wise in every way, and not to stand out with superfluous disputations and with a certain invincible strength that drains the Gospel of its power. For when, having abandoned faith, we rely upon the force and faculty of dialectic, and destroy the certain authority of the Spirit through our questionings, and then our discourse yields to the magnitude of the realities (and it will yield entirely, as it proceeds from the lowest instrument, that is, our mind), what is the result? The weakness of the discourse is surely ascribed to our religion; and thus the evacuation of the Cross is declared by the ornament and elegance of speech, just as it seems also to the Apostle Paul. For faith is the complement of our doctrine. But may He who unfolds hidden things and dissolves knots, and has brought it to our mind to resolve the obliquities of violent-minded dogmas, most of all change these men and make them pious instead of captious, and Christians instead of what they are now called. This, however, we ask and beseech on behalf of Christ: "Be reconciled to God," and "do not quench the Spirit." Or rather, may Christ be reconciled to you, and may the Spirit at last shine upon you, albeit late. But if you are too contentious, let us at least preserve the Trinity for ourselves, and be preserved by the Trinity, remaining pure and inoffensive until the more perfect manifestation of what we desire, in Christ Jesus our Lord Himself, to whom be glory forever. Amen. A B
ORATION XXX: THEOLOGICAL FOURTH. On the Son.
1. Since we have sufficiently shaken off the twists and tangles of reasonings by the power of the Spirit, and have, as I persuade myself, clearly and not obscurely resolved collectively for the more fair-minded those objections and counter-arguments C from the divine Scriptures by which those who are sacrilegious toward the letter, and who steal the sense of the Scriptures, convert the many to their own side and disturb the way of truth (assigning the higher and more God-befitting expressions to the Divinity, and the more humble and human ones to the new Adam for our sake, and to God who became passible for the sake of sin)—and since we have not pursued them one by one, as our discourse was urgent; but you ask for their solutions also to be offered by us briefly, lest you be led into error by persuasive speeches: for this reason we shall also embrace these in brief, and, that they may more easily stick in the memory, we shall distinguish them by numbers. D
ORATION XXX
A B. For among them there is also that which is very obvious: “The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works” (Prov. viii, 22). How shall we respond to this? Shall we accuse Solomon? Shall we set aside his previous words because of his final fall? Shall we not rather say that this is the word of Wisdom herself, who is, as it were, the knowledge and the technical reason by which all things were established? For Scripture knows how to personify many inanimate things, as in the passage: “The sea said thus and thus.” And, “The abyss said: It is not in me” (Job xxviii, 14); and, “The heavens declare the glory of God” (Psal. xviii, 1). And again, a sword receives a command, and mountains and hills are asked the reason for their leaping (Psal. cxiii, 4). We do not cite these, even if they have been put forward by some before us as strong arguments. But let it be allowed that these words are from the Savior himself, who is the true Wisdom. But let us briefly consider this one point: What is there among all things that is without a cause? The Divinity. For no one is able to state a cause for God; otherwise, that would be older than God. But what is the cause of the humanity which God undertook for our sake? Assuredly, that we should be saved. For what other cause could be brought forward? Since, therefore, we find here both “he created” and “he begets me,” B let us consider this to be simply stated. For whatever we find coupled with a cause, let us assign to the humanity; but what is simple and without cause, let us attribute to the Divinity. Are not, then, the words “he created” stated with a cause? For “He created me,” he says, “the beginning of his ways for his works.” And his works are truth and judgment (Prov. viii, 22), for the sake of which he was anointed with divinity. For this anointing is of the humanity. But the word “he begets me” is without a cause, as if the reason were to show that Wisdom is indeed called a creature according to the lower generation, but a begotten offspring according to that first and more incomprehensible one.
C III. Following this is also the fact that he is called a servant, and serves well for many; and the fact that it is a great and noble thing for him to be called the Son of God (Isa. xlix, 6). For he truly served, for the sake of our freedom, our flesh, and our birth, and our sufferings, and all those things by which he rescued those who were held under sin (Isa. liii, 11). And what is greater and more honorable for human lowliness than to be joined to God, and to become God through that mingling, and to be so visited from on high by the Rising Sun (Luc. i, 78) that even the holy thing which was being born should be called the Son of the Highest (Luc. i, 35), and be gifted with the name that is above every name? And what other name is this, if D not God? And the fact that every knee should bend to him who was emptied for our sake, who mingled the divine image with a servant's form, and for all the house of Israel to know that he has also made him Lord and Christ, which God did. For these things happened, the activity being of the begotten…
but the good pleasure of the begetter. A
IV. What do they object, in the second place, as if it were some argument of the greatest and most invincible strength? For it is necessary, they say, that he should reign "until" this point, that he should be received by heaven "until" the times of restoration, and that he should sit at the right hand "until" the subjection of his enemies. What then? After this, is there to be an end of his reigning, or is he to be cast out of heaven? And who, I pray, will cast him out of his kingdom? Or for what reason? How bold an expositor you are, and how exceeding averse to the royal yoke! Yet you hear that there shall be no end of his kingdom. But the cause of error for you is that you do not understand this word "until" (that is, up to the point of) to be not always opposed to the future time, but to mark an intervening period, without excluding the time that follows. For if the case were not so, in what way would you understand that other saying, and others like it: "I am with you even until the consummation of the age"? Shall we suppose that he will not exist after that? And what line of reasoning would that be? Nor do you fall into error for this reason alone, but also because you do not distinguish the meanings themselves. For he is said to reign in two ways: one way, as Omnipotent, King of those willing and unwilling; B and in another way, as working the subjection in us and bringing us under his rule and dominion, inasmuch as we willingly submit our necks to his kingdom. As regards the former signification, there shall be no end of his kingdom. But as regards the second, what will be the end? That he may hold us subject and keep us. For what need will there be to work subjection in us when we shall already have been made subject? After he has accomplished this, he is to arise to pass judgment upon the earth, and to separate those who attain salvation from those who perish; and God shall stand in the midst of the gods C—that is, of the blessed men—so that he may judge and distinguish of what degree of honor and of what mansion each is worthy.
V. To this, join also that subjection with which you subject the Son to the Father. What are you saying? As if he were not subject even now? Or is there any need at all for him to be subjected to God, being himself God? You speak of the matter as if he were some robber or enemy of God. But consider the matter in this way: just as for my sake he was called a curse, who solved my curse; and sin, who takes away the sin of the world; D and for the old Adam, he becomes a new Adam: in the same way he also takes upon himself my contumacy and rebellion, so that as the head of the whole body
A he is called "disobedient" in that which is mine, and as the Christ. But when all things become subject to him (and they shall be subjected, both through acknowledgment and through transformation), then he also completes the subjection, bringing me, who have obtained salvation, to the Father. For this is the subjection of Christ, in my view: the fulfillment of the Father's will. And the Son subjects himself to the Father, and the Father to the Son; the one working, and the other approving—as we have said before. And in this way, he who has subjected them presents to God that which has been subjected, taking upon himself that which is ours. B To me, such also appears to be the meaning of: "God, my God, look upon me, why hast thou forsaken me?" For he is not himself forsaken, either by the Father or by his own divinity, as some suppose, as if it feared the passion and for this reason withdrew from the one who was suffering—(for who compelled him either to be born at the beginning, or to ascend the cross?)—but in himself, as I have said, he represents what is ours. For we were the ones who were forsaken and despised previously, but now we have been taken up and saved by the sufferings of the impassible one; just as he also claims as his own our foolishness and our transgressions, C as the subsequent parts of the psalm state; for the twenty-first psalm is clearly referred to Christ.
VI. It belongs to the same contemplation to learn also how he "learned obedience from the things which he suffered"; both the "crying out," and the "tears," and the "supplication," and the "being heard," and the "reverence"—all of which are dramatically enacted and woven together miraculously on our behalf. For as the Word, he was neither obedient nor disobedient. For these things belong to those who are under authority and the second class: the one for the upright and honest, the other for the wicked and those worthy of punishment. But in the form of a servant, he descends to his fellow-servants, and indeed to his slaves, and takes on a foreign form, bearing me entirely in himself along with my own qualities, so that he may consume in himself what is worse, as fire does wax, or the sun's ray does the vapor of the earth, D and so that I may share in his qualities through this commingling. For this reason, he honors obedience in deed, and tests it through suffering; for the disposition is not sufficient, just as it is not for us, unless we also attain it through actions; for action is the proof of the disposition. And perhaps it is not worse to also suppose this: that he tests our obedience, and measures all things by his own sufferings through the art of philanthropy; so that he may know how—
A much our own is demanded, and how much is granted, when account is made of the suffering and the weakness. For if the Light was pursued, shining through this obstacle in the darkness (I mean in this life), by the other darkness—that is, by the evil one and the tempter—how much more [would that darkness pursue] us, as being weaker? And what is to be wondered at if, when that one escaped entirely, we are to some extent overtaken? For by those who rightly consider these matters, it is a greater thing that he was pursued than that we [are] overtaken. I shall add to what has been said this, having considered the [verse]: "For in that he himself hath suffered, being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted," which clearly points to the same understanding. B And God shall be all in all at the time of the restoration; not the Father, with the Son being utterly resolved into Him, just as a torch snatched for a time from a great bonfire and then reattached—for let not the Sabellians be corrupted by this statement—but the whole God, when we are no longer many, as we are now in our movements and passions, bearing within ourselves either nothing at all of God, or but little; but rather being entirely godlike, capable of the whole God, and Him alone. For this is the perfection toward which we hasten. The apostle Paul himself bears the greatest witness to this; for what he says here indefinitely about God, in another place he clearly restricts to Christ. In what words? Where "there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond, free; but all things and in all, Christ."
Ⅶ. C Third, they count the word "greater," and fourth, that: "My God and your God." If, then, he were spoken of as greater but not equal, perhaps there would be some force in what they bring forward; but since we find both clearly to be the case, what will these noble men say? What strength will they have? How can those things that cannot harmonize be bound together? For the same thing to be at once greater than itself and equal to itself is among the impossibilities. Is it not, therefore, clear that the word "greater" is to be referred to the cause, but "equal" to the nature? And this we confess quite ingenuously and candidly. Perhaps, however, another might say, in contention with our argument, that to be from such a cause is not inferior to being uncaused. D
For because He takes His origin from Him who is without beginning, He also claims to Himself a portion of His glory; and furthermore, the prerogative of generation attaches to Him—a thing so great, and so venerable, to those at least who are endowed with understanding. For to say that He is greater than that which is conceived according to humanity A is true, indeed, but not a great thing; for what is there to marvel at, if God is greater than man? So much, then, be said to those who boast of the “greater.”
VIII. But as to the other part, He is called God, not in respect of the Word, but of that which is seen—for how could He be God of Him who is properly God? Just as He is called Father, not in respect of what is seen, but of the Word; for He was twofold. So that the one name is used properly of both, yet the other not properly—the reverse of what happens in our own case. For with us, God is properly our God, but not properly our Father. And this is what causes the error among the heretics, namely, this conjunction of titles, because the names are interchanged on account of the mutual connection of the two natures. A proof of this is that when the natures are distinguished in the mind and by thought, the names are divided at the same time. Listen to Paul speaking these words: *That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory.* B You see how He is called God of Christ, but Father of glory: for although these two make one, yet this does not come to pass by nature, but by the union of them. What could be more open and manifest than this?
IX. Let a fifth point be mentioned: that He is said to receive life, or judgment, or the inheritance of the nations, or power over all flesh, or glory, or disciples, or whatever else is said—this also pertains to His humanity. Yet if you were to attribute these to God, it is not absurd; for you would not attribute them as acquired additions, but as things having existed with Him from the beginning, and by reason of nature, not of grace. C
X. Let a sixth point be put forward: that *the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless He see the Father doing.* These words are to be explained in this sense: “To be able,” or “not to be able,” is not said in one way only, but has a varied and manifold signification. For sometimes it is said according to a defect of strength, and with regard to a certain time and person: as that a child cannot wrestle, or a puppy see, or contend against a certain man—for it will perhaps wrestle one day, and see, and will contend against this man, even if it might be unable against another. D At other times it is said regarding that which frequently happens, as that: *A city cannot be hidden that is set on a hill.* For perhaps it might be hidden for someone, by
the interposition of a greater mountain. A And that which is said as not reasonable, as that: *The sons of the bridechamber cannot fast, as long as the bridegroom is present;* whether you understand him who is seen with bodily eyes (for it was a time not of hardship, but of joy and festivity for the visitation), or whether you understand him as the Word: for why is it necessary for those who are being cleansed by the Word to fast bodily? And that which is said as not intended, as that: *He could do no mighty work there, because of their unbelief.* For since both are required for healings—both the faith of those being healed, and the power of the healer—one of the yoke-fellows being absent, the other could not be brought to pass. And I do not know B if this also should not be added to that which is reasonable; for that is not a reasonable healing which would harm those who are through unbelief. And of the same argument is also that: *The world cannot hate you;* and, *How can you speak good things, being evil?* For why is any of these impossible, other than because the will resists? There is also something such as this in the things that are said, which is by nature impossible, but possible to God if He so wills, as that the same man cannot be born a second time, and the camel not entering the needle’s eye; for what could prevent these things from happening, if the will of God so ordained?
XI. Beyond all these modes, that is called impossible which in no way at all can happen, such as that which we are now examining. For as we say that it is impossible for God to be evil, or not to be (for this would be an argument of weakness rather than of power in God; or that what is not, should be, or that twice two be four and ten) C just so, it is impossible and inadmissible for the Son to do anything of which the Father does not do. For all things that the Father has, are the Son’s; as, conversely, those of the Son are the Father’s. Nothing, therefore, is peculiar, because all things are common, since even being itself is common and equal, even if the Son has it from the Father. In which sense it is also said: *I live because of the Father;* not as though His life and essence are sustained by Him, but because He exists from Him without time and without cause. But does He see the Father acting, and thus He also acts? Is it as those who trace shapes and letters, because they cannot otherwise attain the truth unless they look to the archetype and are guided thence
A by the hand? But how does it follow that Wisdom needs a teacher? Will She accomplish nothing unless instructed? What then, does the Father do or has He done something? Has He perhaps framed another world before this one, and will He frame another hereafter—worlds which the Son, setting before His eyes, has created one and will create the other? There would be four worlds by this logic, two made by the Father, two by the Son. What crass stupidity! Come, when He cleanses leprosies, puts to flight demons and diseases, recalls the dead to life, walks upon the sea, and does all else that He has done, upon whom or when did the Father perform these things beforehand? Is it not clear that the Father, as it were, marks out the forms of these same things, while the Son executes them—not servilely nor ignorantly, but skillfully and masterfully, or to speak more appropriately, paternally? For this is how I understand the statement that whatever the Father does, the Son does the same: B not that the works of both are similar, but that the power and authority of both are equal. And this perhaps could be the reason why both the Father is said to be working even until now, and the Son, not only on account of this name but also by reason of the governance and conservation of the things that have been made, as is indicated by the text: "Who makes His angels spirits," and "Who founds the earth upon its stability," even though these were once firmly established and they were created. To this also pertains what is said about "strengthening the thunder" and "creating the wind"; for the principle of them was indeed established once, yet even now the power and faculty are perpetual.
XII. Let it be put forward as a seventh point that the Son is said to have descended from heaven, C not to do His own will, but that of Him who sent Him. Now, if this discourse were not held by Him who descended, we might say that these words are expressed as if by a man—not one who is understood as the Savior (for His will, since it is entirely deified, does not doubtless oppose God), but one who is of our own condition. For the human will does not follow the divine without interruption, but for the most part resists and struggles against it. For we understand the following in the same way: "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not what I will, but what Thou wilt, let it prevail." For it is not likely that He did not know if it were possible or not, nor that He set will against will. But since this discourse is of that part which assumed (for this is what descended), D and not of the part assumed, we will answer in this manner: these things are not so
A spoken as if the Son had a will of His own, separate from the Father’s will; but rather as meaning that He has no will [apart from the Father’s]. For consider what follows: *Not that I may do my own will*—for my will is not separated from Thine, but is the common will of both of us, for as there is one Godhead, so there is one will. For many things that are said in this way are spoken from a common perspective, and not affirmatively, but negatively, as in that passage: *For God does not give the Spirit by measure* [John iii, 34]. For He neither gives it, nor is it measured; for God is not measured by God. And that: *Neither is my iniquity, nor my sin* [Ps. lviii, 5]. For He does not use this language because sin exists in Him, but because it does not exist. And again: *Not because of our righteousness which we have done*, for we have not done it. And it is clear that this applies to what follows: *For what*, He says, *is the will of my Father? That everyone who believes in the Son may be saved, and may attain to the last resurrection* [John vi, 40]. Is this, then, the will of the Father, but of the Son not at all? Or is He an unwilling preacher of the Gospel, and against His will is faith placed in Him? And who would believe this? Since even the statement of the Son, that the discourse which is heard is not His own, but the Father’s, has the exact same force. How that which is common can be the property of one person, or of one alone, I cannot perceive, though I have considered it long and much with myself, and I think no one else can either. If you think this way concerning the will, you will understand correctly and most piously, as is my view, and that of anyone who is endowed with right judgment.
B XIII. Eighth, they bring forward: *That they may know Thee the only true God, and whom Thou didst send, Jesus Christ* [John xvii, 3]; and, *No one is bonus, except one, God* [Luke xviii, 19]. To me, the solution to this argument seems to be very easy. For if you attribute the words "only true" solely to the Father, where then will you place the Truth itself? For if you understand it in this way in the passage, *To the only wise God* [1 Tim. i, 17]; or that, *Who alone has immortality, dwelling in light which no man can approach unto* [1 Tim. vi, 16]; or, finally, *To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only wise God*—if you understand it in this manner, the Son will surely perish for you, condemned to death or darkness, or to not being wise, nor king, nor invisible—or, in short, not being God at all, which is the head of the things we have spoken. C But what else can be brought forward, without at the same time suffering the loss of goodness, which is most especially and solely of God? But these words, *That they may know Thee the only true God*, are spoken for the removal of those who are called gods, though they are not truly such; for the clause, *and whom Thou didst send, Jesus Christ*, would not have been added if the term "only true" had been strictly contrasted with Him, but rather it would have been, "that they may know Thee alone, that Thou mightest be..."
A but that the discourse was indeed concerning their common divinity. And the expression, "No one is good," is an answer to the lawyer tempting Him, addressing him as a man by testifying to His goodness. For, He says A, the supremely good belongs to God alone, even if this title is also applied to man A, as in the saying, "The good man out of the good treasure brings forth good;" and, "I will give your kingdom to a better man than you," the saying of God B to Saul concerning David; and, "Do good, O Lord, to the good;" and as many other such things are said of those among us who are praised, upon whom the outpouring of the primary Good has reached in a secondary sense. If, therefore, we persuade you of this, it is well; but if not, what will you say to those who argue, on the other side, that the Son alone is called God according to your own premises? In what words? In these: "This is thy God, and there shall be no other accounted besides Him." And after a few words: "After this He was seen upon the earth, and conversed with men." That this is said, indeed, not of the Father but of the Son, the addition clearly shows. For this is He who conversed with us bodily, and became among those below. If, however, one were to succeed in arguing that this is said of the Father, and not of those who are thought to be gods, we have been defeated regarding the Father by those very arguments through which we were zealous against the Son. And what could be more wretched or detrimental than this victory?
C XIV. They will produce that ninth point: "Always living to intercede for us." Well and good, and most mystically and kindly. For "to intercede" does not mean, according to the custom of the many, to seek vengeance—for this would be, in a way, a sign of lowliness—but to act as an ambassador for us by the principle of mediation; just as the Spirit also is said to intercede for us. For "there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." For He is still pleading even now, as a man, for my salvation, because He is with the body which He assumed, until He makes me God by the power of the incarnation D, even if He is no longer known according to the flesh—I mean the carnal passions—and, without sin, they are ours. Thus also we have an advocate, Jesus Christ, not as one crawling before the Father in a servile manner on our behalf, and falling down in a slavish way. Away with such
a servile suspicion, and one unworthy of the Spirit! For it is neither right for the Father to require this, nor for the Son to suffer it, nor to think of God in this way. But He A induces me to hold this view through those things which He suffered in a human way, as the Word and Exhorter. And this is how I understand this intercession.
XV. In the tenth place, they set forth the ignorance [of the Son], and [the statement] that no one knows the last day or hour, not even the Son Himself, but the Father alone. Yet how can Wisdom—the Maker of the ages, the Consummator and Changer, the End of all things that have come to be, He who knows the things of God as the Spirit of man knows the things that are in him—be ignorant of any of the things that exist B? For what is more perfect than this knowledge? How, then, does He accurately know those things which are before the hour, and things that are, so to speak, in the time of the end, yet is ignorant of the hour itself? The matter is like a riddle, just as if someone were to claim that he knew with certainty those things which are before a wall, but confessed to being ignorant of the wall itself; or, knowing well the end of the day, were to fail to recognize the beginning of the night; where the knowledge of one necessarily involves the other. Or is it not manifest to all that He knows as God, but says that He is ignorant as man, if one separates the visible from the intelligible? For the fact that the name of the Son is placed here absolutely and without relation, with no addition of "whose [Son] He is" C, gives us the handle to interpret this ignorance in the most pious sense, attributing it to His humanity, and not to His divinity.
XVI. If, therefore, this argument is sufficient for our adversaries, let us set our foot here, and let nothing further be sought of us. But if not, we shall offer this second explanation: that just as [is the case with] each of the other things, so too should the knowledge of the greatest things be referred to the cause [the Father], in honor of the Begetter. And it seems to me that even he who might read it in that other way—as some man of letters of our time D [has done]—might little understand that not even the Son knows the day or the hour in any other way than because the Father [knows them]. For what is the inference? Since the Father knows, therefore the Son also [knows], as it is manifest that this is not known or graspable by any, except the primal nature. It remained for us to understand [what is meant] concerning [the Son's] having been commanded, and [His] having kept the commandments, and having always done the things that are pleasing to Him; and further, concerning [His] perfection and exaltation, and [the fact] that from the things which He suffered He learned obedience, and concerning the high-priesthood, and the offering, and the handing over, and the prayer to Him who is able to save Him from death, and the agony, and the drops of sweat, and the prayer—and all the rest.
If it were not evident to all that these terms relate to the One who suffered, and not to the immutable nature—which is higher than suffering—then the argument concerning these opposing terms would be only a foundation and a reminder for those who are more inquisitive, leading to a more perfect elaboration. Furthermore, it is perhaps fitting and consistent with what has been said before not to leave the titles of the Son unexamined, as they are many and applied to the many aspects of Him that are understood, but rather to explain what each of them signifies and to show the mystery of the names.
B XVII. We must begin from here. The Divine is unnameable; and this is indicated not only by our reasoning, but also by the wisest and most ancient of the Hebrews, as far as they have allowed us to conjecture. For they, having honored the Divine with special characters, and not even tolerating that other things which are after God—or even God Himself—should be written with the same letters, as if it were necessary that the Divine should be kept separate even to this extent from our common affairs—when would they ever permit it to be explained by a dissoluble C voice, that nature which is indissoluble and unique? For no one has ever breathed in the whole of the air, nor has any mind ever fully grasped the essence of God, nor has any voice ever encompassed it. But by sketching out from the realities concerning Him the things that pertain to Him, we gather a faint and weak perception, one drawing from another. And he is the best theologian among us, not who has found the whole—for the bond does not allow the whole to be grasped—but he who has perceived more of Him in his mind, and has gathered within himself a greater image of the truth, or a shadowing forth, or whatever else we might call it.
XVIII. As far, then, as it is permitted to us to attain, "Ens" (The Being) and "God" are in some way more D especially the names of the essence; and of these, "The Being" is more appropriate for indicating it; not only because He, when providing an oracle to Moses on the mountain, and being asked by him by what name He should be called, thus identified Himself, "The Being sent me," and commanded him to say this to the people; but also
The Theological Orations
regarding the words themselves have led us to discover that this title is more strictly proper. For the name of God, even if it be etymologized by those elegant in such matters from *theein* (to run) or *aithein* (to burn)—by reason of His everlasting motion and His consuming of vicious habits (for indeed fire that consumes is said to be derived thence)—is nevertheless among those things B spoken of in relation to something else, and is not absolute. Just as the title "Lord" is also said to be a name of God: "For I," He says, "am the Lord thy God; this is My name" (Isa. XLII, 8); and "Lord is His name" (Amos IX, 6). But we are seeking the nature which has its being in itself, and is not bound to anything else. The "Being" (Exod. III, 14), then, is truly proper to God, and is whole, neither bounded nor circumscribed by what is before it or by what is after it; for it neither was nor shall be.
XIX. Of the other appellations, it is evident that some belong to His power, and others to His economy, and this latter is twofold: one being above the body, and the other within the body. Examples of the former are: Omnipotent, and King—either of glory, or of the ages, or of the powers, or of the beloved, or of kings—and Lord, or Sabaoth (which means "of hosts," or "of powers," or "of those who rule"). These clearly show the power of God. "God," on the other hand—whether as Savior, or of vengeance, or of peace, or of justice, or of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and of all the spiritual Israel who see God—these are, by all means, names of His economy. C Since we are governed by these three things—namely, the fear of punishment, the hope of salvation and glory, and the exercise of virtues by which these are obtained—the name of "vengeances" produces fear; that of "salvations," hope; and that of "virtues," the practice of goodness; so that he who attains any of these, as one carrying God within himself, may hasten with greater speed toward perfection and that familiar intimacy and kinship which virtue reconciles to Him. Now these appellations are common to the Godhead. But the name proper to Him who is without beginning is "Father"; to Him who has been begotten without beginning, "Son"; and to Him who has proceeded, or proceeds, without generation—of which it was our intention to speak—"Holy Spirit." But let us come to the titles of the Son, which the discourse was impelled to speak of.
XX. ¶ It seems to me that He is called Son because He is identical with the Father in essence, and not only that, but also because He is from Him. And "Only-begotten" (Joann. I, 18), not because D He is alone...
A nor merely because He is solitary, but also because He is unique in manner, not as bodies are. He is called Word because He is related to the Father as speech is to the mind, not only on account of the passionless nature of His generation, but also on account of His conjunction with the Father and His power to declare Him. Perhaps one might also say that He is related as a definition is to that which is defined, since this too is called a word. For He who has known the Son, He says (for this is what "has seen" means), has known the Father; the Son is a brief and easy demonstration of the Father’s nature; for every product is a silent word of its producer. And if one were to say that He is called Word because He is inherent in all things that exist, he will not be missing the truth; for what is there that does not consist through the Word?
He is Wisdom, as the knowledge of divine and human things; for how would it be possible for the Maker not to know the underlying reasons of the things He has made? He is Power, as the sustainer of created things and the one providing them the power to be held together. He is Truth, as one, not many, in nature; for the true is one, but the false is many-faceted; and as the pure seal of the Father, and a most truthful impress. He is Image B, as being consubstantial, and because He is from Him, but the Father is not from Him; for this is the nature of an image, to be a representation of the archetype, of which it is called the image; yet there is something more here: there, the image is of a motionless thing, but here it is of a living thing, and it is itself living, and possesses more of the "unchanging," than Seth does of Adam, or any begotten thing does of its begetter; for such is the nature of simple beings, not to be like in one part and unlike in another, but to be the total representation of the total, and be the same things rather than merely similar.
He is Light, as the brightness of souls being purified by word and life. For if ignorance and sin are darkness, light would be knowledge and the godly life. He is Life, because He is light, and the constitution and bringing-into-being of every rational nature C; "For in Him we live, and move, and have our being" (Act. XVII, 28), according to the double power of the breathing, and the breath—from Him we all receive the vital spirit, and the Holy Spirit as many as are capable, and to the extent that we open the mouth of the mind. He is Justice, because He is the distributor according to worth, and judges justly between those under the law and those under grace, in soul and body, so that the one might rule and the other be ruled, and the better might have the mastery over the worse, so that the worse may not rise up against the better; He is Sanctification D, as...
A because of purity, so that the pure might be grasped by purity. And He is Redemption, as our liberator from those held by sin, giving Himself as a ransom and a purification for the whole world. And He is Resurrection, as raising us up from here, and leading back to life those who have been put to death by sin.
XXI. And these things are still common, both to Him who is above us and to Him who is for our sake. Now let us come to those things which are properly ours and [those] taken up from our nature. He is called Man, not only that He might be grasped by bodies through a body, for otherwise He could not have been grasped because of the incomprehensible nature of His own; but also that He might sanctify man by Himself, becoming like leaven B to the whole lump, and by uniting to Himself that which had been condemned, He might release the whole from condemnation, having become for us all things that we are, except for sin, body, soul, mind—through which, clearly, death had passed; and that which is common out of these—man, the visible God, because of that which was grasped by mind and intellect. And He is Son of Man, both because of Adam, and because of the Virgin, from whom He came to be: from the former as forefather, and from the latter as mother according to the law, yet not according to the law of generation. And He is Christ because of the divinity; for this anointing is of the humanity, not through operation, as in other christs, but by the presence of the whole Anointing [Spirit] C sanctifying; whose effect it is that that which anoints is called man, and that which is anointed becomes God. And He is the Way, as leading us through Himself; and the Door, as usher; and the Shepherd, as placing us in a place of pasture, and nourishing us by the water of rest, and leading us from there, and fighting on our behalf against the beasts: then also, as calling back the wandering, and driving back the lost, and binding up that which has been broken, and strengthening the weak, and guarding the firm and the strong, and gathering them into the fold from there by the methods of pastoral science. D And He is Sheep, as victim. And He is Lamb, as perfect. And High Priest, as mediator. And Melchizedek, as without mother for the sake of what pertains to us, and without father for the sake of what pertains to us; and as without genealogy for what is above. "For who," He says, "will tell of His generation?" And as King of Salem, which means peace, and
as a King of righteousness, and as one who receives tithes from patriarchs who have fought valiantly against evil powers. A You have the titles of the Son; proceed through them. As many as are lofty, interpret them divinely; and as many as are bodily, interpret them sympathetically; or rather, interpret them wholly in a divine manner, so that you may become a god who has ascended from below, through Him who for our sake descended from above. Above all, and before all, keep this: and you will not err in either the loftier or the humbler names. Jesus Christ, yesterday and today, [is] the same corporally, and the same spiritually, and to the ages of ages. Amen.
ORATION XXXI. THEOLOGICAL FIFTH. On the Holy Spirit
B I. And so, our discourse concerning the Son is of this sort, and in this way it escapes those who cast stones, passing through the midst of them. For the discourse cannot be stoned; but when it wills, it hurls [stones], and like a sling, it attacks the beasts—that is to say, the arguments that ascend the mountain in an evil manner. But what, they say, will you say concerning the Holy Spirit? From where do you introduce to us a strange god, and one not [found] in Scripture? This is what even those who are more moderate concerning the Son object. For that which may be found on roads and rivers—that they split from one another and again come together—this happens here as well, due to the abundance and copiousness of impiety; such that those who are at variance in other matters agree in some, so that it is not even possible to clearly understand C and perceive in what they agree or in what they contend.
D II. And indeed, there is in this discourse concerning the Spirit some difficulty and annoyance, not only for the reason that men, broken and weakened in their discourses concerning the Son, struggle with more intense spirits against the Spirit (for it is necessary for them to be impious in some matter, or else their life is not even worth living, as the saying goes), but also because we ourselves, exhausted and spent by the multitude of questions, are similar to those who suffer from a disgust of food. For just as those who, after they have contracted a disgust for one food, turn away from all foods as well, in the same manner we, from one