Four Discourses Against the Arians — Discourse I

Of all other heresies that have departed from the truth, it is recognized that they have simply invented madness, and their irreligion has long been obvious to everyone. For since their founders went out from us, it clearly follows, as the blessed John has written, that they never thought as we do, nor do they now. Therefore, as the Savior says, because they do not gather with us, they scatter with the devil and watch for those who are asleep, so that by spreading their own deadly poison again, they may gain companions in death. But one heresy, the most recent one, has now risen as a forerunner of Antichrist—the Arian heresy, as it is called. Seeing that other heresies, her older sisters, have been openly condemned, she uses craft and cunning to clothe herself in the language of Scripture, like her father the devil, and is forcing her way back into the Church's paradise. With the appearance of Christianity, her deceptive arguments (for she has no real reasoning) may mislead people into wrong ideas about Christ. In fact, she has already deceived some foolish people, not only corrupting what they hear but even leading them to take and eat with Eve, until in their resulting ignorance they think bitter is sweet and admire this disgusting heresy. For this reason, at your request, I have thought it necessary to unfold the layers of its armor and expose the foul smell of its foolishness. In this way, those who are far from it may continue to avoid it, and those it has deceived may repent. By opening the eyes of their heart, they may understand that darkness is not light, falsehood is not truth, and Arianism is not good. Indeed, those who call these people Christians are making a great and serious mistake, having neither studied Scripture nor understood Christianity at all, nor the faith it contains.

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 of Antichrist, 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 its breast-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, nor falsehood truth, nor Arianism good; nay, that those who call these men Christians are in great and grievous error, as neither having studied Scripture, nor understanding Christianity at all, and the faith which it contains.

What have they found in this heresy that resembles the true religious Faith, that they presume to claim its supporters say nothing wrong? This is truly like calling even Caiaphas a Christian, counting the traitor Judas still among the Apostles, saying that those who asked for Barabbas instead of the Saviour did no evil, and praising Hymenaeus and Alexander as right-minded men, as if the Apostle slandered them. But no Christian can bear to hear this, nor can he consider anyone who dares say such things to be sound in his understanding. For with them Arius takes the place of Christ, just as with the Manichees Maniches does; and instead of Moses and the other saints they have discovered one Sotades, a man whom even pagans mock, and the daughter of Herodias. For Arius has imitated the dissolute and effeminate style of the one, writing his Thalia on that model; and he has rivaled the other in her dance, reeling and frolicking in his blasphemies against the Saviour; until the victims of his heresy lose their minds and go mad, and change the Name of the Lord of glory into the likeness of the image of corruptible man, and instead of being called Christians they are called Arians, bearing this badge of their irreligion. For let them not make excuses, nor turn their disgrace back on those who are not like them by calling Christians after the names of their teachers, so that they themselves may appear to have that Name in the same way. Nor let them make a joke of it when they feel shame at their disgraceful name; rather, if they are ashamed, let them hide their faces, or let them turn away from their own irreligion. For never at any time did Christian people take their name from the Bishops among them, but from the Lord, on whom we rest our faith. Thus, though the blessed Apostles have become our teachers and have ministered the Saviour's Gospel, yet we do not take our title from them, but from Christ we are and are named Christians. But for those who derive the faith they profess from others, it is fitting that they should bear their name, since they have become their property.

2. For what have they discovered in this heresy like to the religious Faith, that they vainly talk as if its supporters said no evil? This in truth is to call even Caiaphas 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 the Apostle slandered them. But neither can a Christian bear to hear this, nor can he consider the man who dared to say it sane in his understanding. For with them for Christ is Arius, as with the Manichees Manichæus; and for Moses and the other saints they have made the discovery of one Sotades, a man whom even Gentiles laugh at, and of the daughter of Herodias. For of the one has Arius imitated the dissolute and effeminate tone, in writing Thaliæ on his model; and the other he has rivalled in her dance, reeling and frolicking in his blasphemies against the Saviour; till the victims of his heresy lose their wits and go foolish, and change the Name of the Lord of glory into the likeness of the 'image of corruptible man,' 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 a jest of it, when they feel shame at their disgraceful appellation; rather, if they be ashamed, let them hide their faces, or let them recoil from their own irreligion. For never at any time did Christian people take their title from the Bishops among them, but from the Lord, on whom we rest our faith. Thus, though the blessed Apostles have become our teachers, and have ministered the Saviour's Gospel, yet not from them have we our title, but from Christ we are and are named Christians. But for those who derive the faith which they profess from others, good reason is it they should bear their name, whose property they have become.

We are all Christians and are called by that name because of Christ. But Marcion introduced a heresy long ago and was expelled. Those who remained with the one who expelled him stayed Christians, but those who followed Marcion were no longer called Christians but became known as Marcionites. In the same way, Valentinus, Basilides, Manichaeus, and Simon Magus passed their own names on to their followers. Some are addressed as Valentinians, Basilidians, Manichees, or Simonians, while others are called Cataphrygians after Phrygia, and Novatians after Novatus. Likewise, when Peter the Bishop and Martyr expelled Meletius, his party was no longer called Christian but Meletian. Similarly, when Alexander of blessed memory expelled Arius, those who remained with Alexander stayed Christians, but those who left with Arius abandoned the Savior's name to us who were with Alexander, and from that point on were called Arians. Notice that even after Alexander's death, those who are in communion with his successor Athanasius, and those with whom Athanasius is in communion, follow the same pattern. None of them bear his name, nor is he named after them, but all alike are called Christians as is customary. Though we have a succession of teachers and become their students, because we are taught by them the things of Christ, we both are and are called Christians just the same. But those who follow the heretics, even though they have countless successors in their heresy, still bear the name of the one who invented it. So although Arius is dead and many of his party have succeeded him, those who think like him are called Arians because they are identified by Arius. Here is striking evidence of this: when Greeks even today enter the Church and abandon the superstition of idols, they do not take the name of their instructors but of the Savior, and begin to be called Christians instead of Greeks. But those among them who go off to the heretics, and all who leave the Church for this heresy, abandon Christ's name and from then on are called Arians, since they no longer hold Christ's faith but have inherited Arius's madness.

3. Yes surely; while all of us are and are called Christians after Christ, Marcion broached a heresy a long time since and was cast out; and those who continued with him who ejected him remained Christians; but those who followed Marcion were called Christians no more, but henceforth Marcionites. Thus Valentinus also, and Basilides, and Manichæus, and Simon Magus, have imparted their own name to their followers; and some are accosted as Valentinians, or as Basilidians, or as Manichees, or as Simonians; and other, Cataphrygians from Phrygia, and from Novatus Novatians. So too Meletius, when ejected by Peter the Bishop and Martyr, called his party no longer Christians, but Meletians, and so in consequence when Alexander of blessed memory had cast out Arius, those who remained with Alexander, remained Christians; but those who went out with Arius, left the Saviour's Name to us who were with Alexander, and as to them they were hence-forward denominated Arians. Behold then, after Alexander's death too, those who communicate with his successor Athanasius, and those with whom the said Athanasius communicates, are instances of the same rule; none of them bear his name, nor is he named from them, but all in like manner, and as is usual, are called Christians. For though we have a succession of teachers and become their disciples, yet, because we are taught by them the things of Christ, we both are, and are called, Christians all the same. But those who follow the heretics, though they have innumerable successors in their heresy, yet anyhow bear the name of him who devised it. Thus, though Arius be dead, and many of his party have succeeded him, yet those who think with him, as being known from Arius, are called Arians. And, what is a remarkable evidence of this, those of the Greeks who even at this time come into the Church, on giving up the superstition of idols, take the name, not of their catechists, but of the Saviour, and begin to be called Christians instead of Greeks: while those of them who go off to the heretics, and again all who from the Church change to this heresy, abandon Christ's name, and henceforth are called Arians, as no longer holding Christ's faith, but having inherited Arius's madness.

How then can they be Christians, when instead of being Christians they are Ario-maniacs? Or how are they part of the Catholic Church, when they have shaken off the Apostolic faith and become authors of new evils? After abandoning the oracles of divine Scripture, they call Arius's Thalia a new wisdom—and rightly so, for they are announcing a new heresy. This makes one marvel: although many people have written many treatises and abundant homilies on the Old Testament and the New, not one Thalia is found in any of them—nor even among the more respectable of the pagans, but only among those who sing such songs over their cups, amid cheers and jokes when people are merry, so the rest may laugh. Yet this remarkable Arius, taking no serious model and ignorant even of what is respectable, has stolen largely from other heresies while trying to be original in the ridiculous, with no one but Sotades as his rival. For what suited him better, when he would dance forth against the Savior, than to throw his wretched words of irreligion into dissolute and loose meters? In this way, while "a man," as Wisdom says, "is known from the utterance of his word," so from those meters the writer's effeminate soul and corruption of thought would be seen. In truth, that crafty one did not escape detection. For all his many writhings to and fro, like the serpent, he simply fell into the error of the Pharisees. They, in order to transgress the Law, pretended to be anxious for the words of the Law, and in order to deny the expected and then present Lord, they were hypocritical with God's name and were convicted of blaspheming when they said, "Why do You, being a man, make Yourself God," and say, "I and the Father are one"? And so too, this counterfeit and Sotadean Arius pretends to speak of God, introducing Scripture language, but is on all sides recognized as godless Arius, denying the Son and reckoning Him among the creatures.

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 of irreligion 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's name, and were convicted of blaspheming when they said, 'Why do You, being a man, make Yourself God,' and say, 'I and the Father are one John 10:30?' And so too, this counterfeit and Sotadean Arius, feigns to speak of God, introducing Scripture language, but is on all sides recognised as godless Arius, denying the Son, and reckoning Him among the creatures.

The beginning of Arius's Thalia, which is frivolous and has an effeminate quality in both its melody and character, goes as follows:

5. Now the commencement of Arius's Thalia and flippancy, effeminate in tune and nature, runs thus:–

According to the faith of God's elect, God's prudent ones, holy children, rightly dividing and receiving God's Holy Spirit, I have learned this from the partakers of wisdom, accomplished, divinely taught, and wise in all things. I have been walking along their track, with like opinions. I am the very famous one, the much suffering one for God's glory, and taught of God, I have acquired wisdom and knowledge.

'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.'

The mockeries he utters in it are repulsive and utterly irreligious, 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 since 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 like others "had an origin of creation." "For God," he says, "was alone, and the Word did not yet exist, nor the Wisdom. Then, wishing to form us, He made a certain one and named Him Word and Wisdom and Son, so that He might form us through Him." Accordingly, he says that there are two wisdoms: first, the attribute that co-exists with God, and second, that in this wisdom the Son was originated and was only named Wisdom and Word by participating in it. "For Wisdom," he says, "by the will of the wise God, had its existence in Wisdom." In the same way, he says there is another Word in God besides the Son, and that the Son again, by participating in it, is named Word and Son according to grace. And this too is an idea characteristic of their heresy, as shown in their other works: that there are many powers, one of which is God's own by nature and eternal, but Christ, on the other hand, is not the true power of God but, like the 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, like all the others, the Word Himself is alterable and remains good by His own free will while He chooses; however, when He wills, He can change as we can, since He has an alterable nature. For "therefore," he says, "because God foreknew that He would be good, He bestowed on Him in advance this glory, which afterwards, as man, He attained from virtue. Thus because of His works known beforehand, God brought it about that He, being such, should come to be."

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 their heresy, 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 good by 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.'

Furthermore, 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 just as 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 if he had inherited the devil's recklessness, he has stated in his Thalia that 'even to the Son the Father is invisible,' and 'the Word cannot perfectly and exactly either see or know His own Father.' But even what He knows and what He sees, He knows and sees 'in proportion to His own measure,' just as we also know according to our own power. For he says the Son not only does not know the Father exactly, because He fails in comprehension, but 'He knows not even His own essence.' And he says that 'the essences 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 and glory, unto infinity.' Thus regarding 'likeness of glory and essence,' he says that the Word is entirely different from both the Father and the Holy Ghost. With such words has this irreligious man spoken, maintaining that the Son is distinct by Himself and in no respect a partaker of the Father. These are portions of Arius's fables as they occur in that frivolous composition.

6. Moreover he has dared to say, that 'the Word is not the very God;' 'though He is called God, yet He is not very God,' but 'by participation of grace, He, as others, is God only in name.' And, whereas all beings are foreign and different from God in essence, so too is 'the Word alien and unlike in all things to the Father's essence and propriety,' but belongs to things originated and created, and is one of these. Afterwards, as though he had succeeded to the devil's recklessness, he has stated in his Thalia, that 'even to the Son the Father is invisible,' and 'the Word cannot perfectly and exactly either see or know His own Father.' but even what He knows and what He sees, He knows and sees 'in proportion to His own measure,' as we also know according to our own power. For the Son, too, he says, not only knows not the Father exactly, for He fails in comprehension, but 'He knows not even His own essence;'– and that 'the essences of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, are separate in nature, and estranged, and disconnected, and alien, and without participation of each other;' and, in his own words, 'utterly unlike from each other in essence and glory, unto infinity.' Thus as to 'likeness of glory and essence,' he says that the Word is entirely diverse from both the Father and the Holy Ghost. With such words 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.

Anyone who hears all this—indeed, the tune of the Thalia itself—must hate, and rightly hate, this Arius for making jokes about such matters as if he were on a stage. Who could regard him, when he claims to name God and speak of God, as anything but the serpent advising the woman? Who, on reading what follows in his work, could fail to recognize in his irreligious doctrine that same error into which the serpent later seduced the woman through his trickery? Who is not outraged at such blasphemies? As the Prophet says, "The heaven was astonished, and the earth shuddered" at the transgression of the Law. But the sun, with even greater horror, unable to bear the physical insults that the common Lord of all voluntarily endured for us, turned away and withdrew its rays, making that day sunless. And shall not all humanity be struck speechless at Arius's blasphemies, stopping their ears and shutting their eyes to avoid hearing them or seeing their author? Rather, will not the Lord Himself have reason to denounce such irreligious—indeed, such ungrateful—people, using the words He has already spoken through the prophet Hosea: "Woe to them, for they have fled from Me; destruction upon them, for they have transgressed against Me; though I have redeemed them, yet they have spoken lies against Me." And soon after, "They imagine mischief against Me; they turn away to nothing." For to turn away from the Word of God, which is, and to fashion for themselves one that is not, is to fall into what is nothing. For this reason the Ecumenical Council, when Arius spoke in this way, expelled him from the Church and anathematized him, unable to tolerate such irreligion. And ever since, Arius's error has been counted as an especially grave heresy, known as the enemy of Christ and the forerunner of Antichrist. Though such great condemnation is itself especially weighty in making people flee from that irreligious heresy, as I said above, yet since certain people called Christian, whether out of ignorance or pretense, think it, as I said before, little different from the Truth, and call its followers Christians, let us proceed to put some questions to them, as best we can, in order to expose the recklessness of the heresy. Perhaps, when thus caught, they will be silenced and flee from it as from the sight of a serpent.

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 serpent counselling the woman? Who, on reading what follows in his work, but must discern in his irreligious doctrine that error, into which by his sophistries the serpent in the sequel seduced the woman? Who at such blasphemies is not transported? 'The heaven,' as the Prophet says, 'was astonished, and the earth shuddered 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 all voluntarily endured for us, turned away, and recalling his rays made that day sunless. And shall not all human kind at Arius's blasphemies be struck speechless, and stop their ears, and shut their eyes, to escape hearing them or seeing their author? Rather, will not the Lord Himself have reason to denounce men so irreligious, nay, so unthankful, in the words which He has already uttered by the prophet Hosea, 'Woe unto them, for they have fled from Me; destruction upon them, for they have transgressed against Me; though I have redeemed them, yet they have spoken lies against Me Hosea 7:13.' And soon after, 'They imagine 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 the Truth, and call its professors Christians; proceed we to put some questions to them, according to our powers, thereby to expose the unscrupulousness of the heresy. Perhaps, when thus caught, they will be silenced, and flee from it, as from the sight of a serpent.

If the use of certain phrases from divine Scripture changes the blasphemy of the Thalia into reverent language in their opinion, then of course they ought also to deny Christ along with the present-day Jews, when they see how the Jews study the Law and the Prophets. Perhaps too they will deny the Law and the Prophets like the Manichees, because the Manichees read some portions of the Gospels. If such bewilderment and empty speaking comes from ignorance, Scripture will teach them that the devil, the author of heresies, borrows Scripture language as a cloak because of the foul smell that attaches to evil, so that he can also sow the ground with his own poison and seduce the simple. This is how he deceived Eve; this is how he framed earlier heresies; this is how he persuaded Arius at this time to make a show of speaking against those earlier heresies, so that he might introduce his own without being noticed. And yet, after all, the man of craft did not escape. For being irreligious toward the Word of God, he lost everything at once and betrayed to all people his ignorance of other heresies too. Having not a particle of truth in his belief, he only pretends to it. For how can he speak truth concerning the Father when he denies the Son who reveals concerning Him? Or how can he be orthodox concerning the Spirit while he speaks profanely of the Word that supplies the Spirit? And who will trust him concerning the Resurrection when he denies Christ for us, the first-begotten from the dead? And how shall he not err regarding His incarnate presence when he is simply ignorant of the Son's genuine and true generation from the Father? For thus, the former Jews also, denying the Word and saying, "We have no king but Caesar," were immediately stripped of all they had and forfeited the light of the Lamp, the fragrance of ointment, knowledge of prophecy, and the Truth itself. Until now they understand nothing but are walking as in darkness. For who was ever yet a hearer of such a doctrine? Or from where or from whom did the supporters and hirelings of the heresy gain it? Who explained it to them this way when they were at school? Who told them, "Abandon the worship of the creation, and then draw near and worship a creature and a work"? But if they themselves admit 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 anything other than what the blessed 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 the hypocrisy of liars, cauterized in their own conscience, and turning from the truth"?

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, borrows Scripture language, as a cloak wherewith to sow the ground with his own poison also, and to seduce the simple. Thus he deceived Eve; thus he framed former heresies; thus he persuaded Arius at this time to make a show of speaking against those former ones, that he might introduce his own without observation. And yet, after all, the man of craft did not escape. For being irreligious towards the Word of God, he lost his all at once, 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 the Son, that reveals concerning Him? Or how can he be orthodox concerning the Spirit, while he speaks profanely of the Word that supplies the Spirit? And who will trust him concerning the Resurrection, denying, as he does, Christ for us the first-begotten from the dead? And how shall he not err in respect to His incarnate presence, who is simply ignorant of the Son's genuine and true generation from the Father? For thus, the former Jews also, denying the Word, and saying, 'We have no king but 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 the creation, 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 the blessed 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 the hypocrisy of liars; cauterized in their own conscience, and turning from the truth?'

Here is the rewritten paragraph in clear, modern English:

Look, we take divine Scripture and from it speak freely about the religious faith. We set it up as a light on its stand, saying: He is the true Son of the Father, natural and genuine, proper to His ousia, the Only-begotten Wisdom, and the true and only Word of God. He is not a creature or something made, but an offspring proper to the Father's ousia. Therefore He is truly God, existing as one in ousia with the Father. Other beings, to whom He said "I said you are gods," received this grace from the Father only by participation in the Word, through the Spirit. For He is the expression of the Father's person, and Light from Light, and Power, and the true Image of the Father's ousia. This is why the Lord said, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). And He always was and is and never was not. For since the Father is everlasting, His Word and His Wisdom must be everlasting. On the other hand, what can these people show us from the disgraceful Thalia? Or first, let them read it themselves and copy the writer's tone. At least the mockery they will face from others may teach them how far they have fallen. Then let them proceed to explain themselves. For what can they say from it except that "God was not always a Father, but became so afterward; the Son was not always, for He was not before His generation; He is not from the Father, but He, like others, came into existence out of nothing; He is not proper to the Father's ousia, for He is a creature and something made"? And "Christ is not truly God, but He, like others, was made God by participation; the Son does not have exact knowledge of the Father, nor does the Word see the Father perfectly; and neither exactly understands nor knows the Father. He is not the true and only Word of the Father, but is called Word and Wisdom in name only, and is called Son and Power by grace. He is not unalterable as the Father is, but alterable in nature like the creatures, and He falls short of grasping the perfect knowledge of the Father." This is a remarkable heresy—not even plausible, but making arguments against Him who exists, that He might not exist, and everywhere putting forward blasphemy as reverent language! If anyone, after examining both sides, were asked which of the two he would follow in faith, or which of the two spoke fittingly about God—or rather let these supporters of irreligion say themselves what it would be fitting to answer if someone asks about God (for "the Word was God"). For from this one question the whole case on both sides can be determined—what is fitting to say. Was He, or was He not? Always, or before His birth? Eternal, or from this time and from then? True, or by adoption and from participation and in concept? To call Him one of the things created, or to unite Him to the Father? To consider Him unlike the Father in ousia, or like and proper to Him? A creature, or Him through whom the creatures came into being? That He is the Father's Word, or that there is another word besides Him, and that by this other word He was created, and by another wisdom? And that He is only named Wisdom and Word, and has become a partaker of this wisdom, and is second to it?

9. For, behold, we take divine Scripture, and thence discourse with freedom of the religious Faith, and set it up as a light upon its candlestick, saying:– Very Son of the Father, natural and genuine, proper to His essence, Wisdom Only-begotten, and Very and Only Word of God is He; not a creature or work, but an offspring proper to the Father's essence. Wherefore He is very God, existing one in essence with 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 the Spirit. For He is the expression of the Father's Person, and Light from Light, and Power, and very Image of the Father's essence. For this too the Lord has said, 'He that 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 the infamous Thalia? Or, first of all, let them read it themselves, and copy the tone of the writer; at least the mockery which they will encounter from others may instruct them how low they have fallen; and then let them proceed to explain themselves. For what can they say from it, but that 'God was not always a Father, but became so afterwards; the Son was not always, for He was not before His generation; He is not from the Father, but He, as others, has come into subsistence out of nothing; He is not proper to the Father's essence, for He is a creature and work?' And 'Christ is not very God, but He, as others, was made God by participation; the Son has not exact knowledge of the Father, nor does the Word see the Father perfectly; and neither exactly understands nor knows the Father. He is not the very and only Word of the Father, but is in name only called Word and Wisdom, and is called by grace Son and Power. He is not unalterable, as the Father is, but alterable in nature, as the creatures, and He comes short of apprehending the perfect knowledge of the Father.' Wonderful this heresy, not plausible even, but making speculations against Him that is, that He be not, and everywhere putting forward blasphemy for reverent language! Were any one, after inquiring into both sides, to be asked, whether of the two he would follow in faith, or whether of the two spoke fitly of God — or rather let them say themselves, these abettors of irreligion, what, if a man be asked concerning God (for 'the Word was God?'), it were fit to answer. 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 in essence, or like and proper to Him; a creature, or Him through whom the creatures were originated; that He is the Father's Word, or that there is another word beside Him, and that by this other He was originated, and by another wisdom; and that He is only named Wisdom and Word, and has become a partaker of this wisdom, and second to it?

Which of the two theologies presents our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Son of the Father—the one you vomited forth, or the one we have spoken and maintain from the Scriptures? If the Savior is not God, nor Word, nor Son, then you have permission to say whatever you wish, as do the Gentiles and the present-day Jews. But if He is the Word of the Father and true Son, and God from God, and "blessed forever over all" (Romans 9:5), is it not fitting to erase and blot out those other phrases and that Arian Thalia, as nothing but a pattern of evil, a storehouse of all irreligion, into which whoever falls "knows not that giants perish with her, and reaches the depths of Hades"? They know this themselves, and in their craftiness they conceal it, not having the courage to speak openly, but saying something else instead. For if they speak plainly, condemnation will follow; and if they are suspected, proofs from Scripture will be thrown at them from every side. Therefore, in their craftiness, as children of this world, after feeding their so-called lamp from the wild olive, and fearing that it will soon be extinguished (for it is said, "the light of the wicked shall be put out," Job 18:5), they hide it under the bushel of their hypocrisy, and make a different profession, and boast of the patronage of friends and the authority of Constantius, so that through 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 openly, but is kept hidden by its own friends, and fostered like serpents? For from what sources have they gathered these words? Or from whom have they received what they venture to say? They cannot point to any single person who has supplied it. For who is there among all mankind, Greek or barbarian, who ventures to rank among creatures One whom he confesses at the same time to be God, and says that He did not exist until He was made? Or who is there who, regarding the God in whom he has put faith, refuses to give Him credit when He says, "This is My beloved Son" (Matthew 3:17), on the pretense that He is not a Son but a creature? Rather, such madness would provoke universal indignation. Nor does Scripture 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 their mania came from the devil (for he alone is the sower of such opinions), let us proceed to resist him—for with him is our real conflict, and they are merely instruments—so that, with the Lord's help, and the enemy being overcome with arguments as he is accustomed to be, they may be put to shame when they see him who sowed this heresy in them left without resources, and may learn, though late, that as Arians they are not Christians.

10. Which of the two theologies sets forth our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Son of the Father, this which you vomited forth, or that which we have spoken and maintain from the Scriptures? If the Saviour be not God, nor Word, nor Son, you shall have leave to say what you will, and so shall the Gentiles, and the present Jews. But if He be Word of the Father and true Son, and God from God, and 'over all blessed for ever 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, whoever 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 from Scripture 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, and fearing lest it should soon be quenched (for it is said, 'the light of the wicked shall 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 of Constantius, that what with their hypocrisy and their professions, those who come to them may be kept from seeing how foul their heresy is. Is it not detestable even in this, that it dares not speak out, but is kept 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, Greek or Barbarian, who ventures to rank among creatures One whom he confesses the while to be God and says, that He was not till He was made? Or who is there, who to the God in whom he has put faith, refuses to give credit, when He says, 'This is My beloved Son Matthew 3:17,' on the pretence that He is not a Son, but a creature? Rather, such madness would rouse an universal indignation. Nor does Scripture afford them any pretext; for it has been often 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.

Following your advice, then, you have maintained and you think that "there was once when the Son was not." This is the first cover of your doctrinal views that must be stripped away. Tell us, then, what was once when the Son was not, you slanderous and irreligious people? If you say the Father, your blasphemy is even greater, for it is impious to say that He was "once" or to refer to Him with the word "once." For He is eternal, and is now, and just as the Son is, so is He, and He Himself is the One who exists, and the Father of the Son. But if you say that the Son was once, when He Himself was not, the answer is foolish and meaningless. For how could He both be and not be? In this difficulty, you can only answer that there was a time when the Word was not, for your very word "once" naturally signifies this. And your other statement, "The Son was not before His generation," is equivalent to saying, "There was once when He was not," for both expressions signify that there is a time before the Word. Where, then, did you come up with this? Why do you, like the pagans, rage and imagine empty phrases against the Lord and against His Christ? For no holy Scripture has used such language about the Savior, but rather speaks of Him as "always" and "eternal" and "always coexisting with the Father." For, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." And in the Apocalypse he speaks this way: "Who is and who was and who is to come." Now who can strip "who is" and "who was" of eternity? Paul has also written this in his letter to the Romans to refute the Jews: "Of whom as concerning the flesh is Christ, who is over all, God blessed forever," and in silencing the Greeks, he has said, "The visible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal Power and Godhead." 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 to one another, claiming that the Father is "His eternal power." This is not so, for he does not say "God Himself is the power," but "His is the power." It is very plain to all that "His" is not "He," yet not something alien but rather something proper to Him. Study the context too and "turn to the Lord"—now "the Lord is that Spirit"—and you will see that it is the Son who is being signified.

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, O slanderous 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 the Word was not; for your very adverb 'once' naturally signifies this. And your other, 'The Son was not before His generation,' is equivalent to saying, 'There was once when He was not,' for both the one and the other signify that there is a time before the Word. Whence then this your discovery? Why do you, as 'the heathen, rage, and imagine vain phrases against the Lord and against His Christ.' for no holy Scripture has used such language of the Saviour, but rather 'always' and ' eternal ' and 'coexistent always with the Father.' For, 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God John 1:1.' And in the Apocalypse 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 has Paul written in his Epistle to the Romans, 'Of whom as concerning the flesh is Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever Romans 9:5;' while silencing the Greeks, he has said, 'The visible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal Power and Godhead;' 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, affirming that the Father is 'His eternal power.' This is not so; for he says not, 'God Himself is the power,' but 'His is the power.' Very plain is it to all that 'His' is not 'He;' yet not something alien but rather proper to Him. Study too the context and 'turn to the Lord.' now 'the Lord is that Spirit;'and you will see that it is the Son who is signified.

After mentioning the creation, Paul naturally speaks of the Framer's Power as seen in it. This Power, I say, is the Word of God, by whom all things have been made. If the creation by itself were sufficient, without the Son, to make God known, then be careful not to think that it came into being without the Son. But if it came to be through the Son, and "in Him all things consist" (Colossians 1:17), then it must follow that whoever rightly contemplates creation is also contemplating the Word who framed it, and through Him begins to understand the Father. And if, as the Savior also says, "No one knows the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son reveals Him" (Matthew 11:27), and if when Philip asked, "Show us the Father," He did not say, "Look at the creation," but rather, "Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father" (John 14:8-9), then Paul reasonably accuses the Greeks of contemplating the harmony and order of creation without reflecting on the Framing Word within it (for the creatures witness to their own Framer) so as to apprehend the true God through creation and abandon their worship of it. He reasonably said, "His Eternal Power and Godhead" (Romans 1:20), thereby signifying the Son. And where the sacred writers say, "Who exists before the ages," and "By whom He made the ages" (Hebrews 1:2), they thereby clearly preach the eternal and everlasting being of the Son, even while they are speaking of God Himself. Thus, if Isaiah says, "The Everlasting 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, and joy has come unto me from the Holy One," yet because 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 says, "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 the eternity of the Son? For when did anyone 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 one hundred and forty-fourth Psalm, "Your kingdom is a kingdom of all ages," forbid anyone to imagine any interval at all in which the Word did not exist. For if every interval in the ages is measured, and the Word is King and Maker of all the ages, therefore, since no interval at all exists prior to Him, it would be madness to say, "There was once when the Everlasting was not," and "The Son is from nothing." And since the Lord Himself says, "I am the Truth," not "I became the Truth," but always, "I am"—"I am the Shepherd," "I am the Light"—and again, "Do you not call Me Lord and Master? And you call Me well, for so I am," who, hearing such language from God, and the Wisdom, and Word of the Father, speaking of Himself, will any longer hesitate about the truth, and not immediately believe that in the phrase "I am," is signified that the Son is eternal and without beginning?

12. For after making mention of the creation, he naturally speaks of the Framer's Power as seen in it, which Power, I say, is the Word of God, by whom all things have been made. If indeed the creation is sufficient of itself alone, without the Son, to make God known, see that you 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 the creation 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 knows the 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 the creation without reflecting on the Framing Word within it (for the creatures witness to their own Framer) so as through the creation to apprehend the true God, and abandon their worship of it — reasonably has he said, 'His Eternal Power and Godhead Romans 1:20,' thereby signifying the Son. And where the sacred writers say, 'Who exists before the ages,' and 'By whom He made the ages Hebrews 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, 'The Everlasting 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, and joy 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 kingdom is 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 the Truth,' 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 the Father, 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 eternal and without beginning?

It's clear from the passages above that the Scriptures declare the Son's eternity. It's equally clear from what follows that the Arian phrases "He was not," "before," and "when" are used in these same Scriptures for creatures. For example, Moses in his account of how our world came to be 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." In Deuteronomy it says, "When the Most High divided to the nations." The Lord said in His own Person, "If you loved Me, 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." Concerning creation He says through 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." And, "Before Abraham was, I am." Concerning Jeremiah He says, "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you." David says in the Psalm, "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." So it's clear that the phrases "once was not," "before it came to be," "when," and similar expressions belong to created things that come from nothing, but are foreign to the Word. If such terms are used in Scripture for created things, but "ever" is used for the Word, then it follows, you enemies of God, that the Son did not come from nothing, nor is He among created things at all, but is the Father's Image and Word who is eternal, never having not existed, but always existing as the eternal Radiance of a Light that is eternal. Why then do you imagine times before the Son? Why do you blaspheme the Word as coming after times, when He is the one through whom even the ages were made? How could time or age even exist when the Word, as you claim, had not yet appeared—He through whom all things have been made and without whom not one thing was made? Why, when you actually mean time, don't you plainly say "a time was when the Word was not"? You drop the word "time" to deceive simple people, but you don't hide your real meaning at all, and even if you did, you couldn't escape detection. You still clearly mean times when you say "There was when He was not" and "He was not before His generation."

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 loved Me, 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 the Word. But if such terms are used in Scripture of things originate, but 'ever' of the Word, 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 and Word 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 why blaspheme the Word as after times, by whom even the ages were made? For how did time or age at all subsist when the Word, as you say, had not appeared, 'through' whom 'all things have been made and without' whom 'not one thing was made 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.'

When these points are proved in this way, their profaneness goes even further. "If there never was a time when the Son was not," they say, "but He is eternal and coexists with the Father, you no longer call Him the Father's Son, but His brother." How senseless and argumentative! If we only said that He was eternally with the Father and not His Son, their pretended concern 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 who is begotten be considered the brother of Him who begets? And if our faith is in Father and Son, what brotherhood exists between them? And how can the Word be called the brother of Him whose Word He is? This is not an objection from men who are truly ignorant, for they understand how the truth stands. Rather, it is a Jewish pretense from those who, in Solomon's words, "through desire separate themselves" from the truth. For the Father and the Son were not generated from some preexisting origin, so that we should account them brothers. Rather, the Father is the origin of the Son and begot Him. The Father is Father and not born the Son of anyone, and the Son is Son and not brother. Further, if He is called the eternal offspring of the Father, He is rightly so called. For the essence of the Father was never imperfect, so that what is proper to it should be added afterwards. Nor has the Son been begotten as man is from man, so as to be later than His Father's existence. Rather, He is God's offspring, and as being the proper Son of God who is eternal, He exists eternally. For whereas it is proper to men to beget in time because of the imperfection of their nature, God's offspring is eternal because His nature is always perfect. If then He is not a Son but a work made out of nothing, they have only to prove it, and then they are free, as if speculating about a creature, to cry out, "There was once when He was not," for things that are originated did not exist and have come to be. But if He is Son, as the Father says and the Scriptures proclaim, and "Son" is nothing else than what is generated from the Father, and what is generated from the Father is His Word and Wisdom and Radiance, what is to be said except that in maintaining "Once the Son was not," they rob God of His Word like plunderers, and openly assert of Him that He was once without His proper Word and Wisdom, and that the Light was once without radiance, and that the Fountain was once barren and dry? For though they pretend to be alarmed at the name of time because of those who reproach them with it, and say that He was before times, yet since they assign certain intervals in which they imagine He was not, they are still most irreligious, as they equally suggest times and impute to God an absence of Reason.

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 Word be called brother of Him whose Word He is? This is not an objection of men really ignorant, for they comprehend how the truth lies; but it is a Jewish pretence, and that from those who, in Solomon's words, 'through desire separate themselves Proverbs 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 the eternal offspring of the Father, He is rightly so called. For never was the essence of the Father imperfect, that what is proper to it should be added afterwards; 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 Scriptures proclaim, and 'Son' is nothing else than what is generated from the Father; and what is generated from the Father is His Word, and Wisdom, and Radiance; what is to be said but that, in maintaining 'Once the Son was not,' they rob God of His Word, like plunderers, and openly predicate of Him that He was once without His proper Word and Wisdom, and that the Light was once without radiance, and the Fountain was once barren and dry? For though they pretend alarm at the name of time, because of those who reproach them with it, and say, that He was before times, yet whereas they assign certain intervals, in which they imagine He was not, they are most irreligious still, as equally suggesting times, and imputing to God an absence of Reason.

But if, on the other hand, they acknowledge the name 'Son' along with us—because they don't want to be publicly and universally condemned—yet deny that the Son is the proper offspring of the Father's essence on the grounds that this would involve parts and divisions, what is this except denying that He is truly Son and calling Him Son in name only? And is it not a serious error to think materially about what is immaterial, and to deny what is natural and proper to the Father simply because of the weakness of their own nature? All that remains is for them to deny Him altogether, since they don't understand what God is and what the Father is—these foolish people measure the Father's Offspring by their own standards. People whose state of mind leads them to think there cannot be a Son of God deserve our pity, but they must be questioned and exposed in hopes of bringing them to their senses. If, as you claim, 'the Son is from nothing' and 'did not exist before His generation,' then of course He, like all others, must be called Son and God and Wisdom only by participation, for that is how all other creatures exist and are glorified through sanctification. So you must tell us what He participates in. All other things participate in the Spirit, but according to you, what does He participate in? The Spirit? No, rather the Spirit Himself receives from the Son, as the Son Himself says, and it is not reasonable to say that the latter is sanctified by the former. Therefore He participates in the Father—this is the only remaining option. But what is this thing that is participated, and where does it come from? If it is something external provided by the Father, then He will not be a partaker of the Father but of what is external to Him. He will no longer even be second after the Father, since this other thing comes before Him, nor could He be called Son of the Father, but rather son of that thing, since it is by partaking of it that He is called Son and God. If this is inappropriate and irreligious—when the Father says, 'This is My Beloved Son,' and when the Son says that God is His own Father—it follows that what is participated is not external but comes from the essence of the Father. And regarding this again, if it is other than the essence of the Son, an equally absurd consequence confronts us, since there would be something between what comes from the Father and the essence of the Son, whatever that might be.

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 proper nature to deny what is natural and proper to the Father? It does but remain, that they should deny Him also, because they understand not how God is, 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 the Father, but of what is external to Him; and no longer will He be even second after the Father, since He has before Him this other; nor can He be called Son of the Father, but of that, as partaking which He has been called Son and God. And if this be unseemly and irreligious, when the Father says, 'This is My Beloved Son Matthew 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 will meet us; there being in that case something between this that is from the Father and the essence of the Son, whatever that be.

Since such thoughts are clearly improper and false, we must say that what comes from the Father's essence and is proper to Him is entirely the Son. For it means the same thing to say that God is wholly participated and that He begets, and what does begetting mean except a Son? And so all things partake of the Father by partaking of the Son Himself, according to the grace of the Spirit coming from Him. This shows that the Son Himself partakes of nothing, but what is partaken from the Father is the Son. For by partaking of the Son Himself, we are said to partake of God, which is what Peter meant when he said "that you may be partakers in a divine nature," and what the Apostle meant when he said "Do you not know that you are a temple of God" and "We are the temple of a living God." When we see the Son, we see the Father, because the thought and understanding of the Son is knowledge about the Father, since He is the Father's proper offspring from His essence. And since none of us would ever call God's being partaken an affection or division of God's essence (for it has been shown and acknowledged that God is participated, and to be participated is the same as to beget), therefore what is begotten is neither an affection nor a division of that blessed essence. So it is not unbelievable 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." Rather, we believe in acknowledging the genuine, true, and Only-begotten of God. If then, as we have stated and are showing, what is the offspring of the Father's essence is 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 creates and makes all things; and His Brightness too, in whom He enlightens all things and is revealed to whom He wills; and His Expression and Image also, in whom He is contemplated and known. Therefore "He and His Father are one," and whoever looks on Him looks on the Father; and the Christ, in whom all things are redeemed and the new creation is made anew. And conversely, since the Son is such an offspring, it is not fitting but rather full of danger to say that He is a work out of nothing or that He did not exist before His generation. For whoever speaks this way about what is proper to the Father's essence already blasphemes the Father Himself, since he really thinks about Him what he falsely imagines about His offspring.

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 the Father, is the Son; for, as partaking of the Son Himself, we are said to partake of God; and this is what Peter said 'that you may be partakers in a divine nature 2 Peter 1:4;' as says too the Apostle, 'Do you not know, that you are a temple of God.' 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 knowledge concerning the Father, because He is His proper offspring from His essence. And since to be partaken no one of us would ever call affection or division of God's essence (for it has been 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 we believe. 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 creates and makes all things; and His Brightness too, in whom He enlightens all things, and is revealed to whom He will; and His Expression and Image also, in whom He is contemplated and known, wherefore 'He and His Father are one John 10:30,' and whoever looks on Him looks on the Father; and the Christ, in whom all things are redeemed, and the new creation wrought afresh. And on the other hand, the Son being such Offspring, it is not fitting, rather it is full of peril, to say, that He is a work out of nothing, or that He was not before His generation. For he who thus speaks of that which is proper to the Father's essence, already blasphemes the Father Himself; since he really thinks of Him what he falsely imagines of His offspring.

This in itself is enough to refute the Arian heresy, but its false teaching will also be clear from what follows. If God is Maker and Creator, and creates His works through the Son, and we cannot think of things that come into being except as existing through the Word, is it not blasphemous—since God is Maker—to say that His creating Word and His Wisdom once did not exist? This is the same as saying that God is not Maker, if He did not have His own proper creating Word which is from Him, but instead that by which He creates came to Him from outside, is alien to Him, and unlike in ousia. Next, let them answer 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 Trinity is not everlasting. Instead, a Monad existed first, and afterwards by addition it became a Trinity. And so as time passed, it seems that what we know about God grew and took shape. Furthermore, if the Son is not the proper offspring of the Father's ousia but came to be from nothing, then the Trinity consists of nothing, and once there was not a Trinity but a Monad. The Trinity was once deficient and then complete—deficient before the Son was originated, complete when He came to be. From then on, something originated is counted together with the Creator, and what once was not receives divine worship and glory alongside Him who always existed. Even more serious, the Trinity turns out to be unlike itself, consisting of strange and alien natures and ousiai. This is another way of saying that the Trinity has an originated existence. What kind of religion is this, which is not even consistent with itself but is in the process of being completed as time goes on, and is now one way and then another way? For it will probably receive some new addition, and so on without limit, since from the very beginning it gained its existence through additions. And so clearly it could also decrease in the opposite direction, for what is added can obviously be subtracted.

17. This is of itself a sufficient refutation of the Arian heresy; however, its heterodoxy will appear also from the following:– If God be Maker and Creator, and create His works through the Son, and we cannot regard things which come to be, except as being through the Word, is it not blasphemous, God being Maker, to say, that His Framing Word and His Wisdom once was not? It is the same as saying, that God is not Maker, if He had not His proper Framing Word which is from Him, but that that by which He frames, accrues to Him from without, and is alien from Him, and unlike in essence. Next, let them tell us this — or rather learn from it how irreligious they are in saying, 'Once He was not,' and, 'He was not before His generation;'– for if the Word is not with the Father from everlasting, the Triad is not everlasting; but a Monad was first, and afterwards by addition it became a Triad; and so as time went on, it seems what we know concerning God grew and took shape. And further, if the Son is not proper offspring of the Father's essence, but of nothing has come to be, then of nothing the Triad consists, and once there was not a Triad, but a Monad; and a Triad once with deficiency, and then complete; deficient, before the Son was originated, complete when He had come to be; and henceforth a thing originated is reckoned with the Creator, and what once was not has divine worship and glory with Him who was ever. 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.

But this is not the case—perish the thought! The Triad is not originated. There is an eternal and one Godhead in a Triad, and there is one glory of the Holy Triad. Yet you presume to divide it into different natures. You say the Father is eternal, but of the Word who is seated beside Him you say, "Once He was not." Though the Son is seated beside the Father, you think to place Him far from Him. The Triad is Creator and Framer, yet you do not fear to degrade it to the level of things that are from nothing. You do not scruple to equate servile beings with the nobility of the Triad, and to rank the King, the Lord of Sabaoth, with subjects. Stop this confusion of things that cannot be associated, or rather of things that have no being with Him who is. Such statements do not glorify and honor the Lord, but the reverse, for whoever dishonors the Son dishonors the Father also. For if the doctrine of God is now perfect in a Triad, and this is the true and only religion, and this is the good and the truth, it must have been always so—unless the good and the truth are something that came later, and the doctrine of God is completed by additions. I say it must have been eternally so. But if not eternally, then not so at present either, but at present as you suppose it was from the beginning—I mean, not a Triad now. But no Christian would tolerate such heretics. It belongs to the Greeks to introduce an originated Triad and to level it with originated things, for these do admit of deficiencies and additions. But the faith of Christians acknowledges the blessed Triad as unalterable and perfect and ever what it was, neither adding to it what is more nor imputing to it any loss (for both ideas are irreligious). Therefore it separates the Triad from all things generated, guards as indivisible the unity of the Godhead itself, and worships it. It shuns the Arian blasphemies and confesses and acknowledges that the Son always was, for He is eternal, as is the Father, of whom He is the eternal Word—to which subject let us now return again.

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 is Creator and Framer, and you fear not to degrade It to things which are from nothing; you scruple not to equal servile beings to the nobility of the Triad, and to rank the King, the Lord of Sabaoth with subjects. Cease this confusion of things unassociable, or rather of things which are not with Him who is. Such statements do not glorify and honour the Lord, but the reverse; for he who dishonours the Son, dishonours also the Father. For if the doctrine of God is now perfect in a Triad, and this is the true and only Religion, and this is the good and the truth, it must have been always so, unless the good and the truth be something that came after, and the doctrine of God is completed by additions. I say, it must have been eternally so; but if not eternally, not so at present either, but at present so, as you suppose it was from the beginning — I mean, not a Triad now. But such heretics no Christian would bear; it belongs to Greeks, to introduce an originated Triad, and to level It with things originate; for these do admit of deficiencies and additions; but the faith of Christians acknowledges the blessed Triad as unalterable and perfect and ever what It was, neither adding to It what is more, nor imputing to It any loss (for both ideas are irreligious), and therefore it dissociates It from all things generated, and it guards as indivisible and worships the unity of the Godhead Itself; and shuns the Arian blasphemies, and confesses and acknowledges that the Son was ever; for He is eternal, as is the Father, of whom He is the Eternal Word, — to which subject let us now return again.

If God exists and is called the Fountain of wisdom and life—as He says through Jeremiah, "They have forsaken Me the Fountain of living waters," and again, "A glorious high throne from the beginning, is the place of our sanctuary; O Lord, 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 the Lord, the Fountain of living waters;" and in the book of Baruch it is written, "You have forsaken the Fountain of wisdom"—this means that life and wisdom are not foreign to the ousia of the Fountain, but are proper to it, and were never at any time without existence, but always existed. Now the Son is all this, who says, "I am the Life," and, "I Wisdom dwell with prudence." Is it not then irreligious to say, "Once the Son was not?" For it is the same as saying, "Once the Fountain was dry, destitute of Life and Wisdom." But then it would cease to be a fountain; for what does not beget from itself is not a fountain. What a load of absurdity! For God promises that those who do His will shall be as a fountain whose water does not fail, saying through Isaiah the prophet, "And the Lord shall 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." And yet these people, though God is called and is a Fountain of wisdom, dare to insult Him as barren and void of His proper Wisdom. But their teaching is false; truth witnesses that God is the eternal Fountain of His proper Wisdom; and if the Fountain is eternal, the Wisdom also must be eternal. For in it all things were 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." And this Wisdom is the Word, and through 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." And if all things are through Him, He Himself is not to be counted with that "all." For whoever dares to call Him, through whom all things exist, one of that "all," will surely have similar ideas concerning God, from whom are all. But if he shrinks from this as improper, and excludes God from that all, it is only consistent that he should also exclude from that all the Only-Begotten Son, as being proper to the Father's ousia. And if He is not one of the all, it is sinful to say concerning Him, "He was not," and "He was not before His generation." Such words may be used of the creatures; but as to the Son, He is such as the Father is, of whose ousia 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; so that we may neither say that God was ever without Word, nor that the Son was non-existent. For why a Son, if not from Him? Or why Word and Wisdom, if not always proper to Him?

19. If God be, and be called, the Fountain of wisdom and life — as He says by Jeremiah, 'They have forsaken Me the Fountain of living waters Jeremiah 2:13;' and again, 'A glorious high throne from the beginning, is the place of our sanctuary; O Lord, 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 the Lord, 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 Lord shall 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; truth witnessing that God is the eternal Fountain of His proper Wisdom; and, if the Fountain be eternal, the Wisdom also must needs be eternal. For in It were all things made, as David says in the Psalm, 'In Wisdom 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 concerning God, from whom are all. But if he shrinks from this as unseemly, and excludes God from that all, it is but consistent that he should also exclude from that all the Only-Begotten Son, as being proper to the Father's essence. And, if He be not one of the all, it is sin to say concerning Him, 'He was not,' and 'He was not before His generation.' Such words may be used of the creatures; but as to the Son, He is such as the Father is, of whose essence He is proper Offspring, Word, and Wisdom. 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?

When, then, was God without that which is proper to Him? Or how can anyone think that what is proper to Him is foreign and different in ousia? For all other things, according to the nature of created things, have no likeness in ousia with the Maker. They are external to Him, made by the Word through His grace and will, and so can cease to exist if He who made them so pleases—for such is the nature of created things. But regarding what is proper to the Father's ousia (for we have already determined this to be the Son), what outrageous irreligion it is to say that "This comes from nothing" and that "It was not before generation," but came from outside and can at some time cease to exist again! Anyone who reflects on this will see how this heresy diminishes the perfection and fullness of the Father's ousia. However, he will see its inappropriateness even more clearly if he considers that the Son is the Image and Radiance of the Father, and Expression, and Truth. For if, when Light exists, there exists with it its Image—namely, Radiance—and when a Subsistence (hypostasis) exists, there exists of it the entire Expression, and when a Father exists, there exists His Truth (namely, the Son), then let them consider what depths of irreligion they fall into when they 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 would be sinful to say. Since the Father existed, there always existed in Him the Truth, which is the Son, who says, "I am the Truth." And the Subsistence existing, of course there was immediately its Expression and Image, for God's Image is not drawn from outside, but God Himself has begotten it. In it, seeing Himself, He has delight, as the Son Himself says, "I was His delight." When, then, did the Father not see Himself in His own Image? Or when did He not have delight, that anyone should dare to say, "the Image is out of nothing" and "The Father had no delight before the Image came into existence"? And how could the Maker and Creator see Himself in a created and originated ousia? For such as the Father is, such must the Image be.

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 the nature 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 was adventitious, and can at some time cease to be again? Let a person only dwell upon this thought, and he will discern how the perfection and the plenitude of the Father's essence is impaired by this heresy; however, he will see its unseemliness still more clearly, if he considers that the Son is the Image and Radiance of the Father, and Expression, and Truth. For if, when Light exists, there be withal its Image, viz. Radiance, and, a Subsistence existing, there be of it the entire Expression, and, a Father existing, there be His Truth (viz. the Son); let them consider what depths of irreligion they fall into, who make time the measure of the Image and Form of the Godhead. For if the Son was not before His generation, Truth was not always in God, which it were a sin to say; for, since the Father was, there was ever in Him the Truth, which is the Son, who says, 'I am the Truth 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 Creator see Himself in a created and originated essence? For such as is the Father, such must be the Image.

Let us continue by examining the attributes of the Father, and we will come to know whether this Image is truly His. The Father is eternal, immortal, powerful, light, King, Sovereign, God, Lord, Creator, and Maker. These attributes must be present in the Image to make it true that whoever has seen the Son has seen the Father. If the Son is not all these things, but as the Arians claim is originate and not eternal, then this is not a true Image of the Father—unless they abandon all shame and go on to say that the title of Image given to the Son does not indicate a similar ousia but is merely His name. But this, you enemies of Christ, is not an Image, nor is it an expression. For what resemblance does something created from nothing have to Him who brought what was nothing into being? Or how can that which once was not be like Him who is, since it falls short of Him in once not existing and in having its place among originate things? Nevertheless, wanting the Son to be such, the Arians have devised arguments like this: "If the Son is the Father's offspring and Image, and is like the Father in all things, then it necessarily follows that just as He was begotten, so He begets, and He too becomes father of a son. And again, the one begotten from Him begets in turn, and so on without limit; for this is what it means to make the Begotten like the one who begot Him." These foes of God are truly authors of blasphemy! Rather than confess that the Son is the Father's Image, they conceive material and earthly ideas about the Father Himself, attributing to Him divisions and emissions and outflows. If God were like man, then let Him become a parent like man, so that His Son would be father of another, and so on in succession from one to another, until the series they imagine grows into a multitude of gods. But if God is not like man—and He is not—we must not attribute to Him the characteristics of man. For animals and humans, after a Creator has brought them into being, are begotten through succession; and the son, having been begotten by a father who was himself a son, accordingly becomes in his turn a father to a son, inheriting from his father that by which he himself came to be. Therefore in such cases there is not, properly speaking, either a real father or a real son, nor do the father and son remain fixed in their respective roles, 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 God is not like man. The Father is not from a father; therefore He does not beget one who will become a father. Nor is the Son from an effluence of the Father, nor is He begotten from a father who was himself begotten; therefore He is not begotten in such a way as to beget. Thus it belongs to the Godhead alone that the Father is properly Father and the Son properly Son, and in Them and Them only does it hold that the Father is forever Father and the Son forever Son.

21. Proceed we then to consider the attributes of the Father, and we shall come to know whether this Image is really His. The Father is eternal, immortal, powerful, light, King, Sovereign, God, Lord, Creator, and Maker. These attributes must be in the Image, to make it true that he 'that 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 the Father, 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 than confess that the Son is the Father's Image, conceive material and earthly ideas concerning 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 and men, after a Creator has begun them, are begotten by succession; and the son, having been begotten of a father who was a son, becomes accordingly in his turn a father to a son, in inheriting from his father that by which he himself has come to be. Hence in such instances there is not, properly speaking, either father or son, nor do the father and the son stay in their respective characters, for the son himself becomes a father, being son of his father, but father of his son. But it is not so in the Godhead; for not as man is God; for the Father is not from a father; therefore 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 Godhead alone, 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.

Therefore, whoever asks why the Son does not beget a son must also ask why the Father did not have a father. But both questions are improper and full of impiety. For just as the Father is always Father and could never become Son, so the Son is always Son and could never become Father. For in this way He is shown to be the Father's Expression and Image, remaining what He is and not changing, but receiving from the Father to be one and the same. So if the Father changes, let the Image change, for this is how the Image and Radiance relates to Him who begot It. But if the Father is unchangeable, and He continues to be what He is, then necessarily the Image also continues to be what He is and will not change. Now He is Son from the Father, therefore He will not become different from what is proper to the Father's ousia. So these foolish people have devised this objection pointlessly, wanting to separate the Image from the Father so they might reduce the Son to the level of created things.

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.

Ranking him among these created things according to Eusebius's teaching, and considering him to be like the things that come into existence through him, Arius and his followers turned away from the truth. When they started this heresy, they used to go around with dishonest phrases they had collected. Even now, some of them approach young men in the marketplace and question them—not from divine Scripture, but as if overflowing with "the abundance of their heart"—saying: "Did the One who exists make someone who did not exist, from what did not exist, or someone who already existed? So did he make the Son when the Son already existed, or when he did not yet exist?" And again, "Is the Unoriginate one or two?" and "Does he have free will, and yet not change by his own choice, since he has a changeable nature? For he is not like a stone that remains unmoved by itself." Then they turn to foolish women and address them in this manner suited to women: "Did you have a son before giving birth? Well, just as you did not, neither did the Son of God exist before his generation." In such language do these disgraceful men amuse themselves and revel, comparing God to humans, pretending to be Christians while changing God's glory "into an image made like to corruptible man."

22 ( continued). Ranking Him among these, according to the teaching of Eusebius, and accounting Him such as the things which come into being through Him, Arius and his fellows revolted from the truth, and used, when they commenced this heresy, to go about with dishonest phrases which they had got together; nay, up to this time some of 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 womanish language; '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 men sport and revel, and liken God to men, pretending to be Christians, but changing God's glory 'into an image made like to corruptible man. '

Words this foolish and ignorant deserved no answer at all. However, to prevent their heresy from appearing to have any foundation, it may be right—even if we have to go out of our way—to refute them here, especially for the sake of the gullible women who are so easily deceived by them. When they speak this way, they should ask a builder whether he can construct something without materials. And if he cannot, does it follow that God could not make the universe without materials? Or they should ask anyone whether they can exist without occupying space. And if they cannot, does it follow that God exists in a place? In this way they might be put to shame even by their own audience. Or why is it that when they hear God has a Son, they deny it by comparing Him to themselves, but when they hear that He creates and makes, they no longer raise objections based on human experience? They ought to apply the same reasoning to creation as well—to insist that God needs materials, and thus deny that He is Creator—until they end up groveling alongside the Manichees. But if the simple idea of God transcends such thoughts, and upon first hearing a person believes and knows that He exists, not as we exist but as God exists, and creates not as man creates but as God creates, then it is clear that He also begets not as men beget, but begets as God. For God does not pattern Himself after man. Rather, we men are also called fathers of our own children because God is properly and alone truly Father of His Son. For from Him "every fatherhood in heaven and earth is named" (Ephesians 3:15). Their arguments may seem to make sense on the surface, but if anyone examines them with reason, they will be found worthy of much ridicule and mockery.

23. Words so senseless and dull deserved no answer at all; however, lest their heresy appear to have any foundation, it may be right, though we go out of the way for it, to refute them even here, especially on account of the silly women who are so readily deceived by them. When they thus speak, they should have inquired of an architect, whether he can build without materials; and if he cannot, whether it follows that God could not make the universe without materials. Or they should have asked every man, whether he can be without place; and if he cannot, whether it follows that God is in place, that so they may be brought to shame even by their audience. Or why is it that, on hearing that God has a Son, they deny Him by the parallel of themselves; whereas, if they hear that He creates and makes, no longer do they object their human ideas? They ought in creation also to entertain the same, and to supply God with materials, and so deny Him to be Creator, till they end in grovelling with Manichees. But if the bare idea of God transcends such thoughts, and, on very first hearing, a man believes and knows that He is in being, not as we are, and yet in being as God, and creates not as man creates, but yet creates as God, it is plain that He begets also not as men beget, but begets as God. For God does not make man His pattern; but rather we men, for that God is properly, and alone truly, 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, while unscrutinized, have a show of sense; but if any one scrutinize them by reason, they will be found to incur much derision and mockery.

First of all, their opening question is extremely dull and unclear. They don't explain who they're asking about in a way that allows for an answer. Instead, they speak in abstract terms: "He who is," "him who is not." So who exactly "is," and what exactly "is not," O Arians? Who "is," and who "is not"? What things are said "to be," and what things "not to be"? The One who is can make things that are not, things that are, and things that were before. For example, a carpenter, a goldsmith, and a potter each works with pre-existing materials according to his craft, making whatever items he wishes. And God Himself, having taken the dust of the earth that already existed and had already been brought into being, fashions man. Yet that very earth, which did not exist at one time, He made at a certain point through His own Word. If this is what their question means, then clearly the created order did not exist before it originated, while human craftsmen work with existing materials. Thus their reasoning is inconsistent, since both "what is" comes into being and "what is not" comes into being, as these examples demonstrate. But if they're speaking about God and His Word, let them complete their question properly and then ask: Was the God "who is" ever without Reason? And since He is Light, was He ever without radiance? Or was He always Father of the Word? Or ask it this way: Has the Father "who is" made the Word "who is not," or does He have His Word always with Him as the proper offspring of His ousia? This will expose the fact that they are simply being presumptuous and engaging in sophisms about God and the One 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 they try in vain to escape it and hide it with their sophisms. Indeed, one would prefer not to hear them arguing at all that God was not always Father but became so later (which is necessary for their fantasy that His Word once was not), considering the number of proofs already presented against them. Besides, John says, "The Word was," and Paul writes, "Who being the brightness of His glory," and "Who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen."

24. For first of all, as to their first question, which is such as this, how dull and vague it is! They do not explain who it is they ask about, so as to allow of an answer, but they say abstractedly, 'He who is,' 'him who is not.' Who then 'is,' and what 'are not,' O Arians? Or who 'is,' and who 'is not?' what are said 'to be,' what 'not to be?' for He that is, can make things which are not, and which are, and which were before. For instance, carpenter, and goldsmith, and potter, each, according to his own art, works upon materials previously existing, making what vessels he pleases; and the God of all Himself, having taken the dust of the earth existing and already brought to be, fashions man; that very earth, however, whereas it was not once, He has at one time made by His own Word. If then this is the meaning of their question, the creature on the one hand plainly was not before its origination, and 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 His Word, let them complete their question and then ask, Was the God, 'who is,' ever without Reason? And, whereas He is Light, was He ray-less? Or was He always Father of the Word? Or again in this manner. Has the Father 'who is' made the Word 'who is not,' or has He ever with Him His Word, as the proper offspring of His substance? This will 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 Word once 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, God blessed forever. Amen Romans 9:5.'

Perhaps they should have remained silent. But since they have not, we need to answer their shameless question with a bold response. Maybe when they see the contradictions that afflict their own position, they will stop fighting against the truth. So, after many prayers that God would be gracious to us, we might ask them in return: Did God, who is, come into being when he previously was not? Or does he exist even before his coming into being? Since he is, did he make himself? Or is he from nothing—being nothing beforehand and then suddenly appearing? Such an inquiry is improper, both improper and very blasphemous, yet it parallels their own. For the answer they give is full of irreligion. But if it is blasphemous and utterly irreligious to ask such questions about God, then it will be blasphemous as well to make similar inquiries about his Word. However, to expose how senseless and dull their question is, we must answer as follows: Since God is, he always has been; therefore, since the Father is eternal, his Radiance is eternal—which is his Word. And again, God who is has from himself his Word who also is. Neither was the Word added when he did not exist before, nor was the Father ever without Reason. For this attack on the Son makes the blasphemy rebound upon the Father—as if he devised for himself a Wisdom, Word, and Son from outside. For whichever of these titles you use, you denote the offspring from the Father, as has been said. So their objection does not hold. And naturally so, for in denying the Logos they consequently ask questions that are illogical. Just as if someone saw the sun and then inquired about its radiance, saying, "Did that which is make that which was, or that which was not," he would be considered not to reason sensibly but to be utterly confused—because he imagined what comes from the Light to be external to it and was raising questions about when and where and whether it was made—in the same way, to speculate about the Son and the Father in this manner and to make such inquiries is far greater madness. For it is to conceive of the Word of the Father as external to him and to foolishly call the natural offspring a work, with the claim "He was not before his generation." Let them also take this answer to their question: The Father who was made the Son who was, for "the Word was made flesh," and whereas he was Son of God, he made him at the consummation of the ages also Son of Man—unless, following the Samosatene, they claim that he did not even exist at all until he became man.

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 was eternally; 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 the Father, as has been said. So that this their objection does not hold; and naturally; for denying the Logos they in consequence ask questions which are illogical. As then if a person saw the sun, and then inquired concerning its radiance, and said, 'Did that which is make that which was, or that which was not,' he would be held not to reason sensibly, but to be utterly mazed, because he fancied what is from the Light to be external to it, and was raising questions, when and where and whether it were made; in like manner, thus to speculate concerning the Son and the Father and thus to inquire, is far greater madness, for it is to conceive of the Word of the Father as external to Him, and to idly call the natural offspring a work, with the avowal, 'He was not before His generation.' Nay, let them over and above take this answer to their question — The Father who was, made the Son who was, for 'the Word was made flesh 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 even exist at all, till He became man.

This is a sufficient response from us to their first question. Now it's your turn, Arians: remembering your own words, tell us whether the one who had a need required someone who already existed for the creation of the universe, or someone who did not exist? You said that he made his Son for himself out of nothing, as an instrument by which to make the universe. Which is greater: the one who needs something, or the one who supplies what is needed? Or doesn't each one fill the lack of the other? You actually prove the weakness of the Maker if he didn't have the power by himself to make the universe, but had to provide himself with an instrument from outside, like a carpenter or shipbuilder who can't work without an adze and saw! Can anything be more irreligious? Yet why should anyone dwell on how outrageous this is, when enough has already been said to show that their doctrine is mere fantasy?

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 or shipwright, unable to work anything without adze and saw! Can anything be more irreligious? Yet why should one dwell on its heinousness, when enough has gone before to show that their doctrine is a mere fantasy?

Nor is it necessary to answer their other very simplistic and foolish question, which they put to gullible women—or rather, no answer is needed beyond what has already been given: that it is not appropriate to measure divine generation by the nature of human beings. However, so that they may once again condemn themselves, it is worthwhile to engage them on the same ground in this way: Clearly, if they question parents about their son, let them consider where the child who is begotten comes from. For even though the parent did not have a son before begetting him, still, after having him, he had him not as something external or foreign, but as from himself, and belonging to his ousia and being his exact image, so that the former is seen in the latter, and the latter is contemplated in the former. If then they conclude from human examples that generation implies time, why do they not from the same examples infer that it implies the natural and the proper, instead of extracting like a serpent from the earth only what turns to poison? Those who ask parents, "Did you have a son before you begot him?" should add, "And if you had a son, did you purchase him from outside as you would a house or any other possession?" And then they would be answered, "He is not from outside, but from myself. For things which are from outside are possessions and pass from one person to another; but my son is from me, proper to and similar to my ousia, not having become mine from another, but begotten of me; therefore I too am wholly in him, while I remain myself what I am." For this is how it is: although the parent is distinct in time, being human and having himself come to be in time, he too would have had his child coexistent with him always, except that his nature was a constraint 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 reaches that age at which nature supplies the power, immediately, with nature unrestrained, he becomes father of the son from himself.

26. ( continued). Nor is answer needful to their other very simple and foolish inquiry, which they put to silly women; or none besides that which has been already given, namely, that it is not suitable to measure divine generation by the nature of men. However, that as before they may pass judgment on themselves, it is well to meet them on the same ground, thus:– Plainly, if they inquire of parents concerning their son, let them consider whence is the child which is begotten. For, granting the parent had not a son before his begetting, still, after having him, he had him, not as external or as foreign, but as from himself, and proper to his essence and his exact image, so that the former is beheld in the latter, and the latter is contemplated in the former. If then they assume from human examples that generation implies time, why not from the same infer that it implies the Natural and the Proper, 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.

Therefore, if when asking parents about children they get the answer that children who exist by nature are not from outside but from their parents, let them confess in the same way concerning the Word of God that He is simply from the Father. And if they raise questions about time, let them explain what would prevent God—for it is necessary to prove their irreligion on the very ground where they make their mockery—let them tell us what there is to prevent God from being always Father of the Son, since it is undeniable that what is begotten must be from its father. Moreover, they will pass judgment on themselves in attributing such things to God if, just as they questioned women about time, they also ask the sun about its radiance and the fountain about its stream. They will find that these offspring always exist together with the things from which they come. And if parents like these share both nature and duration in common with their children, why do they not openly state their irreligion if they suppose God is inferior to things that come into being? But if they do not dare to say this openly, and if the Son is confessed to be not from outside but a natural offspring from the Father, and if there is nothing that restrains God (for He is not like a human being, but greater than the sun, or rather the God of the sun), it follows that the Word is from Him and exists eternally with Him, through whom the Father also caused all things that were not to come into being. That the Son does not come from nothing but is eternal and from the Father is therefore certain even from the nature of the case, and the heretics' question to parents exposes their perverseness, for they acknowledge the point about nature but have now been put to shame on the point about time.

27. Therefore, if on asking parents about children, they get for answer, that children which are by nature are not from without, but from their parents, let them confess in like manner concerning the Word of God, that He is simply from the Father. And if they make a question of the time, let them say what is to restrain God — for it is necessary to prove their irreligion on the very ground on which their scoff is made — let them tell us, what is there to restrain God from being always Father of the Son; for that what is begotten must be from its father is undeniable. Moreover, they will pass judgment on themselves in attributing such things to God, if, as they questioned women on the subject of time, so they inquire of the sun concerning its radiance, and of the fountain concerning its issue. They will find that these, though an offspring, always exist with those things from which they are. And if parents, such as these, have in common with their children nature and duration, why, if they suppose God inferior to things that come to be, do they not openly say out their own irreligion? But if they do not dare to say this openly, and the Son is confessed to be, not from without, but a natural offspring from the Father, and that there is nothing which is a restraint to God (for not as man is He, but more than the sun, or rather the God of the sun), it follows that the Word is from Him and is ever co-existent with Him, through whom also the Father caused that all things which were not should be. That then the Son comes not of nothing but is eternal and from the Father, is certain even from the nature of the case; and the question of the heretics to parents exposes their perverseness; for they confess the point of nature, and now have been put to shame on the point of time.

As we said before, we repeat now that the divine generation must not be compared to human nature, nor should the Son be considered a part of God, nor should the generation imply any passion at all. God is not like man, for men beget through passion, having a changeable nature that must wait for certain periods because of its weakness. But this cannot be so with God, for He is not composed of parts. Being impassible and simple, He is Father of the Son impassibly and indivisibly. This 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 the Word and Wisdom is neither a creature nor a part of Him whose Word He is, nor an offspring begotten through passion. Uniting these two titles, Scripture speaks of 'Son' in order to proclaim the natural and true offspring of His essence. On the other hand, so that no one may think of the Offspring in human terms, while signifying His essence it also calls Him Word, Wisdom, and Radiance—to teach us that the generation was impassible, eternal, and worthy of God. What affection, then, or what part of the Father is the Word and the Wisdom and the Radiance? This much can be impressed even on these foolish men. For just as they asked women about God's Son, let them ask men about the Word, and they will find that the word they speak is neither an affection of them nor a part of their mind. But if such is the word of men, who are subject to passion and divisible, why do they speculate about passions and parts in the case of the immaterial and indivisible God? They do this so that under the pretense of reverence they may deny the true and natural generation of the Son. Enough was said above to show that the offspring from God is not an affection, and now it has been shown in particular that the Word is not begotten according to affection. The same can be said of Wisdom. God is not like man, nor must they think of Him in human terms here. For while men are capable of wisdom, God partakes in nothing but is Himself the Father of His own Wisdom, and those who partake of it are given the name of wise. And this Wisdom is not a passion or a part, but an offspring proper to the Father. Therefore He is always Father, nor is the character of Father something added to God, lest He seem changeable. For if it is good that He be Father but He has not always been Father, then good has not always been in Him.

28. As we said above, so now we repeat, that the divine generation must not be compared to the nature of men, nor the Son considered to be part of God, nor the generation to imply any passion whatever; God is not as man; for men beget passibly, having a transitive nature, which waits for periods by reason of its weakness. But with God this cannot be; for He is not composed of parts, but being impassible and simple, He is impassibly and indivisibly Father of the Son. This again is strongly evidenced and proved by divine Scripture. For the Word of God is His Son, and the Son is the Father's Word and Wisdom; and Word and Wisdom is neither creature nor part of Him whose Word He is, nor an offspring passibly begotten. Uniting then the two titles, Scripture speaks 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's Son, 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 speculate they about passions and parts in the instance of the immaterial and indivisible God, that under pretence of reverence they may deny the true and natural generation of the Son? Enough was said above to show that the offspring from God 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 whoever partake are given the name of wise. And this Wisdom too is not a passion, nor a part, but an Offspring proper to the Father. Wherefore He is ever Father, nor is the character of Father adventitious to God, lest He seem alterable; for if it is good that He be Father, but has not ever been Father, then good has not ever been in Him.

They ask: "Look, God was always a Maker, and the power to create isn't something added to Him later. Does it follow, then, that because He is the Maker of all things, His works must also be eternal? And would it be wrong to say of them too that they didn't exist before they were made?" These Arians are foolish. What similarity is there between a Son and a created work that they should compare a father's role with a maker's role? How is it that, given the difference between offspring and work that has been demonstrated, they remain so poorly taught? Let me say again: a work is external to one's nature, but a son is the proper offspring of one's essence (ousia). It follows that a work need not always exist, because the workman makes it when he chooses. But offspring is not subject to will—it is proper to the essence. A man can exist and can be called a Maker even when his works don't yet exist, but he cannot be called or actually be a father unless a son exists. If they ask curiously why God, though He always had the power to create, doesn't always create (though this too is presumptuous madness, for "who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been His counselor?" and how shall "the thing formed say to the potter, 'why did you make me like this?'"), yet not to leave even a weak argument unaddressed, they must be told this: although God always had the power to create, the created things themselves did not have the power to be eternal. For they come from nothing and therefore didn't exist before they were made. But things that didn't exist before they were made—how could they coexist with the ever-existing God? Therefore God, considering what was good for them, made them all when He saw that once they were created, they would be able to endure. And just as, though He was able even from the beginning in the time of Adam, Noah, or Moses to send His own Word, He didn't send Him until the end of the ages (for He saw this was good for all creation), so also He made created things when He willed and as was good for them. But the Son, not being a created work but proper to the Father's offspring, always exists. For since the Father always exists, what is proper to His essence must always exist, and this is His Word and His Wisdom. That creatures don't exist doesn't diminish the Maker, for He has the power to make them when He wills. But for the offspring not to exist eternally with the Father would diminish the perfection of His essence. Therefore His works were made when He willed, through His Word, but the Son is eternally the proper offspring of the Father's essence.

29. But, observe, say they, God was always a Maker, nor is the power of framing adventitious 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's function? 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, or Moses, to send His own Word, yet He sent Him not until the consummation of the ages (for this He saw to be good for the whole creation), so also things originated did He make when He would, and as was good for them. But the Son, not being a work, but proper to the Father's offspring, always is; for, whereas the Father always is, so what is proper to His essence must always be; and this is His Word and His Wisdom. And that creatures should not be in existence, does not disparage the Maker; for He has the power of framing them, when He wills; but for the offspring not to be ever with the Father, is a disparagement of the perfection of His essence. Wherefore His works were framed, when He would, through His Word; but the Son is ever the proper offspring of the Father's essence.

These considerations encourage the faithful and trouble the heretics, since they recognize that their heresy is overthrown by them. Furthermore, their additional question—whether the Unoriginate is one or two—shows how false their views are, how treacherous and full of deception. They do not ask this for the Father's honor, but to dishonor the Word. Accordingly, if anyone, unaware of their cunning, answers that the Unoriginated is one, they immediately pour out their own poison, saying, "Therefore the Son is among originated things," and "We were right to say He did not exist before His generation." In this way they create every kind of disturbance and confusion, as long as they can separate the Son from the Father and count the Maker of all among His works. First, they can be convicted on this charge: while they blame the Nicene bishops for using phrases not found in Scripture—even though these phrases are not harmful but actually undermine their false teaching—they themselves commit the same fault by using words not in Scripture, and those words dishonor the Lord. They know "neither what they say nor whereof they affirm" (1 Timothy 1:7). For example, let them ask the Greeks, who have been their teachers (for it is a word of their invention, not Scripture), and when they have been instructed in its various meanings, then they will discover that they cannot even ask properly about the subject they have taken up. They have led me to learn that "unoriginate" can mean what has not yet come to be but is possible to be, like wood that has not yet become a vessel but is capable of becoming one. Again, it can mean what neither has nor ever can come to be, like a triangle becoming quadrangular or an even number becoming odd. For a triangle neither has nor ever can become quadrangular, nor has an even number ever become, nor can it ever become, odd. Moreover, "unoriginate" can mean what exists but has not come into being from anyone, nor has a father at all. Furthermore, Asterius, the unprincipled sophist and patron of this heresy, has added in his own treatise that what is not made but always exists is "unoriginate." Therefore, when they ask their question, they ought to specify in what sense they are using the word "unoriginate," and then those being questioned would be able to answer appropriately.

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 in Scripture, though these not injurious, but subversive of their irreligion, they themselves went off upon the same fault, that is, using words not in Scripture, 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 unprincipled sophist, 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.

If they are still content merely to ask, "Is the Unoriginate one or two?" they must first be told, as poorly educated people, that many things are such and nothing is such—many things that are capable of origination, and nothing that is not capable, as has already been said. But if they ask according to Asterius's definition, treating as unoriginate "what is not a work but has always existed," then they must be constantly reminded that the Son as well as the Father must in this sense be called unoriginate. For He is neither among originated things nor a work, but has always been with the Father, as has already been shown, despite their many variations designed solely to speak against the Lord, saying "He is from nothing" and "He did not exist before His generation." When, after failing at every turn, they shift to the other meaning of the question—"existing but not generated from anyone 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 unoriginate in this sense does not show that the Son is an originated thing, since it is evident from the above proofs that the Word is such as He who begot Him is. Therefore, if God is unoriginate, His Image is not originated but an Offspring, which is His Word and His Wisdom. For what likeness does the originated have to the unoriginate? (One must not tire of using repetition.) For if they insist that the one is like the other, so that whoever sees the one beholds the other, they are likely to say that the Unoriginate is the image of creatures. The result of this is a confusion of the entire subject, an equating of originated things with the Unoriginate, and a denial of the Unoriginate by measuring Him with the works—all to reduce the Son to their number.

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.

However, I suppose even they will be unwilling to go this far if they follow Asterius the sophist. For he, though zealous in his defense of the Arian heresy and maintaining that the Unoriginate is one, contradicts them by saying that the Wisdom of God is also unoriginate and without beginning. Here is a passage from his work: 'The Blessed Paul did not say 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 coexists with Him unoriginatedly, is something distinct.' And again, soon after: 'However, His eternal power and wisdom, which reason argues to be without beginning and unoriginate, must surely be one.' For though he misunderstood the Apostle's words and thought there were two wisdoms, yet by speaking of a wisdom coexisting with Him, he declares that the Unoriginate is not simply one, but that there is another Unoriginate with Him. For what is coexistent does not coexist with itself, but with another. So if they agree with Asterius, let them never ask again, 'Is the Unoriginate one or two,' or they will have to argue the point with him. If, on the other hand, they differ even from him, let them not rely on his treatise, lest 'biting one another, they be consumed one of another' (Galatians 5:15). So much for their ignorance; but who can adequately describe their crafty character? Who would not justly hate them while they are possessed by such madness? For when they were no longer allowed to say 'out of nothing' and 'He was not before His generation,' they seized upon this word 'unoriginate' so 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 such phrases imply originated things and creatures.

32. However, I suppose even they will be unwilling to proceed to such lengths, if they follow Asterius the sophist. For he, earnest as he is in his advocacy of the Arian heresy, and maintaining that the Unoriginate is one, runs 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 Him unoriginatedly, is something besides.' And again, soon after: 'However, His eternal power and wisdom, which truth argues to be without beginning and unoriginate; this must surely be one.' For though, misunderstanding the Apostle's words, he considered that there were two wisdoms; yet, by speaking still of a wisdom coexistent with Him, he declares that the Unoriginate is not simply one, but that there is another Unoriginate with Him. For what is coexistent, coexists not with itself, but with another. If then they agree with Asterius, let them never ask again, 'Is the Unoriginate one or two,' or they will have to contest the point with him; if, on the other hand, they differ even from him, let them not rely upon his treatise, lest, 'biting one another, they be consumed one of another Galatians 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 a madness? For when they were no longer allowed to say 'out of nothing' and 'He was not before His generation,' they hit upon this word 'unoriginate,' that, by saying among the simple that the Son was 'originate,' they might imply the very same phrases 'out of nothing,' and 'He once was not;' for in such phrases things originated and creatures are implied.

If they have confidence in their own positions, they should stick to them and not keep changing so inconsistently. But they won't, because they think they can easily succeed if they just hide their heresy behind the word 'unoriginate.' Yet in the end, this term is not used in contrast with the Son, no matter how much they protest, but in contrast with originated things. The same is true of words like 'Almighty' and 'Lord of the Powers.' For if we say that the Father has power and authority over all things through the Word, and the Son rules the Father's kingdom and has power over all things as His Word and as the Image of the Father, it is quite clear that the Son is not counted among that 'all,' nor is God called Almighty and Lord with reference to Him, but to those things which come into being through the Son, and over which He exercises power and authority through the Word. Therefore 'Unoriginate' is defined not by contrast to the Son, but to the things which come into being through the Son. And rightly so, since God is not like originated things, but is their Creator and Framer through the Son. And just as the word 'Unoriginate' is defined in relation to originated things, so the word 'Father' indicates the Son. When someone calls God Maker and Framer and Unoriginate, he considers and understands created and made things. But when someone calls God Father, he thereby conceives and contemplates the Son. From this one might marvel at the stubbornness added to their irreligion, for although the term 'unoriginate' has the good meaning mentioned above and can be used religiously, they in their heresy bring it out to dishonor the Son, not having read that whoever honors the Son honors the Father, and whoever dishonors the Son dishonors the Father. If they had any concern at all for reverent speech and the honor due to the Father, they ought rather—and this would be 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 only as Maker and Framer, supposing that from this they can imply that the Word is a work according to their own pleasure. But whoever calls God Father signifies Him from the Son, being well aware that if there is a Son, necessarily through that Son all originated things were created. When they call Him Unoriginate, they name Him only from His works and know the Son no more than the Greeks do. But whoever 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.

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 color 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 the Unoriginate is specified not by contrast to the Son, but to the things which through the Son come to be. And excellently: since God is not as things originated, but is their Creator and Framer through the Son. And as the word 'Unoriginate' is specified relatively to things originated, so the word 'Father' is indicative of the Son. And he who names God Maker and Framer and 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 signify that the Word is a work after their own pleasure. But that he who calls God Father, signifies Him from the Son being well aware that if there be a Son, of necessity through that Son all things originate were created. And they, when they call Him Unoriginate, name Him only from His works, and know not the Son any more than the Greeks; but he who calls God Father, names Him from the Word; and knowing the Word, he acknowledges Him to be Framer of all, and understands that through Him all things have been made.

Therefore it is more reverent and more precise to identify God from the Son and call Him Father, than to name Him from His works alone and call Him Unoriginate. For the latter title, as I have said, does nothing more than signify all the works, both individually and collectively, that have come into being by God's will through the Word; but the title Father has its meaning and significance only from the Son. And just as the Word surpasses created things, so calling God Father surpasses calling Him Unoriginate by that much and more. For the latter term is unscriptural and questionable, because it has multiple meanings; so when someone is asked about it, his mind is pulled in many different directions. But the word Father is simple and scriptural and more accurate, and refers only to the Son. "Unoriginate" is a word of the Greeks, who do not know the Son; but "Father" has been acknowledged and revealed by our Lord. For He, knowing whose Son He was, said, "I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me," and "He who has seen Me has seen the Father," and "I and the Father are One." But nowhere is He found calling the Father Unoriginate. Moreover, when He teaches us to pray, He does not say, "When you pray, say, O God Unoriginate," but rather, "When you pray, say, Our Father, who art in heaven." And He willed that the summary of our faith should have the same emphasis, commanding us to be baptized not in the name of Unoriginate and originate, nor in the name of Creator and creature, but into the Name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. For with this initiation we too, though numbered among created works, are made sons, and by using the name of the Father, we acknowledge from that name the Word also in the Father Himself. So their argument about the term "Unoriginate" is pointless, as is now proven, and nothing more than an illusion.

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 the Word; but the title Father has its significance and its bearing only from the Son. And, whereas the Word surpasses things originated, by so much and more 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 the Summary 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.

Regarding their question about whether the Word is alterable, it is unnecessary to examine it. It is enough simply to write down what they say, and this will show how daringly irreligious it is. Their frivolous approach appears from the following questions: "Does He have free will, or does He not? Is He good by choice according to free will, and can He, if He wills, alter, being of an alterable physis? Or, like wood or stone, does He lack the freedom of choice to be moved and incline in different directions?" It is consistent with their heresy to speak and think this way. After all, once they have constructed for themselves a God out of nothing and a created Son, they naturally adopt such language, since it suits a creature. However, when in their debates with Church members they hear from them about the real and only Word of the Father, and yet dare to speak this way about Him, does not their doctrine become the most detestable possible? Is it not enough to disturb anyone upon merely hearing it, even if unable to reply, and to make him cover his ears in astonishment at the novelty of what he hears them say—which even to mention is blasphemy? For if the Word is alterable and changing, where will He remain, and what will be the end of His development? How can the alterable possibly be like the Unalterable? How could one who has seen the alterable be considered to have seen the Unalterable? At what state must He arrive for us to be able to see the Father in Him? For clearly we will not be able to see the Father in the Son at all times, because the Son is always altering and is of a changing physis. For the Father is unalterable and unchangeable, and is always in the same state and the same. But if, as they claim, the Son is alterable and not always the same, but of an ever-changing physis, how can such a one be the Father's Image, not having the likeness of His unalterableness? How can He be truly in the Father if His purpose is unstable? Indeed, perhaps, being alterable and advancing daily, He is not yet perfect. But away with such madness of the Arians, and let the truth shine out and show that they are foolish. For must not He who is equal to God be perfect? And must not He who is one with the Father, and His Son proper to His ousia, be unalterable? And since the Father's ousia is unalterable, the proper Offspring from it must also be unalterable. And if they slanderously attribute alteration to the Word, let them realize how much danger their own reasoning is in. For from the fruit the tree is known. This is why the one who has seen the Son has seen the Father, and why knowledge of the Son is knowledge of the Father.

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 He free will, or has He not? Is He good from choice according to free will, and can He, if He will, alter, being of an alterable nature? Or, as wood or stone, has He not His choice free to be moved and incline hither and 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 adopt such terms, as being suitable to a creature. However, when in their controversies with Churchmen they hear from them of the real and only Word of the Father, and yet venture thus to speak of Him, does not their doctrine then become the most loathsome that can be found? Is it not enough to distract a man on mere hearing, though unable to reply, and to make him stop his ears, from astonishment at the novelty of what he hears them say, which even to mention is to blaspheme? For if the Word be alterable and changing, where will He stay, and what will be the end of His development? How shall the alterable possibly be like the Unalterable? How should he who has seen the alterable, be considered to have seen the Unalterable? At what state must He arrive, for us to be able to behold in Him the Father? For it is plain 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 truth shine 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 slanderously impute alteration to the Word, let them learn how much their own reason is in peril; for from the fruit is the tree known. For this is why he who has seen the Son has seen the Father; and why the knowledge of the Son is knowledge of the Father.

Therefore the Image of the unalterable God must be unchangeable, for "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever" (Hebrews 13:8). And David says of Him in the Psalm, "You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like a robe You will roll them up, and they will be changed, but You are the same, and Your years will not fail." And the Lord Himself says of Himself through the Prophet, "See now that I, even I am He," and "I do not change." It could be argued that what is expressed here refers to the Father; yet it is also appropriate for the Son to say this, especially because, when He became man, He demonstrates His own identity and unchangeableness to those who assume that because of the flesh He has been altered and become different from what He was. More trustworthy are the saints—or rather the Lord—than the perversity of the irreligious. For Scripture, as in the passage from the Psalms quoted above, indicates by the terms "heaven and earth" that the physis of all things that are originated and created is alterable and changeable, yet it excludes the Son from these things, thereby showing us that He is in no way an originated being. Indeed, it teaches that He changes everything else while He Himself is not changed, saying, "You are the same, and Your years will not fail" (Hebrews 1:12). And rightly so, for originated things, being from nothing and not existing before they came to be—since they truly come into being after not being—have a changeable nature. But the Son, being from the Father and proper to His ousia, is unchangeable and unalterable just as the Father Himself is. For it would be sinful to say that from that ousia which is unalterable there was begotten an alterable word and a changeable wisdom. For how can He still be the Word if He is alterable? Or how can that be Wisdom which is changeable? Unless perhaps, as an accident in ousia, they would have it—meaning that, as in any particular ousia a certain grace and habit of virtue exists accidentally, which is called Word and Son and Wisdom, and can be removed from it or added to it. For they have often expressed this view, but it is not the faith of Christians, since it does not declare that He is truly Word and Son of God, or that the wisdom in question is true Wisdom. For what alters and changes, and has no stability in one and the same condition—how can that be true? Yet the Lord says, "I am the Truth" (John 14:6). So if the Lord Himself speaks this way about Himself and declares His unalterableness, and the Saints have learned and testify to this—indeed, even our understanding of God acknowledges it as religiously proper—where did these irreligious men derive this novelty? They vomited it forth from their hearts as from a seat of corruption.

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 the Psalm 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, in truth, they come to be after not being, have a nature which is changeable; but the Son, being from the Father, and proper to His essence, is unchangeable and unalterable as the Father Himself. For it were sin to say that from that essence which is unalterable was begotten an alterable word and a changeable wisdom. For how is He longer the Word, if He be alterable? Or can that be Wisdom which is changeable? Unless perhaps, as accident in essence, so they would have it, viz. as in any particular essence, a certain grace and habit of virtue exists accidentally, which is called Word and Son and Wisdom, and admits of being taken from it and added to it. For they have often expressed this sentiment, but it is not the faith of Christians; as not declaring that He is truly Word and Son of God, or that the wisdom intended is true Wisdom. For what alters and changes, and has no stay in one and the same condition, how can that be true? Whereas the Lord says, 'I am the Truth 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.

But since they cite the divine Scriptures and force a misinterpretation on them according to their own private understanding, it becomes necessary to answer them just enough to defend these passages and to show that they have an orthodox meaning and that our opponents are wrong. They say that the Apostle 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 earth,' and David says, 'Wherefore God even Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness above Your fellows.' Then they argue, as if it were clever: 'If He was exalted and received grace because of a "wherefore," and was anointed because of a "wherefore," He received a reward for His conduct; but having acted from deliberate choice, He is completely of a changeable nature.' This is what Eusebius and Arius have dared to say and even to write, while their followers do not hesitate to talk about it openly in the marketplace, not seeing how insane an argument they are using. For if He received what He had as a reward for His conduct, and would not have had it unless He had needed it and had His works to prove it, then having gained it through virtue and advancement, He would rightly have been called Son and God 'therefore,' without being truly Son. For what comes from another by physis is a real offspring, as Isaac was to Abraham, and Joseph to Jacob, and the radiance to the sun; but those called sons through virtue and grace have only grace by acquisition instead of physis, and are something other than the gift itself—like the men who have received the Spirit by participation, about whom Scripture says, 'I begot and exalted children, and they rebelled against Me.' And of course, since they were not sons by physis, when they changed, the Spirit was taken away and they were disinherited; and again when they repent, that God who gave them grace at the beginning will receive them, and give light, and call them sons again.

37. But since they allege the divine oracles and force on them a misinterpretation, 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 an orthodox sense, and that our opponents are in error. They say then, that the Apostle 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 earth Philippians 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 was anointed, He received a reward of His purpose; but having acted from purpose, He is altogether of an alterable nature.' This is what Eusebius and Arius have dared to say, nay to write; while their partizans do not shrink from conversing about it in full market-place, not seeing how mad an argument they 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 virtue and promotion, with reason had He 'therefore' been called Son and God, without being very Son. For what is from another by nature, is a real offspring, as Isaac was to Abraham, and Joseph to Jacob, and the radiance to the sun; but the so called sons from virtue and grace, have but in place of nature a grace by acquisition, and are something else besides 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.

If they say this about the Savior as well, it follows that He is neither truly God nor truly Son, nor like the Father, nor in any way has God as the Father of His being according to essence. Instead, He would have God only through the grace given to Him, and a Creator of His being according to essence, just like everyone else. And being such, as they claim, it will be clear that He did not have the name 'Son' from the beginning, if it was the reward for works done and for that very advancement which He made when He became man and took the form of a servant. Rather, it was only 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.' What then existed before this, if He was exalted then, and began to be worshiped then, and was called Son then, when He became man? For it seems He did not promote the flesh at all, but rather was Himself promoted through it, if, according to their twisted view, He was exalted and called Son when He became man. What then existed before this? We must press the question on them again, to make clear what their irreligious doctrine leads to. For if the Lord is God, Son, Word, but was not all these before He became man, then either He was something else besides these and later became a partaker of them because of His virtue, as we have said, or they must adopt the alternative (may it fall back on their own heads!) that He did not exist before that time and is entirely human by nature and nothing more. But this is not a belief of the Church, but of the Samosatene and of the present-day Jews. Why then, if they think like Jews, are they not circumcised with them too, instead of pretending to be Christians while being enemies of Christianity? For if He did not exist, or existed but was later promoted, how were all things made by Him, or how did the Father delight in Him if He was not perfect? And how, if He was only now promoted, did He rejoice before in the presence of the Father? And if He received His worship after dying, how did Abraham worship Him in the tent, and Moses in the bush? And as Daniel saw, myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands were ministering to Him. And if, as they say, He received His promotion now, how did the Son Himself mention that glory of His before and above the world, when He said, 'Glorify Me, O Father, with the glory which I had with You before the world was'? If, as they say, He was exalted then, 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 always to be worshiped, it follows that He did not receive promotion from His descent, but rather He Himself promoted the things that needed promotion. And if He descended to bring about their promotion, therefore He did not receive as a reward the name of the Son and God, but rather He Himself has made us sons of the Father and deified men by becoming man Himself.

38. But if they say this of the Saviour also, it follows that He is neither very God nor very Son, nor like the Father, nor in any wise has God for a Father of His being according to essence, but of the mere grace given to Him, and for a Creator of His being according to essence, after the similitude of all others. And being such, as they maintain, it will be manifest further that He had not the name 'Son' from the first, if so be it was the prize of works done and of that very same advance which He made when He became man, and took the form of the servant; but then, when, after becoming ' obedient unto death,' He was, as the text says, 'highly exalted,' and received that 'Name' as a grace, 'that in the Name of Jesus every knee should bow 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 glory before and above the world, when He said, 'Glorify Thou Me, O Father, with the glory 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.

Therefore, He was not a man who then became God. Rather, He was God who then became man, and He did this to deify us. For if He was called Son and God only when He became man, while before He became man God had already called the ancient people sons and made Moses a god of Pharaoh (and Scripture says of many, "God stands in the congregation of gods"), then it is clear that He is called Son and God later than they were. How then are all things through Him, and how is 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 participants do not partake of the Word? This opinion is not true; it is a scheme of our present Judaizers. For how in that case could anyone at all know God as their Father? For adoption could not exist apart from the real Son, who says, "No one knows the Father, except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him." And how can there be deifying apart from the Word and before Him? Yet He says to their brothers the Jews, "If He called them gods, to whom the Word of God came." And if all who are called sons and gods, whether on earth or in heaven, were adopted and deified through the Word, and the Son Himself is the Word, it is plain that all of them exist through Him, and He Himself is before all. Or rather, He Himself alone is truly Son, and He alone is truly God from the true God, not receiving these prerogatives as a reward for His virtue, nor being something other besides them, but being all these by nature and according to ousia. For He is Offspring of the Father's ousia, so that one cannot doubt that, after the resemblance of the unalterable Father, the Word also is unalterable.

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 God later than they. How then are all things through Him, and He before all? Or how is He ' first-born of the whole creation,' if He has others before Him who are called sons and gods? And how is it that those first partakers do not partake of the Word? This opinion is not true; it is a device of our present Judaizers. For how in that case can any at all know God as their Father? For adoption there could not be apart from the real Son, who says, 'No one knows the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him Matthew 11:27.' And how can there be deifying apart from the Word and before Him? Yet, says He to their brethren the Jews, '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 adopted and deified through the Word, and the Son Himself is the Word, it is plain that through Him are they all, and He Himself before all, or rather He Himself only is very Son, and He alone is very God from the very God, not receiving these prerogatives as a reward for His virtue, nor being another beside them, but being all these by nature and according to essence. For He is Offspring of the Father's essence, so that one cannot doubt that after the resemblance of the unalterable Father, the Word also is unalterable.

Up to this point, we have challenged their irrational ideas with the true understanding implied in the word "Son," as the Lord Himself has given it to us. But it will be good next to quote the divine scriptures, so that the unchangeableness of the Son and His unchangeable nature, which is the Father's, as well as their error, may be proven even more fully. The Apostle, then, writing to the Philippians, says, "Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who, being in the form of God, thought it not a prize to be equal with God; but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men. And, being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient to death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also highly exalted Him, and gave Him a Name which is above every name; that in the Name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Could anything be clearer and more explicit than this? He was not promoted from a lower state; rather, existing as God, He took the form of a servant, and in taking it, He was not promoted but humbled Himself. Where then is there any reward of virtue here, or what advancement and promotion exists 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 much is clear: 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, and is not such as the Arians think Him. For though the Word 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 what He already had? And what grace did He receive who is the Giver of grace? Or how did He receive that Name for worship, when He is always worshipped by His Name? Indeed, even before He became man, the sacred writers 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 the Lord our God." And while He was worshipped by the Patriarchs, concerning the Angels it is written, "Let all the Angels of God worship Him."

40. Hitherto we have met their irrational conceits with the true conceptions implied in the Word 'Son,' as the Lord Himself has given us. But it will be well next to cite the divine oracles, that the unalterableness of the Son and His unchangeable nature, which is the Father's, as well as their perverseness, may be still more fully proved. The Apostle then, writing to the Philippians, says, 'Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who, being in the form of God, thought it not a prize to be equal with God; but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men. And, being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient to death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also highly exalted Him, and gave Him a Name which is above every name; that in the Name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father Philippians 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 the Arians think Him. For though the Word has descended in order to be exalted, and so it is written, yet what need was there that He should humble Himself, as if to seek that which He had already? And what grace did He receive who is the Giver of grace? Or how did He receive that Name for worship, who is always worshipped by His Name? Nay, certainly before He became man, the sacred writers invoke Him, 'Save me, O God, for Your Name's sake;'and again, 'Some put their trust in chariots, and some in horses, but we will remember the Name of the Lord our God.' And while He was worshipped by the Patriarchs, concerning the Angels it is written, 'Let all the Angels of God worship Him Hebrews 1:6.'

If, as David says in Psalm 71, "His Name remains before the sun, and before the moon, from one generation to another," how did He receive what He always had, even before He now received it? Or how is He exalted, when before His exaltation He was already the Most High? Or how did He receive the right to be worshipped, when before He now received it He was always worshipped? This is not a confusing riddle but a divine mystery. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," but for our sake the Word was later made flesh. The term "highly exalted" does not mean that the essence of the Word was exalted, for He was always and is "equal to God," but the exaltation refers to the manhood. This is not said before the Word became flesh, so that it might be clear that "humbled" and "exalted" are spoken of His human nature. For wherever there is a humble state, there can also be exaltation; and if "humbled" is written because of His taking on flesh, it is clear that "highly exalted" is also said because of it. For this is what human nature needed, because of the humble state of the flesh and of death. Since the Word, being the Image of the Father and immortal, took the form of a servant and as man underwent death in His flesh for us, so that He might offer Himself for us through death to the Father, therefore also as man He is said because of us and for us to be highly exalted, so that just as by His death we all died in Christ, so again in Christ Himself we might be highly exalted, being raised from the dead and ascending into heaven, "where the forerunner Jesus has entered for us, not into the figures of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us." But if Christ has now entered into heaven itself for us, though He was even before and always Lord and Maker of the heavens, this present exaltation is therefore written for us. And just as He Himself, who sanctifies all, says also that He sanctifies Himself to the Father for our sake—not that the Word may become holy, but that He Himself may in Himself sanctify all of us—in the same way we must understand 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 say, "Lift up your gates, O you rulers, and be lifted up, you everlasting doors, and the King of Glory shall come in." For here also the gates were not shut against Him, since He is Lord and Maker of all, but this too is written because of us, to whom the door of paradise was shut. And therefore in human terms, 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 divine terms on the other hand it is said of Him, since the Word was God, that He is the "Lord" and the "King of Glory." The Spirit foretold this exaltation of ours in Psalm 89, saying, "And in Your righteousness shall they be exalted, for You are the glory of their strength." And if the Son is Righteousness, then He is not exalted as being Himself in need, but we are exalted in that Righteousness, which is He.

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 being worshipped, 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 was made flesh.' And the term in question, 'highly exalted,' does not signify that the essence of the Word was exalted, for He was ever and is 'equal to God Philippians 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 the Word, being the Image of the Father and immortal, took the form of the servant, and as man underwent for us death in His flesh, that thereby He might offer Himself for us through death to the Father; therefore also, as man, He is said because of us and for us to be highly exalted, that as by His death we all died in Christ, so again in the Christ Himself we might be highly exalted, being raised from the dead, and ascending into heaven, 'whither the forerunner Jesus is for us entered, not into the figures of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.' But if now for us the Christ is entered into heaven itself, though He was even before and always Lord and Framer of the heavens, for us therefore is that present exaltation written. And as He Himself, who sanctifies all, says also that He sanctifies Himself to the Father for our sakes, not that the Word may become holy, but that He Himself may in Himself sanctify all of us, in like manner we must take the present phrase, 'He highly exalted Him,' not that He Himself should be exalted, for He is the highest, but that He may become righteousness for us, 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 of Glory shall come in.' For here also not on Him were shut the gates, as being Lord and Maker of all, but because of us is this too written, to whom the door of paradise was shut. And therefore in a human relation, because of the flesh which He bore, it is said of Him, 'Lift up your gates,' and 'shall come in,' as if a man were entering; but in a divine relation on the other hand it is said of Him, since 'the Word was God,' that He is the 'Lord' and the 'King of Glory.' Such our exaltation the Spirit foreannounced in the eighty-ninth Psalm, saying, 'And in 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.

The phrase "gave Him" is not written because of the Word Himself. Even before He became man, He was worshipped—as we have already said—by the Angels and all creation, precisely because He is proper to the Father. Rather, this is written about Him because of us and for us. Just as Christ died and was exalted as man, so as man He is said to receive what He always had as God, so that even such a gift of grace might reach us. The Word was not diminished by receiving a body so that He would need to receive grace. Instead, He deified what He put on and, more than that, graciously gave it to the human race. Just as He was always worshipped as the Word and as existing in the form of God, so being what He always was—though He became man and is called Jesus—He nonetheless has all creation under His feet. They bend their knees to Him in this Name and confess that the Word's becoming flesh and undergoing death in flesh has not happened against the glory of His Godhead, but rather to the glory of God the Father. It is the Father's glory that man, who was made and then lost, should be found again, and when dead should be made alive and become God's temple. The powers in heaven—both Angels and Archangels—have always worshipped the Lord, and they worship Him now in the Name of Jesus. This is our grace and high exaltation: that even when He became man, the Son of God is worshipped, and the heavenly powers will not be shocked to see all of us, who are of one body with Him, brought into their realms. This would not have happened unless He who existed in the form of God had taken on a servant's form and humbled Himself, yielding His body to death.

42. And so too the words 'gave Him' are not written because of the Word Himself; for even before He became man He was worshipped, as we have said, by the Angels and the whole creation in virtue of being proper to the Father; but because of us and for us this too is written of Him. For as Christ died and was exalted as man, so, as man, is He said to take what, as God, He ever had, that even such a grant of grace might reach to us. For the Word was not impaired in receiving a body, that He should seek to receive a grace, but rather He deified that which He put on, and more than that, 'gave' it graciously to the race of man. For as He was ever worshipped as being the Word and existing in the form of God, so being what He ever was, though become man and called Jesus, He none the less has the whole creation under foot, and bending their knees to Him in this Name, and confessing that the Word's becoming flesh, and undergoing death in flesh, has not happened against the glory of His Godhead, but 'to the glory of God the Father.' For it is the Father's glory that man, made and then lost, should be found again; and, when dead, that he should be made alive, and should become God's temple. For whereas the powers in heaven, both Angels and Archangels, were ever worshipping the Lord, as they are now worshipping Him in the Name of Jesus, this is our grace and high exaltation, that even when He became man, the Son of God is worshipped, and the heavenly powers will not be astonished at seeing all of us, who are of one body with Him, 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.

Look at what people considered the foolishness of God because of the Cross—it has become the most honored of all things. For our resurrection is stored up in it, and no longer Israel alone, but from now on all the nations, as the Prophet foretold, leave their idols and acknowledge the true God, the Father of the Christ. And the deception of demons has been destroyed, and He alone who is truly God is worshiped in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the fact that the Lord, even when He came in a human body and was called Jesus, was worshiped and believed to be God's Son, and that through Him the Father was known, shows, as has been said, that the Word, considered as the Word, did not receive this great grace, but rather we did. For because of our relationship to His Body, we too have become God's temple, and as a result are made God's sons, so that even in us the Lord is now worshiped, and observers report, as the Apostle says, that God is truly in them. As John also says in the Gospel, "As many as received Him, to them gave He power to become children of God," and in his Epistle he writes, "By this we know that He abides in us by His Spirit which He has given us." And this too is evidence of His goodness toward us: that while we were exalted because the Highest Lord is in us, and grace was given to Him on our account because the Lord who supplies the grace became a man like us, He on the other hand, the Savior, humbled Himself by taking our body of humiliation and took a servant's form, putting on that flesh which was enslaved to sin. And He gained nothing from us for His own advancement, for the Word of God lacks nothing and is complete; but rather we were advanced by Him, for He is the Light that enlightens every person coming into the world. And the Arians stress the word "wherefore" in vain because Paul said, "Wherefore God has highly exalted Him." For in saying this he did not mean any reward for virtue or advancement through progress, but rather the reason why the exaltation was given to us. And what is this reason except that He who existed in the form of God, the Son of a noble Father, humbled Himself and became a servant in our place and for our sake? For if the Lord had not become man, we would not have been redeemed from sins, not raised from the dead, but would have remained dead under the earth; not exalted into heaven, but lying in Hades. Therefore, because of us and for our sake are the words "highly exalted" and "given" written.

43. Behold then what men considered the foolishness of God because of the Cross, has become of all things most honoured. For our resurrection is stored up in it; and no longer Israel alone, but henceforth all the nations, as the Prophet has foretold, leave their idols and acknowledge the true God, the Father of the Christ. And the illusion of demons has come to nought, and He only who is really God is worshipped in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the fact that the Lord, even when come in human body and called Jesus, was worshipped and believed to be God's Son, and that through Him the Father was known, shows, as has been said, that not the Word, considered as the Word, received this so great grace, but we. For because of our relationship to His Body we too have become God's temple, and in consequence are made God's sons, so that even in us the Lord is now worshipped, and beholders report, as the Apostle says, that God is in them of a truth. 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 us 1 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 grace was given to Him, because that the Lord who supplies the grace has become a man like us, He on the other hand, the Saviour, humbled Himself in taking 'our body of humiliation 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.'

Here is my interpretation of what this passage says. I believe it makes good ecclesiastical sense. However, there is another way to look at it that gives the same basic meaning from a different angle. Although the passage does not speak of the exaltation of the Word Himself as Word (for He is, as just mentioned, most high and like His Father), it does indicate His resurrection from the dead by reason of His becoming man. After saying "He has humbled Himself even unto death," Paul immediately added "Wherefore He has highly exalted Him." He wanted to show that although as man He is said to have died, yet as being Life itself, He was exalted in 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. This is also the reason why, according to this interpretation, Paul used the conjunction "Wherefore"—not as a reward for virtue or advancement, but to indicate the cause why the resurrection took place and why, while all other people from Adam down to this time have died and remained dead, He alone rose intact from the dead. The cause is this, which He Himself has already taught us: that being God, He became man. For all other people, 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," and this Man is said to be from heaven and heavenly because the Word descended from heaven. Therefore He was not held under death. For though He humbled Himself, yielding His own Body to come to death (in that it was capable of death), yet He was highly exalted from earth because He was God's Son in a body. Accordingly, what is said here—"Wherefore God also has highly exalted Him"—corresponds 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 held by it." For just 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 held by death." For man it was not possible to accomplish this, because death belongs to man. Therefore the Word, being God, became flesh so that, being put to death in the flesh, He might give life to all people by His own power.

44. This then I consider the sense of this passage, and that, a very ecclesiastical sense. 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 humbled Himself 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 resurrection took place; and why, while all other men from Adam down to this time have died and remained dead, He only rose in integrity from the dead. The cause is this, which He Himself has already taught us, that, being God, He has become man. For all other men, being merely born of Adam, died, and death reigned over them; but He, the Second Man, is from heaven, for 'the Word was made flesh John 1:14,' and this Man is said to be from heaven and heavenly, because the Word descended from heaven; wherefore He was not held under death. For though He humbled Himself, yielding His own Body to come unto death, in that it was capable of death, yet He was highly exalted from earth, because He was God's Son 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, being put to death in the flesh, He might quicken all men by His own power.

But since He Himself is said to be 'exalted,' and God 'gave' Him, and the heretics think this indicates a defect or something that happened to the ousia of the Word, we need to explain how these words are used. He is said to be exalted from the lower parts of the earth because death is attributed even to Him. Both events belong to Him, since it was His Body, and no one else's, that was exalted from the dead and taken up into heaven. And again, since the Body is His, and the Word is not separate from it, it is natural that when the Body was exalted, He, as man, should be spoken of as exalted because of the body. If He did not become man, then this should not be said of Him. But if the Word became flesh, then necessarily the resurrection and exaltation, as in the case of a man, must be attributed to Him, so that the death attributed to Him may be a redemption of human sin and an abolition of death, and so that the resurrection and exaltation may remain secure for us because of Him. In both respects Scripture says of Him, 'God has highly exalted Him,' and 'God has given to Him.' This also shows that it is not the Father who became flesh, but His Word, who has become man and receives from the Father in the manner of humans, and is exalted by Him, as has been said. And it is clear, and no one would dispute it, that what the Father gives, He gives through the Son. And it is marvelous and truly overwhelming: for the grace which the Son gives from the Father, that same grace the Son Himself is said to receive; and the exaltation which the Son bestows from the Father, with that same exaltation 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, in the manner of humans, to receive what proceeds from Him, because His Body is none other than His and is naturally capable of receiving grace, as has been said. For He received it to the extent that His human nature was exalted, which exaltation was its being deified. But such an exaltation the Word Himself always had according to the Father's Godhead and perfection, which was His.

45. But since He Himself is said to be 'exalted,' and God 'gave' Him, and the heretics think this a defect or affection in the essence of the Word, it becomes necessary 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 the resurrection and exaltation, as in the case of a man, must be ascribed to Him, that the death which is ascribed to Him may be a redemption of the sin of men and an abolition of death, and that the resurrection and exaltation may for His sake remain secure for us. In both respects he 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 natural recipient of grace, as has been said. For He received it as far as His man's nature was exalted; which exaltation was its being deified. But such an exaltation the Word Himself always had according to the Father's Godhead and perfection, which was His.

This explanation of the Apostle's words refutes the irreligious men. What the sacred poet says also admits the same orthodox interpretation, which they misinterpret but which in the Psalmist is clearly religious. He says, '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.' Look, you Arians, and recognize even from this the truth. The Singer speaks of us all as 'fellows' or 'partakers' of the Lord. But if He were one of the things that came from nothing and one of the things that had a beginning, He Himself would have been one of those who partake. However, since the psalmist 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 except that He is distinct from created things, and He alone is the Father's true Word, Radiance, and Wisdom, which all created things partake of, being sanctified by Him in the Spirit? Therefore He is here 'anointed,' not so that He may become God, for He was God even before, nor so that He may become King, for He had the Kingdom eternally, existing as God's Image, as the sacred Scripture shows. Rather this is written for our sake, as stated before. For the Israelite kings, when they were anointed, became kings at that point, not having been kings before, like David, like Hezekiah, like Josiah, and the rest. But the Saviour, in contrast, being God and always ruling in the Father's Kingdom, and being Himself the one who supplies the Holy Spirit, is nevertheless said here to be anointed. This is so 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. The Lord Himself has indicated this by His own mouth in the Gospel according to John: 'I have sent them into the world, and for their sakes do I sanctify Myself, that they may be sanctified in the truth.' In saying this He has shown that He is not the sanctified one, but the Sanctifier. For He is not sanctified by another, but sanctifies Himself, so that we may be sanctified in the truth. He who sanctifies Himself is Lord of sanctification. How then does this happen? What does He mean except this: 'I, being the Father's Word, give to Myself, when becoming man, the Spirit. And I Myself, having become man, sanctify Myself in Him, so that from now on in Me, who am Truth (for Your Word is Truth), all may be sanctified.'

46. Such an explanation of the Apostle's words confutes the irreligious men; and what the sacred poet says admits also the same orthodox sense, which they misinterpret, but which in the Psalmist is manifestly religious. He says then, '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's Image, 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 the Gospel according to John, 'I have sent them into the world, and for their sakes do I sanctify Myself, that they may be sanctified in the truth.' 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.'

If He sanctifies Himself for our sake, and does this when He has become man, it is very clear that the Spirit's descent on Him in Jordan was a descent upon us, because He was bearing our body. This did not happen to promote the Word, but again for our sanctification, so that we might share His anointing, and it might be said of us, "Do you not know that you are God's temple, and the Spirit of God dwells in you?" 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 were the ones who by Him were made recipients of It. Moreover, for this reason He was not anointed with oil as Aaron or David or the rest were, but in another way above all His fellows, "with the oil of gladness," which He Himself interprets to be the Spirit, saying through the Prophet, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because the Lord has anointed Me," as also the Apostle has said, "How God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit." When then were these things spoken of Him except when He came in the flesh and was baptized in Jordan, and the Spirit descended on Him? And indeed the Lord Himself said, "The Spirit shall take of Mine," and "I will send Him," and to His disciples, "Receive the Holy Spirit." And yet, He who, as the Word and Radiance of the Father, gives to others, is now 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 anointing and the seal, John saying, "And you have an anointing from the Holy 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 our Lord's case? For if He was not God, and then had become God, if not being King He was promoted to the Kingdom, your reasoning would have had some slight plausibility. But if He is God and the throne of His kingdom is everlasting, in what way could God advance? Or what was lacking to Him who was sitting on His Father's throne? And if, as the Lord Himself has said, the Spirit is His, and takes from His, and He sends It, it is not the Word, considered as the Word and Wisdom, who is anointed with the Spirit which He Himself gives, but the flesh assumed by Him that is anointed in Him and by Him, so that the sanctification coming to the Lord as man may come to all men from Him. For the Spirit does not speak of Itself, He says, but the Word is He who gives It to the worthy. For this is like the passage considered above; for just as the Apostle has written, "Who existing in the 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 a hundred pounds weight," and the others "the spices which they had prepared" for the burial of the Lord's body.

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 the Spirit 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 in Jordan, and the Spirit descended on Him? And indeed the Lord Himself said, 'The Spirit shall take of Mine;' and 'I will send Him;' and to His disciples, 'Receive the Holy Ghost.' And notwithstanding, He who, as the Word and Radiance of the Father, gives to others, now is said to be sanctified, because now He has become man, and the Body that is sanctified is His. From Him then we have begun to receive the unction and the seal, John saying, 'And you have an unction from the Holy 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 our Lord's instance? For if He was not God, and then had become God, if not being King He was preferred to the Kingdom, your reasoning would have had some faint plausibility. But if He is God and the throne of His kingdom is everlasting, in what way could God advance? Or what was there wanting to Him who was sitting on His Father's throne? And if, as the Lord Himself has said, the Spirit is His, and takes of His, and He sends It, it is not the Word, considered as the Word and Wisdom, who is anointed with the Spirit which He Himself gives, but the flesh assumed by Him which is anointed in Him and by Him; 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, 'Who existing in form of God thought it not a prize to be equal with God, but emptied Himself, and took a servant's form,' so David celebrates the Lord, as the everlasting God and King, but sent to us and assuming our 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 the burial of the Lord's body.

What advancement, then, was it for the Immortal to take on mortality? Or what promotion is it for the Everlasting to put on what is temporal? What reward can be great for the Everlasting God and King who is in the bosom of the Father? Don't you see that this too was done and written for our sake and on our behalf—so that the Lord, by becoming human, might make us who are mortal and temporal immortal and bring us into the everlasting kingdom of heaven? Aren't you ashamed, speaking lies against the divine Scriptures? For when our Lord Jesus Christ came among us, we were the ones who were promoted, being rescued from sin. But He remains the same. He did not change when He became human (to repeat what I have said). Rather, as it is written, 'The Word of God abides forever.' Just as, before He became human, He the Word gave the Spirit to the saints as His own, so also when He became human, He sanctifies everyone by the Spirit and says to His disciples, 'Receive the Holy Spirit.' He gave the Spirit to Moses and the other seventy, and through Him David prayed to the Father, saying, 'Take not Your Holy Spirit from me.' On the other hand, when He became human, He said, 'I will send to you the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth,' and He sent Him—He, the Word of God, being faithful. Therefore 'Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever,' remaining unalterable. He both gives and receives at once—giving as God's Word, receiving as human. It is not the Word, considered as the Word, who is promoted, for He had all things and always has them. Rather, it is human beings who have in Him and through Him their source of receiving them. For when He is now said to be anointed in a human respect, it is we who are anointed in Him. Similarly, when He is baptized, it is we who are baptized in Him. But the Savior sheds much light on all these things 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.' It was for our sake, then, that He asked for glory, and the words 'took' and 'gave' and 'highly exalted' occur so that we might take, and so that these things might be given to us, and so that we might be exalted in Him. Just as He also sanctifies Himself for our sake, so that we might be sanctified in Him.

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 forever.' 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 the Father, 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 truth John 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 human respect, we it is who in Him are anointed; since also when He is baptized, we it is who in Him are baptized. But on all these things the Saviour throws much light, when He says to the Father, 'And the glory which 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.

But if they take advantage of the word "wherefore" as it connects to 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 understand that, as before, the word "wherefore" does not imply a reward for virtue or conduct in the Word, but rather the reason why He came down to us, and explains the Spirit's anointing which took place in Him for our sakes. For He does not say, "Wherefore He anointed You in order that You might become God or King or Son or Word," for He was these things before and is forever, as has been shown. Rather, He says, "Since You are God and King, therefore You were anointed, since none but You could unite man to the Holy Spirit, You the Image of the Father, in which we were made in the beginning; for the Spirit is Yours as well." For the nature of created things could give no guarantee for this, since Angels had transgressed and men had disobeyed. Therefore there was need of God, and the Word is God, so that He Himself might set free those who had come under a curse. If He had come from nothing, He would not have been the Christ or Anointed One, being merely one among others and having fellowship like the rest. But since He is God, as being Son of God, and is everlasting King, and exists as Radiance and Expression of the Father, therefore He is fittingly the expected Christ, whom the Father announces to mankind by revelation to His holy Prophets—so that just as through Him we have come into being, so also in Him all people might be redeemed from their sins, and by Him all things might be ruled. And this is the reason for the anointing which took place in Him, and for the incarnate presence of the Word. The Psalmist, foreseeing this, first celebrates His Godhead and kingdom, which is the Father's, in these words: "Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your Kingdom." Then he announces His descent to us in this way: "Wherefore God, even Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness above Your fellows."

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 anointing which took place in Him for our sakes. For He says not, 'Wherefore He anointed You 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 of God and the Word is God; that those who had become under a curse, He Himself might set free. If then He was of nothing, He would not have been the Christ or Anointed, being one among others and having fellowship as the rest. But, whereas He is God, as being Son of God, and is everlasting King, and exists as Radiance and Expression Hebrews 1:3 of the Father, therefore fitly is He the expected Christ, whom the Father announces to mankind, by revelation to His holy Prophets; that as through Him we have come to be, so also in Him all men might be redeemed from their sins, and by Him all things might be ruled. And this is the cause of the anointing which took place in Him, and of the incarnate presence of the Word, which the Psalmist foreseeing, celebrates, first His Godhead 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, has anointed You with the oil of gladness above Your fellows. '

What is there to wonder at or disbelieve if the Lord who gives the Spirit is here said Himself to be anointed with the Spirit, at a time when necessity required that He did not refuse, with respect to His manhood, to call Himself inferior to the Spirit? For when the Jews said that He cast out devils in Beelzebub, He answered and said to them, to expose their blasphemy, "But if I through the Spirit of God cast out demons" (Matthew 12:28). Notice that the Giver of the Spirit here says that He cast out demons in the Spirit. But this is not said except because of His flesh. For since human nature (physis) is not equal of itself to casting out demons, but only in the power of the Spirit, therefore as man He said, "But if I through the Spirit of God cast out demons." Of course He also indicated that the blasphemy offered to the Holy Spirit is greater than that against His humanity when He said, "Whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him"—such as those who said, "Is not this the carpenter's son?"—but those who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit and ascribe the deeds of the Word to the devil shall have inevitable punishment. This is what the Lord spoke to the Jews as man. But to the disciples, showing His Godhead and His majesty and indicating that He was not inferior but equal to the Spirit, He gave the Spirit and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit," and "I send Him," and "He shall glorify Me," and "Whatever He hears, that He shall speak." So then, just as in this passage the Lord Himself, the Giver of the Spirit, does not refuse to say that through the Spirit He casts out demons, as man, in the same way He, the same Giver of the Spirit, did not refuse to say, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me" (Isaiah 61:1), with respect to His having become flesh, as John has said. This was so that it might be shown in both these particulars that we are the ones who need the Spirit's grace in our sanctification, and again that we are unable to cast out demons without the Spirit's power. Through whom then and from whom ought the Spirit to be given except through the Son, whose Spirit He also 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 would not have been redeemed and highly exalted had not He who exists in the form of God taken a servant's form, so David also shows that we could not otherwise have partaken of the Spirit and been sanctified, except that the Giver of the Spirit, the Word Himself, has spoken of Himself as anointed with the Spirit for us. And therefore we have 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 it for its sake, we have the consequence of the Spirit's grace, receiving "out of His fullness" (John 1:16).

50. What is there to wonder at, what to disbelieve, if the Lord who gives the Spirit, is here said Himself to be anointed with the Spirit, at a time when, necessity requiring it, He did not refuse in respect of His manhood to call Himself inferior to the Spirit? For the Jews saying that He 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 Spirit here says that He cast out demons in the Spirit; but this is not said, except because of His flesh. For since man's nature is not equal of itself to casting out demons, but only in power of the Spirit, therefore as man He said, 'But if I through the Spirit of God cast out demons.' Of course too He signified that the blasphemy offered to the Holy Ghost is greater than that against His humanity, when He said, 'Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him;' such as were those who said, 'Is not this the carpenter's son?' but they who blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, and ascribe the deeds of the Word to the devil, shall have inevitable punishment. This is what the Lord spoke to the Jews, 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 Lord Himself, the Giver of the Spirit, does not refuse to say that through the Spirit He casts out demons, as man; in like manner He the same, the Giver of the Spirit, refused not to say, 'The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me 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's grace 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 Spirit should be given but through the Son, whose also the Spirit is? And when were we enabled to receive It, except when the Word became man? And, as the passage of the Apostle 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 anointed with 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 Spirit grace, receiving 'out of His fullness John 1:16.'

Nor do the words "You have loved righteousness and hated iniquity," which are added in the Psalm, demonstrate—as you again suppose—that the physis (nature) of the Word is changeable. Rather, by their very force they signify His unchangeableness. For since the physis of created things is changeable, and one part had transgressed while the other disobeyed (as has been said), and it is uncertain how they will act—since it often happens that someone who is now good later changes and becomes different, so that one who was just now righteous is soon found unrighteous—there was need here also for one who is unchangeable, so that people might have the immutability of the Word's righteousness as an image and model for virtue. And this thought strongly commends itself to right-minded people. For since the first man Adam changed, and through sin death entered the world, it was necessary for the second Adam to be unchangeable, so that if the Serpent should attack again, even the Serpent's deceit might be defeated, and with the Lord being unalterable and unchangeable, the Serpent might become powerless in his assault against all. For just as when Adam transgressed his sin reached all people, so when the Lord became man and overthrew the Serpent, that great strength of His extends through all people, so that each of us may say, "For we are not ignorant of his devices." With good reason, then, the Lord—who is ever unchangeable in his physis, loving righteousness and hating iniquity—should be anointed and Himself sent, so that He, being and remaining the same, by taking this changeable flesh, might condemn sin in it and might secure its freedom and its ability from then on to fulfill 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 indeed the Spirit of God dwells in us."

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 Word is alterable, but rather by their very force signify His unalterableness. For since of things originate the nature is alterable, and the one portion had transgressed and the other disobeyed, as has been said, and it is not certain how they will act, but it often happens that he who is now good afterwards alters 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.'

The Arians have made this conjecture in vain and have wrongly appealed to the words of Scripture. For God's Word is unalterable and is always in one state, not as circumstances might dictate, but as the Father is. For how could He be like the Father unless this were so? Or how could all that belongs to the Father also belong to the Son, if He did not have the Father's unalterableness and unchangeableness? He does not love one thing and hate another as if subject to laws and pulled to one side, lest by choosing one through fear of falling away, we would have to admit that He is also alterable in other ways. Rather, as God and the Father's Word, He is a just judge and lover of virtue, or rather its giver. Therefore, being just and holy by nature (physis), He is said to love righteousness and hate iniquity. This is as much as saying that He loves and chooses the virtuous and rejects and hates the unrighteous. Divine Scripture says the same of the Father: "The Righteous Lord loves righteousness; You hate all them that work iniquity," and "The Lord loves the gates of Sion more than all the dwellings of Jacob," and "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated," and in Isaiah there is the voice of God again saying, "I the Lord love righteousness, and hate robbery of unrighteousness." Let them interpret those former words as these latter ones, for the former are also written of the Image of God. Otherwise, if they misinterpret these as they do those, they will conclude that the Father too is alterable. But since it is dangerous even to hear others say this, we do well to think that when God is said to love righteousness and to hate robbery of unrighteousness, it is not as if He is pulled to one side and capable of the contrary, so as to select one and not choose the other—for this belongs to created things—but rather that, as a judge, He loves and draws to Himself 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 in no other way than this. For the nature (physis) of the Image must be such as Its Father is, though the Arians in their blindness fail to see either that image or any other truth of the divine oracles. For being driven away from the conceptions—or rather misconceptions—of their own hearts, they fall back upon passages of divine Scripture, and here too from lack of understanding, as is their habit, they fail to grasp their meaning. Instead, laying down their own false religion as a kind of rule of interpretation, they twist the whole of the divine oracles to agree 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," and if they persist in it, they must be silenced by the words, "Render to man the things that are man's, and to God the things that are God's."

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 the Father, unless He be thus? Or how is all that is the Father's the Son's also, if He has not the unalterableness and unchangeableness of the Father? 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 just judge and lover of virtue, or rather its dispenser. Therefore being just and holy by nature, 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 hates the unrighteous. And divine Scripture says the same of the Father; 'The Righteous Lord loves righteousness; Thou hate all them that work iniquity,' and 'The Lord loves the gates of Sion, more than all the dwellings of Jacob;' and, 'Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated Malachi 1:2-3;' and in Isaiah there is the voice of God again saying, 'I the Lord love righteousness, and hate robbery of unrighteousness Isaiah 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 love righteousness and to hate robbery of unrighteousness, not as if biassed to one side, and capable of the contrary, so as to select the latter and not choose the 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 other truth of the divine oracles. For being forced from the conceptions or rather misconceptions of their own hearts, they fall back upon passages of divine Scripture, and here too from want of understanding, according to their wont, they discern not their meaning; but laying down their own irreligion as a sort of canon of interpretation, 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.

They say the following is written in Proverbs: "The Lord created me the beginning of His ways, for His Works." In the Letter to the Hebrews the Apostle says, "Being made so much better than the Angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent Name than they." Soon after, it says, "Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus, who was faithful to Him that made Him." And in Acts, "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God has made that same Jesus whom you have crucified both Lord and Christ." They bring these passages forward constantly, misunderstanding their meaning, thinking these texts prove that the Word of God was a creature, a work, and one of the things that came into existence. In this way they deceive the thoughtless, using the language of Scripture as their excuse but spreading the poison of their own heresy instead of the true meaning. If they had known the truth, they would not have blasphemed against "the Lord of glory," nor would they have twisted the good words of Scripture. If from now on they openly adopt Caiaphas's approach and have decided to become Jewish in their thinking, being ignorant of the text that truly God will dwell upon the earth, then they should not examine the Apostolic writings, for this is not the Jewish way. But if they mix themselves with the godless Manichees and deny that "the Word was made flesh" and His incarnate presence, then they should not quote Proverbs, for this is inappropriate for Manichees. However, if for the sake of advancement and the profit of greed that comes with it and the desire for good reputation they dare not deny the text "The Word was made flesh," since it is written that way, then either let them correctly interpret the words of Scripture as referring to the Savior's embodied presence, or if they deny this meaning, let them deny that the Lord became human at all. For it is improper to confess that "the Word became flesh" while being ashamed of what is written about Him, and on that account to corrupt the meaning.

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 the Apostle 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 Apostle and 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, that God 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 good words of Scripture. If then henceforward openly adopting Caiaphas's way, they have determined on judaizing, and are ignorant of the text, that verily God shall dwell upon the earth, 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 of Scripture, of the embodied presence of the Saviour, or, if they deny their sense, let them deny that the Lord became man at all. For it is unseemly, while confessing that 'the Word became flesh,' yet to be ashamed at what is written of Him, and on that account to corrupt the sense.

Regarding the phrase "so much better than the Angels," let us first examine this carefully. It is right and necessary, as with all divine Scripture, to faithfully determine the time about which the Apostle was writing, the person he was discussing, and the specific point he was making. Otherwise, a reader who misses any of these details through ignorance may completely miss the true meaning. The Ethiopian eunuch understood this when he asked Philip, "I beg you, about whom does the Prophet say this? About himself or about someone else?" He was concerned that if he interpreted the passage in a way that didn't fit the person being discussed, he would miss the correct sense. Similarly, the disciples wanted to understand the timing of what was foretold, so they asked the Lord, "Tell us, when will these things happen? And what is the sign of Your coming?" And again, after hearing from the Savior about the events of the end times, they wanted to know when it would occur so they could avoid error themselves and teach others correctly—just as they later corrected the Thessalonians who had gone astray. When someone properly understands these details, their grasp of the faith is sound and healthy. But if they mistake any of these points, they immediately fall into heresy. For example, Hymenaeus and Alexander and their followers missed the correct time when they claimed the resurrection had already happened. The Galatians were mistaken about time in the opposite direction, continuing to emphasize circumcision after its proper time had passed. Missing the correct person was the error of the Jews, and still is, since they think that "Behold, the Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and they shall call his Name Emmanuel, which means God with us," refers to one of their own people. They believe that "A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up to you" refers to one of the Prophets, and regarding the words "He was led as a sheep to the slaughter," instead of learning from Philip, they guess it was spoken about Isaiah or some other earlier prophet.

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 the Thessalonians, 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 of circumcision now. And to miss the person was the lot of the Jews, and is still, who think that of one of themselves is said, 'Behold, the Virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and they shall call his Name Emmanuel, which is being interpreted, God with us Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23;' and that, 'A prophet shall the Lord 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.

The enemies of Christ have fallen into their horrible heresy because of this state of mind. If they had understood the person being discussed, the subject matter, and the timing of the Apostle's words, they would not have interpreted what refers to Christ's humanity as if it referred to His divinity, nor would they have committed such a great act of irreligion in their foolishness. This will become clear if one properly explains the beginning of this passage. 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." Then 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 is clear that the Apostle's words refer to the time when God spoke to us through His Son and when the purging of sins took place. When did He speak to us through His Son, and when did the purging of sins happen? And when did He become man? It was after the Prophets, in the last days. Next, as he continues his account of the economy that concerns us and speaks of the last times, he naturally observes that God was not silent with people in former times either, but spoke to them through the Prophets. Since the prophets served as ministers, and the Law was spoken by Angels, while the Son also came to earth to minister, he had to add "become so much better than the Angels," wanting to show that just as much as a son surpasses a servant, so much more does the ministry of the Son surpass the ministry of servants. Contrasting the old ministry and the new, the Apostle speaks plainly to the Jews, writing "become so much better than the Angels." This is why throughout he uses no comparison such as "become greater" or "more honorable," so that we would not think of Him and them as being of the same kind. Instead his word is "better," which marks the difference between the Son's nature and created things. We have proof of this from divine Scripture. For example, David says in the Psalm, "One day in Your courts is better than a thousand," and Solomon cries 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." Are not wisdom and earthly stones different in essence and separate in nature? Are heavenly courts at all similar to earthly houses? Or is there any resemblance between things eternal and spiritual and things temporal and mortal? 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." In the same way, there is nothing similar between the Son and the Angels. So the word "better" is not used to compare but to contrast, because of the difference of His nature from theirs. Therefore the Apostle himself, when he interprets the word "better," places its meaning in nothing less than the Son's excellence over created things, calling the one Son and the others servants; the one, as a Son with the Father, sitting on the right; and the others, as servants, standing before Him, being sent, and fulfilling tasks.

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's divinity what belongs to His manhood, nor in their folly have committed so great an act of irreligion. Now this will be readily seen, if one expounds properly the beginning of this 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 God silent with men, but spoke to them by the Prophets. And, whereas the prophets ministered, and the Law was spoken by Angels, while the Son too came on earth, and that in order to minister, he was forced to add, 'Become so much better than the Angels,' wishing to 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 the Father, sitting on the right; and the others, as servants, standing before Him, and being sent, and fulfilling offices.

Scripture, in speaking this way, implies—O Arians—not that the Son is originate, but rather that He is other than originate things and proper to the Father, being in His bosom. (4.) Nor does the expression "become," which appears here, show that the Son is originate, as you suppose. If the text simply said "become" and nothing more, the Arians might have a case. But since they are confronted throughout the passage with the word "Son," showing that He is other than originate things, the word "become" does not occur by itself—"better" is immediately added to it. The writer considered the expression unproblematic, knowing that in the case of one who is admittedly a genuine Son, to say "become" is the same as saying that He had been made and is "better." It makes no difference even if we speak of what is generate as "become" or "made." But by contrast, originate things cannot be called generate, being God's handiwork as they are, except insofar 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 in the Son in the Spirit. Divine Scripture recognizes this again. It says in the case of originate things, "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 who are generate, "To Job there came to be seven sons and three daughters" (Job 1:2), and "Abraham was a hundred years old when there came to be to him Isaac his son" (Genesis 21:5), and Moses said (Deuteronomy 21:15), "If to any one there come to be sons." Therefore, since the Son is other than originate things, being alone the proper offspring of the Father's essence, this argument of the Arians about the word "become" is worthless.

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, knowing that in the case of one who was confessedly a genuine Son, to say 'become' is the same with saying that He had been made, and is, 'better.' For it matters not even if we speak of what is generate, as 'become' or 'made;' but on the contrary, things originate cannot be called generate, God's handiwork as they are, except so far as after their making they partake of the generate Son, and are therefore said to have been generated also, not at all in their own nature, but because of their participation of the Son in the Spirit. And this again divine Scripture recognises; for it says in the case of things originate, 'All things came to be through Him, and without Him nothing came to be 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;' and Moses 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.

If, despite being refuted thus far, they still stubbornly insist that the language involves comparison, and that comparison therefore implies sameness of kind, so that the Son shares the nature of the Angels, they will first of all incur the disgrace of rivaling and repeating what Valentinus held, and Carpocrates, and those other heretics. The former said that the Angels were of one kind with the Christ, and Carpocrates said that Angels are makers of the world. Perhaps it is under the instruction of these teachers that they compare the Word of God with the Angels.

(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. Perchance it is under the instruction of these masters that they compare the Word of God with the Angels.

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 admittedly does belong to subjects that are one in kind, not to those which differ. No one, for instance, would compare God with man, or again man with animals, nor wood with stone, because their natures are unlike. But God is beyond comparison, and man is compared to man, and wood to wood, and stone to stone. Now in such cases we should not speak of "better," but of "rather" and "more." Thus Joseph was comely rather than his brothers, 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. If then the Apostle had said, "by so much has the Son precedence of the Angels," or "by so much greater," you would have had a case, 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 Angels in nature.

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 to man, and wood to wood, and stone to stone. Now in such cases we should not speak of 'better,' but of 'rather' and 'more;' 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 the Angels,' or 'by so much greater,' you would have had a plea, as if the Son were compared with the Angels; but, as it is, in saying that He is 'better,' and differs as far as Son from servants, the Apostle shows that He is other than the Angels in nature.

Furthermore, by saying that He is the one who has "laid the foundation of all things" (Hebrews 1:10), the author shows that He is other than all created things. But if He is other and different in ousia from their nature, what comparison of His ousia can there be, or what likeness to them? Though even if they have any such thoughts, Paul shall refute them, speaking directly to this 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).

(6.) Moreover by saying that He it is who has 'laid the foundation of all things Hebrews 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 essence can 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.'

Notice here that the word "made" applies to created things, and he calls them things that have been made. But when speaking of the Son, he doesn't talk about making or becoming, but about eternity and kingship and the work of a Creator, proclaiming, "Your Throne, O God, is for ever and ever," and "You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of Your hands; they shall perish, but You remain." From these words, even they might understand—if they were willing—that the Creator is different from created things: the former is God, the latter are created things, made out of nothing. The statement "They shall perish" doesn't mean creation is actually destined for destruction, but rather expresses the nature of created things by describing what they naturally tend toward. Things that are capable of perishing, even though they don't actually perish because of their Maker's grace, have come out of nothing and themselves testify that they once did not exist. For this reason, since their nature is like this, it is said of the Son, "You remain," to show His eternity. Since He doesn't have the capacity for perishing that created things have, but has eternal duration, it is wrong to say of Him, "He was not before His generation," and right to say He always exists and endures together with the Father. Even if the Apostle had not written this way in his Epistle to the Hebrews, his other Epistles and all of Scripture would certainly prevent them from thinking such things about the Word. But since he has written it expressly here, and as has been shown above, the Son is Offspring of the Father's ousia, and He is Creator while other things are created by Him, and He is the Radiance and Word and Image and Wisdom of the Father, and created things stand and serve in their place below the Triad—therefore the Son is different in kind and different in ousia from created things, and on the contrary is proper to the Father's ousia and one in physis with it. This is why the Son too does not say, "My Father is better than I," lest we should think He is foreign to His Nature, but "greater"—not greater in greatness or in time, but because of His generation from the Father Himself. Indeed, in saying "greater" He again shows that He is proper to His ousia.

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 of eternity 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 the nature 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 the Hebrews, still his other Epistles, and the whole of Scripture, would certainly forbid their entertaining such notions concerning the Word. But since he has here expressly written it, and, as has been above shown, the Son is Offspring of the Father's essence, and He is Framer, and other things are framed by Him, and He is the Radiance and Word and Image and Wisdom of the Father, and things originate stand and serve in their place below the Triad, therefore the Son is different in kind and different in essence from things originate, and on the contrary is proper to the Father's 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.

Notice that when the Apostle says "so much better than the Angels," his primary intention was not to compare the essence of the Word to created things (since He cannot be compared—they are actually incommeasurable). Rather, he was considering the Word's coming in the flesh and the economy he then carried out. He wanted to show that the Word was not like those who had come before Him. Just as much as He surpassed in nature those who were sent before Him, by that same measure the grace that came from and through Him was better than the ministry through Angels. For it is the role of servants to demand the fruits and nothing more, but it is the role of the Son and Master to forgive the debts and to transfer the vineyard.

59. (7). And the Apostle's own reason for saying, 'so much better than the Angels,' was not any wish in the first instance to compare the essence of the Word to things originate (for He cannot be compared, rather they are incommeasurable), but regarding the Word's visitation in the flesh, and the Economy which He then sustained, he wished to show that He was not like those who had gone before Him; so that, as much as He excelled in nature those who were sent afore by Him, by so much also the grace which came from and through Him was better than the ministry through Angels. 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.

The Apostle's subsequent words clearly demonstrate the Son's excellence over created things: "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 was confirmed unto us by them that heard Him." However, if the Son were numbered among created things, He would not be better than they are, nor would disobedience bring greater punishment because of Him. In the same way, when Angels ministered, there was no greater or lesser guilt for transgressors depending on which Angel was involved—the Law was one, and its punishment for transgressors was one. But since the Word is not among created things but is the Son of the Father, His person and His works are better and surpass all others, and therefore the punishment is also worse. Let them consider the grace that comes through the Son, and let them recognize the testimony He gives through His works: that He is different from created things, and that He alone is truly the Son in the Father and the Father in Him. The Law was spoken by Angels and made no one perfect, needing the Word's visitation, as Paul said. But that visitation has completed the Father's work. Previously, from Adam to Moses, death reigned, but the Word's presence destroyed death. We are no longer all dying in Adam; instead, in Christ we are all being raised to life. Previously, the Law was proclaimed from Dan to Beersheba, and God was known only in Judea. But now their voice has gone out to all the earth, and all the earth has been filled with knowledge of God. The disciples have made disciples of all nations, and now what is written is fulfilled: "They shall be all taught of God." Previously, what was revealed was only a type, but now the truth has been made manifest. The Apostle himself describes this more clearly later, 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 the Mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises." Also, "For the Law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did." And again, "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 we are discussing and throughout Scripture, the Apostle applies the word "better" to the Lord, who is better than and different from created things. The sacrifice through Him is better, the hope in Him is better, and the promises through Him are better—not merely as something great compared to something small, but as one differing from the other in nature, because He who carries out this divine plan is "better" than created things.

(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 was confirmed 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 of Angels there was not, according to each Angel, greater or less guilt in the transgressors, but the Law was one, and one was its vengeance on transgressors. But, whereas the Word is not in the number of originate things, but is Son of the Father, therefore, as He Himself is better and His acts better and transcendent, so also the punishment is worse. Let 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 that visitation has perfected the work of the Father. And then, from Adam unto Moses death 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 in Christ we are all reviving. And then, from Dan to Beersheba was the Law proclaimed, 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 the Mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.' And, 'For the Law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did.' And again he says, 'It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.' 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 this economy, is 'better' than things originated.

Moreover, the words "He has become surety" indicate the pledge He has provided on our behalf. For just as, being the Word, He "became flesh" and we attribute "became" to the flesh—since it is originated and created—so also here we interpret the expression "He has become" according to a second sense, namely, because He has become man. Let these contentious people know that they fail in this perverse purpose of theirs. Let them know that Paul does not mean that His essence has become, knowing as he did that He is Son and Wisdom and Radiance and Image of the Father. Rather, Paul refers the word "become" to the ministry of that covenant in which death, which once ruled, is abolished. For here too, the ministry through Him has become better, in that "what the Law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh," freeing it from the trespass in which, being continually held captive, it did not admit the Divine mind. And having made the flesh capable of receiving the Word, He made us walk no longer according to the flesh but according to the Spirit, and say again and again, "But we are not in the flesh but in the Spirit," and, "For the Son of God came into the world, not to judge the world, but to redeem all people, and that the world might be saved through Him." Previously the world, as guilty, was under judgment from the Law; but now the Word has taken the judgment upon Himself, and having suffered in the body for all, has given salvation to all. With this in view, John exclaimed, "The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." Grace is better than the Law, and truth is better than the shadow.

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 and Radiance and Image of the Father; but here too he refers the word 'become' to the ministry of that covenant, in which death which once ruled is abolished. Since here also the ministry through Him has become better, in that 'what the Law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh 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 God came 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 the judgment, 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 grace and truth came by Jesus Christ John 1:17.' Better is grace than the Law, and truth than the shadow.

"Better" then, as has already been said, could not have been brought about by anyone other than the Son, who sits at the right hand of the Father. And what does this indicate except the Son's genuine nature, and that the Godhead of the Father is the same as the Son's? Because the Son reigns in His Father's kingdom, is seated upon the same throne as the Father, and is contemplated in the Father's Godhead, therefore the Word is God, and whoever sees the Son sees the Father; and thus there is one God. Though sitting on the right, He does not place His Father on the left; instead, whatever is right and precious in the Father, the Son also has, and says, "All things that the Father has are Mine John 16:15." Therefore also the Son, though sitting on the right, also sees the Father on the right, though it is as one who has become man that He says, "I saw the Lord always before My face, for He is on My right hand, therefore I shall not fall." This moreover shows that the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son; for with the Father being on the right, the Son is on the right; and while the Son sits on the right of the Father, the Father is in the Son. And the Angels indeed minister by ascending and descending; but concerning the Son he says, "And let all the Angels of 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 says in human fashion, "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 see in that Image are the Father's works.

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's Godhead, therefore is the Word God, and whoever 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 Mine John 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 Lord always 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 minister ascending and descending; but concerning the Son he says, 'And let all the Angels of 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 human fashion, '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.

What has already been said ought to shame those persons who are fighting against the very truth. However, if they refuse to understand the word "become," as used of the Son, to mean "has been and is"—or to refer to the better covenant having come into being, as we have said—but instead insist on this expression to claim that the Word is created, then let them hear the same thing again in brief, since they have forgotten what has been said.

(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.

If the Son is counted among the Angels, then let the word 'become' apply to Him as it does to them, and let Him not differ from them at all in nature. But then either they must be sons along with Him, or He must be an Angel along with them. Either they all sit together on the right hand of the Father, or the Son stands with them all as a ministering Spirit, sent forth to minister just as they are. But if, on the other hand, Paul distinguishes the Son from created things, saying, 'To which of the Angels did He say at any time, You are My Son,' and the one creates heaven and earth while they are made by Him, and He sits with the Father while they stand by ministering, who does not see that he has not used the word 'become' of the essence of the Word, but of the ministry that came through Him? For just as, being the 'Word,' He 'became flesh,' so when He became man, He became by so much better in His ministry than the ministry which came by the Angels, as Son excels servants and Creator excels things created. Let them therefore stop taking the word 'become' as referring to the substance of the Son, for He is not one of created things. Let them acknowledge that it indicates His ministry and the Economy which came to pass.

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 a ministering Spirit, sent forth to minister Himself as they are. But if on the other hand Paul distinguishes the Son from things originate, saying, 'To which of the Angels said He at any time, 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 by ministering, who does not see that he has not used the word 'become' of the essence of the Word, but of the ministration come through Him? For as, being the 'Word,' He 'became flesh,' so when become man, He became by so much better in His ministry, than the ministry which came by the Angels, as Son excels servants and Framer things framed. Let them cease therefore to take the word 'become' of the substance of the Son, for He is not one of originated things; and let them acknowledge that it is indicative of His ministry and the Economy which came to pass.

But how He became better in His ministry, while being better in nature than created things, is clear from what has been said before, which I think is sufficient by itself to put them to shame. But if they continue the argument, it will be appropriate to meet their reckless boldness by confronting them with similar expressions that are used concerning the Father Himself. This may shame them into restraining their tongue from evil, or may teach them how deep their folly is. Now it is written, 'Become my strong rock and house of defense, that You may save me.' And again, 'The Lord became a defense for the oppressed,' and similar passages found in divine Scripture. If they apply these passages to the Son, which is perhaps closest to the truth, then let them acknowledge that the sacred writers ask Him, as one who is not originate, to become for them 'a strong rock and house of defense.' And from now on let them understand 'become,' and 'He made,' and 'He created,' as referring to His incarnate presence. For it was then that He became 'a strong rock and house of defense,' when He bore our sins in His own body upon the tree, and said, 'Come unto Me, all you that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest Matthew 11:28.'

(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 defense, that You may save me.' And again, 'The Lord became a defense 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 defense;' 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 defense,' 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.'

But if they apply these passages to the Father, will they dare to claim that God is originated simply because it says "become" and "He became"? Yes, they will dare to do so, since they argue this way about His Word. For the logic of their argument leads them to speculate the same things about the Father as they imagine about His Word. But may such a notion be far from the minds of all the faithful! For the Son is not numbered among originated things, nor do these scriptural phrases "become" and "He became" indicate a beginning of being, but rather the help that was given to those in need. For God is always the same and unchanging, but human beings came into existence later through the Word, when the Father willed it. God is invisible and inaccessible to originated things, and especially to people on earth. So when people in their weakness call upon Him, when in persecution they ask for help, when under injuries they pray, then the Invisible One, being a lover of humanity, shines upon them with His kindness, which He exercises through and in His own Word. And immediately the divine manifestation is given to each person according to their need: to the weak it becomes health, to the persecuted a refuge and house of defense, and to the injured He says, "While you speak I will say, Here I am" (Isaiah 58:9). Whatever defense comes to each person through the Son, each person says that God has become something to them, since help comes from God Himself through the Word. Moreover, common human usage recognizes this, and everyone will acknowledge its correctness. Often help comes from one person to another: one person has undertaken labor for someone who was wronged, as Abraham did for Lot; another has opened his home to the persecuted, as Obadiah did for the sons of the prophets; another has welcomed a stranger, as Lot did for the Angels; and another has provided for the needy, as Job did for those who begged from him. And when each of these benefited people says, "Such a person became a help to me," and another says "and to me a refuge," and another "to me a supply," in saying this they would not be speaking about the original coming-to-be or the ousia of their benefactors, but about the kindness that came to them from these people. So also when the saints say about God, "He became" and "become Thou," they do not indicate any original coming-to-be, for God is without beginning and unoriginate, but rather the salvation that is brought to people from Him.

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 proper Word. 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 defense;' and to the injured He says, 'While you speak I will say, Here I am Isaiah 58:9.' Whatever defense then comes to each through the Son, that each says that God has come to be to himself, since succour comes from God Himself through the Word. Moreover the usage of men recognises this, and every one will confess its propriety. Often succour comes from man to man; one has undertaken toil for the injured, as Abraham for Lot; and another has opened his home to the persecuted, as Obadiah to the sons of the prophets; and another has entertained a stranger, as Lot the Angels; and another has supplied the needy, as Job those who begged of him. And then, should one and the other of these benefited persons say, 'Such a one became an assistance to me,' and another 'and to me a refuge,' and 'to another a supply,' yet in so saying would not be speaking of the original becoming or of the essence of their benefactors, but of the beneficence coming to themselves from them; so also when the saints say concerning God, 'He became' and 'become Thou,' they do not denote any original becoming, for God is without beginning and unoriginate, but the salvation which is made to be unto men from Him.

This being properly understood, the same principle applies to the Son: whatever is said and however often it is said—phrases like "He became" and "become"—should always carry the same meaning. So when we hear the expressions in question, "become better than the Angels" and "He became," we should not imagine any original becoming of the Word, nor should we in any way suppose from such terms that He is originate. Rather, we should understand Paul's words as referring to His ministry and Economy when He became man. For when "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" and came to minister and grant salvation to all, then He became salvation to us, and became life, and became propitiation. Then His Economy on our behalf became much better than the Angels, and He became the Way and became the Resurrection. And just as the words "Become my strong rock" do not mean that the essence of God Himself became, but rather His lovingkindness, as has been said, so also here the "having become better than the Angels," and "He became," and "by so much is Jesus become a better surety" do not signify that the essence of the Word is originate (perish the thought!), but rather the beneficence that came to us through His becoming Man—despite the fact that the heretics are unthankful and obstinate in their irreligion.

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 us salvation, and became life, and became propitiation; then His economy in our behalf became much better than the Angels, and He became the Way and became the Resurrection. And as the words 'Become my strong rock' do not denote that the essence of God Himself became, but His lovingkindness, as has been said, so also here the 'having become better than the Angels,' and, 'He became,' and, 'by so much is Jesus become a better surety,' do not signify that the essence of the Word is originate (perish the 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.