Opening
The Third Theological Oration.
The Third Theological Oration.
On the Son.
On the Son.
I. This is what might be said to curb our opponents' eagerness to argue and their hasty approach that leads to uncertainty in all matters, especially in discussions about God. But since rebuking others is not difficult at all—in fact, it's very easy and anyone who wants to can do it—while replacing their beliefs with one's own is the task of a devout and thoughtful person, let us rely on the Holy Spirit, who is dishonored among them but worshiped among us, and bring our own understanding about the Godhead into the light, whatever it may be, like a noble and timely birth. Not that I have been silent at other times—on this subject alone I am full of youthful energy and courage—but the truth is that under present circumstances I am even bolder to proclaim the truth, so that I may not, by holding back, fall under the condemnation of displeasing God (to use the words of Scripture). And since every discourse has two aspects—one part establishing one's own position, and the other dismantling one's opponents' position—let us first state our own position, and then attempt to refute that of our opponents, doing both as briefly as possible. This way our arguments can be grasped at a glance (like those elementary handbooks they have created to deceive simple or foolish people), and our thoughts will not be scattered because of a lengthy discourse, like water that is not contained in a channel but flows uselessly across open ground.
I. This then is what might be said to cut short our opponents' readiness to argue and their hastiness with its consequent insecurity in all matters, but above all in those discussions which relate to God. But since to rebuke others is a matter of no difficulty whatever, but a very easy thing, which any one who likes can do; whereas to substitute one's own belief for theirs is the part of a pious and intelligent man; let us, relying on the Holy Ghost, Who among them is dishonoured, but among us is adored, bring forth to the light our own conceptions about the Godhead, whatever these may be, like some noble and timely birth. Not that I have at other times been silent; for on this subject alone I am full of youthful strength and daring; but the fact is that under present circumstances I am even more bold to declare the truth, that I may not (to use the words of Scripture) by drawing back fall into the condemnation of being displeasing to God. And since every discourse is of a twofold nature, the one part establishing one's own, and the other overthrowing one's opponents' position; let us first of all state our own position, and then try to controvert that of our opponents — and both as briefly as possible, so that our arguments may be taken in at a glance (like those of the elementary treatises which they have devised to deceive simple or foolish persons), and that our thoughts may not be scattered by reason of the length of the discourse, like water which is not contained in a channel, but flows to waste over the open land.
II. The three oldest beliefs about God are Anarchia, Polyarchia, and Monarchia. The first two are the playthings of the Greeks, and may they remain so. For Anarchia is something without order, and the rule of many is full of faction, and therefore anarchical, and therefore disorderly. Both of these lead to the same thing, namely disorder, and this leads to dissolution, for disorder is the first step toward dissolution.
II. The three most ancient opinions concerning God are Anarchia, Polyarchia, and Monarchia. The first two are the sport of the children of Hellas, and may they continue to be so. For Anarchy is a thing without order; and the Rule of Many is factious, and thus anarchical, and thus disorderly. For both these tend to the same thing, namely disorder; and this to dissolution, for disorder is the first step to dissolution.
But Monarchy is what we honor. However, it is a Monarchy not limited to one Person, since it is possible for Unity, if divided against itself, to fall into a condition of plurality. Rather, it is one made of an equality of physis and a union of mind, and an identity of motion, and a convergence of its elements toward unity—something impossible for created nature—so that although numerically distinct, there is no division of ousia. Therefore Unity, having from all eternity arrived at Duality through motion, found its rest in Trinity. This is what we mean by Father and Son and Holy Spirit. The Father is the Begetter and the Emitter—without passion, of course, and without reference to time, and not in a bodily manner. The Son is the Begotten, and the Holy Spirit the Emission, for I do not know how this could be expressed in terms that completely exclude visible things. We will not dare to speak of an overflow of goodness, as one of the Greek philosophers dared to say, as if it were a bowl overflowing, and this in plain words in his discourse on the First and Second Causes. Let us never view this Generation as involuntary, like some natural overflow, difficult to restrain, and in no way fitting our understanding of Deity. Therefore let us stay within our limits and speak of the Unbegotten and the Begotten and That which proceeds from the Father, as God the Word Himself says somewhere.
But Monarchy is that which we hold in honour. It is, however, a Monarchy that is not limited to one Person, for it is possible for Unity if at variance with itself to come into a condition of plurality; but one which is made of an equality of Nature and a Union of mind, and an identity of motion, and a convergence of its elements to unity — a thing which is impossible to the created nature — so that though numerically distinct there is no severance of Essence. Therefore Unity having from all eternity arrived by motion at Duality, found its rest in Trinity. This is what we mean by Father and Son and Holy Ghost. The Father is the Begetter and the Emitter; without passion of course, and without reference to time, and not in a corporeal manner. The Son is the Begotten, and the Holy Ghost the Emission; for I know not how this could be expressed in terms altogether excluding visible things. For we shall not venture to speak of an overflow of goodness, as one of the Greek Philosophers dared to say, as if it were a bowl overflowing, and this in plain words in his Discourse on the First and Second Causes. Let us not ever look on this Generation as involuntary, like some natural overflow, hard to be retained, and by no means befitting our conception of Deity. Therefore let us confine ourselves within our limits, and speak of the Unbegotten and the Begotten and That which proceeds from the Father, as somewhere God the Word Himself says.
When did these come into being? They are above all "When." But if I may speak somewhat more boldly—when the Father did. And when did the Father come into being? There never was a time when He was not. The same is true of the Son and the Holy Spirit. Ask me again, and I will answer again: When was the Son begotten? When the Father was not begotten. And when did the Holy Spirit proceed? When the Son was—not proceeding but begotten—beyond the sphere of time and above the grasp of reason. Yet we cannot set forth what is above time if we avoid, as we wish to, any expression that conveys the idea of time. For such expressions as "when" and "before" and "after" and "from the beginning" are not timeless, no matter how much we may force them to be—unless perhaps we were to take the Aeon, that interval which is coextensive with eternal things and is not divided or measured by any motion or by the revolution of the sun, as time is measured.
III. When did these come into being? They are above all When. But, if I am to speak with something more of boldness — when the Father did. And when did the Father come into being. There never was a time when He was not. And the same thing is true of the Son and the Holy Ghost. Ask me again, and again I will answer you, When was the Son begotten? When the Father was not begotten. And when did the Holy Ghost proceed? When the Son was, not proceeding but, begotten — beyond the sphere of time, and above the grasp of reason; although we cannot set forth that which is above time, if we avoid as we desire any expression which conveys the idea of time. For such expressions as when and before and after and from the beginning are not timeless, however much we may force them; unless indeed we were to take the Æon, that interval which is coextensive with the eternal things, and is not divided or measured by any motion, or by the revolution of the sun, as time is measured.
How then are they not equally unoriginate if they are coeternal? Because they are from him, though not after him. For what is unoriginate is eternal, but what is eternal is not necessarily unoriginate, as long as it can be traced back to the Father as its source. Therefore, in respect of cause they are not unoriginate; but it is clear that the cause is not necessarily prior to its effects, for the sun is not prior to its light. And yet they are in some sense unoriginate with respect to time, even though you would frighten simple minds with your verbal tricks, for the sources of time are not subject to time.
How then are They not alike unoriginate, if They are coeternal? Because They are from Him, though not after Him. For that which is unoriginate is eternal, but that which is eternal is not necessarily unoriginate, so long as it may be referred to the Father as its origin. Therefore in respect of Cause They are not unoriginate; but it is evident that the Cause is not necessarily prior to its effects, for the sun is not prior to its light. And yet They are in some sense unoriginate, in respect of time, even though you would scare simple minds with your quibbles, for the Sources of Time are not subject to time.
IV. But how can this generation be passionless? Because it is incorporeal. For if corporeal generation involves passion, then incorporeal generation excludes it. And I will ask you in return: How is He God if He is created? For that which is created is not God. I will not even remind you that passion is present here too if we understand creation in a bodily sense—involving time, desire, imagination, thought, hope, pain, risk, failure, success, and many more things that belong to the creature, as everyone can see. In fact, I am amazed that you do not go so far as to think of marriages, periods of pregnancy, and dangers of miscarriage, as if the Father could not have begotten at all unless He had begotten in this way. Or again, that you did not list the modes of generation found in birds, beasts, and fish, and try to fit the Divine and Ineffable Generation under one of them, or even eliminate the Son entirely based on your new theory. And you cannot even see this: just as His generation according to the flesh differs from all others (for where among men do you find a Virgin Mother?), so too He differs in His spiritual generation. Or rather, He whose existence is not the same as ours differs from us in His generation as well.
IV. But how can this generation be passionless? In that it is incorporeal. For if corporeal generation involves passion, incorporeal generation excludes it. And I will ask of you in turn, How is He God if He is created? For that which is created is not God. I refrain from reminding you that here too is passion if we take the creation in a bodily sense, as time, desire, imagination, thought, hope, pain, risk, failure, success, all of which and more than all find a place in the creature, as is evident to every one. Nay, I marvel that you do not venture so far as to conceive of marriages and times of pregnancy, and dangers of miscarriage, as if the Father could not have begotten at all if He had not begotten thus; or again, that you did not count up the modes of generation of birds and beasts and fishes, and bring under some one of them the Divine and Ineffable Generation, or even eliminate the Son out of your new hypothesis. And you cannot even see this, that as His Generation according to the flesh differs from all others (for where among men do you know of a Virgin Mother?), so does He differ also in His spiritual Generation; or rather He, Whose Existence is not the same as ours, differs from us also in His Generation.
V. Who then is that Father who had no beginning? He is one whose very existence had no beginning, for anyone whose existence had a beginning must also have begun to be a Father. He did not become a Father after he began to exist, because his existence had no beginning. And he is Father in the absolute sense, because he is not also Son, just as the Son is Son in the absolute sense because he is not also Father. These names do not belong to us in the absolute sense, because we are both father and son, and not one more than the other. We come from both parents, not from one only, and so we are divided and gradually become men—perhaps not even truly men, and not the kind we intended to be—leaving others and being left by them, so that only the relationships remain without the underlying realities.
V. Who then is that Father Who had no beginning? One Whose very Existence had no beginning; for one whose existence had a beginning must also have begun to be a Father. He did not then become a Father after He began to be, for His being had no beginning. And He is Father in the absolute sense, for He is not also Son; just as the Son is Son in the absolute sense, because He is not also Father. These names do not belong to us in the absolute sense, because we are both, and not one more than the other; and we are of both, and not of one only; and so we are divided, and by degrees become men, and perhaps not even men, and such as we did not desire, leaving and being left, so that only the relations remain, without the underlying facts.
But the objector says that the very form of the expression "He begot" and "He was begotten" introduces the idea that generation had a beginning. But what if we don't use this expression and instead say "He had been begotten from the beginning," so that we can easily avoid your forced objections that are fixated on time? Will you then use Scripture against us, as if we were inventing something contrary to Scripture and to the truth? Everyone knows that in practice we very often find tenses exchanged when time is being discussed, and this is especially the custom of Holy Scripture—not only with respect to past and present tenses, but even with future tenses. For instance, "Why did the heathen rage?" when they had not yet raged, and "they shall cross over the river on foot," where the meaning is "they did cross over." It would take too long to count all the expressions of this kind that students have observed.
But, the objector says, the very form of the expression He begot and He was begotten, brings in the idea of a beginning of generation. But what if you do not use this expression, but say, He had been begotten from the beginning so as readily to evade your far-fetched and time-loving objections? Will you bring Scripture against us, as if we were forging something contrary to Scripture and to the truth? Why, every one knows that in practice we very often find tenses interchanged when time is spoken of; and especially is this the custom of Holy Scripture, not only in respect of the past tense, and of the present; but even of the future, as for instance Why did the heathen rage? when they had not yet raged and they shall cross over the river on foot, where the meaning is they did cross over. It would be a long task to reckon up all the expressions of this kind which students have noticed.
VI. So much for this point. What is their next objection, and how full of contentiousness and impudence it is? They say that the Father either begot the Son voluntarily or involuntarily. Then, as they think, they trap us on both sides with arguments—though these are not strong but very weak. For they say, if it was involuntarily, then He was under the control of someone else, and who exercised this control? And how is He who is controlled by another actually God? But if it was voluntarily, then the Son is a son of the Will. How then is He of the Father? In this way they invent a new kind of mother for him—the Will—in place of the Father. There is one good point they may claim about this argument of theirs: namely, that they abandon Passion and take refuge in Will. For Will is not Passion.
VI. So much for this point. What is their next objection, how full of contentiousness and impudence? He, they say, either voluntarily begot the Son, or else involuntarily. Next, as they think, they bind us on both sides with cords; these however are not strong, but very weak. For, they say, if it was involuntarily He was under the sway of some one, and who exercised this sway? And how is He, over whom it is exercised, God? But if voluntarily, the Son is a Son of Will; how then is He of the Father? — and they thus invent a new sort of Mother for him — the Will — in place of the Father. There is one good point which they may allege about this argument of theirs; namely, that they desert Passion, and take refuge in Will. For Will is not Passion.
Now let's examine the strength of their argument. It would be best to engage them directly at first. You yourself, who so recklessly assert whatever you please—were you begotten voluntarily or involuntarily by your father? If involuntarily, then he was under some tyrant's control (what terrible violence!), and who was the tyrant? You can hardly say it was nature, since nature tolerates celibacy. If it was voluntarily, then with a few words your father is eliminated, because you are shown to be the son of Will, not of your father. But I move to the relationship between God and creation, and I put your own question to your own wisdom. Did God create all things voluntarily or under compulsion? If under compulsion, here too is tyranny, and someone who acted as tyrant. If voluntarily, the creatures are also deprived of their God, and you first of all, who invent such arguments and logical tricks. For a partition is set up between the Creator and the creatures in the form of Will. And yet I think that the Person who wills is distinct from the act of willing; the one who begets from the act of begetting; the speaker from the speech—otherwise we are all very foolish. On one side we have the one who moves, and on the other that which is, so to speak, the motion. Thus the thing willed is not the child of will, for it does not always result from it; nor is that which is begotten the child of generation, nor that which is heard the child of speech, but of the Person who willed, or begot, or spoke. But the things of God are beyond all this, for with Him perhaps the Will to beget is generation, and there is no intermediate action (if we may accept this at all, rather than consider generation superior to will).
Secondly, let us look at the strength of their argument. And it were best to wrestle with them at first at close quarters. You yourself, who so recklessly assert whatever takes your fancy; were you begotten voluntarily or involuntarily by your father? If involuntarily, then he was under some tyrant's sway (O terrible violence!) and who was the tyrant? You will hardly say it was nature, — for nature is tolerant of chastity. If it was voluntarily, then by a few syllables your father is done away with, for you are shown to be the son of Will, and not of your father. But I pass to the relation between God and the creature, and I put your own question to your own wisdom. Did God create all things voluntarily or under compulsion? If under compulsion, here also is the tyranny, and one who played the tyrant; if voluntarily, the creatures also are deprived of their God, and you before the rest, who invent such arguments and tricks of logic. For a partition is set up between the Creator and the creatures in the shape of Will. And yet I think that the Person who wills is distinct from the Act of willing; He who begets from the Act of begetting; the Speaker from the speech, or else we are all very stupid. On the one side we have the mover, and on the other that which is, so to speak, the motion. Thus the thing willed is not the child of will, for it does not always result therefrom; nor is that which is begotten the child of generation, nor that which is heard the child of speech, but of the Person who willed, or begot, or spoke. But the things of God are beyond all this, for with Him perhaps the Will to beget is generation, and there is no intermediate action (if we may accept this altogether, and not rather consider generation superior to will).
Will you then let me play a little with this word Father, since your example encourages me to be so bold? The Father is God either willingly or unwillingly—and how will you escape from your own excessive cleverness? If willingly, when did He begin to will? It could not have been before He began to exist, for there was nothing before Him. Or is one part of Him Will and another the object of Will? If so, He is divisible. So the question arises, as a result of your argument, whether He Himself is not the child of Will. And if unwillingly, what compelled Him to exist, and how is He God if He was compelled—and compelled to nothing less than to be God? How then was He begotten, my opponent asks. How was He created, if as you say, He was created? For this is part of the same difficulty. Perhaps you would say, by Will and Word. You have not yet solved the whole difficulty, for it still remains for you to show how Will and Word gained the power to act. For man was not created in this way.
VII. Will you then let me play a little upon this word Father, for your example encourages me to be so bold? The Father is God either willingly or unwillingly; and how will you escape from your own excessive acuteness? If willingly, when did He begin to will? It could not have been before He began to be, for there was nothing prior to Him. Or is one part of Him Will and another the object of Will? If so, He is divisible. So the question arises, as the result of your argument, whether He Himself is not the Child of Will. And if unwillingly, what compelled Him to exist, and how is He God if He was compelled — and that to nothing less than to be God? How then was He begotten, says my opponent. How was He created, if as you say, He was created? For this is a part of the same difficulty. Perhaps you would say, By Will and Word. You have not yet solved the whole difficulty; for it yet remains for you to show how Will and Word gained the power of action. For man was not created in this way.
How then was He begotten? This Generation would have been no great thing if you could have understood it—you who don't really know even your own generation, or at least understand very little of it, and you're ashamed to speak of that little. And yet you think you know the whole? You will have to work very hard before you discover the laws of composition, formation, manifestation, and the bond by which soul is united to body—mind to soul, and reason to mind—and movement, growth, assimilation of food, sense, memory, recollection, and all the rest of the parts from which you are composed. Which of these belong to soul and body together, and which to each one independently of the other, and which is received from the other? For those parts whose maturity comes later nevertheless received their laws at the time of conception. Tell me what these laws are? And don't even then venture to speculate on the Generation of God, for that would be unsafe. For even if you knew all about your own generation, you still don't know anything about God's. And if you don't understand your own, how can you know about God's? For to the degree that God is harder to trace out than man, so is the heavenly Generation harder to comprehend than your own. But if you claim that because you cannot comprehend it, therefore He cannot have been begotten, it will be time for you to strike out many existing things which you cannot comprehend—and first of all God Himself. For you cannot say what He is, even if you are very reckless and excessively proud of your intelligence. First, cast away your notions of flow and divisions and sections, and your conceptions of immaterial birth as if it were material birth, and then you may perhaps worthily conceive of the Divine Generation. How was He begotten? I repeat the question in indignation. The Begetting of God must be honored by silence. It is a great thing for you to learn that He was begotten. But the manner of His generation—we will not admit that even Angels can conceive it, much less you. Shall I tell you how it was? It was in a manner known to the Father Who begot, and to the Son Who was begotten. Anything more than this is hidden by a cloud and escapes your dim sight.
VIII. How then was He begotten? This Generation would have been no great thing, if you could have comprehended it who have no real knowledge even of your own generation, or at least who comprehend very little of it, and of that little you are ashamed to speak; and then do you think you know the whole? You will have to undergo much labour before you discover the laws of composition, formation, manifestation, and the bond whereby soul is united to body — mind to soul, and reason to mind; and movement, increase, assimilation of food, sense, memory, recollection, and all the rest of the parts of which you are compounded; and which of them belongs to the soul and body together, and which to each independently of the other, and which is received from each other. For those parts whose maturity comes later, yet received their laws at the time of conception. Tell me what these laws are? And do not even then venture to speculate on the Generation of God; for that would be unsafe. For even if you knew all about your own, yet you do not by any means know about God's. And if you do not understand your own, how can you know about God's? For in proportion as God is harder to trace out than man, so is the heavenly Generation harder to comprehend than your own. But if you assert that because you cannot comprehend it, therefore He cannot have been begotten, it will be time for you to strike out many existing things which you cannot comprehend; and first of all God Himself. For you cannot say what He is, even if you are very reckless, and excessively proud of your intelligence. First, cast away your notions of flow and divisions and sections, and your conceptions of immaterial as if it were material birth, and then you may perhaps worthily conceive of the Divine Generation. How was He begotten?– I repeat the question in indignation. The Begetting of God must be honoured by silence. It is a great thing for you to learn that He was begotten. But the manner of His generation we will not admit that even Angels can conceive, much less you. Shall I tell you how it was? It was in a manner known to the Father Who begot, and to the Son Who was begotten. Anything more than this is hidden by a cloud, and escapes your dim sight.
Well, but the Father begot a Son who either already existed or did not exist. What utter nonsense! This is a question that applies to you or me, who on the one hand already existed—for instance, Levi in the loins of Abraham—and on the other hand came into existence. So in some sense we are partly from what existed and partly from what did not exist. The opposite is true of original matter, which was certainly created out of what did not exist, despite some claiming it is unbegotten. But in this case, being begotten is, even from the beginning, the same as existing. So what will you base this trick question on? For what is older than that which exists from the beginning, if we try to assign prior existence or non-existence to the Son? Either way, we destroy his claim to be the Beginning. Or perhaps you will say, if we asked you whether the Father was of existent or non-existent substance, that he is twofold—partly pre-existing, partly existing—or that his case is the same as the Son's: that he was created out of non-existing matter. All because of your ridiculous questions and your houses of sand, which cannot stand against the slightest ripple.
IX. Well, but the Father begot a Son who either was or was not in existence. What utter nonsense! This is a question which applies to you or me, who on the one hand were in existence, as for instance Levi in the loins of Abraham; Hebrews 7:10 and on the other hand came into existence; and so in some sense we are partly of what existed, and partly of what was nonexistent; whereas the contrary is the case with the original matter, which was certainly created out of what was non-existent, notwithstanding that some pretend that it is unbegotten. But in this case to be begotten, even from the beginning, is concurrent with to be. On what then will you base this captious question? For what is older than that which is from the beginning, if we may place there the previous existence or non- existence of the Son? In either case we destroy its claim to be the Beginning. Or perhaps you will say, if we were to ask you whether the Father was of existent or non-existent substance, that he is twofold, partly pre-existing, partly existing; or that His case is the same with that of the Son; that is, that He was created out of non-existing matter, because of your ridiculous questions and your houses of sand, which cannot stand against the merest ripple.
I do not accept either option, and I declare that your question contains an absurdity, not a difficulty to answer. However, if you think, according to your logical assumptions, that one or the other of these alternatives must necessarily be true in every case, let me ask you one small question: Is time in time, or is it not in time? If it is contained in time, then in what time, and what is it besides that time, and how does it contain it? But if it is not contained in time, what is that surpassing wisdom which can conceive of a time that is timeless? Now, regarding this statement, "I am now telling a lie," accept one of these alternatives: either that it is true, or that it is false, without qualification (for we cannot admit that it is both). But this cannot be done. For necessarily he is either lying, and so is telling the truth, or else he is telling the truth, and so is lying. What wonder is it then that, just as in this case opposites are true, so in that case they should both be untrue, and so your clever puzzle proves mere foolishness? Solve one more riddle for me. Were you present at your own generation, and are you now present to yourself, or is neither the case? If you were and are present, who were you, and with whom are you present? And how did your single self become both subject and object in this way? But if neither of the above is the case, how did you get separated from yourself, and what is the cause of this separation? But you will say it is stupid to make a fuss about the question whether or not a single individual is present to himself, for the expression is not used of oneself but of others. Well, you may be certain that it is even more stupid to discuss the question whether That which was begotten from the beginning existed before its generation or not. For such a question arises only regarding matter divisible by time.
I do not admit either solution, and I declare that your question contains an absurdity, and not a difficulty to answer. If however you think, in accordance with your dialectic assumptions, that one or other of these alternatives must necessarily be true in every case, let me ask you one little question: Is time in time, or is it not in time? If it is contained in time, then in what time, and what is it but that time, and how does it contain it? But if it is not contained in time, what is that surpassing wisdom which can conceive of a time which is timeless? Now, in regard to this expression, I am now telling a lie, admit one of these alternatives, either that it is true, or that it is a falsehood, without qualification (for we cannot admit that it is both). But this cannot be. For necessarily he either is lying, and so is telling the truth, or else he is telling the truth, and so is lying. What wonder is it then that, as in this case contraries are true, so in that case they should both be untrue, and so your clever puzzle prove mere foolishness? Solve me one more riddle. Were you present at your own generation, and are you now present to yourself, or is neither the case? If you were and are present, who were you, and with whom are you present? And how did your single self become thus both subject and object? But if neither of the above is the case, how did you get separated from yourself, and what is the cause of this disjoining? But, you will say, it is stupid to make a fuss about the question whether or no a single individual is present to himself; for the expression is not used of oneself but of others. Well, you may be certain that it is even more stupid to discuss the question whether That which was begotten from the beginning existed before its generation or not. For such a question arises only as to matter divisible by time.
But they say, "The Unbegotten and the Begotten are not the same; and if this is so, then the Son is not the same as the Father either." It is obvious, without needing to spell it out, that this line of reasoning clearly excludes either the Son or the Father from the Godhead. For if being Unbegotten is the essence of God, then being begotten is not that essence; if the reverse is true, then the Unbegotten is excluded. What argument can refute this? So choose whichever blasphemy you prefer, my friend who invents new theology, if you are determined at all costs to embrace a blasphemy. Next, in what sense do you claim that the Unbegotten and the Begotten are not the same? If you mean that the Uncreated and the created are not the same, I agree with you, for certainly the Unoriginate and the created are not of the same nature. But if you say that He who begot and that which is begotten are not the same, the statement is inaccurate. For it is in fact a necessary truth that they are the same. The nature of the relation of Father to child is this: that the offspring is of the same nature as the parent. Or we can argue it this way again: What do you mean by Unbegotten and Begotten? If you mean the simple fact of being unbegotten or begotten, these are not the same; but if you mean those to whom these terms apply, how are they not the same? For example, wisdom and unwisdom are not the same in themselves, yet both are attributes of man, who is the same; and they mark not a difference of essence, but one external to the essence. Are immortality and innocence and immutability also the essence of God? If so, God has many essences and not one; or Deity is a compound of these. For He cannot be all these without composition, if they are essences.
X. But they say, The Unbegotten and the Begotten are not the same; and if this is so, neither is the Son the same as the Father. It is clear, without saying so, that this line of argument manifestly excludes either the Son or the Father from the Godhead. For if to be Unbegotten is the Essence of God, to be begotten is not that Essence; if the opposite is the case, the Unbegotten is excluded. What argument can contradict this? Choose then whichever blasphemy you prefer, my good inventor of a new theology, if indeed you are anxious at all costs to embrace a blasphemy. In the next place, in what sense do you assert that the Unbegotten and the Begotten are not the same? If you mean that the Uncreated and the created are not the same, I agree with you; for certainly the Unoriginate and the created are not of the same nature. But if you say that He That begot and That which is begotten are not the same, the statement is inaccurate. For it is in fact a necessary truth that they are the same. For the nature of the relation of Father to Child is this, that the offspring is of the same nature with the parent. Or we may argue thus again. What do you mean by Unbegotten and Begotten, for if you mean the simple fact of being unbegotten or begotten, these are not the same; but if you mean Those to Whom these terms apply, how are They not the same? For example, Wisdom and Unwisdom are not the same in themselves, but yet both are attributes of man, who is the same; and they mark not a difference of essence, but one external to the essence. Are immortality and innocence and immutability also the essence of God? If so God has many essences and not one; or Deity is a compound of these. For He cannot be all these without composition, if they be essences.
They don't actually claim this, however, because these qualities belong to other beings as well. God's essence must be something that belongs to God alone and is unique to Him. But those who consider matter and form to be unbegotten would not agree that being unbegotten is God's exclusive property (for we must push even further away the darkness of the Manicheans). Yet suppose it is God's property alone. What about Adam? Was he not uniquely the direct creation of God? Yes, you would say. Was he then the only human being? Certainly not. And why not? Because humanity is not defined by being directly created. For what is begotten is also human. In the same way, He who is Unbegotten is not the only God, though He alone is Father. But grant that He who is Begotten is God, for He is from God, as you must admit, even though you cling to your Unbegotten. Then how do you describe God's essence? You don't by declaring what it is, but by rejecting what it is not. Your word only means that He is not begotten; it doesn't show you what the actual nature or condition is of that which has no generation. What then is God's essence? It's for your presumption to define this, since you're so concerned about His generation too. But for us it will be a very great thing if we ever learn this, even in the future, when this darkness and dullness is removed from us, as He who cannot lie has promised. This then may be the thought and hope of those who are purifying themselves for this purpose. But we for our part will be bold enough to say this much: if it is a great thing for the Father to be Unoriginate, it is no less a thing for the Son to have been begotten of such a Father. For not only would He share the glory of the Unoriginate, since He is from the Unoriginate, but He has the added glory of His generation, something so great and magnificent in the eyes of all who are not completely base and materialistic in their thinking.
XI. They do not however assert this, for these qualities are common also to other beings. But God's Essence is that which belongs to God alone, and is proper to Him. But they, who consider matter and form to be unbegotten, would not allow that to be unbegotten is the property of God alone (for we must cast away even further the darkness of the Manichæans). But suppose that it is the property of God alone. What of Adam? Was he not alone the direct creature of God? Yes, you will say. Was he then the only human being? By no means. And why, but because humanity does not consist in direct creation? For that which is begotten is also human. Just so neither is He Who is Unbegotten alone God, though He alone is Father. But grant that He Who is Begotten is God; for He is of God, as you must allow, even though you cling to your Unbegotten. Then how do you describe the Essence of God? Not by declaring what it is, but by rejecting what it is not. For your word signifies that He is not begotten; it does not present to you what is the real nature or condition of that which has no generation. What then is the Essence of God? It is for your infatuation to define this, since you are so anxious about His Generation too; but to us it will be a very great thing, if ever, even in the future, we learn this, when this darkness and dulness is done away for us, as He has promised Who cannot lie. This then may be the thought and hope of those who are purifying themselves with a view to this. Thus much we for our part will be bold to say, that if it is a great thing for the Father to be Unoriginate, it is no less a thing for the Son to have been Begotten of such a Father. For not only would He share the glory of the Unoriginate, since he is of the Unoriginate, but he has the added glory of His Generation, a thing so great and august in the eyes of all those who are not altogether grovelling and material in mind.
But, they say, if the Son is the same as the Father in respect of ousia, then if the Father is unbegotten, the Son must be so likewise. Quite so—if the ousia of God consists in being unbegotten; and so He would be a strange mixture, begottenly unbegotten. If, however, the difference is outside the ousia, how can you be so certain in speaking of this? Are you also your father's father, so as in no respect to fall short of your father, since you are the same with him in ousia? Is it not evident that our inquiry into the nature of the ousia of God, if we make it, will leave personality absolutely unaffected? But that Unbegotten is not a synonym of God is proved thus. If it were so, it would be necessary that since God is a relative term, Unbegotten should be so likewise; or that since Unbegotten is an absolute term, so must God be—God of no one. For words which are absolutely identical are similarly applied. But the word Unbegotten is not used relatively. For to what is it relative? And of what things is God the God? Why, of all things. How then can God and Unbegotten be identical terms? And again, since Begotten and Unbegotten are contradictories, like possession and deprivation, it would follow that contradictory ousiai would co-exist, which is impossible. Or again, since possessions are prior to deprivations, and the latter are destructive of the former, not only must the ousia of the Son be prior to that of the Father, but it must be destroyed by the Father, on your hypothesis.
XII. But, they say, if the Son is the Same as the Father in respect of Essence, then if the Father is unbegotten, the Son must be so likewise. Quite so — if the Essence of God consists in being unbegotten; and so He would be a strange mixture, begottenly unbegotten. If, however, the difference is outside the Essence, how can you be so certain in speaking of this? Are you also your father's father, so as in no respect to fall short of your father, since you are the same with him in essence? Is it not evident that our enquiry into the Nature of the Essence of God, if we make it, will leave Personality absolutely unaffected? But that Unbegotten is not a synonym of God is proved thus. If it were so, it would be necessary that since God is a relative term, Unbegotten should be so likewise; or that since Unbegotten is an absolute term, so must God be….God of no one. For words which are absolutely identical are similarly applied. But the word Unbegotten is not used relatively. For to what is it relative? And of what things is God the God? Why, of all things. How then can God and Unbegotten be identical terms? And again, since Begotten and Unbegotten are contradictories, like possession and deprivation, it would follow that contradictory essences would co-exist, which is impossible. Or again, since possessions are prior to deprivations, and the latter are destructive of the former, not only must the Essence of the Son be prior to that of the Father, but it must be destroyed by the Father, on your hypothesis.
XIII. What's left of their supposedly unbeatable arguments? Perhaps the last refuge they'll take is this: If God has never stopped begetting, the Generation is imperfect—and when will He stop? But if He has stopped, then He must have started. So once again these fleshly minds put forward fleshly arguments. Whether He is eternally begotten or not, I don't yet say, until I have examined the statement "Before all the hills He begets Me" (Proverbs 8:25) more carefully. But I can't see why their conclusion has to follow. For if, as they claim, everything that comes to an end also had a beginning, then surely whatever has no end had no beginning. What, then, will they decide about the soul or the angelic nature? If it had a beginning, it will also have an end; and if it has no end, then by their logic it had no beginning. But the truth is that it had a beginning and will never have an end. Their claim, then, that whatever will have an end also had a beginning, is false. Our position, however, is this: just as with a horse, an ox, or a human being, the same definition applies to all individuals of the same species, and whatever shares the definition also has a right to the name, so in exactly the same way there is one ousia of God, and one nature, and one name. Although we use distinct names according to distinctions in our thought, whatever is properly called by this name really is God, and what He is in nature, that He is truly called—at least if we hold that truth is a matter not of names but of realities. But our opponents, as if they were afraid of leaving any stone unturned to overturn the truth, do acknowledge that the Son is God when forced to by arguments and evidence, but they only mean that He is God in an ambiguous sense, and that He only shares the name.
XIII. What now remains of their invincible arguments? Perhaps the last they will take refuge in is this. If God has never ceased to beget, the Generation is imperfect; and when will He cease? But if He has ceased, then He must have begun. Thus again these carnal minds bring forward carnal arguments. Whether He is eternally begotten or not, I do not yet say, until I have looked into the statement, Before all the hills He begets Me, Proverbs 8:25 more accurately. But I cannot see the necessity of their conclusion. For if, as they say, everything that is to come to an end had also a beginning, then surely that which has no end had no beginning. What then will they decide concerning the soul, or the Angelic nature? If it had a beginning, it will also have an end; and if it has no end, it is evident that according to them it had no beginning. But the truth is that it had a beginning, and will never have an end. Their assertion, then, that which will have an end had also a beginning, is untrue. Our position, however, is, that as in the case of a horse, or an ox, or a man, the same definition applies to all the individuals of the same species, and whatever shares the definition has also a right to the Name; so in the very same way there is One Essence of God, and One Nature, and One Name; although in accordance with a distinction in our thoughts we use distinct Names and that whatever is properly called by this Name really is God; and what He is in Nature, That He is truly called — if at least we are to hold that Truth is a matter not of names but of realities. But our opponents, as if they were afraid of leaving any stone unturned to subvert the Truth, acknowledge indeed that the Son is God when they are compelled to do so by arguments and evidences; but they only mean that He is God in an ambiguous sense, and that He only shares the Name.
When we raise this objection against them—What are you trying to say? That the Son is not truly God, just as a picture of an animal is not truly an animal? And if He is not truly God, in what sense is He God at all?—they reply, "Why can't these terms be ambiguous and yet still be used properly in both cases?" They give us examples like the land-dog and the dogfish, where the word "dog" is ambiguous, yet properly used in both cases, since this kind of ambiguity exists in language, or any other case where the same name is used for two things of different nature. But listen, in this case when you group two natures under the same name, you are not claiming that one is better than the other, or that one comes before the other, or that one possesses more of the named quality and the other less, because there is no logical connection forcing this necessity on them. One is not more of a dog than the other, and one less so—neither the dogfish more than the land-dog, nor the land-dog more than the dogfish. Why would they be, or based on what principle? The shared name here applies to things of equal value, though of different nature. But in the case we are discussing, you attach the Name of God to adorable Majesty and make it surpass every essence and physis (an attribute of God alone), and then you assign this Name to the Father while stripping it from the Son, making Him subject to the Father and giving Him only secondary honor and worship. Even if in words you grant Him equal status, in practice you cut off His Deity and shift maliciously from using the same Name to imply exact equality to using it to connect things that are not equal. So in your argument, the painted and living man become a more fitting illustration of the relations of Deity than the dogs I mentioned as an example. Either that, or you must grant both equal dignity of nature as well as a common name—even though you introduced these natures into your argument as different—and thus you destroy the analogy of your dogs, which you invented as an example of inequality. For what is the point of your example of ambiguity if those you distinguish are not equal in honor? You did not take refuge in your dogs to prove equality but inequality. How could anyone be more clearly caught fighting both against his own arguments and against the Deity?
XIV. And when we advance this objection against them, What do you mean to say then? That the Son is not properly God, just as a picture of an animal is not properly an animal? And if not properly God, in what sense is He God at all? They reply, Why should not these terms be ambiguous, and in both cases be used in a proper sense? And they will give us such instances as the land-dog and the dogfish; where the word Dog is ambiguous, and yet in both cases is properly used, for there is such a species among the ambiguously named, or any other case in which the same appellative is used for two things of different nature. But, my good friend, in this case, when you include two natures under the same name, you do not assert that either is better than the other, or that the one is prior and the other posterior, or that one is in a greater degree and the other in a lesser that which is predicated of them both, for there is no connecting link which forces this necessity upon them. One is not a dog more than the other, and one less so; either the dogfish more than the land-dog, or the land-dog than the dogfish. Why should they be, or on what principle? But the community of name is here between things of equal value, though of different nature. But in the case of which we are speaking, you couple the Name of God with adorable Majesty, and make It surpass every essence and nature (an attribute of God alone), and then you ascribe this Name to the Father, while you deprive the Son of it, and make Him subject to the Father, and give Him only a secondary honour and worship; and even if in words you bestow on Him one which is Equal, yet in practice you cut off His Deity, and pass malignantly from a use of the same Name implying an exact equality, to one which connects things which are not equal. And so the pictured and the living man are in your mouth an apter illustration of the relations of Deity than the dogs which I instanced. Or else you must concede to both an equal dignity of nature as well as a common name — even though you introduced these natures into your argument as different; and thus you destroy the analogy of your dogs, which you invented as an instance of inequality. For what is the force of your instance of ambiguity, if those whom you distinguish are not equal in honour? For it was not to prove an equality but an inequality that you took refuge in your dogs. How could anybody be more clearly convicted of fighting both against his own arguments, and against the Deity?
When we admit that the Father is greater than the Son in respect of being the Cause, they may assume the premise that He is the Cause by nature (physis), and then conclude that He is also greater by nature. If they do this, it's hard to say whether they mislead themselves more or those they're arguing with. Just because something is true of a whole class doesn't mean it's true of every individual member of that class in the same way, since different particulars may apply to different individuals. What stops me from taking the same premise—that the Father is greater by nature—and then adding another premise: "Yet not by nature greater in every respect, nor Father in every respect"—and concluding, "Therefore the Greater is not in every respect greater, nor the Father in every respect Father"? Or if you prefer, let's put it this way: God is an ousia. But an ousia is not in every case God. Draw the conclusion yourself—therefore God is not in every case God. I think the mistake here is what logicians technically call arguing from a conditioned to an unconditioned use of a term. We assign the word "Greater" to His nature viewed as a Cause, but they infer it of His nature viewed in itself. It's like when we say someone is a dead man, and they conclude simply that he's a man.
XV. And if, when we admit that in respect of being the Cause the Father is greater than the Son, they should assume the premiss that He is the Cause by Nature, and then deduce the conclusion that He is greater by Nature also, it is difficult to say whether they mislead most themselves or those with whom they are arguing. For it does not absolutely follow that all that is predicated of a class can also be predicated of all the individuals composing it; for the different particulars may belong to different individuals. For what hinders me, if I assume the same premiss, namely, that the Father is greater by Nature, and then add this other, Yet not by nature in every respect greater nor yet Father — from concluding, Therefore the Greater is not in every respect greater, nor the Father in every respect Father? Or, if you prefer it, let us put it in this way: God is an Essence: But an Essence is not in every case God; and draw the conclusion for yourself — Therefore God is not in every case God. I think the fallacy here is the arguing from a conditioned to an unconditioned use of a term, to use the technical expression of the logicians. For while we assign this word Greater to His Nature viewed as a Cause, they infer it of His Nature viewed in itself. It is just as if when we said that such a one was a dead man they were to infer simply that he was a Man.
How can we pass over the following point, which is no less remarkable than the rest? They say that "Father" is a name either of an ousia or of an action, thinking they can trap us either way. If we say it names an ousia, they will claim we agree with them that the Son is of another ousia, since there is only one ousia of God, which according to them is already occupied by the Father. On the other hand, if we say it names an action, we will seem to be admitting plainly that the Son is created and not begotten. For where there is an agent, there must also be an effect. And they will say they wonder how what is made can be identical with what made it. I myself would have been troubled by your distinction if it were necessary to accept one or the other option, rather than rejecting both and stating a third and truer option: that "Father" is not a name either of an ousia or of an action, most clever sirs. Rather, it is the name of the relation in which the Father stands to the Son, and the Son to the Father. For just as among us these names indicate a genuine and close relationship, so in this case too they denote an identity of nature between the one who is begotten and the one who begets. But let us grant you that "Father" names an ousia—it will still bring in the idea of Son, and will not make it of a different nature, according to common understanding and the meaning of these names. Let it be, if you wish, the name of an action—you will not defeat us this way either. The homoousios (of the same essence) would indeed be the result of this action; otherwise the notion of an action in this matter would be absurd. You see then how, even when you try to fight unfairly, we avoid your tricks. But now, since we have confirmed how invincible you are in your arguments and sophistries, let us examine your strength in the divine Scriptures, to see if perhaps you may choose to persuade us from them.
XVI. How shall we pass over the following point, which is no less amazing than the rest? Father, they say, is a name either of an essence or of an Action, thinking to bind us down on both sides. If we say that it is a name of an essence, they will say that we agree with them that the Son is of another Essence, since there is but one Essence of God, and this, according to them, is preoccupied by the Father. On the other hand, if we say that it is the name of an Action, we shall be supposed to acknowledge plainly that the Son is created and not begotten. For where there is an Agent there must also be an Effect. And they will say they wonder how that which is made can be identical with That which made it. I should myself have been frightened with your distinction, if it had been necessary to accept one or other of the alternatives, and not rather put both aside, and state a third and truer one, namely, that Father is not a name either of an essence or of an action, most clever sirs. But it is the name of the Relation in which the Father stands to the Son, and the Son to the Father. For as with us these names make known a genuine and intimate relation, so, in the case before us too, they denote an identity of nature between Him That is begotten and Him That begets. But let us concede to you that Father is a name of essence, it will still bring in the idea of Son, and will not make it of a different nature, according to common ideas and the force of these names. Let it be, if it so please you, the name of an action; you will not defeat us in this way either. The Homoousion would be indeed the result of this action, or otherwise the conception of an action in this matter would be absurd. You see then how, even though you try to fight unfairly, we avoid your sophistries. But now, since we have ascertained how invincible you are in your arguments and sophistries, let us look at your strength in the Oracles of God, if perchance you may choose to persuade us out of them.
We have learned to believe in and to teach the deity of the Son from their great and lofty statements. And what statements are these? These: God—The Word—He who was in the beginning and with the beginning, and the beginning itself. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," and "With you is the beginning," and he who calls her "the beginning from generations." Then the Son is only-begotten: "The only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he has revealed him." The Way, the Truth, the Life, the Light. "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life," and "I am the Light of the World." Wisdom and Power: "Christ, the Wisdom of God and the Power of God." The radiance, the exact representation, the image, the seal: "Who being the radiance of his glory and the exact representation of his essence (ousia)," and "the image of his goodness," and "him God the Father has sealed." Lord, King, He who is, the Almighty: "The Lord rained down fire from the Lord," and "A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of your kingdom," and "who is and was and is to come, the Almighty"—all of which are clearly spoken of the Son, along with all the other passages of the same force. None of these is an afterthought or something added later to the Son or the Spirit, any more than to the Father himself. For their perfection is not affected by additions. There never was a time when he was without the Word, or when he was not the Father, or when he was not true, or not wise, or not powerful, or lacking life, or radiance, or goodness.
XVII. For we have learned to believe in and to teach the Deity of the Son from their great and lofty utterances. And what utterances are these? These: God — The Word — He That Was In The Beginning and With The Beginning, and The Beginning. In the Beginning was The Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, John 1:1 and With You is the Beginning, and He who calls her The Beginning from generations. Isaiah 41:4 Then the Son is Only-begotten: The only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, it says, He has declared Him. John 1:18 The Way, the Truth, the Life, the Light. I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; and I am the Light of the World. Wisdom and Power, Christ, the Wisdom of God, and the Power of God. 1 Corinthians 1:24 The Effulgence, the Impress, the Image, the Seal; Who being the Effulgence of His glory and the Impress of His Essence, and the Image of His Goodness, Wisdom 7:26 and Him has God the Father sealed. John 6:27 Lord, King, He That Is, The Almighty. The Lord rained down fire from the Lord; Genesis 19:24 and A sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Your Kingdom; and Which is and was and is to come, the Almighty Revelation 1:8 — all which are clearly spoken of the Son, with all the other passages of the same force, none of which is an afterthought, or added later to the Son or the Spirit, any more than to the Father Himself. For Their Perfection is not affected by additions. There never was a time when He was without the Word, or when He was not the Father, or when He was not true, or not wise, or not powerful, or devoid of life, or of splendour, or of goodness.
But against all these, count up for me the expressions that support your ignorant arrogance, such as "My God and your God," or "greater," or "created," or "made," or "sanctified." Add, if you like, "Servant" and "Obedient" and "Gave" and "Learnt," and "was commanded," "was sent," "can do nothing of Himself," whether it concerns speaking, judging, giving, or willing. And then there are these: His ignorance, subjection, prayer, asking, increase, being made perfect. And if you want even more humble things than these, such as speak of His sleeping, hungering, being in agony, and fearing—or perhaps you would even make His Cross and Death a matter of reproach to Him. His Resurrection and Ascension I suppose you will leave to me, since these contain something that supports our position. You could pick up many other things too, if you want to assemble that equivocal and intruding god of yours, who to us is True God, and equal to the Father. For every one of these points, taken separately, can very easily be explained to you in the most reverent sense if we go through them one by one, and the stumbling-block of the letter can be cleared away—that is, if your stumbling at it is honest and not deliberately malicious. To give you the explanation in one sentence: What is lofty you are to apply to the Godhead, and to that Nature in Him which is superior to sufferings and incorporeal; but all that is lowly you are to apply to the composite condition of Him who for your sakes emptied Himself and was Incarnate—yes, for it is no worse to say, was made Man, and afterwards was also exalted. The result will be that you will abandon these fleshly and groveling doctrines, and learn to be more sublime, and to ascend with His Godhead, and you will not remain permanently among the things of sight, but will rise up with Him into the world of thought, and come to know which passages refer to His Nature, and which to His assumption of Human Nature.
But in opposition to all these, do you reckon up for me the expressions which make for your ignorant arrogance, such as My God and your God, or greater, or created, or made, or sanctified; Add, if you like, Servant Philippians 2:7 and Obedient Philippians 2:8 and Gave John 1:12 and Learnt, Hebrews 5:8 and was commanded, was sent, can do nothing of Himself, either say, or judge, or give, or will. And further these — His ignorance, Mark 13:32 subjection, 1 Corinthians 15:28 prayer, Luke 6:12 asking, John 14:16 increase, Luke 2:52 being made perfect. And if you like even more humble than these; such as speak of His sleeping, hungering, being in an agony, Luke 22:44 and fearing; Hebrews 5:7 or perhaps you would make even His Cross and Death a matter of reproach to Him. His Resurrection and Ascension I fancy you will leave to me, for in these is found something to support our position. A good many other things too you might pick up, if you desire to put together that equivocal and intruded god of yours, Who to us is True God, and equal to the Father. For every one of these points, taken separately, may very easily, if we go through them one by one, be explained to you in the most reverent sense, and the stumbling-block of the letter be cleaned away — that is, if your stumbling at it be honest, and not wilfully malicious. To give you the explanation in one sentence. What is lofty you are to apply to the Godhead, and to that Nature in Him which is superior to sufferings and incorporeal; but all that is lowly to the composite condition of Him who for your sakes made Himself of no reputation and was Incarnate — yes, for it is no worse thing to say, was made Man, and afterwards was also exalted. The result will be that you will abandon these carnal and grovelling doctrines, and learn to be more sublime, and to ascend with His Godhead, and you will not remain permanently among the things of sight, but will rise up with Him into the world of thought, and come to know which passages refer to His Nature, and which to His assumption of Human Nature.
For the One you now treat with contempt was once above you. He Who is now Man was once uncompounded. What He was He continued to be; what He was not He took upon Himself. In the beginning He existed, uncaused—for what is the Cause of God? But later, for a specific cause, He was born. And that cause was so that you might be saved, you who insult Him and despise His Godhead because He took upon Himself your denser nature, entering into relationship with Flesh by means of Mind. While His inferior nature, the Humanity, became God because it was united to God and became one prosopon because the Higher Nature prevailed—in order that I too might be made God to the extent that He is made Man. He was born—but He had been begotten. He was born of a woman—but she was a virgin. The first is human, the second divine. In His human nature He had no father, but also in His divine nature no mother. Both of these belong to Godhead. He dwelt in the womb—but He was recognized by the prophet, himself still in the womb, leaping before the Word for Whose sake he came into being. He was wrapped in swaddling clothes—but He removed the burial cloths of the grave by His rising again. He was laid in a manger—but He was glorified by angels, proclaimed by a star, and worshiped by the Magi. Why are you offended by what is presented to your sight, when you will not look at what is presented to your mind? He was driven into exile in Egypt—but He drove away the Egyptian idols. He had no form or comeliness in the eyes of the Jews—but to David He is fairer than the children of men. And on the mountain He was bright as lightning and became more luminous than the sun, initiating us into the mystery of the future.
XIX. For He Whom you now treat with contempt was once above you. He Who is now Man was once the Uncompounded. What He was He continued to be; what He was not He took to Himself. In the beginning He was, uncaused; for what is the Cause of God? But afterwards for a cause He was born. And that cause was that you might be saved, who insult Him and despise His Godhead, because of this, that He took upon Him your denser nature, having converse with Flesh by means of Mind. While His inferior Nature, the Humanity, became God, because it was united to God, and became One Person because the Higher Nature prevailed in order that I too might be made God so far as He is made Man. He was born — but He had been begotten: He was born of a woman — but she was a Virgin. The first is human, the second Divine. In His Human nature He had no Father, but also in His Divine Nature no Mother. Both these belong to Godhead. He dwelt in the womb — but He was recognized by the Prophet, himself still in the womb, leaping before the Word, for Whose sake He came into being. He was wrapped in swaddling clothes Luke 2:41 — but He took off the swathing bands of the grave by His rising again. He was laid in a manger — but He was glorified by Angels, and proclaimed by a star, and worshipped by the Magi. Why are you offended by that which is presented to your sight, because you will not look at that which is presented to your mind? He was driven into exile into Egypt — but He drove away the Egyptian idols. He had no form nor comeliness in the eyes of the Jews Isaiah 53:2 — but to David He is fairer than the children of men. And on the Mountain He was bright as the lightning, and became more luminous than the sun, Matthew 17:2 initiating us into the mystery of the future.
He was baptized as a man, but He forgave sins as God—not because He needed purification Himself, but so that He might sanctify the element of water. He was tempted as a man, but He conquered as God. Yes, He tells us to be of good cheer, for He has overcome the world. He hungered, but He fed thousands. Yes, He is the Bread that gives life, and that comes from heaven. He thirsted, but He cried out, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink." Yes, He promised that fountains would flow from those who believe. He was weary, but He is the rest of those who are weary and heavy laden. He was heavy with sleep, but He walked lightly over the sea. He rebuked the winds. He made Peter light as he began to sink. He pays tribute, but it is from a fish. Yes, He is the King of those who demanded it. He is called a Samaritan and a demoniac, but He saves the man who came down from Jerusalem and fell among thieves. The demons acknowledge Him, and He drives out demons and sinks legions of foul spirits in the sea, and sees the Prince of the demons falling like lightning. He is stoned, but is not taken. He prays, but He hears prayer. He weeps, but He causes tears to cease. He asks where Lazarus was laid, for He was man, but He raises Lazarus, for He was God. He is sold, and very cheaply—for only thirty pieces of silver—but He redeems the world, and at a great price, for the price was His own blood. As a sheep He is led to the slaughter, but He is the Shepherd of Israel, and now of the whole world also. As a lamb He is silent, yet He is the Word, and is proclaimed by the voice of one crying in the wilderness. He is bruised and wounded, but He heals every disease and every infirmity. He is lifted up and nailed to the tree, but by the tree of life He restores us. Yes, He saves even the robber crucified with Him. Yes, He wrapped the visible world in darkness. He is given vinegar to drink mixed with gall. Who? He who turned the water into wine, who is the destroyer of the bitter taste, who is sweetness and altogether desire. He lays down His life, but He has power to take it again, and the veil is torn, for the mysterious doors of heaven are opened. The rocks are split, the dead arise. He dies, but He gives life, and by His death destroys death. He is buried, but He rises again. He goes down into hell, but He brings up the souls. He ascends to heaven, and shall come again to judge the living and the dead, and to put to the test such words as yours. If the one gives you a starting point for your error, let the others put an end to it.
XX. He was baptized as Man — but He remitted sins as God — not because He needed purificatory rites Himself, but that He might sanctify the element of water. He was tempted as Man, but He conquered as God; yea, He bids us be of good cheer, for He has overcome the world. John 16:33 He hungered — but He fed thousands; yea, He is the Bread that gives life, and That is of heaven. He thirsted — but He cried, If any man thirst, let him come unto Me and drink. Yea, He promised that fountains should flow from them that believe. He was wearied, but He is the Rest of them that are weary and heavy laden. Matthew 11:28 He was heavy with sleep, but He walked lightly over the sea. He rebuked the winds, He made Peter light as he began to sink. He pays tribute, but it is out of a fish; yea, He is the King of those who demanded it. John 19:19 He is called a Samaritan and a demoniac; — but He saves him that came down from Jerusalem and fell among thieves; the demons acknowledge Him, and He drives out demons and sinks in the sea legions of foul spirits, Luke 8:28-33 and sees the Prince of the demons falling like lightning. He is stoned, but is not taken. He prays, but He hears prayer. He weeps, but He causes tears to cease. He asks where Lazarus was laid, for He was Man; but He raises Lazarus, for He was God. John 11:43 He is sold, and very cheap, for it is only for thirty pieces of silver; Matthew 26:15 but He redeems the world, and that at a great price, for the Price was His own blood. 1 Peter 1:19 As a sheep He is led to the slaughter, Isaiah 53:7 but He is the Shepherd of Israel, and now of the whole world also. As a Lamb He is silent, yet He is the Word, and is proclaimed by the Voice of one crying in the wilderness. John 1:23 He is bruised and wounded, but He heals every disease and every infirmity. Isaiah 53:23 He is lifted up and nailed to the Tree, but by the Tree of Life He restores us; yea, He saves even the Robber crucified with Him; Luke 23:43 yea, He wrapped the visible world in darkness. He is given vinegar to drink mingled with gall. Who? He who turned the water into wine John 2:1-11, who is the destroyer of the bitter taste, who is Sweetness and altogether desire. Song of Songs 5:16 He lays down His life, but He has power to take it again; John 10:18 and the veil is rent, for the mysterious doors of Heaven are opened; the rocks are cleft, the dead arise. Matthew 27:51 He dies, but He gives life, and by His death destroys death. He is buried, but He rises again; He goes down into Hell, but He brings up the souls; He ascends to Heaven, and shall come again to judge the quick and the dead, and to put to the test such words as yours. If the one give you a starting point for your error, let the others put an end to it.
This, then, is our answer to those who try to confuse us. We do not give it willingly—for idle talk and disputes over words are not fitting for the faithful, and we already have one Adversary, which is enough—but out of necessity, because of those who attack us. Just as medicine exists because of disease, we respond so they may come to see that they are not all-knowing or unbeatable in those pointless arguments that undermine the Gospel. For when we stop believing and rely only on the strength of human reasoning, when we destroy the Spirit's claim on our faith through endless questioning, and when our reasoning proves inadequate for the weight of the subject—as it must, since it operates through something as limited as our human mind—what happens? The weakness of the argument seems to belong to the mystery itself, and so eloquent speech makes the Cross meaningless, as Paul also recognized. For it is faith that completes our reasoning. But may He who proclaims unity and releases those who are bound, and who puts it in our minds to untangle the knots of their unnatural teachings, if possible, transform these men and make them believers instead of mere speakers, Christians instead of what they are now called. This we pray and beg for Christ's sake: be reconciled to God, and do not quench the Spirit; or rather, may Christ be reconciled to you, and may the Spirit enlighten you, even at this late hour. But if you are too attached to your quarreling, we at least will hold fast to the Trinity, and through the Trinity may we be saved, remaining pure and blameless until the fuller revelation of what we long for, in Him, Christ our Lord, to whom be the glory forever. Amen.
XXI. This, then, is our reply to those who would puzzle us; not given willingly indeed (for light talk and contradictions of words are not agreeable to the faithful, and one Adversary is enough for us), but of necessity, for the sake of our assailants (for medicines exist because of diseases), that they may be led to see that they are not all-wise nor invincible in those superfluous arguments which make void the Gospel. For when we leave off believing, and protect ourselves by mere strength of argument, and destroy the claim which the Spirit has upon our faith by questionings, and then our argument is not strong enough for the importance of the subject (and this must necessarily be the case, since it is put in motion by an organ of so little power as is our mind), what is the result? The weakness of the argument appears to belong to the mystery, and thus elegance of language makes void the Cross, as Paul also thought. 1 Corinthians 1:17 For faith is that which completes our argument. But may He who proclaims unions and looses those that are bound, and who puts into our minds to solve the knots of their unnatural dogmas, if it may be, change these men and make them faithful instead of rhetoricians, Christians instead of that which they now are called. This indeed we entreat and beg for Christ's sake. Be reconciled to God, 2 Corinthians 5:20 and quench not the Spirit; 1 Thessalonians 5:19 or rather, may Christ be reconciled to you, and may the Spirit enlighten you, though so late. But if you are too fond of your quarrel, we at any rate will hold fast to the Trinity, and by the Trinity may we be saved, remaining pure and without offense, until the more perfect showing forth of that which we desire, in Him, Christ our Lord, to Whom be the glory forever. Amen.