Him. Nor did the power of creating accrue to Him subsequently. Are we then to say that, because He is a Creator, His works also are eternal, and that it is not permissible to say concerning them, "They were not before they were made"? Senseless Arians! For what likeness is there between a son and a work, that you should say the same things concerning the Father as you do concerning the creators? How is it that, even after such a difference between an offspring and a work has been shown above, they persist in their ignorance? Therefore, the same thing must be repeated: a work is external to the maker, as has been said, but the Son is the proper offspring of the essence. And for this reason, there is no necessity for the work to be always in existence; for whenever the Creator wills, He works. But the offspring B is not subject to volition, but is a property of the essence. Furthermore, one can rightly be called a maker, even if the works do not yet exist, but one cannot be called or be a father when the son does not exist. If they wish to pry into why, since God is always able to work, He does not always work, that is truly the rashness of madmen. For "who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been His counselor?" Or "how shall the thing formed say to him who formed it, Why have you made me thus?" But that we may not seem to be silent while having found even a faint argument, let them hear: That, although it was possible for God always to work, yet created things could not be eternal; for they are from nothing, and were not before they were made. But things that were not before they were made, how could they coexist with the eternally existing God? Wherefore, God, looking to what was beneficial for them, made all things when He saw that it was possible for them, once made, to endure. And just as, though able C to send His own Word from the beginning, in the time of Adam, or of Noah, or of Moses, He did not send Him except in the end of the ages; for He knew this to be beneficial to the whole of creation; so too He made created things when He willed and it was beneficial for them. But the Son, since He is not a work but proper to the essence of the Father, always exists; for since the Father is always, it must be that what is proper to His essence—that is, His Word and His wisdom—always exists. And as for creatures D
kἂν μηδέπω ὑπάρχῃ (25), οὐκ ἐλαττοῖ τὸν ποιητήν· ἔχει γὰρ τὸ δύνασθαι δημιουργεῖν, ὅτε βούλεται· τὸ δὲ γέννημα, ἐὰν μὴ ἀεὶ συνῇ (24) τῷ Πατρί, ἐλάττωμα τῆς τελειότητος τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ ἐστιν. Ὅθεν τὰ μὲν ποιήματα, ὅτε ἠθέλησεν, ἐδημιουργήθη διὰ τοῦ Λόγου αὐτοῦ (25)· ὁ δὲ Υἱὸς ἀεί ἐστιν ἴδιον γέννημα τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς οὐσίας.
30. B Ταῦτα τοὺς μὲν πιστοὺς εὐφραίνει, τοὺς δὲ αἱρετικοὺς λυπεῖ βλέποντας ἀναιρουμένην αὐτῶν τὴν αἵρεσιν· καὶ γὰρ κἀκείνη πάλιν αὐτῶν ἡ ἐρώτησις ἐν τῷ λέγειν, «Ἓν τὸ ἀγέννητον, ἢ δύο;» οὐκ ὀρθὴν αὐτῶν δείκνυσι τὴν διάνοιαν, ἀλλ᾽ ὕποπτον καὶ δόλου μεστήν. Οὐ γὰρ ἐπὶ τιμῇ τοῦ Πατρὸς οὕτως ἐρωτῶσιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ ἀτιμίᾳ τοῦ Λόγου. «Ἂν γοῦν τις, ἀγνοῶν τὴν πανουργίαν αὐτῶν, ἀποκρίνηται, «Ἓν τὸ ἀγέννητον» (26), εὐθὺς τὸν ἑαυτῶν ἰὸν ἐξεμοῦσι λέγοντες· «Οὐκοῦν ὁ Υἱὸς τῶν γενητῶν ἐστι, καὶ καλῶς εἰρήκαμεν, Οὐκ ἦν, πρὶν γεννηθῇ.» Πάντα γὰρ φυρῶσι (27) καὶ κυκῶσιν, ἵνα μόνον διαστήσωσι τὸν Λόγον ἀπὸ τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τὸν δημιουργὸν τῶν ὅλων (28) τοῖς ποιήμασι συναριθμήσωσι. Πρῶτον μὲν οὖν καὶ κατὰ τοῦτο καταγνώσεώς εἰσιν ἄξιοι, ὅτι μεμφόμενοι τοῖς ἐν Νικαίᾳ συνελθοῦσιν ἐπισκόποις ὡς ἀγράφοις χρησαμένοις λέξεσι, καίτοι μὴ δυσφήμοις, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἀναιρέσει τῆς ἀσεβείας αὐτῶν κειμέναις (29), ηὐτομόλησαν εἰς τὴν αὐτὴν αἰτίαν αὐτοὶ ἐξ ἀγράφων φθεγγόμενοι, καὶ ἐπινοοῦντες λοιδορίας κατὰ τοῦ Κυρίου, μὴ γινώσκοντες, μήτε ἃ λέγουσι, μήτε περὶ τίνων διαβεβαιοῦνται. C Ἐρωτησάτωσαν γοῦν Ἕλληνας, παρ᾽ ὧν ἤκουσαν· οὐ γὰρ τῶν Γραφῶν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκείνων ἐστὶν εὕρεμα (30)· ἵνα ἀκούσαντες πόσα σημαινόμενα ἡ λέξις ἔχει, μάθωσιν, ὅτι οὐδὲ, περὶ ὧν λέγουσιν (31), ἐπίστανται καλῶς ἐρωτᾷν. Κἀγὼ γὰρ δι᾽ αὐτοὺς ἐπυθόμην λέγεσθαι «ἀγένητον» τὸ μηδέπω μὲν γενόμενον, δυνάμενον δὲ γενέσθαι, ὡς τὸ ξύλον τὸ μήπω μὲν γενόμενον, δυνάμενον δὲ γενέσθαι σκάφος. Καὶ αὖθις «ἀγένητον» λέγεσθαι (32) τὸ μήτε γενόμενον, μήτε δυνάμενον γενέσθαι ποτέ, ὡς τὸ τρίγωνον τετράγωνον, καὶ ὁ ἄρτιος ἀριθμὸς (33) περιττός. Οὔτε γὰρ τὸ τρίγωνον γέγονέ ποτε τετράγωνον, οὔτε γένοιτ᾽ ἄν ποτε· ἀλλ᾽ οὔτε ὁ ἄρτιος γέγονέ ποτε περιττός, οὔτε γένοιτ᾽ ἄν ποτε περιττός. Λέγεται δὲ πάλιν D ἀγένητον (34) τὸ ὑπάρχον μέν, μὴ
μὴ A ἐξισταμένον δέ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐξ οὐδενὸς γεννηθέν, μηδέ τινα ὅλως ἑαυτοῦ πατέρα ἔχον. Καὶ Ἀστέριος δὲ ὁ πανουργότατος σοφιστὴς καὶ τῆς αἱρέσεως συνήγορος, ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ αὐτοῦ συγγράμματι προσέθηκε, λέγων, ἀγένητον εἶναι τὸ μὴ ποιηθέν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀεί. Κατὰ ποῖον οὖν σημαινόμενον νοοῦσι τὸ ἀγένητον, ἔδει αὐτοὺς ἐρωτῶντας ἐξηγήσασθαι, ἵνα καὶ ὁ ἐρωτώμενος ὀρθῶς ἀποκρίνησθαι δυνηθῇ.
51. Εἰ δὲ νομίζουσι καλῶς ἐρωτᾷν, ἐν τῷ λέγειν, Ἕν ἐστι τὸ ἀγένητον (56), ἢ δύο; ἀκούσονται πρῶτον μὲν, ὡς ἀμαθεῖς, πολλά τε εἶναι καὶ οὐδέν· πλεῖστα μὲν τὰ δυνάμενα γενέσθαι, οὐδὲν δὲ τὸ μὴ δυνάμενον, ὥσπερ εἴρηται. Εἰ δὲ, ὡς Ἀστερίῳ ἤρεσε (57), τὸ μὴ ποίημα, ἀλλ᾽ ἀεὶ ὂν, ἀγένητον εἶναι, οὕτως ἐρωτῶσιν· ἀκουέτωσαν οὐχ ἅπαξ, ἀλλὰ πολλάκις, ὅτι καὶ ὁ Υἱὸς οὕτω κατὰ ταύτην τὴν ἐκδοχὴν ἀγένητος (58) ἂν λεχθείη. B Οὔτε γὰρ τῶν γενητῶν, οὔτε ποίημά ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀϊδίως σύνεστι τῷ Πατρὶ, ὥσπερ καὶ ἤδη δέδεικται, κἂν πολλάκις μεταβάλλωνται, ἵνα μόνον κατὰ τοῦ Κυρίου λέγωσιν, Ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐστὶ, καὶ, Οὐκ ἦν, πρὶν γεννηθῇ. Πάντων δὴ οὖν ἐκπίπτοντες, ἐὰν καὶ ἐκεῖνο (59) θελήσωσι λοιπὸν ἐρωτᾷν κατὰ τὸ ὑπάρχον μὲν, μήτε δὲ γεννηθὲν ἔκ τινος, μήτε ἔχον ἑαυτοῦ πατέρα· ἀκούσονται μὲν καὶ παρ᾽ ἡμῶν τὸν οὕτω σημαινόμενον ἕνα καὶ μόνον ἀγένητον (40) εἶναι τὸν Πατέρα, οὐδὲν δὲ πλέον ἕξουσιν ἐκ τοῦ τοιαῦτα ἀκούειν αὐτούς. Οὐδὲ γὰρ τὸ οὕτως ἀγένητον λέγεσθαι τὸν Θεὸν δείκνυσι γενητὸν (41) εἶναι τὸν Υἱόν, δήλου ὄντος κατὰ τὰς προειρημένας ἀποδείξεις τοιοῦτον εἶναι τὸν Λόγον, οἷός ἐστιν ὁ γεννήσας αὐτόν. C Οὐκ οὖν εἰ ἀγένητος (42) ὁ Θεὸς, οὐ γενητή, ἀλλὰ γέννημά ἐστιν ἡ τούτου εἰκὼν, ἥτις ἐστὶν ὁ Λόγος αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡ Σοφία. Ποία γὰρ ἐμφέρεια τῷ γενητῷ (43) πρὸς τὸ ἀγένητον; Πάλιν γὰρ τὰ αὐτὰ λέγειν οὐκ ὀκνητέον· ἐπεὶ εἰ ὅμοιον τὸ γενητὸν τῷ ἀγενήτῳ θέλουσιν, ὡς τὸν ὁρῶντα τοῦτο βλέπειν ἐκεῖνο, οὐ μακράν εἰσιν εἰπεῖν, ὅτι καὶ τὸ ἀγένητον (44) καὶ κτισμάτων ἐστὶν εἰκὼν, καὶ λοιπὸν πέφυρται πάντα παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς, γενητῶν (45) μὲν ἐξίσωσις πρὸς τὸ ἀγένητον, ἀγενήτου δὲ καθαίρεσις μετρουμένου πρὸς τὰ ποιήματα, D
ποιήματα, A ἵνα μόνον τὸν Υἱὸν ἐν τοῖς ποιήμασι καταγάγωσιν.
32. Ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ αὐτοὺς οἶμαι θελήσαι λέγειν ἔτι τὰ τοιαῦτα, ἐὰν Ἀστερίῳ γε τῷ σοφιστῇ πείθωνται. Ἐκεῖνος γὰρ, καίπερ σπουδάζων συνηγορεῖν τῇ Ἀρειανῇ αἱρέσει, καὶ λέγων ἓν εἶναι τὸ ἀγένητον, τὰ ἐναντία τούτοις ἀντιφθέγγεται, λέγων καὶ τὴν σοφίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀγένητον καὶ ἄναρχον εἶναι, καὶ ἔστι μέρος, ὧν ἔγραψε, ταῦτα· «Οὐκ εἶπεν ὁ μακάριος Παῦλος, Χριστὸν κηρύσσειν τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ δύναμιν, ἢ τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ σοφίαν, ἀλλὰ δίχα τῆς προσθήκης, δύναμιν Θεοῦ καὶ Θεοῦ σοφίαν, B ἄλλην μὲν εἶναι τὴν ἰδίαν αὐτοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ δύναμιν, τὴν ἔμφυτον αὐτοῦ καὶ συνυπάρχουσαν αὐτῷ ἀγενήτως κηρύσσων.» Καὶ πάλιν μετ' ὀλίγα· «Καίτοι γε ἡ μὲν ἄίδιος αὐτοῦ δύναμις καὶ σοφία, ἣν ἀναρχόν τε καὶ ἀγένητον οἱ τῆς ἀληθείας ἀποφαίνονται λογισμοί, μία ἂν εἴη δήπουθεν καὶ αὐτή.» Εἰ γὰρ καὶ μὴ καλῶς νοήσας τὸ τοῦ Ἀποστόλου ῥητὸν, ἐνόμισεν εἶναι δύο σοφίας, ἀλλ' ὅμως συνυπάρχουσαν αὐτῷ ἀγένητον σοφίαν εἰρηκώς, οὐκέτι ἂν τὸ ἀγένητον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἕτερον ἔφησεν ἀγένητον εἶναι σὺν αὐτῷ. Τὸ γὰρ συνυπάρχον οὐχ ἑαυτῷ ἀλλ᾽ ἑτέρῳ συνυπάρχει. Ἢ τοίνυν Ἀστερίῳ πειθόμενοι, μηκέτι ἐρωτάτωσαν, Ἕν τὸ ἀγένητον, ἢ δύω; ἵνα μὴ ὡς ἀμφιβάλλοντες μάχωνται πρὸς ἐκεῖνον· ἢ εἰ ἐναντιοῦνται, κἀκείνῳ μὴ ἐπερειδέσθωσαν αὐτοῦ τῷ συνταγματίῳ, ἵνα μὴ C ἀλλήλους δάκνοντες ὑπὸ ἀλλήλων ἀναλωθῶσι. Καὶ ταῦτα μὲν δι' ὀλίγων πρὸς τὴν ἀμαθίαν αὐτῶν εἰρήσθω. Πρὸς δέ γε τὴν πανούργον αὐτῶν προαίρεσιν τί τοσοῦτον ἄν τις εἴποι; Τίς αὐτοὺς οὐκ ἂν οὕτως μαινομένους μισήσειε δικαίως; Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ οὐκέτι παρρησίαν ἔχουσιν ἐν τῷ λέγειν, «Ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων,» καὶ, «Οὐκ ἦν, πρὶν γεννηθῇ,» ἐπενόησαν ἑαυτοῖς τὴν τοῦ ἀγενήτου λέξιν, ἵνα τὸν Υἱὸν γενητὸν παρὰ τοῖς ἀκεραίοις λέγοντες, αὐτὰ πάλιν ἐκεῖνα τὰ ῥήματα, τὸ Ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων, καὶ τὸ Οὐκ ἦν D ποτε, σημαίνωσιν· ἐν γὰρ τούτοις τὰ γενητὰ καὶ τὰ κτίσματα σημαίνονται.
σημαίνονται. A 55. It was necessary, then, if they have confidence in what they say, to persist in it and not to transform and change themselves in various ways. But they do not wish this, thinking they can easily do everything if, covering their heresy with this name, they put forward the term "unbegotten" [or "not-fact"]; for indeed even this little term "unbegotten," even if they grumble, does not have its meaning directed toward the Son, but toward the things that have been begotten [or "things made"]. One might see a similar thing to this in these titles: "Omnipotent," and "Lord of hosts." For if the Father holds all things through the Word and rules over them, and if the Son reigns in the same kingdom of the Father and holds the power over all things, as the Word and as the image of the Father, it is evident that not even in this way is the Son numbered among all things, nor is He called Omnipotent and Lord on His own account, but on account of the things made through the Son, over which He rules and holds lordship through the Word. B Therefore, the term "unbegotten" is not signified on account of the Son, but on account of the things that have come to be through the Son; and rightly so, because God is not like the things that have come to be, but is their Creator and Maker through the Son. And just as the term "unbegotten" is signified in relation to the things that have come to be, so too is the term "Father" indicative of the Son. And he who names God Maker, and Creator, and Unbegotten, looks upon and comprehends the creatures and things that have come to be; but he who calls God Father, immediately perceives and contemplates the Son. Wherefore one might also wonder at their contentiousness in wickedness, because, although the very name "unbegotten" has the excellent meaning aforementioned and can be used with piety, they themselves, in accordance with their own heresy, bring it forward to the dishonour of the Son, not having read that *he who honours the Son honours the Father, and he who dishonours the Son dishonours the Father*. For if they really cared about praises and the honour towards the Father, it would have been better and greater, and this C would have been more fitting and worthy, for them to know and to call God Father, rather than to designate Him by this name. For as they call God "unbegotten," they speak of Him, as has been said, solely as maker and creator from the works that have come to be, thinking that...
they can thereby, according to their own whim, imply A that the Word is a work and a thing made. But he who calls God Father signifies Him through the Son, not being ignorant that, since the Son exists, all things that have come to be were of necessity created through the Son. And while they B, by saying "uncreated," signify Him only from the works, and do not themselves acknowledge the Son, just as the Greeks do, he who calls God Father signifies Him through the Word. And knowing the Word, he knows Him to be the creator, and understands that through Him all things have come to be.
34. Therefore, it would be much more pious and true to signify God through the Son and to call Him Father, than to name Him from the works alone and to call Him uncreated. For the latter term signifies each thing separately, as I have said, and collectively all the works that have come into existence from the will of God through the Word; but the name "Father" signifies and rests upon C the Son alone. And by as much as the Word differs from the things that have come to be, by so much more does calling God Father differ from calling Him uncreated. For the latter term is unscriptural and suspect, as having a varied meaning, so that the mind of one questioned about it is distracted into many interpretations; but "Father" is simple and scriptural, and more true, and signifies the Son alone. And "uncreated" has been discovered by the Greeks who do not know the Son; but "Father" has been known and granted by our Lord. For He Himself, knowing whose Son He was, said: *"I am in the Father, and the Father in me"* and, *"He who has seen me has seen the Father"* and, *"I and the Father are one."* And nowhere does He appear calling the Father "uncreated" Himself; nay, when teaching us also to pray, He did not say: "When you pray, say, O uncreated God," but rather, "When you pray, say, Our Father, who art in heaven." And He wished the sum of our faith to tend toward this, having commanded us to be baptized not into the name of an uncreated being, D
A and a created being, nor in the name of a creator and a created thing, but in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. For we, who are numbered among created things, being thus initiated, are henceforth made children, and when we pronounce the name of the Father, we recognize from this name the Word also who is in the Father. It has therefore been clearly proven that their attempt to apply the term "uncreated" in this case is vain, and possesses nothing beyond a mere facade.
B 35. As for those who inquire whether the Word is mutable, it is superfluous to discuss it. For it would be entirely sufficient if I, by merely writing down what is said by them, should show how impious their temerity is. For these are the things which they foolishly ask: "Is He endowed with free will, or is He not? Is He good by the will of His own free choice, and can He, if He wishes, be changed, since He is of a mutable nature; or, like a stone and wood, does He not have a free will to move and incline in either direction?" It is, of course, not foreign to their heresy to say and think such things. For since they have C imagined for themselves a God and a created Son sprung from nothing, they have not unworthily usurped expressions of this kind which are fitting for created things. But when they themselves, in the disputations that they have with the men of the Church, hearing them discourse on the true and only Word of the Father, are not afraid to speak such things about Him, what, I ask, could appear more impure than that doctrine? Who, if he were to hear them, even if he were unable to contradict them, would not at once be disturbed and close his ears, being struck by these novel D words which they use and he hears, and which of themselves, even if only spoken, carry an open blasphemy? For if the Word can be turned and changed, where, I ask, will He stand, and what will be the end of His growth? Or how will the mutable be able to be like the immutable? How, likewise, will he who has seen the mutable think that he has seen the immutable? In what state of His could the Father be seen in Him? Truly it is clear that no one will always see the Father in Him, since the Son is always being changed and is by nature mutable. For the Father is immutable and incapable of change, and is always the same and in the same way. But if the Son...
according to them, is mutable and not always the same, but is of a nature that is always being changed, how can such an one be the image of the Father, not possessing the likeness of [the Father's] immutability? Or how can he be in the Father at all, possessing an uncertain will A? Perhaps, too, since he is mutable and progresses day by day, he is not yet perfect. But let such madness of the Arians depart, and let the truth shine forth and show them to be foolish. For how is he not perfect, who is equal to God B? Or how is he not immutable, who is with the Father and is his own true Son from his essence? Since the essence of the Father is immutable, the offspring proper to it must also be immutable. But if this being so, they falsely attribute change to the Word, let them learn where their argument is in danger; for the tree is known by its fruit; for this reason, he who has seen the Son has seen the Father, and the knowledge of the Son is the knowledge of the Father.
36. Therefore, the image of the immutable God must be immutable; for Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. And David, singing C about him, says: And you, Lord, from the beginning founded the earth, and the works of your hands are the heavens. They shall perish, but you remain; and all shall wear out like a garment, and as a covering you shall fold them up, and they shall be changed. But you are the same, and your years shall not fail. And the Lord himself says about himself through the prophet: See me, see that I am he, and, I am not changed. For even if one could respond that this is meant of the Father, yet it fits the Son extremely well, inasmuch as he, by becoming man, shows his identity and immutability to those who think that he was changed because of the flesh, and had become something else. But the holy men and the Lord himself are far more worthy of belief than the perversity of the impious. For when Scripture, in the psalm whose words we have cited, affirms that the nature of all things that are made and created, which are comprised under the name of heaven and earth, is mutable, and exempts the Son from these, it most clearly declares that he is in no way a creature, but rather teaches that he changes all other things while he himself is not changed, by the words where it says:
A "But you are the same, and your years will not fail." And rightly so; for created things are from what does not exist, and were not before they were made, and since they are absolutely non-existent, they come to be and have a mutable nature. But the Son, being from the Father and proper to his essence, is immutable and unchangeable, as is the Father himself. For it is not permitted to say that a mutable Word and a changing wisdom are begotten from an immutable essence. For how could he still be the Word, if he is mutable? Or how could that which is changed be wisdom? Unless, perhaps, they wish it to be the case as an accident in a substance, such that a certain grace and habit of virtue has accrued to some prior substance, and for this reason he has been called the Word, the Son, and Wisdom, so that he is capable of being both diminished and increased. They have often replied in this way because this is what they believe. But this is not the faith of Christians. For this does not demonstrate that he is truly the Word and Son of God, nor that this wisdom is true wisdom. For that which is changed and converted, and does not persevere in one and the same state, how can it be true? But the Lord says: "I am the truth." B If, therefore, the Lord himself says this about himself, and shows himself to be immutable, and the saints, having learned this, bear witness to it—nay, rather, the very notions about God know this to be pious—from where did the impious invent these things? Indeed, they vomited them forth from their heart as if from corruption.
37. When, however, they abuse the divine oracles and strive with all their might to adulterate them to suit their own mind, it is necessary to respond to them in such a way that we vindicate the words of Scripture and make it manifest that they can indeed be understood correctly, but that those men think perversely. They say, therefore, that it is written by the Apostle: C "Therefore God also highly exalted him, and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth." And in David: "Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions." Then they add, as if saying something profound: "If he was exalted for this reason, and received grace, and was anointed for this reason, he therefore received a reward for his own choice." But if he acted by choice, he is surely of a mutable nature. These things Eusebius and Arius have dared not only to say but also to write, and they do not fear to broadcast them through the middle of the forum.
A They do not see what great madness their argument contains. For if it obtained its reward as a wage for its choice, and would not have had it had it not performed the work of one in need, then because it attained this through its own virtue and improvement, it was deservedly on this account called both Son and God, and yet is not a true Son. For that which is a true offspring from something according to nature—such as Isaac was to Abraham, and Joseph to Jacob, and an effulgence to the sun—is one thing; but those who are called [sons] only from virtue and grace have this dignity not by nature but only by grace, and they are altogether different from that which is given to them. Such are those men who have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, concerning whom He also said: "I have begotten and exalted children, but they have rebelled against me" (Isa. 1, 2). B Certainly, because they were not sons by nature, for this reason the Spirit was taken away from them when they changed for the worse, and they were disowned; yet the same God, who at the beginning granted them such grace, will receive them again if they repent, and having imparted the light, will call them sons again once He has thus given them the grace.
38. Therefore, if they speak thus of the Savior, C it will follow that He is neither true God, nor true Son, nor like to the Father, nor does He even have God as Father by nature, but [only] by the grace granted to Him; and He has God as a Creator of His own [being] according to substance, just like all other things. But if He is of such a kind as they say, it will be even more evident that He did not possess the name "Son" from the beginning, if indeed this name was bestowed upon Him as a reward for His works and progress—which was nothing other than when He became man and took the form of a servant. For it is then, when He became obedient unto death, that He is said to have been highly exalted and to have received the name as a favor, "that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow" (Phil. 2, 10). What then was He before this, if He was exalted now, and now began to be worshipped, and now was called Son? For it appears that He did not in any way make the flesh better, but was rather Himself made better through it, if indeed, according to their wicked opinion, He was then exalted and called Son when He became man. D What, then, was He before this? For it is necessary to question them again, so that the end of their impiety may finally be seen. For if the Lord is God, Son, and Word, and yet was none of these things before He became man, either He was something else besides these, and later became a partaker of them through virtue, as we said; or [it must be] the other alternative, which ought to fall back upon their own heads, namely, that they must say that He was not even then anything at all before this, but was entirely a man by nature, and nothing more. But this is not the [doctrine] of the Church; rather, it is that of the Samosatene.
and of the Jews of this time. Since, therefore, they hold the same opinions as they do, why are they not circumcised like the Jews, but hypocritically profess the Christian faith, while struggling against it? For if He did not exist, or if He existed but was improved later, how were all things made through Him, or how did the Father rejoice in Him, if A He were not perfect? And if He Himself has now been improved, how did He rejoice in the presence of the Father before this? And how, if after death He received the right to be worshipped, does Abraham appear worshipping Him in the tent, and Moses in the bush? And, as Daniel saw, how did ten thousand times ten thousand and thousands of thousands minister to Him? Or how, if, according to them, He possessed the improvement only now, did the Son Himself, remembering His glory before the world and His supercelestial glory, say: "Glorify Me, Father, with the glory which I had with You before the world was"? But if He was exalted only B now, as they think, how did He bow the heavens and descend before this? And again: "The Most High uttered His voice." Therefore, if the Son possessed the glory even before the world was made, and was Lord of glory and Most High, and descended from heaven, and is always to be worshipped, then He was not improved by descending, but rather He Himself improved those things that were in need of improvement. And if He descended for the sake of improving us, He did not receive the name of Son and God as a reward; but He Himself made us sons of His Father, and, having Himself become man, made men gods.
59. He did not, therefore, being a man, subsequently become God; but on the contrary, being God, He later became man, that He might rather deify us. For if, when He became man, He was then called Son and God, but before He became man, God called the ancient peoples sons, and appointed Moses god of Pharaoh, and the Scripture says of many: "God stood in the congregation of the gods," it is clear that He was called Son and God after them. How then are all things through Him, and is He Himself before all? Or how is He the firstborn of all creation, having those who were called sons and gods before Himself? And how do the first partakers of the Word not participate? This opinion is not true; it is a pretext of those who now judaize. For how C if now they have the mindset of the Jews? Why then do they hold the same views as those, and not also get circumcised like the Jews, but instead feign Christianity, while they are at war with it? For if He was not, or if He existed, but was improved later, how did all things come to pass through Him? Or in what way, if He were not perfect, did the Father rejoice in Him? And He Himself, if He has now been improved, how before this did He rejoice in the presence of the Father? And how, if after death He received the right to be worshipped, does Abraham appear worshipping Him in the tent, and Moses by the bush? And as Daniel saw, were thousands of thousands and ten thousand times ten thousand ministering to Him? And how, if He now, according to them, obtained the improvement, did the Son Himself, remembering the glory He had before the world and the supermundane glory, say: "Glorify Me, O Father, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was"? But if He was exalted now, according to them, how before this did He bow the heavens and descend? And again: "The Most High gave forth His voice"? Therefore, if the Son had the glory even before the world was made, and was Lord of glory and Most High, and descended from heaven, and is always to be worshipped, then He was not improved by descending, but rather He Himself improved the things that needed improvement; and if He descended for the sake of improving, He did not then receive the name of Son and God as a reward, but rather He Himself made us sons to the Father, and made men gods, having Himself become man.
59. Therefore, He did not, being a man, later become God; but on the contrary, being God, He later became man, that He might rather make us gods. For if, when He became man, He was then called Son and God, but before He became man, God called the ancient peoples sons, and set Moses as a god to Pharaoh, and the Scripture says of many, "God stood in the congregation of gods"; it is clear that this [One] was called Son and God after them. How then are all things through Him, and is He Himself before all things? Or how is He the first-born of all creation, having those who were called sons and gods before Himself? And how is it that the first partakers of the Word do not partake? This glory is not true; it is a D invention of those who now judaize. For how
A can anyone know God the Father at all? For there could be no adoption without the true Son, as He Himself says: "No one knows the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son may reveal Him" (Matt. XI, 27). And how could there be a "becoming God" without the Word, and before the Word, even though He said to the Jews, the brothers of these men, "If He called them gods, to whom the Word of God came" (Joan. X, 35)? If, however, all who were called sons and gods, whether on earth or in the heavens, were made sons and made gods through the Word, and the Son Himself is the Word, it is clear that all things were made through Him, but He is before all things—nay rather, He alone is the true Son, and alone is the true God from the true God, having received these things not as a reward for virtue, nor being another than these, but being these by nature and essence. For He exists as the offspring of the Father's essence, so that no one can doubt B that the Word is also immutable, according to the likeness of the immutable Father.
40. Hactenus quideme Hitherto, then, we have responded to their illogical inventions, just as the Lord Himself has given us grace. But it is good now to set forth the divine oracles, so that the immutability of the Son may be more fully confirmed, and His paternal nature may be clearly shown to be devoid of change, and the wickedness of these men more apparent. Thus, writing to the Philippians, the Apostle says: "Have this mind among yourselves, which you have in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men and being found in fashion as a man. He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Philip. II, 5-11). What could be clearer or more demonstrative than this? For He did not become better from something inferior; but rather, being God, He took the form of a servant, and in that taking, He was not improved, but He humbled Himself. Where, then, in these things is the reward of virtue, or what sort of progress and improvement is there in humiliation? For if, being C God, He has become man, and D
A having descended from on high, is said to be exalted, where is He exalted, being God? It is evident, again, from this fact, that since God is the Most High, it must of necessity be that His Word also is the Most High. Where, then, had He any greater need to be exalted, He who is in the Father and is the likeness of the Father in all things? Therefore, He stands in no need of any increase, nor is He someone other than the one whom the Arians falsely imagine. For if the Word descended so that He might be exalted, and these things are written, what need was there at all to humble Himself, that He should seek to receive that which He already possessed? And what sort of grace did the Giver of grace receive? Or how did He receive a name for the purpose of being worshipped, He who was always worshipped in His own name? Even before He became man, the saints cried out: "O God, in Thy name save me," and again: "Some in chariots, and some in horses, but we will be magnified in the name of the Lord our God." He was worshipped by the patriarchs; and concerning the angels it is written: "And let all the angels of God worship Him."
41. B And if, as David also sings in the seventy-first psalm, "Before the sun His name abideth, and before the moon unto generations of generations," how did He receive that which He always had, even before now receiving it? Or how is He exalted, who was the Most High even before He was exalted? Or how was it given to Him to be worshipped by others, who was always worshipped even before He obtained this honor now? It is not an enigma, but a divine mystery: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," and for our sake this same Word afterwards became flesh. Thus, this expression, "He exalted," does not signify that the nature of the Word was exalted—for He always was and is equal to God—but it indicates the exaltation of human nature. These things, therefore, are not spoken of until the Word became flesh, so that it might be evident that these words, "He humbled" and "He exalted," are to be understood C as referring to the humanity alone. For only that which is lowly can be exalted. Wherefore, if it is written on account of the flesh that was assumed that "He humbled," it is clear that the expression "He exalted" is to be understood in the same way. For man, lowly by reason of flesh and death, had need of this honor. Since, therefore, He who was the image of the Father and the immortal Word put on the form of a servant, and endured for us as man in His own flesh the death, so that He might thus offer Himself for us D through death to God.
A For this reason, also as man, He is said for us and on our behalf to be highly exalted, so that, just as in His death we all died in Christ, so in Christ Himself we might be exalted again, being raised from the dead and ascending into the heavens, where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, not into shadows of the true things, but into heaven itself, to appear now before the face of God on our behalf. If then Christ has now entered into heaven itself on our behalf, although He was even before this and always the Lord and Creator B of the heavens, then it is written that He is exalted for our sake too. And just as He, who sanctifies all, says again that He sanctifies Himself for us to the Father—not that the Word might become holy, but that He might sanctify us all in Himself—so also the expression now used, "He highly exalted Him," does not mean that He is exalted (for He is the Most High), but that the meaning is this: that He became righteousness for us, while we ourselves were exalted in Him, and entered into the gates of the heavens, which He opened again for us, as those going before said: "Lift up your gates, O princes, and be lifted up, O eternal gates, and the King of glory shall enter in." For the gates were not closed to Him, being Lord and Maker of all; C but this is written for our sake, to whom the gate of paradise was closed. Therefore, it is said of Him in a human way, because of the flesh He wore: "Lift up the gates," and "He shall enter," as though a man were entering; but again, it is said of Him in a divine way, because the Word is also God, that He is the Lord and the King of glory. Now, the Spirit foretold this our exaltation in the eighty-eighth Psalm, saying: "And in Thy righteousness they shall be exalted, for Thou art the pride of their power." If then the Son is righteousness, He does not therefore have need of exaltation, but we are they who are exalted in the righteousness which He Himself is.
42. Similarly, the words "He gave to Him" are not written on account of the Word Himself. For He was already being worshipped, even before He became man, as we have said, by the angels and by all created things, according to His paternal property; but this D is written again concerning Him for our sake and on our behalf. For just as as man [alt-version omitted]
A Christ died and was exalted, so also, as man, He is said to receive what He always had as God, so that such grace bestowed might reach even to us. For the Word was not diminished by taking flesh, so that He would need to receive grace, but rather He made divine that which He put on, and He enriched the human race with this all the more. For just as the Word, being always B and existing in the form of God, was worshipped, so the same One, having become man and being called Jesus, nonetheless has all creation under His feet, and in this name every knee bows to Him, confessing that even the fact that the Word became flesh and endured death in the flesh happened not in dishonor of His divinity, but to the glory of God the Father. For the Father’s glory is that man—who had been created, yet was lost—should be found, and having been brought to death, be made alive, and become a temple of God. For even those in heaven, C the powers, the angels and archangels, while they ever worshipped the Lord, now worship Him in the name of Jesus; this grace and exaltation is ours, that the Son of God, having become man, is worshipped, and the heavenly powers will not be surprised to see us all—who have bodies of the same nature as He—being introduced into their realms. This, however, would not have happened otherwise, unless He who was in the form of God had taken the form of a servant and humbled Himself, allowing His body to reach the point of death.
43. Therefore, what seemed to be foolishness to men on account of the cross D has become more honorable than all things. For our resurrection is placed in it, and no longer only Israel, but now also all the nations, as the prophet foretold, are forsaking their own idols and acknowledging the true God, the Father of Christ. The illusion of the demons is also destroyed, and the only true God is worshipped in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. And the fact that the Lord, even having assumed a body and being called Jesus, is worshipped and believed to be the Son of God, and that through Him the Father is recognized, clearly indicates, as we have said, that it is not the Word, as Word, who received such grace, but we. For because of our kinship with His body, we too have become a temple of God and have henceforth obtained the dignity of sons of God, so that the Lord is already worshipped in us, and those who see us declare, as the Apostle has said, that God is truly in them. This same thing John also
saying: "As many as received him, to them he gave power to become children of God"; and in his Epistle he writes: "In this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit which he has given us." And this is a token of the goodness that has come to us from him, that we have been exalted through the indwelling of the most high Lord within us, and that grace is given for our sake, because the Lord who bestows grace became man like us. Yet the Savior himself humbled himself by taking our humble body; he took the form of a slave when he assumed the flesh which had been enslaved to sin. And he himself received nothing from us for his own improvement; for the Word of God is needy of nothing and is full. But we were rather improved by him. For he is the light that "enlightens every man coming into the world."
And in vain do the Arians rely on the conjunction "therefore," because Paul says: "Therefore God also has highly exalted him." For he did not speak this to signify a reward for virtue or an increase in progress for him, but to point to the cause of the exaltation that occurred for our sake. For what else is this than that he who was in the form of God, and is the Son of a noble Father, humbled himself B and became a slave for us and in our stead? For if the Lord had not become man, we would never have been redeemed from sins or raised from the dead, but we would have remained dead under the earth; nor would we have been exalted to the heavens, but we would have lain in Hades. Therefore, the statement "highly exalted" and "gave" is indeed for our sake and on our behalf.
44. I consider this to be the meaning of the passage and a most ecclesiastical one. Yet one might also attempt a second interpretation of the passage, without departing from the same sentiment, by saying that it does not mean that the Word himself, insofar as he is the Word, is exalted (for, as was said a little before, he is most high and equal to the Father), but that the passage is indicative of his resurrection from the dead on account of his human incarnation. For when he says, "he humbled himself even unto death," he immediately added, "therefore he has highly exalted him," wishing to show C that, even if he is said to be dead as man, yet as he is Life, he was exalted by the resurrection; for "He who descended is the same as he who also ascended." Indeed, he descended bodily; but he rose again because he was God in the body. And this is the reason again why he added to this thought the conjunction, "therefore," which [signifies] not a reward of virtue nor progress. D
A but is indicative of the cause, by which the resurrection has come to pass; and because of which cause all other men from Adam B until now have died and remained dead, whereas this one alone rose complete from the dead. And this is the very cause which he himself declared before: that, being God, he became man. For all other men, being merely from Adam, died and had death reigning over them; but this second man is from heaven; for the Word became flesh. And such a 76 man is said to be from heaven and heavenly, because the Word descended from heaven; wherefore he was not held by death. For even if he humbled himself, having permitted his own 77 body to reach unto death, because it was capable of death; yet it was exalted from the earth, because the Son of God was in that body. The meaning of what is said here is therefore equivalent to what C is said in the Acts by Peter 78: "Whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it." For as it is written by Paul: "Because, being in the form of God, he became man, and humbled himself unto death, therefore God also hath exalted him"; so also it is said by 79 Peter, that because, being God, he became man, and his signs and wonders showed him to those who saw him to be God, therefore it was not possible for him to be held by death. For it was not possible for a man to accomplish this; for death is proper to men 80; for this reason the Word, being God, became flesh, that, having been put to death in the flesh, he might quicken all by his own power.
45. Since, however, it is said that he himself was exalted, and that God gave to him [that which he has], and the heretics think this to be a defect or a passion 81 of the substance of the Word, it is necessary to explain how these things are said. For he is said to be exalted from the lower parts of the earth, since his death is also spoken of. And both are called his, because the body that was raised from the dead and taken up into the heavens 82 was his, and not another's. And since the body was his, and the Word was not outside of it, it is reasonable that, the body being exalted, he himself, as man 83, is said to be exalted on account of the body. If, therefore, he has not become
A man, let not these things be said of him; but if the Word has become flesh, it is necessary that his resurrection and exaltation be spoken of as concerning a man, so that his death, as it is called, may be a ransom for the sins of men and the destruction of death; and that the resurrection and exaltation may remain firm for us through him. Regarding both, he said: "God highly exalted him," and "God gave to him," so that even by this he might show B again that it is not the Father who became flesh, but his Word who became man, who receives humanly from the Father and is exalted by him, as has been said. It is clear, and no one could doubt, that whatever the Father gives, he gives through the Son. And it is a paradox and truly amazing; for the grace which the Son bestows from the Father, this the Son himself is said to receive; and the exaltation which the Son effects from the Father, this same exaltation he is said to obtain, as if he himself were being exalted. For he who is the Son of God himself C became also the Son of man; and as the Word, he gives the things of the Father—for all things that the Father does and gives, he does and provides through him—but as the Son of man, he is said to receive humanly those things which he himself gives, because the body, which has the nature to receive grace, is his own and not another’s, just as has been said. For the man was receiving [grace] in that he was being exalted. And the exaltation was his being deified. But the Word himself always possessed this according to his own paternal divinity and perfection D.
46. Therefore, the passage written by the Apostle, having such a meaning, refutes the impious. But what is said by the psalmist has likewise the same orthodox sense, which these men indeed distort by misinterpretation, but which the psalmist clearly shows to be pious; for he himself also says: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. A scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated iniquity; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions." See, O Arians, and recognize even from this the truth. The Psalmist has called us all companions of the Lord. But if the Son were from non-being and were one of the creatures, he himself would also be numbered among the companions. Since, however, he has heralded him as eternal God, saying: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever," while he has declared all other things to be participants of him, what else must be understood
different from created things, it is clear that he alone is the Word of the Father, the radiance and wisdom of whom all created things partake and are sanctified by him through the Spirit. And here, indeed, he is anointed, not in order that he might become God—for he was this even before—nor that he might become a king—for he reigned eternally, existing as the image of God, as the scripture shows—but this too is written for our sake. For the kings of Israel, when they were anointed, then became kings, not being kings before, as David, Hezekiah, Josiah, and others; but the Savior, being the opposite, namely God, and always possessing the kingdom of the Father, and being himself the dispenser of the Holy Spirit, is yet said to be anointed now, so that again, as he is said to be anointed as man by the Spirit, he might prepare for us who are human, just as with his exaltation and rising, so also the indwelling and intimacy of the Spirit. B This the Lord himself pointed out by his own words, as it is read in the Gospel according to John: "I sent them into the world, and for their sake I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth." By these words he disclosed that he is not the one who is sanctified, but the one who sanctifies; for he is not sanctified by another, but he himself sanctifies himself, so that we might be sanctified in the truth. And the Lord who sanctifies himself is the Lord of sanctification. What then does this mean, or what else does he say than words of this kind: "I, who am the Word of the Father, myself give the Spirit to myself as having become man, and I sanctify myself, having become man, in him, so that from then on, all may be sanctified in me, who am the truth"? C
47. But if he sanctifies himself for our sake, and does this when he has become man, it is clear that the descent of the Spirit upon him in the Jordan also happened for us, because he was bearing our body, and that this did not happen for the improvement of the Word, but for our sanctification again, so that we might partake of his anointing, and it might be said of us: "Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and the Spirit of God dwells in you?" For since the Lord, as man, was being washed in the Jordan, we ourselves, in him and by him,
God while not being God, if, while not being King, he attained to kingly dignity, your argument would have at least a shadow of plausibility. But if he is God, and the throne of his kingdom is eternal, how, I ask, could God progress, or what could be lacking to him who sat upon the throne of the Father? If, moreover, as the Lord himself has said, the Spirit is his, and receives from him, and he himself sends it, then it is not the Word, in so far as he is the Word and Wisdom, who is anointed with the Spirit given by him; but it is the flesh which he assumed, which is being anointed in him and by him, so that the holiness, having been infused into the Lord as into a man, might flow forth from him unto all men. For "the Spirit," he says, "does not speak from himself," but it is the Word who gives it to the worthy. For this is also similar to the aforementioned passage, for as the Apostle wrote, "Who, being in the form of God, did not account it robbery to be equal with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant"; thus David celebrates the Lord in hymns as the eternal God and King, who, having been sent to us, put on our mortal body. A For we were those who were washed by him and from him. And even when he received the Spirit, we were the ones who became recipients of this from him. For this reason, he is not anointed with oil in the same way that Aaron or David or all others were, but rather in a way different from all those who are his partakers, with the "oil of gladness." Interpreting this himself to be the Spirit, he says through the prophet: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me." And as the Apostle also has said: "How God anointed him with the Holy Spirit." When, therefore, were these things said of him, if not when, having assumed flesh, he underwent baptism in the Jordan, and the Spirit descended upon him? And yet, does not the Lord himself say: "The Spirit shall receive of mine"; and, "I will send it"; and, "Receive the Holy Spirit," to the disciples? And yet, he who provides for others as the Word and reflection of the Father is now said to be sanctified, because he has again become man, and his body is that which is being sanctified. From that moment, then, did we also begin to receive the anointing and the seal, when John said: "And you have an anointing from the Holy One"; and the Apostle: "And you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise." Therefore, what is said is for our sake and on our behalf. B What progress in improvement, then, and what reward of virtue or simply of action of the Lord is shown from this? C For the Spirit, he says, does not speak from himself, but it is the Word who gives it to the worthy. For this is similar to the passage just mentioned; for as the Apostle wrote: "Who, being in the form of God, did not treat it as robbery to be equal to God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant"; D thus David celebrates the Lord in hymns as the eternal God and King, who, having been sent to us, put on our mortal body.
A For this is what is meant by these words of the Psalm: *Myrrh and aloes and cassia from thy garments* (Ps. XLIV, 9); which is confirmed both by Nicodemus and by Mary and her companions: the former when he came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, a hundred pounds (John XIX, 39); the latter when they brought the spices which they had prepared for the burial of the Lord's body (Luke XXIV, 1).
48. What advancement, then, could come to the Immortal who assumed the mortal, or what change for the better to the Eternal who put on the temporal? And what greater reward could come to the Eternal God and King, who is in the bosom of the Father? Do you not perceive that this, too, was done and written on account of us and for our sakes, in order that the Lord, having become man, might make us, who are mortal and temporal, immortal and bring us into the eternal kingdom of the heavens? B Are you not ashamed, you who dare to adulterate the divine scriptures with a false interpretation? For after our Lord Jesus Christ had come, we were indeed improved, having been set free from sin; but He Himself is entirely the same. Nor, because He became man (for the same thing must be repeated), was He changed; but, as it is written, *The word of the Lord abides forever* (Isa. XL, 8). Indeed, just as before the incarnation, He, being the Word, ministered the Spirit to the saints as His own, so also, having become man, He sanctifies all by the Spirit, and says to the disciples: *Receive the Holy Spirit* (John XX, 22). C He gave it Himself to Moses and to others, the seventy (Num. XI, 16), and through Him David also entreated the Father, saying: *Take not thy holy Spirit from me* (Ps. L, 13). And having become man, He said: *I will send to you the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth* (John XV, 26); and He the truthful Word of God did send Him. Therefore Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, and for eternity (Heb. XIII, 8) remaining immutable, and He is the same who gives and who receives: He gives as the Word of God, He receives as man. D The Word, therefore, as Word, does not advance for the better; for He had and always has all things. But it is men who have in Him and through Him the beginning of receiving. Hence, because He is said to be anointed according to human nature, we are the ones who are anointed in Him; and when He is baptized, we are those who are baptized in Him.
And the Savior makes this more clear regarding all these things, A saying to the Father: "And the glory which You gave Me, I have given them, that they may be one, just as We are one" (John xvii, 22). Therefore, it was for our sake that He asked for glory, and the expressions "He received," "He graced," and "He highly exalted" were spoken so that we might receive, and He might grace us, and we might be exalted in Him, just as He also sanctifies Himself for our sake, so that we might be sanctified in Him.
49. But if those who are ignorant of the Scriptures and inventors of impiety again try to twist the words of the Psalm, "Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You" (Ps. xliv, 8) to their own meaning—to suit what they wish—let them know that here again the "Therefore" does not signify a reward for the virtue or action of the Word, but rather the cause of His coming to us and of the anointing of the Spirit that took place in Him on our behalf. For He did not say, "Therefore He anointed You, that You might become God, or King, or Son, or Word"—for He was and is always these things before this, as has been shown—but rather, "Since You are God and King, therefore You were anointed," since no one else could unite man with the Holy Spirit except You, who are the image of the Father, B in whose likeness we too were created from the beginning. For the Spirit itself is Yours. For the nature of created things was not capable of this office, since angels have transgressed and men have refused to obey God. Therefore, there was need of God (and the Word is God) to set free those who were being oppressed under the yoke of a curse. If, therefore, He were from things that are not, He Himself would not be Christ, seeing that He would have a place among other created things and would likewise be a participant. But because He is God, being the Son of God, and is an eternal King, being the radiance and express image of the Father, therefore He is fittingly the Christ who was expected, whom the Father announced beforehand to men, when He revealed Him to His holy prophets; so that, just as we were created through Him, so also the redemption of all from sins might take place in Him, C and all things might be under His kingdom. And this is the cause of the anointing that happened to Him and of the incarnate presence of the Word, which the Psalmist, foreseeing, and singing of His divinity and paternal kingdom, proclaims: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever: a rod of rectitude is the rod of Your kingdom" (Ps. xliv, 7). But when His advent to us de- D
- B nounced, He says: "Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness above Your fellows" (Ps. xliv, 8).
50. Furthermore, A what is surprising or incredible if the Lord, who gives the Spirit, is said now to be anointed by the Spirit—He who, when necessity demanded, did not refuse to speak of Himself as inferior to the Spirit because of His human nature? For when the Jews objected that He cast out demons in the name of Beelzebub, He answered, in order to convict their impiety: "But if I in the Spirit of God cast out demons" (Matt. xii, 28). Behold, He who grants the Spirit now confesses that He casts out demons by the Spirit—a thing which is certainly said for no other reason than on account of the flesh. For since human nature is not of itself capable of casting out demons except by the power of the Spirit, for this reason, as a man, He said: "But if I in the Spirit of God cast out demons." B Moreover, He even says that the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is greater than that which is brought against Himself as man. "Whosoever," He says, "shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him" (Matt. xii, 32)—such as were those who said: "Is not this the carpenter’s son?" (Matt. xiii, 55). But those who utter blasphemy against the Spirit, and attribute the works of the Word to the devil, they will surely be subject to inescapable punishment. And these things the Lord said to the Jews as a man; but showing His divinity and majesty to the disciples, and signifying that He was not inferior to the Spirit, but equal, He Himself gave the Spirit and said: "Receive the Holy Spirit" (John xx, 22); and, "I send Him to you; and He shall glorify Me; and whatsoever He shall hear, He shall speak" (John xvi, 7, 14, 13). As therefore here this Lord, the giver of the Spirit, did not hesitate to say that He cast out demons by the Spirit, as man; in the same way, He who grants the Spirit was not burdened to say: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He has anointed me" (Isa. lxi, 1)—because, as John says, He had become flesh: by which it was made manifest that
A we are the ones who are in need of the grace of the Spirit in order to be sanctified, and are not able to cast out demons without the power of the Spirit. Through whom, furthermore, and from whom ought the Spirit to be given, if not through the Son, whose Spirit it also is? And when could we have been able to receive it, unless when the Word became man? And just as what is said by the Apostle shows that we would not have been redeemed and exalted, unless He who was in the form of God had taken the form of a servant; so also David shows that we would not otherwise have become partakers of the Spirit and been sanctified, unless the Word Himself, the Giver of the Spirit, had said that He Himself was anointed with the Spirit for our sake. Wherefore we have also received it securely, since He is said to have been anointed in the flesh. For since the flesh in Him was the first to be sanctified, and He Himself is said to have received the gift on its account, as man—we, following after, receive the grace of the Spirit from His fullness.
51. "You have loved righteousness and hated iniquity" (Ps. xliv, 8) B is set down in the Psalm, not as you again imagine, to show the nature of the Word to be mutable, but rather to signify His immutability from this very fact. For since the nature of generated things is mutable—and some have transgressed, while others have disobeyed, as has been said—and their conduct is not stable, but it often happens that one who is now good is subsequently turned and becomes someone else, so that he who was currently righteous is found after a little to be unrighteous: for this reason there was need again of One who is immutable, so that men might have the unchangeableness of the righteousness of the Word as an image and pattern for virtue. And such a line of reasoning C has also a plausible cause for those who think correctly. For since the first man, Adam, was turned, and through sin death entered into the world, for this reason it was fitting that the second Adam should be immutable: so that, if the serpent should again attempt it, the deceit of the serpent might be weakened, and, the Lord being immutable and unchangeable, the serpent might become weak in its attempts against all. For just as, when Adam transgressed, sin reached to all men, so, when the Lord became man D
A and conquered the serpent, such power shall pass to all men, so that each of us may say: "For we are not ignorant of his devices." Therefore, it is with good reason that the Lord, who is always and by nature immutable [(56)], loving righteousness and hating iniquity, is anointed and sent, so that, being and remaining the same, having taken on mutable flesh, he might condemn sin in it, and make it free [(57)] thereafter, so that it might be able to fulfill the commandment of the Law in itself, so that we may even be able to say: "But we [(58)] are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in us."
360 52. In vain, therefore, O Arians, has this suspicion arisen among you; in vain do you offer the words of the Scriptures as a pretext. For the Word of God is immutable B and always the same, and holds not otherwise than the Father. For how is he like, unless he is such? Or how could all things that are the Father’s be the Son’s, unless he possessed the immutability of the Father? He is not, as it were, subject to laws, nor flexible in either direction, loving this and hating that, lest, for fear of falling, he should embrace something other than he ought, and thus be introduced again as mutable in some other way. But as God and the Word of the Father, he is a just judge and a lover of virtue, or rather, the bestower of virtue. Because, therefore, he is by nature just and holy, for this reason he is said [(60)] to love righteousness and hate iniquity; which is the same as saying that he loves and embraces those who are virtuous, but turns away from and hates the unjust. For the divine Scriptures testify the same thing C even concerning the Father: "The Lord is righteous and loves righteousness [(62)]; and, "You have hated all who work iniquity"; and, "He loves the gates of Sion, but does not esteem the tabernacles of Jacob as much"; and, "Jacob indeed he loved, but Esau he hated [(68)]." And according to Isaiah, it is the voice of God again saying: "I am the Lord who loves righteousness and hates robberies [(63)] from iniquity." Either, therefore, let them interpret those words just as they interpret these, for those too were written concerning the image of God; or else, by wrongly understanding these as they interpret those, let them imagine the Father to be mutable [(64)]. But if it is not without danger even to hear such things when others are saying them, for that reason we rightly understand these things, namely that God is said to love righteousness and to hate unjust robberies, not as if in some D
A way He has an inclination toward one side or is capable of the contrary, so that He might choose one and not select the other; for this is characteristic of created beings. But rather, as a judge, He loves and receives the righteous [(66)], while He stands far from the wicked. It would follow that one should think the same concerning the image of God, that he in this way loves and hates. For the nature of the image [(67)] must be such as the Father of it is, even if the Arians, being blind, see neither this nor anything else in the divine oracles. For having fallen away [(68)] from the thoughts of their own heart, or rather from their own delusions, they flee back to the words of the divine Scriptures; and being as usual unperceptive regarding these too, they do not see the mind within them, but having set their own impiety as a sort of canon [(69)], they twist all the divine oracles toward it. And as they utter these alone, they are worthy to hear nothing else but: "You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God." But if they persist [(70)], they must again be turned back and told: "Render to man what is man’s, and to God what is God’s." B
53. They say that it is written in the Proverbs [(insert note: Prov. VIII, 22)]: "The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works." C And in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Apostle says: "Having become [(71)] as much better than the angels, as he has inherited a more excellent name than them," and a little later: "Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus, who is faithful to Him who made Him." And in the Acts: "Therefore, let it be known [(72)] to all you, all the house of Israel, that God has made both Lord and Christ this [(73)] Jesus, whom you crucified." By bringing these passages up and down and wandering in their understanding, they have supposed [(74)] from these that the Word of God is a creature and a work, and one of those things that have come into being; and in this way they deceive the foolish, putting forward the literal words [(75)] as a pretext, but instead of the true meaning, they spread the venom of their own heresy—for if they understood, they would not have acted impiously against the Lord... D
nor misinterpreted things correctly written. A If, therefore, having openly adopted the manner of Caiaphas, they have decided to Judaize, so as to ignore what is written, namely, that God will truly dwell on earth, then let them not examine the apostolic utterances—for this is not a Jewish [way]. But if, having entered into association with the most impious Manichæans, they deny that the Word became flesh and deny His incarnate presence, let them not bring forward the Proverbs; for this is foreign even to the Manichæans. But if, on account of the dignity they hold, and the profit from avarice they have derived from it, and for the sake of preserving their reputation and through a desire for glory, they do not dare to deny that the Word became flesh—because it is indeed written—then let them either correctly understand the words written about Him regarding the corporeal presence of the Savior, or, if they wish to reject what those words signify, let them also deny that the Lord became man. For it is highly unbecoming to confess that the Word became flesh, yet to blush at what is written about Him, and for that reason to deprave the genuine sense of Scripture. B
54. Therefore, it is written C that He became better than the angels; for it is necessary to examine this first. But it is necessary, just as it is fitting to do in the case of all divine Scripture, and indeed it is necessary, to observe here also, as the Apostle said, the occasion, the person, and the matter D for which he wrote, and to attend to them accurately and faithfully, so that no one, being ignorant of these, or understanding something other than these, might stray outside the true meaning. For that studious eunuch, knowing this, besought Philip, saying: "I beseech thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?" He was afraid lest, by applying the reading to the wrong person, he might be led astray from the correct understanding. And the disciples also, wishing to learn the time of the things the Lord was predicting, questioned Him in this way: "Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of Thy coming?" And they themselves, hearing from the Savior the things concerning the end, wished to learn the time as well, so that they might not themselves be led astray, but might also be able to teach others. Having learned this, they corrected their members.
A When, then, someone possesses a sound understanding of such things, he has a correct and healthy conception of faith; but if someone takes any of these in a different sense, he immediately falls into heresy. For instance, those around Hymenaeus and Alexander were led astray by time, saying that the resurrection had already occurred; and the Galatians [were led astray] after the time, by taking a fancy to circumcision now. The Jews, likewise, have suffered and even now suffer a mistake regarding the person, thinking that the passage, "Behold, the Virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel," which is interpreted "God with us," is spoken about one of them; and when it says, "God will raise up a prophet for us," they B think it is spoken about one of the prophets; and as for the words, "He was led as a sheep to the slaughter," they do not learn from Philip, but assume it refers to Isaiah or some other one of the prophets who lived.
55. The same thing, indeed, has befallen these enemies of Christ; they have fallen into an abominable heresy. For if they had recognized the person, the fact, and the time of the apostolic statement, they would not, by taking human things into the Godhead, have fallen into such impiety, senseless as they are. This is possible to see if someone takes the beginning of the reading correctly. For the Apostle says: "God, having spoken in many ways C and in various manners of old to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by his Son." Then after a little he says: "Having made by himself a cleansing of our sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become so much better than the angels, as he has inherited a more excellent name than them." The apostolic statement therefore mentions of the time in which God spoke to us in the Son, when also the cleansing of sins occurred. But when did He speak to us in the Son? And when did the cleansing of sins take place? And when did He become man, if not after the prophets in the last D of the days? Then, since the account is concerning the dispensation for our sake, speaking of the last times, he conveniently mentions that God did not keep silent to men in former times; for He spoke to them through the prophets. And since
A the prophets ministered, and the law was spoken through angels, and the Son also deigned to come and came to minister, he necessarily added, B *Being made so much better than the angels*, wishing to show that by as much as the Son differs from a servant, by so much also the ministry of the Son has become better than the ministry of servants. The Apostle, therefore, distinguishing the ministry—both the old and the new—speaks confidently, writing to the Jews and saying: *Being made so much better than the angels*. For this reason, then, he did not even speak it in a comparative sense, saying "greater" or "more honorable," lest anyone should suspect Him to be of the same genus as them; but he said "better," in order to demonstrate the difference in nature between the Son and created things. And we have the proof of these things from the divine Scriptures, David singing: *Better is one day in thy courts above thousands*; and Solomon proclaiming: *Receive instruction, and not silver, and knowledge above tested gold; for wisdom is better than precious stones, and every valuable thing is not worthy of it*. For how are wisdom and stones from the earth not of different substance and nature? Or what kinship is there between the heavenly courts and the houses upon earth? Or what similarity can there be between eternal and spiritual things and those that are temporal and mortal? For this is the very thing which Isaiah says: *Thus says the Lord to the eunuchs: Whoever shall keep my Sabbaths, and choose the things that I desire, and hold fast to my covenant, I will give them in my house and in my wall a famous place; I will give them a name better than sons and daughters, an eternal name, and it shall not fail*. C Thus, therefore, there is no kinship between the Son and the angels; and since there is no kinship, the term "better" was not spoken comparatively, but distinctively, because of the difference of His nature from theirs. And so the Apostle himself, explaining the word "better," attributes that which is signified by it to nothing other than the difference between the Son and created things, saying that the one is Son, while the others are servants; and while He, as Son, sits at the right hand with the Father, they, as servants, stand, are sent, and minister.
A With these things thus written, it is not a creature that is indicated by them as the Son, O Arians, but rather one who is distinct from the things created, and proper to the Father, being in His bosom. For indeed, even that which is written here, "made," does not signify that the Son is a creature, as you suppose. For if he had simply said "made," and been silent, there would have been some opportunity for the Arians to contend; but since he has previously invoked the Son, and by the whole passage demonstrated Him to be distinct from the things created, he did not set down the word "made" in an absolute sense, but joined "better" B with "made." For he considered the word indifferent, knowing that when one who is speaking of the acknowledged, genuine Son says "made," it is equal to "has been begotten," and that He is greater, he says. For a begotten thing does not differ, even if someone says "it has come to be" or "it has been created"; but things created, being works, cannot be called begotten—unless perhaps, having thereafter partaken of the begotten Son, they also are said to have been begotten; not indeed because of their own nature, but because of their participation in the Son in the Spirit. And divine Scripture again knows this; saying of created things: "All things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made" (John I, 3); and, "In wisdom You made them all" (Ps. CIII, 24). But regarding begotten children, it speaks thus: "There were born to Job seven sons and three daughters" (Job I, 2); C and, "Abraham was a hundred years old when Isaac his son was born to him" (Gen. XXI, 5). And Moses said: "If any sons are born to someone." Therefore, if He is distinct from the things created, and the Son is the only proper offspring of the Father's essence, the pretext for the Arians regarding "made" is rendered vain. For even if, ashamed in these matters, they struggle to say again that the utterances were spoken comparatively, and that because of this the things compared are of the same genus, so that the Son is of the nature of the angels; they will be ashamed primarily as they emulate and utter the things of Valentinus and Carpocrates D and other heretics, of whom the one said that the angels are of the same genus as Christ; and Carpocrates says that the angels are the creators of the world. For perhaps having learned even this from them, these men also compare the Word of God to the angels.
A Indeed, they will be compelled to blush by the holy singer, whose voices are these: "Who shall be compared to the Lord among the sons of God?" And, "Who is like to thee among the gods, O Lord?" Nevertheless, we shall answer them, so that even in this way they may learn the truth, that a comparison is wont to be instituted between things that are agreed to be of the same genus, but not between those that have a different nature. Therefore, no one would compare God with man, nor again man with beasts, nor wood with stones, because of the dissimilarity of nature; but God is an incomparable thing, while man is compared with man, wood with wood, and stone with stone. And in these cases, one would not use the term "more excellent" (præstantius), but rather "more" (magis) or "plus" (plus). Thus, Joseph was more beautiful than his brothers, and Rachel more beautiful than Leah. And star is not "more excellent" (præstantior) than star, but one differs from another in glory. But when things of different nature are compared with one another, then the word "more excellent" (præstantior) or "more excellent" (præstantius) is used for the sake of signifying the difference, just as was said concerning wisdom and stones. If, therefore, the Apostle had said: "By so much more does the Son excel the angels," or "By so much is He greater than the angels," B there would indeed have been an opportunity for you to contend, as if the Son were being compared to the angels. But since he declares Him to be *more excellent*, and to differ as much as a son differs from servants, he manifestly shows Him to be other than the nature of the angels. Since he also affirms that He founded all things, he proves Him to be surely other than all created things. But if He is of a different nature from the nature of created things, what comparison, I ask, or what likeness has His nature with created things? For if they think up something similar again, Paul will confute them by saying these words: "To which of the angels did He say at any time: Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?" And to the angels He says: "Who makes his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire." C
58. Fieri ergo proprium est rerum factarum, quas opera esse dicit. At cum de Filio loquitur, non utitur factionis vocabulo, nec fieri ait : sed eum æternum regem, et creatorem hisce verbis agnoscit : Thronus tuus, Deus, in sæculum sæculi, et tu in principio, Domine, terram fundasti, et opera manuum tuarum sunt cœli. Ipsi peribunt, tu autem permanes. D 58. Behold, he calls the things that have been generated creations—and says that these are works—when addressing the Son, but he does not use the word "making" nor "to become," but speaks to the Eternal King and the Creator, saying: "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, and thou in the beginning, O Lord, didst found the earth, and the works of thy hands are the heavens. They shall perish, but thou remainest." From which they themselves could perceive, if they wished, that the artisan is one and the works are other: that He, indeed, is...
A God, while the generated things 34 are made from things that were not. For what is said now, "they shall perish," does not signify that creation is about to be destroyed, but is said in order to show the nature of generated things by their end. For things that can perish, even if they do not perish by the grace of their Maker, yet have been made from non-existence, and the fact that they did not exist at one time is testified to. Therefore, since things have such a nature, it is said of the Son: "But thou remainest" 37, that His eternity might be shown. For, not having the ability to perish as generated things have, but having the ability to remain always, it is foreign to Him to be spoken of as "He was not before He was begotten," but it is proper to Him to "always be" and to abide together with the Father 38. If, therefore, the Apostle had not written these things in the Epistle to the Hebrews, one would truly have been forbidden by the other Epistles of his and by the entire B Scripture from imagining any such thing concerning the Word 39. But since he himself wrote it, and it has been shown in the preceding that the Son is a birth 40 of the Father's substance; and that He is the Creator, and things are created by Him; and that He is the Radiance, and Word, and Image, and Wisdom of the Father, whereas created things are somewhere below the Trinity 41, destined to stand by and to serve—the Son is therefore of a different kind and nature than generated things, and is rather proper to the Father's substance and obtains the same nature as He. For this reason the Son Himself also did not say, "My Father is better than I" 42, lest anyone imagine Him to be of a different nature from the Father, but He said "greater," not by any magnitude or time, but because He is begotten from the Father Himself; yet in saying "greater," He again showed the property of His substance.
59 And the same Apostle, when he wished 45 to compare the Word primarily with generated things, said: "Being made so much better than the angels"—for He is incomparable, or rather, He is altogether other 44—but looking toward the incarnate arrival of the Word and the economy that then took place through Him, he wished to show that He was not like others 45, so that C when compared with things made—he said, "So much better than the angels." For they cannot be compared together, since they are diverse from one another. But attending to the bodily coming of the Word and His dispensation, he wished to indicate that He is not like those who had preceded, as, when
A by nature He differs from those who were sent by Him, by so much the more also the grace which occurs by Him and through Him might become better than the ministry by angels. For it was the part of servants only to demand the fruits; but it was the part of the Son and Master to grant the debts, and to transplant B the vine. And those things which are brought forward by the Apostle show the difference of the Son from things made, saying: "Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things that were heard, lest haply we drift away. For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward; how shall we escape, if we neglect so great a salvation? which having at the first been spoken through the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard." If the Son were one of the things made, He would not be better than them, nor would a greater punishment on His account be reserved for disobedience. For neither in the ministry of the angels was there any greater or less degree among those who sinned because of each of them; but there was one law, and one retribution C against those who transgressed. But since the Word is not of the things made, but is the Son of the Father, for this reason, by how much He Himself is better, and the things through Him are better and distinct, by so much would the punishment also be more severe. Let them then consider the grace through the Son, and recognize also from His works that He is witnessed to be such, that He is other than the things made, and He alone is the true Son in the Father, and the Father is in Him. The law was spoken through D angels, and it perfected no one, being in need of the coming of the Word, as Paul says. But the coming of the Word has perfected the work of the Father. And at that time, from Adam until Moses, death reigned; but the presence of the Word has abolished death; and no longer do we all die in Adam, but in Christ we are all made alive. And at that time, from Dan until Beersheba, the law was proclaimed, and in Judea alone God was known; but now their sound has gone out into all the earth, and all the earth is filled with the knowledge of God, and the disciples have taught all nations, and now that which is written is fulfilled: "They shall all be taught of God." And at that time that which was shown was a type; but now the
truth has been manifested; and this again the Apostle himself explains more clearly A after this, saying: *By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better Testament* (Heb. vii, 22). And again: *But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises* (Heb. viii, 6). And: *For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope* (Heb. vii, 19). And again he says: *It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these* (Heb. ix, 23). The term "better," therefore, he attributes now and throughout to the Lord, who is better and distinct from things created. For better is the sacrifice offered through Him; better the hope placed in Him; and the promises made through Him are so, not as though things great are compared with things small, but as being by nature distinct from others; since He who has administered these things is better than created things.
60. And what is said again, *he was made a surety*, signifies the suretyship for us that came to pass through Him. For just as, being the Word, He became flesh, and we account that "becoming" to the flesh (for it is generated and happens to be created), so also here, the word "was made"—that we may avoid understanding this in a secondary sense, because He became man—let the contentious hear, and let them know that even from this evil thinking of theirs they fall away: let them hear that Paul—who knew Him to be Son and Wisdom, and radiance, B and image of the Father—does not mean by these words that His nature was made, but refers this expression to the administration of the Testament, by which death, which had formerly reigned, was destroyed. For in this respect also the administration through Him has become better, in that God, having sent His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, which as to the law was impossible, in that it was weak through the flesh—having removed from it the transgression in which it was perpetually held captive, so that it could not receive the divine sense. But having fashioned the flesh to be receptive of the Word, He caused us no longer to walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit, and to say often: *But we are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit* (Rom. viii, 9); and, *That the Son of God came into the world, not that He should judge the world, but that all might be redeemed, and the world be saved through Him* (John iii, 17). For then, indeed, the world as guilty was judged C by the law; but now the Word unto Himself D
A received the judgment, and by suffering in the body for all, He bestowed salvation upon all. Seeing this, John cried out: "The law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (John i, 17). Grace is more excellent than the law, and truth than the shadow.
61. This, therefore, is expressed by the word "more excellent," as it has been said, because it could not be brought about by any other than by the Son, who sits at the right hand of the Father. And what does this signify, if not that He is the true Son, and that the divinity of the Father is also the divinity of the Son? For since the Son possesses the same kingdom as the Father, He sits upon the same throne as the Father; and being seen by the divinity B of the Father, the Word is God; and he who sees the Son sees the Father; and thus there is one God. Therefore, sitting at the right hand, He does not make the Father [to be on his] left: but whatever is right and honorable in the Father, this also the Son has, who Himself says: "All things that the Father hath are mine" (John xvi, 15). Wherefore the Son, sitting at the right hand of the Father, He Himself likewise sees the Father sitting at [His] right hand, although as having become man He says: "I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for He is at my right hand, that I should not be moved" (Ps. xv, 8). C For from this it is also plainly shown that the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son. For although the Father is the right, yet the Son also is at the right; and the Son sitting at the right hand, the Father Himself is in the Son. And the angels indeed minister by ascending and descending; but of the Son He says, "And let all the angels of God worship Him" (Heb. i, 6). Furthermore, when the angels minister, they say: "I have been sent to thee," and, "The Lord commanded." But the Son, even if He says as man that He has been sent and has come to accomplish and administer the work, nevertheless, as Word and image, He says: "I am in the Father, and D the Father is in me" (John xiv, 10); and, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father;" and, "The Father dwelling in me, He doeth the works" (John xiv, 9, 10). For the things that are seen in that image, these are the very works of the Father. These things, therefore, are sufficient to put to shame the enemies of the truth; but if, because it is written, "having become more excellent," they do not wish this word, "having become," to be understood of the Son in such a way that it is the same as if it were said, "He has become," and, "He is"; or that His administration has become more excellent than [that] of others, as we have said: but they think that it is said of the Word because of the word
"became," let them hear these things again in a brief discourse, since they have forgotten what was said.
62. If the Son were one of the angels, let the word "became" be applied to Him just as it is to them, and let Him differ from them in nothing by nature; but let either these also be sons, or He be an angel, and let all sit together at the right hand of the Father, A or let the Son also take His stand along with all, as a ministering spirit sent forth for service, and He Himself likewise as they are. But if Paul distinguishes the Son from things originated, saying, "For to which of the angels did He ever say, 'You are My Son'?" [Heb. i, 5] and this One creates the heaven and the earth, while they come into being through Him; and He sits with the Father, while they stand by and minister: to whom is it not again manifest, that he did not speak the word "became" B concerning the substance of the Word, but concerning the service which happened through Him? For as being the Word, He "became" flesh, so "becoming" man, He became that much more excellent in the service than the service which happened through the angels, as a son differs from servants, and the Creator from the things created. So let them cease taking the word "became" as pertaining to the substance of the Son; for He is not one of the things originated. And let them know that C "became" is indicative of the service and the economy that has taken place. And how He "became" more excellent in the service, being by nature more excellent than the things originated, the things said above show, and I think that even so they might be ashamed. But if they persist in contentiousness, it would be consistent to meet their irrational audacity (toward these things), and to set against them similar expressions said concerning the Father Himself, so that, perhaps broken by shame, they might either restrain their tongue D from evil, or know into what a depth of folly they have come. Therefore it is written, "Be to me a protecting God, and a house of refuge, to save me." [Ps. xxx, 3] And again, "The Lord became a refuge for the poor," and as many things of this kind as are found in the divine Scriptures. If then they say these things are spoken concerning the Son—which is perhaps even more true—let them acknowledge that they are asking Him, who was not a thing originated, to "become" their helper and house of refuge, and next let them understand the expressions "became," "made," and "created" of His bodily presence. For then indeed the helper and house of refuge "became"
when He bore our sins in His own body to the tree, and said: "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." B
65. But if they think those words refer to the Father, is it because it is also written here, "become," and "it happened," that they will proceed to such a pitch of impudence as to say that God is a created thing? Yes, they will dare this, just as they are not ashamed to contrive such things concerning His Word. For the sequence of their argument leads them to suspect such things about the Father as they presume about His Word. But may such an impious thought never enter the mind of any believer! For neither is the Son among created things, nor does that which is written and spoken here, "become" and "happened," signify a beginning of existence, but rather the help that came to those in need. For God is ever the same, while men have come into being after these things through the Word, when the Father Himself willed it. C And no created things can see God or approach Him, especially those men dwelling on the earth. D Therefore, when weak men implore His help, when the harassed pray for aid, when those suffering injury beseech Him, then He who is invisible, being also full of love for man, manifests Himself through His own benevolence, which He bestows through and in His own Word, and finally the divine presence accommodates itself to the need of each, so that it becomes strength to the weak, a refuge and house of salvation to the afflicted, and to those suffering injury He says, "While thou art yet speaking, I will say, Behold, I am here." What therefore is done for the protection of each through the Son, this each one declares God to have become for himself, because help comes from God Himself through the Word. Nor indeed is this manner of speaking unusual among men, which no one will deny to be correct. For often help has been given to men by men. For one brought aid to him who suffered injury, as Abraham did for Lot; another opened his house to one fleeing from persecution, as Obadiah did for the sons of the prophets; another refreshed a stranger, as Lot did the angels; another supplied necessities to those in need, as Job did to those who asked anything of him.
A As, therefore, if each of those who have received benefits were to say, "Such a one has become a helper to me," or another were to say, "He is my refuge, and to this man he has become a provider," by saying these things they do not signify the origin of birth or the substance of those who did them good, but only the benefit received from them; so when the saints say of God, "He became," or "Be my," they do not signify any origin of birth—for God is without beginning and not generated—but the salvation that came to pass from Him for humanity. B And with regard to the Son, whatever and however often it is said, "He became," or "Be my," one must maintain the same understanding, so that when those who hear the statement, "Having become better than the angels," and "He became," they should not conceive of any beginning of the Word coming into existence, nor imagine him to be a generated creature at all from these words; but they should understand what is said by Paul as referring to the ministry and the economy, when he became man. For when the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and came in order to minister and to grant salvation to all, then salvation became ours; and he became life, and he became expiation; then his economy for our sake became better than the ministry of the angels, and he became the way, and he became the resurrection. And just as the saying, "Be to me a protecting God," does not signify the generation of the nature of God himself, but his loving-kindness, as has been said, C so also now the statement, "Having become better than the angels," and "He became," and "By so much better has Jesus become a sponsor," does not signify that the nature of the Word is generated—God forbid!—but the benefit which we have received from his incarnation, however ungrateful the heretics may be, and contentious in defense of impiety.
ORATION SECOND OF THE SAME AGAINST THE ARIANS
D1. I had indeed hoped that the interpreters of the madness of Arius would be satisfied with the arguments made before this against their own [notions].
A content to cease henceforth, and to repent of the things they have thought and spoken so wickedly regarding the Saviour; yet they, I know not how, do not even thus subside; but, like swine and dogs wallowing in their own vomit and filth, they rather devise for themselves new notions for the sake of impiety. B Not understanding, therefore, that which is written in the Proverbs, *The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works* (Prov. viii, 22), nor that which is said by the Apostle, *Being faithful to him who made him* (Hebr. iii, 2), they simply contend, saying that the Son of God is a thing made and a creature. And it would have sufficed to understand from what has been said before, if they had not utterly lost their senses, that, as the Truth has testified, the Son is not from things that are not, nor does he belong in any way to things made; for being God, he neither can be a thing made, nor is it right to call him a creature. For it is the property of things created and made to be said to be from nothing, and that they did not exist before they were generated. But since, as if afraid to depart from their own myth-making, they customarily use the aforementioned utterances of the divine Scriptures as pretexts, which are indeed written rightly, but are maliciously interpreted by them; come, let us return to the meaning of the aforementioned words, so that we may confirm the souls of the faithful, and at the same time demonstrate that these men are, from each of these passages, utterly ignorant of Christianity. For if they had known, they would not have shut themselves up in the unbelief of the Jews of our time, but by inquiring would have learned that *In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God* (John i, 1); but when, at the will of the Father, the Word himself became man, then it was appropriately said regarding him, by John indeed, *The Word became flesh* (John i, 14); by Peter, *He made him Lord and Christ* (Acts ii, 36); and through Solomon, as if from the person of the Lord himself, *The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works* (Prov. viii, 22); and by Paul, *Having become so much better than the angels* (Hebr. i, 4); and again, *He emptied himself, taking the form* C of a servant.
Oration II
A and again, "Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus," [38*] being "faithful to Him who made Him." For all such statements possess the same force and meaning, which is consistent with piety, and demonstrates the divinity of the Word, and that those things said of Him in a human manner are said inasmuch as He also became the son of man. And although these things are sufficient to thoroughly refute them, yet, since they do not understand what is said by the Apostle, I thought it necessary, first mentioning this, because they imagine the Word of God to be one of the things made, on account of the writing, "Being faithful to Him who made Him," to again convict them by taking their premise, just as we did in the preceding, B and to refute their impiety.
2. If He is not the Son, let Him be called a creature, and let all things that are said concerning creatures be said concerning Him. And let Him not be called Son alone; let Him not be called Word, let Him not be called Wisdom; and let not God Himself be called Father, but only the Maker and Creator of things coming into being from Him. And let the creation be an image and character of His creative will; but let Him, according to them, not have a generative nature, so that of His own essence there is no Word, no Wisdom, and in no way an image. For if He is not the Son, neither is He an image. But if the Son does not exist, how then do you say that God is a Creator, if indeed all things that come to be, come to be through the Word and in Wisdom, C and without Him not one thing would come to be? Does He not possess, according to you, that in which and through which He makes all things? But if that divine essence itself is, as they think, not fruitful, but barren—like a light that does not shine and a dry fountain—are they not ashamed to affirm that He is endowed with the power of creating? And destroying what is by nature, how do they not blush in wishing that what is by will holds the first place? For if He creates things which are external and were not before, desiring them to be, and becomes the maker of these, how much more would He be the Father of an offspring from His own essence! For if they attribute the *willing* concerning things which were not to God, why do they not acknowledge what is superior to the will of God? D For to be the Father of His own Word is something that has transcended will and is by nature. If, therefore, the prior thing, which is by nature, does not exist according to [their] perverse opinion—how could the posterior thing, which is by will, come to be? Or...
A For the Word is prior, and the created thing is posterior. But the Word truly exists, even if the impious dare to say more; for by Him the creation has come to be. And it would be clear that God, being the Maker, possesses the creative Word not from without, but as His own; for the same must be said again. If He possesses a will, and His will is creative, and His will suffices for the constitution of the things that come to pass, and the Word is His creative and effective power (38), it is not doubtful that He Himself is the living counsel of the Father, and His essential efficiency, and the true Word, in whom all things have been constituted and are governed aright. And no one would even doubt (39) that the harmonizer presides over the harmony and the things fitted together. And it is a second thing, as I said before, for God to create than to beget. For indeed the Son is His own, and truly (40) is from that blessed and ever-existing essence; but those things that come to be from His will are constituted from without, and are created through His (41) own and from Him generated offspring.
3. B Since, therefore, we show that the opinion of those who say that the Lord is not the Son of God, but a creature, is utterly absurd, it is necessary for us to confess that the Lord is the Son. But if He is the Son, as indeed He is, and it is conceded that the Son is not from without, but from Him who begets (42): let them not take issue with the words, as I said before, if the saints, when speaking of the Word Himself, use the term "who made" instead of "who begat" (43), as the expression for such things is indifferent, so long as that which is by nature is confessed. For words do not remove the nature; C but rather the nature, drawing the words to itself, transforms them. For words are not prior to essences (44), but essences are primary, and words are secondary to them. Wherefore, also, when an essence is a thing made or a creature (45), then the terms "He made," "it came to be," and "He created" are used strictly of them, and signify a creature. But when the essence is an offspring and a son, then "He made," "it came to be," and "He created" (46) are no longer used strictly of Him, nor do they signify a creature; but one uses the word "made" indiscriminately for "begat" (47). Indeed, fathers often call the sons born of them their servants; D yet they do not deny what is proper to nature. And often, for the sake of affection, they call their own servants children; and they do not hide the fact that they are not by nature their offspring from the beginning.
A For power, as fathers say, is one thing, but affection is what they name. Sarah, for instance, called Abraham lord, though she was not a slave, but a wife; and the Apostle joined him who had acquired Onesimus, the slave, to Philemon as a brother; and Bathsheba, though a mother, called her son a slave, saying to the father, "Your slave Solomon." Then also Nathan the prophet, entering in, said the same things to David that she did, that "your slave Solomon." And it was no concern to them to call the son a slave. For he who heard it understood the nature, and they themselves, speaking in this way, were not ignorant of the true, natural sonship. At any rate, they asked that he should become the heir of the father, whom they called a slave; for he was by nature the son of David.
4. B Therefore, when we read these things we understand them rightly; and hearing Solomon called a slave, we do not think him to be a slave, but a natural and true son. So, even if the saints say concerning the Savior—who is confessed to be truly the Son and is by nature the Word—"being faithful to Him who made Him" (Heb. iii, 2), or if He Himself says concerning Himself, "The Lord created me" (Prov. viii, 22), and, "I am your slave and the son of your handmaid" (Ps. cxv, 16), and whatever things are of this kind—let no one on this account deny the property of the Son from the Father; but, as in the case of Solomon and David, let them think rightly concerning the Father and the Son. For if, hearing Solomon called a slave, they acknowledge him to be a son, how are they not frequently deserving of perishing, because they do not preserve the same intent regarding the Lord? C But whenever they hear "offspring," and "Word," and "Wisdom," they force themselves to misinterpret and deny the natural and true generation of the Son from the Father; but hearing the words and expressions of "work," they are immediately carried away to the point of thinking the Son is by nature a work, and they deny the Word—although, because He became man, they are able to refer all such expressions to His human nature. How then are these men not shown to be detestable before the Lord, having double standards among themselves, and with one side judging those things rightly, but with the other side uttering blasphemies against the Lord? D But perhaps they agree that Solomon is called a slave as a matter of affection; but as for that which is said about the Lord, they hold fast to, by "Him who made Him," as a great help to their heresy. But for them, this too is a bruised reed.
They will straightway condemn themselves if they learn the proper manner of Scripture’s speech. For just as Solomon is called a servant A (though he was a son), so, that we may repeat what was said before, even if parents say that those who are born of them are "formed," "created," and "made," they nonetheless do not deny that they are their children by nature. Thus Hezekiah, as it is written in Isaiah, said in prayer: "For from this day I will make children, who shall declare thy righteousness, O Lord of my salvation." He himself said, "I will make"; but the prophet, both in the same book and in the fourth book of Kings, speaks thus: "And thy sons, which shall come forth from thee." Therefore, he used "I will make" in place of "I will beget," and he calls those who are born of him as those who were made. And no one would question that the discourse is about a natural offspring. Eve also, after she had borne Cain, said: "I have possessed a man through B God." She said "I have possessed" instead of "I have borne." For because she had first seen the birth, she afterwards said, "I have possessed." Yet, because of this expression, "I have possessed," one should not think that Cain was purchased from without, and not born from her own self. Likewise, the patriarch Jacob said to Joseph: "Now therefore thy two sons, which were made to thee in Egypt before I came to thee into Egypt, they are mine, Ephraim and Manasses." And the Scripture also says of Job: "There were made to him seven sons and three daughters." In this same manner also Moses speaks in the Law: "If children be made to any man," and "if he make C a son."
5. Therefore, they have called those who are born "made" and "formed," since they were not ignorant that it makes no difference if it is said of sons that they "were made," "possessed," or "made," provided it is conceded that they are sons. For nature and truth draw the mind toward their understanding. Wherefore, if any dispute whether the Lord is a thing made or a creature, one must first ask them: Is He Son, Word, and Wisdom? For once this is proven, all suspicion concerning this matter vanishes at once. For neither can a thing made be Son and Word, nor, likewise, can the Son be a thing made. Since these things are so, it is manifest to all that these expressions, "He who made Him," provide no help to their heresy, D but rather that it is condemned by these very words. For it has been shown that the word "made" is used by Divine Scripture even when there is mention of true and natural children; whence, since it is proven that the Lord
is the true Son, Word, and Wisdom of the Father, and not a product or creature, A even if the expression "He made" or "He was made" is used in His regard, it is not said as though He were a product, but the saints use these words indifferently, as we have shown in the cases of Solomon and the children of Hezekiah. For although they themselves begat them from their own selves, it is nevertheless written: "I have made," B and "I have acquired," and "He was/it was made." Therefore, since the enemies of God often make such little expressions their pretext, it is their duty, though late, to lay aside their impious opinion based on the things already said, and henceforth to think of the Lord as the true Son, Word, and Wisdom of the Father, not a product or a creature. For if the Son were a product, by what word and in what wisdom, then, was He Himself made? For all things that are made were made through the Word and Wisdom, as it is written: "In wisdom hast Thou made them all" (Ps. CIII, 24); and "All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made" (Jo. I, 3). But if He Himself is the Word and Wisdom in which all things (75) come to be, then He is not of the number of those things that are made, nor of created things at all, but He is the offspring of the Father.
6. Consider (74) how great an error it is to call the Word of God a product. Solomon says somewhere in Ecclesiastes: "God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good or whether it be evil" (Eccl. XII, 14). If, then, the Word is a product, will He too, according to you, be brought into judgment? And where, then, is the judgment, if the Judge Himself is being judged? Furthermore, who will give blessings to the righteous and punishments to the unworthy, if the Lord Himself, according to you, stands with all in the judgment? And by what law will the Lawgiver Himself be judged? These things are proper to created things—to be judged, and to be blessed and punished by the Son. C Therefore, fear the Judge, and obey Solomon when he says this. For if God will bring every work into judgment, and the Son is not among those who are judged, but rather He Himself is the Judge of all works, is it not clearer than the sun that the Son is not a product, but the Word of the Father, in whom all things both come to be and are judged? But if that which is written, "who is faithful" (Hebr. III, 2), disturbs them again, and they think that the word "faithful" is spoken of Him just as it is of all others, because, for instance, He receives the reward of faith by believing: it truly remains for them to blame Moses D for the same reason, who, for his part, says:
"God is faithful and true"; and to blame Paul, who writes: "God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that you are able." Yet the saints, in speaking thus, were not thinking human thoughts about God; but they understood that the word "faithful" has a double meaning in Scripture: at one time as one who believes B, and at another as one who is worthy of being believed; and that the former applies to men, the latter to God. Thus, Abraham is "faithful" because he has believed God who speaks; but God is "faithful" because, as David chants, "The Lord is faithful in all His words," and He is worthy of trust, and it is impossible for Him to lie. And "if any faithful woman hath widows," C she is called "faithful" because she believes rightly. But the Word is "faithful" because He has spoken, and must be believed; for it is true, and cannot be otherwise. And so, the text written, "who is faithful to Him that made Him," does not have the same meaning as with others, nor that He has become pleasing because He believes; rather, because He is the Son of the true God, He Himself is also "faithful" and must be believed in whatever He may say D and do, He Himself remaining unchangeable and not altered by the human economy and the incarnation.
7. Thus, one can parry their impudence and, by that word "made" alone, refute those who err and think the Word of God is a creature. Since the meaning of what is written is also correct, demonstrating when and regarding what the word "made" is used, it is necessary to point out the senselessness of the heretics from that very word, especially if, as we said before, we consider the time and occasion of it. The Apostle was not speaking of things before the creation when he said this, but only of those that pertained to the Word having been made flesh; for thus it is written: "Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus," who is "faithful to Him that made Him." When, therefore, was He sent, or when did He put on our flesh?
A When did He become the High Priest of our confession, if not when, having offered Himself for us, He raised up the body from the dead, and now He Himself brings those who approach Him by faith and offers them to the Father, redeeming all, and making propitiation for all to God? The Apostle, therefore, did not wish to signify the essence of the Word, nor His natural generation from the Father, when he said, "Faithful to Him that made Him." Far be it! For the Word is the Maker, not the made. Rather, he was pointing to His descent to men and the high priesthood that came to be—which one might clearly see from the history according to the Law and Aaron. B Thus, Aaron was not born a high priest, but was a man, and after time, when it pleased God, he became a high priest; and he became so not simply, nor was he recognized by customary garments, but by putting on the ephod, the breastplate, and the robe, which the women made by the command of God; and clothed in these he would enter into the Holies to offer the sacrifice for the people; and in these he acted, as it were, as a mediator between the vision of God and the sacrifices of men. So, therefore, the Lord also was in the beginning the Word; "and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." But when the Father willed that a ransom be paid for all who are redeemed, and that grace be conferred upon all, then the Word, as Aaron his robe, He Himself took flesh from the earth, having Mary as mother instead of the untilled earth for His body, so that, having what to offer, He Himself, as High Priest, might offer Himself to the Father, C and by His own blood He might cleanse us all from sins and raise us from the dead.
8. For what the Savior did upon His coming, this Aaron shadowed forth according to the Law. For just as Aaron, being the same, was not changed by putting on the high-priestly vestment, but remaining the same, he was merely covered—and if anyone, having seen him offering, had said, "Behold, today Aaron has become High Priest," he would not have signified that he had become a man at that moment; for he was a man even before he became high priest—but that he had been made high priest by his ministry, having put on the garments which were made and fashioned for the high priesthood; in the same way, one may rightly understand of the Lord, as not having become someone else D by the Spirit and the Father.
A For if he took flesh, yet remained the same, being covered by it, and also the statement that “he has been made,” and “he has been fashioned,” is not to be understood as if the Word, as he is the Word, has been made; but that, being the Word and Creator, he was later made high priest, having put on a body that is created and fashioned, which he is also able to offer on our behalf, for which reason he is said to have been made. If, therefore, the Lord has not become man, let the Arians contend; but if the Word became flesh, what else was there to say about the man who had been made, other than that "he is faithful to him who made him"? For as it is proper to the Word to say, *In the beginning was the Word*, so it is proper to men to be created and fashioned. Who then, seeing the Lord walking as a man, and revealing himself to be God by his works, would not have asked who made this man? And who, having been asked such a thing, would not B answer that the Father made him man and sent him to us as high priest? But the Apostle himself, who also wrote, "being faithful to him who made him," is more capable of explaining such an idea, and the time, and the person, if we take what precedes; for it is one sequence, and the passage is about the same thing. He writes, therefore, in the Epistle to the Hebrews these things: *Since therefore the children share in blood and flesh, he himself likewise partook of the same, that through death he might destroy him who has the authority of death, that is, the devil, and deliver those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.* For surely it is not angels that he aids, but he aids the seed of Abraham. *Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of the people. For because he himself has suffered and been tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted.* C *Therefore, holy brethren, who share in a heavenly call, consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession, who is faithful to him who made him.* Who that reads this whole passage would not condemn the Arians, and admire the blessed Apostle, for having spoken so excellently? D When, therefore, did it come to pass?
A When did he become an apostle, if not when he also partook of flesh and blood in like manner to us? And when did he become a merciful and faithful high priest, if not when he was made like his brothers in all things? He was made like them, then, when he became man, having clothed himself in our flesh.
Paul, therefore, in writing of this, was speaking of the economy of the Word according to the flesh, and not of the essence of the Word, when he said he was faithful to Him who made him. Cease, then, from your madness in saying that the Word of God is a creature. For he is himself the Son, by nature the Only-begotten. And he had brothers only then, when he put on flesh similar to us, which he offered by himself, and was called high priest, and became merciful and faithful. Merciful, because in offering himself for us he pitied us; and faithful, not as one partaking of faith or believing in another as we do, but B as one who is to be trusted in whatever he says and does, and because he offers a faithful sacrifice which remains and does not fall away. For those sacrifices offered according to the Law had no lasting quality, since they were passing away day by day and were in need of renewed purification; but the sacrifice of the Savior, performed once, perfected everything and has become a faithful sacrifice, as it remains forever. Moreover, Aaron had successors, and the priesthood according to the Law was changed in its previous priests by time and death. But the Lord has a priesthood that neither passes away nor is subject to succession; hence he has become a faithful high priest, because he remains forever, C and as one who has become faithful to his promise, that he might listen to and not deceive those who come to him.
This may be learned again from the Epistle of the great Peter, who says: "So that those who suffer according to the will of God may entrust their souls to the faithful Creator; for he is faithful, not changing, but always remaining, and he renders what he promised."
10. Now, the gods falsely so called among the Greeks are not faithful either in regard to their being or their promises. For neither are they the same everywhere, but even those who exist in certain places perish in time and crumble away of themselves; therefore, the Word cries out against them that faith has not prevailed in them, and that they are false water, D and that there is no faith in them. But the God of all, and the only one who is truly and in reality God, is faithful, being the same, and he says: "See me, see that I am," and, "I am not changed."
A For this reason, his Son is also faithful, always existing and unchanging, neither deceiving in his being nor in his promises. As the Apostle again, writing to the Thessalonians, says: "Faithful is he who calls you, who also will do it." For in doing what he promises, he is faithful in his words. That this word signifies immutability, he teaches the Hebrews with these words: "If we do not believe, he remains faithful; he cannot deny himself." Consequently, the Apostle, speaking aptly concerning the bodily presence of the Word, said: "As an apostle and faithful to him who made him," showing that even when Jesus Christ became man, he is the same yesterday and today, and is unchanging forever. And just as the Apostle makes mention of his incarnation through the name of "high priest," B so also he did not remain silent for long, but immediately mentions his divinity, in order to make us secure everywhere, especially where he speaks of his humility, that we might immediately recognize his loftiness and his paternal majesty. He says, therefore: "Moses was a servant, but Christ was a Son." And he indeed was faithful in the house, but the other is over the house, inasmuch as he built it, and is its lord and creator, and as God sanctifies it. For Moses, who was a man by nature, became faithful, believing in God who spoke to him through the Word; but the Word was not like one of the things begotten in a body, nor like a creature in a creature, but God in flesh and creator and maker in the work constructed by himself. Furthermore, men are clothed with flesh in order to exist and subsist; but the Word of God became man in order to sanctify the flesh; and being Lord, he assumed the form of a servant. C For all created things, which were made and founded by him, are servants of the Word. From this, therefore, it is established that the saying of the Apostle, "he made," does not signify that the Word was made, but only the body which he took that is similar to ours; hence, having become man, he is called our brother.
11. But if it has been demonstrated that when anyone uses the word "made" while speaking of the Word himself, he uses that word instead of "begotten," what perverse interpretation would then—yet more exceedingly—could they devise? D
towards this, where the Word, having cleared up the passage on all sides, showed that the Son is not a created thing, but is by nature the offspring of the Father, and by A His economy and good pleasure, when it seemed good to the Father, He was made man for our sake and subsists; and for this reason, B by the Apostle, He is called faithful to Him who made Him, and in the Proverbs, He is also said to be created. For so long as it is acknowledged that He became man, it makes no difference to say, as has been said before, whether He was made, or has been created, or has been fashioned, whether servant, or son of a handmaid, or son of man, or was appointed, or went abroad, or bridegroom, or cousin, or brother. For all these terms C are properties of the human condition; and such things do not signify the nature of the Word, but signify that He has become man. Such is the meaning also of the passage in the Acts brought forward again by them, where Peter says: That God hath made that same Jesus, whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ. For it is not written here, He made for Himself a Son, or, He made for Himself a Word, so that they might imagine such things. If, therefore, they have not forgotten that they are speaking of the Son of God, let them search whether it is written anywhere, God made for Himself a Son, or, He created for Himself a Word; or again, whether it is written anywhere clearly, The Word is a work or a creature; and let them then make their pretexts, D so that even thus the senseless may be confuted. But if they find nothing of the sort, but only hunt for places where it is written, He made, and, He has been made, I fear that, hearing bit by bit, In the beginning God made heaven and earth, and, He made the sun and the moon, and, He made the sea, they might say that He is the heaven, and that He is the light that came to be on the first day, and that He is the earth, and each one of the created things, so that finally they might be likened to those called Stoics. For those men extend God Himself into all things; but these men place the Word of God into each of the created things, although they have already asserted similar things, stating that He is one of the created things.
12. But let them hear these same things again, and learn
A first, that He is the Son, as has been said before, and the Word is not a creature, and one ought not take such expressions as applying to His divinity, but to investigate why and how these things are written; and to those who seek, the human economy, which He undertook for our sake, will surely provide the answer. For even Peter, having said, "He has made Him Lord and Christ," immediately added, "this Jesus, whom you crucified." From which it is certainly manifest to everyone—and it will be clear to those people as well, provided they are willing to observe the context of the discourse—that by these words Peter did not indicate the nature of the Word, but that He had been made such according to His human nature. For what was crucified but the body? And what could more appropriately signify the corporeal nature of the Word than the word "made"? Although this very term, "made," holds its proper meaning here. For he did not say, as we noted above, "He made Him Word," but, "He made Him Lord"; and not only that, but "among you," and "in the midst of you" He made Him, B which is the same as saying, "He demonstrated." Peter himself indicated this very thing, beginning his primary teaching with caution, when he said to them, "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested of God to you by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by Him in the midst of you, just as you yourselves know." Therefore, what he says at the end, "He made," he had already declared at the beginning through the term "attested." For by the signs and wonders which the Lord performed, it was demonstrated that He was not a mere man, but God in the body, and that He Himself was the Lord and Christ. C Such is also what is said in the Gospels by John: "For this cause the Jews pursued Him the more, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His own Father, making Himself equal to God." For the Lord did not at that time "create" Himself as God—since to be made God is altogether impossible—but He was demonstrating that He is God by His works, saying, "If you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me." Thus, therefore, the Father has made Him Lord and King in the midst of us, and toward us who formerly did not believe. And it is clear that He who was being demonstrated as Lord and King at that time did not then begin to become King and Lord, but began to show His sovereignty
and to extend it even to those who had disobeyed.
15. If then they suppose that before He became man and suffered the cross, the Saviour was not Lord and King, but only then began to be Lord; B let them know that they are again clearly uttering the words of the Samosatene. But if, as we have read and said before, He is Lord and King in an eternal sense—since Abraham worshipped Him as Lord, and Moses says: *And the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven*; and David sings: *The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand*; and, *Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom*; and, *Thy kingdom is a kingdom of all ages*—it is manifest that, even before He became man, He was King and Lord in an eternal sense, being the image and Word of the Father. Since, therefore, the Word was eternal Lord and King, it is manifest again that Peter was not saying that the nature of the Son was made, but that His sovereignty over us came into being when He became man, and, having redeemed all by the cross, He became Lord and King of all. But if, because it is written, *made* (or *did/appointed*), they contend stubbornly, being unwilling to admit that the word *made* is said in the sense of *demonstrated*, or either not understanding, or doing so because of their Christ-opposing disposition; let them hear that even so, the words of Peter possess a correct meaning. For he who becomes lord of certain persons acquires those who already exist under his authority. But if the Lord is the Creator of all C and an eternal King, and when He became man, D then He also acquired us: it would be clear also by this that what is said by Peter does not signify that the nature of the Word is a creature, but the subsequent subjection of all things, and the lordship of the Saviour which came into being over all. And this is similar to the things before. For just as we there brought forward the words, *Be thou to me a God for a protector*, and, *The Lord became a refuge for the poor*, and we were demonstrating that by these it is not taught that God was made, but of His grace—
A the Word shows that God is not a thing made, but that the favor bestowed upon each is from Him; thus also the saying of Peter has the same meaning.
14. For the Word is Himself the Lord of all; but we, before we existed, were held from the beginning in bondage to corruption and the curse of the Law, and then, slowly fashioning for ourselves things B that did not exist, we served, as the blessed Apostle says, those who by nature are not gods; and we were ignorant of the true God, and preferred before the truth things that were not. But later, just as the ancient people in Egypt groaned while oppressed, so also we, having the innate law and according to the ineffable groanings of the Spirit interceding and saying, *O Lord our God, possess us* (Isa. XXVI, 13), it came to pass just as into a house of refuge and a protecting God, so also He became our Lord. And He did not then begin to have His existence as Lord; but we began to have Him as our Lord. For God, being good, and being Father of the Lord, having had mercy and wishing to be known to all, caused His own Son to put on a human body, and to become man, and to be called Jesus, so that, by offering Himself in that body for all, He might deliver all from the error of idols and from corruption, and C might Himself become Lord and King of all. The becoming, therefore, such a Lord and King, this is what Peter meant: *He made Him Lord and Christ*, which is the same as saying that the Father made Him man. For "to be made" is proper to men. Yet He did not make Him man merely that He might rule over all, but that He might sanctify all through the anointing. For although the Word, being in the form of God, took the form of a servant, yet the assumption of flesh did not make the Word, who was Lord by nature, a servant, but rather it was a liberation of the whole of human nature that was effected by the Word; and He Himself, the Word who is Lord by nature, having even been made man, through the form of a servant has been made Lord and Christ of all—that is, He has been made [such] in order to sanctify all by the Spirit. And just as God, becoming a protecting God, and saying, *I will be their God* (II Cor. VI, 16), does not thereby become God more than He was, nor begin to be God— D but what He always is, this He becomes also to those in need, when it pleases Him—so also Christ, who is by nature the eternal Lord and King, does not become Lord more when He is sent,
nor does He then receive the beginning of being Lord and King; but what He is always, that He has also been made in the flesh at that time, and having redeemed A all men, He becomes in this way Lord of both the living and the dead; for henceforth all things serve Him. And this is that which David also sings: The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I make Your enemies Your footstool. For it was not fitting that redemption should occur through another than Him who is Lord by nature, lest, while we are created through the Son, we should call another Lord, and fall into the Arian and Gentile folly, serving a created being B rather than God who created all things.
15. This is, according to my own insignificance, the sense of this passage. For not without a true and correct cause did Peter speak such words to the Jews. For the Jews, having wandered away from the truth, expect Christ to come, but they do not think He is to undergo suffering, saying what they do not understand: We have known that when Christ comes, He remains forever; and C how do you say that He must be lifted up? Furthermore, they do not suppose the Word to be born in the flesh, but that He is merely a man, as all kings have been. The Lord, therefore, rebuking those around Cleopas, taught that it was necessary for Christ first to suffer; and He also confuted the other Jews, in that God had visited them, saying: If He called them gods to whom the Word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken; do you say of Him, whom the Father has sanctified, and sent D into the world, You blaspheme; because I said, I am the Son of God?
16. Peter, therefore, having learned these things from the Savior, correcting the Jews on both points, says: O Jews, the divine Scriptures proclaim that Christ is coming, and you judge Him to be a mere man, as one of those from David; but the things written about Him do not signify Him to be such as you say, but rather proclaim Him Lord and God, and immortal, and the provider of life. For Moses has said: You shall see your life hanging before your eyes. And David, in the hundredth
and ninth Psalm A says: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies the footstool of your feet. And in the fifteenth: You shall not leave my soul in Hades, nor will you give your Holy One to see corruption. That these words do not apply to David, he himself testifies, calling Him who comes his own Lord. And you yourselves perceive B that he died, and his remains are with you. That it is necessary for Christ to be such as the Scriptures say He is, you too will surely agree; for the words were spoken by God, and there cannot be any falsehood in them. If, therefore, you are able to say that such a one has already come, and are able to prove that He is God from the signs and wonders that He performed, you may rightly contend with us. But if you cannot prove that He has come, C and you are still expecting such a one, recognize the time from Daniel; for the things spoken by him apply to the present time. And if this present time is indeed that which was predicted long ago, and you yourselves have seen the things which have now taken place among us, recognize that this Jesus, whom you crucified, is Himself the expected Christ. For David and all the prophets are dead, and the tombs of all of them are with you. But the resurrection D which has just occurred is proof that the things written point to Him. For the being crucified demonstrates that which says: You shall see your life hanging; and the being pierced in the side by the lance fulfills that which says: As a sheep he was led to the slaughter. And the fact that He not only rose again, but even raised the ancient dead from their graves (for most of you have seen these), is this very thing: You shall not leave my soul in Hades; and that: Death has swallowed, having prevailed; and again: God has taken away. And the fact that He performed such signs as have occurred demonstrates Him to be God in the body, and that He Himself is life and the Lord of death. For it was fitting that Christ, who grants life to others, should not Himself be held by death; for this could not have happened if, as you think, Christ were a mere man. But surely
let no one hesitate A any longer, but let the whole house of Israel know with certainty that this Jesus, whom you beheld in the form of a man, performing signs and such works as no one has ever performed, is Himself the Christ and Lord of all. For even having become man, and being called Jesus, as we said in the foregoing, He was not diminished by human suffering; but rather, even in being made man, He is shown to be Lord of the living and the dead. For since, as the Apostle said, the world did not know God through the wisdom of God, it pleased God B through the foolishness of the proclamation to save those who believe. So too we men, since we were unwilling to know God through His Word, and unwilling to serve Him who is by nature our Master, the Word of God, it pleased God to show His own lordship in a man, and to draw all men to Himself. But to do this through a mere man was unfitting, lest, having a man as Lord, we might become man-worshipers. For this reason the Word Himself became flesh, and He called His name Jesus C, and thus the Father made Him Lord and Christ; which is to say, He made Him to rule and to have kingly power, so that in the name of Jesus, whom you crucified, even as every knee bows, so we might acknowledge both the Son as Lord and King, and through Him the Father.
17. Most of the Jews, upon hearing these things, were confounded, and thereafter acknowledged Christ, as is written in the Acts; but since the Arian-minded choose to remain Jews and to contend D against Peter, come, let us set before them similar modes of speech; perhaps even thus they may be confounded, having learned the custom of the divine Scripture. That Christ is indeed an eternal Lord and King is clear from what has been said before, and there is no one who doubts this. For being the Son of God, He must necessarily be like Him; and being like Him, He is by all means both Lord and King; for He Himself says: "He who has seen Me has seen the Father."
That, however, the fact that Peter alone said, "He made Him Lord and Christ," does not signify that the Son is a creature, is possible to perceive from the blessing of Isaac, even if this image be somewhat dim for the matter at hand. He said, therefore, to Jacob, "Be lord of your brother," and to Esau, "Behold, I have made him lord over you." If, then, the expression "I have made" here signified the nature and the beginning of the birth of Jacob, and yet [nevertheless...]
they might have inquired and ceased being deranged. But if they do not take these words as referring to the essence or the beginning of his birth, even though Jacob is by nature a created thing and a work, how are they not more insane than the devil, if, while they dare not attribute to those who are by nature begotten such expressions taken from similar terms, they nevertheless fasten them onto the Son of God, saying that He is a work? For Isaac, when he said, "Be" and "I have made," was not signifying the beginning of the birth of Jacob or his essence—for he said these things more than thirty years after Jacob was born—but he was indicating his authority over his brother, which came about afterward. B 18. By much more, then, did Peter not signify the nature of the Word with these words; for he knew Him to be the Son of God and had confessed it when he said: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." But he understood His rule and dominion over us, which came to be by grace. And for this reason also, in saying this, he did not remain silent about the eternal and paternal divinity of the Son of God; but he had said beforehand that He is the one who poured out the Spirit upon us. To give the Spirit with authority, however, is not the action of a created or made thing, but is the gift of God. For created things are sanctified by the Holy Spirit, but the Son is not sanctified by the Spirit, C but rather He Himself gives it to all, and hence it is shown that He is not a creature, but the true Son of the Father. Nevertheless, He who gives the Spirit is also said to have been "made." The Lord is said to have been "made" among us on account of His human nature, but He gives the Spirit because He is the Word of God. For He was always and is, just as He is Son, so also is He Lord and supreme ruler of all things, being in all things similar to the Father and possessing all that is the Father's, as He Himself said. Come then, if you please, let us look at that passage from the Proverbs: "The Lord created me as the beginning of His ways for His works." D Although, since we have shown that the Word is not a made thing, it is plainly proven at the same time that He is not a creature. For it is the same thing to call Him "made" as "creature," so that the proof regarding His not being a "made" thing is the same as that regarding His not being a creature. Wherefore, one would marvel at them as they devise for themselves [pretexts for impiety, and are not ashamed at the things that have occurred].
one by one, to refute them. For first they endeavored to deceive the simple, inquiring: "Is He who brought the non-existent into being from non-existence, or is He who is?" And, "Had you a son before you begat him?" But since this has been shown 31 to be hollow, they devised to say: "Is the unbegotten one, or two?" And having been refuted in this too, they immediately added: "Is He of free will, and is He of changeable nature?" But after this also was cast aside, they again devised to say: "By so much becoming better than the angels." But since the truth has refuted this also, at last they now, gathering all those things together, think to establish their heresy through the terms "made" and "creature" 32. For they again signify those same things, and do not depart from their own perverse thoughts, variously altering and twisting the same things 35, so that perhaps by their variety they might be able to deceive some. And even if B the aforementioned 34 things indeed show this device of theirs to be vain; nevertheless, since they have bruited everywhere the text from Proverbs, and among many who are ignorant of the Christian faith they seem to be saying something, it is necessary to examine even that text itself, just as [with the phrase] "faithful to Him who made Him," so also "He created," by itself 35; so that, as in all things, so also in this they may be shown to have nothing more than an empty imagination.
19. Let us first see what they have put forth at the beginning, when the heresy 36 was being fashioned by them, toward the blessed Alexander. They wrote, therefore, saying: "He is a creature, but not as one of the creatures; He is a work, but not as one of the works; He is a product, but not as one of the products." C Let each one observe the craftiness and deceit of this heresy; for, knowing the bitterness of its own evil-mindedness, it forces itself to adorn itself with the plausibility of words; and it says, indeed, what it thinks, that He is a creature, but it thinks it can hide itself by saying: "But not as one of the creatures." But rather, having written it in this way, they have through these 39 things the more refuted their own impiety. For if, according to you, He is altogether a creature, why do you pretend, saying, "But not as one of the creatures?" And 40 if He is altogether a work, why [do you add] "not as one of the works?" Or if He is truly a product, what does that signify, but not...
one of the produced things; for in truth it is permitted A to understand the nature of your heresy. For by saying "a creature, but not as one of the creatures," you join many sons to Him, and you dogmatize the Lord to be one of these—as the Only-Begotten according to you—but you number Him as one of many brothers, a product and a Son. What, then, is the need for this hypocrisy, so as to speak of Him as a creature, if even when you add "not as one of the created things," this sophistry of yours will be shown to be senseless? For if you again maintain that He is one of the produced things, the same holds true for all other created things, and you should think the same about the Son, for you are truly foolish and blind. For what other sort of thing is one creature than another, such that you should speak of this as something special regarding the Son?
For all visible B nature was brought into being within six days, so that at first there was light, which He called "day"; second, the firmament; third, having gathered the waters, He revealed the dry land and brought forth various fruits upon it; fourth, He created the sun and moon and the whole choir of stars; fifth, the living creatures of the sea and the birds of the air; sixth, finally, the land animals, and then man. But His invisible things, from the creation of the world, are understood through the things that have been made, and are beheld; and neither light nor night, neither sun nor moon, nor brute animals, nor man endowed with reason, nor angels, nor thrones, nor powers—none of these is a creature that is the same as another, but each is in its own nature as it was made and remains. C
20. Either, therefore, let the Word be judged as distinct from the productions, and let Him be acknowledged as Son by nature to the Father; or if He is a created thing, let them confess that He holds the same order as the other...>
A things. For individual things differ from one another in glory; and yet all things are subjected to that which is better. Neither, however, are the some things creative causes, while others come into existence from them; but all things have the nature of being created, and they all acknowledge their own Creator, as David sings: The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament proclaimeth the work of His hands. As the wise Zorobabel also says: All the earth calls upon truth, and heaven blesses it, and all works shake and tremble. But if the whole earth B acknowledges and blesses and trembles before its Creator and the Truth, the Word is the Creator of this, and He says of Himself: I am the truth. He is not a created thing, but the Word is something else, the only one proper to the Father, in whom all things are fitted together, and by whom He is celebrated by all as Creator. For He says: My Father worketh even until now, and I work. By saying even until now C, He shows that as the Word, He always exists in the Father, and as the Father's own Word, He performs the Father's works, and is never outside of Him.
21. If the Father works, then the Son also works; and if He creates, they are the works of the Father; certainly if the Son is a created thing, then He is a creation of the Father. But if the Son Himself also works, and is Himself creating, would it not be absurd that He, as one who creates and works, D should not be a creator, but a created thing? For if He were a created thing, He would not Himself be a work or a creature—lest, being Himself a creative cause, He be found doing among things created what He Himself is. Indeed, far from being able to make, how, according to you, could He who has come into being from non-existence be capable of bringing non-existent things into existence?
By saying this, He signified nothing else A than that they also might become one among themselves by our unity, in such a way as we are one by nature and in truth. Otherwise, they would not be able to become one unless they were to learn of that unity in us. And that the phrase, "in us," has this meaning, one may hear from Paul, who says: *These things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollo, for your sakes; that you might learn in us, not to be puffed up one above another for one against another* (1 Cor. IV, 6). The phrase, "in us," therefore, does not mean "in the Father," as the Son is in Him, but acts as a pattern and an image, as if he meant to say: "Let them learn from us." For just as Paul was to the Corinthians, so the unity of the Son and the Father is a model and a lesson to all, according to which they can learn (86), by looking at the natural unity of the Father and the Son, how they too ought to become one among themselves in their disposition.
But if it is necessary to defend the text in another way, the phrase "in us" can again be equal to saying: "by the power of the Father (87) and the Son, that they may become one, saying the same thing." For without God this is impossible (88). And this, further, can be found in the divine Scriptures, as when we say "We shall perform virtue in God," and "In Thee shall we push down our enemies" (Ps. LIX, 14; Ps. XLIII, 6). Therefore, it is clear that in the name of the Father and of the Son we are able, by becoming one, to have a firm bond of love.
For again, extending the same thought (89), the Lord says: *And the glory which Thou hast given Me, I have given to them; that they may be one, as We also are one* (John XVII, 22). Well and fittingly, here too, He did not say: "that they may be in Thee as I am," but "as We are." He who says "as" does not indicate identity, but an image and a pattern of what is spoken of. B He has with the Father a unity of nature; but to us, instead, there belongs imitation, just as it has been said. For He immediately added, saying: *I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be made perfect in one* (John XVII, 23). Henceforth (92), the Lord asks for something greater and more perfect for us, for it is evident that the Word has come to be in us, for He put on our body. And "Thou in Me, Father," since I am Thy Word, and for Thy sake…
A I am in those who have received Me, since I am in them; and since I am one, all they have become one in Me. By these words, however, they say what they think—that He is a creature—but they imagine they can hide themselves by saying, "But not as one of the creatures." Rather, by writing in this way, they have refuted their own impiety even more. For if, according to you, He is altogether a creature, why are you hypocritical in saying, "But not as one of the creatures"? And if He is altogether a product, why is He not as one of the products? In these points, it is possible to see the poison of the heresy. For by saying "offspring," but "not as one of the offspring," they group many sons together and dogmatize that the Lord is one of them; so that, according to them, He is no longer the Only-Begotten, but is designated B both offspring and Son, as one among many brothers. What need is there, then, for this hypocrisy, so as to call Him a creature on the one hand, and to say He is not a creature on the other? For even if you say, "not as one of the creatures," such a sophism of yours will be shown to be senseless; for again you say that He is one of the creatures; and as one might speak of the other creatures, so you think regarding the Son, as truly foolish and blind. For what other creature is there that is of such a sort, such as the other has become, so that you might speak of this as something exceptional regarding the Son?
A For you have said that the offspring is the same as the creature, writing "begotten or created." For even if the Son surpasses the others by comparison, he is nonetheless a creature, just like those others; for even among those things that are by nature creatures, it is possible to find some things surpassing others. For example, "star differs from star in glory," and all other things have a difference in comparison to one another; and it is not because of this that some are lords while others serve their superiors, nor are some the creative causes while others come into existence through them. Rather, all things have the nature of coming into being and being created, confessing through themselves their own Creator, as David sings: "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament proclaims the work of his hands." Just as also the wise Zorobabel says: "The whole earth calls for the truth, and the heaven blesses it, and all works shake and tremble." B If then the whole earth hymns, blesses, and trembles before the Creator and the Truth, and the Word is the Creator of this, and He Himself says, "I am the truth," then the Word is not a creature, but is the sole own Son of the Father, in whom all things have been fitted together, and He Himself is hymned by all as Creator.
A And if you wish it to be this way, what is the need for the Word, when those things that are subordinate are able to be brought into being by those that are superior? Or, if it were entirely possible for each of the things that were made to hear from God at the beginning, "Come to be," and "Be made," and thus each thing would have been created. But this is not written, nor was it possible. For of the things that have been made, none is the productive cause; for all things have been made through the Word; and He Himself would not have performed all things if the Word Himself were one of the creatures. For not even angels would be able to create, beingcreatures themselves, even if Valentinus and Marcion and Basilides think such things, and you happen to be emulators of them; nor will the sun, being a creature, ever bring the non-existent into existence; nor will a man fashion a man, nor will a stone conceive another stone, nor will wood cause wood to grow; but it is God who fashions a man in the womb, and places the mountains, and causes wood to grow; while the human being, being capable of knowledge, composes and reshapes this material, and works with existing things as he has learned; and he loves that it has come into being; and recognizing his own nature, if he stands in need of anything, he knows to ask of God.
But how, if all things are out of non-beings and are creatures, and the Son according to them is one of the creatures, and of those things which at one time were not, does He alone reveal the Father? And how does no one else know the Father but He alone? For if it were possible for Him, being a work, to know the Father, then let Him be known also by all others in proportion to the measure of each; for all are works, just as He is. But if it is not possible for generated beings either to see or to know Him, but both the vision and the knowledge of Him transcend all—for God Himself said, "No one shall see My face and live," while the Son has said, "No one knows the Father except the Son"—then the Word must be other than the generated beings, being the only one who knows and the only one who sees the Father, as He said, "Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from the Father," and, "No one knows the Father except the Son"; even if it does not appear so to Arius. How then did He know alone, if He were not alone His own? And how would He be His own, if He were a creature and not a true Son from Him? For it is not wearisome to say the same things even often concerning piety. It is impious, therefore, to think that the Son is one of all things.
and he is worshipped by them, not as one greater in glory, but as other than all created things and as being apart from them, and being the only Son proper to the Father according to essence. For if he were worshipped as exceeding in glory, it would behove each of the subordinates to worship the one who exceeds him. But it is not so; for a creature does not worship a creature, but a servant his master, and a creature his God. Peter the Apostle, therefore, restrains Cornelius, who wished to worship him, saying, "I myself also am a man." And an angel in the Apocalypse restrains John, who wished to worship him, saying, "See thou do it not; I am a fellow-servant of thine, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book; worship God." Therefore, it belongs to God alone to be worshipped; and the angels themselves know this, that even if they exceed others in glory, yet are they all creatures, and they are not of those who are worshipped, but of those who worship the Master. Accordingly, the angel restrained Manoah, the father of Samson, who wished to offer a sacrifice to the angel, saying, "Offer it not to me, but to God." But the Lord is worshipped even by angels; for it is written:
for this reason, He is worshipped, and is believed to be God, and is Lord of hosts, and Ruler, and Almighty, just as the Father is. For He Himself has said: "All things that the Father hath are mine." For it is the property of the Son to have the things of the Father, and to be such that the Father is seen in Him; and that through Him all things have been made, and that the salvation of all things comes to be and consists in Him. A Since it is good to ask them this also, so that the refutation of their heresy may appear even more clearly: Why, when all things are creatures, and all have their consistency from non-existence, and the Son, according to you, is also a creature and a work, and one of the things that once were not, did He make all things through Him alone, and "without him was not anything made"? Or why, when "all things" are spoken of, does one not conceive the Son to be signified among those all things, but rather the created things? But when the Scriptures speak concerning the Word, they do not understand Him to be again from among the "all things," but join Him with the Father, in whom the Father works and produces the providence and salvation of all things.
How, then, could anyone not pass final judgment on these men for the impiety which they have mixed with so much folly for themselves, and they do not blush to be so intoxicated against the truth? For if they say that He made the Son alone because God grows weary in the production of other things, all creation will cry out against them, since they speak things unworthy of God, while Isaiah speaking in writing says: "The everlasting God, who established the ends of the earth, shall not hunger, nor grow weary, and there is no searching of His understanding." But if they say that God, as though disdaining to create other things, made the Son alone, and entrusted other things to the Son as to an assistant, this too is unworthy of God; for there is no arrogance in God. Yet the Lord will shame them nonetheless, saying: "Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? And one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father who is in heaven." And again: "Do not be anxious for your life, what you shall eat, nor for your body, what you shall put on. Is not the life more than food, and the body than clothing? Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow, nor reap, nor gather into barns;
and they say God is not an artisan by nature, but by skill, so that it is possible for him to fall away from it. Then if the Wisdom of God acquired the power to create by learning, how is it still Wisdom, standing in need of lessons? And what was it before it learned? For it was not Wisdom if it were lacking in instruction. It was, then, some empty thing, and not essential Wisdom; but it obtained the name of Wisdom by progress, and will be Wisdom only as long as it keeps what it has learned. A For what one has attained not by nature but by study, it is also possible one day to unlearn. But to say such things regarding the Word of God is not of Christians, but of Greeks.
29. For if the faculty of creation is an acquired one B that comes to him by learning, these fools introduce envy and weakness regarding God: envy, because he did not teach many the art of creating, so that just as there are many archangels and angels around him, so too there might be many creators; and weakness, because he could not do things by himself, but had need of a helper and minister. Yet it has already been shown that even created nature is able to be brought into existence by God alone, if, according to them, the Son—being a creature—could be brought into existence by God alone. But God is in need of nothing; God forbid! For he himself has said: "I am full." Nor did the Word become Creator through learning; but being the image and wisdom of the Father, he works the things of the Father. Nor did he make the Son for the sake of the work of things created; for behold, C even with the Son existing, the Father is seen working again, as the Lord himself says: "My Father works until now, and I work." But if, according to you, the Son came to be for this reason, that he might work the things after him, but the Father is seen working even after the Son, then according to you the creation of such a Son is superfluous. Besides, why at all, when he wished to create us, did he seek an intermediate minister, as if his will were not sufficient to bring about those things which he willed? For D the Scriptures cry out: "Everything whatever he willed, he did," and: "For who resists his will?" If, then, his will alone is sufficient to produce all things, the work of that intermediate helper will be, according to you, useless. For even the examples of Moses, and of the sun and moon, which you have brought forward, are shown to be futile.
C But this, too, will again put you to shame: If God, wishing to create the created nature, and deliberating about it, conceives and creates the Son, according to you, so that He might create us through Him; consider what a degree of impiety you have dared to utter. A For it would follow, first of all, that He was made for our sake, and not we for His; for we were not created for His sake, but He was made for ours; so that He ought to have gratitude toward us, rather than we toward Him, just as the wife [must have toward] the husband. For the Scripture says: "Man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man." 43 Therefore, just as man is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man, 44 so we were made the image of God and for His glory; but the Son, according to you, exists as our image and for our glory. And we were made so that we might exist; but the Word of God, according to you, was not made so that He might exist, but as a tool for our need; B so that we do not depend on Him, but He is formed because of our need. And how can those who consider only these things not be surpassing all foolishness? For if the Word was made for our sake, He is not even before us with God. For He does not have that One in Himself and deliberate about us; but having us in Himself, He deliberates, as they say, about His own Word. But if this is so, perhaps the Father did not wish for the Son at all; for He did not create Him because He wished for Him, but wishing for us, He made Him for our sake; for He conceived Him after us; so that, according to the impious, the Son who was made as a tool is henceforth superfluous, C since those for whose sake He was created have [already] come into being. But if, as a powerful One, the Son alone was made by the only God, and we, as powerless, were made by the Word, why does He not deliberate first about Him, since He is powerful, rather than about us? Or why does He not prefer the powerful to the weak? Or why, when He makes Him first, does He not also deliberate about His firstborn? Or why, when He deliberates about us first, does He not bring us into being first, when His will is sufficient for the [existence] of all things?
A Nevertheless, He creates Him first, but deliberates about us first, and desires us before the mediator; and while desiring to create us, and deliberating about us, He calls us creatures; but Him, whom He creates for our sake, He calls Son and own heir. Yet we, for whose sake He makes Him, ought rather to have been called sons; or, clearly, since He is Son, He ought to have been thought of and willed first, for whose sake He makes us all. These things are the vomit and nausea of the heretics.
31. Nor must the sentiment of the truth be passed over in silence, but it should rather be B fully declared. For the Word of God was not made for our sake, but we were made for His sake, and in Him all things were created 45. Nor, because we could not have been made by God Himself, whereas He could, was He therefore made by the Father alone, that He might create us through Him as an instrument; away with such a thought! It is not so. For even if it had pleased God not to produce any created things, the Word would none the less have been with the Father, and the Father would have been in Him. But things created could not have come to be without the Word; which is the reason why they were made through Him, and rightly so. For because the Word is by nature the proper Son of God's substance, and is from Him and in Him, as He Himself said, it was impossible that the creatures should not have been made through C Him. For just as the light illumines all things by its radiance, and nothing can be illuminated without the radiance; so also the Father, as if by a hand, wrought all things in the Word, and does nothing without Him. God said, therefore, as Moses recorded: Let there be light, and, Let the water be gathered together, and, Let the earth bring forth, and, Let us make man 46; and as blessed David sings: He said and they were made, He commanded and they were created 47. He said [this], I say, not so that, as is the custom among men, some servant might hear, and having learned the will of the speaker, might go away to perform the work. For this is proper to created things, but concerning the Word,
A to think or to say this is unseemly. For the Word of God is the Maker and Artificer, and He Himself is the counsel of the Father. For this reason, then, the divine Scripture did not say that the one who heard it listened and answered, as to how or in what manner he desired the things that were coming to be; but God only said, *Let there be*; and it added, *And it was so*. For what was willed and desired straightway came to be by the Word and was completed. For when God commands others, either angels, or speaks with Moses, then the one who hears answers; and one says, *Whereby shall I know?* and another, *Choose another*; and again, *If they ask me, What is His name? what shall I say to them?* And the angel B said to Zechariah, *Thus saith the Lord*; but he had asked the Lord, *O Lord Almighty, how long wilt Thou not have mercy on Jerusalem?* and he waits to hear good and comforting words. For each of these had as a mediator the Word of God, and the Wisdom of God, which makes known the will of the Father. But when the Word Himself acts and creates, there is no questioning or answering there; for in Him is the Father, and the Word is in the Father. But it is sufficient for Him to will, and the work comes to be; so that the word, *He said*, may be for our sake a token of the divine will, and by the words, *And it was so*, the work performed through the Word and Wisdom is signified, in which Wisdom also is the will of the Father. And this very thing, *God said*, is recognized in the Word. For He says, *Thou hast made all things in wisdom*; and, *By the Word of the Lord the heavens were established*; and, *One Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through Him*.
52. From these things, it is clear that the Arians do not bring the war against us regarding this heresy, but rather they feign to fight against us, while in reality they fight against the Divinity Itself. For if that voice which says, *This is My Son*, were our own, small would be their cause for complaint against us; but if the voice is the Father's, and heard by the disciples, and also confirmed by the Son Himself, who says of Himself, *Before all hills*...
A he begets me; are not they themselves now, like the giants celebrated in fables, to be called fighters against God, having a tongue, as the Psalmist said, like a sharp sword for impiety? For they have neither feared the voice of the Father, nor have they reverenced the words of the Savior; indeed, they have not even been persuaded by the holy men, of whom one writes: *Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person;* and: *Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.* And another sings: *For with thee is the fountain of life: in thy light shall we see light,* and: *In wisdom hast thou made all things.* And of the prophets who say: *And the word of the Lord came unto me;* and of John: *In the beginning was the Word;* and of Luke: *Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the Word.* As David also says again: *He sent his Word, and healed them.* For all these things refute the Arian heresy on every side, and signify the eternity of the Word, and that He is not foreign, but proper to the substance of the Father. For who has ever seen light without its radiance? Or who will dare to call the express image of the substance foreign to Him? Or how is he not more than mad who even considers that God was ever without Word or Reason and Wisdom? For Scripture has proposed B such examples and such images, so that, since human nature is unable to comprehend divine things, we might be able, at least from these, to understand in some small degree and obscurely, as far as it is possible, according to our powers. And just as the created world itself is sufficient of itself to prove that there is a God and providence—*For by the greatness and beauty of the creatures proportionably the maker of them is seen*—and we do not ask for words to learn this, but by hearing the Scriptures we believe, and by contemplating this order and harmony of all things, we understand Him to be the Maker of all, Lord and God, and we discern His admirable providence and governance over all things; in the same way, while the things that have been said thus far are clearly sufficient to prove the divinity of the Son, it would be vain, indeed most foolish, to doubt concerning this matter and to ask heretically, how the Son could have existed from eternity, or how He is from the substance of the Father, and yet not be His part, since that which is from an- C
Aother is said to be a part of him; and that which is divided, is it not an entire whole?
33. For these are the clever contrivances of the heterodox. And even if we have previously refuted their emptiness in these matters, nonetheless the precision of these statements, and the understanding of the examples, will refute the mere sketch of their wicked doctrine. For we see the Word always existing, being from Him, and being proper Bto the substance of Him whose Word He is, and having neither prior nor subsequent. We see also the radiance from the sun being proper to it, and the substance of the sun not being divided nor diminished, but itself remaining entire, and the radiance being perfect and entire, and not diminishing the substance of the light, but being a true offspring from it. We see also the Son not from without, but begotten from the Father, and the Father remaining entire, and the character of the hypostasis always existing, and preserving an unstained likeness and image to the Father, so that he who has seen Him, sees in Him also the hypostasis whose character He is. CAnd from the efficiency of the character we perceive the true divinity of the hypostasis; for the Savior Himself also said, teaching this: "He that abideth in me, the same beareth the works that I do;" and, "I and the Father are one;" and, "I in the Father and the Father in me." Therefore, let the Christ-opposing heresy first attempt to divide the examples in created things, and say: "There was once a sun without its radiance," or, "This is not proper to the substance of light," or, "It is proper, but acts as a part of this light by division." And again, let it divide the Word, and say that He is foreign to the Mind, or that there was a time when He was not, or that He is not proper to His substance, or that He is a part Dof Him by division. And let it divide the character and the light and the power in the same way as it does the Word and the radiance; and then let it imagine whatever it pleases. But if they cannot by any means dare such things, how are they not to be thought to be raving greatly, who in vain stretch themselves out toward, and attempt things impossible for, those that are above created beings and above their own nature?
A For if among these generated things, offspring are found which are not parts of the substances from which they originate, nor come into being through a process of passion, nor diminish the substances of their parents; how then are they not raving in the case of the 10 incorporeal and true God, by seeking and surmising parts and passions, and attributes of division to the impassible and immutable God, in order that they might disturb the ears of the more simple 11 in these matters, and turn them away from the truth? For who, upon hearing "Son," does not immediately understand what is proper to the nature of the Father? And who 12, when he was first being instructed in the elements of the Christian religion, upon hearing that God has a Son, and that He made all things by His own Word, did not receive it in his mind just as we now think? Who, when the foul heresy of the Arians arose, was not immediately astonished, upon hearing what they say, as though they were speaking alien things, and sowing over the word that had been 15 sown from the beginning? For that which is sown from the beginning in every soul is 14 that God has as Son the Word, the Wisdom, the Power, and that these are His image and radiance; and there springs up immediately from the things spoken the "always," the "from the Father," the "like," the "eternal" nature of the offspring of the substance 15, and there is no thought of a creature or a work in these things. But when the enemy man, while men slept, sowed the "creature," and the "there was 16 when He was not," and the "how then is it possible"—thenceforth, like tares, the wicked heresy of the Christ-fighters has arisen. And immediately, as if bereft of all right reason, like thieves they prowl about and dare to say: C «How then is it possible 17 for the Son to co-exist eternally with the Father? For men become sons of men after a passage of time, and the father is thirty years of age, but the son has a beginning, having been born at that time; and in general 18 every son of man was not, before he was born.» And again they whisper: «How can the Son be the Word, or the Word be the image of God? For the word of men, composed of syllables, merely signifies the will of the speaker, and immediately ceases and vanishes.»
A. Because it did not exist at all before it was spoken, it neither lives, nor does it perform any action, nor is the word of men a human being at all. This happens to it, as I said before, because the man who begets it has his nature from nothingness. But the Word of God B is not, as someone might say, a proferential word, nor is it a sound of utterances, nor is the Son merely what God commanded. Rather, like the radiance of light, he is a perfect offspring from the perfect. Wherefore he is God and the image of God; for, he says, "The Word was God" (Joan. I, 1). And whereas the words of men have no power to produce results—for which reason man works not through words, but with his hands, because these C exist as entities, whereas their word has no subsistence—the Word of God, as the Apostle said, is "living... the word of God, and effectual, and more piercing than any two-edged sword, and reaching unto the division of the soul and spirit, of the joints also and the marrow, and a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. And there is no creature invisible in his sight, but all things are naked and open unto his eyes, with whom we have to do" (Hebr. IV, 12, 13). He is therefore the Creator, and without him was nothing made, nor can anything exist apart from him.
B 36. Nor must we inquire why the Word of God is not such as ours: since God is not such as we are, as has been said before. Nor is it fitting to inquire how the Word is from God, or how He is the radiance of God, or how God begets, and what is the mode of God’s generation; for one would be insane to dare such things, as it is a matter ineffable and proper to the nature of God, known only to Him and to the Son, to claim it can be explained in words. For it is exactly the same as if they were to inquire where or in what manner God is, and what kind of person the Father is. As, therefore, it is the mark of the impious C and of those who are ignorant of God to inquire into such things, so it is altogether profane to dare to investigate such things concerning the generation of the Son of God, and to measure God and His wisdom by our own nature and infirmity. Yet it is not permitted on this account to think anything contrary to the truth, nor if any one has failed in these inquiries, ought he for that to derogate from faith in Scripture. For it is better to remain silent while hesitating and to believe, than to refuse to believe because we have hesitated. For he who hesitates may in some way obtain pardon, because, although he has searched, he has nevertheless remained quiet. But he who, because he himself hesitates, dares to invent what is in no way fitting, and utters things unworthy of God, will certainly obtain no pardon for his rashness. For in these difficulties one can D draw some consolation from the divine Scriptures, so that he may rightly understand what is written, and take our own word as an image and likeness. For just as our word is from us, and is not a work made external to us, so the Word of God is His own, from Him, and is not a creature, nor is it like the word of men; otherwise one would have to conclude that God is a man. For behold, many and various words of men pass away daily, because the earlier ones do not remain, but vanish. The cause of this is that their authors, being men, have fleeting lives, and thoughts that follow one upon another, and they speak just as they think and meditate; so that they have many words, yet not one of them afterwards survives. For when he who speaks has become silent, their word immediately fails. But the Word of God is one and the same; and, as it is written, the Word of God abideth for ever (Ps. CXVII, 89), without changing,
A nor is it first or second to another, but it is one and the same ever existing. For it was fitting that, God being one, his image should be one, and his Word one, and his wisdom one.
37. Therefore, I cannot but wonder how, when God is one, they, by their own conceits, introduce many images and wisdoms and words, and mean one thing to be the proper and natural Word of the Father, in which he even made the Son, while they think the true Son is called Word only by way of conception, like the vine, the way, the door, and the tree of life. They teach that he is called wisdom also in name only, but that there is another proper and true wisdom of the Father, existing co-eternally with him, in which he made the Son, and named him wisdom by participation in that other. These things they did not merely reach in words, but Arius set them down in his B *Thalia*, and the sophist Asterius wrote what we mentioned before, as follows: "The blessed Paul did not say that he preached Christ as the power of God or the wisdom of God, but without the addition of the article, *power of God* and *God’s wisdom* (1 Cor. 1:24); proclaiming another, that proper power of God which is implanted in him and co-exists with him unbegotten, which is, obviously, the begetter of Christ and the creator of the whole world, concerning which, teaching us in the Epistle to the Romans, he says: *For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead* (Rom. 1:20). For just as no one would say that the Godhead mentioned here is Christ, but that it is the Father himself; so I think that his eternal power and Godhead is not the Only-begotten Son, C but the Father who begat him. He teaches that there is another power and wisdom of God which appeared through Christ." And after a few words, the same Asterius says: "Although his eternal power and wisdom, which true reason declares to be without beginning and unbegotten, is certainly one and the same. Yet there are many wisdoms severally created by him, of which Christ is the first-born and Only-begotten; and all of them in like manner hang upon their Lord, and are rightfully and deservedly called the powers of him who created them and uses them." Hence the prophet [mentions] the locust to address D human sin, for he is the creator of the whole world. For the Arians also claimed the Son to be a product, but not as being of those things which are generated.
A
38. If these men dare to speak only this much, are they not worthy of all hatred? For if, as they themselves imagine, he is not the Son because he is begotten of the Father, and not on account of the properties of his nature, but is called the Word because of things endowed with reason, and Wisdom because of those who become wise, and power or virtue because of those who are made powerful; and finally, Son because of those who are made sons; he perhaps also exists only by thought because of things that exist. What then, in the end, will he be? For he himself could be said to be none of these things, if these are merely his names and he is to be said to exist only in thought, being adorned with such names simply for our sake. Indeed, they themselves should rather be judged to be driven by a diabolical or even worse madness, inasmuch as they wish themselves to exist truly, but think that the Word of God exists in name only. And is it not a monstrous thing they say, when they affirm that there is a wisdom co-existing with the Father, but deny that this is Christ, saying instead that there are many created powers and wisdoms, of which the Lord is one—the very one they do not hesitate to compare to the caterpillar and the locust? B And are they not also acting craftily, in that, when they hear from us that the Word co-exists with the Father, they immediately murmur, saying: “Therefore you say there are two unbegotten beings?” Yet they themselves, in saying that his unbegotten wisdom exists, do not see falling back upon themselves the vain charge they bring against us. And again, how is that other line of reasoning of theirs not utterly foolish, to say that the wisdom co-existing with God is God himself? For that which co-exists, co-exists not with itself but with something else, just as the evangelists write concerning the Lord, that he was with the disciples; for he was not with himself, but with the disciples. Unless, perhaps, they wish to say that God is composite, and has wisdom mingled with him or as a complement of his essence, which is itself unbegotten, C and D which they themselves introduce as the creator of the world, so that they may take away from the Son the act of creating.
For they struggle in every way to say [what they say], so that they might not think rightly concerning the Lord. A Where, B in fact, did they find it in the divine Scripture, or from whom did they hear it, that there is another Word and another Wisdom besides this Son, such that they fashion such things for themselves? For it is written: “Are not my words like fire, or like an axe that cuts stone?” (Jer. xxiii, 29); and in the Proverbs: “I will teach you my words” (Prov. i, 23). But these are precepts and commandments, which God has spoken to the saints through His own and only true Word, of whom the Psalmist spoke: “I have restrained my feet from every evil way, that I might keep thy words” (Psal. cxviii, 101). The Savior Himself, by these words, clearly showed that such words are apart from Him, when He said: “The words that I have spoken to you” (Jo. vi, 64). For such words are not offspring or sons, nor are they so many creating words, nor so many images of the one God, C nor are there so many men made for our sake, nor is the one who became flesh according to John [formed] from many such things; but as He who alone is the Word of God, it was proclaimed by John: “The Word became flesh,” and, “All things were made through Him” (Jo. i, 14, 3). Therefore, it is concerning this Lord of ours, Jesus Christ, alone, and concerning His unity with the Father, that the evidences have been written and shown—the Father declaring that there is one Son, and the saints having learned this, and calling the Word one and that He is the Only-Begotten; and the works done through Him are shown; for all things, both visible and invisible, were made through Him, and without Him not one thing was made. But they do not imagine anything concerning another or anything else, nor do they fashion for themselves words or wisdoms whose name or work is not indicated by Scripture, but they only make mention of [the true Word]. For this is their fabrication and a thought hostile to Christ; they abuse the name of Word and Wisdom, and while fashioning other words or other wisdoms for themselves, they deny D the true Word of God, and the truly and only Wisdom of the Father, and thus lead the wretched men to imitate the Manichaeans. For they, too, observing the works of God, deny Him who is the one and only true God, and fashion for themselves another, whose work or testimony they are unable to show from the divine oracles.
A For if no other wisdom is found besides this Son, nor have we heard anything of the sort from the Fathers; and it has been confessed D and written by them that Wisdom coexists with the Father, being His own, and is the creator of the world; then He, the Son, who even according to them coexists eternally with the Father, must be that Creator. For He is the Creator, as it is written: "In wisdom You have made all things" (Ps. CIII, 24). And indeed Asterius himself, as if forgetting what he had written before, when arguing later against the Gentiles, not unlike Caiaphas, unwittingly and against his will, no longer mentions "many wisdoms" or the "caterpillar," but hereafter confesses one, writing thus: "God B is indeed one Word or Reason, but things are endowed with many reasons: and there is one substance and nature of Wisdom, but many things are wise and good." And after a few words he adds: "Who might these be whom they deem worthy to be called sons of God? For they will not say that they are also words, nor will they say that there are many wisdoms. For it is impossible, since there is one Word and Wisdom has been shown to be one, to distribute the essence of the Word to a multitude of sons, and to grant them the designation of Wisdom." It is no wonder, therefore, if the Arians fight against the truth, C seeing that they even collide with each other, stumbling as they do over their own assertions, at one time saying there are many wisdoms, and at another declaring there is one; and at one time they associate Wisdom with the caterpillar, and at another they say it coexists with the Father and is His own; and at one time they say that only the Father is unbegotten, and at another that His Wisdom and Power are also unbegotten. And although they fight against us when we say that the Word of God is always, they themselves, saying that Wisdom coexists with God unbegottenly, forget their own claims. Thus, they are dizzy with vertigo in all things, rejecting the true Wisdom and searching out one that does not exist, just as the Manichaeans, who, denying the God who truly is, fashion another for themselves.
41. Let the other heretics also hear, and the Manichaeans, that one A is the Father of Christ, and the Lord and Creator of the creation through His own Word. Let the Ariomanites hear particularly, that one is the Word of God, the only own and genuine Son, born from His very essence, and having an indivisible unity of divinity with His Father, as we have often said, having learned this from the Savior Himself. For if it were not so, why does the Father create through Him, and in Him reveal Himself to whom He wills, and illuminate them? Or why is the Son named together with the Father in the completion of baptism? For if the Father is not sufficient, the statement is impious; but if He is sufficient—which it is right to say—what need is there of the Son, either in creation or in the holy bath? For what fellowship has a created thing with the Creator B? Or why is that which is made enumerated with its Maker in the perfection of all things? Or why is our faith delivered, according to you, into one Creator and into one created thing? For if it is in order that we might be united to the divinity, what need is there of a created thing? And if it is in order that we might be united into the Son, being a created thing, then the naming of the Son in baptism is, according to you, superfluous. For God, who adopted Him, is able to adopt us also. Besides, if the Son is a created thing, since the nature of intellectual creatures is one, no help can be afforded to creatures by a creature, because all have need of the grace from God. We have already explained, in a few words, how consistently all things were made through Him. But since the sequence of the holy baptism C has also made it necessary for us to make mention of it, it is necessary to respond, as I myself feel and believe: the Son is not named together with the Father as if the Father were insufficient, nor does it happen rashly and by chance; but because He is the Word of God and His own wisdom, and being His radiance, He is always with the Father; for this reason, since the Father provides, it is impossible that grace should not be given in the Son. For the Son is in the Father, as radiance is in the light. For God does not do this as if He were in need, but as a Father, who has established the earth by His own wisdom 89, and has made all things by the Word which is from Him, and confirms the holy bath in the Son. For where the Father is, there also is the Son; as where the light is, there also is the radiance. And
as the Father works, He works through the Son, and the Lord Himself says: The things which I see the Father doing, these I also do. Thus also, A when the baptism is administered, the one whom the Father baptizes, he is also whom the Son baptizes; and if the Son baptizes, he is perfected in the Holy Spirit. Again, just as when the sun is shining, one might say that the radiance also gives light—for the light is one, and it is impossible to divide or separate it—so also, where the Father is or is named, there in every case the Son also exists; and since the Father is named in the baptism, it is necessary that the Son also be named together with Him.
42. B Therefore, to those who are holy, He promised, and so spoke: We will come, I and the Father, and will make our abode with him. And again: That as I and Thou are one, so also they may be one in us. In like manner, the grace which is given from the Father in the Son is one, as Paul writes throughout every Epistle: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ. For it is necessary that the light be with the radiance, and that the radiance be seen alongside its own light. Whence the Jews, together with these men, by denying the Son, do not have the Father either; for having abandoned the C fountain of wisdom, as Baruch reproves them, they also cast away from themselves the wisdom which flows from it, our Lord Jesus Christ; for Christ, says the Apostle, is the power of God and the wisdom of God. Saying: We have no king but Caesar. The Jews then bear the wages of their impiety for this denial; for together with their city, they lost their reason. But these men are now in danger even regarding the very fullness of the mystery; I speak, namely, of baptism. For if the perfection is given into the name of the Father and the Son, yet they do not profess the true Father, because D
A they deny that which is from Him and like to the substance; they deny also the true Son, and naming another for themselves, a creature fashioned out of nothing, how is the baptism given by them not utterly void and useless, having indeed the pretense, but in truth having no aid toward piety? For the Arians do not baptize into Father and Son, but into Creator and creature, and into Maker and thing made. And just as a creature is different from the Son, so would that which they think B is being given be different from the truth, even if they pretend to name the name of the Father and of the Son, because of what is written. For not everyone who says, "Lord, Lord," gives it, but rather he who, along with the name, has also the correct faith. For this reason, too, the Savior did not simply command to baptize, but first says, "Make disciples"; and then thus: "Baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," so that from the learning the correct faith might come to be, and after faith, the completion of baptism might be added.
43. Therefore, many other heresies C likewise pronounce the names, but because they do not think correctly, as has been said, nor have the faith that is sound, the water given by them is useless and lacking in piety; so that whoever is sprinkled by them is defiled in impiety rather than redeemed. Thus also the Greeks, although they have "God" on their lips, are under the charge of atheism, because they do not know Him who truly is and is the true God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Thus the Manichaeans, the Phrygians, and the disciples of Samosatensis, although they pronounce the names, are nonetheless heretics. Thus also, then, those who side with Arius, even if they recite what is written and pronounce the names, still they deceive and mock those who receive baptism from them; for their impiety D is far greater than that of other heretics, whom they gradually surpass, so that they might even appear free of blame through their own glibness. For those other heretics have invented something contrary to the truth, so that either their error concerns the Lord’s body, and they deny that He took flesh from the Virgin Mary, or they contend that He did not undergo death, and in no way became man, but only appeared, and was not truly such, and seemed to have a body, though He had none, and seemed to be a man
A appearing, as in a dream of fancy; but these men are openly impious against the Father himself. For, hearing from the Scriptures of His divinity being testified to in the Son as in an image, they blaspheme, saying that it is a creature, and everywhere carrying about this little phrase, "He was not," like mud in a wallet, and they cast it forth as a serpent B its venom. Then, because their doctrine is nauseating to all, they immediately, as a buttress for the collapse of their heresy, suggest human authority, so that the simpler person, seeing this—or even fearing—might not discern the harmful nature of their malice. How, then, is it not worthy to pity those deceived by them? Or how is it not proper to weep for them, because for the sake of immediate pleasures and the fancy of the moment they betray their own advantage, and fall from the hope of the future? For those who think they are receiving baptism in the name of him who is not, will receive nothing at all, but, being joined to a creature, they will obtain no help from the creation. Even those who believe in one unlike and alien in essence to the Father will not be joined to the Father, not having the true Son by nature from Him, who is in the Father, C in whom also the Father is, as He Himself has said; but, having been led astray by these men, the wretches remain henceforth destitute and naked of the Godhead. For the false goods of the earth will not follow them when they die, nor, when they see the Lord whom they denied sitting upon the throne of His Father, and judging the living and the dead, will it be permitted them to call to their aid any of those by whom they were deceived. For they shall see those men themselves being judged, and repenting of the things in which they acted unjustly and impiously.
44. Furthermore, we have previously explained this regarding the text of the Proverbs, and have insisted upon refuting their absurd fabrications, so that, having a clear perspective that the Son of God ought not to be called a creature, they may learn to read that passage in the Proverbs correctly D as well, which itself has a sound meaning. For it is written, "The Lord created me the beginning of His ways for His works"; but since these are proverbs, and it was said proverbially, one ought not to take the literal word simply as it lies, but to seek out the person, and thus, with piety, to apply the meaning to Him.
A For the things said in proverbs are not spoken clearly, but are declared cryptically, as the Lord Himself taught in the Gospel according to John, saying: *These things I have spoken to you in proverbs, but the hour comes when I shall no longer speak to you in proverbs, but plainly.* Therefore, it is necessary to uncover the meaning of the statement, and to seek it out as something hidden, and not to take it simply as if it were stated plainly, lest by misinterpreting it we be led astray from the truth. If, then, what is written concerns an angel or some other of the begotten things, as if speaking of one of us, His creations, let the saying "He created me" be regarded in that way. But if it is the Wisdom of God, in Whom all begotten things have been fashioned, who is speaking about herself B, what should we think, except that in saying "He created," she expresses what is not contrary to "He begat"? Nor, as if forgetful that she is Creator and Maker, or ignorant of the difference between the One who creates and the things created, does she count herself among the creatures; but she signifies a certain meaning, as in proverbs, not plainly, but cryptically. While she breathed into the saints to prophesy, she herself, after a few words, signifying the "He created" by parallel in other terms, says: *Wisdom built for herself a house.* It is clear that the house of Wisdom is our body, which He took up and became man; and it is rightly said by John: *The Word became flesh*; and by Solomon C, Wisdom says about herself with careful observation, not "I am a creature," but only "The Lord created me in the beginning of His ways for His works," and not "He created me so that I might exist," nor that I have the beginning and genesis of a creature.
[45.] For here also, the Word, in saying this through Solomon, does not signify His divinity, nor His eternal and genuine generation from the Father, but again His human nature and the dispensation for our sake. Wherefore, as I said before, she did not say, "I am a creature," or "I was made a creature," but only "He created." For creatures, having their essence as created, are of the things begotten, and are said to be created, and a creature is in all respects created; but the word "created," used by itself, D does not necessarily signify the essence or the generation, but indicates something else regarding Him about whom she speaks; and not in every case...
is that which is said to be created also by nature and essence a creature. And divine Scripture knows this distinction; regarding created things it says: "The earth is filled with thy creation," A and, "The creation itself groaneth and travaileth in pain together." In the Apocalypse, also, it is written: "And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, that had life, died." Likewise, Paul says: "Every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected, if it be received with thanksgiving." And in the book of Wisdom it is read: "And by thy wisdom thou hast appointed man, that he should have dominion over the creatures that have been made by thee." But that these things which are creatures are said to be created, one may discern again from the Lord, whose words are indeed these: "But from the beginning He that created them, made them male and female." Moses also confirms this, who in the Canticle speaks thus: "Ask of the days that are before B thee, from the day that God created man upon the earth, and from the one end of heaven to the other." And Paul in the Epistle to the Colossians writes thus: "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature; for in him were all things created that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and for him, and he is before all things."
46. Therefore, that those things which have their substance from their nature created are called creatures and are truly created, is sufficiently manifest from these things which we have brought forward by way of reminder, since otherwise C Scripture is full of testimonies of this kind. But that the word "created," used alone, does not always signify the nature or the origin, is clear from David, who in the Psalms says: "Let this be written for another generation, and the people which shall be created shall praise the Lord;" and again: "Create in me a clean heart, O God." Paul also, in the Epistle to the Ephesians, writes: "Having abolished in his flesh the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man;" and again: "And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness." For neither did David speak of any people D being created as to their substance,
A nor did he signify two kinds of beings. Nor did Paul suggest that we should put on any other man; but he was speaking of the man according to God, the life according to virtue, and he signified the two peoples who are renewed in Christ as those being created in Him. Such also is what is said by Jeremiah: "The Lord created a new salvation for a planting, in which salvation men shall encompass" (48). By saying this, he does not signify any essence of a creature, but he is prophesying the salvation being renewed in men, which came to pass in Christ for us.
Since, then, there is such a difference between created things and the mere use of the word "created" when applied to anything, if you have found anywhere in the divine Scripture the Lord called a "creature," show it and maintain your position. But if it is nowhere written that He is a creature, yet He Himself says of Himself in the Proverbs: "The Lord B created me," be ashamed at the aforementioned distinction and at the things said in a proverbial manner; and henceforth, when you hear "created," do not understand it as "creature," but as the human nature that came to be in Him, for it is proper to this nature to be created. For how do you not act unjustly, in that when you hear "He created" from David and Paul, you do not conceive of essence and origin, but of renewal; yet when you hear "He created" from the Lord, you count His essence among the creatures? And again, when you hear, "Wisdom built for Herself a house, and set up seven pillars," you allegorize the "house," but you take the word "created" as it stands and translate it into "creature." And neither does the fact that He is the Creator and Maker hold you back, nor are you afraid C that He is the only true offspring of the Father; but you fight rashly, as though you were given a name against Him, and you think more basely of Him than of men.
47. For it is by this very passage that your mere fiction is refuted, in that you affirm that the Lord is a creature. For the Lord, knowing His own essence to be the Only-Begotten Wisdom and offspring of the Father, and being something other than things made and from the nature of created things, now speaks in human fashion: "The Lord created me as the beginning of His ways" D for His works.
A It is the same as saying: "The Father prepared a body for me," and He created me for men, for the salvation of men. For just as when we hear from John, "The Word became flesh," we do not understand that the entire Word became flesh, but that He put on flesh and became man; and when we hear, "Christ became a curse for us," B and, "He who knew no sin He made to be sin for us," we do not understand that He in His entirety became a curse and sin, but that He took upon Himself the curse that was against us, as the Apostle said, "He redeemed us from the curse," and bore our sins, as Isaiah says, and as Peter wrote, "He carried them up in His body to the wood." C
Therefore, if in the Proverbs we hear the word "created," we must not understand the Word to be a creature in His nature, but that He put on a created body, and God created Him for us, having prepared for us in Him a created body, as is written, that in it we might be renewed and enabled to be deified. What then, O fools, has deceived you into calling the Creator a creature? Or whence have you acquired for yourselves this new notion, and why do you boast in it? The Proverbs indeed have the word "created," but they say the Son is not a creature, but begotten. And according to the distinction previously explained from the Scriptures D regarding the word "created" and the term "creature," they acknowledge that He is by nature Wisdom, the only-begotten and Fashioner of created things, which is the property of the Son's nature. But when they use the word "created," they do not speak of His nature, but signify that He becomes the beginning of many ways, so that the word "created" is contrasted with "offspring," while the term "beginning of ways" is contrasted with the Word insofar as He is only-begotten.
48. For if He is begotten, how do you call Him a creature? For no one speaks of what he creates as "begetting," nor does he call his own offspring "creatures." Again, if He is only-begotten, how does He become the beginning of the ways? For if He, having been created as the beginning of all things, is no longer the only one, but has those who came into being after Him, it must be that He is not the only one. For indeed, Reuben, who was the beginning of the children...
of Jacob, was not a only-begotten; but while he was first in time, in nature and kinship he was one of those who were born after him. Therefore, if the Word is the beginning of the ways, then He A must be as the ways are, and the ways must be such as the Word is, even if He is created first of them in time. For the beginning of a city is of the same kind as the other parts of the city, and the parts themselves, being joined to the beginning, complete a whole and single city, just as the many members of one body. Nor is one part of it among those that constitute it, and another among those that are brought into being, such that it is subject to the other part; rather, the whole is equally under the care of the maker and consists [in unity]. If therefore the Lord is also created as the beginning of all things in this way, it is necessary that He constitutes one created nature with all things, and that He neither be [called] distinct, nor be the lord of the other parts of the creation, even if He happens to be older in time; for along with all things He has one and the same reason for His creation and one and the same Lord. But how, if He is a creature B according to you, can He be created alone and first, so as to be also the beginning of all things, when it is clear from what has been said that among creatures there is nothing stable in itself and made first, but it has its genesis along with all things, even if it differs from the others in dignity? For not each of the stars, nor one of the great luminaries appeared first and another second, but in one day and by the same command all were called into being. So too the genesis of four-footed animals, birds, swimming creatures, and cattle, and of plants was fashioned; thus also the race of men, which was made according to the image of God, came to be. For even if Adam alone was fashioned from the earth, yet within him were the reasons and seeds of the propagation of the human race.
49. Furthermore, from these things of the world that we see, we perceive also His invisible things, being understood by the works, that there too we do not see each one separately; nor [do we see] one thing first, and another second, but all things came to exist together according to their kind. For the Apostle did not enumerate each one, so as to say, "whether angel, or throne, or dominion, and power," but he mentions them all together in order C with such words: "Whether angels, or archangels, or principalities." For such is the genesis of created things. If therefore, as I have said before, D we perceive even His invisible things, being understood by the works, and they do not exist each one separately. For it is not the case that one thing is first or another second, but they all existed together according to their kind. For the Apostle did not count them individually, so as to say, "whether angel, or throne, or dominion, and power," but he lists all of such things together in order with these words: "Whether angels, or archangels, or principalities." Such, then, is the proper origin of created things.
A Igitur si, ut dixi, Verbum creatum esset, non prius A or rather, if the Word were a creature, it ought not to have been created before them, but together with the other powers, even if it exceeds the others in glory. For so the case stands with others, which were indeed made at the same time, and among them no one is first or second, although they differ from one another in glory, and some are on the right, others round about, and others on the left, and all praise together and stand by to serve the Lord. If, therefore, the Word is a creature, He would not be the first, nor the beginning of the others. But if He is before all things, as indeed He is, and He alone is first and is the Son, then He is not the beginning of all things in essence; for in the "all" the beginning of all things is also numbered. But if He is not the beginning, He is not a creature either; but it would be evident that He is distinct in essence and nature from creatures, and is something else than them, being the likeness and image of the only and true God, alone and subsisting in Himself. B For this reason, the Scriptures do not rank Him with creatures; but David rebukes those who would dare even to imagine such a thing, saying: "Who is like unto thee among the gods, O Lord?" And, "Who shall be likened unto the Lord among the sons of God?" And Baruch: "This is our God, and there shall none other be accounted in comparison of Him." For He indeed creates, but they are created; and He is the Word and Wisdom proper to the nature of the Father; but the things made, since they were not before, have been produced through the Word Himself.
50. C The saying, therefore, which is so bruited about by you, that the Son is a creature, is not true, but a mere invention of your mind, and you are condemned by Solomon himself, because you have often wrongly abused his authority. For he has not taught that the Son is a created thing, but the offspring and wisdom of God, saying: "God by wisdom hath founded the earth," and, "Wisdom hath builded her house." And even the text itself, when examined, refutes your impiety; for it is written: "The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works." If, therefore, He is before all things, but says, "He created me," it is not that I might do the works, but "for the works"; or else the "created me" is something posterior to Him, or He will appear to be second to the works, since He finds them, when He is created, already existing before Him, D for whose sake He is even created. But if these things are true, how can it be that He is still before all things? Or how did all things come into being through Him, and consist in Him? Behold, for according to you, the works consist and exist even before Him, into which
He was sent. But it is not so: far be it! The opinion of the heretics A is false. For the Word of God is not a creature, but He is the Creator; however, He speaks proverbially, "The Lord created me," when He put on the created flesh. And this again is possible to be understood from the saying itself. For being the Son and having God as Father, since He is His own proper offspring, yet He calls the Father "Lord" B now; not because He was a servant, but because He took upon Himself the form of a servant. For it was fitting for Him, as being the Word from the Father, to call God "Father"—for this is proper to a son toward a father—and thus, having come to complete the work and having taken the form of a servant, to call the Father "Lord." And He Himself taught this distinction with excellent clarification, saying in the Gospels: "I confess to Thee, O Father"; and then, "Lord of heaven and earth." C For He says that God is His own Father, but He names Him Lord of the creatures; so that it is shown clearly from this that when He put on the created [nature], then He calls the Father "Lord." For indeed, the Holy Spirit also signifies the same distinction in the prayer of David through the Psalms, saying: "Give Thy power to Thy servant, and save the son of Thy handmaid." D For the one is the natural and true child of God, and others are the children of the handmaid, which the nature of created things is. Therefore, the one, as Son, possesses the paternal power, while the others are in need of salvation.
51. But if, because He was called a "servant" [or child], they wish to cavil, let them learn that Isaac was also called the child of Abraham, and the son of the Shunammite was called a little boy. Rightly, therefore, being servants ourselves, when He became as we are, He also calls the Father "Lord," as we do; and He has done this out of His love for mankind, so that we, who are servants by nature, and having received the Spirit of the Son, might have the boldness to call the One who is our Lord by nature, "Father" by grace. But just as we, in calling the Lord "Father," do not deny our servitude by nature—for we are His works, and He made us and not we ourselves—so when the Son, taking the form of a servant, says, "The Lord created me as the beginning of His ways," let them not, in their heresy, deny the eternity of His divinity.
or that the Word was in the beginning, and all things were made through Him, and in Him all things were created. A But as I have said before, that statement in the Proverbs does not signify the essence of the Word, but His humanity. For if He says He was created for works, it is manifest that He does not mean to indicate His own essence, but the economy which took place for the sake of His works, which is secondary to being. For things that are made and created are made primarily for the sake of being and existing, and only secondarily have they the task of doing what the Word may command them, as is evident in all cases. For Adam was created, not so that he might work, but so that he might first be a man; for after this he received the commandment to work. Noah, likewise, was not created for the sake of the ark, but so that he might first be and become a man; for after this he was ordered to build the ark. One can observe the same thing in each of the others. For that great Moses first became a man, and only secondly was the leadership of the people entrusted to him. Therefore, it is permitted to understand this here as well. B For you see that He is not created that He might be; rather, in the beginning was the Word, but after that He is sent to the works and the economy regarding them. For before the works existed, the Son always was, but there was not yet a need for Him to be created. But when the works were created, and there was need after that for the economy for their restoration, then the Word gave Himself in order to condescend and be made like the works—which, indeed, He wished to signify to us by the word "created." C He teaches something similar through the prophet Isaiah in these words: "And now, thus says the Lord, who formed me from the womb to be His servant, to gather Jacob to Him, and Israel; I shall be gathered, and I shall be glorified before the Lord."
52. See how here too He is not fashioned so that He might be, but so that He might gather the tribes, which existed even before He was fashioned. For as it is written there, "He created," so here it is said, "He fashioned"; and as it is added there, "unto works," so here it follows, "to gather." Wherefore, [it is clear that] D that in the beginning the Word was, and all things were created through Him. But the statement in the Proverbs, as I said before, does not signify the essence, but the humanity of the Word; for if He says He was created for works, it appears that He does not wish to signify His own essence, but the economy which came to pass for His works, which is second to being. For things that are created and formed are made primarily for the sake of being and existing, and they have the doing as a secondary matter, concerning which the Word might command them, as one can see in all things. For Adam was created not that he might work, but that he might first be a man; for after this he received the commandment to work. And Noah was not created for the sake of the ark, but that he might first exist and become a man; for after this he received the commandment to build the ark; and by searching, one could find these things in the case of each person. For indeed, the great Moses first became a man, and secondly was entrusted with the leadership of the people. So then, it is allowed to think this here too; for you see that He is not created for the sake of being, but in the beginning the Word was, and after this He is sent to the works, and to the economy of them. For even before the works came to be, the Son was always, but there was not yet a need for Him to be created. When, however, the works were created, and there was need after that for the economy for their correction, then the Word gave Himself to be brought down and made like the works, which He has made plain to us by the word "created"; and wishing to signify the same thing through the prophet Isaiah, He says again: "And now, thus says the Lord, who formed me from the womb to be a servant to Himself, to gather Jacob to Him, and Israel; I shall be gathered and glorified before the Lord."
52. Behold, here too He is not being fashioned for the sake of being, but for the sake of gathering the tribes, which existed even before He was fashioned. For just as there, "He created," so here, "He fashioned"; and as there, "unto the works," so here, "unto the gathering"—so that... [alt-version omitted]
from every side it may appear that the Word is second, since the words "He created" and "He fashioned" are used of Him. A For just as the tribes, for whose sake He was fashioned, existed even before the fashioning, so too the works, for the sake of which He was created, are seen to have existed beforehand. And when the Word was in the beginning, the works did not yet exist, as I have said; but when the works had come to be, and necessity demanded it, then the word "He created" was spoken.
And just as if a son, when belongings were being lost and were held by enemies through their own negligence, and when necessity had taken hold, were sent by his father to recover and gather them up; and he, going away, were to put on clothing similar to theirs, and disguise himself as they are, so that those who held them might not flee upon recognizing him as their master, and he might be prevented from going down to those who were hidden away under the earth by them; and then, if anyone were to ask him, "Why do you do so?" such a one would answer: B "My father has fashioned and prepared me thus for his works." By speaking thus, he would signify neither that he himself is a slave nor that he is one of the works; nor does he state the beginning of his own existence, but rather the care for the works later entrusted to him. In the same way, the Lord also, having put on our flesh and having been found in form as a man, if He were questioned by those who saw and wondered at Him in such a state, would reply: "The Lord created me the beginning of His ways for His works," and, "He fashioned me to gather Israel."
The Spirit, also, further pre-announcing this in the Psalms, said: "You have set Him over the works of your hands." C Which the Lord Himself also confirms concerning Himself with these words: "But I have been set as King by Him over Sion His holy mount." Yet, just as when He shone corporally upon Sion, He did not then begin to be or to reign—but being Himself the Word of God and an eternal King, He willed in a human manner that His kingdom should shine also in Sion, so that, having redeemed them and us from the sin reigning in them, He might bring them under His Father's kingdom—so, being set over the works, He is set not over those which are not yet, but over those which already exist and stand in need of correction.
53. Therefore, these expressions, "He created" and "He fashioned" and "He set," D hold the same meaning, and are not intended to signify the beginning of His existence, but our redemption into the state which He has granted us. For as the Word is not a creature, so also He was not created for Himself—for He is the Creator—but for our sake, in order that we, having been fashioned, might be re-fashioned, and, having been created, might be re-created by Him.
A Since he says these things, he nonetheless taught that He existed even before these things, when He said: "Before Abraham was, I am"; and: "When He was preparing the heaven, I was present with Him"; and: "I was with Him" B fitting. Just as He Himself existed before Abraham was born, but Israel came into being after Abraham, and it is clear that He who pre-existed was fashioned later, and the fashioning signifies not the beginning of His being, but the becoming man, in which He also gathers together the tribes of Israel; so likewise, being always with the Father, He Himself is the creator of creation, and it is clear that His works are secondary, and the word, "He created," does not signify that He began to be, but makes known the administration of the works which He carried out in the flesh. For it was fitting that He who was other than the works, and indeed was their creator, should also take upon Himself the renovation of them, so that, He Himself being created for our sake, He might re-create all things in Himself. For, even when saying "He created," He immediately added the cause, namely, the works, so that by these words, "created into works," the becoming man might be manifested for the renovation of these. And this is the custom of divine Scripture: whenever it signifies the birth of the Word according to the flesh, it also puts forward the cause on account of which He became man; C but when He Himself or His ministers speak about His divinity, all things are uttered with a simple expression and an absolute thought, and nothing is said with an implied cause. For He is the radiance of the Father; and just as the Father is not for any cause, so neither is one to seek the cause of this radiance. Therefore it is written: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"—of which matter indeed no cause is brought forward. But when "the Word became flesh," then the cause on account of which He became so is indicated by these words: "and dwelt among us." Again, the Apostle also, saying: "Who, existing in the form of God," D did not put forward the cause except when he
A took the form of a servant; for it is then that he adds, saying: "He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even death on a cross." For this is the reason why the Word also became flesh and took the form of a servant.
54. The Lord himself also has spoken many things in parables, but when he speaks about himself, he says absolutely: "I am in the Father, and the Father in me" (John xiv, 10); and: "I and the Father are one" (John x, 30); and: "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (John xiv, 9); and: "I am the light of the world" (John viii, 12); and: "I am the truth" (John xiv, 6); in which places no cause is recited, nor is any reason offered why it is so, lest B he should appear to be posterior to those for whose sake he also came to be. For it is necessary that the cause exist prior to that which would not have existed without it. Paul, indeed, an apostle set apart for the Gospel, which God promised beforehand through the prophets (Rom. i, 1), already had the Gospel before himself, the Gospel of which he became a minister. And John, having been appointed to go before the Lord, also had the Lord before himself. But the Lord, not having any cause before himself for being the Word, other than that he is the offspring of the Father and his only-begotten Wisdom, when he becomes man, then also he sets forth the cause for which he is about to wear flesh. For the need of men, without which he would not have put on flesh, precedes his becoming man. C And what is the need for which he became man? The Lord himself, signifying this, said: "I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that of all that he has given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day" (John vi, 38-39). "For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day" (John vi, 40). And again: "I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness" (John xii, 46). And again he says: "For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth" (John xviii, 37). And John wrote: D "For this the Son of God has appeared, that he might destroy the works of the devil" (1 John iii, 8).
55. Therefore, the Savior came to bear witness, and to take upon himself death for our sake, and to raise men up, and to destroy the works of the devil.
A This is the reason for his appearance in the flesh. For there could have been no resurrection if death had not already occurred; but how could death have occurred if he had not possessed a body capable of dying? Paul, having learned this from him, said: "Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery" (Heb. ii, 14, 15). And: "For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead" (1 Cor. xv, 21). And again: "For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit" (Rom. viii, 3, 4). And John says: "For God sent the Son into the world, not to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him" (John iii, 17). Again, the Savior himself said: "For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind" (John ix, 39). B Therefore, he did not come for his own sake, but for our salvation, and in order that death might be destroyed, sin condemned, the blind might see, and all might be raised from the dead. If he did not come for his own sake but for ours, he is not created for his own sake but for ours; therefore, he is not himself a creature, but he said these things because he had taken on our flesh. That the Scriptures have this meaning, one may learn from the Apostle, who writes as follows to the Ephesians: "He has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in his flesh the enmity, the law of commandments in ordinances, that he might create in himself the two into one new man, making peace" (Ephes. ii, 14-15). C If two are created in him, and they are in his body, it is not without cause, therefore, that, bearing the two within himself, he is also himself spoken of as created. For he joined together those created in himself, and he was in them, just as they were. Thus, furthermore, with two being created in him, it is most fitting for him to say: The Lord created...
are created, and these are in His body. It is reasonable, then, that He who carries the two in Himself should say this, as one who is created; for He united those who were created in Him, and He was Himself in them as they were. And so, while the two were created in Him, He might fitly say: "The Lord created me." Just as, for accepting our infirmities, He is said to be infirm, though He is not infirm—since He is the Power of God—and became sin and a curse for us, though He did not sin Himself, but because He Himself bore our sins and our curse, so too, A in creating us in Himself, let Him say that "He created me for works," even though He is not Himself a creature.
56. For if, as they think, as though the nature of the Word were created, He says, "The Lord created me," as being a creature; He was not created for our sakes. But if He was not created for us, we were not created in Him: and if we were not created in Him, we would not have Him within ourselves, but we would have Him outside us, as if we had received the teaching from Him as from a master. But if the matter stands so with us, doubtlessly the sin of the flesh continues to rule no less than before, and has not been expelled from it. But the Apostle opposes these men, saying a little before this: "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus." If, therefore, we were created in Christ, it is not He who is being created, B but we ourselves are those who are created in Him, and for our sake that expression, "He created," was written. For on account of our need, the Word, even though He is the Creator, does not refuse the expression of created things; nor is this voice His own, inasmuch as He is the Word, but this term, "He created," is ours, who are indeed created in Him. And just as, since the Father is always, so also His Word is always; and inasmuch as He is always, He says: "I was that in which He was rejoicing; and I was daily delighting before His face"; and, "I am in the Father, and the Father in Me": so when, for the sake of our need, He became man, accordingly He says those things that are ours, as we do: "The Lord created me"; so that, He having dwelt in the flesh, sin might be totally exterminated from the flesh, C and we might have a free mind. But what was it becoming for Him, having become man, to say? "In the beginning I was a man"? But neither did this fit Him, nor was it true. But just as this was not fitting for Him to say, so it is appropriate and proper for man D to say, "He created," and, "He made him." For this reason, therefore, the cause of the
A necessity of the works is added, and where the cause is subjoined, it completely removes the difficulty of the passage. For here he assigns the cause for which the word "created" is used, namely, the works. But when the discourse is openly held concerning His generation from the Father, he immediately subjoins: "Before all the hills He begets me." He does not, as in the case of "He created me," add the reason by saying, "for the works," but says it absolutely, "He begets me," just like, "In the beginning was the Word." For even if no works had been created, the Word of God would nonetheless still exist, and the Word would be God. But He would have by no means become man, had not the need of men been the cause. The Son, therefore, is not a creature; for if He were a creature, He would not have said, "He begets me." Because creatures are external works of the maker, but the begotten is not external like a work, but is of the Father, and is something proper to His essence. Hence, the former are creatures, but the Word of God is the B only-begotten Son.
57. Certainly, Moses did not say concerning created things, "In the beginning He begat," nor "In the beginning was," but, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Nor, likewise, did David sing, "Your hands have begotten me," but, "Have made me and fashioned me," and he everywhere uses the word "made" when speaking of created things, but not when he is speaking of the Son. For He did not say, "I made," but, "I begat," and "He begets me," and, "My heart has poured forth a good Word." Therefore, it is said of created things, "In the beginning He made," but of the Son, "In the beginning was the Word." Furthermore, this is the distinction: that created things are made under a beginning, and have a beginning of existence distinct in intervals of time, so that these words, "In the beginning He made," mean the same as if one were to say, "He made from a beginning," just as the Lord, C who rightly knew what He had made, taught when He refuted the Pharisees with these words, "He who created them from the beginning made them male and female." For things that are made from some beginning, since at some point they were not, are both founded and created, which the Holy Spirit Himself declared in the psalms, saying, "And You, O Lord, at the beginning have founded the earth"; and again, "Remember Your congregation which You have acquired from the beginning." It is evident that what comes to be "at the beginning" has a beginning...
A of being created, and that God acquired the congregation from some beginning. And that the expression, "In the beginning He made," comes from the fact of saying "He made"—which is to say "He began to make"—this Moses himself indicates after the completion of all things, saying: "And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His works which God began to do." Therefore, created things began to be; but the Word of God, not having a beginning of existence, naturally did not begin to exist, nor did He begin to be made, but He always was. And works indeed have a beginning in being made, and the beginning precedes the things that come to be; but the Word, not being of the things that come to be B, rather becomes the Creator of those things which have a beginning. And while the existence of begotten things is measured in the process of coming to be, and these things start from some beginning for God to make them through the Word, so that it may be known that they did not exist before they were made, the Word does not have His existence in another beginning, but in the Father, who is (according to them) without beginning, so that He himself may exist without beginning in the Father, being His offspring and not His creature.
58. Thus, therefore, divine Scripture knows the difference between an offspring and things made, and it shows that the offspring is the Son, not having begun from some beginning but being eternal; while it signifies that a thing made, being as it were an external work of the Maker, has begun to come into existence. For thus also John, theologizing concerning the Son C and knowing the difference of terms, did not say: "In the beginning He was made," or "He has been created," but, "In the beginning was the Word," so that the "was" might be understood as accompanying the offspring, and that no one might think in terms of intervals, but might believe the Son to be existing always and eternally. Since these things are shown thus, how, O Arians, not understanding the statements in Deuteronomy, did you dare again to be impious towards the Lord by saying that He is a product, or a creature, or in other words, an offspring? For you assert that "offspring" and "product" signify the same thing; and from this you will be exposed as being no less unlearned and impious. For the first passage is this: "Is not this your Father who obtained D you, and made you, and created you?" And a little later in the same Ode He says: "You abandoned God who begat you, and forgot."
A The sentiment of these words is truly admirable. For He did not say "begat" first, lest the term be confused with "made," and they find a pretext to argue: "Moses said at the beginning that God said, 'Let us make man,' but after these things he said, 'You abandoned God who begat you,' as if the terms were indifferent; for indeed, the begotten and the created are the same thing." But after "obtained" and "made," He put the term "begat" last, so that the Word might appear to carry its own interpretation. For in the expression "made," He truly signifies what is proper to human nature, namely, that they are works and creatures; but in the expression "begat," He signifies God's benevolence toward men after He had created them. And because B they became ungrateful for this, Moses subsequently reproaches them, saying first: "Do you thus repay the Lord?" Then he adds: "Is not this your Father who obtained you, and made you, and created you?" And a second time he says: "They sacrificed to demons and not to God, to gods whom they did not know. New and recent ones have come, whom their fathers did not know: you abandoned God who begat you."
59. For God did not only create humans, but also called them sons, as if He had begotten them. For the term "begat" signifies a son, as He says through the prophet: "I have begotten and exalted sons." Wherefore, as often as Scripture speaks of the Son, it does not use the term "I created," but the term "I begat." C John appears to mean this with the words: "He gave them power to become children of God, to those who believe in His name, who were born not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but were begotten of God." These words are well worth observing. For he uses the word "become" because they are said to be sons not by nature, but by adoption; however, he uses the phrase "were begotten" afterward, because they also received the name of son. But the people, as the prophet says, rejected their benefactor. And this is the benevolence of God, D
that He who is Creator of these things, becomes also their Father by grace afterward; and He becomes so when created men, as the Apostle said, receive into their hearts the Spirit of His Son crying, "Abba, Father." And these are they who, having received the Word, received power from Him to become children of God; for otherwise they would not become sons, being creatures by nature, unless they receive the Spirit of Him who is by nature the true Son. Wherefore, that this might come to pass, the Word became flesh, B that He might make man capable of the Godhead. It is possible to learn this same thought also from Malachi the prophet, who says: "Has not one God created you? Is there not one Father of all of you?" And here too He placed "created" first, and "Father" second, to show also himself that from the beginning we are creatures by nature, and God is our Creator through the Word, but afterward we are adopted as sons, and henceforth the Creator God becomes also our Father. Therefore, "Father" is proper to the Son, and it is not the creature, but the Son, who is proper to the Father. So that even from this it is shown that we are not sons by nature, but the Son who is in us; and again, that God is not by nature our Father, but [the Father] of the Word who is in us, in whom and through whom we cry, "Abba, Father." And just as this is so, C so also the Father, in whomsoever He may see His own Son, calls them also sons Himself, and says, "I begat," since indeed "to beget" is significant of a Son, while "to make" is indicative of works. Therefore, we are not first begotten, but made; for it is written: "Let us make man." Afterward, however, having received the grace of the Spirit, we are said also to be begotten. Indeed, even in the Ode, the great Moses, with good insight, said "acquired" first, and "begat" afterward, in order that by hearing "begat," they might not forget their own nature from the beginning, but that they might know that from the beginning they are creatures, but when they are said to be begotten by grace, D as sons, nevertheless men are still handiwork by nature.
60. That they are not the same thing, a creature and an offspring, but that they differ from one another both in nature and in the significance of the words, the Lord Himself in the same Proverbs declares...
For having said, A *The Lord created me the beginning of His ways*, He subjoined: *Before all the hills He begets me*. [Prov. VIII, 22, 25] Had the Word been by nature and substance a creature, and had there been no difference between an offspring and a creature, He would not have subjoined *begets me*, but would have been satisfied with using the word *created*, since this word would signify the same as *begat*. But when He said: *He created me the beginning of His ways for His works*, He did not simply add *begets me*, but with the connective particle *but*, as if securing thereby the phrase *created*, saying: *But before all the hills He begets me*. For *begets me*, being brought in as something interwoven with *created*, makes one meaning and shows that the word *created* was used for a certain reason, while *begets me* is prior to *created*. For just as if He had said contrariwise, "The Lord begets me," and then added, "But before all the hills He created me," surely *created* would be prior to *begat*; so since He first said, *created*, and then subjoined, *but before all the hills He begets me*, He necessarily shows that *begat* is prior to *created*. For by saying, *but before all the hills He begets me*, He declares Himself to be other than all things, since it is evident from what was said above that B nothing of created things came into being before another, but all originated creatures together at one and the same command. For this reason, the additions to *created* are not placed with *begets me*; but after *created*, there is added, *the beginning of His ways*, whereas He did not say, *the beginning He begets me*, but, *before all He begets me*. But He who is *before all* is not the beginning of all, but is other than all. But if He is other than all, and the *beginning of all* is included among these, there is no doubt that He is other than created things. And just as the Word is other than all and exists before all things, it is evident that He Himself is later, having assumed human nature, created as the beginning of the ways for the works, so that, as the Apostle says, He who is the *beginning and firstborn from the dead* might have the pre-eminence in all things. [Col. I, 18]
61. Wherefore, C there being this distinction between *created*, and *begets me*, and *the beginning of the ways*, and *before all*, while God is the creator of men, thus, as has been said, He becomes later their Father, through His Word that dwells within them. But with regard to the Word, the case is exactly the opposite. For while God is His Father, D and He is the Word, He is other than all, and being before all, He is later created as the beginning of the ways for the works on account of the becoming man, so that, as the Apostle said, *He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that He might have the pre-eminence in all things.*
as the Apostle said, *He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that He might have the pre-eminence in all things.* A For He who is by nature the Father of the Word, became after these things His creator and maker, when the Word put on the created and made flesh, and became man. For just as men, by receiving the Spirit of the Son, become sons through Him, so the Word of God, when He Himself put on the flesh of men, is then said both to be created and to be made. If therefore we are sons by nature, it is clear that He too is by nature a creature and a work; but if we become sons by adoption and by grace, it is clear that the Word also, having become man for the sake of the grace given to us, has said, *The Lord created me.*
Then, since He assumed a created body and became like us in respect to the body, for this reason He is reasonably called both our brother and the firstborn. For even if He became man after us and for our sakes, and is our brother because of the likeness of the body, yet He is called and is our firstborn in this respect too, because, while all men were perishing according to the transgression of Adam, His flesh, being the body of the Word Himself, was the first of all to be saved and liberated, and thence we, as being joined to Him in body, are saved B by that same body of His. For in Him the Lord showed Himself to us as a leader to the kingdom of heaven and to His own Father, when He says, *I am the way and the door, and through me all must enter.* Whence He is called the firstborn from the dead again, not because He died before us—for we had died first—but because, having undertaken death for us and destroyed it, He rose first as a man, raising His own body for our sake. For once He had risen, we also, in succession, are raised from the dead by Him and through Him.
C 62. But if He is also called the firstborn of creation, it is not because He is equal to created things, or prior to them in time, that He is called firstborn—for how could that be, when He Himself is the Only-Begotten?—but because of the Word's condescension toward created things, by which He has also become the brother of many. For the only-begotten is so called because He has no other brothers, but the firstborn is so called because of the other brothers. For this reason, it is nowhere said in the Scriptures, "firstborn of God," or "creature of God"; but "Only-Begotten," and "Son," and "Word," and "Wisdom," have their reference to the Father, to whom they belong as His proper own. D For *We beheld His glory, glory as of the Only-Begotten from the Father*; and, *God sent His Only-Begotten Son*; and, *Forever, O Lord, Thy Word remains*; and, *In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God.* And Christ, the Word of God...
is the Power of God and the Wisdom of God; and, *This is My beloved Son*; and, *Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.* But the term "Firstborn" involves a condescension towards the creation A; for it is in relation to it that He is called Firstborn. And the word "created," moreover, has reference to the grace bestowed upon the works, for it is for their sake that He is even "created." If, therefore, He is the Only-Begotten, as indeed He is, then the term "Firstborn" must be explained; but if He is the Firstborn, let Him not be the Only-Begotten. For the same One cannot be both Only-Begotten and Firstborn, unless it be in reference to different things—Only-Begotten by reason of His generation from the Father, as has been said, but Firstborn by reason of His condescension to the creation and His making the many His brothers B. Indeed, since these two terms are opposed to one another, one might justly say that the property of "Only-Begotten" is more properly applied to the Word, because there is no other Word, nor another Wisdom, but He alone is the true Son of the Father. For, as was stated before, it is without any accompanying cause, but absolutely, that it is said of Him, *The Only-Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father.* Yet when He is called "Firstborn," a cause is attached, namely, the created nature, as Paul himself indicates with these words, *For in Him all things were created.* But if all creatures were created in Him, He is certainly other than the creatures; He is not a creature, but the Creator of creatures.
63. He is not, therefore, called Firstborn because He is generated from the Father, but because in Him the created things were made. Wherefore, just as before the created things He Himself was the Son through C whom the created things were made, so, before He was called the *firstborn of all creation*, the Word was nonetheless with God, and the Word was God. But the impious, not understanding this, run about saying, "If He is the firstborn of all creation, it is clear that He Himself is one of the creatures." O foolish ones! if He is the firstborn of *all* creation, then He is other than *all* the creation. For it is not said that He is "firstborn of the other creatures," lest He should be thought of as one of the creatures; but it is written "of all creation," in order that He might be shown to be other than the creation. For Reuben, at any rate, was not called "firstborn of all the sons of Jacob," but of Jacob himself and of his brothers
so that he might not be thought to be something other than the children of Jacob. Moreover, concerning the Lord Himself, the Apostle did not say, "That He might be the firstborn of all," A so that He might not be thought to have a body other than ours, but "among many brethren," on account of the similarity of the flesh to our own. If, therefore, the Word were also one of the created things, Scripture would have said of Him as well that He is the "firstborn of the other creatures." But now, since the saints say that He is the "firstborn of all creation," B it is shown directly that the Son of God is other than all creation, and not a creature. For if He were a creature, He would also be the firstborn of Himself. How then, O Arians, can He be both first and second to Himself? Furthermore, if He is a creature, and all creation was made through Him, and consists in Him, how can He both create the creation and be one of those who consist in Him? C But since such a notion of theirs is clearly absurd, they are refuted by the truth, for He was called "firstborn among many brethren" on account of the kinship of the flesh; "firstborn from the dead," because the resurrection of the dead is from Him and after Him; and "firstborn of all creation," on account of the benevolence of the Father, through whom not only have all things been established in His Word, D but also the creation itself, concerning which the Apostle said, "awaiting the revelation of the sons of God," shall at some time be liberated "from the bondage of corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God." And when it has thus been liberated, the Lord will be the firstborn even of this, along with all those who have been made sons, so that, by His being called first, the things after Him may remain, as being joined to the Word as to some source.
64. I think that the impious themselves ought to be ashamed of such an idea; for if the matter were not as we have said, but they wish Him to be, by nature, a creature among creatures, as the firstborn of all creation, let them note that even of the irrational animals
A and of inanimate things they would suppose Him to be a brother and similar. For these also happen to be parts of all created things; and it is necessary that the firstborn be first only in time, but in kind and in likeness be the same as all those of whom he is the firstborn. How then, in saying this, do they not exceed every impiety? Or who will endure those who say such things? Or how would one not hate even those who merely contemplate such things? For it is clear to all that neither for His own sake, as if He were a creature, nor because He has some kinship by nature with all created things, was He called their firstborn; but because, as the Word, when He created things at the beginning, He kindly accommodated Himself to them, so that they might be able to come into existence. For they could not have endured His nature, which is pure and paternal splendor, had He not, by paternal kindness, accommodated Himself and, reaching out, taken hold of them, and by mastering them, brought them into being. And secondly, again, because when the Word B lowered Himself, creation itself is adopted through Him; so that, just as it has been said, He might become the firstborn in all things, both in creating and in being introduced on behalf of all into this world. For thus it is written: "And when He bringeth the firstborn into the world, He saith: And let all the angels of God worship Him." Let the enemies of Christ hear C and rend themselves, that it was His entry into the world that was the cause of His being called the firstborn of all things; so that He is the Son Unigenitus of the Father, because He alone is from Him, but the firstborn of created things because all are brought into adoption as sons. And just as among brothers He is the firstborn, and as "firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep" He rose from the dead; so, since it was fitting for Him to hold the first place in all things, for this reason He is also created the "beginning of ways," so that, treading this D and entering through Him who says, "I am the way and the door," and becoming partakers of the knowledge of the Father, we also may hear: "Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the Lord"; and, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God."
65. Since, then, the Truth has shown that the Word is not by nature a creature, it follows that we should explain why He is also called the "beginning of the ways." For because the first way through Adam was lost, and instead of paradise we turned aside unto death, and heard, "You are earth, and unto earth you shall return," for this reason the merciful Word of God, by the will of the Father, puts on the created flesh, in order that He might give life to that which the first man had brought to death through the transgression, by the blood of His own body, and might inaugurate for us a new and living way, as the Apostle has said, through the veil, that is to say, through His flesh. A This same thing he signifies in another place, saying: "Therefore, if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things have passed away, behold, all things have become new." But if a new creation has taken place, there had to be someone who was the first of this creation; yet a mere man, and solely earthly, such as we have become after the transgression, could not be this. For indeed, even in the first creation, men became faithless, and through them that first [creation] was lost; and there was need of another to be the one who would renew the first, and preserve the one that had been newly created. Therefore, in His loving-kindness, it is not another, but the Lord Himself who is "created" as the way for the beginning of the new creation; and fittingly He says, "The Lord created me the beginning of His ways for His works," so that man might no longer live according to that former way, but as there is now the beginning of a new creation, and having Christ as the beginning of these ways, we may henceforth follow Him saying, "I am the way." B Teaching this, the blessed Apostle also, in [the Epistle] to the Colossians, said: "He is the head of the body of the Church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that He might have the preeminence in all things."
66. For if, as has been said, He is called the beginning because of the resurrection from the dead, and the resurrection took place when, bearing our flesh, He gave Himself for us C unto death, it would be manifest that what was said by Him, "He created me the beginning of the ways," is indicative not of His essence, but of His incarnate presence. For death was proper to [His] body; and just as
A death is proper to the body, so too would that which is said be proper to the bodily presence: "The Lord created me the beginning of His ways." For since the Saviour was thus created according to the flesh, and became the beginning of those being re-created, and possesses our first-fruits in the human flesh which He took, consequently, after Him, the people who are to be created are also created, as David says: "This shall be written for another generation, and the people who are to be created shall praise the Lord;" and again B in the twenty-first Psalm: "A generation to come shall be announced to the Lord; and they shall announce His righteousness to the people who shall be born, whom the Lord has made." For we shall no longer hear, "In the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die," but, "Where I am, there you shall also be"; so that we may say: "For we are His workmanship, created in good works." And again, since the work of God, that is to say man, having been created perfect, became deficient through the transgression, and became dead to sin, and it was unbecoming for the work of God to remain incomplete—whence it happens that all the saints in the hundred and thirty-seventh Psalm C thus pray to God regarding this: "O Lord, You shall render for me: O Lord, do not despise the works of Your hands"—for this reason the perfect Word of God puts on an imperfect body, and is said to be created for the works, in order that, having paid the debt for us, He might by Himself perfect the things that were wanting to man. Now there were wanting to him immortality and the way to paradise. And this is that which was said by the Saviour: "I glorified You on the earth: I perfected the work which You gave me to do;" and again: "The works which the Father gave Me to finish, D the very works which I do, bear witness of Me." Moreover, the works which He declares the Father has given Him to finish are those very things for which He is created, as He says in Proverbs: "The Lord created me the beginning of His ways for His works." For it is the same thing to say, "The Father gave me the works," and, "The Lord created me for the works."
A For from this, also, why He created it shall be understood. Now, in the beginning, when He was making those things out of nothing 78 to be, if you say this, it is false; for they were not yet made, whereas He appears to be speaking as if taking up things that already exist. But it is not holy to mention the time before the Word became flesh, lest His advent appear B superfluous; for it was for the sake of these that the advent took place 79. It remains, then, to say that when He became man, then He received the works; for then He also perfected them, having healed our wounds and granted us 80 the resurrection from the dead. But if, when the Word became flesh, then the works were given to Him, it is clear that 81 when He became man, then also He is created for the sake of the works. Therefore, the word "He created" is not indicative of His essence, as has often been C said, but of His bodily generation. For then, because the works had become imperfect and crippled by the transgression, He is said to be created according to the body, in order that, having perfected them and made them whole, He might present the Church to the Father, as the Apostle said, "not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing," but that it might be "holy and without blemish." Therefore, in Him the human race has been perfected and restored, just as it was created at the beginning 82, only with even greater grace; for, having risen from the dead, we no longer fear death, but in Christ we shall reign forever D in the heavens. And this has happened because the Word of God Himself, being His own and from the Father, put on flesh and became man. For if, being a creature, He had become man, man would have remained no less what he was 83, not being joined to God. For how, being a creation, could he have been joined to the Creator through a creation? 84 Or what help could come to like beings from like, when they themselves are in need of the same help? And how, if the Word were a creature 85, would He be able to loose the sentence of God and forgive sin, when it is written 86 by the prophets that this belongs to God? For "Who is God like You, taking away sins and passing over iniquities?" For God said, "You are earth, and into earth you shall go," and the humans became mortal. How, therefore 87, was it possible for sin to be loosed by created things? But the Lord Himself has loosed it, as He Himself said, "If the Son shall not make you 88 free." And the Son truly showed that He who makes free is not a creature, nor of the created things.
but is the proper Word and Image of the Father, who formerly had pronounced that sentence, and alone forgives sins. For since it was said in the Word, "You are earth, and unto earth you shall return," it is consistently through the same Word, and in Him, that the freedom and the loosing of the condemnation have come to pass.
68. But, they say, even if the Savior were a creature, God could simply have spoken and loosed the curse. The same reply could be made to them by another: B God could have spoken and loosed the curse even without His advent at all. But one ought to consider what is useful for men, and not calculate what God has the power to do in all things. For He could have destroyed the men who had sinned even before the ark of Noah; yet He did make the ark first. He could also have spoken and led the people out of Egypt without Moses; but it was fitting that this should come to pass through Moses. God could likewise have preserved the people without judges; but it was for the advantage of the peoples that a judge should be raised up for them at the proper time. The Savior could also have arrived from the beginning; or, having arrived, could have chosen not to be delivered to Pilate; yet at the end of the ages He arrived, and when sought, said, "I am He." For what He does, that same thing is beneficial for men, and it was not fitting for it to happen otherwise; and whatever is beneficial and fitting, that He arranges and provides. He came, therefore, not to be served, but to serve, and to work our C salvation. Indeed, although He was able to declare the Law from heaven, He saw that it was beneficial for men for it to be spoken from Sinai, and this He did, in order that Moses might be able to ascend, and that those others, hearing the words from nearer by, might be able to believe more readily.
Furthermore, one may discern from this the reasonableness of what occurred. If God had spoken by His power and the curse had been loosed, the power of Him who commanded would indeed have been displayed, yet the man would have become such as Adam was before the transgression, receiving grace from without and not having it fitted to his body. For in such a state was he placed in paradise; indeed, perhaps he would even have been worse, D because he had also learned to transgress. If, therefore, being of such a nature, it had happened that he was again deceived by the serpent, there would have been need for God again to command and loose the curse; and in that way the necessity would have continued to infinity, and the men would none the less have remained liable, enslaved to sin; and being always sinning, they would have always needed...
one to grant forgiveness, and they would never have been set free, being flesh by nature and always being defeated by the law because of the infirmity of the flesh.
69. A Furthermore, if the Son were a creature, B man would none the less remain mortal, as he is in no way united with God. For no created thing can unite other created things with God, since it itself must seek one who can unite it. Nor could any part of the created nature bring salvation to it, since it itself also stands in need of salvation. In order, therefore, that this might not happen, He sends His own Son, and He becomes the son of man, having taken to Himself created flesh, so that, since all are liable to death, He—being other than all—might offer His own body to death for the sake of all, and hence, as all have died through Him, the verdict of the decree might be fulfilled (for "all died in Christ"), and all might thereafter be set free by Him from sin and from the curse that followed from it, and might truly remain forever, having risen from the dead and being clothed with immortality and incorruption. C For after the Word clothed Himself in flesh, as has been demonstrated many times, every sting of the serpent was entirely extinguished from it; if any evil sprang up from the movements of the flesh, it was cut off and destroyed together with these, as was the death that is the consequence of sin, as the Lord Himself says: "The prince of this world is coming, and he finds nothing in Me." And, "For this purpose He was manifested, as John wrote, that He might destroy the works of the devil." D When these had been dissolved from the flesh, we were all in this way set free according to the kinship of the flesh, and henceforth we too have been united with the Word. And being united with God, we no longer remain on earth, but, as He Himself said, where He is, there we shall also be; and henceforth we shall no longer fear the serpent, for he was brought to nothing in the flesh, having been driven away by the Savior and having heard, "Get behind Me, Satan," and in this way he happens to be cast out of paradise into the eternal fire. Nor shall we any longer have to be on our guard against a woman enticing us; "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels." And in Christ Jesus there shall be a new creation, and there is neither male nor female, but all things and in all things is Christ.
A Where Christ is present, what fear or what danger can still arise?
70. This would not have been the case if the Word were a creature. For the devil, who is himself a creature, would have waged perpetual war against the creature; and man, whoever he might be, standing as an intermediary, would have been always subject to death, inasmuch as he possessed nothing in which and through which he could be joined to God and become free from every fear. B Therefore, the Truth shows that the Word is not among created things, but is rather their Creator; for it was for this reason that He took on the created and human body, that, having restored it as a Creator, He might deify it in Himself, and thus bring us all into the kingdom of heaven according to His likeness. But man would not have been deified by being joined to a creature, if the Son were not true God; nor would man have been able to stand before the Father, if He who took on the body were not the natural and true Word of His own. And just as we would never have been freed from sin and C the curse, if the flesh which the Word took on were not human nature—for nothing foreign to us has any communion with us—so man would not have been deified, if the Word who became flesh were not by nature true and proper to the Father. For this reason, such a union has come to pass, that He might join the one who is man by nature to Him who is God by nature, so that his salvation and, if I may so speak, his deification might be stable and firm. Those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to His substance, let them also deny that He took true human flesh from Mary the ever-virgin. For it would have profited us men nothing D if the Word were neither the true and natural Son of God, nor the flesh which He took were true flesh. But in fact He did take true flesh, however much Valentinus may rave. He was also existence by nature and the true Word of God, even though the Arianomaniacs may rave; and in that flesh was the beginning of our new creation, having been created man for our sake, and having renewed for us that way, as it has been said.
71. For "creature" and "thing made" and "work" are the same thing; and if He were a creature and a thing made, He would also be a work. For this reason, He did not say, "He created me as a work," nor, "He made me along with the works," lest He should appear to be a creature by nature and essence; nor yet, "He created me for the purpose of making works," lest again, according to the evil intent of the impious, He might be thought to have been brought into existence as an instrument for our sake. Nor even did He declare, "He created me before the works," lest, just as He is begotten before all things, so too, if He were said to be created before the works, it might be gathered from the words that the same thing is meant by "begotten" and "created." But with precise caution He says, "in [the] works," which is the same as if He said: The Father has made me into flesh, that I might become man. B Whence, from this passage also, it is evident that He is not a work, but begotten. For as one who enters into a house is not a part of the house, but is other than the house, so He who is created in the works would be other in nature than the works. Else, if, as you think, O Arians, the Word of God is a work, in what hand, I pray, and in what wisdom was He Himself brought into existence? For all things that have come to be, have come to be in the hand and in the wisdom of God; as God Himself says: "My hand has made all these things," and as David sings: "And Thou, O Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of Thy hands"; and again in the one hundred and forty-second Psalm: "I remembered the days of old, and I meditated upon all Thy works, I meditated upon the works of Thy hands." Therefore, if the works were fashioned in the hand of God, and it is written that "All things came to be through the Word, and without Him not one thing came to be," and again, "One Lord Jesus, through whom are all things," and that "In Him all things consist," it is clear that the Son would not be a work, but is Himself the hand and the wisdom of God. Knowing this, the martyrs who were in Babylon, Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, refute the Arian impiety. For having said, "Bless the Lord, all ye works of the Lord," they enumerated those things that exist both in heaven and upon earth, and all created things as works: but C
they did not name the Son. For they did not say A, "Bless, O Word, and praise, O Wisdom," in order to show that all other things are those that praise and are works, but the Word is neither a work nor of the number of those that praise, but is praised together with the Father, and is worshipped and is declared to be God, being His Word and Wisdom, and the Creator of the works. This also the Spirit has expressed in the Psalms B with a most beautiful distinction, saying: "Right is the Word of the Lord, and all His works are in faith;" even as He says in another place: "How magnified are Thy works, O Lord; in wisdom hast Thou made them all."
72. But if the Word were a work, He would undoubtedly have been made in wisdom; and Scripture would not have distinguished Him from the works, nor would it have named them works, while announcing the Word and Wisdom as properly of God. But now, by distinguishing Him from the works, Scripture shows that Wisdom is the creator of the works, and not a work. Paul also makes use of this distinction C when writing to the Hebrews: "For the Word of God is living and effectual, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and reaching unto the division of the soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart; and there is no creature invisible in His sight, but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of Him, with whom we have to do." Behold, he calls the things that are made "creature," but he knows the Son to be the Word of God, as being one other than Him D aside from the created things. And again, by saying, "All things are naked and opened unto the eyes of Him with whom we have to do," he signifies that He is other than all things. For therefore He judges, while each of all created things is bound to render an account to Him. So then, also, since the whole creation groans with us in order to be delivered from the bondage of corruption, the Son is shown to be other than the created things. For if He were a creature, He too would be one of those who groan, and in need of Him who makes them sons and delivers both Himself and all others. But if the whole creation groans for the sake of freedom from the bondage of corruption, and the Son is not of those who groan, nor of those who are in need of freedom, but is Himself the one who makes sons and frees all things, saying to the Jews then: "But the
A slave does not remain in the house for ever; the son remains for ever." If, therefore, the Son shall make you free, you will be truly free. From these things, it is clearly demonstrated more brightly than the light that the Word of God is not a creature, but the true and by nature genuine Son of the Father. And indeed, regarding the statement, "The Lord created me the beginning of his ways," even though we have discoursed on it briefly, nevertheless, as I believe, these things are sufficient to provide an occasion for those who are more learned to construct more elaborate arguments for the refutation of the Arian heresy. But since the heretics read the next verse as well, and because they think wrongly about it, believing—since it is written, "Before the age he founded me"—that these words were spoken concerning the divinity of the Word and not concerning His incarnate coming, it is necessary to interpret this verse also, and to expose their error. B
73. It is written: "God founded the earth with wisdom." If, therefore, the earth was founded by wisdom, how is He who founds it founded? But this, too, is spoken proverbially; and the meaning of it must be sought, so that we may know that the Father creates by His wisdom, and founds the earth so that it may be firm and remain; but Wisdom Itself was founded for our sake, so that It might become the beginning and foundation of our new creation and renewal. Therefore, He did not even say in these passages, "Before the age he made me Word or Son," lest He be thought to have a beginning of being made; for this is what must be sought before all else—whether He is the Son—and the Scriptures must be searched pre-eminently regarding this matter. For this is what even the apostles, when questioned, answered through Peter, saying: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." For this is what even the C father of the Arian heresy questioned at the beginning: "If you are the Son of God." For he knew that this is the truth and the main point of our faith; and that if He is indeed the Son, the diabolical tyranny would have an end; but if He is a creature, He is one of those of Adam who were deceived by him, and there would be no concern regarding Him. For this reason, the Jews at that time were also indignant, because the Lord said that He Himself was the Son of God, and that God was His own Father. For if He had said that He was one of the creatures, or that "I am a work," they would not have been struck with amazement upon hearing it, nor would they have considered such words to be blasphemy, knowing that angels had appeared to the fathers; but because He said He was the Son, D they began to
A scrutinize whether such a mark belongs to a created thing, or to the Godhead and the paternal nature.
74. It was therefore necessary for the Arians, if they were indeed imitating their father the devil, to investigate further: if He had said, "The Word or the Son created me as a foundation," then they might think as they now think; but if He did not speak these words, they should not imagine for themselves things that do not exist. For He did not say, "Before the age, the Word or the Son created me as a foundation," but simply, "He founded me," in order to show again, as I have said, that He speaks this proverbially, not for His own sake, but for the sake of those who are being built upon Him. For the Apostle, knowing this, also writes: B "For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. But let each one take heed how he builds thereupon." Moreover, it is necessary that the foundation be such as the things which are built upon it, so that they may be able to fitly frame together. Now, the Word, as He is the Word, does not have those who are like Him, such as He Himself is, to be joined to Him; for He is the only-begotten. But having become man, He has those who are like Him, whose similar flesh He has taken. Therefore, according to human nature, He is founded, so that we also, as precious stones, may be able to be built upon Him, and become a temple of the Holy Spirit dwelling in us. C And just as He Himself is the foundation, and we are the stones built upon Him, so also He Himself is the vine, and we are like branches joined to Him, not indeed according to the nature of the Godhead—for this is impossible—but again according to human nature; for the branches must be like the vine; and so we too happen to be like Him in our flesh. Furthermore, since the heretics savor only of human things, it is fitting to refute them by human examples drawn from the same place. Therefore, He did not say, "He made me a foundation," lest the heretics, suspecting from this that He was a created thing and had a beginning of generation, might find in this a shameless pretext for impiety; but rather, "He founded me." And that which is founded, is founded for the sake of the stones D that are laid upon it; it does come to be, not simply, but also for the sake of the Godhead. For he does not say the nature or essence of the Son is filial, but paternal; and here, as also before this, he called it paternal, lest any one should think the holy and consubstantial Trinity to be three natures or essences, or three Godheads in all. The Word has said, "He founded me."
A But when a stone is moved from a mountain and placed in the depths of the earth, as long as it is on the mountain, it has not yet been founded. But when necessity requires, and it is moved and covered in the depths of the earth, then, if the stone could be given a voice, it would say: "He who moved me here has now founded me." Consequently, the Lord did not begin to be when he was founded (for the Word was even before this), but when he put on our body, which he took from Mary, then he says, "He founded me." It is the same as saying, "Me, who am the Word, he covered with an earthly body." Thus, for our sake, he is founded, taking upon himself what is ours, so that we, as fellow-members, being joined and knit together in him B through the likeness of his flesh, might arrive at a perfect man, and remain immortal and incorruptible.
75. Let no one be disturbed by this manner of speaking either: "Before the age," and, "Before he made the earth," and, "Before the mountains were settled." For he very properly joined this with the words "founded" and "created," because this again pertains to the dispensation according to the flesh. For the grace which was given to us by the Savior has indeed just appeared, as the Apostle said, and has come to be through his bodily presence; but this was prepared even before we were born, or rather even before the foundation of the world. And the cause of this is both kind and wonderful. It was not fitting for God to deliberate about us later, lest he appear to be ignorant of our affairs. Therefore, as God, the Creator of all things, was creating us through his own Word, and as he foresaw our affairs better than we ourselves did, C and knew beforehand that, though created good, we would later become transgressors of the commandment and be cast out of Paradise through disobedience, he, being philanthropic and good, prepared in his own Word, through whom he also created us, the dispensation for our salvation; so that, even if deceived by the serpent we fell, we would not remain utterly dead, but, having the redemption and salvation prepared for us in the Word, we might rise again and remain immortal, when he himself is created for our sake as the beginning of the ways, and the first-born of creation becomes first-born of brothers, and he himself rises as the first-fruits of the dead. This the blessed Apostle Paul teaches in his writing D [the rest of the passage continues...]
age*, and, *Before the earth was made*: he says thus to Timothy, "Share in suffering for the Gospel by the power of God, who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given to us in Christ Jesus before eternal times, but has now been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life to light." And to the Ephesians: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in all spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, just as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him in love, having predestined us to adoption through Jesus Christ to himself."
B How then did he choose us, before we existed, unless, as he himself said, we had been prefigured in him? And how, before men were created, could he have predestined us to adoption, if the Son himself had not been founded before the age, having undertaken the dispensation for our sake? Or how, as the Apostle further says, were we predestined by lot, if the Lord himself had not been founded before the age, so that it was his purpose to take upon himself in the flesh the whole lot of the judgment passed against us, so that we might thereafter be made sons in him? C And how did we, who did not yet exist but came into being in time, receive [grace] before eternal times, if the grace which reached us had not been deposited in the Lord? Hence he, in the judgment, when each is to receive a reward for his own deeds, will say: "Come, you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." How then, or in whom, was it prepared before we existed, if not in the Lord who was founded before the age for this very reason, that we, being built up upon him, might, like well-fitted stones, partake of the life and grace that springs from him? D This came to pass, as far as one may piously conceive, so that, as I have said, being raised from the temporary death, we might be able to live forever—which would not have been possible for us, who are earth-born, had we not been
provided, before the ages, with the hope of life and salvation in Christ. A Since the Word, therefore, justly entered into our flesh, and being in it, He was established as the beginning of the ways for His works, He is founded in this manner, just as the will of the Father was in Him, as has been said, before the age, and before the earth was made, and before the mountains were settled, and before the fountains were brought forth; so that even if the earth, and the mountains, and the forms of seen things should pass away in the consummation of the present age, we might not grow old along with them, but be able to live even after these things, having the life and spiritual blessing prepared for us in the Word Himself before them, according to election. For in this way we shall be able to have not a temporary life, but to remain living in Christ after these things; B since even before these things, our life was founded and prepared in Christ Jesus.
77. For it was not fitting that our life should be founded in any other than in the Lord who exists before the ages, through whom also the ages were made, so that as it exists in Him, we too might be able to inherit eternal life. For God is good; and being always good, He has willed this, knowing our weak nature, which needs help and salvation from Him. And just as if some wise architect—proposing to build a house—at the same time plans, in case it should ever be destroyed after it is built, to renew it again, and planning this, he prepares and gives to the builder the materials necessary for the C restoration, so that the preparation for the restoration exists before the house itself; in the same way, the renewal of our salvation was founded in Christ before us, so that in Him we might also be able to be recreated. And the counsel and the purpose were prepared before the age; but the work was done when necessity demanded, and the Savior arrived. For the Lord Himself will be for us in place of all things in the heavens, taking us up into eternal life. These things, then, are sufficient for proving that the Word of God is not a creature, but that the meaning of the spoken word is correct. But since the passage, being investigated, is found to contain D a correct meaning from every point of view,
A it is reasonable also to mention this interpretation; perhaps the foolish will be shamed by many arguments. For we have need again of the things said before; for the subject at hand is concerned with the same proverb and the same Wisdom. The Word did not say that He is by nature a creature, but in the Proverbs He said, "The Lord created me." And it is clear that He signifies not some obvious meaning, but one that is hidden, which we also can find, if we remove the veil of the proverb. For who, upon hearing Wisdom, the creator, saying, "The Lord B created me [as] the beginning of his ways," does not immediately seek the meaning, reasoning how she who creates can be created? Who, hearing the Only-begotten Son of God saying that He is created as the beginning of ways, does not investigate the meaning, wondering how the Only-begotten Son can be the beginning of many other things? It is indeed a riddle. But, says the Scripture, "The man of understanding will understand a parable and a dark saying, the words of the wise and their riddles."
78. C The only-begotten and own Wisdom of God is the creator and maker of all things. "For in wisdom," He says, "You have made all things," and, "The earth is full of your creation." But in order that the things made might not only exist, but also exist well, it pleased God that His own Wisdom should accommodate herself to the creatures, so that she might imprint a certain form and semblance of her own image upon all things in common and upon each in particular, so that it might be manifest that the things made are adorned with wisdom and are works worthy of God. For as our word is an image of the Word, who is the Son of God, D so also is the wisdom that has come to be in us an image of the selfsame Wisdom; in which, having the power of knowing and understanding, we become capable of receiving the creative Wisdom, and through her we are able to know her Father. "For he who has the Son," He says, "has also the Father," and, "He who receives me, receives Him who sent me." Since, therefore, such a form of Wisdom has been created in us and exists in all things, the true and creative Wisdom quite rightly, taking to herself the things that are proper to her own form, says, "The Lord created me for His works." For what the wisdom in us has spoken, this the Lord Himself speaks as His own; and He who is the creator is not Himself being created, but because of the image of Himself that was created in the works, He says these things as if about Himself. And just as the Lord Himself has said, "He who receives me...
receives him who sent me," A because His form is in us: so, even if He is not enumerated among created things, yet because His form and image are created in the works, it is as if He Himself were speaking, when He says: "The Lord created me as the beginning of His ways for His works." B And for this reason, the form of Wisdom has been created in the works, so that, as I mentioned above, the world might recognize the Word Himself, its Artificer, and the Father through the Word. And this is exactly what Paul teaches: "Because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God has manifested it to them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made." C Therefore, the Word is by no means created in His essence; rather, that passage of Proverbs must be understood as referring to the wisdom which is in us, and which is truly called "wisdom."
79. But if they are incredulous toward these things, let them answer us themselves: is there any wisdom in created things, or is there not? If there is none, why does the Apostle complain in these words: "For because in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God"? Or if there is no wisdom, why is a multitude of wise men found in Scripture? For it is said: "A wise man feared and departed from evil"; and, "By wisdom a house is built." The D Ecclesiastes also says: "The wisdom of a man will enlighten his countenance"; and he rebukes the rash with these words: "Say not, What is the cause that the former days were better than these? For thou dost not inquire wisely concerning this." But if there is wisdom in created things, as the son of Sirach also testifies, saying: "He poured her out upon all His works with all flesh according to His gift, and He gave her to them that love Him";—and this outpouring is certainly not a sign of the nature of the Wisdom which is in Itself and is only-begotten, but of that which is imaged in the world—what is there incredible, then, if the Artificer and true Wisdom Herself, of whom the wisdom and knowledge poured out into the world is an image or figure, should speak, as if about Herself, saying, "The Lord created me for His works"? For the wisdom that is in the world is not the creator, but is created in the works, according to which "the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament announces the work of His hands." If men should possess this within themselves, they will know the true Wisdom of God
and it will be made known A that they have truly been made in the image of God. For just as if the son of an emperor, desiring at his father’s behest to build a city, were to inscribe his own name on each of the resulting structures, so that the buildings might stand firm for the sake of the security provided by the impression of his name on each, and so that through that name they might be able to be reminded of both himself and his father; if, I say, once the city was built, he were asked how it came to be, he would rightly answer: "It is securely built; for according to the will of the father, I was imaged forth in each work; for my name was created B within the works." Yet by saying this, he would not imply that his own substance had been created, but only that his own image had been created through the name. In the exact same way, according to the likeness of this example, the true Wisdom answers those who admire the wisdom that exists in created things: "The Lord created me for works; for my image is in them, and I have thus consented to the creation."
80. Nor, again, should it seem strange if the Son speaks as though C what is in us as a figure, were spoken concerning Himself, since (for it is not to be shunned to repeat the same thing) when Saul was persecuting the Church, in which His figure and image existed, He said as if He Himself were the one being persecuted: "Saul, why do you persecute me?" Therefore, just as it has been said—if the very figure of wisdom that is in the works were to say, "The Lord created me for works," no one would be astonished—so too, if the very true and creative Wisdom, the only-begotten Word D of God, should usurp the things that are proper to His own image and say as if of Himself, "The Lord created me for works," let no one, abandoning that wisdom which was created in the world and in the works, suppose that the word "created" was spoken of the nature of the Self-Wisdom, lest by mixing wine with water he appear to steal away the truth. For that Wisdom is creating and a creator; but the figure of it is created in the works, just as "the according to the image" is of the image. And it is called the "beginning of ways" because such wisdom becomes a sort of beginning and element of the knowledge of God; for by entering first upon this as if a way, and keeping it through the fear of God, as Solomon said, "The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord," then progressing in the mind and attaining the knowledge of the creator Wisdom which appears in created things, one will without doubt behold in Him also His Father, just as the Lord Himself has said: "He who has seen Me has seen the Father." And just as the
Father also." A And He says: "Before the age He founded me," because in His form or figure the works remain constantly and forever. Furthermore, lest anyone, hearing these things said in this way about the wisdom created in the works, should imagine that the Son of God, who is the true Wisdom, is a created thing, He necessarily added: "Before the mountains, and before the earth, and before the waters, and before all the hills, He begets me"; so that, by saying "before all creation" (for He signified all creation in these things), He might show that He was not co-created with the works according to essence. For if He was created for the works, but is before the works, it is manifest that He exists also before He was created. Therefore, He is not a creature by nature and substance, but, as He Himself added, He is a begotten thing. And what the difference and distinction between a thing created by nature and an offspring is, we have explained previously.
81. B Since He adds, saying, "When He was preparing the heaven, I was present with Him," it must be known that she says this, not that the Father did not prepare the heavens and the upper clouds through her. For there is no doubt that all things were created in Wisdom, and nothing was made without her. But these are the things which she signifies by these words: All things indeed were made in me and through me; but because there was a need for wisdom to be created in the works, I indeed was present with the Father according to nature, but kindly accommodating myself to the created things, I was fittingly imprinting my own figure in them, so that the whole world, as if in one body, might not discord with itself, C but agree. Therefore, as many as with a right mind, according to the wisdom given to them, contemplate created things, they too are permitted to say: "By Your arrangement all things endure." But those who scorn and despise this will hear: "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." For what is known of God is manifest in them; for God has manifested it to them. For the invisible things of Him, from the creation of the world, are perceived by things understood through works, as well as His everlasting power and divinity, D so that they are without excuse, because knowing God, they did not glorify Him as God, but served created things rather than the Creator of all.
who is blessed for ever. Amen. A Shame certainly will affect those who hear this: for since in the wisdom of God, as we have explained, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God by the foolishness of the preaching to save those who believe. For no longer, as in former times, did God wish to be known through an image and shadow of the wisdom which is in created things; but it pleased Him that the true Wisdom Himself should take flesh, become man, and suffer the death of the cross, so that through the faith that consists in Him, all those who believe might henceforth be able to be saved. For it is the same Wisdom of God which previously, by means of an image of Himself imprinted upon created things (for which reason He is said to be created), made Himself and through Himself His Father known. But afterwards this same One, who is also the Word, became flesh, as John said, and after destroying death and saving our race, He even more fully revealed Himself and through Himself His Father, saying: "Give to them, that they may know Thee the only true God, and whom Thou didst send, Jesus Christ." B
82. Thus the whole universe is filled with the knowledge of Him. For there is one knowledge of the Father through the Son, and of the Son from the Father: the Father rejoices in Him, and in this same joy the Son is delighted in the Father, saying: "I was that in which He delighted; daily I was rejoicing in His presence." These things without doubt prove again that the Son is not foreign, but proper to the nature of the Father. For behold, it was not for our sake, as the impious maintain, that He was made, nor is He at all from nothing, C nor did God procure for Himself a cause of joy from without; but those words signify something that is proper and similar. When, therefore, did it happen that the Father did not rejoice? But if He always rejoiced, there must always have been that in which He rejoiced. In what, then, does the Father rejoice and take delight, if not when He beholds Himself in His own image, which is His Word? But if He also took delight in the sons of men after the world was perfected, as it is written in the same Proverbs, this also must be understood in no other way. For He was delighted in this way, not as if joy had befallen Him from elsewhere, but insofar as He beheld works made according to His own image. That delight of God, therefore, has His image as its cause. And the Son Himself, by what other mode is He delighted than when He contemplates Himself in the Father? For the same thing is declared by these His words: "He who has seen me, has seen the Father," D and, "I in the Father."
and the Father in me." Your boast, A therefore, is shown to be empty from every side, O Christ-fighters, and in vain have you marched about and bruited everywhere the verse, "The Lord created me the beginning of His ways," perverting its meaning and reporting your own conceits rather than the mind of Solomon. For indeed, your opinion is shown to be merely a fantasy; but the text in Proverbs, and all that has been said before, proves that the Son is not a creature by nature and essence, but the proper offspring of the Father, the true Wisdom and Word, through whom all things were made, and without whom not one thing was made.
THE THIRD DISCOURSE
B 1. The Arianizers, having, as it seems, once determined to be apostates and transgressors of the truth, contend to draw to themselves the written word: "When an ungodly man comes into the depth of evils, he acts with contempt." For neither, when convicted, do they rest, nor, when at a loss, do they blush; but as the face of a harlot, they have become shameless before all in their impieties. For even those texts which they used as pretexts—"The Lord created me," and, "Becoming so much better than the angels," and, "Firstborn," and, "Being faithful to Him who made Him"—though these have a right meaning and demonstrate piety towards Christ, I know not how they, as if infused with the venom of the serpent, and not seeing what ought to be seen, nor understanding what they read, but as if belching from the depth of their own ungodly heart, C have proceeded henceforth to disparage the word also said by the Lord: "I am in the Father, and the Father in me." They say: "How can this one be contained in that one, and that one in this one? Or how is it possible at all for the Father, being greater, to be contained in the Son, who is lesser? Or what is the wonder, if the Son is in the Father and the Father in me?"
A Indeed, this happens to them deservedly on account of their own perversity, in that they think God is a body, and do not understand what the true Father is, and the true Son, nor what is the invisible and eternal light, and his invisible splendor, nor what is an invisible substance, nor a non-corporeal figure and image. For if they knew, they would certainly not mock the Lord of glory with derision, nor, by thinking of things that are not corporeal as if they were corporeal, would they perversely interpret those things which were rightly said. It was fitting, at any rate, that they should believe these things even by hearing them alone, as being the words of Christ, since simple faith is better than curious eloquence. But since they attempt to abuse even this passage of Scripture with profane temerity for the sake of confirming their own heresy, we have deemed it necessary to both expose their wickedness and reveal the true interpretation of this passage for the security of the faithful.
For it is not, as they suppose, that by these words, *I am in the Father and the Father in me*, it is signified that they are inserted into one another B and, as if they were certain empty vessels, fill one another, so that the Father fills the emptiness of the Son, and the Son the emptiness of the Father, and neither of them is full and perfect; for this is indeed proper to bodies, and it cannot be said without the highest impiety. For the Father is full and perfect, and the Son himself is the fullness of the Father. Nor indeed is God in the Son in the same way as He is in the saints to strengthen them; for He himself is the power or strength and wisdom of the Father, and by his communion, things that are made are sanctified in the Spirit. The Son himself, however, is not a son by the communion of another, but is the proper offspring of the Father. Nor, likewise, is the Son in the Father in the same manner as indicated by these words, *In him we live, and move, and have our being*. C For he himself exists from the Father as from a fountain of life, in which all things both receive life and consist. For life does not live in life, otherwise it would not be life; but rather it itself bestows life upon all things.
2. But let us now also examine the subtleties of Asterius the sophist, the patron of the heresy, if you please. For this man, emulating the Jews, wrote the following: "For it is manifest," says he, "that for this reason he said that he himself D is in the Father, and again the Father in himself, since—"
A he neither says that the Word which he was uttering is his own, but the Father's, nor that the works were his own, but the Father's, who had given the power." Now, if even a mere child had said this, he would have been forgiven on account of his age; but since he who writes this is called a sophist, and a man who professes to know all things, is not such a person deserving of condemnation? And how does he not show himself to be a stranger to the Apostle, in that he prides himself B on "persuasive words of wisdom" (69) and thinks that he can deceive others by them, not understanding himself what he says, nor what he is asserting (70)? For the things which the Son said belong to the Son alone, as He is the Word and Wisdom and the Image of the Father's essence—these things this man attributes to all created beings, and makes them common both to the Son and to these. And the lawless man says that the Son receives power (71) from the Father, so that his impiety may follow, saying that even the Son was made a son in a son (72), and that the Word received power from the Word. And he no longer wishes to say that He said these things as Son, but, as though He had learned them, he ranks Him likewise with all the works. For if, because the words which the Son was uttering were not His, but belonged to the Father, and because the works [were not His C but the Father's], He said: "I am in the Father, and the Father in me"; and David says: "I will hear what the Lord God will speak in me" (74); and Solomon says: "My words have been spoken by God"; and Moses was the minister of the words from God, and each (75) of the prophets spoke not his own things, but the things from God, saying: "Thus saith the Lord"; and the works which the saints performed they spoke of as not their own, but as the works of God who had given the power (76)—as, for instance, Elias and Eliseus, who called upon God so that He Himself might raise the dead, when Eliseus also says to Naaman, after cleansing him of his leprosy: "That thou mayest know that there is a God in Israel"—and Samuel himself also, in the days of harvest, prayed to God to send rain; and the apostles said that they did not perform the signs by their own power, but by the grace of the Lord—it is manifest that, according to him, such a D voice would be common to all, so that each one of them would be able to say: "I am in the Father, and the Father in me," and consequently that this one would no longer be the Son of God and the Word.
A 3. Yet if the Lord had spoken in this way, it would not have been fitting for him to say: "I am in the Father, and the Father in me," but rather: "I also am in the Father, and the Father also is in me," so that he might indicate that he had nothing proper and singular before the Father as Son, but rather possessed the same grace in common with all others. But the matter is not as they imagine; for they do not think that the Son is truly from the Father, and they invent falsehoods about the true Son, to whom alone it is fitting to say: "I in the Father, and the Father in me." For the Son is in the Father, as far as it is possible to understand, because all that the Son is, this is proper to the nature of the Father, in the way that radiance arises from light, and a river from a fountain; so that he who sees the Son sees that which is proper to the Father, and understands that the Son’s being, existing from the Father, is thus in the Father. And conversely, the Father is in the Son, because the Son happens to be that which is proper from the Father, just as the sun is in the radiance, the mind in the word, and the fountain in the river. For thus, he who contemplates the Son, contemplates at the same time that which is proper to the Father’s nature, and understands that the Father is in the Son. For since the form and divinity of the Father is this very thing which is the Son, it follows necessarily that the Son is in the Father, and the Father in the Son. Therefore, when he had previously said, "I and the Father are one," he rightly adds, "I in the Father, and the Father in me," in order, specifically, to teach that the divinity of both is the same, and their nature one.
C 4. For they are not one because they are divided into two parts, which are nothing apart from the one; nor because the one is named twice, so that the same person would at one time be Father, and at another time his own Son; for having thought this, Sabellius was judged a heretic. But they are two, because the Father is Father and is not himself the Son; and conversely, the Son is Son and is not himself the Father. Yet their nature is one: for the begotten is not dissimilar to the begetter, since he is his image, and all things that are the Father’s are also the Son’s. Hence the Son is not a different God, because he was not produced from without; otherwise many gods would be introduced, if a strange divinity were conceived beyond the Father’s divinity. For although D the Son is a different thing as a begotten being, yet as God he is the same.
are the Father himself and the Father in the property and propriety of the nature, and in the identity of the one divinity, as has been said. A For the radiance also is light, and not secondary to the sun, nor a different light, nor according to participation in him, but is his own whole offspring. And such an offspring is necessarily one light; and one would not say that these are two lights, but that there are two, the sun and the radiance, yet the light from the sun in the radiance is one, enlightening all things everywhere. Thus also the divinity of the Son is the Father's; whence it is also indivisible; and thus there is one God, and there is no other besides him. Thus, therefore, as they are one, and the divinity itself is one, B the same things are said concerning the Son as are said concerning the Father, save for the name of Father: such as "God" — "And the Word was God"; "the Almighty" — "Thus says He who was, and is, and is to come, the Almighty"; "the Lord" — "One Lord Jesus Christ"; to be "light" — "I am the light"; to forgive sins — "But that you may know," he says, "that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins"; and whatever else you might find. For all things, the Son himself says, that the Father has, are mine; and again, "Mine are thine."
5. He who hears the things of the Father spoken in the Son will see in this way the Father in the Son; and he will contemplate the Son in the Father, when these things said concerning the Son are said also concerning the Father. C But why are the things of the Father said concerning the Son, but because the Son is an offspring from him? And why, again, are the things of the Son own to the Father, but because the Son is again an offspring own to his essence? And the Son being an offspring own to the essence of the Father, he fittingly also says that the things of the Father are his own; whence, fittingly and consequently, to his saying, "I and the Father are one," he added, "That you may know that I am in the Father, and the Father in me"; and to this he had previously added, "He who has seen me has seen the Father"; and there is one and the same mind D in these three passages.
B For he who has thus understood, and is persuaded, knows that the Son and the Father are one, and that He Himself is in the Father, and the Father is in the Son; for the divinity of the Son is the divinity of the Father, and that same divinity A is in the Son. And he who has grasped this is also persuaded that he who has seen the Son has seen the Father; for in the Son the divinity of the Father is contemplated. This, moreover, one will be able to understand more closely by the example of the king’s image. For in the image there is the appearance and form of the king, and in the king there is also the very appearance which is seen in the image. For the likeness in the image of the king is inalterable, so that he who looks upon the image C sees in it the king, and he who again looks upon the king recognizes that this is he who is in the image. And because the likeness does not differ, if anyone, after the image, wished to see the king, the image could rightly say to him: "I and the king are one; for I am in him, and he is in me; and what you see in me, this you behold in him; and what you have seen in him, this you behold in me." Therefore, he who worships the image worships the king also in it; for the image is his form and appearance. Since, then, the Son is also the image of the Father, it is necessary to understand that the divinity and the particular property of the Father is what the Son is. And this is that which is signified by these words: "Who being in the form of God," and, "The Father is in me." The fullness of the Father’s divinity is what the Son is, and D the Son is whole God. For this reason, being equal to God, "He did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped"; and again, because the divinity and appearance or form of the Son is of no other than the Father, this is what He said, "I am in the Father." "Thus God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself"; for the Son is the proper one of the Father’s nature, in whom the created nature is reconciled with God. Thus, the works which the Son was doing were the works of the Father, because the Son was the appearance or form of the Father’s divinity, which itself was performing the works. Thus he who sees the Son sees the Father at the same time, because the Son both is and is seen in the paternal divinity; and the paternal appearance that is in him sets forth the Father in him, and in this way the Father is in the Son. And the particular property and divinity which exists from the Father in the Son shows the Son in the Father, and the ever-existing...
A nature of the Father. And he who hears and sees the things said concerning the Father, finds they are likewise said concerning the Son—not as things accruing to His essence by grace or participation, but because the very being of the Son is the proper offspring of the Father's essence—he will rightly understand what has been said, as I have said before: "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me," and "I and the Father are one." For the Son is such as the Father is, because He has all that is the Father's; for which reason He is signified along with the Father. For one could not speak of a Father if a Son did not exist. However, he who calls God a Creator does not necessarily signify the things created; for the Creator exists even before His works. But he who speaks of a Father, immediately signifies along with the Father the existence of the Son as well. For this reason, he who believes in the Son also believes in the Father; for he believes in that which is proper to the essence of the Father. And thus there is one faith in one God; and he who worships and honors the Son, in the Son worships and honors the Father. For the Godhead is one; and for this reason there is one honor and one worship which is in the Son and takes place through Him B toward the Father; and he who worships in this way worships one God; for there is one God, and there is no other besides Him. When, therefore, the Father alone is called God, and when it is said that "God is one," and the words "I am," and "Besides me there is no God," and "I am the first, and I am after these things," these are rightly said. For there is one God, and He is solely and primarily God. But this is not said in order to exclude the Son. Far from it! For He Himself is in the One, and the First, and the Sole, as being alone the Word, and Wisdom, and Radiance of the One, and Sole, and First. He is also Himself First, inasmuch as He is the C fullness of the Godhead of the First and Sole, being whole and full God. Therefore, these things were not said against Him, but for the sake of showing that there is no other such as the Father and His Word; and that this is the mind of the prophet is clear and manifest to all.
7. Since the impious, by bringing these passages forward, speak irreverently of the Lord and reproach us, saying, "Behold, God is said to be one, and alone, and first; how then do you say that the Son is God? For if He were God, He would not say 'I alone,' nor that 'God is one'"; it is necessary to examine the mind of these points D as much as is possible, so that all may know from these things as well that truly...
the Arians are enemies of God. A If, then, there were strife for the Son against the Father, let Him hear such words; and if, just as David heard concerning Adonijah and Absalom, so too the Father were to look upon the Son, let Him rightly say such words to Himself and bring them forth, lest the Son, by calling Himself God, draw some away from the Father. But if the matter is contrary, and he who knows the Son knows the Father better—the Son revealing the Father to him—and he will see the Father better in the Word, as it has been said: yet when the Son came, He did not glorify Himself, but the Father, saying to the one approaching Him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone," and answering the one who asked Him which commandment in the Law is the greatest, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God, the Lord is one"; and saying to the crowds, "I have come down B from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of the Father who sent Me"; and teaching the disciples that "My Father is greater than I," and, "He who honors Me, honors Him who sent Me." And if the Son shows Himself such toward His own Father, what contrariety is there, that anyone should take such a suspicion concerning such texts? Furthermore, if the Son is the Word of the Father, who is so foolish, except the enemies of Christ, as to think that God has spoken these things in order to slander and destroy His own Word? This is not the mind of Christians; God forbid! For these things were not written because of the Son, but for the overthrow of the gods falsely so called, which were fashioned by men; and the mind of such passages has a C reasonable cause.
8. For since those who are addicted to false gods depart from the true God, for this reason God, being good and having care for men, calling back those who have gone astray, says: "I am God alone," and, "I am," and, "Besides Me there is no God," and as many texts as are of this kind, so that He might overthrow those things which are nothing, and turn all men to Himself. And just as if someone, while it is day and the sun is shining, were to paint wood at random, in which there is not even a semblance of light, and were to say that this image is the cause of the light; which, if the sun were to notice, it would say, "I D alone am [index: entries preserved]
the light of the day, and there is no other light of the day besides me." He would not be saying these things as he looks at his own radiance, but as he looks at the error caused by the likeness of wood and the dissimilarity of a vain fantasy. So it is also with the words, "I am," and, A "I alone am God," and, "There is no other besides me," in order that he might turn men away from those falsely so called, and that they might learn to know him, at last, as the true God. Surely, in saying these things, God was speaking through his own Word; unless, indeed, the Jews of today wish to add this, that he did not speak these things through the Word. But these things were spoken in this way, however much those who are diabolical may rave. For the Word of the Lord came to the prophet, and these things were heard. But if the Word was his, and through him these things were being said, and there is nothing that God says and does which he does not say and do in the Word, then these things were not said because of him, O enemies of God, but because of things that are foreign and do not belong to him. For, to stay with the same example, if the B sun had uttered those words, it would not have been indicating by these words that it had its radiance outside itself, but rather by showing its own light in its radiance, it would have been refuting that error, and would have spoken such things. Therefore, these sayings were not for the rejection of the Son, nor were they spoken because of him, but for the removal of falsehood. From the beginning, therefore, God did not say such words to Adam, even though the Word, through whom all things were made, was with him; for there was no need, since idols had not yet been created. But when men rose up against the truth and named for themselves whatever gods they wished, then indeed the need for such words arose for the refutation of those who are not gods. For my part, I would add that these words were also spoken in anticipation of the folly of the Christ-fighters, so that they might know C that if they should imagine a God outside the essence of the Father, this one is not the true God, nor is he the image and Son of the only and first one. 9. If, therefore, the Father alone is called the true God, this is said not to reject him who says, "I am the truth," but again to reject those who are not by nature true, such as the Father and his Word. For thus the Lord himself immediately joined them: "And whom you sent, Jesus Christ." D
A If he were a creature, he would not have joined and numbered himself with his Creator. For what fellowship is there between the true and that which is not true? But now, by joining himself to the Father, he has shown that he is of the nature of the Father, and has given us to know that he is the true offspring of the true Father. This also John, having learned, taught by writing in the Epistle: "And we are in the true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life." And whereas the prophet says concerning creation, "Who alone stretches out the heavens," and God himself says, "I alone stretched out the heavens," it is manifest to everyone that in the "alone" is also signified the Word of the "Alone," in whom all things were made, and without whom was made not one thing. If, therefore, through the Word they were made, and God says, "I alone," but the Son, through whom the heavens were made, is understood together with the Alone, so also, if "One God" is said, and "I alone," and "I the first," the Word is understood as being together with the One, the Alone, and the First, just as B the radiance in the light; and this could not be understood of any other than the Word alone. For all other things stood into existence from non-existence through the Son, and have a great distance in nature; but the Son himself is by nature from the Father and is his true offspring. Wherefore, even those words which the foolish have thought to use for the defense of their heresy, "I am the first," rather refute their wickedness. "I," says God, "am the first, and I am hereafter." If then he is said to be the first of these, as being numbered with those after him, so that they are second to him, then, according to you, he would be merely preceding the works in time; but this surpasses every impiety. But if he has uttered the words, "I am the first," to prove that he is not from anything, nor was anyone before him, but that he himself is the beginning and cause of all things, and to refute the myths of the Greeks; it is clear C that even the calling of the Son "firstborn" is not said because he is numbered with the creation, but to demonstrate that the creation and adoption of all things are effected through the Son. For just as the Father is first, so also he himself is first, insofar as he is the image of the First, and the First is in him; and he is an offspring from the Father, and in him all creation is fashioned and adopted.
A Thus, they endeavor again to contend for their own myths, saying that the Son and the Father are not one in the way, nor similar in the way, that the Church preaches; but rather in the way that they themselves desire. For they say: "Since whatever the Father wills, the Son also wills, and is not opposed either in thoughts or in judgments, but is in all things in agreement with Him, rendering the identity of dogmas and the word which follows and is conjoined to the Father’s teaching—for this reason he and the Father are one." These things, indeed, some of them have dared not only to say, but even to write. But what could anyone call more absurd or irrational than this? For if the Son and the Father are one for these reasons, and if the Word is similar to the Father in this way, it is time for the angels and our other superiors—Principalities, Powers, Thrones, Dominions—and the visible things, the sun, the moon, and the stars, to be sons as the Son is; and for it to be said of them that they and the Father are one, and that each is an image and Word of God. B For whatever God wills, they also will; and they do not disagree in judgments or in dogmas, but are in all things obedient to the Creator. For they would not have remained in their own glory unless they also willed what the Father willed. Hence, he who did not remain, but was depraved in mind, heard: “How did Lucifer, who was rising in the morning, fall from heaven?” How, then, when these things are so, is he alone the Son, the Only-begotten, and the Word and Wisdom? Or how, when there are so many who are similar to the Father, is he alone the image?
For indeed, even among men, many will be found who are similar to the Father, very many martyrs, appearing as such, and before them the apostles and prophets, and again before them the patriarchs; and many even now have kept the Commandment of the Savior, becoming merciful as the Father who is in the heavens, and keeping what is written: “Be therefore imitators of God, as beloved children; and walk in love, as Christ also loved us.” Many have become imitators of Paul, as he was of Christ; and yet, no one of these is the Word, or Wisdom, or the Only-begotten Son, C nor has anyone dared to say, “I and the Father are one,” or, “I am in the Father, and the Father in me”; but it has been said—in the name of men—"Who is like unto thee among the gods, O Lord?"
And, "Who shall be likened unto the Lord among the sons of God?" But concerning Him, it is said that He alone is the true and natural image of the Father. For even if we have been made according to the image, and have been named the image and glory of God, we have not obtained such a name for our own sake, but because of the image A dwelling in us, and the true glory of God, which is His Word, who on our account later became flesh; and we have the grace of this calling because of the image that dwelt in us.
11. Therefore, since their opinion is so inept and absurd, that likeness and unity must necessarily be referred to the essence of the Son. For if one does not take it in this way, He will appear to have nothing more than created things, as we have said, nor will He be like the Father, but only like the Father’s doctrines; and He will differ from the Father, because the Father is Father, but the doctrines and the teaching are the Father’s. If, therefore, the Son is like the Father according to the doctrines and the teaching, then, according to them, the Father will be Father by name only; and the Son will not be an express image, nor indeed will He appear to have any property or likeness of the Father at all. For what likeness and property can there be in Him who is distinct from the Father? Indeed, even Paul, who taught things similar to the doctrine of the Savior, was not like Him in essence. Those people, therefore, who think such things B are wrong; but the Son and the Father are one in such a way, as has been said; and the Son is so like, and begotten from the Father Himself, as it is possible to see and understand a son in relation to a father, and as it is possible to see the radiance in relation to the sun. For because the Son is in this state, when the Son acts, the Father is the One who acts, and when the Son comes to the saints, the Father is the One who comes in the Son, as He Himself promised, saying: “We will come, I and the Father, and will make our abode with him” (Joan. XIV, 23). For the Father is beheld in the image, and the light is in the radiance. Therefore, as we said a little C before, and as the Father gives grace and peace, the Son likewise gives them,
A as Paul signifies in all his Epistles, writing thus: *Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Rom. 1, 7; I Cor. 1, 3; Ephes. 1, 2, etc.* For one and the same is the grace which is given from the Father in the Son, just as there is one light of the sun and the radiance, and the sun illuminates only through its radiance. Thus, therefore, he again prays for the Thessalonians, saying: *Now God himself and our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way to you* [I Thess. III, 11]; preserving by these words the unity of the Father and the Son. For he did not say, "might they direct," as if a double grace were being given by two—namely, by this one and that one—but, "might he direct," that he might show that the Father gives this through the Son; from which even the impious, if they were able to blush, would blush, though they do not wish to do so. B
12. For if the Word were not a birth of the essence of the Father, as the radiance of the light, but the Son differed in nature from the Father, it would have been enough to name the Father alone, since no created thing communicates with the Creator in the gifts that are given. But now such a giving demonstrates the unity of the Father and the Son. No one, therefore, would pray to receive from God and from angels, or from any other of the creatures, nor would anyone say, "May God and the angel give to you," but we pray to the Father and the Son because of their unity and the singular, unified giving. For through the Son are the goods given; and there is nothing at all that the Father does not effect through the Son; for thus also the one who receives has the grace secure. And if the patriarch Jacob, blessing his grandsons Ephraim and Manasseh, said: *God who feeds me from my youth until this day; the angel who delivers me from all evils, bless these children* [Genes. XLVIII, 15, 16]; he was not joining one of those who are angels by nature and creation C to the God who created them; nor, having abandoned the God who feeds him, did he ask a blessing for his grandsons from an angel, but having said, *He who delivers me from all evils*, he showed that it was not one of the created angels, but the Word of God, whom he joined with the Father in his prayer, through whom God saves whomever He wills. For knowing Him to be called the Angel of the great counsel of the Father, he did not
A think that anyone other than He was the one who blesses and rescues from evils. For it must not be thought that he wanted God to bless himself, but an angel to bless his descendants; rather, it was he who entreated Him, saying, "I will not let you go, unless you bless me" (and this was God, as he himself asserts: "I have seen God face to face"), and he prayed for this One to bless the sons of Joseph. B Now, it is proper for an angel to minister to the command of God; and often he even goes before to cast out the Amorite, and is sent to guard the people on the way; yet even these things are not his, but of the God who commands and sends him, to whom also belongs the power to rescue whomsoever He wills. For this reason, no other person than the Lord God Himself who appeared said to him: "And behold, I am with you, guarding you in all the way wherever you go." And it was no other than the God who appeared again who restrained C Laban’s plot, commanding him not to speak evilly to Jacob; and Jacob himself entreated no one other than God, saying: "Rescue me from the hand of my brother Esau, for I fear him." And speaking also to his wives, he said that "God did not permit Laban to do me harm."
13. For this reason also David invoked no other than God to be delivered: "To you, O Lord, when I was afflicted, I cried out, and you heard me. O Lord, rescue my soul from unjust lips and from a deceitful tongue." Returning thanks to Him again, he sang these words of the seventeenth Psalm, on the day that the Lord delivered him D from the hand of all his enemies, and from the hand of Saul, and said: "I will love you, O Lord, my strength, the Lord is my support and my refuge and my deliverer." Paul also, having suffered many persecutions, returned thanks to no other than God, saying: "The Lord delivered me from all, and will deliver me, in whom we have hoped." And no other than God blessed Abraham and Isaac; and Isaac, praying for Jacob, said, "May my God bless you, and cause you to grow and multiply you, and you shall be for gatherings of nations, and may He give you the blessing of Abraham my father." For if no one…
other than God is the one to bless and to deliver, if there is no other than the Lord Himself who delivered Jacob, whom the patriarch invoked as the deliverer for his descendants A; it is clear that he was not joining any other in his prayer with God except His Word, whom he also called an Angel for this reason, because He alone is the One who reveals the Father. This is also what the Apostle did, saying: "Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." For thus the blessing was secure, both because of the undivided nature of the Son and the Father, and because the grace given is one and the same. For even if the Father gives, that which is given is through the Son B; and even if the Son is said to bestow, it is the Father who bestows through the Son and in the Son. For "I give thanks," says the Apostle, writing to the Corinthians, "to my God always for you because of the grace of God which was given to you in Christ Jesus." One may see this also in the case of light and radiance; for the light illuminates that which the radiance illuminates, and what the radiance illuminates, the light also illuminates. Thus also when the Son is seen, the Father is seen; for the radiance belongs to the Father, and thus the Father and the Son are one.
14. This cannot be said of things generated and of creatures C. For when the Father is performing an action, none of the angels performs it or any other of the creatures; for none of these is a creative cause, but they are among the things that have been created. Furthermore, they are separated and distinct from the Only-begotten, and they are different in nature and are works; and neither can they perform what God performs, nor, as I said before, when God bestows grace, can they bestow it with Him; nor could anyone, if he saw an angel, rightly say that he had seen the Father. For angels, as it is written, are D ministering spirits sent forth for service, and they are announcers to those who receive them of the gifts given by Him through the Word. And the angel himself, when appearing, confesses that he has been sent by the Master, as Gabriel did to Zacharias, and the same one confessed to Mary the Theotokos. And he who sees the vision of angels knows that he has seen an angel, and not God. For Zacharias saw an angel; Isaiah also saw the Lord; Manue, the father of Samson, saw an angel, but Moses beheld God
Gideon saw an angel; but God appeared to Abraham. And neither did he who saw God behold an angel, nor did he who saw the angel think that he was seeing God; for created things differ very much—or rather, differ entirely in nature—from God the Creator. If, however, at some time, while an angel was appearing, the observer heard the voice of God, as happened at the burning bush—for an angel of the Lord appeared in a flame of fire from the bush, and the Lord called Moses from the bush, saying: A *I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob*—it was not, however, the angel who was the God of Abraham, but it was God who was speaking in the angel. Therefore, that which appeared was an angel, but God was speaking in him. For as in the tabernacle He spoke to Moses in the pillar of a cloud, so also God appears speaking in angels; and in this way He spoke to the son of Nun through an angel. But what God speaks, it is manifest that He speaks through the Word, and not through some other. But the Word, being neither separated from the Father, nor unlike and alien to the substance of the Father, whatsoever He works, these are the works of the Father, and He produces one creation; and B whatsoever the Son gives, this is the gift of the Father. And he who has seen the Son knows that, in having seen Him, he has not seen an angel, nor anyone greater than the angels, nor at all any created thing, but he has seen the Father Himself; and he who hears the Word knows that he hears the Father; just as he who is illuminated by the radiance also knows that he is illuminated by the sun.
15. Idcirco enim divina Scriptura nobis hu- C jusmodi exempla suppeditavit, ut rem ita intelligere- mus, sicuti supra docuimus. Ex quibus certe cum proditores Judæos confutare, tum gentilium calumnias facile est refellere, qui, quoniam Trinitatem colimus, multos a nobis deos agnosci aiunt et arbitrantur. Nec enim, ut etiam ex allato exemplo constat, tria principia vel tres patres inducimus, uti Marcionistæ et Manichæi: quandoquidem nec tres soles in exemplum proposuerimus, sed solem et D
A light in his radiance; in this way we recognize one principle. B We state that the creative Word does not possess any manner of divinity other than that of the one God, because He is by nature born of Him. The Arianomaniacs would much more justly be accused of the charge of polytheism, or even atheism, because they babble that the Son is an external creation, and again that the Spirit is from nothing. For they must either say that the Word is not God, or, if they grant that He is God because it is written, but do not acknowledge that He is proper to the Father’s essence, they would introduce many gods because of their heterogeneous nature—unless, perhaps, they are so bold as to say that He is called God only by participation, just as all things are said to be gods. But even in holding this opinion, they are equally impious, claiming the Word to be one of all things. May such a thought never even enter our minds! For there is one form of divinity, which is also in the Word; and the Father is one God, existing in Himself in accordance with being over all things; and He is revealed in the Son in accordance with passing through all things; and in the Spirit in accordance with working through the Word in Him in all things. For thus we confess that there is one God through the Trinity, and with far greater piety we say this, compared to the multiform and manifold divinity of the heretics, because we hold to the one divinity in the Trinity.
C 16. For if it were not so, but the Word were a creature and a work, or if He were not true God because He is one of the created things—or if, being ashamed in the face of the Scriptures, they name Him God, they must necessarily say there are two gods: one a creator, the other a creature. And they must serve two lords: one unbegotten, the other begotten and a creature; and they must have two faiths, one in the true God, and another in the one fashioned, molded, and called God by them. And these people, being thus blinded, must necessarily turn their backs, as it were, upon the begotten one when they worship the unbegotten one, and turn away from the Creator when they approach the creature. For one cannot see the latter in the former, because their natures and their operations D are foreign and different from one another. If they hold this view, they certainly acknowledge more gods: for this is where
A venit eorum impietas qui ab uno Deo desciscunt.
Against the Arians, Book I
Why, then, do the Arians, holding such opinions, not count themselves among the Gentiles? For they, like these people, worship the creation B instead of God, the Creator of all things. But while they avoid the name "Gentile" because of the deception of those who are senseless, they simulate a way of thinking similar to theirs. Indeed, their clever statement, which they are accustomed to use—"We do not profess two unbegotten things"—was devised merely to lead the minds of the simple astray. For when they say, "We do not profess two unbegotten things," they are certainly professing two gods who have different natures: one made, and the other unmade. But if the Gentiles worship one unmade being and many made ones, and these people worship one unmade being and one made being, there is no reason to believe that they differ from the Gentiles.
Indeed, even the one whom they call "made" is but one out of many, and the many whom the Gentiles venerate possess the same nature as this one, since both he and they are similarly created. Miserable men indeed, and all the more so because, by thinking so perversely about Christ, they have brought no light harm upon themselves, inasmuch as they have fallen away from the truth. By denying Christ, they have even surpassed the betrayal of the Jews in their impiety, such that, hateful to God, they now wallow among the Gentiles, serving a created thing and diverse gods. C For there is one God, and not many, and one is His Word, and not many; for the Word is God, and He alone possesses the paternal form. Just as the Savior Himself, when He was rebuking the Jews, said: "The Father, who sent me, He has borne witness of me; you have never heard His voice, nor have you seen His form, and His Word you do not have remaining in you; for the One whom He sent, Him you do not believe." He rightly joined the Word with the form, so as to show that the Word of God is Himself the image, representation, and form of His own Father, and that the Jews, by not receiving the One who was speaking to them, did not receive the Word, D who is the form of God. This is He whom the patriarch Jacob saw and was blessed, and in place of Jacob, he was called Israel by Him, just as the
A testatur dicens: "The sun rose for him, when he passed by the appearance of God." This, moreover, was the One who said: "He who has seen me has seen the Father; and, I am in the Father, and the Father is in me; and I and the Father are one." For in this way God is one, and there is one faith unto the Father and the Son. For indeed, since the Word is God, it follows again that the Lord our God is one Lord; inasmuch as the Son is proper and indivisible, according to the distinction and belonging of the substance of the One.
17. Yet not even thus are the Arians abashed B, saying: "Not as you say, but as we wish; for since you have refuted our former notions, we have found something newer and we say: Thus are the Son and the Father one, and thus is the Father in the Son, and the Son in the Father, so that we also might become in Him." For this is written in the Gospel according to John, which Christ prayed on our behalf, saying: "Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are." And again a little later: "I do not ask for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, so that all may be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be ONE in us; so that the world may believe that you have sent me. And the glory C which you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one; I in them, and you in me, that they may become perfected into one, and so that the world may know that you have sent me." Then, as if they had found a pretext, the deceitful ones add these things: "If, just as we become one in the Father, so also He and the Father are one, and in this way He also is in the Father, why do you conclude from these His words, 'I and the Father are one' and 'I in the Father and the Father in me,' that He is proper and similar to the nature of the Father? For it is necessary that we also be proper to the nature of the Father D, if [alt-version omitted]
or that He also be alien, just as we are alien.' B Such are the trivialities they utter; but I, in this perversity of theirs, see nothing other than reckless audacity and diabolical madness. For they seem indeed to say, like the devil, 'We will ascend into heaven, we shall be like the Most High';* inasmuch as they wish those things which are given to men by grace to be equal to the divinity of the Giver. For since they heard that men are called sons, they have falsely imagined themselves to be equal to the true and natural Son; and now, again, hearing the Savior's words, 'That they may be one, even as we are,' they deceive themselves, and, emboldened, think that they will be as the Son is in the Father, and the Father in the Son; not seeing the fall that resulted from such arrogance for their father, the devil.
18. Therefore, as we have often said, if the Word of God C is the same as us, and differs from us in nothing except time, let Him be similar to us, and let Him occupy the same place with the Father that we occupy; and let Him not be called the only-begotten, nor solely the Word or Wisdom of the Father, but let the same name be granted to all of us who are similar. For it is right that the name be common to those of whom there is one nature, even if they differ among themselves in age. Hence Adam is man, and Paul likewise is man, and he who is just now being born is man; nor can the nature of the species be changed by intervals of time. Therefore, if the Word differs from us only in time, it is absolutely necessary that we be similar to Him. But neither are we the Word or Wisdom, nor is the Word created or made. Otherwise, if we were all made from one, why is He alone the Word? But if it is fitting for them to speak such things, it is certainly unseemly for us even to D contemplate their impieties. And although there is no need to examine those words more curiously, since they so clearly signify nothing but what is pious, and our faith is right; yet, in order that those impious men may appear as they are, come, let us from this very passage briefly refute their heresy, as we have been taught by the Fathers. It is the custom of divine Scripture
* Isa. xiv, 13.
ORATION III AGAINST THE ARIANS
A Scripture takes things that exist by nature and uses them as images and examples for mankind. It does this so that, from those naturally occurring things, the movements that arise from the human will might be made manifest, and in this way, whether one's manner is base or righteous might be demonstrated.
Regarding those who are base, for instance, it commands: "Do not be like the horse and the mule, which have no understanding." Or when, reproving those who have become like them, it says: "Man, being in honor, did not understand; he was compared to the senseless beasts, and became like them." And again: "They became lusty horses." The Savior also, showing what sort of person Herod was, said: "Tell that fox." To his disciples, moreover, he commanded: "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves." He said this not so that we should become beasts by nature, nor that we should become serpents and doves, for he did B not create us that way, nor does nature understand such a thing. Rather, he said it so that we might flee from the irrational impulses of the former, and, recognizing the wisdom of the serpent, might not be deceived by him, and that we might embrace the gentleness of the dove.
19. Regarding divine matters, too, the Savior once again proposes examples to men, saying: "Be merciful, as your Father who is in heaven is merciful"; and, "You shall be perfect, just as your Father who is in heaven is perfect." He said this, too, not so that we might become what the Father is; for it is impossible for us to be as the Father, since we are creatures, brought into being from non-existence. But just as, when he said "Do not be like the horse," he was giving a command C not so that we would not be brute beasts—for that was not in our nature—but so that we would not imitate their irrationality, so too, not so that we might become as God did he say, "Be merciful, as the Father," but so that, looking toward his benefits, the good things we do might be done not for the sake of men, but for his sake, so that we might receive the reward from him and not from men.
For just as, while there is one Son by nature, true and only-begotten, we too become sons—not as he is by nature and in truth, but by the grace of him who calls us—and even though we are men from the earth, we are still called gods, D not in the way the true . . .
A God is, or His Word, but as it pleased God who granted this. So too, we become merciful as God, not by being made equal to God, nor by becoming benefactors by nature and in truth—for to do good is not our discovery, but God’s—but so that we might also share with others those things which, having come to us from God Himself by grace, we might distribute without discrimination, extending our beneficence to all men. For precisely in this way, and no other, can we in some manner become his imitators, while we minister his gifts to one another.
And just as we understand these things rightly and correctly, so too the reading from John conveys the same understanding. For it does not say that as the Son is in the Father, so also should we be in Him. For how could that be, since He is the Word and Wisdom of God, while we were fashioned from the earth; and He is by nature and substance the Word and true God, as John writes? B "We know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding that we may know the true God; and we are in the true one, in his Son, Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life." But we are made sons by adoption and grace through Him, partaking of His Spirit. For as many as received Him, he says, to them he gave the power to become children of God, to those who believe in His name. Hence, He indeed is the Truth, as He Himself testifies, saying: "I am the truth," just as, speaking to the Father, He said: "Sanctify them in the truth: Thy word is truth." But we become virtuous and sons only by imitation. C
20. Therefore, he does not mean that we should be the same as He is, "That they may be one, even as we are," but that just as He, being the Word, is in His own Father, so too we, taking Him as a type and looking unto Him, might become one with each other in oneness of mind and in the unity of the Spirit, not disagreeing as the Corinthians did, but thinking the same thing, like the five thousand in the Acts, who happened to be as one. For we are "as sons," but not as the Son; and "as gods," but not as He is; and "merciful as the Father," but not as the Father. But as it has been said, by thus becoming one, we become virtuous and sons.
A We shall not be as the Father and the Son are, in the way that the Father is naturally in the Son and the Son in the Father; but we shall be so in accordance with what our nature allows, and as it is possible for us to be inspired and to learn from That Source as to how we ought to become one, just as we have also learned how to be merciful. For things that are like are naturally inclined to have unity with things like them; since all flesh is gathered together according to its kind. B Therefore, the Word is unlike us, but He is like the Father; and for this reason He exists in truth and by nature in unity with His own Father. But we, being of the same kin to one another—for we have all come to be from one, and the nature of all men is one—we become one with each other in our disposition, having as a model the natural unity of the Son with the Father. For just as He taught us gentleness from Himself, saying: *Learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart* (Matt. XI, 29); He did not mean that we should be made His equals—for that is impossible—but that by looking to Him we might remain gentle at all times. C So also here, wishing us to have a true, firm, and indissoluble disposition toward one another, He takes the example from Himself and says: *That they may be one, even as we are* (John XVII, 11). The unity in us is indivisible; so that they too, having learned the indivisible nature from us, might in this way preserve harmony among themselves. Imitation of things that belong to nature is safer for men, as has been said. For since those things remain and never change, while the character of men happens to be easily changeable, one can, by looking to that which is immutable in its nature, flee from base things and mold oneself in the best things. For in this way, the saying, *That they too may be one in us*, also carries a right meaning.
21. If then it were possible for us to be in the Father in the way that the Son Himself is in the Father, it would have been necessary to say: "That they, too, may be one in Thee, as the Son is in the Father." Yet He has by no means said this; but by saying *in us*, He indicated the distinction and the difference of the matter: namely, that He alone is in the Father alone, as the sole Word and Wisdom, whereas we are in the Son, and through Him in the Father. D
A By saying this, He meant nothing else than that they, too, might become one among themselves in our unity, just as We are one by nature and in truth. For they could not otherwise become one, unless they learned the unity in us; and the fact that "in us" has this meaning, one may hear from Paul as he says: "These things I have conformed to myself and Apollos, that in us you may learn not to be puffed up above what is written" (1 Cor. IV, 6). Therefore, "in us" does not mean "in the Father," as the Son is in Him, but is set forth as an example and image, as if to say: "Let them learn from us." For just as Paul is to the Corinthians, so the unity of the Son and the Father is a model and pattern for all, according to which they can learn, by looking to the natural unity of the Father and the Son, how they too ought to become one among themselves in their disposition. B But if it is necessary to defend the passage in another way, the term "in us" can again be equal to saying "by the power of the Father and the Son," so that they may become one, speaking the same thing; for without God this is impossible. And this, too, we can find in the divine Scriptures, such as "In God we shall do strength" (Psal. LIX, 14), and "In Thee we shall gore our enemies" (Psal. LXIII, 6). Therefore, it is clear that in the name of the Father and the Son we are able, having become one, to possess a firm bond of charity. For again, extending the same thought, the Lord says: "And I have given them the glory which Thou hast given Me, that they may be one, as We also are one" (Joan. XVII, 22). Aptly, here too, He did not say: "That they may be in Thee, as I am," but "as We are"; and by the particle "as," He clearly shows that He is not signifying identity, but is proposing an image and example of what is spoken.
22. Therefore, the Word indeed has the same nature as the Father; but for us, there remains the imitation, as has been said; for He immediately added, saying: "I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be perfected into one." Here, finally, the Lord asks for something C greater and more perfect for us, for it is clear that the Word has come to be in us, since He put on our body. And "Thou in Me, O Father, seeing that I am Thy Word, and..."
since Thou indeed art in Me, because I am Thy Word, while I am in them A because of the body, and because of Thee the salvation of men has been perfected in Me, I ask that they also may become one, according to the body which is in Me, and according to its perfection: so that they also may become perfect, having the unity towards this, and having become one in the very thing; so that, as all having been carried by Me, all may be one body and one spirit, and may attain to a perfect man." For we all, partaking of the same, become one body, having the one Lord in ourselves. Having this sense of the passage, the heterodoxy of the Christ-fighters is more effectively refuted; for B I repeat and say again: if He had spoken simply and absolutely, "That they may be one in Thee," or "That they and I may be one in Thee," the God-fighters might have had some shameless pretext. But now He did not speak simply, but, "As Thou, Father, in Me, and I in Thee, that all may be one." By saying again "as," He shows from afar those who are becoming so, as He Himself is in the Father, and is afar from Him, not by place, but by nature; for nothing is far from God by place, but all things are far from Him by nature alone; and, as I said before, he who says "as" C indicates no identity or equality, but is an adverb and a pattern of the thing being discussed, viewed in a certain way.
23. And this again it is possible to learn from the Saviour Himself saying: "For as Jonas was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights, so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth" (Matth. XII, 40). For neither was Jonas such as the Saviour, nor did Jonas descend into Hades, nor was the whale Hades; moreover, neither did Jonas, when swallowed up, bring back those who had been swallowed up before by the whale, D but he alone went out when the whale was commanded. Therefore, no identity or equality is signified in the word "as," but one thing is one and another is another; but it denotes a similarity of some kind because of that three-day period. Neither, therefore,
A exactly as the Son are we in the Father, nor is the Father in the Son in the way that we are for-formed. For we, even as the Father and the Son, are made one in frame of mind and in the concord of the Spirit; but as for the Savior, "as Jonas [was] in the earth," so shall He be; but just as the Savior is not Jonas, neither did the Lord descend into Hades in the way that he was swallowed: but one thing is one thing and another is another. Thus, even if we are made one, just as the Son is in the Father, we shall not be like the Son, nor equal to Him; for we are one thing and He is another. For this reason, in our case, the word "as" is set before us, because in things not according to nature, when these are looked at in relation to something else, a likeness B or similarity to those things is produced. Whence the Son Himself is in the Father simply and without any entanglement; for this exists for Him by nature. We, however, not having this by nature, have need of an image and an example, that He may say concerning us: "As Thou in Me, and I in Thee." And when, He says, these shall be perfected in this way, then the world knows that Thou didst send Me; for if I had not come and taken up their body, no one among them would have been perfected, but all would have remained corruptible. Work, therefore, in them, O Father; and as Thou hast given to Me this body to bear, give to them Thy Spirit, that they too might become one in this, and be perfected in Me. For the perfection of these C shows that there has been an advent of Thy Word; and the world, seeing them perfect and God-bearing, will believe entirely that Thou didst send Me, and that I have come. For whence could perfection come to them, if I, Thy Word, having taken the body of these, had not become man, and perfected the work which Thou gavest Me, O Father? The work, however, is perfected, because men, having been redeemed from sin, no longer remain dead but, having been deified, they possess—by looking at us—the bond of charity between themselves in us.
By will and purpose and in all other respects. And this [is so] also in the case of the angels. That is, a natural union is perfect only in the holy Trinity. For the holy Trinity is not only one nature of this kind, but there is also one will, power, efficiency, and volition, whence the holy and consubstantial Trinity is properly one God. We, however, although we are consubstantial, are nevertheless divided in all other things: in place, time, power, efficiency, will, and all else; which same thing must be said of the angels. D
A And we, for our part, as far as it was possible to consider these things more simply, have spoken at length; but the blessed John A 13 will, in his Epistle, show in a few words and more perfectly than we the meaning of what is written, and he will refute the thought of the impious, and will teach how we 14 come to be in God, and God in us; and again, how we come to be one in Him, and yet how far the Son differs from us in nature 15. Finally, he will put a stop to the Arians, that they might no longer imagine themselves to be like the Son, lest they too hear: "Yet you are a man and not God," B and, "Do not, being poor, stretch yourself out to be equal with the rich." John then writes, saying: 16 "By this we know that we abide in him, and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit." It is not, therefore, by reason of the grace of the Spirit given to us that we come to be in Him, and He in us; but because the Spirit is of God, through Him we come to be in God, and we are reasonably thought to be in God because we have the Spirit; and thus is God in us. It is not, therefore, as the Son is in the Father, C that we also come to be in the Father; 18 for the Son is not a partaker of the Spirit, so that He might be in the Father through this, nor does He receive 19 the Spirit, but rather He Himself bestows it to all; and it is not the Spirit that joins the Word to the Father, but rather the Spirit receives from the Word. And indeed the Son is in the Father, as His own Word and radiance; but we, without the Spirit, are strangers and far from God; but by participation in the Spirit, we are joined to the divinity, D so that our being in the Father is not ours, but that of the Spirit who is in us and remains in us, as long as we keep Him in us by our confession, John again 20 saying: "Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God." What likeness, then, 21 or what equality is ours with the Son? Or how are the Arians not refuted on every side, and especially by John, that the Son is in the Father in one way, and we come to be in Him in another; and that we will never be as He is, nor is the Word as we are, unless they dare, as they do in all things, to say this now 22—that even the Son Himself was made a partaker of the Spirit and by good deeds merited to be in the Father, a thought which surely cannot be conceived without the greatest impiety.
25. A For when the Saviour says to us regarding our own case, *As thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us* (Joan. XVII, 21), He does not signify that we are to have the same identity with Him; for this, too, has been proven by the example of Jonah. But it is a prayer to the Father, as John wrote, that He might bestow the Spirit through Him upon those who believe, through whom we are thought to be in God and, according to this, to be joined in Him. For since the Word is in the Father, and the Spirit is given from the Word, He desires us to receive the Spirit, so that when we have received it, then, possessing the Spirit of the Word who is in the Father, we may also ourselves appear to be made one in the Word, and through Him in the Father. B And the phrase, *as we,* indicates nothing else but that such grace of the Spirit, once infused into the disciples, may be rendered stable and irrevocable. Indeed, as I explained above, He wills that that which by nature exists in the Word in the Father should be given to us through the Spirit in such a way that it is irrevocable. The Apostle, being aware of this, said: *Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?* (Rom. VIII, 35). For the gifts of God and the grace of calling are irrevocable (Rom. XI, 23). Therefore, it is the Spirit who exists in God, and not we of ourselves; and just as we become sons and gods because of the Word who is in us, so we shall be in the Son and in the Father, and shall be thought to have been made one in the Son and in the Father C because the Spirit is in us, which is in the Word who is in the Father. When, therefore, anyone falls away from the Spirit because of some wickedness, the grace itself remains irrevocable for those who desire it, should the person who has fallen repent. Yet he who has fallen is no longer in God, because the holy and paraclete Spirit, who is in God, has departed from him; rather, such a sinner will be in him to whom he has subjected himself—which indeed happened to Saul, from whom the Spirit of God departed, and an evil spirit vexed him (1 Reg. XVI, 14). Surely, having heard these things, the enemies of God ought to blush and no longer falsely imagine themselves equal to God. But they do not understand; for, *The impious person,* he says, *does not understand knowledge.*
A nor do they endure pious words; for they are heavy and burdensome to them even to hear.
26. For, as if they were not exhausted by their impieties, but, hardened like Pharaoh, seeing and hearing the human acts of the Savior in the Gospels, they have forgotten entirely, like the Samosatene, the paternal divinity of the Son, and emboldened by a reckless tongue, they say: "How can the Son B exist by nature from the Father and be similar to Him in essence, when He Himself says, *All power is given to me* (Matth. xxviii, 18); and, *The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son* (Joan. v, 22); and, *The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand. He who believes in the Son has eternal life* (Joan. iii, 35)? And again: *All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Father except the Son, and he to whom the Son wills to reveal him* (Luc. x, 22); and again: *All that the Father gives me, will come to me* (Joan. vi, 37)."
Then they add: "If He were, as you say, Son by nature, He would not have had need to receive, but would have possessed it as Son by nature. Or how can He be the power of the Father by nature and truly, who, when the time of suffering C arrives, says: *Now my soul is troubled. And what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour; but for this I have come to this hour. Father, glorify your name* (Joan. xii, 27, 28)? There came, then, a voice from heaven: *And I have glorified it, and will glorify it again.* And again He said the like: *Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me* (Matth. xxvi, 39); and, *When Jesus had said these things, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said: Amen, amen, I say to you, one of you will betray me* (Joan. xiii, 21)."
From which these perverse men conclude: "If He were that Virtue or Power, He certainly would not have feared, but would rather have imparted power and virtue to others." They add also: "If He were the true and proper Wisdom of the Father, why then is it written, *And Jesus increased in wisdom, and age, and grace with God and men* (Luc. ii, 52)? And when He had come into the parts D of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples whom men said he was; and when he had come into Bethany...
he asked A where Lazarus was laid. And afterwards he said to the disciples: How many loaves have you? How then, they say, is this he who is Wisdom, he who progresses in wisdom, and who is ignorant of that which he seeks to learn from others? And this also is said by them: How can he be the own Word of the Father, without whom the Father never was, and through whom he makes all things, as is your opinion, he who on the cross cried: My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? And also had prayed so: Glorify thy name; and, Glorify thou me, O Father, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was made. He prayed also in the wilderness, B and exhorted his disciples to pray, that they might not enter into temptation. And he said: The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. And, Of that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels, nor the Son. From which passages the wicked argue thus: If, as you think, the Son had always existed with the Father, he would by no means have been ignorant of that day, but would have known it as the Word; nor would he have been forsaken by the Father, he who existed together with him; nor would he have asked for glory, which he had in the Father; nor, finally, would he have prayed at all, seeing that he, as the Word, needed nothing whatsoever. But because he was also created, and one of the things made, he therefore spoke thus, and was in need of those things which he himself did not have. For it is the property of created things to be in need of those things which they have not. »
27. These, therefore, are the things which the impious bring forward in their insanity. But they, when they ponder such matters, might even more boldly inquire: C Why at all did the Word become flesh? And then add: For how could He who was God become man? Or how could He who is without a body wear a body? Or even, acting more like Jews, say with Caiaphas: Why, in general, did Christ, being a man, make himself God? For these things, and those which follow in this vein
A the Jews of that time used to grumble as they looked on; and now the Arianomaniacs, as they read them, disbelieve and have fallen into blasphemies. If, therefore, anyone were to examine the words of these people and those earlier ones together, he would certainly find them both encountering the same unbelief, and that there is equal daring in their impiety, and that their struggle against us is a common one. For the Jews said: "How, being a man, can he be God?" The Arians, on the other hand, say: "If he were true God from God, how could he have become man?" And the Jews were scandalized and mocked, saying: "If this person were the Son of God, he would not have endured the cross." The Arians, standing on the opposite side, say to us: "How do you dare to say B that the Word who possesses a body, such that he could endure this, is the Word proper to the essence of the Father?" Then, since the Jews were seeking to kill the Lord because he called God his own Father and made himself equal, working the things which the Father works, the Arians learned to say, even they, that he is neither equal to God, nor is God the Father proper and by nature to the Word; but they even seek to kill those who think these things. Furthermore, when the Jews said: "Is this not the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then does he say: 'Before Abraham was, I am,' and 'I have descended from heaven'?"—the Arians themselves C also listen and say likewise: "How can he be the Word or God, who sleeps as a man, and weeps, and asks questions?" For both parties, from the human conditions which the Savior endured on account of the flesh he clothed, deny the eternity and divinity of the Word.
28. Since such doctrine is therefore Judaic, and has sprung from the traitor Judas, let them either openly confess themselves to be disciples of Caiaphas and Herod, not hiding their Judaism under the name of Christianity, but let them deny altogether, as we have said before, the incarnate presence of the Savior—for this is the very sentiment of their heresy—or if, then, as Constan- D
Constantiani, they do not dare to openly embrace the rites of the Jews or to be circumcised, for the sake of currying favor with Constantius A and those who have been deceived by them, then let them not speak in the manner of the Jews; for it is right that those whose name they decline, their sentiment also should be shunned. For we are Christians, O Arians, we are Christians; and it is our own proper task to understand the Gospels rightly concerning the Savior, and not to stone Him with the Jews if we hear Him speaking of His own divinity and eternity, nor to be scandalized with you B at those humble words which He uses as a man. Therefore, if you also wish to become Christians, put away the madness of Arius, and wash your ears, defiled by impious blasphemies, with words of piety; and let it be certain to you that as soon as you have ceased to be Arians, you will also cast off the perversity of the Jews, and it will come to pass that, the darkness being dissipated, the light of truth will straightway shine upon you—and you will no longer slander us as though we acknowledged two eternals. For you yourselves will understand that the Lord is the true and natural Son of God, and that He is known to be not merely eternal, but to exist simultaneously C with the eternity of the Father. For there are things which are called eternal of which He Himself is the Creator; for in the twenty-third Psalm it is written, "Lift up your gates, O ye princes, and be ye lifted up, ye everlasting doors" (Ps. XXIII, 7). It is evident, however, that even these have come to be through Him; but if He is the Creator of things eternal, who among us will any longer be able to doubt that He is also higher than these eternal things? And the Lord is not known as Lord so much from being eternal D as from being the Son of God; for because He is the Son, He is inseparable from the Father, and there was never a time when He was not, but He always was; and being the image and radiance of the Father, He also possesses the eternity of the Father. Thus, by what reasoning they were convicted of wrongly understanding those passages of Scripture which they cited, can be learned from those things which have been discussed above in a few words; but that those things which they now again oppose from the Gospels are altogether futile and trivial, it is easy to perceive, if in the first place one is...
A to grasp the scope of the faith which we Christians hold, and, using this as a kind of rule, attend, as the Apostle says, to the reading of the divinely inspired Scripture. For the enemies of Christ, being ignorant of this, have wandered from the path of truth and have stumbled against the stone of stumbling, thinking what they ought not think.
29. This, then, is the scope and character of the Holy Scripture, as we have often said: that it contains a twofold message concerning the Savior—that He was always God and is the Son, being the Word and radiance and wisdom of the Father; and that later, for our sake, having taken flesh from the Theotokos Mary, He became man. And it is possible to find this signified throughout the whole of the divinely inspired Scripture, as the Lord Himself has said: "Search the Scriptures, for they are they which testify of me." But that I may not be tedious in writing by gathering all the texts, let it suffice to mention them all, through the words of John: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; B this was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made." Then: "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the Only-begotten from the Father." And as Paul writes: "Who, existing in the form of God, did not count it a prize to be equal with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and found in fashion as a man. He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even death on a cross." For from these things, if anyone with the same understanding goes through the whole of Scripture, he will see how in the beginning the Father said to Him, "Let there be light," C and later, "Let us make man," and at the end of the ages...
He sent Him into the world, not to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. And it is written: "Behold, the Virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which is interpreted, God with us."
30. Whoever, therefore, reads Divine Scripture should learn from the Old Testament the utterances, but from the Gospels let him perceive the Lord having become man. "For the Word," he says, "became flesh, and dwelt among us." And He became man, and did not come *into* a man. For it is necessary to know this also, lest the impious, falling into such an opinion, deceive some, and they also imagine that, just as in former times He came into each of the saints, so now also the Word descended into a man, sanctifying him and appearing as He did in others. For if it were so, and He had appeared only in a man, there would be nothing strange, B nor would those who saw Him have been astonished and said, "Whence is this?" and, "Why do you, being a man, make yourself God?" For they had been accustomed to hearing: "The word of the Lord came to each of the prophets." But now, since the Word of God, through whom all things were made, endured to become also the Son of man, and humbled Himself, taking the form of a servant; for this reason the cross of Christ is a stumbling-block to the Jews, but to us, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the Word, as John said, became flesh; it being the custom of Scripture to call man "flesh," as it says through Joel the prophet: "I will pour out of My Spirit upon all flesh." And as C Daniel said to Astyages: "I do not worship idols made with hands, but the living God, who created the heaven and the earth, and has authority over all flesh." For he, too, like Joel, signifies the race of mankind by the name of flesh.
31. In times past, therefore, the Word used to come to each of the saints, and made those who worthily received Him holy; but yet, when they were born, it was not said that He Himself had become man; nor, when they suffered, was it said that He had suffered. But when He came forth from Mary once D at the end of the ages for the putting away of sin (for thus it pleased the Father...
A that He should send His own Son, born of a woman, born under the law), then it is said that, having assumed flesh, He became man, and in it He suffered for us, as Peter said: *Christ therefore having suffered for us in the flesh* (1 Pet. iv, 1). This was so that it might be shown, and we might all believe, that He, who is and always is God, and who sanctifies those to whom He comes, and who arranges all things according to the will of the Father, later also for our sake became man, and bodily, as the Apostle says, the Godhead dwelt in the flesh. This is equivalent to saying that, being God, He possessed a body of His own, and using this as an instrument, He became man for our sake.
And for this reason, B the things proper to the flesh are attributed to Him, because He was in it; such are to hunger, to thirst, to suffer, to toil, and the like, to which the flesh is subject. But the works proper to the Word Himself, such as raising the dead, and making the blind see, and healing the woman with the flow of blood, He performed through His own body. And the Word indeed bore the infirmities of the flesh, as His own, for the flesh was His (96). And the flesh also ministered to the works of the Godhead, because He was in it; for it was the body of God.
But the prophet used the word *He bore* (Isa. liii, 4; Matth. viii, 17); and he did not say, "He healed our infirmities," C so that it might not appear that He was outside the body, and merely healed it, as He had always done, and left men liable to death again. But He bears our infirmities and Himself carries our sins, so that it might be shown both that He became man for our sake, and that the body which in Him carried them is His own. And nothing was harmed by His carrying our sins in His own body to the tree, as Peter said; but we men were redeemed from our own passions, D and were filled with the righteousness of the Word.
32. Hence, when the flesh suffered, the Word was not outside of it; for this reason His passion is also called His; and while He performed the works of the Father divinely, the flesh was not outside of Him, but in that very body the Lord performed these things again; for this reason He who was made man, being...
B truly man, was saying: "If I do not the works of my Father, do not believe me; but if I do, even if you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know [(5)] that I am in the Father, and the Father in me." Indeed, when there was a need to raise Peter's mother-in-law who was suffering from a fever, He stretched out His hand human-wise, but divinely He was stopping the disease. And in the case of the man blind from birth [(4)], He emitted human spittle from the flesh, but divinely He opened the eyes through the clay; and in the case of Lazarus, while He emitted a human voice as man, divinely, as God, He raised Lazarus from the dead. These things [(5)] happened in this way, and it was shown that He had a body not by appearance but in truth; and it was proper for the Lord, in assuming human flesh, to assume it completely with its own C particular affections [(6)], so that just as we say the body is His own, so also the affections of the body might be said to be His alone, even if they did not reach His divinity [(7)]. For if the body were another's, the affections would also be said to be that other's; but if the flesh is the Word's (for the Word became flesh [(8)]), it is necessary for the affections of the flesh to be called His also, to whom the flesh itself belongs. And for whom the affections are called relevant—most especially being condemned, being scourged, thirsting, the cross, and the death, and the other weaknesses of the body—for him also is the accomplishment and the grace. D For this reason, then, consistently and fittingly, such affections are called not another's, but the Lord's, so that the grace might be from Him, and we might not be worshippers of another, but truly pious, because we invoke as this one—who was made man—not any one of the created things, nor some common man, but the Son born of God by nature [(11)] and true, and no less call Him Lord and God and Savior.
53. For who, moreover, would not consider it to be a truly divine matter? A For if the works of the divinity of the Word had not been done through the body, man would never have been made divine; and conversely, if the things that are proper to the flesh had not been said to be of the Word, man would not have been entirely liberated from them. But if, as I said above, they had ceased for a while, yet sin and corruption would have remained in man, just as it happened to men before, and this is easy to demonstrate. For many, indeed, have been holy and pure from all sin; [Jerem. I, 5] Jeremiah was made holy from the womb, and [Luc. I, 44] John, while still being carried in the womb, leaped for joy at the voice of the Theotokos Mary; and yet [Rom. V, 14] "Death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who did not sin, in the likeness of the transgression of Adam"; and thus men remained no less mortal and corrupt, subject to the affections proper to nature. B Now, however, the Word having become man, and adopting as His own the things of the flesh, these no longer touch the body, because of the Word who has become in it, but have been consumed by Him; and henceforth men no longer remain sinners and dead according to their own affections, but, rising through the power of the Word, they remain always immortal and incorruptible. Wherefore, C when the flesh is born of the Theotokos Mary, He Himself is said to have been born, who gives to other births existence, so that He might transfer our birth into Himself, and that we, no longer being merely earth, might descend into the earth, but as having been joined to the Word who is from heaven, we might be caught up into the heavens by Him. Thus, therefore, He also not unreasonably transferred to Himself the other affections of the body, so that we, no longer as men, but as ones belonging to the Word, might partake of eternal life. For we no longer die in Adam according to the former birth, but now that our birth and all the infirmity of the flesh have been transferred into the Word, we are raised D
from the earth, the curse caused by sin A being dissolved through Him who became a curse for us; and rightly so. For just as we all, being from the earth, die in Adam, so by being regenerated from above of water and spirit, we are all made alive in Christ, no longer as earthly, but henceforth as flesh made logical through the Word of God, who for our sake became flesh.
54. That the Word's nature is impassible
54. In order that one may more accurately understand that the Word’s nature is incapable of suffering, and that the infirmities attributed to Him are so attributed because of the flesh B, it will not be amiss to hear the blessed Peter; for he is a witness worthy of trust, to whom faith should be given when he speaks of the Savior. Thus he writes in his Epistle, saying: "Christ therefore having suffered for us in the flesh" (1 Pet. iv, 1). Therefore, when it is said that he hungers, and thirsts, and labors, and does not know, and sleeps, and weeps, and asks, and flees, and is born C, and declines the cup, and in short all that belongs to the flesh, it may rightly be said of each: Christ therefore hungering and thirsting for us in the flesh; and saying he does not know, and being baptized, and suffering for us in the flesh; and being exalted again, and being born, and growing in the flesh; and fearing, and being hidden in the flesh; and saying, "If it be possible, let this cup pass from me" (Matt. xxvi, 39), and being beaten, and receiving for us in the flesh; and in short, all such things for us in the flesh. For the Apostle himself said this for this reason: Christ therefore having suffered, not in his divinity, D but in the flesh for us, so that these affections might be recognized not as proper to the nature of the Word, but as proper by nature to the flesh itself. Let no one, therefore, be scandalized by these human things, but rather let him know that the Word himself is impassible in his nature, and yet because of the flesh which he put on, these things are said about him, since these things are proper to the flesh, while the body itself is proper to the Savior. And he himself remains impassible in nature, as he is, not being harmed by these things, but rather abolishing and destroying them; and men, as their passions have passed into him who is devoid of them, as if transferred and deleted, they themselves also become free in like manner forever, just as John teaches in these words: "And ye know that he appeared, that he might take away our sins, and sin"
in him is not" (1 John III, 5). Since this is so, no heretic will be able to object: "Why is the flesh raised, being by nature mortal?" And if it is also raised, why does it not hunger and thirst again, and suffer, and remain mortal? For it is made from the earth, and how could that which is according to nature depart from it? The flesh could then answer such a captious heretic: "I am indeed by nature mortal from the earth, but later I became the flesh of the Word, who bore my sufferings, although he was himself without suffering; and I have become free of them, no longer permitted to serve them because of the Lord who delivered me from them. For if you complain that I have been delivered from the corruption that is according to nature, take care not to complain that the Word of God took my form of servitude." B For as the Lord, having clothed himself with the body, became man, so we men, taken up through his flesh, are made divine by the Word, and from then on inherit eternal life.
35. We have necessarily set this forth beforehand, so that if we see him doing or saying anything divinely through the organ of his own body, we may know that, since he is God, he is doing these things; and again, if we see him speaking or suffering in a human way, we may not be ignorant that he has become man while wearing flesh, and so he does and says these things. For knowing what is proper to each, and seeing and understanding both as being done by one, we believe rightly and will never go astray. But if anyone, seeing the things done by the Word divinely, denies the body, or even seeing the things proper to the body, denies the C incarnate presence of the Word, or thinks lowly of the Word based on human events, such a person, like a Jewish tavern-keeper mixing wine with water, will consider the cross a stumbling-block (Isa. I, 22), and as a Greek...
A will consider the preaching to be foolishness. This is what has happened to the God-fighting Arians. For, looking at the human aspects of the Savior, they have presumed Him to be a creature. Therefore, ought they not, when looking at the divine works of the Word (45), to deny the generation of His body, and consequently number themselves among the Manichaeans? But let them—even if it be late (46)—learn that the Word became flesh; let us, however, holding to the aim of the faith, understand B the sense of those things which these men wrongly think, having our own understanding in a right state. For the sayings, *The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into His hand*; and, *All things have been delivered unto me by my Father*; and, *I can of mine own self do nothing* (48); *but as I hear, I judge*; and other such passages, do not at all show that the Son did not at one time possess these things. For how could it be that He who is by nature the Word and Wisdom of the Father (50) should not have always possessed what the Father has, He who also says: *All things that the Father hath are mine*; and, *Mine are the Father’s*? For if the things of the Father are the Son’s, and the Father always possesses these, it is evident (51) that what the Son possesses, being the very things of the Father, are always in Him. Therefore, He did not speak thus because He did not at some time possess these things, but because the Son, who possesses what He possesses eternally (52), possesses them from the Father.
36. For C lest anyone, observing that the Son has all things that the Father has, should—from that supreme likeness which is without any difference, and from the identity, to use this word, of the things which He has—fall into the impiety of Sabellius, supposing Him to be the Father Himself, He has used these expressions: *Data est mihi* (49), *I have received*, *All things have been delivered* (54) *unto me*, solely to show that He is not the Father Himself, but that He is the Word of the Father and the eternal Son, who because of His likeness to the Father always has what He has from Him; and because He is the Son (55), He has from the Father what He possesses eternally. For that the expressions *was given* and *was delivered*, and similar ones, do not diminish the divinity of the Son, but rather show Him to be truly the Son, may be learned from the very words themselves (56). For if all things were delivered unto Him, first, He is distinct from all things which He received; and second, D
A he is the only Son and proper to the essence of the Father. For if He were one of all things, He would not be the heir of all things; but each one would receive as he willed and as the Father gave. But now, receiving all, He Himself is other than all things, and solely proper to the Father.
That again the word "was given" and "was delivered" (58) does not signify that He did not at one time possess them, it is possible to perceive from a similar passage concerning all things. For the Savior Himself says: "As the Father has life in Himself, so has He given to the Son to have life in Himself" (59). For by saying "has given," He signifies that He is not the Father; but by saying "so," He shows the natural likeness and property of the Son toward the Father. If, therefore, there was a time when the Father did not have [the things He has], it is manifest that there was a time when the Son did not have them. For as the Father is and holds, so also is the Son. But if it is impious to say this, and pious rather to say that the Father always has them, how is it not absurd, when the Son says that "as the Father has, so also the Son has," for them to say that He does not have them thus, but has them otherwise? B Rather, then, the Word is trustworthy, and all things which He says He has received, He has always from the Father; and while the Father has these from no one, the Son has them from the Father. For as in the case of radiance, if the radiance itself were to say: "The light has given me every place to illuminate, and I do not illuminate from myself, but as the light wills," by saying this (62) it does not show that it did not once have it itself, but that "I am proper to the light, and all that is His is mine."
So also, it is possible to think even more regarding the Son. For the Father having given all things to the Son, the Father again has all things in the Son; and while the Son has them, the Father again has them (64). For the divinity of the Son is the divinity of the Father; and thus the Father in the Son provides for all things. C
37. The meaning of such statements is like this. As for those things which are said of the Savior in a human manner (65), these also have a pious meaning. For this reason we have examined such things in advance, that if we should hear Him asking, "Where does Lazarus lie?" and when He comes into the parts of Caesarea and inquires, "Whom do men say that I [am]?" and, "How many loaves have you?" and the like, we may not be ignorant, but may know that He asks as one who knows, so that we may learn what is relevant to the knowledge of Him through the questioning of the disciples. D
A And, "Whom do men say that I am?" and, "How many loaves have you?" and, "What do you want me to do for you?" We should learn from these things previously mentioned the right understanding of the words, and not be scandalized by the Christ-fighting Arians. First, then, it must be said to the impious: whence do they think that He is ignorant? For he who asks is not necessarily ignorant of the things about which he asks; rather, it is permitted to him who knows to ask about things he understands. Indeed, John recognizes that Christ, when asking, "How many loaves have you?" is not unaware, but knowing. For he says, "This He said to test Philip; for He Himself knew what He was about to do." But if He knew what he was doing, He was not asking because He was ignorant, but because He knew. B And from this it is permitted to understand similar facts; that when the Lord asks where Lazarus lies, or whom men say He is, He does not ask as one ignorant, but as one who knows what He is asking, and knows what He is about to do. And in this way their sharp sophism is very easily dissolved. But if they wish to insist on the fact that He is said to ask, let them hear that there is no ignorance in the Godhead, but that to be ignorant is proper to the flesh, as has been said. And that this is true, observe how the Lord, who asked where Lazarus lay, though not present but far away, said that Lazarus was dead, and where he died. And He Himself, whom they deem to be ignorant, is He who foreknows the thoughts of the disciples, and knows what is in the heart of each, and what is in man; and what is greater, He alone knows the Father, and says: "I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me."
58. Therefore, it is clear to everyone that ignorance pertains to the flesh, but the Word Himself, in as much as He is the Word, knows all things even before they come to be. For He did not cease to be God because He became man, nor does He flee the human because He is God; far from it! But rather, being God, He assumed the flesh, and being in the flesh, He was deifying the flesh.
A For just as He was inquiring in it, so also in it He raised the dead; and He showed to all that He who [(77)] gives life to the dead and recalls the soul, much more knows everything hidden, and He knew where Lazarus was lying. Yet He inquired; for [(78)] the all-holy Word of God did this too, He who endured all things for our sake, in order that, by thus bearing our ignorance, He might grant us to know the only true Father of Himself, and Himself who for our sake [(79)] was sent for the salvation of all—a grace than which none greater could exist. When, therefore, the Savior says even concerning those sayings which they use as pretexts, "All authority has been given to Me," and, "Glorify Your Son," and Peter also says, "Authority has been given to Him," we understand all these things in the same sense, [(80)] that He says all these things in a human manner because of the body. For not having need, yet He Himself is said as having received [(81)] what He was receiving in a human way; so that again, as the Lord having received, and as the gift reposing in Him, the grace might remain firm [(82)]. For man alone, receiving, has the possibility of being deprived of it; and this was shown in the case of Adam, for having received, he lost it. But in order that the grace might be unloseable, and be kept firm for men, for this reason He Himself makes the gift His own, and says He has received authority, as man, which He always has as God; and He says, "Glorify Me," He who glorifies others, in order [(B)] to show that He has flesh that is in need of these things [(83)]. Therefore, because it received—since that which received is in Him, and having assumed it He became man—He is said to have received as if He Himself were the one receiving.
59. If, then, as it is often said, the Word has become man, let that which is yours [(84)] regarding the Word be: to receive, and to have need of glory, and to be ignorant [(85)]. But if He has become man—for He has become—and it belongs to man to receive, and to need, and to be ignorant; why do we think of the Giver as the receiver, and why do we suspect that He who supplies the need of others is in need, [(C)] and why do we divide the Word from the Father, as if He were imperfect and having need, while we strip humanity of the grace? For if the Word Himself, as He is the Word, is for Himself the one having received and been glorified, and if that One [(86)] is the one who, according to His divinity, has been sanctified and has risen, what hope is there for men? For they remain... D
A naked, wretched, and dead, having nothing in common with the things given to the Son. But why did the Word come and become flesh? If it were to receive these things which He says He has received, He was empty of them before this; and by necessity He would owe thanks to the body rather, because when He came into it, He then received from the Father what He did not have before His descent into the flesh. Indeed, from this it would appear that He was improved by the body, rather than the body by Him. But this is a Judaic way of thinking. If, however, the Word came down that He might redeem 88 the race of men, and that He might sanctify and deify them, the Word became flesh (for 89 for this reason He became so); to whom then is it not manifest that those things which He says he has received, He says He has received when He became flesh, not for His own sake, but for the sake of the flesh? For the things which were being given through Him by the Father belonged to the flesh, in which He was when He said these things. Let us see, then, what He was asking for, and what in general 90 were the things He claimed to have received, so that even in this way they might be able to perceive it. He was asking for glory, then, and He said, "All things have been delivered to me" 13; and after His resurrection He affirms that He has received all authority. And yet before He said, "All things have been delivered to me," He was Lord of all; for all things were made through Him 15, and there was one Lord, through whom were all things 16. And when asking for glory, He was and is Lord of glory, as Paul affirms 91: "For if they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory" 17. He possessed, indeed, what He asked for in such words: "The glory which I had 18 before the world was, with Thee."
40. Likewise, the authority which He says He received after the resurrection, He had even before He received it, and before the resurrection. For He Himself rebuked Satan 92 by His own power, saying, "Go behind me, Satan" 19; and He gave to His disciples authority against him 20, as also, when they returned, He said, "I was watching Satan fall like lightning from heaven" 21. But again 93, that which He says He received is shown to have been possessed by Him even before He received it; for He was casting out demons, and what 94 Satan had bound, He Himself set free, as He did in the case of the daughter of Abraham 22; and He forgave sins, saying to the paralytic and to the woman who anointed His feet:
"Your sins are forgiven" (95). A And He raised the dead, and restored to the blind man his sight, granting him to see. And He did these things, not waiting until He should receive the power, but being Lord of it, as is evident from these things, that what He had as the Word, these He says He received humanly, both as having become man, and after the resurrection, in order that through Him men, on earth as having become partakers of the divine nature, might henceforth have power against demons, and in the heavens, as having been freed from corruption, might reign forever. For in general it is necessary to know this, that He does not say He received any of the things He had as if He did not have them; for as God the Word, He always had them. But it is said now humanly that He received, so that, the flesh taking in Him, what was given might thenceforth remain firmly in us. For even that which is said by Peter: "Having received from God honor and glory," B the angels being made subject to Him, has such a meaning. For just as He inquired humanly, but raised Lazarus as God: so the word "received" is spoken humanly, but the subjection of the angels demonstrates the divinity of the Word.
41. Cease, therefore, and do not humble the Word; nor take away His divinity, which is the Father’s, as if He were in need or ignorant; so that you may not cast your own fictions at Christ (5), as the Jews of that time did when they stoned Him. For these things do not happen to be of the Word, as He is the Word, but these are proper to men. And just as when He spat, and stretched out (4) the hand, and called Lazarus, we did not say that the achievements were human, even if they were done through the body, but God's (5); C so if human things are said about the Savior in the Gospel, again looking into the nature of the things spoken of, and since these things happen to be foreign to God, let us not attribute these to the divinity of the Word, but to His humanity. For even if the Word became flesh, yet the weaknesses are proper to the flesh; and if the flesh is divinized in
A the Word, yet the grace and the power belong to the Word. Thus, He performed the works of the Father through the flesh; and none the less, the affections of the flesh were shown in Him: for instance, when He inquired and raised Lazarus; and when He rebuked the mother, saying, "My hour is not yet come" (7), and yet immediately turned the water into wine. For true God was in the flesh, and true flesh was in the Word. For this reason, by His works He made Himself known as the Son of God (8) and as [sent by] His own Father; but by the affections of the flesh He showed that He wore a true body, and that this was His own.
42. Since these things are so, come, let us examine the text, "But of that day and hour knoweth no one, neither the angels, nor the Son" (9). For they, being altogether B ignorant and blind in these words, think that the surest argument for their heresy consists in this. But I, when I see the heretics putting this forward and arming themselves with it, seem to behold giants who again dare to make war upon God. For the Lord of heaven and earth, through whom all things were made, is judged by them concerning the day and the hour; and the Word, to whom all things are known, is accused by them as if He were ignorant of that day. Finally, the Son, who knows the Father Himself, is said to be ignorant of the hour of the day—to which, what could be said that is more foolish, or what madness could be equal to this? Through the Word were all things made, times, seasons, night, day, and every creature; and yet is the Maker said to be ignorant of His own work? Certainly the very C sequence of the reading teaches us that the day and the hour are known to the Son of God, however much their own ignorance may drive the Arians to rashness. For He who said, "Neither the Son," the same Himself narrated to the disciples the things which ought to precede that day, saying, "These things shall be, and these, then the end." But He who knows the things that precede that day surely knows also the day itself, which will follow after the things foretold. And if He did not know the hour, He would not have pointed out (13) the things that precede it, not knowing when the hour would be. And just as if someone, wishing to point out a house or a city to those who do not know it, might describe the things before the house or D the city (14); when he had pointed out all these things, he would eventually reveal the object itself.
Thus, when the Lord spoke of the things before the day and the hour, He knew accurately, and was not ignorant of when the hour and the day arrive (16). A
43. Why then, when He knew, did He not say so clearly to the disciples? No one ought to be inquisitive concerning that which He Himself has kept silent. For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has become His counselor? And for what reason did He, knowing, say, "Neither does the Son know"? I do not think any of the faithful is ignorant that He spoke this no less for the sake of the flesh, as man. For this is not a defect of the Word, but of the human nature, whose characteristic it is also to be ignorant (18). B And one may well see this again if he examines the time (19) with a good conscience—when and to whom the Savior said these things. He did not say these things at the time when the heavens were made through Him, nor when the Word was with the Father, arranging all things, nor before He was made man (20); but when the Word was made flesh. For this reason, He attributes all things which He says in a human manner after He became man, to His humanity. For it is proper to the Word to know the things that were made, and not to be ignorant of their beginning and their end; for they are His works; and He knows how many, and up to what point He made their constitution. C Since He knows the beginning of each and the end, He certainly knows also the general and common end of all (22). Indeed, saying in the Gospel concerning His human state, "Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son," it is clear that as Word He knows the hour regarding the end of all things, but as man He is ignorant; for it is characteristic of man to be ignorant, and especially of these matters. D Yet some say that He...
B—that is, Christ—said He was ignorant of the last day, as a sign showing and manifesting what properly belongs to human nature, not as if He Himself were ignorant. Far be it! (For to speak of ignorance in Him, whether according to His divinity or according to His humanity, is a course free from perilous boldness; but because, as the blessed Cyril says, by dividing concepts—that is, by intellectual phantasies—in the mode of contemplation, we see the proper and individual characteristics of each nature; or, as the theologian Gregory says, when natures are distinguished by our thoughts, the names are divided along with them. Now, ignorance is a proper characteristic of pure humanity; according to this, ignorance could be said to be considered in the humanity of Christ as though it were simply humanity. And this the Theologian also clarified, saying: "He knows as God, but is ignorant as man," if one separates what is perceived from what is understood. Having said this, he adds: "As if some of the Fathers, having admitted ignorance in the case of the Savior’s humanity, did not propose this as a dogma, but were contending against the madness of the Arians, who transferred all human things to the divinity, so as to present the uncreated Word of God as a creature; they thought it more economical to attribute these things to the humanity than to allow them to drag them toward the divinity.")
A ...is proper to the Savior's philanthropy. For since He became man, He is not ashamed (25) to say "I do not know" on account of the flesh that is ignorant, in order to show that, while He knows as God, He is ignorant in a fleshly manner. Hence He did not say (26), "Neither does the Son of God know," lest the divinity appear to be ignorant; but simply, "Neither does the Son," so that the ignorance might belong to the Son who came from men.
44. Therefore, when speaking about the angels, He did not go further and say, "nor the Holy Spirit"; but He remained silent, showing by these two things (28) that if the Spirit knows, much more does the Word, as He is the Word, know—from whom the Spirit also receives. And by being silent about the Spirit, He made it clear that He was speaking about His own human ministry, [not] "neither does the Son." And a proof of this (29) is that, having said humanly, "neither does the Son know," He nevertheless shows divinely that He Himself knows all things. For the very Son whom He states (50) does not know the day, He says is known by the Father; for "no one," He says, "knows the Father except the Son." And everyone, except the Arians, would agree (51) that he who knows the Father knows much more besides the whole of creation; and in the whole is also contained its end (52). And if the day and the hour have already been determined by the Father, it is evident that through the... C ...it in clear terms, the Theologian himself [did] when he said: He knows as God, but is ignorant as man, if one, that is, distinguishes that which appears from that which is understood. To these things Eulogius adds: But if some of the Fathers admitted ignorance in the Savior with respect to His humanity, they did not bring this forward as a dogma, but to repel the madness of the Arians, who, of course, were transferring all human things to the divinity, so that they might prove the uncreated Word of God to be a creature: they deemed it more cautious to ascribe these things to the humanity than to allow them to drag those things into the divinity itself. These are his words, as they exist in Photius. Perhaps it may be permitted to add that such an opinion seems not to have been condemned in anyone in the past, unless it was joined with another error. D
A That day and hour is already fixed by the Father, it is clear that it was also fixed through the Son, and that he therefore knows what he himself has fixed. For there is nothing which has not come to be and been fixed through the Son; therefore, being himself the maker of all things, he knows of what kind and how great, and for how long the Father has willed for it to come to be; and within that "how great" and "until when" is the variation of these things. Again, if all things that belong to the Father are the Son's—for he himself has said this—and it belongs to the Father to know the day, it is clear that the Son also knows it, possessing this also as his own from the Father. And again, if the Son is in the Father, and the Father in the Son, and the Father knows the day and the hour, it is manifest that the Son, both being in the Father and knowing the things in the Father, also knows the day and the hour. And if the Son is also the true image of the Father, and the Father knows the day B and the hour, it is clear that the Son also possesses the similarity of the Father in knowing these things. And it is not wonderful if he, through whom all things have come to be and in whom all things hold together, knows the things that have come to be, and the end of each of them and their common end; but it is because even this insolence, being characteristic of the madness of the Arianomaniacs, has forced us to come into such a defense. For by numbering the Son of God, the eternal Word, with the things that have come into being, by degrees they also set themselves to say that the Father himself is inferior to creation. For if he who knows the Father does not know the day nor the hour, I fear lest the knowledge concerning creation, or rather the knowledge concerning the lesser part of creation, should be greater—as those madmen might say—than the knowledge concerning the Father.
C But those who blaspheme the Spirit, let them expect to receive no remission for this impiety, as the Lord has said; but we who love Christ and bear Christ in us know that the Word, in that he is Word, did not speak as one ignorant when he said, "I know not." For he knew; but he was displaying that which is human, because it is proper to men to be ignorant, and because he had clothed himself in a flesh that was ignorant, in which, while he was in it, he was speaking carnally: "I know not." Having therefore said that not even the Son knows, and having set forth the ignorance of the men in the time of Noah, he immediately added: "Watch therefore, for you do not know in what hour the Lord D comes."
And again: "In the hour when you do not think, the Son of man is coming." For because I, having become like you for your sake, said: "Not even the Son," it behooved him, if he was ignorant according to his divinity, to have said: "Watch therefore, for I do not know; and in the hour when I do not think." But now, he did not say this; but having said that "you do not know," and "in the hour when you do not think," he showed that it is a mark of men to be ignorant; for whose sake he himself, having taken on flesh like theirs and having become man, said: "Not even the Son knows." For he did not know by the flesh, although as the Word he did know. Furthermore, the example of Noah completely shatters the impudence of the enemies of Christ. For neither did he say there: "I did not know," but: "They did not know until the flood came." For the men indeed did not know; but he who brought on the flood (who was himself the Savior) knew the day and the hour, in which he opened the B cataracts of heaven and broke open the abysses, and said to Noah: "Enter you and your sons into the ark." But if he had been ignorant, he would not have foretold to Noah with these words: "For in seven days I will bring the flood upon the earth." If, therefore, in signifying that day he uses the example of Noah, and he himself knew the day of the flood, certainly he is not ignorant of the day of his own coming.
46. Moreover, at the end of the parable of the virgins he declared more clearly who they are that are ignorant of that day and hour, when he said: "Watch therefore, for you do not know the day nor the hour." He, indeed, who a little before had said: "No one knows, not even the Son," C now does not say: "I do not know," but: "You do not know." Therefore, when the disciples were asking in similar fashion about the end, he rightly said then, "Not even the Son," according to the flesh because of his body, so that he might show that, as man, he does not know; for it is the property of men to be ignorant. Yet if he is the Word, and he himself is the one who is coming, and he himself is the judge and the bridegroom, he certainly knows when and at what hour he is coming and is about to say: "Arise, you who sleep, and rise from the dead, and Christ will shine upon you." For just as, having become man, he hungers and thirsts and suffers with men:
A, he, as man, does not know; but divinely, as the Word and Wisdom existing in the Father, he knows, and there is nothing which he does not know. Likewise, again concerning Lazarus, he asks as a man, yet he who went to raise him up knew whence to recall the soul of Lazarus; and it is a greater thing to know where the soul was than to know where the body lay. But he asked as a man, so that he might summon him as God. Thus also, when he came into the parts of Caesarea, he asked his disciples, although he knew even before Peter answered. For if the Father revealed to Peter B those things about which the Lord was asking, it is evident that the revelation was made through the Son. For "no one," he says, "knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." But if the knowledge of both the Father and the Son is revealed through the Son, there is no doubt that the Lord himself who was asking, having first revealed it to Peter from the Father C, afterwards asked as a man, so that he might demonstrate this also, that while asking in the flesh, he knew divinely what Peter was about to say. The Son, therefore, knows, as he knows all things, and knows his own Father, than which knowledge there could be nothing greater or more perfect.
47. These things are sufficient for their refutation; but I wished to ask D this, so that in this way they might be shown all the more to be enemies of the truth and Christ-fighters. The Apostle, writing in the second Epistle to the Corinthians, says: "I know a man in Christ XIV years ago; whether in the body, I do not know, or out of the body, I do not know; God knows." What then do you say? Does the Apostle know what happened to him in the vision, even if he says, "I do not know," or does he not know? If you answer that he did not know, take heed lest, being accustomed to errors, you fall into the impiety of the Phrygians, whose opinion it is that the prophets and others who served the Word are ignorant both of what they do and of what they announce. But if he did know when he said, "I do not know," since he had within himself Christ (65)
A who reveals all things—how is the mind of those who fight against God not truly perverted and self-condemned? For they claim that the Apostle, when he says "I do not know," knows, but when the Lord says "I do not know," they claim He is ignorant.
For if, because Christ was within him, Paul knows what he says he does not know, how much more does Christ Himself know, even if He says, "I do not know"? The Apostle, therefore, with the Lord revealing to him what he had experienced—for this is why he also says, "I know a man in Christ"—having known the man, he also knew how B the man was caught up. Elijah, for instance, when he saw Elijah, knew also how he was taken up; yet, though he knew this, when the sons of the prophets thought that Elijah had been cast by the Spirit onto one of the mountains, he, I say, who had known from the beginning what he had seen and had informed them of it, became silent despite their importuning and urging, and allowed them to depart. Did he therefore not know because he remained silent? He certainly knew; but he sent them away as if he himself did not know, so that eventually, having been persuaded, they would no longer doubt about the assumption of Elijah. Much more, then, did Paul, who was himself the one caught up, know how he was caught up. For even Elijah C knew, and if anyone had asked him, he would have said how he was taken up.
Yet Paul says, "I do not know," for two reasons, as I suppose: first, as he himself said, so that no one might think him greater than what he sees, because of the excellence of the visions; and second, because since the Savior had said, "I do not know," it was fitting for him also to say, "I do not know," so that a servant might not appear to be above his Lord, nor a disciple above his Master.
48. Whoever, therefore, had given Paul to know, He Himself knew much more. For He who announces the things that precede that day knows, as I have said, accurately when that day and hour will come; and yet, though He knew, He says, "nor does the Son know." For what reason, then, did He say then, "I do not know," what He Himself, as Lord, knew? If it is permitted D to use conjecture, He did this for the sake of our own benefit, as I suppose. May He Himself grant that this which I opine be true! In both cases, the Savior...
the Savior guarded what was useful for us. For if He had revealed those things that happen before the end, we might—as He Himself said—be struck with wonder and not be A troubled as they occurred, but rather might expect from these the end that follows. Yet concerning the day and the hour, He did not wish to speak according to His divinity, saying, "I know," but, as I have already explained, He spoke according to the flesh, which truly was ignorant of it, saying, "I do not know," so that they would no longer question Him, and He might avoid causing grief to the disciples either by remaining silent or, by speaking, doing something contrary to their profit and that of us all. For whatever He does, this is entirely for our sake, since even the Word Himself was made flesh for our sake. Therefore, for our sake He also said, "Nor does the Son know." And this was not a lie when He said it (for He spoke as a human, in a human way, "I do not know"), nor did He allow the disciples to force Him to speak; for by saying, "I do not know," He put an end to their asking. Indeed, it is written in the Acts of the Apostles that when He was taken up into the clouds, ascending as a man and carrying into heaven the flesh He bore—when the disciples, seeing this, asked Him yet again, "When will the end be?" and, "When are You coming?"—He answered them more plainly: "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own power." He did not say then, "Nor does the Son," as He had said before in a human way, but, "It is not for you to know." For the flesh had already been resurrected, had put off mortality, and had been deified; and it was no longer fitting for Him, as He ascended into the heavens, to answer according to the flesh, but rather to teach as God and to say: "It is not for you to know the times or seasons which the Father has put in His own power; but you shall receive power." And what is the power of the Father if not the Son? For Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God.
49. Therefore the Son, as one who was the Word, knew; thus it seems to me that the sense of those words is: C "I indeed know, but it is not for you to know." For this reason, when I was sitting on the mountain, I said according to the flesh, "Nor does the Son know," because it was useful for you and for all. For it is profitable for you to hear this regarding both the angels and the Son, because of those who will be deceivers hereafter, so that even if demons should transform themselves D as angels and attempt to speak regarding the consummation, you might not believe them, as if they were ignorant of it. And if even the Antichrist, having transformed himself, says, "I am Christ," and he also attempts to...
A speak about that day and the consummation, in order to lead the hearers astray, you, having from me the utterance that "not even the Son" knows it, should not believe even him. Furthermore, it is not beneficial for men to know when the end is, or when the day of the end is, so that, if they knew, they might not become despisers of the intervening time, waiting only for those days near the end; for then they would only pretend to exert themselves. For this reason, the Word has also kept silent about the end of each person, which is death, so that men, puffed up by the pretense of such knowledge, might not begin to neglect themselves for the greater part of their time. The Word has therefore hidden from us both the general end and the end of each individual (for the end of the individual is contained in the general end, and the general end is gathered together in the end of the individual), so that, as it is uncertain and always expected by us, we might progress daily as if called, stretching ourselves forward to what lies ahead B and forgetting what lies behind. For who, knowing the day of the final end, would not put off the intervening time? But who, being ignorant of it, would not become ready each day? It was for this reason that the Savior added to these things, saying: "Watch therefore, for you do not know at what hour your Lord is coming"; and, "At an hour you do not think, the Son of Man will come." It is therefore for the sake of the benefit that arises from this ignorance that he spoke thus. For by these words he exhorts us to be always prepared. "For you," he says, "do not know; but I, the Lord, know when I am coming, even if the Arians do not expect me, who am the Word of the Father."
50. So then the Lord, knowing what was beneficial for us, thus fortified his disciples; and they, having learned these things, corrected those from Thessalonica who were about to be led astray in this matter. But since these enemies of Christ do not yield even thus, I wish, although I know that they have a heart harder than that of Pharaoh, to ask them again also concerning this. In paradise, God inquires, saying, "Adam, where are you?" He also examines Cain: "Where is Abel your brother?" What, then, do you say concerning this? For if you think that he is ignorant, and that he therefore asks questions, you surely agree with the Manichaeans, who...
A venture to teach such things. But if, fearing to be openly called Manichaeans, you force yourselves to say that he asks questions because he knows, what is absurd or strange in this that you have fallen into such a state, if the Son, in whom God was then asking questions, is the very same Son who now, clothed in flesh, asks questions of the disciples as a man? Unless, perhaps, having become Manichaeans, you wish to find fault with the questioning that was then directed toward Adam, only so that you yourselves may play the youth in your corrupt notions. For, being refuted in all things, you murmur B again because of what was said by Luke, which was indeed well said, but is poorly understood by you. It is necessary to set forth what this is, so that in this way, too, their corrupted mind may be shown.
51. Luke says, "And Jesus increased in wisdom, and in stature, and in favor with God and men." This, then, is the passage; but since they stumble at this too, it is necessary to ask them again, as one might ask the Pharisees and the Sadducees, of whom Luke speaks. And it is as follows: Is Jesus Christ a man existing just as all other men, or is he God bearing flesh? If, indeed, he is a common man according to other men, then let it be that he progresses as a man. C This, however, is the opinion of the Samosatene, which you yourselves hold in your hearts, but deny in name only for fear of men. But if he is God bearing flesh—as indeed is the case, and the Word became flesh, and being God, he descended upon the earth—what progress could he have, he who exists as equal to God? Or where could the Son, who is always in the Father, have room to increase? For if he who is always in the Father makes progress, what, I ask, is there beyond the Father, so that he might make progress from that source? Furthermore, it would be appropriate to say here, as we said regarding his receiving and being glorified: If he made progress having become man, it is clear that before he became man he was imperfect; and rather, the D flesh became the cause of his perfection than he the cause of the flesh. Again, if he who is the Word makes progress, what is there greater to become than Word, and Wisdom, and Son, and Power of God? For these are the Word, and if anyone could in some way partake of them as a ray, that person is truly perfect among men.
A and equals the angels. For indeed the angels, and the archangels (17), and the dominations, and all the powers, and the thrones, through participating in the Word, behold at all times the face of his Father. How then can he who provides perfection to others, himself advance after them? For angels ministered to his human birth, and the words recorded by Luke were spoken after this ministration of the angels. How then can it come into the mind of a human being at all? Or how could Wisdom advance in wisdom? Or how could he who gives grace to others (as Paul recognizes in all his Epistles with these words: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all"), himself advance in grace? Either let them contend that the Apostle lies, or let them dare to say that the Son is not Wisdom. Or if he is Wisdom, as Solomon said and Paul wrote, *Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God* (20): what progress, I ask, did Wisdom receive?
B 52. Men, indeed, being creatures, can move forward and advance in virtue. Enoch, for instance, was translated in this way, and Moses was perfected by growing, and Isaac by advancing became great (22). And the Apostle testified that he stretched forward daily to the things which are before; for every one had a further degree toward which he might advance, looking to the rank that was before him. But the Son of God, who alone is, C where had he to stretch forward? For all things—by looking to him—advance; but he, being alone, is in the sole Father, from whom he does not go further, but always remains in him. It is the nature of men, therefore, to advance; but the Son of God, because he had nothing further to advance to, since he is perfect in the Father, humbled himself for our sake, that we might be able to grow more in his humiliation. Our growth, moreover, is nothing other than departing from things of the senses and coming to be in the Word himself; since even his humiliation is nothing other than receiving our flesh. The Word, therefore—as Word—does not advance, since he is perfect from the perfect Father, lacking nothing at all, but is rather the cause of advancing for others. But here also it is said in a human manner that he advanced, because it is for men to advance. Hence it is carefully D stated even here that [he advanced in stature and wisdom], so that it might be understood that the Wisdom received no progress.
A For the Evangelist, speaking with such careful observation, linked stature with advancement; but the Word and God are not measured by stature 27, whereas the statures belong to bodies. Advancement, therefore, belongs to the body; for as it advanced, the manifestation of the divinity to those who beheld him advanced in it as well. And by as much as the divinity was revealed, by so much did his grace increase as of a man 28 before all men. For he was carried as a little child, but when he became a boy, he remained in the temple and questioned the priests about the Law; and as the body gradually grew, and the Word manifested himself in it 29, it was thereafter confessed, first by Peter and then by all, that he is truly the Son of God. B Yet the Jews, both the ancients and these moderns, willfully close their eyes so as not to see that to say, "he advanced in wisdom," does not mean that Wisdom itself advanced, but rather that the human element in it advanced 31. For Jesus also advanced in wisdom and grace; or rather, if we should speak both appositely and truly, he advanced in himself. For Wisdom built herself a house 32, and caused the house to advance in itself.
55. But what is this so-called advancement, as I said before 33, which is imparted to men by Wisdom as deification and grace, while sin and the corruption in them are vanished according to the likeness and kinship of the flesh of the Word? C For as the body grew in stature, the manifestation of the divinity was likewise unfolding in it, and it was shown to all that he is the temple of God and that God was in the body. But if they contend that because the Word became flesh and was called Jesus, they attribute to him that which is said, "he advanced," let them hear that this does not diminish the Father’s light; for this is the Son. But it shows again that the Word has become man and worn true flesh. And as we said, that he suffered in the flesh, and 37 hungered in the flesh, and grew weary in the flesh, so it may also reasonably be said that he advanced in the flesh. For the advancement did not occur as though the Word were outside, just as it is
A as we have said. For in him was the flesh that was advancing, and it is said to be his; and this is so that again the advancement of men might remain unfallen through the Word who is with them. Neither, therefore, did the Word advance, nor was the flesh Wisdom, but the flesh became the body of Wisdom. For this reason, as we said before, Wisdom, in so far as it is Wisdom, did not advance of itself; but the human nature in Wisdom advanced, going beyond human nature little by little, becoming divinized, and appearing and being manifested to all as its instrument for the action and the radiance of the Godhead. Wherefore it did not even say, The Word advanced, but, Jesus, B a name which the Lord, having become man, received; so that that advancement pertains to human nature, in the way which we explained above.
54. Therefore, just as, because the flesh is advancing, he is said to advance himself on account of his union with the body, so too must the things spoken of at the time of his death—the being troubled, the weeping—be understood with the same understanding. For C going up and down, and as if confirming their heresy again from these things, they say: "Lo, he wept and said: 'Now is my soul troubled,' and he prayed that the cup might pass away; how then, if he said these things, is he God and the Word of the Father?" Yes, it is written, O enemies of God, that he wept, and that he said, "I am troubled," and D upon the cross he said, "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani," which is, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" And he also prayed that the cup might pass away; for these things are written. But I would wish you also to answer in return; for it is necessary to retort the same thing to each of the points you put forward. If he who speaks is a mere man, let him weep and fear death as a man. But if he is the Word in the flesh (for it ought to be no burden to say the same things always), whom could he, being God, fear? Or why should he, who is Life and delivers others from death, himself be afraid of death? Or how could it come to pass that he who said, "Do not fear him who kills the body," should himself be seized by fear? Or how could he, who said to Abraham, "Fear not, for I am with thee," and encouraged Moses against Pha-
Pharaoh, and said to the son of Nun, "Be strong and of good courage," should he himself fear Herod and Pilate? Furthermore, since he becomes a helper to others so that they may not fear (for "The Lord," he says, "is my helper; I will not fear what man shall do unto me"), should he himself be afraid of mortal men who are rulers? Should he who has come against death be afraid of death? How is it not absurd and impious to say that he feared death or Hades, at the sight of whom the gatekeepers of Hades trembled? And if, as you say, the Word feared, why, when he had long before foretold the snares of the Jews, did he not flee, but when sought out, said, "I am he"? For he was able not to die, as he said, "I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it again; and no one takes it from me."
B 55. But these things were not proper to the Word by nature, but the Word was in that flesh which suffered such things, O Christ-fighters and ungrateful Jews. For these things were not said before the flesh; but when the Word became flesh and became man, then it is written that these things were said according to the human nature. Assuredly, the one concerning whom these things are written is he who raised Lazarus from the dead, and made water into wine, and granted sight to the man born blind, and said, "I and the Father are one." If, therefore, they take occasion from his human actions to think lowly and abject thoughts about the Son of God, or rather, if they think him to be entirely a man from the earth, and not from heaven, C why do they not also, from his divine works, recognize the Word who is in the Father, and henceforth put aside their own impiety? For it is permitted to them to see how the one who does the works is the same as the one who shows his body to be subject to suffering by allowing it to weep and to hunger, and lets the things proper to the body appear in himself. For by such things he gave evidence that,
A being God, he was impassible, yet he took on a passible flesh; and by his works he openly showed that he was the Word of God, and later became a man, saying: "If you do not believe me, seeing me clothed in a human body, at least believe the works," so that you may know that "I am in the Father, and the Father in me." For the Christ-fighters seem to me to have attained to the height of shamelessness and blasphemy. For on the one hand, when they hear, "I and the Father are one," they struggle to distort the meaning, and try with all their might to sever the unity of the Father and the Son; yet on the other hand, when they hear that he wept, grew weary, and suffered, they do not look to the body, but from these things they presume to number among the creatures him through whom the creation itself came to be. What, then, still distinguishes these men from the Jews? For just as those, in their impiety, ascribed the works of God to Beelzebub, so B also these, by numbering the Lord who performed these works among the creatures, will suffer the same inexpiable condemnation as they.
56. C Yet it would have been appropriate for them to perceive from these words, "I and the Father are one," one divinity and the proper nature of the Father; but from the statement, "he wept," and the like, to recognize these as proper to the body, especially since in both cases there are reasonable grounds for them: for the former are written as concerning God, while the latter are said because of his human body. For the properties of the body could never have existed in one who is without a body, unless he had assumed a body that was corruptible and mortal; for holy Mary was mortal, from whom was also his body. D Therefore it was necessary that, since he dwelt in a body that suffered, wept, and grew weary, these things, which are proper to the flesh, should be spoken of him along with the body. Whether, therefore, he wept and was troubled, it was not the Word, as Word, that was weeping and troubled, but this pertained to the flesh; or whether he prayed that the cup might pass, it was not the divinity that was afraid, but this emotion was proper to his humanity, just as the words, "Why hast
thou forsaken me?
" are to be understood in the same way as we have explained above. For although he suffered nothing, since the Word does not have a passible nature, yet just as if he were truly suffering, these things were spoken by the evangelists; because the Lord has also become a man, and as one among men these things happen and are spoken, so that, theseaffections of the flesh having been lightened by Him, He might make it free. A Whence it is not possible for the Lord to be forsaken by the Father, who was always in Him, both before He spoke and when He uttered this cry. But it is not even fitting to say that the Lord was afraid, whom the gatekeepers of Hades, terrified by His fear, cast out from Hades; and the tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints rose again and appeared to their own. B Let every heretic therefore be silenced, and let him be afraid to say that the Lord was afraid, whom death itself flees like a dragon, whom the demons tremble at, and whom the sea fears, on whose account the heavens are rent and all the powers are shaken. For behold, when He said, "Why did you forsake me?" He showed that the Father was always, and even at that time, in Him. For the earth, recognizing the speaking Master, immediately trembled, and the veil was torn, the sun hid itself, the rocks were rent, and the tombs, as I said before, were opened, and the dead who were in them were raised; and, what is truly marvelous, those who were present then C and had previously denied Him, later, seeing these things, truly confess this one to be the Son of God.
57. But as to what pertains to His words, "If it be possible, let the cup pass," learn how He rebuked Peter for saying the same thing: "You do not savor the things of God, but the things of men." For He indeed wanted that which He was praying against and trying to avoid, because for that very reason He had come; but it was His to will it—for He came to this very end—but it was the flesh's to be afraid. D Whence, as a man, He uttered such a cry, and He Himself expressed both, so as to show that He was God, who willed it, but having become a man, He had the flesh that was afraid, for the sake of which He mingled His own will with human infirmity, so that, by again consuming this, He might make the human being confident and bold against death. Behold, therefore, a truly marvelous matter: He whom the enemies of Christ imagine to have spoken out of cowardice, He Himself, by this supposed cowardice, made men fearless and stouthearted. From this, the blessed apostles after Him
A thus despised death because of such words, that they had no concern for those who were questioning them, but said: "We must obey God rather than men." And the other B holy martyrs were so confident that they thought they were passing into life rather than suffering death. How then is it not absurd to admire the courage of the servants of the Word, but to say that the Word Himself was cowardly, through whom they also despised death? It is shown from the most steadfast resolve and courage of the holy martyrs that the divinity was not the one struck with cowardice, but that it was the Savior who was taking away our cowardice. For just as He destroyed death by death, and all things human by human deeds, so by this B supposed cowardice He took away our cowardice, and made it so that men no longer fear death. He said these things, therefore, and at the same time He acted. For it was human to say: "Let the cup pass," and, "Why have you abandoned me?" but it was divine that the same One caused the sun to hide and the dead to rise. And again, speaking as a human: "Now my soul is troubled," He also said C as God: "I have authority to lay down my soul, and I have authority to take it up again." For to be troubled is the property of the flesh, but to have authority to lay down and to take up the soul when He wills, this is no longer the property of men, but of the power of the Word. For a man does not die by his own authority, but by the necessity of nature and against his will; but the Lord, being Himself immortal C yet having taken on mortal flesh, had the authority, as God, to depart from the body and to take it back again whenever He wills. Regarding this David also sings: "You will not abandon my soul to Hades, nor will you give your Holy One to see corruption." For it was fitting that the flesh, being corruptible, should no longer remain mortal according to its own nature, but because of the Word who had clothed Himself in it, should remain free of corruption. For as He, having come in our body, imitated our circumstances, so we, having received Him, become sharers in His immortality.
58. Vain, therefore, is the pretense of the Arianizers to be scandalized, and their misunderstanding of what is written concerning the Word, that He was troubled and wept. For they seem to possess not even human understanding, seeing as they are ignorant of the nature of men and their properties, because of which, surely, it ought rather to have been a matter of admiration that, in such a state of suffering D [the Word...]
was in such flesh, and neither restrained the plotters, nor took vengeance against those who were killing him, although he was able, he who prevented others from dying, and raised the dead from the grave; but he endured having his own body suffer. For this reason indeed he had come, as I said before, that he might suffer in the flesh, and henceforth the flesh might be rendered impassible and immortal; and that, as we have often said, concerning that insult and the things which happened to him, these might no longer touch men, but be utterly dissipated by him; and henceforth for all time they might remain incorrupt, as a temple of the Word. If the enemies of Christ had thought of these things, and recognized the ecclesiastical goal as the anchor of faith, they would neither have made shipwreck concerning the faith, nor would they have been so shameless B as to resist those who wished to raise them up after they had fallen, and to consider those as enemies who were admonishing them toward piety. But as it seems, the heretic is truly a wicked thing, and from every side he has a heart corrupted toward impiety. For behold, being refuted on all points, and shown to be destitute of all understanding, they are not ashamed; but just as the beast called the hydra in the myths of the Greeks, when the former heads were cut off, would sprout other heads, struggling against the one who was killing it by the production of others; in the same way, the God-fighters C and the God-haters, just like a hydra, with their soul failing on those points which are put forward, find other Jewish and foolish questionings for themselves; and just as if they held the truth as an enmity, they devise newer things, so that they might show themselves even more to be enemies of Christ in every way.
59. For after so many arguments against them, D at which even the devil, their father, would have been ashamed and retreated, behold, again they belch forth other new fabrications from their crooked heart, and they annoy some, and as for others, they buzz around them like gnats, saying: "Granted, interpret these things in this way, and conquer with reasons and proofs; but it must be said that the Son was made by the Father by will and by choice." And in this also they deceive many, putting forward the desire and the will of God. If, however, anyone of those who believe rightly...
spoke somewhat too simply, there would be no ground for suspicion, but what was spoken too simply would be corrected by a right mind. But since this language comes from heretics, and the words of heretics are suspect, and, as it is written, A *The thoughts of the ungodly are deceitful* (Prov. XII, 5), and, *Their words are deceitful* (ibid.), even if they only nod, for they have a corrupted heart: come, let us examine this statement also, lest, being refuted on all points, they hereafter invent some sound-bite, like hydras, so that through such clever talk and plausible ensnarement they may sow their own impiety again in a different way. For it means the same thing for one to say, "The Son came into being by will," as for one to say, "There was [a time] when He was not," and, "The Son came into being from nothing and is a creature." But because they are now ashamed to have said these things, the deceitful B ones have attempted to signify them again in other words, putting forward "will," as the cuttlefish does its ink, so that in this they might darken the simple-minded, while they themselves do not forget their own heresy. For whence have they dug up these words of "will" and "choice," or from what Scripture do they again bring forward such things? Let the suspicious of word, and inventors of impiety, explain. For the Father, revealing His own Word from heaven, showed that *This is my beloved Son* (Matt. III, 17). And through David He said: *My heart has uttered a good Word* (Ps. XLIV, 2). And to John He commanded to say: *In the beginning was the Word* (John I, 1). And David also, singing, says: *For with Thee is the fountain of life, and in Thy light we shall see light* (Ps. XXXV, 10). And the Apostle writes: *Who being the brightness of glory* (Hebr. I, 3); and again: *Who being in the form of God* (Philip. II, 6); and, *Who is the image of the invisible God* (Coloss. I, 15).
60. Everywhere they teach what the Word is, and nowhere C at all do they say He was made from will. But where, I ask, did they find a will or choice preceding the Word of God, unless, perhaps, abandoning the Scriptures, they feign the wicked opinion of Valentinus? For Ptolemy, the follower of Valentinus, said
A that there were two causes, namely, thought and will; and that he first thought, then willed, and that he could not bring forth what he had thought unless the power of the will had been added. Hence the Arians, having learned this, wish will and choice to precede the Word. Let them, if they wish, emulate the errors of Valentinus; but we, having encountered the divine B oracles, find the expression "was" regarding the Son, and we have heard that He alone is in the Father and is the image of the Father. But regarding created things alone—since they were not at one time by nature, but came into existence—we have read of a preceding will and choice, as David sings in the hundred and thirteenth C psalm thus: "But our God is in heaven, and on earth all things whatsoever He willed, He did" (Ps. CXIII, 11); and in the hundred and tenth psalm: "Great are the works of the Lord, exquisite in all His wills" (Ps. CX, 2); and again in the hundred and thirty-fourth psalm: "All things whatsoever the Lord willed, He did in heaven and on earth, in the seas and in all the deeps" (Ps. CXXXIV, 6). If then he is a work and a creature, and one of all things, let him also be said to have come into existence by a will; D for in this way the Scripture showed that works come to be. And Asterius, the advocate of the heresy, agreeing with this, writes thus: "For if it is unworthy of the Creator to act willingly, then let 'willing' be removed from all beings alike, so that his dignity may be preserved whole; or if it is fitting for God to will, then let that which is more excellent exist in the first-born. For it cannot be that it should be fitting for one and the same God both to will and not to will in the generation of things." With these words the sophist, having composed his own impiety to the greatest extent, since he confuses a created and generated thing and asserts that the Son is one out of all existing generated things, concludes consequently that works are rightly said to have been made by will and choice.
A But let it not be said that he existed by will, lest he himself be made in the same way as those things which came into being through him. For while Paul, who was not previously an apostle, later became one by the will of God, our calling—which at one time did not exist but later came to pass—has the will preceding it, and, as Paul himself says again, it came to pass according to the good pleasure of His will. And the statement made through Moses, "Let there be light," and "Let the earth bring forth," and "Let us make man," I believe, as has been said before, is indicative of the will of the Creator. For the Creator deliberates to make those things which were not at one time but which later came into being from without; but He does not deliberate concerning His own Word, who is begotten of Him by nature. For in Him the Father makes and creates all other things, B whatsoever He wills; just as James the apostle, teaching, said, "By His will He brought us forth by the word of truth." Thus, the will of God concerning all those who are regenerated and those things which come into being once for all is in the Word, in whom He makes and regenerates those things which were meant to be made. And this the Apostle signifies again, writing to the Thessalonians: "For this is the will of God in Christ Jesus toward you." If, then, that in which He acts is the same as that in which His will is, and if the will of the Father is in Christ, how can it be that He Himself was made by will and choice? For if, according to you, He was made by will, it is necessary that the will to create Him should be established in yet another Word, C through whom He Himself might also come to be. For we have shown that the will of God does not exist in the things that come to be, but in Him through whom and in whom all things that are made, are made. Furthermore, since it is the same thing to say "by will" as it is to say "there was when He was not," let it be enough for them to say "there was when He was not," so that, covered with shame because such words signify times, they may understand that when they say the Son was made by will, they similarly signify that times existed before the Son. For regarding things which at one time did not exist, just as with all created things, deliberation absolutely precedes them. But if the Word is the artificer of created things, and exists together with the Father, how can deliberation precede Him who exists from eternity, as if He did not exist? For if will precedes, D how are all things through Him?
A Rather, he would be one of all things, brought into being by will, just as we also have become sons through the Word of truth; and henceforth we would be compelled to seek, as has been said, another Word through whom this one also came into being, and was brought forth along with all things which God willed.
62. If then there is another Word of God, let it be that this one also has come into being through the Word; but if there is no other (for there is not, but all things came into being through Him, whatsoever the Father willed), B how is the many-headed craftiness of these men not exposed? Because, having been shamed into silence regarding their saying that the Word of God is a product and a creature, and that "He was not before He was begotten," they attempt in another way to show that He is a creature, putting forward the concept of will and saying: "If He did not come into being by will, then God had a Son by necessity and against His will." C And who is it, O most wicked men, who imposes necessity upon Him—you who drag everything toward your heresy? For they have indeed seen what is opposed to will, but they have not perceived what is greater and prior to it. For just as that which is against one's purpose is opposed to the will, so that which is by nature is superior to and precedes that which is by deliberation. D For instance, any man who deliberates builds a house, but he begets a son by nature; and that which is being built by will begins to exist, and is outside of the one who makes it; but the Son is a proper offspring of the essence of the Father, and is not outside of Him: wherefore He does not even deliberate concerning Him, lest he should seem to be deliberating even concerning Himself. By as much, then, as the Son is superior to the creature, by so much also is that which is by nature superior to that which is by will; and they ought, upon hearing this, not to think of that which is by nature in terms of will. But they, having forgotten that they are hearing about the Son of God, dare to speak human objections regarding God, implying necessity and "against one's purpose," so that they may deny the true Son of God; since let them tell us themselves: Is God’s being good and merciful something that belongs to Him by will, or not by will? If it is by will, one must consider that He began to be good, and it is possible for Him not to be good. For the faculty of deliberating and choosing has an inclination toward both sides, and this is a condition of a rational nature. But if, because of the absurdity of these things, He is not good and merciful by will, let them...
listen to what follows from their own words: therefore He is good by necessity and against His will! Who then imposed necessity upon God? But if it is utterly absurd to attribute necessity to God, and he must therefore be called good by nature, much more must the Father be called Father by nature and not by will. A
65. Furthermore, since I wish to crush their shamelessness, I again resolve to question them, perhaps with greater boldness, yet with a view to piety—be merciful to me, O Lord, I pray—: Did the Father deliberate first, and then, after willing it, thus exist, or did He exist before deliberating? For it is fair that those who do not hesitate to say such things about the Son should hear the same said about the Father, so that they may understand that their rashness in this matter reaches even to the Father Himself. If then they say, having once deliberated about the will, that He too exists from a will: what then was He before B He deliberated, or what more did He possess, as you say, after He deliberated? But if such a question is absurd and utterly futile (and it is not right to say such things at all, since it is enough, even just hearing the name of God, to know and understand that He is He who is), is it not equally absurd to think such things about the Word of God, and to present to us will and choice? For it is enough, even just hearing the name of the Word, to know and understand that God, who does not exist by will, does not possess His own Word by will either, but by nature. And does not he who even considers that God deliberates, consults, chooses, and urges Himself to will, in order that He might not be without Word and Wisdom, but might have Word and Wisdom, C exceed all madness? For he who deliberates about what is proper to his own essence seems to be deliberating about himself. Since, therefore, such an opinion is highly impious, it must be stated in a way that befits piety that created things have come to be by the good pleasure and will of God, but the Son is not a work of will, having come into being like creation, but is the offspring proper to His essence by nature. For as He is the own Word of the Father, D He does not allow anyone to think of any will before Himself, as He is the living counsel of the Father, and power, and creator of all things.
being the living counsel of the Father, and his power, and the creator of those things which seem good to the Father. A And these things he himself says concerning himself in the Proverbs: *My counsel and security, my prudence, and my strength.* For just as he is himself the prudence in which he prepared the heavens, and is himself the strength and power—for *Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God*—now, by a slight variation in the mode of speaking, he said, *My prudence, and my strength*; in so saying, *My counsel*, he would be the living counsel of the Father, just as we have learned from the prophet that he becomes the Angel of Great Counsel, and is called the will of the Father. For it is necessary thus to refute those who think human thoughts concerning God.
64. Therefore, if created things were produced by will and by purpose, and all creation came into being by a will B—if Paul was called an Apostle by the will of God, and our calling came about by good pleasure and will, and all things were made through the Word—then the Word is outside the number of those things which came into being by will; or rather, he is himself the living counsel of the Father, in whom all these things were made. In whom also the holy David, giving thanks, said in the seventy-second Psalm: *Thou hast holden my right hand: and in Thy counsel Thou hast guided me.* How, then, can the Word, being the counsel and will of the Father, himself become such by a will and volition, C as each of the others, unless, as I said before, being mad, they again say that he came into being through himself or through some other? Who, then, is he through whom he came into being? Let them fashion another Word, and, emulating Valentinus, let them name another Christ—for it is not written. But even if they do fashion one, surely that one also must come into being through something; and so, as we reason thus and examine the consequence, the many-headed heresy of the ungodly is found to fall into polytheism and boundless madness, in which, wishing the Son to be a creature and from non-existence, they signify the same things in another way, D by putting forth "will" and "volition," which terms would more reasonably be spoken of generated and created things. How, then, is it not impious to attribute the things of generated beings to the Creator? Or how is it not blasphemous to speak of a will before the Word?
For if a will A precedes in the Father, the Son does not speak truly when He says, "I am in the Father"; or if He also is in the Father, He will be considered secondary, and it would not have been fitting for Him to say, "I am in the Father," if a will existed before Him, in which all things were generated and He Himself was produced, according to you. For even if He differs in glory, nonetheless He is one of those things which come into being by will. But as we have said beforehand, if this is how it is, why then is He the Lord, while other things are numbered among the servants? He is, of course, the Lord because He is united to the Father’s lordship; but created things are in the number of servants because they exist outside the Father’s unity, and they were generated when they had at one time not been.
65. B Indeed, if they wish the Son to have been generated by will, why do they not also assert that He was generated by prudence? For I consider will and prudence to be the same thing. For whatever a person deliberates upon, this he most certainly also perceives; and what he perceives, this he also deliberates upon. Thus, the Savior Himself connected these together as sisters in proportion, saying at once: "Mine is counsel and security, mine is prudence, and mine is strength." For as strength and security are the same—for the power is the same—so it is the same to say that prudence and counsel are what the Lord is. C But the impious do not want the Son to be the Word and living counsel; rather, they fable that prudence and counsel and wisdom in God are like a habit that comes to exist and ceases to exist humanly, and they move every stone, and put forward the thought and will of Valentinus, only that they might separate the Son from the Father, and not confess Him to be the proper Word of the Father, but a creature. Therefore, let them hear what Simon Magus heard: "Let the impiety of Valentinus be with you unto destruction!" But let each man rather be persuaded by Solomon, who says that the Word is wisdom and prudence. For He says: "God by wisdom founded the earth; He prepared the heavens in prudence." D As it is here "in prudence," so it is in the Psalms: "By the Word of the Lord the heavens were established." And as the heavens were by the Word, so "He made all things whatsoever He willed"; and as the Apos-
- A tolos writes to the Thessalonians: "The will of God is in Christ Jesus." The Son of God, therefore, is Himself the Word and the Wisdom, He is the Prudence and the living Counsel; and in Him is the will of the Father. He is Truth, and Light, and the Power of the Father. But if the will of God is Wisdom and Prudence, and the Son is Wisdom, then he who argues that the Son was made by will, says exactly the same thing as if he were to say that Wisdom was made in Wisdom, and the Son was generated in the Son, and by the Word the Word was created. This not only fights against God, but also contradicts the Scriptures derived from Him; for indeed the Apostle proclaims the Son not a product of will, but the own radiance and character of the Father’s essence itself, saying: "Who being the radiance of His glory and the character of His subsistence." If, however, as we have said before B, the paternal essence and subsistence is not from will, it is manifest that neither can that which is proper to the paternal subsistence be from will. For whatever that blessed subsistence is, and in whatever manner it exists, such and in such manner must that be which is the own offspring from it. And indeed the Father Himself did not say: "This is the Son who has come to be by my will," nor, "Whom I have had as Son at my pleasure," but simply, "My Son," and rather, "In whom I am well pleased"; demonstrating from these things that He is by nature Son, and that the will of the things which seem good to me is laid up in Him.
C 66. Now then, because the Son is by nature and not by will, is He therefore unintended by the Father, and is the Son the Son even if the Father does not will it? By no means. But the Son is also willed by the Father, and, as He Himself says, "The Father loves the Son, and shows all things to Him." For just as His being good did not begin from will, yet it is not the case that He is good unintentionally or unwillingly; for what He is, this is also willed by Him; so too, even though the Son’s being did not begin from will, yet it is not the case that He is unintended, nor is He against His Mind. For just as He is a willer of His own subsistence, so also the Son, being His own by nature, is not unintended by Him. Let the Son, therefore, be willed and loved by the Father; and thus, whatever D the Lord willed, so also the will and all things [are].
A For the Son, by the very will with which He is loved (85) by the Father, by that same will also loves and wills and honors the Father; and there is one will that is from the Father in the Son, just as from this it is also to be observed that the Son is in the Father, and the Father in the Son. Do not, however, let anyone introduce a "prior" (86) will after the manner of Valentinus; nor let anyone place himself as a mediator between the only Father and the only Word, under the pretext of deliberation (87). For it would be madness for anyone to set a will and a contemplation between the Father and the Son. For it is one thing to say, "He came to be by a will," and another thing to say that the Father loves and wills Him who is His Son by nature. For to say, "He came to be from a will," signifies, first of all, that at one time He did not exist; and then, it also involves an inclination toward both sides, as has been said, so that one might be able to think that He could also have chosen not to will the Son. But to say, B in reference to the Son, that "He could also not have been," is impious and is a boldness which extends even to the substance of the Father, if that which is His own proper essence could (88) not have been. For it is the same as if one were to say that the Father could have not been good. But just as the Father is always and by nature good, so He is always by nature the Generator. But this mode of speaking—"The Father wills the Son," and "The Word wills the Father"—does not denote a prior will, but designates the genuineness of nature and the propriety and likeness of essence. For just as one might say in the case of the radiance (89) and the light, that the radiance does not have a will prior to the light, but is its natural offspring, which is willed C by the light from which it is begotten (90), not by way of a deliberation of the will, but by nature and in truth; so also in the case of the Father and the Son, one might rightly say that the Father loves and wills the Son, and the Son loves and wills the Father.
67. Therefore, let the Son not be called a product of a will, nor let the errors of Valentinus be brought into the Church, but let Him be called a Living Counsel and a truly natural offspring, as the radiance of the light. For thus, too, the Father Himself has spoken: "My heart has brought forth a good Word"; and the Son answers in turn, "I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me." If then the Word is in the heart, where is the will? And if the Son is in the Father, where is the choice? And if He Himself is the will, how D
is there consilium or voluntas in the will? For it is altogether absurd to suppose that the Word is in the Word, the Son in the Son, and Wisdom in Wisdom, as has been said many times. A For the Son is all that the Father's is, and there is nothing in the Father prior to the Word; but the will, too, is in the Word, and through Him those things which are of the will are brought to completion, as the divine Scriptures have shown.
I would have wished that the impious, who have fallen into such irrationality and are speculating about will, would no longer inquire of the women whom they previously questioned, saying, "Did you have a son before you gave birth?" but rather that they would ask fathers, and say to them: "Are you fathers by taking counsel, or is it according to nature and apart from your will? Or are your children similar in nature and substance to you?" That they might, at least, be shamed by the parents from whom they demanded the premise of generation, and from whom they hoped to obtain knowledge! For they will answer them, saying: B "Those whom we beget are not of our will, but are similar to us; nor do we become parents by deliberating beforehand, but to beget is proper to nature, since we ourselves are also images of those who begat us." Let them, therefore, either condemn themselves and cease asking women about the Son of God, or at least learn from them that the Son is begotten not by will, but by nature and in truth. It is appropriate and fitting for these men to be refuted by this argument taken from human nature, since these evil-minded men also think human thoughts about the Godhead.
Why, then, do the enemies of Christ still C rage? For this argument of theirs, just like the others, has been demonstrated and refuted as being merely fantasy and myth-making. And for this reason they ought, even if late, to see into what a precipice of foolishness they have fallen, and to rise up and flee from the trap of the devil, being admonished by us. For the truth is merciful, crying out always: "If you do not believe Me because of the mantle of the body, yet believe the works, that you may know that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me; and, I and the Father are one; and, He who has seen Me has seen the Father." D But the Lord, as is His custom, is merciful, and desires all who have fallen to be raised up, as the praise of David says; but the impious, not wishing to hear the voice of the Lord, nor enduring to see the
A Lord openly confessed by all as God and Son of God, wander about like beetles, seeking pretexts for impiety with their father, the devil. What, then, could they find further after this, or from where could they find it, unless they borrow the insults of the Jews and Caiaphas, or take atheism from the Greeks? For the divine Scriptures have been closed to them, and they have been convicted on all sides, out of those very Scriptures, as foolish and Christ-fighters.
BY THE SAME, FOURTH ORATION
1. B From God is God the Word; and again: "Whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." And because He is God from God, and the Word of God, Wisdom, Son, and Power is Christ, therefore one God is proclaimed in the divine Scriptures. For since the Word is the Son of one God, He is referred to Him whose Son He is; so that there are two, Father and Son, but the unity of the Godhead is indivisible and inseparable. It might also be said in this way that there is one beginning of the Godhead, and not two beginnings; whence there is properly and truly a monarchy. But the Word, the Son, exists by nature from this very C beginning, not as another beginning subsisting of Himself, nor having come into being from outside this beginning, lest by such duality there should arise a dyarchy and a polyarchy, but as the proper Son of the one beginning, His proper Wisdom, His proper Word, existing from Him. For according to John, "In this beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God"—for God is the beginning—and because He is from Him, for this reason the Word was also God. And just as there is one beginning, and according to this one God; so the essence and substance which truly, really, and essentially exists is one, which says, "I am who I am," and not two, lest there be two D beginnings. But from that one substance exists by nature and truly the Son, the Word, the Wisdom, His proper Power, and is inseparable from Him. But just as there is no other essence or substance, lest there be two beginnings, so the Word who exists from the one is not something fleeting, nor
A a person, even as He is not a man; nor could His Word be according to the weakness of men. For just as the principle is one essence, so one is the essential and subsistent Word of it, and the Wisdom. For as from God there is God, and from the wise there is Wisdom, and from the rational a Word, and from the Father a Son; so from a subsistence there is a subsistence, and from an essence an essential and substantial [Word], and from Him who is, One who is. B 2. Otherwise, if the Wisdom and the Word were not essential, and if the Son were not of its essence, but Wisdom, and the Word, and the Son were simply in the Father, then the Father Himself would be composite of Wisdom and the Word. But if this is so, the previously stated absurdities will follow: He will be His own Father, and the Son Himself is the one begetting Himself, and is begotten by Himself; or else He is merely a name, a Word, and Wisdom, and Son, while He of whom these things are said, or rather He who is all these things, will not be subsistent. If, therefore, nothing is subsistent, then those names are vain and useless, unless perhaps someone should say that God Himself is Wisdom itself and the Word itself. But if this is conceded, He will truly be His own Father and Son; Father, indeed, when He is called wise; Son, when He is called Wisdom. But let it not be that these are in God as a quality! Away with this! It is unworthy of God; for God will be found to be composite from an essence and a quality. C For every quality is in an essence. And according to this the divine Monad, being indivisible, will appear composite, divided into essence and accident. We must therefore ask these rash men: The Son has been proclaimed the Wisdom and Word of God; in what way, then, is He this? If as a quality, the absurdity has already been shown. But if God is Wisdom Himself, then the absurdity resulting from this has been spoken of by Sabellius. Therefore, [He is] as an offspring properly from the Father Himself, according to the example of light. For as light is from fire, so the Word is from God, and Wisdom from the Wise, and from the Father the Son. For by this means the Monad remains indivisible and whole, and its Son, the Word, is not lacking in essence, nor is He non-subsistent, but is truly essential. For if He were not in this manner, then everything that is said would be by way of conception and said simply. But if the absurdity that arises from a mere conception is to be avoided, then the true Word is essential. For just as He is truly Father, so is He truly Wisdom. D According to this, therefore, they are two, because the Father and the Son are not the same, as Sabellius contends, but the Father is Father, and the Son is Son; and they are one, because the Son is by nature Son of the essence of the Father, existing as His own proper Word. This the Lord was saying: *I and the Father are one.* For neither is the Word separated from the Father, nor was or is the Father ever without the Word. The Word, therefore, is God, and the Father is not without the Word; for this reason He said, *I am in the Father, and the Father in me.*
A Furthermore, since Christ is the Word of God, did He exist from Himself, and then, existing, become joined to the Father? Or did God make Him and name Him B His own Word? If the former is conceded—that is, if He existed from Himself and is God—then there will be two principles; nor will He be the Father's own, and deservedly so, since He is not of the Father Himself, but of Himself. But if He was made from without, He would certainly be a created thing. It remains, then, to say that He is from God Himself. But if this is true, then that which is from something else is one thing, and that from which it is is another; and consequently, it must be admitted that there are two. For if there were not two, but these were said of the same thing, then the same thing would be its own cause and effect, the same would be what is begotten C and what begets—which, indeed, has been shown to be absurd, as it flows from the error of Sabellius. But if He is from Him indeed, yet not something other than He, it follows that He is the same, both begetting and not begetting: begetting, because He brings Him forth from Himself; not begetting, because He is not other than He is. If, however, this last point is admitted, it is gathered that He is called Father and Son only by a mental distinction. But if that is absurd, then Father and Son will be two. Likewise, they will not be the same, because the Son is not from without, but is begotten of God. If, however, anyone shrinks from calling the Word "offspring" or "begotten," and thinks He should merely be said to exist with God, let such a person beware lest, by shrinking from the term used in Scripture, he fall into an absurd opinion, by which he introduces a duality of nature into God. For if he does not grant that the Word is from the unity but only that He has been joined with the Father, he certainly admits two essences, neither of which is the parent of the other. The same must also be said concerning virtue or power. But this will be understood more easily if viewed in the Father. For there is one Father, not two, but from the one is the Son. As, therefore, there are not two Fathers, but one, so there are not two principles, but one; and from the one D the Son essentially exists. Yet again, let us question the Arians. For as regards the followers of Sabellius, they must be refuted from the notion of the Son: the Arians, however, from the notion of the Father.
4. Therefore, let us argue thus: Either God is wise, and is not without the Word or Reason; or, on the contrary, He is unwise and without Reason. If the second is admitted, its absurdity is self-evident; but if the first is conceded, one must again ask in what way He is wise, and not without Word or Reason: does He have wisdom and the Word from without, or from Himself? If He has them from without, then someone else gave them to Him, and before He received them He was unwise and without Reason. But if He has the Word from Himself, it is manifest that He is not from nothing, nor was there ever a time when He was not; for He always existed, seeing that He whose image He is always exists. But if they answer that God is indeed wise and not without Word or Reason, yet not [the Christ], as theologians are wont to speak in the schools...
and that He has within Himself His own wisdom and His own Word, but not the Christ—then it must be said that, if Christ was made in that Word, undoubtedly all things were also made in the same, and that this is the very Word of which John says: "All things were made through Him," and the Psalmist: "In wisdom You have made all things." Nay, even Christ Himself would be found a liar when He says, "I am in the Father," since someone else is in the Father. Furthermore, the statement, "The Word became flesh," would be false according to their view. For if that Word in whom all things were made became flesh, but Christ is not the Word in the Father through whom all things were made, then Christ did not become flesh; rather, perhaps, Christ was merely called the Word. But if this is so, in the first place, He would be someone other than He whom the name signifies; and in the second place, all things were not made through Him, but rather in that in which Christ Himself was also made. B But if they say that wisdom is in the Father by way of a quality, or that He is wisdom itself, the absurdities we mentioned above will necessarily follow: namely, that He is composite, and that He becomes both Father and Son of Himself. But they must be refuted and convinced that the Word who is in God cannot be a creature, nor from non-being. If the Word is once and for all in God, He must be that Christ who says, "I am in the Father, and the Father in Me," who on that account is also the only-begotten, because no other was begotten from Him. This one is the Son, who is the Word, wisdom, and power; for God is not composed of these, but is their begetter. For just as He produces created things by His Word, so according to the nature of His own essence He begets the Word, through whom He also creates, fashions, and governs all things. For by the Word and by wisdom all things were made, and by His ordering the universe remains. The same must be said regarding the Son; for if God is sterile and inactive, it is because the Son, through whom He acts, is His offspring. But if not, the same questions and the same absurdities will follow for those who are shameless.
5. "Deuteronomy: But you who cleave to the Lord your God, are alive every one of you this day." From these C words it is possible to discern the difference, and to know that the Son of God is not a creature. For the Son says, "I and the Father are one," and, "I am in the Father, and the Father in Me"; whereas created things, when they make progress, cleave to the Lord. For the Word, as being His own, is in the Father; but created things, inasmuch as they exist externally, cleave to Him; being, by nature, alien, but by will D attached.
A Hence He immediately adds: *What nation is so great, to whom God draws near?* And elsewhere: *I am a God drawing near.* For He draws near to created things, as being foreign to Him; but to the Son, as being His own, He does not draw near, but is in Him. Nor does the Son cleave, but is together with the Father. Hence again Moses says in the same Deuteronomy: *You shall hearken to His voice, and to Him you shall cleave.* Now that which cleaves, cleaves from without.
B 6. Now concerning the weak and human opinion of the Arians, because they suspect that the Lord was in need from these words of His, *Data est mihi* (Power has been given to me), and *I received*, and even if Paul says, *For this reason He exalted Him*, and, *Sat at the right hand*, and others similar: it must be answered that our Lord, being the Word and Son of God, wore a body, and also became the Son of man, so that, having become a mediator between God and men, He might supply to us the things of God, and offer to God the things of men. Therefore, when He is said to hunger, and to weep, and to be weary, and to cry out, *Eloi, Eloi*—which are human characteristics and our sufferings—He accepts them from us and offers them to the Father, interceding for us, so that in Him they may be wholly blotted out. But by these words, *Power has been given to me*, and, *I received*, and, *For this reason God exalted Him*, are signified the gifts conferred upon us by God through Him. C For the Word was not needy, nor did He ever become so; nor, on the other hand, were men capable of procuring these things for themselves; but through the Word they are given to us; whence those things, as though given to Him, are imparted to us. For indeed, for this reason He became man, so that they, as if given to Him, might be transferred to us. For a mere man would never have been worthy to receive these; nor, again, could the pure Word be in need of them; the Word was therefore joined to us, and then He made us partakers of power and exalted us. For the Word, indeed, existing in man, exalted the man, and with the Word likewise existing in man, the man received. Because, therefore, when the Word was in the flesh, man was exalted and received power, for this reason these things are referred to the Word, since they were given on His account; for on account of the Word who was in man were these gifts given. D And just as the Word became flesh, so also did man receive the things through the Word. For all things that man has received, the Word is said to have received, so that it might be shown that [man] is not worthy
to receive them, as far as pertained to his own nature, yet he has received them through the Word made flesh. Hence, if it is said that something is given to the Lord, or anything of the sort, one must understand that it is not given to Him as though He were in need, but to man through the Word. For everyone who intercedes for another himself receives the gift—not that he is in need, but for the sake of him for whom he intercedes. Thus, while not weak, He takes on our weaknesses, and while not hungry, He hungers, in order that by offering our concerns to the Father, He might blot them out; thus, in return for these weaknesses, He Himself receives gifts from God, so that man, being joined to Him, might be able to partake of them. The Lord therefore says: *All that You have given Me, I have given to them*; and again, *I pray for them*. For He prayed for us, taking upon Himself our own, and He distributed what He received. Since, therefore, the Word being joined to man, the Father, looking toward the Word, bestowed upon man the being exalted, the possessing all power, and such things; for this reason, all things are referred to the Word Himself, and are as if given to Him, which we receive through Him. For just as He became man for our sake, so we are exalted through Him. There is nothing absurd, then, if, just as for our sake He humbled Himself, so also for our sake He is said to be exalted. He bestowed therefore upon Him—that is, upon us through Him—so also [does He] exalt—that is, us in Him. Moreover, the Word Himself, when we are exalted, receive, and are aided, gives thanks to the Father as if He Himself were exalted, receiving, and being aided, referring our experiences to Himself and saying: *All that You have given Me, I have given to them*.
C 8. The Arians, the followers of Eusebius, while granting that the Son has a beginning of existence, pretend that they do not wish Him to have a beginning of kingship. But this is ridiculous. For he who gives a beginning of existence to the Son, it is manifest that he also gives Him a beginning of reigning; so that while confessing what they deny, they prove themselves blind. And again, those who say that [the title] "Son" is merely a name, and that the Son of God—namely, the Word of the Father—is empty of essence and subsistence, pretend to be indignant against those who say, *“There was when He was not.”* But this too is ridiculous. For those who do not grant Him existence at all are indignant at those who grant it to Him at least in time. Thus these also confess what they deny when they rebuke others. Furthermore, those around Eusebius, while confessing He is the Son, deny that He is by nature the Word, and wish for the name of Word to be granted to the Son only by way of idea; while others, acknowledging the Word...
A, 9. (50) "I and the Father are one." You say that the two are one, or conversely that the one is divided into two. Now if the one has been divided into two, there must be a body that has been divided, and neither is perfect, since each is a part and not the whole. But if the one is adorned with a double name, this is the doctrine of Sabellius, who teaches that Father and Son are the same, and destroys both, the Father when he speaks of the Son, and the Son when he speaks of the Father. But if the two are one, it is necessary that they be two, but one in respect of the Godhead, and that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, and that the Word is from the Father himself; so that they are two because there is both Father and Son (which is the Word), but one because there is one God. For if it were not so, He should have said: "I am the Father," or "I and the Father am." But as it stands, in the word "I," He signifies the Son; in the words "and the Father," He signifies the begetter; and in the word "one," He signifies the one Godhead and their consubstantiality. For the same is not, as the Gentiles think, wise and wisdom, or the same is not Father and Word; for it is unfitting for Him to be His own father. But divine teaching knows Father and Son, wise and wisdom, God and Word; and yet maintains B them to be altogether indivisible, inseparable, and undistinguished in every way. 10. If anyone, hearing that the Father and Son are two, should slander us as if we were introducing two gods (for some fabricate such things for themselves, and immediately deride us with these words: "You assert two gods"), it must be said to such men: If he who acknowledges Father and Son says there are two gods, then he who believes that there is one must, by repudiating the Son, stand with Sabellius. For if the one who says there are two is a Gentile, then he who says there is one is a Sabellian. But the matter is not so; God forbid! But just as he who acknowledges Father and Son to be two confesses that there is one God, so let him who believes in one God hold that there are two, Father and Son, being one in the Godhead, and in that the Word is from Him, indivisible and undissevered and inseparable from the Father. Let us use a human example: fire and the radiance from it are indeed two in that they exist and are seen, but they are one in that D the radiance is from it and cannot be separated from it.
A 11. These men fall into the same madness as the Arians. For they too say that the Word was created for our sake, in order that He might create us; as if God were awaiting our creation, so that He might either put Him forth, according to the former, or create, according to the latter. The Arians, therefore, grant more to us than to the Son; for they say that we are not for His sake, but He for our sake—if, that is, He was created and came into being in order that God might create us through Him. But these men, with equal or even greater impiety, grant less to God than to us. For we often act even while silent, simply by thinking, in such a way that the things we think of are expressed even in images and likenesses; but these men wish that God, when silent, does nothing, but only when speaking has the power to act—if, indeed, when silent He could do nothing, and only when speaking began to create. B It is just to ask them whether the Word, when He was in God, was perfect, so as to be able to act. If He was imperfect when He was in God, and became perfect when He was begotten, then we are the cause of His perfection, if indeed He was begotten for our sake; for it is for our sake that He received the power to act. But if He was perfect in God, so as to be able to act, then His generation is superfluous; for He could create even while in the Father. Thus, either He is not begotten, or He is not begotten for our sake, but because He is always from the Father. For His generation does not indicate our creation, but that He is from God; for He existed even before we were created.
12. Furthermore, they will surely venture to say the same things about the Father. C For if the Father cannot act while silent, it is necessary that by begetting, that is, by speaking, He should have received power. And whence and through what did He receive it? But if He could act while having the Word within Himself, then He begets in vain, since He can act while silent. Furthermore, if, before He was begotten, the Word was in God, then now that He is begotten, is He outside and apart from God? If this is true, how does He now say: "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me" (John XIV, 10)? If He is now in the Father, then He was always in the Father, just as He is now; and it is futile to say that He was begotten for our sake, and to have recourse to what comes after us, in order that He might be as He was. For He was not what He is not now, nor is He now what He was not; but He is as He D always was, and exists in the same way and in the same manner. Otherwise, He will appear imperfect and mutable. For if, what He was...
To those who say that the Word was in God in silence, but was later put forth for our sake so that we might be created.
A It will be so hereafter, as if He is not now what He was and will be. I say this: If He was in God before, and will be again hereafter, it is clear that the Word is not in God now. But the Lord refutes them, saying: "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me." For thus He is now, just as He was always. And if He is so now, just as He was always, it is clear that at one time He was not being begotten, and at another time He was; nor was there at one time silence in God, and at another time He spoke; but He is always Father, and the Son is His Word—not Word by name only, nor is the Word Son by mere conception 71, but He exists as consubstantial with the Father; and He was not begotten for our sake, for we came to be for His sake. For if He was begotten for our sake, and in His being begotten we were created 72, and the creation subsists by His generation, then He reverts so that He may be what He was before. First, then, the One who was begotten will again not be being begotten. For if His procession is generation, then His retraction is the end of that generation; for when He again returns into God, God will be silent. And if He is silent, there will be what there was when He was silent: silence, and not creation; therefore, the creation will cease. For just as the creation came to be and existed when the Word went forth, so too, when the Word returns, the creation will no longer exist 73. What need then was there for it to come into being, if it is to cease? Or why did God speak, only so that He might be silent thereafter? Why did He put forth the One whom He then calls back? Why did He beget, if He willed that His generation should have an end? And what will be hereafter is uncertain. For either He will be silent forever, or He will beget again, and will conceive of another creation; for He will not make the same, for had He, the one that came into being would have remained 74; but He will conceive of another; and consequently He will end this one too, and conceive of another, and so on into infinity.
B 13. Perhaps this opinion of his stemmed from the school of the Stoics, who think that God is contracted and expanded along with created things, and that He rests infinitely. For that which is expanded is expanded from a narrow state, and that which is extended is extended from a contracted state; and this is the same thing, suffering nothing other than a certain affection. If, therefore, the Monad, having been expanded, has become a Trinity; and if the Monad is the Father, while the Trinity is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit 75—first of all, having been expanded, it evidently suffered an affection and became what it was not. For, having been expanded, it was not being broad...
A Then, if the Monad itself was expanded into a Trinity, and the Trinity is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then the same person, according to Sabellius, has become Father, Son, and Spirit, unless the Monad spoken of by him 77 is something other than the Father. It would not then have been necessary to say that it is expanded 78, but rather that the Monad is the producer of the three, so that there is a Monad, and then also a Father, and a Son, and a Spirit. For if it was expanded and extended itself, it itself would be that which was extended. And the Trinity, having been expanded, is no longer a Monad; but being a Monad, it was not yet a Trinity. And the Father, therefore, being such, was not yet Son and Spirit; but having become these, he is no longer only the Father. A man would be speaking falsely in saying these things, introducing a body to God and making him susceptible to passion; for what is expansion but a passion of that which is expanded? Or what is that which is expanded 79, if it was not such before, but happened to be narrow? For it is the same thing, differing from itself only in time 80. 14 And the divine Apostle B knew this, writing to the Corinthians: "Do not be constricted in us; be expanded also you, Corinthians." For he counsels the same people to change from narrowness into expansion. Just as if the Corinthians, having been expanded 81, were once again constricted, they would not be others, but would still be Corinthians; so if the Father were expanded into a Trinity, the Trinity would once again be the Father alone. He says the same thing again: "Our heart is expanded" 82; and Noah says: "May God expand Japheth" 87; for the same heart and the same Japheth exist in the expansion. If, therefore, the Monad expanded, it would have expanded into others; but if it itself 83 expanded 84, it itself would be that which was expanded. And what is this, if not the Son and the Holy Spirit? It would be good to ask him who speaks such things: What is the effect of such an expansion? Or, as if before the truth, why was it expanded at all? For that which does not remain, but is later expanded, must needs have a cause through C which it was both expanded and... 14 It was not unknown to the divine Apostle who writes to the Corinthians: "Do not be coangustated in us, but be ye dilated, Corinthians" 85. He was surely exhorting them to transfer themselves from narrowness into breadth. But if, having been coangustated, the Corinthians were afterwards dilated, they would not be other than the Corinthians they had always been; so if the Father were dilated into a Trinity, the Trinity would certainly be, once again, only the Father. He says the same thing again: "Our heart is dilated" 86. Noah also says: "May God dilate Japheth" 87. For it is the same heart, and the same Japheth, in the dilation. If, therefore, the Unitas dilated, it would surely be the very thing that was dilated. But what is that, if not the Son and the Holy Spirit? It will not be beside the point to ask him who feels this way, what the effect of such a dilation is, or rather (as if in the presence of truth), why the Unitas was dilated at all? For that which does not remain the same, but is afterwards dilated, must needs have a cause through
A which it was dilated. If, therefore, it was dilated so that the Word and the Spirit might be with it, it is redundant to say [it was] a Monad, and then that it was dilated. For the Word and the Spirit are not later, but eternal, lest – according to the Arians – God should be without a Word. So, if the Word and the Spirit were always, it was always dilated, and was not first a Monad. But if it was dilated later, the Word too is later. And if it was dilated on account of the assumption of humanity, and the Trinity came to be then, then before the incarnation there was not yet a Trinity. But the Father too will appear to have become flesh, if he himself, being a Monad, was dilated in man; and perhaps, hereafter, there will be [a] Monad, and flesh, and a third, the Spirit, if he himself was dilated; and it will be a Trinity by name only. But if it was dilated for the sake of creating, that is absurd. For it was possible B for the Monad, remaining itself, to do all things; for the Monad was not in need of dilation, nor was it weak before it was dilated. For this is absurd and impious to think and to say regarding God. And another absurdity will follow. For if it was dilated for the sake of creation, and while it was a Monad, there were no created things, then again it will be a Monad after the completion of the dilation, having been removed from dilation; and the creation will be removed also. For just as it was dilated for the sake of creating, so, the dilation ceasing, the creation also will cease; and the created things will likewise cease to exist.
15. These absurdities, therefore, arise from that opinion C in which the Monad is said to be dilated into a Trinity. But since those who hold such views dare to divide the Word and the Son, and to claim that the Word is one thing and the Son another, and that the Word is prior and the Son subsequent; come now, let us reflect on these things as well. Various indeed is their rashness. For some wish the man whom the Savior took upon himself to be the Son; others think that both together, namely the man and the Word, became the Son when they were joined. Others, however, consider the Word himself to have become the Son when he was made man: for they say that the Son came to be from the Word, whereas before he was not the Son, but only the Word. But both errors are Stoic, D both the saying that God is dilated and the denying of the Son. But it is very foolish that, while they acknowledge and name the Word, they deny that he is the Son. For if the Word were not from God, they might not undeservedly deny that he is the Son; but if he is from God, why do they not perceive that that which exists from something is the son of that from which it exists? Furthermore, if God is the Father of the Word, why should the Word not also be the Son of his own Father? For the Father...
is, and is called, the son of him whose father he is; and the son is, and is called, his whose father he is. If therefore God is not the Father of Christ, neither could the Word be the Son. But if God is the Father, then the Word is also rightly the Son. But if He is called Father later, while He was God in the beginning, this is the very doctrine of the Arians. Furthermore, it is absurd for God to be changed, for that is a corporeal thing; but if they imagine that in the way He became a creator of created things later, it is something to know that mutation pertains not to God, but to those things which are brought into existence later.
B 16. Therefore, if the Son were a work, he would rightly be called an effect of the Father; but if the Son is not a work, then the Father is always, and the Son is always. And if the Son is always, he must be the Word himself. For if the Word were not the Son—and someone might be bold enough to say this—he must either call the Word the Father, or the Son superior to the Word. For since the Son is in the bosom of the Father, it must be that either the Word does not exist before the Son—for there is nothing before Him who is in the Father—or, if the Word is something other than the Son, it follows that the Word would be the Father Himself, in whom the Son is. But if the Word is not the Father, but the Word, then the Word would be outside the Father, while the Son is in the bosom of the Father. For both of them, Word and Son, are not in the bosom, but it must be one, and that one the Son, who is the Only-begotten. Again, if the Word is one thing and the Son another, the Son will be found to be superior to the Word; for no one knows the Father except the Son, not the Word. Therefore, either the Word does not know, or if He knows, the statement "No one knows" is false. The same applies also to the words, "He who has seen me has seen the Father," and "I and the Father are one." For these are the sayings of the Son, and not of the Word, according to them; and this is clear from the Gospels. For according to John, when the Lord said, "I and the Father are one," the Jews took up stones to stone Him. Jesus answered them: "Many good works I have shown you from the Father; for which of these works do you stone me?" The Jews answered Him: "For a good work we do not stone you, but for blasphemy, and because you, being a man, make yourself God." Jesus answered them: "Is it not written in your law, that I said, ‘You are gods’? If He called them gods, to whom the Word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken; Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into
A the world, do you say that I blaspheme, because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though you will not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father. Yet, as far as the obvious sense is concerned, He did not say, I am God, nor that He was the Son of God, but, I and the Father are one.
17. The Jews indeed, at this word, *one*, thought that He had said He was the Father, just as Sabellius thinks. But our Savior refutes their sin with this reasoning: Even if I had said that I was God, you ought to have remembered what is written: *I said, You are gods*. Then, further explaining the words, *I and the Father are one*, He teaches that the mutual unity of the Son and the Father is indicated by these same words, when He says, *Because I said, I am the Son of God*. For although He did not express it in these words, yet He referred to the Son Himself what is signified by these words, *we are one*. Nothing is *one* with the Father, except that which B is from the Father Himself. What, then, could be from the Father Himself other than the Son? And so He concludes, *That you may know that I am in the Father, and the Father in me*. For, when explaining what this *one* was, He did not say that He is one with Him in the sense of being the same thing; rather, He spoke of their *being* in one another—He in the Father, and the Father in the Son—in which mode, evidently, they are joined together, and can never be separated. For indeed, in this place, He also overturns the error of Sabellius, since He did not say, I am the Father, but, I am the Son of God; and Arius, when He says, *We are one*. If, therefore, the Son is one thing, and the Word is another, then it is not the Word that is one with the Father, but the Son; nor does he who has seen the Word see the Father, but he who has seen the Son. Since these things are shown, either the Son is greater than the Word, or C the Word has nothing more than the Son. For what could be greater or more perfect than that which is signified by these expressions: *One*, *I in the Father, and the Father in me*, and, *He who has seen me, has seen the Father*? For these are the words of the Son. The same John therefore says: *He who has seen me, has seen Him who sent me*; and, *He who receives me, receives Him who sent me*; and, *I have come a light into the world, that everyone who believes in me may not remain in darkness*; and, *If anyone hears my words, and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world*. But the word which he hears, that will judge him at the last day, because I go to the Father. He declares that he who has not kept the commandment is to be judged by the preaching. For, He says, if I had not D come and spoken to them, they would have no sin; but now they will have no excuse, having heard my words.
by which those who keep them harvest salvation. A 18. Perhaps, then, they may shamelessly contend that these voices are not the Son’s, but the Word’s. But from what was said above, it became clear that it is the Son who is speaking. For the one who says here, "I did not come to judge the world, but to save it," is shown to be none other than the only-begotten Son of God. For John himself B says in the foregoing: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; but he who does not believe has already been judged, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil." If the one who says, "For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it," is the same one who also says, "He who sees me, sees Him who sent me," and if the One who came to save the world and not to judge it is the only-begotten Son of God, it is clear that it is the same Son who says, "He who sees me, sees Him who sent me." For even he who says, "He who believes in me," and, "If anyone hears my words, I do not judge him," is the C Son, of whom He says these things: "He who believes in Him is not judged; but he who does not believe has already been judged, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God." And again, "And this is the judgment of him who does not believe in the Son, that the light has come into the world, and they did not believe Him," that is to say, the Son. For He Himself would be the light that enlightens every man coming into the world; and as long as He remained on earth according to the incarnation, He was light in the world, as He Himself said: "While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light. For I have come as light," He says, "into the world." 19. Since this, then, has been demonstrated, it is clear that the Son is the Word. But if the Son is the light that has come into the world, then, beyond D contradiction, through the Son the world came to be.
For in the beginning of the Gospel, the Evangelist says concerning John the Baptist: A *He was not the light, but that he might bear witness of the light.* For, as we have said before, the light itself is Christ the true light, which illuminates every man coming into the world. For if He was in the world, and the world came to be through Him, it is necessary that He be the Word of God, concerning whom he also said that all things came to be through Him. For they will be forced to acknowledge either two worlds, that one B might have been made through the Son, and another through the Word; or if there is one world and one creation, it follows that the Son and the Word are one and the same before all creation, seeing that all things have been made through Him.
Therefore, if all things have been made through the Son just as they were through the Word, nothing contrary will appear, but rather it will be entirely the same to say, *In the beginning was the Word*, as to say, In the beginning was the Son. But if they say that because John did not say, In the beginning was the Son, the properties of the Word do not befit the Son, then it is time for them to say that the properties of the Son do not befit the Word. But it has been demonstrated that these words belong to the Son: *I and the Father are one*; C and *He who is in the bosom of the Father* is He; and this: *He who sees me, sees Him who sent me*. However, it is common to both the Word and the Son that the world came to be through Him, from which it is shown that the Son existed before the world; for it is necessary that the maker exist before the things that are made.
Furthermore, according to their opinion, it follows that what was said to Philip belongs not to the Word, but to the Son. For, as the Evangelist narrates, Jesus said: *So long a time I have been with you, and you have not known me, Philip? He who has seen me, has seen the Father. And how do you say, Show us the Father? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me? The words that I speak to you, I do not speak from myself; D but the Father who remains in me, He does the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me. Otherwise, because of the works themselves, believe me. Amen, amen I say to you, he who believes in me, the works that I do he also will do, and he will do greater than these, because I go to the Father. And whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.* Therefore, if the Father is glorified in the Son, then the Son is undoubtedly the one who said: *I in the Father, and the Father is in me*, and, *He who has seen me, has seen the Father*. For He himself is the one who says these things.
B 20. If, therefore, they contend that the man whom the Word bore is the only-begotten Son of God, and not the Word, then it follows that the man is he who is in the Father, and in whom the Father is; and that man would be one who is himself and the Father as one, and he who is in the bosom of the Father, and the true light. They will be forced, even by this man, to say that the world was created through him, and that the man is he who came not to judge the world, but to save it; and that he is the one who existed even before Abraham was born. For Jesus, he says, said to them: *Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am*. How, then, is it not absurd, according to them, to say that he who was born of the seed of Abraham after forty-two generations existed before Abraham was born? And how is it not absurd, if the flesh which the Word wore is the Son, to say that this is the flesh from Mary, through whom the world was made? What, then, will they say regarding the words, *He was in the world*? For the evangelist, to signify that the Son existed before he was born according to the flesh, added these words: *He was in the world*. But if the Word is not the Son, but the man is the Son, how can he save the world, when he himself is also of the world? But if they should persist in their impudence regarding these things, where will the Word be, if the man is in the Father? And what number will the Word be in relation to the Father, when the man and the Father are one? If the man is the only-begotten, what number will the Word be? For either someone will say he is the second, or, if he is above the Only-begotten, he would certainly be the Father. For just as the Father is one, so also the Only-begotten born of him is one. And what more does the Word have than the man, if the Word is not the Son? For it is written that the world was made through the Son and the Word, and it is common to the Word and the Son to create the world; but that it is the Father who is seen is not written as being through the Word, but through the Son; and that the world is saved is said to be not through the Word, but through the only-begotten Son. For, he says, Jesus said: *Have I been so long a time with you, and you have not known me, Philip? He that seeth me, seeth the Father*. And it is not written that the Word knows the Father, but the Son; nor is it said that the Word sees the Father, but the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father.
21. Furthermore, does the Word contribute more to our salvation than the Son, if, according to them, the Son is one thing and the Word is another? For the command is that we believe not in the Word, but in the Son.
A For John says: *He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not believe in the Son shall not see life.* Furthermore, holy baptism, in which the constitution of our whole faith is placed, is not given into the Word, but into the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. If, therefore, according to them, the Word is one thing and the Son is another, and the Word is not the Son, then baptism has nothing to do with the Word. How then is the Word, according to them, together with the Father, when in the giving of baptism he is not together with Him? But perhaps they will answer that the Word is contained in the name of the Father. Why then not also the Spirit? Or does the Spirit exist outside the Father? Then, if the Word is not the Son, man will have to be named after the Father, and the Spirit after man; and the unity, according to their opinion, will no longer expand into a Trinity, but into a Quaternity, namely, into the Father, the Word, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. B But shame compels them to flee to another refuge. They say, therefore, that it is not the man—whom the Lord bore—separately, but both together, both the Word and the man, that is the Son: for, as they say, both joined together are called the Son. Who then of the two is the cause of the other? Which of them made the other the Son? Or, to speak more plainly, is the Word the Son because of the flesh? Or is the flesh called the Son because of the Word? Or rather, is neither the cause of the other being called Son, but only the meeting of both? But if they answer that the Word is the Son because of the flesh, then certainly the flesh must necessarily be the Son; from which answer all those absurdities will follow which have been said above to arise from the opinion of those who affirm that the man is the Son. But if the flesh is called the Son because of the Word, then the Word was the Son even before the flesh. For how can it be that he makes others sons, who is not himself a son, especially when a father exists? Truly, if he makes himself also a son—or rather, if he himself is the true Son—then he must necessarily be named Father; if [he is] to the Father, he must be the Son. C But he [is] himself [the Son] above all, because of whom other sons are made.
22. But if he is not the Son, and we are sons, God will be the Father of both, not his [the Son's] but ours. Why then does He claim this for Himself as something proper in these words, *My Father*, and, *I came forth from the Father*? For if He is the common Father of all, He is not his Father alone, nor did he alone come forth from the Father. Sometimes, however, He teaches that He is also called our Father, on account of His communion with our flesh. For this reason the Word was made flesh, so that, because the Word is the Son, by means of the Son who dwells in us He might also be called our Father. For, He says, D He sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba, Father." Therefore, the Son who is in us...
calling upon His own Father, causes Him to be called our Father as well. Indeed, those in whose hearts the Son is not, God cannot even be called their Father. If, therefore, the human being is called "Son" because of the Word, it is A absolutely necessary that, since the ancients were also called sons before the Incarnation, the Word was Son even before His coming. For He says: "I have begotten sons" (Isa. 1:2); and in the story of Noah: "The sons of God saw" (Gen. 6:2); and in the Canticle: "Is not He Himself thy Father?" (Deut. 32:6). Consequently, the true Son, for whose sake they also were sons, already existed. But if, according to them, neither of these is the Son, but He is constituted by the union of both, then of necessity neither is the Son—I mean neither the Word nor the human—but some cause exists for which they were joined. And thus the cause of the union, which makes the Son, will be prior. Therefore, from this answer it also follows that the Son existed before the flesh.
But when these things have been demonstrated, they seek another escape: namely, they say that it is not the human being nor both together that is the Son, but the Word, who in the beginning was merely B Word; and when He became human, He was then named "Son." For before the manifestation, they say, He was not Son, but Word only. And just as the Word became flesh, not being flesh before, so the Word became Son, not being Son before. These are their absurdities, but they have an evident refutation.
23. For if, in general, the becoming human is the cause of His having become Son, and if the human being, or the union of both, is the cause of His being Son, then the same absurdities will follow. Next, if He was Word first and Son later, He will appear to have known the Father later and not before. For He does not know as Word, but as Son. For no one knows the Father except the Son (Matth. 11:27). It will also follow from C this that it was later that He came to be in the bosom of the Father, and later that He and the Father became one, and later that "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). For all these things were said of the Son. From these points, they will be compelled to say that the Word was nothing, but a mere name only. For neither was He with the Father in us, nor did he who saw the Word see the Father, nor was the Father known to anyone at all; for the Father is known through the Son; for thus it is also written: "And to whomsoever the Son shall reveal him" (Matth. 11:27). But if the Word was not yet Son, then no one yet knew the Father. How then did He appear to Moses? How then did He appear to the fathers? For He Himself says in the Books of Kings: "I was revealed unto all the fathers of you." But if God was revealed, it is manifest D that it was the revealing Son who was the revealer, as He Himself says: "And to whomsoever the Son shall reveal..."
It is therefore both impious and foolish to say that the Word is one thing A and the Son is another. And it is well to ask whence they have derived such a notion. They say, indeed, that it is because there is no mention in the Old Testament of the Son, but only of the Word, and B for this reason they maintain that the Son is posterior to the Word, because it was not in the Old, but in the New Testament alone that He was spoken of. Those men speak impiously. For, in the first place, to divide the Testaments, and not to hold one to be consequent upon the other, is the practice of Manichaeans and Jews, of whom the former oppose the Old Testament, the latter the New. Then, according to them, if the things that exist in the Old Testament are prior in time, and those which are contained in the New Testament are more recent, and if times are judged by the Scriptures, then of necessity those things must be more recent: "I and the Father are one," and "the Only-begotten," and "He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father"; for these things are not testified from the Old Testament, but from the New.
C 24. But it is not so; for in truth, even in the Old Testament, many things are said about the Son: as in the second Psalm, "You are my Son, this day I have begotten you"; and in the ninth, the inscription, "Unto the end, concerning the hidden things of the Son, a Psalm of David"; and in the forty-fourth, "Unto the end, for them that shall be changed, to the sons of Core, for understanding, a song for the Beloved"; and in Isaiah, "I will sing to my beloved a song of the Beloved concerning my vineyard; a vineyard was made for the Beloved." And who would the Beloved be, if not the only-begotten Son? As also in the hundred and ninth Psalm, "From the womb, before the morning star, I have begotten you," D of whom there will be opportunity to speak later. And in Proverbs, "Before all the hills He begets me"; and in Daniel, "And the appearance of the fourth is like the Son of God," and many other things. If, therefore, antiquity is sought from the Old Testament, it must surely be confessed that the Son is ancient, since He is commemorated in many places of the Old Testament. "It is so," they say, "but these things were spoken prophetically." Therefore, those things concerning the Word were likewise spoken prophetically. For one thing is not said prophetically, and another thing not. For if these words, "You are my Son," signify something in the future, it is evident that the word, "By the Word of the Lord the heavens were established," is also to be understood in the same way.
For he did not say, "they were made," nor "he made." But that the word "he established" is to be understood of the future, he says: "The Lord has reigned," then, "For he has established the inhabited world, which shall not be shaken." A And if what is in the forty-fourth Psalm, "For the Beloved," pertains to the future, it is evident that what follows, "My heart has brought forth a good Word," pertains to it also. And if "from the womb" denotes a human being, then so does "from the heart." For if the womb is something human, then the heart [(67)] is also something corporeal. But if what is poured forth from the heart is eternal, then that which is born from the womb must also be understood as eternal. Similarly, if the Only-begotten is in the bosom, the Beloved is also in the bosom. For the Only-begotten and the Beloved are the same, as in the text, "This is my beloved Son." For he did not wish to signify the love toward him [(68)] when he said "Beloved," lest he seem to hate others; but he was indicating the Only-begotten, that he might show him to be the only one from himself. And thus, when the Word wished to signify the only-begotten to Abraham [(69)], he says: "Offer your son, the beloved one." It is clear to everyone that Isaac alone was born of Sarah. B Therefore, the Word is Son, not having become or been named Son just now, but is always Son. For if he is not Son, he is not Word either; and if he is not Word, he is not Son. For that which is from the Father is Son. And what is from the Father if not the Word, who came forth from the heart, and was begotten from the womb? For the Father is not the Word, nor is the Word the Father; but the one is Father, and the other is Son; and the one begets, and the other is begotten.
25. Arius is certainly insane when he says the Son is from things that are not, and that there was a time when he was not. Sabellius is likewise insane when he teaches that the Father is the Son, and conversely that the Son is the Father, one in hypostasis but two in name; C he is insane also in using as proof [(71)] the grace of the Spirit; for he says [(72)]: "As there are divisions of gifts, but the same Spirit; so the Father is the same, but is stretched out into Son and Spirit." This is full of absurdity. For if the case is the same for God [(73)] as it is for the Spirit, then the Father will be Word and Holy Spirit, at one time becoming [(74)] Father, at another Word, at another Spirit, adapting himself to the need of each; and he would be Son and Spirit only in name, but in reality only Father, having a beginning to his becoming Son, and ceasing to be called Father; and [(75)] having become man in name, but in truth not having dwelt among us; D who by his mere
falsity speaks, saying, *I and the Father* (for he who indeed is the Father himself says this), and all other absurdities that follow the error of Sabellius. A Necessarily also the name of the Son and of the Spirit will vanish, once its use is completed; and henceforth what has been done will be nothing but a game, since it did not exist in truth but only in name. But if, according to their opinion, the name of the Son is deleted, the grace of baptism will also vanish, since it was given into the Son. What indeed will follow from this, except the destruction of created things? For if the Word went forth so that we might be created, and we exist because he went forth: certainly, as he returns to the Father, as they say, we shall cease to exist. For he will be as he was before; likewise, we shall be nothing now, just as we were nothing before. For if he does not go forth any longer, no created thing will exist.
26. But these things are indeed most absurd. That the Son had no beginning of existence, but has always existed with the Father even before the human nature was assumed, is evident from these words of the first Epistle of John: *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, and bear witness, and announce unto you the eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us.* B Here, when John says that the life was not made but was with the Father, at the end of the Epistle he declares that the Son is this very life, in these words: *And we are in the true One, in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.* If then the Son is the life that is with the Father, since the same John says, *And the Word was with God*, it follows that the Son is in reality the Word who is always with the Father. And as the Son is the Word, so God himself is the Father. Moreover, according to John, the Son is not only God, but true God. For as the same John says, *And the Word was God*; the Son likewise says, *I am the life.* C Therefore the Son is the Word and the life which is with the Father. Again, what is read in the same John, *The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father*, is an argument that the Son has always been. For him whom John calls the Son, the same David calls his hand in these words of the Psalm: *Why dost thou turn thy hand and thy right hand from the midst of thy bosom?* D Wherefore, if the hand is in the bosom, and if he whom John calls the Son is the same as he whom he calls the Word and the life—for John says that the only-begotten Son is in the bosom of the Father—it is clear that the Son is always in the Father.
A
The Son is likewise in the bosom; the Son therefore is himself the hand, and the hand in turn is the Son, through whom the Father made all things. For your hand, he says, has made all these things [note: Isa. LXVI, 2], and, with his hand he led out the people [note: Deut. VII, 8]—that is, through the Son. Again, if this [is] the change of the right hand of the Most High [note: Psal. LXXVI, 11]; and again, for the end, for those who shall be changed, a song for the Beloved [note: Psal. XLIV, 1]—the Beloved is therefore the hand that was changed, concerning whom the divine voice also speaks: This is my Son, the Beloved [note: Matth. III, 17]. Therefore, "my hand" and "This is my Son" are the same thing.
B 27. Furthermore, because some ignorant persons, denying that he is the Son, make light of these words, *From the womb before the morning star I have begotten you*, wishing them to be understood as referring to Mary, and claiming that he was begotten from Mary before the morning star; and because they say that it is not fitting to speak of a womb in the case of God—it is necessary to say a few things about this. If, therefore, because the womb is something human, they wish on that account to exclude it from God, undoubtedly "heart" also signifies something human. For whoever has a heart must necessarily also have a womb or belly. Since both of these are members of human beings, one must either do away with both, or search for the meaning of both. For just as the Word proceeds from the heart, so the offspring arises from the womb. C And just as, when a heart is attributed to God, we do not conceive of it in a human way; so if Scripture uses this expression, *from the womb*, it is not to be understood as something bodily. For it is the custom of divine Scripture to express and signify things that are above man in a human manner. Indeed, speaking of creation, it says: *Your hands have made me and fashioned me* [note: Psal. CXVIII, 73]; and, *My hand has made all these things* [note: Isa. LXVI, 2]; and, *He commanded, and they were created* [note: Psal. CXLVIII, 5]. Therefore, it appropriately signifies in each case: concerning the Son, what is his own and genuine; but concerning creation, the beginning of its existence. D For it makes and creates the one, but it begets the Word, the Wisdom, from itself. For "womb" and "heart" signify what is proper and genuine. Indeed, we ourselves have what is genuine from the womb, but we accomplish our works by hand.
28. What then, they say, [is meant by] *before the morning star*? To which I would answer: if they think that by these words, *before the morning star*, his miraculous birth from Mary is signified, many others were born before the rising of that star. What then is there to wonder at in this saying, that he mentions it as something exceptional, when it is common to many? Then, too, to beget is different from to bring forth. For to beget is to begin to produce something; but to bring forth is nothing other than to draw out what already exists. If, therefore, in the case of the body...
A this phrase is appropriate, it must be known that it did not then begin its generation when it was announced to the shepherds at night, but when the angel spoke to the Virgin. And it was not night at that time; for it is not said that it was night when he came forth from the womb. Scripture observes this distinction, and says that he was begotten "before the morning star," while it calls his coming forth from the womb the "proceeding," as in the twenty-first Psalm: "Thou art he that drew me out of the womb." Furthermore, it did not say "before the rising of the morning star," but simply "before the morning star." If, therefore, the text is to be understood of the body, it must be that the body existed before Adam; for the stars existed before Adam. Or else we must seek the meaning of the letter, which we can obtain from John; for in the Apocalypse he says: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. Blessed are they that wash their robes, that their power may be upon the tree of life, and that they may enter the city through the gates. Without are dogs, and sorcerers, and fornicators, and murderers, and idolaters, and every one who makes and loves a lie. I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify these things to you 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 hears say, Come; and let him that thirsts come; and let him that wills take the water of life freely." If, therefore, the offspring of David is that "bright and morning star," it is evident that the Savior himself, in that he is flesh, is called the morning star, before whom he existed, in that he is begotten of God; so that the meaning of the Psalm is: "Out of myself have I begotten thee before thy appearance in the flesh." For the words, "before the morning star," are equivalent to these: "before the incarnation of the Word." C
29. It is therefore evident that the Old Testament also makes mention of the Son. But it is altogether superfluous to contend about these matters. For if those who are so stubborn wish to maintain that things not found in the Old Testament are newer, let them answer where in the Old Testament mention is made of the Paraclete Spirit? It makes mention, indeed, of the Holy Spirit, but nowhere of the Paraclete. Is the Holy Spirit, then, one thing, and the Paraclete another, and the Paraclete a newer thing, D since he is not in the Old Testament?
A Verily, let it not be said that the Spirit is newer; nor let one divide him and say that the Holy Spirit is one thing and the Paraclete another. For the Spirit is one and the same, both then and now sanctifying and consoling those who are receptive to him, just as the Word himself, the Son, was also then leading the worthy into adoption as children. For there were indeed children in the Old Testament, who attained this dignity through none other than the Son. If the Son of God did not exist before Mary, how is he before all things, when there were children before him? How, then, is he also the Firstborn, if he is found to be after many? But neither is the Paraclete posterior, for he was before all things; nor is the Son newer; for "In the beginning was the Word." And as the Spirit and the Paraclete are the same, so are the Son and the Word the same. And as the Savior says concerning the Spirit: "But the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name," saying the same thing and not dividing them; so John, describing the same thing, says: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father." B And here, too, he did not divide them, but declared their identity. And it is not that the Paraclete is one thing and the Holy Spirit another, but they are one and the same; so too, the Word is not one thing and the Son another, but the Word is the Only-Begotten. For he did not speak of the glory of the flesh itself, but of the Word himself. Whoever, therefore, dares to divide the Word and the Son, let him also divide the Spirit and the Paraclete. But if the Spirit is indivisible, the Word—being the same as the Son, and wisdom, and power—is also indivisible. Moreover, even the Greeks, who are skilled in language, know that to say "Only-Begotten" C is the same as saying "beloved." For Homer says, regarding Telemachus, the only-begotten son of Odysseus, these words in the second book of the Odyssey:
Telemachus, why, my dear child, do you revolve this in your mind? Why do you desire to go over much land, Being the only beloved one? But the godlike Odysseus has perished far from his fatherland, In the land of strangers.
Thus, he who is loved alone by his father is called "beloved" [or "only-begotten"].
30. Some of those from Samosata, dividing the Word from the Son, maintain that the Son is Christ, but that the Word is something else; and they take as their pretext for this error the words from the Acts, which... D
Peter rightly brought forth, but which they interpret perversely; A they are as follows: “The Word sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ: this is the Lord of all.” For they assert that the Word spoke through Christ just as He did through the prophets, saying: “Thus saith the Lord,” as though the prophet were one person and the Lord another. But to this it is B appropriate to set against them the passage from the first Epistle to the Corinthians: “Waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall also confirm you unto the end blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.” For just as it is not one Christ who confirms the day of another Christ, but He Himself who confirms those who are waiting in His own day, so the Father sent the Word made flesh, that having become man He might preach through Himself. Hence he rightly adds, “This is the Lord of all”: and the Word is the Lord of all.
31. “And Moses said to Aaron: Approach the altar, and perform the sacrifice C for your sin, and offer your burnt offering, and pray for yourself and for your house, and perform the gifts of the people, and pray for them, as the Lord commanded Moses.” See here, although Moses is one, yet he himself speaks as though of another Moses, “As the Lord commanded Moses.” Thus, therefore, even if the blessed Peter says that the divine Word was sent to the children of Israel through Jesus Christ, it is not on this account to be thought that the Word is one thing and Christ another, but that He is one and the same, on account of His union, clearly, with the human nature D which He assumed by His divine kindness and mercy; and while He may be understood in a twofold way, it is not in such a way that the Word is conceived as separate, just as the divine John teaches when he says, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” Therefore, since the disciples of Samosata understand perversely and wrongly that which was clearly and rightly spoken by the blessed Peter, it is plain that they do not stand in the truth. For Christ in Sacred Scripture is signified to be both, as when it is said, “Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.” Wherefore, when Peter says the Word was sent to the children of Israel through Jesus Christ, let this be understood to signify that the Word made flesh appeared to the children of Israel, so that it may be in harmony with John who says, “And the Word was made flesh.” But if they explain that saying otherwise, and that the divine Word is, as it
A is in truth, confessed to be divine, they separate from it the man assumed by it, to whom it is believed to be united, saying that he was sent through Jesus Christ, not perceiving that they are uttering things contrary to themselves. For those who here separate [the Word] from the divine incarnation, holding Him to be divine, consider Him to be lessened when they hear that He became flesh; and thus they think as the pagans do, just as in fact they do think, suspecting the divine incarnation to be a change of the Word.
32. But it is not so: far from it! For just as John here preaches the ineffable union, since the mortal was swallowed up by life, and by Him who is life itself, as the Lord said to Martha, “I am the life” (24); so also when the blessed Peter says that the Word was sent through Jesus Christ, he signifies His divine union. For just as one who hears the words, “The Word was made flesh,” would not thereby suppose that the Word no longer exists—which is absurd, as has been said—so also he who hears of the Word united to the flesh ought to understand it as a divine, one, and simple mystery. B And more clearly and indisputably than any reasoning, the words spoken by the archangel to the Theotokos (27) herself will demonstrate the unity of the divine Word and man. For he says (28), “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore also the holy thing which is to be born (29) will be called the Son of God.” Foolishly, therefore, do the Samosatenes divide the Word, when it is clear from these words that He was united to the man assumed out of Mary. Therefore He was not sent through him; but [God] sent in him, when He said, “Go, make disciples of all nations.”
33. It is the custom of Scripture simply and without ornamentation to express its words. For thus also in the book of Numbers one will find: “And Moses,” he says, “said to Raguel the Midianite, the father-in-law of Moses” (31). C For it was not one Moses who was speaking, and another whose father-in-law Raguel was, but Moses was one (32). For if the Word of God is likewise named Wisdom, and Power, and Right Hand, and Arm, and such things; and if He has kindly united Himself to us, putting on our first-fruits, and being mixed with them (33), then the Word Himself has justly and deservedly obtained the rest of the names. For when John says (34) that in the beginning [he was the Word],
and that he was with God, and was God, and that all things were made by him, and without him nothing was made, he clearly shows that man also is a work of the Word of God. If, therefore, he took upon himself man who had become corrupt, in order to refashion him by His own sure renewal so that he might remain forever, and for this reason He was united to him to raise him to a more divine state, how can it be said that the Word was sent by the man taken from Mary? And how can one number the Lord of the Apostles among the other apostles, namely the prophets, who were sent by Him? Or can a mere man be called Christ? Certainly not; but when united to the Word, he may justly and deservedly be called Christ and Son of God, the prophet clearly proclaiming the Father’s substance concerning Him long ago, and saying: "And I will send my Son, the Christ." B And at the Jordan also this voice was heard: "This is my beloved Son." For having fulfilled the promise, He rightly showed that this is He whom He had said He would send.
54. We understand, therefore, that Christ is the divine Word united to the man taken from Mary, in Mary. For in her womb the Word fashioned for Himself a house, just as He had fashioned Adam from the earth of old—or rather, in a more divine way, concerning which Solomon also speaks, knowing that the Word is called Wisdom, saying clearly: "Wisdom hath built herself a house," which the Apostle interpreting says, "whose C house we are," and elsewhere he calls it a temple, inasmuch as it is fitting for God to dwell in a temple; the figure of which He had commanded the ancient fathers through Solomon to build of stones: whence, the truth having appeared, the figure ceased. For since the faithless Jews wished the figure to be the truth itself, and to overturn the true building, which we faithfully believe to be the union of the Word with human nature, the Lord threatened them with nothing; but since He knew well that their rashness would recoil upon themselves, He said this to them: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." By which words the Savior clearly showed that the works of men are dissolved by themselves and of their own accord. For "unless the Lord build the house, and keep the city, in vain do they labor who build, and they watch who keep it." D Therefore, that which was of the Jews has been utterly dissolved, since it was only a shadow; but the Church has been established, for it is founded upon the rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It was theirs to say, "How do you, being a man, make yourself God?" Of these, the disciple…
Samosatensis; hence he rightly reports to his own people what is from him. But we have not learned Christ in this way, if indeed we have heard him and have been taught by him, having put off the old man which is corrupted according to the desires of error, and having put on the new man which is created according to God in righteousness and holiness of truth (47). Christ therefore should be piously understood as comprising both.
B 55. Moreover, Scripture often calls Christ his own body, as when the blessed Peter, teaching Cornelius (48) about Jesus of Nazareth, whom God anointed with the Holy Spirit; and again to the Jews, Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God among you; and again the blessed (49) Paul to the Athenians: "In a man, whom he has ordained, having given faith to all, by raising him from the dead." Thus, we frequently find that the designation and the mission (50) are the same thing as the anointing; from which it is permitted to him who wishes to learn that there is no disagreement in the words of the saints, but they designate the union of the Word of God with the man from Mary in different ways, sometimes calling it anointing, sometimes mission, and at other times (52) designation. What is therefore said by the blessed Peter is correct (53), and proclaims the divinity of the Only-begotten in its purity, not separating the hypostasis of the Word of God from the man from Mary—far be it! For who would dare to do that, who has frequently heard, "I and the Father are one," and, "He who has seen me has seen the Father"? Hence, also after the resurrection, the same body entered in to the whole company of the apostles while the doors were shut; C and so that this might not seem incredible to anyone, he removed the difficulty by saying, "Touch me and see, for a spirit has not flesh and bones, as you see me having" (55). He did not say, "Touch this one, or the man whom I assumed," but "Touch me." Hence, the Samosatene will be able to find no pardon, being refuted by so many arguments regarding the union of the Word of God; and by the Word of God himself, who is now offering the inquiry to all, and confirming it by both allowing them to eat and to touch him, which indeed also happened. For in any case, the one who was giving the food, or those who were giving it, touched his hands. "For they gave him," he says, "a piece of broiled fish, and of a honey D comb" (56), and having eaten before them, taking the rest he gave to them.
Behold then, if not as he acted toward Thomas, yet he certainly provided them with certainty by another method, by offering himself to be touched. But if you also wish to see the scars (57), learn from Thomas, to whom the Lord says, "Reach hither thy hand, and thrust it A into my side, and reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands" (58). God the Word, calling his own side and hands his own, shows himself to be entirely both man (59) and God at once, at that moment granting to the holy ones the perception of the Word through the body, as it is possible to understand, by having entered when the doors were shut; and immediately standing present with the body, he provided the certainty. Let these things be said moderately to the faithful for confirmation, and to the unbelievers for correction.
56. Let Paul of Samosata also be corrected (60), having become an auditor of the divine voice of the Savior, when he says, "My body," and not "Christ who is another (61) besides me who am the Word," but "he is with me, and I with him." For I, the Word, am the anointing, and that which is anointed by me is the man; therefore, Christ would by no means be called so without me, but because he is with me and I am in him. The mission, therefore, of the Word being signified, denotes the union with Jesus from Mary, who is interpreted as Savior, for no other reason than that he is united to the Word of God. The same passage signifies the same thing as these words, "The Father who sent me" (62), and, "I have not come of myself, but the Father sent me" (63). For the union with man, with whom it was possible for the invisible nature to be known to men through the visible, he called a mission. For God surely does not change places (64), as we do who hide ourselves in places, being shown by the fashion of our smallness through the existence which is in the flesh (65); for how would he do so, he who fills heaven and earth? But for the sake of his presence in the flesh, the righteous used the word mission. Therefore, God the Word is the same. Christ then is the God-man from Mary; Christ is not some other, but one and the same; he who is before ages from the Father, he who in the last days is sprung from the Virgin; invisible before (67) even to the holy powers in heaven, but visible now because of the union with the seen man; seen, I say, not by the invisible divinity, but by the operation of the divinity through the human (68) body and the whole man.
man, whom he renewed by the communion he has with himself. To him be honor and adoration, who was A of old, and is now, and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.
NOTICE ON THE SUBSEQUENT EPISTLES OF SAINT ATHANASIUS TO SERAPION
512-515. I. The following epistles of St. Athanasius to Serapion, Bishop of Thmuis, were written by the holy Doctor in the desert at the invitation and urging of Serapion himself, as is evident from the first epistle, numbers 1 and 33, and indeed after the Orations against the Arians, as one may conjecture from these words of the first epistle, number 2: "Therefore, this thought is indeed not foreign to the Arians. For once having denied the Word of God, they reasonably utter the same blasphemies also against His Spirit. Therefore, there is no need to say any more to them; for what has been said against them before is sufficient." Thus, such a position is by no means foreign to the Arians. For since they have once dared to deny the Word of God, they rightly utter impious lies about His Spirit as well. Wherefore, it is not necessary to say more against them, for what has been said against them earlier should be sufficient. In these epistles, therefore, St. Athanasius disputes against certain men who had indeed departed from the Arians and confessed that the Son is truly God, yet held impious views concerning the Holy Spirit—wishing Him to be a created thing, and one of the ministering spirits, differing from the angels only in rank, as is stated in number 1 of the first epistle. Hence Athanasius B aptly says that their conflict with the Arians is feigned, and that they are in reality adversaries of the true faith. For the Arians defended both errors—namely, that both the Son and the Spirit are created things—as we have just seen, and as the holy Doctor declares elsewhere throughout, for example in Oration III against the Arians, page 447, number 15. But from this it came about that they were hated by the Arians, because they would not admit the Son to be a created thing, as is narrated in number 32 of that same first epistle, nor were they accepted by the orthodox, because they denied that the Holy Spirit is truly God. These men were further called "Tropici," as St. Athanasius often calls them, as in numbers 10 and 32 of the first epistle, because they wished to interpret as metaphors and tropes those places in Holy Scripture which the orthodox used in defending the divinity of the Holy Spirit. However, these men do not appear to be the same as the Macedonians. For it is indicated in number 1 and elsewhere that those men held correct views regarding the Son; but the Macedonians were unwilling for the Son to be consubstantial with the Father, but merely "similar," as Theodoret reports in *Hæreticarum fabularum* book IV, number 5, and *Historia ecclesiastica* book II, chapter 6.
II. Those epistles exist in a very disordered and perverse arrangement in the previously published works of St. Athanasius. For that which ought to be the first is the second; that which ought to be the second occupies the first place. Nay, the latter part of the second epistle exists in the second volume, while the former part of the same is in the first volume. Similarly, the latter part of the last epistle is placed in the first volume, but the former part in the second. But with the aid of the manuscripts, we have restored them individually to their proper order, as follows. The first, indeed, is that which begins, "The letter of yours," etc., which, when some of the brethren desired to have it reduced to an epitome, Serapion requested of Athanasius that he might not be burdened to effect this. And this was the cause of the holy Doctor writing the second epistle to the same, the beginning of which is, "I indeed thought," etc. In the first part of this, he briefly defends the divinity of the Word against the Arians: in the other part, which he begins with these words, "Perhaps you will wonder," etc., he summarizes the first epistle. For it appears that these are not strictly different epistles, but merely two parts of the same epistle, which copyists later divided as if they were distinct epistles. For he does not begin the latter part as if it were another epistle; rather, he excuses himself that, having been asked to summarize the first epistle concerning the Holy Spirit, he had first discoursed upon the divinity of the Son. Moreover, at the beginning of the second epistle he writes that he has accomplished therein what Serapion had requested, namely, that he would wish to encompass the first—which seemed somewhat wordier—in fewer words: which, since he has accomplished this only in this second part of which we speak, it is clear that this is not a new epistle, but only the latter part of the second epistle. Hence, even in most of the more excellent manuscript codices, a note is inscribed at the beginning of the second epistle stating that it is an epitome of the first, which would certainly be alien to the truth if its other part were a distinct epistle.
III. Nor did it befall only the second epistle to be split into two, but the same also happened to the last, which
as it is found in the Globerian and Felckmanni codices, was likewise split into two epistles. But although it seems to us to be established that this is the state of affairs, yet, since the second epistle is distinguished as two epistles in all the manuscript codices we have seen, we have not dared to join them together, but have divided it just as it is held in the manuscripts themselves.
IV. A Felckmannus judged the second epistle, or its first part, which discourses on the Son, to be a synopsis of the Orations against the Arians. But the manuscript codices, which observe it to be an epitome of the first epistle to Serapion, stand against this opinion, as does the very beginning of the same, where St. Athanasius mentions only the first, which he says in this second one he had abridged at the request of Serapion, and with no brothers desiring it. We do not deny, however, that the principal arguments, which are set forth more fully in the Orations against the Arians, are treated here in a strict and concise manner; but we maintain that that work, which he says at the beginning of the second epistle he had reduced into an epitome, is none other than the first epistle to Serapion.
V. B Finally, the last epistle begins, *'Evétuyov xαὶ τῇ*, etc. C The latter part of this, however, or as it were an appendix, is a treatise on the words of Matthew, *Whosoever shall speak*, etc., which has been wrongly separated from it in editions published thus far. For not only does it immediately follow this epistle in all the manuscript codices, but it is also correctly joined to it without any title in the Regius and Seguerianus copies of excellent quality, and the very words of Matthew are brought in only in the margin, as is done in other places as well. In the Globerianus and the first of Felckmanni, however, this inscription is placed before it as if it were a new epistle: *Πρὸς τὸν αὐτὸν Σερapίωνα*. Indeed, since St. Athanasius had cited these words of the Gospel against the adversaries in the first epistle, 516, number 3, and at the end of the latter part of the second, Serapion asked him to interpret that passage and explain why he who has sinned against the Holy Spirit is to be punished more severely than he who has sinned against the Son; to which request, though, as he writes, he was much reluctant, he satisfied him at the end of this last epistle.
VI. We shall not dwell long on refuting the precipitous and altogether iniquitous judgment of Erasmus concerning the first epistle to Serapion. "Saving," says he, "the judgment of learned men, which is held in high regard, I consider this work to be that of an idle man, endowed with no talent, who wished to imitate the booklets of divine Athanasius to Serapion. This is a wondrous heap of places and a confusion of arguments, and a most annoying repetition of things once said." Scultetus and Rivetus rashly subscribe to the same opinion, with no other arguments brought forward, except that Rivetus adds that there is cited in that epistle a passage from Micah, which is nowhere to be found, namely, *The house of Jacob has provoked the Spirit of the Lord*. But he is very much hallucinating; for that is the seventh verse of the second chapter of Micah according to the Greek version.
VII. D How vain and reckless is an opinion of this kind of theirs is proved by all the manuscript codices whatsoever, in which, indeed, it is attributed to St. Athanasius by great consensus. Moreover, whoever has been even slightly versed in the reading of St. Athanasius will easily recognize the method, the diction, and the very words of the holy Doctor in that epistle. For he does not discourse otherwise here than in his other works, for example, in the Orations against the Arians, in which he accumulates testimonies of Scripture from all sides to defend the divinity of the Son. For since both the Arians and the Tropici admitted the same Scriptures as the orthodox, whence, I ask, could he bring forward stronger arguments than from these divine books? Nor does he repeat the same things more frequently here than elsewhere, which he himself is accustomed to warn should be a nuisance to no one. Finally, since those same men agree that the later part of the second epistle, which is an epitome of the first, is Athanasius's, it is truly very strange that they should dare to repudiate this one. But of these things, enough and more than enough. For it is so clear that this first epistle is truly Athanasius's that for anyone examining the matter seriously, no suspicion can arise to call it into doubt.
VIII. Cardinal Perronius in book 11 *De Eucharistia*, and some others, have denied that the last part or appendix of the final epistle, namely the *Treatise on the words of Matthew, Whosoever shall speak*, etc., is the true work of St. Athanasius. But those things which were said a little earlier, in numbers III and V, show most openly that it is his genuine offspring. Add that in the Lateran Council under Martin I, page 304, three passages from this treatise are cited as from a true work of St. Athanasius.
OF OUR HOLY FATHER ATHANASIUS, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, EPISTLE TO SERAPION, BISHOP OF THMUIS
Against those who blaspheme and say that the Holy Spirit is a created thing.
1. A I have received the letters of your holy charity in the desert. For although a bitter persecution was pressing upon us, and there was a great searching by those who were seeking to slay us, yet the “Father of mercies and God of all consolation” (2 Cor. 1:3), has comforted us through your letters. For as I recalled your disposition and that of all my genuine friends, I seemed to see them present with me then. Therefore, I was greatly rejoiced upon receiving your letters; but I had scarcely finished reading them when I began again to grieve severely, moved by the perversity of those who have once and for all set their minds to fight against the truth. For you wrote, beloved and truly most desired one, being yourself also grieved, that some had stepped forth from the ranks of the Arians B—
[Note: The remaining text on this page consists of the critical apparatus (footnotes 71, 72, 73) describing manuscript variations, which is omitted per instructions.]
the Arians — A detesting the heresy against the Son of God, while at the same time holding blasphemous opinions against the Holy Spirit, and saying that He is not only a creature, but even one of the ministering spirits, and that He differs from the angels only in degree. This is, toward the Arians, a feigned battle; but it is a true contradiction against the pious faith. For just as they, by denying the Son, deny also the Father; so too these men, by blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, blaspheme also against the Son. And both parties have divided the resistance against the truth, so that some, holding opinions against the Word, and others against the Spirit, may have the same blasphemy against the holy Trinity. Seeing these things, then, and pondering much within myself, I have fallen into great sorrow, because the devil has again found an opportunity to play among those who pretend to share his madness; and I had judged that I should remain silent B at such a time; but because of the exhortation of your holiness, and because of their heterodoxy and satanic audacity, I have with difficulty written this letter, having been able to do even this only with labor—that you might take an occasion from these points, according to the discernment you possess, to add what is lacking, so that the refutation against this impious heresy may be complete.
2. Therefore, this opinion is by no means foreign to the Arians. For once having dared to deny the Word of God, they naturally utter the same impious lies regarding His Spirit. Wherefore it is not necessary to say more against them, but what has been said before against them ought to suffice. But regarding those who, being deceived, hold false opinions about the Holy Spirit, it is fitting to reply to them in a certain way, or rather, as they themselves would say, by a "trope" C. For truly their madness might seem astonishing, in that those who do not wish the Son of God to be a creature—and they do well, indeed, to hold this opinion—how could they even hear that the Spirit of the Son is a creature? D
For if, because of the unity of the Word with the Father, they do not wish the Son to be one of the things that have come to be, but—as is truly the case—judge him to be the creator of all things, why do they say that the Holy Spirit, who has the same unity toward the Son as the Son has toward the Father, is a creature? A They have failed to realize that, just as those who do not divide the Son from the Father preserve the unity of God, so those who divide the Spirit from the Word no longer preserve the one divinity in the Trinity; they tear it apart, and by introducing an alien and different nature into it, they make it equal to created things. Furthermore, this does not show that the Trinity is one, but rather that it is composed of two different natures, because of the "hetero-ousia" (difference of being) of the Spirit, as they have invented for themselves B. What kind of theology is this, then, composed of a creator and a creature? For either it is not a Trinity but a duality, and the rest is creation; or, if it is a Trinity—as indeed it is—how can they classify the Spirit of the Trinity with those creatures that come after the Trinity? For this is once again to divide and dissolve the Trinity. Therefore, if they think wrongly about the Holy Spirit, they do not think correctly about the Son either. For if they thought rightly about the Word, they would also think soundly about the Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and, being the Spirit of the Son, is given by Him C to the disciples and to all those who believe in Him. Thus, wandering in error, they do not possess a sound faith regarding the Father either. For those who set themselves against the Spirit, as the great martyr Stephen said, are the same ones who deny the Son. But those who deny the Son do not have the Father either.
A 3. Whence, I ask, have you such boldness that you do not fear what was said by the Lord: “Whoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit has no forgiveness, neither in this age nor in the future”? The Arians, indeed, although they did not understand the bodily presence of the Word and the things said by reason of it, nonetheless most wickedly took from these an occasion to invent their heresy, and were convicted of being enemies of God and, in truth, of speaking vanity from the earth. But you, whence, I pray, have you been led into error? Who taught you thus, or what at length is the manner of your error? “We read,” they say, “in the prophet Amos these words of God: ‘For behold, I am he who establishes the thunder and creates the spirit, and makes known to men his Christ, B making the dawn and the mist, and walking upon the high places of the earth: the Lord God Almighty is his name.’” And from this we were persuaded to agree with the Arians, who teach that the Holy Spirit is a created thing.
Have you then read what stands in Amos? But as to that which is said in the Proverbs: “The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works,” did you read it or not? Are you therefore interpreting that passage in the Proverbs according to the truth, so that you do not call the Word a created thing, but that passage in the prophet you do not interpret, but merely having heard the word “spirit,” you thought it was being said that the Holy Spirit is a created thing? Yet in the Proverbs, Wisdom openly says: “He created me.” C Nevertheless, you do well to interpret that statement in such a way that you do not number the creative Wisdom among created things. But the statement in the prophet has no indication regarding the Holy Spirit, but is spoken simply about spirit. How then, although there is a very great difference in the Scriptures regarding spirits, and the passage is able to have an upright sense, do you, as if contentious or harmed by the bite of the Arian serpent, think that the prophet Amos was speaking of the Holy Spirit, lest you cease to believe that the Holy Spirit is a created thing?
4. Tell me, I pray, whether you find in any place in divine Scripture the Holy Spirit being called simply “spirit,” without the added word “of God,” or “of the Father,” or D of the Son, or “from me,” which is…
A from God, or unless it be with the article, so that it is not said merely as spirit, but either as “that Spirit,” or “the Holy Spirit,” or “the Paraclete,” or “of truth,” which is of the Son, who says: “I am the truth” (John XIV, 6)—this is so that you, on hearing the bare word “spirit,” might not suspect it to be the Holy Spirit. Yet I would wish to exempt from this rule those who, having already received the Holy Spirit, are afterwards mentioned again, or those who, having first learned what should be believed concerning the Holy Spirit, are subsequently reminded through a repetition or exhortation, where the bare word “spirit” is uttered, and who are not ignorant of whom they hear, especially since it is expressed in this way even with the article. Finally, you will never find the Holy Spirit signified without the article or the aforementioned addition. Of this kind are those things which Paul writes to the Galatians: B “This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?” (Gal. III, 2). Whom else indeed had they received, if not the Holy Spirit, who is given to those who believe and are reborn through the laver of regeneration? And writing to the Thessalonians also: “Do not quench the Spirit” (I Thess. V, 19). For he was admonishing those who certainly knew what Spirit they had received, so that they might not quench, through negligence, the grace of the Spirit that had been kindled in them. But if the evangelists in the Gospels, speaking of the Savior according to human nature because of the flesh he assumed, have these words: “Jesus, full of the Spirit, returned from the Jordan” (Luc. IV, 1); and: “Then Jesus was led into the desert by the Spirit” C (Matth. IV, 1)—the same sense must be observed here. Since it had been said beforehand by Luke: “It came to pass when all the people were being baptized, and Jesus was baptized and praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form like a dove upon him” (Luc. III, 21, 22). Wherefore it is evident that the Holy Spirit himself is signified there by the word “Spirit.” Similarly, among those with whom the Holy Spirit is, although he may be called only “Spirit” without the addition, there should be no doubt that the Holy Spirit is denoted, especially if the article is present.
5. You, however, demonstrate what has been proposed to you, if indeed you find in any place in divine Scripture the Holy Spirit D