FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS -- DISCOURSE I
Written BETWEEN 356 AND 360.
DISCOURSE I
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION.
Reason for writing; certain persons indifferent about Arianism; Arians not
Christians, because sectaries always take the name of their founder.
1. OF all other heresies which have departed from the truth it is
acknowledged that they have but devised(1) a madness, and their
irreligiousness has long since become notorious to all men. For that(2) their
authors went out from us, it plainly follows, as the blessed John has written,
that they never thought nor now think with us. Wherefore, as saith the
Saviour, in that they gather not with us, they scatter with the devil, and
keep an eye on those who slumber, that, by this second sowing of their own
mortal poison, they may have companions in death. But, whereas one heresy, and
that the last, which has now risen as harbinger(3) of Antichrist, the Arian,
as it is called, considering that other heresies, her eider sisters, have been
openly proscribed, in her craft and cunning, affects to array herself in
Scripture language(4), like her father the devil, and is forcing her way back
into the Church's paradise,--that with the pretence of Christianity, her
smooth sophistry(for reason she has none) may deceive men into wrong thoughts
of Christ,--nay, since she has already seduced certain of the foolish, not
only to corrupt their ears, but even to take and eat with Eve, till in their
ignorance which ensues they think bitter sweet, and admire this loathsome
heresy, on this account I have thought it necessary, at your request, to unrip
'the folds of its breast-plate(5),' and to shew the ill savour of its folly.
So while those who are far from it may continue to shun it, those whom it has
deceived may repent; and, opening the eyes of their heart, may understand that
darkness is not light, nor falsehood truth, nor Arianism good; nay, that
those(6) who call these men Christians are in great and grievous error, as
neither having studied Scripture, nor understanding Christianity at all, and
the faith which it contains.
2. For what have they discovered in this heresy like to the religious
Faith, that they vainly talk as if its supporters said no evil? This in truth
is to call even Caiaphas(7) a Christian, and to reckon the traitor Judas still
307
among the Apostles, and to say that they who asked Barabbas instead of the
Saviour did no evil, and to recommend Hymenaeus and Alexander as right-minded
men, and as if the Apostle slandered them. But neither can a Christian bear to
hear this, nor can he consider the man who dared to say it sane in his
understanding. For with them for Christ is Arius, as with the Manichees
Manichaeus; and for Moses and the other saints they have made the discovery of
one Sotades(8), a man whom even Gentiles laugh at, and of the daughter of
Herodias. For of the one has Arius imitated the dissolute and effeminate tone,
in writing Thaliae on his model; and the other he has rivalled in her dance,
reeling and frolicking in his blasphemies against the Saviour; till the
victims of his heresy lose their wits and go foolish, and change the Name of
the Lord of glory into the likeness of the 'image of corruptible man(9),' and
for Christians come to be called Arians, bearing this badge of their
irreligion. For let them not excuse themselves; nor retort their disgrace on
those who are not as they, calling Christians after the names of their
teachers(10), that they themselves may appear to have that Name in the same
way. Nor let them make a jest of it, when they feel shame at their disgraceful
appellation; rather, if they be ashamed, let them hide their faces, or let
them recoil from their own irreligion. For never at any time did Christian
people take their title from the Bishops among them, but from the Lord, on
whom we rest our faith. Thus, though the blessed Apostles have become our
teachers, and have ministered the Saviour's Gospel, yet not from them have we
our title, but from Christ we are and are named Christians. But for those who
derive the faith which they profess from others, good reason is it they should
bear their name, whose property they hare become(1).
3. Yes surely; while all of us are and are called Christians after Christ,
Marcion broached a heresy a long time since and was cast out; and those who
continued with him who ejected him remained Christians; but those who followed
Marcion were called Christians no more, but henceforth Marcionites. Thus
Valentinus also, and Basilides, and Manichaeus, and Simon Magus, have imparted
their own name to their followers; and some are accosted as Valentinians, or
as Basilidians, or as Manichees, or as Simonians; and other, Cataphrygians
from Phrygia, and from Novatus Novatians. So too Meletius, when ejected by
Peter the Bishop and Martyr, called his party no longer Christians, but
Meletians(2), and so in consequence when Alexander of blessed memory had cast
out Arius, those who remained with Alexander, remained Christians; but those
who went out with Arius, left the Saviour's Name to us who were with
Alexander, and as to them they were hence-forward denominated Arians. Behold
then, after Alexander's death too, those who communicate with his successor
Athanasius, and those with whom the said Athanasius communicates, are
instances of the same rule; none of them bear his name, nor is he named from
them, but all in like manner, and as is usual, are called Christians. For
though we have a succession of teachers and become their disciples, yet,
because we are taught by them the things of Christ, we both are, and are
called, Christians all the same. But those who follow the heretics, though
they have innumerable successors in their heresy, yet anyhow bear the name of
him who devised it. Thus, though Arius be dead, and many of his party have
succeeded him, yet those who think with him, as being known from Arius, are
called Arians. And, what is a remarkable
308
evidence of this, those of the Greeks who even at this time come into the
Church, on giving up the superstition of idols, take the name, not of their
catechists, but of the Saviour, and begin to be called Christians instead of
Greeks: while those of them who go off to the heretics, and again all who from
the Church change to this heresy, abandon Christ's name, and henceforth are
called Arians, as no longer holding Christ's faith, but having inherited
Arius's madness.
4. How then can they be Christians, who for Christians are
Ario-maniacs(3)? or how are they of the Catholic Church, who have shaken off
the Apostolical faith, and become authors of fresh evils? who, after
abandoning the oracles of divine Scripture, call Arius's Thaliae a new wisdom?
and with reason too, for they are announcing a new heresy. And hence a man may
marvel, that, whereas many have written many treatises and abundant homilies
upon the Old Testament and the New, yet in none of them is a Thalia found nay
nor among the more respectable of the Gentiles, but among those only who sing
such strains over their cups, amid cheers and jokes, when men are merry, that
the rest may laugh; till this marvellous Arius, taking no grave pattern, and
ignorant even of what is respectable, while he stole largely from other
heresies, would be original in the ludicrous, with none but Sotades for his
rival. For what beseemed him more, when he would dance forth against the
Saviour, than to throw his wretched words of irreligion into dissolute and
loose metres? that, while 'a man,' as Wisdom says, 'is known from the
utterance of his word(4),' so from those numbers should be seen the writer's
effeminate soul and corruption of thought(5). In truth, that crafty one did
not escape detection; but, for all his many writhings to and fro, like the
serpent, he did but fall into the error of the Pharisees. They, that they
might transgress the Law, pretended to be anxious for the words of the Law,
and that they might deny the expected and then present Lord, were hypocritical
with God's name, and were convicted of blaspheming when they said, 'Why dost
Thou, being a man, make Thyself God,' and sayest, 'I and the Father are
one(6)?' And so too, this counterfeit and Sotadean Arius, feigns to speak of
God, introducing Scripture language(7), but is on all sides recognised as
godless(8) Arius, denying the Son, and reckoning Him among the creatures.
CHAPTER II.
EXTRACTS FROM THE THALIA OF ARIUS.
Arius maintains that God became a Father, and the Son was not always; the Son
out of nothing; once He was not; He was not before his generation; He was
created; named Wisdom and Word after God's attributes; made that He might make
us; one out of many powers of God; alterable; exalted on God's foreknowledge
of what He was to be; not very God; but called so as others by participation;
foreign in essence from the Father; does not know or see the Father; does not
know Himself.
5. Now the commencement of Arius's Thalia and flippancy, effeminate in
tune and nature, runs thus:-- 'According to faith of God's elect, God's
prudent ones, Holy children, rightly dividing, God's Holy Spirit
receiving,
Have I learned this from the partakers of wisdom,
Accomplished, divinely taught, and wise in all
things.
Along their track, have I been walking, with like
opinions.
I the very famous, the much suffering for God's
glory;
And taught of God, I have acquired wisdom and
knowledge.'
And the mockeries which he utters in it, repulsive and most irreligious,
are such as these(1):--'God was not always a Father;(1) but 'once God was
alone, and not yet a Father, but afterwards He became a Father.' 'The Son was
not always;' for, whereas all things were made out of nothing, and all
existing creatures and works were made, so the Word of God Himself was 'made
out of nothing,' and 'once He was not,' and 'He was not before His
309
origination,' but He as others 'had an origin of creation.' 'For God,' he
says, was alone, and the Word as yet was not, nor the Wisdom. Then, wishing to
form us, thereupon He made a certain one, and named Him Word and Wisdom and
Son, that He might form us by means of Him.' Accordingly, he says that there
are two wisdoms, first, the attribute co-existent with God, and next, that in
this wisdom the Son was originated, and was only named Wisdom and Word as
partaking of it. 'For Wisdom,' saith he, 'by the will of the wise God, had its
existence in Wisdom.' In like manner, he says, that there is another Word in
God besides the Son, and that the Son again, as partaking of it, is named Word
and Son according to grace. And this too is an idea proper to their heresy, as
shewn in other works of theirs, that there are many powers; one of which is
God's own by nature and eternal; but that Christ, on the other hand, is not
the true power of God; but, as others, one of the so-called powers, one of
which, namely, the locust and the caterpillar(2), is called in Scripture, not
merely the power, but the 'great power.' The others are many and are like the
Son, and of them David speaks in the Psalms, when he says, 'The Lord of hosts'
or 'powers(3).' And by nature, as all others, so the Word Himself is
alterable, and remains good by His own free will, while He chooseth; when,
however, He wills, He can alter as we can, as being of an alterable nature.
For 'therefore,' saith he, 'as foreknowing that He would be good, did God by
anticipation bestow on Him this glory, which afterwards, as man, He attained
from virtue. Thus in consequence of His works fore-known(4), did God bring it
to pass that He being such, should come to be.'
6. Moreover he has dared to say, that 'the Word is not the very God;'
'though He is called God, yet He is not very God,' but 'by participation of
grace, He, as others, is God only in name.' And, whereas all beings are
foreign and different from God in essence, so too is 'the Word alien and
unlike in all things to the Father's essence and propriety,' but belongs to
things originated and created, and is one of these. Afterwards, as though he
had succeeded to the devil's recklessness, he has stated in his Thalia, that
'even to the Son the Father is invisible,' and 'the Word cannot perfectly and
exactly either see or know His own Father;' but even what He knows and what He
sees, He knows and sees 'in proportion to His own measure,' as we also know
according to our own power. For the Son, too, he says, not only knows not the
Father exactly, for He fails in comprehension(5), but 'He knows not even His
own essence;'--and that 'the essences of the Father and the Son and the Holy
Ghost, are separate in nature, and estranged, and disconnected, and alien(6),
and without participation of each other(7);' and, in his own words, 'utterly
unlike from each other in essence and glory, unto infinity.' Thus as to
'likeness of glory and essence,' he says that the Word is entirely diverse
from both the Father and the Holy Ghost. With such words hath the irreligious
spoken; maintaining that the Son is distinct by Himself, and in no respect
partaker of the Father. These are portions of Arius's fables as they occur in
that jocose composition.
7. Who is there that hears all this, nay, the of the Thalia, but must
hate, and justly hate, this Arius jesting on such matters as on a stage(8)?
who but must regard him, when he pretends to name God and speak of God, but as
the serpent counselling the woman? who, on reading what follows in his work,
but must discern in his irreligious doctrine that error, into which by his
sophistries the serpent in the sequel seduced the woman? who at such
blasphemies is not transported? 'The heaven,' as the Prophet says, 'was
astonished, and the earth shuddered(9)' at the transgression of the Law. But
the sun, with greater horror, impatient of the bodily contumelies, which the
common Lord of all voluntarily endured for us, turned away, and recalling his
rays made that day sunless. And shall not all human kind at Arius's
blasphemies be struck speechless, and stop their ears, and shut their eyes, to
escape hearing them or seeing their author? Rather, will not the Lord Himself
have reason to denounce men so irreligious, nay, so unthankful, in the words
which He has already uttered by the prophet Hosea, 'Woe unto them, for they
have fled from Me; destruction upon
310
them, for they have transgressed against Me; though I have redeemed them, yet
they have spoken lies against Me(10).' And soon after, 'They imagine mischief
against Me; they turn away to nothing(11).' For to turn away from the Word of
God, which is, and to fashion to themselves one that is not, is to fall to
what is nothing. For this was why the Ecumenical(1) Council, when Arius thus
spoke, cast him from the Church, and anathematized him, as impatient of such
irreligion. And ever since has Arius's error been reckoned for a heresy more
than ordinary, being known as Christ's foe, and harbinger(2) of Antichrist.
Though then so great a condemnation be itself of special weight to make men
flee from that irreligious heresy(3), as I said above, yet since certain
persons called Christian, either in ignorance or pretence, think it, as I then
said, little different from the Truth, and call its professors Christians;
proceed we to put some questions to them, according to our powers, thereby to
expose the unscrupulousness of the heresy. Perhaps, when thus caught, they
will be silenced, and flee from it, as from the sight of a serpent.
CHAPTER III.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT.
The Arians affect Scripture language, but their doctrine new, as well as
unscriptural. Statement of the Catholic doctrine, that the Son is proper to
the Father's substance, and eternal. Restatement of Arianism in contrast, that
He is a creature with a beginning: the controversy comes to this issue,
whether one whom we are to believe in as God, can be so in name only, and is
merely a creature. What pretence then for being indifferent in the
controversy? The Arians rely on state patronage, and dare not avow their
tenets.
8. If then the use of certain phrases of divine Scripture changes, in
their opinion, the blasphemy of the Thalia into reverent language, of course
they ought also to deny Christ with the present Jews, when they see how they
study the Law and the Prophets; perhaps too they will deny the Law(1) and the
Prophets like Manichees(2), because. the latter read some portions of the
Gospels. If such bewilderment and empty speaking be from ignorance, Scripture
will teach them, that the devil, the author of heresies, because of the ill
savour which attaches to evil, borrows Scripture language, as a cloak
wherewith to sow the ground with his own poison also, and to seduce the
simple. Thus he deceived Eve; thus he framed former heresies; thus he
persuaded Arius at this time to make a show of speaking against those former
ones, that he might introduce his own without observation. And yet, after all,
the man of craft did not escape. For being irreligious towards the Word of
God, he lost his all at once(2a), and betrayed to all men his ignorance of
other heresies too(3); and having not a particle of truth in his belief, does
but pretend to it. For how can he speak truth concerning the Father, who
denies the Son, that reveals concerning Him? or how can he be orthodox
concerning the Spirit, while he speaks profanely of the Word that supplies the
Spirit? anti who will trust him concerning the Resurrection, denying, as he
does, Christ for us the first-begotten from the dead? and how shall he not err
in respect to His incarnate presence, who is simply ignorant of the Son's
genuine and true generation from the Father? For thus, the former Jews also,
denying the Word, and saying, 'We have no king but Caesar(4),' were forthwith
stripped of all they had, and forfeited the light of the Lamp, the odour of
ointment, knowledge of prophecy, and the Truth itself; till now they
understand nothing, but are walking as in darkness. For who was ever yet a
hearer of such a doctrines(5)? or whence or from whom did the abettors and
hirelings(6) of the heresy gain it? who thus expounded to them when they were
at school(7)? who told them, 'Abandon the worship of the creation, and then
draw near and worship a creature and a works(8)?' But if they themselves own
that they have heard it now for the first time, how can they deny that this
heresy is foreign, and not from our fathers(9)? But wha is not from our
fathers, but has come to light in this day, how can it be but that of which
the blessed Paul(10) has foretold, that 'in the latter times some shall depart
from the sound faith,
311
giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, in the hypocrisy of
liars; cauterized in their own conscience, and turning from the truth"?'
9. For, behold, we take divine Scripture, and thence discourse with
freedom of the religious Faith, and set it up as a light upon its candlestick,
saying:--Very Son of the Father, natural and genuine, proper to His essence,
Wisdom Only-begotten, and Very and Only Word of God is He; not a creature or
work, but an offspring proper to the Father's essence. Wherefore He is very
God, existing one[12] in essence with the very Father; while other beings, to
whom He said, 'I said ye are Gods[1],' had this grace from the Father, only by
participation[2] of the Word, through the Spirit. For He is the expression of
the Father's Person and Light from Light, and Power, and very Image of the
Father's essence. For this too the Lord has said, 'He that hath seen Me, hath
seen the Father[3].' And He ever was and is and never was not. For the Father
being everlasting, His Word and His Wisdom must be everlasting[4]. On the
other hand, what have these persons to shew us from the infamous Thalia? Or,
first of all, let them read it themselves, and copy the tone of the writer; at
least the mockery which they will encounter from others may instruct them how
low they have fallen; and then let them proceed to explain themselves. For
what can they say from it, but that 'God was not always a Father, but became
so afterwards; the Son was not always, for He was not before His generation;
He is not from the Father, but He, as others, has come into subsistence out of
nothing; He is not proper to the Father's essence, for He is a creature and
work?' And 'Christ is not very God, but He, as others, was made God by
participation; the Son has not exact knowledge of the Father, nor does the
Word see the Father perfectly; and neither exactly understands nor knows the
Father. He is not the very and only Word of the Father, but is in name only
called Word and Wisdom, and is called by grace Son and Power. He is not
unalterable, as the Father is, but alterable in nature, as the creatures, and
He comes short of apprehending the perfect knowledge of the Father.' Wonderful
this heresy, not plausible even, but making speculations against Him that is,
that He be not, and everywhere putting forward blasphemy for reverent
language! Were any one, after requiring into both sides, to be asked, whether
of the two he would follow in faith, or whether of the two spoke fitly of
God,--or rather let them say themselves, these abettors of irreligion, what,
if a man be asked concerning God (for 'the Word was God'), it were fit to
answer[5]. For from this one question the whole case on both sides may be
determined, what is fitting to say,--He was, or He was not; always, or before
His birth; eternal, or from this and from then; true, or by adoption, and from
participation and in idea[6]; to call Him one of things originated, or to
unite Him to the Father; to consider Him unlike the Father in essence, or like
and proper to Him; a creature, or Him through whom the creatures were
originated; that He is the Father's Word, or that there is another word beside
Him, and that by this other He was originated, and by another wisdom; and that
He is only named Wisdom and Word, and is become a partaker of this wisdom, and
second to it?
10. Which of the two theologies sets forth our Lord Jesus Christ as God
and Son of the Father, this which you vomited forth, or that which we have
spoken and maintain from the Scriptures? If the Saviour be not God, nor Word,
nor Son, you shall have leave to say what you will, and so shall the Gentiles,
and the present Jews. But if He be Word of the Father and true Son, and God
from God, and 'over all blessed for ever[7],' is it not becoming to obliterate
and blot out those other phrases and that Arian Thalia, as but a pattern of
evil, a store of all irreligion, into which, whoso falls, 'knoweth not that
giants perish with her, and reacheth the depths of Hades[8]?' This they know
themselves, and in their craft they conceal it, not having the courage to
speak out, but uttering something else[9]. For if they speak, a condemnation
will follow; and if they be suspected, proofs from Scripture will be cast[10]
at them from every side. Wherefore, in their craft, as children of this world,
after feeding their
312
so-called lamp from the wild olive, and fearing lest it should soon be
quenched (for it is said, 'the light of the wicked shall be put out[1],') they
hide it under the bushel[2] of their hypocrisy, and make a different
profession, and boast of patronage of friends and authority of Constantius,
that what with their hypocrisy and their professions, those who come to them
may be kept from seeing how foul their heresy is. Is it not detestable even in
this, that it dares not speak out, but is kept hid by its own friends, and
fostered as serpents are? for from what sources have they got together these
words? or from whom have they received what they venture to say[3]? Not any
one man can they specify who has supplied it. For who is there in all mankind,
Greek or Barbarian, who ventures to rank among creatures One whom he confesses
the while to be God and says, that He was not till He was made? or who is
there, who to the God in whom he has put faith, refuses to give credit, when
He says, 'This is My beloved Son[4],' on the pretence that He is not a Son,
but a creature? rather, such madness would rouse an universal indignation. Nor
does Scripture afford them any pretext; for it has been often shewn, and it
shah be shewn now, that their doctrine is alien to the divine oracles.
Therefore, since all that remains is to say that from the devil came their
mania (for of such opinions he alone is sower[5]), proceed we to resist
him;for with him is our real conflict, and they are but instruments;--that,
the Lord aiding us, and the enemy, as he is wont, being overcome with
arguments, they may be put to shame, when they see him without resource who
sowed this heresy in them, and may learn, though late, that, as being Arians,
they are not Christians.
CHAPTER IV.
THAT THE SON IS ETERNAL AND INCREATE.
These attributes, being the points in dispute, are first proved by direct
texts of Scripture. Concerning the 'eternal power' of God in Rom. i. 20, which
is shewn to mean the Son. Remarks on the Arian formula, 'Once the Son was
not,' its supporters not daring to speak of 'a time when the Son was not.'
11. AT his suggestion then ye have maintained and ye think, that 'there
was once when the Son was not; 'this is the first cloke of your views of
doctrine which has to be stripped off Say then what was once when the Son was
not, O slanderous and irreligious men[1]? If ye say the Father, your blasphemy
is but greater; for it is impious to say that He was 'once,' or to signify Him
by the word 'once.' For He is ever, and is now, and as the Son is, so is He,
and is Himself He that is, and Father of the Son. But if ye say that the Son
was once, when He Himself was not, the answer is foolish and unmeaning. For
how could He both be and not be? In this difficulty, you can but answer, that
there was a time when the Word was not; for your very adverb 'once' naturally
signifies this. And your other, 'The Son was not before His generation,' is
equivalent to saying, 'There was once when He was not,' for both the one and
the other signify that there is a time before the Word. Whence then this your
discovery? Why do ye, as 'the heathen, rage, and imagine vain phrases against
the Lord[2] and against His Christ?' for no holy Scripture has used such
language of the Saviour, but rather 'always' and 'eternal' and 'coexistent
always with the Father.' For, 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
with God, and the Word was God[3].' And in the Apocalypse be thus speaks[4];
'Who is and who was and who is to come.' Now who can rob 'who is' and 'who
was' of eternity? This too in confutation of the Jews hath Paul written in his
Epistle to the Romans, 'Of whom as concerning the flesh is Christ, who is over
all, God blessed for ever;' while silencing the Greeks, he has said, 'The
visible 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[6];' and what the Power of God is, he teaches us elsewhere himself,
'Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of God[7].' Surely in these words he
does not designate the Father, as ye often whisper one to another, affirming
that the Father is 'His eternal power.' This is not so; for he says not, 'God
Himself is the power,' but 'His is the power.' Very plain is it to all that
'His' is not 'He;' yet not something alien but rather proper to Him. Study too
the context and 'turn to the Lord;' now 'the Lord is that Spirit[8];' and you
will see that it is the Son who is signified.
313
12. For after making mention of the creation, he naturally speaks of the
Framer's Power as seen in it, which Power, I say, is the Word of God, by whom
all things have been made. If indeed the creation is sufficient of itself
alone, without the Son, to make God known, see that you fill not, from
thinking that without the Son it has come to be. But if through the Son it has
come to be, and 'in Him all things consist[9],' it must follow that he who
contemplates the creation rightly, is contemplating also the Word who framed
it, and through Him begins to apprehend the Father[10]. And if, as the Saviour
also says, 'No one knoweth the Father, save the Son, and he to whom the Son
shall reveal Him[11],' and if on Philip's asking, 'Shew us the Father,' He
said not, 'Behold the creation,' but, 'He that hath seen Me, hath seen the
Father[12],' reasonably doth Paul,--while accusing the Greeks of contemplating
the harmony and order of the creation without reflecting on the Framing Word
within it (for the creatures witness to their own Framer) so as through the
creation to apprehend the true God, and abandon their worship of
it,--reasonably hath he said, 'His Eternal Power and Godhead[13],' thereby
signifying the Son. And where the sacred writers say, Who exists before the
ages,' and 'By whom He made the ages[1],' they thereby as clearly preach the
eternal and everlasting being of the Son, even while they are designating God
Himself. Thus, if Isaiah says, 'The Everlasting God, the Creator of the ends
of the earth[2];' and Susanna said, 'O Everlasting God[3];' and Baruch wrote,
'I will cry unto the Everlasting in my days,' and shortly after, 'My hope is
in the Everlasting, that He will save you, and joy is come unto me from the
Holy One[4];' yet forasmuch as the Apostle, writing to the Hebrews, says, 'Who
being the radiance of His glory and the Expression of His Person[5];' and
David too in the eighty-ninth Psalm, 'And the brightness of the Lord be upon
us,' and, 'In Thy Light shall we see Light[6],' who has so little sense as to
doubt of the eternity of the Son[7]? for when did man see light without the
brightness of its radiance, that he may say of the Son, 'There was once, when
He was not,' or 'Before His generation He was not.' And the words addressed to
the Son in the hundred and forty-fourth Psalm, 'Thy kingdom is a kingdom of
all ages[8],' forbid any one to imagine any interval at all in which the Word
did not exist For if every interval in the ages is measured, and of all the
ages the Word is King and Maker, therefore, whereas no interval at all exists
prior to Him[9], it were madness to say, 'There was once when the Everlasting
was not,' and 'From nothing is the Son.' And whereas the Lord Himself says, 'I
am the Truth[10],' not 'I became the Truth;' but always, 'I am,--I am the
Shepherd,--I am the Light,'--and again, 'Call ye Me not, Lord and Master? and
ye call Me well, for so I am,' who, hearing such language from God, and the
Wisdom, and Word of the Father, speaking of Himself, will any longer hesitate
about the truth, and not forthwith believe that in the phrase 'I am,' is
signified that the Son is eternal and without beginning?
13. It is plain then from the above that the Scriptures declare the Son's
eternity; it is equally plain from what follows that the Arian phrases 'He was
not,' and 'before' and 'when,' are in the same Scriptures predicated of
creatures. Moses, for instance, in his account of the generation of our
system, says, 'And every plant of the field, before it was in the earth, and
every herb of the field before it grew; for the Lord God had not caused it to
rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground[1].' And in
Deuteronomy, 'When the Most High divided to the nations[2].' And the Lord said
in His own Person, 'If ye loved Me, ye would rejoice
314
because I said, I go unto the Father, for My Father is greater than I. And now
I have told you before it come to pass, that when it is come to pass, ye might
believe[3].' And concerning the creation He says by Solomon, 'Or ever the
earth was, when there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no
fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the
hills. was I brought forth[4].' And, 'Before Abraham was, I am[5].' And
concerning Jeremiah He says, 'Before I formed thee in the womb, I knew
thee[6]." And David in the Psalm says, 'Before the mountains were brought
forth, or ever the earth and the world were made, Thou art, God from
everlasting and world without end[7].' And in Daniel,' Susanna cried out with
a loud voice and said, O everlasting God, that knowest the secrets, and
knowest all things before they be[8].' Thus it appears that the phrases 'once
was not,' and 'before it came to be,' and 'when,' and the like, belong to
things originate and creatures, which come out of nothing, but are alien to
the Word. But if such terms are used in Scripture of things originate, but
'ever' of the Word, it follows, O ye enemies of God, that the Son did not come
out of nothing, nor is in the number of originated things at all, but is the
Father's Image and Word eternal, never having not been, but being ever, as
the, eternal Radiance[9] of a Light which is eternal. Why imagine then times
before the Son? or wherefore blaspheme the Word as after times, by whom even
the ages were made? for how did time or age at all subsist when the Word, as
you say, had not appeared, 'through' whom 'all things have been made and
without' whom 'not one thing was made[10]?' Or why, when you mean time, do you
not plainly say, 'a time was when the Word was not?' But while you drop the
word 'time' to deceive the simple, you do not at all conceal your own feeling,
nor, even if you did, could you escape discovery. For you still simply mean
times, when you say, 'There was when He was not,' and 'He was not before His
generation.'
CHAPTER V.
SUBJECT CONTINUED,
Objection, that the Son's eternity makes Him coordinate with the Father,
introduces the subject of His Divine Sonship, as a second proof of His
eternity. The word Son is introduced in a secondary, but is to be understood
in real sense. Since all things partake of the Father in partaking of the Son,
He is the whole participation of the Father, that is, He is the Son by nature;
for to be wholly participated is to beget.
14. WHEN these points are thus proved, their profaneness goes further. 'If
there never was, when the Son was not,' say they, 'but He is eternal, and
coexists with the Father, you call Him no more the Father's Son, but
brother[1].' O insensate and contentious! For if we said only that He was
eternally with the Father, and not His Son, their pretended scruple would have
some plausibility; but if, while we say that He is eternal, we also confess
Him to be Son from the Father, how can He that is begotten be considered
brother of Him who begets? And if our faith is in Father and Son, what
brotherhood is there between them? and how can the Word be called brother of
Him whose Word He is? This is not an objection of men really ignorant, for
they comprehend how the truth lies; but it is a Jewish pretence, and that from
those who, in Solomon's words, through desire separate themselves[2]' from the
truth. For the Father and the Son were not generated front some pre-existing
origin[3], that we may account Them brothers, but the Father is the Origin of
the Son and begat Him; and the Father is Father, and not born the Son of any;
and the Son is Son, and not brother. Further, if He is called the eternal
offspring[4] of the Father, He is rightly so called. For never was the essence
of the Father imperfect, that what is proper to it should be added
afterwards[5]; nor, as man from man,
315
has the Son been begotten, so as to be later than His Father's existence, but
He is God's offspring, and as being proper Son of God, who is ever, He exists
eternally. For, whereas it is proper to men to beget in time, from the
imperfection of their nature[6], God's offspring is eternal, for His nature is
ever perfect[7]. If then He is not a Son, but a work made out of nothing, they
have but to prove it; and then they are at liberty, as if imagining about a
creature, to cry out, 'There was once when He was not;' for things which are
originated were not, and have come to be. But if He is Son, as the Father
says, and the Scriptures proclaim, and 'Son' is nothing else than what is
generated from the Father; and what is generated from the Father is His Word,
and Wisdom, and Radiance; what is to be said but that, in maintaining 'Once
the Son was not,' they rob God of His Word, like plunderers, and openly
predicate of Him that He was once without His proper Word and Wisdom, and that
the Light was once without radiance, and the Fountain was once barren and
dry[8]? For though they pretend alarm at the name of time, because of those
who reproach them with it, and say, that He was before times, yet whereas they
assign certain intervals, in which they imagine He was not, they are most
irreligious still, as equally suggesting times, and imputing to God an absence
of Reason[9].
15. But if on the other hand, while they acknowledge with us the name of
'Son,' from an unwillingness to be publicly and generally condemned, they deny
that the Son is the proper offspring of the Father's essence, on the ground
that this must imply parts and divisions[1]; what is this but to deny that He
is very Son, and only in name to call Him Son at all? And is it not a grievous
error, to have material thoughts about what is immaterial, and because of the
weakness of their proper nature to deny what is natural and proper to the
Father? It does but remain, that they should deny Him also, because they
understand not how God is[2], and what the Father is, now that, foolish men,
they measure by themselves the Offspring of the Father. And persons in such a
state of mind as to consider that there cannot be a Son of God, demand our
pity; but they must be interrogated and exposed for the chance of bringing
them to their senses. If then, as you say, 'the Son is from nothing,' and 'was
not before His generation,' He, of course, as well as others, must be called
Son and God and Wisdom only by participation; for thus all other creatures
consist, and by sanctification are glorified. You have to tell us then, of
what He is partaker[3]. All other things partake of the Spirit, but He,
according to you, of what is He partaker? of the Spirit? Nay, rather the
Spirit Himself takes from the Son, as He Himself says; and it is not
reasonable to say that the latter is sanctified by the former. Therefore it is
the Father that He partakes; for this only remains to say. But this, which is
participated, what is it or whence[4]? If it be something external provided by
the Father, He will not now be partaker of the Father, but of what is external
to Him; and no longer will He be even second after the Father, since He has
before Him this other; nor can He be called Son of the Father, but of that, as
partaking which He has been called Son and God. And if this be unseemly and
irreligious, when the Father says, 'This is My Beloved Sons[5],' and when the
Son says that God is His own Father, it follows that what is partaken is not
external, but from the essence of the Father. And as to this again, if it be
other than the essence of the Son, an equal extravagance will meet us; there
being in that case something between this that is from the Father and the
essence of the Son, whatever that be[6].
16. Such thoughts then being evidently unseemly and untrue, we are driven
to say that what is from the essence of the Father, and proper to Him, is
entirely the Son; for it is all one to say that God is wholly participated,
and that He
316
begets; and what does begetting signify but a Son? And thus of the Son
Himself, all things partake according to the grace of the Spirit coming from
Him[7]; and this shews that the Son Himself partakes of nothing, but what is
partaken from the Father, is the Son; for, as partaking of the Son Himself, we
are said to partake of God; and this is what Peter said that ye may be
partakers in a divine nature[8];' as says too the Apostle, 'Know ye not, that
ye are a temple of God?' and, 'We are the temple of a living God[9].' And
beholding the Son, we see the Father; for the thought[10] and comprehension of
the Son, is knowledge concerning the Father, because He is His proper
offspring from His essence. And since to be partaken no one of us would ever
call affection or division of God's essence (for it has been shewn and
acknowledged that God is participated, and to be participated is the same
thing as to beget); therefore that which is begotten is neither affection nor
division of that blessed essence. Hence it is not incredible that God should
have a Son, the Offspring of His own essence; nor do we imply affection or
division of God's essence, when we speak of 'Son' and 'Offspring;' but rather,
as acknowledging the genuine, and true, and Only-begotten of God, so we
believe. If then, as we have stated and are shewing, what is the Offspring of
the Father's essence be the Son, we cannot hesitate, rather we must be
certain, that the same[11] is the Wisdom and Word of the Father, in and
through whom He creates and makes all things; and His Brightness too, in whom
He enlightens all things, and is revealed to whom He will; and His Expression
and Image also, in whom He is contemplated and known, wherefore 'He and His
Father are one[1],' and whoso looketh on Him looketh on the Father; and the
Christ, in whom all things are redeemed, and the new creation wrought afresh.
And on the other hand, the Son being such Offspring, it is not fitting, rather
it is full of peril, to say, that He is a work out of nothing, or that He was
not before His generation. For he who thus speaks of that which is proper to
the Father's essence, already blasphemes the Father Himself[2]; since he
really thinks of Him what he falsely imagines of His offspring.
CHAPTER VI.
SUBJECT CONTINUED.
Third proof of the Son's eternity, viz. from other titles indicative of
His coessentiality; as the Creator; One of the Blessed Trinity; as Wisdom; as
Word: as Image. If the Son is a perfect Image of the Father, why is He not a
Father also? because God, being perfect, is not the origin of a race. Only the
Father a Father because the Only Father, only the Son a Son because the Only
Son. Men are not really fathers and really sons, but shadows of the True. The
Son does not become a Father, because He has received from the Father to be
immutable and ever the same.
17. This is of itself a sufficient refutation of the Arian heresy;
however, its heterodoxy will appear also from the following:--If God be Maker
and Creator, and create His works through the Son, and we cannot regard things
which come to be, except as being through the Word, is it not blasphemous, God
being Maker, to say, that His Framing Word and His Wisdom once was not? it is
the same as saying, that God is not Maker, if He had not His proper Framing
Word which is from Him, but that that by which He frames, accrues to Him from
without[3], and is alien from Him, and unlike in essence. Next, let them tell
us this,--or rather learn from it how irreligious they are in saying, 'Once He
was not,' and, He was not before His generation;'--for if the Word is not with
the Father from everlasting, the Triad is not everlasting; but a Monad was
first, and afterwards by addition it became a Triad; and so as time went on,
it seems what we know concerning God grew and took shape[4]. And further, if
the Son is not proper offspring of the Father's essence, but of nothing has
come to be, then of nothing the Triad consists, and once there was not a
Triad, but a Monad; and a Triad once with deficiency, and then complete;
deficient, before the Son was originated, complete when He had come to be; and
henceforth a thing originated is reckoned with the Creator, and what once was
not has divine worship and glory with Him who was ever[5]. Nay, what is more
serious still, the Triad is discovered to he unlike Itself, consisting of
strange and alien natures and essences. And this, in other words, is saying,
that the Triad has an originated consistence. What sort of a religion then is
this, which is not even like itself, but is in process of completion as time
goes on, and is now not thus, and then again thus? For probably it will
receive some fresh accession, and so on without limit, since at first and at
starting it took its consistence by way of accessions. And so undoubtedly it
may decrease on the contrary, for what is added plainly admits of being
subtracted.
18. But this is not so: perish the thought; the Triad is not originated;
but there is an eternal and one Godhead in a Triad, and
317
there is one Glory of the Holy Triad. And you presume to divide it into
different natures; the Father being eternal, yet you say of the Word which is
seated by Him, 'Once He was not;' and, whereas the Son is seated by the
Father, yet you think to place Him far from Him. The Triad is Creator and
Framer, and you fear not to degrade It to things which are from nothing; you
scruple not to equal servile beings to the nobility of the Triad and to rank
the King, the Lord of Sabaoth with subjects[6]. Cease this confusion of things
unassociable, or rather of things which are not with Him who is. Such
statements do not glorify and honour the Lord, but the reverse; for he who
dishonours the Son, dishonours also the Father. For if the doctrine of God is
now perfect in a Triad, and this is the true and only Religion, and this is
the good and the truth, it must have been always so, unless the good and the
truth be something that came after, and the doctrine of God is completed by
additions. I say, it must have been eternally so; but if not eternally, not so
at present either, but at present so, as you suppose it was from the
beginning,--I mean, not a Triad now. But such heretics no Christian would
bear; it belongs to Greeks, to introduce an originated Triad, and to level It
with things originate: for these do admit of deficiencies and additions; but
the faith of Christians acknowledges the blessed Triad as unalterable and
perfect and ever what It was, neither adding to It what is more, nor imputing
to It any loss (for both ideas are irreligious), and therefore it dissociates
It from all things generated, and it guards as indivisible and worships the
unity of the Godhead Itself; and shuns the Arian blasphemies, and confesses
and acknowledges that the Son was ever; for He is eternal, as is the Father,
of whom He is the Eternal Word,--to which subject let us now return again.
19. If God be, and be called, the Fountain of wisdom and life--as He says
by Jeremiah, 'They have forsaken Me the Fountain of living waters[7];' and
again, 'A glorious high throne from the beginning, is the place of our
sanctuary; O Lord, the Hope of Israel, all that forsake Thee shall be ashamed,
and they that depart from Me shall be written in the earth, because they have
forsaken the Lord, the Fountain of living waters[8];' and in the book of
Baruch it is written, 'Thou hast forsaken the Fountain of wisdom[9],'--this
implies that life and wisdom are not foreign to the Essence of the Fountain,
but are proper to It, nor were at any time without existence, but were always.
Now the Son is all this, who says, 'I am the Life[10],' and, 'I Wisdom dwell
with prudence[11].' Is it not then irreligious to say, 'Once the Son was not?'
for it is all one with saying, 'Once the Fountain was dry, destitute of Life
and Wisdom.' But a fountain it would then cease to be; for what begetteth not
from itself, is not a fountain[1]. What a load of extravagance! for God
promises that those who do His will shall be as a fountain which the water
fails not, saying by Isaiah the prophet, 'And the Lord shall satisfy thy soul
in drought, and make thy bones fat; and thou shalt be like a watered garden,
and like a spring of water, whose waters fail not[2].' And yet these, whereas
God is called and is a Fountain of wisdom, dare to insult Him as barren and
void of His proper Wisdom. But their doctrine is false; truth witnessing that
God is the eternal Fountain of His proper Wisdom; and, if the Fountain be
eternal, the Wisdom also must needs be eternal. For in It were all things
made, as David says in the Psalm, 'In Wisdom bast Thou made them all[3];' and
Solomon says, 'The Lord by Wisdom hath formed the earth, by understanding hath
He established the heavens[4].' And this Wisdom is the Word, and by Him, as
John says, 'all things were made,' and 'without Him was made not one
things[5].' And this Word Christ; for 'there is One God, the Father, from whom
are all things, and we for Him; and One Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are
all things, and we through Him[6].' And if all things are through Him, He
Himself is not to be reckoned with that 'all' For he who dares[7] to call Him,
through whom are things, one of that 'all,' surely will have like speculations
concerning God, from whom are all. But if he shrinks from this as unseemly,
and excludes God from that all, it is but consistent that he should also
exclude from that all the Only-Begotten Son, as being proper to the Father's
essence. And, if He be not one of the all[8], it is sin to say concerning Him,
'He was not,' and 'He was not before His generation.' Such words may be used
of the creatures; but as to the Son, He is such as the Father is, of whose
essence He is proper Offspring, Word, and Wisdom[9]. For this is proper to the
Son, as regards the Father, and this shews that the Father is proper to the
Son; that we may neither say that God was ever without Word[10], nor that the
Son
318
was non-existent. For wherefore a Son, if not from Him? or wherefore Word and
Wisdom, if not ever proper to Him?
20. When then was God without that which is proper to Him? or how can a
man consider that which is proper, as foreign and alien in essence? for other
things, according to the nature of things originate, are without likeness in
essence with the Maker; but are external to Him, made by the Word at His grace
and will, and thus admit of ceasing to be, if it so pleases Him who made
them[1]; for such is the nature of things originate[2]. But as to what is
proper to the Father's essence (for this we have already found to be the Son),
what daring is it in irreligion to say that 'This comes from nothing,' and
that 'It was not before generation,' but was adventitious[3], and can at some
time cease to be again? Let a person only dwell upon this thought, and he will
discern how the perfection and the plenitude of the Father's essence is
impaired by this heresy; however, he will see its unseemliness still more
clearly, if he considers that the Son is the Image and Radiance of the Father,
and Expression, and Truth. For if, when Light exists, there be withal its
Image, viz. Radiance, and, a Subsistence existing, there be of it the entire
Expression, and, a Father existing, there be His Truth (viz. the Son); let
them consider what depths of irreligion they fall into, who make time the
measure of the Image and Form of the Godhead. For if the Son was not before
His generation, Truth was not always in God, which it were a sin to say; for,
since the Father was, there was ever in Him the Truth, which is the Son, who
says, 'I am the Truth[4].' And the Subsistence existing, of course there was
forthwith its Expression and Image; for God's Image is not delineated from
without[5], but God Himself hath begotten it; in which seeing Himself, He has
delight, as the Son Himself says, 'I was His delight[6].' When then did the
Father not see Himself in His own Image? or when had He not delight, that a
man should dare to say, 'the Image is out of nothing,' and ' The Father had
not delight before the Image was originated?' and how should the Maker and
Creator see Himself in a created and originated essence? for such as is the
Father, such must be the Image.
21. Proceed we then to consider the attributes of the Father, and we shall
come to know whether this Image is really His. The Father is eternal,
immortal, powerful, light, King, Sovereign, God, Lord, Creator, and Maker.
These attributes must be in the Image, to make it true that he 'that hath seen
' the Son 'hath seen the Father[7].' If the Son be not all this, but, as the
Arians consider, originate, and not eternal, this is not a true Image of the
Father, unless indeed they give up shame, and go on to say, that the title of
Image, given to the Son, is not a token of a similar essence[8], but His
name[9] only. But this, on the other hand, O ye enemies of Christ, is not an
Image, nor is it an Expression. For what is the likeness of what is out of
nothing to Him who brought what was nothing into being? or how can that which
is not, be like Him that is, being short of Him in once not being, and in its
having its place among things originate? However, such the Arians wishing Him
to be, devised for themselves arguments such as this;--'If the Son is the
Father's offspring and Image, and is like in all things[10] to the Father,
then it neces-
319
sadly holds that as He is begotten, so He begets, and He too becomes father of
a son. And again, he who is begotten from Him, begets in his turn, and so on
without limit; for this is to make the Begotten like Him that begat Him.'
Authors of blasphemy, verily, are these foes of God! who, sooner than confess
that the Son is the Father's Image (1), conceive material and earthly ideas
concerning the Father Himself, ascribing to Him severings and (2) effluences
and influences. If then God be as man, let Him become also a parent as man, so
that His Son should be father of another, and so in succession one from
another, till the series they imagine grows into a multitude of gods. But if
God be not as man, as He is not, we must not impute to Him the attributes of
man. For brutes and men after a Creator has begun them, are begotten by
succession; and the son, having been begotten of a father who was a son,
becomes accordingly in his turn a father to a son, in inheriting from his
father that by which he himself has come to be. Hence in such instances there
is not, properly speaking, either father or son, nor do the father and the son
stay in their respective characters, for the son himself becomes a father,
being son of his father, but father of his son. But it is not so in the
Godhead; for not as man is God; for the Father is not from a father; therefore
doth He not beget one who shall become a father; nor is the Son from effluence
of the Father, nor is He begotten from a father that was begotten; therefore
neither is He begotten so as to beget. Thus it belongs to the Godhead alone,
that the Father is properly (3) father, and the Son properly son, and in Them,
and Them only, does it hold that the Father is ever Father and the Son ever
Son.
22. Therefore he who asks why the Son is not to beget a son, must inquire
why the Father had not a father. But both suppositions are unseemly and full
of impiety. For as the Father is ever Father and never could become Son, so
the Son is ever Son and never could become Father. For in this rather is He
shewn to be the Father's Expression and Image, remaining what He is and not
changing, but thus receiving from ,he Father to be one and the same. If then
the Father change, let the Image change; for so is the Image and Radiance in
its relation towards Him who begat It. But if the Father is unalterable, and
what He is that He continues, necessarily does the Image also continue what He
is, and will not alter. Now He is Son from the Father; therefore He will not
become other than is proper to the Fathers essence. Idly then have the foolish
ones devised this objection also, wishing to separate the Image from the
Father, that they might level the Son with things originated.
CHAPTER VII.
OBJECTIONS TO THE FOREGOING PROOF.
Whether, in the generation of the Son, God made One that was already, or One
that was not.
22 (continued). RANKING Him among these, according to the teaching of
Eusebius, and accounting Him such as the things which come into being through
Him, Arius and his fellows revolted from the truth, and used, when they
commenced this heresy, to go about with dishonest phrases which they had got
together; nay, up to this time some of thorn[1], when they fall in
320
with boys in the market-place, question them, not out of divine Scripture, but
thus, as if bursting with 'the abundance of their heart[2];'--'He who is, did
He make him who was not from that which was [not], or him who was? therefore
did He make the Son, whereas He was, or whereas He was not[3]?' And again, 'Is
the Unoriginate one or two?' and 'Has He free will, and vet does not alter at
His own choice, as being of an alterable nature? for He is not as a stone to
remain by Himself unmoveable.' Next they turn to silly women, and address them
in turn in this womanish language; 'Hadst thou a son before bearing? now, as
thou hadst not, so neither was the Son of God before His generation.' In such
language do the disgraceful men sport and revel, and liken God to men
pretending to be Christians, but changing God's glory' into an image made like
to corruptible man[4].'
23. Words so senseless and dull deserved no answer at all; however, lest
their heresy appear to have any foundation, it may be right, though we go out
of the way for it, to refute them even here, especially on account of the
silly women who are so readily deceived by them When they thus speak, they
should have inquired of an architect, whether he can build without materials;
and if he cannot, whether it follows that God could not make the universe
without materials[5]. Or they should have asked every man, whether he can be
without place and if he cannot, whether it follows that God is in place, that
so they may be brought to shame even by their audience. Or why is it that, on
hearing that God has a Son, they deny Him by the parallel of themselves;
whereas, if they hear that He creates and makes, no longer do they object
their human ideas? they ought in creation also to entertain the same, and to
supply God with materials, and so deny Him to be Creator, till they end in
grovelling with Manichees. But if the bare idea of God transcends such
thoughts, and, on very first hearing, a man believes and knows that He is in
being, not as we are, and yet in being as God, and creates not as man
creates, but yet creates as God, it is plain that He begets also not as men
beget, but begets as God. For God does not make man His pattern; but rather we
men, for that God is properly, and alone truly[7], Father of His Son, are also
called fathers of our own children; for of Him 'is every fatherhood in heaven
and earth named[7].' And their positions, while unscrutinized, have a shew of
sense; but if any one scrutinize them by reason, they will be found to incur
much derision and mockery.
24. For first of all, as to their first question, which is such as this,
how dull and vague it is! they do not explain who it is they ask about, so as
to allow of an answer, but they say abstractedly, 'He who is,' 'him who is
not.' Who then 'is,' and what 'are not,' O Arians? or who 'is,' and who 'is
not?' what are said 'to be,' what 'not to be?' for He that is, can make things
which are not, and which are, and which were before. For instance, carpenter,
and goldsmith, and potter, each, according to his own art, works upon
materials previously existing, making what vessels he pleases; and the God of
all Himself, having taken the dust of the earth existing and already brought
to be, fashions man; that very earth, however, whereas it was not once, He has
at one time made by His own Word. If then this is the meaning of their
question, the creature on the one hand plainly was not before its origination,
and then, on the other, work the existing material; and thus their reasoning
is inconsequent, since both 'what is' becomes, and 'what is not' becomes, as
these instances shew. But if they speak concerning God and His Word, let them
complete their question and then ask, Was the God, 'who is,' ever without
Reason? and, whereas He is Light, was He ray-less? or was He always Father of
the Word? Or again in this manner. Has the Father 'who is' made the Word 'who
is not,' or has He ever with Him His Word, as the proper offspring of His
substance? This will shew them that they do but presume and venture on
sophisms about God and Him who is from Him. Who indeed can bear to hear them
say that God was ever without Reason? this is what they fall into a second
time, though endeavouring in vain to escape it and to hide it with their
sophisms. Nay, one would fain not hear them disputing at all, that God was not
always
321
Father, but became so afterwards (which is necessary for their fantasy, that
His Word once was not), considering the number of the proofs already adduced
against them; while John besides says, 'The Word was[7a],' and Paul again
writes, 'Who being the brightness of His glory (8),' and, 'Who is over all,
God blessed for ever. Amen[9].'
25. They had best have been silent; but since it is otherwise, it remains
to meet their shameless question with a bold retort[1]. Perhaps on seeing the
counter absurdities which beset themselves, they may cease to fight against
the truth. After many prayers[2] then that God would be gracious to us, thus
we might ask them in turn; God who is, has He so become, whereas He was not?
or is He also before His coming into being? whereas He is, did He make
Himself, or is He of nothing, and being nothing before, did He suddenly appear
Himself? Unseemly is such an enquiry, both unseemly and very blasphemous, yet
parallel with theirs; for the answer they make abounds in irreligion. But if
it be blasphemous and utterly irreligious thus to inquire about God, it will
be blasphemous too to make the like inquiries about His Word. However, by way
of exposing a question so senseless and so dull, it is necessary to answer
thus:--whereas God is, He was eternally; since then the Father is ever, His
Radiance ever is, which is His Word. And again, God who is, hath from Himself
His Word who also is; and neither hath the Word been added, whereas He was not
before, nor was the Father once without Reason. For this assault upon the Son
makes the blasphemy recoil upon the Father; as if He devised for Himself a
Wisdom, and Word, and Son from without[3]; for whichever of these titles you
use, you denote the offspring from the Father, as has been said. So that this
their objection does not hold; and naturally; for denying the Logos they in
consequence ask questions which are illogical. As then if a person saw the
sun, and then inquired concerning its radiance, and said, 'Did that which is
make that which was, or that which was not,' he would be held not to reason
sensibly, but to be utterly mazed, because he fancied what is from the Light
to be external to it, and was raising questions, when and where and whether it
were made; in like manner, thus to speculate concerning the Son and the Father
and thus to inquire, is far greater madness, for it is to conceive of the Word
of the Father as external to Him, and to idly call the natural offspring a
work, with the avowal, 'He was not before His generation.' Nay, let them over
and above take this answer to their question;--The Father who was, made the
Son who was, for 'the Word was made flesh[4];' and, whereas He was Son of God,
He made Him in consummation of the ages also Son of Man, unless forsooth,
after the Samosatene, they affirm that He did not even exist at all, till He
became than.
26. This is sufficient from us in answer to their first question. And now
on your part, O Arians, remembering your own words, tell us whether He who was
needed one who was not for the framing of the universe, or one who was? You
said that He made for Himself His Son out of nothing, as an instrument whereby
to make the universe. Which then is superior, that which needs or that which
supplies the need? or does not each supply the deficiency of the other? You
rather prove the weakness of the Maker, if He had not power of Himself to make
the universe, but provided for Himself an instrument from without[5], as
carpenter might do or shipwright, unable to work anything without adze and
saw! Can anything be more irreligious? yet why should one dwell on its
heinousness, when enough has gone before to shew that their doctrine is a mere
fantasy?
CHAPTER VIII.
OBJECTIONS CONTINUED.
Whether we may decide the question by the parallel of human sons, which are
born later than their parents. No, for the force of the analogy lies in the
idea of connaturality. Time is not involved in the idea of Son, but is
adventitious to it, and does not attach to God, because He is without parts
and passions. The titles Word and Wisdom guard our thoughts of Him and His Son
from this misconception. God not a Father, as a Creator, in posse from
eternity, because creation does not relate to the essence of God, as
generation does.
26. (continued). NOR is answer needful to their other very simple and
foolish inquiry, which they put to silly women; or none besides that which has
been already given, namely, that it is not suitable to measure divine
generation by the nature of men. However, that as before they may pass
judgment on themselves, it is well to meet them on the same ground,
thus:--Plainly, if they inquire of parents concerning their son, let them
consider whence is the child which is begotten. For, granting
322
the parent had not a son before his begetting, still, after having him, he had
him, not as external or as foreign, but as from himself, and proper to his
essence and his exact image, so that the former is beheld in the latter, and
the latter is contemplated in the former. If then they assume from human
examples that generation implies time, why not from the same infer that it
implies the Natural and the Proper[1], instead of extracting serpent-like from
the earth only what turns to poison? Those who ask of parents, and say, 'Had
you a son before you begot him?' should add, 'And if you had a son, did you
purchase him from without as a house or any other possession?' And then you
would be answered, 'He is not from without, but from myself. For things which
are from without are possessions, and pass from one to another; but my son is
from me, proper and similar to my essence, not become mine from another, but
begotten of me; wherefore I too am wholly in him, while I remain myself what I
am.' For so it is; though the parent be distinct in time, as being man,
who himself has come to be in time, yet he too would have had his child ever
coexistent with him, but that his nature was a restraint and made it
impossible. For Levi too was already in the loins of his great grandfather,
before his own actual generation, or that of his grandfather. When then the
man comes to that age at which nature supplies the power, immediately, with
nature, unrestrained, he becomes father of the son from himself.
27. Therefore, if on asking parents about children, they get for answer,
that children which are by nature are not from without, but from their
parents, let them confess in like manner concerning the Word of God, that He
is simply from the Father. And if they make a question of the time, let them
say what is to restrain God--for it is necessary to prove their irreligion on
the very ground on which their scoff is made--let them tell us, what is there
to restrain God from being always Father of the Son; for that what is begotten
must be from its father is undeniable. Moreover, they will pass judgment on
themselves in attributing[3] such things to God, if, as they questioned women
on the subject of time, so they inquire of the sun concerning its radiance.
and of the fountain concerning its issue. They will find that these, though an
offspring, always exist with those things from which they are. And if parents,
such as these, have in common with their children nature and duration, why, if
they suppose God inferior to things that come to be[4], do they not openly say
out their own irreligion? But if they do not dare to say this openly, and the
Son is confessed to be, not from without, but a natural offspring from the
Father, and that there is nothing which is a restraint to God for not as man
is He, but more than the sun, or rather the God of the sun), it follows that
the Word is from Him and is ever co-existent with Him, through whom also the
Father caused that all things which were not should be. That then the Son
comes not of nothing but is eternal and from the Father, is certain even from
the nature of the case; and the question of the heretics to parents exposes
their perverseness; for they confess the point of nature, and now have been
put to shame on the point of time.
28. As we said above, so now we repeat, that the divine generation must
not be compared to the nature of men, nor the Son considered to be part of
God, nor the generation to imply any passion whatever; God is not as man; for
men beget passibly, having a transitive nature, which waits for periods by
reason of its weakness. But with God this cannot be; for He is not composed of
parts, but being impassible and simple, He is impassibly and indivisibly
Father of the Son. This again is strongly evidenced and proved by divine
Scripture. For the Word of God is His Son, and the Son is the Father's Word
and Wisdom; and Word and Wisdom is neither creature nor part of Him whose Word
He is, nor an offspring passibly begotten. Uniting then the two titles,
Scripture speaks
323
of 'Son,' in order to herald the natural and true offspring of His essence;
and, on the other hand, that none may think of the Offspring humanly, while
signifying His essence, it also calls Him Word, Wisdom, and Radiance; to teach
us that the generation was impassible, and eternal, and worthy of Gods.[5]
What affection then, or what part of the Father is the Word and the Wisdom and
the Radiance? So much may be impressed even on these men of folly; for as they
asked women concerning God's Son, so[6] let them inquire of men concerning the
Word, and they will find that the word which they put forth is neither an
affection of them nor a part of their mind. But if such be the word of men,
who are passible and partitive, why speculate they about passions and parts in
the instance of the immaterial and indivisible God, that under pretence of
reverence[7] they may deny the true and natural generation of the Son? Enough
was said above to shew that the offspring from God is not an affection; and
now it has been shewn in particular that the Word is not begotten according to
affection. The same may be said of Wisdom; God is not as man; nor must they
here think humanly of Him. For, whereas men are capable of wisdom, God
partakes in nothing, but is Himself the Father of His own Wisdom, of which
whoso partake a given the name of wise. And this Wisdom too is not a passion,
nor a part, but an Offspring proper to the Father. Wherefore He is ever
Father, nor is the character of Father adventitious to God, lest He seem
alterable; for if it is good that He be Father but has not ever been Father,
then good has not ever been in Him.
29. But, observe, say they, God was always a Maker, nor is the power of
framing adventitous to Him; does it follow then, that, because He is the
Framer of all, therefore His works also are eternal, and is it wicked to say
of them too, that they were not before original;on? Senseless are these
Arians; for what likeness is there between Son and work, that they should
parallel a father's with a maker's function? How is it that, with that
difference between offspring and work, which has been shewn, they remain so
ill-instructed? Let it be repeated then, that a work is external to the
nature, but a son is the proper offspring of the essence; it follows that a
work need not have been always, for the workman frames it when he will; but an
offspring is not subject to will, but is proper to the essence[8]. And a man
may be and may be called Maker, though the works are not as yet; but father he
cannot be called, nor can he be, unless a son exist. And if they curiously
inquire why God, though always with the power to make, does not always make
(though this also be the presumption of madmen, for 'who hath known the mind
of the Lord, or who hath been His Counsellor?' or how 'shall the thing formed
say to' the potter, 'why didst thou make me thus[9]?' however, not to leave
even a weak argument unnoticed), they must be told, that although God always
had the power to make, yet the things originated had not the power of being
eternal[10]. For they are out of nothing, and therefore were not before their
origination; but things which were not before their origination, how could
these coexist with the ever-existing God? Wherefore God, looking to what was
good for them, then made them all when He saw that, when originated, they were
able to abide. And as, though He was able, even from the beginning in the time
of Adam, or Noah, or Moses, to send His own Word, yet He sent Him not until
the consummation of the ages (for this He saw to be good for the whole
creation), so also things originated did He make when He would, and as was
good for them. But the Son, not being
324
a work, but proper to the Father's offspring, always is; for, whereas the
Father always is, so what is proper to His essence must always be; and this is
His Word and His Wisdom. And that creatures should not be in existence, does
not disparage the Maker; for He hath the power of framing them, when He wills;
but For the offspring not to be ever with the Father, is a disparagement of
the perfection of His essence. Wherefore His works were framed, when He would,
through His Word; but the Son is ever the proper offspring of the Father's
essence.
CHAPTER IX.
OBJECTIONS CONTINUED.
Whether is the Unoriginate one or two? Inconsistent in Arians to use an
unscriptural word; necessary to define its meaning. Different senses of the
word. If it means 'without Father,' there is but One Unoriginate; if 'without
beginning or creation,' there are two. Inconsistency of Asterius.
'Unoriginate' a title of God, not in contrast with the Son, but with
creatures, as is 'Almighty,' or 'Lord of powers.' 'Father' is the truer title,
as not only Scriptural, but implying a Son, and our adoption as sons.
30. THESE considerations encourage the faithful, and distress the
heretical, perceiving, as they do, their heresy overthrown thereby. Moreover,
their further question, 'whether the Unoriginate be one or two[1],' shews how
false are their views, how treacherous and full of guile. Not for the Father's
honour ask they this, but for the dishonour of the Word. Accordingly, should
any one, not aware of their craft, answer, 'the Unoriginated is one,'
forthwith they spirit out their own venom, saying, 'Therefore the Son is among
things originated,' and well have we said, 'He was not before His generation.'
Titus they make any kind of disturbance and confusion, provided they can but
separate the Son from the Father, and reckon the Framer of all among His
works. Now first they may be convicted on this score, that, while blaming the
Nicene Bishops for their use of phrases not in Scripture, though these not
injurious, but subversive of their irreligion, they themselves went off upon
the same fault, that is, using words not in Scripture[2], and those in
contumely of the Lord, knowing 'neither what they say nor whereof they
affirm[3].' For instance, let them ask the Greeks, who have been their
instructors (for it is a word of their invention, not Scripture), and when
they have been instructed in its various significations, then they will
discover that they cannot even question properly, on the subject which they
have undertaken. For they have led me to ascertain[4] that by 'unoriginate' is
meant what has not yet come to be, but is possible to be, as wood which is not
yet become, but is capable of becoming, a vessel; and again what neither has
nor ever can come to be, as a triangle quadrangular, and an even number odd.
For a triangle neither has nor ever can become quadrangular; nor has even
ever, nor can ever, become odd. Moreover, by 'unoriginate' is meant, what
exists, but has not come into being from any, nor having a father at all.
Further, Asterius, the unprincipled sophist, the patron too of this heresy,
has added in his own treatise, that what is not made, but is ever, is
'unoriginate[5].' They ought then, when they ask the question, to add in what
sense they take the word 'unoriginate,' and then the parties questioned would
be able to answer to the point.
31. But if they still are satisfied with merely asking, 'Is the
Unoriginate one or two?' they must be told first of all, as ill-educated men,
that many are such and nothing is such, many, which are capable of
origination, and nothing, which is not capable, as has been said. But if they
ask according as Asterius ruled it, as if 'what is not a work but was always'
were unoriginate, then they must constantly be told that the Son as well as
the Father must in this sense be called unoriginate. For He is neither in the
number of things originated, nor a work, but has ever been with the Father, as
has already been shewn, in spite of their many variations for the sole sake of
speaking against the Lord,
325
He is of nothing' and 'He was not before His generation.' When then, after
failing at every turn, they betake themselves to the other sense of the
question, 'existing but not generated of any nor having a father,' we shall
tell them that the unoriginate in this sense is only one, namely the Father;
and they will gain nothing by their question[6]. For to say that God is in
this sense Unoriginate, does not shew that the Son is a thing originated, it
being evident from the above proofs that the Word is such as He is who begat
Him. Therefore if God be unoriginate, His Image is not originated, but an
Offspring, which is His Word and His Wisdom. For what likeness has the
originated to the unoriginate? (one must not weary of using repetition;) for
if they will have it that the one is like the other, so that he who sees the
one beholds the other, they are like to say that the Unoriginate is the image
of creatures; the end of which is a confusion of the whole subject, an
equalling of things originated with the Unoriginate, and a denial of the
Unoriginate by measuring Him with the works; and all to reduce the Son into
their number.
32. However, I suppose even they will be unwilling to proceed to such
lengths, if they follow Asterius the sophist. For he, earnest as he is in his
advocacy of the Arian heresy, and maintaining that the Unoriginate is one,
runs courtier to them in saying, that the Wisdom of God is unoriginate and
without beginning also. The following is a passage out of his works: 'The
Blessed Paul said not that he preached Christ the power of God or the wisdom
of God, but, without the article, 'God's power and God's wisdom[9];' thus
preaching that the proper power of God Himself, which is natural to Him and
co-existent with Him unoriginatedly, is something besides.' And again, soon
after: 'However, His eternal power and wisdom, which truth argues to be
without beginning and unoriginate; this must surely be one.' For though,
misunderstanding the Apostle's words, he considered that there were two
wisdoms; yet, by speaking still of a wisdom coexistent with Him, he declares
that the Unoriginate is not simply one, but that there is another Unoriginate
with Him. For what is coexistent, coexists not with itself, but with another.
If then they agree with Asterius, let them never ask again, Is the
Unoriginate one or two,' or they will have to contest the point with him; if,
on the other hand, they differ even from him, let them not rely upon his
treatise, lest, 'biting one another, they be consumed one of another[10].' So
much on the point of their ignorance; but who can say enough on their crafty
character? who but would justly hate them while possessed by such a madness?
for when they were no longer allowed to say 'out of nothing' and 'He was not
before His generation,' they hit upon this word 'unoriginate,' that, by saying
among the simple that the Son was 'originate,' they might imply the very same
phrases 'out of nothing,' and 'He once was not;' for in such phrases things
originated and creatures are implied.
33. if they have confidence in their own positions, they should stand to
them, and not change about so variously[1]; but this they will not, from an
idea that success is easy, if they do but shelter their heresy under colour of
the word 'unoriginate.' Yet after all, this term is not used in contract with
the Son, clamour as they may, but with things originated; and the like may be
found in the words 'Almighty,' and 'Lord of the Powers[2].' For if we say that
the Father has power and mastery over all things by the Word, and the Son
rules the Father's kingdom, and has the power of all, as His Word, and as the
Image of the Father, it is quite plain that neither here is the Son reckoned
among that all, nor is God called Almighty and Lord with reference to Him, but
to those things which through the Son come to be, and over which He exercises
power and mastery through the Word. And therefore the Unoriginate is specified
not by contrast to the Son, but to the things which through the Son come to
be. And excellently: since God is not as things originated, but is their
Creator and Framer through the Son. And as the word 'Unoriginate' is specified
relatively to things originated, so the word 'Father' is indicative of the
Son. And he who names God Maker and Framer and Un-originate, regards and
apprehends things created and made; and he who calls God Father, thereby
conceives and contemplates the Son. And hence one might marvel at the
obstinacy which is added to their irreligion, that, whereas the term
'unoriginate 'has the aforesaid good sense, and admits of being used
religiously[3], they, in their own heresy, bring it forth for the dishonour of
the Son, not having read that he who honoureth the Son honoureth the Father,
326
and he who dishonoureth the Son, dishonoureth the Father[4]. If they had any
concern at all[5] for reverent speaking and the honour due to the Father, it
became them rather, and this were better and higher, to acknowledge and call
God Father, than to give Him this name. For, in calling God unoriginate, they
are, as I said before, calling Him from His works, and as Maker only and
Framer, supposing that hence they may signify that the Word is a work after
their own pleasure. But that he who calls God Father, signifies Him from the
Son being well aware that if there be a Son, of necessity through that Son all
things originate were created. And they, when they call Him Unoriginate, name
Him only from His works, and know not the Son any more than the Greeks; but he
who calls God Father, names Him from the Word; and knowing the Word he
acknowledges Him to be Framer of all, and understands that through Him all
things have been made.
34. Therefore it is more pious and more accurate to signify God from the
Son and call Him Father, than to name Him from His works only and call Him
Unoriginate[6]. For the latter title, as I have said, does nettling more than
signify all the works, individually and collectively, which have come to be at
the will of God through the Word; but the title Father has its significance
and its bearing only from the Son. And, whereas the Word surpasses things
originated, by so much and more doth calling God Father surpass the calling
Him Un-originate. For the latter is unscriptural and suspicious, because it
has various senses; so that, when a man is asked concerning it, his mind is
carried about to many ideas; but the word Father is simple and scriptural, and
more accurate, and only implies the Son. And 'Unoriginate' is a word of the
Greeks, who know not the Son; but 'Father' has been acknowledged and
vouchsafed by our Lord. For He, knowing Himself whose Son He was, said, 'I am
in the Father, and the Father is in Me;' and, 'He that hath seen Me, hath seen
the Father,' and 'I and the Father are One[7];' but nowhere is He found to
call the Father Unoriginate. Moreover, when He teaches us to pray, He says
not, 'When ye pray, say, O God Unoriginate,' but rather, 'When ye pray, say,
Our Father, which art in heaven[8].' And it was His will that the Summary[9]
of our faith should have the same bearing, in bidding us be baptized, not into
the name of Unoriginate and originate, nor into the name of Creator and
creature, but into the Name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. For with such an
initiation we too, being numbered among works, are made sons, and using the
name of the Father, acknowledge from that name the Word also in the I Father
Himself[10]. A vain thing then is their argument about the term 'Unoriginate,'
as is now proved, and nothing more than a fantasy.
CHAPTER X.
OBJECTIONS CONTINUED.
How the Word has free will, yet without being alterable. He is unalterable
because the Image of the Father, proved from texts.
35. As to their question whether the Word is alterable[1], it is
superfluous to examine it; it is enough simply to write down what they say,
and so to shew its daring irreligion. How they trifle, appears from the
following questions:--'Has He free will, or has He not? is He good from choice
according to free will, and can He, if He will, alter, being of an alterable
nature? or, as wood or stone, has He not His choice free to be moved and,
incline hither and thither?' It is but agreeable to their heresy thus to speak
and think; for, when once they have framed to themselves a God out of nothing
and a created Son, of course they also adopt such terms, as being suitable to
a creature. However, when in their controversies with Churchmen they hear from
them of the real and only Word of the Father, and yet venture thus to speak of
Him, does not their doctrine then become the most loathsome that can be found?
is it not enough to distract a man on mere hearing, though unable to reply,
and to make him stop his ears, from astonishment at the novelty of what he
hears them say, which even to mention is to blaspheme? For if the Word be
alterable and changing, where will He stay, and what will be the end of His
development? how shall the alterable possibly be like the Unalterable? How
should he who has seen the alterable, be considered to have seen the
Unalterable? At what state must He arrive, for us to be able to behold in Him
the Father? for it is plain
327
that not at all times shall we see the Father in the Son, because the Son is
ever altering, and is of changing nature. For the Father is unalterable and
unchangeable, and is always in the same state and the same; but if, as they
hold, the Son is alterable, and not always the same, but of an ever-changing
nature, how can such a one be the Father's Image, not having the likeness of
His unalterableness[2]? how can He be really in the Father, if His purpose is
indeterminate? Nay, perhaps, as being alterable, and advancing daily, He is
not perfect yet. But away with such madness of the Arians, and let the truth
shine out, and shew that they are foolish. For must not He be perfect who is
equal to God? and must not He be unalterable, who is one with the Father, and
His Son proper to His essence? and the Father's essence being unalterable,
unalterable must be also the proper Offspring from it. And if they
slanderously impute alteration to the Word, let them learn how much their own
reason is in peril for from the fruit is the tree known. For this is why he
who hath seen the Son hath seen the Father; and why the knowledge of the Son
is knowledge of the Father.
36. Therefore the Image of the unalterable God must be unchangeable; for
'Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever[3].' And David in
the Psalm says of Him, 'Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation
of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Thine hands. They shall perish,
but Thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment. And as a
vesture shall Thou fold them up, and they shall be changed, but Thou art the
same. and Thy years shall not fail[4].' And the Lord Himself says of Himself
through the Prophet, 'See now that I, even I am He,' and 'I change not[5].' It
may be said indeed that what is here signified relates to the Father; yet it
suits the Son also to say this, specially because, when made man, He manifests
His own identity and unalterableness to such as suppose that by reason of the
flesh He is changed and become other than He was. More trustworthy are the
saints, or rather the Lord, than the perversity of the irreligious. For
Scripture, as in the above-cited passage of the Psalter, signifying under the
name of heaven and earth, that the nature of all things originate and created
is alterable and changeable, yet excepting the Son from these, shews us
thereby that He is no wise a thing originate; nay teaches that He changes
everything else, and is Himself not changed, in saying, 'Thou art the same,
and Thy years shall not fail[6].' And with reason; for things originate, being
from nothing[7], and not being before their origination, because, in truth,
they come to be after not being, have a nature which is changeable; but the
Son, being from the Father, and proper to His essence, is unchangeable and
unalterable as the Father Himself. For it were sin to say that from that
essence which is unalterable was begotten an alterable word and a changeable
wisdom. For how is He longer the Word, if He be alterable? or can that be
Wisdom which is changeable? unless perhaps, as accident in essence[8], so they
would have it, viz. as in any particular essence, a certain grace and habit of
virtue exists accidentally, which is called Word and Son and Wisdom, and
admits of being taken from it and added to it. For they have often expressed
this sentiment, but it is not the faith of Christians; as not declaring that
He is truly Word and Son of God, or that the wisdom intended is true Wisdom.
For what alters and changes, and has no stay in one and the same condition,
how can that be true? whereas the Lord says, 'I am the Truth[9].' If then the
Lord Himself speaks thus concerning Himself, and declares His unalterableness,
and the Saints have learned and testify this, nay and our notions of God
acknowledge it as religious, whence did these men of irreligion draw this
novelty? From their heart as from a seat of corruption did they vomit it
forth[10].
CHAPTER XI.
TEXTS EXPLAINED; AND FIRST, PHIL. ii.
9, 10.
Various texts which are alleged against the Catholic doctrine: e.g. Phil. ii.
9, 10. Whether the words 'Wherefore God hath highly exalted' prove moral
probation and advancement. Argued against, first, from the force of the word
'Son;' which is inconsistent with such an interpretation. Next, the passage
examined. Ecclesiastical sense of 'highly exalted,' and 'gave,' and
'wherefore;' viz. as being spoken with reference to our Lord's manhood.
Secondary sense; viz. as implying the Word's 'exaltation' through the
resurrection in the same sense in which Scripture speaks of His descent in the
Incarnation; how the phrase does not derogate from the nature of the Word.
37. BUT since they allege the divine oracles and force on them a
misinterpretation, according to their private sense[1], it becomes necessary
to meet them just so far as to vindicate these passages, and to shew that they
328
bear an orthodox sense, and that our opponents are in error. They say then,
that the Apostle writes, 'Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, and
given Him a Name which is above every name; that in the Name of Jesus every
knee should bow, of things in heaven and things in earth and things under the
earth[2];' and David, 'Wherefore God even Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the
oil of gladness above Thy fellows[3].' Then they urge, as something acute: 'If
He was exalted and received grace, on a 'wherefore,' and on a 'wherefore' He
was anointed, He received a reward of His purpose; but having acted from
purpose, He is altogether of an alterable nature.' This is what Eusebius and
Arius have dared to say, nay to write while their partizans do not shrink from
conversing about it in full market-place, not seeing how mad an argument they
rise. For if He received what He had as a reward of His purpose, and would not
have had it, unless He had needed it, and had His work to shew for it, then
having gained it from virtue and promotion, with reason had He 'therefore'
been called Son and God, without being very Son. For what is from another by
nature, is a real offspring, as Isaac was to Abraham, and Joseph to Jacob, and
the radiance to the sun; but the so called sons from virtue and grace, have
but in place of nature a grace by acquisition, and are something else besides
s the gift itself; as the men who have received the Spirit by participation,
concerning whom Scripture saith, 'I begat and exalted children, and they
rebelled against Me[6].' And of course, since they were not sons by nature,
therefore, when they altered, the Spirit was taken away and they were
disinherited; and again on (heir repentance that God who thus at the beginning
gave them grace, will receive them, and give light, and call them sons again.
38. But if they say this of the Saviour also, it follows that He is
neither very God nor very Son, nor like the Father, nor in any wise has God
for a Father of His being according to essence, but of the mere grace given to
Him, and for a Creator of His being according to essence, after the similitude
of all others. And being such, as they maintain, it will be manifest further
that He had not the name 'Son' from the first, if so be it was the prize of
works done and of that very same advance which He made when He became man, and
took the form of the servant; but then, when, after becoming 'obedient unto
death,' He was, as the text says, highly exalted,' and received that 'Name'
as a grace, 'that in the Name of Jesus every knee should bow[7].' What then
was before this, if then He was exalted, and then began to be worshipped, and
then was called Son, when He became man? For He seems Himself not to have
promoted the flesh at all, but rather to have been Himself promoted through
it, if, according to their perverseness, He was then exalted and called Son,
when He became man. What then was before this? One must urge the question on
them again, to make it understood what their irreligious doctrine resuits
in[8]. For if the Lord be God, Son, Word, yet was not all these before He
became man, either He was something else beside these, and afterwards became
partaker of them for His virtue's sake, as we have said; or they must adopt
the alternative (may it return upon their heads!) that He was not before that
time, but is wholly man by nature and nothing more. But this is no sentiment
of the Church. but of the Samosatene and of the present Jews. Why then, if
they think as Jews, are they not circumcised with them too, instead of
pretending Christianity, while they are its foes? For if He was not, or was
indeed, but afterwards was promoted, how were all things made by Him, or how
in Him, were He not perfect, did the Father delight[9]? And He, on the other
hand, if now promoted, how did He before rejoice in the presence of the
Father? And, if He received His worship after dying, how is Abraham seen to
worship Him in the tent[10], and Moses in the bush? and, as Daniel saw,
myriads of myriads, and thousands of thousands were ministering unto Him? And
if, as they say, He had His promotion now, bow did the Son Himself make
mention of that His glory before and above the world, when He said, 'Glorify
Thou Me, O Father, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world
was[11].' If, as they say, He was then exalted, bow did He before that 'bow
the heavens and come clown;' and again, 'The Highest gave His thunder[12]?'
Therefore, if, even before the world was made, the Son had
329
that glory, and was Lord of glory and the Highest, and descended from heaven,
and is ever to be worshipped, it follows that He had not promotion from His
descent, but rather Himself promoted the things which needed promotion; and
if He descended to effect their promotion, therefore He did not receive in
reward the name of the Son and God, but rather He Himself has made us sons of
the Father, and deifed men by becoming Himself man.
39. Therefore He was not man, and then became God, but He was God, and
then became man, and that to deify us[1], Since, if when He became man, only
then He was called Son and God, but before He became man, God called the
ancient people sons, and made Moses a god of Pharaoh (and Scripture says of
many, 'God standeth in the congregation of Gods[2]'), it is plain that He is
called Son and God later than they. How then are all things through Him, and
He before all? or how is He 'first-born of the whole creation[3],' if He has
others before Him who are called sons and gods? And how is it that those
first partakers[4] do not partake of the Word? This opinion is not true; it is
a device of our present Judaizers. For how in that case can any at all know
God as their Father? for adoption there could not be apart from the real Son,
who says, 'No one knoweth the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the
Son will reveal Him[4a].' And how can there be deifying apart from the Word
and before Him? yet, saith He to their brethren the Jews, 'If He called them
gods, unto whom the Word of God came[5].' And if all that are called sons and
gods, whether in earth or in heaven, were adopted and deified through the
Word, and the Son Himself is the Word, it is plain that through Him are they
all, and He Himself before all, or rather He Himself only is very Son[6], and
He alone is very God from the very God, not receiving these prerogatives as a
reward for His virtue, nor being another beside them, but being all these by
nature and according to essence. For He is Offspring of the Father's essence,
so that one cannot doubt that after the resemblance of the unalterable Father,
he Word also is unalterable.
40. Hitherto we have met their irrational conceits with the true
conceptions[1] implied in the Word 'Son,' as the Lord Himself has given us.
But it will be well next to cite the divine oracles, that the unalterableness
of the Son and His unchangeable nature, which is the Father's, as well as
their perverseness, may be still more fully proved. The Apostle then, writing
to the Philippians, says, 'Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ
Jesus; who, being in the form of God, thought it not a prize to be equal with
God; but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the
likeness of men. And, being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself.
becoming obedient to death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also
highly exalted Him, and gave Him a Name which is above every name; that in the
Name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth,
and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus
Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father[2].' Can anything be plainer
and more express than this? He was not from a lower state pro-rooted: but
rather, existing as God, He took the form of a servant, and in taking it, was
not promoted but humbled Himself. Where then is there here any reward of
virtue, or what advancement and promotion in humiliation? For if, being God,
He became man, and descending from on high He is still said to be exalted,
where is He exalted, being God? this withal being plain, that, since God is
highest of all, His Word must necessarily he highest also. Where then could He
be exalted higher, who is in the Father and like the Father in all things[3]?
Therefore He is beyond the need of any addition; nor is such as the Arians
think Him. For though the Word has descended in order to be exalted, and so it
is written, yet what need was there that He should humble Himself, as if to
seek that which He had already? And what grace did He receive who is the Giver
of grace[4]? or how did He receive that Name for worship, who is always
worshipped by His Name? Nay, certainly before He became man, the sacred
writers invoke Him, 'Save me, O God, for Thy Name's sake[5]; 'and again,'
Some put their trust in chariots, and some in horses, but we will remember the
Name of the Lord our God[6].' And while He was wor-
330
shipped by the Patriarchs, concerning the Angels it is written, 'Let all the
Angels of God worship Him[7].'
41. And if, as David says in the 71st Psalm, 'His Name remaineth before
the sun, and before the moon, from one generation to another[8],' how did He
receive what He had always, even before He now received it? or how is He
exalted, being before His exaltation the Most High? or how did He receive the
right of being worshipped, who before He now received it, was ever worshipped?
It is not a dark saying but a divine mystery[9]. 'In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;' but for our sakes
afterwards the 'Word was made flesh[10].' And the term in question, 'highly
exalted,' does not signify that the essence of the Word was exalted, for He
was ever and is 'equal to God[1],' but the exaltation is of the manhood.
Accordingly this is not said before the Word became flesh; that it might be
plain that 'humbled' and 'exalted' are spoken of His human nature; for where
there is humble estate, there too may be exaltation; and if because of His
taking flesh 'humbled' is written, it is clear that 'highly exalted' is 'also
said because of it. For of this was man's nature in want, because of the
humble estate of the flesh and of death. Since then the Word, being the Image
of the Father and immortal, took the form of the servant, and as man underwent
for us death in His flesh, that thereby He might offer Himself for us through
death to the Father; therefore also, as man, He is said because of us and for
us to be highly exalted, that as by His death we all died in Christ, so again
in the Christ Himself we might be highly exalted, being raised from the dead,
and ascending into heaven, ' whither the forerunner Jesus is for us entered,
not into the figures of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the
presence of God for us[2]. But if now for us the Christ is entered into
heaven itself, though He was even before and always Lord and Framer of the
heavens, for us therefore is that present exaltation written. And as He
Himself, who sanctifies all, says also that He sanctifies Himself to the
Father for our sakes, not that the Word may become holy, but that He Himself
may in Himself sanctify all of us, in like manner we must take the present
phrase, 'He highly exalted Him,' not that He Himself should be exalted, for He
is the highest, but that He may become righteousness for us[3], and we may be
exalted in Him, and that we may enter the gates of heaven, which He has also
opened for us, the forerunners saying, ' Lift up your gates, O ye rulers, and
be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors, and the King of Glory shall come in[4].'
For here also not on Him were shut the gates, as being Lord and Maker of all,
but because of us is this too written, to whom the door of paradise was shut.
And therefore in a human relation, because of the flesh which He bore, it is
said of Him, 'Lift up your gates,' and 'shall come in,' as if a man were
entering; but in a divine relation on the other hand it is said of Him, since
'the Word was God,' that He is the
Lord' and the 'King of Glory.' Such our exaltation the Spirit
foreannounced in the eighty-ninth Psalm, saying, 'And in Thy righteousness
shall they be exalted, for Thou art the glory of their strength[5].' And it
the Son be Righteousness, then He is not exalted as being Himself in need, but
it is we who are exalted in that Righteousness, which is He[6].
42. And so too the words 'gave Him' are not written because of the Word
Himself; for even before He became man He was worshipped, as we have said, by
the Angels and the whole creation in virtue of being proper to the Father; but
because of us and for us this too is written of Him. For as Christ died and
was exalted as man, so, as man, is He said to take what, as God, He ever had,
that even such a grant of grace might reach to us. For the Word was not
impaired in receiving a body, that He should seek to receive a grace, but
rather He deified that which He put on, and more than that, 'gave' it
graciously to the race of man. For as He was ever worshipped as being the Word
and existing in the form of God, so being what He ever was, though become man
and called Jesus, He none the less has the whole creation under foot, and
bending their knees to Him in this Name, and confessing that the Word's
becoming flesh, and undergoing death in flesh, has not happened against the
glory of His Godhead, but 'to the glory of God the Father.' For it is the
Father's glory that man, made and then lost, should
331
be found again; and, when dead, that he should be made alive, and should
become God's temple. For whereas the powers in heaven, both Angels and
Archangels, were ever worshipping the Lord, as they are now worshipping Him in
the Name of Jesus, this is our grace and high exaltation, that even when He
became man, the Son of God is worshipped, and the heavenly powers will not be
astonished at seeing all of us, who are of one body with Him[7], introduced
into their realms. And this had not been, unless He who existed in the form of
God had taken on Him a servant's form, and had humbled Himself, yielding His
body to come unto death.
43. Behold then what men considered the foolishness of God because of the
Cross, has become of all things most honoured. For our resurrection is stored
up in it; and no longer Israel alone, but henceforth all the nations, as the
Prophet hath foretold, leave their idols and acknowledge the true God, the
Father of the Christ. And the illusion of demons is come to nought, and He
only who is really God is worshipped in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ[8].
For the fact that the Lord, even when come in human body and called Jesus, was
worshipped and believed to be God's Son, and that through Him the Father was
known, shows, as has been said, that not the Word, considered as the Word,
received this so great grace, but we. For because of our relationship to His
Body we too have become God's temple, and in consequence are made God's sons,
so that even in us the Lord is now worshipped, and beholders report, as the
Apostle says, that God is in them of a truth[9]. As also John says in the
Gospel, 'As many as received Him, to them gave He power to become children of
God[10];' and in his Epistle he writes, ' By this we know that He abideth in
us by His Spirit which He hath given us[11].' And this too is an evidence of
His goodness towards us that, while we were exalted because that the Highest
Lord is in us, and on our account grace was given to Him, because that the
Lord who supplies the grace has become a man like us, He on the other hand,
the Saviour, humbled Himself in taking 'our body of humiliation[1],' and took
a servant's form, putting on that flesh which was enslaved to sin[2]. And He
indeed has gained nothing from us for His own promotion: for the Word of God
is without want and full; but rather we were promoted from Him; for He is the
'Light, which lighteneth every man, coming into the world[3].' And in vain do
the Arians lay stress upon the conjunction wherefore,' because Paul has said,
'Wherefore, hath God highly exalted Him.' For in saying this he did not imply
any prize of virtue, nor promotion from advance[4], but the cause why the
exaltation was bestowed upon us. And what is this but that He who existed in
form of God, the Son of a noble[5] Father, humbled Himself and became a
servant instead of us and in our behalf? For if the Lord had not become man,
we had not been redeemed from sins, not raised from the dead, but remaining
dead under the earth; not exalted into heaven, but lying in Hades. Because of
us then and in our behalf are the words, 'highly exalted' and ' given.'
44. This then I consider the sense of this passage, and that, a very
ecclesiastical sense[6].
332
However, there is another way in which one might remark upon it, giving the
same sense in a parallel way; viz. that, though it does not speak of the
exaltation of the Word Himself, so far as He is Word[7] (for He is, as was
just now said, most high and like His Father), yet by reason of His becoming
man it indicates His resurrection from the dead. For after saying, 'He hath
humbled Himself even unto death,' He immediately added, 'Wherefore He hath
highly exalted Him;' wishing to shew, that, although as man He is said to have
died, yet, as being Life, He was exalted on the resurrection ; for 'He who
descended, is the same also who rose again[8].' He descended in body, and He
rose again because He was God Himself in the body. And this again is the
reason why according to this meaning he brought in the conjunction
'Wherefore;' not as a reward of virtue nor of advancement, but to signify the
cause why the resurrection took place; and why, while all other men from Adam
down to this time have died and remained dead, He only rose in integrity from
the dead. The cause is this, which He Himself has already taught us, that,
being God, He has become man. For all other men, being merely born of Adam,
died, and death reigned over them; but He, the Second Man, is from heaven, for
'the Word was made flesh[9],' and this Man is said to be from heaven and
heavenly[10], because the Word descended from heaven; wherefore He was not
held under death. For though He humbled Himself, yielding His own Body to come
unto death, in that it was capable of death[11], yet He was highly exalted
from earth, because He was God's Son in a body. Accordingly what is here said,
'Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him,' answers to Peter's words in the
Acts, 'Whom God raised up, having loosed the bonds of death, because it was
not possible that He should be holden of it[12].' For as Paul has written,
'Since being in form of God He became man, and humbled Himself unto death,
therefore God also hath highly exalted Him,' so also Peter says, 'Since, being
God, He became man, and signs and wonders proved Him to be-holders to be God,
therefore it was not possible that He should be holden of death.' To alan it
was not possible to succeed in this; for death belongs to man; wherefore, the
Word, being God, became flesh, that, being put to death in the flesh, He might
quicken all men by His own power.
45. But since He Himself is said to be 'exalted,' and God 'gave' Him, and
the heretics think this a defect[1] or affection in the essence[2] of the
Word, it becomes necessary to explain how these words are used. He is said to
he exalted from the lower parts of the earth, because death is ascribed even
to Him. Both events are reckoned His, since it was His Body[3], and none
other's, that was exalted from the dead and taken up into heaven. And again,
the Body being His, and the Word not being external to it, it is natural that
when the Body was exalted, He, as man, should, because of the body, be spoken
of as exalted. If then He did not become man, let this not be said of Him: but
if the Word became flesh, of necessity the resurrection and exaltation, as in
the case of a man, must be ascribed to Him, that the death which is ascribed
to Him may be a redemption of the sin of men and an abolition of death, and
that the resurrection and exaltation may for His sake remain secure for us. In
both respects he hath said of Him, 'God hath highly exalted Him,' and ' God
hath given to Him;' that herein moreover he may show that it is not the Father
that hath become flesh, but it is His Word, who has become man, and receives
after the manner of men from the Father, and is exalted by Him, as has been
said. And it is plain, nor would any one
333
dispute it, that what the Father gives, He gives through. the Son. And it is
marvellous and overwhelming verily; for the grace which the Son gives from the
Father, that the Son Himself is said to receive; and the exaltation, which the
Son bestows from the Father, with that the Son is Himself exalted. For He who
is the Son of God, became Himself the Son of Man; and, as Word, He gives from
the Father, for all things which the Father does and gives, He does and
supplies through Him; and as the Son of Man, He Himself is said after the
manner of men to receive what proceeds from Him, because His Body is none
other than His, and is a natural recipient of grace, as has been said. For He
received it as far as His man's nature[4] was exalted; which exaltation was
its being deified. But such an exaltation the Word Himself always had
according to the Father's Godhead and perfection, which was His[5].
CHAPTER XII.
TEXTS EXPLAINED; SECONDLY,
PSALM XLV. 7, 8.
Whether the words 'therefore,' 'anointed,' &c., imply that the Word has been
rewarded. Argued against first from the weird 'fellows' or 'partakers.' He is
anointed with the Spirit in His manhood to sanctify human nature. Therefore
the Spirit descended on Him in Jordan, when in the flesh. And He is said to
sanctify Himself for us, and give us the glory He has received The word
'wherefore' implies His divinity. 'Thou hast loved righteousness,' &c., do not
imply trial or choice.
46. SUCH an explanation of the Apostle's words confutes the irreligious
men; and what the sacred poet says admits also the same orthodox sense, which
they misinterpret, but which in the Psalmist is manifestly religious. He says
then, 'Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is
the sceptre of Thy Kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity,
therefore God, even Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above
Thy fellows[1].' Behold, O ye Arians, and acknowledge even hence the truth.
The Singer speaks of us all as 'fellows' or 'partakers' of the Lord: but were
He one of things which come out of nothing and of things originate, He Himself
had been one of those who partake. But, since he hymned Him as the eternal
God, saying, 'Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever,' and has declared
that all other things partake of Him, what conclusion must we draw, but that
He is distinct from originated things, and He only the Father's veritable
Word, Radiance, and Wisdom, which all things originate partake[2], being
sanctified by Him in the Spirit[3]? And therefore He is here 'anointed,' not
that He may become God, for He was so even before; nor that He may become
King, for He had the Kingdom eternally, existing as God's Image, as the sacred
Oracle shews; but in our behalf is this written, as before. For the
Israelitish kings, upon their being anointed, then became kings, not being so
before, as David, as Hezekiah, as Josiah, and the rest; but the Saviour on the
contrary, being God, and ever ruling in the Father's Kingdom, and being
Himself He that supplies the Holy Ghost, nevertheless is here said to be
anointed, that, as before, being said as man to be anointed with the Spirit,
He might provide for us men, not only exaltation and resurrection, but the
indwelling and intimacy of the Spirit. And signifying this the Lord Himself
hath said by His own mouth in the Gospel according to John, 'I have sent them
into the world, and for their sakes do I sanctify Myself, that they may be
sanctified in the truth[4].' In saying this He has shown that He is not the
sanctified, but the Sanctifier; for He is not sanctified by other, but Himself
sanctifies Himself, that we may be sanctified in the truth. He who sanctifies
Himself is Lord of sanctification. How then does this take place? What does He
mean but this? 'I, being the Father's Word, I give to Myself, when becoming
man, the Spirit; and Myself, become man, do I santify in Him, that henceforth
in Me, who am Truth (for "Thy Word is Truth "), all may be sanctified.'
47. If then for our sake He sanctifies Himself, and does this when He is
become man, it is very plain that the Spirit's descent on Him in Jordan was a
descent upon us, because of His bearing our body. And it did not take place
for promotion to the Word, but again for our sanctification, that we might
share His anointing, and of us it might be said, ' Know ye not that ye are
God's Temple, and the Spirit of God dwelleth in you[5]?' For when the Lord, as
man, was washed in Jordan, it was we who were washed in Him and by Him[6]. And
when He received the Spirit, we it was who by Him were made recipients of It.
And moreover for this reason, not as Aaron or
334
David or the rest, was He anointed with oil, but in another way above all His
fellows, 'with the oil of gladness,' which He Himself interprets to be the
Spirit, saying by the Prophet, 'The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because the
Lord hath anointed Me[7];' as also the Apostle has said, 'How God anointed Him
with the Holy Ghosts.[8]' When then were these things spoken of Him but when
He came in the flesh and was baptized in Jordan, and the Spirit descended on
Him? And indeed the Lord Himself said, 'The Spirit shall take of Mine;' and 'I
will send Him ;' and to His disciples, 'Receive ye the Holy Ghost[9].' And
notwithstanding, He who, as the Word and Radiance of the Father, gives to
others, now is said to be sanctified, because now He has become man, and the
Body that is sanctified is His. From Him then we have begun to receive the
unction and the seal, John saying, 'And ye have an unction from the Holy One;'
and the Apostle, 'And ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise[10].'
Therefore because of us and for us are these words. What advance then of
promotion, and reward of virtue or generally of conduct, is proved from this
in our Lord's instance? For if He was not God, and then had become God, if not
being King He was preferred to the Kingdom, your reasoning would have had some
faint plausibility. But if He is God and the throne of His kingdom is
everlasting, in what way could God advance? or what was there wanting to Him
who was sitting on His Father's throne? And if, as the Lord Himself has said,
the Spirit is His, and takes of His, and He sends It, it is not the Word,
considered as the Word and Wisdom, who is anointed with the Spirit which He
Himself gives, but the flesh assumed by Him which is anointed in Him and by
Him[11]; that the sanctification coming to the Lord as man, may come to all
men from Him. For not of Itself, saith He, doth the Spirit speak, but the Word
is He who gives It to the worthy. For this is like the passage considered
above; for as the Apostle has written, 'Who existing in form of God thought it
not a prize to be equal with God, but emptied Himself, and took a servant's
form,' so David celebrates the Lord, as the everlasting God and King, but
sent to us and assuming our booty which is mortal. For this its his meaning in
the Psalm, 'All thy garments[12] smell of myrrh, aloes. and cassia ;' and it
is represented by Nicodemus and by Mary's company, when the one came bringing
'a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pounds weight;' and the
others[13] ' the spices which they had prepared' for the burial of the Lord's
body.
48. What advancement then was it to the Immortal to have assumed the
mortal? or what promotion is it to the Everlasting to have put on the
temporal? what reward can be great to the Everlasting God and King in the
bosom of the Father? See ye not, that this too was done and written because of
us and for us, that us who are mortal and temporal, the Lord, become man,
might make immortal, and bring into the everlasting kingdom of heaven? Blush
ye not, speaking lies against the divine oracles? For when our Lord Jesus
Christ had been among us, we indeed were promoted, as rescued from sin; but He
is the same[1]; nor did He alter, when He became man (to repeat what I have
said), but, as has been written, ' The Word of God abideth for ever[2].'
Surely as, before His becoming man, He, the Word, dispensed to the saints the
Spirit as His own[3], so also when made man, He sanctifies all by the Spirit
and says to His Disciples,' Receive ye the Holy Ghost.' And He gave to Moses
and the other seventy; and through Him David prayed to the Father, saying, '
Take not Thy Holy Spirit from me[4].' On the other hand, when made man, He
said, ' I will send to you the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth[5];' and He sent
Him, He, the Word of God, as being faithful. Therefore 'Jesus Christ is the
same yesterday, to-day, and for ever[6],' remaining unalterable, and at once
gives and receives, giving as God's Word, receiving as man. It is not the Word
then, viewed as the Word, that is promoted; for He had all things and has them
always; but men, who have in Him and through Him their origin[7] of receiving
them.
335
For, when He is now said to be anointed in a human respect, we it is who in
Him are anointed; since also when He is baptized, we it is who in Him are
baptized. But on all these things the Saviour throws much light, when He says
to the Father, 'And the glory which Thou gavest Me, I have given to them, that
they may be one, even as We are ones[8].' Because of us then He asked for
glory, and the words occur, 'took' and 'gave' and 'highly exalted,' that we
might take, and to us might be given, and we might be exalted. in Him; as also
for us He sanctifies Himself, that we might be sanctified in Him[9].
49. But if they take advantage of the word 'wherefore,' as connected with
the passage in the Psalm, 'Wherefore God, even Thy God, hath anointed Thee,'
for their own purposes, let these novices in Scripture and masters in
irreligion know, that, as Before, the word 'wherefore' does not imply reward
of virtue or conduct in the Word, but the reason why He came down to us, and
of the Spirit's anointing which took place in Him for our' sakes. For He says
not, 'Wherefore He anointed Thee in order to Thy being God or Kites or Son or
Word ;' for so He was before and is for ever, as has been shewn; but rather,
'Since Thou art God and King, therefore Thou wast anointed, since none bat
Thou couldest unite man to the Holy Ghost, Thou the Image of the Father, in
which[10] we were made in the beginning; for Thine is even the Spirit.' For
the nature of things originate could give no warranty for this, Angels having
transgressed, and men disobeyed[11]. Wherefore there was need of God and the
Word is God; that those who had become under a curse, He Himself might set
free. If then He was of nothing, He would not have been the Christ or
Anointed, being one among others and having fellowship as the rest[12]. But,
whereas He is God, as being Son of God, and is everlasting King, and exists as
Radiance and Expression[13] of the Father, therefore fitly is He the expected
Christ, whom the Father announces to mankind, by revelation to His holy
Prophets; that as through Him we have come to be, so also in Him all men might
be redeemed from their sins, and by Him all things might be ruled[I]. And this
is the cause of the anointing which took place in Him, and of the incarnate
presence of the Word[2], which the Psalmist foreseeing, celebrates, first His
Godhead and kingdom, which is the Father's, in these tones, 'Thy throne, 0
God, is for ever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy
Kingdom[3] ; 'then announces His descent to us thus, 'Wherefore God, even Thy
God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy, fellows[4]."
50. What is there to wonder at, what to disbelieve, if the Lord who gives
the Spirit, is here said Himself to be anointed with the Spirit, at a time
when, necessity requiring it, He did not refuse in respect of His manhood to
call Himself inferior to the Spirit? For the Jews saying that He east out
devils in Beelzebub, He answered and said to them, for the exposure of their
blasphemy, 'But if 1 through the Spirit of God cast out demons[5].' Behold,
the Giver of the Spirit here says that He cast out demons in the Spirit; but
this is not said, except because of His flesh. For since man's nature is not
equal of itself to casting out demons, but only in power of the Spirit,
therefore as man He said, 'But if I through the Spirit of God cast out
demons.' Of course too He signified that the blasphemy offered to the Holy
Ghost is greater than that against His humanity, when He said, 'Whosoever
shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him;' such as
were those who said, 'is
336
not this the carpenter's son[6]?, but they who blaspheme against the Holy
Ghost, and ascribe the deeds of the Word to the devil, shall have inevitable
punishment[7]. This is what the Lord spoke to the Jews, as man; but to the
disciples shewing His Godhead and His majesty, and intimating that He was not
inferior but equal to the Spirit, He gave the Spirit and said, 'Receive ye the
Holy Ghost,' and 'I send Him,' and 'He shall glorify Me,' and 'Whatsoever He
heareth, that He shall speak[8].' As then in this place the Lord Himself, the
Giver of the Spirit, does not refuse to say that through the Spirit He casts
out demons, as man; in like manner He the same, the Giver of the Spirit.
refused not to say, 'The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He hath
anointed Me[9],' in respect of His having become flesh, as John hath said;
that it might be shewn in both these particulars, that we are they who need
the Spirit's grace in our sanctification, and again who are unable to cast oat
demons without the Spirit's power. Through whom then and from whom behoved it
that the Spirit should be given but through the Son, whose also the Spirit is?
and when were we enabled to receive It, except when the Word became man? and,
as the passage of the Apostle shews, that we had not been redeemed and highly
exalted,, had not He who exists in form od God taken a servant's form, so
David also shews, that no otherwise should we have partaken the Spirit and
been sanctified, but that the Giver of the Spirit, the Word Himself, hast
spoken of Himself as anointed with the Spirit for us. And therefore have we
securely received it, He being said to i he anointed in the flesh; for the
flesh being first sanctified in Him[10], and He being said, as man, to have
received for its sake, we have the sequel of the Spirit grace, receiving 'out
of His fulness[11].'
51. Nor do the words, 'Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity,'
which are added in the Psalm, show, as again you suppose, that the Nature of
the Word is alterable, but rather by their very force signify His
unalterableness. For since of things originate the nature is alterable, and
the one portion had transgressed and the other disobeyed, as has been said,
and it is not certain how they will act, but it often happens that he who is
now good afterwards alters anti becomes different, so that one who was but
now righteous, soon is found unrighteous, wherefore there i was here also need
of one unalterable, that men might have the immutability of the righteousness
of the Word as an image and type for virtue[1]. And this thought commends
itself strongly to the right-minded. For since the first man Adam altered, and
through sin death came into the world, therefore it became the second Adam to
be unalterable; that, should the Serpent again assault, even the Serpent's
deceit might be baffled, and, the Lord being unalterable and unchangeable, the
Serpent might become powerless in his assault against all. For as when Adam
had transgressed. i, his sin reached unto all men, so, when the Lord had
become man and had overthrown the Serpent, that so great strength of His is to
extend through all men, so that each of us may say, 'For we are not ignorant
of his devices[2]' Good reason then that the Lord, who ever is in nature
unalterable, loving righteousness and hating iniquity, should be anointed and
Himself' sent, that, He, being and remaining the same[3], by taking this
alterable flesh, 'might condemn sin in it[4],' and might secure its freedom,
and its ability s henceforth 'to fulfil the righteousness of the law' in
itself, so as to be able to say, 'But we are not in the flesh but in the
Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in us[6].'
52. Vainly then, here again, O Arians, have ye made this conjecture, and
vainly alleged the words of Scripture; for God's Word is unalterable, and is
ever in one state, not as it may happen[I], but as the Father is; since how.
He like the Father, unless He be thus? or how is all that is the Father's the
Son's also, if He has not the unalterableness and unchangeableness of the
Father[2]? Not as being subject to laws[2a], and biassed to one side, does He
love the one and hate the other, lest, if from fear of falling away He chooses
the one, We admit that He is alterable otherwise also; but, as being God and
the Father's Word, He is a just judge and lover of virtue, or rather its
dispenser. Therefore being just and holy by nature, on this account He is sail
to love righteousness and to hate iniquity; as much as to say, that He loves
and chooses the virtuous, and rejects and hates the unrighteous. And divine
Scripture
337
says the same of the Father; 'The Righteous Lord loveth righteousness; Thou
hatest all them that work iniquity[3],' and 'The Lord loveth the gates of
Sion, more than all the dwellings of Jacob[4];' and, 'Jacob have I loved, but
Esau have I hated s;' and in Isaiah there is tile voice of God again saying,
'I the Lord love righteousness, and hate robbery of unrighteousness[6].' Let
them then expound those former words as these latter; for the former also are
written of the Image of God else, misinterpreting these as those, they will
conceive that the Father too is alterable. But since the very hearing others
say this is not without peril, we do well to think that God is said to love
righteousness and to hate robbery of unrighteousness, not as if biassed to one
side, and capable of the contrary, so as to select the latter and not choose
the farmer, for this belongs to things originated, but that, as a judge, He
loves and takes to Him the righteous and withdraws from the bad. It follows
then to think tile same concerning the Image of God also, that He loves and
hates no otherwise than thus. For such must be the nature of the Image as is
Its Father, though the Arians in their blindness fail to see either that image
or any other truth of the divine oracles. For being forced from the
conceptions or rather misconceptions[7] of their own hearts, they fall back
upon passages of divine Scripture, and here too from want of understanding,
according to their wont, they discern not their meaning; but laying down their
own irreligion as a sort of canon of interpretation[8], they wrest the whole
of the divine oracles into accordance with it. And so on the bare mention of
such doctrine, they deserve nothing but the reply, 'Ye do err, not knowing the
Scriptures nor the power of God[9];' and if they persist in it, they must be
put to silence, by the words, 'Render to' man 'the things that are' than's,
'and to God the things that are' God's[10].
CHAPTER XIII.
Texts Explained; Thirdly, Hebrews i. 4.
Additional texts brought as objections; e.g. itch. i. 4; vii. 22. Whether the
word 'better' implies likeness to the Angels; and 'made' or 'become' implies
creation. Necessary tO consider the circumstances under which Scripture
speaks. Difference between 'better 'and 'greater; 'texts in proof. 'Made' or
'become' a general word. Contrast in Heb. i. 4, between the Son and the Works
in point of nature. The difference of the punishments under the two Covenants
shews the difference of the natures of the Son and the Angels. 'Become'
relates not to the nature of the Word, but to His manhood and office and
relation towards us. Parallel passages in which the term is applied to the
Eternal Father.
53. But it is written, say they, in the Proverbs, 'The Lord created me the
beginning of His ways, for His Works[1];' and in the Epistle to the Hebrews
the Apostle says, 'Being made so much better than the Angels, as He hath by
inheritance obtained a more excellent Name than they[2].' And soon after,
Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly[3] calling, consider the
Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus, who was faithful to
Him that made Him[3].' And in the Acts, 'Therefore let all the house of Israel
know assuredly, that God bath made that same Jesus whom ye have crucified both
Lord and Christ[4].' These passages they brought forward at every turn,
mistaking their sense, under the idea that they proved that the Word of God
was a creature and work and one of things originate; and thus they deceive the
thoughtless, making the language of Scripture their pretence, but instead of
the true sense sowing upon it the poison of their own heresy. For had they
known, they would not have been irreligious against 'the Lord of glory[5],'
nor have wrested the good words of Scripture. If then henceforward openly
adopting Caiaphas's way, they have determined on judaizing, and are ignorant
of the text, that verily God shall dwell upon the earth[6], let them not
inquire into the Apostolical sayings; for this is not the manner of Jews. But
if, mixing themselves up with the godless Manichees[7], they deny that 'the
Word was made flesh,' and His Incarnate presence, then let them not bring
forward the Proverbs, for this is out of place with the Munichees. But if for
preferment-sake, and the lucre of avarice which follows[8], and the desire for
good repute, they venture not on denying the text, 'The Word was made flesh,'
since so it is written, either let them rightly interpret the words of
Scripture, of the embodied presence of the Saviour, or, if they deny their
sense, let them deny that the Lord became man at all. For it is unseemly,
while confessing that 'the Word became flesh,' yet to be ashamed at what is
written of Him, and on that account to corrupt the sense.
54. For it is written, 'So much better than
338
the Angels;' let us then first examine this. Now it is right and necessary,
as in all divine Scripture, so here, faithfully to expound the time of which
the Apostle wrote, and the person[1], and the point; lest the reader, from
ignorance missing either understood that inquiring eunuch, when he thus
besought Philip, 'I pray thee, of whom doth the Prophet speak this? of
himself, or of some other man 2? ' for he feared lest, expounding the lesson
unsuitably lethe person, he should wander from the right sense. And the
disciples, wishing to learn the time of what was Bretold, besought the Lord,
'Tell us,' said they, 'when shale these things be? and what is the sign of Thy
coming[3]?' And again, hearing from the Saviour the events of the end, they
desired to learn the time of it, that they might be kept from error
themselves, and might be able to teach others; as, for instance, when they had
learned, they set right the Thessalonians 4, who were going wrong. When then
one knows properly these points, his understanding of the faith is right and
healthy; but if he mistakes any such points, forthwith he falls into heresy.
Thus Hymenaeus and Alexander and their fellow[5] were beside the time, when
they said that the resurrection had already been; and the Galatians were after
the time, in making much of circumcision now. And to miss the person was the
lot of the Jews, and is still, who think that of one of themselves is said,
'Behold, the Virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and they shall call his
Name Emmanuel, which is being interpreted, God with us[6];' and that, 'A
prophet shall the Lord your God raise up to you 7,' is spoken of one of the
Prophets; and who, as to the words, 'He was led as a sheep to the
slaughter[8],' instead of'] learning from Philip, conjecture them spoken of
Isaiah or some other of the former Prophets 9.
55. (3.) Such has been the state of mind under which Christ's enemies have
fallen into their execrable heresy. For had they known the person, and the
subject, and the season of the Apostle's words, they would not have ex-pounded
of Christ's divinity what belongs to His manhood, nor in their folly have
committed so great an act of irreligion. Now this will be readily seen, if one
expounds properly the beginning of this lectin. For the Apostle says, 'God who
at sundry times and divers manners spoke in times past unto the fathers by the
prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son[I];- then again
shortly after he says, 'when He had by Himself purged our sins, He sat down on
the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become so much better than the
Angels, as He hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent Name than
they[2].' It appears then that the Apostle's words make mention of that time,
when God spoke unto us by His Son, and when a purging of sins took place. Now
when did He speak unto us by His Son, and when did purging of sins take place?
and when did He become man? when, but subsequently to the Prophets in the
last days? Next, proceeding with his account of the economy in which we were
concerned, and speaking of the last times, he is naturally led to observe that
not even in the former times was God silent with men, but spoke to them by the
Prophets. And, whereas the prophets ministered, and the Law was spoken by
Angels, while the Son too came on earth, and that in order to minister, he was
forced to add, 'Become so much better than the Angels,' wishing to shew that,
as much as the son excels a servant, so much also the ministry of the Son is
better than the ministry of servants. Contrasting then the old ministry and
the new, the Apostle deals freely with the Jews, writing and saying, 'Become
so much better than the Angels.' This is why throughout he uses no comparison,
such as 'become greater, or 'more honourable,' lest we test we should think of
Him and them as one in kind, but '.better' is his word, by way of marking the
difference of the Son's nature from things originated. And of this we have
proof from divine Scripture; David, for instance, saying in the Psalm. 'One
day in Thy courts is better than a thousand 3: 'and Solomon crying out,
'Receive my instruction ant/not silver, and knowledge rather than choice gold.
For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are
not to be compared to it C Are not wisdom and stones of the earth different in
essence and separate in nature? Are heavenly courts at all akin to earthly
houses? Or is there any similarity between things eternal and spiritual, and
things temporal and mortal? And this is what Isaiah says, 'Thus saith the Lord
unto the eunuchs that keep My sabbaths, anti choose the things that please Me,
and take hold of My Covenant; even unto them will I
339
give in Mine house, and within My walls, a place and a name better than of
sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be
cut off[5].' In like man-her there is nought akin between the Son and the
Angels; so that the word 'better' is not used to compare but to contrast,
because of the difference of His nature from them. And l therefore the Apostle
also himself, when he interprets the word 'better,' places its force in
nothing short of the Son's excellence over things originated, calling the one
Son, the other servants; the one, as a Son with the Father, sitting on the
right; and the others, as servants, standing before Him, and being sent, and
fulfilling offices.
56. Scripture, in speaking thus, implies, O Arians, not that the Son is
originate, but rather other than things originate, and proper to the Father,
being in His bosom. (4.) Nor[5a] does even the expression 'become,' which here
occurs, shew that the Son is originate, as ye suppose. If indeed it were
simply 'become' and no more, a case might stand for the Arians; but, whereas
they are forestalled with the word 'Son' throughout the passage, shewing that
He is other than things originate, so again not even the word 'become' occurs
absolutely[6], but 'better' is immediately subjoined. For the writer thought
the expression immaterial, knowing that in the case of one who was confessedly
a genuine Son, to say 'become' is the same with saying that He had been made,
and is, 'better.' For it matters not even if we speak of what is generate, as
'become' or 'made;' but on the contrary, things originate cannot be called
generate, God's handiwork as they are, except so far as after their making
they partake of the generate Son, and are therefore said to have been
generated also, not at all in their own nature, but because of their
participation of the Son in the Spirit[7]. And this again divine Scripture
recognises; for it says in the case of things originate, 'All things came to
be through Him, and without Him nothing came to be[8],' and 'In wisdom hast
Thou made them all[9];' but in the case of sons which are generate, 'To Job
there came to be seven sons and three daughters[10],' and, 'Abraham was an
hundred years old when there came to be to him Isaac his son[II];' and Moses
said[12], 'If to any one there come to be sons.' Therefore since the Son is
other than things originate, alone the proper offspring of the Father's
essence, this plea of the Arians about the word 'become' is worth nothing.
(5.) If moreover, baffled so far, they should still violently insist that
the language is that of comparison, and that comparison in consequence implies
oneness of kind, so that the Son is of the nature of Angels. they will in the
first price incur the disgrace of rivalling and repeating what Valentinus
held, and Carpocrates, and those other heretics, of whom the former said that
the Angels were one in kind with the Christ, and Carpocrates that Angels are
framers of the world[1]. Perchance it is under the instruction--of these
masters that they compare the Word of God with the Angels.
57. Though surely amid such speculations, they will be moved by the sacred
poet, saying, Who is he among the gods that shall be like unto the Lord[2],'
and, 'Among the gods there is none like unto Thee, O Lord[3].' However, they
must be answered, with the chance of their profiting by it, that comparison
confessedly does belong to subjects one in kind, not to those which differ. No
one, for instance, would compare God with man, or again man with brutes, nor
wood with stone, because their natures are unlike; but God is beyond
comparison, and man is compared to man, and wood to wood, and stone to stone.
Now in such cases we should not speak of 'better,' but of 'rather' and 'more;'
thins Joseph was comely rather than his brethren, and Rachel than Leah;
star[4] is not better than star, but is the rather excellent in glory; whereas
in bringing together things which differ in kind, then 'better' is used to
mark the difference, as has been said in the case of wisdom and jewels. Had
then the Apostle said, 'by so much has the Son precedence of the Angels,' or
'by so much greater,' you would have had a plea, as if the Son were compared
with the Angels; but, as it is:, in saying that lie is 'better,' and differs
as far as Son from servants, the Apostle shews that He is other than the
Angels in nature.
340
(6.) Moreover by saying that He it is who has 'laid the foundation of all
things[5],' he shows that He is other than all things originate. But if He be
other and different in essence from their nature, what comparison of His
essence can 6 there be, or what likeness to them? though, even if they have
any such thoughts, Paul shall refute them, who speaks to the very point, 'For
unto which of the Angels said He at any time, Thou art My Son, this day have I
begotten Thee? And of the Angels He saith, Who maketh His Angels spirits, and
His ministers a flame of fire[7].'
58. Observe here, the word 'made' belongs to things originate, and he calls
them things made; but to the Son he speaks not of making, nor of becoming, hut
of eternity and kingship, and a Framer's office, exclaiming, 'Thy Throne, O
God, is for ever and ever;' and, 'Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the
foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of Thine hands; they
shall perish, but Thou remainest.' From which words even they, were they but
willing, might perceive that the Framer is other than things framed, the
former God, the latter things originate, made out of nothing. For what has
been said, 'They shall perish,' is said, not as if the creation were destined
for destruction, but to express the nature of things originate by the issue to
which they tend[8]. For things which admit of perishing, though through the
grace[9] of their Maker they perish not, yet have come out of nothing, and
themselves witness that they once were not. And on this account, since their
nature is such, it is said of the Son, 'Thou remainest,' to shew His eternity;
for not having the capacity of perishing, as things originate. have, but
having eternal duration, it is foreign to Him to have it said, 'He was not
before His generation,' but proper to Him to be always, and to endure together
with the Father. And though the Apostle had not thus written in his Epistle to
the Hebrews, still his other Epistles, and the whole of Scripture, would
certainly forbid their entertaining such notions concerning the Word. But
since he has here expressly written it, and, as has been above shown, the Son
is Offspring of the Father's essence, and He is Framer, and other things are
framed by Him. and He is the Radiance and Word and Image and Wisdom of the
Father, and things originate stand and serve in their place below the Triad,
therefore the Son is different in kind and different in essence from things
originate, and on the contrary is proper to the Father's especially it is that
the Son too says not, 'My Father is better than I[II],' lest we should
conceive Him to he foreign to His Nature, but 'greater,' not indeed in
greatness, nor in time, but because of His generation from the Father
Himself[12], nay, in saying 'greater 'He again shows that He is proper to His
essence.
59.[7]. And the Apostle's own reason for saying, 'so much better than the
Angels,' was not any wish in the first instance to compare the essence[1] of
the Word to things originate (for He cannot be compared, rather they are
incommensurable), but regarding the Word's visitation in the flesh, and the
Economy which He then sustained, he wished to show that He was not like those
who had gone before Him; so that, as much as He excelled in nature those who
were sent afore by Him, by so much also the grace which came from and through
Him was better than the ministry through Angels[2]. For it is the function of
servants, to demand the fruits and no more; but of the Son and Master to
forgive the debts and to transfer the vineyard.
(8.) Certainly what the Apostle proceeds to say shows the excellence of
the Son over things originate; 'Therefore we ought to give the more earnest
heed to the things which we have heard. lest at any time we should let them
slip. For if the word spoken by Angels was stedfast, and every transgression
and disobedience received a just recompense of reward; how shall we escape, if
we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the
Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard Him[3].' But if the Son
were in the number of things originate, He was not better than they, nor did
disobedience involve increase of punishment because of Him; any more than in
the Ministry of Angels there was not, according to each Angel, greater or less
guilt in the transgressors, but the Law was one, and one was its vengeance on
transgressors. But, whereas the Word is not in the number of originate things,
but is Son of the Father, therefore, as He Himself is better and His acts
better and transcendent, so also the punishment is worse. Let thorn
contemplate then the grace which is through the Son, and let them acknowledge
the witness which He gives even from His works. that He is other than things
originated, and alone the very Son in the Father and the Father in Him.
341
And the Law(4) was spoken by Angels, and perfected no one(5), needing the
visitation of the Word, as Paul hath said; but that visitation has perfected
the work of the Father. And then, from Adam unto Moses death reigned(6); but
the presence of the Word abolished death(7). And no longer in Adam are we all
dying(8); but in Christ we are all reviving And then, from Dan to Beersheba
was the Law proclaimed, and in Judaea only was God known; but now, unto all
the earth has gone forth their voice, and all the earth has been filled with
the knowledge of God(9), and the disciples have made disciples of all the
nations(10), and now is fulfilled what is written, 'They shall be all taught
of God(11).' And then what was revealed was but a type; but now the truth has
been manifested. And this again the Apostle himself describes afterwards more
clearly, saying, 'By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament;'
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.' And, 'For the Law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in
of a better hope did.' 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(12).' Both in the
verse before us, then, and throughout, does be ascribe the word 'better' to
the Lord, who is better and other than originated things. For better is the
sacrifice through Him, better the hope in Him; and also the promises through
Him, not merely as great compared with small, but the one differing from the
other in nature, because He who conducts this economy, is 'better' than things
originated.
60. (9.) Moreover the words 'He is become surety' denote the pledge in our
behalf which He has provided. For as, being the 'Word,' He 'became flesh' and
'become' we ascribe to the flesh, for it is originated and created, so do we
here the expression 'He is become,' expounding it according to a second sense,
viz. because He has become man. And let these contentious men know, that they
fail in this their perverse purpose; let them know that Paul does not signify
that His essence(2) has become, knowing, as he did, that He is Son and Wisdom
and Radiance and Image of the Father; but here too he refers the word 'become'
to the ministry of that covenant, in which death which once ruled is
abolished. Since here also the ministry through Him has become better, in that
'what the Law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending
His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the
flesh(3),' ridding it of the trespass, in which, being continually held
captive, it admitted not the Divine mind. And having rendered the flesh
capable of the Word, He made us walk, no longer according to the flesh, but
according to the Spirit, and say again and again, 'But we are not in the flesh
but in the Spirit,' and, 'For the Son of God came into the world, not to judge
the world, but to redeem all men, and that the world might be saved through
Him(4).' Formerly the world, as guilty, was under judgment from the Law; but
now the Word has taken on Himself the judgment, and having suffered in the
body for all, has bestowed salvation to all(5). With a view to this has John
exclaimed, 'The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus
Christ(6).' Better is grace than the Law, and truth than the shadow.
61. (10.) 'getter' then, as has been said, could not have been brought to
pass by any other than the Son, who sits on the right hand of the Father, And
what does this denote but the Son's genuineness, and that the Godhead of the
Father is the same as the Son's(7)? For in that the Son reigns in His Father's
kingdom, is seated upon the same throne as the Father, and is contemplated in
the Father's Godhead, therefore is the Word God, and whose beholds the Son,
beholds the Father; and thus there is one God. Sitting then on the right, yet
He does not place His Father on the left(8); but whatever is right(9) and
precious in the Father, that also the Son has, and says, 'All things that the
Father hath are Mine(10).' Wherefore also the Son, though sitting on the
right, also sees the Father on the right, though it be as become man that He
says, 'I saw the Lord always before My face, for He is on My right hand,
therefore I shall not fall(11).' This shews moreover that the Son is in the
Father
342
and the Father in the Son; for the Father being on the right, the Son is on
the right; and while the Son sits on the right of the Father, the Father is in
the Son. And the Angels indeed minister ascending and descending; but
concerning the Son he saith, 'And let all the Angels of God worship Him(12).'
And when Angels minister, they say, 'I am sent unto thee.' and, 'The Lord has
commanded;' but the Son, though He say in human fashion, 'I am sent(13),' and
comes to finish the work and to minister, nevertheless says, as being Word and
Image, 'I am in the Father, and the Father in Me;' and, 'He that hath seen Me,
hath seen the Father;' and, 'The Father that abideth in Me. He doeth the
works(14);(1) for what we behold in that Judge are the Father's works.
(11.) What has been already said ought to shame those persons who are
fighting against the very truth; however, if, because it is written, 'become
better,' they refuse to understand 'become,' as used of the Son, as 'has been
and is(1);' or again as referring to the better covenant having come to be(2),
as we have said, but consider from this expression that the Word is called
originate, let them hear the same again in a concise form, since they have
forgotten what has been said.
62. If the Son be in the number of the Angels, then let tile word 'become'
apply to Him as to them, and let Him not differ at all from them in nature;
but be they either sons with Him, or be He an Angel with them; sit they one
and all together on the right hand of the Father, or be the Son standing with
them all as a ministering Spirit, sent forth to minister Himself as they are.
But if on the other hand Paul distinguishes the Son from things originate,
saying, 'To which of the Angels said He at any time, Thou art My Son?' and the
one frames heaven anti earth, but they are made by Him; and He sitteth with
the Father, but they stand by ministering, who does not see that he has not
used the word 'become' of the essence of the Word, but of the ministration
come through Him? For as, being the 'Word,' He 'became flesh,' so when become
man, He became by so much better in His ministry, than the ministry which came
by the Angels, as Son excels servants and Framer things framed. Let them cease
therefore to take the word 'become' of the substance of the Son, for He is
not one of originated things; and let them acknowledge that it is indicative
of His ministry and the Economy which came to pass.
(12.) But how He became better in His ministry, being better in nature
than things originate, appears from what has been said before, which, I
consider, is sufficient in itself to put them to shame. But if they carry on
the contest, it will be proper upon their rash daring to close with them, and
to oppose to them those similar expressions which are used concerning the
Father Himself. This may serve to shame them to refrain their tongue from
evil, or may teach them the depth of their folly. Now it is written, 'Become
my strong rock and house of defence, that Thou mayest save me(3).' And again,
'The Lord became a defence for the oppressed(4),' and the like which are found
in divine Scripture. If then they apply these passages to the Son, which
perhaps is nearest to the truth, then let them acknowledge that the sacred
writers ask Him, as not being originate, to become to them 'a strong rock and
house of defence;' and for the future let them understand 'become,' and 'He
made,' and 'He created,' of His incarnate presence. For then did He become 'a
strong rock and house of defence,' when He bore our sins in His own body upon
the tree, and said, 'Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and
I will give you rest(5).'
63. But if they refer these passages to the Father, will they, when it is
here also written, 'Become' and 'He became,' venture so far as to affirm that
God is originate? Yea, they will dare, as they thus argue concerning His Word;
for the course of their argument carries them on to conjecture the same things
concerning the Father, as they devise concerning His Word. But far be such a
notion ever from the thoughts of all the faithful! for neither is the Son in
the number of things originated, nor do the words of Scripture in question,
'Become,' and 'He became,' denote beginning of being, but that succour which
was given to the needy. For God is always, and one and the same; but men have
come to be afterwards through the Word, when the Father Himself willed it; and
God is invisible and inaccessible to originated things, anti especially to men
upon earth. When then men in infirmity invoke Him, when in persecution they
ask help, when under injuries they pray, then the Invisible, being a lover of
man, shines forth upon them with His beneficence. which He exercises through
and in His proper Word. And forthwith the divine manifestation is made to
every one according to his need, and is made to the weak health, and to the
persecuted a 'refuge' and 'house of defence;' and to the injured He says,
'While thou speakest I
343
will say, Here I am(6).' Whatever defence then comes to each through the Son,
that each says that God has come to be to himself, since succour comes from
God Himself through the Word. Moreover the usage of men recognises this, and
every one will confess its propriety. Often succour comes from man to man; one
has undertaken toil for the injured, as Abraham for Lot; and another has
opened his home to the persecuted, as Obadiah to the sons of the prophets; and
another has entertained a stranger, as Lot the Angels; and another has
supplied the needy, as Job those who begged of him. And then, should one and
the other of these benefited persons say, 'Such a one became an assistance to
me,' and another 'and to me a refuge,' and 'to another a supply,' yet in so
saying would not be speaking of the original becoming or of the essence of
their benefactors, but of the beneficence coming to themselves from them; so
also when the saints say concerning God, 'He became' and 'become Thou,' they
do not denote any original becoming, for God is without beginning and
unoriginate, but the salvation which is made to be unto men from Him.
64. This being so understood, it is parallel also respecting the Son, that
whatever, and however often, is said, such as, 'He became' and 'become,'
should ever have the same sense: so that as, when we hear the words in
question, 'become better than the Angels' and 'He became,' we should not
conceive any original becoming of the Word, nor in any way fancy from such
terms that He is originate; but should understand Paul's words of His ministry
and Economy when He became man. For when 'the Word became flesh and dwelt
among us?' and came to minister and to grant salvation to all, then He became
to us salvation, and became life, and became propitiation; then His economy in
our behalf became much better than the Angels, and He became the Way and
became the Resurrection. And as the words 'Become my strong rock' do not
denote that the essence of God Himself became, but His lovingkindness, as has
been said, so also here the 'having become better than the Angels,' and, 'He
became,' and, 'by so much is Jesus become a better surety,' do not signify
that the essence of the Word is originate (perish the though!), but the
beneficence which towards us came to be through His becoming Man; unthankful
though the heretics be, and obstinate in behalf of their irreligion.
DISCOURSE II
CHAPTER XIV.
TEXTS EXPLAINED; FOURTHLY,
HEBREWS iii. 2.
Introduction; the Regula Fidei counter to an Arian sense of the text; which is
not supported by the word 'servant,' nor by 'made' which occurs in it; (how
can the Judge be among the 'works' which 'God will bring into judgment?') nor
by 'faithful;' and is confuted by the immediate context, which is about
Priesthood; and by the foregoing passage, which explains the word 'faithful'
as meaning trustworthy, as do 1 Pet. iv. fin. and other texts. On the whole
made may safely be understood either of the divine generation or the human
creation.
1. I DID indeed think that enough had been said already against the hollow
professors of Arius's madness, whether for their refutation or in the truth's
behalf, to insure a cessation and repentance of their evil thoughts and words
about the Saviour. They, however, for whatever reason, still do not succumb;
but, as swine and dogs wallow(1) in their own vomit and their own mire, rather
invent new expedients for their irreligion. Thus they misunderstand the
passage in the Proverbs, 'The Lord hath created me a beginning of His ways for
His works(2),' and the words of the Apostle, 'Who was faithful to Him that
made Him(3),' and straightway argue, that the Son of God is a work and a
creature. But although they might have learned from what is said above, had
they not utterly lost their power of apprehension, that the Son is not front
nothing nor in the number of things originate at all, the Truth witnessing(4)
it (for, being God, He cannot be a work, and it is impious to call Him a
creature, and it is of creatures and works that we say, 'out of nothing,' and
'it was not before its generation'), yet since, as if dreading to desert their
own fiction, they are accustomed to allege the aforesaid passages of divine
Scripture, which have a good meaning, but are by them practised on, let us
proceed afresh to take up the question of the sense of these, to remind the
faithful, and to shew from each of these passages that they have no knowledge
at all of Christianity. Were it otherwise, they would not have shut themselves
up in the unbelief(5) of the present Jews(6), but would have inquired and
learned(6) that, whereas 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God, and the Word was God,' in consequence, it was when at the good pleasure
of the Father the Word became man, that it was said of Him, as by John, 'The
Word became flesh(7);' so by Peter, 'He hath made Him Lord and Christs(8);--as
by means of Solomon in the Person of the Lord Himself, 'The Lord created me a
beginning of His ways for His works(9);' so by Paul, 'Become so much better
than the Angels(10);' and again, 'He emptied Himself, and took upon Him the
form of a servant(11);' and again, 'Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the
heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession,
Jesus, who was faithful to Him that made Him(12).' For all these texts have
the same force and meaning, a religious one, declarative of the divinity of
the Word, even those of them which speak humanly concerning Him, as having
become the Son of man. But, though this distinction is sufficient for their
refutation, still, since from a misconception of the Apostle's words (to
mention them first), they consider the Word of God to be one of the works,
because of its being written, 'Who was faithful to Him that made Him,' I have
thought it needful to, silence this further argument of theirs, taking in
hand(13), as before, their statement.
349
2. If then He be not a Son, let Him be called a work, and let all that is
said of works be said of Him, nor let Him and Him alone be called Son, nor
Word, nor Wisdom neither let God be called Father, but only Framer and Creator
of things which by Him come to be; and let the creature be Image and
Expression of His framing will, and let Him, as they would have it, be without
gene-rative nature, so that there be neither Word, nor Wisdom, no, nor Image,
of His proper substance. For if He be not Son(1), neither is He Image(2). But
if there be not a Son, how then say you that God is a Creator? since all
things that come to be are through the Word and in Wisdom, and without This
nothing can be, whereas you say He hath not That in and through which He makes
all things. For if the Divine Essence be not fruitful itself(3), but barren,
as they hold, as a light that lightens not, and a dry fountain, are they not
ashamed to speak of His possessing framing energy? and whereas they deny what
is by nature, do they not blush to place before it what is by will(4)? But if
He frames things that are external to Him and before were not, by willing them
to he, and becomes their Maker, much more will He first be Father of an
Offspring from His proper Essence. For if they attribute to God the willing
about things which are not, why recognise they not that in God which ties
above the will? now it is a something that surpasses will, that He should be
by nature, and should be Father of His proper Word. If then that which comes
first, which is according to nature, did not exist, as they would have it in
their folly, how could that which is second come to be, which is according to
will? for the Word is first, and then the creation. On the contrary the Word
exists, whatever they affirm, those irreligious ones; for through Him did
creation come to be, and God, as being Maker, plainly has also His framing
Word, not external, but proper to Him;--for this must be repeated. If He has
the power of will, and His will is effective, and suffices for the consistence
of the things that come to be, and His Word is effective, and a Framer, that
Word must surely be the living Will(5) of the Father, and an essential(6)
energy, and a real Word, in whom all things both consist and are excellently
governed. No one can even doubt, that He who disposes is prior to the
disposition and the things disposed. And thus, as I said, God's creating is
second to His begetting; for Son implies something proper to Him and truly
from that blessed and everlasting Essence; but what is from His will, comes
into consistence from without, and is framed through His proper Offspring who
is from It.
3. As we have shewn then they are guilty of great extravagance who say
that the Lord is not Son of God, but a work, and it follows that we all of
necessity confess that He is Son. And if He be Son, as indeed He is, and a son
is confessed to be not external to his father but from him, let them not
question about the terms, as I said before, which the sacred writers use of
the Word Himself, viz. not 'to Him that begat Him,' but 'to Him that made
Him;' for while it is confessed what His nature is, what word is used in such
instances need raise no question(7). For terms do not disparage His Nature;
rather that Nature draws to Itself those terms and changes them. For terms are
not prior to essences, but essences are first, and terms second. Wherefore
also when the essence is a work or creature, then the words 'He made,' and 'He
became,' and 'He created,' are used of it properly, and designate the work.
But when the Essence is an Offspring and Son, then 'He made,' and 'He became,'
and 'He created,' no longer properly belong to it, nor designate a work; but
'He made' we use without question for 'He begat.' Thus fathers often call the
sons born of them their servants, yet without denying the genuineness of their
nature; and often they affectionately call their own servants children, yet
without putting out of sight their purchase of them originally; for they use
the one appellation from their authority as being fathers, but in the other
they speak from affection. Thus Sara called Abraham lord, though not a servant
but a wife; and while to
350
Philemon the master the Apostle joined Onesimus the servant as a brother,
Bathsheba, although mother, called her son servant, saying to his father, 'Thy
servant Solomon(8);'--afterwards also Nathan the Prophet came in and repeated
her words to David, 'Solomon thy servant(9).' Nor did they mind calling the
son a servant, for while David heard it, he recognised the 'nature,' and while
they spoke it, they forgot not the 'genuineness,' praying that he might be
made his father's heir, to whom they gave the name of servant; for to David he
was son by nature.
4. As then, when we read this, we interpret it fairly, without accounting
Solomon a servant because we hear him so called, but a son natural and
genuine, so also, if, concerning the Saviour, who is confessed to be in truth
the Son, and to be the Word by nature, the saints say, 'Who was faithful to
Him that made Him,' or if He say of Himself, 'The Lord created me,' and, 'I am
Thy servant and the Son of Thine handmaid(1),' and the like, let not any on
this account deny that He is proper to the Father and from Hint; but, as in
the case of Solomon and David, let them have a right idea of the Father and
the Son. For if, though they hear Solomon called a servant, they acknowledge
him to be a son are they not descrying of many deaths(2), who, instead of
preserving the same explanation in the instance of the Lord, whenever they
hear 'Offspring,' and 'Word,' and 'Wisdom,' forcibly misinterpret and deny the
generation, natural and genuine, of the Son from the Father; but on hearing
words and terms proper to a work, forthwith drop down to the notion of His
being by nature a work, and deny the Word; and this, though it is possible,
from His having been made man, to refer all these terms to His humanity? And
are they not proved to be an abomination' also 'unto the Lord,' as having
'diverse weights(3)' with them, and with this estimating those other
instances, and with that blaspheming the Lord? But perhaps they grant that the
word 'servant' is used under a certain understanding, but lay stress upon 'Who
made' as some great support of their heresy. But this stay of theirs also is
but a broken reed; for if they are aware of the style of Scripture, they must
at once give sentence against(4) themselves. For as Solomon, though a son, is
called a servant, so, to repeat what was said above, although parents call the
sons springing from themselves 'made' and 'created' and 'becoming,' for all
this they do not deny their nature. Thus Hezekiah, as it is written in Isaiah,
said in his prayer, 'From this day I will make children, who shall declare Thy
righteousness, O God of my salvation(5).' He then said, 'I will make;' but the
Prophet in that very book and the Fourth of Kings, thus speaks, 'And the sons
who shall come forth of thee(6).' He uses then 'make' for 'beget' and he calls
them who were to spring from him, 'made,' and no one questions whether the
term has reference to a natural offspring. Again, Eve on bearing Cain said, 'I
have gotten a man from the Lord(7);' thus she too used 'gotten' for 'brought
forth.' For, first she saw the child, yet next she said, 'I have gotten.' Nor
would any one consider, because of 'I have gotten,' that Cain was purchased
from without, instead of being born of her. Again, the Patriarch Jacob said to
Joseph, 'And now thy two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, which became thine in
Egypt, before I came unto thee into Egypt, are mine(8).' And Scripture says
about Job, 'And there came to him seven sons and three daughters(9).' As Moses
too has said in the Law, 'If sons become to any one,' and 'If he make a
son(10).' Here again they speak of those who are begotten, as 'become' and
'made,' knowing that, while they are acknowledged to be sons, we need not make
a question of 'they became,' or 'I have gotten,' or 'I made(11).' For nature
and truth draw the meaning to themselves.
5. This being so(1), when persons ask whether the Lord is a creature or
work, it is proper to ask of them this first, whether He is Son and Word and
Wisdom. For if this is shewn, the surmise about work and creation fails to the
ground at once and is ended. For a work could never be Son and Word; nor could
the Son be a work. And again, this being the state of the case, the proof is
plain to all, that the phrase, 'To Him who made Him' does not serve their
heresy, but rather condemns it. For it has been shewn that the expression 'He
made' is applied in divine Scripture even to children genuine and natural;
whence, the Lord being proved to be the Father's Son naturally and genuinely,
and Word, and Wisdom, though 'He made' be used concerning Him, or 'He became,'
this is not said of Him as if a work, but the saints make no question about
using the expression,--for instance in the case of Solomon, and Heze-
351
kiah's children. For though the fathers had begotten them from themselves,
still it is written, 'I have made,' and 'I have gotten,' and 'He became.'
Therefore God's enemies, in spite of their repeated allegation of such
phrases(2), ought now, though late in the day, after what has been said, to
disown their irreligious thoughts, and think of the Lord as of a true Son,
Word, and Wisdom of the Father, not a work, not a creature. For if the Son be
a creature, by what word then and by what wisdom was He made Himself(3)? for
all the works were made through the Word and the Wisdom, as it is written, 'In
wisdom hast Thou made them all,' and, 'All things were made by Him, and
without Him was not anything made(4).' But if it be He who is the Word and the
Wisdom, by which all things come to be, it follows that He is not in the
number of works, nor in short of things originate, but the Offspring of the
Father.
6. For consider how grave an error it is, to call God's Word a work.
Solomon says in one place in Ecclesiastes, that 'God shall bring every work
into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good or whether it be
evil(1).' If then the Word be a work, do you mean that He as well as others
will be brought into judgment? and what room is there for judgment, when the
Judge is on trial? who will give to the just their blessing, who to the
unworthy their punishment, the Lord, as you must suppose, standing on trial
with the rest? by what law shall He, the Lawgiver, Himself be judged? These
things are proper to the works, to be on trial, to be blessed and to be
punished by the Son. Now then fear the Judge, and let Solomon's words convince
you. For if God shall bring the works one and all into judgment, but the Son
is not in the number of things put on trial, but rather is Himself the Judge
of works one and all, is not the proof clearer than the sun, that the Son is
not a work but the Father's Word, in whom all the works both come to be and
come into judgment? Further, if the expression, 'Who was faithful,' is a
difficulty to them, from the thought that 'faithful' is used of Him as of
others, as if He exercises faith and so receives the reward of faith, they
must proceed at this rate to find fault with Moses for saying, 'God faithful
and true(2),' and with St. Paul for writing, 'God is faithful, who will not
suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able(3).' But when the saints;
spoke thus, they were not thinking of God in a human way, but they
acknowledged two senses of the word 'faithful' in Scripture, first
'believing,' then 'trustworthy,' of which the former belongs to man, the
latter to God. Thus Abraham was faithful, because He believed God's word; and
God faithful, for, as David says in the Psalm, 'The Lord is faithful in all
His words(4),' or is trustworthy, and cannot lie. Again, 'If any faithful
woman have widows(5),' she is so called for her right faith; but, 'It is a
faithful saying(6),' because what He hath spoken has a claim on our faith, for
it is true, and is not otherwise. Accordingly the words, 'Who is faithful to
Him that made Him,' implies no parallel with others, nor means that by having
faith He became well-pleasing; but that, being Son of the True God, He too is
faithful, and ought to be believed in all He says and does, Himself remaining
unalterable and not changed(7) in His human Economy and fleshly presence.
7. Thus then we may meet these men who are shameless, and from the single
expression 'He made,' may shew that they err in thinking that the Word of God
is a work. But further, since the drift also of the context is orthodox,
shewing the time and the relation to which this expression points, I ought to
shew from it also how the heretics lack reason; viz. by considering, as we
have done above, the occasion when it was used and for what purpose. Now the
Apostle is not discussing things before the creation when he thus speaks, but
when 'the Word became flesh;' for thus it is written, 'Wherefore, holy
brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High
Priest of our profession Jesus, who was faithful to Him that made Him.' Now
when became He 'Apostle,' but when He put on our flesh? and when became He
'High Priest of our profession,' but when, after offering Himself for us, He
raised His Body from the dead, and, as now, Himself brings near and offers to
the Father those who in faith approach Him, redeeming all, and for all
propitiating God? Not then as wishing to signify the Essence of the Word nor
His natural generation from the Father, did the Apostle say, 'Who was faithful
to Him that made Him'--(perish the thought! for the Word is not made, but
makes)--but as signifying His
352
descent to mankind and High-priesthood which did 'become'--as one may easily
see from the account given of the Law and of Aaron. I mean, Aaron was not born
a high-priest, but a man; and in process of time, when God willed, he became a
high-priest; yet became so, not simply, nor as betokened by his ordinary
garments, but putting over them the ephod, the breastplate(1), the robe, which
the women wrought at God's command, and going in them into the holy place, he
offered the sacrifice for the people; and in them, as it were, mediated
between the vision of God and the sacrifices of men. Thus then the Lord also,
'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God;' but when the Father willed that ransoms should be paid for all and to
all, grace should be given, then truly the Word, as Aaron his robe, so did He
take earthly flesh, having Mary for the Mother of His Body as if virgin
earth(2), that, as a High Priest, having He as others an offering, He might
offer Himself to the Father, and cleanse us all from sins in His own blood,
and might rise from the dead.
8. For what happened of old was a shadow of this; and what the Saviour did
on His coming, this Aaron shadowed out according to the Law. As then Aaron was
the same and did not change by putting on the high priestly dress(3), but
remaining the same was only robed, so that, had any one seen him offering, and
had said, 'Lo, Aaron has this day become high-priest,' he had not implied that
he then had been born man, for man he was even before he became high-priest,
but that he had been made high-priest in his ministry, on putting on the
garments marie and prepared for the high-priesthood; in the same way it is
possible in the Lord's instance also to understand aright, that He did not
become other than Himself on taking the flesh, but, being the same as before,
He was robed in it; and the expressions 'He became' and 'He was made,' must
not be understood as if the Word, considered as the Word(3a), were made, but
that the Word, being Framer of all, afterwards(4) was made High Priest, by
putting on a body which was originate and made, and such as He can offer for
us; wherefore He is said to be made. If then indeed the Lord did not become
man(5), that is a point for the Arians to battle; but if the 'Word became
flesh,' what ought to have been said concerning Him when become man, but 'Who
was faithful to Him that made Hint?' for as it is proper to the Word to have
it said of Him, 'In the beginning was the Word,' so it is proper to man to
'become' and to be 'made.' Who then, on seeing the Lord as a man walking
about, and yet appearing to be God from His works, would not have asked, Who
made Him man? and who again, on such a question, would not have answered, that
the Father made Him man, and sent Him to us as High Priest? And this meaning,
and time, and character, the Apostle himself, the writer of the words, Who is
faithful to Him that made Him,' will best make plain to us, if we attend to
what goes before them. For there is one train of thought, and the lection is
all about One and the Same. He writes then in the Epistle to the Hebrews thus;
'Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also
Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death He might destroy
him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them who
through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily
He took not on Him the nature of Angels; but He took on Him the seed of
Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved
353
Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and
faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for
the sins of the people. For in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He
is able to succour them that are tempted. Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers
of a heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession,
Jesus; who was faithful to Him that made Him[6].'
9. Who can read this whole passage without condemning the Arians, and
admiring the blessed Apostle, who has spoken well? for when was Christ 'made,'
when became He 'Apostle,' except when, like us, He 'took part in flesh and
blood?' And when became He 'a merciful and faithful High Priest,' except when
'in all things He was made like unto His brethren?' And then was He 'made
like,' when He became man, having put upon Him our flesh. Wherefore Paul was
writing concerning the Word's human Economy, when he said, 'Who was faithful
to Him that made Him,' and not concerning His Essence. Have not therefore any
more the madness to say, that the Word of God is a work; whereas He is Son by
nature Only-begotten, and then had 'brethren,' when He took on Him flesh like
ours; which moreover, by Himself offering Himself, He was named and became
'merciful and faithful,'--merciful, because in mercy to us He offered Himself
for us, and faithful, not as sharing faith with us, nor as having, faith in
any one as we have, but as deserving to receive faith in all He says and does,
and as offering a faithful sacrifice, one which remains and does not come to
nought. For those which were offered according to the Law, had not this
faithfulness, passing away with the day and needing a further cleansing; but
the Saviour's sacrifice, taking place once has perfected everything, and is
become faithful as remaining for ever. And Aaron had successors, and in a word
the priesthood under the Law exchanged its first ministers as time and death
went on; but the Lord having a high priesthood without transition and without
succession, has become a 'faithful. High Priest,' as continuing for ever; and
faithful too by promise, that He may hear[7] and not mislead those who come to
Him. This may be also learned from the Epistle of the great Peter, who says,
'Let them that suffer according to the will of God, commit their souls to a
faithful Creator[8].' For He is faithful as not changing, but abiding ever,
and rendering what He has promised.
10. Now the so called gods of the Greeks, unworthy the name, are faithful
neither in their essence nor in their promises; for the same are not
everywhere, nay, the local deities come to nought in course of time, and
undergo a natural dissolution; wherefore the Word cries out against them, that
'faith is not strong in them,' but they are 'waters that fall,' and 'there is
no faith in them.' But the God of all, being one really and indeed and true,
is faithful, who is ever the same, and says, 'See now, that I, even I am He,'
and I 'change not[1];' and therefore His Son is 'faithful,' being ever the
same and unchanging, deceiving neither in His essence nor in His promise;--as
again says the Apostle writing to the Thessaloninns, 'Faithful is He who
calleth you, who also will do it[2];' for in doing what He promises, He is
faithful to His words. And he thus writes to the Hebrews as to the word's
meaning ' unchangeable;' 'If we believe not, yet He abideth faithful; He
cannot deny Himself[3].' Therefore reasonably the Apostle, discoursing
concerning the bodily presence of the Word, says, an 'Apostle and faithful to
Him that made Him,' shewing us that, even when made man, 'Jesus Christ' is
'the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever[4]' is unchangeable. And as the
Apostle makes mention in his Epistle of His being made man when mentioning His
High Priesthood, so too he kept no long silence about His Godhead, but rather
mentions it forthwith, furnishing to us a safeguard on every side, and most of
all when he speaks of His humility, that we may forthwith know His loftiness
and His majesty which is the Father's. For instance, he says, 'Moses as a
servant, but Christ as a Sons;' and the former 'faithful in his house,' and
the latter ' over the house,' as having Himself built it, and being its Lord
and Framer, and as God sanctifying it. For Moses, a man by nature, became
faithful, in believing God who spoke to Him by His Word; but[6] the Word was
not as one of things originate in a body, nor as creature in creature, but as
God in flesh[7], and Framer of all and Builder in that which was built by Him.
And men are clothed in flesh in order to be and to subsist; but the Word of
God was made man in order to sanctify the flesh, and, though He was Lord, was
in the form of a servant; for the whole creature is the
354
Word's servant, which by Him came to be and was made.
11. Hence it holds that the Apostle's expression, 'He made,' does not
prove that the Word is made, but that body, which He took like ours; and in
consequence He is called our brother, as having become man. But if it has been
shewn, that, even though the word 'made' be referred to the Very Word, it is
used for 'begat,' what further perverse expedient will they be able to fall
upon, now that the present discussion has cleared up the word in every point
of view, and shewn that the Son is not a work, hut in Essence indeed the
Father's offspring, while in the Economy, according to the good pleasures of
the Father, He was on our behalf made, and consists as man? For this reason
then it is said by the Apostle, 'Who was faithful to Him that made Him;' and
in the Proverbs, even creation is spoken of. For so long as we are confessing
that He became man, there is no question about saying, as was observed before,
whether 'He became,' or 'He has been made,' or 'created,' or 'formed,' or
'servant,' or 'son of an handmaid,' or 'son of man,' or 'was constituted,' or
'took His journey,' or 'bridegroom,' or 'brother's son,' or 'brother.' All
these terms happen to be proper to man's constitution; and such as these do
not designate the Essence of the Word, but that He has become man.
CHAPTER XV.
TEXTS EXPLAINED; FIFTHLY,
ACTS ii. 36.
The Regula Fidei must be observed; made applies to our Lord's manhood; and to
His manifestation; and to His office relative to us; and is relative to the
Jews. Parallel instance in Gen. xxvii. 29, 37. The context contradicts the
Arian interpretation.
11 (continued). THE same is the meaning of the passage in the Acts which
they also allege, that in which Peter says, that 'He hath made both Lord and
Christ that same Jesus whom ye have crucified.' For here too it is not
written, 'He made for Himself a Son,' or 'He made Himself a Word,' that they
should have such notions. If then it has not escaped their memory, that they
speak concerning the Son of God, let them make search whether it is anywhere
written. 'God made Himself a Son,' or 'He created for Himself a Word;' or
again, whether it is anywhere written in plain terms, 'The Word is a work or
creation;' and then let them proceed to make their case, the insensate men,
that here too they may receive their answer. But if they can produce nothing
of the kind, and only catch at such stray expressions as 'He made' and 'He has
been made,' I fear test, from hearing, 'In the beginning God made the heaven
and the earth,' and 'He made the sun and the moon,' and 'He made the sea,'
they should come in time to call the Word the heaven, and the Light which took
place on the first day, and the earth, and each particular thing that has been
made, so as to end in resembling the Stoics, as they are called, the one
drawing out their God into all things[1], the other ranking God's Word with
each work in particular; which the they have well nigh done already, saying
that He is one of His works.
12. But here they must have the same answer as before, and first be told
that the Word is a Son, as has been said above[2], and not a work, and that
such terms are not to be understood of His Godhead, but the reason and manner
of them investigated. To persons who so inquire, the human Economy will
plainly present itself, which He undertook for our sake. For Peter, after
saying, 'He hath made Lord and Christ,' straightway added, 'this Jesus whom ye
crucified;' which makes it plain to any one, even, if so be, to them, provided
they attend to the context, that not the Essence of the Word, but He according
to His manhood is said to have been made. For what was crucified but the body?
and how could be signified what was bodily in the Word, except by saying 'He
made?' Especially has that phrase, 'He made,' a meaning consistent with
orthodoxy; in that he has not said, as I observed before, 'He made Him Word,'
but 'He made Him Lord,' nor that in general terms[3], but 'towards' us, and
'in the midst of' us, as much as to say, 'He manifested Him.' And this Peter
himself, when he began this primary teaching, carefully[4] expressed, when he
said to them, 'Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man
manifested of God towards you by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God
did by Him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves know[5].' Consequently the
term which he uses in the end, 'made; this He has explained in the beginning
by 'manifested,' for by the signs and wonders which the Lord did, He was
manifested to be not merely man, but God in a body and Lord also, the Christ.
Such also is the passage in the Gospel according to John, 'Therefore the more
did the Jews persecute Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but said
also that God was His own Father, making Himself
355
equal with God[6]., For the Lord did not then fashion Himself to be God, nor
indeed is a made God conceivable, but He manifested it by the works, saying,
'Though ye believe not Me, believe My works, that ye may know that I am in the
Father, and the Father in Me 7.' Thus then the Father has 'made' Him Lord and
King in the midst of us, and towards us who were once disobedient; and it is
plain that He who is now displayed as Lord and King, does not then begin to be
King and Lord, but begins to shew His Lordship, and to extend it even over the
disobedient.
13. If then they suppose that the Saviour was not Lord and King, even
before He became man and endured the Cross, but then began to be Lord, let
them know that they are openly reviving the statements of the Samosatene. But
if, as we have quoted and declared above, He is Lord and King everlasting,
seeing that Abraham worships Him as Lord, and Moses says, 'Then the Lord
rained upon Sodore and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of
heaven[8];, and David in the Psalms, 'The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on
My right hand[9];' and, 'Thy Throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a sceptre of
righteousness is the sceptre of Thy Kingdom[10];' and, 'Thy Kingdom is an
everlasting Kingdom[11];' it is plain that even before He became man, He was
King and Lord everlasting, being Image and Word of the Father. And the Word
being everlasting Lord and King, it is very plain again that Peter said not
that the Essence of the Son was made, but spoke of His Lordship over us, which
'became' when He became man, and, redeeming all by the Cross, became Lord of
all and King. But if they continue the argument on the ground of its being
written, 'He made,' not willing that 'He made' should be taken in the sense of
'He manifested,' either from want of apprehension, or from their
Christ-opposing purpose, let them attend to another sound exposition of
Peter's words. For he who becomes Lord of others, comes into the possession of
beings already in existence; but if the Lord is Framer of all and everlasting
King, and when He became man, then gained possession of us, here too is a way
in which Peter's language evidently does not signify that the Essence of the
Word is a work, but the after-subjection of all things, and the Saviour's
Lordship which came to be over all. And this coincides with what we said
before[11a]; for as we then introduced the words, 'Become my God and
defence,' and 'the Lord became a refuge for the oppressed[12],' and it stood
to reason that these expressions do not shew that God is originate, but that
His beneficence 'becomes' towards each individual, the same sense has the
expression of Peter also.
14. For the Son of God indeed, being Himself the Word, is Lord of all; but
we once were subject from the first to the slavery of corruption and the curse
of the Law, then by degrees fashioning for ourselves things that were not, we
served, as says the blessed Apostle, 'them which by nature are no Gods[1],'
and, ignorant of the true God, we preferred things that were not to the truth;
but afterwards, as the ancient people when oppressed in Egypt groaned, so,
when we too had the Law ' engrafted[2]' in us, and according to the
unutterable sighings[3] of the Spirit made our intercession, 'O Lord our God,
take possession of us 4,' then, as 'He became for a house of refuge' and a
'God and defence,' so also He became our Lord. Nor did He then begin to be,
but we began to have Him for our Lord. For upon this, God being good and
Father of the Lord, in pity, and desiring to be known by all, makes His own
Son put on Him a human body and become man, and be called Jesus, that in this
body offering Himself for all, He might deliver all from false worship and
corruption, and might Himself become of all Lord and King. His becoming
therefore in this way Lord and King, this it is that Peter means by, 'He hath
made Him Lord,' and 'hath sent Christ;' as much as to say, that the Father in
making Him man for to be made belongs to man), did not simply make Him man,
but has made Him in order to His being Lord of all men, and to His hallowing
all through the Anointing. For though the Word existing in the form of God
took a servant's form, yet the assumption of the flesh did not make a
servant[5] of the Word, who was by nature Lord; but rather, not only was it
that emancipation of all humanity which takes place by the Word, but that very
Word who was by nature Lord, and was then made man, hath by means of a
servant's form been made Lord of all and Christ, that is, in order to hallow
all by the Spirit. And as God, when 'becoming a God and defence,' and saying,
'I will be a God to them,' does not then become God more than before, nor then
begins to become God, but, what He ever is, that He then becomes to those who
need Him, when it
356
pleaseth Him, so Christ also being by nature Lord and King everlasting, does
not become Lord more than He was at the time He is sent forth, nor then begins
to be Lord and King, but what He is ever, that He then is made according to
the flesh; and, having redeemed all, He becomes thereby again Lord of quick
and dead. For Him henceforth do all things serve, and this is David's meaning
in the Psalm, 'The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, until I
make Thine enemies Thy footstool[6]., For it was fitting that the redemption
should take place through none other than Him who is the Lord by nature, lest,
though created by the Son, we should name another Lord, and fall into the
Arian and Greek folly, serving the creature beyond the all-creating God[7].
15. This, at least according to my nothingness, is the meaning of this
passage; moreover, a true and a good meaning have these words of Peter as
regards the Jews. For Jews, astray from the truth, expect indeed the Christ as
coming, but do not reckon that He undergoes a passion, saying what they
understand not; 'We know that, when the Christ cometh, He abideth for ever,
and how sayest Thou, that He must be lifted up[8]?' Next they suppose Him, not
the Word coming in flesh, but a mere man, as were all the kings. The Lord
then, admonishing Cleopas and the other, taught them that the Christ must
first suffer; and the rest of the Jews that God was come among them, saying,
'If He called them gods to whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot
be broken, say ye of Him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the
world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God[9]?'
16. Peter then, having learned this from the Saviour, in both points set
the Jews right, saying, "O Jews, the divine Scriptures announce that Christ
cometh, and you consider Him a mere man as one of David's descendants, whereas
what is written of Him shews Him to be not such as you say, but rather
announces Him as Lord and God, and immortal, and dispenser of life. For Moses
has said, 'Ye shall see your Life hanging before your eyes[1].' And David in
the hundred and ninth Psalm, 'The Lord said unto My Lord, Sit Thou on My right
hand, till I make Thine enemies Thy footstool[2];' and in the fifteenth, 'Thou
shalt not leave my soul in hades, neither shalt Thou suffer Thy Holy One to
see corruption[3].' Now that these passages have not David for their scope he
himself witnesses, avowing that He who was coming was His own Lord. Nay you
yourselves know that He is dead, and His remains are with you. That the Christ
then must be such as the Scriptures say, you will plainly confess yourselves.
For those announcements come from God, and in them falsehood cannot be. If
then ye can state that such a one has come before, and can prove him God from
the signs and wonders which he did, ye have reason for maintaining the
contest, but if ye are not able to prove His coming, but are expecting such an
one still, recognise the true season from Daniel, for his words relate to the
present time. But if this present season be that which was of old,
afore-announced, and ye have seen what has taken place among us, be sure that
this Jesus, whom ye crucified, this is the expected Christ. For David and all
the Prophets died, and the sepulchres of all are with you, but that
Resurrection which has now taken place, has shewn that the scope of these
passages is Jesus. For the crucifixion is denoted by 'Ye shall see your Life
hanging,' and the wound in the side by the spear answers to 'He was led as a
sheep to the slaughter[4],' and the resurrection, nay more, the rising of the
ancient dead from out their sepulchres (for these most of you have seen), this
is, 'Thou shall not leave My soul in hades,' and 'He swallowed up death in
strengths,' and again, 'God will wipe away.' For the signs which actually took
place shew that He who was in a body was God, and also the Life and Lord of
death. For it became the Christ, when giving life to others, Himself not to be
detained by death; but this could not have happened, had He, as you suppose,
been a mere man. But in truth He is the Son of God, for men are all subject to
death. Let no one therefore doubt, but the whole house of Israel know
assuredly that this Jesus, whom ye saw in shape a man, doing signs and such
works, as no one ever yet had done, is Himself the Christ and Lord of all. For
though made man, and called JESUS, as we said before, He received no loss by
that human passion, but rather, in being made man, He is manifested as Lord of
quick and dead. For since, as the Apostle said,' in the wisdom of God the
world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching
to save them that believe[6].' And so, since we men would not acknowledge God
through His Word, nor serve the Word of God our
357
natural Master, it pleased God to shew in man His own Lordship, and so to draw
all men to Himself. But to do this by a mere man be-seemed not 7; lest, having
man for our Lord, we should become worshippers of man[8]. Therefore the Word
Himself became flesh, and the Father called His Name Jesus, and so 'made' Him
Lord and Christ, as much as to say, 'He made Him to rule and to reign;' that
while in the Name of Jesus, whom ye crucified, every knee bows, we may
acknowledge as Lord and King both the Son and through Him the Father."
17. The Jews then, most of them[1], hearing this, came to themselves and
forthwith acknowledged the Christ, as it is written in the Acts. But, the
Ario-maniacs on the contrary choose to remain Jews, and to contend with Peter;
so let us proceed to place before them some parallel phrases; perhaps it may
have some effect upon them, to find what the usage is of divine Scripture. Now
that Christ is everlasting Lord and King, has become plain by what has gone
before, nor is there a man to doubt about it; for being Son of God, He must be
like Him[2], and being like, He is certainly both Lord and King, for He says
Himself, 'He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father.' On the other hand, that
Peter's there words, 'He hath made Him both Lord and Christ,' do not imply the
Son to be a creature, may be seen from Isaac's blessing, though this
illustration is but a faint one for our subject. Now he said to Jacob, 'Become
thou lord over thy brother;' and to Esau, 'Behold, I have made him thy lord
3.' Now though the word 'made' had implied Jacob's essence and the coming into
being, even then it would not be right in them as much as to imagine the same
of the Word of God, for the Son of God is no creature as Jacob was; besides,
they might inquire and so rid themselves of that extravagance. But if they, do
not understand it of his essence nor of his coming into being, though Jacob
was by nature creature and work, is not their madness worse than the
Devil's[4], if what they dare not ascribe in consequence of a like phrase even
to things by nature originate, that they attach to the Son of God, saying that
He is a creature? For Isaac said 'Become' and 'I have made,' signifying
neither the coming into being nor the essence of Jacob (for after thirty years
and more from his birth he said this); but his authority over his brother,
which came to pass subsequently.
18. Much more then did Peter say this without meaning that the Essence of
the Word was a work; for he knew Him to be God's Son, confessing, 'Thou art
the Christ, the Son of the Living God[5];' but he meant His Kingdom and
Lordship which was formed and came to be according to grace, and was
relatively to us. For while saying this, he was not silent about the Son of
God's everlasting Godhead which is the Father's; but He had said already, that
He had poured the Spirit on us; now to give the Spirit with authority, is not
in the power of creature or work, but the Spirit is God's Gift[6]. For the
creatures are hallowed by the Holy Spirit; but the Son, in that He is not
hallowed by the Spirit, but on the contrary Himself the Giver of it to all 7,
is therefore no creature, but true Son of the Father. And yet He who gives the
Spirit, the same is said also to be made; that is, to be made among us Lord
because of His manhood, while giving the Spirit because He is God's Word. For
He ever was and is, as Son, so also Lord and Sovereign of all, being like in
all things[8] to the Father, and having all that is the Father's[9] as He
Himself has said[10].
CHAPTER XVI.
INTRODUCTORY TO PROVERBS viii. 22, THAT THE SON IS NOT A CREATURE.
Arian formula, a creature but not as one of the creatures; but each creature
is unlike all other creatures; and no creature can create. The Word then
differs from all creatures in that in which they, though otherwise differing,
all agree together, as creatures; viz. in being an efficient cause; in being
the one medium or instrumental agent in creation; moreover in being the
revealer of the Father; and in being the object of worship.
18. (continued). Now in the next place let us consider the passage in the
Proverbs, 'The Lord created me a beginning of His ways for His works[1];'
although in shewing that the Word is no work, it has been also shewn that He
is no creature. For it is the same
358
to say work or creature, so that the proof that He is no work is a proof also
that He is no creature. Whereas one may marvel at these men, thus devising
excuses to be irreligious, and nothing daunted at the refutations which meet
them upon every point. For first they set about deceiving the simple by their
questions 'Did He who is make from that which was not one that was not or one
that was 3?'and, 'Had you a son before begetting him[4]?'And when this had
been proved worthless,next they invented the question, 'Is the Unoriginate one
or two[5]?' Then, when in this they had been confuted, straightway they formed
another, 'Has He free-will and an alterable nature[6]?' But being forced to
give up this, next they set about saying, 'Being made so much better than the
Angels[7];' and when the truth exposed this pretence, now again, collecting
them all together, they think to recommend their heresy by 'work' and
'creature[8].' For they mean those very things over again, and are true to
their own perverseness, putting into various shapes and turning to and fro the
same errors, if so be to deceive some by that variousness. Although then
abundant proof has been given above of this their reckless expedient, yet,
since they make all places sound with this passage from the Proverbs, and to
many who are ignorant of the faith of Christians, seem to say somewhat it is
necessary to examine separately, 'He created' as well as 'Who was faithful to
Him that made Him[9];' that, as in all others, so in this text also, they may
be proved to have got no further than a fantasy.
19. And first let us see the answers, which they returned to Alexander of
blessed memory, in the outset, while their heresy was in course of formation.
They wrote thus: 'He is a creature, but not as one of the creatures; a work,
but not as one of the works; an offspring, but not as one of the offsprings
Let every one consider the profligacy and craft of this heresy; for knowing
the bitterness of its own malignity, it makes an effort to trick itself out
with fair words, and says, what indeed it means, that He is a creature, yet
thinks to be able to screen itself by adding, 'but not as one of the
creatures.' However, in thus writing, they rather convict themselves of
irreligion; for if, in your opinion, He is simply a creature, why add the
pretence[2], 'but not as one of the creatures?' And if He is simply a work,
how 'not as one of the works?' In which we may see the poison of the heresy.
For by saying, 'offspring, but not as one of the offsprings,' they reckon many
sons, and one of these they pronounce to be the Lord; so that according to
them He is no more Only begotten, but one out of many brethren, and is
called[3] offspring and son. What use then is this pretence of saying that He
is a creature and not a creature? for though ye shall say, Not as 'one of the
creatures,' I will prove this sophism of yours to be foolish. For still ye
pronounce Him to be one of the creatures; and whatever a man might say of the
other creatures, such ye hold concerning the Son, ye truly 'fools and
blind[4].' For is any one of the creatures just what another is[5], that ye
should predicate this of the Son as some prerogative[6]? And all the visible
creation was made in six days:--in the first, the light which He called day;
in the second the firmament; in the third, gathering together the waters, He
bared the dry land, and brought out the various fruits that are in it; and in
the fourth, He made the sun and the moon and all the host of the stars; and on
the fifth, He created the race of living things in the sea, and of birds in
the air; and on the sixth, He made the quadrupeds on the earth, and at length
man. And 'the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made[7]; and neither the
light is as the night, nor the sun as the moon; nor the irrational as rational
man; nor the Angels as the Thrones, nor the Thrones as the Authorities, yet
they are all creatures, but each of the things made according to its kind
359
exists and remains in its own essence, as it was made.
20. Let the Word then be excepted from the works, and as Creator be
restored to the Father, and be confessed to be Son by nature; or if simply He
be a creature, then let Him be assigned the same condition as the rest one
with another, and let them as well as He be said every one of them to be 'a
creature but not as one of the creatures, offspring or work, but not as one of
the works or offsprings.' For ye say that an offspring is the same as a work,
writing 'generated or made[1].' For though the Son excel the rest on a
comparison, still a creature He is nevertheless, as they are; since in those
which are by nature creatures one may find some excelling others. Star, for
instance, differs from star in glory, and the rest have all of them their
mutual differences when compared together; yet it follows not for all this
that some are lords, and others servants to the superior, nor that some are
efficient causes[2], others by them come into being, but all have a nature
which comes to be and is created, confessing in their own selves their Framer:
as David says in the Psalms, 'The heavens declare the glory of God, and the
firmament sheweth His handiworks;' and as Zorobabel the wise says, 'All the
earth calleth upon the Truth, and the heaven blesseth it: all works shake and
tremble at it[4].' But if the whole earth hymns the Framer and the Truth, and
blesses, and fears it, and its Framer is the Word, and He Himself says, 'I am
the Truths,' it follows that the Word is not a creature, but alone proper to
the Father, in whom all things are disposed, and He is celebrated by all, as
Framer; for 'I was by Him disposing[6];' and 'My Father worketh hitherto, and
I work[7].' And the word 'hitherto' shews His eternal existence in the Father
as the Word; for it is proper to the Word to work the Father's works and not
to be external to Him.
21. But if what the Father worketh, that the Son worketh also[1], and what
the Son createth, that is the creation of the Father, and yet the Son be the
Father's work or creature, then either He will work His own self, and will be
His own creator (since what the Father worketh is the Son's work also), which
is absurd and impossible; or, in that He creates and worketh the things of the
Father, He Himself is not a work nor a creature; for else being Himself an
efficient cause[2], He may cause that to be in the case of things caused,
which He Himself has become, or rather He may have no power to cause at all.
For how, if, as you hold, He is come of nothing, is He able to frame
things that are nothing into being? or if He, a creature, withal frames a
creature, the same will be conceivable in the case of every creature, viz. the
power to frame others. And if this pleases you, what is the need of the Word,
seeing that things inferior can be brought to be by things superior? or at all
events, every thing that is brought to be could have heard in the beginning
God's words, 'Become' and be made,' and so would have been framed. But this
is not so written, nor could it be. For none of things which are brought to be
is an efficient cause, but all things were made through the Word: who would
not have wrought all things, were He Himself in the number of the creatures.
For neither would the Angels be able to frame, since they too are creatures,
though Valentinus, and Marcion, and Basilides think so, and you are their
copyists; nor will the sun, as being a creature, ever make what is not into
what is; nor will man fashion man, nor stone devise stone, nor wood give
growth to wood. But God is He who fashions man in the womb, and fixes the
mountains, and makes wood grow; whereas man, as being capable of science, puts
together and arranges that material, and works things that are, as he has
learned; and is satisfied if they are but brought to be, and being conscious
of what his nature is, if he needs aught, knows to ask[3] it of God.
22. If then God also wrought and compounded out of materials, this indeed
is a gentile thought, according to which God is an artificer and not a Maker,
but yet even in that case let the Word work the materials, at the bidding and
in the service of God[1]. But if He
360
calls into existence things which existed not by His proper Word, then the
Word is not in the number of things non-existing and called; or we have to
seek another Word[2], through whom He too was called; for by the Word the
things which were not have come to be. And if through Him He creates and makes
He is not Himself of things created and made but rather He is the Word of the
Creator God and is known from the Father's works which He Himself worketh, to
be 'in the Father and the Father in Him,' and 'He that hath seen Him hath seen
the Father[3],' because the Son's Essence is proper to the Father, and He in
all points like Him[4]. How then does He create through Him, unless it be His
Word and His Wisdom? and how can He be Word and Wisdom, unless He be the
proper offspring of His Essences, and did not come to be, as others, out of
nothing? And whereas all things are from nothing, and are creatures, and the
Son, as they say, is one of the creatures too and of things which once were
not, how does He alone reveal the Father, and none else but He know the
Father? For could He, a work possibly know the Father, then must the Father be
also known by all according to the proportion of the measures of each: for all
of them are works as He is. But if it be impossible for things originate
either to see or to know, for the sight and the knowledge of Him surpasses all
(since God Himself says, 'No one shall see My face and live[6]'), yet the Son
has declared, 'No one knoweth the Father, save the Son[7],' therefore the Word
is different from all things originate, in that He alone knows and alone sees
the Father, as He says, 'Not that any one hath seen the Father, save He that
is from the Father,' and 'no one knoweth the Father save the Son[8],' though
Arius think otherwise. How then did He alone know, except that He alone was
proper to Him? and how proper, if He were a creature, and not a true Son from
Him? (For one must not mind saying often the same thing for religion's sake.)
Therefore it is irreligious to think that the Son is one of all things; and
blasphemous and unmeaning to call Him 'a creature, but not as one of the
creatures, and a work, but not as one of the works, an offspring, but not as
one of the offsprings;' for how not as one of these, if, as they say, He was
not before His generation 9? for it is proper to the creatures and works not
to be before their origination, and to subsist out of nothing, even though
they excel other creatures in glory; for this difference of one with another
will be found in all creatures, which appears in those which are visible[10].
23. Moreover if, as the heretics hold, the Son were creature or work, but
not as one of the creatures, because of His excelling them in glory, it were
natural that Scripture should describe and display Him by a comparison in His
favour with the other works; for instance, that it should say that He is
greater than Archangels, and more honourable than the Thrones, and both
brighter than sun and moon, and greater than the heavens. But he is not in
fact thus referred to; but the Father shews Him to be His own proper and only
Son, saying, 'Thou art My Son,' and 'This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well
pleased[1]' Accordingly the Angels ministered unto Him, as being one beyond
themselves; and they worship Him, not as being greater in glory, but as being
some one beyond all the creatures, and beyond themselves, and alone the
Father's proper Son according to essence[2]. For if He was worshipped as
excelling them in glory, each of things subservient ought to worship what
excels itself. But this is not the case 3; for creature does not worship
creature, but servant Lord, and creature God. Thus Peter the Apostle hinders
Cornelius who would worship him, saying, 'I myself also am a man[4].' And an
Angel, when John would worship him in the Apocalypse, hinders him, saying,
'See thou do it not; for I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the
Prophets, and of them that keep the sayings of this book: worship God[5].'
Therefore to God alone appertains worship, and this the very Angels know, that
though they excel other beings in glory, yet they are all creatures and not to
be worshipped[6], but worship the Lord. Thus Manoah, the father of
361
Samson, wishing to offer sacrifice to the Angel, was thereupon hindered by
him, saying, 'Offer not to me, but to God[7].' On the other hand, the Lord is
worshipped even by the Angels; for it is written, 'Let all the Angels of God
worship Him[8];' and by all the Gentiles, as Isaiah says, 'The labour of Egypt
and merchandize of Ethiopia and of the Subeans, men of stature, shall come
over unto thee, and they shall be thy servants;' and then, 'they shall fall
down unto thee, and shall make supplication unto thee, saying, Surely God is
in thee, and there is none else, there is no God[9].' And He accepts His
disciples' worship, and certifies them who He is, saying, 'Call ye Me not Lord
and Master? and ye say well, for so I am.' And when Thomas said to Him, 'My
Lord and my God[10] He allows his words, or rather accepts him instead of
hindering him. For He is, as the other Prophets declare, and David says in the
Psalm, 'the Lord of hosts, the Lord of Sabaoth,' which is interpreted, 'the
Lord of Armies,' and God True and Almighty, though the Arians burst[11] at the
tidings.
24. But He had not been thus worshipped, nor been thus spoken of, were He
a creature merely. But now since He is not a creature, but the proper
offspring of the Essence of that God who is worshipped, and His Son by nature,
therefore He is worshipped and is believed to be God, and is Lord of armies,
and in authority, and Almighty, as the Father is; for He has said Himself,
'All things that the Father hath, are Mine[1].' For it is proper to 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 were made, and that the salvation of all
comes to pass and consists in Him.
CHAPTER XVII.
INTRODUCTION TO PROVERBS viii. 22
CONTINUED.
Absurdity of supposing a Son or Word created in order to the creation of other
creatures; as to the creation being unable to bear God's immediate hand, God
condescends to the lowest. Moreover, if the Son a creature, He too could not
bear God's hand, and an infinite series of media will be necessary. Objected,
that, as Moses who led out the Israelites was a man, so our Lord; but Moses
was not the Agent in creation:--again, that unity is found in created
ministrations, but all such ministrations are defective and dependent:--again,
that He learned to create, yet could God's Wisdom need teaching? and why
should He learn, if the Father worketh hitherto? If the Son was created to
create us, He is for our sake, not we for His.
24 (continued). AND here it were well to ask them also this question[1],
for a still clearer refutation of their heresy;--Wherefore, when all things
are creatures, and all are brought into consistence from nothing, and the Son
Himself, according to you, is creature and work, and once was not, wherefore
has He made 'all things through Him' alone, 'and without Him was made not one
thing'?' or why is it, when 'all things' are spoken of, that no one thinks the
Son is signified in the number, but only things originate; whereas when
Scripture speaks of the Word, it does not understand Him as being in the
number of 'all,' but places Him with the Father, as Him in whom Providence and
salvation for 'all' are wrought and effected by the Father, though all things
surely might at the same command have come to be, at which He was brought into
being by God alone? For God is not wearied by commanding 3, nor is His
strength unequal to the making of all things, that He should alone create the
only Son[4], and need His ministry and aid for the framing of the rest. For He
lets nothing stand over, which He wills to be done; but He willed only[5], and
all things subsisted, and no one 'hath resisted His will[6].' Why then were
not all things brought into being by God alone at that same command, at which
the 'Son came into being? Or let them tell us, why did all things through Him
come to be, who was Himself but originate? How void of reason! however, they
say concerning Him, that 'God willing to create originate nature, when He saw
that it could not endure the untempered hand of the Father, and to be created
by Him, makes and creates first and alone one only, and calls Him Son and
Word, that, through Him as a medium, all things might thereupon be brought to
be[6a]." This they not only have said, but they have dared to put it into
writing, namely, Eusebius, Arius, and Asterius who sacrificed 7.
25. Is not this a full proof of that irreligion,
362
with which they have drugged themselves with much madness, till they blush not
to be intoxicate against the truth? For if they shall assign the toil of
making all things as the reason why God made the Son only, the whole creation
will cry out against them as saying unworthy things of God; and Isaiah too who
has said in Scripture, 'The Everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends
of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary: there is no searching of His
understanding[1].' And if God made the Son alone, as not deigning to make the
rest, but committed them to the Son as an assistant, this on the other hand is
unworthy of God, for in Him there is no pride. Nay the Lord reproves the
thought, when He says, 'Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing?' and 'one of
them shall not fall on the ground without your Father which is in heaven.' And
again, 'Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, nor yet for your
body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than
raiment? Behold the fowls of the air, for they sow not, neither do they reap,
nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them; are ye not much
better than they? Which of you by taking thought, can add one cubit unto his
stature? And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the
field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: and yet I say unto
you, that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
Wherefore if God so clothe the grass of the field which to-day is, and
to-morrow is cast into the oven, shall He not much more clothe you, O ye of
little faith[2]?' If then it be not unworthy of God to exercise His
Providence, even down to things so small, a hair of the head, and a sparrow,
and the grass of the field, also it was not unworthy of Him to make them. For
what things are the subjects of His Providence, of those He is Maker through
His proper Word. Nay a worse absurdity lies before the men who thus speak; for
they distinguish[3] between the creatures and the framing; and consider the
latter the work of the Father, the creatures the work of the Son; whereas
either all things must be brought to be by the with the Son, or if all that is
originate comes to be through the Son, we must not call Him one of the
originated things.
26. Next, their folly may be exposed thus:--if even the Word be of
originated nature, how, whereas this nature is too feeble to be God's own
handy work, could He alone of all endure to be made by the unoriginate and
unmitigated Essence of God, as ye say? for it follows either that, if He could
endure it, all could endure it, or, it being endurable by none, it was not
endurable by the Word, for you say that He is one of originate things. And
again, if because originate nature could not endure to be God's own handiwork,
there arose need of a mediator[4], it must follow, that, the Word being
originate and a creature, there is need of medium in His framing also, since
He too is of that originate nature which endures not to be made of God, but
needs a medium. But if some being as a medium be found for Him, then again a
fresh mediator is needed for that second, and thus tracing back and following
out, we shall invent a vast crowd of accumulating mediators; and thus it will
be impossible that the creation should subsist, as ever wanting a mediator,
and that medium not coming into being without another mediator; for all of
them will be of that originate nature which endures not to be made of God
alone, as ye say. How abundant is that folly, which obliges them to hold that
what has already come into being, admits not of coming! Or perhaps they opine
that they have not even come to be, as still seeking their mediator; for, on
the ground of their so irreligious and futile notions, what is would not have
subsistence, for want of the medium.
27. But again they allege this:--'Behold, through Moses too did He lead
the people from Egypt, and through him He gave the Law, yet he was a man; so
that it is possible for like to be brought into being by like.' They should
veil their face when they say this, to save their much shame. For Moses was
not sent to frame the world, nor to call into being things which were not, or
to fashion men like himself, but only to be the minister of words to the
people, and to King Pharaoh. And this is a very different thing, for to
minister is of things originate as of servants, but to frame and to create is
of God alone, and of His proper Word and His Wisdom. Wherefore, in the matter
of framing, we shall find none but God's Word; for 'all things are made in
Wisdom,' and 'without the Word was made not one thing.' But as regards
ministrations there are, not one only, but man}' out of their whole number,
whomever the Lord will send. For there are many Archangels, many Thrones, and
Authorities, and Dominions, thousands of thousands, and myriads of myriads,
standing before Him[1], minis-
363
tering and ready to be sent. And many Prophets, and twelve Apostles, and Paul.
And Moses himself was not alone, but Aaron with him, and next other seventy
were filled with the Holy Ghost. And Moses was succeeded by Joshua the son of
Nun, and he by the Judges, and they not by one, but by a number of Kings. If
then the Son were a creature and one of things originate, there must have been
many such sons, that God might have many such ministers, just as there is a
multitude of those others. But if this is not to be seen, but while the
creatures are many, the Word is one, any one will collect from this, that the
Son differs from all, and is not on a level with the creatures, but proper to
the Father. Hence there are not many Words, but one only Word of the one
Father, and one Image of the one God[2]. 'But behold,' they say, 'there is
one sun only[3], and one earth.' Let them maintain, senseless as they are,
that there is one water and one fire, and then they may be told that
everything that is brought to be, is one in its own essence; but for the
ministry and service committed to it, by itself it is not adequate nor
sufficient alone. For God said, 'Let there be lights in the firmament of
heaven, to give light upon the earth and to divide the day from the night; and
let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years.' And then he
says, 'And God made two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and
the lesser light to rule the night He made the stars also. And God set them in
the firmament of the heaven, to give light upon the earth, and to rule over
the day and over the night[4].'
28. Behold there are many lights, and not the sun only, nor the moon only,
but each is one in essence, and yet the service of all is one and common; and
what each lacks, is supplied by the other, and the office of lighting is
performed by all[5]. Thus the sun has authority to shine throughout the day
and no more; and the moon through the night; and the stars together with them
accomplish the seasons and years, and become for signs, each according to the
need that calls for it. Thus too the earth is not for all things, but for the
fruits only, and to be a ground to tread on for the living things that inhabit
it. And the firmament is to divide between waters and waters, and to be a
place to set the stars in. So also fire and water, with other things, have
been brought into being to be the constituent parts of bodies; and in short no
one thing is alone, but all things that are made, as if members of each other,
make up as it were one body, namely, the world. If then they thus conceive of
the Son, let all men throw stones[6] at them, considering the Word to be a
part of this universe, and a part insufficient without the rest for the
service committed to Him. But if this be manifestly irreligious, let them
acknowledge that the Word is not in the number of things originate, but the
sole and proper Word of the Father, and their Framer. 'But,' say they, 'though
He is a creature and of things originate; yet as from a master and artificer
has He[7] learned to frame, and thus ministered[8] to God who taught Him.' For
thus the Sophist Asterius, on the strength of having learned to deny the Lord,
has dared to write, not observing the absurdity which follows. For if framing
be a thing to be taught, let 'them beware lest they say that God Himself be a
Framer not by nature but by science, so as to admit of His losing the power.
Besides, if the Wisdom of God attained to frame by teaching, how is He still
Wisdom, when He needs to learn? and what was He before He learned? For it was
not Wisdom, if it needed teaching; it was surely but some empty thing, and not
essential Wisdom[9], but from advancement it had the name of Wisdom, and will
be only so long Wisdom as it can keep what it has learned. For what has
accrued not by any nature, but from learning, admits of being one time
unlearned. But to speak thus of the Word of God, is not the part of Christians
but of Greeks.
29. For if the power of framing accrues to anyone from teaching, these
insensate men are ascribing jealousy and weakness[1] to God;__ jealousy, in
that He has not taught many how to frame, so that there may be around Him, as
Archangels and Angels many, so framers many; and weakness, in that He could
not make by Himself, but needed a fellow-worker, or under-worker; and that,
though it has been already shewn that created nature admits of being made by
God alone, since they consider the Son to be of such a nature and so made. But
God is deficient in nothing: perish the thought! for He has said Himself, 'I
am full[2].' Nor did the Word become Framer of all from teaching; but being
the Image and Wisdom of the Father, He does the things of the Father. Nor hath
He made the Son for the making of things created; for behold, though the Son
exists, still[3] the Father is seen to work, as the Lord Himself says, 'My
Father worketh hitherto and I work[4].' If
364
however, as you say, the Son came into being for the purpose of making the
things after Him, and yet the Father is seen to work even after the Son, you
must hold even in this light the making of such a Son to be superfluous.
Besides, why, when He would create us, does He seek for a mediator at all, as
if His will did not suffice to constitute whatever seemed good to Him? Yet the
Scriptures say, 'He hath done whatsoever pleased Hires[5],' and 'Who hath
resisted His will[6]?' And if His mere will[7] is sufficient for the framing
of all things, you make the office of a mediator superfluous; for your
instance of Moses, and the sun and the moon has been shewn not to hold. And
here again is an argument to silence you. You say that God, willing the
creation of originated nature, and deliberating concerning it, designs and
creates the Son, that through Him He may frame us; now, if so, consider how
great an irreligion[8] you have dared to utter.
30. First, the Son appears rather to have been for us brought to be, than
we for Him; for we were not created for Him, but He is made for us[9]; so that
He owes thanks to us, not we to Him, as the woman to the man. 'For the man,'
says Scripture, 'was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man.'
Therefore, as 'the man is the image and glory of God, and the woman the glory
of the man[10],' so we are made God's image and to His glory; but the Son is
our image, and exists for our glory. And we were brought into being that we
might be; but God's Word was made, as you must hold, not that He might be[1];
but as an instrument for our need, so that not we from Him, but He is
constituted from our need. Are not men who even conceive such thoughts, more
than insensate? For if for us the Word was made, He has not precedence[3] of
us with God; for He did not take counsel about us having Him within Him, but
having us in Himself, counselled, as they say, concerning His own Word. But if
so, perchance the Father had not even a will for the Son at all; for not as
having a will for Him, did He create Him, but with a will for us, He formed
Him for our sake; for He designed Him after designing us so that, according
to these irreligious men, henceforth the Son, who was made as an instrument,
is superfluous, now that they are made for whom He was created. But if the Son
alone was made by God alone, because He could endure it, but we, because we
could not, were made by the Word, why does He not first take counsel about the
Word, who could endure His making, instead of taking counsel about us? or why
does He not make more of Him who was strong, than of us who were weak? or why
making Him first, does He not counsel about Him first? or why counselling
about us first, does He not make us first, His will being sufficient for the
constitution of all things? But He creates Him first, yet counsels first about
us; and He wills us before the Mediator; and when He wills to create us, and
counsels about us, He calls us creatures; but Him, whom He frames for us, He
calls Son and proper Heir. But we, for whose sake He made Him, ought rather to
be called sons; or certainly He, who is His Son, is rather the object of His
previous thoughts and of His will, for whom He makes all us. Such the
sickness, such the vomit[4] of the heretics.
CHAPTER XVIII.
INTRODUCTION TO PROVERBS viii. 22
CONTINUED.
Contrast between the Father's operations immediately and naturally in the Son,
instrumentally by the creatures; Scripture terms illustrative of this.
Explanation of these illustrations; which should be interpreted by the
doctrine of the Church; perverse sense put on them by the Arians, refutted.
Mystery of Divine Generation. Contrast between God's Word and man's word drawn
out at length. Asterius betrayed into holding two Unoriginates; his
inconsistency. Baptism how by the Son as well as by the Father. On the Baptism
of heretics. Why Asian worse than oilier heresies,
31. BUT the sentiment of Truth[1] in this matter must not be hidden, but
must have high utterance. For the Word of God was not made for us, but rather
we for Him, and 'in Him all things were created[2].' Nor for that we were
weak, was He strong and made by the Father alone, that He might frame us by
means of Him as an instrument; perish the thought! it is not so. For though it
had seemed good to God not to make things originate, still had the Word been
no less with God, and the Father in Him. At the same time, things originate
could not without the Word be brought to be; hence they were made through
Him,--and reasonably. For since the Word is the Son of God by nature proper to
His essence, and is from Him, and in Him[3], as He said Himself, the creatures
could not have come to be, except through Him. For as the light enlightens all
things by its radiance, and without its radiance nothing would be illuminated,
so also the Father, as by
365
a hand[4], in the Word wrought all things, and without Him makes nothing. For
instance, God said, as Moses relates, 'Let there be light,' and 'Let the
waters be gathered together,' and 'let the dry land appear,' and 'Let Us make
man s;' as also Holy David in the Psalm, 'He spake and they were made; He
commanded and they were created 6.' And He spoke[7], not that, as in the case
of men, some under-worker might hear, and learning the will of Him who spoke
might go away and do it; for this is what is proper to creatures, but it is
unseemly so to think or speak of the Word. For the Word of God is Framer and
Maker, and He is the Father's Will s. Hence it is that divine Scripture says
not that one heard and answered, as to the manner or nature of the things
which He wished made; but God only said, 'Let it become,' and he adds, 'And it
became;' for what He thought good and counselled, that forthwith the Word
began to do and to finish. For when God commands others, whether the Angels,
or converses with Moses, or commands Abraham, then the hearer answers; and the
one says, 'Whereby shall I know[9]?' and the other, 'Send some one else[10];'
and again, 'If they ask me, what is His Name, what shall I say to them"?' and
the Angel said to Zacharias, 'Thus saith the Lord[12];' and he asked the Lord,
'O Lord of hosts, how long wilt Thou not have mercy on Jerusalem?' and waits
to hear good words and comfortable. For each of these has the Mediator[13]
Word, and the Wisdom of God which makes known the will of the Father. But when
that Word Himself works and creates, then there is no questioning and answer,
for the Father is in Him and the Word in the Father; but it suffices to will,
and the work is done; so that the word 'He said' is a token of the will for
our sake, and 'It was so,' denotes the work which is done through the Word and
the Wisdom, in which Wisdom also is the Will of the Father. And 'God said' is
explained in 'the Word,' for, he says, 'Thou hast made all things in Wisdom;'
and 'By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made fast;' and 'There is one
Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him[1].'
32. It is plain from this that the Arians are not fighting with us about
their heresy; but while they pretend us, their real fight is against the
Godhead Itself. For if the voice were ours which says, 'This it My Son[2],'
small were our complaint of them; but if it is the Father's voice, and the
disciples heard it, and the Son too says of Himself, 'Before all the mountains
He begat me[3],' are they not fighting against God, as the giants[4] in story,
having their tongue, as the Psalmist says, a sharp sword[5] for irreligion?
For they neither feared the voice of the Father, nor reverenced the Saviour's
words, nor trusted the Saints, one of whom writes, 'Who being the Brightness
of His glory and the Expression of His subsistence,' and 'Christ the power 'of
God and the Wisdom of God[6];' and another says in the Psalm, 'With Thee is
the well of life, and in Thy Light shall we see light,' and 'Thou madest all
things in Wisdom[7];' and the Prophets say, 'And the Word of the Lord came to
me[8];' and John, 'In the beginning was the Word;' and Luke, 'As they
delivered them unto us which from the beginning were eye-witnesses and
ministers of the Word[9];' and as David again says, 'He sent His Word and
healed them[10].' All these passages proscribe in every light the Arian
heresy, and signify the eternity of the Word, and that He is not foreign but
proper to the Father's Essence. For when saw any one light without radiance?
or who dares to say that the expression can be different from the subsistence?
or has not a man himself lost his mind[11] who even entertains the thought
that God was ever without Reason and without Wisdom? For such illustrations
and such images has Scripture proposed, that, considering the inability of
human nature to comprehend God, we might be able to form ideas even from these
however poorly and dimly, and as far as is attainable[12]. And as the creation
contains
366
abundant matter for the knowledge of the being of a God and a Providence ('
for by the greatness and beauty of the creatures proportionably the Maker of
them is seen[13]'), and we learn from them without asking for voices, but
hearing the Scriptures we believe, and surveying the very order and the
harmony of all things, we acknowledge that He is Maker and Lord and God of
all, and apprehend His marvellous Providence and governance over all things;
so in like manner about the Son's Godhead, what has been above said is
sufficient, and it becomes superfluous, or rather it is very mad to dispute
about it, or to ask in an heretical way, How can the Son be from eternity? or
how can He be from the Father's Essence, yet not a part? since what is said to
be of another, is a part of him; and what 'is divided, is not whole.
33. These are the evil sophistries of the heterodox; yet, though we have
already shewn their shallowness, the exact sense of these passages themselves
and the force of these illustrations will serve to shew the baseless nature of
their loathsome tenet. For we see that reason is ever, and is from him and
proper to his essence, whose reason it is, and does not admit a before and an
after. So again we see that the radiance from the sun is proper to it, and the
sun's essence is not divided or impaired; but its essence is whole and its
radiance perfect and whole[1], yet without impairing the essence of light, but
as a true offspring from it. We understand in like manner that the Son is
begotten not from without but from the Father, and while the Father remains
whole, the Expression of His Subsistence is ever, and preserves the Father's
likeness and unvarying Image, so that he who sees Him, sees in Him the
Subsistence too, of which He is the Expression. And from the operation of the
Expression we understand the true Godhead of the Subsistence, as the Saviour
Himself teaches when He says, 'The Father who dwelleth in Me, He doeth the
works[2] which I do; and 'I and the Father are one,' and 'I in the Father and
the Father in Me[3].' Therefore let this Christ--opposing heresy attempt first
to divide[4] the examples found in things originate, and say, 'Once the sun
was without his radiance,' or, 'Radiance is not proper to the essence of
light,' or 'It is indeed proper, but it is a part of light by division; and
then let it divide Reason, and pronounce that it is foreign to mind, or that
once it was not, or that it was not proper to its essence, or that it is by
division a part of mind. And so of His Expression and the Light and the Power,
let it do violence to these as in the case of Reason and Radiance; and instead
let it imagine what it will s. But if such extravagance be impossible for
them, are they not greatly beside themselves, presumptuously intruding into
what is higher than things originate and their own nature, and essaying
impossibilities[6]?
34. For if in the case of these originate and irrational things offsprings
are found which are not parts of the essences from which they are, nor subsist
with passion, nor impair the essences of their originals, are they not mad
again in seeking and conjecturing parts and passions in the instance of the
immaterial and true God, and ascribing divisions to Him who is beyond passion
and change, thereby to perplex the ears of the simple[1] and to pervert them
from the Truth? for who hears of a son but conceives of that which is proper
to the father's essence? who heard, in his first catechising[2], that God has
a Son and has made all things by His proper Word, but understood it in that
sense in which we now mean it? who on the rise of this odious heresy of the
Arians, was not at once startled at what he heard, as strange[3], and a second
sowing, besides that Word which had been sown from the beginning? For what is
sown in every soul from the beginning is that God has a Son, the Word, the
Wisdom, the Power, that is, His Image and Radiance; from which it at once
follows that He is always; that He is from the Father; that He is like; that
He is the eternal offspring of His essence; and there is no idea involved in
these of creature or work. But when the man who is an enemy, while men slept,
made a second sowing[4], of 'He is a creature,' and 'There was once when He
was not,' and 'How can it be?' thenceforth the wicked heresy of Christ's
enemies rose as tares, and forthwith, as bereft of every
367
right thought, they meddle[5] like robbers, and venture to say, 'How can the
Son always exist with the Father?' for men come of men and are sons, after a
time; and the father is thirty years old, when the son begins to be, being
begotten; and in short of every son of man, it is true that he was not before
his generation. And again they whisper, 'How can the Son be Word, or the Word
be God's Image? for the word of men is composed of syllables[6], and only
signifies the speaker's will, and then is over[7] and is lost.'
35. They then afresh, as if forgetting the proofs which have been already
urged against them, 'pierce themselves through[1] 'with these bonds of
irreligion, and thus argue. But the word of truth[2] confutes them as
follows:--if they were disputing concerning any man, then let them exercise
reason in this human way, both concerning His Word and His Son; but if of God
who created man, no longer let them entertain human thoughts, but others which
are above human nature. For such as he that besets, such of necessity is the
offspring; and such as is the Word's Father, such must be also His Word. Now
man, begotten in time, in time[3] also himself besets the child; and whereas
from nothing he came to be, therefore his word[4] also is over and continues
not. But God is not as man, as Scripture has said; but is existing and is
ever; therefore also His Word is existings and is everlastingly with the
Father, as radiance of light. And man's word is composed of syllables, and
neither lives nor operates anything, but is only significant of the speaker's
intention, and does but go forth and go by, no more to appear, since it was
not at all before it was spoken; wherefore the word of man neither lives nor
operates anything, nor in short is man. And this happens to it, as I said
before, because man who besets it, has his nature out of nothing. But God's
Word is not merely pronounced, as one may say, nor a sound of accents, nor by
His Son is meant His command[6]; but as radiance of light, so is He perfect
offspring from perfect[7]. Hence He is God also, as being God's Image; for
'the Word was God[8]' says Scripture. And man's words avail not for operation;
hence man works not by means of words but of hands, for they have being, and
man's word subsists not. But the 'Word of God,' as the Apostle says, 'is
living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the
dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a
discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any
creature that is not manifest in His sight; but all things are naked and
opened unto the eyes of Him with whom we have to do[9]' He is then Framer of
all, 'and without Him was made not one thing[10],' nor can anything be made
without Him.
36. Nor must we ask why the Word of God is not such as our word,
considering God is not such as we, as has been before said; nor again is it
right to seek how the word is from God, or how He is God's radiance, or how
God besets, and what is the manner of His besetting[1]. For a man must be
beside himself to venture on such points; since a thing ineffable and proper
to God's nature, and known to Him alone and to the Son, this he demands to be
explained in words. It is all one as if they sought where God is, and how God
is, and of what nature the Father is. But as to ask such questions is
irreligious, and argues an ignorance of God, so it is not holy to venture such
questions concerning the generation of the Son of God, nor to measure God and
His Wisdom by our own nature and infirmity. Nor is a person at liberty on that
account to swerve in his thoughts from the truth, nor, if any one is perplexed
in such inquiries, ought he to disbelieve what is written. For it is better in
perplexity to be silent and believe, than to disbelieve on account of the
perplexity: for he who is perplexed may in some way obtain mercy[2], because,
though he has questioned, he has yet kept quiet; but when a man is led by his
perplexity into forming for himself doctrines which beseem not, and utters
what is unworthy of God, such daring recurs a sentence without mercy. For in
such perplexities divine Scripture is able to afford him some relief, so as to
take rightly what is written, and to dwell upon our word as an illustration;
that as it is proper to us and is from us, and not a work external to us, so
also God's Word is proper to Him and from Him, and is not a work; and yet is
not like the word
368
of man, or else we must suppose God to be man. For observe, many and various
are men's words which pass away day by day; because those that come before
others continue not, but vanish. Now this happens because their authors are
men, and have seasons which pass away, and ideas which are successive; and
what strikes them first and second, that they utter; so that they have many
words, and yet after them all nothing at all remaining; for the speaker
ceases, and his word forthwith is spent. But God's Word is one and the same,
and, as it is written, 'The Word of God endureth for ever[3],' not changed,
not before or after other, but existing the same always. For it was fitting,
whereas God is One, that His Image should be One also, and His Word One and
One His Wisdom[4].
37. Wherefore I am in wonder how, whereas God is One, these men introduce,
after their private notions, many images and wisdoms and words[5], and say
that the Father's proper and natural Word is other than the Son, by whom He
even made the Son[6] and that He who is really Son is but notionally[7] called
Word, as vine, and way, and door, and tree of life; and that He is called
Wisdom also in name, the proper and true Wisdom of the Father, which coexist
ingenerately[8] with Him, being other than the Son, by which He even made the
Son, and named Him Wisdom as partaking of it. This they have not confined to
words, but Arius composed in his Thalia, and the Sophist Asterius wrote, what
we have stated above, as follows: 'Blessed Paul said not that he preached
Christ, the Power of God or the Wisdom of God, but without the addition of the
article, 'God's power' and 'God's wisdom[9],' thus preaching that the proper
Power of God Himself which is natural to Him, and co-existent in Him
ingenerately, is something besides, generative indeed of Christ, and creative
of the whole world, concerning which he teaches in his Epistle to the Romans
thus,--'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[10].' For as no one would say that the Godhead there mentioned was
Christ, but the Father Himself, so, as I think, 'His eternal Power and Godhead
also is not the Only Begotten Son, but the Father who begat Him[11].' And he
teaches that there is another power and wisdom of God, manifested through
Christ. And shortly after the same Asterius says, 'However His eternal power
and wisdom, which truth argues to be without beginning and ingenerate, the
same must surely be one. For there are many wisdoms which are one by one
created by Him, of whom Christ is the first-born and only-begotten; all
however equally depend on their Possessor. And all the powers are rightly
called His who created and uses them:--as the Prophet says that the locust,
which came to be a divine punishment of human sins, was called by God Himself
not only a power, but a great power; and blessed David in most of the Psalms
invites, not the Angels alone, but the Powers to praise God.'
38. Now are they not worthy of all hatred for merely uttering this? for
if, as they hold, He is Son, not because He is begotten of the Father and
proper to His Essence, but that He is called Word only because of things
rational[1], and Wisdom because of things gifted with wisdom, and Power
because of things gifted with power, surely He must be named a Son because of
those who are made sons: and perhaps because there are things existing, He has
even His existence[2], in our notions only[3]. And then after all what is He?
for He is none of these Himself, if they are but His names[4]: and He has but
a semblance of being, and is decorated with these names
369
from us. Rather this is some recklessness of the devil, or worse, if they are
not unwilling that they should truly subsist themselves, but think that God's
Word is but in name. Is not this portentous, to say that Wisdom coexists with
the Father, yet not to say that this. is the Christ, but that there are many
created powers and wisdoms, of which one is the Lord whom they go on to
compare to the caterpillar and locust? and are they not profligate, who, when
they hear us say that the Word coexists with the Father, forthwith murmur out,
'Are you not speaking of two Unoriginates?' yet in speaking themselves of 'His
Unoriginate Wisdom,' do not see that they have already incurred themselves the
charge which they so rashly urge against us[5]? Moreover, what folly is there
in that thought of theirs, that the Unoriginate Wisdom coexisting with God is
God Himself! for what-coexists does not coexist with itself, but with some one
else, as the Evangelists say of the Lord, that He was together with His
disciples; for He was not together with Himself, but with His
disciples;--unless indeed they would say that God is of a compound nature,
having wisdom a constituent or complement of His Essence, un-originate as well
as Himself[6], which moreover they pretend to be the framer of the world, that
so they may deprive the Son of the framing of it. For there is nothing they
would not maintain, sooner than hold the truth concerning the Lord.
39. For where at all have they found in divine Scripture, or from whom
have they heard, that there is another Word and another Wisdom besides this
Son, that they should frame to themselves such a doctrine? True, indeed, it is
written, 'Are not My words like fire, and like a hammer that breaketh the rock
in pieces[1]?' and in the Proverbs, 'I will make known My words unto you[2];'
but these are precepts and commands, which God has spoken to the saints
through His proper and only true Word, concerning which the Psalmist said, 'I
have refrained my feet from every evil way, that I may keep Thy words[3].'
Such words accordingly the Saviour signifies to be distinct from Himself, when
He says in His own person, 'The words which I have spoken unto you[4].' For
certainly such words are not off-springs or sons, nor are there so many words
that frame the world, nor so many images of the One God, nor so many who have
become men for us, nor as if from many such there were one who has become
flesh, as John says; but as being the only Word of God was He preached by
John, 'The Word was made flesh,' and 'all things were made by Himself.'
Wherefore of Him alone, our Lord Jesus Christ, and of His oneness with the
Father, are written and set forth the testimonies, both of the Father
signifying that the Son is One, and of the saints, aware of this and saying
that the Word is One, and that He is Only-Begotten. And His works also are set
forth; for all things, visible and invisible, have been brought to be through
Him, and 'without Him was made not one 'thing[6].' But concerning another or
any one else they have not a thought, nor frame to themselves words or
wisdoms, of which neither name nor deed are signified by Scripture, but are
named by these only. For it is their invention and Christ-opposing surmise,
and they make the most[7] of the name of the Word and the Wisdom; and framing
to themselves others, they deny the true Word of God, and the real and only
Wisdom of the Father, and thereby, miserable men, rival the Manichees. For
they too, when they behold the works of God, deny Him the only and true God,
and frame to themselves another, whom they can shew neither by work, nor in
any testimony drawn from the divine oracles.
40. Therefore, if neither in the divine oracles is found another wisdom
besides this Son, nor from the fathers[1] have we heard of any such, yet they
have confessed and written of the Wisdom coexisting with the Father
unoriginately, proper to Him, and the Framer of the world, this must be the
Son who even according to them is eternally coexistent with the Father. For He
is Framer of all, as it is written, 'In Wisdom hast Thou made them ally[2].'
Nay, Asterius himself, as if forgetting what he wrote before, afterwards, in
Caiaphas's[3] fashion, involuntarily, when urging the Greeks, instead of
naming many wisdoms, or the caterpillar, confesses but one, in these
words;--'God the 'Word is one, but many are the
370
things rational; and one is the essence and nature of Wisdom, but many are the
things wise and beautiful.' And soon afterwards he says again:--'Who are they
whom they honour with the title of God's children? for they will not say that
they too are words, nor maintain that there are many wisdoms. For it is not
possible, whereas the Word is one, and Wisdom has been set forth as one, to
dispense to the multitude of children the Essence of the Word, and to bestow
on them the appellation of Wisdom.' It is not then at all wonderful, that the
Arians should battle with the truth, when they have collisions with their own
principles and conflict with each other, at one time saying that there are
many wisdoms, at another maintaining one; at one time classing wisdom with the
caterpillar, at another saying that it coexists with the Father and is proper
to Him; now that the Father alone is unoriginate, and then again that His
Wisdom and His Power are unoriginate also. And they battle with us for saying
that the Word of God is ever, yet forget their own doctrines, and say
themselves that Wisdom coexists with God unoriginately[4]. So dizzied[5] are
they in all these matters, denying the true Wisdom, and inventing one which is
not, as the Manichees who make to themselves another God, after denying Him
that is.
41. But let the other heresies and the Manichees also know that the Father
of the Christ is One, and is Lord and Maker of the creation through His proper
Word. And let the Ariomaniacs know in particular, that the Word of God is One,
being the only Son proper and genuine from His Essence, and having with His
Father the oneness of Godhead indivisible, as we said many times, being taught
it by the Saviour Himself. Since, were it not so, wherefore through Him does
the Father create, and in Him reveal Himself to whom He will, and illuminate
them? or why too in the baptismal consecration is the Son named together with
the Father? For if they say that the Father is not all-sufficient, then their
answer is irreligious[6], but if He be, for this it is right to say, what is
the need of the Son for framing the worlds, or for the holy laver? For what
fellowship is there between creature and Creator? or why is a thing made
classed with the Maker in the consecration of all of us? or why, as you hold,
is faith in one Creator and in one creature delivered to us? for if it was
that we might be joined to the Godhead, what need of the creature? but if that
we might be united to the Son a creature, superfluous, according to you, is
this naming of the Son in Baptism, for God who made Him a Son is able to make
us sons also. Besides, if the Son be a creature, the nature of rational
creatures being one, no help will come to creatures from a creature[7], since
all[8] need grace from God. We said a few words just now on the fitness that
all things should be made by Him; but since the course of the discussion has
led us also to mention holy Baptism, it is necessary to state, as I think and
believe, that the Son is named with the Father, not as if the Father were not
all-sufficient, not without meaning, and by accident; but, since He is God's
Word and own Wisdom, and being His Radiance, is ever with the Father,
therefore it is impossible, if the Father bestows grace, that He should not
give it in the Son, for the Son is in the Father as the radiance in the light.
For, not as if in need, but as a Father in His own Wisdom hath God rounded the
earth, and made all things in the Word which is from Him, and in the Son
confirms the Holy Laver. For where the Father is, there is the Son, and where
the light, there the radiance; and as what the Father worketh, He worketh
through the Son[9], and the Lord Himself says, 'What I see the Father do, that
do I also;' so also when baptism is given, whom the Father baptizes, him the
Son baptizes; and whom the Son baptizes, he is consecrated in the Holy
Ghost[10]. And again as when the sun shines, one might say that the radiance
illuminates, for the light is one and indivisible, nor can be detached, so
where the Father is or is named, there plainly is the Son also; and is the
Father named in Baptism? then must the Son be named with Him[11].
371
42. Therefore, when He made His promise to the saints, He thus spoke; 'I
and the Father will come, and make Our abode in him;' and again, 'that, as I
and Thou are One, so they may be one in Us.' And the grace given is one, given
from the Father in the Son, as Paul writes in every Epistle, 'Grace unto you,
and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ(1).' For the light
must be with the ray, and the radiance must be contemplated together with its
own light. Whence the Jews, as denying the Son as well as they, have not the
Father either; for, as having left the 'Fountain of Wisdom(2),' as Baruch
reproaches them, they put from them the Wisdom springing from it, our Lord
Jesus Christ (for 'Christ,' says the Apostle, is 'God's power and God's
wisdom(3)),' when they said, 'We have no king but C'sar 4.' The Jews then have
the penal award of their denial; for their' city as well as their reasoning
came to nought. And these too hazard the fulness of the mystery, I mean
Baptism; for if the consecration is given to us into the Name of Father and
Son, and they do not confess a true Father, because they deny what is from Him
and like His Essence, and deny also the true Son, and name another of their
own framing as created out of nothing, is not the rite administered by them
altogether empty and unprofitable, making a show, but in reality being no help
towards religion? For the Arians do not baptize into Father and Son, but into
Creator and creature, and into Maker and work(5). And as a creature is other
than the Son, so the Baptism, which is supposed to be given by them, is other
than the truth, though they pretend to name the Name of the Father and the
Son, because of the words of Scripture, For not he who simply says, 'O Lord,'
gives Baptism; but he who with the Name has also the right faith(6). On this
account therefore our Saviour also did not simply command to baptize, but
first says, 'Teach;' then thus: 'Baptize into the Name of Father, and Son, and
Holy Ghost;' that the right faith might follow upon learning, and together
with faith might come the consecration of Baptism.
43. There are many other heresies too, which use the words only, but not
in a right sense, as I have said, nor with sound faith(1), and in consequence
the water which they administer is unprofitable, as deficient in piety, so
that he who is sprinkled(2) by them is rather polluted(3) by irreligion than
redeemed. So Gentiles also, though the name of God is on their lips, incur the
charge of Atheism(4), because they know not the real and very God, the Father
of our Lord Jesus Christ. So Manichees and Phrygians(5), and the disciples of
the Samosatene, though using the Names, nevertheless are heretics, and the
Arians follow in the same course, though they read the words of Scripture, and
use the Names, yet they too mock those who receive the rite from them, being
more irreligious than the other heresies, and advancing beyond them, and
making them seem innocent by their own recklessness of speech. For these other
heresies lie against the truth in some certain respect, either erring
concerning the Lord's Body, as if He did not take flesh of Mary, or as if He
has not died at all, nor become man, but only appeared, and was not truly, and
seemed to have a body when He had not, and seemed to have the shape of man, as
visions in a dream; but the Arians are without disguise irreligious against
the Father Himself. For hearing from the Scriptures that His Godhead is
represented in the Son as in an image, they blaspheme, saying, that it is a
creature, and everywhere concerning that Image, they carry about(6) with them
the phrase, 'He was not,' as mud in a wallet(7), and spit it forth as serpents
s their venom. Then, whereas their doctrine is nauseous to all men, forthwith,
as a support against its fall, they prop up the heresy with human(9)
patronage, that the simple, at the sight or even by the fear may overlook the
mischief of their perversity. Right indeed is it to pity their dupes; well is
it to weep over them, for that they sacrifice their own interest for that
immediate phantasy which pleasures furnish, and forfeit their future hope. In
thinking to be baptized into the name of one who exists not, they will receive
nothing; and ranking themselves with a creature, from the creation they will
have no help, and believing in one unlike(10) and foreign to the Father in
essence, to the
372
Father they will not be joined, not having His own Son by nature, who is from
Him, who is in the Father, and in whom the Father is, as He Himself has said;
but being led astray by them, the wretched men henceforth remain destitute and
stripped of the Godhead. For this phantasy of earthly goods will not follow
them upon their death; nor when they see the Lord whom they have denied,
sitting on His Father's throne, and judging quick and dead, will they be able
to call to their help any one of those who have now deceived them; for they
shall see them also at the judgment-seat, repenting for their deeds of sin and
irreligion.
CHAPTER XIX.
TEXTS EXPLAINED; SIXTHLY, PROVERBS
viii. 22.
Proverbs are of a figurative nature, and must be interpreted as such. We must
interpret them, and in particular this passage, by the Regula Fidei. 'He
created me' not equivalent to 'I am a creature.' Wisdom a creature so far
forth as Its human body. Again, if He is a creature, it is as 'a beginning of
ways,' an office which, though not an attribute, is a consequence, of a higher
and divine nature. And it is 'for the works,' which implied the works existed,
and therefore much more He, before He was created. Also 'the Lord' not the
Father 'created' Him, which implies the creation was that of a servant.
44. We have gone through thus much before the passage in the Proverbs,
resisting the insensate fables which their hearts have invented, that they may
know that the Son of God ought not to be called a creature, and may learn
lightly to read what admits in truth of a right(1) explanation. For it is
written, 'The Lord created me a beginning of His ways, for His works(2);'
since, however, these are proverbs, and it is expressed in the way of
proverbs, we must not expound them nakedly in their first sense, but we must
inquire into the person, and thus religiously put the sense on it. For what is
said in proverbs, is not said plainly, but is put forth latently(3), as the
Lord Himself has taught us in the Gospel according to John, saying, 'These
things have I spoken unto you in proverbs, but the time cometh when I shall no
more speak unto you in proverbs, but openly(4).' Therefore it is necessary to
unfold the senses of what is said, and to seek it as something hidden, and not
nakedly to expound as if the meaning were spoken 'plainly,' lest by a false
interpretation we wander from the truth. If then what is written be about
Angel, or any other of things originate, as concerning one of us who are
works, let it be said, 'created me;' but if it be the Wisdom of God, in whom
all things originate have been framed, that speaks concerning Itself, what
ought we to understand but that 'He created' means nothing contrary to 'He
begat?' Nor, as forgetting that It is Creator and Framer, or ignorant of the
difference between the Creator and the creatures, does It number Itself among
the creatures; but It signifies a certain sense, as in proverbs, not
'plainly,' but latent; which It inspired the saints to use in prophecy, while
soon after It doth Itself give the meaning of 'He created' in other but
parallel expressions, saying, 'Wisdom made herself a house(6).' Now it is
plain that our body is Wisdom's house(7), which It took on Itself to become
man; hence consistently does John say, 'The Word was made flesh(8);' and by
Solomon Wisdom says of Itself with cautious exactness(9), not 'I am a
creature,' but only 'The Lord created me a beginning of His ways for His
works(10),' yet not 'created me that I might have being,' nor 'because I have
a creature's beginning and origin.'
45. For in this passage, not as signifying the Essence of His Godhead, nor
His own everlasting and genuine generation from the Father, has the Word
spoken by Solomon, but on the other hand His manhood and Economy towards us.
And, as I said before, He has not said 'I am a creature,' or 'I became a
creature,' but only 'He created(1).' For the creatures, having a created
essence, are
373
originate, and are said to be created, and of course the creature is created:
but this mere term 'He created' does not necessarily signify the essence or
the generation, but indicates something else as coming to pass in Him of whom
it speaks, and not simply that He who is said to be created, is at once in His
Nature and Essence a creature'. And this difference divine Scripture
recognises, saying concerning the creatures, 'The earth is full of Thy
creation,' and 'the creation itself groaneth together and travaileth
together(3);' and in the Apocalypse it says, 'And the third part of the
creatures in the sea died which had life;' as also Paul says, 'Every creature
of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it be received with
thanksgiving(4);' and in the book of Wisdom it is written, 'Having ordained
man through Thy wisdom, that he should have dominion over the creatures which
Thou hast made(5).' And these, being creatures, are also said to be created,
as we may further hear from the Lord, who says, 'He who created them, made
them male and female(6);' and from Moses in the Song, who writes, 'Ask now of
the days that are past, which were before thee since the day that God created
man upon the earth, and from the one side of heaven unto the other(7).' And
Paul in Colossians, '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 on earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or
dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created through Him,
and for Him, and He is before all(8).'
46. That to be called creatures, then, and to be created beIongs to things
which have by nature a created essence, these passages are sufficient to
remind us, though Scripture is full of the like; on the other hand that the
single word 'He created' does not simply denote the essence and mode of
generation, David shews in the Psalm, 'This shall be written for another
generation, and the people that is created shall praise the Lord(1);' and
again, 'Create in me a clean heart, O God(2);' and Paul in Ephesians says,
'Having abolished the law of commandments contained in ordinances, for to
create in Himself of two one new man(3); and again, 'Put ye on the new man,
which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness(4).' For neither
David spoke of any people created in essence, nor prayed to have another heart
than that he had, but meant renovation according to God and renewal; nor did
Paul signify two persons created in essence in the Lord, nor again did he
counsel us to put on any other man; but he called the life according to virtue
the 'man after God,' and by the 'created' in Christ he meant the two people
who are renewed in Him. Such too is the language of the book of Jeremiah; 'The
Lord created a new salvation for a planting, in which salvation men shall walk
to and fro(5);' and in thus speaking, he does not mean any essence of a
creature, but prophesies of the renewal of salvation among men, which has
taken place in Christ for us. Such then being the difference between 'the
creatures' and the single word 'He created,' if you find anywhere in divine
Scripture the Lord called 'creature,' produce it and fight; but if it is
nowhere written that He is a creature, only He Himself says about Himself in
the Proverbs, 'The Lord created me,' shame upon you, both on the ground of the
distinction aforesaid and for that the diction is like that of proverbs; and
accordingly let 'He created' be understood, not of His being a creature, but
of that human nature which became His, for to this belongs creation. Indeed is
it not evidently unfair in you, when David and Paul say 'He created,' then
indeed not to understand it of the essence and the generation, but the
renewal; yet, when the Lord says 'He created' to number His essence with the
creatures? and again when Scripture says, 'Wisdom built her an house, she set
it upon seven pillars(6), to understand 'house'
374
allegorically, but to take 'He created' as it stands, and to fasten on it the
idea of creature? and neither His being Framer of all has had any weight with
you, nor have you feared His being the sole and proper Offspring of the
Father, but recklessly, as if you had enlisted against Him, do ye fight, and
think less of Him than of men.
47. For the very passage proves that it is only an invention of your own
to call the Lord creature For the Lord, knowing His own Essence to be the
Only-begotten Wisdom and Offspring of the Father, and other than things
originate and natural creatures, says in love to man, 'The Lord created me a
beginning of His ways,' as if to say, 'My Father hath prepared for Me a body,
and has created Me for men in behalf of their salvation.' For, as when John
says, 'The Word was made flesh(1), we do not conceive the whole Word Himself
to be flesh(2), but to have put on flesh and become man, and on hearing,
'Christ hath become a curse for us,' and 'He hath made Him sin for us who knew
no sin(3),' we do not simply conceive this, that whole Christ has become curse
and sin, but that He has taken on Him the curse which lay against us (as the
Apostle has said, 'Has redeemed us from the curse,' and 'has carried,' as
Isaiah has said, 'our sins,' and as Peter has written, 'has borne them in the
body on the wood 4); so, if it is said in the Proverbs 'He created,' we must
not conceive that the whole Word is in nature a creature, but that He put on
the created body s and that God created Him for our sakes, preparing for Him
the created body, as it is written, for us, that in Him we might be capable of
being renewed and deified. What then deceived you, O senseless, to call the
Creator a creature? or whence did you purchase for you this new thought, to
parade it(6)? For the Proverbs say 'He created,' but they call not the Son
creature, but Offspring; and, according to the distinction in Scripture
aforesaid of 'He created' and 'creature,' they acknowledge, what is by nature
proper to the Son, that He is the Only-begotten Wisdom and Framer of the
creatures, and when they say 'He created,' they say it not in respect of His
Essence, but signify that He was becoming a beginning of many ways; so that
'He created' is in contrast to 'Offspring,' and His being called the
'Beginning of ways(7)' to His being the Only-begotten Word.
48. For if He is Offspring, how call ye Him creature? for no one says that
He begets what He creates, nor calls His proper offspring creatures; and
again, if He is Only-begotten, how becomes He 'beginning of the ways?' for of
necessity, if He was created a beginning of all things, He is no longer alone,
as having those who came into being after Him. For Reuben, when he became a
beginning of the children(1), was not only-begotten, but in time indeed first,
but in nature and relationship one among those who came after him. Therefore
if the Word also is 'a beginning of the ways,' He must be such as the ways
are, and the ways must be such as the Word, though in point of time He be
created first of them. For the beginning or initiative of a city is such as
the other parts of the city are, and the members too being joined to it, make
the city whole and one, as the many members of one body; nor does one part of
it make, and another come to be, and is subject to the former, but all the
city equally has its government and constitution from its maker. If then the
Lord is in such sense created as a 'beginning' of all things, it would follow
that He and all other things together make up the unity of the creation, and
He neither differs from all others, though He become the 'beginning' of all,
nor is He Lord of them, though older in point of time; but He has the same
manner of framing and the same Lord as the rest. Nay, if He be a creature, as
you hold, how can He be created sole and first at all, so as to be beginning
of all? when it is plain from what has been said, that among the creatures not
any is of a constant(2) nature and of prior formation, but each has its
origination with all the rest, however it may excel others in glory. For as to
the separate stars or the great lights, not this appeared first, and that
second, but in one day and by the same command, they were all called into
being. And such was the original formation of the quadrupeds, and of birds,
and fishes, and cattle, and plants; thus too has the race
375
made after God's Image come to be, namely men; for though Adam only was formed
out of earth, yet in him was involved the succession of the whole race.
49. And from the visible creation, we clearly discern that His invisible
things also, 'being perceived by the things that are made(3),' are not
independent of each other; for it was not first one and then another, but all
at once were constituted after their kind. For the Apostle did not number
individually, so as to say 'whether Angel, or Throne, or Dominion, or
Authority,' but he mentions together all according to their kind, 'whether
Angels, or Archangels, or Principalities(4):' for in this way is the
origination of the creatures. If then, as I have said, the Word were creature
He must have been brought into being, not first of them, but with all the
other Powers, though in glory He excel the rest ever so much. For so we find
it to be in their case, that at once they came to be, with neither first nor
second, and they differ from each other in glory, some on the right of the
throne, some all around, and some on the left, but one and all praising and
standing in service before the Lords. Therefore if the Word be creature He
would not be first or beginning of the rest yet if He be before all, as indeed
He is, and is Himself alone First and Son, it does not follow that He is
beginning of all things as to His Essence(6), for what is the beginning of all
is in the number of all. And if He is not such a beginning, then neither is He
a creature, but it is very plain that He differs in essence and nature from
the creatures, and is other than they, and is Likeness and Image of the sole
and true God, being Himself sole also. Hence He is not classed with creatures
in Scripture, but David rebukes those who dare even to think of Him as such,
saying, 'Who among the gods is like unto the Lord(7)?' and 'Who is like unto
the Lord among the sons of God?' and Baruch, 'This is our God, and another
shall not be reckoned wills Him(8).' For the One creates, and the rest are
created; and the One is the own Word and Wisdom of the Father's Essence, and
through this Word things which came to be, which before existed not, were
made.
50. Your famous assertion then, that the Son is a creature, is not true,
but is your fantasy only; nay Solomon convicts you of having many times
slandered him. For he has not called Him creature, but God's Offspring and
Wisdom, saying, 'God in Wisdom established the earth,' and 'Wisdom built her
an house(1).' And the very passage in question proves your irreligious spirit;
for it is written, 'The Lord created me a beginning of His ways for His
works.' Therefore if He is before all things, yet says 'He created me' (not
'that I might make the works,' but) 'for the works,' unless 'He created'
relates to something later than Himself, He will seem later than the works,
finding them on His creation already in existence before Him, for the sake of
which He is also brought into being. And if so, how is He before all things
notwithstanding? and how were all things made through Him and consist in Him?
for behold, you say that the works consisted before Him, for which He is
created and sent. But it is not so; perish the thought! false is the
supposition of the heretics. For the Word of God is not creature but Creator;
and says in the manner of proverbs, 'He created me' when He put on created
flesh. And something besides may be understood from the passage itself; for,
being Son and having God for His Father, for He is His proper Offspring, yet
here He names the Father Lord; not that He was servant, but because He took
the servant's form. For it became Him, on the one hand being the Word from the
Father, to call God Father: for this is proper to son towards father; on the
other, having come to finish the work, and taken a servant's form, to name the
Father Lord. And this difference He Himself has taught by an apt distinction,
saying in the Gospels, 'I thank Thee, O Father,' and then, 'Lord of heaven and
earth(2).' For He calls God His Father, but of the creatures He names Him
Lord; as shewing clearly from these words, that, when He put on the
creature(3), then it was He called the Father Lord. For in the prayer of David
the Holy. Spirit marks the same distinction, saying in the Psalms, 'Give Thy
strength unto Thy Child, and help the Son of Thine handmaid(4).' For the
natural and true child of God is one, and the sons of the handmaid, that is,
of the nature of things originate, are other. Wherefore the One, as Son, has
the Father's might; but the rest are in need of salvation.
51. (But if, because He was called child,
376
they idly talk, let them know that both Isaac was named Abraham's child, and
the son of the Shunamite was called young child.) Reasonably then, we being
servants, when He became as we, He too calls the Father Lord, as we do; and
this He has so done from love to man, that we too, being servants by nature,
and receiving the Spirit of the Son, might have confidence to call Him by
grace Father, who is by nature our Lord. But as we, in calling the Lord
Father, do not deny our servitude by nature (for we are His works, and it is
'He that hath made us, and not we ourselves(1)'), so when the Son, on taking
the servant's form, says, 'The Lord created me a beginning of His ways,' let
them not deny the eternity of His Godhead, and that 'in the beginning was the
Word,' and 'all things were made by Him,' and 'in Him all things were
created(2).'
CHAPTER XX.
TEXTS EXPLAINED; SIXTHLY, PROVERBS
viii. 22 CONTINUED.
Our Lord is said to be created 'for the works,' i.e. with a particular
purpose, which no mere creatures are ever said to be. Parallel of Isai. xlix.
5, &c. When His manhood is spoken of, a reason for it is added; not so when
His Divine Nature; Texts in proof.
51 (continued). FOR the passage in the Proverbs, as I have said before,
signifies, not the Essence, but the manhood of the Word; for if He says that
He was created 'for the works,' He shews His intention of signifying, not His
Essence, but the Economy which took place 'for His works,' which comes second
to being. For things which are in formation and creation are made specially
that they may be and exist(3), and next they have to do whatever the Word bids
them, as may be seen in the case of all things. For Adam was created, not that
He might work, but that first he might be man; for it was after this that he
received the command to work. And Noah was created, not because of the ark,
but that first he might exist and be a man; for after this he received
commandment to prepare the ark. And the like will be found in every case on
inquiring into it; -- thus the great Moses first was made a man, and next was
entrusted with the government of the people. Therefore here too we must
suppose the like; for thou seest, that the Word is not created into existence,
but, 'In the beginning was the Word,' and He is afterwards sent 'for the
works" and the Economy towards them. For before the works were made, the Son
was ever, nor was there yet need that He should be created; but when the works
were created and need arose afterwards of the Economy for their restoration,
then it was that the Word took upon Himself this condescension and
assimilation to the works; which He has shewn us by the word 'He created.' And
through the Prophet Isaiah willing to signify the like, He says again: 'And
now thus saith the Lord, who formed me from the womb to be His servant, to
gather together Jacob unto Him and Israel, I shall be brought together and be
glorified before the Lord(4).'
52. See here too, He is formed, not into existence, but in order to gather
together the tribes, which were in existence before He was formed. For as in
the former passage stands 'He created,' so in this 'He formed;' and as there
'for the works,' so here 'to gather together;' so that in every point of view
it appears that 'He created' and 'He formed' are said after 'the Word was.'
For as before His forming the tribes existed, for whose sake He was formed, so
does it appear that the works exist, for which He was created. And when 'in
the beginning was the Word,' not yet were the works, as I have said before;
but when the works were made and the need required, then 'He created' was
said; and as if some son, when the servants were lost, and in the hands of the
enemy by their own carelessness, and need was urgent, were sent by his father
to succour and recover them, and on setting out were to put over him the like
dress(1) with them, and should fashion himself as they, test the capturers,
recognising him(2) as the master, should take to flight and prevent his
descending to those who were hidden under the earth by them; and then were any
one to inquire of him, why he did so, were to make answer, 'My Father thus
formed and prepared me for his works,' while in thus speaking, he neither
implies that he is a servant nor one of the works, nor speaks of the beginning
of His origination, but of the subsequent charge given him over the works,--in
the same way the Lord also, having put over Him our flesh, and 'being found in
fashion as a man, if He were questioned by those who saw Him thus and
marvelled, would say, 'The Lord created Me the beginning of His ways for His
works,' and 'He formed Me to gather together Israel.' This again the Spirit(3)
foretells in the Psalms, saying, 'Thou didst set Him over the works of Thine
hands(4);' which elsewhere the Lord signified of Himself, 'I am set as King by
Him upon His
377
holy hill of Sion(5).' And as, when He shone(6) in the body upon Sion, He had
not His beginning of existence or of reign, but being God's Word and
everlasting King, He vouchsafed that His kingdom should shine in a human way
in Sion, that redeeming them and us from the sin which reigned in them, He
might bring them under His Father's Kingdom, so, on being set 'for the works,'
He is not set for things which did not yet exist, but for such as already were
and needed restoration.
53. 'He created' then and 'He formed' and 'He set,' having the same
meaning, do not denote the beginning of His being, or of His essence as
created, but His beneficent renovation which came to pass for us. Accordingly,
though He thus speaks, yet He taught also that He Himself existed before this,
when He said, 'Before Abraham came to be, I am(1);' and 'when He prepared the
heavens, I was present with Him;' and 'I was with Him disposing things(2).'
And as He Himself was before Abraham came to be, and Israel had come into
being after Abraham, and plainly He exists first and is formed afterwards, and
His forming signifies not His beginning of being but His taking manhood,
wherein also He collects together the tribes of Israel; so, as 'being always
with the Father,' He Himself is Framer of the creation, and His works are
evidently later than Himself, and 'He created' signifies, not His beginning of
being, but the Economy which took place for the works, which He effected in
the flesh. For it became Him, being other than the works, nay rather their
Framer, to take upon Himself their renovation(3), that, whereas He is created
for us, all things may be now created in Him. For when He said 'He created,'
He forthwith added the reason, naming 'the works,' that His creation for the
works might signify His becoming man for their renovation. And this is usual
with divine Scripture(4); for when it signifies the fleshly origination of the
Son, it adds also the cause(5) for which He became man; but when he speaks or
His servants declare anything of His Godhead, all is said in simple diction,
and with an absolute sense, and without reason being added. For He is the
Father's Radiance; and as the Father is, but not for any reason, neither must
we seek the reason of that Radiance. Thus it is written, 'In the beginning was
the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God(6);' and the
wherefore it assigns not(7); but when 'the Word was made flesh(8),' then it
adds the reason why, saying, 'And dwelt among us.' And again the Apostle
saying, 'Who being in the form of Gods' has not introduced the reason, till
'He took on Him the form of a servant;' for then he continues, 'He humbled
Himself unto death, even the death of the cross(9);' for it was for this that
He both became flesh and took the form of a servant
54. And the Lord Himself has spoken many things in proverbs; but when
giving us notices about Himself, He has spoken absolutely(1); 'I in the
Father and the Father in Me,' and 'I and the Father are one,' and, 'He that
hath seen Me, hath seen the Father, and I am the Light of the world,' and, 'I
am the Truth(2);' not setting down in every case the reason, nor the
wherefore, lest He should seem second to those things for which He was made.
For that reason would needs take precedence of Him, without which not even He
Himself had come into being. Paul, for instance, 'separated an Apostle for the
Gospel, which the Lord had promised afore by the Prophets(3),' was thereby
made subordinate to the Gospel, of which he was made minister, and John, being
chosen to prepare the Lord's way, was made subordinate to the Lord; but the
Lord, not being made subordinate to any reason why He should be Word, save
only that He is the Father's Offspring and Only-begotten Wisdom, when He
becomes man, then assigns the reason why He is about to take flesh. For the
need of man preceded His becoming man, apart from which He had not put on
flesh(4). And what the need was for which He became man, He Himself thus
signifies, 'I came down from heaven, not to do Mine own will, but the will of
Him that sent Me. And this is the will of Him which hath sent Me, that of all
which He hath given Me, I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at
the last day. And this is the will of My Father, that every one which seeth
the Son and believeth on Him may have everlasting life, and I will raise him
up at the last day(5).' And again; 'I am come a light into the world, that
whosoever believeth on Me, should not abide in darkness(6).' And again he
says; 'To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that
I should bear witness unto the truth(7).' And John has written: 'For this was
manifested the Son of God, that He might destroy the works of the devil(8).'
378
55. To give a witness then, and for our sakes to undergo death, to raise
man up and destroy the works of the devil(1), the Saviour came, and this is
the reason of His incarnate presence. For otherwise a resurrection had not
been, unless there had been death; and how had death been, unless He had had a
mortal body? This the Apostle, learning from Him, thus sets forth, 'Forasmuch
then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself
likewise took part of the same; that through death He might bring to nought
him that had the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver them who
through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage(2).' And,
'Since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead(3).'
And again, 'For what the Law could not do, in that it was weak through the
flesh, God, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin,
condemned sin in the flesh; that the ordinance of the Law might be fulfilled
in us, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit(4).' And John says,
'For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the
world through Him might be saved(5).' And again, the Saviour has spoken in His
own person, 'For judgment am I come into this world, that they who see not
might see, and that they which see might become blind(6).' Not for Himself
then, but for our salvation, and to abolish death, and to condemn sin, and to
give sight to the blind, and to raise up all from the dead, has He come; but
if not for Himself, but for us, by consequence not for Himself but for us is
He created. But if not for Himself is He created, but for us, then He is not
Himself a creature, but, as having put on our flesh, He uses such language.
And that this is the sense of the Scriptures, we may learn from the Apostle,
who says in Ephesians, 'Having broken down the middle wall of partition
between us, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of
commandments contained in ordinances, to create in Himself of twain one new
man, so making peace(7).' But if in Him the twain are created, and these are
in His body, reasonably then, bearing the twain in Himself, He is as if
Himself created; for those who were created in Himself He made one, and He was
in them, as they. And thus, the two being created in Him, He may say suitably,
'The Lord created me.' For as by receiving our infirmities, He is said to be
infirm Himself, though not Himself infirm, for He is the Power of God, and He
became sin for us and a curse, though not having sinned Himself, but because
He Himself bare our sins and our curse, so(8), by creating us in Him, let Him
say, He created me for the works,' though not Himself a creature.
56. For if, as they hold, the Essence of the Word being of created nature,
therefore He says, 'The Lord created me,' being a creature, He was not created
for us; but if He was not created for us, we are not created in Him; and, if
not created in Him, we have Him not in ourselves but externally; as, for
instance, as receiving instruction from Him as from a teacher(1). And it being
so with us, sin has not lost its reign over the flesh, being inherent and not
cast out of it. But the Apostle opposes such a doctrine a little before, when
he says, 'For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus(2);' and if in
Christ we are created, then it is not He who is created, but we in Him; and
thus the words 'He created' are for our sake. For because of our need, the
Word, though being Creator, endured words which are used of creatures; which
are not proper to Him, as being the Word, but are ours who are created in Him.
And as, since the Father is always, so is His Word, and always being, always
says 'I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him(3),' and 'I am in
the Father and the Father in Me(4);' so, when for our need He became man,
consistently does He use language, as ourselves, The Lord hath created Me,'
that, by His dwelling in the flesh, sin might perfectly be expelled from the
flesh, and we might have a free mind(5). For what ought He, when made
379
man, to say? 'In the beginning 1 was man?' this were neither suitable to Him
nor true; and as it beseemed not to say this, so it is natural and proper in
the case of man to say, 'He created' and 'He made' Him. On this account then
the reason of 'He created' is added, namely, the need of the works; and where
the reason is added, surely the reason rightly explains the lection. Thus
here, when He says 'He created,' He sets down the cause, 'the works;' on the
other hand, when He signifies absolutely the generation from the Father,
straightway He adds, 'Before all the hills He begets me(6);' but He does not
add the 'wherefore,' as in the case of 'He created,' saying, 'for the works,'
but absolutely, 'He begets me,' as in the text, 'In the beginning was the
Word(7).' For, though no works had been created, still 'the Word' of God
'was,' and 'the Word was God.' And His becoming man would not have taken
place, had not the need of men become a cause. The Son then is not a creature.
CHAPTER XXI.
TEXTS EXPLAINED; SIXTHLY, PROVERBS
viii. 22, CONTINUED.
Our Lord not said in Scripture to be 'created,' or the works to be 'begotten.'
'In the beginning' means in the case of the works 'from the beginning.'
Scripture passages explained. We are made by God first, begotten next;
creatures by nature, sons by grace. Christ begotten first, made or created
afterwards. Sense of 'First-born of the dead;' of 'First-born among many
brethren;' of 'First-born of all creation,' contrasted with 'Only-begotten.'
Further interpretation of 'beginning of ways,' and 'for the works.' Why a
creature could not redeem; why redemption was necessary at all. Texts which
contrast the Word and the works.
57. FOR had He been a creature, He had not said, 'He begets me,' for the
creatures are from without, and are works of the Maker; but the Offspring is
not from without nor a work, but from the Father, and proper to His Essence.
Wherefore they are creatures; this God's Word and Only-begotten Son. For
instance, Moses did not say of the creation, 'In the beginning He begat,' nor
'In the beginning was,' but 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the
earth(1).' Nor did David say in the Psalm, 'Thy hands have "begotten me,"' but
'made me and fashioned me(2),' everywhere applying the word 'made' to the
creatures. But to the Son contrariwise; for he has not said 'I made,' but 'I
begat(3),' and 'He begets me,' and 'My heart uttered a good Word(4).' And in
the instance of the creation, 'In the beginning He made;' but in the instance
of the Son, 'In the beginning was the Word(5).' And there is this difference,
that the creatures are made upon the beginning, and have a beginning of
existence connected with an interval; wherefore also what is said of them, 'In
the beginning He made,' is as much as saying of them, 'From the beginning He
made:'--as the Lord, knowing that which He had made, taught, when He silenced
the Pharisees, with the words, 'He which made them from the beginning, made
them male and female(6);' for from some beginning, when they were not yet,
were originate things brought into being and created. This too the Holy Spirit
has signified in the Psalms, saying, 'Thou, Lord, at the beginning hast laid
the foundation of the earth(7);' and again, 'O think upon Thy congregation
which Thou hast purchased from the beginning(8);' now it is plain that what
takes place at the beginning, has a beginning of creation, and that from some
beginning God purchased His congregation. And that In the beginning He made,'
from his saying made,' means 'began to make,' Moses himself shews by saying,
after the completion of all things, 'And God blessed the seventh day and
sanctified it, because that in it He had rested from all His work which God
began to make(9).' Therefore the creatures began to be made; but the Word of
God, not having beginning of being, certainly did not begin to be, nor begin
to come to be, but was ever. And the works have their beginning in their
making, and their beginning precedes their coming to be; but the Word, not
being of things which come to be, rather comes to be Himself the Framer of
those which have a beginning. And the being of things originate is measured by
their becoming(10), and from some beginning does God begin to make them
through the Word, that it may be known that they were not before their
origination; but the Word has His being, in no other beginning(11) than the
Father, whom(12) they allow to be without beginning, so that He too exists
without beginning m the Father, being His Offspring, not His creature.
380
58. Thus does divine Scripture recognise the difference between the
Offspring and things made, and shew that the Offspring is a Son, not begun
from any beginning, but eternal; but that the thing made, as an external work
of the Maker, began to come into being. John therefore delivering divine
doctrine(1) about the Son, and knowing the difference of the phrases, said
not, 'In the beginning has become' or 'been made,' but 'In the beginning was
the Word;' that we might understand 'Offspring' by 'was,' and not account of
Him by intervals, but believe the Son always and eternally to exist. And with
these proofs, how, O Arians, misunderstanding the passage in Deuteronomy, did
you venture a fresh act of irreligion(2) against the Lord, saying that 'He is
a work,' or 'creature,' or indeed 'offspring?' for offspring and work you take
to mean the same thing; but here too you shall be shewn to be as unlearned as
you are irreligious. Your first passage is this, 'Is not He thy Father that
bought thee? did He not make thee and create thee(3)? And shortly after in the
same Song he says, 'God that begat thee thou didst desert, and forgattest God
that nourished thee(4).' Now the meaning conveyed in these passages is very
remarkable; for he says not first 'He begat,' lest that term should be taken
as indiscriminate with 'He made,' and these men should have a pretence for
saying, 'Moses tells us indeed that God said from the beginning, "Let Us make
man(5)," but he soon after says himself, 'God that begat thee thou didst
desert,' as if the terms were indifferent; for offspring and work are the
same. But after the words 'bought' and 'made,' he has added last of all
'begat,' that the sentence might carry its own interpretation; for in the word
'made' he accurately denotes what belongs to men by nature, to be works and
things made; but in the word 'begat' he shews God's lovingkindness exercised
towards men after He had created them. And since they have proved ungrateful
upon this, thereupon Moses reproaches them, saying first, 'Do ye thus requite
the Lord?' and then adds, 'Is not He thy Father that bought thee? Did He not
make thee and create thee(6)?' And next he says, 'They sacrificed unto devils,
not to God, to gods whom they knew not. New gods and strange came up, whom
your fathers knew not; the God that begat thee thou didst desert (7). '
59. For God not only created them to be men, but called them to be sons,
as having begotten them. For the term 'begat' is here as elsewhere expressive
of a Son, as He says by the Prophet, 'I begat sons and exalted them;' and
generally, when Scripture wishes to signify a son, it does so, not by the term
'created,' but undoubtedly by that of 'begat.' And this John seems to say, 'He
gave to them power to become children of God, even to them that believe on His
Name; which were begotten not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of
the will of man, but of God(1).' And here too the cautious distinction(2) is
well kept up, for first he says 'become,' because they are not called sons by
nature but by adoption; then he says 'were begotten,' because they too had
received at any rate the name of son. But the People, as says the Prophet,
'despised' their Benefactor. But this is God's kindness to man, that of whom
He is Maker, of them according to grace He afterwards becomes Father also;
becomes, that is, when men, His creatures, receive into their hearts, as the
Apostle says, 'the Spirit of His Son, crying, Abba, Father(3).' And these are
they who, having received the Word, gained power from Him to become sons of
God; for they could not become sons, being by nature creatures, otherwise than
by receiving the Spirit of the natural and true Son. Wherefore, that this
might be, 'The Word became flesh,' that He might make man capable of Godhead.
This same meaning may be gained also from the Prophet Malachi, who says, 'Hath
not One God created us? Have we not all one Father(4)?' for first he puts
'created,' next 'Father,' to shew, as the other writers, that from the
beginning we were creatures by nature, and God is our Creator through the
Word; but afterwards we were made sons, and thenceforward God the Creator
becomes our Father also. Therefore 'Father' is proper to the Son; and not
'creature,' but 'Son' is proper to the Father. Accordingly this passage also
proves, that we are not sons by nature, but the Son who is in us(5); and
again, that God is not our Father by nature, but of that Word in us, in whom
and because of whom we 'cry, Abba, Father(6).' And so in like manner, the
Father calls them sons in whomsoever He sees His own Son, and says, 'I begat;'
since begetting is significant of a Son, and making is indicative of the
works. And thus it is that we are not
381
begotten first, but made; for it is written, 'Let Us make man(7);' but
afterwards, on receiving the grace of the Spirit, we are said thenceforth to
be begotten also; just as the great Moses in his Song with an apposite meaning
says first 'He bought,' and afterwards 'He begat;' lest, hearing 'He begat,'
they might forget their own original nature; but that they might know that
from the beginning they are creatures, but when according to grace they are
said to be begotten, as sons, still no less than before are men works
according to nature.
60. And that creature and offspring are not the same, but differ from each
other in nature and the signification of the words, the Lord Himself shews
even in the Proverbs. For having said, 'The Lord treated me a beginning of His
ways;' He has added, 'But before all the hills He begat me.' If then the Word
were by nature and in His Essence(1) a creature, and there were no difference
between offspring and creature, He would not have added, 'He begat me,' but
had been satisfied with 'He created,' as if that term implied the begat;' but,
as it is, after saying, 'He created me a beginning of His ways for His works,'
He has added, not simply 'begat me,' but with the connection of the
conjunction 'But,' as guarding thereby the term 'created,' when he says, 'But
before all the hills He begat me.' For 'begat me' succeeding in such close
connection to 'created me,' makes the meaning one, and shews that 'created' is
said with an object(2), but that 'begat me' is prior to 'treated me.' For as,
if He had said the reverse, 'The Lord begat me,' and went on, 'But before the
hills He created me,' 'created' would certainly precede 'begat,' so having
said first 'created,' and then added 'But before all the hills He begat me,'
He necessarily shews that 'begat preceded 'created.' For in saying, 'Before
all lie begat me,' He intimates that He is other than all things; it having
been shewn to be trues in an earlier part of this book, that no one creature
was made before another, but all things originate subsisted at once together
upon one and the same command(4). Therefore neither do the words which follow
'created,' also follow 'begat me;' but in the case of 'created' is added
'beginning of ways,' but of 'begat me,' He says not, 'He begat me as a
beginning,' but 'before all He begat me.' But He who is before all is not a
beginning of all, but is other than all(5); but if other than all (in which
'all' the beginning of all is included), it follows that He is other than the
creatures; and it becomes a clear point, that the Word, being other than all
things and before all, afterwards is created 'a beginning of the ways for
works,' because He became man, that, as the Apostle has said, He who is the
'Beginning' and 'First-born from the dead, in all things might have the
preeminence(6).'
61. Such then being the difference between 'created' and 'begat me,' and
between 'beginning of ways' and 'before all,' God, being first Creator, next,
as has been said, becomes Father of men, because of His Word dwelling in them.
But in the case of the Word the reverse; for God, being His Father by nature,
becomes afterwards both His Creator and Maker, when the Word puts on that
flesh which was created and made, and becomes man. For, as men, receiving the
Spirit of the Son, become children through Him, so the Word of God, when He
Himself puts on the flesh of man, then is said both to be created and to have
been made. If then we are by nature sons, then is He by nature creature and
work; but if we become sons by adoption and grace, then has the Word also,
when in grace towards us He became man, said, 'The Lord created me.' And in
the next place, when He put on a created nature and became like us in body,
reasonably was He therefore called both our Brother and 'First-born(1).' For
though it was after us(2) that He was made man for us, and our brother by
similitude of body, still He is therefore called and is the 'First-born' of
us, because, all men being lost, according to the transgression of Adam, His
flesh before all others was saved and liberated, as being the Word's body(3);
and henceforth we, becoming incorporate with It, are saved after Its pattern.
For in It the Lord becomes our guide to the Kingdom of Heaven and to His own
Father, saying, 'I am the way' and 'the door(4),' and through Me all must
enter.' Whence also is He said to be 'First-born from the dead(5),' not that
He died before us, for we had died first; but because having undergone death
for us and abolished it, He was the first to rise, as man, for our sakes
raising His own Body. Henceforth He having risen, we too from Him and because
of Him rise in due course from the dead.
382
62. But if He is also called 'First-born of the creation(1),' still this
is not as if He were levelled to the creatures, and only first of them in
point of time (for how should that be, since He is 'Only-begotten?'), but it
is because of the Word's condescension(2) to the creatures, according to which
He has become the 'Brother' of 'many.' For the term 'Only-begotten' is used
where there are no brethren, but 'First-born(3)' because of brethren.
Accordingly it is nowhere written in the Scriptures, 'the first-born of God,'
nor 'the creature of God;' but 'Only-begotten' and 'Son' and 'Word' and
'Wisdom,' refer to Him as proper to the Father(4). Thus, 'We have seen His
glory, the glory as of the Only-be-gotten of the Father(5);' and 'God sent His
Only-begotten Son(6);' and 'O Lord, Thy Word endureth for ever(7);' and 'In
the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God;' and 'Christ the Power
of God and the Wisdom of God(8);' and 'This is My beloved Son;' and 'Thou art
the Christ, the Son of the Living God(9).' But ' first-born' implied the
descent to the creation(10); for of it has He been called first-born; and 'He
created' implies His grace towards the works, for for them is He created. If
then He is Only-begotten, as indeed He is, 'First-born' needs some
explanation; but if He be really First-born, then He is not Only-begotten(10).
For the same cannot be both Only-begotten and First-born, except in different
relations; -that is, Only-begotten, because of His generation from the Father,
as has been said; and First-born, because of His condescension to the creation
and His making the many His brethren. Certainly, those two terms being
inconsistent with each other, one should say that the attribute of being
Only-begot-ten has justly the preference in the instance of the Word, in that
there is no other Word, or other Wisdom, but He alone is very Son of the
Father. Moreover(11), as was before(12) said, not in connection with any
reason, but absolutely(13) it is said of Him, 'The Only-begotten Son which is
in the bosom of the Father(14);' but the word 'First-born' has again the
creation as a reason in connection with it, which Paul proceeds to say, 'for
in Him all things were created(15).' But if all the creatures were created in
Him, He is other than the creatures, and is not a creature, but the Creator of
the creatures.
63. Not then because He was from the Father was He called 'First-born,'
but because in Him the creation came to be; and as before the creation He was
the Son, through whom was the creation, so also before He was called the
First-born of the whole creation, not the less was the Word Himself with God
and the Word was God. But this also not understanding, these irreligious men
go about saying, 'If He is First-born of all creation, it is plain that He too
is one of the creation.' Senseless men! if He is simply 'First-born(1) of the
whole creation,' then He is other than the whole creation; for he says not,
'He is First-born above the rest of the creatures,' lest He be reckoned to be
as one of the creatures, but it is written, 'of the whole creation,' that He
may appear other than the creation(2). Reuben, for instance, is not said to be
first-born of all the children of Jacob(3), but of Jacob himself and his
brethren; lest he should be thought to be some other beside the children of
Jacob. Nay, even concerning the Lord Himself the Apostle says not, 'that He
may become First-born of
383
all,' lest He be thought to bear a body other than ours, but 'among many
brethren(4),' because of the likeness of the flesh. If then the Word also were
one of the creatures, Scripture would have said of Him also that He was
First-born of other creatures; but in fact, the saints saying that He is
'First-born of the whole creation(5),' the Son of God is plainly shewn to be
other than the whole creation and not a creature. For if He is a creature, He
will be First-born of Himself. How then is it possible, O Arians, for Him to
be before and after Himself? next, if He is a creature, and the whole creation
through Him came to be, and in Him consists, how can He both create the
creation and be one of the things which consist in Him? Since then such a
notion is in itself unseemly, it is proved against them by the truth, that He
is called 'First-born among many brethren' because of the relationship of the
flesh, and 'First-born from the dead,' because the resurrection of the dead is
from Him and after Him; and 'First-born of the whole creation,' because of the
Father's love to man, which brought it to pass that in His Word not, only 'all
things consist(6),' but the creation itself, of which the Apostle speaks,
'waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God, shall be delivered' one
time 'from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children
of God(7).' Of this creation thus delivered, the Lord will be First-born, both
of it and of all those who are made children, that by His being called first,
those that come after Him may abide(8), as depending on the Word as a
beginning(9).
64. And I think that the irreligious men themselves will be shamed from
such a thought; for if the case stands not as we have said, but they will rule
it that He is 'First-born of the whole creation' as in essence--a creature
among creatures, let them reflect that they will be conceiving Him as brother
and fellow of the things without reason and life. For of the whole creation
these also are parts; and the 'First-born' must be first indeed in point of
time but only thus, and in kind and similitude(1) must be the same with all.
How then can they say this without exceeding all measures of irreligion? or
who will endure them, if this is their language? or who can but hate them even
imagining such things? For it is evident to all, that neither for Himself, as
being a creature, nor as having any connection according to essence with the
whole creation, has He been called 'First-born' of it: but because the Word,
when at the beginning He framed the creatures, condescended to things
originate, that it might be possible for them to come to be. For they could
not have endured His nature, which was untempered splendour, even that of the
Father, unless condescending by the Father's love for man He had supported
them and taken hold of them and brought them into existence(2); and next,
because, by this condescension of the Word, the creation too is made a sons
through Him, that He might be in all respects 'First-born' of it, as has been
said, both in creating, and also in being brought for the sake of all into
this very world. For so it is written, 'When He bringeth the First-born into
the world, He saith, Let all the Angels of God worship Him(4).' Let Christ's
enemies hear and tear themselves to pieces, because His coming into the world
is what makes Him called 'First-born' of all; and thus the Son is the Father's
'Only-begotten,' because He alone is from Him, and He is the 'First-born of
creations,' because of this adoption of all as sons(5). And as He is
First-born among brethren and rose from the dead 'the first fruits of them
that slept(6);' so, since it became Him 'in all things to have the
preeminence(7),' therefore He is created 'a beginning of ways,' that we,
walking along it and entering through Him who says, 'I am the Way' and 'the
Door,' and partaking of the knowledge of the Father, may also hear the words,
'Blessed are the undefiled in the Way,' and 'Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they shall see God(8).'
65. And thus since the truth declares that the Word is not by nature a
creature, it is fitting now to say, in what sense He is 'beginning of
384
ways.' For when the first way, which was through Adam, was lost, and in place
of paradise we deviated unto death, and heard the words, 'Dust thou art, and
unto dust(1) shall thou return,' therefore the Word of God, who loves man,
puts on Him created flesh at the Father's will(2), that whereas the first man
had made it dead through the transgression, He Himself might quicken it in the
blood of His own body(3), and might open 'for us a way new and living,' as the
Apostle says, 'through the veil, that is to say, His flesh(4);' which he
signifies elsewhere thus, 'Wherefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new
creation; old things are passed away, behold all things are become new(5).'
But if a new creation has come to pass, some one must be first of this
creation; now a man, made of earth only, such as we are become from the
transgression, he could not be. For in the first creation, men had become
unfaithful, and through them that first creation had been lost; and there was
need of some one else to renew the first creation, and preserve the new which
had come to be. Therefore from love to man none other than the Lord, the
'beginning' of the new creation, is created as 'the Way,' and consistently
says,' The Lord created me a beginning of ways for His works;' that man might
walk no longer according to that first creation, but there being as it were a
beginning of a new creation, and with the Christ 'a beginning of its ways,' we
might follow Him henceforth, who says to us,' I am the Way:'--as the blessed
Apostle teaches in Colossians, saying, 'He is the Head of the body, the
Church, who is the Beginning, the First-born from the dead, that in all things
He might have the preeminence.'
66. For if, as has been said, because of the resurrection from the dead He
is called a beginning, and then a resurrection took place when He, bearing our
flesh, had given Himself to death for us, it is evident that His words, 'He
created me a beginning of ways,' is indicative not of His essence(6), but of
His bodily presence. For to the body death was proper(7); and in like manner
to the bodily presence are the words proper, 'The Lord created me a beginning
of His ways.' For since the Saviour was thus created according to the flesh,
and had become a beginning of things new created, and had our first fruits,
viz. that human flesh which He took to Himself, therefore after Him, as is
fit, is created also the people to come, David saying, 'Let this be written
for another generation, and the people that shall be created shall praise the
Lord(2).' And again in the twenty-first Psalm, 'The generation to come shall
declare unto the Lord, and they shall declare His righteousness, unto a people
that shall be born whom the Lord made(3).' For we shall no more hear, 'In the
day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die but 'Where I am, there ye'
shall 'be also;' so that we may say, 'We are His workmanship, created unto
good works(5).' And again, since God's work, that is, man, though created
perfect, has become wanting through the transgression, and dead by sin, and it
was unbecoming that the work of God should remain imperfect (wherefore all the
saints were praying concerning this, for instance in the hundred and
thirty-seventh Psalm, saying, 'Lord, Thou shall requite for me; despise not
then the works of Thine hands(6)); therefore the perfect(7) Word of God puts
around Him an imperfect body, and is said to be created 'for the works;' that,
paying the debts in our stead, He might, by Himself, perfect. what was wanting
to man. Now immortality was wanting to him, and the way to paradise. This then
is what the Saviour says, 'I glorified Thee on the earth, I perfected the work
which Thou hast given Me to do(9);' and again, 'The works which the Father
hath given Me to perfect, the same works that I do, bear witness of Me;' but
'the works(10)' He here says that the Father had given Him to perfect, are
those for which He is created, saying in the Proverbs, 'The Lord created me a
beginning of His ways, for His works;' for it is all one to say, 'The Father
hath given me the works,' and 'The Lord created me for the works.'
67. When then received He the works to perfect, O God's enemies? for from
this also 'He created' will be understood. If ye say, 'At the beginning when
He brought them into being out of what was not,' it is an untruth; for they
were not yet made; whereas He appears to speak as taking what was already in
being. Nor is it pious to refer to the time
385
which preceded the Word's becoming flesh, lest His coming should thereupon
seem superfluous, since for the sake of these works that coming took place.
Therefore it remains for us to say that when He has become man, then He took
the works. For then He perfected them, by healing our wounds and vouchsafing
to us the resurrection from the dead. But if, when the Word became flesh, then
were given to Him the works, plainly when He became man, then also is He
created for the works. Not of His essence then is 'He created' indicative, as
has many times been said, but of His bodily generation. For then, because the
works were become imperfect and mutilated from the transgression, He is said
in respect to the body to be created; that by perfecting them and making them
whole, He might present the Church unto the Father, as the Apostle says, 'not
having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but holy and without blemish(1).'
Mankind then is perfected in Him and restored, as it was made at the
beginning, nay, with greater grace. For, on rising from the dead, we shall no
longer fear death, but shall ever reign in Christ in the heavens. And this has
been done, since the own Word of God Himself, who is from the Father, has put
on the flesh, and become man. For if, being a creature, He had become man, man
had remained just what he was, not joined to God; for how had a work been
joined to the Creator by a work(2)? or what succour had come from like to
like, when one as well as other needed it(3)? And how, were the Word a
creature, had He power to undo God's sentence, and to remit sin, whereas it
is written in the Prophets, that this is God's doing? For 'who is a God like
unto Thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by transgression (4)?' For
whereas God has said, 'Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return(5),' men
have become mortal; how then could things originate undo sin? but the Lord is
He who has undone it, as He says Himself, 'Unless the Son shall make you
free(6);' and the Son, who made free, has shewn in truth that He is no
creature, nor one of things originate, but the proper Word and Image of the
Father's Essence, who at the beginning sentenced, and alone remitteth sins.
For since it is said in the Word, 'Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt
return,' suitably through the Word Himself and in Him the freedom and the
undoing of the condemnation has come to pass.
68. 'Yet,' they say, 'though the Saviour were a creature, God was able to
speak the word only and undo the curse.' And so another will tell them in like
manner, 'Without His coming among us at all, God was able just to speak and
undo the curse;' but we must consider what was expedient for mankind, and not
what simply is possible with God(1). He could have destroyed, before the ark
of Noah, the then transgressors; but He did it after the ark. He could too,
without Moses, have spoken the word only and have brought the people out of
Egypt; but it pro-fired to do it through Moses. And God was able without the
judges to save His people; but it was profitable for the people that for a
season judges should be raised up to them. The Saviour too might have come
among us from the beginning, or on His coming might not have been delivered to
Pilate; but He came 'at the fulness of the ages(2),' and when sought for said,
'I am He(3).' For what He does, that is profitable for men, and was not
fitting in any other way; and what is profitable and fitting, for that He
provides(4). Accordingly He came, not 'that He might be ministered unto, but
that He might minister(5),' and might work our salvation. Certainly He was
able to speak the Law from heaven, but He saw that it was expedient to men for
Him to speak from Sinai; and that He has done, that it might be possible for
Moses to go up, and for them hearing the word near them the rather to believe.
Moreover, the good reason of what He did may be seen thus; if God had but
spoken, because it was in His power, and so the curse had been undone, the
power had been shewn of Him who gave the word, but man had become such as Adam
was before the transgression, having received grace from without(6), and not
having it united to the body; (for he was such when he was placed in Paradise)
nay, perhaps had become worse,
386
because he had learned to transgress. Such then being his condition, had he
been seduced by the serpent, there had been fresh need for God to give command
and undo the curse; and thus the need had become interminable(7), and men had
remained under guilt not less than before, as being enslaved to sin; and, ever
sinning, would have ever needed one to pardon them, and had never become free,
being in themselves flesh, and ever worsted by the Law because of the
infirmity of the flesh.
69. Again, if the Son were a creature, man had remained mortal as before,
not being joined to God; for a creature had not joined creatures to God, as
seeking itself one to join it(1); nor would a portion of the creation have
been the creation's salvation, as needing salvation itself. To provide against
this also, He sends His own Son, and He becomes Son of Man, by taking created
flesh; that, since all were under sentence of death, He, being other than them
all, might Himself for all offer to death His own body; and that henceforth,
as if all land died through Him, the word of that sentence might be
accomplished (for 'all died(2)' in Christ), and all through Him might
thereupon become free from sin and from the curse which came upon it, and
might truly abide(3) for ever, risen from the dead and clothed in immortality
and incorruption. For the Word being clothed in the flesh, as has many times
been explained, every bite of the serpent began to be utterly staunched from
out it; and whatever evil sprung from the motions of the flesh, to be cut
away, and with these death also was abolished, the companion of sin, as the
Lord Himself says(4), 'The prince of this world cometh, and findeth nothing in
Me;' and 'For this end was He manifested,' as John has written, 'that He might
destroy the works of the devil(5).' And these being destroyed from the flesh,
we all were thus liberated by the kinship of the flesh, and for the future
were joined, even we, to the Word. And being joined to God, no longer do we
abide upon earth; but, as He Himself has said, where He is, there shall we be
also; and henceforward we shall fear no longer the serpent, for he was brought
to nought when he was assailed by the Saviour in the flesh, and heard Him say,
'Get thee behind Me, Satan(6),' and thus he is cast out of paradise into the
eternal fire. Nor shall we have to watch against woman beguiling us, for 'in
the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the
Angels(7);' and in Christ Jesus it shall be 'a new creation,' and 'neither
male nor female, but all and in all Christ(8);' and where Christ is, what
fear, what danger can still happen?
70. But this would not have come to pass, had the Word been a creature;
for with a creature, the devil, himself a creature, would have ever continued
the battle, and man, being between the two, had been ever in peril of death,
having none in whom and through whom he might be joined to God and delivered
from all fear. Whence the truth shews us that the Word is not of things
originate, but rather Himself their Framer. For therefore did He assume the
body originate and human, that having renewed it as its Framer, He might deify
it(1) in Himself, and thus might introduce us all into the kingdom of heaven
after His likeness. For man had not been deified if joined to a creature, or
unless the Son were very God; nor had man been brought into the Father's
presence, unless He had been His natural and true Word who had put on the
body. And as we had not been delivered from sin and the curse, unless it had
been by nature human flesh, which the Word put on (for we should have had
nothing common with what was foreign), so also the man had not been deified,
unless the Word who became flesh had been by nature from the Father and true
and proper to Him. For therefore the union was of this kind, that He might
unite what is man by nature to Him who is in the nature of the Godhead, and
his salvation and deification might be sure. Therefore let those who deny that
the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to His Essence, deny also that
He took true human flesh(2) of Mary Ever-Virgin(3); for in neither case had it
been of profit to us men, whether the Word were not true and naturally Son
387
of God, or the flesh not true which He assumed. But surely He took true flesh,
though Valentinus rave; yea the Word was by nature Very God, though
Ariomaniacs rave(4); and in that flesh has come to pass the beginnings of our
new creation, He being created man for our sake, and having made for us that
new way, as has been said.
71. The Word then is neither creature nor work; for creature, thing made,
work, are all one; and were He creature and thing made, He would also be work.
Accordingly He has not said, 'He created Me a work,' nor 'He made Me with the
works,' lest He should appear to be in nature and essence(6) a creature; nor,
'He created Me to make works,' lest, on the other hand, according to the
perverseness of the irreligious, He should seem as an instrument(7) made for
our sake. Nor again has He declared, 'He created Me before the works,' lest,
as He really is before all, as an Offspring, so, if created also before the
works, He should give 'Offspring' and 'He created' the same meaning. But He
has said with exact discrimination(8), 'for the works;' as much as to say,
'The Father has made Me, into flesh, that I might be man,' which again shews
that He is not a work but an offspring. For as he who comes into a house, is
not part of the house, but is other than the house, so He who is created for
the works, must be by nature other than the works. But if otherwise, as you
hold, O Arians, the Word of God be a work, by what(9) Hand and Wisdom did He
Himself come into being? for all things that came to be, came by the Hand and
Wisdom of God, who Himself says, 'My hand hath made all these things(1);' and
David says in the Psalm, 'And Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the
foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Thy hands(2);' and
again, in the hundred and forty-second Psalm, 'I do remember the time past, I
muse upon all Thy works, yea I exercise myself in the works of Thy hands(3).'
Therefore if by the Hand of God the works are wrought, and it is written that
'all things were made through the Word,' and 'without Him was not made one
thing(4),' and again, 'One Lord Jesus, through whom are all things,' and 'in
Him all things consist(6),' it is very plain that the Son cannot be a work,
but He is the Hand(7) of God and the Wisdom. This knowing, the martyrs in
Babylon, Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, arraign the Arian irreligion. For when
they say, 'O all ye works of the Lord, bless ye the Lord,' they recount things
in heaven, things on earth, and the whole creation, as works; but the Son they
name not. For they say not, 'Bless, O Word, and praise, O Wisdom;' to shew
that all other things are both praising and are works; but the Word is not a
work nor of those that praise, but is praised with the Father and worshipped
and confessed as God(8), being His Word and Wisdom, and of the works the
Framer. This too the Spirit has declared in the Psalms with a most apposite
distinction, 'the Word of the Lord is true, and all His works are
faithful(9);' as in another Psalm too He says, 'O Lord, how manifold are Thy
works! in Wisdom hast Thou made them all(10).'
72. But if the Word were a work, then certainly He as others had been made
in Wisdom; nor would Scripture distinguish Him from the works, nor while it
named them works, preach Him as Word and own Wisdom of God. But, as it is,
distinguishing Him from the works, He shews that Wisdom is Framer of the
works, and not a work. This distinction Paul also observes, writing to the
Hebrews, 'The Word of God is quick and powerful, and sharper than any
two-edged sword, reaching even to the dividing of soul and spirit, joints and
marrow, and a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart, neither is
there any creature hidden before Him, but all things are naked and open unto
the eyes of Him with whom is our account(1).' For behold he calls things
originate 'creature;' but the Son he recognises as the Word of God, as if He
were other than the creatures. And again saying, 'All things are naked and
open to the eyes of Him with whom is our account,' he signifies that He is
other than all of them. For hence it is that He judges, but each of all things
originate is bound to give account to Him. And so also, when the whole
creation is groaning together with us in order to be set free from the bondage
of corruption, the Son is thereby shewn to be other than the creatures. For if
He were creature, He too would be one of those who groan, and would need one
who should bring adoption and deliverance to Himself as well as others. But if
the whole creation groans together, for the sake of freedom from the bondage
of corruption, whereas the Son is not of those that groan nor of those who
need freedom, but He it is who gives sonship and freedom to all, saying to the
Jews of His
388
time(2), 'The servant remains not in the house for ever, but the Son remaineth
for ever; if then the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed(3);' it
is clearer than the light from these considerations also, that the Word of God
is not a creature but true Son, and by nature genuine, of the Father.
Concerning then 'The Lord hath created me a beginning of the ways,' this is
sufficient, as I think, though in few words, to afford matter to the learned
to frame more ample refutations of the Arian heresy.
CHAPTER XXII.
TEXTS EXPLAINED; SIXTHLY, THE CONTEXT
or PROVERBS viii. 22, viz. 22--30.
It is right to interpret this passage by the Regula Fidei. 'Founded' is used
in contrast to superstructure; and it implies, as in the case of stones in
building, previous existence. 'Before the world' signifies the divine
intention and purpose. Recurrence to Prov. viii. 22, and application of it to
created Wisdom as seen in the works. The Son reveals the Father, first by the
works, then by the Incarnation.
BUT since the heretics, reading the next verse, take a perverse view of
that also, because it is written, 'He founded me before the world(4),' namely,
that this is said of the Godhead of the Word and not of His incarnate
Presence(5), it is necessary, explaining this verse also, to shew their error.
73. It is written, 'The Lord in Wisdom rounded the earth(1);' if then by
Wisdom the earth is founded, how can He who founds be founded? nay, this too
is said after the manner of proverbs(2), and we must in like manner
investigate its sense; that we may know that, while by Wisdom the Father
frames and founds the earth to be firm and steadfast(3), Wisdom Itself is
founded for us, that It may become beginning and foundation of our new
creation and renewal. Accordingly here as before, He says not, 'Before the
world He hath made me Word or Son,' lest there should be as it were a
beginning of His making. For this we must seek before all things, whether He
is Son(4), and on this point specially search the Scriptures(5);' for this it
was, when the Apostles were questioned, that Peter answered, saying, 'Thou art
the Christ, the Son of the Living God(6)., This also the father(7) of the
Arian heresy asked as one of his first questions; 'If Thou be the Son of
God(8);' for he knew that this is the truth and the sovereign principle of our
faith; and that, if He were Himself the Son, the tyranny of the devil would
have its end; but if He were a creature, He too was one of those descended
from that Adam whom he deceived, and he had no cause for anxiety. For the same
reason the Jews of the day(9) were angered, because the Lord said that He was
Son of God, and that God was His proper Father. For had He called Himself one
of the creatures, or said, 'I am a work,' they had not been startled at the
intelligence, nor thought such words blasphemy, knowing, as they did, that
even Angels had come among their fathers; but since He called Himself Son,
they perceived that such was not the note of a creature, but of Godhead and of
the Father's nature(10). The Arians then ought, even in imitation of their own
father the devil, to take some special pains(11) on this point; and if He has
said, 'He founded me to be Word or Son,' then to think as they do; but if He
has not so spoken, not to invent for themselves what is not.
74. For He says not, 'Before the world He founded me as Word or Son,' but
simply, 'He founded me,' to shew again, as I have said, that not for His own
sake(1) but for those who are built upon Him does He here also speak, after
the way of proverbs. For this knowing, the Apostle also writes, 'Other
foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ; but let
every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon(2).' And it must be that the
foundation should be such as the things built on it, that they may admit of
being well compacted together. Being then the Word, He has not, as Word(3),
any such as Himself, who may be compacted with Him; for He is Only-begotten;
but having become man, He has the like of Him, those namely the likeness of
whose flesh He has put on. Therefore according to His manhood He is rounded,
that we, as precious stones, may admit of building upon Him, and may become a
temple of the Holy Ghost who dwelleth in us. And as He is a foundation, and we
stones built upon Him, so again He is a Vine and we knit to Him as
branches,--not according to the Essence of the Godhead; for this surely is
impossible; but according to His manhood, for the branches
389
must be like the vine, since we are like Him according to the flesh. Moreover,
since the heretics have such human notions, we may suitably confute them with
human resemblances contained in the very matter they urge. Thus He saith not,
'He made me a foundation,' lest He might seem to be made and to have a
beginning of being, and they might thence find a shameless occasion of
irreligion; but, 'He founded me.' Now what is founded is founded for the sake
of the stones which are raised upon it; it is not a random process, but a
stone is first transported from the mountain and set down in the depth of the
earth. And while a stone is in the mountain, it is not yet founded; but when
need demands, and it is transported, and laid in the depth of the earth, then
forthwith if the stone could speak, it would say, 'He now founded me, who
brought me hither from the mountain.' Therefore the Lord also did not when
rounded take a beginning of existence; for He was the Word before that; but
when He put on our body, which He severed and took from Mary, then He says 'He
hath founded me;' as much as to say, 'Me, being the Word, He hath enveloped in
a body of earth.' For so He is founded for our sakes, taking on Him what is
ours(4), that we, as incorporated and compacted and bound together in Him
through the likeness of the flesh, may attain unto a perfect man, and abide(5)
immortal and incorruptible.
75. Nor let the words 'before the world' and 'before He made the earth'
and 'before the mountains were settled' disturb any one; for they very well
accord with 'founded' and 'created;' for here again allusion is made to the
Economy according to the flesh. For though the grace which came to us from
the Saviour appeared, as the Apostle says, just now, and has come when He
sojourned among us; yet this grace had been prepared even before we came into
being, nay, before the foundation of the world, and the reason why is kindly
and wonderful. It beseemed not that God should counsel concerning us
afterwards, lest He should appear ignorant of our fate. The God of all
then,--creating us by His own Word, and knowing our destinies better than we,
and foreseeing that, being made 'good(1),' we should in the event be
transgressors of the commandment, and be thrust out of paradise for
disobedience,--being loving and kind, prepared beforehand in His own Word, by
whom also. He created us(2), the Economy of our salvation; that though by the
serpent's deceit we fell from Him, we might not remain quite dead, but having
in the Word the redemption and salvation which was afore prepared for us, we
might rise again and abide immortal, what time He should have been created
for us 'a beginning of the ways,' and He who was the 'First-born of creation'
should become 'first-born' of the 'brethren,' and again should rise
'first-fruits of the dead.' This Paul the blessed Apostle teaches in his
writings; for, as interpreting the words of the Proverbs 'before the world'
and before the earth was,' he thus speaks to Timothy(3); 'Be partaker of the
afflictions of the Gospel according to the power of God, who hath 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 us in Christ Jesus before the world
began, but is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ,
who hath abolished death, and brought to light life(4).' And to the Ephesians;
'Blessed be God even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us
with all spiritual blessing in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, according as
He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be
holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestinated us to the
adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself(5).'
76. How then has He chosen us, before we came into existence, but that, as
he says himself, in Him we were represented(6) beforehand? and how at all,
before men were created, did He predestinate us unto adoption, but that the
Son Himself was 'founded before the world,' taking on Him that economy which
was for our sake? or how, as the Apostle goes on to say, have we 'an
inheritance being predestinated,' but that the Lord Himself was founded
'before the world,' inasmuch as He had a purpose, for our sakes, to take on
Him through the flesh all that inheritance of judgment which lay against us,
and we henceforth were made sons in Him? and how did we receive it 'before the
world was,' when we were not yet in being, but afterwards in time, but that in
Christ was stored the grace which has reached us? Wherefore also in the
Judgment, when every one shall receive according to his conduct, He says,
'Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the
foundation of the world(1).' How then, or in whom, was it prepared before we
came to be, save in the Lord who 'before the world' was founded for this
purpose; that we, as built upon Him, might partake, as well-compacted stones,
the life and grace which is from Him? And this took place, as natur-
390
ally suggests itself to the religious mind, that, as I said, we, rising after
our brief death, may be capable of an eternal life, of which we had not been
capable(2), men as we are, formed of earth, but that 'before the world' there
had been prepared for us in Christ the hope of life and salvation. Therefore
reason is there that the Word, on coming into our flesh, and being created in
it as 'a beginning of ways for His works,' is laid as a foundation according
as the Father's will(3) was in Him before the world, as has been said, and
before land was, and before the mountains were settled, and before the
fountains burst forth; that, though the earth and the mountains and the shapes
of visible nature pass away in the fulness of the present age, we on the
contrary may not grow old after their pattern, but may be able to live after
them, having the spiritual life and blessing which before these things have
been prepared for us in the Word Himself according to election. For thus we
shall be capable of a life not temporary, but ever afterwards abide(4) and
live in Christ; since even before this our life had been founded and prepared
in Christ Jesus.
77. Nor in any other way was it fitting that our life should be founded,
but in the Lord who is before the ages, and through whom the ages were brought
to be; that, since it was in Him, we too might be able to inherit that
everlasting life. For God is good; and being good always, He willed this, as
knowing that our weak nature needed the succour and salvation which is from
Him. And as a wise architect, proposing to build a house, consults also about
repairing it, should it at any time become dilapidated after building, and, as
counselling about this, makes preparation and gives to the workmen materials
for a repair; and thus the means of the repair are provided before the house;
in the same way prior to us is the repair of our salvation founded in Christ,
that in Him we might even be new-created. And the will and the purpose were
made ready 'before the world,' but have taken effect when the need required,
and the Saviour came among us. For the Lord Himself will stand us in place of
all things in the heavens, when He receives us into everlasting life. This
then suffices to prove that the Word of God is not a creature, but that the
sense of the passage is right(5). But since that passage, when scrutinized,
has a right sense in every point of view, it may be well to state what it is;
perhaps many words may bring these senseless men to shame. Now here I must
recur to what has been said before, for what I have to say relates to the same
proverb and the same Wisdom. The Word has not called Himself a creature by
nature, but has said in proverbs, 'The Lord created me;' and He plainly
indicates a sense not spoken 'plainly' but latent(6), such as we shall be able
to find by taking away the veil from the proverb. For who, on hearing from the
Framing Wisdom, 'The Lord created me a beginning of His ways,(3) does not at
once question the meaning, reflecting how that creative Wisdom can be created?
who on hearing the Only-begotten Son of God say, that He was created 'a
beginning of ways,' does not investigate the sense, wondering how the
Only-begotten Son can become a Beginning of many others? for it is a dark
saying(7); but 'a man of understanding,' says he, 'shall understand a proverb
and the interpretation, the words of the wise and their dark sayings(8).'
78. Now the Only-begotten and very Wisdom(1) of God is Creator and Framer
of all things; for 'in Wisdom hast Thou made them all(2),' he says, and 'the
earth is full of Thy creation.' But that what came into being might not only
be, but be good(3), it pleased God that His own Wisdom should condescend(4) to
the creatures, so as to introduce an impress and semblance of Its Image on all
in common and on each, that what was made might be manifestly wise works and
worthy of God(5). For as of the Son of God, considered as the Word, our word
is an image, so of the same Son considered as Wisdom is the wisdom which is
implanted in us an image; in which wisdom we, having the power of knowledge
and thought, become recipients of the All-framing Wisdom; and through It we
are able to know Its Father. 'For he who hath the Son,' saith He, 'hath the
Father also;' and 'he that receiveth Me, receiveth Him that sent Me(6).' Such
an impress then of Wisdom being created in us, and being in all the works,
with reason does the true and framing Wisdom take to Itself what belongs to
its own impress, and say, 'The Lord created me for His works;' for what the
wisdom in us says, that
391
the Lord Himself speaks as if it were His own; and, whereas He is not Himself
created, being Creator, yet because of the image of Him created in the
works(7), He says this as if of Himself. And as the Lord Himself has said, 'He
that receiveth you, receiveth Me(8),' because His impress is in us, so,
though He be not among the creatures, yet because His image and impress is
created in the works, He says, as if in His own person, 'The Lord created me a
beginning of His ways for His works.' And therefore has this impress of Wisdom
in the works been brought into being, that, as I said before, the world might
recognise in it its own Creator the Word, and through Him the Father. And this
is what Paul said, 'Because that which may be known of God is manifest in
them, for God has shewed it unto them: for the invisible things of Him from
the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things
that are made(9).' But if so, the Word is not a creature in essence(10); but
the wisdom which is in us and so called, is spoken of in this passage in the
Proverbs.
79. But if this too fails to persuade them, let them tell us themselves,
whether there is any wisdom in the creatures or not(1)? If not how is it that
the Apostle complains, 'For after that in the Wisdom of God the world by
wisdom knew not God(2)?' or how is it if there is no wisdom, that a 'multitude
of wise men(3)' are found in Scripture? for 'a wise man feareth and departeth
from evil(4);' and 'through wisdom is a house builded(5);' and the Preacher
says, 'A man's wisdom maketh his face to shine;' and he blames those who are
headstrong thus, 'Say not thou, what is the cause that the former days were
better than these? for thou dost not inquire in wisdom concerning this(6).'
But if, as the Son of Sirach says, 'He poured her out upon all His works; she
is with all flesh according to His gift, and He hath given her to them that
love Him(7),' and this outpouring is a note, not of the Essence of the Very(8)
Wisdom and Only-begotten, but of that wisdom which is imaged in the world, how
is it incredible that the All-framing and true Wisdom Itself, whose impress is
the wisdom and knowledge poured out in the world, should say, as I have
already explained, as if of Itself, 'The Lord created me for His works?' For
the wisdom in the world is not creative, but is that which is created in the
works, according to which 'the heavens declare the glory of God, and the
firmament sheweth His handywork(9).' This if men have within them(10), they
will acknowledge the true Wisdom of God; and will know that they are made
really(11) after God's Image. And, as some son of a king, when the father
wished to build a city(12), might cause his own name to be printed upon each
of the works that were rising, both to give security to them of the works
remaining, by reason of the show of his name on everything, and also to make
them remember him and his father from the name, and having finished the city
might be asked concerning it, how it was made, and then would answer, 'It is
made securely, for according to the will of my father, I am imaged in each
work, for my name was made in the works;' but saying this, he does not signify
that his own essence is created, but the impress of himself by means of his
name; in the same manner, to apply the illustration, to those who admire the
wisdom in the creatures, the true Wisdom makes answer, 'The Lord created me
for the works,' for my impress is in them; and I have thus condescended for
the framing of all things.
80. Moreover, that the Son should be speaking of the impress that is
within us as if it were Himself, should not startle any one, considering (for
we must not shrink from repetition(1)) that, when Saul was persecuting the
Church, in which was His impress and image, He said, as if He were Himself
under persecution, 'Saul, why persecutest thou Me(2)?' Therefore (as has been
said), as, supposing the impress itself of Wisdom which is in the works had
said, 'The Lord created me for the works,' no one would have been startled,
so, if He, the True and Framing Wisdom, the Only-begotten Word of God, should
use what belongs to His image as about Himself, namely, 'The Lord created me
for the works,' let no one, overlooking the wisdom created in the world and
392
in the works, think that 'He created' is said of the Substance of the Very(3)
Wisdom, lest, diluting the wine with water(3a), he be judged a defrauder of
the truth. For It is Creative and Framer; but Its impress is created in the
works, as the copy of the image. And He says, 'Beginning of ways,' since such
wisdom becomes a sort of beginning. and, as it were, rudiments of the
knowledge of God; for a man entering, as it were, upon this way first, and
keeping it in the fear of God (as Solomon says(4), 'The fear of the Lord is
the beginning of wisdom'), then advancing upwards in his thoughts and
perceiving the Framing Wisdom which is in the creation, will perceive in It
also Its Father(5), as the Lord Himself has said, 'He that hath seen Me, hath
seen the Father,' and as John writes, 'He who acknowledgeth the Son, hath the
Father also(6).' And He says, 'Before the world He founded me(7),' since in
Its impress the works remain settled and eternal. Then, lest any, hearing
concerning the wisdom thus created in the works, should think the true Wisdom,
God's Son, to be by nature a creature, He has found it necessary to add,
'Before the mountains, and before the earth, and before the waters, and before
all hills He begets me,' that in saying, 'before every creature' (for He
includes all the creation under these heads), He may shew that He is not
created together with the works according to Essence. For if He was created
'for the works,' yet is before them, it follows that He is in being before He
was created. He is not then a creature by nature and essence, but as He
Himself has added, an Offspring. But in what differs a creature from an
offspring, and how it is distinct by nature, has been shewn in what has gone
before.
81. But since He proceeds to say, 'When He prepared the heaven, I was
present with Him(8),' we ought to know that He says not this as if without
Wisdom the Father prepared the heaven or the clouds above (for there is no
room to doubt that all things are created in Wisdom, and without It was made
not even one(1) thing); but this is what He says, 'All things took place in Me
and through Me, and when there was need that Wisdom should be, created in the
works, in My Essence indeed I was with the Father, but by a condescension(2)
to things originate, I was disposing over the works My own impress, so that
the whole world as being in one body, might not be at variance but in concord
with itself.' All those then who with an upright understanding, according to
the wisdom given unto them, come to contemplate the creatures, are able to say
for themselves, 'By Thy appointment all things continue(3);' but they who make
light of this must be told, 'Professing themselves to be wise, they became
fools;' for 'that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has
revealed it unto them; for the invisible things of Him from the creation of
the world are clearly seen, being perceived by the things that are made, even
His eternal Power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Because that
when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, but served the creature
more than the Creator of all, who is blessed for ever. Amen(4).' And they will
surely be shamed at hearing, 'For, after that in the wisdom of God (in the
mode we have explained above), the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased
God by the foolishness of the preaching to save them that believe(5).' For no
longer, as in the former times, God has willed to be known by an image and
shadow of wisdom, that namely which is in the creatures, but He has made the
true Wisdom Itself to take flesh, and to become man, and to undergo the death
of the cross; that by the faith in Him, henceforth all that believe may obtain
salvation. However, it is the same Wisdom of God, which through Its own Image
in the creatures (whence also It is said to be created), first manifested
Itself, and through Itself Its own Father; and afterwards, being Itself the
Word, has 'become flesh(6),' as John says, and after abolishing death and
saving our race, still more revealed Himself and through Him His own Father,
saying, 'Grant unto them that they may know Thee the only true God, and Jesus
Christ whom Thou hast sent(7).'
82. Hence the whole earth is filled with the knowledge of Him; for the
knowledge of Father through Son and of Son from Father is one and the same,
and the Father delights in Him, and in the same joy the Son rejoices in the
Father, saying, 'I was by Him, daily His delight, rejoicing always before
Him(1).' And this again proves that the Son is not foreign, but proper to the
Father's Essence. For behold, not because of us has He come to be,
393
as the irreligious men say, nor is He out of nothing (for not from without did
God procure for Himself a cause of rejoicing), but the words denote what is
His own and like. When then was it, when the Father rejoiced not? but if He
ever rejoiced, He was ever, in whom He rejoiced. And in whom does the Father
rejoice, except as seeing Himself in His own Image, which is His Word? And
though in sons of men also He had delight, on finishing the world, as it is
written in these same Proverbs(2), yet this too has a consistent sense. For
even thus He had delight, not because joy was added to Him, but again on
seeing the works made after His own Image; so that even this rejoicing of God
is on account of His Image. And how too has the Son delight, except as seeing
Himself in the Father? for this is the same as saying, 'He that hath seen Me,
hath seen the Father,' and 'I am in the Father and the Father in Me(3).' Vain
then is your vaunt as is on all sides shewn, O Christ's enemies, and vainly
did ye parade(4) and circulate everywhere your text, 'The Lord created me a
beginning of His ways,' perverting its sense, and publishing, not Solomon's
meaning, but your own comment(5). For behold your sense is proved to be but a
fantasy; but the passage in the Proverbs, as well as all that is above said,
proves that the Son is not a creature in nature and essence, but the proper
Offspring of the Father, true Wisdom and Word, by whom 'all things were made,'
and 'without Him was made not one thing
DISCOURSE III
CHAPTER XXIII.
TEXTS EXPLAINED; SEVENTHLY,
JOHN xiv. 10.
Introduction. The doctrine of the coinherence. The Father and the Son Each
whole and perfect God. They are in Each Other, because their Essence is One
and the Same. They are Each Perfect and have One Essence, because the Second
Person is the Son of the First. Asterius's evasive explanation of the text
under review; refuted. Since the Son has all that the Father has, He is His
Image; and the Father is the One God, because the Son is in the Father.
1. THE Ario-maniacs, as it appears, having once made up their minds to
transgress and revolt from the Truth, are strenuous in appropriating the words
of Scripture, 'When the impious cometh into a depth of evils, he
despiseth(1);' for refutation does not stop them, nor perplexity abash them;
but, as having 'a whore's forehead,' they 'refuse to be ashamed(2)' before all
men in their irreligion. For whereas the passages which they alleged, 'The
Lord created me(3),' and 'Made better than the Angels(4),' and
'First-born(5),' and 'Faithful to Him that made Him(6)' have a right sense(7),
and inculcate religiousness towards Christ, so it is that these men still, as
if bedewed with the serpent's poison, not seeing what they ought to see, nor
understanding what they read, as if in vomit from the depth of their
irreligious heart, have next proceeded to disparage our Lord's words, 'I in
the Father and the Father in Me(8);' saying, 'How can the One be contained in
the Other and the Other in the One?' or 'How at all can the Father who is the
greater be contained in the Son who is the less?' or 'What wonder, if the Son
is in the Father, considering it is written even of us, 'In Him we live and
move and have our being(9)?' And this state of mind is consistent with their
perverseness, who think God to be material, and understand not what
394
is 'True Father' and 'True Son,' nor 'Light Invisible' and 'Eternal,' and Its
'Radiance Invisible,' nor 'Invisible Subsistence,' and 'Immaterial Expression'
and 'Immaterial Image.' For did they know, they would not dishonour and
ridicule the Lord of glory, nor interpreting things immaterial after a
material manner, pervert good words. It were sufficient indeed, on hearing
only words which are the Lord's, at once to believe, since the faith of
simplicity is better than an elaborate process of persuasion; but since they
have endeavoured to profane even this passage to their own heresy, it becomes
necessary to expose their perverseness and to shew the mind of the truth, at
least for the security of the faithful. For when it is said, 'I in the Father
and the Father in Me,' They are not therefore, as these suppose, discharged
into Each Other, filling the One the Other, as in the case of empty vessels,
so that the Son fills the emptiness of the Father and the Father that of the
Son(10), and Each of Them by Himself is not complete and perfect (for this is
proper to bodies, and therefore the mere assertion of it is full of
irreligion), for the Father is full and perfect, and the Son is the Fulness of
Godhead. Nor again, as God, by coming into the Saints, strengthens them, thus
is He also in the Son. For He is Himself the Father's Power and Wisdom, and by
partaking of Him things originate are sanctified in the Spirit; but the Son
Himself is not Son by participation, but is the Father's own Offspring(11).
Nor again is the Son in the Father, in the sense of the passage, 'In Him we
live and move and have our being;' for, He as being from the Fount(12) of the
Father is the Life, in which all things are both quickened and consist; for
the Life does not live in life(13), else it would not be Life, but rather He
gives life to all things.
2. But now let us see what Asterius the Sophist says, the retained
pleader(1) for the heresy. In imitation then of the Jews so far, he writes as
follows; 'It is very plain that He has said, that He is in the Father and the
Father again in Him, for this reason, that neither the word on which He was
discoursing is, as He says, His own, but the Father's, nor the works belong to
Him, but to the Father who gave Him the power.' Now this, if uttered at random
by a little child, had been excused from his age; but when one who bears the
title of Sophist, and professes universal knowledge(2), is the writer, what a
serious condemnation does he deserve! And does he not shew himself a stranger
to the Apostle(3), as being puffed up with persuasive words of wisdom, and
thinking thereby to succeed in deceiving, not understanding himself what he
says nor whereof he affirms(4)? For what the Son has said as proper and
suitable to a Son only, who is Word and Wisdom and Image of the Father's
Essence, that he levels to all the creatures, and makes common to the Son and
to them; and he says, lawless(5) man, that the Power of the Father receives
power, that from this his irreligion it may follow to say that in a son(6) the
Son was made a son, and the Word received a word's authority; and, far from
granting that He spoke this as a Son, He ranks Him with all things made as
having learned it as they have. For if the Son said, I am in the Father and
the Father in Me,' because His discourses were not His own words but the
Father's, and so of His works, then,--since David says, 'I will hear what the
Lord God shall say in me(7),' and again Solomon(8), 'My words are spoken by
God,' and since Moses was minister of words which were from God, and each of
the Prophets spoke not what was his own but what was from God, 'Thus saith the
Lord,' and since the works of the Saints, as they professed, were not their
own but God's who gave the power, Elijah for instance and Elisha invoking God
that He Himself would raise the dead, and Elisha saying to Naaman, on
cleansing him from the
395
leprosy, 'that thou mayest know that there is a God in Israel(9),' and Samuel
too in the days of the harvest praying to God to grant rain, and the Apostles
saying that not in their own power they did miracles but in the Lord's
grace--it is plain that, according to Asterius such a statement must be common
to all, so that each of them is able to say, 'I in the Father and the Father
in me;' and as a consequence that He is no longer one Son of God and Word and
Wisdom, but, as others, is only one out of many.
3. But if the Lord said this, His words would not rightly have been, 'I in
the Father and the Father in Me,' but rather, 'I too am in the Father, and the
Father is in Me too,' that He may have nothing of His own and by
prerogative(1), relatively to the Father, as a Son, but the same grace in
common with all. But it is not so, as they think; for not understanding that
He is genuine Son from the Father, they belie Him who is such, whom alone it
befits to say, 'I in the Father and the Father in Me.' For the Son is in the
Father, as it is allowed us to know, because the whole Being of the Son is
proper to the Father's essence(2), as radiance from light, and stream from
fountain; so that whoso sees the Son, sees what is proper to the Father, and
knows that the Son's Being, because from the Father, is therefore in the
Father. For the Father is in the Son, since the Son is what is from the Father
and proper to Him, as in the radiance the sun, and in the word the thought,
and in the stream the fountain: for whoso thus contemplates the Son,
contemplates what is proper to the Father's Essence, and knows that the Father
is in the Son. For whereas the Form(3) and Godhead of the Father is the Being
of the Son, it follows that the Son is in the Father and the Father in the
Son(4).
4. On this account and reasonably, having said before, 'I and the Father
are One,' He added, 'I in the Father and the Father in Me,(5)' by way of
shewing the identity(6) of Godhead and the unity of Essence. For they are one,
not(7) as one thing divided into two parts, and these nothing but one, nor as
one thing twice named, so that the Same becomes at one time Father, at another
His own Son, for this Sabellius holding was judged an heretic. But They are
two, because the Father is Father and is not also Son, and the Son is Son and
not also Father(8); but the nature is one; (for the offspring is not unlike(9)
its parent, for it is his image), and all that is the Father's, is the
Son's(10). Wherefore neither is the Son another God, for He was not procured
from without, else were there many, if a godhead be procured foreign from the
Father's(1); for if the Son be other, as an Offspring, still He is the Same as
God; and He and the Father are one in propriety and peculiarity of nature, and
in the identity of the one Godhead, as has been said. For the radiance also is
light, not second to the sun, nor a different light, nor from participation of
it, but a whole and proper offspring of it. And such an offspring is
necessarily one light; and no one would say that they are two lights(2), but
sun and radiance two, yet one the light from the sun enlightening in its
radiance all things. So also the Godhead of the Son is the Father's; whence
also it is indivisible; and thus there is one God and none other but He. And
so, since they are one, and the Godhead itself one, the same things are said
of the Son, which are said of the Father, except His being said to be
Father(3):--for instance(4), that He is God, 'And the Word was God(5);'
Almighty, 'Thus saith He which was and is and is to come, the Almighty(6);'
Lord, 'One Lord Jesus Christ(7);' that He is Light, 'I am the Light(8);' that
He wipes out sins, 'that ye may know,' He says, 'that the Son of man hath
power upon earth to forgive sins(9);' and so with other attributes. For 'all
things,' says the Son Himself, 'whatsoever the Father hath, are Mine(10);' and
again, 'And Mine are Thine.'
5. And on hearing the attributes of the Father spoken of a Son, we shall
thereby see the Father in the Son; and we shall contemplate the Son in the
Father, when what is said of the Son is said of the Father also.
396
And why are the attributes of the Father ascribed to the Son, except that the
Son is an Offspring from Him? and why are the Son's attributes proper to the
Father, except again because the Son is the proper Offspring of His Essence?
And the Son, being the proper Offspring of the Father's Essence, reasonably
says that the Father's attributes are His own also; whence suitably and
consistently with saying, 'I and the Father are One,' He adds, 'that ye may
know that I am in the Father and the Father in Me(1).' Moreover, He has added
this again, 'He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father(2);' and there is one
and the same sense in these three(3) passages. For he who in this sense
understands that the Son and the Father are one, knows that He is in the
Father and the Father in the Son; for the Godhead of the Son is the Father's,
and it is in the Son; and whoso enters into this, is convinced that 'He that
hath seen the Son, hath seen the Father;' for in the Son is contemplated the
Father's Godhead. And we may perceive this at once from the illustration of
the Emperor's image. For in the image is the shape and form of the Emperor,
and in the Emperor is that shape which is in the image. For the likeness of
the Emperor in the image is exact(4); so that a person who looks at the image,
sees in it the Emperor; and he again who sees the Emperor, recognises that it
is he who is in the image(5). And from the likeness not differing, to one who
after the image wished to view the Emperor, the image might say, 'I and the
Emperor are one; for I am in him, and he in me; and what thou seest in me,
that thou beholdest in him, and what thou hast seen in him, that thou holdest
in me(6).' Accordingly he who worships the image, in it worships the Emperor
also; for the image is his forth and appearance. Since then the Son too is the
Father's Image, it must necessarily be understood that the Godhead and
propriety of the Father is the Being of the Son.
6. And this is what is said, 'Who being in the form of God(1),' and 'the
Father in Me.' Nor is this Form(2) of the Godhead partial merely, but the
fulness of the Father's Godhead is the Being of the Son, and the Son is whole
God. Therefore also, being equal to God, He 'thought it not a prize to be
equal to God;' and again since the Godhead and the Form of the Son is none
other's than the Father's(3), this is what He says, 'I in the Father.' Thus
'God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself(4);' for the propriety
of the Father's Essence is that Son, in whom the creation was then reconciled
with God. Thus what things the Son then wrought are the Father's works, for
the Son is the Form of that Godhead of the Father, which wrought the works.
And thus he who looks at the Son, sees the Father; for in the Father's Godhead
is and is contemplated the Son; and the Father's Form which is in Him shews in
Him the Father; and thus the Father is in the Son. And that propriety and
Godhead which is from the Father in the Son, shews the Son in the Father, and
His inseparability from Him; and whoso hears and beholds that what is said of
the Father is also said of the Son, not as 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, will fitly understand the words, as I said before, 'I
in the Father, and the Father in Me;' and 'I and the Father are One(5).' For
the Son is such as the Father is, because He has all that is the Father's.
Wherefore also is He implied together with the Father. For, a son not being,
one cannot say father; whereas when we call God a Maker, we do not of
necessity intimate the things which have come to be; for a maker is before his
works(6).
397
But when we call God Father, at once with the Father we signify the Son's
existence. Therefore also he who believes in the Son, believes also in the
Father: for he believes in what is proper to the Father's Essence; and thus
the faith is one in one God. And he who worships and honours the Son, in the
Son worships and honours the Father; for one is the Godhead; and therefore
one(7) the honour and one the worship which is paid to the Father in and
through the Son. And he who thus worships, worships one God; for there is one
God and none other than He. Accordingly when the Father is called the only
God, and we read that there is one God(8), and 'I am,' and 'beside Me there is
no God,' and 'I the first and I the last(9),' this has a fit meaning. For God
is One and Only and First; but this is not said to the denial of the Son(10),
perish the thought; for He is in that One, and First and Only, as being of
that One and Only and First the Only Word and Wisdom and Radiance. And He too
is the First, as the Fulness of the Godhead of the First and Only, being whole
and full God(11). This then is not said on His account, but to deny that there
is other such as the Father and His Word.
CHAPTER XXIV.
TEXTS EXPLAINED; EIGHTHLY, JOHN xvii. 3.
AND THE LIKE.
Our Lord's divinity cannot interfere with His Father's prerogatives, as the
One God, which were so earnestly upheld by the Son. 'One' is used in contrast
to false gods and idols, not to the Son, through whom the Father spoke. Our
Lord adds His Name to the Father's, as included in Him. The Father the First,
not as if the Son were not First too, but as Origin.
7. Now that this is the sense of the Prophet is clear and manifest to all;
but since the irreligious men, alleging such passages also, dishonour the Lord
and reproach us, saying, 'Behold God is said to be One and Only and First; how
say ye that the Son is God? for if He were God, He had not said, "I Alone,"
nor "God is One(1);"' it is necessary to declare the sense of these phrases in
addition, as far as we can, that all may know from this also that the Arians
are really contending with God(2). If there then is rivalry of the Son towards
the Father, then be such words uttered against Him; and if according to what
is said to David concerning Adonijah and Absalom(3), so also the Father looks
upon the Son, then let Him utter and urge such words against Himself, lest He
the Son, calling Himself God, make any to revolt from the Father. But if he
who knows the Son, on the contrary, knows the Father, the Son Himself
revealing Him to him, and in the Word he shall rather see the Father, as has
been said, and if the Son on coming, glorified not Himself but the Father,
saying to one who came to Him, 'Why callest thou Me good? none is good save
One, that is, God(4);' and to one who asked, what was the great commandment in
the Law, answering, 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is One Lords(5);' and
saying to the multitudes, 'I came down from heaven, not to do My own will, but
the will of Him that sent Me(6);' and teaching the disciples, 'My Father is
greater than I,' and 'He that honoureth Me, honoureth Him that sent Me(7);' if
the Son is such towards His own Father, what is the difficulty(8), that one
must need take such a view of such passages? and on the other hand, if the Son
is the Father's Word, who is so wild, besides these Christ-opposers, as to
think that God has thus spoken, as traducing and denying His own Word? This is
not the mind of Christians; perish the thought; for not with reference to the
Son is it thus written, but for the denial of those falsely called gods,
invented by men.
8. And this account of the meaning of such passages is satisfactory; for
since those who are devoted to gods falsely so called, revolt from the True
God, therefore God, being good and careful for mankind, recalling the
wanderers, says, 'I am Only God,' and 'I Am,' and 'Besides Me there is no
God,' and the like; that He may condemn things which are not, and may convert
all men to Himself. And as, supposing in the daytime when the sun was shining,
a man were rudely to paint a piece of wood, which had not even the appearance
of light, and call that image the cause of light, and if the sun with regard
to it were to say, 'I alone am the light of the clay, and there is no other
light of the day but I,' he would say this, with regard, not to his own
radiance, but to the error arising from the wooden image and the dissimilitude
of that vain representation; so it is with 'I am,' and 'I am Only God,' and
'There is none other besides Me,' viz. that He may make men renounce falsely
called gods, and that they may recognise Him the true God
398
instead. Indeed when God said this, He said it through His own Word, unless
forsooth the modern(9) Jews add this too, that He has not said this through
His Word; but so hath He spoken, though they rave, these followers of the
devil(10). For the Word of the Lord came to the Prophet, and this was what was
heard; nor is there a thing which God says or does, but He says and does it in
the Word. Not then with reference to Him is this said, O Christ's enemies, but
to things foreign to Him and not from(11) Him. For according to the aforesaid
illustration, if the sun had spoken those words, he would have been setting
right the error and have so spoken, not as having his radiance without him,
but in the radiance shewing his own light. Therefore not for the denial of the
Son, nor with reference to Him, are such passages, but to the overthrow of
falsehood. Accordingly God spoke not such words to Adam at the beginning,
though His Word was with Him, by whom all things came to be; for there was no
need, before idols came in; but when men made insurrection against the truth
and named for themselves gods such as they would(12), then it was that need
arose of such words, for the denial of gods that were not. Nay I would add,
that they were said even in anticipation of the folly of these
Christ-opposers(13), that they might know, that whatsoever god they devise
external to the Father's Essence, he is not True God, nor Image and Son of the
Only and First.
9. If then the Father be called the only true God, this is said not to the
denial of Him who said, 'I am the Truths(1),' but of those on the other hand
who by nature are not true, as the Father and His Word are. And hence the Lord
Himself added at once, 'And Jesus Christ whom Thou didst send(2).' Now had He
been a creature, He would not have added this, and ranked Himself with His
Creator (for what fellowship is there between the True and the not true?); but
as it is, by adding Himself to the Father, He has shewn that He is of the
Father's nature; and He has given us to know that of the True Father He is
True Offspring. And John too, as he had learned(3), so he teaches this,
writing in his Epistle, 'And we are in the True, even in His Son Jesus Christ;
This is the True God and eternal life(4).' And when the Prophet says
concerning the creation, 'That stretcheth forth the heavens alone(5),' and
when God says, 'I only stretch out the heavens,' it is made plain to every
one, that in the Only is signified also the Word of the Only, in whom 'all
things were made,' and without whom 'was made not one thing.' Therefore, if
they were made through the Word, and yet He says, 'I Only,' and together with
that Only is understood the Son, through whom the heavens were made, so also
then, if it be said, 'One God,' and "I Only,' and 'I the First,' in that One
and Only and First is understood the Word coexisting, as in the Light the
Radiance. And this can be understood of no other than the Word alone. For all
other things subsisted out of nothing through the Son, and are greatly
different in nature; but the Son Himself is natural and true Offspring from
the Father; and thus the very passage which these insensates have thought fit
to adduce, 'I the First,' in defence of their heresy, doth rather expose their
perverse spirit. For God says, 'I the First and I the Last;' if then, as
though ranked with the things after Him, He is said to be first of them, so
that they come next to Him, then certainly you will have shewn that He Himself
precedes the works in time only(6); which, to go no further, is extreme
irreligion; but if it is in order to prove that He is not from any, nor any
before Him, but that lie is Origin and Cause of all things, and to destroy the
Gentile fables, that He has said 'I the First,' it is plain also, that when
the Son is called First-born, this is done not for the sake of ranking Him
with the creation, but to prove the framing and adoption of all things(7)
through the Son. For as the Father is First, so also is He both First(8), as
399
Image of the First, and because the First is in Him, and also Offspring from
the Father, in whom the whole creation is created and adopted into sonship.
CHAPTER XXV.
TEXTS EXPLAINED; NINTHLY, JOHN x. 30;
xvii. II, &c.
Arian explanation, that the Son is one with the Father in will and judgment;
but so are all good men, nay things inanimate; contrast of the Son. Oneness
between Them is in nature, because oneness in operation. Angels not objects of
prayer, because they do not work together with God, but the Son; texts quoted.
Seeing an Angel, is not seeing God. Arians in fact hold two Gods, and tend to
Gentile polytheism. Arian explanation that the Father and Son are one as we
are one with Christ, is put aside by the Regula Fidei, and shewn invalid by
the usage of Scripture in illustrations; the true force of the comparison;
force of the terms used. Force of 'in us; 'force of 'as; 'confirmed by S.
John. In what sense we are 'in God' and His 'sons.'
10. HOWEVER here too they introduce their private fictions, and contend
that the Son and the Father are not in such wise 'one,' or 'like,' as the
Church preaches, but, as they themselves would have it(1). For they say, since
what the Father wills, the Son wills also, and is not contrary either in what
He thinks or in what He judges, but is in all respects concordant(2) with Him,
declaring doctrines which are the same, and a word consistent and united with
the Father's teaching, therefore it is that He and the Father are One; and
some of them have dared to write as well as say this(3). Now what can be more
unseemly or irrational than this? for if therefore the Son and the Father are
One and if in this way the Word is like the Father it follows forthwith(4)
that the Angels(5) too, and the other beings above us, Powers and Authorities,
and Thrones and Dominions, and what we see, Sun and Moon, and the Stars,
should be sons also, as the Son; and that it should be said of them too, that
they and the Father are one, and that each is God's Image and Word. For what
God wills, that will they; and neither in judging nor in doctrine are they
discordant, but in all things are obedient to their Maker. For they would not
have remained in their own glory, unless, what the Father willed, that they
had willed also. He, for instance, who did not remain, but went astray, heard
the words, 'How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the
morning(6)?' But if this be so, how is only He Only-begotten Son and Word and
Wisdom? or how, whereas so many are like the Father. is He only an Image? for
among men too will be found many like the Father, numbers, for instance, of
martyrs, and before them the Apostles and Prophets, and again before them the
Patriarchs. And many now too keep the Saviour's command, being merciful 'as
their Father which is in heaven(7),' and observing the exhortation, 'Be ye
therefore followers of God as dear children, and walk in love, as Christ also
hath loved us(8);' many too have become followers of Paul as he also of
Christ(8a). And yet no one of these is Word or Wisdom or Only-begotten Son or
Image; nor did any one of them make bold to say, 'I and the Father are One,'
or, 'I in the Father, and the Father in Me(9);' but it is said of all of them,
'Who is like unto Thee among the gods, O Lord? and who shall be likened to the
Lord among the sons of Gods(10)?' and of Him on the contrary that He only is
Image true and natural of the Father. For though we have been made after the
Image(11), and called both image and glory of God, yet not on our own account
still, but for that Image and true Glory of God inhabiting us, which is His
Word, who was for us afterwards made flesh, have we this grace of our
designation.
11. This their notion then being evidently unseemly and irrational as well
as the rest, the likeness and the oneness must be referred to the very Essence
of the Son; for unless it be so taken, He will not be shown to have anything
beyond things originate, as has been said, nor will He be like the Father, but
He will be like the Father's doctrines; and He differs from the Father, in
that the Father is Father(1), but the
400
doctrines and teaching are the Father's. If then in respect to the doctrines
and the teaching the Son is like the Father, then the Father according to them
will be Father in name only, and the Son will not be an exact Image, or rather
will be seen to have no propriety at all or likeness of the Father; for what
likeness or propriety has he who is so utterly different from the Father? for
Paul taught like the Saviour, yet was not like Him in essence(2).' Having then
such notions, they speak falsely; whereas the Son and the Father are one in
such wise as has been said, and in such wise is the Son like the Father
Himself and from Him, as we may see and understand son to be towards father,
and as we may see the radiance towards the sun. Such then being the Son,
therefore when the Son works, the Father is the Worker(3), and the Son coming
to the Saints, the Father is He who cometh in the Son(4), as He promised when
He said, 'I and My Father will come, and will make Our abode with hire(5);'
for in the Image is contemplated the Father, and in the Radiance is the Light.
Therefore also, as we said just now, when the Father gives grace and peace,
the Son also gives it, as Paul signifies in every Epistle, writing, 'Grace to
you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.' For one and the
same grace is from the Father in the Son, as the light of the sun and of the
radiance is one, and as the sun's illumination is effected through the
radiance; and so too when he prays for the Thessalonians, in saying,' Now God
Himself even our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ, may He direct our way unto
you(6),' he has guarded the unity of the Father and of the Son. For he has not
said, 'May they direct,' as if a double grace were given from two Sources,
This and That, but 'May He direct,' to shew that the Father gives it through
the Son;--at which these irreligious ones will not blush, though they well
might.
12. For if there were no unity, nor the Word the own Offspring of the
Father's Essence, as the radiance of the light, but the Son were divided in
nature from the Father, it were sufficient that the Father alone should give,
since none of originate things is a partner with his Maker in His givings;
but, as it is, such a mode of giving shews the oneness of the Father and the
Son. No one, for instance, would pray to receive from God and the Angels(1),
or from any other creature, nor would any one say,
'May God and the Angel give thee; 'but from Father and the Son, because of
Their oneness and the oneness of Their giving. For through the Son is given
what is given; and there is nothing but the Father operates it through the
Son; for thus is grace secure to him who receives it. And if the Patriarch
Jacob, blessing his grandchildren Ephraim and Manasses, said, 'God which fed
me all my life long unto this day, the Angel which delivered me from all evil,
bless the lads(2),' yet none of created and natural Angels did he join to God
their Creator, nor rejecting God that fed him, did he from Angel ask the
blessing on his grandsons; but in saying, Who delivered me from all evil,' he
shewed that it was no created Angel, but the Word of God, whom he joined to
the Father in his prayer, through whom, whomsoever He will, God doth deliver.
For knowing that He is also called the Father's 'Angel of great Counsel(3),'
he said that none other than He was the Giver of blessing, and Deliverer from
evil Nor was it that he desired a blessing for himself from God but for his
grandchildren from the Angel, but whom He Himself had besought saying, 'I will
not let Thee go except Thou bless me(4)' (for that was God, as he says
himself, 'I have seen God face to face'), Him he prayed to bless also the sons
of Joseph. It is proper then to an Angel to minister at the command of God,
and often does he go forth to cast out the Amorite, and is sent to guard the
people in the way; but these are not his doings, but of God who commanded and
sent him, whose also it is to deliver, whom He will deliver. There-
401
fore it was no other than the Lord God Himself whom he had seen, who said to
him, 'And behold I am with thee, to guard thee in all the way whither thou[5]
goest;' and it was no other than God whom lie had seen, who kept Laban from
his treachery, ordering him not to speak evil words to Jacob; and none other
than God did he himself beseech, saying, 'Rescue me from the hand of my
brother Esau, for I fear him[6];' for in conversation too with his wives he
said, 'God hath not suffered Laban to injure me.'
13. Therefore it was none other than God Himself that David too besought
concerning his deliverance, 'When I was in trouble, I called upon the Lord,
and He heard me; deliver my soul, 0 Lord, from lying lips and from a deceitful
tongue[1].' To Him also giving thanks he spoke the words of the Song in the
seventeenth Psalm, in the day in which the Lord delivered him from the hand of
all his enemies and from the hand of Saul, saying, 'I will love Thee, O Lord
my strength; the Lord is my strong rock and my defence and deliverer[2].' And
Paul, after enduring many persecutions, to none other than God gave thanks,
saying, 'Out of them all the Lord delivered me; and He will deliver in Whom we
trust[3].' And none other than God blessed Abraham and Isaac; and Isaac
praying for Jacob, said, 'May God bless thee and increase thee and multiply
thee, and thou shall be for many companies of nations, and may He give thee
the blessing of Abraham my father[4].' But if it belong to none other than God
to bless and to deliver, and none other was the deliverer of Jacob than the
Lord Himself and Him that delivered him the Patriarch besought for his
grandsons, evidently none other did he join to God in his prayer, than God's
Word, whom therefore he called Angel, because it is He alone who reveals the
Father. Which the Apostle also did when he said, 'Grace unto you and peace
from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ[4a].' For thus the blessing was
secure, because of the Son's indivisibility from the Father, and for that the
grace given by Them is one and the same. For though the Father gives it,
through the Son is the gift; and though the Son be said to vouchsafe it, it is
the Father who supplies it through and in the Son; for 'I thank my God,' says
the Apostle writing to the Corinthians, 'always on your behalf, for the grace
of God which is given yon in Christ Jesus[5].' And this one may see in the
instance of light and radiance; for what the light enlightens, that the
radiance irradiates; and what the radiance irradiates, from the light is its
enlightenment. So also when the Son is beheld, so is the Father, for lie is
the Father's radiance; and thus the Father and the Son are one.
14. But this is not so with things originate and creatures; for when the
Father works, it is not that any Angel works, or any other creature; for none
of these is an efficient cause[1], but they are of things which come to be;
and moreover being separate and divided from the only God, and other in
nature, and being works, they can neither work what God works, nor, as I said
before, when God gives grace, can they give grace with Him. Nor, on seeing an
Angel would a man say that he had seen the Father; for Angels, as it is
written, are 'ministering spirits sent forth to minister[2],' and are heralds
of gifts given by Him through the Word to those who receive them. And the
Angel on his appearance, himself confesses that he has been sent by his Lord;
as Gabriel confessed in the case of Zacharias, and also in the case of Mary,
bearer of God[3]. And he who beholds a vision of Angels, knows that he has
seen the Angel and not God. For Zacharias saw an Angel; and Isaiah saw the
Lord. Manoah, the father of Samson, saw an Angel; but Moses beheld God. Gideon
saw an Angel, but to Abraham appeared God. And neither he who saw God, beheld
an Angel, nor he who saw an Angel, considered that he saw God; for greatly, or
rather wholly, do things by nature originate differ from God the Creator. But
if at any time, when the Angel was seen, he who saw it heard God's voice, as
took place at the bush; for 'the Angel of the Lord was seen in a flame of fire
out of the bush, and the Lord called Moses out of the bush, saying, I am the
God of thy father, the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of
Jacob[4],' yet was not
402
the Angel the God of Abraham, but in the Angel God spoke. And what was seen
was an Angel; but God spoke in him[5]. For as He spoke to Moses in the pillar
of a cloud in the tabernacle, so also God appears and speaks in Angels. So
again to the son of Nun He spake by an Angel. But what God speaks, it is very
plain He speaks through the Word, and not through another. And the Word, as
being not separate from the Father, nor unlike and foreign to the Father's
Essence, what He works, those are the Father's works, and His framing of all
things is one with His; and what the Son gives, that is the Father's gift. And
he who hath seen the Son, knows that, in seeing Him, he has seen, not Angel,
nor one merely greater than Angels, nor in short any creature, but the Father
Himself. And he who hears the Word, knows that he hears the Father; as he who
is irradiated by the radiance, knows that he is enlightened by the sun.
15. For divine Scripture wishing us thus to understand the matter, has
given such illustrations, as we have said above, from which we are able both
to press the traitorous Jews, and to refute the allegation of Gentiles who
maintain and think, on account of the Trinity, that we profess many gods[6].
For, as the illustration shows, we do not introduce three Origins or three
Fathers, as the followers of Marcion and Manich'us; since we have not
suggested the image of three suns, but sun and radiance. And one is the light
from the sun in the radiance; and so we know of but one origin; and the
All-framing Word we profess to have no other manner of godhead, than that of
the Only God, because He is born from Him. Rather then will the Ario-maniacs
with reason incur the charge of polytheism or else of atheism[7], because they
idly talk of the Son as external and a creature, and again the Spirit as from
nothing. For either they will say that the Word is not God; or saying that He
is God[8], because it is so written, but not proper to the Father's Essence,
they will introduce many because of their difference of kind (unless forsooth
they shall dare to say that by participation only, He, as all things else, is
called God; though, if this be their sentiment, their irreligion is the same,
since they consider the Word as one among all things). But let this never
even come into our mind. For there is but one form[9] of Godhead, which is
also in the Word; and one God, the Father, existing by Himself according as
He is above all, and appearing in the Son according as He pervades all things,
and in the Spirit according as in Him He acts in all things through the
Word[10]. For thus we confess God to be one through the Triad, and we say that
it is much more religious than the godhead of the heretics with its many
kinds[11],, and many parts, to entertain a belief of the One Godhead in a
Triad.
16. For if it be not so, but the Word is a creature and a work out of
nothing, either He is not True God because He is Himself one of the creatures,
or if they name Him God from regard for the Scriptures, they must of necessity
say that there are two Gods[1], one Creator, the other creature, and must
serve two Lords, one Unoriginate, and the other originate and a creature; and
must have two faiths, one in the True God, and the other in one who is made
and fashioned by themselves and called God. And it follows of necessity in so
great blindness, that, when they worship the Unoriginate, they renounce the
originate, and when they come to the creature, they turn from the Creator. For
they cannot see the One in the Other, because their natures and operations are
foreign and distinct[2]. And with such sentiments, they will certainly be
going on to more gods, for this will be the essay[3] of those who revolt from
the One God. Wherefore then, when the Arians have these speculations and
views, do they not rank themselves with the Gentiles? for they too, as these,
worship the creature rather than God the Creator of all[4], and though they
shrink from the Gentile name, in order to deceive the unskilful, yet they
secretly hold a like sentiment with them. For their subtle saying which they
are accustomed to urge, We say not two Unoriginates[5],' they plainly say to
deceive the simple; for in their very professing 'We say not two
Unoriginates,' they imply two Gods, and these with different natures, one
originate and one Unoriginate. And though the Greeks worship one Unoriginate
and many originate, but these one Unoriginate and one originate, this is no
differ-
403
ence from them; for the God whom they call originate is one out of many, and
again the many gods of the Greeks have the same nature with this one, for both
he and they are creatures. Unhappy are they, and the more for that their hurt
is from thinking against Christ; for they have fallen from the truth, and are
greater traitors than the Jews in denying the Christ, and they wallow[6] with
the Gentiles, hateful[7] as they are to God, worshipping the creature and many
deities. For there is One God, and not many, and One is His Word, and not
many; for the Word is God, and He alone has the Form[8] of the Father. Being
then such, the Saviour Himself troubled the Jews with these words, 'The Father
Himself which hath sent Me, hath borne witness of Me; ye have neither heard
His voice at any time nor seen His Form; and ye have not His Word abiding in
you; for whom He hath sent, Him ye believe not[9].' Suitably has He joined the
'Word' to the 'Form,' to shew that the Word of God is Himself Image and
Expression and Form of His Father; and that the Jews who did not receive Him
who spoke to them, thereby did not receive the Word, which is the Form of God.
This too it was that the Patriarch Jacob having seen, received a blessing from
Him and the name of Israel instead of Jacob, as divine Scripture witnesses,
saying, 'And as he passed by the Form of God, the Sun rose upon him[10].' And
This it was who said, 'He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father,' and, 'I in
the Father and the Father in Me,' and, 'I and the Father are one[11];' for
thus God is One, and one the faith in the Father and Son; for, though the Word
be God, the Lord our God is one Lord; for the Son is proper to that One, and
inseparable according to the propriety and peculiarity of His Essence.
17. The Arians, however, not even thus abashed, reply, 'Not as you say,
but as we will[1];' for, whereas you have overthrown our former expedients, we
have invented a new one, and it is this:--So are the Son and the Father One,
and so is the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father, as we too may
become one in Him. For this is written in the Gospel according to John, and
Christ desired it for us in these words, 'Holy Father, keep through Thine own
Name, those whom Thou hast given Me, that they may be one, as We are[2].' And
shortly after; 'Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall
believe on Me through their Word; that they all may be one, as Thou, Father,
art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us, that the world may
believe that Thou hast sent Me. And the glory which Thou gavest Me I have
given them, that they may be one, even as We are one; I in them, and Thou in
Me, that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that
Thou didst send Me[3].' Then, as having found an evasion, these men of
craft[4] add, 'If, as we become one in the Father, so also He and the Father
are one, and thus He too is in the Father, how pretend you from His saying, "I
and the Father are One," and "I in the Father and the Father in Me," that He
is proper and like[5] the Father's Essence? for it follows either that we too
are proper to the Father's Essence, or He foreign to it, as we are foreign.'
Thus they idly babble; but in this their perverseness I see nothing but
unreasoning audacity and recklessness from the devil[6], since it is saying
after his pattern, 'We will ascend to heaven, we will be like the Most High.'
For what is given to man by grace, this they would make equal to the Godhead
of the Giver. Thus hearing that men are called sons, they thought themselves
equal to the True Son by nature such[7]. And now again bearing from the
Saviour, 'that they may be one as We are[8],' they deceive themselves, and are
arrogant enough to think that they may be such as the Son is in the Father and
the Father in the Son; not considering the fall of their 'father the
devil[9],' which happened upon such an imagination.
18. If then, as we have many times said, the Word of God is the same with
us, and nothing differs from us except in time, let Him be like us, and have
the same place with the
404
Father as we have; nor let Him be called Only-begotten, nor Only Word or
Wisdom of the Father; but let the same name be of common application to all us
who are like Him. For it is right, that they who have one nature, should have
their name in common, though they differ from each other in point of time. For
Adam was a man, and Paul a man, and he who is now born is a man, and time is
not that which alters the nature of the race[1]. If then the Word also differs
from us only in time, then we must be as He. But in truth neither we are Word
or Wisdom, nor is He creature or work; else why are we all sprung from one,
and He the Only Word? but though it be suitable in them thus to speak, in us
at least it is unsuitable to entertain their blasphemies. And yet, needless[2]
though it be to refine upon[3] these passages, considering their so clear and
religious sense, and our own orthodox belief, yet that their irreligion may be
shewn here also, come let us shortly, as we have received from the fathers,
expose their heterodoxy from the passage. It is a custom[4] with divine
Scripture to take the things of nature as images and illustrations for
mankind; and this it does, that from these physical objects the moral impulses
of man may be explained; and thus their conduct shewn to be either bad or
righteous. For instance, in the case of the bad, as when it charges, 'Be ye
not like to horse and mule which have no understanding[5].' Or as when it
says, complaining of those who have become such, 'Man, being in honour, hath
no understanding, but is compared unto the beasts that perish.' And again,
'They were as wanton horses[6].' And the Saviour to expose Herod said, 'Tell
that fox[7];' but, on the other hand, charged His disciples, 'Behold I send
you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves; be ye therefore wise as serpents
and harmless as doves[8].' And He said this, not that we may become in nature
beasts of burden, or become serpents and doves; for He hath not so made us
Himself, and therefore nature does not allow of it; but that we might eschew
the irrational motions of the one, and being aware of the wisdom of that other
animal, might not be deceived by it, and might take on us the meekness of the
dove.
19. Again, taking patterns for man from divine subjects, the Saviour says;
'Be ye merciful, as your Father which is in heaven is merciful[1];' and, 'Be
ye perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect[2].' And He said this too, not
that we might become such as the Father; for to become as the Father, is
impossible for us creatures, who have been brought to be out of nothing; but
as He charged us, 'Be ye not like to horse,' not lest we should become as
draught animals, but that we should not imitate their want of reason, so, not
that we might become as God, did He say, 'Be ye merciful as your Father,' but
that looking at His beneficent acts, what we do well, we might do, not for
men's sake, but for His sake, so that from Him and not from men we may have
the reward. For as, although there be one Son by nature, True and
Only-begotten, we too become sons, not as He in nature and truth, but
according to the grace of Him that calleth, and though we are men from the
earth, are yet called gods[3], not as the True God or His Word, but as has
pleased God who has given us that grace; so also, as God do we become
merciful, not by being made equal to God, nor becoming in nature and truth
benefactors (for it is not our gift to benefit but belongs to God), but in
order that what has accrued to us from God Himself by grace, these things we
may impart to others, without making distinctions, but largely towards all
extending our kind service. For only in this way can we anyhow become
imitators, and in no other, when we minister to others what comes from Him.
And as we put a fair and right[4] sense upon these texts, such again is the
sense of the lection in John. For he does not say, that, as the Son is in the
Father, such we must become:--whence could it be? when He is God's Word and
Wisdom, and we were fashioned out of the earth, and He is by nature and
essence Word and true God (for thus speaks John, 'We know that the Son of God
is come, and He hath given us an understanding to know Him that is true, and
we are in Him that is true, even in His Son Jesus Christ; this is the true God
and eternal life[5]), and we are made sons through Him by adoption and grace,
as partaking of His Spirit (for 'as many as received Him,' he says, 'to them
gave He power to become children of God, even to them that believe on His
Name[6]), and therefore also He is the Truth (saying, 'I am the Truth,' and in
His address to His Father, He said, 'Sanctify them through Thy Truth, Thy Word
is Truth[7]'); but we by imitation[8] become virtuous[9] and sons:--therefore
405
not that we might become such as He, did He say 'that they may be one as We
are;' but that as He, being the Word, is in His own Father, so that we too,
taking an examplar and looking at Him, might become one towards each other in
concord and oneness of spirit, nor be at variance as the Corinthians, but mind
the same thing, as those five thousand in the Acts[10], who were as one.
20. For it is as 'sons,' not as the Son; as 'gods,' not as He Himself; and
not as the Father, but 'merciful as the Father.' And, as has been said, by so
becoming one, as the Father and the Son, we shall be such, not as the Father
is by nature in the Son and the Son in the Father, but according to our own
nature, and as it is possible for us thence to be moulded and to learn how we
ought to be one, just as we learned also to be merciful. For like things are
naturally one with like; thus all flesh is ranked together in kind[1]; but the
Word is unlike us and like the Father. And therefore, while He is in nature
and truth one with His own Father, we, as being of one kind with each other
(for from one were all made, and one is the nature of all men), become one
with each other in good disposition[2], having as our copy the Son's natural
unity with the Father. For as He taught us meekness from Himself, saying,
'Learn of Me for I am meek and lowly in heart[3],' not that we may become
equal to Him, which is impossible, but that looking towards Him, we may remain
meek continually, so also here wishing that our good disposition towards each
other should be true and firm and indissoluble, from Himself taking the
pattern, He says, 'that they may be one as We are,' whose oneness is
indivisible; that is, that they learning from us of that indivisible Nature,
may preserve in like manner agreement one with another. And this imitation of
natural conditions is especially safe for man, as has been said; for, since
they remain and never change, whereas the conduct of men is very changeable,
one may look to what is unchangeable by nature, and avoid what is bad and
remodel himself on what is best.
21. And for this reason also the words, 'that they may be one in Us,' have
a right sense. If, for instance, it were possible for us to become as the Son
in the Father, the words ought to run, 'that they may be one in Thee,' as the
Son is in the Father; but, as it is, He has not said this; but by saying 'in
Us' He has pointed out the distance and difference; that He indeed is alone in
the Father alone, as Only Word and Wisdom; but we in the Son, and through Him
in the Father. And thus speaking, He meant this only, 'By Our unity may they
also be so one with each other, as We are one in nature and truth; for
otherwise they could not be one, except by learning unity in Us.' And that 'in
Us' has this signification, we may learn from Paul, who says, 'These things I
have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos, that ye may learn in us
not to be puffed up above that is written[1].' The words 'in Us' then, are not
'in the Father,' as the Son is in Him; but imply an example and image, instead
of saying, 'Let them learn of Us.' For as Paul to the Corinthians, so is the
oneness of the Son and the Father a pattern and lesson to all, by which they
may learn, looking to that natural unity of the Father and the Son, how they
themselves ought to be one in spirit towards each other. Or if it needs to
account for the phrase otherwise, the words 'in Us' may mean the same as
saying, that in the power of the Father and the Son they may be one, speaking
the same things[2]; for without God this is impossible. And this mode of
speech also we may find in the divine writings, as 'In God will we do great
acts;' and 'In God I shall leap over the walls;' and 'In Thee will we tread
down our enemies[4].' Therefore it is plain, that in the Name of Father and
Son we shall be able, becoming one, to hold firm the bond of charity. For,
dwelling still on the same thought, the Lord says, 'And the glory which Thou
gavest Me, I have given to them, that they may be one as We are one.' Suitably
has He here too said, not, 'that they may be in Thee as I am,' but 'as We
are;' now he who says 'as'[5], signifies not identity, but an image and
example of the matter in hand.
22. The Word then has the real and true identity of nature with the
Father; but to us it is given to imitate it, as has been said; for He
immediately adds,' I in them and Thou in Me; that they may be made perfect in
one.' Here at length the Lord asks something greater and more perfect for us;
for it is plain that the Word has come to be in us[6], for He has put on our
body. 'And Thou Father in Me;' 'for I am Thy Word, and since Thou art in Me,
because I am Thy Word, and I in them because of the body, and because of Thee
the salvation of men is perfected in Me, therefore I ask that they also may
become one, according to the body that is in Me and according to its
perfection; that they too may
406
become perfect, having oneness with It, and having become one in It; that, as
if all were carried by Me, all may be one body and one spirit, and may grow up
unto a perfect man[7].' For we all, partaking of the Same, become one body,
having the one Lord in ourselves. The passage then having this meaning, still
more plainly is refuted the heterodoxy of Christ's enemies. I repeat it; if He
had said simply and absolutely[8] 'that they may be one in Thee,' or 'that
they and I may be one in Thee,' God's enemies had had some plea, though a
shameless one; but in fact He has not spoken simply, but, 'As Thou, Father, in
Me, and I in Thee, that they may be all one.' Moreover, using the word 'as,'
He signifies those who become distantly as He is in the Father; distantly not
in place but in nature; for in place nothing is far from God[9], but in nature
only all things are far from Him. And, as I said before, whose uses the
particle 'as' implies, not identity, nor equality, but a pattern of the matter
in question, viewed in a certain respect[10].
23. Indeed we may learn also from the Saviour Himself, when He says, 'For
as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the
Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth[1].' For
Jonah was not as the Saviour, nor did Jonah go down to hades; nor was the
whale hades; nor did Jonah, when swallowed up, bring up those who had before
been swallowed by the whale, but he alone came forth, when the whale was
bidden. Therefore there is no identity nor equality signified in the term
'as,' but one thing and another; and it shews a certain kind[2] of parallel in
the case of Jonah, on account of the three days. In like manner then we too,
when the Lord says 'as,' neither become as the Son in the Father, nor as the
Father is in the Son. For we become one as the Father and the Son in mind and
agreement[3] of spirit, and the Saviour will be as Jonah in the earth; but as
the Saviour is not Jonah, nor, as he was swallowed up, so did the Saviour
descend into hades, but it is but a parallel, in like manner, if we too become
one, as the Son in the Father, we shall not be as the Son, nor equal to Him;
for He and we are but parallel. For on this account is the word 'as' applied
to us; since things differing from others in nature, become as they, when
viewed in a certain relation[5]. Wherefore the Son Himself, simply and without
any condition is in the Father; for this attribute He has by nature; but for
us, to whom it is not natural, there is needed an image and example, that He
may say of us, ' As Thou in Me, and I in Thee.' 'And when they shall be so
perfected,' He says, 'then the world knows that Thou hast sent Me, for
unless I had come and borne this their body, no one of them had been
perfected, but one and all had remained corruptible[6] Work Thou then in them,
0 Father, and as Thou hast given to Me to bear this, grant to them Thy Spirit,
that they too in It may become one, and may be perfected in Me. For their
perfecting shews that Thy Word has sojourned among them; and the world seeing
them perfect and full of God[7], will believe altogether that Thou hast sent
Me, and I have sojourned here. For whence is this their perfecting, but that
I, Thy Word, having borne their body, and become man, have perfected the work,
which Thou gavest Me, O Father? And the work is perfected, because men,
redeemed from sin, no longer remain dead; but being deified[8], have in each
other, by looking at Me, the bond of charity[9].'
24. We then, by way of giving a rude view of the expressions in this
passage, have been led into many words, but blessed John will shew from his
Epistle the sense of the words, concisely and much more perfectly than we can.
And he will both disprove the interpretation of these irreligious men, and
will teach how we become in God and God in us; and bow again we become One in
Him, and how far the Son differs in nature from us, and will stop the Arians
from any longer thinking that they shall be as the Son, lest they hear it said
to them, 'Thou art a man and not God,' and Stretch not thyself, being poor,
beside a rich man[1].' John then thus writes; 'Hereby know we that we dwell in
Him and He in us, because He hath given us of His Spirit[2].' Therefore
because of the grace of the Spirit which has been given to us, in Him we come
to be, and He in us[3]; and since it is the Spirit of God, therefore through
His becoming in us, reasonably are we, as having the Spirit, considered to be
in God, and thus is God in us. Not then as the Son in the Father, so
407
also we become in the Father; for the Son does not merely partake the Spirit,
that therefore He too may be in the Father; nor does He receive the Spirit,
but rather He supplies It Himself to all; and the Spirit does not unite the
Word to the Father[4], but rather the Spirit receives from the Word. And the
Son is in the Father, as His own Word and Radiance; but we, apart from the
Spirit, are strange and distant from God, and by the participation of the
Spirit we are knit into the Godhead; so that our being in the Father is not
ours, but is the Spirit's which is in us and abides in us, while by the true
confession we preserve it in us, John again saying, 'Whosoever shall confess
that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him and he in Gods[5].' What
then is our likeness and equality), to the Son? rather, are not the Arians
confuted on every side? and especially by John, that the Son is in the Father
in one way, and we become in Him in another, and that neither we shall ever be
as He, nor is the Word as we; except they shall dare, as commonly, so now to
say, that the Son also by participation of the Spirit and by improvement of
conduct[6] came to be Himself also in the Father. But here again is an excess
of irreligion, even in admitting the thought. For He, as has been said, gives
to the Spirit, and whatever the Spirit hath, He hath from[7] the Word.
25. The Saviour, then, saying of us, 'As Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in
Thee, that they too may be one in Us,' does not signify that we were to have
identity with Him; for this was shewn from the instance of Jonah; but it is a
request to the Father, as John has written, that the Spirit should be
vouchsafed through Him to those who believe, through whom we are found to be
in God, and in this respect to be conjoined in Him. For since the Word is in
the Father, and the Spirit is given from[1] the Word, He wills that we should
receive the Spirit, that, when we receive It, thus having the Spirit of the
Word which is in the Father, we too may be found on account of the Spirit to
become One in the Word, and through Him in the Father. And if He say, 'as we,'
this again is only a request that such grace of the Spirit as is given to the
disciples may be without failure or revocation[2]. For what the Word has by
nature[3], as I said, in the Father, that He wishes to be given to us through
the Spirit irrevocably; which the Apostle knowing, said, 'Who shall separate
us from the love of Christ?' for 'the gifts of God' and 'grace of His calling
are without repentance[4].' It is the Spirit then which is in God, and not we
viewed in our own selves; and as we are sons and gods[5] because of the Word
in us[6], so we shall be in the Son and in the Father, and we shall be
accounted to have become one in Son and in Father, because that that Spirit is
in us, which is in the Word which is in the Father. When then a man falls from
the Spirit for any wickedness, if he repent upon his fall, the grace remains
irrevocably to such as are willing[7]; otherwise he who has fallen is no
longer in God (because that Holy Spirit and Paraclete which is in God has
deserted him), but the sinner shall be in him to whom he has subjected
himself, as took place in Saul's instance; for the Spirit of God departed from
him and an evil spirit was afflicting him[8]. God's enemies hearing this ought
to be henceforth abashed, and no longer to feign themselves equal to God. But
they neither understand (for 'the irreligious,' he saith, 'does not understand
knowledge'[9]) nor endure religious words, but find them heavy even to hear.
CHAPTER XXVI.
INTRODUCTORY TO TEXTS FROM THE GOSPELS
ON THE INCARNATION.
Enumeration of texts still to be explained. Arians compared to the Jews. We
must recur to the Regula Fidei. Our Lord did not come into, but became, man,
and therefore had the acts and affections of the flesh. The same works divine
and human. Thus the flesh was purified, and men were made immortal. Reference
to I Pet. iv. I.
26. FOR behold, as if not wearied in their words of irreligion, but
hardened with Pharaoh, while they hear and see the Saviour's human attributes
in the Gospels[1], they have utterly forgotten, like the Samosatene, the Son's
paternal Godhead[2], and with arrogant and audacious tongue they say, 'How can
the Son be from the Father by nature, and be like Him in essence, who says,
'All power is given unto Me;' and 'The Father judgeth no man, but hath
committed all judgment unto the Son;' and 'The Father loveth the Son, and hath
given all things into His hand; he that believeth in the Son hath everlasting
life;' and again, 'All things were delivered unto Me of My Father,
408
and no one knoweth the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will
reveal Him;' and again, 'All that the Father hath given unto Me, shall come to
Me[3].' On this they observe, 'If He was, as ye say, Son by nature, He had no
need to receive, but He had by nature as a Son.' "Or how can He be the natural
and true Power of the Father, who near upon the season of the passion says,
'Now is My soul troubled, and what shall I say? Father, save Me from this
hour; but for this came I unto this hour. Father, glorify Thy Name. Then came
there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify
it again[4].' And He said the same another time; 'Father, if it be possible,
let this cup pass from Me;' and 'When Jesus had thus said, He was troubled in
spirit and testified and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you
shall betray Me[5].'" Then these perverse men argue; 'If He were Power, He had
not feared, but rather He had supplied power to others.' Further they say; 'If
He were by nature the true and own Wisdom of the Father, how is it written,
'And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and
man[6]?' In like manner, when He had come into the parts of C'sarea Philippi,
He asked the disciples whom men said that He was; and when He was at Bethany
He asked where Lazarus lay; and He said besides to His disciples, 'How many
loaves have ye[7]? How then,' say they, 'is He Wisdom, who increased in wisdom
and was ignorant of what He asked of others?' This too they urge; "How can He
be the own Word of the Father, without whom the Father never was, through whom
He makes all things, as ye think, who said upon the Cross 'My God, My God, why
hast Thou forsaken Me?' and before that had prayed, 'Glorify Thy Name,' and,
'O Father, glorify Thou Me with the glory which I had with Thee before the
world was.' And He used to pray in the deserts and charge His disciples to
pray lest they should enter into temptation; and, 'The spirit indeed is
willing,' He said, 'but the flesh is weak.' And, 'Of that day and that hour
knoweth no man, no, nor the Angels, neither the Son[8].'" Upon this again say
the miserable men, "If the Son were, according to your interpretation[9],
eternally existent with God, He had not been ignorant of the Day, but had
known as Word; nor had been forsaken as being coexistent; nor had asked to
receive glory, as having it in the Father; nor would have prayed at all; for,
being the Word, He had needed nothing; but since He is a creature and one of
things originate, therefore He thus spoke, and needed what He had not; for it
is proper to creatures to require and to need what they have not."
27. This then is what the irreligious men allege in their discourses; and
if they thus argue, they might consistently speak yet more daringly; 'Why did
the Word become flesh at all?' and they might add; 'For how could He, being
God, become man?' or, 'How could the Immaterial bear a body?' or they might
speak with Caiaphas still more Judaically, 'Wherefore at all did Christ, being
a man, make Himself God[1]?' for this and the like the Jews then muttered when
they saw, and now the Ariomaniacs disbelieve when they read, and have fallen
away into blasphemies. If then a man should carefully parallel the words of
these and those, he will of a certainty find them both arriving at the same
unbelief, and the daring of their irreligion equal, and their dispute with us
a common one. For the Jews said; 'How, being a man, can He be God?' And the
Arians, 'If He were very God from God, how could He become man?' And the Jews
were offended then and mocked, saying, 'Had He been Son of God, He had not
endured the 'Cross;' and the Arians standing over against them, urge upon us,
'How dare ye say that He is the Word proper to the Father's Essence, who had a
body, so as to endure all this?' Next, while the Jews sought to kill the Lord,
because He said that God was His own Father and made Himself equal to Him, as
working what the Father works, the Arians also, not only have learned to deny,
both that He is equal to God and that God is the own and natural Father of the
Word, but those who hold this they seek to kill. Again, whereas the Jews said,
'Is not this the Son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how then is
it that He saith, Before Abraham was, I am, and I came down from heaven[2]?'
the Arians on the other hand make response[3] and say conformably, 'How can He
be Word or God who slept as man, and wept, and inquired?' Thus both parties
deny the Eternity and Godhead of the Word in consequence of those human
attributes which the Saviour took on Him by reason of that flesh which He
bore.
28. Such error then being Judaic, and Judaic after the mind of Judas the
traitor,
409
let them openly confess themselves scholars of Caiaphas and Herod, instead of
cloking Judaism with the name of Christianity, and let them deny outright, as
we have said before, the Saviour's appearance in the flesh, for this doctrine
is akin to their heresy; or if they fear openly to Judaize and be
circumcised[4], from servility towards Constantius and for their sake whom
they have beguiled, then let them not say what the Jews say; for if they
disown the name, let them in fairness renounce the, doctrine. For we are
Christians, O Arians, Christians we; our privilege is it well to know the
Gospels concerning the Saviour, and neither, with Jews to stone Him, if we
hear of His Godhead and Eternity, nor with you to stumble at such lowly
sayings as He may speak for our sakes as man. If then you would become
Christians[5], put off Arius's madness, and cleanse[6] with the words of
religion those ears of yours which blaspheming has defiled; knowing that, by
ceasing to be Arians, you will cease also from the malevolence of the present
Jews. Then at once will truth shine on you out of darkness, and ye will no
longer reproach us with holding two Eternals[7], but ye will yourselves
acknowledge that the Lord is God's true Son by nature, and not as merely
eternal[8], but revealed as co-existing in the Father's eternity. For there
are things called eternal of which He is Framer; for in the twenty-third Psalm
it is written, 'Lift up your gates, O ye rulers, and be ye lift up, ye
everlasting gates[9];' and it is plain that through Him these things were
made; but if even of things everlasting He is the Framer, who of us shall be
able henceforth to dispute that He is anterior to those things eternal, and in
consequence is proved to be Lord not so much from His eternity, as in that lie
is God's Son; for being the Son, He is inseparable from the Father, and never
was there when He was not, but He was always; and being the Father's Image and
Radiance, He has the Father's eternity. Now what has been briefly said above
may suffice to shew their misunderstanding of the passages they then alleged;
and that of what they now allege from the Gospels they certainly give an
unsound interpretation[10], we may easily see, if we now consider the
scope[11] of that faith which we Christians hold, and using it as a rule,
apply ourselves, as the Apostle teaches, to the reading of inspired Scripture.
For Christ's enemies, being ignorant of this scope, have wandered from the way
of truth, and have stumbled[12] on a stone of stumbling, thinking otherwise
than they should think.
29. Now the scope and character of Holy Scripture, as we have often said,
is this,--it contains a double account of the Saviour; that Fie was ever God,
and is the Son, being the Father's Word and Radiance and Wisdom[1]; and that
afterwards for us He took flesh of a Virgin, Mary Bearer of God[2], and was
made man. And this scope is to be found throughout inspired Scripture, as the
Lord Himself has said, 'Search the Scriptures, for they are they which testify
of Me[3].' But lest I should exceed in writing, by bringing together all the
passages on the subject, let it suffice to mention as a specimen, first John
saying, 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by
Him, and without Him was made not one thing[4];' next, 'And the Word was made
flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of one
Only-begotten from the Fathers[5];' and next Paul writing, 'Who being in the
form of God, thought it not a prize to be equal with God, but emptied Himself,
taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and being
found in fashion like a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death,
even the death of the Cross[6].' Any one, beginning with these passages and
going through the
410
whole of the Scripture upon the interpretation[7] which they suggest, will
perceive how in the beginning the Father said to Him, 'Let there be light,'
and 'Let there be a firmament,' and 'Let us make man[8];' but in fulness of
the ages, He sent Him into the world, not that He might judge the world, but
that the world by Him might be saved, and how it is written 'Behold, the
Virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a Son, and they shall call
his Name Emmanuel, which, being interpreted, is God with us[9].'
30. The reader then of divine Scripture may acquaint himself with these
passages from the ancient books; and from the Gospels on the other hand he
will perceive that the Lord became man; for 'the Word,' he says, 'became
flesh, and dwelt among us[1].' And He became man, and did not come into man;
for this it is necessary to know, lest perchance these irreligious men fall
into this notion also, and beguile any into thinking, that, as in former times
the Word was used to come into each of the Saints, so now He sojourned in a
man, hallowing him also, and manifesting[10] Himself as in the others. For if
it were so, and He only appeared in a man, it were nothing strange, nor had
those who saw Him been startled, saying, Whence is He? and wherefore dost
Thou, being a man, make Thyself God? for they were familiar with the idea,
from the words, 'And the Word of the Lord came' to this or that of the
Prophets[2]. But now, since the Word of God, by whom all things came to be,
endured to become also Son of man, and humbled Himself, taking a servant's
form, therefore to the Jews the Cross of Christ is a scandal, but to us Christ
is 'God's power' and 'God's wisdom[3];' for 'the Word,' as John says, 'became
flesh' (it being the custom[4] of Scripture to call man by the name of
'flesh,' as it says by Joel the Prophet, 'I will pour out My Spirit upon all
flesh;' and as Daniel said to Astyages, 'I do not worship idols made with
hands, but the Living God, who hath created the heaven and the earth, and hath
sovereignty over all flesh[5];' for both he and Joel call mankind flesh).
31. Of old time He was wont to come to the Saints individually, and to
hallow those who rightly[6] received Him; but neither, when they were begotten
was it said that He had become man, nor, when they suffered, was it said that
He Himself suffered. But when He came among us from Mary once at the end of
the ages for the abolition of sin (for so it was pleasing to the Father, to
send His own Son made of a woman, made under the Law'), then it is said, that
He took flesh and became man, and in that flesh He suffered for us (as Peter
says, 'Christ therefore having suffered for us in the flesh[7], that it might
be shewn, and that all might believe, that whereas He was ever God, and
hallowed those to whom He came, and ordered all things according to the
Father's will[8], afterwards for our sakes He became man, and 'bodily[9],' as
the Apostle says, the Godhead dwelt in the flesh; as much as to say, 'Being
God, He had His own body, and using this as an instrument[10], He became man
for our sakes.' And on account of this, the properties of the flesh are said
to be His, since He was in it, such as to hunger, to thirst, to suffer, to
weary, and the like, of which the flesh is capable; while on the other hand
the works proper to the Word Himself, such as to raise the dead, to restore
sight to the blind, and to cure the woman with an issue of blood, He did
through His own body[11]. And the Word bore the infirmities of the flesh, as
His own, for His was the flesh; and the flesh ministered to the works of the
Godhead, because the Godhead was in it, for the body was God's[12]. And well
has
411
the Prophet said 'carried[13];' and has not said, 'He remedied our
infirmities,' lest, as being external to the body, and only healing it, as He
has always done, He should leave men subject still to death; but He carries
our infirmities, and He Himself bears our sins, that it might be shewn that He
has become man for us, and that the body which in Him bore them, was His own
body; and, while He received no hurt[14] Himself by 'bearing our sins in His
body on the tree,' as Peter speaks, we men were redeemed from our own
affections[15], and were filled with the righteousness[16] of the Word.
32. Whence it was that, when the flesh suffered, the Word was not external
to it; and therefore is the passion said to be His: and when He did divinely
His Father's works, the flesh was not external to Him, but in the body itself
did the Lord do them. Hence, when made man, He said[1],' If I do not the works
of the Father, believe Me not; but if I do, though ye believe not Me, believe
the works, that ye may know that the Father is in He and I in Him.' And thus
when there was need to raise Peter's wife's mother, who was sick of a fever,
He stretched forth His hand humanly, but He stopped the illness divinely. And
in the case of the man blind from the birth, human was the spittle which He
gave forth from the flesh, but divinely did He open the eyes through the clay.
And in the case of Lazarus, He gave forth a human voice as man; but divinely,
as God, did He raise Lazarus from the dead[2]. These things were so done, were
so manifested, because He had a body, not in appearance, but in truth[3]; and
it became the Lord, in putting on human flesh, to put it on whole with the
affections proper to it; that, as we say that the body was His own, so also we
may say that the affections of the body were proper to Him alone, though they
did not touch Him according to His Godhead. If then the body had been
another's, to him too had been the affections attributed; but if the flesh is
the Word's (for 'the Word became flesh'), of necessity then the affections
also of the flesh are ascribed to Him, whose the flesh is. And to whom the
affections are ascribed, such namely as to be condemned, to be scourged, to
thirst, and the cross, and death, and the other infirmities of the body, of
Him too is the triumph and the grace. For this cause then, consistently and
fittingly such affections are ascribed not to another[4], but to the Lord;
that the grace also may be from Him[5], and that we may become, not
worshippers of any other, but truly devout towards God, because we invoke no
originate thing, no ordinary[6] man, but the natural and true Son from God,
who has become man, yet is not the less Lord and God and Saviour.
33. Who will not admire this? or who will not agree that such a thing is
truly divine? for if the works of the Word's Godhead had not taken place
through the body, man had not been deified; and again, had not the properties
of the flesh been ascribed to the Word, man had not been thoroughly delivered
from them[1]; but though they had ceased for a little while, as I said before,
still sin had remained in him and corruption, as was the case with mankind
before Him; and for this reason:--Many for instance have been made holy and
dean from all sin; nay, Jeremiah was hallowed[2] even from the womb, and John,
while yet in the womb, leapt for joy at the voice of Mary Bearer of God[3];
nevertheless 'death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those that had not
sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression[4];' and thus man remained
mortal and corruptible as before, liable to the affections proper to their
nature. But now the Word having become man and having appropriated[5] what
412
pertains to the flesh, no longer do these things touch the body, because of
the Word who has come in it, but they are destroyed[6] by Him, and henceforth
men no longer remain sinners and dead according to their proper affections,
but having risen according to the Word's power, they abide[7] ever immortal
and incorruptible. Whence also, whereas the flesh is born of Mary Bearer of
God[8], He Himself is said to have been born, who furnishes to others an
origin of being; in order that He may transfer our origin into Himself, and we
may no longer, as mere earth, return to earth, but as being knit into the Word
from heaven, may be carded to heaven by Him. Therefore in like manner not
without reason has He transferred to Himself the other affections of the body
also; that we, no longer as being men, but as proper to the Word, may have
share in eternal life. For no longer according to our former origin in Adam do
we die; but henceforward our origin and all infirmity of flesh being
transferred to the Word, we rise from the earth, the curse from sin being
removed, because of Him who is in us[9], and who has become a curse for us.
And with reason; for as we are all from earth and die in Adam, so being
regenerated from above of water and Spirit, in the Christ we are all
quickened; the flesh being no longer earthly, but being henceforth made
Word[10], by reason of God's Word who for our sake 'became flesh.'
34. And that one may attain to a more exact knowledge of the impassibility
of the Word's nature and of the infirmities ascribed to Him because of the
flesh, it will be well to listen to the blessed Peter; for he will be a
trustworthy witness concerning the Saviour. He writes then in his Epistle
thus; 'Christ then having suffered for us in the flesh[1].' Therefore also
when He is said to hunger and thirst and to toil and not to know, and to
sleep, and to weep, and to ask, and to flee, and to be born, and to deprecate
the cup, and in a word to undergo all that belongs to the flesh[2], let it be
said, as is congruous, in each case 'Christ then hungering and thirsting "for
us in the flesh;"' and saying He did not know, and being buffeted, and toiling
"for us in the flesh;"' and 'being exalted too, and born, and growing "in the
flesh;"' and 'fearing and hiding "in the flesh;"' and 'saying, "If it be
possible let this cup pass from Me[3]," and being beaten, and receiving, "for
us in the flesh;"' and in a word all such things 'for us in the flesh.' For on
this account has the Apostle himself said, 'Christ then having suffered,' not
in His Godhead, but 'for us in the flesh,' that these affections may be
acknowledged as, not proper to the very Word by nature, but proper by nature
to the very flesh.
Let no one then stumble at what belongs to man, but rather let a man know
that in nature the Word Himself is impassible, and yet because of that flesh
which He put on, these things are ascribed to Him, since they are proper to
the flesh, and the body itself is proper to the Saviour. And while He Himself,
being impassible in nature, remains as He is, not harmed[4] by these
affections, but rather obliterating and destroying them, men, their passions
as if changed and abolished[5] in the Impassible, henceforth become themselves
also impassible and free[6] from them for ever, as John taught, saying, 'And
ye know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him is no
sin[7].' And this being so, no heretic shall object, 'Wherefore rises the
flesh, being by nature mortal? and if it rises, why not hunger too and thirst,
and suffer, and remain mortal? for it came from the earth, and how can its
natural condition pass from it?' since the flesh is able now to make answer to
this so contentious heretic, 'I am from earth, being by nature mortal, but
afterwards I have become the Word's flesh, and He 'carried' my affections,
though He is without them; and so I became free from them, being no more
abandoned to their service because of the Lord who has made me free from them.
For if you object to my being rid of that corruption which is by nature, see
that you object not to God's Word having taken my form
413
of servitude; for as the Lord, putting on the body, became man, so we men are
deified by the Word as being taken to Him through His flesh, and henceforward
inherit life everlasting.'
35. These points we have found it necessary first to examine, that, when
we see Him doing or saying aught divinely through the instrument[1] of His own
body, we may know that He so works, being God, and also, if we see Him
speaking or suffering humanly, we may not be ignorant that He bore flesh and
became man, and hence He so acts and so speaks. For if we recognise what is
proper to each, and see and understand that both these things and those are
done by One[2], we are fight in our faith, and shall never stray. But if a man
looking at what is done divinely by the Word, deny the body, or looking at
what is proper to the body, deny the Word's presence in the flesh, or from
what is human entertain low thoughts concerning the Word, such a one, as a
Jewish vintner[3], mixing water with the wine, shall account the Cross an
offence, or as a Gentile, will deem the preaching folly. This then is what
happens to God's enemies the Arians; for looking at what is human in the
Saviour, they have judged Him a creature. Therefore they ought, looking also
at the divine works of the Word, to deny[4] the origination of His body, and
henceforth to rank themselves with Manichees[5]. But for them, learn they,
however tardily, that 'the Word became flesh;' and let us, retaining the
general scope[6] of the faith, acknowledge that what they interpret ill, has a
right interpretation[7].
CHAPTER XXVII.
Texts Explained; Tenthly, Matthew
xi. 27: John iii. 35, &c.
These texts intended to preclude the Sabellian notion of the Son; they fall in
with the Catholic doctrine concerning the Son; they are explained by 'so' in
John v. 26. (Anticipation of the next chapter.) Again they are used with
reference to our Lord's human nature; for our sake, that we might receive and
not lose, as receiving in Him. And consistently with other parts of Scripture,
which shew that He had the power, &c., before He received it. He was God and
man, and His actions are often at once divine and human.
35 (continued). For, 'The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things
into His hand;' and, 'All things were given unto Me of My Father;' and, 'I can
do nothing of Myself, but as I hear, I judge[8];' and the like passages do not
shew that the Son once had not these prerogatives--(for had not He eternally
what the Father has, who is the Only Word and Wisdom of the Father in essence,
who also says, 'All that the Father hath are Mine[1],' and what are Mine, are
the Father's? for if the things of the Father are the Son's and the Father
hath them ever, it is plain that what the Son hath, being the Father's, were
ever in the Son),--not then because once He had them not, did He say this, but
because, whereas the Son hath eternally what He hath, yet He hath them from
the Father.
36. For lest a man, perceiving that the Son has all that the Father hath,
from the exact likeness and identity of that He hath, should wander into the
irreligion of Sabellius, considering Him to be the Father, therefore He has
said 'Was given unto Me,' and 'I received,' and 'Were delivered to Me[2],'
only to shew that He is not the Father, but the Father's Word, and the Eternal
Son, who because of His likeness to the Father, has eternally what He has from
Him, and because He is the Son, has from the Father what He has eternally.
Moreover that 'Was given' and 'Were delivered,' and the like, do not impair[3]
the Godhead of the Son, but rather shew Him to be truly[4] Son, we may learn
from the passages themselves. For if all things are delivered unto Him, first,
He is other than that all which He has received; next, being Heir of all
things, He alone is the Son and proper according to the Essence of the Father.
For if He were one of all, then He were not 'heir of all[5],' but every one
had received according as the Father willed and gave. But now, as receiving
all things, He is other than them all, and alone proper to the Father.
Moreover that 'Was given' and 'Were delivered' do not shew that once He had
them not, we may conclude from a similar passage, and in like manner
concerning them all; for the Saviour Himself says, 'As the Father hath life in
Himself, so hath He given also to the Son to have life in Himself[6].' Now
from the words 'Hath given,' He signifies that He is not the Father; but in
saying 'so,' He shews the Son's natural likeness and propriety towards the
Father. If then once the Father had not, plainly the Son once had not; for as
414
the Father, 'so' also the Son has. But if this is irreligious to say, and
religious on the contrary to say that the Father had ever, is it not unseemly
in them when the Son says that, 'as' the Father has, 'so' also the Son has, to
say that He has not 'so[7],' but otherwise? Rather then is the Word faithful,
and all things which He says that He has received, He has always, yet has from
the Father; and the Father indeed not from any, but the Son from the Father.
For as in the instance of the radiance, if the radiance itself should say,
'All places the light hath given me to enlighten, and I do not enlighten from
myself, but as the light wills,' yet, in saying this, it does not imply that
it once had not, but it means, 'I am proper to the light, and all things of
the light are mine;' so, and much more, must we understand in the instance of
the Son. For the Father, having given all things to the Son, in the Son
still[8] hath all things; and the Son having, still the Father hath them; for
the Son's Godhead is the Father's Godhead, and thus the Father in the Son
exercises His Providence[9] over all things.
37. And while such is the sense of expressions like these, those which
speak humanly concerning the Saviour admit of a religious meaning also. For
with this end have we examined them beforehand, that, if we should hear Him
asking where Lazarus is laid[1], or when He asks on coming into the parts of
C'sarea, 'Whom do men say that I am?' or, 'How many loaves have ye?' and,
'What will ye that I shall do unto you[2]?, we may know, from what has been
already said, the right[3] sense of the passages, and may not stumble as
Christ's enemies the Arians. First then we must put this question to the
irreligious, why they consider Him ignorant? for one who asks, does not for
certain ask from ignorance; but it is possible for one who knows, still to ask
concerning what He knows. Thus John was aware that Christ, when asking, 'How
many loaves have ye?' was not ignorant, for he says, 'And this He said to
prove him, for He Himself knew what He would do[4].' But if He knew what He
was doing, therefore not in ignorance, but with knowledge did He ask. From
this instance we may understand similar ones; that, when the Lord asks, He
does not ask in ignorance, where Lazarus lies, nor again, whom men do say that
He is; but knowing the thing which He was asking, aware what He was about to
do. And thus with ease is their clever point exploded; but if they still
persist[5] on account of His asking, then they must be told that in the
Godhead indeed ignorance is not, but to the flesh ignorance is proper, as has
been said. And that this is really so, observe how the Lord who inquired where
Lazarus lay, Himself said, when He was not on the spot but a great way off,
'Lazarus is dead[6],' and where he was dead; and how that He who is considered
by them as ignorant, is He Himself who foreknew the reasonings of the
disciples, and was aware of what was in the heart of each, and of 'what was in
man,' and, what is greater, alone knows the Father and says, 'I in the Father
and the Father in Me.[7]'
38. Therefore this is plain to every one, that the flesh indeed is
ignorant, but the Word Himself, considered as the Word, knows all things even
before they come to be. For He did not, when He became man, cease to be
God[1]; nor, whereas He is God does He shrink from what is man's; perish the
thought; but rather, being God, He has taken to Him the flesh, and being in
the flesh deifies the flesh. For as He asked questions in it, so also in it
did He raise the dead; and He shewed to all that He who quickens the dead and
recalls the soul, much more discerns the secret of all. And He knew where
Lazarus lay, and yet He asked; for the All-holy Word of God, who endured all
things for our sakes, did this, that so carrying our ignorance, He might
vouchsafe to us the knowledge of His own only and true Father, and of Himself,
sent because of us for the salvation of all, than which no grace could be
greater.
415
When then the Saviour uses the words which they allege in their defence,
'Power is given to Me,' and, 'Glorify Thy Son,' and Peter says, 'Power is
given unto Him,' we understand all these passages in the same sense, that
humanly because of the body He says all this. For though He had no need,
nevertheless He is said to have received what He received humanly, that on the
other hand, inasmuch as the Lord has received, and the grant is lodged with
Him, the grace may remain sure. For while mere man receives, he is liable to
lose again (as was shewn in the case of Adam, for he received and he lost[2]),
but that the grace may be irrevocable, and may be kept sure[3] by men,
therefore He Himself appropriates[4] the gift; and He says that He has
received power, as man, which He ever had as God, and He says, 'Glorify Me,'
who glorifies others, to shew that He hath a flesh which has need of these
things. Wherefore, when the flesh receives, since that which receives is in
Him, and by taking it He hath become man, therefore He is said Himself to have
received.
39. If then (as has many times been said) the Word has not become man,
then ascribe to the Word, as you would have it, to receive, and to need glory,
and to be ignorant; but if He has become man (and He has become), and it is
man's to receive, and to need, and to be ignorant, wherefore do we consider
the Giver as receiver, and the Dispenser to others do we suspect to be in
need, and divide the Word from the Father as imperfect and needy, while we
strip human nature of grace? For if the Word Himself, considered as Word, has
received and been glorified for His own sake, and if He according to His
Godhead is He who is hallowed and has risen again, what hope is there for men?
for they remain as they were, naked, and wretched, and dead, having no
interest in the things given to the Son. Why too did the Word come among us,
and become flesh? if that He might receive these things, which He says that He
has received, He was without them before that, and of necessity will rather
owe thanks Himself to the body[1], because, when He came into it, then He
receives these things from the Father, which He had not before His descent
into the flesh. For on this shewing He seems rather to be Himself promoted
because of the body[2], than the body promoted because of Him. But this notion
is Judaic. But if that He might redeem mankind[3], the Word did come among us;
and that He might hallow and deify them, the Word became flesh (and for this
He did become), who does not see that it follows, that what He says that He
received, when He became flesh, that He mentions, not for His own sake, but
for the flesh? for to it, in which He was speaking, pertained the gifts given
through Him from the Father. But let us see what He asked, and what the things
altogether were which He said that He had received, that in this way also they
may be brought to feeling. He asked then glory, yet He had said, 'All things
were delivered unto Me[4].' And after the resurrection, He says that He has
received all power; but even before that He had said, 'All things were
delivered unto Me,' He was Lord of all, for 'all things were made by Him;' and
'there is One Lord by whom are all things[5].' And when He asked glory, He was
as He is, the Lord of glory; as Paul says, 'If they had known it, they would
not have crucified the Lord of glory[6];' for He had that glory which He asked
when He said, 'the glory which I had with Thee before the world was[7].'
40. Also the power which He said He received after the resurrection, that
He had before He received it, and before the resurrection. For He of Himself
rebuked Satan, saying, 'Get thee behind Me, Satan[1];' and to the disciples He
gave the power against him, when on their return He said, 'I beheld Satan, as
lightning, fall from heaven[2].' And again, that what He said that He had
received, that He possessed before receiving it, appears from His driving away
the demons, and from His un-binding what Satan had bound, as He did in the
case of the daughter of Abraham; and from His remitting sins, saying to the
paralytic, and to the woman who washed His feet, 'Thy sins be forgiven
thee[3];' and from His both raising the dead, and repairing the first nature
of the blind, granting to him to see. And all this He did, not waiting till He
should receive, but being 'possessed of power[4].' From all this it is plain
that what He had as Word, that when He had become man and was risen again, He
says that He received humanly[5]; that for His sake men might henceforward
upon earth have power against demons, as having become partakers of a divine
nature; and in heaven, as being delivered from corruption, might reign
everlastingly. Thus we must acknowledge this once for all, that nothing which
He says that He received, did He receive as not possessing before; for the
Word, as being God, had them always; but in these passages He is said humanly
to have received, that, whereas the flesh received in Him, henceforth from it
the
416
gift might abide[6] surely for us. For what is said by Peter, 'receiving from
God honour and glory, Angels being made subject unto Him[7],' has this
meaning. As He inquired humanly, and raised Lazarus divinely, so 'He received'
is spoken of Him humanly, but the subjection of the Angels marks the Word's
Godhead.
41. Cease then, O abhorred of God[8], and degrade not the Word; nor
detract from His Godhead, which is the Father's[9], as though He needed or
were ignorant; lest ye be casting your own arguments against the Christ, as
the Jews who once stoned Him. For these belong not to the Word, as the Word;
but are proper to men and, as when He spat, and stretched forth the hand, and
called Lazarus, we did not say that the triumphs were human, though they were
done through the body, but were God's, so, on the other hand, though human
things are ascribed to the Saviour in the Gospel, let us, considering the
nature of what is said and that they are foreign to God, not impute them to
the Word's Godhead, but to His manhood. For though 'the Word became flesh,'
yet to the flesh are the affections proper; and though the flesh is possessed
by God in the Word, yet to the Word belong the grace and the power. He did
then the Father's works through the flesh; and as truly contrariwise were the
affections of the flesh displayed in Him; for instance, He inquired and He
raised Lazarus, He chid[10] His Mother, saying, 'My hour is not yet come,' and
then at once He made the water wine. For He was Very God in the flesh, and He
was true flesh in the Word. Therefore from His works He revealed both Himself
as Son of God, and His own Father, and from the affections of the flesh He
shewed that He bore a true body, and that it was His own.
CHAPTER XXVIII.
Texts Explained; Eleventhly, Mark xiii. 32 AND Luke ii. 52.
Arian explanation of the former text is against the Regula Fidei; and against
the context. Our Lord said He was ignorant of the Day, by reason of His human
nature. If the Holy Spirit knows the Day, therefore the Son knows; if the Son
knows the Father, therefore He knows the Day; if He has all that is the
Father's, therefore knowledge of the Day if in the Father, He knows the Day
in the Father; if He created and upholds all things, He knows when they will
cease to be. He knows not as Man, argued from Matt. xxiv. 42. As He asked
about Lazarus's grave, &c., yet knew, so He knows; as S. Paul says, 'whether
in the body I know not,' &c., yet knew, so He knows. He said He knew not for
our profit, that we be not curious (as in Acts i. 7, where on the contrary He
did not say He knew not). As the Almighty asks of Adam and of Cain, yet knew,
so the Son knows[as God]. Again, He advanced in wisdom also as man, else He
made Angels perfect before Himself. He advanced, in that the Godhead was
manifested in Him more fully as time went on.
42. These things being so, come let us now examine into 'But of that day
and that hour knoweth no man, neither the Angels of God, nor the Son[1];' for
being in great ignorance as regards these words, and being stupefied[2] about
them, they think they have in them an important argument for their heresy. But
I, when the heretics allege it and prepare themselves with it, see in them the
giants a again fighting against God. For the Lord of heaven and earth, by whom
all things were made, has to litigate before them about day and hour; and the
Word who knows all things is accused by them of ignorance about a day; and the
Son who knows the Father is said to be ignorant of an hour of a day; now what
can be spoken more contrary to sense, or what madness can be likened to this?
Through the Word all things have been made, times and seasons and night and
day and the whole creation; and is the Framer of all said to be ignorant of
His work? And the very context of the lection shews that the Son of God knows
that hour and that day, though the Arians fall headlong in their ignorance.
For after saying, 'nor-the Son,' He relates to the disciples what precedes the
day, saying, 'This and that shall be, and then the end.' But He who speaks of
what precedes the day, knows certainly the day also, which shall be manifested
subsequently to the things foretold. But if He had not known the hour, He had
not signified the events before it, as not knowing when it should be. And as
any one, who, by way of pointing out a house or city to those who were
ignorant of it, gave an
417
account of what comes before the house or city, and having described all,
said, 'Then immediately comes the city or the house,' would know of course
where the house or the city was (for had he not known, he had not described
what comes before lest from ignorance he should throw his hearers far out of
the way, or in speaking he should unawares go beyond the object), so the Lord
saying what precedes that day and that hour, knows exactly, nor is ignorant,
when the hour and the day are at hand.
43. Now why it was that, though He knew, He did not tell His disciples
plainly at that time, no one may be curious[1] where He has been silent; for
'Who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been His counsellor[2]?' but
why, though He knew, He said, 'no, not the Son knows,' this I think none of
the faithful is ignorant, viz. that He made this as those other declarations
as man by reason of the flesh. For this as before is not the Word's
deficiency[3], but of that human nature[4] whose property it is to be
ignorant. And this again will be weIl seen by honestly examining into the
occasion, when and to whom the Saviour spoke thus. Not then when the heaven
was made by Him, nor when He was with the Father Himself, the Word 'disposing
all things[5],' nor before He became man did He say it, but when 'the Word
became flesh[6].' On this account it is reasonable to ascribe to His manhood
everything which, after He became man, He speaks humanly. For it is proper to
the Word to know what was made, nor be ignorant either of the beginning or of
the end of these (for the works are His), and He knows how many things He
wrought, and the limit of their consistence. And knowing of each the beginning
and the end, He knows surely the general and common end of all. Certainly when
He says in the Gospel concerning Himself in His human character, 'Father, the
hour is come, glorify Thy Son[7],' it is plain that He knows also the hour of
the end of all things, as the Word, though as man He is ignorant of it, for
ignorance is proper to man[8], and especially ignorance of these things.
Moreover this is proper to the Saviour's love of man; for since He was made
man, He is not ashamed, because of the flesh which is ignorant[9], to say 'I
know not,' that He may shew that knowing as God, He is but ignorant according
to the flesh[10]. And therefore He said not, 'no, not the Son of God knows,'
test the Godhead should seem ignorant, but simply, 'no, not the Son,' that the
ignorance might be the Son's as born from among men.
44. On this account, He alludes to the Angels, but He did not go further
and say, 'not the Holy Ghost;' but He was silent, with a double intimation;
first that if the Spirit knew, much more must the Word know, considered as the
Word, from whom the Spirit receives[1]; and next by His silence about the
Spirit, He made it clear, that He said of His human ministry, 'no, not the
Son.' And a proof of it is this; that, when He had spoken humanly[2] 'No, not
the Son knows,'
418
He yet shews that divinely He knew all things. For that Son whom He declares
not to know the day, Him He declares to know the Father; for 'No one,' He
says, 'knoweth the Father save the Son[3].' And all men but the Arians would
join in confessing, that He who knows the Father, much more knows the whole of
the creation; and in that whole, its end. And if already the day and the hour
be determined by the Father, it is plain that through the Son are they
determined, and He knows Himself what through Him has been determined[4], for
there is nothing but has come to be and has been determined through the Son.
Therefore He, being the Framer of the universe, knows of what nature, and of
what magnitude, and with what limits, the Father has willed it to be made; and
in the how much and how far is included its period. And again, if all that is
the Father's, is the Son's (and this He Himself bass said), and it is the
Father's attribute to know the day, it is plain that the Son too knows it,
having this proper to Him from the Father. And again, if the Son be in the
Father and the Father in the Son, and the Father knows the day and the hour,
it is clear that the Son, being in the Father and knowing the things of the
Father, knows Himself also the day and the hour. And if the Son is also the
Father's Very Image, and the Father knows the day and the hour, it is plain
that the Son has this likeness[6] also to the Father of knowing them. And it
is not wonderful if He, through whom all things were made, and in whom the
universe consists, Himself knows what has been brought to be, and when the end
will be of each and of all together; rather is it wonderful that this
audacity, suitable as it is to the madness of the Ariomaniacs, should have
forced us to have recourse to so long a defence. For ranking the Son of God,
the Eternal Word, among things originate, they are not far from venturing to
maintain that the Father Himself is second to the creation; for if He who
knows the Father knows not the day nor the hour, I fear lest the knowledge of
the creation, or rather of the lower portion of it, be greater, as they in
their madness would say, than knowledge concerning the Father.
45. But for them, when they thus blaspheme the Spirit, they must expect no
remission ever of such irreligion, as the Lord has said[1]; but let us, who
love Christ and bear Christ within us, know that the Word, not as ignorant,
considered as Word, has said 'I know not,' for He knows, but as shewing His
manhood[2], in that to be ignorant is proper to man, and that He had put on
flesh that was ignorant[3], being in which, He said according to the flesh, 'I
know not.' And for this reason, after saying, 'No not the Son knows,' and
mentioning the ignorance of the men in Noah's day, immediately He added,
'Watch therefore, for ye know not in what hour your Lord doth come,' and
again, 'In such an hour as ye think not, the Son of man cometh[4].' For I too,
having become as you for you, said 'no, not the Son.' For, had He been
ignorant divinely, He must have said, 'Watch therefore, for I know not,' and,
'In an hour when I think not;' but in fact this hath He not said; but by
saying 'Ye know not' and 'When ye think not,' He has signified that it belongs
to man to be ignorant; for whose sake He too having a flesh like theirs and
having become man, said 'No, not the Son knows,' for He knew not in flesh,
though knowing as Word. And again the
419
example from Noah exposes the shamelessness of Christ's enemies; for there too
He said not, 'I knew not,' but 'They knew not until the flood came(5).' For
men did not know, but He who brought the flood (and it was the Saviour
Himself) knew the day and the hour in which He opened the cataracts of heaven
and broke up the great deep, and said to Noah, 'Come thou and all thy house
into the ark(6).' For were He ignorant, He had not foretold to Noah, 'Yet
seven days and I will bring a flood upon the earth.' But if in describing the
day He makes use of the parallel of Noah's time, and He did know the day of
the flood, therefore He knows also the day of His own coming.
46. Moreover, after narrating the parable of the Virgins, again He shews
more clearly who they are who are ignorant of the day and the hour, saying,
'Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour(1).' He who said
shortly before, 'No one knoweth, no not the Son,' now says not 'I know not,'
but 'ye know not.' In like manner then, when His disciples asked about the
end, suitably said He then, 'no, nor the Son,' according to the flesh because
of the body; that He might shew that, as man, He knows not; for ignorance is
proper to man(2). If however He is the Word, if it is He who is to come, He to
be Judge, He to be the Bridegroom, He knoweth when and in what hour He cometh,
and when He is to say, 'Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead,
and Christ shall give thee light(3).' For as, on becoming man, He hungers and
thirsts and suffers with men, so with men as man He knows not; though
divinely, being in the Father Word and Wisdom, He knows, and there is nothing
which He knows not In like manner also about Lazarus(4) He asks humanly, who
was on His way to raise him, and knew whence He should recall Lazarus's soul;
and it was a greater thing to know where the soul was, than to know where the
body lay; but He asked humanly, that He might raise divinely. So too He asks
of the disciples, on coming into the parts of C'sarea, though knowing even
before Peter made answer. For if the Father revealed to Peter the answer to
the Lord's question, it is plain that through the Son s was the revelation,
for 'No one knoweth the Son,' saith He, 'save the Father, neither the Father
save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him(6).' But if through
the Son is revealed the knowledge both of the Father and the Son, there is no
room for doubting that the Lord who asked, having first revealed it to Peter
from the Father, next asked humanly; in order to shew, that asking after the
flesh, He knew divinely what Peter was about to say. The Son then knew, as
knowing all things, and knowing His own Father, than which knowledge nothing
can be greater or more perfect
47. This is sufficient to confute them; but to shew still further that
they are hostile to the truth and Christ's enemies, I could wish to ask them a
question. The Apostle in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians writes, 'I knew
a man in Christ, above fourteen years ago, whether in the body I do not know,
or whether out of the body I do not know; God knoweth(1).' What now say ye?
Knew the Apostle what had happened to him in the vision, though he says 'I
know not,' or knew he not? If he knew not, see to it, lest, being familiar
with error, ye err in the trespass(2) of the Phrygians(3), who say that the
Prophets and the other ministers of the Word know neither what they do nor
concerning what they announce. But if he knew when he said 'I know not,' for
he had Christ within him revealing to him all things, is not the heart of
God's enemies indeed perverted and 'self-condemned?' for when the Apostle
says, 'I know not,' they say that he knows; but when the Lord says, 'I know
not,' they say that He does not know. For if since Christ was within him, Paul
knew that of which he says, 'I know not,' does not much more Christ Himself
know, though He say, 'I know not?' The Apostle then, the Lord revealing it to
him, knew what happened to him; for on this account he says, 'I knew a man in
Christ;' and knowing the man, he knew also how the man was caught away. Thus
Elisha, who beheld Elijah, knew
420
also how he was taken up; but though knowing, yet when the sons of the
Prophets thought that Elijah was cast upon one of the mountains by the Spirit,
he knowing from the first what he had seen, tried to persuade them; but when
they urged it, he was silent, and suffered them to go after him. Did he then
not know, because he was silent? he knew indeed, but as if not knowing, he
suffered them, that they being convinced, might no more doubt about the taking
up of Elijah. Therefore much more Paul, himself being the person caught away,
knew also how he was caught; for Elijah knew; and had any one asked, he would
have said how. And yet Paul says 'I know not,' for these two reasons, as I
think at least; one, as he has said himself, lest because of the abundance of
the revelations any one should think of him beyond what he saw; the other,
because, our Saviour having said 'I know not,' it became him also to say 'I
know not,' lest the servant should appear above his Lord, and the disciple
above his Master.
48. Therefore He who gave to Paul to know, much rather knew Himself; for
since He spoke of the antecedents of the day, He also knew, as I said before,
when the Day and when the Hour, and yet though knowing, He says, 'No, not the
Son knoweth.' Why then said He at that time 'I know not,' what He as Lord(1),
knew? as we may by searching conjecture, for our profit(2), as I think at
least, did He this; and may He grant to what we are now proposing a true
meaning! On both sides did the Saviour secure our advantage; for He has made
known what comes before the end, that, as He said Himself, we might not be
startled nor scared, when they happen, but from them may expect the end after
them. And concerning the day and the hour He was not willing to say according
to His divine nature, 'I know,' but after the flesh, 'I know not,' for the
sake of the flesh which was ignorant(3), as I have said before; lest they
should ask Him further, and then either He should have to pain the disciples
by not speaking, or by speaking might act to the prejudice of them and us all.
For whatever He does, that altogether He does for our sakes, since also for us
'the Word became flesh.' For us therefore He said 'No, not the Son knoweth;'
and neither was He untrue in thus saying (for He said humanly, as man, 'I know
not'), nor did He suffer the disciples to force Him to speak, for by saying 'I
know not' He stopped their inquiries. And so in the Acts of the Apostles it is
written, when He went upon the Angels, ascending as man, and carrying up to
heaven the flesh which He bore, on the disciples seeing this, and again
asking, 'When shall the end be, and when wilt Thou be present?' He said to
them more clearly, 'It is not for you to know the times or the seasons which
the Father hath put in His own power(4).' And He did not then say, 'No, not
the Son,' as He said before humanly, but, 'It is not for you to know.' For now
the flesh had risen and put off its mortality and been deified; and no longer
did it become Him to answer after the flesh when He was going into the
heavens; but henceforth to teach after a divine manner, 'It is not for you to
know times or seasons which the Father hath put in His own power; but ye shall
receive Power(5).' And what is that Power of the Father but the Son? for
Christ is 'God's Power and God's Wisdom.'
49. The Son then did know, as being the Word; for He implied this in what
He said,--'I know but it is not for you to know for it was for your sakes that
sitting also on the mount I said according to the flesh, 'No, not the Son
knoweth,' for the profit of you and all. For it is profitable to you to hear
so much both of the Angels and of the Son, because of the deceivers which
shall be afterwards; that though demons should be transfigured as Angels, and
should attempt to speak concerning the end, you should not believe, since they
are ignorant; and that, if Antichrist too, disguising himself, should say, 'I
am Christ,' and should try in his turn to speak of that day and end, to
deceive the hearers, ye, having these words from Me, 'No, not the Son,' may
disbelieve him also. And further, not to know when the end is, or when the day
of the end, is expedient for man, lest knowing, they might become negligent of
the time between, awaiting the days near the end; for they will argue that
then only must they attend to themselves(1). Therefore also has He been silent
of the time when each shall die, lest men, being elated on the ground of
knowledge, should forthwith neglect themselves for the greater part of their
time. Both then, the end of all things and the limit of each of us hath the
Word concealed from us (for in the end of all is the end of each, and in the
end of each the end of all is comprehended), that, whereas it is uncertain and
421
always in prospect, we may advance day by day as if summoned, reaching forward
to the things before us and forgetting the things behind(2). For who, knowing
the day of the end, would not be dilatory with the interval? but, if ignorant,
would not be ready day by day? It was on this account that the Saviour added,
'Watch therefore, for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come;' and, 'In
such an hour as ye think not, the Son of man cometh(3).' For the advantage
then which comes of ignorance has He said this; for in saying it, He wishes
that we should always be prepared; 'for you,' He says, 'know not; but I, the
Lord, know when I come, though the Arians do not waft for Me, who am the Word
of the Father.'
50. The Lord then, knowing what is good for us beyond ourselves, thus
secured the disciples; and they, being thus taught, set right those of
Thessalonica(4) when likely on this point to run into error. However, since
Christ's enemies do not yield even to these considerations, I wish, though
knowing that they have a heart harder than Pharaoh, to ask them again
concerning this. In Paradise God asks, 'Adam, where art Thou(5)?' and He
inquires of Cain also, 'Where is Abel thy brother(6)?' What then say you to
this? for if you think Him ignorant and therefore to have asked, you are
already of the party of the Manichees, for this is their bold thought; but if,
fearing the open name, ye force yourselves to say, that He asks knowing, what
is there extravagant or strange in the doctrine, that ye should thus fall, on
finding that the Son, in whom God then inquired, that same Son who now is clad
in flesh, inquires of the disciples as man? unless forsooth, having become
Manichees, you are willing to blame(7) the question then put to Adam and all
that you may give full plays to your perverseness. For being exposed on all
sides, you still make a whispering(9) from the words of Luke, which are
rightly said, but ill understood by you. And what this is, we must state, that
so also their corrupt(10) meaning may be shewn.
51. Now Luke says, 'And Jesus advanced in wisdom and stature, and in grace
with God and man(1).' This then is the passage, and since they stumble in it,
we are compelled to ask them, like the Pharisees and the Sadducees, of the
person concerning whom Luke speaks. And the case stands thus. Is Jesus Christ
man, as all other men, or is He God bearing flesh? If then He is an
ordinary(2) man as the rest, then let Him, as a man, advance; this however is
the sentiment of the Samosatene, which virtually indeed you entertain also,
though in name you deny it because of men. But if He be God bearing flesh, as
He truly is, and 'the Word became flesh,' and being God descended upon earth,
what advance had He who existed equal to God? or how had the Son increase,
being ever in the Father? For if He who was ever in the Father, advanced,
what, I ask, is there beyond the Father from which His advance might be made?
Next it is suitable here to repeat what was said upon the point of His
receiving and being glorified. If He advanced(3) when He became man, it is
plain that, before He became man, He was imperfect; and rather the flesh
Became to Him a cause of perfection, than He to the flesh. And again, if, as
being the Word, He advances, what has He more to become than Word and Wisdom
and Son and God's Power? For the Word is all these, of which if one can anyhow
partake as it were one ray, such a man becomes all perfect among men, and
equal to Angels. For Angels, and Archangels, and Dominions, and all the
Powers, and Thrones, as partaking the Word, behold always the face of His
Father. How then does He who to others supplies perfection, Himself advance
later than they? For Angels even ministered to His human birth, and the
passage from Luke comes later than the ministration of the Angels. How then at
all can it even come into thought of man? or how did Wisdom advance in wisdom?
or how did He who to others gives grace (as Paul says in every Epistle,
knowing that through Him grace is given, 'The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ
be with you all'), how did He advance in grace? for either let them say that
the Apostle is untrue, and presume to say that the Son is not Wisdom, or else
if He is Wisdom as Solomon said, and if Paul wrote, 'Christ God's Power and
God's Wisdom,' of what advance did Wisdom admit further?
52. For men, creatures as they are, are
422
capable in a certain way of reachng forward and advancing in virtue(1). Enoch,
for instance, was thus translated, and Moses increased and was perfected; and
Isaac 'by advancing became great(2);' and the Apostle said that he 'reached
forth(3)' day by day to what was before him. For each had room for advancing,
looking to the step before him. But the Son of God, who is One and Only, what
room had He for reaching forward? for all things advance by looking at Him;
and He, being One and Only, is in the Only Father, from whom again He does not
reach forward, but in Him abideth ever(3a). To men then belongs advance; but
the Son of God, since He could not advance, being perfect in the Father,
humbled Himself for us, that in His humbling we on the other hand might be
able to increase. And our increase is no other than the renouncing things
sensible, and coming to the Word Himself; since His humbling is nothing else
than His taking our flesh. It was not then the Word, considered as the Word,
who advanced; who is perfect from the perfect Father(4), who needs nothing,
nay brings forward others to an advance; but humanly is He here also said to
advance, since advance belongs to man(5). Hence the Evangelist, speaking with
cautious exactness(6), has mentioned stature in the advance; but being Word
and God He is not measured by stature, which belongs to bodies. Of the body
then is the advance; for, it advancing, in it advanced also the
manifestation(7) of the Godhead to those who saw it. And, as the Godhead was
more and more revealed, by so much more did His grace as man increase before
all men. For as a child He was carried to the Temple; and when He became a
boy, He remained there, and questioned the priests about the Law. And by
degrees His body increasing, and the Word manifesting Himself(8) in it, He is
confessed henceforth by Peter first, then also by all, 'Truly this is the Son
of God(9);' however wilfully the Jews, both the ancient and these modern(10),
shut fast their eyes, lest they see that to advance in wisdom is not the
advance of Wisdom Itself, but rather the manhood's advance in It. For 'Jesus
advanced in wisdom and grace;' and, if we may speak what is explanatory as
well as true, He advanced in Himself; for 'Wisdom builded herself an house,'
and in herself she gave the house advancement.
53. (What moreover is this advance that is spoken of, but, as I said
before, the deifying and grace imparted from Wisdom to men, sin being
obliterated in them and their inward corruption, according to their likeness
and relationship to the flesh of the Word?) For thus, the body increasing in
stature, there developed in it the manifestation of the Godhead also, and to
all was it displayed that the body was God's Temple(1), and that God was in
the body. And if they urge, that 'The Word become flesh' is called Jesus, and
refer to Him the term 'advanced,' they must be told that neither does this
impair(2) the Father's Light(3), which is the Son, but that it still shews
that the Word has become man, and bore true flesh. And as we said(4) that He
suffered in the flesh, and hungered in the flesh, and was fatigued in the
flesh, so also reasonably may He be said to have advanced in the flesh; for
neither did the advance, such as we have described it, take place with the
Word external to the flesh, for in Him was the flesh which advanced and His is
it called, and that as before, that man's advance might abide s and fail not,
because of the Word which is with it. Neither then was the advance the Word's,
nor was the flesh Wisdom, but the flesh became the body of Wisdom(6).
Therefore, as we have already said, not Wisdom, as Wisdom, advanced in respect
of Itself; but the manhood advanced in Wisdom, transcending by degrees human
nature, and being deified, and becoming and appearing to all as the organ(7)
of Wisdom for the operation and the shining forth(8) of the Godhead. Wherefore
neither said he, 'The Word advanced,' but Jesus, by which Name the Lord was
called when He became man; so that the advance is of the human nature in such
wise as we explained above.
CHAPTER XXIX.
TEXTS EXPLAINED; TWELFTHLY, MATTHEW xxvi. 39; JOHN xii. 27, &c.
Arian inferences are against the Regula Fidei, as before.
423
He wept and the like, as man. Other texts prove Him God. God could not fear.
He feared because His flesh feared.
54. THEREFORE as, when the flesh advanced, He is said to have advanced,
because the body was His own, so also what is said at the season of His death,
that He was troubled, that He wept, must be taken in the same sense(1). For
they, going up and down(2), as if thereby recommending their heresy anew,
allege; "Behold, 'He wept,' and said, 'Now is My soul troubled,' and He
besought that the cup might pass away; how then, if He so spoke, is He God,
and Word of the Father?" Yea, it is written that He wept, O God's enemies, and
that He said, 'I am troubled,' and on the Cross He said, 'Eloi, Eloi, lama
sabachthani,' that is, 'My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?' and He
besought that the cup might pass away(3). Thus certainly it is written; but
again I would ask you (for the same rejoinder must of necessity be made to
each of your objections 4), If the speaker is mere man, let him weep and fear
death, as being man; but if He is the Word in flesh(5) (for one must not be
reluctant to repeat), whom had He to fear being God? or wherefore should He
fear death, who was Himself Life, and was rescuing others from death? or how,
whereas He said, 'Fear not him that kills the body(6),' should He Himself
fear? And how should He who said to Abraham, 'Fear not, for I am with thee,'
and encouraged Moses against Pharaoh, and said to the son of Nun, 'Be strong,
and of a good courage(7),' Himself feel terror before Herod and Pilate?
Further, He who succours others against fear (for 'the Lord,' says Scripture,
'is on my side, I will not fear what man shall do unto me(8)'), did He fear
governors, mortal men? did He who Himself was come against death, feel terror
of death? Is it not both unseemly and irreligious to say that He was terrified
at death or hades, whom the keepers of the gates of hades(9) saw and
shuddered? But if, as you would hold, the Word was in terror wherefore, when
He spoke long before of the conspiracy of the Jews, did He not flee, nay said
when actually sought, 'I am He?' for He could have avoided death, as He said,
'I have power to lay down My life, and I have power to take it again;' and 'No
one taketh it from Me(10).'
55. But these affections were not proper to the nature of the Word, as far
as He was Word; but in the flesh which was thus affected was the Word, O
Christ's enemies and unthankful Jews! For He said not all this prior to the
flesh; but when the 'Word became flesh,' and has become man, then is it
written that He said this, that is, humanly. Surely He of whom this is written
was He who raised Lazarus from the dead, and made the water wine, and
vouch-safed sight to the man born blind, and said, 'I and My Father are
one(1).' If then they make His human attributes a ground for low thoughts
concerning the Son of God, nay consider Him altogether man from the earth, and
not(2) from heaven, wherefore not from His divine works recognise the Word who
is in the Father, and henceforward renounce their self-willed(3) irreligion?
For they are given to see, how He who did the works is the same as He who
shewed that His body was passible by His permitting(4) it to weep and hunger,
and to shew other properties of a body. For while by means of such He made it
known that, though God impassible, He had taken a passible flesh; yet from the
works He shewed Himself the Word of God, who had afterwards become man,
saying, Though ye believe not Me, beholding Me clad in a human body, yet
believe the works, that ye may know that "I am in the Father, and the Father
in Me(5)" ' And Christ's enemies seem to me to shew plain shamelessness and
blasphemy; for, when they hear 'I and the Father are one(6),' they violently
distort the sense, and separate the unity of the Father and the Son; but
reading of His tears or sweat or sufferings, they do not advert to His body,
but on account of these rank in the creation Him by whom the creation was
made. What then is left for them to differ from the Jews in? for as the Jews
blasphemously ascribed God's works to Beelzebub, so also will these, ranking
with the creatures the Lord who wrought those works, undergo the same
condemnation as theirs without mercy.
56. But they ought, when they hear 'I and the Father are one,' to see in
Him the oneness of the Godhead and the propriety of the Father's Essence; and
again when they hear, 'He wept' and the like, to say that these are proper to
the body; especially since on each side they have an intelligible ground, viz.
that this is written as of God and that with reference
424
to His manhood. For in the incorporeal, the properties of body had not been,
unless He had taken a body corruptible and mortal(1); for mortal was Holy
Mary, from whom was His body. Wherefore of necessity when He was in a body
suffering, and weeping, and toiling, these things which are proper to the
flesh, are ascribed to Him together with the body. If then He wept and was
troubled, it was not the Word, considered as the Word, who wept and was
troubled, but it was proper to the flesh; and if too He besought that the cup
might pass away, it was not the Godhead that was in terror, but this affection
too was proper to the manhood. And that the words 'Why hast Thou forsaken Me?'
are His, according to the foregoing explanations (though He suffered nothing,
for the Word was impossible), is notwithstanding declared by the Evangelists;
since the Lord became man, and these things are done and said as from a man,
that He might Himself lighten(2) these very sufferings of the flesh, and free
it from them(3). Whence neither can the Lord be forsaken by the Father, who is
ever in the Father, both before He spoke, and when He uttered this cry. Nor is
it lawful to say that the Lord was in terror, at whom the keepers of hell's
gates shuddered(4) and set open hell, and the graves did gape, and many bodies
of the saints arose and appeared to their own people(5). Therefore be every
heretic dumb, nor dare to ascribe terror to the Lord whom death, as a serpent,
flees, at whom demons tremble, and the sea is in alarm; for whom the heavens
are rent and all the powers are shaken. For behold when He says, 'Why hast
Thou forsaken Me?' the Father shewed that He was ever and even then in Him;
for the earth knowing its Lord s who spoke, straightway trembled, and the vail
was rent, and the sun was hidden, and the rocks were torn asunder, and the
graves, as I have said, did gape, and the dead in them arose; and, what is
wonderful, they who were then present and had before denied Him, then seeing
these signs, confessed that 'truly He was the Son of God(7).'
57. And as to His saying, 'If it be possible, let the cup pass,' observe
how, though He thus spake, He rebuked(1) Peter, saying, 'Thou savourest not
the things that be of God, but those that be of men.' For He willed(2) what He
deprecated, for therefore had He come; but His was the willing (for for it He
came), but the terror belonged to the flesh. Wherefore as man He utters this
speech also, and yet both were said by the Same, to shew that He was God,
willing in Himself, but when He had become man, having a flesh that was in
terror. For the sake of this flesh He combined His own will with human
weakness(3), that destroying this affection He might in turn make man
undaunted in face of death. hold then a thing strange indeed! He to whom
Christ's enemies impute words of terror, He by that so-called(4) tenor renders
men undaunted and fearless. And so the Blessed Apostles after Him from such
words of His conceived so great a contempt of death, as not even to care for
those who questioned them, but to answer, 'We ought to obey God rather than
men(5).' And the other Holy Martyrs were so bold, as to think that they were
rather passing to life than undergoing death. Is it not extravagant then, to
admire the courage of the servants of the Word, yet to say that the Word
Himself was in terror, through whom they despised death? But from that most
enduring purpose and courage of the Holy Martyrs is shewn, that the Godhead
was not in terror, but the Saviour took away our terror. For as He abolished
death by death, and by human means all human evils, so by this so-called
terror did He remove our terror, and brought about that never more should men
fear death. His word and deed go together. For human were the sayings,
Let the cup pass,' and 'Why hast Thou forsaken Me?' and divine the act
whereby the Same did cause the sun to fail and the dead to rise. Again He said
humanly, 'Now is My soul troubled;' and He said divinely, 'I have power to lay
down My life, and power to take it again(6).' For to be troubled was proper
425
to the flesh, and to have power to lay down His life(7) and take it again,
when He will, was no property of men but of the Word's power. For man dies,
not by his own power, but by necessity of nature and against his will; but the
Lord, being Himself immortal, but having a mortal flesh, had power, as God, to
become separate from the body and to take it again, when He would. Concerning
this too speaks David in the Psalm, 'Thou shalt not leave My soul in hades,
neither shalt Thou suffer Thy Holy One to see corruption(8).' For it beseemed
that the flesh, corruptible as it was, should no longer after its own nature
remain mortal, but because of the Word who had put it on, should abide
incorruptible. For as He, having come in our body, was conformed to our
condition, so we, receiving Him, partake of the immortality that is from Him.
58. Idle then is the excuse for stumbling, and petty the notions
concerning the Word, of these Ario-maniacs, because it is written, 'He was
troubled,' and 'He wept.' For they seem not even to have human feeling, if
they are thus ignorant of man's nature and properties; which do but make it
the greater wonder, that the Word should be in such a suffering flesh, and
neither prevented those who were conspiring against Him, nor took vengeance of
those who were putting Him to death, though He was able, He who hindered some
from dying, and raised others from the dead. And He let His own body suffer,
for therefore did He come, as I said before, that in the flesh He might
suffer, and thenceforth the flesh might be made impassible and immortal(9),
and that, as we have many times said, contumely and other troubles might
determine upon Him and come short of others after Him, being by Him annulled
utterly; and that henceforth men might for ever abide(10) incorruptible, as a
temple of the Word(11). Had Christ's enemies thus dwelt on these thoughts, and
recognised the ecclesiastical scope as an anchor for the faith, they would not
have made shipwreck of the faith, nor been so shameless as to resist those who
would fain recover them from their fall, and to deem those as enemies who are
admonishing them to be religious
CHAPTER XXX.
OBJECTIONS CONTINUED, AS IN CHAPTERS vii.--x.
Whether the Son is begotten of the Father's will? This virtually the same as
whether once He was not? and used by the Arians to introduce the latter
question. The Regula Fidei answers it at once in the negative by contrary
texts. The Arians follow the Valentinians in maintaining a precedent will;
which really is only exercised by God towards creatures. Instances from
Scripture. Inconsistency of Asterius. If the Son by will, there must be
another Word before Him. If God is good, or exist, by His will, then is the
Son by His will. If He willed to have reason or wisdom, then is His Word and
Wisdom at His will. The Son is the Living Will, and has all titles which
denote connaturality. That will which the Father has to the Son, the Son has
to the Father. The Father wills the Son and the Son wills the Father.
58. (continued). BUT(1), as it seems, a heretic is a wicked thing in
truth, and in every respect his heart is depraved(2) and irreligious. For
behold, though convicted on all points, and shewn to be utterly bereft of
understanding, they feel no shame; but as the hydra of Gentile fable, when its
former serpents were destroyed, gave birth to fresh ones, contending against
the slayer of the old by the production of new, so also they, hostile(3) and
hateful to God(4), as hydras(5), losing their life in the objections which
they advance, invent for themselves other questions Judaic and foolish, and
new expedients, as if Truth were their enemy, thereby to shew the rather that
they are Christ's opponents in all things.
59. After so many proofs against them, at which even the devil who is
their father(6) had himself been abashed and gone back, again as from their
perverse heart they mutter forth other expedients, sometimes in whispers,
sometimes with the drone(7) of gnats; 'Be it so,' say they; 'interpret these
places thus, and gain the victory in reasonings and proofs; still you must say
that the Son has received being from the Father at His will and pleasure;' for
thus they deceive many, putting forward the will and the pleasure of God. Now
if any of those who believe aright(8) were to say this in
426
simplicity, there would be no cause to be suspicious of the expression, the
right intention(9) prevailing over that somewhat simple use of words(10). But
since the phrase is from the heretics(11) and the words of heretics are
suspicious, and, as it is written, 'The wicked are deceitful,' and 'The words
of the wicked are deceit(12),' even though they but make signs(13), for their
heart is depraved, come let us examine this phrase also, lest, though
convicted on all sides, still, as hydras, they invent a fresh word, and by
such clever language and specious evasion, they sow again that irreligion of
theirs in another way. For he who says, 'The Son came to be at the Divine
will,' has the same meaning as another who says, 'Once He was not,' and 'The
Son came to be out of nothing,' and 'He is a creature.' But since they are now
ashamed of these phrases, these crafty ones have endeavoured to convey their
meaning in another way, putting forth the word 'will,' as cuttlefish their
blackness, thereby to blind the simple(14), and to keep in mind their peculiar
heresy. For whence(15) bring they 'by will and pleasure?' or from what
Scripture? let them say, who are so suspicious in their words and so inventive
of irreligion. For the Father who revealed from heaven His own Word, declared,
'This is My beloved Son;' and by David He said, 'My heart uttered a good
Word;' and John He bade say, 'In the beginning was the Word;' and David says
in the Psalm, 'With Thee is the well of life, and in Thy light shall we see
light;' and the Apostle writes, 'Who being the Radiance of Glory,' and again,
'Who being in the form of God,' and, 'Who is the Image of the invisible
God(16).'
60. All everywhere tell us of the being of the Word, but none of His being
'by will,' nor at all of His making; but they, where, I ask, did they find
will or pleasure 'precedent(1)' to the Word of God, unless forsooth, leaving
the Scriptures, they simulate the perverseness of Valentinus? For Ptolemy the
Valentinian said that the Unoriginate had a pair of attributes, Thought and
Will, and first He thought and then He willed; and what He thought, He could
not put forth(2), unless when the power of the Will was added. Thence the
Arians taking a lesson, wish will and pleasure to precede the Word. For them
then, let them rival the doctrine of Valentinus; but we, when we read the
divine discourses, found 'He was' applied to the Son, but of Him only did we
hear as being in the Father and the Father's Image; while in the case of
things originate only, since also by nature these things once were not, but
afterwards came to be(3), did we recognise a precedent will and pleasure,
David saying in the hundred and thirteenth Psalm, 'As for our God He is in
heaven, He hath done whatsoever pleased Him,' and in the hundred and tenth,
'The works of the Lord are great, sought out unto all His good pleasure;' and
again, in the hundred and thirty-fourth, 'Whatsoever the Lord pleased, that
did He in heaven, and in earth, and in the sea, and in all deep places(4).' If
then He be work and thing made, and one among others, let Him, as others, be
said 'by will' to have come to be, and Scripture shews that these are thus
brought into being. And Asterius, the advocate(5) for the heresy, acquiesces,
when he thus writes, 'For if it be unworthy of
427
the Framer of all, to make at pleasure, let His being pleased be removed
equally in the case of all, that His Majesty be preserved unimpaired. Or if it
be befitting God to will, then let this better way obtain in the case of the
first Offspring. For it is not possible that it should be fitting for one and
the same God to l make things at His pleasure, and not at His will also. In
spite of the Sophist having introduced abundant irreligion in his words,
namely, that the Offspring and the thing made are the same, and that the Son
is one offspring out of all offsprings that are, He ends with the conclusion
that it is fitting to say that the works are by will and pleasure.
61. Therefore if He be other than all things, as has been above shewn(1),
and through Him the works rather came to be, let not 'by will' be applied to
Him, or He has similarly come to be as the things consist which through Him
come to be. For Paul, whereas he was not before, became afterwards an Apostle
'by the will of God(2);' and our own calling, as itself once not being, but
now taking place afterwards, is preceded by will, and, as Paul himself says
again, has been made 'according to the good pleasure of His will(3).' And what
Moses relates, 'Let there be light,' and 'Let the earth appear,' and 'Let Us
make man,' is, I think, according to what has gone before(3a), significant of
the will of the Agent. For things which once were not but happened afterwards
from external causes, these the Framer counsels to make; but His own Word
begotten from Him by nature, concerning Him He did not counsel beforehand;
for in Him the Father makes, in Him frames, other things whatever He counsels;
as also James the Apostle teaches, saying, 'Of His own will begat He us with
the Word of truth(4).' Therefore the Will of God concerning all things,
whether they be begotten again or are brought into being at the first, is in
His Word, in whom He both makes and begets again what seems right to Him; as
the Apostles again signifies, writing to Thessalonica; 'for this is the will
of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.' But if, in whom He makes, in Him also
is the will, and in Christ is the pleasure of the Father, how can He, as
others, come into being by will and pleasure? For if He too came to be as you
maintain, by will, it follows that the will concerning Him consists in some
other Word, through whom He in turn comes to be; for it has been shewn that
God's will is not in the things which He brings into being, but in Him through
whom and in whom all things made are brought to be. Next, since it is all one
to say 'By will' and Once He was not,' let them make up their minds to say,
Once He was not,' that, perceiving with shame that times are signified by the
latter, they may understand that to say 'by will' is to place times before the
Son; for counselling goes before things which once were not, as in the case of
all creatures. But if the Word is the Framer of the creatures, and He coexists
with the Father, how can to counsel precede the Everlasting as if He were not?
for if counsel precedes, how through Him are all things? For rather He too, as
one among others is by will begotten to be a Son, as we too were made sons by
the Word of Truth; and it rests, as was said, to seek another Word, through
whom He too has come to be, and was begotten together with all things, which
were according to God's pleasure.
62. If then there is another Word of God, then be the Son originated by a
word; but if there be not, as is the case, but all things by Him have come to
be, which the Father has willed, does not this expose the many-headed(1)
craftiness of these men? that feeling shame at saying 'work,' and 'creature,'
and 'God's Word was not before His generation,' yet in another way they assert
that He is a creature, putting forward 'will,' and saying,
Unless He has by will come to be, therefore God had a Son by necessity and
against His good pleasure.' And who is it then who imposes necessity on Him, O
men most wicked, who draw everything to the purpose of your heresy? for what
is contrary to will they see; but what is greater and transcends it has
escaped their perception. For as what is beside purpose is contrary to will,
so what is according to nature transcends and precedes counselling(2). A man
by counsel builds a house, but by nature he begets a son; and what is in
building began to come into being at will, and is external to the maker; but
the son is proper offspring of the father's essence, and is not external to
him; wherefore neither does he counsel concerning him, lest he appear to
counsel about himself. As far then as the Son transcends the creature, by so
much does what is by nature transcend the will(3). And they, on hearing of
Him, ought
428
not to measure by will what is by nature; forgetting however that they are
hearing about God's Son, they dare to apply human contrarieties in the
instance of God, 'necessity' and 'beside purpose,' to be able thereby to deny
that there is a true Son of God. For let them tell us themselves,--that God is
good and merciful, does this attach to Him by will or not? if by will, we must
consider that He began to be good, and that His not being good is possible;
for to counsel and choose implies an inclination two ways, and is incidental
to a rational nature. But if it be too unseemly that He should be called good
and merciful upon will, then what they have said themselves must be retorted
on them,--'therefore by necessity and not at His pleasure He is good;' and,
'who is it that imposes this necessity on Him?' But if it be unseemly to speak
of necessity in the case of God, and therefore it is by nature that He is
good, much more is He, and more truly, Father of the Son by nature and not by
will.
63. Moreover let them answer us this:--(for against their shamelessness I
wish to urge a further question, bold indeed, but with a religious intent; be
propitious, O Lord(1)!)--the Father Himself, does He exist, first having
counselled, then being pleased, or before counselling? For since they are so
bold in the instance of the Word, they must receive the like answer, that they
may know that this their presumption reaches even to the Father Himself. If
then they shall themselves take counsel about will, and say that even He is
from will, what then was He before He counselled, or what gained He, as ye
consider, after counselling? But if such a question be unseemly and
self-destructive, and shocking even to ask (for it is enough only to hear
God's Name for us to know and understand that He is He that Is), will it not
also be against reason to have parallel thoughts concerning the Word of God,
and to make pretences of will and pleasure? for it is enough in like manner
only to hear the Name of the Word, to know and understand that He who is God
not by will, has not by will but by nature His own Word. And does it not
surpass all conceivable madness, to entertain the thought only, that God
Himself counsels and considers and chooses and proceeds to have a good
pleasure, that He be not without Word and without Wisdom, but have both? for
He seems to be considering about Himself, who counsels about what is proper to
His Essence. There being then much blasphemy in such a thought, it will be
religious to say that things originate have come to be 'by favour and will,'
but the Son is not a work of will, nor has come after(2), as the creation, but
is by nature the own Offspring of God's Essence. For being the own Word of the
Father, He allows us not to account(3) of will as before Himself, since He is
Himself the Father's Living Counsel(4), and Power, and Framer of the things
which seemed good to the Father. And this is what He says of Himself in the
Proverbs; 'Counsel is mine and security, mine is understanding, and mine
strength(5).' For as, although Himself the 'Understanding,' in which He
prepared the heavens, and Himself 'Strength and Power' (for Christ is 'God's
Power and God's Wisdom(6)), He here has altered the terms and said, 'Mine is
understanding' and 'Mine strength,' so while He says, 'Mine is counsel,' He
must Himself be the Living(7) Counsel of the Father; as we have learned from
the Prophet also, that He becomes 'the Angel of great Counsel(8),' and was
called the good pleasure of the Father; for thus we must refute them, using
human illustrations(9) concerning God.
64. Therefore if the works subsist 'by will and favour,' and the whole
creature is made 'at God's good pleasure,' and Paul was called to be an
Apostle 'by the will of God,' and our calling has come about 'by His good
pleasure and will,' and all things have come into being through the Word, He
is external to the things which have come to be by will, but rather is Himself
the Living
429
Counsel of the Father, by which all these things have come to be; by which
David also gives thanks in the seventy-second Psalm. 'Thou hast holden me by
my right hand Thou shall guide me with Thy Counsel(1).' How then can the Word,
being the Counsel and Good Pleasure of the Father, come into being Himself 'by
good pleasure and will,' like every one else? unless, as I said before, in
their madness they repeat that He has come into being through Himself, or
through some other(2). Who then is it through whom He has come to be? let them
fashion another Word; and let them name another Christ, rivalling the doctrine
of Valentinus(3); for Scripture it is not. And though they fashion another,
yet assuredly he too comes into being through some one; and so, while we are
thus reckoning up and investigating the succession of them, the many-headed(4)
heresy of the Atheists(5) is discovered to issue in polytheism(6) and madness
unlimited; in the which, wishing the Son to be a creature and from nothing,
they imply the same thing in other words by pretending the words will and
pleasure, which rightly belong to things originate and creatures. Is it not
irreligious then to impute the characteristics of things originate to the
Framer of all? and is it not blasphemous to say that will was in the Father
before the Word? for if will precedes in the Father, the Son's words are not
true, 'I in the Father;' or even if He is in the Father, yet He will hold but
a second place, and it became Him not to say 'I in the Father,' since will was
before Him, in which all things were brought into being and He Himself
subsisted, as you hold. For though He excel in glory, He is not the less one
of the things which by will come into being. And, as we have said before, if
it be so, how is He Lord and they servants(7)? but He is Lord of all, because
He is one with the Father's Lordship; and the creation is all in bondage,
since it is external to the Oneness of the Father, and, whereas it once was
not, was brought to be.
65. Moreover, if they say that the Son is by will, they should say also
that He came to be by understanding; for I consider understanding and will to
be the same. For what a man counsels, about that also he has understanding;
and what he has in understanding, that also he counsels. Certainly the Saviour
Himself has made them correspond, as being cognate, when He says, 'Counsel is
mine and security; mine is understanding, and mine strength(1).' For as
strength and security are the same (for they mean one attribute), so we may
say that Understanding and Counsel are the same, which is the Lord. But these
irreligious men are unwilling that the Son should be Word and Living Counsel;
but they fable that there is with God(2), as if a habits(3), coming and
going(4), after the manner of men, understanding, counsel, wisdom; and they
leave nothing undone, and they put forward the 'Thought' and 'Will' of
Valentinus, so that they may but separate the Son from the Father, and may
call Him a creature instead of the proper Word of the Father. To them then
must be said what was said to Simon Magus; 'the irreligion of Valentinus
perish with you(5);' and let every one rather trust to Solomon, who says, that
the Word is Wisdom and Understanding. For he says, 'The Lord by Wisdom founded
the earth, by Understanding He established the heavens.' And as here by
Understanding, so in the Psalms, By the Word of the Lord were the heavens
made.' And as by the Word the heavens, so 'He hath done whatsoever pleased
Him.' And as the Apostle writes to Thessalonians, 'the will of God is in
Christ Jesus(6).' The Son of God then, He is the 'Word' and the 'Wisdom;' He
the 'Understanding' and the Living 'Counsel;' and in Him is the 'Good Pleasure
of the Father;' He is 'Truth' and 'Light' and 'Power' of the Father. But if
the Will of God is Wisdom and Understanding, and the Son is Wisdom, he who
says that the Son is 'by will,' says virtually that Wisdom has come into being
in wisdom, and the Son is made in a son, and the Word created through the
Word(7); which is incompatible with God and is opposed to His Scriptures. For
the Apostle proclaims the Son to be the own Radiance and Expression, not of
the Father's will(8), but of His Essence(9) Itself, saying, 'Who being the
Radiance of His glory and the Expression of His
430
Subsistence(10).' But if, as we have said before, the Father's Essence and
Subsistence be not from will, neither, as is very plain, is what is proper to
the Father's Subsistence from will; for such as, and so as, that Blessed
Subsistence, must also be the proper Offspring from It. And accordingly the
Father Himself said not, 'This is the Son originated at My will,' nor 'the Son
whom I have by My favour,' but simply 'My Son,' and more than that, 'in whom I
am well pleased;' meaning by this, This is the Son by nature; and 'in Him is
lodged My will about what pleases Me.'
66. Since then the Son is by nature and not by will, is He without the
pleasure of the Father and not with the Father's will? No, verily; but the Son
is with the pleasure of the Father, and, as He says Himself, 'The Father
loveth the Son, and sheweth Him all things(1).' For as not 'from will' did He
begin to be good, nor yet is good without will and pleasure(for what He is,
that also is His pleasure), so also that the Son should be, though it came not
'from will,' yet it is not without His pleasure or against His purpose. For as
His own Subsistence is by His pleasure, so also the Son, being proper to His
Essence, is not without His pleasure. Be then the Son the object of the
Father's pleasure and love; and thus let every one religiously account of(2)
the pleasure and the not-unwillingness of God. For by that good pleasure
wherewith the Son is the object of the Father's pleasure, is the Father the
object of the Son's love, pleasure, and honour; and one is the good pleasure
which is from Father in Son, so that here too we may contemplate the Son in
the Father and the Father in the Son. Let no one then, with Valentinus,
introduce a precedent will; nor let any one, by this pretence of 'counsel,'
intrude between the Only Father and the Only Word; for it were madness to
place will and consideration between them. For it is one thing to say, 'Of
will He came to be,' and another, that the Father has love and good pleasure
towards His Son who is His own by nature. For to say, 'Of will He came to be,'
in the first place implies that once He was not; and next it implies an
inclination two ways, as has been said, so that one might suppose that the
Father could even not will the Son. But to say of the Son, 'He might not have
been,' is an irreligious presumption reaching even to the Essence of the
Father, as if what is His own might not have been. For it is the same as
saying, 'The Father might not have been good.' And as the Father is always
good by nature, so He is always generative(3) by nature; and to say, 'The
Father's good pleasure is the Son,' and 'The Word's good pleasure is the
Father,' implies, not a precedent will, but genuineness of nature, and
propriety and likeness of Essence. For as in the case of the radiance and
light one might say, that there is no will preceding radiance in the light,
but it is its natural offspring, at the pleasure of the light which begat it,
not by will and consideration, but in nature and truth, so also in the
instance of the Father and the Son, one might rightly say, that the Father has
love and good pleasure towards the Son, and the Son has love and good pleasure
towards the Father.
67. Therefore call not the Son a work of good pleasure; nor bring in the
doctrine of Valentinus into the Church; but be He the Living Counsel, and
Offspring in truth and nature, as the Radiance from the Light. For thus has
the Father spoken, 'My heart uttered a good Word;' and the Son conformably, 'I
in the Father and the Father in Me(4).' But if the Word be in the heart, where
is will? and if the Son in the Father, where is good pleasure? and if He be
Will Himself, how is counsel in Will? it is unseemly; lest the Word come into
being in a word, and the Son in a son, and Wisdom in a wisdom, as has been
repeatedly(5) said. For the Son is the Father's All; and nothing was in the
Father before the Word; but in the Word is will also, and through Him the
objects of will are carried into effect, as holy Scriptures have shewn. And I
could wish that the irreligious men, having fallen into such want of reason(6)
as to be considering about will, would now ask their childbearing women no
more, whom they used to ask, 'Hadst thou a son before conceiving him(7)?' but
the father, 'Do ye become fathers by counsel, or by the natural law of your
will?' or 'Are your children like your nature and essence(8)?' that, even from
fathers they may learn shame, from whom they assumed this proposition(9) about
birth, and from whom they hoped to gain knowledge in point. For they will
reply to them, 'What we beget, is like, not our good pleasure(10), but like
ourselves; nor become we parents by previous counsel, but to beget is proper
to our nature; since we too are images of our fathers.' Either
431
then let them condemn themselves(11), and cease asking women about the Son of
God, or let them learn from them, that the Son is begotten not by will, but in
nature and truth. Becoming and suitable to them is a refutation from human
instances(12), since the perverse-minded men dispute in a human way concerning
the Godhead. Why then are Christ's enemies still mad? for this, as well as
their other pretences, is shewn and proved to be mere fantasy and fable; and
on this account, they ought, however late, contemplating the precipice of
folly down which they have fallen, to rise again from the depth and to flee
the snare of the devil, as we admonish them. For Truth is loving unto men and
cries continually, 'If because of My clothing of the body ye believe Me not,
yet believe the works,that ye may know that. "I am in the Father and the
Father in Me," and "I and the Father are one," and "He that hath seen Me hath
seen the Father(13)."' But the Lord according to His wont is loving to man,
and would fain 'help them that are fallen,' as the praise of David(14) says;
but the irreligious men, not desirous to hear the Lord's voice, nor bearing to
see Him acknowledged by all as God and God's Son, go about, miserable men, as
beetles, seeking with their father the devil pretexts for irreligion. What
pretexts then, and whence will they be able next to find? unless they borrow
blasphemies of Jews and Caiaphas, and take atheism from Gentiles? for the
divine Scriptures are closed to them, and from every part of them they are
refuted as insensate and Christ's enemies.
DISCOURSE IV
1--5. The substantiality of the Word proved from Scripture. If the One
Origin be substantial, Its Word is substantial. Unless the Word and Son be a
second Origin, or a work, or an attribute (and so God be compounded), or at
the same time Father, or involve a second nature in God, He is from the
Father's Essence and distinct from Him. Illustration of John x. 30, drawn from
Deut. iv. 4.
1. THE Word is God from God; for 'the Word was God(1),' and again, 'Of
whom are the Fathers, and of whom Christ, who is God over all, blessed for
ever. Amen(2).' And since Christ is God from God, and God's Word, Wisdom, Son,
and Power, therefore but One God is declared in the divine Scriptures. For the
Word, being Son of the One God, is referred to Him of whom also He is; so that
Father and Son are two, yet the Monad of the Godhead is indivisible and
inseparable. And thus too we preserve One Beginning of Godhead and not two
Beginnings, whence there is strictly a Monarchy. And of this very Beginning
the Word is by nature Son, not as if another beginning, subsisting by Himself,
nor having come into being externally to that Beginning, lest from that
diversity a Dyarchy and Polyarchy should ensue; but of the one Beginning He is
own Son, own Wisdom, own Word, existing from It. For, according to John, 'in'
that 'Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,' for the Beginning
was God; and since He is from It, therefore also 'the Word was God.' And as
there is one Beginning and therefore one God, so one is that Essence and
Subsistence which indeed and truly and really is, and which said 'I am that I
am(3),' and not two, that there be not two Beginnings; and from the One, a Son
in nature and truth, is Its own Word, Its Wisdom, Its Power, and inseparable
from It. And as there is not another essence, lest there be two Beginnings, so
the Word which is from that One Essence has no dissolution, nor is a sound
significative, but is an essential Word and essential Wisdom, which is the
true Son. For were He not essential, God will be speaking into the air(3a),
and having a body, in nothing differently from men; but since He is not man,
neither is His Word according. to the infirmity of man(4). For as the
Beginning is one Essence, so Its Word is one, essential, and subsisting, and
Its Wisdom. For as He is God from God, and Wisdom from the Wise, and Word from
the Rational, and Son from Father, so is He from Subsistence Subsistent, and
from Essence Essential and Substantive, and Being from Being.
2. Since were He not essential Wisdom and substantive Word, and Son
existing, but simply Wisdom and Word and Son in the Father, then the Father
Himself would have a nature compounded of Wisdom and Word. But if so, the
forementioned absurdities would follow; and He will be His own Father, and the
Son begetting and begotten by Himself; or Word, Wisdom, Son, is a name only,
and He does not subsist who owns, or rather who is, these titles. If then He
does not subsist, the names are idle and empty, unless we say that God is Very
Wisdom(5) and Very Word. But if so, He is His own Father and Son; Father, when
Wise, Son, when Wisdom; but these things are not in God as a certain quality;
away with the dishonourable(6) thought; for it will issue in this, that God is
compounded of essence and quality(7). For whereas all quality is in essence,
it will clearly follow that the Divine Monad, indivisible as it is, must be
compound, being severed into essence and accident(8). We must ask then these
headstrong men; The Son was proclaimed as God's Wisdom and Word; how then is
He such? if as a quality, the absurdity has been shewn; but if God is that
Very Wisdom, then it is the absurdity of Sabellius; therefore He is so, as an
Offspring in a proper sense from the Father
434
Himself, according to the illustration of light. For as there is light from
fire, so from God is there a Word, and Wisdom from the Wise, and from the
Father a Son. For in this way the Monad remains undivided and entire, and Its
Son, Word not unessential, nor not subsisting, but essential truly. For were
it not so, all that is said would be said notionally(1) and verbally(2). But
if we must avoid that absurdity, then is a true Word essential. For as there
is a Father truly, so Wisdom truly. In this respect then they are two; not
because, as Sabellius said, Father and Son are the same, but because the
Father is Father and the Son Son, and they are one, because He is Son of the
Essence of the Father by nature, existing as His own Word. This the Lord said,
viz. 'I and the Father are One(3);' for neither is the Word separated from the
Father, nor was or is the Father ever Wordless; on this account He says, 'I in
the Father and the Father in Me(4).'
3. And again, Christ is the Word of God. Did He then subsist by Himself,
and subsisting, has He become joined to the Father, or did God make Him or
call Him His Word? If the former, I mean if He subsisted by Himself and is
God, then there are two Beginnings; and moreover, as is plain, He is not the
Father's own, as being not of the Father, but of Himself. But if on the
contrary He be made externally, then is He a creature. It remains then to say
that He is from God Himself; but if so, that which is from another is one
thing, and that from which it is, is a second; according to this then there
are two. But if they be not two, but the names belong to the same, cause and
effect will be the same, and begotten and begetting, which has been shewn
absurd in the instance of Sabellius. But if He be from Him, yet not another,
He will be both be-getting and not begetting; begetting because He produces
from Himself, and not begetting, because it is nothing other than Himself. But
if so, the same is called Father and Son notionally. But if it be unseemly so
to say, Father and Son must be two; and they are one, because the Son is not
from without, but begotten of God. But if any one shrinks from saying
'Offspring,' and only says that the Word exists with God, let such a one fear
lest, shrinking from what is said in Scripture, he fall into absurdity, making
God a being of double nature. For not granting that the Word is from the
Monad, but simply as if He were joined to the Father, he introduces a twofold
essence, and neither of them Father of the other. And the same of Power. And
we may see this more clearly, if we consider it with reference to the Father;
for there is One Father, and not two, but from that One the Son. As then there
are not two Fathers, but One, so not two Beginnings, but One, and from that
One the Son essential.
4. But the Arians we must ask contrariwise: (for the Sabellianisers must
be confuted from the notion of a Son, and the Arians from that of a Father:)
let us say then--Is God wise and not word-less: or on the contrary, is He
wisdom-less and word-less(1)? if the latter, there is an absurdity at once; if
the former, we must ask, how is He wise and not word-less? does He possess the
Word and the Wisdom from without, or from Himself? If from without, there must
be one who first gave to Him, and before He received He was wisdom-less and
word-less. But if from Himself, it is plain that the Word is not from nothing,
nor once was not; for He was ever; since He of whom He is the Image, exists
ever. But if they say that He is indeed wise and not wordless, but that He has
in Himself His own wisdom and own word, and that, not Christ, but that by
which He made Christ, we must answer that, if Christ in that word was brought
to be, plainly so were all things; and it must be He of whom John says, 'All
things were made by Him,' and the Psalmist, 'In Wisdom hast Thou made them
all(2).' And Christ will be found to speak untruly, 'I in the Father,' there
being another in the Father. And 'the Word became flesh(3)' is not true
according to them. For if He in whom 'all things came to be,' Himself became
flesh, but Christ is not in the Father, as Word 'by whom all things came to
be,' then Christ has not become flesh, but perhaps Christ was named Word. But
if so, first, there will be another besides the name, next, all things were
not by Him brought to be, but in that other, in whom Christ also was made. But
if they say that Wisdom is in the Father as a quality or that He is Very
Wisdom(4), the absurdities will follow already mentioned. For He will be
compounds, and will prove His own Son and Father(6). Moreover, we must confute
and silence them on the ground, that the Word which is in God cannot be a
creature nor out of nothing; but if once a Word be in God, then He must be
Christ who says, 'I am in the Father and the Father in Me(7),' who also is
therefore the Only-begotten, since no other was begotten from Him. This is One
Son, who is Word, Wisdom, Power; for God is not compounded of these,
435
but is generative(8) of them. For as He frames the creatures by the Word, so
according to the nature of His own Essence has He the Word as an Offspring,
through whom He frames and creates and dispenses all things. For by the Word
and the Wisdom all things have come to be, and all things together remain
according to His ordinance(9). And the same concerning the word 'Son;' if God
be without Son(10), then is He without Work; for the Son is His Offspring
through whom He works(11); but if not, the same questions and the same
absurdities will follow their audacity.
5. From Deuteronomy; 'But ye that did attach yourselves unto the Lord your
God are alive every one of you this days(1).' From this we may see the
difference, and know that the Son of God is not a creature. For the Son says,
'I and the Father are One,' and, 'I in the Father, and the Father in Me; 'but
things originate, when they make advance, are attached unto the Lord. The Word
then is in the Father as being His own; but things originate, being external,
are attached, as being by nature foreign, and attached by free choice. For a
son which is by nature, is one(2) with him who begat him; but he who is from
without, and is made a son, will be attached to the family. Therefore he
immediately adds, 'What nation is there so great who hath God drawing nigh
unto them(3)?' and elsewhere, 'I a God drawing nigh(4);' for to things
originate He draws nigh, as being strange to Him, but to the Son, as being His
own, He does not draw nigh, but He is in Him. And the Son is not attached to
the Father, but co-exists with Him; whence also Moses says again in the same
Deuteronomy, 'Ye shall obey His voice, and apply yourselves unto Him(5);' but
what is applied, is applied from without.
6, 7. When the Word and Son hungered, wept, and was wearied, He acted as our
Mediator, taking on Him what was ours, that He might impart to us what was
His.
6. But in answer to the weak and human notion of the Arians, their
supposing that the Lord is in want, when He says, 'Is given unto Me,' and 'I
received,' and if Paul says, 'Wherefore He highly exalted Him,' and 'He set
Him at the right hand(1),' and the like, we must say that our Lord, being Word
and Son of God, bore a body, and became Son of Man, that, having become
Mediator between God, and men, He might minister the things of God to us, and
ours to God. When then He is said to hunger and weep and weary, and to cry
Eloi, Eloi, which are our human affections, He receives them from us and
offers to the Father(2), interceding for us, that in Him they may be
annulled(3). And when it is said, 'All power is given unto Me,' and 'I
received,' and 'Wherefore God highly exalted Him,' these are gifts given from
God to us through Him, For the Word was never in want(4), nor has come into
beings; nor again were men sufficient to minister these things for themselves,
but through the Word they are given to us; therefore, as if given to Him, they
are imparted to us. For this was the reason of His becoming man, that, as
being given to Him, they might pass on to us(6). For of such gifts mere man
had not become worthy; and again the mere Word had not needed them 7 the Word
then was united to us, and then imparted to us power, and highly exalted
us(8). For the Word being in man, highly exalted man himself; and, when the
Word was in man, man himself received. Since then, the Word being in flesh,
man himself was exalted, and received power, therefore these things are
referred to the Word, since they were given on His account; for on account of
the Word in man were these gifts given. And as 'the Word became flesh(9),' so
also man himself received the gifts which came through the Word. For all that
man himself has received, the Word is said to have received(10); that it might
be shewn, that man himself, being unworthy to receive, as far as his own
nature is concerned, yet has received because of the Word become flesh.
Wherefore if anything be said to be given to the Lord, or the like, we must
consider that it is given, not to Him as needing it, but to man himself
through the Word. For every one interceding for another, receives the gift in
his own person, not as needing, but on his account for whom he intercedes.
7. For as He takes our infirmities, not being infirm(1), and hungers not
hungering, but sends up what is ours that it may be abolished, so the gifts
which come from God instead of our infirmities, doth He too Himself receive,
that man, being united to Him, may be able to partake them. Hence it is that
the Lord says, All things whatsoever Thou hast given Me, have given them,' and
again, 'I pray for them(2).' For He prayed for us, taking on Him what is ours,
and He was giving what He received. Since then, the Word being united to man
himself, the Father, regarding Him,
436
vouchsafed to man to be exalted, to have all power and the like; therefore are
referred to the Word Himself, and are as if given to Him, all things which
through Him we receive. For as He for our sake became man, so we for His sake
are exalted. It is no absurdity then, if, as for our sake He humbled Himself,
so also for our sake He is said to be highly exalted. So 'He gave to Him,'
that is, 'to us for His sake;' 'and He highly exalted Him(3),' that is, 'us in
Him.' And the Word Himself, when we are exalted, and receive, and are
succoured, as if He Himself were exalted and received and were succoured,
gives thanks to the Father, referring what is ours to Himself, and saying,
'All things, whatsoever Thou hast given Me, I have given unto them(4).'
8. Arians date the Son's beginning earlier than Marcellus, &c.
8. Eusebius and his fellows, that is, the Ario-maniacs, ascribing a
beginning of being to the Son, yet pretend not to wish Him to have a beginning
of kingship(5). But this is ridiculous; for he who ascribes to the Son a
beginning of being, very plainly ascribes to Him also a beginning of reigning;
so blind are they, confessing what they deny. Again, those who say that the
Son is only a name, and that the Son of God, that is, the Word of the Father,
is unessential and non-subsistent, pretend to be angry with those who say,
'Once He was not.' This is ridiculous also; for they who give Him no being at
all, are angry with those who at least grant Him to be in time. Thus these
also confess what they deny, in the act of censuring the others. And again
Eusebius and his fellows, confessing a Son, deny that He is the Word by
nature, and would have the Son called Word notionally; and the others
confessing Him to be Word, deny Him to be Son, and would have the Word called
Son notionally, equally void of footing. 9, 10. Unless Father and Son are two
in name only, or as parts and so each imperfect, or two gods, they are
coessential, one in Godhead, and the Son from the Father.
9. 'I and the Father are One(1).' You say that the two things are one, or
that the one has two names, or again that the one is divided into two. Now if
the one is divided into two, that which is divided must need be a body, and
neither part perfect, for each is a part and not a whole. But if again the one
have two names, this is the expedient of Subellius, who said that Son and
Father were the same, and did away with either, the Father when there is a
Son, and the Son when there is a Father. But if the two are one, then of
necessity they are two, but one according to the Godhead, and according to the
Son's coessentiality with the Father, and the Word's being from the Father
Himself; so that there are two, because there is Father, and Son, namely the
Word; and one because one God. For if not, He would have said, 'I am the
Father,' or 'I and the Father am;' but, in fact, in the 'I' He signifies the
Son, and in the 'And the Father,' Him who begot Him; and in the 'One' the one
Godhead and His coessentiality(2). For the Same is not, as the Gentiles hold,
Wise and Wisdom, or the Same Father and Word; for it were unfit for Him to be
His own Father, but the divine teaching knows Father and Son, and Wise and
Wisdom, and God and Word; while it ever guards Him indivisible and inseparable
and indissoluble in all respects.
10. But if any one, on hearing that the Father and the Son are two,
misrepresent us as preaching two Gods (for this is what some feign to
themselves, and forthwith mock, saying, 'You hold two Gods'), we must answer
to such, If to acknowledge Father and Son, is to hold two Gods, it
instantly(3) follows that to confess but one we must deny the Son and
Subellianise. For if to speak of two is to fall into Gentilism, therefore if
we speak of one, we must fall into Sabellianism. But this is not so; perish
the thought! but, as when we say that Father and Son are two, we still confess
one God, so when we say that there is one God, let us consider Father and Son
two, while they are one in the Godhead, and in the Father's Word being
indissoluble and indivisible and inseparable from Him. And let the fire and
the radiance from it be a similitude of man, which are two in being and in
appearance, but one in that its radiance is from it indivisibly.
11, 12. Marcellus and his disciples, like Arians, say that the Word was, not
indeed created, but issued, to create us, as if the Divine silence were a
state of inaction, and when God spake by the Word, He acted; or that there was
a going forth and return of the Word; a doctrine which implies change and
imperfection in Father and Son.
11. They fall into the same folly with the Arians; for Arians also say
that He was created for us, that He might create us, as if God waited till our
creation for His issue, as the one party say, or His creation, as the
437
other. Arians then are more bountiful to us than to the Son; for they say, not
we for His sake, but He for ours, came to be; that is, if He was therefore
created, and subsisted, that God through Him might create us. And these, as
irreligious or more so, give to God less than to us. For we oftentimes, even
when silent, yet are active in thinking, so as to form the results of our
thoughts into images; but God they would have inactive when silent, and when
He speaks then to exert strength; if, that is, when silent He could not make,
and when speaking He began to create. For it is just to ask them, whether the
Word, when He was in God, was perfect, so as to be able to make. If on the one
hand He was imperfect, when in God, but by being begotten became perfect[1],
we are the cause of Iris perfection, that is, if He has been begotten for us;
for on our behalf He has received the power of making. But if He was perfect
in God, so as to be able to make, His generation is superfluous; for He, even
when in the Father, could frame the world; so that either He has not been
begotten, or He was begotten, not for us, but because He is ever from the
Father. For His generation evidences, not that we were created, but that He is
from God; for He was even before our creation.
12. And the same presumption will be proved against them concerning the
Father; for if, when silent, He could not make, of necessity He has gained
power by begetting, that is, by speaking. And whence has He gained it? and
wherefore? If, when He had the Word within Him, He could make, He begets
needlessly, being able to make even in silence. Next, if the Word was in God
before He was begotten, then being begotten He is without and external to Him.
But if so, how says He now, 'I in the Father and the Father in Me[2]?' but if
He is now in the Father, then always was He in the Father, as He is now, and
needless is it to say, 'For us was He begotten, and He reverts after we are
formed, that He may be as He was.' For He was not anything which He is not
now, nor is He what He was not; but He is as He ever was, and in the same
state and in the same respects; otherwise He will seem to be imperfect and
alterable. For if, what He was, that He shall be afterwards, as if now He were
not so, it is plain, He is not now what He was and shall be. I mean, if He was
before in God, and afterwards shall be again, it follows that now the Word is
not in God. But the Lord refutes such persons when He says, 'I in the Father
and the Father in Me;' for so is He now as He ever was. But if so He now is,
as He was ever, it follows, not that at one time He was begotten and not at
another, nor that once there was silence with God, and then He spake, but
there is ever a Father, and a Son who is His Word, not in name[4] alone a
Word, nor the Word in notion only a Son, but existing coessential[5] with the
Father, not begotten for us, for we are brought into being for Him. For, if He
were begotten for us, and in His begetting we were created, and in His
generation the creature consists, and then He returns that He may be what He
was before, first, He that was begotten will be again not begotten. For if His
progression be generation, His return will be the close[6] of that generation,
for when He has come to be in God, God will be silent again. But if He shall
be silent, there will be what there was when He was silent, stillness and not
creation, for the creation will cease to be. For, as on the Word's outgoing,
the creation came to be, and existed, so on the Word's retiring, the creation
will not exist. What use then for it to come into being, if it is to cease? or
why did God speak, that then He should be silent? and why did He issue One
whom He recalls? and why did He beget One whose generation He willed to cease?
Again it is uncertain what He shall be. For either He will ever be silent, or
He will again beget, and will devise a different creation (for He will not
make the same, else that which was made would have remained, but another); and
in due course He will bring that also to a close, and will devise another, and
so on without end[7].
13, 14. Such a doctrine precludes all real distinctions of personality in the
Divine Nature. Illustration of the Scripture doctrine from 2 Cor. vi. 11, &c.
13. This perhaps he[1] borrowed from the Stoics, who maintain that their
God contracts and again expands with the creation, and then rests without end.
For what is dilated is first straitened; and what is expanded is at first
contracted; and it is what it was, and does but undergo an affection. If then
the Monad being dilated became a Triad, and the Monad was the Father[1a], and
the Triad is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, first the Monad being dilated,
underwent an affection and became what it was not; for it was dilated, whereas
it had not been dilate. Next, if the Monad itself was dilated into a Triad,
and that, Father and Son and Holy Ghost, then Father and Son and Spirit prove
the same, as Sabellius held, unless the Monad which he speaks of is some-
438
thing besides the Father, and then he ought not to speak of dilatation, since
the Monad was to make Three, so that there was a Monad, and then Father, Son,
and Spirit. For if the Monad were dilated, and expanded itself, it must itself
be that which was expanded. And a Triad when dilated is no longer a Monad, and
when a Monad it is not yet a Triad. And so, He that was Father was not yet Son
and Spirit; but, when become These, is no longer only Father. And a man who
thus should lie, must ascribe a body to God, and represent Him as possible;
for what is dilatation, but an affection of that which is dilated? or what the
dilated, but what before was not so, but was strait indeed; for it is the
same, in time only differing from itself.
14. And this the divine Apostle knows, when he writes to the Corinthians,
'Be ye not straitened in us, but be ye yourselves dilated, O Corinthians[2];'
for he advises identical persons to change from straitness to dilatation. And
as, supposing the Corinthians being straitened were in turn dilated, they had
not been others, but still Corinthians, so if the Father was dilated into a
Triad, the Triad again is the Father alone. And he says again the same thing,
'Our heart is dilated[3];' and Noah says, 'May God dilate for Japheth[4],' for
the same heart and the same Japheth is in the dilatation. If then the Monad
dilated, it would dilate for others; but if it dilated for itself, then it
would be that which was dilated; and what is that but the Son and Holy Spirit?
And it is well to ask him, when thus speaking, what was the action[5] of this
dilatation? or, in very truth, wherefore at all it took place? for what does
not remain the same, but is in course of time dilated, must necessarily have a
cause of dilatation. If then it was in order that Word and Spirit should be
with Him, it is beside the purpose to say, 'First Monad, and then dilated;'
for Word and Spirit were not afterwards, but ever, or God would be
wordless[6], as the Arians hold. So that if Word and Spirit were ever, ever
was it dilated, and not at first a Monad; but if it were dilated afterwards,
then afterwards is there a Word. But if for the Incarnation it was dilated,
and then became a Triad, then before the Incarnation there was not yet a
Triad. And it will seem even that the Father became flesh, if, that is, He be
the Monad, and was dilated in the Man; and thus perhaps there will only be a
Monad, and flesh, and thirdly Spirit; if, that is, He was Himself dilated; and
there will be in name only a Triad. It is absurd too to say that it was
dilated for creating; for it were possible for it, remaining a Monad, to make
all; for the Monad did not need dilatation, nor was wanting in power before
being dilated; it is absurd surely and impious, to think or speak thus in the
case of God. Another absurdity too will follow. For if it was dilated for the
sake of the creation, and while it was a Monad the creation was not, but upon
the Consummation it will be again a Monad after dilatation, then the creation
too will come to nought. For as for the sake of creating it was dilated, so,
the dilatation ceasing, the creation will cease also. 15--24. Since the Word
is from God, He must be Son. Since the Son is from everlasting, He must be the
Word; else either He is superior to the Word, or the Word is the Father. Texts
of the New Testament which state the unity of the Son with the Father;
therefore the Son is the Word. Three hypotheses refuted--1. That the Man is
the Son; 2. That the Word and Man together are the Son; 3. That the Word
became Son on His incarnation. Texts of the Old Testament which speak of the
Son. If they are merely prophetical, then those concerning the Word may be
such also.
15. Such absurdities will be the consequence of saying that the Monad is
dilated into a Triad. But since those who say so venture to separate Word and
Son, and to say that the Word is one and the Son another, and that first was
the Word and then the Son, come let us consider this doctrine also. Now their
presumption takes various forms; for some say that the man whom the Saviour
assumed is the Son[1]; and others both that the man and the Word then became
Son, when they were united[2]. And others say that the Word Himself then
became Son when He became man[3]; for from being Word, they say, He has become
Son, not being Son before, but only Word. Now both are Stoic[4] doctrines,
whether to say that God was dilated or to deny the Son, but especially is it
absurd to name the Word, yet deny Him to be Son. For if the Word be not from
God, reasonably might they deny Him to be Son; but if He is from God, how see
they not that what exists from anything is son of him from whom it is? Next,
if God is Father of the Word, why is not the Word Son of His own Father? for
one is and is called father, whose is the son; and one is and is called son of
another, whose is the father. If then God is not Father of Christ, neither is
the Word Son; but if God be Father, then reasonably also the Word is Son. But
if afterwards there is Father, and first God, this is an Arian thought[4a].
Next, it is absurd
439
that God should change; for that belongs to bodies; but if they argue that in
the instance of creation He became afterwards a Maker, let them know that the
change is in the things s which afterwards came to be, and not in God.
16. If then the Son too were a work, well might God begin to be a Father
towards Him as others; but if the Son is not a work, then ever was the Father
and ever the Son[1]. But if the Son was ever, He must be the Word; for if the
Word be not Son, and this is what a man waxes bold to say, either he holds
that Word to be Father or the Son superior to the Word. For the Son being 'in
the bosom of the Father[2],' of necessity either the Word is not before the
Son (for nothing is before Him who is in the Father), or if the Word be other
than the Son, the Word must be the Father in whom is the Son. But if the Word
is not Father but Word, the Word must be external to the Father, since it is
the Son who is 'in the bosom of the Father.' For not both the Word and the Son
are in the bosom, but one must be, and He the Son, who is Only-begotten. And
it follows for another reason, if the Word is one, and the Son another, that
the Son is superior to the Word; for 'no one knoweth the Father save the
Son[3],' not the Word. Either then the Word does not know, or if He knows, it
is not true that 'no one knows.' And the same of 'He that hath seen Me, hath
seen the Father,' and 'I and the Father are One,' for this is uttered by the
Son, not the Word, as they would have it, as is plain from the Gospel; for
according to John when the Lord said, 'I and the Father are One,' the Jews
took up stones to stone Him. 'Jesus[4] answered them, Many good works have I
shewed you from My Father, for which of those works do ye stone Me? The Jews
answered Him, saying, For a good work we stone Thee not, but for blasphemy,
and because that Thou, being a man, makest Thyself God. Jesus answered them,
Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods
unto whom the Word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken, say ye of
Him, whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, Thou
blasphemest, 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 ye believe not Me, believe the
works, that ye may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in the
Father.' And yet, as far as the surface of the words intimated, He said
neither 'I am God,' nor 'I am Son of God,' but 'I and the Father are One.'
17. The Jews then, when they heard 'One,' thought like Sabellius that He
said that He was the Father, but our Saviour shews their sin by this argument:
'Though I had said "God," you should have remembered what is written, "I said,
Ye are gods; "' then to clear up 'I and the Father are One,' He has explained
the Son's oneness with the Father in the words, 'Because I said, I am the Son
of God.' For if He did not say it in words, still He has referred the sense of
'are One' to the Son. For nothing is one with the Father, but what is from
Him. What is that which is from Him but the Son? And therefore He adds, 'that
ye may know that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me.' For, when
expounding the One,' He said that the union and the inseparability lay, not in
This being That, with which It was One, but in His being in the Father and the
Father in the Son. For thus He overthrows both Sabellius, in saying, 'I am'
not, "the Father," but, 'the Son of God;' and Arius, in saying, 'are One.' If
then the Son and the Word are not the same, it is not that the Word is one
with the Father, but the Son; nor he that hath seen the Word 'hath seen the
Father,' but 'he that hath seen' the Son. And from this it follows, either
that the Son is greater than the Word, or the Word has nothing beyond the Son.
For what can be greater or more perfect than 'One,' and 'I in the Father and
the Father in Me,' and 'He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father?' for these
utterances also belong to the Son. And hence the same John says, 'He that hath
seen Me, hath seen Him that sent Me,' and, 'He that receiveth Me, receiveth
Him that sent Me;' and, 'I am come a light into the world, that whosoever
believeth in Me, should not abide in darkness. And, if any one hear My words
and observe them not, I judge him not; for I came not to judge the world, but
to save the world. The word which he shall hear, the same shall judge him in
the last day, because I go unto the Father[5].' The preaching, He says, judges
him who has not observed the commandment; 'for if,' He says, 'I had not come
and spoken unto them, they had not had sin; but now they shall have no
cloke[6], He says, having heard My words, through which those who observe them
shall reap salvation.
18. Perhaps they will have so little shame as to say, that this utterance
belongs not to the Son but to the Word; but from what preceded it appeared
plainly that the speaker was the Son.
440
For He who here says, 'I came not to judge the world but to save[1],' is shewn
to be no other than the Only-begotten Son of God, by the same John's saying
before[2], 'For God so loved the world that He gave His Only-begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the
world through Him might be saved. He that believeth on Him is not condemned,
but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed
in the Name of the Only-begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation,
that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light,
because their deeds are evil[3].' If He who says, 'For I came not to judge the
world, but that I might save it,' is the Same as says, 'He that seeth Me,
seeth Him that sent Me[4],' and if He who came to save the world and not judge
it is the Only-begotten Son of God, it is plain that it is the same Son who
says, 'He that seeth Me, seeth Him that sent Me.' For He who said, 'He that
believeth on Me,' and, 'If any one hear My words, I judge him not,' is the Son
Himself, of whom Scripture says, 'He that believeth on Him is not condemned,
but He that believeth not is condemned already, because He hath not believed
in the Name of the Only-begotten Son of God.' And again: 'And this is the
condemnation' of him who believeth not on the Son, 'that light hath come into
the world,' and they believed not in Him, that is, in the Son; for He must be
'the Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world[5].' And as
long as He was upon earth according to the Incarnation, He was Light in the
world, as He said Himself, 'While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye
may be the children of light;' for 'I,' says He, 'am come a light into the
world[6].'
19. This then being shewn, it follows that the Word is the Son. But if the
Son is the Light, which has come into the world, beyond all dispute the world
was made by the Son. For in the beginning of the Gospel, the Evangelist,
speaking of John the Baptist, says, 'He was not that Light, but that he might
bear witness concerning that Light[1].' For Christ Himself was, as we have
said before, the True Light that lighteth every man that cometh into the
world. For if 'He was in the world, and the world was made by Him[2],' of
necessity He is the Word of God, concerning whom also the Evangelist witnesses
that all things were made by Him. For either they will be compelled to speak
of two worlds, that the one may have come into being by the Son and the other
by the Word, or, if the world is one and the creation one, it follows that Son
and Word are one and the same before all creation, for by Him it came into
being. Therefore if as by the Word, so by the Son also all things came to be,
it will not be contradictory, but even identical to say, for instance, 'In the
beginning was the Word,' or, 'In the beginning was the Son.' But if because
John did not say, 'In the beginning was the Son,' they shall maintain that the
attributes of the Word do not suit with the Son, it at once follows that the
attributes of the Son do not suit with the Word. But it was shewn that to the
Son belongs, 'I and the Father are One,' and that it is He 'Who is in the
bosom of the Father,' and, 'He that seeth Me, seeth Him that sent Me[3];' and
that 'the world was brought into being by Him,' is common to the Word and the
Son; so that from this the Son is shewn to be before the world; for of
necessity the Framer is before the things brought into being. And what is said
to Philip must belong, according to them, not to the Word, but to the Son.
For, 'Jesus said,' says Scripture, 'Have I been so long time with you, and yet
thou hast not known Me, Philip? He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father.
And how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not, that I am in
the Father and the Father in Me? the words that I speak unto you, I speak not
of Myself, but the Father that dwelleth in Me, He doeth the works. Believe Me
that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else, believe Me for the very
works' sake. Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on Me, the
works that I do shall he do also, and greater works than these shall he do,
because I go unto the Father. And whatsoever ye shall ask in My Name, that
will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son[4].' Therefore if the
Father be glorified in the Son, the Son must be He who said, 'I in the Father
and the Father in Me;' and He who said, 'He that hath seen Me, hath seen the
Father;' for He, the same who thus spoke, shews Himself to be the Son, by
adding, 'that the Father may be glorified in the Son.'
20. If then they say that the Man whom the Word wore, and not the Word, is
the Son of God the Only-begotten, the Man must be by consequence He who is in
the Father, in whom also the Father is; and the Man must be He who is One with
the Father, and who is in the bosom of the Father, and the True Light. And
they will be compelled to say that through the Man Himself the world came into
being, and that the Man was He who came not to judge the
441
world but to save it; and that He it was who was in being before Abraham came
to be. For, says Scripture, Jesus said to them, 'Verily, verily, I say unto
you, before Abraham was, I am[5].' And is it not absurd to say, as they do,
that one who came of the seed of Abraham after two and forty generations[6],
should exist before Abraham came to be? is it not absurd, if the flesh, which
the Word bore, itself is the Son, to say that the flesh from Mary is that by
which the world was made? and how will they retain 'He was in the world?' for
the Evangelist, by way of signifying the Son's antecedence to the birth
according to the flesh, goes on to say, 'He was in the world.' And how, if not
the Word but the Man is the Son, can He save the world, being Himself one of
the world? And if this does not shame them, where shall be the Word, the Man
being in the Father? And where will the Word stand to the Father, the Man and
the Father being One? But if the Man be Only-begotten, what will be the place
of the Word? Either one must say that He comes second, or, if He be above the
Only-begotten, He must be the Father Himself. For as the Father is One, so
also the Only-begotten from Him is One; and what has the Word above the Man,
if the Word is not the Son? For, while Scripture says that through the Son and
the Word the world was brought to be, and it is common to the Word and to the
Son to frame the world, yet Scripture proceeds to place the sight of the
Father, not in the Word but in the Son, and to attribute the saving of the
world, not to the Word, but to the Only-begotten Son. For, saith it, Jesus
said, 'Have I been so long while with you, and yet hast thou not known Me,
Philip? He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father.' Nor does Scripture say
that the Word knows the Father, but the Son; and that not the Word sees the
Father, but the Only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father.
21. And what more does the Word contribute to our salvation than the Son,
if, as they hold, the Son is one, and the Word another? for the command is
that we should believe, not in the Word, but in the Son. For John says, 'He
that believeth on the Son, hath everlasting life; but he that believeth not
the Son, shall not see life[1].' And Holy Baptism, in which the substance of
the whole faith is lodged, is administered not in the Word, but in Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost. If then, as they hold, the Word is one and the Son
another, and the Word is not the Son, Baptism has no connection with the Word.
How then are they able to hold that the Word is with the Father, when He is
not with Him in the giving of Baptism? But perhaps they will say, that in the
Father's Name the Word is included? Wherefore then not the Spirit also? or is
the Spirit external to the Father? and the Man indeed (if the Word is not Son)
is named after the Father, but the Spirit after the Man? and then the Monad,
instead of dilating into a Triad, dilates according to them into a Tetrad,
Father, Word, Son, and Holy Ghost. Being brought to shame on this ground, they
have recourse to another, and say that not the Man by Himself whom the Lord
bore, but both together, the Word and the Man, are the Son; for both joined
together are named Son, as they say. Which then is cause of which? and which
has made which a Son? or, to speak more clearly, is the Word a Son because of
the flesh? or is the flesh called Son because of the Word? or is neither the
cause, but the concurrence of the two? If then the Word be a Son because of
the flesh, of necessity the flesh is Son, and all those absurdities follow
which have been already drawn from saying that the Man is Son. But if the
flesh is called Son because of the Word, then even before the flesh the Word
certainly, being such, was Son. For how could a being make other sons, not
being himself a son, especially when there was a father[2]? If then He makes
sons for Himself, then is He Himself Father; but if for the Father, then must
He be Son, or rather that Son, by reason of Whom the rest are made sons.
22. For if, while He is not Son, we are sons, God is our Father and not
His. How then does He appropriate the name instead, saying, 'My Father,' and
'I from the Father[3]?' for if He be common Father of all, He is not His
Father only, nor did He alone come out the Father. But he says, that He is
sometimes called our Father also, because He has Himself become partaker in
our flesh. For on this account the Word has become flesh, that, since the Word
is Son, therefore, because of the Son dwelling in us[4], He may be called our
Father also; for 'He sent forth,' says Scripture, 'the Spirit of His Son into
our hearts, crying, Abba, Father[5].' Therefore the Son in us, calling upon
His own Father, causes Him to be named our Father also. Surely in whose hearts
the Son is not, of them neither can God be called Father. But if because of
the Word the Man is called Son, it follows necessarily, since the ancients[6]
are called sons even before the Incarnation, that the Word is Son even before
His sojourn among us; for 'I begat sons,' saith Scripture; and in
442
the time of Noah, 'When the sons of God saw,' and in the Song, 'Is not He thy
Father[7]?' Therefore there was also that True Son, for whose sake they too
were sons. But if, as they say again, neither of the two is Son, but it
depends on the concurrence of the two, it follows that neither is Son; I say,
neither the Word nor the Man, but some cause, on account of which they were
united; and accordingly that cause which makes the Son will precede the
uniting. Therefore in this way also the Son was before the flesh. When this
then is urged, they will take refuge in another pretext, saying, neither that
the Man is Son, nor both together, but that the Word was Word indeed simply in
the beginning, but when He became Man, then He was named[7a] Son; for before
His appearing He was not Son but Word only; and as the 'Word be came flesh,'
not being flesh before, so the Word became Son, not being Son before. Such are
their idle words; but they admit of an obvious refutation.
23. For if simply, when made Man, He has become Son, the becoming Man is
the cause. And if the Man is cause of His being Son, or both together, then
the same absurdities result. Next, if He is first Word and then Son, it will
appear that He knew the Father afterwards, not before; for not as being Word
does He know Him, but as Son. For 'No one knoweth the Father but the Son.' And
this too will result, that He has come afterwards to be 'in the bosom of the
Fathers[1],' and afterwards He and the Father have become One; and afterwards
is, 'He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father[2].' For all these things are
said of the Son. Hence they will be forced to say, The Word was nothing but a
name. For neither is it He who is in us with the Father, nor whoso has seen
the Word, hath seen the Father, nor was the Father known to any one at all,
for through the Son is the Father known (for so it is written, 'And he to
whomsoever the Son will reveal Him'), and, the Word not being yet Son, not yet
did any know the Father. How then was He seen by Moses, how by the fathers?
for He says Himself in the Kingdoms, 'Was I not plainly revealed to the house
of thy father[3]?' But if God was revealed, there must have been a Son to
reveal, as He says Himself, 'And he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him.' It
is irreligious then and foolish to say that the Word is one and the Son
another, and whence they gained such an idea it were well to ask them. They
answer, Because no mention is made in the Old Testament of the Son, but of the
Word; and for this reason they are positive in their opinion that the Son came
later than the Word, because not in the Old, but in the New only, is He spoken
of. This is what they irreligiously say; for first to separate between the
Testaments, so that the one does not hold with the other, is the device of
Manichees and Jews, the one of whom oppose the Old, and the other the New[4].
Next, on their shewing, if what is contained in the Old is of older date, and
what in the New of later, and times depend upon the writing, it follows that
'I and the Father are One,' and 'Only-begotten,' and 'He that hath seen Me
hath seen the Father[5],' are later, for these testimonies are adduced not
from the Old but from the New.
24. But it is not so; for in truth much is said in the Old also about the
Son, as in the second Psalm, 'Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten
Thee[1];' and in the ninth the title[2], Unto the 'end concerning the hidden
things of the Son, a Psalm of David;' and in the forty-fourth, 'Unto the end,
concerning the things that shall be changed to the Sons of Korah for
understanding, a song about the Well-beloved;' and in Isaiah, 'I will sing to
my Well-beloved a song of my Well-beloved touching my vineyard. My
Well-beloved hath a vineyard[3];' Who is this 'Well-beloved' but the
Only-begotten Son? as also in the hundred and ninth, 'From the womb I begat
Thee before the morning star[4],' concerning which I shall speak afterwards;
and in the Proverbs, 'Before the hills He begat me;' and in Daniel, 'And the
form of the Fourth is like the Son of Gods[5];' and many others. If then from
the Old be ancientness, ancient must be the Son, who is clearly described in
the Old Testament in many places. Yes,' they say, 'so it is, but it must be
taken prophetically.' Therefore also the Word must be said to be spoken of
prophetically; for this is not to be taken one way, that another. For if 'Thou
art My Son' refer to the future, so does 'By the Word of the Lord were the
heavens established;' for it is not said 'were brought to be,' nor 'He made.'
But that 'established' refers to the future, it states elsewhere: 'The Lord
reigned[5a],' followed by 'He so established the earth that it can never be
moved.' And if the words in the forty-fourth Psalm 'for My Well-beloved' refer
to the future, so does what follows upon them, 'My heart uttered a good Word.'
And if From the womb' relates to a man, therefore
443
also 'From the heart.' For if the womb is human, so is the heart corporeal.
But if what is from the heart is eternal, then what is 'From the womb' is
eternal. And if the 'Only-be-gotten' is 'in the bosom,' therefore the
'Well-beloved' is 'in the bosom.' For 'Only-be-gotten' and 'Well-beloved' are
the same, as in the words 'This is My Well-beloved Son[6].' For not as wishing
to signify His love towards Him did He say 'Well-beloved,' as if it might
appear that He hated others, but He made plain thereby His being
Only-begotten, that He might shew that He alone was from Him. And hence the
Word, with a view of conveying to Abraham the idea of 'Only-begotten,' says,
'Offer thy son thy well-beloved[7];' but it is plain to any one that Isaac was
the only son from Sara. The Word then is Son, not lately come to be, or named
Son, but always Son. For if not Son, neither is He Word; and if not Word,
neither is He Son. For that which is from the father is a son; and what is
from the Father, but that Word that went forth from the heart, and was born
from the womb? for the Father is not Word, nor the Word Father, but the one is
Father, and the other Son; and one begets, and the other is begotten.
25. Marcellian illustration from 1 Cor. xii. 4, refuted.
25. Arius then raves in saying that the Son is from nothing, and that once
He was not, while Sabellius also raves in saying that the Father is Son, and
again, the Son Father[1], in subsistence[2] One, in name Two; and he[3] raves
also in using as an example the grace of the Spirit. For he says, 'As there
are "diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit," so also the Father is the
same[4], but is dilated into Son and Spirit.' Now this is full of absurdity;
for if as with the Spirit, so it is with God, the Father will be Word and Holy
Spirit, to one becoming Father, to another Son, to another Spirit,
accommodating himself to the need of each, and in name indeed Son and Spirit,
but in reality Father only; having a beginning in that He becomes a Son, and
then ceasing to be called Father, and made man in name, but in truth not even
coming among us; and untrue in saying 'I and the Father,' but in reality being
Himself the Father, and the other absurdities which result in the instance of
Sabellius. And the name of the Son and the Spirit will necessarily cease, when
the need has been supplied; and what happens will altogether be but
make-belief, because it has been displayed, not in truth, but in name. And the
Name of Son ceasing, as they hold, then the grace of Baptism will cease too;
for it was given in the Son[5]. Nay, what will follow but the annihilation of
the creation? for if the Word came forth that we might be created[6], and when
He was come forth, we were, it is plain that when He retires into the Father,
as they say, we shall be no longer. For He will be as He was; so also we shall
not be, as then we were not; for when He is no more gone forth, there will no
more be a creation. This then is absurd.
26--36. That the Son is the Co-existing Word, argued from the New Testament.
Texts from the Old Testament continued; especially Ps. cx. 3. Besides, the
Word in Old Testament may be Son in New, as Spirit in Old Testament is
Paraclete in New. Objection from Acts x. 36; answered by parallels, such as 1
Cor. i. 5. Lev. ix. 7. &c. Necessity of the Word's taking flesh, viz. to
sanctify, yet without destroying, the flesh.
26. But that the Son has no beginning of being, but before He was made man
was ever with the Father, John makes clear in his first Epistle, writing thus:
'That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen
with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the
Word of Life; and the Life was manifested, and we have seen it; and we bear
witness and declare unto you that Eternal Life, which was with the Father, and
was manifested unto us[1].' While he says here that 'the Life,' not 'became,'
but 'was with the Father,' in the end of his Epistle he says the Son is the
Life, writing, 'And we are in Him that is True, even in His Son, Jesus Christ;
this is the True God and Eternal Life[2].' But if the Son is the Life, and the
Life was with the Father, and if the Son was with the Father, and the same
Evangelist says, 'And the Word was with God[3],' the Son must be the Word,
which is ever with the Father. And as the 'Son' is 'Word,' so 'God' must be
'the Father.' Moreover, the Son, according to John, is not merely 'God' but
'True God;' for according to the same Evangelist, 'And the Word was God;' and
the Son said, 'I am the Life[4].' Therefore the Son is the Word and Life which
is with the Father. And again, what is said in the same John, 'The
Only-begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father[5],' shews that the Son
was ever. For whom John calls Son, Him David mentions in the Psalm as God's
Hand[6], saying, 'Why stretchest Thou not forth Thy Right Hand out of Thy
bosom[7]?' Therefore if the Hand is in
444
the bosom, and the Son in the bosom, the Son will be the Hand, and the Hand
will be the Son, through whom the Father made all things l for it is written,
'Thy Hand made all these things,' and 'He led out His people with His
Hand[8];' therefore through the Son. And if 'this is the changing of the Right
Hand of the Most Highest,' and again, 'Unto the end, concerning the things
that shall be changed, a song for My Well-beloved[9];' the Well-beloved then
is the Hand that was changed; concerning whom the Divine Voice also says,
'This is My Beloved Son.' This 'My Hand' then is equivalent to 'This My Son. '
27. But since there are ill-instructed men who, while resisting the
doctrine of a Son, think little of the words, 'From the womb before the
morning star I begat Thee[1];' as if this referred to His relation to Mary,
alleging that He was born of Mary 'before the morning star,' for that to say
'womb' could not refer to His relation towards God, we must say a few words
here. If then, because the 'womb' is human, therefore it is foreign to God,
plainly 'heart' too has a human meaning[2], for that which has heart has womb
also. Since then both are human, we must deny both, or seek to explain both.
Now as a word is from the heart, so is an offspring from the womb; and as when
the heart of God is spoken of, we do not conceive of it as human, so if
Scripture says 'from the womb,' we must not take it in a corporeal sense. For
it is usual with divine Scripture to speak and signify in the way of man what
is above man. Thus speaking of the creation it says, 'Thy hands made me and
fashioned me,' and, 'Thy hand made all these things,'and, 'He commanded and
they were created[3].' Suitable then is its language about everything;
attributing to the Son 'propriety' and 'genuineness,' and to the creation 'the
beginning of being.' For the one God makes and creates; but Him He begets from
Himself, Word or Wisdom. Now 'womb' and 'heart' plainly declare the proper and
the genuine; for we too have this from the womb; but our works we make by the
hand.
28. What means then, say they, 'Before the morning star?' I would answer,
that if 'Before the morning star' shews that His birth from Mary was
wonderful, many others besides have been born before the rising of the star.
What then is said so wonderful in His instance, that He should record it as
some choice prerogative[4], when it is common to many? Next, to beget differs
from bringing forth; for begetting involves the primary foundation, but to
bring forth is nothing else than the production of what exists. If then the
term belongs to the body, let it be observed that He did not then receive a
beginning of coming to be when he was evangelized to the shepherds by night,
but when the Angel spoke to the Virgin. And that was not night, for this is
not said; on the contrary, it was night when He issued from the womb. This
difference Scripture makes, and says on the one hand that He was begotten
before the morning star, and on the other speaks of His proceeding from the
womb, as in the twenty-first Psalm, 'Thou art be that drew Me from the
womb[5].' Besides, He did not say, 'before the rising of the morning star,'
but simply 'before the morning star.' If then the phrase must be taken of the
body, then either the body must be before Adam, for the stars were before
Adam, or we have to investigate the sense of the letter. And this John enables
us to do, who says in the Apocalypse, 'I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the
last, the beginning and the end. Blessed are they who make broad their robes,
that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the
gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers,
and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever maketh and loveth a lie. I Jesus
have sent My Angel, to testify these things in the Churches. I am the Root and
the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star. And the Spirit and the
Bride say, Come; and let him that heareth say, Come; and let him that is
athirst, Come; and whosoever will, let him take of the water of life
freely[6].' If then 'the Offspring of David' be the 'Bright and Morning Star,'
it is plain that the flesh of the Saviour is called 'the Morning Star,' which
the Offspring from God preceded; so that the sense of the Psalm is this, 'I
have begotten Thee from Myself before Thy appearance in the flesh;' for
'before the Morning Star' is equivalent to 'before the Incarnation of the
Word.'
29. Thus in the Old also, statements are plainly made concerning the Son;
at the same time it is superfluous to argue the point; for if what is not
stated in the Old is of later date, let them who are thus disputatious, say
where in the Old is mention made of the Spirit, the Paraclete? for of the Holy
Spirit there is mention, but nowhere of the Paraclete. Is then the Holy Spirit
one, and the Paraclete another, and the Paraclete the later, as not mentioned
in the Old? but far be it to say that the Spirit is later, or to
445
distinguish the Holy Ghost as one and the Paraclete as another; for the Spirit
is one and the same, then and now hallowing and comforting those who are His
recipients; as one and the same Word and Son led even then to adoption of sons
those who were worthy[1]. For sons under the Old were made such through no
other than the Son. For unless even before Mary there were a Son who was of
God, how is He before all, when they are sons before Him? and how also
'First-born,' if He comes second after many? But neither is the Paraclete
second, for He was before all, nor the Son later; for 'in the beginning was
the Word[2].' And as the Spirit and Paraclete are the same, so the Son and
Word are the same; and as the Saviour says concerning the Spirit, 'But the
Paraclete which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My Name[3],'
speaking of One and Same, and not distinguishing, so John describes similarly
when he says, 'And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld
His glory, glory as of one Only-begotten from the Father[4].' For here too he
does not distinguish but witnesses the identity. And as the Paraclete is not
one and the Holy Ghost another, but one and the same, so Word is not one, and
Son another, but the Word is Only-Begotten; for He says not the glory of the
flesh itself, but of the Word. He then who dares distinguish between Word and
Son, let him distinguish between Spirit and Paraclete; but if the Spirit
cannot be distinguished, so neither can the Word, being also Son and Wisdom
and Power. Moreover, the word 'Well-beloved' even the Greeks who are skilful
in phrases know to be equivalent with 'Only-begotten.' For Homer speaks thus
of Telemachus, who was the only-begotten of Ulysses, in the second book of the
Odyssey:
O'er the wide earth, dear youth, why seek to run,
An only child, a well-beloved[5] son?
He whom you mourn, divine Ulysses, fell
Far from his country, where the strangers dwell.
Therefore he who is the only son of his father is called well-beloved.
30. Some of the followers of the Samosatene, distinguishing the Word from
the Son, pretend that the Son is Christ, and the Word another; and they ground
this upon Peter's words in the Acts, which he spoke well, but they explain
badly[6]. It is this: 'The Word He sent to the children of Israel, preaching
peace by Jesus Christ; this is Lord of all[7].' For they say that since the
Word spoke through Christ, as in the instance of the Prophets, 'Thus saith the
Lord,' the prophet was one and the Lord another. But to this it is parallel to
oppose the words in the first to the Corinthians, 'waiting for the revelation
of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall also confirm you unto the end unblameable
in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ[8].' For as one Christ does not confirm
the day of another Christ, but He Himself confirms in His own day those who
wait for Him, so the Father sent the Word made flesh, that being made man He
might preach by means of Himself. And therefore he straightway adds, 'This is
Lord of all;' but Lord of all is the Word.
31. 'And Moses said unto Aaron, Go unto the altar and offer thy
sin-offering, and thy burnt-offering, and make an atonement for thyself and
for the people; and offer the offering of the people, and make an atonement
for them, as the Lord commanded Moses[1].' See now here, though Moses be one,
Moses himself speaks as if about another Moses, 'as the Lord commanded Moses.'
In like manner then, if the blessed Peter speak of the Divine Word also, as
sent to the children of Israel by Jesus Christ, it is not necessary to
understand that the Word is one and Christ another, but that they were one and
the same by reason of the uniting which took place in His divine and loving
condescension and becoming man. And even if He be considered in two ways[2],
still it is without any division of the Word, as when the inspired John says,
'And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us[3].' What then is said well and
rightly[4] by the blessed Peter, the followers of the Samosatene,
understanding badly and wrongly, stand not in the truth. For Christ is
understood in both ways in Divine Scripture, as when it says Christ 'God's
power and God's wisdom[5].' If then Peter says that the Word was sent through
Jesus Christ unto the children of Israel, let him be understood to mean, that
the Word incarnate has appeared to the children of Israel, so that it may
correspond to 'And the Word became flesh.' But if they understand it
otherwise, and, while confessing the Word to be divine, as He is, separate
from Him the Man that He has taken, with which also we believe that He is made
one, saying that He has been sent through Jesus Christ, they are, without
knowing it, contradicting themselves. For those who in this place separate the
divine Word from the divine Incarnation, have, it seems, a degraded notion of
the doctrine of His having become flesh, and entertain Gentile thoughts, as
they do, conceiving that the divine Incarnation is an alteration of the Word.
But it is not so; perish the thought.
32. For in the same way that John here preaches that incomprehensible
union. 'the
446
mortal being swallowed up of life[1],' nay, of Him who is Very Life (as the
Lord said to Martha, 'I am the Life[2]'), so when the blessed Peter says that
through Jesus Christ the Word was sent, he implies the divine union also. For
as when a man heard 'The Word became flesh,' he would not think that the Word
ceased to be, which is absurd, as has been said before, so also hearing of the
Word which has been united to the flesh, let him understand the divine mystery
one and simple. More clearly however and indisputably than all reasoning does
what was said by the Archangel to the Bearer of God herself, shew the oneness
of the Divine Word and Man. For he says, 'The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee,
and the Power of the Highest shall overshadow thee therefore also that Holy
Thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God[3].'
Irrationally then do the followers of the Samosatene separate the Word who is
clearly declared to be made one with the Man from Mary. He is not therefore
sent through that Man; but He rather in Him sent, saying, 'Go ye, teach all
nations[4].'
33. And this is usual with Scriptures[5], to express itself in
inartificial and simple phrases. For so also in Numbers we shall find, Moses
said to Raguel the Midianite, the father-in-law of Moses; for there was not
one Moses who spoke, and another whose father-in-law was Raguel, but Moses was
one. And if in like manner the Word of God is called Wisdom and Power and
Right-Hand and Arm and the like, and if in His love to man He has become one
with us, putting on our first-fruits and blended with it, therefore the other
titles also have, as was natural, become the Word's portions. For that John
has said, that in the beginning was the Word, and He with God and Himself God,
and alI things through Him, and without Him nothing made, shews clearly that
even man is the formation of God the Word. If then after taking him, when
enfeebled[6], into Himself, He renews him again through that sure renewal unto
endless permanence, and therefore is made one with him in order to raise him
to a diviner lot, how can we possibly say that the Word was sent through the
Man who was from Mary, and reckon Him, the Lord of Apostles, with the other
Apostles, I mean prophets, who were sent by Him? And how can Christ be called
a mere man? on the contrary, being made one with the Word, He is with reason
called Christ and Son of God, the prophet having long since loudly and
clearly ascribed the Father's subsistence to Him, and said, 'And I will send
My Son Christ[7],' and in the Jordan, 'This is My Well-beloved Son.' For when
He had fulfilled His promise, He shewed, as was suitable, that He was He whom
He said He had sent.
34. Let us then consider Christ in both ways, the divine Word made one in Mary
with Him which is from Mary. For in her womb the Word fashioned for Himself
His house, as at the beginning He formed Adam from the earth; or rather more
divinely, concerning whom Solomon too says openly, knowing that the Word was
also called Wisdom, 'Wisdom builded herself an house[1];' which the Apostle
interprets when he says, 'Which house are we[2],' and elsewhere calls us a
temple, as far as it is fitting to God to inbabit a temple, of which the
image, made of stones, He by Solomon commanded the ancient people to build;
whence, on the appearance of the Truth, the image ceased. For when the
ruthless men wished to prove the image to be the truth, and to destroy that
true habitation which we surely believe His union with us to be, He threatened
them not; but knowing that their crime was against themselves, He says to
them, 'Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up[3],' He, our
Saviour, surely shewing thereby that the things about which men busy
themselves, carry their dissolution with them. For unless the Lord had built
the house, and kept the city, in vain did the builders toil, and the keepers
watch[4]. And so the works of the Jews are undone, for they were a shadow; but
the Church is firmly established; it is 'founded on the rock,' and 'the gates
of hades shall not prevail against it[5].' Theirs[6] it was to say, 'Why dost
Thou, being a man, make Thyself God[7]?' and their disciple is the Samosatene;
whence to his followers with reason does he teach his heresy. But 'we did not
so learn Christ, if so be that we heard' Him, and were taught from Him,
'putting off the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts,'
and taking up 'the new, which after God is created in righteousness and true
holiness[8].' Let Christ then in both ways be religiously considered.
35. But if Scripture often calls even the body by the name of Christ, as
in the blessed Peter's words to Cornelius, when he teaches him of 'Jesus of
Nazareth, whom God anointed with the Holy Ghost,' and again to the Jews,
'Jesus of Nazareth, a Man approved of God for you[1],' and again the blessed
Paul to the Athenians, 'By that Man, whom He
447
ordained, giving assurance to all men, in that He raised Him from the dead[2]'
(for we find the appointment and the mission often synonymous with the
anointing; from which any one who will may learn, that there is no discordance
in the words of the sacred writers, but that they but give various names to
the union of God the Word with the Man from Mary, sometimes as anointing,
sometimes as mission, sometimes as appointment), it follows that what the
blessed Peter says is rights, and he proclaims in purity the Godhead of the
Only begotten, without separating the subsistence of God the Word from the Man
from Mary (perish the thought! for how should he, who had heard in so main,
ways, 'I and the Father are one,' and 'He that hath seen Me, hath seen the
Father[4]?)' In which Man, after the resurrection also, when the doors were
shut, we know of His coming to the whole band[4a] of the Apostles, and
dispersing all that was hard to believe in it by His words, 'Handle Me and
see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see Me have[5].' And He did
not say, 'This,' or 'this Man which I have taken to Me,' but 'Me.' Wherefore
the Samosatene will gain no allowance, being refuted by so many arguments for
the union of God the Word, nay by God the Word Himself, who now brings the
news to all, and assures them by eating, and permitting to them that handling
of Him which then took place. For certainly he who gives food to others, and
they who give him, touch hands. For 'they gave Him,' Scripture says, 'a piece
of a broiled fish and of an honey-comb, and' when He had 'eaten before them,
He took the remains and gave to them[6],' See now, though not as Thomas was
allowed, yet by another way, He afforded to them full assurance, in being
touched by them; but if you would now see the scars, learn from Thomas. 'Reach
hither thy hand and thrust it into My side, and reach hither thy finger and
behold My hands[7];' so says God the Word, speaking of His own[8] side and
hands, and of Himself as whole man and God to beget, first affording to the
Saints even perception of the Word through the body[9], as we may consider, by
entering when the doors were shut; and next standing near them in the body and
affording full assurance. So much may be conveniently said for confirmation of
the faithful, and correction of the unbelieving.
36. And so let Paul of Samosata also stand corrected on hearing the divine
voice of Him who said 'My body,' not 'Christ besides Me who am the Word,' but
'Him[1] with Me, and Me with Him.' For I the Word am the chrism, and that
which has the chrism from Me is the Man[2]; not then without Me could He be
called Christ, but being with Me and I in Him. Therefore the mention of the
mission of the Word shews the uniting which took place with Jesus, born of
Mary, Whose Name means Saviour, not by reason of anything else, but from the
Man's being made one with God the Word. This passage has the same meaning as
'the Father that sent Me,' and 'I came not of Myself, but the Father sent
Me[3].' For he has given the name of mission[4] to the uniting with the Man,
with Whom the Invisible nature might be known to men, through the visible. For
God changes not place, like us who are hidden in places, when in the fashion
of our littleness He displays Himself in His existence in the flesh; for how
should He, who fills the heaven and the earth? but on account of the presence
in the flesh the just have spoken of His mission. Therefore God the Word
Himself is Christ from Mary, God and Man; not some other Christ but One and
the Same; He before ages from the Father, He too in the last times from the
Virgin; invisible s before even to the holy powers of heaven, visible now
because of His being one with the Man who is visible; seen, I say, not in His
invisible Godhead but in the operation[6] of the Godhead through the human
body and whole Man, which He has renewed by its appropriation to Himself. To
Him be the adoration and the worship, who was before, and now is, and ever
shall be, even to all ages. Amen.