On New Advent.com:

Four Discourses Against the Arians

Discourse I
Discourse II
Discourse III
Discourse IV

Home   Encyclopedia   Summa   Fathers   Bible   Library

A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z

Discourse 1 Against the Arians

Chapter 1. Introduction. Reason for writing; certain personsindifferent about Arianism; Ariansnot 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 a madness, and their irreligiousness has long since become notorious to all men. For that 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 says 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 ofAntichrist, the Arian, as it is called, considering that other heresies, her elder sisters, have been openly proscribed, in her craft and cunning, affects to array herself in Scripture language , 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 itsbreast-plate ,' and to show 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, norfalsehood truth, nor Arianism good; nay, that those who call these men Christiansare 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 evenCaiaphas a Christian, and to reckon the traitor Judas still among the Apostles, and to say that they who asked Barabbas instead of the Saviour did no evil, and to recommend Hymenæus and Alexander as right-minded men, and as if theApostle 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 forChrist is Arius, as with the Manichees Manichæus; and for Moses and the othersaints they have made the discovery of one Sotades , a man whom even Gentileslaugh at, and of the daughter of Herodias. For of the one has Arius imitated the dissolute and effeminate tone, in writing Thaliæ; on his model; and the other he has rivalled in her dance, reeling and frolicking in his blasphemies against theSaviour; 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 ,' 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 , that they themselves may appear to have that Name in the same way. Nor let them make ajest 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 blessedApostles 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 namedChristians. But for those who derive the faith which they profess from others,good reason is it they should bear their name, whose property they have become.
3. Yes surely; while all of us are and are called Christians after Christ, Marcionbroached 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 Marcionwere called Christians no more, but henceforth Marcionites. Thus Valentinus also, and Basilides, and Manichæus, and Simon Magus, have imparted their own name to their followers; and some are accosted as Valentinians, or as Basilidians, or asManichees, or as Simonians; and other, Cataphrygians from Phrygia, and fromNovatus Novatians. So too Meletius, when ejected by Peter the Bishop andMartyr, called his party no longer Christians, but Meletians , 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 withArius, 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'sdeath 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 theheretics, 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 fromArius, are called Arians. And, what is a remarkable evidence of this, those of theGreeks who even at this time come into the Church, on giving up the superstitionof 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 theheretics, and again all who from the Church change to this heresy, abandonChrist's name, and henceforth are called Arians, as no longer holding Christ'sfaith, but having inherited Arius's madness.
4. How then can they be Christians, who for Christians are Ario-maniacs ? 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 Thaliæ; 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 ofirreligion into dissolute and loose metres? That, while 'a man,' as Wisdom says, 'is known from the utterance of his word ,' so from those numbers should be seen the writer's effeminate soul and corruption of thought. 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'sname, and were convicted of blaspheming when they said, 'Why do You, being aman, make Yourself God,' and sayest, 'I and the Father are one John 10:30?' And so too, this counterfeit and Sotadean Arius, feigns to speak of God, introducingScripture language , but is on all sides recognised as godless Arius, denying theSon, and reckoning Him among the creatures.

Chapter 2. Extracts from the Thalia of Arius. Ariusmaintains 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 knowor see the Father; does not knowHimself.

5. Now the commencement of Arius's Thalia and flippancy, effeminate in tune andnature, 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 :— 'God was not always a Father.' 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 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,' says 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 theirheresy, as shown 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 , 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.' And by nature, as all others, so the Word Himself is alterable, and remains goodby His own free will, while He chooses; when, however, He wills, He can alter as we can, as being of an alterable nature. For 'therefore,' says 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 , 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'srecklessness, 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 incomprehension , but 'He knows not even His own essence;'— and that 'theessences of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, are separate in nature, and estranged, and disconnected, and alien , and without participation of each other ;' and, in his own words, 'utterly unlike from each other in essence andglory, unto infinity.' Thus as to 'likeness of glory and essence,' he says that theWord is entirely diverse from both the Father and the Holy Ghost. With such words has 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 tune of the Thalia, but must hate, and justly hate, this Arius jesting on such matters as on a stage ? Who but must regard him, when he pretends to name God and speak of God, but as the serpentcounselling the woman? Who, on reading what follows in his work, but must discern in his irreligious doctrine that error, into which by his sophistries theserpent 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 Jeremiah 2:12 ' at the transgression of the Law. But the sun, with greater horror, impatient of the bodily contumelies, which the common Lord of allvoluntarily endured for us, turned away, and recalling his rays made that daysunless. 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 denouncemen 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 them, for they have transgressed against Me; though I have redeemedthem, yet they have spoken lies against Me Hosea 7:13.' And soon after, 'Theyimagine mischief against Me; they turn away to nothing. ' 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 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 of Antichrist. Though then so great a condemnation be itself of special weight to make men flee from that irreligious heresy , as I said above, yet since certain persons called Christian, either in ignorance or pretence, think it, as I then said, little different from theTruth, and call its professors Christians; proceed we to put some questions to them, according to our powers, thereby to expose the unscrupulousness of theheresy. Perhaps, when thus caught, they will be silenced, and flee from it, as from the sight of a serpent.

Chapter 3. The Importance of the Subject. The Ariansaffect 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 Arianismin contrast, that He is a creature with a beginning: the controversy comes to this issue, whether one whom we are to believein as God, can be so in name only, and is merely a creature. What pretence then for being indifferent in the controversy? The Ariansrely 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 and the Prophets like Manichees, 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, borrowsScripture 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 formerheresies; 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 , and betrayed to all men his ignorance of other heresies too ; 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 theSon, that reveals concerning Him? Or how can he be orthodox concerning theSpirit, while he speaks profanely of the Word that supplies the Spirit? And whowill trust him concerning the Resurrection, denying, as he does, Christ for us thefirst-begotten from the dead? And how shall he not err in respect to His incarnatepresence, 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 Cæsar John 19:15,' were immediately 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 doctrine ? Or whence or from whom did the abettors and hirelings of the heresy gain it? Who thus expounded to them when they were at school ? Who told them, 'Abandon the worship of thecreation, and then draw near and worship a creature and a work ?' 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 ? But what is not from our fathers, but has come to light in this day, how can it be but that of which theblessed Paul has foretold, that 'in the latter times some shall depart from the sound faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, in thehypocrisy 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 thereligious 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 in essencewith the very Father; while other beings, to whom He said, 'I said you are Gods ,' had this grace from the Father, only by participation of the Word, through theSpirit. 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 has seen Me, has seen the Father John 14:9.' And He ever was and is and never was not. For the Father being everlasting, His Word and His Wisdom must be everlasting. On the other hand, what have these persons to show us from theinfamous 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 Godby participation; the Son has not exact knowledge of the Father, nor does theWord 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 calledWord 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 inquiring into both sides, to be asked, whether of the two he would follow infaith, 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. 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 ; to call Him one of things originated, or to unite Him to the Father; to consider Him unlike the Father inessence, 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 has 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 presentJews. But if He be Word of the Father and true Son, and God from God, and 'over all blessed for ever Romans 9:5,' 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, 'knows not that giants perish with her, and reaches the depths of Hades ?' This they know themselves, and in their craft they conceal it, not having the courage to speak out, but uttering something else. For if they speak, a condemnation will follow; and if they be suspected, proofs fromScripture will be cast at them from every side. Wherefore, in their craft, as children of this world, after feeding their so-called lamp from the wild olive, andfearing lest it should soon be quenched (for it is said, 'the light of the wickedshall be put out Job 18:5,') they hide it under the bushel of their hypocrisy, and make a different profession, and boast of patronage of friends and authority ofConstantius, 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 hidden 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 ? Not any one man can they specify who has supplied it. For who is there in all mankind, Greekor 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 Matthew 3:17,' on the pretence that He is not a Son, but a creature? Rather, such madness would rouse an universal indignation. Nor doesScripture afford them any pretext; for it has been often shown, and it shall be shown 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 ), 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 4. 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 Romans 1:20, which is shown 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 you have maintained and you 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, Oslanderous and irreligious men ? If you 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 you 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 theWord 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 timebefore the Word. Whence then this your discovery? Why do you, as 'the heathen,rage, and imagine vain phrases against the Lord and against His Christ.' for noholy Scripture has used such language of the Saviour, but rather 'always' and 'eternal' and 'coexistent always with the Father.' For, 'In the beginning was theWord, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God John 1:1.' And in theApocalypse he thus speaks ; '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 hasPaul written in his Epistle to the Romans, 'Of whom as concerning the flesh isChrist, who is over all, God blessed for ever Romans 9:5;' while silencing theGreeks, 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 eternalPower and Godhead ;' and what the Power of God is, he teaches us elsewhere himself, 'Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of God. ' Surely in these words he does not designate the Father, as you often whisper one to another, affirmingthat 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 ;'and you will see that it is the Son who issignified.
12. For after making mention of the creation, he naturally speaks of the Framer'sPower 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 theSon, to make God known, see that you fall 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 Colossians 1:17,' it must follow that he who contemplates thecreation rightly, is contemplating also the Word who framed it, and through Him begins to apprehend the Father. And if, as the Saviour also says, 'No one knowsthe Father, save the Son, and he to whom the Son shall reveal Him Matthew 11:27,' and if on Philip's asking, 'Show us the Father,' He said not, 'Behold the creation,' but, 'He that has seen Me, has seen the Father John 14:8-9,' reasonably does Paul—while accusing the Greeks of contemplating the harmony and order of thecreation without reflecting on the Framing Word within it (for the creatureswitness to their own Framer) so as through the creation to apprehend the trueGod, and abandon their worship of it—reasonably has he said, 'His Eternal Power and Godhead Romans 1:20,' thereby signifying the Son. And where the sacredwriters say, 'Who exists before the ages,' and 'By whom He made the agesHebrews 1:2,' they thereby as clearly preach the eternal and everlasting being of the Son, even while they are designating God Himself. Thus, if Isaiah says, 'TheEverlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth Isaiah 40:28;' and Susanna said, 'O Everlasting God ;' 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, andjoy has come unto me from the Holy One ;' yet forasmuch as the Apostle, writing to the Hebrews, says, 'Who being the radiance of His glory and the Expression of His Person Hebrews 1:3;' and David too in the eighty-ninth Psalm, 'And the brightness of the Lord be upon us,' and, 'In Your Light shall we see Light ,' who has so little sense as to doubt of the eternity of the Son ? 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, 'Your kingdomis a kingdom of all ages ,' 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 , 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 theTruth ,' not 'I became the Truth.' but always, 'I am—I am the Shepherd,— I am the Light,'— and again, 'Call Me not, Lord and Master? And you call Me well, for so I am,' who, hearing such language from God, and the Wisdom, and Word of theFather, speaking of Himself, will any longer hesitate about the truth, and not immediately believe that in the phrase 'I am,' is signified that the Son is eternaland 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 Genesis 2:5.' And in Deuteronomy, 'When the Most High divided to the nations Deuteronomy 32:8.' And the Lord said in His own Person, 'If you lovedMe, you would rejoice 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 has come to pass, you might believe John 14:28-29.' 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 Proverbs 8:23.' And, 'Before Abraham was, I am John 8:58.' And concerning Jeremiah He says, 'Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you Jeremiah 1:5.' And David in the Psalm says, 'Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever the earth and the world were made, You are, God from everlasting and world without end. ' And in Daniel, 'Susanna cried out with a loud voice and said, O everlasting God, that know the secrets, and know all things before they be. ' 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 theWord. But if such terms are used in Scripture of things originate, but 'ever' of theWord, it follows, O you 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 andWord eternal, never having not been, but being ever, as the eternal Radiance of a Light which is eternal. Why imagine then times before the Son? Or whyblaspheme 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 John 1:3?' 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 5. 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. ' 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 Wordbe called brother of Him whose Word He is? This is not an objection of men reallyignorant, 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 themselvesProverbs 18:1 ' from the truth. For the Father and the Son were not generated from some pre-existing origin , that we may account Them brothers, but the Father is the Origin of the Son and begot 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 theeternal offspring of the Father, He is rightly so called. For never was the essenceof the Father imperfect, that what is proper to it should be added afterwards ; nor, as man from man, 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 , God's offspring is eternal, for His nature is ever perfect. 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 Scripturesproclaim, 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 HisWord, 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 theFountain was once barren and dry ? For though they pretend alarm at the name oftime, 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 toGod an absence of Reason.
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 ; 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 propernature 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 , 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. 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 ? If it be something external provided by the Father, He will not now be partaker of theFather, 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 theFather, 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 SonMatthew 3:17,' 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 willmeet us; there being in that case something between this that is from the Father and the essence of the Son, whatever that be.
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 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 ; and this shows that the Son Himself partakes of nothing, but what is partaken from theFather, is the Son; for, as partaking of the Son Himself, we are said to partake ofGod; and this is what Peter said 'that you may be partakers in a divine nature2 Peter 1:4;' as says too the Apostle, 'Do you not know, that you are a temple ofGod.' and, 'We are the temple of a living God. ' And beholding the Son, we see the Father; for the thought and comprehension of the Son, is knowledgeconcerning 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'sessence (for it has been shown 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 webelieve. If then, as we have stated and are showing, what is the Offspring of the Father's essence be the Son, we cannot hesitate, rather we must be certain, that the same is the Wisdom and Word of the Father, in and through whom He createsand 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 John 10:30,' and whoso looks on Him looks on the Father; and the Christ, in whom all things areredeemed, 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 ; since he really thinks of Him what he falsely imagines of His offspring.

Chapter 6. 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, itsheterodoxy 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 , 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 Godgrew and took shape. And further, if the Son is not proper offspring of the Father'sessence, 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. Nay, what is more serious still, the Triad is discovered to be 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 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 isCreator 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. 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 nowperfect 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 Triadnow. 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 blessedTriad 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 andworships the unity of the Godhead Itself; and shuns the Arian blasphemies, andconfesses and acknowledges that the Son was ever; for He is eternal, as is theFather, 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 byJeremiah, 'They have forsaken Me the Fountain of living waters Jeremiah 2:13;' and again, 'A glorious high throne from the beginning, is the place of our sanctuary; OLord, the Hope of Israel, all that forsake You shall be ashamed, and they that depart from Me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken theLord, the Fountain of living waters ;' and in the book of Baruch it is written, 'You have forsaken the Fountain of wisdom Baruch 3:12,'— 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 John 14:6,' and, 'I Wisdom dwell with prudence Proverbs 8:12.' 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 begets not from itself, is not a fountain. 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 Lordshall satisfy your soul in drought, and make your bones fat; and you shall be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose waters fail not Isaiah 58:11.' 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; truthwitnessing that God is the eternal Fountain of His proper Wisdom; and, if theFountain be eternal, the Wisdom also must needs be eternal. For in It were all things made, as David says in the Psalm, 'In Wisdom have You made them all ;' and Solomon says, 'The Lord by Wisdom has formed the earth, by understanding has He established the heavens Proverbs 3:19.' And this Wisdom is the Word, and by Him, as John says, 'all things were made,' and 'without Him was made not one thing. ' And this Word is 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 1 Corinthians 8:6.' And if all things are through Him, He Himself is not to be reckoned with that 'all.' For he who dares to call Him, through whom are things, one of that 'all,' surely will have like speculations concerningGod, from whom are all. But if he shrinks from this as unseemly, and excludesGod 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 , 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 theSon, He is such as the Father is, of whose essence He is proper Offspring, Word, and Wisdom. For this is proper to the Son, as regards the Father, and this shows that the Father is proper to the Son; that we may neither say that God was ever without Word , nor that the Son 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 ; for such is thenature of things originate. 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 wasadventitious , 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 theFather, and Expression, and Truth. For if, when Light exists, there be withal itsImage, viz. Radiance, and, a Subsistence existing, there be of it the entireExpression, 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 John 14:6.' And the Subsistence existing, of course there was immediately its Expression and Image; for God's Image is not delineated from without , but God Himself has begotten it; in which seeing Himself, He has delight, as the Son Himself says, 'I was His delight Proverbs 8:30.' 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 Creatorsee 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 attributesmust be in the Image, to make it true that he 'that has seen' the Son 'has seen the Father John 14:9.' 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 , but His name only. But this, on the other hand, O you 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 to theFather, then it necessarily 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 begot Him.' Authors of blasphemy, verily, are these foes of God! Who, sooner thanconfess that the Son is the Father's Image , conceive material and earthly ideasconcerning the Father Himself, ascribing to Him severings and 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 andmen, 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 does 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 Godheadalone, that the Father is properly 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 shown to be the Father's Expression and Image, remaining what He is and not changing, but thus receiving from the 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 begot 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 Father's 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 7. 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, Ariusand his fellows revolted from the truth, and used, when they commenced thisheresy, to go about with dishonest phrases which they had got together; nay, up to this time some of them , when they fall in with boys in the market-place, question them, not out of divine Scripture, but thus, as if bursting with 'the abundance of their heart Matthew 12:34;'— '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 ?' And again, 'Is the Unoriginate one or two?' and 'Has He free will, and yet 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 womanishlanguage; 'Had you a son before bearing? Now, as you had not, so neither was the Son of God before His generation.' In such language do the disgraceful mensport and revel, and liken God to men, pretending to be Christians, but changingGod's glory 'into an image made like to corruptible man. '
23. Words so senseless and dull deserved no answer at all; however, lest theirheresy 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. 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 Hecreates and makes, no longer do they object their human ideas? They ought increation 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 bareidea of God transcends such thoughts, and, on very first hearing, a man believesand knows that He is in being, not as we are, and yet in being as God, andcreates 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 , Father of His Son, are also called fathers of our own children; for of Him 'is every fatherhood in heaven and earth named Ephesians 3:15.' And their positions, whileunscrutinized, have a show 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 earthexisting 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 men, 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 show. But if they speak concerning God and HisWord, 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 theWord 'who is not,' or has He ever with Him His Word, as the proper offspring of His substance? This will show 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 Father, but became so afterwards (which is necessary for their fantasy, that His Wordonce was not), considering the number of the proofs already adduced against them; while John besides says, 'The Word was John 1:1,' and Paul again writes, 'Who being the brightness of His glory Hebrews 1:3,' and, 'Who is over all, Godblessed for ever. Amen Romans 9:5.'
25. They had best have been silent; but since it is otherwise, it remains to meet their shameless question with a bold retort. Perhaps on seeing the counter absurdities which beset themselves, they may cease to fight against the truth. After many prayers 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 waseternally; since then the Father is ever, His Radiance ever is, which is His Word. And again, God who is, has from Himself His Word who also is; and neither has 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 ; for whichever of these titles you use, you denote the offspring from theFather, as has been said. So that this their objection does not hold; andnaturally; for denying the Logos they in consequence ask questions which areillogical. 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 speculateconcerning 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 thenatural 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 John 1:14;' 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 evenexist at all, till He became man.
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 , as carpenter might do orshipwright, 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 show that their doctrine is a mere fantasy?

Chapter 8. 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 thenature 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 ofparents concerning their son, let them consider whence is the child which is begotten. For, granting 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 fromhuman examples that generation implies time, why not from the same infer that it implies the Natural and the Proper , 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 attributingsuch 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 , 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 anatural offspring from the Father, and that there is nothing which is a restraint toGod (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 begetpassibly, 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 offspringpassibly begotten. Uniting then the two titles, Scripture speaks 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 God. 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'sSon, so 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 speculatethey about passions and parts in the instance of the immaterial and indivisibleGod, that under pretence of reverence they may deny the true and naturalgeneration of the Son? Enough was said above to show that the offspring fromGod is not an affection; and now it has been shown 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 are given the name of wise. And this Wisdom too is not apassion, 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 framingadventitious 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 origination? Senseless are these Arians; for what likeness is there between Son and work, that they should parallel a father's with a maker'sfunction? How is it that, with that difference between offspring and work, which has been shown, 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. 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 has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been His Counsellor?' or how 'shall the thing formed say to'the potter, 'why did you make me thus ?' 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. 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, orMoses, 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 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 Wordand His Wisdom. And that creatures should not be in existence, does not disparage the Maker; for He has the power of framing them, when He wills; but for the offspring not to be ever with the Father, is a disparagement of theperfection 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'sessence.

Chapter 9. Objections Continued. Whether is the Unoriginate one or two? Inconsistent in Ariansto 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 ,' shows 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,' immediately 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.' Thus 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 inScripture, though these not injurious, but subversive of their irreligion, they themselves went off upon the same fault, that is, using words not in Scripture , and those in contumely of the Lord, knowing 'neither what they say nor whereof they affirm 1 Timothy 1:7.' 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 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 unprincipledsophist, the patron too of this heresy, has added in his own treatise, that what is not made, but is ever, is 'unoriginate. ' 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 shown, in spite of their many variations for the sole sake of speaking against the Lord, '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. For to say that God is in this sense Unoriginate, does not show that the Son is a thing originated, it being evident from the above proofs that the Word is such as He is who begot 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 theArian heresy, and maintaining that the Unoriginate is one, runs counter to them in saying, that the Wisdom of God is unoriginate and without beginning also. The following is a passage out of his work : '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 1 Corinthians 1:24;' thus preaching that the proper power of God Himself, which is natural to Him and co-existent with Himunoriginatedly, is something besides.' And again, soon after: 'However, Hiseternal power and wisdom, which truth argues to be without beginning and unoriginate; this must surely be one.' For though, misunderstanding the Apostle'swords, 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 anotherGalatians 5:15.' 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 amadness? 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 ; 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 contrast 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. ' 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 theUnoriginate 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 Unoriginate, 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 , they, in their own heresy, bring it forth for the dishonour of the Son, not having read that he who honours the Son honours the Father, and he who dishonours the Son, dishonours the Father. John 5:23 If they had any concern at all 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 signifythat the Word is a work after their own pleasure. But that he who calls GodFather, signifies Him from the Son being well aware that if there be a Son, ofnecessity 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.For the latter title, as I have said, does nothing more than signify all the works,individually and collectively, which have come to be at the will of God through theWord; 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 does calling God Father surpass the calling Him Unoriginate. 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 has seen Me, has seen the Father,' and 'I and the Father are One ;' but nowhere is He found to call the Father Unoriginate. Moreover, when He teaches us to pray, He says not, 'When you pray, say, O God Unoriginate,' but rather, 'When you pray, say, Our Father, which art in heaven Luke 11:2.' And it was His will that theSummary 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 Father Himself. A vain thing then is their argument about the term 'Unoriginate,' as is now proved, and nothing more than a fantasy.

Chapter 10. 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 , it is superfluous to examine it; it is enough simply to write down what they say, and so to show its daring irreligion. How they trifle, appears from the following questions:— 'Has Hefree 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 there?' 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 adoptsuch 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 theUnalterable? At what state must He arrive, for us to be able to behold in Him the Father? For it is plain 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 ? 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 truthshine out, and show 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 slanderouslyimpute 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 has seen the Son has 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, today, and for ever Hebrews 13:8.' And David in thePsalm says of Him, 'Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. They shall perish, but You remain; and they all shall wax old as does a garment. And as a vesture shall Thou fold them up, and they shall be changed, but You are the same, and Your years shall not fail. ' And the Lord Himself says of Himself through the Prophet, 'See now that I, even I am He,' and 'I change not. ' 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, shows us thereby that He is no wise a thing originate; nay teaches that He changes everything else, and is Himself not changed, in saying, 'You are the same, and Your years shall not fail Hebrews 1:12.' And with reason; for things originate, being from nothing , and not being before their origination, because, intruth, 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 essencewhich 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 , so they would have it, viz. as in any particular essence, a certain grace and habit of virtue existsaccidentally, 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 John 14:6.' 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.

Chapter 11. Texts Explained; And First, Philippians 2:9, 10. Whether the words 'Wherefore God has 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 amisinterpretation, according to their private sense , it becomes necessary to meet them just so far as to vindicate these passages, and to show that they bear anorthodox sense, and that our opponents are in error. They say then, that theApostle writes, 'Wherefore God also has 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 earthPhilippians 2:9-10;' and David, 'Wherefore God even Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness above Your fellows. ' Then they urge, as something acute: 'If He was exalted and received grace, on a 'wherefore,' and on a 'wherefore' He wasanointed, 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 use. 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 show for it, then having gained it from virtueand 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 Isaacwas 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 the gift itself; as the men who have received the Spirit by participation, concerning whom Scripture says, 'I begot and exalted children, and they rebelled against Me. ' 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 their 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 Godnor 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 Philippians 2:8.' 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 results in. 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 Proverbs 8:30? 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 , 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, how did the Son Himself make mention of that His glorybefore and above the world, when He said, 'Glorify Thou Me, O Father, with theglory which I had with You before the world was John 17:5.' If, as they say, He was then exalted, how did He before that 'bow the heavens and come down;' and again, 'The Highest gave His thunder ?' Therefore, if, even before the world was made, the Son had 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 deified 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. 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 stands in the congregation of Gods '), it is plain that He is called Son and Godlater than they. How then are all things through Him, and He before all? Or how is He 'first-born of the whole creation ,' if He has others before Him who are called sons and gods? And how is it that those first partakers do not partake of theWord? 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 knows the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him Matthew 11:27.' And how can there bedeifying apart from the Word and before Him? Yet, says He to their brethren theJews, 'If He called them gods, unto whom the Word of God came John 10:35.' And if all that are called sons and gods, whether in earth or in heaven, were adoptedand 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 , 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'sessence, so that one cannot doubt that after the resemblance of the unalterable Father, the Word also is unalterable.
40. Hitherto we have met their irrational conceits with the true conceptionsimplied 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 formof a servant, being made in the likeness of men. And, being found in fashion as aman, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient to death, even the death of thecross. 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 inheaven, 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 FatherPhilippians 2:5-11.' Can anything be plainer and more express than this? He was not from a lower state promoted: 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 be highest also. Where then could He be exalted higher, who is in the Father and like the Father in all things ? Therefore He is beyond the need of any addition; nor is such as theArians 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 ? Or how did He receive that Name for worship, who is alwaysworshipped by His Name? Nay, certainly before He became man, the sacredwriters invoke Him, 'Save me, O God, for Your Name's sake ;'and again, 'Some put their trust in chariots, and some in horses, but we will remember the Name of theLord our God. ' And while He was worshipped by the Patriarchs, concerning theAngels it is written, 'Let all the Angels of God worship Him Hebrews 1:6.'
41. And if, as David says in the 71st Psalm, 'His Name remains before the sun, and before the moon, from one generation to another ,' 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 beingworshipped, who before He now received it, was ever worshipped? It is not a dark saying but a divine mystery. 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;' but for our sakes afterwards the 'Word wasmade flesh. ' And the term in question, 'highly exalted,' does not signify that theessence of the Word was exalted, for He was ever and is 'equal to GodPhilippians 2:6,' 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 theWord, 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 offerHimself 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 inChrist, so again in the Christ Himself we might be highly exalted, being raisedfrom 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. ' But if now for us the Christ is entered into heavenitself, 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 theWord 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 , 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 you rulers, and be lifted up, you everlasting doors, and the King ofGlory shall come in. ' For here also not on Him were shut the gates, as being Lordand Maker of all, but because of us is this too written, to whom the door ofparadise 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 Your righteousness shall they be exalted, for You are the glory of their strength. ' And if 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 1 Corinthians 1:30 .
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 theAngels 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, andconfessing 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 be found again; and, when dead, that he should be made alive, and should become God'stemple. For whereas the powers in heaven, both Angels and Archangels, were ever worshipping the Lord, as they are now worshipping Him in the Name ofJesus, this is our grace and high exaltation, that even when He became man, theSon of God is worshipped, and the heavenly powers will not be astonished at seeing all of us, who are of one body with Him , 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 theCross, 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 Prophethas foretold, leave their idols and acknowledge the true God, the Father of theChrist. And the illusion of demons has come to nought, and He only who is reallyGod is worshipped in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the fact that theLord, even when come in human body and called Jesus, was worshipped andbelieved 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 greatgrace, but we. For because of our relationship to His Body we too have becomeGod's temple, and in consequence are made God's sons, so that even in us theLord is now worshipped, and beholders report, as the Apostle says, that God is in them of a truth. As also John says in the Gospel, 'As many as received Him, to them gave He power to become children of God John 1:12;' and in his Epistle he writes, 'By this we know that He abides in us by His Spirit which He has given us1 John 3:24.' 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 gracewas 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 Philippians 3:21,' and took a servant's form, putting on that flesh which was enslaved to sin. 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 lightens every man, coming into the world John 1:9.' And in vain do the Arians lay stress upon the conjunction 'wherefore,' because Paul has said, 'Wherefore, has God highly exalted Him.' For in saying this he did not imply any prize of virtue, nor promotion from advance , 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 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 ecclesiasticalsense. 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 (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 has humbledHimself even unto death,' He immediately added, 'Wherefore He has highly exalted Him;' wishing to show, 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. ' 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 resurrectiontook 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 John 1:14,' and this Man is said to be from heaven and heavenly , because the Worddescended from heaven; wherefore He was not held under death. For though Hehumbled Himself, yielding His own Body to come unto death, in that it was capable of death , yet He was highly exalted from earth, because He was God'sSon in a body. Accordingly what is here said, 'Wherefore God also has 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 Acts 2:24.' For as Paul has written, 'Since being in form of God He became man, and humbled Himself unto death, therefore God also has highly exalted Him,' so also Peter says, 'Since, being God, He became man, and signs and wonders proved Him to beholders to be God, therefore it was not possible that He should be holden of death.' To man it was not possible to succeed in this; for death belongs to man; wherefore, the Word, being God, became flesh, that, beingput 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 theheretics think this a defect or affection in the essence of the Word, it becomesnecessary to explain how these words are used. He is said to be 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 , 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 theresurrection 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 menand an abolition of death, and that the resurrection and exaltation may for His sake remain secure for us. In both respects he has said of Him, 'God has highly exalted Him,' and 'God has given to Him;' that herein moreover he may show that it is not the Father that has 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 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 naturalrecipient of grace, as has been said. For He received it as far as His man's naturewas exalted; which exaltation was its being deified. But such an exaltation theWord Himself always had according to the Father's Godhead and perfection, which was His.

Chapter 12. Texts Explained; Secondly, Psalm 45:7, 8.--> Whether the words 'therefore,' 'anointed,' etc., imply that the Word has been rewarded. Argued against first from the word '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 gloryHe has received. The word 'wherefore' implies His divinity. 'You have loved righteousness,' etc., 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 theymisinterpret, but which in the Psalmist is manifestly religious. He says then, 'Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Your Kingdom. You have loved righteousness, and hated iniquity, therefore God, even Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness above Your fellows. ' Behold, O you 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, 'Your 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 , being sanctified by Him in the Spirit ? 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'sImage, as the sacred Oracle shows; 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 has said by His own mouth in theGospel 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. ' 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 sanctify in Him, that henceforth in Me, who am Truth (for Your Word is Truth), all may be sanctified.'
47. If then for our sake He sanctifies Himself, and does this when He has 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, 'Do you not know that you are God's Temple, and theSpirit of God dwells in you 1 Corinthians 3:16?' For when the Lord, as man, was washed in Jordan, it was we who were washed in Him and by Him. 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 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 has anointed Me Isaiah 61:1;' as also the Apostle has said, 'How God anointed Him with the Holy Ghost. Acts 10:38 ' When then were these things spoken of Him but when He came in the flesh and was baptized inJordan, and the Spirit descended on Him? And indeed the Lord Himself said, 'TheSpirit shall take of Mine;' and 'I will send Him;' and to His disciples, 'Receive theHoly Ghost. ' And notwithstanding, He who, as the Word and Radiance of theFather, 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 you have an unction from theHoly One;' and the Apostle, 'And you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise.' 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 ourLord'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 fleshassumed by Him which is anointed in Him and by Him ; that the sanctification coming to the Lord as man, may come to all men from Him. For not of Itself, says He, does 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, 'Whoexisting 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 body which is mortal. For this is his meaning in the Psalm, 'All your garments 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 John 19:39; Luke 24:1 'the spices which they had prepared' for theburial 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 ; nor did He alter, when He became man (to repeat what I have said), but, as has been written, 'The Word of God abides for ever. ' Surely as, before His becoming man, He, the Word, dispensed to the saints the Spirit as His own , so also when made man, He sanctifies all by the Spirit and says to His Disciples, 'Receive the Holy Ghost.' And He gave to Moses and the other seventy; and through Him David prayed to theFather, saying, 'Take not Your Holy Spirit from me. ' On the other hand, when made man, He said, 'I will send to you the Paraclete, the Spirit of truthJohn 15:26;' and He sent Him, He, the Word of God, as being faithful. Therefore 'Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and for ever Hebrews 13:8,' 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 of receiving them. For, when He is now said to be anointed in a humanrespect, 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 You gave Me, I have given to them, that they may be one, even as We are one John 17:22.' 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.
49. But if they take advantage of the word 'wherefore,' as connected with the passage in the Psalm, 'Wherefore God, even Your God, has anointed You,' 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 anointingwhich took place in Him for our sakes. For He says not, 'Wherefore He anointedYou in order to Your being God or King or Son or Word.' for so He was before and is for ever, as has been shown; but rather, 'Since You are God and King, therefore You were anointed, since none but You could unite man to the Holy Ghost, Thou the Image of the Father, in which we were made in the beginning; for Yours is even the Spirit.' For the nature of things originate could give no warranty for this,Angels having transgressed, and men disobeyed. Wherefore there was need ofGod 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 orAnointed, being one among others and having fellowship as the rest. But, whereas He is God, as being Son of God, and is everlasting King, and exists asRadiance and Expression Hebrews 1:3 of the Father, therefore fitly is He the expected Christ, whom the Father announces to mankind, by revelation to Hisholy Prophets; that as through Him we have come to be, so also in Him all menmight be redeemed from their sins, and by Him all things might be ruled. And this is the cause of the anointing which took place in Him, and of the incarnatepresence of the Word , which the Psalmist foreseeing, celebrates, first HisGodhead and kingdom, which is the Father's, in these tones, 'Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Your Kingdom ;' then announces His descent to us thus, 'Wherefore God, even Your God, hasanointed You with the oil of gladness above Your fellows. '
50. What is there to wonder at, what to disbelieve, if the Lord who gives theSpirit, 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 cast out devils in Beelzebub, He answered and said to them, for the exposure of their blasphemy, 'But if I through the Spirit of God cast out demons Matthew 12:28.' Behold, the Giver of the Spirithere 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 outdemons, 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 theblasphemy 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 not this the carpenter's son ?' but they who blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, and ascribe the deeds of the Wordto the devil, shall have inevitable punishment. This is what the Lord spoke to theJews, as man; but to the disciples showing His Godhead and His majesty, and intimating that He was not inferior but equal to the Spirit, He gave the Spirit and said, 'Receive the Holy Ghost,' and 'I send Him,' and 'He shall glorify Me,' and 'Whatsoever He hears, that He shall speak. ' As then in this place the LordHimself, 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 has anointedMe Isaiah 61:1,' in respect of His having become flesh, as John has said; that it might be shown in both these particulars, that we are they who need the Spirit'sgrace in our sanctification, and again who are unable to cast out demons without the Spirit's power. Through whom then and from whom behooved it that the Spiritshould 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 shows, that we had not been redeemed and highly exalted, had not He who exists in form of God taken a servant's form, so David also shows, 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 anointedwith the Spirit for us. And therefore have we securely received it, He being said to be anointed in the flesh; for the flesh being first sanctified in Him , and He being said, as man, to have received for its sake, we have the sequel of the Spiritgrace, receiving 'out of His fullness John 1:16.'
51. Nor do the words, 'You have loved righteousness and hated iniquity,' which are added in the Psalm, show, as again you suppose, that the Nature of the Wordis 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 and becomes different, so that one who was but now righteous, soon is found unrighteous, wherefore there 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.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, 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 Corinthians 2:11 ' 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 , by taking this alterable flesh, 'might condemn sin in it ,' and might secure its freedom, and its ability 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 dwells in us Romans 8:9.'
52. Vainly then, here again, O Arians, have you 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 , but as the Father is; since how is He like theFather, 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 ? Not as being subject to laws , 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 justjudge and lover of virtue, or rather its dispenser. Therefore being just and holy bynature, on this account He is said to love righteousness and to hate iniquity; as much as to say, that He loves and chooses the virtuous, and rejects and hatesthe unrighteous. And divine Scripture says the same of the Father; 'The RighteousLord loves righteousness; Thou hatest all them that work iniquity ,' and 'The Lordloves the gates of Sion, more than all the dwellings of Jacob ;' and, 'Jacob have Iloved, but Esau have I hated Malachi 1:2-3;' and in Isaiah there is the voice of Godagain saying, 'I the Lord love righteousness, and hate robbery of unrighteousnessIsaiah 61:8.' 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 loverighteousness 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 former, 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 the 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 othertruth of the divine oracles. For being forced from the conceptions or rathermisconceptions 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 canonof interpretation , 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, 'You do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God Matthew 22:29;' and if they persist in it, they must be put to silence, by the words, 'Render to'man 'the things that are' man's, 'and to God the things that are' God's.

Chapter 13. Texts Explained; Thirdly, Hebrews i. 4. Additional texts brought as objections; e.g. Hebrews 1:4; 7:22. 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 Hebrews 1:4, between the Son and the Works in point of nature. The difference of the punishments under the two Covenants shows 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 ;' and in the Epistle to the Hebrews theApostle says, 'Being made so much better than the Angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent Name than they. ' And soon after, 'Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostleand High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus, who was faithful to Him that made Him. ' And in the Acts, 'Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, thatGod has made that same Jesus whom you have crucified both Lord and Christ. ' 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 1 Corinthians 2:8,' nor have wrested the goodwords 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 , 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, 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 Manichees. But if for preferment-sake, and the lucre of avarice which follows , 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 ofScripture, 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, whileconfessing 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 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 , and the point; lest the reader, from ignorance missing either these or any similar particular, may be wide of the true sense. This understood that inquiring eunuch, when he thus besought Philip, 'I pray you, of whom does the Prophet speak this? Of himself, or of some other man Acts 8:34?' for he feared lest, expounding the lesson unsuitably to the person, he should wander from the right sense. And the disciples, wishing to learn the time of what was foretold, besought the Lord, 'Tell us,' said they, 'when shall these things be? And what is the sign of Your coming Matthew 24:3?' 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 theThessalonians , 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, immediately he falls into heresy. Thus Hymenæus and Alexander and their fellows were beside the time, when they said that the resurrection had already been; and the Galatians were after the time, in making much ofcircumcision 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 Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23;' and that, 'A prophet shall theLord your God raise up to you Deuteronomy 18:15,' is spoken of one of the Prophets; and who, as to the words, 'He was led as a sheep to the slaughter Isaiah 53:7,' instead of learning from Philip, conjecture them spoken of Isaiah or some other of the former Prophets.
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 expounded of Christ'sdivinity 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 lection. For the Apostle says, 'God who at sundry times and various manners spoke in times past unto the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken unto us by His Son Hebrews 1:1-2;' 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 has by inheritance obtained a more excellent Name than they. ' 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 Godsilent with men, but spoke to them by the Prophets. And, whereas the prophetsministered, 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 show 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 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 Your courts is better than a thousand :' and Solomon crying out, 'Receive my instruction and 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 Proverbs 8:10-11.' 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 says the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep My sabbaths, and choose the things that please Me, and take hold of My Covenant; even unto them will I 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 Isaiah 56:4-5.' In like manner 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 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 theFather, 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 does even the expression 'become,' which here occurs, show that the Son is originate, as you 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, showing that He is other than things originate, so again not even the word 'become' occurs absolutely , but 'better' is immediately subjoined. For the writer thought the expression immaterial, knowingthat 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. And this again divine Scripturerecognises; for it says in the case of things originate, 'All things came to be through Him, and without Him nothing came to be John 1:3,' and, 'In wisdom have You made them all ;' but in the case of sons which are generate, 'To Job there came to be seven sons and three daughters Job 1:2,' and, 'Abraham was an hundred years old when there came to be to him Isaac his son Genesis 21:5;' andMoses said Deuteronomy 21:15, '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 place 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. Perchanceit is under the instruction of these masters that they compare the Word of Godwith 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 the Lord ,' and, 'Among the gods there is none like You, O Lord. ' 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 toman, and wood to wood, and stone to stone. Now in such cases we should not speak of 'better,' but of 'rather' and 'more;' thus Joseph was comely rather than his brethren, and Rachel than Leah; star 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 theAngels,' 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 He is 'better,' and differs as far as Son from servants, the Apostle shows that He is other than the Angelsin nature.
(6.) Moreover by saying that He it is who has 'laid the foundation of all thingsHebrews 1:10,' 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 essencecan 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, You are My Son, this day have I begotten You? And of the Angels He says, Who makes His Angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire Hebrews 1:7.'
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, but ofeternity and kingship, and a Framer's office, exclaiming, 'Your 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 Your hands; they shall perish, but You remain.' 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 thenature of things originate by the issue to which they tend. For things which admit of perishing, though through the grace 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, 'You remain,' to show 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 theHebrews, 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 essence and one in nature with it. And hence it is that the Son too says not, 'My Father is better than I John 14:28,' lest we should conceive Him to be foreign to His Nature, but 'greater,' not indeed in greatness, nor in time, but because of His generation from the Father Himself , 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 theAngels,' was not any wish in the first instance to compare the essence of theWord to things originate (for He cannot be compared, rather they are incommeasurable), but regarding the Word's visitation in the flesh, and theEconomy 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. 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 steadfast, 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 wasconfirmed unto us by them that heard Him Hebrews 2:1-3.' 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 ofAngels 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 theFather, therefore, as He Himself is better and His acts better and transcendent, so also the punishment is worse. Let them 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. And the Law was spoken by Angels, and perfected no one Hebrews 7:19, needing the visitation of the Word, as Paul has said; but thatvisitation has perfected the work of the Father. And then, from Adam unto Mosesdeath reigned Romans 5:14; but the presence of the Word abolished death.2 Timothy 1:10 And no longer in Adam are we all dying 1 Corinthians 15:22; but inChrist we are all reviving. And then, from Dan to Beersheba was the Lawproclaimed, and in Judæa 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, and the disciples have made disciples of all the nations Matthew 28:19, and now is fulfilled what is written, 'They shall be all taught of God John 6:45; Isaiah 54:13.' 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 has He obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also He is theMediator 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. ' Both in the verse before us, then, and throughout, does he 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 thiseconomy, is 'better' than things originated.
60. (9.) Moreover the words 'He has become surety' denote the pledge in our behalf which He has provided. For as, being the 'Word,' He 'became flesh John 1:14' and 'become' we ascribe to the flesh, for it is originated and created, so do we here the expression 'He has 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 has become, knowing, as he did, that He is Son and Wisdom andRadiance 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 Lawcould 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 Romans 8:3,'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 Godcame into the world, not to judge the world, but to redeem all men, and that the world might be saved through Him John 3:17.' Formerly the world, as guilty, was under judgment from the Law; but now the Word has taken on Himself thejudgment, and having suffered in the body for all, has bestowed salvation to all.With a view to this has John exclaimed, 'The law was given by Moses, but graceand truth came by Jesus Christ John 1:17.' Better is grace than the Law, and truththan the shadow.
61. (10.) 'Better' 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 ? 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'sGodhead, therefore is the Word God, and whoso 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 ; but whatever is right and precious in the Father, that also the Son has, and says, 'All things that the Father has are MineJohn 16:15.' 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 Lordalways before My face, for He is on My right hand, therefore I shall not fall. ' This shows moreover that the Son is in the Father 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 ministerascending and descending; but concerning the Son he says, 'And let all the Angelsof God worship Him Hebrews 1:6.' And when Angels minister, they say, 'I am sent unto you,' and, 'The Lord has commanded;' but the Son, though He say in humanfashion, 'I am sent ,' 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 has seen Me, has seen the Father.' and, 'The Father that abides in Me, He does the works ;' for what we behold in that Image 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 ;' or again as referring to the better covenant having come to be , 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 the 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 aministering 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 theAngels said He at any time, You are My Son.' and the one frames heaven and earth, but they are made by Him; and He sits with the Father, but they stand byministering, who does not see that he has not used the word 'become' of theessence 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 You may save me. ' And again, 'The Lord became a defence for the oppressed ,' 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 you that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest Matthew 11:28.'
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, and 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 properWord. And immediately 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 you speak I will say, Here I am Isaiah 58:9.' 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 willconfess 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 thepersecuted, 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 benefitedpersons 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, forGod 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 John 1:14 ' and came to minister and to grant salvation to all, then He became to ussalvation, 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 theWord is originate (perish the thought!), 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.

About this page

Source. Translated by John Henry Newman and Archibald Robertson. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 4. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1892.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight.<http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/28161.htm>.

Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is feedback732 atnewadvent.org. (To help fight spam, this address might change occasionally.) Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.

Copyright © 2009 by Kevin Knight. Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

CONTACT US

Home   Encyclopedia   Summa   Fathers   Bible   Library

A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z

Discourse 2 Against the Arians

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 theSaviour. They, however, for whatever reason, still do not succumb; but, as swine and dogs wallow in their own vomit and their own mire, rather invent newexpedients for their irreligion. Thus they misunderstand the passage in theProverbs, 'The Lord has created me a beginning of His ways for His works ,' and the words of the Apostle, 'Who was faithful to Him that made Him Hebrews 3:2,' 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 from nothing nor in the number of things originate at all, the Truth witnessing 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 show 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 of the present Jews , but would have inquired and learned 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 goodpleasure of the Father the Word became man, that it was said of Him, as by John, 'The Word became flesh John 1:14;' so by Peter, 'He has made Him Lord and ChristActs 2:36 '—as by means of Solomon in the Person of the Lord Himself, 'The Lordcreated me a beginning of His ways for His works Proverbs 8:22;' so by Paul, 'Become so much better than the Angels Hebrews 1:4;' and again, 'He emptied Himself, and took upon Him the form of a servant Philippians 2:7;' and again, 'Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostleand High Priest of our profession, Jesus, who was faithful to Him that made Him. ' For all these texts have the same force and meaning, a religious one, declarativeof 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 , as before, their statement.
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 generative nature, so that there be neither Word, nor Wisdom, no, nor Image, of His proper substance. For if He be not Son , neither is He Image. 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 theWord and in Wisdom, and without This nothing can be, whereas you say He has not That in and through which He makes all things. For if the Divine Essence be not fruitful itself , 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 ? But if He frames things that are external to Him and before were not, by willing them to be, 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 lies 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 beingMaker, 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 of the Father, and an essential 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 thatblessed 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 shown then they are guilty of great extravagance who say that theLord is not Son of God, but a work, and it follows that we all of necessity confessthat 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 begot Him,' but 'to Him that made Him;' for while it is confessed what Hisnature is, what word is used in such instances need raise no question. 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 begot.' Thus fathers often call the sons born of them their servants, yet without denying thegenuineness 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 Philemon the master the Apostle joined Onesimus the servant as a brother, Bathsheba, although mother, called her son servant, saying to his father, 'Your servant Solomon 1 Kings 1:19;'— afterwards alsoNathan the Prophet came in and repeated her words to David, 'Solomon your servant. ' 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 Solomona 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 theWord 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 Your servant and the Son of Yourhandmaid ,' and the like, let not any on this account deny that He is proper to the Father and from Him; 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 deserving of many deaths , who, instead of preserving the same explanation in the instance of theLord, whenever they hear 'Offspring,' and 'Word,' and 'Wisdom,' forciblymisinterpret and deny the generation, natural and genuine, of the Son from the Father; but on hearing words and terms proper to a work, immediately 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 Proverbs 20:23 ' 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 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 theirnature. Thus Hezekiah, as it is written in Isaiah, said in his prayer, 'From this day I will make children, who shall declare Your righteousness, O God of my salvation.' He then said, 'I will make;' but the Prophet in that very book and the Fourth ofKings, thus speaks, 'And the sons who shall come forth of you 2 Kings 20:18;Isaiah 39:7.' 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 anatural offspring. Again, Eve on bearing Cain said, 'I have gotten a man from theLord ;' 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 your two sons, Ephraim andManasseh, which became yours in Egypt, before I came unto you into Egypt, are mine. ' And Scripture says about Job, 'And there came to him seven sons and three daughters. ' As Moses too has said in the Law, 'If sons become to any one,' and 'If he make a son. ' 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. ' Fornature and truth draw the meaning to themselves.
5. This being so , 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 shown, the surmise about work and creation falls 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 shown that the expression 'He made' is applied indivine Scripture even to children genuine and natural; whence, the Lord beingproved 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 Hezekiah'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 , 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 trueSon, 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 ? For all the works were made through the Word and the Wisdom, as it is written, 'In wisdom have You made them all,' and, 'All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made. ' 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 Ecclesiastes 12:14.' 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 wasfaithful,' 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 ,' and with St. Paul for writing, 'God is faithful, who will not suffer you to betempted above that you are able 1 Corinthians 10:13.' 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 thePsalm, 'The Lord is faithful in all His words ,' or is trustworthy, and cannot lie. Again, 'If any faithful woman have widows 1 Timothy 5:16,' she is so called for herright faith; but, 'It is a faithful saying ,' because what He has spoken has a claim on our faith, for it is true, and is not otherwise. Accordingly the words, 'Who isfaithful 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 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 show that they err in thinking that the Word of God is a work. But further, since the drift also of the context is orthodox, showing thetime and the relation to which this expression points, I ought to show 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 Wordbecame flesh;' for thus it is written, 'Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of theheavenly 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 signifythe Essence of the Word nor His natural generation from the Father, did theApostle say, 'Who was faithful to Him that made Him'— (perish the thought! For the Word is not made, but makes)— but as signifying His 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 Exodus 29:5, the robe, which the womenwrought at God's command, and going in them into the holy place, he offered thesacrifice for the people; and in them, as it were, mediated between the vision ofGod and the sacrifices of men. Thus then the Lord also, 'In the beginning was theWord, 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, thentruly the Word, as Aaron his robe, so did He take earthly flesh, having Mary for the Mother of His Body as if virgin earth , that, as a High Priest, having He as others an offering, He might offer Himself to the Father, and cleanse us all fromsins 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 , 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 made and prepared for the high-priesthood; in the same way it is possible in the Lord'sinstance 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 theWord, considered as the Word , were made, but that the Word, being Framer of all, afterwards 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 , 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 Him?' 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 thelection is all about One and the Same. He writes then in the Epistle to theHebrews 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 behooved Him to be made like 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 has suffered beingtempted, 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. '
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 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'shuman 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 theWord 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 Himselfoffering Himself, He was named and became 'merciful and faithful,'— merciful, because in mercy to us He offered Himself for us, and faithful, not as sharingfaith 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 offeredaccording 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 has become faithful as remaining for ever. And Aaronhad successors, and in a word the priesthood under the Law exchanged its firstministers as time and death went on; but the Lord having a high priesthoodwithout transition and without succession, has become a 'faithful High Priest,' as continuing for ever; and faithful too by promise, that He may hear 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 1 Peter 4:19.' 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 fail,' 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 ;' 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 Thessalonians, 'Faithful is He who calls you, who also will do it 1 Thessalonians 5:24;' 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 abides faithful; He cannot deny Himself 2 Timothy 2:13.' Therefore reasonably the Apostle, discoursing concerning the bodily presence of the Word, says, an 'Apostle and faithful to Him that made Him,' showing us that, even when made man, 'Jesus Christ' is 'the same yesterday, and today, and for ever Hebrews 13:8 ' 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 HisGodhead, but rather mentions it immediately, furnishing to us a safeguard on every side, and most of all when he speaks of His humility, that we may immediately know His loftiness and His majesty which is the Father's. For instance, he says, 'Moses as a servant, but Christ as a Son Hebrews 3:5-6;' 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 the Word was not as one of things originate in a body, nor as creature in creature, but as God in flesh , 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 theWord of God was made man in order to sanctify the flesh, and, though He wasLord, was in the form of a servant; for the whole creature is the 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 shown, that, even though the word 'made' be referred to the Very Word, it is used for 'begot,' 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 shown that the Son is not a work, but in Essence indeed the Father's offspring, while in the Economy, according to the good pleasure 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 faithfulto 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 15. Texts explained; Fifthly, Acts 2:36. The Regula Fidei must be observed; madeapplies 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 Genesis 27:29, 37. The context contradicts the Arianinterpretation.

11 (continued). The same is the meaning of the passage in the Acts which they also allege, that in which Peter says, that 'He has made both Lord and Christ that same Jesus whom you 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 lest, 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 theheaven, 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 , the other rankingGod's Word with each work in particular; which they have well near 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 , 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 has made Lordand Christ,' straightway added, 'this Jesus whom you 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 signifiedwhat 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 , 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 expressed, when he said to them, 'You 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 you yourselvesknow Acts 2:22.' 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 toJohn, '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 equal with God. ' 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 youbelieve not Me, believe My works, that you may know that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me. ' 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 show 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 knowthat 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 thatAbraham worships Him as Lord, and Moses says, 'Then the Lord rained uponSodom and upon Gomorrha brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heavenGenesis 19:24;' and David in the Psalms, 'The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit on My right hand ;' and, 'Your Throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Your Kingdom ;' and, 'Your Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom ;' 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 theEssence 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 Lordis Framer of all and everlasting King, and when He became man, then gainedpossession of us, here too is a way in which Peter's language evidently does notsignify 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 ; for as we then introduced the words, 'Become my Godand defence,' and 'the Lord became a refuge for the oppressed ,' and it stood toreason that these expressions do not show 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 Galatians 4:8,' 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 James 1:21 ' in us, and according to the unutterablesighings Romans 8:26 of the Spirit made our intercession, 'O Lord our God, takepossession of us ,' 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 humanbody 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 has made Him Lord,' and 'has 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 Lordof all men, and to His hallowing all through the Anointing. For though the Wordexisting in the form of God took a servant's form, yet the assumption of the flesh did not make a servant 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, has 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 pleases 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 on My right hand, until I make Your enemies Your footstool. ' 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.
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 theJews. 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; 'Weknow that, when the Christ comes, He abides for ever, and how sayest Thou, that He must be lifted up ?' 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 thatGod had come among them, saying, 'If He called them gods to whom the word ofGod came, and the Scripture cannot be broken, say ye of Him whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blaspheme, because I said, I am theSon of God John 10:36?'
16. Peter then, having learned this from the Saviour, in both points set the Jewsright, saying, O Jews, the divine Scriptures announce that Christ comes, and you consider Him a mere man as one of David's descendants, whereas what is written of Him shows Him to be not such as you say, but rather announces Him as Lordand God, and immortal, and dispenser of life. For Moses has said, 'You shall see your Life hanging before your eyes. ' And David in the hundred and ninth Psalm, 'The Lord said unto My Lord, Sit on My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool ;' and in the fifteenth, 'You shall not leave my soul in hades, neither shall Thou suffer Your Holy One to see corruption. ' 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, you have reason for maintaining the contest, but if you are not able to prove His coming, but are expecting such an one still, recognise the true season fromDaniel, for his words relate to the present time. But if this present season be that which was of old, afore-announced, and you have seen what has taken place among us, be sure that this Jesus, whom you crucified, this is the expectedChrist. For David and all the Prophets died, and the sepulchres of all are with you, but that Resurrection which has now taken place, has shown that the scope of these passages is Jesus. For the crucifixion is denoted by 'You 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 Isaiah 53:7,' and the resurrection, nay more, the rising of the ancient dead from out their sepulchres (for these most of you have seen), this is, 'You shall not leave My soul in hades,' and 'He swallowed up death in strength Isaiah 25:8,' and again, 'God will wipe away.' For the signs which actually took place show that He who was in a body was God, and also the Life and Lordof 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 you 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 humanpassion, 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 wisdomknew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them thatbelieve 1 Corinthians 1:21.' And so, since we men would not acknowledge Godthrough His Word, nor serve the Word of God our natural Master, it pleased God to show in man His own Lordship, and so to draw all men to Himself. But to do this by a mere man beseemed not ; lest, having man for our Lord, we should becomeworshippers of man. 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 you 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 , hearing this, came to themselves and immediately 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 thatChrist 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 , and being like, He is certainly both Lord and King, for He says Himself, 'He that has seen Me, has seen the Father.' On the other hand, that Peter's mere words, 'He has 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 your brother;' and toEsau, 'Behold, I have made him your lord. ' 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 essencenor of his coming into being, though Jacob was by nature creature and work, is not their madness worse than the Devil's , 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 theWord was a work; for he knew Him to be God's Son, confessing, 'You are theChrist, the Son of the Living God Matthew 16:16;' but he meant His Kingdom andLordship 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 everlastingGodhead which is the Father's; but He had said already, that He had poured theSpirit 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. 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 , 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 to the Father, and having all that is the Father's as He Himself has said.

Chapter 16. Introductory to Proverbs 8:22, that the Son is not a Creature. Arianformula, 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 theProverbs, 'The Lord created me a beginning of His ways for His works ;' although in showing that the Word is no work, it has been also shown that He is no creature. For it is the same 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 thesemen, thus devising excuses to be irreligious, and nothing daunted at the refutations which meet them upon every point. For first they set about deceivingthe simple by their questions, 'Did He who is make from that which was not one that was not or one that was ?' and, 'Had you a son before begetting him ?' And when this had been proved worthless, next they invented the question, 'Is theUnoriginate one or two ?' Then, when in this they had been confuted, straightway they formed another, 'Has He free-will and an alterable nature ?' But being forced to give up this, next they set about saying, 'Being made so much better than theAngels ;' and when the truth exposed this pretence, now again, collecting them all together, they think to recommend their heresy by 'work' and 'creature. ' 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 ofChristians, seem to say somewhat, it is necessary to examine separately, 'Hecreated' as well as 'Who was faithful to Him that made Him ;' 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 blessedmemory, 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 , '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 theheresy. 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 calledoffspring and son. What use then is this pretence of saying that He is a creature and not a creature? For though you shall say, Not as 'one of the creatures,' I willprove 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, you truly 'fools and blind Matthew 23:19.' For is any one of the creatures just what another is , that you should predicate this of the Son as someprerogative ? 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 hostof 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 Romans 1:20;' and neither the light is as the night, nor the sun as the moon; nor the irrational asrational 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 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 you say that an offspring is the same as a work, writing 'generated or made. ' 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 , 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 Davidsays in the Psalms, 'The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmamentshows His handy work ;' and as Zorobabel the wise says, 'All the earth calls upon the Truth, and the heaven blesses it: all works shake and tremble at it Ezra 4:36.' 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 Truth John 14:6,' 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 Himdisposing ;' and 'My Father works hitherto, and I work John 5:17.' And the word 'hitherto' shows 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 works, that the Son works also , and what the Soncreates, 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 works is the Son's work also), which is absurd and impossible; or, in that He creates and works the things of the Father, He Himself is not a work nor a creature; for else being Himself an efficient cause , 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 has 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, andBasilides 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 anything, knows to ask it of God.
22. If then God also wrought and compounded out of materials, this indeed is agentile 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. But if He 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 , through whom He too was called; for by the Word the things which were not have come to be. And if through Him Hecreates 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 works, to be 'in the Father and the Father in Him,' and 'He that has seen Him has seen the Father ,' because the Son's Essence is proper to the Father, and He in all points like Him. How then does He create through Him, unless it be HisWord and His Wisdom? And how can He be Word and Wisdom, unless He be the proper offspring of His Essence , 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 '), yet the Son has declared, 'No one knows the Father,save the Son Matthew 11:27,' 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 has seen the Father, save He that is from the Father,' and 'no oneknows the Father save the Son ,' 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 ? 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.
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 thatScripture 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 shows Him to be His own proper and only Son, saying, 'You are My Son,' and 'This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. ' Accordingly the Angels ministeredunto 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. For if He wasworshipped as excelling them in glory, each of things subservient ought toworship what excels itself. But this is not the case ; for creature does not worshipcreature, but servant Lord, and creature God. Thus Peter the Apostle hindersCornelius who would worship him, saying, 'I myself also am a man Acts 10:26.' And an Angel, when John would worship him in the Apocalypse, hinders him, saying, 'See thou do it not; for I am your fellow-servant, and of your brethren theProphets, and of them that keep the sayings of this book: worship GodRevelation 22:9.' Therefore to God alone appertains worship, and this the veryAngels know, that though they excel other beings in glory, yet they are all creatures and not to be worshipped , but worship the Lord. Thus Manoah, the father of Samson, wishing to offer sacrifice to the Angel, was thereupon hindered by him, saying, 'Offer not to me, but to God. ' On the other hand, the Lord isworshipped even by the Angels; for it is written, 'Let all the Angels of Godworship Him Hebrews 1:6;' and by all the Gentiles, as Isaiah says, 'The labour ofEgypt and merchandize of Ethiopia and of the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto you, and they shall be your servants;' and then, 'they shall fall down unto you, and shall make supplication unto you, saying, Surely God is in you, and there is none else, there is no God Isaiah 45:14.' And He accepts Hisdisciples' worship, and certifies them who He is, saying, 'Call ye Me not Lord andMaster? And you say well, for so I am.' And when Thomas said to Him, 'My Lordand my God ,' 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, 'theLord of hosts, the Lord of Sabaoth,' which is interpreted, 'the Lord of Armies,' andGod True and Almighty, though the Arians burst 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 has, are Mine John 16:15.' For it is proper to the Son, to have the things of theFather, 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 17. Introduction to Proverbs 8:22 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 infiniteseries of media will be necessary. Objected, that, as Moseswho led out the Israelites was a man, so our Lord; but Moseswas 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 works 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 , 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 John 1:3?' 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 theFather, 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 bycommanding , nor is His strength unequal to the making of all things, that He should alone create the only Son , 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 , and all things subsisted, and no one 'has resisted His willRomans 9:19.' 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 ofreason! However, they say concerning Him, that 'God willing to create originatenature, 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. ' This they not only have said, but they have dared to put it into writing, namely, Eusebius, Arius, and Asterius who sacrificed.
25. Is not this a full proof of that irreligion, with which they have druggedthemselves with much madness, till they blush not to be intoxicate against thetruth? For if they shall assign the toil of making all things as the reason why Godmade 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 EverlastingGod, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, faints not, neither is weary: there is no searching of His understanding Isaiah 40:28.' 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 you shall eat, nor yet for your body, what you 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 feeds them; are you 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 ifGod so clothe the grass of the field which today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, shall He not much more clothe you, O you of little faith ?' 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 menwho thus speak; for they distinguish 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 Father 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 originatednature, how, whereas this nature is too feeble to be God's own handywork, could He alone of all endure to be made by the unoriginate and unmitigated Essence ofGod, as you 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 handywork, there arose need of a mediator , 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 amediator, 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 Godalone, as you 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 opinethat they have not even come to be, as still seeking their mediator; for, on the ground of their so irreligious and futile notion , 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'sWord; 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 , ministering 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. AndMoses 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 willcollect 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. 'But behold,' they say, 'there is one sun only , 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 ministryand service committed to it, by itself it is not adequate nor sufficient alone. ForGod 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. '
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.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 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 Helearned to frame, and thus ministered to God who taught Him.' For thus theSophist 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 naturebut by science, so as to admit of His losing the power. Besides, if the Wisdom ofGod 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 , 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 insensatemen are ascribing jealousy and weakness to God—jealousy, in that He has not taught many how to frame, so that there may be around Him, as Archangels andAngels 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 shown 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 fullIsaiah 1:11.' Nor did the Word become Framer of all from teaching; but being theImage and Wisdom of the Father, He does the things of the Father. Nor has He made the Son for the making of things created; for behold, though the Son exists, still the Father is seen to work, as the Lord Himself says, 'My Father works hitherto and I work John 5:17.' If 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 amediator at all, as if His will did not suffice to constitute whatever seemed goodto Him? Yet the Scriptures say, 'He has done whatsoever pleased Him ,' and 'Who has resisted His will Romans 9:19?' And if His mere will is sufficient for the framing of all things, you make the office of a mediator superfluous; for your instance ofMoses, and the sun and the moon has been shown not to hold. And here again is an argument to silence you. You say that God, willing the creation of originatednature, and deliberating concerning it, designs and creates the Son, that through Him He may frame us; now, if so, consider how great an irreligion 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 ; so that He owes thanks to us, not we to Him, as the woman to the man. 'For the man,' saysScripture, '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 man1 Corinthians 11:7, 9,' 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 ; 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 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 Hecreate 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 theSon, 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, Hiswill 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 tocreate 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 of the heretics.

Chapter 18. Introduction to Proverbs 8:22 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, refuted. 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 Arianworse than other heresies.

31. But the sentiment of Truth 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 Colossians 1:16.' 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 seemedgood to God not to make things originate, still had the Word been no less withGod, 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 , 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 a hand , 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 ;' as alsoHoly David in the Psalm, 'He spoke and they were made; He commanded and they were created. ' And He spoke , 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. 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 immediately the Word began to do and to finish. For when Godcommands others, whether the Angels, or converses with Moses, or commandsAbraham, then the hearer answers; and the one says, 'Whereby shall I knowGenesis 15:8?' and the other, 'Send some one else Exodus 4:13;' and again, 'If they ask me, what is His Name, what shall I say to them ?' and the Angel said toZacharias, 'Thus says the Lord ;' and he asked the Lord, 'O Lord of hosts, how long will You not have mercy on Jerusalem.' and waits to hear good words and comfortable. For each of these has the Mediator Word, and the Wisdom of Godwhich makes known the will of the Father. But when that Word Himself works andcreates, then there is no questioning and answer, for the Father is in Him and theWord 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, 'You have 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. '
32. It is plain from this that the Arians are not fighting with us about theirheresy; 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 ,' 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 begot me ,' are they not fighting against God, as the giants in story, having their tongue, as the Psalmist says, a sharp sword 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 ;' and another says in the Psalm, 'With You is the well of life, and in Your Light shall we see light,' and 'You made all things in Wisdom ;' and the Prophets say, 'And the Word of the Lord came to me Jeremiah 2:1;' and John, 'In the beginning was the Word.' and Luke, 'As they delivered them unto us which from the beginning were eye-witnesses andministers of the Word John 1:1; Luke 1:2;' and as David again says, 'He sent HisWord and healed them. ' All these passages proscribe in every light the Arianheresy, 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 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 poorlyand dimly, and as far as is attainable. And as the creation contains abundantmatter 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 seenWisdom 13:5 '), and we learn from them without asking for voices, but hearing theScriptures 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 theSon'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 hereticalway, How can the Son be from eternity? Or how can He be from the Father'sEssence, 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 shown their shallowness, the exact sense of these passages themselves and the force of these illustrations will serve to show 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 essenceis not divided or impaired; but its essence is whole and its radiance perfect and whole , 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 Subsistenceis 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 theSubsistence, as the Saviour Himself teaches when He says, 'The Father who dwells in Me, He does the works John 14:10 ' which I do; and 'I and the Father are one,' and 'I in the Father and the Father in Me John 10:30.' Therefore let this Christ— opposing heresy attempt first to divide 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 doviolence to these as in the case of Reason and Radiance; and instead let itimagine what it will. 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 ?
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 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 , that God has a Son and has made all things by His properWord, but understood it in that sense in which we now mean it? Who on the riseof this odious heresy of the Arians, was not at once startled at what he heard, asstrange , 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 menslept, made a second sowing , 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 immediately, as bereft of every right thought, they meddle likerobbers, and venture to say, 'How can the Son always exist with the Father.' formen 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 istrue 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 ofsyllables , and only signifies the speaker's will, and then is over and is lost.'
35. They then afresh, as if forgetting the proofs which have been already urged against them, 'pierce themselves through ' with these bonds of irreligion, and thus argue. But the word of truth 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 begets, such of necessity is the offspring; and such as is theWord's Father, such must be also His Word. Now man, begotten in time, in timealso himself begets the child; and whereas from nothing he came to be, therefore his word 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 existing 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 begets 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 ; but as radiance of light, so is He perfect offspring fromperfect. Hence He is God also, as being God's Image; for 'the Word was GodJohn 1:1 ' 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 ofsoul 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. Hebrews 4:12-13 ' He is then Framer of all, 'and without Him was made not one thing John 1:3,' nor can anything be made without Him.
36. Nor must we ask why the Word of God is not such as our word, consideringGod 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 begets, and what is the manner of His begetting. 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 aperson 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 , 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 of man, or else we must suppose God to be man. For observe, many and various are men'swords 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 immediately is spent. But God's Word is one and the same, and, as it is written, 'The Word of God endures for ever ,' not changed, not before or after other, butexisting the same always. For it was fitting, whereas God is One, that His Imageshould be One also, and His Word One and One His Wisdom.
37. Wherefore I am in wonder how, whereas God is One, these men introduce, after their private notions, many images and wisdoms and words , and say that the Father's proper and natural Word is other than the Son, by whom He even made the Son and that He who is really Son is but notionally 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 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 Ariuscomposed 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 ofGod or the Wisdom of God,' but without the addition of the article, 'God's power'and 'God's wisdom 1 Corinthians 1:24,' thus preaching that the proper Power of GodHimself 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 Romans 1:20.' 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 begot Him. ' 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 truthargues 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 theProphet says that the locust, which came to be a divine punishment of humansins, was called by God Himself not only a power, but a great power; and blessedDavid 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 HisEssence, but that He is called Word only because of things rational , 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 , in our notions only. And then after all what is He? For He is none of these Himself, if they are but His names : and He has but a semblance of being, and is decorated with these names 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, immediately 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 ? Moreover, what folly is there in that thought of theirs, that the Unoriginate Wisdom coexisting with God is GodHimself! 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, unoriginate as well as Himself , 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 thetruth 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 breaks the rock in piecesJeremiah 23:29?' and in the Proverbs, 'I will make known My words unto youProverbs 1:23;' but these are precepts and commands, which God has spoken to thesaints 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 Your words. ' 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 John 6:63.' Forcertainly such words are not offsprings 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 Him. ' 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.' 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 byScripture, but are named by these only. For it is their invention and Christ-opposing surmise, and they make the most 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 theManichees. 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 show 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 have we heard of any such, yet they haveconfessed 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 have You made them all. ' Nay, Asterius himself, as if forgetting what he wrote before, afterwards, in Caiaphas's 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 thethings 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 theappellation 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 withGod unoriginately. So dizzied are they in all these matters, denying the trueWisdom, 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 theChrist is One, and is Lord and Maker of the creation through His proper Word. And let the Ario-maniacs 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 theSaviour Himself. Since, were it not so, wherefore through Him does the Fathercreate, 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 , 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 andCreator? 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 ofrational creatures being one, no help will come to creatures from a creature , since all 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 has God founded 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 works, He works through the Son , 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 isconsecrated in the Holy Ghost. 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.
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 Godour Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. ' 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 Baruch 3:12,' as Baruch reproaches them, they put from them the Wisdom springing from it, our Lord Jesus Christ (for 'Christ,' says theApostle, is 'God's power and God's wisdom 1 Corinthians 1:24),' when they said, 'We have no king but Cæsar John 19:15.' 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 fullness 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 trueFather, 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 baptizeinto Father and Son, but into Creator and creature, and into Maker and work. 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.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, andHoly Ghost;' that the right faith might follow upon learning, and together withfaith 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 , and in consequence the water which they administer is unprofitable, as deficient in piety, so that he who issprinkled by them is rather polluted by irreligion than redeemed. So Gentiles also, though the name of God is on their lips, incur the charge of Atheism , because they know not the real and very God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. SoManichees and Phrygians , and the disciples of the Samosatene, though using theNames, 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 otherheresies, 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 theScriptures that His Godhead is represented in the Son as in an image, theyblaspheme, saying, that it is a creature, and everywhere concerning that Image, they carry about with them the phrase, 'He was not,' as mud in a wallet , and spit it forth as serpents their venom. Then, whereas their doctrine is nauseous to allmen, immediately, as a support against its fall, they prop up the heresy withhuman 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 immediatephantasy which pleasures furnish, and forfeit their future hope. In thinking to bebaptized 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, andbelieving in one unlike and foreign to the Father in essence, to the 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 19. Texts explained; Sixthly, Proverbs 8:22. 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 mayknow 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 explanation. For it is written, 'The Lordcreated me a beginning of His ways, for His works ;' since, however, these areproverbs, 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 thusreligiously put the sense on it. For what is said in proverbs, is not said plainly, but is put forth latently , as the Lord Himself has taught us in the Gospelaccording to John, saying, 'These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs, but the time comes when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but openlyJohn 16:25.' Therefore it is necessary to unfold the sense 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 ofGod, 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 begot.' 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 does Itself give the meaning of 'He created' in other but parallel expressions, saying, 'Wisdom made herself a house Proverbs 9:1.' Now it is plain that our body isWisdom's house , which It took on Itself to become man; hence consistently doesJohn say, 'The Word was made flesh John 1:14;' and by Solomon Wisdom says of Itself with cautious exactness , not 'I am a creature,' but only 'The Lord createdme a beginning of His ways for His works ,' 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 bySolomon, 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. ' For the creatures, having a created essence, are originate, and are said to be created, and of course the creature is created: but this mere term 'Hecreated' 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 Your creation,' and 'the creation itself groans together and travails together ;' 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 Godis good, and nothing is to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving ;' and in the book of Wisdom it is written, 'Having ordained man through Your wisdom, that he should have dominion over the creatures which You have madeWisdom 9:2.' 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 andfemale ;' and from Moses in the Song, who writes, 'Ask now of the days that are past, which were before you since the day that God created man upon the earth, and from the one side of heaven unto the other Deuteronomy 4:32.' And Paul inColossians, '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. '
46. That to be called creatures, then, and to be created belongs 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 'Hecreated' does not simply denote the essence and mode of generation, Davidshows in the Psalm, 'This shall be written for another generation, and the people that is created shall praise the Lord ;' and again, 'Create in me a clean heart, OGod ;' and Paul in Ephesians says, 'Having abolished the law of commandmentscontained in ordinances, for to create in Himself of two one new manEphesians 2:15;' and again, 'Put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. ' For neither David spoke of any people createdin 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 createdin 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' inChrist 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 ;' and in thus speaking, he does not mean any essence of a creature, but prophesies of the renewal ofsalvation 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 thathuman 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 theLord says 'He created' to number His essence with the creatures? And again whenScripture says, 'Wisdom built her an house, she set it upon seven pillarsProverbs 9:1,' to understand 'house' 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 theLord 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 naturalcreatures, says in love to man, 'The Lord created me a beginning of His ways,' as if to say, 'My Father has 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 fleshJohn 1:14,' we do not conceive the whole Word Himself to be flesh , but to have put on flesh and become man, and on hearing, 'Christ has become a curse for us,' and 'He has made Him sin for us who knew no sin ,' 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 '); so, if it is said in theProverbs 'He created,' we must not conceive that the whole Word is in nature a creature, but that He put on the created body 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 ? For the Proverbs say 'He created,' but they call not the Son creature, but Offspring; and, according to the distinction in Scriptureaforesaid of 'He created' and 'creature,' they acknowledge, what is by natureproper 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 HisEssence, but signify that He was becoming a beginning of many ways; so that 'Hecreated' is in contrast to 'Offspring,' and His being called the 'Beginning of ways ' 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 thechildren , 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 oftime; 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 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 intobeing. And such was the original formation of the quadrupeds, and of birds, and fishes, and cattle, and plants; thus too has the race made after God's Imagecome 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 Romans 1:20,' 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, orPrincipalities :' 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 Lord. 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 , 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 the Lord ?' and 'Who is like the Lord among the sons of God.' and Baruch, 'This is our God, and another shall not be reckoned with Him Baruch 3:35.' For the Onecreates, 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. ' And the very passage in question proves your irreligious spirit; for it is written, 'The Lordcreated 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 GodFather: 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 You, O Father,' and then, 'Lord of heaven and earth Matthew 11:25.' For He calls God His Father, but of the creatures He names Him Lord; as showing clearly from these words, that, when He put on the creature , 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 Your strength unto Your Child, and help the Son of Your handmaid. ' 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, they idly talk, let them know that bothIsaac 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 has made us, and not we ourselves '), 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 theWord,' and 'all things were made by Him,' and 'in Him all things were created. '

Chapter 20. 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 Isaiah 49:5, etc. 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 wascreated 'for the works,' He shows 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 , 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 existand 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 you see, that the Word is notcreated 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 shown us by the word 'He created.' And through the Prophet Isaiah willing to signify the like, He says again: 'And now thus says 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 glorifiedbefore the Lord. '
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 'Hecreated' 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 with them, and should fashion himself as they, lest the capturers, recognising him 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 Spiritforetells in the Psalms, saying, 'You set Him over the works of Your handsHebrews 2:7;' which elsewhere the Lord signified of Himself, 'I am set as King by Him upon His holy hill of Sion. ' And as, when He shone 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 John 8:58;' and 'when He prepared the heavens, I was present with Him;' and 'I was with Him disposing things. ' And as He Himself was before Abraham came to be, and Israel had come into being afterAbraham, and plainly He exists first and is formed afterwards, and His formingsignifies not His beginning of being but His taking manhood, wherein also Hecollects 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 theirrenovation , that, whereas He is created for us, all things may be now created in Him. For when He said 'He created,' He immediately 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 ; for when it signifies the fleshly origination of the Son, it adds also the cause 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 John 1:1;' and the wherefore it assigns not ; but when 'the Word was made flesh John 1:14,' then it adds the reason why, saying, 'And dwelt among us.' And again the Apostlesaying, 'Who being in the form of God,' 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 Philippians 2:6-8;' 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 ; 'I in the Father and the Father in Me,' and 'I and the Father are one,' and, 'He that has seen Me, has seen theFather,' and 'I am the Light of the world,' and, 'I am the Truth ;' 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 theProphets Romans 1:1-2,' 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 reasonwhy 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. And what the need was for which He became man, He Himself thus signifies, 'I came down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him that sent Me. And this is the will of Him which has sent Me, that of all which He has 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 sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life, and I will raise him up at the last day. ' And again; 'I have come a light into the world, that whosoever believesin Me, should not abide in darkness. ' 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 thetruth. ' And John has written: 'For this was manifested the Son of God, that He might destroy the works of the devil 1 John 3:8.'
55. To give a witness then, and for our sakes to undergo death, to raise man up and destroy the works of the devil , 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 Hebrews 2:14-15.' And, 'Since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead 1 Corinthians 15:21.' 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 Romans 8:3-4.' 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 John 3:17.' And again, the Saviour has spoken in His own person, 'Forjudgment am I come into this world, that they who see not might see, and that they which see might become blind. ' 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 Hecreated, 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 two one new man, so making peace Ephesians 2:14-15.' But if in Him the two arecreated, and these are in His body, reasonably then, bearing the two 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 , by creating us in Him, let Him say, 'Hecreated 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 notcreated in Him, we have Him not in ourselves but externally; as, for instance, as receiving instruction from Him as from a teacher. And it being so with us, sin has not lost its reign over the flesh, being inherent and not cast out of it. But theApostle opposes such a doctrine a little before, when he says, 'For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus Ephesians 2:10;' and if in Christ we arecreated, then it is not He who is created, but we in Him; and thus the words 'Hecreated' are for our sake. For because of our need, the Word, though beingCreator, 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 Proverbs 8:30,' and 'I am in the Father and the Father in Me John 14:10;' so, when for our need He became man, consistently does He use language, as ourselves, 'The Lord has created Me,' that, by His dwelling in the flesh, sin might perfectly be expelled from the flesh, and we might have a freemind. For what ought He, when made man, to say? 'In the beginning I 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 thelection. 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 theFather, straightway He adds, 'Before all the hills He begets me Proverbs 8:25;' 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 theWord John 1:1.' 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 21. Texts Explained; Sixthly, Proverbs 8:22, 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, Mosesdid not say of the creation, 'In the beginning He begot,' nor 'In the beginning was,' but 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth Genesis 1:1.' Nor did David say in the Psalm, 'Your hands have begotten me,' but 'made me and fashioned me ,' everywhere applying the word 'made' to the creatures. But to the Son contrariwise; for he has not said 'I made,' but 'I begot ,' and 'He begets me,' and 'My heart uttered a good Word. ' And in the instance of the creation, 'In the beginning He made;' but in the instance of the Son, 'In the beginning was theWord John 1:1.' 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 Matthew 19:4;' 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 ;' and again, 'O think upon Your congregation which You have purchased from the beginning ;' 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,' Moseshimself shows 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 Genesis 2:3.' 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 theirbecoming , and from some beginning does God begin to make them through theWord, that it may be known that they were not before their origination; but theWord has His being, in no other beginning than the Father, whom they allow to be without beginning, so that He too exists without beginning in the Father, being His Offspring, not His creature.
58. Thus does divine Scripture recognise the difference between the Offspring and things made, and show 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 about the Son, andknowing 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 ofirreligion 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 shown to be as unlearned as you are irreligious. Your first passage is this, 'Is not He your Father that bought you? Did He not make you and create you?' And shortly after in the same Song he says, 'God that begot you you deserted, and forgattest God that nourished you. ' Now the meaning conveyed in these passages is very remarkable; for he says not first 'He begot,' 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 Genesis 1:26,' but he soon after says himself, 'God that begot you you deserted,' 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 'begot,' 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 'begot' he shows God's lovingkindness exercised towards menafter 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 your Father that bought you? Did He not make you andcreate you Deuteronomy 32:6?' And next he says, 'They sacrificed unto devils, not toGod, to gods whom they knew not. New gods and strange came up, whom your fathers knew not; the God that begot you you deserted. '
59. For God not only created them to be men, but called them to be sons, as having begotten them. For the term 'begot' is here as elsewhere expressive of a Son, as He says by the Prophet, 'I begot 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 'begot.' And this John seems to say, 'He gave to them power to become children of God, even to them that believe in His Name; which were begotten not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God John 1:12-13.' And here too the cautious distinction 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 tograce 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. ' 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 bynature creatures, otherwise than by receiving the Spirit of the natural and trueSon. 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 theProphet Malachi, who says, 'Hath not One God created us? Have we not all one Father Malachi 2:10?' for first he puts 'created,' next 'Father,' to show, as the other writers, that from the beginning we were creatures by nature, and God is ourCreator through the Word; but afterwards we were made sons, and thenceforwardGod 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 ; and again, thatGod is not our Father by nature, but of that Word in us, in whom and because of whom we 'cry, Abba, Father Galatians 4:6.' And so in like manner, the Father calls them sons in whomsoever He sees His own Son, and says, 'I begot.' since begetting is significant of a Son, and making is indicative of the works. And thus it is that we are not begotten first, but made; for it is written, 'Let Us make manGenesis 1:26;' 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 begot.' lest, hearing 'He begot,' they might forget their own original nature; but that they might knowthat 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 tonature.
60. And that creature and offspring are not the same, but differ from each other innature and the signification of the words, the Lord Himself shows even in theProverbs. For having said, 'The Lord created me a beginning of His ways;' He has added, 'But before all the hills He begot me.' If then the Word were by nature and in His Essence a creature, and there were no difference between offspring and creature, He would not have added, 'He begot me,' but had been satisfied with 'He created,' as if that term implied 'He begot.' but, as it is, after saying, 'Hecreated me a beginning of His ways for His works,' He has added, not simply 'begot me,' but with the connection of the conjunction 'But,' as guarding thereby the term 'created,' when he says, 'But before all the hills He begot me.' For 'begot me' succeeding in such close connection to 'created me,' makes the meaning one, and shows that 'created' is said with an object , but that 'begot me' is prior to 'created me.' For as, if He had said the reverse, 'The Lord begot me,' and went on, 'But before the hills He created me,' 'created' would certainly precede 'begot,' so having said first 'created,' and then added 'But before all the hills He begot me,' He necessarily shows that 'begot' preceded 'created.' For in saying, 'Before all He begot me,' He intimates that He is other than all things; it having been shown to be true 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. Therefore neither do the words which follow 'created,' also follow 'begot me;' but in the case of 'created' is added 'beginning of ways,' but of 'begot me,' He says not, 'He begot me as a beginning,' but 'before all He begot me.' But He who is before all is not a beginning of all, but is other than all ; 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 preeminenceColossians 1:18.'
61. Such then being the difference between 'created' and 'begot 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 theSon, 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. ' For though it was after us 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 thetransgression of Adam, His flesh before all others was saved and liberated, as being the Word's body ; and henceforth we, becoming incorporate with It, aresaved after Its pattern. For in It the Lord becomes our guide to the Kingdom ofHeaven and to His own Father, saying, 'I am the way' and 'the door ,' and 'through Me all must enter.' Whence also is He said to be 'First-born from the deadRevelation 1:5,' 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.
62. But if He is also called 'First-born of the creation ,' 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'scondescension 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 ' because of brethren. Accordingly it is nowhere written in theScriptures, '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. Thus, 'We have seen His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the FatherJohn 1:14;' and 'God sent His Only-begotten Son 1 John 4:9;' and 'O Lord, Your Wordendures for ever ;' and 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was withGod;' and 'Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of God 1 Corinthians 1:24;' and 'This is My beloved Son.' and 'You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God. ' But 'first-born' implied the descent to the creation ; for of it has He been called first-born; and 'He created' implies His grace towards the works, for for them is Hecreated. 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. 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-begotten 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 , as was before said, not in connection with any reason, but absolutely it is said of Him, 'The Only-begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father John 1:18;' but the word 'First-born' has again the creation as a reason in connection with it, which Paulproceeds to say, 'for in Him all things were created Colossians 1:16.' 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 theSon, through whom was the creation, so also before He was called the First-bornof the whole creation, not the less was the Word Himself with God and the Wordwas 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 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. Reuben, for instance, is not said to be first-born of all the children of Jacob , but of Jacobhimself 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 all,' lest He be thought to bear a body other than ours, but 'among many brethren Romans 8:29,' 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 saintssaying that He is 'First-born of the whole creation Colossians 1:15,' the Son of God is plainly shown 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 wholecreation through Him came to be, and in Him consists, how can He both createthe 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 loveto man, which brought it to pass that in His Word not only 'all things consist ,' 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. ' 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 , as depending on the Word as a beginning.
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 andsimilitude 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 ; and next, because, by this condescension of the Word, the creation too is made ason 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 brings the First-born into the world, He says, Let all the Angels of God worship Him Hebrews 1:6.' 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 creation,' because of thisadoption of all as sons. And as He is First-born among brethren and rose from the dead 'the first fruits of them that slept 1 Corinthians 15:20;' so, since it became Him 'in all things to have the preeminence Colossians 1:18,' 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. '
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 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 you are, and unto dust Genesis 3:19 shall you return,' therefore the Word of God, who loves man, puts on Him created flesh at the Father's will , that whereas the first man had made it dead through thetransgression, He Himself might quicken it in the blood of His own body , and might open 'for us a way new and living,' as the Apostle says, 'through the veil, that is to say, His flesh Hebrews 10:20;' 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 have become new 2 Corinthians 5:17.' But if a new creationhas come to pass, some one must be first of this creation; now a man, made of earth only, such as we have become from the transgression, he could not be. For in the first creation, men had become unfaithful, and through them that firstcreation had been lost; and there was need of some one else to renew the firstcreation, 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 , but of His bodily presence. For to the body death was proper ; and in like manner to the bodily presence are the words proper, 'The Lord created me a beginning of His ways.' For since theSaviour 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. ' 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. ' For we shall no more hear, 'In the day that you eat thereof, you shall surely dieGenesis 2:17,' but 'Where I am, there ye' shall 'be also;' so that we may say, 'We are His workmanship, created unto good works John 14:3; Ephesians 2:10.' 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, You shall requite for me; despise not then the works of Your hands '); therefore the perfectWord of God puts around Him an imperfect body, and is said to be created 'for the works;' that, paying the debt in our stead, He might, by Himself, perfect what was wanting to man. Now immortality was wanting to him, and the way toparadise. This then is what the Saviour says, 'I glorified You on the earth, I perfected the work which You have given Me to do John 17:4;' and again, 'The works which the Father has given Me to perfect, the same works that I do, bearwitness of Me;' but 'the works ' He here says that the Father had given Him toperfect, are those for which He is created, saying in the Proverbs, 'The Lordcreated me a beginning of His ways, for His works;' for it is all one to say, 'The Father has 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 you 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 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 theWord 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 'Hecreated' indicative, as has many times been said, but of His bodily generation. For then, because the works had become imperfect and mutilated from thetransgression, 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 Ephesians 5:27.' 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 theFather, 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 ? Or what succour had come from like to like, when one as well as other needed it ? 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 You, that pardons iniquity, and passes by transgression Micah 7:18?' For whereas God has said, 'Dust you are, and unto dust shall you return Genesis 3:19,' 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 ;' and theSon, who made free, has shown 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 remits sins. For since it is said in the Word, 'Dust you are, and unto dust you shall 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 thecurse.' but we must consider what was expedient for mankind, and not what simply is possible with God. 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 profited 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 fullness of the ages Galatians 4:4,' and when sought for said, 'I am He John 18:5.' 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. Accordingly He came, not 'that He might be ministered unto, but that He might minister ,' and might work oursalvation. 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 shown of Him who gave the word, but man had become such as Adam was before the transgression, having received grace from without , and not having it united to the body; (for he was such when he was placed in Paradise) nay, perhaps had become worse, 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 , 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 ; nor would a portion of the creation have been the creation'ssalvation, 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 had died through Him, the word of that sentence might be accomplished (for 'all died2 Corinthians 5:14 ' in Christ), and all through Him might thereupon become free from sin and from the curse which came upon it, and might truly abide for ever,risen from the dead and clothed in immortality and incorruption. For the Wordbeing clothed in the flesh, as has many times been explained, every bite of theserpent 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 , 'The prince of this world comes, and finds nothing in Me;' and 'For this end was He manifested,' asJohn has written, 'that He might destroy the works of the devil 1 John 3:8.' 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 behind Me, Satan Matthew 16:23,' and thus he is cast out of paradise into the eternal fire. Nor shall we have to watch against womanbeguiling us, for 'in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the Angels Mark 12:25;' and in Christ Jesus it shall be 'a new creation,' and 'neither male nor female, but all and in all Christ ;' and where Christ is, whatfear, 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 shows 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 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 trueWord 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 theGodhead, 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 of Mary Ever-Virgin ; for in neither case had it been of profit to us men, whether the Word were not true and naturally Son ofGod, 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 Ario-maniacs rave ; and in that flesh has come to pass the beginning of our newcreation, 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 a creature; nor, 'Hecreated Me to make works,' lest, on the other hand, according to the perverseness of the irreligious, He should seem as an instrument 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 , 'for the works;' as much as to say, 'The Father has made Me, into flesh, that I might be man,' which again shows 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 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 has made all these things Isaiah 66:2;' and David says in the Psalm, 'And You, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands ;' and again, in the hundred and forty-second Psalm, 'I do remember thetime past, I muse upon all Your works, yea I exercise myself in the works of Your hands. ' 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 John 1:3,' and again, 'One Lord Jesus, through whom are all things1 Corinthians 8:9,' and 'in Him all things consist Colossians 1:17,' it is very plain that the Son cannot be a work, but He is the Hand of God and the Wisdom. Thisknowing, the martyrs in Babylon, Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, arraign the Arianirreligion. For when they say, 'O all you 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 show 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 worshippedand confessed as God , 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 ;' as in another Psalm too He says, 'O Lord, how manifold are Your works! In Wisdom have You made them all. '
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 shows that Wisdom is Framer of the works, and not a work. This distinction Paul also observes, writing to the Hebrews, 'TheWord 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 Hebrews 4:12-13.' 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 shown 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 time , 'The servant remains not in the house for ever, but the Son remains for ever; if then the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed John 8:35-36;' it is clearer than the light from these considerations also, that the Word of God is not a creature buttrue Son, and by nature genuine, of the Father. Concerning then 'The Lord hascreated 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 theArian heresy.

Chapter 22. Texts Explained; Sixthly, the Context ofProverbs 8:22, 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 Proverbs 8:23,' namely, that this is said of the Godhead of the Word and not of His incarnate Presence , it isnecessary, explaining this verse also, to show their error.
73. It is written, 'The Lord in Wisdom founded the earth Proverbs 3:19;' 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 , and we must in like manner investigate its sense; that we may know that, while by Wisdom the Father frames and foundsthe earth to be firm and steadfast , 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 has 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 , 'and on this point specially search theScriptures ;' for this it was, when the Apostles were questioned, that Peteranswered, saying, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God Matthew 16:16.' This also the father of the Arian heresy asked as one of his first questions; 'If Thou be the Son of God Matthew 4:3;' 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 were angered, because the Lordsaid 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. The Arians then ought, even in imitation of their own father the devil, to take some special pains 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 show again, as I have said, that not for His own sakebut for those who are built upon Him does He here also speak, after the way ofproverbs. For this knowing, the Apostle also writes, 'Other foundation can no manlay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ; but let every man take heed how he builds thereupon. ' 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 , 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 founded, that we, as precious stones, may admit of building upon Him, and may become a temple of the Holy Ghostwho dwells 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 Essenceof the Godhead; for this surely is impossible; but according to His manhood, for the branches 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 says 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 ofirreligion; 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 immediately 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 founded take a beginning ofexistence; 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 has founded me;' as much as to say, 'Me, being the Word, He has enveloped in a body of earth.' For so He is founded for our sakes, taking on Him what is ours , 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 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 thisgrace 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 beseemednot that God should counsel concerning us afterwards, lest He should appearignorant of our fate. The God of all then—creating us by His own Word, andknowing our destinies better than we, and foreseeing that, being made 'goodGenesis 1:31,' 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 , the Economy of oursalvation; 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 ; 'Be partaker of the afflictions of the Gospel according to the power of God, who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose andgrace, 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 has abolished death, and brought to light life 2 Timothy 1:8-10.' And to the Ephesians; 'Blessed beGod even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with all spiritualblessing in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, according as He has 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 Ephesians 1:3-5.'
76. How then has He chosen us, before we came into existence, but that, as he says himself, in Him we were represented beforehand? And how at all, before menwere 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 beingpredestinated,' 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, you blessed of My Father, inherit thekingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world Matthew 25:34.' 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 naturally 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 , 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 reasonis 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'swill 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 fullness 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 blessingwhich 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 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 theLord 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. ForGod is good; and being good always, He willed this, as knowing that our weaknature needed the succour and salvation which is from Him. And as a wisearchitect, 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 Godis not a creature, but that the sense of the passage is right. 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 , 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,' 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 ; but 'a man of understanding,' says he, 'shall understand a proverb and the interpretation, the words of the wise and their dark sayings Proverbs 1:5-6.'
78. Now the Only-begotten and very Wisdom of God is Creator and Framer of all things; for 'in Wisdom have You made them all ,' he says, and 'the earth is full of Your creation.' But that what came into being might not only be, but be good , it pleased God that His own Wisdom should condescend 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. 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 has the Son,' says He, 'has the Father also;' and 'he that receives Me, receives Him that sent Me. ' 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 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 , He says this as if of Himself. And as theLord Himself has said, 'He that receives you, receives Me Matthew 10:40,' 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, 'TheLord 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 showed 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 Romans 1:19-20.' But if so, the Word is not a creature inessence ; 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 ? If not how is it that the Apostlecomplains, 'For after that in the Wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew notGod 1 Corinthians 1:21?' or how is it if there is no wisdom, that a 'multitude of wisemen ' are found in Scripture? For 'a wise man fears and departs from evilProverbs 14:16;' and 'through wisdom is a house built ;' and the Preacher says, 'Aman's wisdom makes 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. ' But if, as the Son ofSirach says, 'He poured her out upon all His works; she is with all flesh according to His gift, and He has given her to them that love Him Sirach 1:9-10,' and this outpouring is a note, not of the Essence of the Very 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 knowledgepoured 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 shows His handywork. ' This if men have within them , they will acknowledge the true Wisdom of God; and will know that they are made really after God's Image. And, as some son of a king, when the father wished to build a city , 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 ) 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 do you persecute Me Acts 9:4?' 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 FramingWisdom, 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 in the works, think that 'Hecreated' is said of the Substance of the Very Wisdom, lest, diluting the wine withwater , 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 , '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 , as the Lord Himself has said, 'He that has seen Me, has seen theFather,' and as John writes, 'He who acknowledges the Son, has the Father also. ' And He says, 'Before the world He founded me ,' since in Its impress the works remain settled and eternal. Then, lest any, hearing concerning the wisdom thuscreated 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 show 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 shown in what has gone before.
81. But since He proceeds to say, 'When He prepared the heaven, I was present with Him ,' 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 doubtthat all things are created in Wisdom, and without It was made not even oneJohn 1:3 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 MyEssence indeed I was with the Father, but by a condescension 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 Your appointment all things continue ;' but they who make light of this must be told, 'Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools;' for 'that which may beknown 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 glorifiedHim not as God, but served the creature more than the Creator of all, who isblessed for ever. Amen. ' 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 savethem that believe 1 Corinthians 1:21.' 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 John 1:14,' 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 You the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. '
82. Hence the whole earth is filled with the knowledge of Him; for the knowledgeof 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 Proverbs 8:30.' 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, 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 Proverbs 8:31, 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 has seen Me, has seen the Father,' and 'I am in the Father and the Father in MeJohn 14:9-10.' Vain then is your vaunt as is on all sides shown, O Christ's enemies, and vainly did ye parade and circulate everywhere your text, 'The Lord created me a beginning of His ways,' perverting its sense, and publishing, not Solomon'smeaning, but your own comment. 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. John 1:3 '

About this page

Source. Translated by John Henry Newman and Archibald Robertson. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 4. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1892.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight.<http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/28162.htm>.

Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is feedback732 atnewadvent.org. (To help fight spam, this address might change occasionally.) Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.

Copyright © 2009 by Kevin Knight. Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

CONTACT US