Commentary on the Gospel of John — Book I

The minds of the holy Evangelists are truly accurate and taught by God. From the brilliance of their ability to see clearly—as if from some high mountain ridge and watchtower—they observe on every side what benefits their hearers and eagerly pursue whatever may profit those who thirst for the truth of divine doctrines and sincerely seek the meaning hidden in the Divine Scriptures. The Spirit does not reveal Himself to those who search with excessive curiosity and take pleasure in the complicated tricks of human reasoning rather than rejoicing in the truth, since He does not enter into a malicious soul, nor does He allow His precious pearls to be trampled under the feet of swine. But He delights to have fellowship with simpler minds, because they possess a more innocent disposition and avoid needless complexities, which especially lead to encountering sudden fear and, by turning too far to the right, straying from the straight and royal road. For whoever walks simply walks securely, as Solomon says.

Exact of a truth, and God-taught is the mind of the holy Evangelists, from the splendour of their power to behold, as from some lofty mountain-spur and watch-peak, on all sides observing what is of profit to the hearers, and tracking with intent zeal whatever may seem to be of profit to those who thirst after the truth of the Divine dogmas and with good purpose search after the mind that is hidden in the Divine Scriptures. For not in those who search too curiously, and take pleasure in the many-tangled wiles of reasonings, rather than rejoice in the truth, does the Spirit make His revelation, since neither does He enter into a malicious soul, nor otherwise does He suffer His precious 'pearls to be rolled at the feet of swine. But with exceeding pleasure does He have fellowship with simpler minds, as having a more guileless motion, and shunning superfluous subtleties, whereto specially pertains the meeting with sudden fear, and from too great turning aside unto the right hand to err from the straight and royal road. For he that walketh simply walketh surely, as saith Solomon.

The holy Evangelists write with marvelous precision—for as the Savior says, it is not they who speak, but the Spirit of the Father in them. One can reasonably affirm that the Book of John has been composed in an extraordinary way, considering both the excellence of his thoughts, the sharpness of his intellect, and the continuous, closely-packed accumulation of ideas. The Evangelists are companions in their exposition of the Divine dogmas, and they race like charioteers from the starting line toward one goal. But each employs a different style of speech, and they seem to me like people who are instructed to gather in one city but who do not choose to approach it by the same well-traveled road. Thus one can see the other Evangelists giving a very precise account of our Savior's genealogy in the Flesh, tracing the descent step by step from Abraham down to Joseph, or carrying the lineage back from Joseph to Adam. But we find that blessed John does not trouble himself with being overly concerned about these matters. Instead, with a most intense and fiery movement of intellect, he attempts to grasp those very things that are above the human mind, and he dares to explain the unspeakable and unutterable Generation of God the Word. For he knew that the glory of God conceals speech, that the God-befitting dignity is greater than our understanding and expression, and that the properties of the Divine Nature (physis) are difficult to express and extremely hard to unfold.

But while the holy Evangelists have a marvellous exactness in writing (for it is not they that speak, as the Saviour saith, but the Spirit of the Father which is in them): reasonably may one grant that the Book of John has been composed beyond all marvel, looking both to the supereminence of his thoughts, the keenness of his intellect, and the constant and close-succeeding cumulation of conceptions. For course-fellows are they one with, another in the exposition of the Divine dogmas, and loosing as it were from the starting line they course charioteers to one goal. But a diverse fashion of speech is wrought out by them, and they appear to me to resemble persons, who are ordered to come together unto one city, but care not to approach it by one and the same beaten road. Thus one may see the other Evangelists with great exactness giving the account of our Saviour's genealogy in the Flesh, and bringing down step by step those from Abraham unto Joseph, or again carrying up those from Joseph to Adam. But we find the blessed John not caring to be over-studious about these, but with a most fervent and fire-full motion of intellect endeavouring to lay hold of those very things that are above human mind, and daring to explain the unspeakable and unutterable Generation of God the Word. For he knew that the glory of God hideth speech, and greater than our idea and utterance is the God-befitting dignity, and hard to utter and most difficult of unfolding are the properties of the Divine Nature.

But since it was necessary in a sense to measure heaven with the span of a hand, and to allow the limited capacities of human nature to approach what is utterly unattainable and difficult to explain, and since without the voice of the saints who had been eyewitnesses and ministers of the word to restrain their false speculations, the way might be opened for false teachers to attack the simpler believers, John comes straight to the very essence of the Divine doctrines, crying out, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God: the Same was in the beginning with God."

But since it was necessary in some sort to mete out heaven with the span, and to suffer the scant measures of human nature to approach to what is by all unattainable and hard to be explained, that the approach might not be opened out for those who teach otherwise to come against the more simple, in that no voice of the saints who have been eyewitnesses and ministers of the word held in check their ill-surmisings, keen comes he to the very essence of the Divine dogmas, crying aloud, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word, was with God and the Word was God: the Same was in the beginning with God.

I believe that those who study the Holy Scriptures should accept all writings that are honest, good, and harmless. By gathering together the diverse thoughts of many people and bringing them into a single scope and understanding, they will reach a good measure of knowledge. Like the bee, that wise worker, they will build the sweet honeycomb of the Spirit.

But I think that those who are engaged on the Holy Scriptures ought to admit all writings that are honest and good and free from harm. For thus collecting together the varied thoughts of many and bringing them together into one scope and understanding, they will mount up to a good measure of knowledge, and imitating the bee, wise workwoman, will compact the sweet honeycomb of the Spirit.

Some researchers say that after our Savior's crucifixion and ascension into heaven, certain false shepherds and false teachers fell upon the Savior's flocks like wild beasts and greatly terrified them. They spoke from their own heart, as it is written, and not from the mouth of the Lord—indeed, not merely from their own heart, but from the teachings of their own father, by which I mean the devil. For if no one can call Jesus accursed except in Beelzebub, how is what we say about them not clearly true? What did these men spew out against their own head? They ignorantly and impiously claimed that the Only-Begotten Word of God, the Eternal Light, in whom we both move and exist, was first brought into being when he was born as a man from the Holy Virgin. They said that when he took on our common human form, showed himself on earth as it is written, and lived among men, that was when he began to exist. Against those who think this way and dare to slander the ineffable and eternal generation of the Son, the word of the prophet comes down heavily, saying: But draw near here, you sons of the sorceress, the seed of the adulteress and the whore. Against whom do you mock yourselves? Against whom do you open your mouth wide and stick out your tongue? You do not bring forth good things from a good heart, but spit out the venom of the blood-stained dragon, about whom the Psalmist says to the one God who is over all: You broke the heads of the dragons in the waters.

Some then of those of most research, say that after our Saviour's Cross and Ascension into Heaven, certain false shepherds and false teachers falling like wild beasts on the Saviour's flocks terrified them not a little, speaking out of their own heart, as it is written, and not out of the mouth of the Lord; yea rather, not merely out of their own heart, but out of the teachings of their own father, I mean the devil. For if no one can call Jesus Anathema, save in Beelzebub, how is not what we say of them clearly true? What things then are they which these men belched forth against their own head? They ignorantly and impiously affirmed that the Only-Begotten Word of God, the Eternal Light, in Whom we both move and are, was then first called into being, when He was born Man of the Holy Virgin, and taking this our common fashion, shewed Himself upon earth, as it is written, and conversed with men. On those then who are thus disposed, and who dare to slander the ineffable and eternal Generation of the Son, the word of the Prophet comes heavily, saying thus: But draw near hither, ye sons of the sorceress, the seed of the adulteress and the whore, against whom do ye sport yourselves? against whom make ye a wide mouth and draw out the tongue? not bringing forth good things out of a good heart, but spueing forth the venom of the blood-defiled dragon, of whom saith the Psalmist unto the one God That is over all: Thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters.

But since there was considerable disturbance among the believers about these matters, and the harm of this scandal was consuming the souls of the simpler believers like a plague (for some were drawn away from true teaching by their chatter and imagined that the Word was only called into the beginning of existence when He became Man), the wiser believers assembled and came together to the Saviour's disciple—I mean this John—and explained the disease that was afflicting the brethren. They laid out for him the chatter of these false teachers and begged him both to give them strong assistance through the Spirit's illumination and to extend a saving hand to those who were already trapped in the devil's snares.

But since there was no slight disturbance in regard to these things amongst them that had believed, and the ill of the scandal thereof was consuming like a plague the souls of the simpler (for some drawn away from the true doctrines by their prattle imagined that the Word was then barely called to the beginning of Being, when He became Man), those of the believers who were wiser being assembled and met together, came to the Disciple of the Saviour (I mean this John) and declared the disease that was pressing upon the brethren, and unfolded to him the prattle of them that teach otherwise, and besought that he would both strenuously assist themselves with the illumination through the Spirit, and stretch forth a saving hand to those who were already within the devil's meshes.

The disciple, grieving over those who were lost and corrupted in their thinking, and at the same time considering it completely wrong to take no care for those who would come later, set himself to writing the book. He left the more human aspects—the genealogy of the legal and natural birth according to the flesh—to the other Evangelists to describe in greater detail. He himself, with intense passion and courage of soul, attacks the foolish talk of those who were introducing such ideas, saying, IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD.

The disciple grieving then over them that were lost and corrupted in mind, and at the same time thinking it most unnatural to take no forethought for those that should succeed and come after, betakes himself to making the book: and the more human side, the genealogy of the legal and natural Birth according to the flesh, he left to the other Evangelists to tell at fuller length; himself with extreme ardour and courage of soul springs upon the prattle of those who are introducing such things, saying, IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD.

What do they say to this [namely, In the beginning was the Word] who present to us the Son as someone new and recent, so that He may no longer be believed to be even God at all? For, as the Divine Scripture says, there shall no new God be in you. How then is He not new, if He was begotten in the last times? How did He not speak falsely when He said to the Jews, Truly I say to you, Before Abraham was, I am? For it is plain and acknowledged by everyone that Christ was born of the Holy Virgin many ages after the blessed Abraham. How at all will the words was in the beginning hold true and mean anything, if the Only-Begotten came into being at the end of the ages? See, I ask, by the following arguments as well, how great an absurdity this cutting short of the Eternal Being of the Son, and imagining that He came into being in the last times, produces.

What do they say to this [namely, In the beginning was the Word] who introduce to us the Son, as one new and of late, that so He may no longer be believed to be even God at all. For, says the Divine Scripture, there shall no new God be in thee. How then is He not new, if He were begotten in the last times? How did He not speak falsely when He said to the Jews, Verily I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am? For plain is it and confessed by all, that many ages after the blessed Abraham was Christ born of the Holy Virgin. How at all will the words was in the beginning remain and come to anything, if the Only-Begotten came into being at the close of the ages? See I pray by the following arguments too how great absurdity, this cutting short the Eternal Being of the Son, and imagining that He came into being in the last times, yields.

But let's examine this same word from the Evangelist again for a more careful test:

But this same word of the Evangelist shall be proposed again for a finer test:

Nothing is older than the beginning if it retains for itself the definition of the beginning, since there cannot be a beginning of a beginning. Otherwise, it will completely cease to be a true beginning if something else is conceived of before it and arises before it. If anything can precede what is truly a beginning, our reasoning about it will extend to infinity, with another beginning constantly appearing before it and making the one we are examining secondary.

Than the beginning is there nothing older, if it have, retained to itself, the definition of the beginning (for a beginning of beginning there cannot be); or it will wholly depart from being in truth a beginning, if something else be imagined before it and arise before it. Otherwise, if anything can precede what is truly beginning, our language respecting it will go off to infinity, another beginning ever cropping up before, and making second the one under investigation.

According to exact and true reasoning, there will be no beginning of a beginning. Instead, any attempt to explain it will retreat endlessly into something vast and incomprehensible. Since this backward movement has no stopping point and stretches back to the limit of the ages, the Son will be found not to have been made in time, but rather to have existed invisibly with the Father—for He was in the beginning. But if He was in the beginning, what mind, I ask you, can leap beyond the force of that "was"? When will that "was" come to rest at some final point, since it always runs ahead of our pursuing logic and springs forward before any thought that tries to catch up with it?

There will then be no beginning of beginning, according to exact and true reasoning, but the account of it will recede unto the long-extended and incomprehensive. And since its ever-backward flight has no terminus, and reaches up to the limit of the ages, the Son will be found to have been not made in time, but rather invisibly existing with the Father: for in the beginning was He. But if He was in the beginning, what mind, tell me, can over-leap the force of the was? When will the was stay as at its terminus, seeing that it ever runs before the pursuing reasoning, and springs forward before the conception that follows it?

Astonishment-stricken at this, the Prophet Isaiah says, "Who shall declare His generation? for His life is lifted from the earth." For truly the account of the generation of the Only-Begotten is lifted from the earth—that is, it is above all understanding of those who are on the earth and above all reason, so that in short it is inexplicable. But if it is above our mind and speech, how can He be originate, since our understanding is not powerless to clearly define things that are originate, both as to their time and manner?

Astonishment-stricken whereat the Prophet Isaiah says, Who shall declare His generation? for His Life is lifted from the earth. For verily lifted from the earth is the tale of the generation of the Only-Begotten, that is, it is above all understanding of those who are on the earth and above all reason, so as to be in short inexplicable. But if it is above our mind and speech, how will He be originate, seeing that our understanding is not powerless to clearly define both as to time and manner things originate?

It is impossible to understand "beginning" in any temporal sense when speaking of the Only-Begotten, since He exists before all time and has His Being before the ages, and furthermore, the Divine Nature rejects the limitation of a boundary. For It will always be the same, as the Psalms declare, But Thou art the Same and Thy years shall have no end. From what beginning, then, measured by time and space, will the Son proceed, when He does not rush toward any end point, since He is God by physis, and therefore proclaims, I am the Life? For no beginning can ever be conceived by itself that does not point to its own end, since beginning is so called in relation to end, and end in relation to beginning. But the beginning we are discussing here is one relating to time and space. Therefore, since the Son is older than the ages themselves, He will be free from any generation in time; and He always was in the Father as in a Source, according to what He Himself said, I came forth from the Father and am come. The Father, then, being considered as the Source, the Word was in Him, being His Wisdom and Power and Express Image and Radiance and Likeness. And if there was never a time when the Father was without Word and Wisdom and Express Image and Radiance, it is necessary to confess also that the Son, Who is all these things to the Everlasting Father, is Everlasting. For how at all is He Express Image, how Exact Likeness, unless He is clearly formed after that Beauty, of Whom He also is the Likeness?

It is not possible to take beginning, understood in any way of time, of the Only-Begotten, seeing that He is before all time and hath His Being before the ages, and, yet more, the Divine Nature, shuns the limit of a terminus. For It will be ever the same, according to what is sung in the Psalms, But Thou art the Same and Thy years shall have no end. From what beginning then measured in respect of time and dimension will the Son proceed, Who endureth not to hasten to any terminus, in that He is God by Nature, and therefore crieth, I am the Life? For no beginning will ever be conceived of by itself that does not look to its own end, since beginning is so called in reference to end, end again in reference to beginning. But the beginning we are pointing to in this instance is that relating to time and dimension. Hence, since the Son is elder than the ages themselves, He will be free of any generation in time; and He ever was in the Father as in a Source, according to that which He Himself said, I came forth from the Father and am come. The Father then being considered as the Source, the Word was in Him, being His Wisdom and Power and Express Image and Radiance and Likeness. And if there was no time when the Father was without Word and Wisdom and Express Image and Radiance, needs is it to confess too that the Son Who is all these to the Everlasting Father, is Everlasting. For how at all is He Express Image, how Exact Likeness, except He be plainly formed after that Beauty, Whose Likeness He also is?

It is no problem to think of the Son being in the Father as in a Source, because the word "source" here simply means "where something comes from." But the Son is in the Father and of the Father—not made externally or in time, but existing in the ousia of the Father and flashing forth from Him, like radiance from the sun or innate heat from fire. In such examples, we can see one thing generated from another, yet the two always co-exist and are inseparable, so that neither can exist by itself apart from the other while still preserving the true condition of its own physis. How can there be sun without radiance, or radiance without the sun present to produce it? How can there be fire without heat? Where does heat come from except from fire, or from something else that shares the essential quality of fire? Just as in these examples the fact that one thing exists within another does not eliminate their co-existence, but shows that generated things always keep pace with what generates them and share one physis with them (so to speak), the same is true with the Son. Even if He is understood and said to be in the Father and of the Father, He does not appear to us as foreign and strange and a second Being distinct from Him, but as existing in Him and co-existing eternally, shining forth from Him according to the ineffable mode of the Divine generation.

Nor is it any objection to conceive of the Son being in the Father as in a Source: for the word source here only means the "whence." But the Son is in the Father, and of the Father, not as made externally, nor in time, but being in the Essence of the Father and flashing forth from Him, as from the sun its radiance, or as from fire its innate heat. For in such examples, one may see one thing generated of another, but yet ever co-existing and inseparable, so that one cannot exist of itself apart from the other, and yet preserve the true condition of its own nature. For how can there be sun which has not radiance, or how radiance without sun being within to irradiate it? how fire, if it have not heat? whence heat, save from fire, or from some other thing not removed from the essential quality of fire? As then in these, the in-existence of the things that are of them does not take away their co-existence, but indicates the things generated ever keeping pace with their generators and possessed of one nature so to speak with them, so too is it with the Son. For even if He be conceived and said to be in the Father and of the Father, He will not come before us as alien and strange and a Being second to Him, but as in Him and co-existing ever, and shining forth from Him, according to the ineffable mode of the Divine generation.

That God the Father is called by the saints the Beginning of the Son only in the sense of "whence" can be heard in the Psalmist, who through the Holy Spirit foretells the second coming of our Savior and says to the Son: "With You the Beginning in the Day of Your Power in the beauty of Your Saints." The day of the Son's Power is the day when He will judge the world and give to everyone according to their works. He will certainly come then, Himself in the Father and having the Father in Himself—the unbeginning Beginning, so to speak, of His physis with regard only to the "whence," because of His being from the Father.

But that God the Father is spoken of by the saints too as the Beginning of the Son in the sense only of "whence," hear the Psalmist through the Holy Ghost foretelling the second Appearance of our Saviour and saying as to the Son: With Thee the Beginning in the Day of Thy Power in the beauty of Thy Saints. For the day of the Son's Power is that whereon He shall judge the world and render to every one according to his works. Yerily shall He then come, Himself in the Father, and having in Himself the Father, the so to say unbeginning Beginning of His Nature in regard only to the "whence," by reason of His Being of the Father.

Our discussion about the beginning mentioned here branches out into many different ideas, eagerly seeking on every side to grasp things that are profitable, and like a hunting dog, tracking down the true understanding of the divine teachings and precision in the mysteries. For the Savior says, search the Holy Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life, and they are the ones which testify of Me. The blessed Evangelist, then, seems here to call the Father Ἀρχὴ, that is the Power over all, so that the Divine Nature which is over all may be shown, having under Its feet everything that is created, and being lifted above those things which are called into being by It.¹¹

Unto many and various ideas does our discourse respecting the here signified beginning diversify itself, on all sides zealous to capture things that tend to profit, and after the manner of a hound, tracking the true apprehension of the Divine dogmas, and exactitude in the mysteries. For search, saith the Saviour, the Holy Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of Me. The Blessed Evangelist, then, seems here to name the Father Ἀρχὴ, that is the Power over all, that the Divine Nature Which is over all may be shewn, having under Its feet every thing which is originate, and borne above those things which are by It called into being.¹¹

In this Beginning then that is above all and over all was the Word, not placed with all things beneath Its feet, but set apart from all things, existing in It by Nature as Its Co-Eternal Fruit, possessing the Nature of Him Who begat Him as though it were the most ancient place of all. Therefore He, the Begotten who is Free from the Free Father, will possess Sovereignty over all things together with Him. What then the nature of the argument will be in this matter, it is fitting to examine.

In this Ἀρχὴ then that is above all and over all was the Word, not, with all things, under Its feet, but apart from all things, in It by Nature as Its Co-Eternal Fruit, having the Nature of Him Who begat Him as it were a place the most ancient of all. Wherefore He Begotten Free of Free Father, will with Him possess the Sovereignty over all. What then now too will be the nature of the argument in this, it is meet to see.

Certain people have dangerously asserted, as we said above, that the Word of God first came into being when He took the temple from the Holy Virgin and became human for us. What then would follow if the Son's physis were like this—originating, made, and of the same nature as all other things, to which birth from non-existence and the name and reality of servitude rightly and truly apply? For what created thing can escape without consequence servitude under the God who is Lord of all? What does not bow under the sovereignty and power and lordship that is over all, which Solomon himself indicates to us when he says, "For the throne of Sovereignty is established with righteousness"? For the throne of the Sovereignty—that is, the one over all—is ready and fully prepared for righteousness. And hear what throne we are speaking of, as God says through one of the Saints, "Heaven is My Throne." Therefore heaven is ready for righteousness, that is, the holy spirits in the heavens.

Hazardful have certain, as we said above, asserted that the Word of God was then first called into being, when taking the Temple that is of the Holy Virgin He became Man for us. What then will be the consequence, if the Son's Nature be thus, or originate and made and of like nature with all things else, to which birth out of not being, and the name and fact of servitude, are rightfully and truly predicated? For what of things that are made can with impunity escape servitude under the God That is Lord of all? what does not stoop under the sovereignty and power and lordship that is over all, which Solomon himself too signifies to us when he says, For the throne of Sovereignty is established with righteousness? For ready and exceeding prepared unto righteousness is the Throne of the Sovereignty, that I mean which is over all. And what throne that is of which we are now speaking, hear God saying by one of the Saints, The Heaven is My Throne. Ready therefore unto righteousness is the Heaven, that is, the holy spirits in the heavens.

Since one must then inevitably admit that the Son is subject to God the Father along with the rest of creation, having the position of a servant and falling under the authority of the Archē (first principle) together with everything else—if He is, according to them, late in coming into existence and one of those things made in time—the blessed Evangelist necessarily springs into action forcefully against those who teach such things, and removes the Son from all servitude. He shows that the Son is of the Essence that is free and sovereign over all, and declares that He exists in Him by nature, saying, "In the beginning was the Word."

Since then one must needs confess that the Son is with the rest of the creatures subject to God the Father, as having the position of a servant, and together with the rest falling under the authority of the Ἀρχὴ, if He be according to them late in Birth and one of those who have been made in time:—-of necessity does the Blessed Evangelist spring with energy on those who teach otherwise, and withdraw the Son from all bondage. And he shews that He is of the Essence that is Free and Sovereign over all, and declares that He is in Him by Nature saying, In the beginning was the Word.

But to the word Ἀρχὴ he fittingly adds the word "was," so that He may be understood as not only glorious, but also existing before the ages. For the word "was" is used here to carry the mind of the thinker toward some deep and incomprehensible Generation, the Ineffable Generation that is outside of time. For that "was," spoken without limit, at what point will it stop, since its nature is always to push forward ahead of the pursuing mind, and whatever stopping point anyone might suppose it has reached, it makes that the starting point of its further progress? The Word "was" then in the Ἀρχὴ, that is, in Sovereignty over all things, and possessing the dignity of Lord, as being by physis from It. But if this is true, how is He any longer originate or made? And where the "was" completely exists, how will the "was not" enter in, or what place will it have at all in relation to the Son?

But to the word Ἀρχὴ he fitly annexes the was, that He may be thought of as not only of renown, but also before the ages. For the word was is here put, carrying on the idea of the thinker to some deep and incomprehensible Generation, the Ineffable Generation that is outside of time. For that was, spoken indefinitely, at what point will it rest, its nature being ever to push forward before the pursuing mind, and whatever point of rest any might suppose that it has, that it makes the starting point of its further course? The Word was then in the Ἀρχὴ, that is in Sovereignty over all things, and possessing the dignity of Lord, as being by Nature from It. But if this be true, how is He any longer originate or made? And where the was wholly is, how will the "was not" come in, or what place will it have at all as regards the Son?

Having sufficiently shown that the senseless mind of those who hold such opinions is already outdated and has strayed from the truth, and having, by saying "In the beginning was the Word," closed every loophole to those who say that the Son is of the things that are not, and having utterly stripped away all their nonsense in these words, he moves on to another related and most perverse heresy. And just as some gardener who is both most excellent and enduring takes great delight in the hard work of the mattock, and girding his loins and wearing the working clothes that suit him, gives all diligence to present his garden free from the ugliness of thorns, and does not stop throwing one upon another, and continually going around, removes the troublesome root by applying the hard tooth of the mattock—so the blessed John too, bearing in his mind the quick and powerful and most sharp word of God and examining with the keenest insight and clearest attention the bitter shoots of the wickedness of those who think otherwise, comes upon them, so to speak, at a run, and with mighty resolution cuts them off on every side, providing for those who read his books a defense in the right faith.

Having sufficiently shewn that already out of date and astray from the truth is the senseless mind of those who hold such opinions, and having, by saying In the beginning was the Word, closed every loophole to those who say that the Son is of the things that are not, and having utterly stripped off all their nonsense in these words, he goes to another akin and most perverse heresy. And like as some gardener at once most excellent and enduring, delights much in the toils of the mattock, and girding his loins, and in the working-dress befitting him, gives all diligence to present the appearance of his park free from the unseemliness of thorns, and ceases not throwing one upon another, and, ever going round about, removes the troublesome root, applying the stern tooth of the mattock; so the blessed John too, bearing in his mind the quick and powerful and most sharp word of God and considering with keenest glance and clearest attention the bitter shoots of the naughtiness of those who think otherwise, comes upon them so to speak at a run, and with mighty resolution cuts them off on every side, to those who read his books ministering defence in the right faith.

Look again, I ask you, at the vigilance of this one who bears the Spirit within him. He taught previously that the Word was in Archē (that is, in God the Father, as we said). But since his understanding was enlightened and he was not ignorant (as we may suppose) that certain people would arise who in their great ignorance would say that the Father and Son are one and the same, distinguishing the Holy Trinity only by name but not allowing them to exist in their distinct hypostaseis (personal subsistences), so that the Father should be understood as truly Father and not Son, while the Son should be by himself Son and not Father, as the word of truth teaches—therefore he arms himself against this heresy too, as if already confronting him and being debated at that time or about to be. For its destruction, alongside "In the beginning was the Word" he immediately places "And the Word was with God." He adds "was" everywhere out of necessity because of his generation before the ages, yet by saying that the Word was with God, he shows that the Son is one, having existence by himself, while God the Father, with whom the Word was, is another. For how can something that is numerically one be conceived of as being with itself or beside itself?

For see now again I pray, the vigilance of this bearer within him of the Spirit. He taught in the foregoing, that the Word was in Ἀρχὴ, that is, in God the Father, as we said. But since, with the eye of his understanding illumined, he was not ignorant, as we may suppose, that certain would arise, of their great ignorance saying that the Father and Son are one and the same, and distinguishing the Holy Trinity only by name, but not suffering Them to exist in Their several Persons, so that the Father should be conceived of as in truth Father and not Son, the Son again to be by Himself Son, not Father, as the word of truth is:—-needs against this heresy too as already confronting him, and mooted at that time, or about so to be, does he arm himself, and for its destruction, by the side of In the beginning was the Word he puts forthwith, And the Word was with God: every where adding of necessity the was on account of His Generation before the ages, yet by saying that the Word was with God, shewing that the Son is One, having existence by Himself, God the Father again, with Whom was the Word, Another. For how can that which is one in number be conceived of as itself with itself, or beside itself?

However, we will demonstrate through the arguments below that the heretics' reasoning on these matters will also be found to lack proper understanding, by making a precise examination of the questions concerning it.

But that the reasoning of the heretics about these things also will be found without learning, we will teach by the considerations below, making an exact test of the questions regarding it.

Proof through demonstration and Scripture testimonies that the Father exists in His own hypostasis, and the Son likewise, with the Holy Spirit being counted together with them as God, even though nothing is being investigated about Him at the present moment.

Proof by demonstration and Scripture testimonies, that the Father is in His Own Person, and the Son likewise, the Holy Ghost being counted with Them as God, even though nothing is for the present enquired into regarding Him.

The Son is consubstantial with the Father and the Father with the Son, which means they have an unchangeable likeness, so that the Father is seen in the Son, the Son in the Father, and each shines forth in the other, just as the Savior himself says, "He who has seen me has seen the Father," and again, "I in the Father and the Father in me." But even though he is in the Father and has the Father in him, being himself fully, as has already been said, perfectly exact to the form of the one who begot him, and depicting again in himself without any deficiency the Father from whom he comes—he will not therefore be deprived of his separate existence, nor will the Father lose his own special being. Neither will the surpassing likeness and resemblance cause any confusion of persons, so that the Father who begot and the Son who is begotten from him should be considered as numerically one. Rather, sameness of nature (physis) will be confessed of both, yet the individual existence of each will surely follow, so that the Father should be understood as indeed Father, and the Son as Son. For in this way, with the Holy Spirit being numbered with them and counted as God, the Holy and Adorable Trinity will have its proper fullness.

Consubstantial is the Son with the Father and the Father with the Son, wherefore They arrive at an unchangeable Likeness, so that the Father is seen in the Son, the Son in the Father, and Each flashes forth in the Other, even as the Saviour Himself says, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father, and again, I in the Father and the Father in Me. But even though He be in the Father, and have again the Father in Him, Himself full well, as has been already said, perfectly exact unto the Form of Him Who begat Him, and depicting again in Himself without any shortcome, the Father whence He is:—-not therefore will He be deprived of His separate existence, nor will the Father lose His own special Being; but neither will the surpassing Likeness and Resemblance work any confusion of Persons, so that the Father Who begat and the Son Who is Begotten of Him should be considered as one in number. But sameness of Nature will be confessed of Both, yet the Individual Existence of Each will surely follow, so that both the Father should be conceived of as indeed Father, and the Son as Son. For thus, the Holy Ghost being numbered with them and counted as God, the Holy and Adorable Trinity will have Its Proper Fullness.

Another point: If the Son Himself is also the Father, what is the point of having distinct names? For if He did not beget anyone at all, why is He called Father? And how can He be called Son if He was not begotten of the Father? The names themselves necessarily require us to understand them in a certain way. But since the Divine Scriptures proclaim that the Son was begotten, and this is the truth, He therefore has His own distinct existence. The Father likewise has His own distinct existence, since what is begotten is clearly something different from what begets.

Another. If the Son Himself is Father too, what place has the distinction of names? For if He begat not at all, why is He called Father? How Son, if He were not begotten of the Father? For the Names ask as of necessity such an idea regarding them. But since the Divine Scriptures preach that the Son was Begotten, and the truth is so, He has therefore an existence by Himself. The Father too is again by Himself, if indeed that which is begotten is plainly one thing from another as regards that which begets.

Another argument. The blessed Paul, writing his letter to the Philippians, says of the Son, "Who being in the Form of God, thought it not robbery to be Equal with God." Who then is He who did not consider His being equal with God something to be grasped? For must we not say that one is He who exists in the Form of God, and another is He whose Form it is? But this is clear and acknowledged by all. Therefore the Father and the Son are not one and the same in number, but have distinct existence and are beheld in one another, according to sameness of ousia, even though they are One from One—that is, the Son from the Father.

Another. The blessed Paul writing his letter to the Philippians says of the Son, Who being in the Form of God, thought it not robbery to be Equal with God. Who then is He Who would not that His being Equal with God should be thought robbery? For must one not needs say, that One is He Who is in the Form of God, Another again He Whose Form it was? But this is clear and confessed by all. Therefore not one and the same in number are Father and Son, but of distinct Being and beheld in One Another, according to sameness of Essence, even if They be One of One, to wit the Son of the Father.

Another argument. The Savior said, "I and My Father are One," knowing that He has a separate existence and the Father does too. But if this were not truly the case, why did He not preserve what belongs to oneness and say, "I and My Father am One"? Since He explains His meaning by using the plural number, He clearly overthrows the assumption of those who think otherwise. For "are" cannot be sensibly understood as referring to one person.

Another. I and My Father are One, said the Saviour, as knowing, that is, that Himself has a separate existence and the Father too. But if the truth of the fact be not so, why did He not, keeping what belongs to oneness, say, I and My Father am One? But since He explains what He means by the plural number, clearly He overthrows the surmise of those who think otherwise. For we are will not be with sense taken of one.

Here's another argument. At the creation of humanity, God's voice is presented as saying, "Let Us make man in Our Image, after Our likeness." If, then, the fullness (if I may call it that) of the Holy Trinity is reduced to a single numerical entity, and they impiously deny the Father and the Son Their distinct existence, who is speaking and to whom when it says, "Let us make man in Our Image"? For He should say—if it were as they foolishly claim—"Let me make man in my image, after my likeness." But the writer of the book does not say this. Instead, by assigning the creation to a plural form and adding "Our image," he almost proclaims with a clear and powerful voice that the enumeration of the Holy Trinity is more than One.

Another. At the fashioning of man the voice of God is introduced saying, Let Us make man in Our Image, after Our likeness. If then the amplitude, if I may so call it, of the Holy Trinity is contracted into a One in number, and they impiously take away from the Father and the Son Their separate Existence: who is he who says, and to whom, Let us make man in Our Image? For He ought forsooth to say, if it be as they in their silly nonsense say, Let us make man in my image, after my likeness. But now the writer of the Book, not saying this indeed, but allotting the creation to the plural number and adding Our image, well-nigh with clear and mighty voice proclaims the enumeration of the Holy Trinity to be above One.

Another argument. If the Son is the Brightness of the Father, as Light of Light, how is He not other than Him, as having distinct Being? For that which is illuminated is truly illuminated by another—namely, by that which illuminates it—and not by itself from itself.

Another. If the Son is the Brightness of the Father, as Light of Light, how is He not other than Him, as of distinct Being? For that which is the embrightened, is so in very deed from other, that namely which brightens it, and not itself from itself.

Another argument. The Son, showing Himself to be of the Essence of God the Father, says again, "I came forth from the Father and am come; again I go to the Father." How then will He not be Other than the Father in Person and number, when all reason compels us to conceive of that which proceeds from anything as other than that from which it proceeded? Therefore the contrary argument is not true.

Another. The Son shewing Himself of the Essence of God the Father says again, I came forth from the Father and am come; again I go to the Father. How then will He not be Other than the Father in Person and number, when all reason persuades us to conceive of that which proceeds from ought as other than that from whence it proceeded? Not true therefore is the contrary argument.

Here is the paragraph rewritten in clear, modern English:

Another point. We are justified by believing in God the Father, in His Only-Begotten Son, and in the Holy Spirit. This is why the Savior Himself commands His own disciples, saying "Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." If the difference of the Names contributes nothing to our understanding, and when someone says "the Father" they mean the Son, and in naming the Son they refer to the Father, what need would there have been to command that believers should be baptized not into Unity but into Trinity? But since the Divine Nature extends into the number three, it is entirely clear to everyone, I think, that each of those so numbered exists in His own hypostasis (individual Person), yet because there is no change in the Nature, it reaches One Godhead and receives the same worship.

Another. Believing in God the Father, in His Only-Begotten Son, and in the Holy Ghost we are justified. Wherefore the Saviour Himself too enjoins His own Disciples saying Go ye therefore and teach all nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. If then the difference of the Names is to contribute nothing to our conception, but when one says the Father, he means the Son, and in naming the Son makes mention of the Father, what need was there of bidding that the believers should be baptized not into Unity but into Trinity? But since the tale of the Divine Nature runs forth into the number three, it is I suppose wholly manifest to all that Each of those so numbered exists in His Own Person, but by reason of there being no change in the Nature, It arrives at One Godhead and has the same worship.

Another. The Divine Scripture says that the cities of the Sodomites were burned by the Anger of God. Explaining how the Divine wrath was brought upon them and clearly describing the mode of the destruction, it says, "The Lord rained upon Sodom brimstone and fire from the Lord," since this is the portion of the cup most fitting for those who commit such sins. What Lord then from what Lord sent the fire on and consumed the cities of the Sodomites? It is clear that it was the Father who works all things through the Son, since the Son is also His Might and His Arm, who caused Him to rain the fire upon the Sodomites. Since therefore the Lord sends the fire from the Lord upon them, how is the Father not Other, in respect to His own Being, than the Son, and the Son again than the Father? For the One is here signified as being from One.

Another. The Divine Scripture says that the cities of the Sodomites were burned by the Anger of God, and explaining how the Divine wrath was brought upon them, and clearly describing the mode of the destruction, The Lord, it says, rained upon Sodom brimstone and fire from, the Lord, since this too is the portion of the cup most befitting those who are wont to commit such sins. What Lord then from what Lord sent the fire on and consumed the cities of the Sodomites? It is clear that it was the Father Who worketh all things through the Son, since He is too His Might and His Arm, Who caused Him to rain the fire upon the Sodomites. Since therefore the Lord sends the fire from the Lord upon them, how is not the Father Other, in respect to His own Being, than the Son,, and the Son again than the Father? For the One is here signified as being from One.

Moved by prophetic spirit and foreknowing things to come through it, the blessed Psalmist understood that the human race could be saved in no other way except by the Appearing of the Son of God alone, who is able to easily reorder all things to whatever He wills. Therefore he prayed that the Son might be sent to us, as the only one able to save those who were under subjection and oppression of the devil, and he said to God the Father, "O send out Thy Light and Thy Truth." As for what the Light is and what the Truth is, hear the Son Himself saying, "I am the Light and I am the Truth." But if the Light and the Truth of the Father—that is, the Son—is sent to us, how is He not Other than the Father in His own Being, even if He is One with Him in terms of Sameness of ousia? For if anyone imagines that this is not so, but that Father and Son are one and the same, why doesn't the one who has the Spirit within him make his prayer differently and cry, "Come to us, O Light and Truth"? But since he says "O send out," he clearly knew that One is the Sender and Another is the Sent—though the mode of the Sending should be understood as befits God.

Another. Moved by prophetic spirit, and through it foreknowing things to come, the blessed Psalmist had perceived that the human race could no otherwise be saved, except by the alone Appearing of the Son of God, Who is able easily to trans-order all things to whatsoever He will. Wherefore he besought that the Son might be sent to us, as alone able to save those who were under subjection and oppression of the devil, and said, as though to God the Father, O send out Thy Light and Thy Truth. What then the Light is, and what the Truth, hear the Son Himself saying, I am the Light and I am the Truth. But if the Light and the Truth of the Father, that is the Son, be sent to us, how is He not Other than He, as far as His own Being, even if He be One with Him as regards Sameness of Essence? For if any imagine that it is not so, but that Father and Son are one and the Same, why does not he who bears within him the Spirit make the fashion of his prayer different and cry, Come to us, O Light and Truth? But since he says O send out, plainly he knew that One is the Sender, Another the Sent: be the mode of the Sending conceived of as befits God.

The Divine Scriptures say that all things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, were made through the Son. We who worship the truth hold to this belief and maintain right thinking within the dogmas of piety. Let us therefore examine closely the expression "through the Son" and see what meaning it gives us. Clearly, it leads us to understand that the Doer and Worker is One, while He through whom all things are worked is Another. The expression "through the Son" necessarily presents us with two distinct Persons. Otherwise, they should explain how the phrase "through the Son" can properly and truly refer to a single individual—one in number and counting—if no one else is understood to exist alongside Him and work together with Him. But I think our opponent will be completely unable to do this. Since both the Divine Scriptures proclaim that the Father has worked all things through the Son, and we believe this (and I suppose they do too), it is necessary to understand that the Father exists separately and by Himself, and likewise the Son. This in no way undermines the fact that the Holy Trinity is seen in sameness of ousia.

Another. The Divine Scriptures say, that through the Son were made all things that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible, and thus believing, we the worshippers of the truth go on our way in rightness of conception, and within the dogmas of piety. Let us then scrutinize the expression through the Son, and examine what sense it gives us. It is clear that it would have us conceive of the Doer and Worker as One, Him through Whom all things are wrought as Another. For the expression through the Son gives, as of necessity, a sort of exhibition of two Persons. Else let them say how the word through the Son in His being said to do anything, will rightly and truly admit the one in number and in the reckoning thereto pertaining, if none other be conceived of with Him and concurring with Him. But I suppose that our opponent will be wholly at a loss. But since both the Divine Scriptures proclaim that the Father hath wrought all things through the Son, and we believe it and I suppose that they too: how is it not of necessity to conceive that the Father exists separately and by Himself, and in like manner the Son, nor does this any way overthrow the fact that the Holy Trinity is seen in sameness of Essence.

The one who carried the Spirit within him was not unaware that some would arise in the last times who would accuse the Essence of the Only Begotten and deny the Lord who bought them by supposing that the Word who appeared from God the Father is not by physis God, but would introduce alongside Him some spurious and falsely-named god, having the name of Sonship and Deity but not truly possessing them. Those who give the Jewish impiety of Arius a place in their own minds do this, and for this reason they put forth from a dead heart no life-giving word of devout thought, but rather that which looks and tends toward death. Their tongue truly is like an arrow shot out; the words of their mouth are deceitful.

He who bare within him the Spirit was not ignorant that there should arise some in the last times who should accuse the Essence of the Only Begotten and deny the Lord that bought them, by supposing that the Word Who appeared from God the Father is not by Nature God, but should bring in besides Him some so to speak spurious and false-called god, having about him the name of Sonship and Deity, but not so in truth. Such do they, who give the Jewish impiety of Arius an abode in their own mind; wherefore they put forth out of a dead heart, no life-giving word of pious thought, but that which looketh and tendeth unto death. Their tongue verily is as an arrow shot out; deceitful the words of their mouth.

As if someone were already challenging the words of truth and practically saying to the holy Evangelist: "The Word was with God, sir—very well, we fully agree with what you've written about this. Let the Father exist separately, and the Son likewise. But what should we understand the Word to be by physis? Simply being with God doesn't reveal His ousia at all. Since the divine Scriptures proclaim one God, we'll assign this to the Father alone, with whom the Word was." How does truth's herald respond? Not only was the Word with God, but He was also God—so that through being with God, He might be known to be Other than the Father and believed to be the Son, distinct and existing by Himself; and through being God, He might be understood as consubstantial and from Him by physis, being both God and coming forth from God. For it would be inconceivable, since everyone confesses the Godhead to be one, that the Holy Trinity should not in every way share the same ousia and thus arrive at one relation of Godhead. Therefore He was also God. He did not become God eventually, but He was—since eternal being must especially and certainly accompany being God, because whatever came into existence in time or was brought from non-existence into existence will not be God by physis.

As though then some one were already resisting the words of truth, and were almost saying to the Holy Evangelist; The Word was with God, Sir, be it so, we agree fully to what you have written as to this. Be the Father and Exist He separately, and the Son likewise. What now ought one to suppose that the Word is by Nature? for His Being with God, does not at all reveal His Essence. But since the Divine Scriptures proclaim One God, we will allot this to the Father only, with Whom the Word was. What then replies Truth's herald? Not only was the Word with God, but He was also God, that through His being with God, He might be known to be Other than the Father and might be believed to be Son distinct and by Himself; through being God, He might be conceived of as Consubstantial and of Him by Nature, as being both God and coming forth from God. For it were inconceivable, since the Godhead is by all confessed to be One, that the Holy Trinity should not in every wise arrive at Sameness of Essence and so reach one relation of Godhead. He was then also God. He did not become so at last, but He was, if indeed eternal being will most specially and surely follow on being God: for that which became in time, or was at all brought from not being into being, will not be by Nature God.

Since God the Word has eternity through the word "was" and consubstantiality with the Father through being God, how great a punishment and vengeance must we think those people will incur who believe that He is in any way inferior to or unlike the One who begot Him, and who do not hesitate to reach such a height of impiety that they even dare to say such things to others, understanding neither what they say nor what they affirm?

Seeing then that God the Word has Eternity through the word was, Consubstantiality with the Father through being God, how great punishment and vengeance must we needs think that they shall be found to incur, who think that He is in ought whatever inferior, or unlike Him who begat Him, and shudder not to go forward to that height of impiety, as even to dare to utter such things to others also, understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm?

Here is the rewritten paragraph:

But we will know from the following considerations that the Son, who is truly from Him, is in no way inferior to the Father.

But that the Son Who is of Him of a truth is in no wise inferior to the Father, we shall know again from the accompanying considerations.

Another point. The Divine Scriptures call the Son by many and varied names. They say that He is the Wisdom and Power of the Father, according to what Paul says: "Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of God." He is also called both His Light and His Truth, as one of the Saints sings in the Psalms: "O send out Thy Light and Thy Truth." He is called Righteousness as well, as in "Quicken me in Thy Righteousness"—for the Father gives life in Christ to those who believe in Him. He is also called the Counsel of the Father, as it says, "Thou shalt guide me with Thy Counsel," and again, "The Counsel of the Lord standeth for ever." Since the Son is all these things to God the Father, let those who flatter the error of Arius and are filled with that man's foolishness tell us how He is lesser than the Father. For if they are right, then we must say that the Father is not wholly wise, not wholly mighty, not wholly light, not wholly truth, not wholly righteous—indeed, not even perfect in counsel—if the Son, who is all these things to Him, is shown to be not perfect because He is inferior. But to think or say this is impious. The Father is perfect because He has all things perfectly in Himself. Clearly, then, the Son is also perfect—the Wisdom and the Power, the Light and the Truth, the Righteousness and the Counsel of the Father. But how can He who brings perfection to His own Father be conceived of as inferior?

Another. By many and varied names do the Divine Scriptures call the Son. For they say that He is the Wisdom and Power of the Father, according to what is said by Paul, Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of God. He is called again both His Light and His Truth, as is sung in the Psalms by one of the Saints, O send out Thy Light and Thy Truth. He is called also Righteousness, as, Quicken me in Thy Righteousness: for the Father quickens in Christ those who believe on Him. He is called also the Counsel of the Father, as it is said, Thou shalt guide me with Thy Counsel, and again, The Counsel of the Lord standeth for ever. Since then the Son is all these to God the Father, let them tell us who fawn on the error of Arius and are filled with that man's folly, how He is lesser than He. For if they be right, it is time to say that the Father is not wholly wise, not wholly Mighty, not wholly Light, not wholly Truth, not wholly Righteous, yea, not even Perfect in Counsel, if the Son Who is all these to Him, by reason of being inferior is shewn to be not Perfect. But to think or say thus is impious. Perfect is the Father, because He has all things perfectly in Himself: Perfect then clearly the Son too, the Wisdom and the Power, the Light and the Truth, the Righteousness and the Counsel of the Father. But He Who fulfilleth Perfection in His own Father, how can He be conceived of as inferior?

Another. If the Son is inferior to God the Father yet is worshipped both by us and by the holy angels, we will be caught in the act of serving two gods, since what lacks perfection can never attain to sameness of ousia with the Perfect. The difference separating things that are unlike in their physis is vast, dividing them into complete otherness. But the faith is not in a plurality of gods. Rather, God is One: the Father, with the Son and Holy Spirit attaining unity with Him. The charge against the Son therefore comes to nothing. For how could what is inferior be admitted into unity with the Perfect Father and be united in nature through unity of ousia?

Another. If the Son having inferiority to God the Father, is worshipped both by us and by the Holy Angels, we shall be taken in the act of serving two gods, since that which lacks perfection will never attain to sameness of essence with the Perfect; but vast is the difference sundering unto alienship things unlike as regards their nature. But the faith is not in plurality of gods, but One is God the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost attaining unto unity with Him. The charge against the Son then comes to nothing. For how yet will that which is inferior be admitted into unity with the Perfect Father, and be united as to Nature in unity of Essence?

If the Son is fullness (for we have all received from His fullness), how can inferiority have any place in Him? Things that are contrary to one another cannot coexist in the same subject at the same time.

Another. If the Son is fulness (for of His fulness have all we received) how will what is inferior have a place? for things that are contrary to one another are irreconcileable in one subject at the same time.

Another. If the Son who has the lesser fills all things, where will the greater of the Father have place? For the argument is being used in more physical terms, by way of example, while superiority and inferiority in what is unembodied is conceived of differently.

Another. If the Son who has the lesser filleth all things, where will the greater of the Father have place? For the argument shall be used in more corporeal form, in the way of example, while the superiority and inferiority in the unembodied is otherwise conceived of.

Another argument. If God is That Which is above every name, and the Son who is His Heir does not attain perfection because of being lesser, then there is no greatness in that which is above all things, namely God. But it is absurd either to think or say this: therefore the Son is Perfect, as being above every name, and God.

Another. If God is That Which is above every name, and the Son Who is His Heir attains not to be Perfect by reason of the lesser, there is no greatness in that which is above all things, that is God. But it is absurd either to think or to say this: Perfect therefore is the Son, as being above every name, and God.

Another argument. If the Divine Nature has no quantity, and "lesser" implies a matter of degree, how can the Son, who is God by physis, be thought of as inferior? For He will not be outside the realm of quantity if they claim He is inferior to the Father.

Another. If the Divine Nature is without quantity, and the lesser is cognizant of degree, how can the Son Who is by Nature God be conceived of as inferior? For He will not be beyond the province of quantity, if they say that He has inferiority to the Father.

Another argument. The blessed John says of the Son that He does not give the Spirit by measure—that is, to those who are worthy. Since there is no measure in the Son, He is immeasurable and surpasses all comprehension in quantity, being God. How then can the one who is not measured be less?²²

Another. The blessed John says of the Son that He giveth not the Spirit by measure, to those that is who are worthy. Since then there is not measure in the Son, He is immeasurable, and surpasses all comprehension in quantity as being God. How then is the not-measured less?²²

Another argument. If the Son is lesser and the Father greater, then clearly they will contribute differently to our sanctification, each in proportion to their respective measures. The Father would sanctify to a greater degree, the Son to a lesser degree and separately. Therefore the Spirit would be twofold—less in the Son, greater in the Father. And those who are sanctified by the Father would be sanctified perfectly, while those sanctified by the Son would not be sanctified perfectly. But this line of reasoning leads to great absurdity. For the Holy Spirit is one, and the sanctification freely given by the Father through the Son according to nature (physis) is one and perfect. Therefore He who has the same operation as the perfect Father is not lesser. He possesses the Spirit of Him who begot Him as a good belonging to His own nature (physis), living and existing in Him, just as the Father has it.

Another. If the Son is lesser, the Father greater, differently, it is plain, and in proportion to the measures that Either hath, will they contribute to our sanctification. And the Father will sanctify in a greater degree, the Son in a less and separately. The Spirit therefore will be twofold, and less in the Son, greater in the Father. And they who are sanctified by the Father will be sanctified perfectly, they who by the Son, not perfectly. But great is the absurdity of reasoning herein. For One is the Holy Ghost, one and perfect the Sanctification, freely given by the Father through the Son Naturally. Not lesser then is He Who has the same operation with the Perfect Father, and Who has the Spirit of Him Who begat Him, a good of His own Nature, Living and inexisting, even as the Father hath.

Another argument. If the Son were in the Form and Equality of God, as Paul says, how is He lesser than the Father? For the mode of the dispensation with the Flesh and the humiliation connected with it—which has the Second Coming from Heaven as its end point—will not, I suppose, strip the Son of the dignity that belongs to Him by physis. For He will surely come, as we heard Him say, in the glory of His Father. How then can He in any way share in the glory of the perfect Father if He is inferior to Him?

Another. If the Son were in the Form and Equality of God, as Paul saith, how is He lesser that He? For the mode of the dispensation with Flesh and the humiliation thereupon mentioned, which has the Second Appearance from Heaven as its termination, will not, I suppose, bare the Son of the dignity by Nature belonging to Him. For He will surely come, as we heard Him say, in the glory of His Father. How then is he at all in the glory of the Perfect Father who is inferior to Him?

Another. God the Father is found somewhere saying through one of the prophets, "I will not give My glory unto another." We must therefore ask those who impiously dishonor the Son—or rather, through Him the Father too, for he who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father either—whether the Son, while being less than God the Father as they suppose, is consubstantial with Him or not. If they say that He is consubstantial, why do they wrongly assign Him the lesser status? For things that are of the same ousia and physis will never have the greater within themselves as regards their mode of being, for this is precisely what is being considered.

Another. God the Father is somewhere found to say by one of the prophets, I will not give My glory unto another. We must ask therefore those who impiously dishonour the Son, nay rather through Him the Father too (for he that honoureth not the Son, neither doth he honour the Father), whether the Son being, as they suppose, less than God the Father is Consubstantial with Him, or no? If then they shall say that He is Consubstantial, why do they for nought put on Him the less? For things that are of the same essence and nature, will never have the greater in themselves, as regards the mode of their being: for this altogether is it that is under consideration.

But they will probably not agree, nor will they grant that the Son is Consubstantial with the Father, since according to them He is less. He will therefore be wholly other and alien from the Father. How then does He have His glory? For blessed Daniel says there was given Him glory and a kingdom. Either God the Father will be lying when He says, I will not give My glory unto another, or if He is truthful and did give His glory to the Son, then the Son is not other than He, being the Fruit of His ousia and His true Offspring. And He who is so situated toward the Father in regard to ousia, how will He be less than He?

But they will not perhaps agree, nor will grant that the Son is Consubstantial with the Father, He being according to them less: He will therefore be wholly other and alien from the Father. How then has He His glory? For there was given Him, says blessed Daniel, glory and a kingdom. For either God the Father will lie in saying, I will not give My glory unto another: or if He is true, and did give His glory to the Son, then is He not other than He, the Fruit of His Essence and His True Offspring. And He Who is so situated towards the Father in regard of Essence, how will He be less than He?

Others are simple and unconnected. If the Father is Almighty, and the Son is likewise Almighty, how is He lesser than the Father? For I don't suppose that according to the law of sequence, the imperfect will rise up to the measure of the perfect. And if the Father is Lord, and the Son is likewise Lord, how is He less than the Father? For He will not be perfectly free if He is less in lordship and does not have the full dignity in Himself. And if the Father is Light, and the Son is likewise Light, how is He less than the Father? For He will not be perfectly Light, but will be partially comprehended by darkness, and the Evangelist will be lying when he says, "The darkness did not comprehend it." And if the Father is Life, and the Son is likewise Life, how is He less than the Father? For life will not exist in us in perfect measure, even if Christ dwells in the inner man. But those who believe are still to some degree dead, if it is true that the Son, having the less, is not perfectly life. But since one must push away as far as possible the absurdity of this, we say that the Son is Perfect, being made equal to the Perfect Father by reason of the exact Likeness of His ousia.

Others, simple and without connection. If the Father is Almighty, and the Son likewise Almighty, how is He lesser than He? for I do not suppose that according to the law of sequence, the imperfect will mount up to the measure of the perfect. And if the Father is Lord, and the Son likewise Lord; how is He less than He? For He will be not perfectly free, if He be less in lordship, and have not the full dignity in Himself. And if the Father be Light, and the Son likewise Light, how is He less than He? For He will be not perfectly Light, but will be in part comprehended by darkness, and the Evangelist will lie in saying, The darkness comprehended it not. And if the Father is Life, and the Son likewise Life, how is He less than He? For in us life will not exist in perfect measure, even if Christ dwell in the inner man: but they who believe are still to some degree dead, if so be that the Son having the less, is not perfectly life. But since one must needs put as far away as possible the absurdity of this, we say that Perfect is the Son, being. made equal to the Perfect Father by reason of the exact Likeness of His Essence.

Another point. If the Son is less than the Father, and therefore not Consubstantial, He is as a consequence other by nature and wholly alien. In that case He is not Son, and not even God at all. For how will He be called Son if He is not of the Father, or how will He any longer be God if He is not of God by physis? But since our faith is in the Son, we are still, it seems, in error, not knowing the True God. But this is absurd. Believing therefore in the Son, we believe in the Father too and in the Holy Spirit. The Son is not therefore alien from God the Father as lesser, but has unity with Him by reason of being of Him by physis, and is therefore both Equal and Perfect.

Another. If the Son be less than the Father, and therefore not Consubstantial; He is as a consequence other by nature and wholly alien: hence He is not Son, yea not even God at all. For how will he be called Son who is not of the Father, or how will he be any longer God who is not of God by Nature? But since our faith is in the Son, we are still it seems in error, not knowing the True God. But this is absurd. Believing therefore in the Son, we believe in the Father too and in the Holy Ghost. The Son is not therefore alien from God the Father as lesser, but has unity with Him, by reason of being of Him by Nature, and is therefore both Equal and Perfect.

Another. If God the Word who shone forth from God the Father is truly Son, our opponents must necessarily confess, even against their will, that He is of the ousia of the Father, for this is what true sonship means. Then how is such a One inferior to the Father, if He is the fruit of His ousia, which in no way admits anything lesser within itself? For all things exist in perfect measure in God. But if He is not of the ousia of the Father, then He is not Son, but something counterfeit and falsely named. Indeed, the Father Himself would not rightly and truly be called Father. For if there is no Son by physis, on account of whom He is Father, how is He understood as Father? But this is absurd, for God is truly Father, as all the Divine Scriptures declare. Therefore, He who is from Him by physis is surely Son. If so, He is not lesser, for He is consubstantial as Son.

Another. If God the Word Who beamed forth from God the Father is in truth Son, of necessity must our opponents even against their will confess that He is of the Essence of the Father; for this is what sonship in truth means. Then how is Such inferior to the Father, if He be Fruit of His Essence, Which is nowise receptive of the lesser within Itself? For all things are in perfect degree in God. But if He be not of the Essence of the Father, neither is He Son, but some counterfeit and falsely-called: yea neither will the Father Himself be rightly and truly called Father. For if there be no Son by Nature, on account of Whom He is Father, how is He conceived of as Father? But this is absurd, for God is Very Father; for so do all the Divine Scriptures cry aloud. He Who is of Him by Nature is therefore surely Son: if so, not lesser; for He is Consubstantial as Son.

Another argument. God doesn't rightly have the name of family or fatherhood from us, but rather we clearly received it from Him. Paul's word is trustworthy when he declares, "Of Whom every family in heaven and earth is named." Since God is most ancient of all things, we are fathers by imitation, being called to His pattern because we are made after His image. Then tell me this: how are we who are made after His likeness fathers of our own children by nature, if this is not the case in the Archetype after which we too have been formed? How can anyone grant that the name of family or fatherhood passed even to the rest from God, if He is not truly a Father? For if that were so, the nature of the thing would be completely overturned, and we would give Him the name Father in imitation of us rather than He giving it to us. The argument will compel the heretic to admit this even against his will. Therefore the witness of truth lies in saying that from Him is every family both in heaven and earth. But to say this is completely absurd: for it is true to say, "Do you seek a proof of Christ speaking in me?" and from God does the name of family flow down to us also. He is therefore by nature the Father of the Word. He begat Him in all respects not unlike Himself, without having anything less than whatever He Himself has. For we who are made after an imitation of Him do not have those begotten of us in this way, but as altogether equal in terms of nature.

Another. The name of family or fathership not God has of right from us, but we rather clearly received it from Him. And trusty is the word of Paul crying on this wise, Of Whom every family in heaven and earth is named. But since God is that which is most ancient of all, by imitation are we fathers, who are called to His Pattern by reason of our being made after His Image. Then how, tell me, are we who are made after His Likeness, by nature fathers of our own children, if this be not the case in the Archetype, after Which we too have been formed? How will any one grant that the name of family or fathership passed even unto the rest from God, if He be not in very deed a Father? For, if it were so, the nature of the thing would be wholly overturned and we should rather give to Him to be called Father in imitation of us, than He give it to us. For this the argument will compel the heretic even against his will to admit. The witness therefore of the truth lies in saying that from Him is every family both in heaven and earth. But to say this is most absurd: for true is he who is bold to say, Do ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me? and from God does the name of family flow down to us also. He is therefore by Nature the Father of the Word, He begat Him in all respects not unlike Himself, through His having the lesser than whatever Himself has. For we who are made after an imitation of Him, do not so have those that are begotten of us, but altogether equal, as regards the nature.

Another argument: Let the heretic, who is full of clever arguments, stop twisting the truth. Even if he confesses that the Word of God is Son, let him not honor Him with empty words while saying that He is not of the Essence of the Father. For how is He Son at all unless He is so by Nature? So let them either strip off their hypocritical mask and blaspheme openly, admitting that He is neither God nor Son, or—if convicted by all of Holy Scripture and struck by the words of the saints as if by stones from a sling—let them be ashamed before the truth and say that He is Son and God. Then let them not think He is lesser than the One Who begot Him. For how can the Word, being God, be lesser when compared to God the Father? Even a human being is both called and is son of man, yet he will not be inferior to his father insofar as he is man. For a man will not be greater or less than a man with respect to being man, nor an angel than an angel with respect to being angel, nor anything else that exists that shares the same nature with another and has been allotted a portion of the same essence. Therefore, if He is truly Son, one must necessarily say that He is of the Essence of the Father, having all His Father's properties in Himself by Nature. And if the Father is God by Nature, then clearly the Word Who is begotten of that Nature is also God by Nature. How then can God be less than God with respect to being God?

Another. Let not the heretic manifold in arguments deal subtilly with the truth, nor confessing that the Word of God is Son, honour Him in mere words, saying that He is not of the Essence of the Father. For how is He Son at all, except He be so by Nature? Let them then either, stripping off the mask of hypocrisy, blaspheme openly, confessing that He is neither God nor Son: or if convicted by the whole Divine Scripture and wounded by the words of the Saints as by sling-stones they feel shame in presence of the truth, and say that He is Son and God, let them not think that He is lesser than He Who begat Him. For how will the Word, being God, admit of the lesser, compared to God the Father? although man too is both called and is son of man, yet will he not be inferior to his father so far as he is man. For man will not be greater or less than man, in respect of his being man, nor yet angel than angel, in regard of his being angel, nor ought else of things that are that is con-natural to any-thing whatsoever, and has a share of the same essence allotted to it. Therefore if He is truly Son, one must needs say that He is of the Essence of the Father, having all His Father's properties in Himself of Nature. And if the Father be God by Nature, God by Nature plainly is also the Word Who is begotten of That Nature. How then will God be less than God in regard to being God?

Another. Where did you get the audacity to say that the Son is in a lesser condition than the One who begot Him? How will He accept being lesser? As far as timing goes, no one, I suppose, even if extremely foolish, would imagine this. For the Son exists before the ages, and He Himself is the Maker of the ages. It makes sense to understand that the One whose generation is older than all time will not be defined by time. But neither is He lesser than Him in the dimension of physical size, for the Divine Nature is understood to exist without size, dimension, or body. So how should we understand "lesser" when applied to the One who is begotten? Perhaps someone will say: in glory, in power, in wisdom. Then let them tell us how great and large the Father is in these respects (if we must speak this way), so that the Son can be understood as less when measured against Him. Or if the Father is inconceivable and immeasurable in goodness, and far exceeds the measure of our understanding, how do the Arians, recklessly daring all things, say that the Son is lesser, thereby undermining the dignity that belongs to Him by physis? For the lesser is proven by comparison with the greater. But if the Dignity of the Father is unmeasured, what is the proof of its diminution in the Son?

Another. Whence, sirs, did ye get the daring to say that the Son is in lesser condition than He Who begat Him? How will He admit the lesser? As regards the date of being, no one I suppose, even though exceeding silly, would surmise. For before the ages is the Son, and Himself is the Maker of the ages: and it will be with reason conceived that He Who has His Generation elder than all time, will not be defined by time. But neither is He lesser than He in the dimension that belongs to size: for the Divine Nature is conceived of and is without size, dimension and body. How then is the lesser to be taken of Him Who is begotten? In glory, perhaps one will say, in power, in wisdom. Let them say then, how great and large the Father is herein (if one must speak thus), in order that the Son may be conceived of as less, when measured with Him? Or if the Father is in good inconceiveable and immeasurable, and that far outstrips the measure of our understanding, whence do the Arians, readily daring all things, say that the Son is lesser, to the overthrow of the dignity that belongs to Him by nature? For the lesser is proved by the juxtaposition of the greater; but if the Dignity of the Father is unmeasured, what is the proof of its diminution in the Son?

One can indeed truthfully respond to the abomination of the unholy heretics: "Our enemies are without understanding." How are they not full of complete ignorance, "understanding neither what they say nor whereof they affirm," as Paul says? Here is why we think it necessary to accuse them: If they say that the Son is truly begotten as God from God the Father, and if they actually believe this, how is He lesser than the Father? This leads to great absurdity in reasoning, containing blasphemy on every side—blasphemy so terrible that one would refuse even to hear it. For if the Son, being God by Nature (physis), can in any way admit being lesser in Himself, we must eventually conclude that there is something greater than God. The Essence (ousia) of the Father, then, could not be conceived of as being in Perfection in every respect, even though He is God by Nature (physis). Instead, He Himself would progress in some way toward something greater, being convicted through the Son—His Image—that He too is of an essence (ousia) that admits being lesser. And He would be subject to this potentially, even if He has not yet experienced it, since things that are capable of something will entirely admit the things they are capable of, and when the time calls them to experience it, they will not refuse it. But the blasphemy apparent in this is great. For the Father will not advance in any way toward something greater, nor will He admit being lesser, because He is God by Nature (physis). Therefore, neither will the Son admit being lesser in Himself, since He too is God by Nature (physis), lest the phrase or two invented by the ignorance of the heretics should be imagined to be an accusation against the Essence (ousia) that is above all.²

Another. One may indeed with truth reply to the abomination of the unholy heretics, Our enemies are without understanding. For how are they not full of all unlearning, understanding neither what they say nor whereof they affirm, as Paul saith? The reason why we think it needful to accuse them is this. If they say that the Son is of a truth begotten God of God the Father, and so believe, how is He lesser than the Father? For great absurdity of ideas will hence be generated, on every side containing blasphemy, and such that one would refuse only to hear them. For if the Son being God by Nature can any whit admit in Himself the lesser, we must needs at length conceive that there is something greater than God. The Essence then of the Father is not conceived of as being in Perfection of every thing, even though He be by Nature God, but He will Himself progress in some direction towards the greater, convicted in the Son His Image that He Himself too is of the essence that admits the lesser. And He will suffer this virtually, even if He have not yet suffered it; since things that are capable of ought, will altogether admit the things whereof they are capable, and when the time calls them to suffer it, they will not refuse it. But great is the blasphemy that is apparent herein. For neither will the Father advance in any direction towards the greater, nor yet will He admit of the lesser, by reason that He is by Nature God. Therefore neither will the Son admit in Himself the lesser, in that He too is God by Nature, lest the syllable or two which was devised by the unlearning of the heretics, should be imagined to be an accusal of the Essence that is above all.²

Another. If the Word of God the Father, being by physis His Son, is lesser than He—either in regard to God-befitting dignity, or as not by physis unchangeable, or in any sort of inferiority—the accusation will be not so much against Him as against the ousia from which He is believed to come, if it altogether generates what is lesser or worse than itself, even though the created and constructed creation would not endure to do such a thing. For everything that is fruit-bearing brings forth what is wholly like itself. But if they say that the divine physis of the Father is above all passion, it will clearly be beyond this charge, and being the archetype of the good things that are in us, will beget the Son not as lesser, but as equal and consubstantial, lest the God who is so far above us be inferior even to us.

Another. If the Word of God the Father being by Nature His Son is lesser than He, either in regard of God-befitting Dignity, or as not by Nature Unchangeable, or in any sort of inferiority, the accusal will be not so much of Him as of the Essence Whereof He is believed to be, if It altogether generate the lesser, or the worse, than Itself, although the originate and constructed creation would not endure to do such a thing. For everything that is fruit-bearing, brings forth what is wholly like itself. But if they say that the Divine Nature of the Father is above all passion, It will manifestly be beyond this charge, and being the Archetype of the good things that are in us, will beget the Son not lesser, but Equal and Consubstantial, lest the God That is so far above us be inferior even to us.

Another argument using reductio ad absurdum. Christ, showing that He is equal with God the Father, says to His own disciples, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father." How then will He who is by nature such, and truly is what He Himself declares, be lesser, according to the foolish opinion of some? For if being lesser He shows the Father in Himself without any change taking place, then the lesser will extend to the Father, since the Father appears in His unchanging image, the Son. But this is absurd. Therefore the Son is not lesser, since the Father who is perfect is imaged in Him. Another argument. And how will the Son accept being lesser than the Father, when He says without error, "All things that the Father has are Mine," and again, speaking to God the Father, "All Mine are Yours and Yours are Mine"? For if the Son is indeed lesser, according to the foolish opinion of some, then since He speaks truthfully in saying to the Father, "Mine are Yours and Yours are Mine," the lesser will make its way to the Father too, and likewise the greater to the Son. The order of things becomes meaningless if what belongs to each is seen in the other, and whatever is the Father's is also the Son's, and again whatever appears as the unique property of the Son is also the Father's. Then nothing would prevent us from saying that the Father is lesser than the Son, and the Son greater than the Father. But this is utterly absurd even to imagine. Therefore He who shares the prerogatives of ousia in common with the Father is equal and not lesser.

Another by the method of reductio ad absurdum. Christ shewing that He is Equal with God the Father says to His own Disciples, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father. Then how will He that is by Nature Such, and so IS as Himself with truth declares, have the lesser, according to the uncounsel of some? For if being lesser He shews in Himself the Father, without any intervening change, the lesser will reach to the Father, as appearing in His Unchanged Image, the Son. But this is absurd: therefore not lesser is the Son, in whom the Father being Perfect is imaged. Another. And how will the Son admit the lesser, than wherein is the Father, seeing that He says without blame, All things that the Father hath are Mine: and again, as to God the Father, All Mine are Thine and Thine are Mine? For if indeed the Son is, according to the uncounsel of some, lesser; since He speaks truth in saying to the Father, Mine are Thine and Thine are Mine, the lesser will make its way to the Father too, and likewise the greater to the Son, the order of things being indifferent, if what belongs to either are seen in the other, and whatsoever is the Father's, this is the Son's also, and again whatever appears as the special property of the Son, this is the Father's too. Nothing then will hinder our saying that the Father is lesser than the Son, and the Son greater than the Father. But this is most absurd only to conceive of: Equal therefore and not lesser is He Who hath the Prerogatives of Essence in common with the Father.

Another argument of the same kind. If everything the Father has belongs entirely to the Son, and the Father has Perfection, then the Son will be Perfect too, since He has the properties and excellencies of the Father. Therefore He is not lesser, contrary to the heretics' impious claim.

Another of the same. If all that the Father hath, are wholly the Son's, and the Father hath Perfection, Perfect will be the Son too, Who hath the properties and excellencies of the Father. Therefore is He not lesser, according to the impiety of the heretics.

Let me tell you who are bringing down unquenchable fire on their own heads and who reject the correctness of the Divine teachings by inventing deceptive arguments with many variations to mislead and confuse the simpler believers. Tell us whether the Father is superior to the Son, possessing something greater in comparison to Him—if the Son is less, as they foolishly claim—or not? I completely assume they will say He is superior. Or let them explain what advantage the Father has in possessing the greater if He is not superior. For if there is no advantage at all, then the entire charge against the Son immediately falls apart. But if there is some great difference, then He is superior, since He has the greater. Let them answer and tell us, if they are truly wise, why the Father, when begetting the Son, did not beget Him equal to Himself but lesser. For if it were clearly better to beget the Son equal to Himself in all things, what prevented Him from doing it? For if something necessarily prevented Him, they will have to admit even against their will that there is something greater than the Father. But if nothing at all prevented Him, and He had the power and knew it was better to beget the Son equal but begot Him lesser, this is clearly envy toward Him and malice. For He chose not to give equality to the Son. Therefore, either the Father is powerless in His begetting, or there is malice, according to the conclusion drawn from these arguments, if the Son has the lesser as they claim. But this is absurd, for the Divine and unblemished physis is above all passion. Therefore the Son is not less, so that He does not lose equality, since the Father is in no way powerless to beget His Offspring equal to Himself, nor is He hindered by malice from choosing what is better.

Another by the method of reductio ad absurdum, with combination of arguments. Let them tell us who are pouring down the flame unquenchable on their own head, and who reject the uprightness that is in the Divine Dogmas, devising wiles of many-coloured arguments unto the deceiving and overthrow of the simpler, whether the Father is superior to the Son, having the greater in comparison with Him, if He be less, as they in their silly talk say, or not? But I entirely suppose that they will say, He is superior: or let them say what advantage the Father hath in possessing the greater, if He be not superior. For if nothing at all, the whole charge against the Son immediately comes to nought: but if there is any great difference, He is then superior, as having the greater. Let them answer then and tell us, if they are indeed wise, why the Father begetting the Son, begat Him not Equal to Himself but lesser. For if it were clearly better to beget the Son in all things Equal to Himself, who hindered His doing it? For if there is ought that hindered as of necessity, they will admit even against their will, that there is somewhat greater than the Father. But if there were nothing at all to hinder, but having the power and knowing that it is better to beget the Son equal He begot Him lesser, this is plainly envy towards Him and an evil eye: for He chose not to give equality to the Son. Either then the Father is impotent in regard to His Begetting, or it will be evil eye, according to the result collected out of the arguments, if the Son have the lesser according to their account. But this is absurd; for the Divine and Untaint Nature is above all passion. Therefore not less is the Son, that He lose not the equality, the Father being in no wise powerless to beget His Offspring equal to Himself, nor yet hindered by evil eye from choosing the better.

Another argument. The Savior Himself says somewhere that He is in the Father and the Father is likewise in Him. But it is clear to everyone that we should not imagine that the Father is contained in the Son like one body inside another or one vessel inside another, or that the Son is somehow placed inside the Father in the same way. Rather, One appears in the Other, and He in Him, in the Unchanged Sameness of ousia, and in the Unity and Likeness that belongs to physis. It is as if a person looking at his own form in a reflection were to say truthfully to someone, marveling at the perfect likeness of his figure, "I am in this image and this image is in me."

Another. The Saviour Himself somewhere says that He is in the Father and the Father likewise in Him. But it is plain to every one, that we are not to suppose that like as one body is in another, or one vessel in another, so the Father is contained in the Son, or the Son again in some way placed in the Father: but One appears in the Other, and He in Him in the Unchanged Sameness of Essence, and in the Unity and Likeness that belongs to Nature. As though a person beholding his own form in an image were to say truly to any, and marvelling at the finished likeness of his figure to cry out, I am in this picture and this picture in me.

Or think of it another way: it's like the sweetness of honey on the tongue saying of itself, "I am in the honey and the honey in me." Or like the heat that naturally comes from fire, if it could speak, saying, "I am in the fire and the fire in me." Each of these examples can be distinguished mentally, but they share one physis. One proceeds from the other in an indivisible and continuous way, so that it seems to be separate from what it's in. Yet even though our thinking about these things takes this form, one still appears in the other and both are the same in ousia. If, then, because of the unchangeableness of their ousia and the complete exactness of the express image, the Father is in the Son, how could the greater find room and appear in the Son who is, according to them, lesser? But since He is wholly in Him, the Son is altogether perfect, able to contain the Perfect and the express image of the mighty Father.

Or in another way:—-As if the sweetness of the honey when laid on the tongue should say of itself, I am in the honey and the honey in me; or as though again the heat that proceeds naturally from fire, emitting a voice were to say, I am in the fire and the fire in me. For each of the things mentioned is I suppose divisible in idea, but one in nature, and the one proceeding by a sort of indivisible and continuous forthcome from the other, so as to seem to be even severed from that wherein it is. Yet though the force of ideas regarding these things takes this form, still one appears in the other and both are the same as regards essence. If then by reason of the unchangeableness of Their Essence, and the entire exactness in express Image, the Father is in the Son, how will the greater find place and appear in the Son Who is according to them lesser? But since He is wholly in Him, altogether Perfect is the Son, Who is able to contain the Perfect and is the express Image of the Mighty Father.

This was in the beginning with God.

2 This was in the beginning with God.

The Evangelist here made a kind of summary of what had already been said before. But by adding the word "This," he seems to be almost shouting aloud. He who is in the beginning, the Word with the Father, He who is God of God—it is He and no other about whom our sacred book is written. But he seems again not without purpose to add to what has been said the words, "This was in the beginning with God." For he, enlightened by the Divine Spirit to know things to come, was not unaware—as it seems to me and as we may truly say—that certain people would appear, workers of destruction, the devil's traps, death's snares leading down to the rooms and depths of hell those who through ignorance give heed to the things they vomit forth from an evil heart. For they will rise up and fight against their own head, saying that one thing is the word that is conceived in God the Father, and that something else entirely, though very similar and like to the conceived one, is the Son and Word through whom God works all things; so that He may be thought of as word of word and image of image and radiance of radiance.

The Evangelist herein made a sort of recapitulation of what had been already before said. But adding the word This, he is seen all-but crying aloud. He Who is in the beginning, the Word with the Father, He Who is God of God, He it is and none other, regarding Whom our august book is set forth. But he seems again not idly to add to what has been said the words, This was in the beginning with God. For he, enlightened by the Divine Spirit unto the knowledge of things to come, was not ignorant, as seems to me and as we may truly say, that certain would appear, perdition's workpeople, the devil's nets, death's snares leading down to the chambers and depth of hell those who from unlearning give heed to the things that them belch forth out of an evil heart. For they will rise up and be valiant against their own head, saying that one is the word that is conceived in God the Father, and that some other most similar and like to the conceived one, is the Son and Word through Whom God works all things; in order that He may be conceived of as word of word and image of image and radiance of radiance.

The blessed Evangelist, as if he had already heard them blaspheming and was rightly stirred against the absurd foolishness of their writings, had already defined and shown through many words, as was fitting, that the Word is One, and Only and True, of God and in God and with God. With piercing clarity he adds, This was in the beginning with God, as Son, that is, with the Father, as inborn, as of His ousia, as Only-Begotten; This, there being no second.

The Blessed Evangelist then, as though he had already heard them blaspheming and with reason stirred against the absurd follies of their writings, having already defined, and by many words, as was due, shewn that the Word is One, and Only and Very, of God and in God and with God, with flashing eye he adds, This was in the beginning with God, as Son, that is, with the Father, as inborn, as of His Essence, as Only-Begotten; This, there being no second.

Since I believe we must zealously expose such impiety and further reveal their blasphemy for the greater protection of those who are simpler in understanding (for whoever learns about it will pay attention and leap away from it, as if from a serpent lurking in the middle of the path), I must necessarily present their opinion in the form of an antithesis. For it will receive its refutations in proper order, according to the methods that God, who gives wisdom to all, will provide.

But since I deem that we ought, zealously declaring such impiety, to lay yet more open their blasphemy, for the greater security of the simpler ones (for he who has learnt it will give heed and will spring out of its reach, as though a serpent lurking in the midst of the path), needs will I expose their opinion, after the form of antithesis. For it shall receive its refutations in order, according to the modes which God who giveth wisdom to all shall grant.

The Only-Begotten Son of God, he says, is not truly His Word by proper right, but the conceived word of God the Father moves and is always in Him. Meanwhile, the Son who is said to have been begotten from Him receives His conceived word, knows all things by having learned them, and is called word and is word according to the likeness of the former.

"The Only-Begotten Son of God, says he, is not of very right His Word, but the conceived word of God the Father moves and is ever in Him; while the son who is said to have been begotten of Him, becoming recipient of his conceived word, knoweth all things from having learnt them and, after the likeness of the former, is called and is word."

Then, to confirm his blasphemy—or so he imagines—he weaves together arguments based on twisted ideas, so that, as Scripture says, the wretched man may be caught in the cords of his own sins.

Then in confirmation, as he imagines, of his blasphemy, he weaves some such arguments of perverted ideas, that, as it is written, the wretched man may be holden with the cords of his sins.

If the Son Himself is the Natural and Conceived Word in God the Father and is Consubstantial with the One who begat Him, what prevents the Father from also being and being called Word, since He is Consubstantial with the Word?

"If the Son Himself, says he, be the Word Natural and Conceived in God the Father, and is Consubstantial with Him Who begat Him, what hinders the Father too from being and being called Word, as Consubstantial with the Word?"

And again: "If the Son is the Word of God the Father and there is no other Word than He, by means of what word," he says, "is the Father found saying to Him: You are My Son, this day have I begotten You? For it is very clear that the Father did not address Him without a word, since everything that is uttered is completely uttered in word, and no otherwise. And the Savior Himself somewhere says, I know the Father and keep His saying, and again, The word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father's who sent Me. Since then the Father addresses Himself to Him in word, and He Himself acknowledges at one time that He keeps the Father's word, at another again that the Jews heard not His word but the Father's, how will it not," he says, "be confessed beyond a doubt that the Son is other than the word that is conceived or that stands in motion of the mind? For participating in that word and being full of it, the one who utters and expounds the Father's ousia—that is, the Son—is called word."

And again: "If the Son be the Word of God the Father and there is none other than He, by means of what word, says he, is the Father found saying to Him: Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee? For it is very clear that not without a word did the Father address Him, since every thing that is uttered, is altogether uttered in word, and no otherwise. And the Saviour Himself somewhere says, I know the Father and keep His saying, and again, The word which ye hear is not Mine, but the Father's Which sent Me. Since then the Father addresses Himself to Him in word, and He Himself acknowledges, one while that He keeps the Father's word, at another again, that the Jews heard, not His word, but the Father's; how will it not, he says, be confessed beyond a doubt, that the Son is other than the word that is conceived or that stands in motion of the mind, whereof participating and replete, the utterer and exponent of the Father's Essence, that is the Son, is called word?"

This foolish man sows such evils for himself and, while opposing all the Divine Scriptures at once, is not ashamed. This shows that what is written about him is true: "When the wicked man comes into the depth of evils, he despises." For truly, this fighter against God has dug himself exceedingly deep into wickedness through his folly, rejecting the uprightness that comes from truth and limping along with the rottenness of his own arguments. That the Only-Begotten Son of God the Father is truly and rightly His Word, we will learn from what follows.

Such ills then does the foolish man sow to himself and gainsaying all the Divine Scriptures at once is not ashamed, shewing that true is that which is written of himself. When the wicked man cometh into the depth of evils, he despiseth. For verily exceeding deep unto naughtiness hath the fighter against God of his folly dug, refusing the uprightness that is of truth, and halting with the rottenness of his own arguments. For that the Only-Begotten Son of God the Father is of very right His Word, we shall know by the subjoined.

The foolish heretic is slow to learn. For how can wisdom enter a malicious soul at all? Or tell me, what can be more malicious than such people who, as it is written, turn their ears away from the truth and run more easily to the fables of their own thoughts, so that they justly hear, since they speak things not from the Divine Scriptures, Woe to those who prophesy from their own heart and not from the mouth of the Lord? For who, speaking from the mouth of the Lord, calls Jesus Anathema? Some people indeed do this in unrestrained arrogance against the doctrines of true religion, and as one of the holy Prophets said, perverting all justice. For they say that the natural and conceived word in God the Father is one thing, and that he who is called Son and Word is another thing. They bring forward in support of what they consider their own opinion, but more truly their unrestrained impiety, our Lord Jesus Christ saying in His conversations with the Jews, I know the Father and keep His word, and also what was said to Him by the Father, From the womb before the Day-star I begot You. Then they say, belching out the venom of their own father, If the speaker is different from the one he addresses, and the Father addresses the Son by word, the innate word with which the Father conversed will be different from the Son. And again: If, he says, the Son Himself declared that He keeps the Father's word, how will the one who keeps not be different from that which is kept? It is perhaps not difficult to reply to this, for the Lord will give utterance to those who evangelize with much power. But those who are sick with such ignorance ought to remember Him who says, Woe to those who leave the paths of uprightness to walk in the ways of darkness, and it is fitting for us to cry out to our Guide who is in the heavens, Turn my eyes away from beholding vanity. For the vain utterances of their ignorance are truly vanity and rubbish and nothing else. For the Son did not say that He kept the Father's word as though He had another word of the Father within Himself, nor did He declare that He had come to us bringing it with Him like a teacher. Rather, as the One who alone exists in the Father by nature (physis), and who likewise has the Father in Himself with no one else intervening, He says, I in the Father and the Father in Me—not the innate word, nor any other word, but the Father in Me. How then should one understand what He said to the Jews, someone may reasonably ask us. To this we truthfully say what comes to our mind. The Savior was teaching the most unbelieving people of the Jews and, gradually drawing His hearers away from the worship of the law, often called out to them, I am the Truth, practically saying, Throw off the yoke of the law, sirs, and receive the spiritual worship; let shadow now depart and type recede far away—the Truth has shone forth. But He did not seem to everyone to be acting rightly by overturning Moses' commands, or rather by leading them to what was more true, so that some even cried out, If this man were from God, He would not have broken the Sabbath, which was to openly condemn of sin the One who knew no sin.

Slow to learn is the silly heretic. For how into a malicious soul will wisdom at all enter? or what, tell me, can be more malicious than such men, who, as it is written, turn away their ears from the truth and run more easily unto the fables of their own cogitations, that justly too they may hear, uttering things not of the Divine Scriptures, Woe to them that prophesy of their own heart and not out of the mouth of the Lord? For who speaking out of the mouth of the Lord calleth Jesus Anathema? which thing indeed some do in unbridled haughtiness against the doctrines of piety, and as one of the holy Prophets said, perverting all equity. For they say that the natural and conceived word in God the Father is one, him that is called Son and Word again another: and they bring in support of their own, as they deem, opinion, but more truly, their unbridled impiety, our Lord Jesus Christ in His discourses with the Jews saying, I know the Father and keep His word: and moreover that which was said to Him by the Father, From the womb before the Day-star begat I Thee. Then they say belching forth the venom of their own father, If the speaker is other than he whom he addresses, and the Father addresses the Son by word, the innate word wherewith the Father conversed will be other than the Son. And again: If, says he, the Son Himself declared that He keeps the Father's word, how will not he that keepeth be other than that which is kept? To this it is perhaps not hard to reply (for the Lord will give utterance to them that evangelize with much power). But those who are sick of such unlearning ought to remember Him Who says, Ah they who leave the paths of uprightness to walk in the ways of darkness, and for us it is meet that we should cry unto our Guide Who is in the heavens, Turn away mine eyes from beholding vanity. For vanity of a truth and rubbish and nought else are the vain utterances of their uninstructedness. For not as though He had another word of the Father in Himself did the Son say that He kept the Father's word, nor yet did He declare that He had come to us, bringing him with Him as though a pedagogue, but as Alone in-being in the Father by Nature, and having again likewise in Himself the Father, none else intervening, I, says He, in the Father and, the Father in Me, not the innate, nor yet any other word, but the Father, in Me. How then ought one to conceive of what was said by Him to the Jews, may one ask us, and that with reason. To this we say with truth what comes up upon our mind. The Saviour was teaching the most incredulous people of the Jews and, drawing by little and little His hearers from the worship of the law, did ofttimes call out to them, I am the Truth, all but saying, Throw off, sirs, the yoke of the law, receive the spiritual worship; let shadow now depart, type recede afar, the Truth hath beamed. But He did not seem to all to be doing rightly, subverting Moses' precepts, yea rather leading them to what was more true, so that some even cried, If this man were of God, He would not have broken the Sabbath, which was to openly condemn of sin Him Who knew it not.

The heretic is slow to learn these Jewish-style errors. When replying to them, Christ removes all boasting from His words and teaches them humbly and obscurely that the Son, who does not know sin, would not do anything other than what seemed good to God the Father. He avoids saying more plainly "I do not know sin" to prevent them from trying to stone Him again. For they would immediately become angry and attack Him, saying, "Not sinning belongs to God alone. You are a man—do not say things that befit God alone." They actually did this another time, saying they had good reason to stone Him because, being a man, He was making Himself God. The Savior spoke obscurely because He was both man and under the law with those under the law, saying He kept the Father's word—essentially saying, "I will never transgress the Father's will." Sin is born from departing from the divine law, but He does not know sin because He is God by physis. Therefore His teaching does not offend the Father. No one should criticize Him who is by physis the Lawgiver but is a law-keeper because of His likeness to us. He says He knows the Father, not simply as we do, but more directly because He is God—He declares He understands the Father's physis from what He Himself is. Since He knows that the One who begot Him cannot endure change, He clearly knows that He Himself is unchangeable, being from an unchangeable Father. How can that which cannot change be said to sin, rather than standing firm in its own natural endowments?

To such like follies then of the Jews He replying puts away all boast in His words, and lowlily and darkly designs to teach them, that the Son Who knows not sin would not work ought other than seemed good to God the Father; lest saying more nakedly, I know not sin, He should again stir them up to stone Him. For they straightway boiling with wrath would have sprung upon Him saying, Not to sin belongs to God Alone: Thou then being a Man, utter not the things that beseem God Alone. Which thing they even did at another time, saying that with reason do they stone Him, because being a Man He makes Himself God. Obscurely did the Saviour, in that He was both Man and as under the law with those who were under the law, say that He kept the Father's word, all-but saying, I will never transgress the Father's Will. For by stepping aside from the Divine law is sin born, but I know not sin Who am God by Nature. Therefore I offend not the Father in My teaching. For the rest let no one find fault with Him Who is by Nature Lawgiver, but because of His Likeness unto us is Law-keeper. But He says that He knows the Father, not simply as do we, only the very same thing more simply for that He is God, but from what Himself is does He declare that He understands the Nature of the Father. But since He knows that He Who begat Him knows not to endure change, He knows, it is plain, that Himself is Unchangeable of an Unchangeable Father. And that which knows not change, how can it be said to sin, and not rather to stand unswerving in its own natural endowments?

The accusation of the Jews is pointless, as they imagine that the Son thinks anything contrary to the counsel of the Father. For He keeps the Father's word, as He says, and by physis does not know how to sin, since He knows the Father cannot endure this—the Father with whom He is consubstantial as true Son. But since they counter this by citing what has been added to their objection, "From the womb before the Day-star I begot you," let us also explain the word of piety concerning this. For just because the Father says such things to the Son, we should not therefore think that there is an innate word in Him and conceive of the Son as something other than it. But first of all, let us consider that a prophet skilled in uttering mysteries in the Spirit takes on for us the prosopon of the Son and presents Him hearing from the Father, "You are my Son," and what follows. And the form of speech, since it is constructed in human fashion, will not, I think, compel us at all to conceive of two words. Rather, by referring the unavoidable arrangement here to our own habits of speech, we should blame—if we think rightly—the weakness of our own nature, which has neither words nor modes of thought that accurately serve the mysteries that are above us or that are adequate to express divine things faultlessly. To the divine nature, in turn, we should attribute superiority over our mind and speech, not conceiving of its relations exactly as they are spoken of, but as befits it and as it wills. Or if any of the unholy heretics imagine that we wrongly misuse such words and do not admit that the form of speech corresponds to our usage of it, they will rightly hear this: Let the Father be conceived of as also begetting in the way we do; let Him not deny the womb and the birth pangs. For He says to the Son, "From the womb I begot you." But perhaps—or rather, certainly—they will say that the Father's true begetting of the Son is signified through the likeness to us. Therefore let the other point also be piously understood, even if it is uttered in human manner, and their bitter and unholy difficulty is resolved.

Yain then is the accusal of the Jews imagining that the Son thinks ought beside the Counsel of the Father: for He keeps, as He says, His word, and by Nature knows not sinning: for He knows that the Father cannot suffer this, with Whom He is Consubstantial as Very Son. But since they meet this by citing what has been annexed to their objection, From the womb before the Day-star begat I Thee, come let us unfold the word of piety as to this also. For not because the Father says such things to the Son, ought we therefore to think, that there is in Him an innate word and to conceive of the Son as other than it. But first of all let us think this with ourselves that a prophet versed in uttering mysteries in the Spirit puts on for us the person of the Son, and introduces Him hearing of the Father, Thou art My Son, and what follows. And the form of speech, in that it is constructed after human fashion, will not I presume at all compel us to conceive of two words, but referring to our own habits [of speech] the unavoidable arrangement herein, we shall blame, if we do rightly, the weakness of our own nature, which has neither words, nor modes of idea which accurately serve unto the mysteries that are above us, or that are adequate to express faultlessly things more Divine: and to the Divine Nature again we shall attribute the superiority over our mind and speech, not conceiving of Its relations exactly as they are spoken of, but as befit It and as It wills. Or if any of the unholy heretics imagine that we unrightly abuse such words, and do not admit that the form of speech comes up to our usage of it, they will rightly hear: Let the Father be conceived of as also begetting as we do, let Him not deny the womb and the pangs of birth. For from the womb begat I Thee, says He to the Son. But perchance, yea rather of a certainty, they will say that from the likeness to us the Father's True Begetting of the Son is signified. Therefore let the other too be piously understood, even if it be uttered in human guise, and their bitter and unholy difficulty is solved.

And these things were, I suppose, sufficient. But since we thought we ought to strike down the difficulties devised by their stubbornness (like some swarm of enemies) with the uprightness of pious dogmas, come, let us now bring them forward in the manner appropriate to each, set up against each its opponent, and with more zealous thought let us arm the ever-victorious truth against them. The objection, as it comes from them, shall be set forth in order before the arguments that refute it, stimulating the vigilance of the argument to proceed to more accurate examination, and like the rush of some mountain torrent, constantly sweeping away the good readiness of readers who desire always to learn the answer.

And these things were, I suppose, sufficient. But since we thought that we ought to smite down the difficulties devised of their stubbornness (as it were some swarm of foes), with the uprightness of pious dogmas, come let us now bringing them forward in the manner befitting each, raise up against each its opponent, and with more zealous thoughts let us arm against them the ever victorious truth. The objection again, as from them, shall be set forth in order before the arguments which confute it, inciting the vigilance of the argument to proceed to more accurate test, and like the rush of some mountain-torrent, ever bearing down headlong the good readiness of the readers to desire ever to learn the answer.

If there does not exist in God the Father an essential and conceived word other than the Only-Begotten Son who is from Him, who is also called word in imitation of that one, the result will be absurd, and we who believe we think rightly must necessarily confess that if the Word is Consubstantial with the Father and the Father with the Word, there is nothing to prevent the Father from being and being called word, as Consubstantial with the Word.

"If there exist not, says he, in God the Father a word essential and conceived, other than the Only-Begotten Son That is of Him, Who is also called word in imitation of that one, the result will be absurd, and we who deem we think rightly must needs confess, that if the Word is Consubstantial with the Father and the Father with the Word, there is nothing yet to hinder the Father from being and being called word, as Consubstantial with the Word."

No argument, my excellent friend, will ever force us to think that we should believe and call the Father the Word, or even to believe that He could be the Word, simply because He is consubstantial with the Word. For things that share the same ousia will in no way admit a mutual exchange and receive a kind of mixture, as if flowing from one into the other, so that the distinct entities could be reduced from many into one, or from two into one. For even though our forefather Adam was consubstantial with the son born from him, the father will not thereby become the son, nor will the son in turn ascend to become the father. Rather, being one with him as regards the unity of essential quality, he will retain what is his own: the one who is born of a father will be understood as a son, and likewise the one who begets will clearly be a father. But if you imagine that you are constructing a clever argument from this, and that consubstantiality will necessarily force one consubstantial being to be one with another consubstantial being, allowing no distinction to remain so that each should exist by itself and in whatever it is, then what persuaded the Judge of all not to punish the father for the son, nor to demand satisfaction from the son for the father? For the soul that sins, he says, shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son. But since the sentence of Him who judges righteously does not bring the father down, though he is consubstantial with the son, into the position of sonship, nor does it elevate the son into the condition of fatherhood, but knows each one individually, with neither one changing into the other nor the other stepping into this one, it is clearly evident, I think, that no argument will force God the Father, because He is consubstantial with the Word, to change into being the Word. For He remains wholly in Himself as Father, even though He who is begotten from Him is understood to be and is the Word and therefore the Son, so that divine realities may not appear to be in a worse state than our own.

No argument, O most excellent, will ever constrain us to think that we ought to believe and call the Father Word, or even to believe that He could be so, because He is Consubstantial with the Word. For in no wise will things that are of the same essence admit of a mutual interchange, and receive a sort of mixture, as from one into the other, so that the things named could be reduced from many into one, or from duality into unity. For not because our forefather Adam was consubstantial with the son born of him, will father therefore advance unto son, son again mount up into father; but being one with him as far as regards the unity of essential quality, he will retain what is his own: and he who is of any father will be conceived of as a son, and again the begetter of any will clearly be father. But if ye imagine that ye are constructing a clever argument hereupon, and that consubstantiality will surely constrain consubstantial to be one with consubstantial, and will suffer no distinction to prevail, so that each should exist by itself and in whatever it is, what was it persuaded the Judge of all not to punish the father for the son, nor to demand of the son satisfaction for the father? For the soul, says he, that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son. But since the sentence of Him Who judges righteously does not bring down the father, albeit consubstantial with the son, into the position of sonship, nor yet does it bring up the son into the condition of fatherhood, but knoweth each individually, not this progressing into that, nor that stepping into this; it is I suppose evident, that no argument will constrain God the Father, because He is Consubstantial with the Word, to change into being the Word. For He abideth wholly in Himself, that is Father, even though He Who is begotten of Him be conceived to be and be Word and therefore Son, that things Divine may not appear in worse state than ours are.

The Son has no difference from His Father but is His most exact Likeness and the express Image of His Person, and is found saying to His disciples, "He that has seen Me has seen the Father." But if this is so, and He is Consubstantial with the Father, and things that are consubstantial can be utterly confused with one another, then it seems nothing would prevent the Son from being conceived of as Father, since He is Consubstantial with the Father and capable of passing over into this, with nothing hindering it, if consubstantiality is sufficient for this kind of change or transposition. Let the Son then be conceived of as Father, and let Him say, as if now being so, to the real Father, "From the womb before the Day-star I begot You"; and let Him assume to Himself every word in short that belongs to the Father. When this has finally taken place, everything is now thrown into confusion, and That which always exists in this way—I mean the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity—will be reduced to Unity, if that which rightly and separately belongs to Each vanishes on account of the Consubstantiality, and the sameness of nature overthrows the distinction of hypostasis (individual subsistence). But this is absurd. Therefore the Father will not be the Word, because He is Consubstantial with the Word, but will remain unchanged, being what He is, even though He has Co-nature or Consubstantiality with His Own Word. And their objection has been proved to be worthless.

The Son, as having no difference from His Father, but being His most exact Likeness and the express Image of His Person, is found saying to His disciples, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father. But if He being thus, is Consubstantial with the Father, and things consubstantial admit of utter confusion with one another, there will be nothing it seems to hinder the Son from being conceived of as Father, in that He is Consubstantial with the Father, and capable of passing over into this, nought hindering it, if consubstantiality suffice unto this kind of change or transposition. Let the Son then be conceived of as Father, and let Him say, as now being so, to the real Father, From the womb before the Day-star begat I Thee; and let Him assume to Himself every word in short that belongs to the Father. When this at length has taken place, every thing is now thrown into confusion, and That Which ever so existeth, I mean the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity will be reduced to Unity, if That which rightly and separately belongs to Each vanishes on account of the Con-substantiality, and the sameness of nature overthrows the distinction of Persons. But this is absurd. Hence the Father will not be the Word, because Consubstantial with the Word, but will abide unchanged, being What He is, even though He have Co-nature or Consubstantiality with His Own Word. And their objection has been proved to be nought.

Another argument. If every word is the word of someone, poured forth from the tongue or brought forth from the heart; and if the Father is Word because He is Consubstantial with the Word, then He will be His own word, or rather no one's word, or will have no existence at all (for how can there be a word when the one whose word it is does not exist?). But this is absurd, for the Divine and Untainted Nature will never be receptive of non-being, nor will the Father ever become the Word, even though He is Consubstantial with the Word. Rather, He will remain Father, whose Word the Son is.

Another. If every word be the word of some one, pouring it forth from the tongue, that is, or belching it forth and bringing it up from the heart; and the Father be Word, because He is Consubstantial with the Word: He will be His own word, or rather no one's, or will even have no existence at all (for how will there be word, when he whose word it is, is not?). But this is absurd: for never will the Divine and Untaint Nature be receptive of non-being, nor will the Father ever pass into the Word, even though He be Consubstantial with the Word, but will remain Father, Whose Wordalso the Son is.

Another. If the Divine Nature is believed to be non-recipient of all turn and change as regards ousia, how will the Father, leaving His own position, pass into being the Word? For He will be recipient of change, suffering it as of necessity, and will not be the same, as not keeping what He was from the beginning. But if this is absurd (for to change is wholly foreign from the Divine Nature), the Father will not have the change into the Word, but will be Father always, having immutability and unchangeability as God.

Another. If the Divine Nature be believed non-recipient of all turn and change as regards Essence, how will the Father, leaving His own position, pass into being the Word? For He will be recipient of change, suffering it as of necessity, and will not be the same, as not keeping what He was from the beginning. But if this be absurd (for to change is wholly foreign from the Divine Nature), the Father will not have the change into the Word, but will be Father ever, having immutability and unchange as God.

The Only-Begotten Word and Son of God, showing that He is Very God of Very God the Father, says, "All things that the Father has are Mine." But though the Son is heir of all the properties that are in the Father by physis, as being from Him by physis, yet He will never have that of being Father (for this too is one thing that belongs to the Father). But the Son will remain lacking nothing that is inherent in the Father, though He is not thought of as Father, but having in Himself perfectly all the properties and endowments of the Father's ousia. Applying this very same method of reasoning to the prosopon of the Father also, we say that He has all the properties of the Son by physis, yet not the power of passing into sonship and into being Word, but that as unchanging by physis He remains what He is, so that in addition to being God the Father, He may also be without change, having Unchanged in Himself the Word who appeared from Him, the Son.

The Only-Begotten Word and Son of God, shewing that He is Very God of Very God the Father says, All things that the Father hath are Mine. But though the Son is Heir of all the properties that are in the Father of Nature, as being of Him by Nature, yet He will never have that of being Father (for this too is one thing that belongs to the Father); but the Son will remain bereft of nought that is inherent in the Father, though He be not deemed of as Father, but having in Himself perfectly all the properties and endowments of the Father's Essence. Applying this very same method of reasoning to the Person of the Father also, we say that He has all the properties of the Son by Nature, yet not the power of passing into sonship and into being Word, but that as un-turning by Nature He remains what He is, that in addition to being God the Father, He may be also without change, having Unchanged in Himself the Word That appeared from Him, the Son.

Through the holy Prophets, God the Lawgiver found fault with certain people, saying, "They have put no difference between the holy and profane." The difference or opposition in character between them is indeed great for those willing to discern it. But if it were acceptable to mix together the physis of things that are consubstantial with one another, and if things existing in separate and individual prosopa could drift toward whatever they wish among things that are congenerate or connatural—what would separate the profane from the holy? If the distinction of separate being or of who one is were never seen, but one existed in another because of sameness of ousia, then knowledge regarding each being would become indifferent. Everything would be jumbled together, and the traitor Judas would be Peter or Paul because he is consubstantial with Peter and Paul. Likewise, Peter or Paul would be Judas because they are consubstantial with him. But thinking this way is utterly unreasonable, and being of the same ousia does not remove the difference between things that are congenerate or connatural. Our weakness should not contend with the Divine Essence so as to compel God the Father to be called and to be the Word simply because He is consubstantial with the Word. He remains forever Father, never able to lose the distinction of what He is in this regard, nor yielding to sameness of ousia so that He would possess nothing distinctively. He does not wrong the Son by this; rather, He shows the Son as His own, possessing from Him by physis the unchanging and unchangeable character of the one who begat Him—both by properly and uniquely possessing Sonship and by not being changed into the Father, just as the Father does not change into the Son.

Another. God the Lawgiver found fault with certain by the holy Prophets saying, They have put no difference between the holy and profane. For great indeed is the difference or contrariety of manners which is seen between them by those who will discern. But if it be admissible to commingle the nature of things consubstantial one with another, and things that are in separate and individual persons can run off to whatever they please of congenerate or connatural;—-what is there to separate the profane from the holy, if the distinction of separate being or of who one is, is never seen, but one exists in another because of sameness of essence? Be then (the knowledge in regard to each being hence indifferent), all jumbled up together, and let the traitor Judas be Peter or Paul, because consubstantial with Peter and Paul; be Peter again or Paul, Judas, because consubstantial with him. But so to think is most unreasoning; and the being of the same substance will by no means take away the difference of things congenerate or connatural from one another. Our weakness then will not so set itself to contend with the Divine Essence, as to compel God the Father to be called and be the Word, because He is Consubstantial with the Word. For He abides ever Father, in no wise able to lose the distinction of what He is in regard to this, nor yielding to sameness of Essence that He should possess nothing distinctively. And He will no way wrong the Son by this, but rather will shew Him as His own, and possessing from Him by Nature the Unturning and Unchangeableness of Him That begat Him, both by His possessing properly and alone Sonship and not being changed into the Father, even as neither does He into Son.

The heretics say: You unreasonably criticize as thinking incorrectly those who say that the Word innate in God the Father is different from the Son, even though you hear Him clearly say in the Gospel, "I know Him and keep His word." But if, as He Himself affirmed, He keeps the Father's word, then He must be completely different from it, I suppose, and necessarily so. For there must be a distinction of being different between the one who keeps and that which is kept.

"Not reasonably, say they, do ye blame as not thinking rightly those who say that the Word innate in God the Father is other than the Son, although ye hear Him clearly say in the Gospel narrative, I know Him and keep His word. But if, as Himself affirmed, He keeps the Father's word, other in all respects, I suppose, and of necessity will he be than him; since needs must the distinction of being other exist between him who keeps and that which is kept."

If the Only-Begotten Son of God the Father is not Himself His Word, but instead there exists in God something else that they call conceived, then let those who put forward this contrary opinion tell us whether the word that is the conception of their own ignorance is hypostatic or not. For if they say that it exists by itself as conceived in separate being, they will surely confess that there are two sons. But if they say that it has no existence, then, since nothing any longer comes between and separates the Son, how will He be third from the Father and not rather next to Him, as Son with Father?

If the Only-Begotten Son of God the Father is not Himself His Word, but some other than He, which they call conceived, exists in God, let those who put forth this contrary opinion tell us whether the word which is the conception of their own ignorance be hypostatic or no. For if they say that it exists of itself conceived of as in separate being, they will surely confess that there are two sons: but if they say that it has no existence, then, since nothing any longer conies between and severs the Son, how will He be third from the Father and not rather next Him, as Son with Father?

Another argument using the same line of reasoning. The opponents claim that there exists in God the Father a word, the conceived one, by means of which—according to their most unlovely imagination—the Son is taught the counsel of the Father. But we must see how great the foolishness of their teaching on this matter is.

Another by the same considerations. The opponents define that there is in God the Father a word, the conceived, by means of which, according to their most unlovely imagination, the Son is taught the counsel of the Father. But how great folly their dogma hereupon has, we must see.

We must consider the argument about this matter in the following way. The name "father" necessarily has no intermediary in relation to the son. For what would be the intermediary between father and son, or again between son and father? But if, according to their ignorance, an intervening will and a conceived word separate the Son from the Father—which they claim interprets that will—then the Father will no longer be understood as truly Father, nor will the Son be truly Son, if we think that the will of God and the word that interprets it exist in their own hypostases. But if we grant that these do not have hypostasis, then the Son is in God the Father without anything in between and is directly next to Him. Where then would the conceived word withdraw to, or what place would the will have, if it is understood as something other than the Son?

"We must consider the argument about this matter thus. The name father, has of necessity no mean in relation to the son. For what will be the mean of father as regards the son, or again of son as regards the father? But if, according to their unlearning, there severs the Son from the Father an intervening will and a conceived word, which they say is interpretative thereof, no longer will the Father be conceived of as altogether father nor yet the Son as son, if we conceive that the will of God and the word that interprets it, exist in their own hypostases. But if we grant that these are without hypostasis, then the Son is in God the Father without any thing mediate and next to Him; where then will the conceived word retire, or what place will the will have, conceived of as other than the Son?

Another argument by reduction to absurdity. We believe that the Holy and Adorable Trinity is Consubstantial, even if the madness of the heretics refuses to accept it. But I think we must acknowledge that things which are consubstantial should also be alike in all respects regarding their natural properties. If then, according to the foolish thinking of some, there exists in God the Father some conceived word other than the Son, the Son too will surely have a conceived word in Himself, since He is the Father's Likeness and the unchangeable Express Image of His Person, as it is written. The Holy Spirit will equally have one, according to the same principle. The Trinity then becomes doubled, and the Divine Nature is shown to be compound. But this is absurd. In simple essences, there is nothing whatsoever except themselves. Nothing then will prevent the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity from being closely connected, with nothing intervening. Another argument finally. When Divine Scripture uses nouns with the article prefixed, it means one specific thing which alone is properly and truly what it is said to be. But when it does not prefix the article, it makes a more general statement about everything that is so called. For example (our discussion will reach clear demonstration this way), many are called gods, but when God is spoken of with the article, it signifies Him Who alone and properly is so. Without the article, it might mean one of those called such by grace. Again, there are many men. But when the Savior says with the article, The son of man, He signifies Himself as one selected from ten thousand. Since names have this character in Divine Scripture, how ought we to understand, In the beginning was the Word? If every word of God is meant here as being in the beginning, let them show it, and we are the ones speaking nonsense. But if the Evangelist, by prefixing the article, signifies One who properly is so, crying, In the beginning was the Word, why do they struggle in vain, bringing in another besides, only so they may exclude the Son from the ousia of the Father? We ought, considering the absurdity in this, to reject the foolish thinking of those who believe otherwise.

Another by the reductio ad absurdum. We believe that the Holy and Adorable Trinity is Consubstantial, even if the madness of the heretics will it not. But I think that there ought to be admitted with regard to things consubstantial, a likeness also with one another in all things, in regard to natural properties. If then there be, according to the uncounsel of some, in God the Father some conceived word other than the Son, the Son too will surely have a conceived word in Himself, as being His Likeness and the unchangeable Express Image of His Person, as it is written: the Holy Ghost will have one equally with Him, according to the equal analogy of conceptions. The Trinity then has come to be in double, and the Divine Nature is shewn to be compound. But this is absurd. But in simple essences, there is nothing whatever save themselves. Nothing then will hinder the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity from being closely connected, nought intervening. Another at length. When Divine Scripture puts forth nouns with the article prefixed, then it means some one thing which alone is properly and truly that which it is said to be; but when it does not prefix the article, it makes a more general declaration of every thing that is so called, as for example (for our discourse shall attain clear demonstration) many are called gods, but when God is spoken of with the article it signifies Him Who alone and properly is so; more simply and without the article, one perchance of those called hereto by grace. And again there are many men. But when the Saviour says with the article, The son of man, He signifies Himself as one picked out of ten thousand. Since then names have this character in Divine Scripture, how ought we to understand, In the beginning was the Word? For if every word of God is hereby meant as being in the beginning, let them shew it, and it is we who are the triflers. But if the Evangelist prefixing the article, signifies One and that is so properly, crying, In the beginning was the Word, why strive they in vain, bringing in another besides, only that they may expel the Son from the Essence of the Father? But we ought, considering the absurdity herein, to refuse the uncounsel of those who think otherwise.

If the Only-Begotten Son of God is called Word because, as they claim, He receives the conceived word of the Father and is formed according to it, why doesn't He say to His disciples, "I and the word of the Father are one," or "He who has seen Me has seen the word of the Father"? But since He surpasses all things and likens Himself alone to the Father alone, with nothing intermediate coming between them in this likeness, the Son must be understood as likening Himself to the One who begot Him, and to no one and nothing else.

If the Only-Begotten Son of God is and is called, according to them, therefore Word, because, receiving the conceived word of the Father, He is as it were formed thereafter, why is He not found to say to His Disciples, I and the word of the Father are one, He that hath seen Me hath seen the word of the Father? But since overstepping all things, He likens Himself Alone to the Father Alone, none intermediate coming forward to the Likeness, the Son will be conceived of as likening Himself to Him Who begat Him, and to none other than Him.

The opponents say they find the Son to be other than the conceived word of God, not by following their own thoughts on this matter, but by considering the Divine Scripture. They ask: What should we say when we hear the Son saying to the Father, "Glorify Your Son," and the Father answering and saying, "I have both glorified, and will glorify again"? Should we not fully acknowledge that the Father replies to the Son in a word? How then is the one through whom the Father answers the Son not other than the Son himself?

"We find, they say, the Son to be other than the conceived word of God, giving heed not to our own thoughts thereon, but to considerations from the Divine Scripture. For what shall we say when we hear the Son saying to the Father, Glorify Thy Son, the Father again answering and saying, I have both glorified, and will glorify again? Shall we not altogether acknowledge that the Father replies to the Son in a word? How then is not he through whom the Father answers the Son other than He?"

These unholy heretics deserve both utter amazement and mourning. One should say over them what is spoken in the Prophets: Do not weep for the dead or mourn him, but weep bitterly for the one who thinks and says such things about the Only Begotten. What could be more wretched than these people, if they imagined that this was actually and truly the Father's voice, which not only the Savior heard but also the crowd of Jews standing around and the company of holy disciples? They should instead have conceived of God-befitting excellencies and not attempted to subject things above us to the laws that govern our affairs. A bodily voice strikes bodily hearing—a sound emitted through the lips into the air or produced by some other instrument. But the Will of the Father, expressed in ineffable voice gently and as it were within the mind, is known by the Son alone, who is in Him by physis as His Wisdom. To suppose that God uses a voice consisting of sound is completely unbelievable, if we would preserve for the physis that is above all things its superiority to creation. Besides, our Lord Jesus Christ himself says that this was not the voice of God the Father, and further shows that he needs no interpretation from another to learn the Father's will, saying, "This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes." He should rather have said, my good friends, if you are right in holding such opinions about him, "You have heard the Father's voice along with me." But now, turning his statement completely around to the exact opposite, he declares that he had no need of the voice but asserts that it came rather for their sakes—not that it was uttered by the Father, but that it came and for their sakes. And if God the Father works all things through him, then this also came through him altogether. Indeed, he himself was the voice, not interpreting the Father's disposition to himself (for he knew it as Son), but to the hearing of the bystanders, so that they might believe.

Worthy of utter marvel, yea rather of mourning too, are the unholy heretics, and moreover that one should say over them that which is spoken in the Prophets: Weep ye not for the dead, neither bemoan him, but weep sore for him that thinketh and sayeth such things respecting the Only Begotten. For what more wretched than such, if they fancied that this was actually and truly the voice of the Father, which not only the Saviour heard, but also this crowd of the Jews which stood around, yea rather the choir of the holy disciples? For they should rather have imagined God-befitting excellencies, and not have attempted to submit things above us to the laws that guide our affairs. For upon the bodily hearing strikes a bodily voice, and noise which through the lips is emitted into the air, or contrived by any other instrument. But the Will of the Father, in ineffable voice gently and as it were in the mind revolved, the Son Alone knoweth Who is in Him by Nature as His Wisdom. But to suppose that God uses a voice consisting in sound is wholly incredible, if we would retain to the Nature That is above all things Its superiority to the creation. Besides, our Lord Jesus Christ Himself says that this was not the voice of God the Father, and moreover shews that He needs no interpretation from another to be able to learn the Father's will saying, This voice came not because of Me, but for your sakes. He should rather have said, my good friends, if ye are right in holding such opinions regarding Him, Ye have heard with Me the voice of the Father; but now, turning His declaration right round to the exact contrary, He avers that He had no need of the voice, but asserts that it came rather for their sakes, not that it was uttered by the Father, but came and that for their sakes. And if God the Father works all things through Him, through Him altogether was this also, yea rather He was Himself the voice, not to Himself interpreting the disposition of the Father (for He knew it as Son), but to the hearing of the by-standers, that they might believe.

Another objection. If they say that the Son needs some innate word so that He may be taught the Will of God the Father, what will become of Paul's statement that Christ is the Power of God and the Wisdom of God? For how is the Son the Wisdom of the Father if, lacking in wisdom, He receives perfection from another by learning what He does not know? Or how can one avoid saying that the wisdom which is in the Father is not perfect? And if the Son is the Wisdom of the Father, how can His Will be conceived of as different from Him? We would then be saying that the Will of God the Father is not perfected in wisdom. But this is a great impiety, and the statement is full of blasphemy. Therefore, the Son does not know what belongs to His own Father by receiving instruction from another, but as Himself the Word and the Wisdom and the Will, He searches all things, even the deep things of God, as it is written concerning the Spirit too.

Another. If they say that the Son needs some innate word, that thereby He may be taught the Will of God the Father, what will become of Paul who says, Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of God? For how is the Son the Wisdom of the Father, if lacking in wisdom He receive perfection from another, through learning what forsooth He knows not? or how must one not needs say, that the wisdom which is in the Father is not perfect? and if the Son be the Wisdom of the Father, how can His Will be conceived of as other than He? We come then to say that the Will of God the Father is not perfected in wisdom. But great is the impiety of this, and full of blasphemy the statement. Not therefore as partaker of instruction from another does the Son know what belongs to His own Father, but as Himself the Word and the Wisdom and the Will, does He search all things, yea, the deep things of God, as it is written concerning the Spirit too.

Here is the rewritten paragraph:

Another point. The Divine Scriptures present the Son to us as the Likeness and exact Image of the Father, and the Savior Himself says, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father." But if, despite this likeness to Him, the Son does not know of Himself what is in the Father but needs explanations from another source in order to learn it, then we must conclude that the Father Himself is in the same situation, since He exists in the Likeness of the Son. In that case, He too would need someone to explain to Him what lies hidden in His Offspring. So in addition to the absurdities that follow from this position, the Divine Nature would also become capable of receiving ignorance. But since it is impious to think this way, we must turn to more fitting thoughts, for this is clearly what is profitable and helpful.

Another. As the Likeness and the exact express Image of the Father do the Divine Scriptures introduce to us the Son: and the Saviour Himself saith, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father. But if with that likeness to Him, He knows not of Himself what is in Him, but needs so to speak expositions from another in order to learn it, it is time to think that the Father Himself is in the same case, if He is in the Likeness of the Son, and He will Himself too need one to unfold to Him what lies hid in His Offspring. And thus in addition to the absurdities that result from hence, the Divine Nature becomes also a recipient of ignorance. But since it is impious thus to think, we must betake ourselves to more fitting thoughts: for this clearly is what is profitable and helpful.

Another. The Spirit, says the blessed Paul, searches all things, even the deep things of God; and he adds, For what man knows the things of a man, except the spirit of man which is in him? In the same way, no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God that is in Him. Since then the Holy Spirit, which accurately discerns all things, is the Spirit not only of the Father but of the Son as well, how can the Son—having within Himself by nature the Spirit who knows all things—be ignorant of anything that is in the Father? It plainly appears, then, that it is pointless to imagine that the Son learns the will of the Father from another; and the supposed need for a word to mediate—according to their misguided teaching—will completely vanish. For the Son knows all things of Himself.

Another. The Spirit, says the blessed Paul, searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God; and he adds, For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man but the Spirit of God That is in Him. Since then the Holy Spirit Which accurately discerneth all things, is Spirit not only of the Father, but of the Son too, how can He having within Him by Nature the Spirit Which knoweth all things be yet ignorant of ought that is in the Father? Superfluous then in truth does it plainly appear to imagine that the Son learns of another the Will of the Father; and utterly will vanish the need of a word to mediate in vain, according to their ill-instructedness. For the Son knows all things of Himself.

Another argument, using a method of logical reduction to absurdity. Those who accuse the Essence of the Only-Begotten, claiming that He did not know the Will of the Father but used another teacher in order to learn—namely, the term they have invented, which they call the "conceived word"—let them tell us, if they think their opinion on this matter should prevail, whether they will say that the conceived word is by nature equal to the Son (assuming for the moment it has a separate existence of its own) or not equal, but perhaps inferior or even superior. If they suppose it inferior, they will commit impiety against the Father Himself as well, for there will certainly be in Him something worse than He is, and different from Him—the conceived word. But if they do not say it is worse, but instead assign to it superiority over the Son, the charge against the Son will operate twice over against the Father. For first, He will be found to have begotten what is in a worse condition than Himself. Then moreover, He too will have the conceived word superior to Him, if the Father is Consubstantial with the Son who according to them has an inferior position. But I suppose the opponents will recoil from the blasphemy that results from either alternative and will say that the conceived word of the Father is equal to the Son as regards ousia. The question then is settled. For how will the one teach the other, as one who knows teaching one who does not know, if both are equal by nature? Since the argument of these people is weak on all sides, it would be pointless to imagine that the Son has any intermediary, rather than to believe that He is in God the Father, God the Word Who was in the beginning.

Another, by the method of reductio ad absurdum. They who accuse the Essence of the Only-Begotten, saying that He knew not the Will of the Father, but made use of in order to learn, another teacher, the word invented by them, which they call conceived, let them tell us, if they think that their own opinion hereupon ought to prevail, whether they will say that the conceived word is by nature equal to the Son (for let it be supposed to have a separate existence of itself) or not equal, but inferior perchance or even superior. If then they suppose it inferior, they will commit impiety against the Father Himself also: for there will be of a surety in Him what is worse than He, and other than He, the conceived word. But if they do not say worse, but shall allot to it a superiority to the Son, the charge against the Son will operate two-fold against the Father. For first of all He will be found to have begotten what is in worse condition than Himself. Then moreover He too will have the conceived word superior to Him, if the Father is Consubstantial with the Son who according to them has got an inferior position. But it is likely I suppose that the opponents will start back from the blasphemy that results from either alternative: and will say that the conceived word of the Father is equal to the Son as regards essence. The question then is at an end. For how will the one teach the other, as one who knows one who does not know, if both are equal by nature? The argument of these people being then on all sides weak, it will be superfluous to imagine that the Son has any mean, and not rather to believe that He is in God the Father, God the "Word Who was in the beginning.

Another solution. The blessed Paul says that in the Son are hidden the treasures of all wisdom and all knowledge. But if he is true in saying such things, how can we suppose that He needed teaching from another, or in whom shall we seek perfectness in knowledge anymore, if He who has it all is made wise by another? How is He Wisdom who is made wise? But since we must give heed not to their words, but to those through the Spirit, and the Son has, as Paul says, in Himself the treasures of wisdom and of all knowledge, He will not know the things by which He is wisdom from anyone else, but being in the Father He knows all that is the Father's, as His Wisdom.

Another. The blessed Paul says that in the Son are hid the treasures of all wisdom and all knowledge. But if he is true in saying such things, how yet shall we suppose that He needed teaching from another, or in whom shall we any more seek perfectness in knowledge, if He Who has it all is made wise by another? how is he Wisdom who is made wise? But since we must needs give heed not to their words, but to those through the Spirit, and the Son hath, as Paul saith, in Himself the treasures of wisdom and of all knowledge, not from any one else will He know the things whereby He is wisdom, but being in the Father He knows all that is the Father's, as His Wisdom.

All things were made by Him, and without Him nothing was made.

3 All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made.

The blessed Evangelist, having refuted the complex objections of the unholy heretics and having completed his subtle and most precise teaching about the Only-Begotten, moves on to another snare of the devil. This snare is woven from the ancient deception and puts forward to us the sting of polytheistic error, which has wounded and destroyed many. It widens the path of destruction and throws open the broad and spacious gate of death, piling up human souls in droves into hell and setting out rich food, as it were, before the devil, bringing choice meat before him. Since the children of the Greeks devoted themselves to worldly wisdom and filled their minds abundantly with the spirit of the ruler of this world, they were swept away into polytheistic error. They corrupted the beauty of the truth and, like those who walk in mist and darkness, descended into the pit of their own ignorance, serving lifeless idols and saying to a piece of wood, "You are my father," and to a stone, "You have brought me forth." Others, similarly transgressing, devised a more refined error and thought they should worship the creature rather than the Creator, lavishing the glory that belongs to the Divine Nature alone on the elements made by it. Because of this, the Divine necessarily introduces to us the Only-Begotten as Maker and Creator by Nature, saying that all things were made by Him and that without Him nothing came into being. He does this to close off for the future the entrance for their deceptions, to show to those who do not know Him the Creator of all things, and by the very words in which he says the creation was made, to teach clearly that He who called it into being is other than it, and by His ineffable power brought things that exist from non-being into birth. For only in this way was it possible to see the Maker proportionally through the beauty of the creatures, and to recognize Him who is in truth God, through whom all things have already been made and by whom made things are preserved. I believe, then, that he arranged the Gospel word well in this way against the false worship of the Greeks, and for this reason we believe that the Only-Begotten was introduced by the voice of the saint as Maker and Creator.

The blessed Evangelist, having overthrown the intricate objections of the unholy heretics, and having completed his subtil and most exact utterance respecting the Only-Begotten, comes to another snare of the devil compounded of the ancient deceit, and putting forth to us the sting of the polytheic error, which has wounded and cast down many, and widening the way of perdition, and throwing open the broad and spacious gate of death, heaped up souls of men in herds unto hell and set rich food as it were before the devil and brought before him choice meat. For since the children of the Greeks applying themselves to the wisdom of the world, and having plenteously in their mind the spirit of the ruler of this world, were carried away unto polytheic error, and perverted the beauty of the truth and, like to those who walk in mist and darkness, went down to the pit of their own ignorance, serving lifeless idols, and saying to a stock, Thou art my father, and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: others again transgressing akin to them, devising nevertheless a more polished error, deemed that they ought to worship the creature more than the Creator, and lavished the glory that befitted the Divine Nature Alone on the elements that were made by It, of necessity does the Divine introduce to us the Only-Begotten as Maker and Creator by Nature, saying that all things were made by Him and that without Him nothing passed into being, that he might close for the future the entrance for their deceits, and might shew to them that know Him not the Creator of all things, and by the very words wherein he says that the creation was made, might clearly teach that other than it is He Who called it into being, and by His Ineffable Power brought things that are from not being unto birth. For thus at length was it possible by the beauty of the creatures proportionally to see the Maker, and to recognize Him Who is in truth God, through Whom all things have been already made, and made are preserved. Against the false-worship then of the Greeks do I deem that he thus well arrayed the Gospel word, and for this cause do we believe that the Only-Begotten was introduced by the voice of the saint as Maker and Creator.

Since it is appropriate to examine the twisted arguments of the heretics, I think we should also pay attention to their methods and say a bit more about them.

But since it is meet to consider the crooked inventions of the heretics, I think that we ought looking to their ways too to say again a little.

This God-befitting dignity he also places around the Son, showing from every angle that He is Consubstantial with God Who begat Him and saying that all things that belong to Him by Nature are in His Offspring. This is so that He may be understood as truly God of God, not (as we are) having the title as something adventitious and coming to us by grace alone, according to the words, I have said, Ye are gods and all of you are children of the most High. For if all things were made by Him, He will be Other than all of them. For in this phrase "all things," there is nothing which is not included among all things. The blessed Paul is also found to have understood "all things" this way, for when in one of his Epistles he was speaking about our Saviour and said that all things were put in subjection under His feet, he excellently adds, For in that he saith all, he left nothing that is not put under Him. Therefore, since we believe that all things were made by the Son, we will not think that He is one of all things, but will conclude that He is external to all things, and separating Him from the nature and kind of things that are created, we will finally confess that He is none other than God of God by Nature. For what will come between God and the creature? I do not mean in regard to essence, for much comes between, but only in regard to the position of anything that exists, in conception. Or what other position will the Son have, Who surpasses the nature of things made, or rather is Himself the Maker? For all things were made by Him, as by the Power, as by the Wisdom of God the Father, not hidden in the Nature of Him Who begat Him, as in man for instance his innate wisdom and power are hidden, but existing separately and by Himself, yet proceeding according to the ineffable mode of Generation from the Father, so that the Wisdom and Power of the Father may be conceived of as truly-existing Son.

This God-befitting dignity too does he put about the Son, on all sides shewing that He is Consubstantial with God Who begat Him and saying that all things that belong to Him by Nature are in His Offspring: that He may be conceived of as truly God of God, not (as we) having the appellation adventitious and accruing to us by grace alone, according to the words, I have said, Ye are gods and all of you are children of the most High. For if all things were made by Him, He will be Other than they all. For in this, All things, there is nothing which is not seen among all things. As the blessed Paul too is found to have understood the all things: for when in one of his Epistles he was discoursing of our Saviour and said that all things were put in subjection under His feet, excellently does he subjoin, For in that he saith all, he left nothing that is not put under Him. Therefore since we believe that all things were made by the Son, we will not think that He is one of all, but will conclude that He is external to all, and severing Him from the nature and kin of things originate, will at length confess that He is none else save God of God by Nature. For what will intervene between God and the creature? I do not mean in regard of essence, for much intervenes, but only in regard to the position of anything that is, in conception. Or what other position will the Son have, Who surpasses the nature of things made, yea rather is Himself the Maker? For all things were made "by Him, as by the Power, as by the Wisdom of God the Father, not hidden in the Nature of Him Who begat Him, as in man is for instance his innate wisdom and power, but existing separately and by Himself, yet proceeding according to the ineffable mode of Generation from the Father, that the Wisdom and Power of the Father may be conceived of as truly-existing Son.

But though the blessed Evangelist says that all things were made through Him, this statement will not, I think, damage what we say about Him. Just because it is said that created things came to be through Him does not mean the Son is introduced as a subordinate worker or a servant of someone else's will, so that He should no longer be thought of as Creator by physis. Nor will He be someone given the power of creation by another, but rather being Himself alone the Strength of God the Father, as Son, as Only-Begotten, He accomplishes all things, with the Father and the Holy Spirit working together with Him: for all things are from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. And we think of the Father as present with the Son, not as though He were powerless to do any of the things that exist, but as being wholly in Him, because of the unchangeableness of ousia, and His complete kinship and the absence of any separation in His natural procession from Him. It is as though one were to say that to the sweet scent of a flower, the flower itself is present for the production of the sweet scent, since it proceeds from it naturally. But the force of this example is weak and the nature that is above all surpasses even this, receiving from it only faint impressions of ideas. For how shall we understand, "My Father works until now and I work"? The Son does not say that God the Father works anything concerning created things separately and by Himself, and that He Himself likewise works apart from the Father, with the ousia from which He comes somehow resting: for then there would be two Creators and not One, if each worked apart and separately. Moreover the Father would be capable of not having the Son always in Him, and the Son likewise would be seen not to have the Father always in Him, if it were possible that each should work apart and separately with regard to created things, as we said before, and the Son would not be truthful when He says, "I am in the Father and the Father in Me." For it is not, I suppose, merely according to likeness of ousia that we see the Son in the Father as exact Image, or again the Father in the Son as Archetype; but we hold that the Son shines forth by generation from the ousia of the Father, and is and exists in it and from it in distinct being, God the Word: and that the Father again is in the Son, as in consubstantial Offspring, naturally united, yet separately, according simply to the difference of being, and being thought of as what He is. For the Father remains what He is, even though He is naturally united in the Son, just as we say that the sun is in its brightness. And the Son again will be thought of as not other than He is, even if He is naturally united in the Father, as in the sun its brightness. For thus, with the Father being thought of and being in truth Father, the Son again being and thought of as Son, the Holy Spirit having His place with them, the number of the Holy Trinity amounts to one and the same Godhead.

But though the blessed Evangelist says that all things were made through Him, the saying will not I deem at all minister damage to the words concerning Him. For not because it is said that the things that are were made through Him, will the Son be introduced as an underworker, or a minister of others' wills, so that He should be no longer conceived of as being by Nature Creator, nor will He be one given the power of Creation by some other, but rather being Himself Alone the Strength of God the Father, as Son, as Only-Begotten, He works all things, the Father and the Holy Ghost co-working and co-with Him: for all things are from the Father through the Son in the Holy Ghost. And we conceive of the Father as co-with the Son, not as though He were powerless to work ought of things that are, but as being wholly in Him, by reason of unchangeableness of Essence, and His entire kin and the absence of any medium towards His Natural Procession from Him. As though one were to say that to the sweet scent of a flower, the flower itself was co-present for the operation of the sweet scent, since it proceeds from it naturally. But the force of the example is slight and the Nature That is above all will overpass this too, receiving of it little-impresses of ideas. Since how shall we understand, My Father worketh hitherto and I work? For not separately and by Himself does the Son say that God the Father works ought regarding things that are, and that Himself again likewise works apart from the Father, the Essence Whence He is after some sort resting: for so the Creator would be two and not One, if Either work apart and separately. Moreover the Father will be recipient of the power of not having the Son ever in Him, and the Son likewise will be seen to not have the Father ever in Him, if it were possible that Either should work apart and separately with regard to things that are, as we said before, and the Son will not be true, when He says, I am in the Father and the Father in Me. For it is not, I suppose, merely after likeness of Essence, that we see the Son in the Father as Express Image, or again the Father in the Son as Archetype; but we hold that the Son beams forth by Generation from the Essence of the Father, and is and subsists in It and of It in distinct Being, God the Word: and that the Father again is in the Son, as in Consubstantial Offspring, Connaturally, yet severally, according to simply the difference of being, and being conceived of as that which He is. For the Father remains that which He is, even though He be Connaturally in the Son, as we say that the Sun is in its brightness. And the Son again will be conceived of, as not other than He is, even if He be Connaturally in the Father, as in the sun its brightness. For thus, the Father being conceived of and being in truth Father, the Son again being and conceived of as Son, the Holy Ghost having His place with them, the number of the Holy Trinity mounts to One and the Same Godhead.

If Each of the Persons mentioned withdraws into complete individuality and, while wholly removed from sharing the same physis and ousia with the Others, is called God, then how can God be conceived of as One at all? Therefore, we should conceive of Father, Son, and Spirit according to the mode of individual being, not mixing up the difference of the Persons or names in regard to what Each is. But while we keep for each one separately the being and being called what He is, and believe this way, we should still refer them by physis to one Godhead and refuse to hold a complete separation, because the Son is called the Word and Wisdom and Brightness and Express Image and Power of the Father. He is Word and Wisdom because these exist immediately and without any intervention from the mind and in the mind, and because both mutually interpenetrate one another, so to speak. For the mind is seen in word and wisdom, and word in turn is seen in the mind, and there is nothing that intervenes or separates one from the other. He is called Power again because He is a quality that exists without any interval in those who have it, and cannot possibly be separated from them in the manner of an accident without destroying the subject. He is called Express Image again because He is even connate and cannot be separated from the ousia of which He is the express image.

For how will God be at all conceived of as One, if Each of the Persons mentioned withdraw into a complete individuality, and, while wholly removed from Connature and Essential participation with the Other, be called God? Therefore let us conceive of Father, Son and Spirit, according to the mode of individual being, not mixing up the difference of the Persons or names in regard to That Which Each IS: but while we reserve severally to each the being and being called what He IS, and thus believe, referring them still of Nature to One Godhead, and refusing to hold a complete severance, because the Son is called the Word and Wisdom and Brightness and Express Image and Might of the Father. For He is Word and Wisdom, by reason of these being, immediately and without any intervention, of the mind and in the mind, and because of the reciprocal interpassing into one another so to say of both. For the mind is seen in word and wisdom, and word in its turn in the mind, and there is nought that intervenes, or severs the one from the other. He is called Power again, as being a quality inherent without any interval in those who have it, and that can nowise be severed from them in the manner of an accident, apart from the destruction of the subject: Express Image again, as being even connate, and unable to be severed from the essence of which it is the express image.

Since each is naturally and of necessity in the other, when the Father works the Son will work, as being His natural and essential and hypostatic power. Likewise when the Son works, the Father too works, as the source of the creating Word, naturally inexistent in His own offspring, just as fire is in the heat that proceeds from it.

Hence since Either is naturally and of necessity in Other, when the Father works the Son will work, as being His Natural and Essential and Hypostatic Power. Likewise when the Son works, the Father too works, as the Source, of the Creating Word, Naturally In-existent in His Own Offspring, even as the fire too in the heat that proceeds from it.

It is clear, then, that the accusation brought by our opponents against the Only-Begotten has been repeated in vain. They present him to us as a creator who had to learn, or even as merely a minister, because the blessed Evangelist says, "All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made." I am astonished by these unholy heretics: whatever seems in any way to diminish the dignity of the Only-Begotten and to show him as second to the one who begot him—according to their own view—this they pursue with great zeal, and from every direction they apply the remedies of their own stubbornness. But whatever is spoken in a sound and right way, and elevates the Son to the glory of the Father, these things they most certainly bury in deep silence, having one aim alone: to revile in vain the one who is glorified by all creation. For when they hear that "all things were made through him," they eagerly impose upon him the label of servitude, imagining that the Son is a slave rather than free, and a worshiper rather than Lord. But when they learn that "without him was not anything made," they do not rise up to think anything great and marvelous about him. For since it is not possible for God the Father to create otherwise than by his own Offspring, which is his Wisdom and Power, the Evangelist says that nothing at all was made without him. For this reason the Only-Begotten is the glory of God the Father (for the Father is glorified as Creator through the Son), since he works all things and brings into being the things that do not exist.

It is clear then, that vainly has been iterated the accusation of the opponents against the Only-Begotten, who introduce Him to us as creator by having learnt, yea rather as minister too; because of the Blessed Evangelist saying, All things were made through Him and without Him, was not anything made. Much do I marvel at the unholy heretics: for whatever seems any way to undo the Dignity of the Only-Begotten and to shew Him second to Him Who begat Him, according to their own view, this they hunt with much zeal, and from all sides bring to it the drugs of their own stubbornness; whatever again are healthfully and rightly said and bring the Son up to the Glory of the Father, these things they bury most surely in deep silence, as having one sole aim, to in vain revile Him Who is glorified of all the creation. For when they hear that All things were made through Him, they hotly bring on Him the name of service, dreaming that the Son is bond instead of free, and worshipper rather than Lord. But when they learn that without Him was not anything made, they do not mount up to think ought great and marvellous of Him. For since it is not in God the Father to create otherwise than by His own Offspring, Which is His Wisdom and Power, the Evangelist says that nought at all was made without Him. For therefore is the Only-Begotten the Glory of God the Father (for He is glorified as Creator through the Son); for He worketh all things and bringeth into being things that are not.

And one will properly understand the words "without Him, was not anything made" if he considers what was said at the creation of man. For God says, "Let us make man in Our image after Our likeness." Here especially one can see that in the Son there is truly nothing lowly, as if He were a minister according to their way of speaking. For God the Father does not command the Word, "Make man," but as One who is Co-existent with Him by physis and His inseparably, so to speak, In-existing Co-worker, He made Him also a Partaker of His Counsel concerning man, not because the Father needed to inform the Son of any concept, but as Mind inseparably and timelessly manifested in the imaged and in-existing Word.

And well will one conceive of the words, without Him, was not anything made, if he consider with himself what was said at the creation of man. For Let us make man, says he, in Our image after Our likeness. For here specially one can behold in the Son of a truth nought that is lowly, as in a minister according to their phrase. For God the Father does not command the Word, Make man, but as Co-with Him by Nature and His inseparably so to say In-existing Co-worker, He made Him also Partaker of His Counsel respecting man, not anticipating the knowledge that is in the Son in regard to any conception, but as Mind inseparably and apart from time manifested in the in-imaged and in-existing Word.

Let our contemplations of God remain beyond what any example can fully show. Yet we say that the Father works together with the Son, not thinking of them as two separate beings—lest we end up conceiving two gods—nor as though both together were simply one—so that neither the Son be collapsed into the Father, nor the Father into the Son. Rather, think of it as if one recognized that the brightness coming from light co-exists with the light from which it shone forth. In such examples, the generator seems to be distinguished in thought from what is generated and what proceeds from it indivisibly; yet both are one and the same by nature, and one is in no way separate from the other. But God will be above even this example, since He is Super-substantial and has nothing fully like Him among created things that could serve as an image of the Holy Trinity without any difference, in doctrinal exactness. But if they think that the word "through Whom," when said of the Son, can lower His Essence from Equality and Natural likeness to the Father, making Him a minister rather than Creator, let these foolish people consider and come forward and answer: what are we to think about the Father Himself, and who are we to suppose Him to be, seeing that He clearly receives the words "through Whom" in the Divine Scripture? For it says, "God is faithful, through Whom you were called into the fellowship of His Son," and "Paul an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God"; and again Paul writes to some, "Therefore you are no longer a servant but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God." All these passages refer to the Person of God the Father, and no one, I suppose, will rush to such extreme madness—unless perhaps he agrees with those mentioned above—as to say that the name and reality of service can reasonably be attributed to the very glory of the Father, just because the words "through Whom" are applied to Him too. For the Divine Scripture is sometimes indifferent about its words, in no way harming the subject thereby, but applying to the things signified in a less precise sense both the words themselves and those by which it thinks they are well explained. But it is right to say of such things that "the glory of the Lord veils speech." For truly all power of words falls far short of the exact exposition of the Ineffable and God-befitting glory. Therefore one must not take offense at the inadequacy of what is said, but must rather acknowledge the supremacy and power in language, and the keenness of every mind, as belonging to the Divine and unutterable Nature, for in this way we shall be truly pious, and not in small measure.³³

Let God-befitting contemplations again be above the reach of the example. Yet we say that He co-works with the Son, not conceiving as of two severally, lest there be conceived to be two gods, nor yet as though both together were one, in order that neither the Son be compressed into Father, nor again the Father into Son, but rather in such sort as if one allowed to be co-existent in the brightness from light the light whence it flashed forth: for in such examples the generator seems to be separated in idea from the generated and that which springs forth from it indivisibly; yet are both one and the same by nature, and the one in no wise separate from the other. But above this too will God again be, inasmuch as He is both Super-substantial and has nothing wholly like Him in things originate, that it should be taken as a image of the Holy Trinity, without any difference, in exactness of doctrine. But if they deem that the word, through Whom, said of the Son, can bring down His Essence from Equality and Natural likeness to the Father, so as to be minister rather than Creator, let those insane consider and come forward and make answer, what we are to conceive of the Father Himself also, and Whom we are to suppose Him too to be, seeing that He clearly receives the words through Whom in the Divine Scripture: for God, says he, is faithful, through Whom ye were called unto the fellowship of His Son, and Paul an Apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God: and again Paul writeth to some, Wherefore thou art no more a servant but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God. All these then have reference to the Person of God the Father, and no one I suppose will rush to that extreme of madness (except perchance he hold with the above mentioned), as to say that the name and fact of service, is reasonably predicated of the very glory of the Father, because the word through Whom is applied to Him too. For the Divine Scripture is sometimes indifferent in regard to its words, in no wise wronging the subject thereby, but applying to the things signified in a less proper sense both the words themselves and those whereby it deems that they are well explained. But it is well to say of those, that The glory of the Lord veileth speech. For little in truth is all might of words unto the exact exposition of the Ineffable and God-befitting glory. Wherefore one must not be offended at the meanness of the things uttered, but must rather yield supremacy, and might in tongue, and keenness of every mind, to the Divine and unutterable Nature, for thus shall we be and not in small degree pious.³³

The blessed Evangelist delivers to us his teaching about God the Word, and he seems to me to wisely address everything that belongs to Him by nature (physis). He does this so that he may both expose the shameful errors of the heretics and strengthen those who desire to excel in right faith with arguments that support it. He does not rely on worldly wisdom that fails to persuade, but instead demonstrates through the Spirit, marveling at the beauty of the truth.

Yet doth the Blessed Evangelist make to us his discourse concerning God the Word, and he seemeth to me profitably to go through all that pertains to Him by Nature, that he may both put to shame the outrages of the heretics, and may fortify those who would fain excel in right faith, with reasonings thereunto tending, not providing from words of worldly wisdom unpersuasion, but in demonstration of the Spirit marvelling at the beauty of the truth.

What he teaches us through these words is this: He has just shown us that the Son is by nature Maker and Creator, saying that all things were made by Him and that without Him not even one thing was called into being. But since He not only brings creation into being but also holds it together once it is made through Himself, in some way mingling Himself with those who do not have eternity of being by their own nature, and becoming life to those that exist, so that having come into being they may remain, and so that each may be preserved according to its own natural limit—he necessarily says, "That which was made, in it was life." He is saying that not only were all things made by Him, but also whatever was made had the Life in it, that is, the Only-Begotten Word of God, the Beginning and hypostasis of all things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly and infernal. For being Himself the Life by nature, He bestows being and life and motion in many ways on things that exist, not by any partition or change passing into each one of the things that are by nature distinct. Rather, their nature, viewed by itself, is variously fashioned by the ineffable Power and Wisdom of the Creator, while the Life of all is One, passing into each in the way that suits it and according to its ability to partake of it. But since that which is brought from non-being into being must also decay, and that which has a beginning surely hastens toward its end (for being preceded by no beginning and being free from ending belongs to the Divine and All-superior Nature alone), the Creator wisely provides for the weakness that is in things made, and skillfully contrives an eternity for them. For the perpetual succession of like to like, and the natural progression of things connatural or related to one another, always looking toward ongoing continuance, make creation ever-visible and ever-enduring with God its Maker. And this contrivance is that every one of the things that exist sows seed in itself after its kind and after its likeness, according to the ineffable sentence of its Creator. In all things, then, was the Life—for this is our subject. But one may reasonably say to the heretic who wars against the truth, excellent sir, what will you say to this as well, when you hear him who bears the Spirit within him say that in all things that were made was the Life, that is, the Word who is in the beginning? Will you dare to say even now that the Son is not of the ousia of God the Father, so that He may be regarded as originate and created? How then will one not cry out against your ignorance, and justly so? For if the Word was in things that were made as Life by nature, mingling Himself by participation with things that exist, He is then other than those things in which He is believed to be. But since He is by nature other than what the creation is, how will He not be the God over all? But if you remain shameless and do not cease imagining that the Son who is in things made as Life is originate, then first of all He will be conceived as being something in Himself, and then besides, He will Himself be a partaker of Himself, and if He is in things made, Life will be conceived as being Himself one of them too. But the fighter against God surely sees for himself how great the absurdity of thinking this way is. Therefore, if the Word who quickens them is in originate things by participation, He will not be Himself among the participators, but other than they. And if so, He is not originate, but is in them as Life by nature.⁵⁵

What he would then teach through the words before us, is this. He shewed us just now that the Son is by Nature Maker and Creator, saying that all things were made by Him and that without Him not so much as one thing was called into being. But since on the creation He bestows not only to be called into being, but also holds it together when made through Himself, immingling in some way Himself with those who have not by their own nature eternity of being, and becoming life to those that are, that having become they may abide, and that each may be preserved according to its own limit of nature;—-needs does he say, That which was made, in it was life. Not only, says he, were all things made by Him, but also whatever was made, in it was the Life, that is, the Only-Begotten Word of God, the Beginning and Subsistence of all things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly and infernal. For Himself being the by-Nature Life, bestows manifoldly on things that are, being and life and motion, not in any way of partition and change passing into each one of things that are by nature distinct: but their nature, viewed by itself, is variously fashioned by the ineffable Power and Wisdom of the Creator, while One is the Life of all passing into each, in such sort as befits it, and it is able to partake thereof. But since that which is brought from not being into being must needs also decay, and that which has beginning surely hasteth unto its end (for to the Divine and All-superior Nature Alone beseemeth the being preceded by no beginning and being free from ending): the Creator wisely deviseth for the weakness that is in things made, and contriveth for them by His skill an eternity. For the perpetual succession unto each of its like, and the natural progression of things connatural or kin unto one another looking ever towards onward course, make the creation ever-visible and ever-co-enduring with God its Maker. And this (contrivance) is that every one of things that are, soweth seed in itself after its kind and after its likeness, according to the unspeakable sentence of its Creator. In all then was the Life; for this is our subject. But, excellent sir, may one with reason say to the heretic warring against the truth, what will you say to this too, when you hear him who bears within him the Spirit say, that in all things that were made was the Life, that is, the Word That is in the beginning? Will you dare to say now too, that the Son is not of the Essence of God the Father, that He may be deemed of as originate and created? How then will one not cry out against thine unlearning, O thou, and that with justice? For if in things that were made was the Word, as Life by Nature, immingling Himself by participation with things that are, He is then Other than those wherein He is believed to be. But He being by Nature Other than what the creation is, how will He not be the God over all? But if you remain shameless, and cease not to imagine that originate is the Son Who is in things made, as Life:—-first of all He will be conceived of as being somewhat in Himself, then besides. He will Himself be partaker of Himself, and Life, if being in things made, He be conceived to be Himself too one of them. But the fighter against God sees surely himself too, how great the absurdity of thinking thus. Therefore if the Word Who quickens them is by participation in things originate, He will not be Himself too among the participators, but other than they. And if so, not originate, but in them as by Nature Life.⁵⁵

This we will also see through the considerations that follow.

This again we shall see by the subjoined considerations.

If the Son is not from the Essence of God the Father, but according to them He has subordinated Him from outside, then He is originate and made. How then does He give life to all things if He is among created things? Or what distinction shall we find any longer in the Divine Nature? Or how does the most wise Paul speak of something remarkable about Him who is by physis God, who gives life to all things? For if the Son, being originate, gives life to all things, then creation gives life to itself, in no way needing God its Maker for this purpose. There is then nothing more in God than in creation, for it accomplishes no less than what God can do. But this is absurd. Therefore the Son is not originate, but God, and consequently by physis Life also.

If the Son be not of the Essence of God the Father, but from without He have subordinated Him according to them, He is originate and made. How then does He quicken all things, Who is among things made? Or what distinction shall we find any longer in the Divine Nature? or how does the most wise Paul say, as something admirable of Him That is by Nature God, Who quickeneth all things? For if the Son being originate, quickeneth all things, the creation quickeneth itself, in no wise needing thereto God its Maker. There is then nothing in God more than in the creation; For it inworketh not less than God can do. But this is absurd. Not originate then is the Son, but God and therefore by Nature Life also.

Another argument. The Psalmist marvels exceedingly, and with good reason, at the Divine Nature, and specifically attributes to it a most beautiful dignity, saying, "For with You is the Fountain of life." But if the Father has placed the Son below Himself and does not have Him from His own Nature, and yet the Son, even being in this position, gives life to created things and is by physis Life as the one who gives life, why does the Psalmist strive in vain by saying that the fountain of life is with God alone? For the nature of created things would also be capable of receiving this, if the Son gives life even though He is not of the Divine Essence according to the foolish teaching of some. But this is absurd. Therefore the Son is Life by physis, as God of God, and Life of Life.

Another. The Psalmist marvelleth exceedingly and that with reason at the Divine Nature, and in particular attributeth to It a most fair dignity saying, For with Thee is the Fountain of life. But if the Father have set the Son below Him, and have Him not of His own Nature, and He even being so, quickens things originate and is by Nature Life as quickening, why vainly strives the Psalmist saying that the fountain of life is with God Alone? For the nature of things originate also is recipient of this, if the Son, albeit not of the Divine Essence according to the uncounsel of some, quickens. But this is absurd. Therefore Life by Nature is the Son, as God of God, and Life of Life.

Another. If the Son, being by Nature Life, is originate and created—as not having His Being from the ousia of God the Father, according to their fantasy—then the physis of things originate will be capable of being and being called life, and all things will potentially be life, even if they do not yet exercise this reality. For whatever has the natural power of being something will surely be that thing, I think, even if it is not so yet, since it has the power inherent in its physis. When then being life is common to the creature and the special and sole prerogative of no one, why does the Son vainly boast about Himself, "I am the Life"? For He should, I suppose, have rather said, "I am life along with you." This would, I suppose, have been truer if, being indeed originate, He is also Life. But since He assigns to Himself Alone as His special good the being Life, it is at length clear that He ranks Himself not with things originate, but with the Divine ousia of the Father, to which being Life also belongs.

Another. If the Son being by Nature Life be originate and created, as not having His Being of the Essence of God the Father, according to their fantasy, the nature of things originate will be recipient of being and being called life, and all things will be life in potential, even if they have not yet the exercise of the thing itself. For that which has the natural power of being ought, will surely be so I ween, even if it be not so as yet; for it has the power inherent in its nature. When then the being life is common to the creature, the special and alone prerogative of none, why vainly does the Son vaunt of Himself, I am the Life? for He should, I suppose, have rather said, I am along with you the life. This would I suppose have been truer, if being indeed originate He is Life too. But since He puts about Himself Alone as His special good the being Life, it is at length clear that He classes Himself, not with things originate, but with the Divine Essence of the Father, whereto the being Life also pertains.

Another. Whatever receives a share of life is not life in its own right, for life is clearly present in it as something other than itself. If then the Son exists by participation in created things as Life, He will be other than the things that receive a share of Him and lack life. Therefore He is not created, nor does He seek to be given life by another. He is therefore God as the one who gives life; but if so, He will be admittedly of the ousia of the Father, if we worship One God and serve none other than Him Who is.

Another. That which is participate of life is not in its own right life, for it is clearly in it as other than itself. If then the Son is by participation in things originate as Life, He will be other than the things that are participate of Him and lack life. Therefore not originate is He, nor seeking to be quickened by another. He is therefore God as quickening; but if so, He will be confessedly of the Essence of the Father, if we worship One God, and serve none other than Him Who is.

Another. When we carefully examine the nature of things that exist, we see God and creation, and nothing else besides these. For whatever falls short of being God by nature, that is surely originate; and whatever escapes the category of creation will surely be within the boundaries of Deity. Since we have firmly established this, let those who push the Son away from the essence of God the Father tell us how He can give life as Life, seeing that the Divine nature has this as its own property and yields it to no one else. But if, being originate, He can also be Life, then the grace of this excellence will surely reach all things that are originate, and all will be by nature life. What need would they have, then, of participation in the Son, or what more would they gain from it? For they too would possess being by nature life. But this is not true; rather, they partake by necessity, as needing life, of the Son. The Only-Begotten alone, then, is by nature Life, and therefore He will not be counted among things originate, but will rise up to the nature of Him who begot Him: for the Father too is by nature Life.

Another. Accurately testing the nature of things that are, we see God and the creation and nought else besides. For whatever falleth short of being God by Nature, that is surely originate; and whatever escapeth the catalogue of creation, will surely be within the limits of Deity. Since then we have well established this, let them tell us who thrust forth the Son from the Essence of God the Father, how He can quicken as Life, seeing that the Divine Nature has this as its own property, and yields it to none else. But if being originate He can be Life also, the grace of the excellence will surely overtake all things that are originate, and all will be by nature life. What need will they have therefore of participation of the Son, or what more will they gain hence? for they too possess the being by nature life. But this is not true, but they partake of necessity as needing life, of the Son. Alone then is the Only-Begotten by Nature Life, and therefore will He not be reckoned among things originate, but will mount up unto the Nature of Him Who begat Him: for Life by Nature is the Father too.

Since the Son is by nature (physis) Life, He is either different from creation in nature, or shares the same nature with it. If He shares the same nature and substance, how could He truthfully say, "I am the Bread of Life which comes down from Heaven and gives life to the world"? For creation would then possess being life from itself, but life does not participate in life in order to show itself as life. But if He is not of the same nature as creation, He will also escape being part of the created order, taking His own proper good away from creation along with Himself. For creation will not be life by nature, but rather lacking in it and participating in life.

Another. The Son being by Nature Life, is either Other than the creation, I mean by nature, or con-natural with it. If then He be connatural and consubstantial, how will He not lie in saying, I am the Bread of Life Which cometh down from Heaven and giveth life unto the world? for the creation hath from its own the being life, but life is imparticipate of life, that it may shew itself life. But if He is not connatural, He will also escape being originate, withdrawing from the creation together with Himself His own proper good also. For the creation will not be by nature Life, but rather lacking and participate of life.

Another. If the Son being by Nature Life is connatural with things made, because He is not of the ousia of God the Father (according to their speech), why does the blessed Psalmist say that the heavens shall perish and shall grow old like a garment, but attribute to Him His own proper prerogative, crying aloud, "But You are the Same and Your years shall have no end"? For either He will perish and fail along with us, as connatural, and will no longer be conceived of as Life, or our natural connection with Him will draw us up too to be ever the same and to an unfailing number of years. But truly He shall be ever the same, and we shall fail. He is therefore not created as we are; but since He is of the Life by Nature, He will also give life as Life to the things that lack life.

Another. If the Son being by Nature Life is connatural with things made, by reason of not being of the Essence of God the Father, according to their speech, wherefore does the blessed Psalmist say that the heavens shall perish, and shall wax old like a garment: but to Him did he attribute His own proper prerogative, crying aloud, But Thou art the Same and Thy years shall have no end? For either He will perish and fail along with us, as connatural, and will no longer be conceived of as Life, or our natural connection with Him will draw up us too to be ever the same and to unfailing number of years. But verily He shall be ever the same, and we shall fail: He is therefore not originate as we; but since He is of the Life by Nature He will also quicken as Life the things that lack life.

Another argument. If nothing participates in itself, but creation participates in the Son as Life, then He is not creation, nor is creation Life, which the Son is.

Another. If nought is participate of itself, but the creation partakes of the Son as Life; He is not the creation, nor yet is the creation Life, which the Son is.

Another argument. If giving life is one thing and receiving life is another—as action differs from what is acted upon—and the Son gives life while creation receives life, then the Son and creation are not the same, since the one who works within is not the same as that which is worked upon.

Another. If to quicken is one thing, to be quickened another, as action and passion, and the Son quickens, the creation is quickened: therefore not the same is Son and creation, since neither is the inworker with the inwrought.

And the Life was the light of men.

And the Life was the light of men.

In these words too the blessed Evangelist shows us that the Son is by nature God and essentially the heir of the good things of the One who begot Him. Having already taught that, being by nature Life, He was in all things that were made by Him—holding them together, giving them life, and granting them by His ineffable power to pass from non-being into being, and preserving them once made—the Evangelist now advances to another line of thought. He is determined to lead us carefully from every angle to grasp the truth, as is fitting. Therefore the Word was in created things as Life. But since among earthly rational creatures the one who receives both mind and knowledge and participates in the wisdom that comes from God is man, the Spirit-bearer necessarily shows us clearly that the Word is the bestower of the wisdom that is in man, so that God the Father may be understood as being all things in all through the Son: life in those that lack life, and again light and life in those that lack both life and light. And therefore he says, "And the Life was the light of men"—that is, God the Word who gives life to all things, the Life in all that exists, both enlightens the rational creature and lavishes understanding upon those who are capable of receiving understanding. In this way what is said to the creature is kept and has full force: "For what do you have that you did not receive?" For created and originated nature has no wealth from itself, but whatever it is seen to possess is surely from God, who bestows both being and the manner in which one ought to be. And the word "was" is rightly used of the life, so that it might signify in every way the eternal being of the Word, and might cut off the empty talk of those who lack understanding and present to us the Son as being from the things that are not—which plainly wars against all of divine Scripture.

In these words too does the blessed Evangelist shew us that the Son is by Nature God and Essentially Heir of the good things of Him Who begat Him. For having taught before that being by Nature Life, He was in all things that were made by Him, holding them together and quickening them and granting them of His unutterable Power to pass from not being into being, and preserving them when made, he advances to another train of ideas, from all sides minded to lead us by the hand unto the apprehension of the truth, as was right. Therefore in things made was the Word, as Life. But since the rational living creature among them on earth recipient both of mind and knowledge and participant of the wisdom that is from God, is man, needs does the Spirit-bearer shew us clearly the Word as Bestower of the wisdom that is in man, that God the Father may be conceived of being all things in all through the Son;—-life in them that lack life, light again and life in them that lack life and light. And therefore he says, And the Life was the light of men, that is, God the Word Who quickeneth all things, the Life in all that are, both enlighteneth the rational creature, and lavisheth understanding upon those who are recipient of understanding: that so that may be kept and have full force that is said to the creature, for what hast thou that thou didst not receive? For nought of wealth from itself hath the originate and created nature, but whatever it is seen to possess, this is surely of God, Who bestoweth both being, and how one ought to be. And well was the was put of the life, that it might signify in every way the eternal Being of the Word, and might cut off the triflings of those void of understanding, who introduce to us the Son, of the things that are not, which manifestly warreth against the whole of Divine Scripture.

Regarding the Eternity of the Word with the Father—since we have already covered this sufficiently both in the present book and in the one called the Thesaurus, we think we may remain silent about it. But we will eagerly examine, to the best of our ability, what the meaning of the words before us presents, and we will be diligent to benefit both ourselves and those who will read this later, with God again opening both doors and giving us words to speak.

In regard then of the Eternity of the Word with the Father;—-having already sufficiently gone through it both in the present Book, and in that called the Thesaurus, we deem that we may be silent. But what the mind of the words before us introduces, this with all readiness examining to the extent of our power, we will be diligent to profit both ourselves and those who shall hereafter read it, God again opening to us both doors and a mouth to our words.

What then will the fighter against Christ say to us when he learns that the Life—that is, the ever-living God the Word—is the Light of men? What arguments will he throw at us when we come forward and say: If the Son is not by nature God and the Fruit of the Essence that begot Him, if He has not beamed forth to us as Very Light from Very Light, but is Himself also from outside and is subordinated according to your false teaching, then He is connatural with created things and will in no way escape being originate. How then, you who are filled full of all foolishness, does He illuminate while they receive illumination from Him? For is not that which illuminates one thing, and that which is illuminated another? This is plain and clear to everyone. For if we grant that they are the same in terms of kind of essence and mode of existence, what is there more in that which has the power to illuminate, and what again is there less in that which lacks light? For whatever comes will come to both of them, and separately to each, and that which needs light will be light, and the light will not differ from the illuminated. But the confusion of ideas evident in this is great, and logical necessity separates each of the named things and places in its own proper nature the supplier apart from the supplied. Therefore the Son is not connatural with created things, but He will remain in the Essence of the Father, being Very Light of Very Light.

What then will the fighter against Christ say to us, when he learns that the Life, that is, the ever-living God the Word, is the Light of men? What arguments will he sling at us, when we come forward and say, If the Son be not by Nature God, and Fruit of the Essence That begat Him, if He have not beamed forth to us Very Light from Very Light, but Himself too being from without is subordinated according to your unlearning: He is connatural with things made, and will in no wise escape being originate. How then, O ye filled full of all folly, doth He illuminate, they receive illumination from Him? For is not that which illuminates one thing, that which is illuminated another? but this is plain and clear to every one. For if we grant that they are the same, as regards kind of essence and the mode of existence, what is there more in that which has power of illumining, what again less in that which lacketh light? For whatsoever cometh, will come to both of them, and apart to each, and that which is in need of light will be light, and the light will not differ from the illumined. But great is the confusion of ideas manifest herein, and necessity of reason severs each of the things named and puts in its own proper nature the supplier herein apart from the supplied. Not therefore connatural with things made is the Son, but He will abide in the Essence of the Father, being Very Light of Very Light.

It would not be difficult to take the method of reasoning we used in the previous section—where we showed that the Son is Life by nature (physis), and demonstrated that He is distinct from the things in which He exists—and apply it clearly to this chapter as well. However, rather than leaving this work to others or appearing to be overcome by laziness, I will try, as much as I am able, to apply the form of argument used in the previous reasoning. For just as in those arguments, where He is Life by nature (physis), He is shown to be distinct from those in whom He exists, so here too—being called and truly being the Light of men—He will be found to be distinct from things that lack light and participate in it, as we will see more clearly in what follows.

And it were nothing hard, by transferring the method of reasoning in the foregoing, which we made concerning the Son being by Nature Life, and demonstrated that He is Other than the things wherein He is, to give clear proof in this chapter too.—-But in order not to leave the labour of this to others, nor to appear overmastered by sloth, I myself will endeavour, so far as I can, to transfer the form of argument used in the foregoing reasonings. For as in those, He being Life by Nature, is shewn to be Other than those wherein He is, so here too, said to be and in verity being the Light of men, He will be found to be Other than things that lack light and partake thereof; as we shall see more clearly in the following.

If the Word was present in the things spoken of as Light by physis, mingling Himself through participation in things that exist, then He is Other than the things in which He is believed to be present. But if He who is by physis Other than the creation that participates in Him and is illumined by Him, how can He not necessarily be the God who is over all?

If the Word was in the things spoken of, as Light by Nature, immingling Himself by means of participation in things that are, He is then Other than the things wherein He is believed to be. But He That is by Nature Other than what the creation participant of Him and by Him illumined is, how will He not needs be the God Who is over all?

Another argument. If the one who fights against God says that the Son, being by nature (physis) Light, exists in created things as created, illuminating things that lack light—first of all, He will be understood as existing in Himself, and then also He will Himself be a participant of Himself and of Light, if being in created things, He is understood to be one and the same with them. But anyone who has applied his heart to wisdom, as it is written, surely sees how great the absurdity is of thinking this way. Therefore, if the Word who illuminates them is present through participation in created things, He will not Himself be among the participants and the illuminated, but will be Other than they are. And if this is so, then He is not created, but is rather Light by nature (physis) and God in things that lack Light.

Another. If the fighter against God says that the Son being by Nature Light is in things originate as originate, illumining things that lack light:—-first of all He will be conceived of as being in Himself, then besides, He will Himself be partaker of Himself and Light, if being in things originate, He one and the same be conceived to be of them. But he that has applied his heart unto wisdom, as it is written, sees surely how great the absurdity of thinking thus. Therefore if the Word Who illuminateth them is by participation in things originate, He will not Himself be among the participants and illumined, but Other therefore than they. And if so, He is then not originate, but as Light by Nature and God in things that lack Light.

Another. If the Son is not from the Essence of God the Father, but has come from outside and the Father has subordinated Him (as they claim), then He is originate and created. How then could He exist within created things, enlightening them? Or what would remain that is distinctive about the Divine Essence? And how could the very wise Psalmist speak of something marvelous about the One who is God by Nature when he says, "In Your Light we shall see light"? For if the Son, being originate, illuminates all things, then creation would be illuminating itself, having no need whatsoever of God its Maker. In that case, there would be nothing more in God than in the creature, and it would work no less effectively than God could. But this is absurd. Therefore the Son is not originate, but rather is God, and consequently Light by Nature, just as the Father is.

Another. If the Son be not of the Essence of God the Father, but being from without He have subordinated Him according to them, He is then originate and created: how then is He in things made, enlightening them? or what special shall we find any longer in the Divine Essence? or how does the most wise Psalmist say as something marvellous of Him Who is by Nature God, In Thy Light shall we see light? For if the Son being originate illumines all things, the creation will illumine itself, having no wise need thereto of God its Maker. There is then nothing more in God than in the creature, and it inworks no less than God could do. But this is absurd. The Son then is not originate, but God rather, and therefore Light by Nature, as is the Father.

Another of the same. If the Son, being the Light of God the Father (as it is said, "In Thy Light shall we see Light" and "O send out Thy Light and Thy Truth"), is originate and brought into being, then nothing would prevent all created things from being called the Light of God the Father by the same reasoning. For if the nature (physis) of created things is even capable of this, it would be potentially common to all of them and not the unique property of the one Son. But this is absurd, since it belongs to the Son alone to be called and to be the Light of God the Father. Therefore He is not originate, but is Light—God from God—who enlightens through Himself those things that lack light.

Another of the same. If the Son being the Light of God the Father (as is said, In Thy Light shall we see Light and, O send out Thy Light and Thy Truth), is originate and brought into being, there is no longer ought to hinder, by equal analogy, all things originate from being called the Light of God the Father. For if the nature of things created at all admits this, it will be in potential common to them all, and not the own property of the One Son. But this is absurd: for to the Son Alone will it pertain to be called and to be the Light of God the Father. Not therefore originate is He, but Light, as God from God Who illumineth through Him things lacking light.

Another. If the Son is Light by nature (physis) but is not of the Essence (ousia) of the Father—instead being from outside and subordinated to Him, according to the ignorant teaching of those who fight against God—it follows that He must be connatural and related to created things, since He would have fallen away from the Divine Essence. But how then is He called Light and is Light, while of the holy Baptist it is said, "He was not the Light," even though the blessed Baptist is potentially light? And not he alone, if we once grant that the Son, being originate, can be Light by nature. For what has once occurred in a given nature is, I suppose, common to everyone who shares in that nature, according to the law of logical consequence. But John was not the Light, while the Son is Light. Therefore He is other by nature and not connatural with created things.

Another. If the Son being by Nature Light is not of the Essence of the Father, but being from without is subordinated, according to the uninstructed speech of the fighters against God, it follows that He is connatural and kin to things created, as having forsooth fallen away from the Divine Essence. How then is He called and is Light, but of the holy Baptist it is said, He was not the Light, albeit the blessed Baptist is light in potential, and not he alone, if it be once granted that the Son being originate, can be by Nature Light? For that which has once had place in the nature, is I suppose common to each that partakes of such nature, according to the law of consequence. But John was not Light, the Son Light. Other therefore by Nature is He and not connatural with things made.

Another of the same. If the Son, being by Nature Light, is created and originated—as though He does not possess the being of the ousia of God the Father, as some suppose—then the physis of originated things will admit both being and being called light. It will be entirely light according to the law of potentiality. For whatever has in its physis to be something will surely be so, I suppose, even if it has not yet become so. Since, then, being light is common to the physis of originated things and is not the property of any one thing alone, why does the Son vainly boast of Himself, saying, "I am the Light"? For He ought, I suppose, to say, "I am light along with you." But since He applies it to Himself alone as His own proper good, joining no one else to Himself, He clearly classes Himself not with originated things but with the Divine ousia of God the Father, to which belongs being by Nature Light.

Another of the same. If the Son being by Nature Light is originate and created, as not possessing forsooth the being of the Essence of God the Father, as some surmise, the nature of things originate will admit of being and being called light; it will be altogether light according to the law of potential. For that which has in its nature to be anything, will I suppose surely be so, even if it have not yet been. Since then the being light is common to the nature of things originate, and the property in aloneness of none, why in vain does the Son vaunt of Himself, saying, I am the Light? for He ought I suppose to say, I am with you the Light. But since He puts it about Himself Alone as His own proper good, joining to Himself no one else, He clearly classes Himself, not with things originate, but with the Divine Essence of God the Father, whereto belongs the being by Nature Light..

Another point. What participates in light is not itself the Light in its own nature, since clearly it is one thing existing in another. If, then, the Son is present in created things through participation, as Light, He will be other than those who partake of Him and lack Light. Therefore He is not a created being, nor does He seek illumination from another as created things do. It follows, then, that He is God and able to illuminate. If this is so, He must also be understood as having sprung from the ousia of the Father, if we worship One God and serve none other than the True God.

Another. That which is participate of light is not in its own right the Light; for it is clearly one thing in another. If then the Son be by participation in things originate, as Light; He will be other than those that partake of Him and lack Light. Therefore not originate is He, nor seeking, as things originate, to be illumined by another: it remains therefore that He is God and able to illuminate. If so, He will be conceived of also as sprung of the Essence of the Father, if we worship One God, and serve none other than the True God.

Another. When we carefully examine the nature of existing things, we see God and creation, and nothing else besides. For whatever fails to be God by nature is entirely created, and whatever escapes the category of being made is wholly and entirely within the bounds of Divinity. Since we have established this, let them tell us—those who push the Son away from being of the ousia of God the Father—how He can illumine as Light, seeing that the Divine Nature keeps this as its own and gives it to no one else. But if the Son, being created, can also be Light, then surely the grace of this excellence will reach all created things, and all will be light by nature. What further need then would they have of participation with the Son, or what more would they gain from it, since they themselves would also have the property of being light by nature, just as the Son has it in them? But creation does need the Illuminator, not having this of its own. Therefore the Son is God by nature, and thus Light, as one able to illumine things that lack Light.

Another. Accurately testing the nature of things that are, we behold God and the creature, and nought else besides. For whatever faileth of being by Nature God, is wholly originate, and whatever escapeth the category of being made, is wholly and entirely within the limits of Divinity. Since then we have established this, let them tell us who thrust forth the Son from being of the Essence of God the Father, how He can illumine as Light, seeing the Divine Nature retaineth this as Its own, and yields it to none else. But if the Son being originate, can be also Light, the grace of this excellence will surely overtake all things originate, and all will be by nature light. What further need then have they of participation with the Son, or what more will they gain hence, having themselves too the being by nature light, even as the Son hath it in them? But the creature does need the Illuminator, not having this of its own. God then by Nature is the Son, and therefore Light, as able to illumine things that lack Light.

Another. The Son, being by nature (physis) Light, is either other than the creature in terms of His mode of being, or connatural with it. If He is cognate and consubstantial with the creature, then it seems He came to us pointlessly when He said, "I am come a Light into the world," because the creation would already have the property of being light in itself. But light does not participate in light in order to be understood as light. However, if He is not connatural with the creature, but the creature lacks light—the creature to whom belongs the question "What do you have that you did not receive?"—then the Son must necessarily escape being originate, withdrawing from the creation and taking with Himself His own proper good. For the creature will not be light by nature (physis), but rather lacking and a participant in light.

Another. The Son being by Nature Light, is either Other than the creature, in regard that is of the mode of being, or connatural with it. If then He be cognate and consubstantial, vainly, as it seems, did He come to us saying, I am come a Light into the world; for the creation has of its own itself also the being light: but light is impartici-pate of light, that it may be understood to be light. But if He be not connatural, but the creature lack light to whom belongs, What hast thou that thou didst not receive? needs will the Son escape being originate, withdrawing from the creation together with Himself His own proper good. For the creature will not be by nature light, but rather lacking and participate of light.

Another. If nothing can participate in itself, and the creature partakes of the Son as Light, then He is not a creature, nor is the creature Light in the way that the Son is.

Another. If nought be participate of itself and the creature partake of the Son as Light: He is not a creature, nor yet the creature Light, which the Son is.

Another. If illuminating is one thing and being illuminated is another, as action and passion, and the Son illuminates while the creature is illuminated, then the Son and the creature are not the same, since the one who works within is not the same as that which is worked upon.

Another. If to illumine be one thing, to be illumined another, as action and passion, and the Son illumines, the creature is illumined; therefore not the same is Son and creature, since neither is the inworker with the inwrought.

The wise Evangelist clearly needs to expand for us through this passage the thought he expressed above. He did not think, I suppose, that it would be enough for his hearers to think correctly about God the Word—that He is truly the Light of men—simply by saying "And the Life was the Light of men." For it was likely, I suppose, that some people would arise who would hear these words carelessly and would go on to teach others that the Word of God is indeed truly Light, but not the Giver of light to all. Rather, they would say He pours the light of understanding into whomever He wishes, approving those who ought to receive it and are worthy of so bright a gift, and that the physis of the rest of rational creation either gets the power of understanding from its natural origin, or God the Father plants mind and understanding into it, as though the Son were unable to do this. So then, in order that God the Word, Who was in God the Father, may be clearly shown to be both Life and Light—not of some individuals but not others, but by some ineffable mode of participation as wisdom and understanding (which is what is called light in rational things)—mingling Himself in all things that exist, so that rational things may become rational and things capable of sense may have sense, which they could not have in any other way—he needs to say, "And the Light shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehended it not."

Needs does the most wise Evangelist hasten to expand to us by this too that is now before us the thought expressed above. For he did not think, I suppose, that it would suffice to the hearers unto being able to think unerringly of God the Word, that He is verily the Light of men, by only saying, And the Life was the Light of men. For it was like I suppose that some would arise who should hear the things uttered without weighing them, and should moreover set forth or try to teach others also that the Word of God is indeed verily Light, but not Giver of light to all, but in whomsoever He will He infuses the light of understanding, approving him who ought to receive it and is worthy of so bright a gift: and that the nature of the rest of the rational creation either gets the power of understanding from its natural seed, or God the Father ingrafts into it mind and understanding, as though the Son were unable to do this. In order then that God the Word, Who was in God the Father, may be clearly shewn to be both Life and Light, not of some individually, of others not, but by some ineffable mode of participation, as wisdom and understanding (which is what is called light in things rational), immingling Himself in all things that are, that the things rational may become rational, and things recipient of sense may have sense, which in no other way they could have had:—-needs does he say, And the Light shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehended it not.

The Evangelist is crying out to his hearers with complete precision, as if saying this: I said, teaching the truth with all my power, that the Life was the Light of men. I did not mean that people who show themselves to be righteous and good receive illumination from Him as a reward for their conduct. Rather, I wanted you to understand that just as the Word is Life in all created things, giving life to things capable of receiving life, so He is also Light in them, making things capable of understanding and perception into what they are. For God the Father, through the Son in the Spirit, is all things in all.

As though he with all exactitude crieth aloud to his hearers after this sort: I said, sirs, teaching the truth with all my power, that the Life was the Light of men, not that any should suppose from these words that they who shew themselves righteous and good receive from another, as the reward of their conduct, the illumination from Him, but that ye might learn, that as the Word is Life in all things that have been made, quickening things recipient of life; so He is in them Light also, rendering things recipient of understanding and sense, what they are. For God the Father through the Son in the Spirit is all things in all.

Darkness is what he calls the nature that lacks illumination—that is, the whole created nature. Since he calls Him the Light, he uses the exact opposite term to show that the rational creation which lacks and does not participate in Him is different from Him. In my judgment, he does this not without purpose, but thinking especially about this: that the nature of created things produces nothing at all from itself, but receives its entire being and well-being, such as it is, from its Creator. Therefore it has been rightly said to it, "What do you have that you did not receive?" And since, along with everything else, it also has light as a gift from God—not possessing it but receiving it—then how can what does not have light from itself not be the opposite, or how can it not be called darkness? For the fact that the Light shines in darkness is a believable proof (or rather one that follows from absolute necessity) that creation is darkness and the Word of God is Light. For if the nature of created things receives the Word of God by participation, as Light or as coming from Light, then it receives Him as itself being darkness, and the Son shines in it as light shines in darkness, even though the darkness does not know the Light at all. For this, I think, is the meaning of "the darkness did not comprehend it." The Word of God shines upon all things that are able to receive His radiance, and illuminates without exception things that have a nature capable of being illuminated. But He is unknown to the darkness. For the rational nature on earth—I mean humanity—served the creature more than the Creator. It did not comprehend the Light, because it did not know the Creator, the fountain of wisdom, the beginning of understanding, the root of sense. Nevertheless, created things possess the light because of His love for humanity, and are provided with the power of perception implanted in them at the same time they come into being.

Darkness he calls the nature that lacks illumination, i. e. the whole originate nature. For since he calls Him the Light, to shew that the rational creation which lacks and is imparticipate thereof is other than It, he turns the force of the epithet used to the very contrary, doing this also, after my judgment, not without an aim, but considering in himself this above all, that the nature of things originate, producing nothing whatever from its own self, but receiving its whole being and well-being such as it is from its Creator, has rightly said to it, What hast thou that thou didst not receive? And since along with the rest, it has light itself also God-given, not possessing it does it receive it: but that which has not of itself light, how will it not be the contrary, or how will it not be called darkness? For that the Light shineth in darkness is a credible demonstration (yea rather one following from very necessity), that the creation is darkness, the Word of God Light. For if the nature of things originate receive the Word of God by participation, as Light, or as of Light: it receives it then as itself darkness, and the Son shineth in it, as the light doth in darkness, even though the darkness know not a whit the Light. For this, I suppose, is the meaning of The darkness comprehended it not. For the Word of God shineth upon all things that are receptive of His Irradiance, and illumineth without exception things that have a nature receptive of illumining. But He is unknown of the darkness. For that which is the rational nature upon earth, I mean man, served the creature more than the Creator: it comprehended not the Light, for it knew not the Creator, the Fountain of wisdom, the beginning of understanding, the root of sense. Things originate possess nevertheless, of His love to man, the light, and are provided with the power of perception implanted concurrently with their passing into being.

But we must note here once again that no argument will allow us to suppose that the Son of God is originate or created. Rather, in every way He surpasses our measure and rises above the nature of the creature. He is wholly Other than creatures and far removed from them in quality of ousia, just as light is not the same as darkness, but truly contrary to it and separated from it by an incomparable diversity into complete physical alienness.

But we must again note here, that no argument will permit to suppose that the Son of God is originate or created, but in every way does He surpass our measure, and rise above the nature of the creature, and is wholly Other than they are and far removed as regards quality of essence, even as the light is not the same as darkness, but soothly contrary and parted by incomparable diversity into physical alieniety.

Having now sufficiently worked through the method of reasoning on this matter in what has gone before, we will proceed to what follows.

Having now sufficiently gone through the method of reasoning hereupon in the foregoing, we will go on to what follows.

Having already explained about God the Word and thoroughly worked through the things that demonstrate He is by Nature Son of God the Father, he strengthens their faith in what they had already heard through his words. And since (according to what God said through Moses), "At the mouth of two and three witnesses shall every word be established," he wisely brings in the blessed Baptist in addition to himself, and introduces him alongside himself as a highly notable witness. For he did not think that he should, even if his testimony carried the greatest weight, ask the readers of his book about our Savior to trust him beyond what the law requires, or that they should believe him alone when he was declaring things beyond our understanding and perception.

Having before Explained about God the Word, and most accurately gone through the things whereby He is shewn to be by Nature Son of God the Father, he fortifies their faith in what they had already heard by his words. And since (according to what was said by God through Moses), At the mouth of two and three witnesses shall every word be established, wisely does he bring in addition to himself the blessed Baptist, and introduces him along with himself a most noteworthy witness. For he did not suppose that he ought, even if of gravest weight, to demand of the readers in his book concerning our Saviour credence above that of the law, and that they should believe him by himself when declaring things above our understanding and sense.

Therefore the blessed Evangelist himself testifies that The Word was in the beginning and the Word was God and was in the beginning with God and that all things were made by Him, and He was in the things made as Life, and that the Life was the Light of men—so that through all these things he might show that the Son is by physis God. And the Divine Baptist also testifies in addition to him, crying aloud, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God. For truly one will say that He is truly God, in whom the dignity of lordship is inherent by physis and does not belong to any other rightly and truly, since for us there is one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ, as Paul says. And though there are many called gods by grace and lords both in heaven and earth, yet the Son is One with the Father, truly God.

Therefore the blessed Evangelist himself testifies that The Word was in the beginning and the Word was God and was in the beginning with God and that all things were made by Him, and He was in the things made as Life, and that the Life was the Light of men, that by all these he might shew that the Son is by Nature God. And the Divine Baptist too testifies in addition to him, crying aloud, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God. For soothly one will say that He is Very God, in Whom is by Nature inherent the dignity of lordship and it accrues not to any other rightly and truly, since to us there is one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ, as Paul saith; and though there be many called gods by grace and lords both in heaven and earth, yet the Son is One with the Father Very God.

Therefore, this pair of holy witnesses is most noteworthy, and the things they say deserve credence that can no longer be faulted, both because they have received the fullness of the law and because they are supported by the distinguished character of these persons. For if the blessed Evangelist were to say something about himself and claim his own praises, this would truly be burdensome and, moreover, show poor judgment. He would rightly have heard the words, "You bear record of yourself; your record is not true." Therefore, he leaves it to those who know him to form their own opinion of him, and he turns to his namesake. In doing this too, he does well, and he says that John was sent by God. For he needed to show that the holy Baptist does not come to give his testimony about our Savior on his own initiative or with self-appointed zeal, but rather in obedience to commands from above, and in service to the Divine Will of the Father. This is why he says, "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John."

Therefore, most noteworthy is the pair of holy witnesses, and credence no longer capable of blame is due to the things said, both as having received the fulness of the law, and supported by the notability of the persons. For the blessed Evangelist then to say ought concerning himself, and to take hold of his own praises, were in truth burdensome and moreover ill-instructed. For he would rightly have heard, Thou bearest record of thyself, thy record is not true. Therefore he commits to those who know him to form their opinion of him, and goes to his namesake, doing well in this too, and says that he was sent by God. For it behoved him to shew that not of his own accord nor with self-invited zeal does the holy Baptist come to his testimony respecting our Saviour, but yielding to the commands from above, and ministering to the Divine Will of the Father. Wherefore he says, There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

But we must notice how accurately and appropriately he expressed himself regarding each, and in a way that corresponds to the nature of the things being indicated. For in the case of God the Word, "was" is fittingly introduced to indicate in every way His eternity and His existence before all temporal beginning, and to remove the idea that He was created. For how can that which always exists be conceived of as having an origin? But concerning the blessed Baptist, he fittingly says "There was a man sent from God," since he is a man having an originate nature. And very accurately does the Evangelist seem to me here not merely to say "There was," but by adding the word "a man," to overthrow the most ill-conceived notion of some.

But we must notice how unerringly and fitly he expressed himself as to each, and correspondently to the nature of the things indicated. For in the case of God the Word, was is fitly introduced indicating every way His Eternity, and His being more ancient than all beginning that is in time, and removing the idea of His having been created. For that which always is, how can it be conceived of as originate? But of the blessed Baptist, befittingly does he say, There was a man sent from God, as of a man having an originate nature. And very unerringly does the Evangelist herein seem to me not merely to say that There was, but by adding the word a man, to overthrow the most unadvised surmise of some.

For there was already a widespread report among many people, who commonly said that the holy Baptist was not really a man by nature but one of the holy angels from heaven, making use of a human body and sent by God to preach. They found support for this guess in what God said: "Behold I send My messenger before Your face, who shall prepare Your way before You." But those who imagine this are mistaken about the truth, because they don't consider that the name of angel indicates ministry rather than essence, just as in the story of the blessed Job, messengers come one after another to announce his many sufferings and to serve those incurable afflictions. The very wise Paul himself defines something similar about the holy angels, writing: "Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for those who shall be heirs of salvation?"⁶⁶

For already was there a report bruited of many, commonly saying that the holy Baptist was not really a man by nature but one of the holy angels in heaven, making use of human body and sent by God to preach. And the plea for this surmise they found in its being said by God, Behold I send, My messenger before Thy Face, which shall prepare Thy way; before Thee. But they err from the truth who imagine thus, not considering that the name of Angel is indicative of ministry rather than of essence, even as in the history of the blessed Job messengers one after the other run to announce. his manifold sufferings and ministering to those incurable afflictions. Something like this does the most wise Paul himself define respecting the holy angels, writing thus: Are l they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?⁶⁶

John the blessed Baptist is called an angel by the mouth of the Lord, not because he was actually an angel by nature, but because he was sent to announce and cry aloud, "Prepare the way of the Lord." The text very profitably declares that the angel was sent by God, showing that his witness is completely trustworthy. For someone who was sent by God to preach would not say anything in his teaching that was not entirely according to the will of the One who gave him his mission. Therefore the witness is true because it is God-taught. For the most wise Paul also, when telling us that he was sent by Jesus Christ, affirmed that he learned the power of the mystery from no one else but by revelation from the One who sent him. Paul indicated this revelation in summary form, so to speak, and briefly, by saying that he was sent by Jesus Christ. Therefore, being God-taught completely follows from being sent by God. And it is beyond doubt that freedom from lying is completely the goal of the ministers of the truth.

John the blessed Baptist then is called an angel by the mouth of the Lord, not as being actually by nature an angel, but as sent to announce and crying aloud, Prepare ye the way of the Lord. Very profitably does he declare moreover that the angel was sent by God, shewing that his witness is most sure. For he that was sent by God to preach, would not utter anything in his teaching that was not wholly according to the will of Him Who put the mission on him. True therefore is the witness as being God-taught. For the most wise Paul also telling us that he was sent by Jesus Christ, affirmed that he learned the power of the mystery not of any other, but by revelation of Him Who sent him, signifying the revelation in sum so to say and briefly, in saying that he was sent by Jesus Christ. Hence the being God-taught wholly follows on being sent by God. And that freedom from lying is wholly the aim of the ministers of the truth is undoubted.

The man's name, he says, was John. It was necessary that the one who was sent should be recognized by this identifying name, which adds, I think, great authenticity to what is said. For an angel—namely Gabriel who stands in the presence of God, as he himself says—when he announced to Zacharias the good news of his birth from Elizabeth, added this to what he said: that his name shall be John. It is, I suppose, clear and acknowledged by all that he was named this by the angel according to the divine purpose and plan. How then will he who was honored by God with such great distinction not be thought of as beyond all praise? Therefore the mention of his name is both profitably and necessarily included.

The man's name he says was John. It needed that he who was sent should be recognized by the mark of the name, which introduces, as I suppose, great authenticity to what is said. For an angel (namely Gabriel that stand in the presence of God, as himself says) when he declared to Zacharias the good tidings of his birth of Elizabeth, added this to what he said, namely that his name shall be John. It is I suppose clear and confessed by all that he was so named of the angel according to the Divine purpose and appointment. How then will not he who was crowned by God with so great honour be conceived of as above all praise? Wherefore the mention of his name is profitably and necessarily brought in.

But since the Evangelist has added that the holy Baptist was sent by God as a witness so that all people through him might believe, we will respond further when our opponents object and say, "Why didn't everyone believe the one sent by God? How could someone appointed beforehand by the decree from above be unable to persuade anyone?" We should say, gentlemen, that we must not blame John for lacking commitment in this matter, but rather condemn the stubbornness of those who did not believe. For as far as the herald's purpose and the manner of his mission from above are concerned, no one would have been excluded from the teaching, nor would anyone have remained in unbelief. But since the hearers had different dispositions and each person has control over his own free choice, some who did not accept the faith missed what was beneficial. Therefore we must say to them, as it says in the prophet: Let the one who hears, hear; and let the one who refuses, refuse.

But since the Evangelist has added that the holy Baptist was sent by God for a witness that all men through him might believe, we will further say when our opponents fall foul and say, "Why did not all believe the God-sent? how came he who was fore-appointed by the decree from above to be powerless to persuade any?"—-It is meet, sirs, that we should not blame John for want of zeal herein, but should exclaim against the obstinacy of those who disbelieved. For so far as pertains to the aim of the herald, and the mode of his apostolate from above, none would have been found imparticipate in the teaching, nor would have remained in unbelief: but since there was diversity of disposition in the hearers and each has power over his own free-choice, some receiving not the faith missed what was profitable. Wherefore we must say to them (as it is in the prophet), He that heareth, let him hear; and he that forbeareth, let him forbear.

The word "This" is full of the declaration of virtue and praise of the person. For he who was sent from God, he who with good reason struck the whole of Judaea with astonishment by the seriousness of his life and its marvelous exercise in virtue, he who is foretold by the voice of the holy Prophets—called by Isaiah "The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness," and by the blessed David "a lamp fore-ordained for Christ"—this man came for a witness to bear witness of the Light. Here he calls God the Word "Light," and shows that He is One and strictly the very actual Light, with whom there is by nature nothing else that has the property of illuminating and that does not lack light. Therefore the Word of God is foreign to and, so to speak, of a different nature than the creature, since He truly and verily is strictly Light, while the creature participates in light. He then who is not classified with things made, and is therefore conceived of as being of a different nature than they, how will He be originate? Rather, how will He not be within the limits of Deity and filled with the Good Nature of Him who begat Him?⁷⁷

The word This is full of declaration of virtue and praise of person. For he that was sent, he says, from God, he that with reason struck with astonishment the whole of Judaea, by the gravity of his life and its marvellous exercise in virtue, he that is fore-announced by the voice of the holy Prophets: called by Isaiah, The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, and by the blessed David, a lamp fore-ordained for Christ; This man came for a witness to hear witness of the Light. He here calls God the Word Light, and shews that He is One and strictly the very actual Light, with Whom there is by nature nought else that has the property of illumining, and that is not lacking light. Therefore foreign and, so to say, of other nature than the creature is the Word of God, since verily and truly is He strictly Light, the creature participate of light. He then that is unclassed with things made, and conceived of therefore as being of other nature than they, how will He be originate, rather how will He not be within the limits of Deity and replete with the Good Nature of Him who begat Him?⁷⁷

The Baptist valued living in the desert more than living in cities. He showed an unusual dedication to practicing virtue and reached the highest level of righteousness that a human being can achieve. People rightly marveled at him, and some even thought he was Christ Himself. The Jewish rulers, influenced by his virtuous accomplishments to hold such an opinion, sent messengers to him with instructions to ask whether he was the Christ. The blessed Evangelist, knowing what many people were saying about him, necessarily adds "He was not the Light" in order to remove this mistaken belief and also to build up greater credibility for the one who was sent from God as a witness. For how could he not be exceptionally outstanding? How could he not be completely worthy of wonder, if he is clothed with such great virtue and so distinguished in righteousness that he imitates Christ Himself, and through the excellent beauty of his piety, is even thought to be the Light Itself?

The Baptist having esteemed desert-abodes above the haunts of the cities, and having shewn forth an unwonted persistence in exercise of virtue, and having mounted to the very summit of the righteousness attainable by man, was most rightly wondered at, and even by some imagined to be Christ Himself. And indeed the rulers of the Jews led by his achievements in virtue to some such notion, send some to him bidding them to inquire if he be the Christ. The blessed Evangelist then not ignorant of the things that were by many bruited of him, of necessity puts, He was not the Light, that he might both uproot the error as to this, and again build up some weight of credence to him who was sent from God for a witness. For how is he not eminent exceedingly, how is he not every way worthy of marvel, who is so clad with great virtue and so illustrious in righteousness as to imitate Christ Himself, and by the choice beauty of his piety, to be even imagined to be the Light Itself?

He was not then, he says, the Light, but sent to bear witness of the Light. By saying "the Light" with the article, he shows that there is really only one: for this is the truth. We will not deny that both the blessed Baptist and each of the other saints may rightly be called light, since our Savior said of them, "You are the light of the world." And again it is said of the holy Baptist, "I have ordained a lamp for My Christ," and "He was a burning and a shining light, and you were willing for a season to rejoice in his light." But even though the saints are light, and the Baptist is a lamp, we are not unaware of the grace that was given to them and their supply from the Light. For the light in the lamp is not its own, nor is the illumination in the saints their own, but they are made bright and luminous by the enlightening of the Truth and are lights in the world, holding forth the word of life. And what is the Life, whose word they hold forth and are therefore called light, except surely the Only-Begotten, who says, "I am the Life"? Therefore, there is truly One who is truly Light, lighting but not enlightened: and by participation in the One, whatever is called light will be considered such by imitation of It.

He was not then, says he, the Light, but sent to bear witness of the Light. In saying the Light, with the addition of the article, he shews that it is really one: for so it is in truth. For that both the blessed Baptist and each of the other saints, may be rightly called light we will not deny, seeing that it is said of them by our Saviour, Ye are the light of the world. And again it is said of the holy Baptist, I have ordained a lamp for My Christ, and, He was a burning and a shining light, and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light. But even though the saints be light, and the Baptist a lamp, we are not ignorant of the grace that was given them and of their supply from the Light. For neither is the light in the lamp its own, nor the illumination in the saints, but they are rendered bright and lightsome by the enlightening of the Truth and are lights in the world, holding forth the word of life. And what is the Life, whose word they holding forth are called light, save surely the Only-Begotten, Who saith, I am the Life? Therefore, One of a truth is That Which is verily Light, lighting, not enlightened: and by participation of the One, whatever is called light, will be so deemed of by imitation of It.

The Divine Evangelist profitably recaps what has already been said and clearly distinguishes That Which is truly the Light—the Only-Begotten—from those that are not, namely created things. He clearly separates That Which is by nature from those which exist by grace, That Which is partaken of from those which participate in it, That Which gives itself to those who lack from those who receive its generosity. And if the Son is Very Light, nothing except Him is truly Light, nor does anything else have in itself the inherent capacity to be called and to be Light, nor will created things produce this as a result of their own nature. But just as they exist from not existing, so they will rise from not being Light to being light, and by receiving the rays of the Very Light and being illuminated by participation in the Divine Nature, they will in imitation of It both be called and be light.

The Divine Evangelist again profitably recapitulates what has been said, and clearly marks off That Which is in truth the Light, the Only-Begotten, from those that are not so, namely things originate: he severs clearly That Which is by nature from them which are by grace, That Which is partaken of from those which are participate of it, That Which ministereth Itself to those who lack from those who are in enjoyment of Its largess. And if the Son is Very Light, nought save He is in truth Light, nor hath of its own in potential the being called and being Light, nor yet will things originate produce this as fruit of their own nature; but just as from not being they are, so from not being Light will they mount up to being light, and by receiving the beams of the Very Light, and irradiated by the participation of the Divine Nature, will they in imitation of It alike be called and be light.

The Word of God is Light according to His Essential nature, not by grace through participation, and this dignity is not something that happens to exist in Him as an accident, nor is it imported into Him as grace. Rather, He is the unchangeable and immutable good of the Uncreated Nature, passing from the Father into the Heir of His ousia. But the creature does not possess the quality of being light in this way. Instead, not having it, the creature receives it; being darkness, it is illumined; it possesses this dignity as an accruing grace through the love of mankind shown by the One Who gives it. Therefore, the Son is truly Light, while the other is not at all. Since the difference is so great, and since such a profound distinction separates the Son of God from the creature with respect to sameness of physis, how can one not reasonably conclude that those who say He is originate and rank the Creator of all alongside created things are foolish—indeed, completely devoid of sound understanding? They do not see, it seems to me, how great an impiety their reckless claim involves, nor do they know what they are saying or what they are affirming.

And the Word of God is Essentially Light, not being so of grace by participation, nor having this dignity as an accident in Himself, nor yet imported, as grace, but the unchangeable and immutable good of the Uncreated Nature, passing through from the Father into the Heir of His Essence. But the creature, not so will it bear about it the being light, but as not having it receives, as darkness it is illumined, it has, as an accruing grace, the dignity from the love to man of Him Who giveth it. Hence the One is Very Light, the other not at all. So great therefore being the difference between, and so great a notion severing off, the Son of God from the creature in respect to sameness of nature, how must one not and with reason deem that they are foolish, yea rather outside of all good understanding, who say that He is originate, and rank with things made the Creator of all, not seeing, as seems to me, how great impiety their daring will risk, not knowing either what they say nor whereof they affirm.

For those who are accustomed to examine more carefully the truth in the words before us, the Only-Begotten, that is, the True Light, will be shown to be in no way originate or made, or in anything at all connatural with the creature. One may see this on all sides very easily, and not least through the thoughts that are arranged and presented below, gathered for the consideration of what is before us.

For that to those who are used to test more accurately the truth in the words before us, the Only-Begotten, that is, the True Light, will be shewn to be in no way originate or made, or in any thing at all con-natural with the creature, one may on all sides see and that very easily, and not least through the thoughts that are in order subjoined, collected for the consideration of what is before us.

Reasoning or arguments by which one may learn that the Son alone is true Light, but the creature is not at all; therefore, He is not connatural with the creature.

Thoughts or syllogisms whereby one may learn that the Son Alone is Very Light, the creature not at all; hence neither is He connatural therewith.

If the Son, being the Brightness of the glory of God the Father, is therefore Very Light, He will not be connatural with the creature. Otherwise the creature too would be conceived of as the brightness of the glory of God the Father, having the potential to be by nature this which the Son is.

If the Son being the Brightness of the glory of God the Father, is therefore Very Light, He will not be connatural with the creature, that the creature too be not conceived of as the brightness of the glory of God the Father, having in potential the being by nature this which the Son is.

Here is another argument. If the whole creation has the power to be Very Light, why is this attributed to the Son alone? For one ought, I suppose, because of equality, to give to created things also the title of being the Very Light. But this will not fit any originate things; rather it will be predicated of the Son's ousia alone. Therefore it will rightly and truly rest on Him, but not at all on created things. How then will He be connatural with the creation, and not rather belong to what is above the creation, since He is above it with the Father?

Another. If the whole creation have the power of being Very Light, why is this attributed to the Son Alone? For one ought I suppose by reason of equality to give to things made also the title of being the Very Light. But no one of things originate will this befit, but it will be predicated of the Alone Essence of the Son. Of right therefore and truly will it rest on Him, on created things not at all. How then will He be connatural with the creation, and not rather belong to what is above the creation, as being above it with the Father?

Another. If that which is not truly light is not the same as the true Light (for the statement about each has some difference), and the Son is called Very Light and truly is so, then the creature will therefore not be Very Light. Hence things that are separated from one another in this way are not connatural either.

Another. If that which is not in truth light be not the same as the in truth Light (for the enunciation of either has somewhat of diversity), and the Son be called Very Light, and be so of a truth: the creature will therefore not be Very Light. Hence neither are things thus severed from one another connatural.

Another argument. If not only the Only-Begotten is the Very Light, but the creature also possesses the quality of being very light, why does He light every person who comes into the world? For since the created nature also possesses this on its own, being enlightened by the Son would be superfluous. Yet He truly does enlighten, and we all are partakers of Him. Therefore the Son and the creature are not the same in regard to quality of ousia, just as what participates is not the same as that in which it participates.

Another. If not only the Only-Begotten be the Very Light, but the creature too possesseth the being very light, wherefore does He light every man that cometh into the world? For since the originate nature too possesseth this of its own, the being lightened by the Son were superfluous. Yet verily doth He light, all we are partakers of Him. Not therefore the same in regard to quality of essence, are the Son and the creature: as neither with the participator that whereof it is participate.

If being Very Light belongs not only to the Son by Nature but also to the creature, then clearly the Psalmist would be speaking needlessly when he says to some, "Look unto Him and be ye lightened." For that which is truly and wholly light will not become light by participation in something else, nor will it be illumined by enlightenment from another, but rather will possess perfect purity from its own physis. But we see that man lacks light, being of created nature; and the Psalmist speaks truly when he cries out to the Word of God, "For Thou wilt light my candle, the Lord my God will enlighten my darkness." Therefore we are not truly light, but rather participate in the Word that gives light, and we are alien by physis from the Very Light, which is the Son.

Another. If not only to the Son by Nature accrues the being Very Light, but the creature too have it, clearly of superfluity as I think will the Psalmist say to some, Look unto Him and be ye lightened. For that which is wholly of a truth light, will not become light by participation of some other, neither will it be illumined by enlightenment from other, but rather will be endowed with perfect purity from its own nature. But we see that man lacks light, being of created nature; and true is the Psalmist crying aloud as to the Word of God, For Thou wilt light my candle, the Lord my God will enlighten my darkness. Not then of a truth light are we, but rather participate of the Word that lighteth, and alien by nature from the Very Light, which is the Son.

Another point on the same matter. If the human mind is called a candle, as it says in the Psalms, "For You will light my candle," how can we be truly light? For light is brought to and given to a candle. And if the Only-Begotten alone lights the darkness that is in us, how is He not rather truly light, while we are not at all? But if this is true, how can He be connatural with the creature, when He is so far above it?

Another of the same. If the mind of man is called a candle, as it is sung in the Psalms, For Thou wilt light my candle, how shall we be of a truth light? for to the candle the light is imported and given. And if the Only-Begotten Alone lights the darkness that is in us, how is not He rather of a truth light, we not at all? But if this be true, how can He be connatural with the creature, Who is so far above it?

Another argument. If being truly light can belong to the creature just as it does to the Son, then man will be truly light, since he is a part of it. To whom then was God the Father making a promise through the holy Prophets when he said, "But unto you that fear My Name shall the Sun of Righteousness arise"? For what need would truly light have of the Sun to illuminate it? Yet God the Father promised to give it to us as people in need, and we have received it and are enlightened. The Only-Begotten is therefore different from us and the creature in regard to identity of ousia, being truly Light and able to enlighten things that need light.

Another. If to be very light can accrue to the creature, even as to the Son, man will be very light, as being a portion of it. To whom then did God the Father promise by the holy Prophets saying, But unto you that fear My Name shall the Sun of Righteousness arise? For whatever need of the Sun to illumine it had the of a truth light? Yet did God the Father promise to give it us as being in need, and we have received it and are lighted. Other then than we and the creature in regard to identity of essence is the Only-Begotten, being Very Light and able to lighten things that need light.

Another. If the Son alone is not Very Light, but the creature also possesses this, then it will be in us as well. What then prompted the saints to cry out to God, "O send out Your Light and Your Truth"? In what way were they thinking to help us when they repeatedly sent forth these words, tell me? For if they knew that man needs light and lacks this addition from another source, how can anyone say with truth that he too is Very Light? But if he did not need the lighting word, why did they pointlessly call on Him who could in no way help them? But one cannot say that the mind of the saints failed to grasp the truth, and God the Father Himself sends the Son to those who lack light. Therefore the Only-Begotten is other by physis in relation to the creature, as one who gives light to things that lack Light.

Another. If not the Son Alone is Very Light, but the creature too possess this, it will be consequently in us too. What then induced the saints to cry aloud to God, O send out Thy Light and Thy Truth? Wherein thinking to help us thereby did they oftentimes send forth, tell me, those words? For if they knew that man is in need of light and that he lacks this addition from another, how will any say with truth, that he too is Very Light? but if he needed not the lighting word, why to no purpose did they call on Him Who could in no wise aid them? But one cannot say that the mind of the saints failed of the truth, and God the Father Himself sends the Son as to those who lack light. Other therefore by Nature in respect of the creature is the Only-Begotten, as lighting things that lack Light.

Another. If we say that the creature lacks light, and that the Only-Begotten gives it light, the creature does not bring itself to the Light. Therefore, it is not Very Light as the Son is.

Another. If we say that the creature lacks light, and that the Only-Begotten lightens it, the creature does not bring itself to the Light; hence neither is it Very Light as the Son is.

Another. If what is light by nature and in truth does not admit darkness, and the Only-Begotten is Very Light, and the creature is likewise Very Light, why does Scripture say of the Son, "The darkness comprehended it not," but of us Paul says, "In whom the god of this world has blinded the eyes of those who do not believe"? And again the Savior Himself says, "While you have the light, walk in the light, lest darkness come upon you." For it is clear to everyone, I suppose, that unless it were possible for some of us to be seized by darkness, our Savior would not have said anything like this. How then can the Only-Begotten and the creature any longer be the same in nature—the Unchangeable with the changeable, He who cannot suffer anything harmful with those who are darkened and who can acquire light as something added to them rather than inherent in them by nature?

Another. If that which is by nature and truth light does not admit of darkness, and the Only-Begotten is Very Light, and the creature likewise Very Light, why does the Scripture say of the Son, The darkness comprehended it not: but of us Paul saith, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the eyes of them which believe not? and again the Saviour Himself, While ye have the light, walk in the light, lest darkness come upon you. For it is I suppose clear to all, that unless it were possible for some of us to be apprehended by the darkness, our Saviour would not have said ought of this. How then will any longer be the same in nature the Only-Begotten and the creature, the Unchangeable with the changing, He Who may not suffer ought that injures with the darkened and that can acquire lighting, as something, that is, accruing to it, and not inherent in it by nature?

Here is the rewritten paragraph:

Another argument. If the Only-Begotten is not alone the true light, but the creature also possesses it as something shared naturally with him, how can we cry out to God the Father, "In your light we shall see light"? For if we are truly light, how could we be enlightened by another? But if we say this because we need light from outside ourselves, we clearly are not light in truth. Therefore we are not connatural with the Word, who is by nature far above us.

Another. If the Only-Begotten be not Alone Very Light, but the creature have it too, as connatural with Him, how cry we aloud to God the Father, In Thy Light shall we see light? For if we be very light, how shall we be enlightened in another? But if we as needing light from without us say this, we clearly are not in truth light. Hence neither are we connatural with the Word Who is by Nature so far above us.

Another explanation. Our Lord Jesus Christ is found saying in the Gospel, "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that does evil hates the light, neither comes to the light." But if the Only-Begotten is the Very Light, and the creature is capable of being likewise very light, how does He come in order to enlighten it, and yet it loved darkness? How does it not come to the light at all, if it is itself the very light? For things that belong to anything by physis have their possession inherently. Things that are subject to choice of the will do not have that inherence. As for example: one does not attain to being a rational man by one's own will, for one has it by physis. But one will choose of one's own will to be bad or good, and will likewise by one's own power love righteousness or the opposite. If the creature is by physis the light (for this is the meaning of "very"), how does it not come to the light? Or how does it love the darkness, as though it did not possess by physis the being of very light, but made through choice instead its inclination toward the better or the worse?

Another expository. Our Lord Jesus Christ is found to say in the Gospel, And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light. But if the Only-Begotten is the Very Light, and the creature is capable of being likewise very light: how cometh He in order to lighten it, and it loved darkness? How at all cometh it not to the light, if itself be the very light? For things that pertain to any by nature have their possession inherent: things that are eligible of the will, have not that inherence: as for example;—-not of one's own will does one attain to being a rational man; for one has it by nature: but one will have it of one's own will to be bad or good, and will likewise of one's own power love righteousness or the reverse. If the creature is by nature the light (for this is the meaning of very), how cometh it not to the light? or how loveth it the darkness, as though it possessed not by nature the being very light, but made through choice rather its inclination to the better or the worse?

Either our opponents must dare to say that the attributes beyond those of the creature do not naturally belong to the Son—in which case they will be convicted of more open blasphemy and will hear from everyone, "The Lord shall cut off all deceitful lips, and the tongue that speaks proud things"—or if they truly confess that these good things are in Him essentially, then they must not join together with Him in unity of nature the nature that is not so, as we have just shown.

Either therefore let our opponents dare to say that the endowments above those of the creature are not naturally inherent in the Son, that they may be convicted of more naked blasphemy and may hear from all, The Lord shall cut off all deceitful lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things, or if they surely confess that these goods are in Him Essentially, let them not connect with Him in unity of nature, the nature that is not so, as we have just shewn.

Another argument: If the Word of God is not alone the Very Light, but the creature also possesses the being very light just as He does, why does He say, "I am the light of the world"? Or how can we tolerate someone stripping our nature of its most excellent privilege, if it is in any way possible that we too could be very light, with originate nature likewise possessing this? But if the Only-Begotten truly says, "I am the Light of the world," it is clear that the creature will be light by participation in Him, and in no other way. If this is so, then the creature is not connatural with Him.

Another. If the Word of God be not Alone the Very Light, but the creature too possess the being very light, as He does, why does He say, I am the light of the world? or how shall we endure one to despoil our nature of its most excellent prerogative, if it is any way possible that we too should be very light, the originate nature likewise possessing this? But if the Only-Begotten says truly, I am the Light of the world, by participation it is plain with Him, and no otherwise, will the creature be light. If so, it is not connatural with Him.

Another. If the Son is not alone truly Light, but this also exists in created things, what shall we say when the most wise Paul writes to us, "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people, that ye should shew forth the praises of Him Who hath called you out of darkness into His marvellous Light"? For what kind of darkness at all is there in us, or in what darkness were we, if we are ourselves also the truly light? How have we been called to the light if we are not in darkness? But neither does the herald of truth speak falsely, who was bold to say, "Do ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me?" And we are called into His marvelous Light, as from darkness, and not otherwise. But if this is true, the creature is not truly light, but the Son alone is truly and strictly Light, and created things are so by participation in Him, and therefore they are not connatural with Him.

Another. If the Son be not Alone in truth Light, but this exist in things originate also:—-what shall we say, when the most wise Paul writes to us, But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people, that ye should shew forth the praises of Him Who hath called you out of darkness into His marvellous Light? For what kind of darkness at all is there in us, or in what darkness were we, being ourselves also the in truth light? how have we been called unto the light, who are not in darkness? But neither does the herald of truth speak untrulySvho was bold to say, Do ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me? and we are called into His marvellous Light, as from darkness that is, and no otherwise. But if this be true, the creature is not of a truth light, but the Son is alone truly and strictly Light, and things originate are so by participation of Him, and therefore they are not connatural with Him.

Others, by citing scriptural passages and drawing readers through simpler arguments to confess that the Son of God alone is the true Light, show that the physis of created things is illuminated by generous gift from Him, and does not possess being light essentially as He does.

Others with citation of utterances, gathering the readers by simpler thoughts to the confession that the Son of God Alone is the Very Light, the nature of things originate lighted by largess from Him, not possessing the being light essentially as He is.

The Psalmist says, "The light of Your Countenance was impressed upon us, O Lord." And what is the Countenance of God the Father, whose Light has been impressed upon us? Is it not surely the Only-Begotten Son of God, the Express Image, who therefore says, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father"? But it was impressed on us, making us similar in form to Himself and engraving the illumination that comes through His own Spirit as a divine Image upon those who believe in Him, so that they too may now be called both gods and sons of God, just as He is. But if any created thing were the true light itself, how could it be impressed upon us? For "the Light shines in darkness," according to the truthful voice of the one clothed with the Spirit. For how can light be made visible in light?

The Psalmist says, The light of Thy Countenance was impressed upon us, O Lord. And what is the Countenance of God the Father Whose Light has been impressed upon us? Is it not surely the Only-Begotten Son of God, the Express Image, and Which therefore says, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father? But it was impressed on us, making us of like form with Himself and engraving the illumination which is through His own Spirit as a Divine Image upon those who believe on Him, that they too may now be called as He both gods and sons of God. But if ought of things originate were the very light, how was it impressed upon us? For the Light shineth in darkness, according to the unlying voice of the Spirit-clad. For how will light be manifest in light?

Another example. The Psalmist says, "Light sprang up for the righteous." If the light sprang up for someone who already has it and lacks nothing, this would be pointless. But if the Light springs up for someone who does not have it, then the Only-Begotten alone is Light, while the creature is a participant in Light and therefore alien in physis.

Another. The Psalmist says, Light sprang up for the righteous. If to him who hath and lacketh not, it is superfluous. But if the Light springeth up as to one who hath it not, the Only-Begotten Alone is Light, the creature participate of Light and therefore alien-in-nature.

Another argument. The Psalmist says, "For they got not the land in possession with their own sword, neither did their own arm save them: but Thy Right Hand and Thine Arm and the Light of Thy Countenance." The light of the countenance of God the Father here refers to His revelation through the Son by the Spirit, and His guidance of all things that exist, which alone saved Israel and freed them from the tyranny of the Egyptians. If the Only-Begotten is not alone the true light, but the creature also possesses equal dignity, why were those of whom he speaks not saved by their own light, but are described as needing additions from a foreign and unnecessary light? But it is clear that the Only-Begotten shone forth upon those lacking Light. Therefore He is—and He alone—the True Light, and the creature receives the grace from Him. If this is so, how can the creature any longer be connatural (sharing the same physis) with Him?

Another. The Psalmist says, For they got not the land in possession with their own sword, neither did their own arm save them: but Thy Right Hand and Thine Arm and the Light of Thy Countenance. The light of the countenance of God the Father he here calls His revelation from the Son through the Spirit, and His conducting thereof unto all things that are, which alone was what saved Israel and liberated them from the tyranny of the Egyptians. If then not the Only-Begotten Alone be the very light, but an equal dignity be inherent in the creature too, why were these of whom he speaks not saved by their own light, but are set forth as supplied by additions from an alien and needless light? But it is clear that the Only Begotten shone forth as on those lacking Light. Hence is He (and that alone) the Very Light, and the creature borrows of Him the grace. If so, how will it any longer be connatural with Him?

Another. The Psalmist says, Blessed is the people that know the joyful sound: they shall walk, O Lord, in the Light of Thy Countenance. Why would they not walk in their own light instead? Tell me, why do they receive illumination from another source and barely obtain salvation for themselves, if they too are truly light, just as the Countenance of God the Father is—that is, the Son? But I think it is obvious to everyone from this passage as well that the Word grants illumination to the creature, which lacks it. The creature is saved by receiving what it does not have. How then can the Only-Begotten and the things made through Him still be the same in ousia?

Another. The Psalmist says, Blessed is the people that know the joyful sound: they shall walk, O Lord, in the Light of Thy Countenance. Why shall not they too walk rather in their own light? why, tell me, do they gathering illumination from another, hardly attain for themselves salvation, if they too are in truth light, as is the Countenance of God the Father, that is, the Son? But it is I suppose plain to every one from this too, that the Word bestoweth illumination on the creature, as lacking it, it is saved by receiving what it has not. How then are the Only-Begotten and the things made through Him any longer the same in essence?

Another argument. The Psalmist says, "He has sent forth light in the darkness to the upright." How could the upright person be in darkness at all, if he himself were truly light, possessing this just as the Only-Begotten does—if created nature had this quality? But if the Light is sent to the upright person because he does not have it, we won't need many words to explain this. The very nature of things will loudly proclaim that the one who is in need is not the same in ousia as the Perfect One, nor is the one who lacks the same as the One who bestows out of abundance.

Another. The Psalmist says, Unto the upright He hath sent forth light in the darkness. How was the upright in darkness at all, being himself too very light, if the nature of things originate have this, just as the Only-Begotten? But if the Light is sent to the upright as not having it, we shall not need many words; for the very nature of things will proclaim aloud that not the same in essence is the needy with the Perfect, the Bestower out of abundance with the lacking.

Another argument. "Arise, shine, O Jerusalem: for thy Light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee." If the nature of created things has light from its own resources, and this is precisely what we say the Only-Begotten is with regard to being Very Light, how did Jerusalem lack someone to light her? But since she receives illumination as a grace, the Son Alone is Very Light, Who lights her and gives her what she does not have. If this is so, how is He not entirely Other by nature (physis) than she?

Another. Arise, shine, O Jerusalem: for thy Light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee. If the nature of things originate have light from its own resources, and this be strictly what we say that the Only-Begotten is in regard of being Very Light, how did Jerusalem lack one to light her? But since she receives illumination as a grace, Very Light Alone is the Son Who lights her and gives her what she has not. If so, how is He not wholly Other by Nature than she?

Another passage: "Behold I have given You for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles." How could the rational creature on earth need light at all if being truly light belonged to it by nature? God the Father gives His own Son to it precisely because it does not already possess this light. By receiving Him, the creature demonstrates through the very nature of the situation both the poverty of its own physis and the rich dignity of the One who illuminates it.

Another. Behold I have given Thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles. For how should the rational creature that is on earth at all need light, if to be very light is inherent in it by nature? For God the Father gives His Own Son to it as having it not already: and it receiving Him proclaims by the very nature of the thing, both the poverty of its own nature and the Rich Dignity of Him Who lights it.

Another passage: "O house of Jacob, come and let us walk in the light of the Lord." Why do these people not walk in their own light instead, but rather the Only-Begotten holds forth light to them, implanting in them the distinctive good of His own Essence? But since they do not trust in what is their own, they borrow what belongs to another: precisely because they do not possess it, they know how to do this.

Another. O house of Jacob, come ye and let us walk in the light of the Lord. Why do these not rather walk in their own light, but the Only-Begotten holds forth light to them, implanting in them the own good of His Essence? But trusting not in what is their own, do they borrow what is another's: as not having therefore, they know how to do this.

Another passage. The Savior says, "I am the Light of the world: he who follows Me will not walk in darkness but will have the Light of life." Let the creature dare to say such a thing too, if it also is light by physis. But if it shrinks back from saying these words, it will also reject the reality itself, acknowledging the true Light, that is, the Son.

Another. The Saviour saith, I am the Light of the world: he that followeth Me shall not walk in darkness but shall have the Light of life. Let the creature too dare to utter such a word, if it too be by nature light. But if it shrink back from the word, it will also flee the thing itself, confessing the true Light, that is, the Son.

The Lord says, "While you have light, believe in the Light, that you may be the children of light." Would those who were light by physis lose the light by not believing? Is it even possible for the originate essence to be the very light? How could this be? Loss does not happen through negligence with things that belong to anyone by essence, but rather with things that the will produces and that can come and go without damaging the subject. For example, a person is rational by nature, a shipbuilder by will, or physically sick by accident. He cannot become irrational at all. He may lose his shipbuilding skill if he is negligent, and he may drive away illness by seeking improvement through medicine. Therefore, things that belong to anyone essentially have a fundamental position. So if the nature of originate things can be the very light, how do those who will not believe lose the light, or how will those who believe become children of light? For if they too are the light by nature, they are called children of themselves. And what is the reward for those who believe? For those who do not receive the faith are rather their own children. Drawing the truth from such considerations, we would say that the Only Begotten alone is the Very Light, while the creature lacks light and is therefore other in nature.

Another. The Lord saith, While ye have light, believe in the Light, that ye may be the children of light. Would they who were by nature light, by not believing, lose the light? if it be indeed any way possible for the originate essence to be the very light. And how could this be? For not as to things that of essence accrue to any does the loss of them at all happen through negligence, but as to things whereof the will works the possession, and that can accrue and depart without the damage of the subject. As for example, a man is rational by nature, a ship-builder by will, or infirm in body by accident. He cannot at all become irrational; he may lose his ship-building experience, if for example he be negligent, and he may drive away what befalls him of sickness, hastening to improvement through medicine. Therefore things that accrue to any essentially have their position radical. If then the nature of things originate can at all be the very light, how do they who will not believe lose the light, or how will they who believe become children of light? For if they too are by nature the light, they are called children of themselves. And what is the reward to them that believe? for they who do not receive the faith are rather their own children. From such considerations inferring the truth, we shall say that the Only Begotten is Alone the Very Light, the creature lacking light and hence other in nature.

Jesus said to them, "The light is with you for just a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, so that darkness will not overtake you." You can apply the same argument here that was used above. For that which is light by physis will never be overtaken by darkness.

Another. Jesus then said unto them, Yet a little while is the light with you: walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you. To this too you may apply well the argument used above. For that which is by nature light, will never be apprehended by darkness.

John says, "He that says he is in the light and hates his brother is in darkness even until now." Therefore the light in us comes from choice and from will rather than from ousia, if someone who hates his brother is in darkness. But the Only-Begotten is Light by physis, for He does not have this dignity as the result of choice. Therefore He is not connatural to created things, since He is so far above them.

Another. John saith, He that saith he is in the light and hateth his brother is in darkness even until now. Of choice then is the light in us, and of will rather than of essence accrues it to things originate, if he that hateth his brother is in darkness. But the Only-Begotten is Light by Nature, for He hath not the dignity as the fruit of choice. Hence neither is He connatural to things originate Who is so far above them.

Here's a similar point. The one who loves his brother remains in the light. Love gives to created things what they do not possess by nature, namely Light. But the Only-Begotten is Light. Therefore He is different from those in whom He dwells through love.

Another akin to this. He that loveth his brother abideth in the light. Love imparteth to things originate what they have not, Light that is, but the Only-Begotten is Light: Other therefore is He than they in whom through love He is.

Which gives light to every man who comes into the world.

Which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

The Divine text is certain, for it not only declares that the Only-Begotten is indeed the Very Light, but immediately adds to what has been said the proof of this, practically crying out with the most earnest voice, "I say that He is the Very Light which gives light to every person who comes into the world."

Sure is the Divine, for he not only thinks that he ought to declare that the Only-Begotten is indeed the Very Light, but he adds forthwith to the things that he has said the demonstration thereof, all but crying aloud with most earnest voice, I say that He is the Very Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

Do then (someone might say, wanting to understand the Divine teachings more carefully), the angels not enlighten the mind of men? Tell me, from whom did Cornelius learn that he must be saved by God through Baptism? And was not Manoah, the father of Samson, instructed beforehand by an angel's voice about things to come? Does not the Prophet Zechariah likewise clearly tell us, "And the angel that talked with me said unto me I will show thee what these be"? And again, going through the same words, does he not clearly show that angels used to reveal the knowledge of hidden things spiritually to him? And he says, "Behold, the angel that talked with me went forth and another angel went out to meet him and said unto him Run, speak to this young man saying, Jerusalem shall be inhabited as towns without walls for the multitude of men and cattle therein." Tell me, does not the very wise Daniel also, encountering marvelous visions, gain through the voice of angels the revelation of the things he saw? For hear him saying, "And it came to pass when I, I Daniel had seen the vision and sought for the meaning, then behold there stood before me as the appearance of a man, and I heard a man's voice between the banks of Ulai which called and said Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision." Therefore the power of enlightening is in angels, and not only in them, but even man also receives illumination from man. And truly that Eunuch eager to learn, when he did not understand the prophecies about our Savior, says to Philip, "I pray thee, of whom speaketh the Prophet this? of himself or of some other man?" And those who hurry to this world's teachers go to them, I suppose, for no other reason than this alone. And why do we still delay on these matters, when we can free ourselves easily by producing as proof what was said by our Savior to the holy Apostles, "Ye are the light of the world"?

Do then, (may one say who would fain receive the Divine doctrines not without search,) the angels not lighten the mind of men? Cornelius, tell me, from whom did he learn that he must by Baptism be saved by God? And Manoah the father of Sampson, was he not by an angel's voice fore-instructed of things to come? The Prophet Zechariah likewise does he not clearly tell us, And the angel that talked with me said unto me I will shew thee what these be? And again going through the same words, does he not clearly shew that angels used to reveal the knowledge of hidden things spiritually to him? And behold, says he, the angel that talked with me went forth and another angel went out to meet him and said unto him Run, speak to this young man saying, Jerusalem shall be inhabited as towns without walls for the multitude of men and cattle therein. What, tell me, does not the most wise Daniel too, falling in with marvellous visions, gain through the voice of angels the revelation of the things beheld by him? For hear him saying And it came to pass when I, I Daniel had seen the vision and sought for the meaning, then behold there stood before me as the appearance of a man, and I heard a man's voice between the banks of Ulai which called and said Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision. Hence the power of lighting is in angels, and not only in them, but even man too borrows illumination from man. And of a truth that Eunuch eager after learning when he understood not the prophecies about our Saviour says to Philip, I pray thee, of whom speak-eth the Prophet this? of himself or of some other man? And they who hasten to this world's teachers, go to them I suppose for no other reason than this alone. And why do we yet linger in these things, when it is in our power to free ourselves easily, producing as proof what was said by our Saviour to the holy Apostles, Ye are the light of the world?

Someone in their confusion might say such things, but they will hear this reply from us: We see, my friend, that created beings are composite, and nothing simple exists in them. Therefore, anyone who can give wisdom to others, if they are a created being, is not wisdom itself but a servant of the wisdom that is in them, for a person is wise through wisdom. And the one who teaches the prudent is not prudence itself but the servant of prudence that is in them, for these people too are prudent through prudence. And again, the one who has the ability to enlighten others is not the light itself but the one who lends the light that is in them, sharing it with others through teaching and communicating to the rest the good that they have received. This is why it was also said to the holy Apostles, "Freely you have received, freely give." For whatever good things were in them, these were certainly given by God, and human nature cannot boast at all of its own good things, nor can the nature of the holy Angels. For after being called into existence, each created thing has from God the manner of its existence, and we say with certainty that nothing exists in them essentially which is not a gift from the generosity of the One who created them, and which does not have as its source the favor of the Maker.

Such things is it like that one in his perplexity will say, but he will hear from us the reply, We see my friend that in the creature is what is compound, and nought of simple is in it: hence he who can give wisdom to others, if he be originate, is not wisdom itself, but a minister of the wisdom that is in him: for in wisdom is the wise man wise. And he who teaches the prudent, is not prudence itself, but the minister of prudence that is in him; for in prudence are these too prudent. And he again who has skill to enlighten others, is not the light itself, but the lender of the light that is in him, imparting it to others also by teaching, and communicating to the rest the good that he has received. Wherefore it was said to the holy Apostles also, Freely ye have received, freely give. For whatever goods there were in them, these were surely God-given, and the nature of men may not a whit boast itself of its own goods, nor yet that of the holy Angels. For after the being called into being, each of things that are has of God the mode of its existence, and we lay it down for certain that nought is in them essentially which is not a gift of the liberality of Him Who created, and has for its root the Favour of the Maker.

Since created things are composite, there will be in them no light strictly and simply or without composition, but this too along with everything else they will possess through participation and receiving it from God. But the True Light is that which gives light, not that which is illuminated by another; and this is what the Only-Begotten is, when considered in simple and uncompounded physis: for the Godhead withdraws from anything double.

Since therefore things originate are compound, there will be in them no light strictly and simply or without compound, but this too with everything else they will have of participation and receiving it of God. But the Very Light, is that which lightens, not which is lighted of another; and this the Only-Begotten is, considered in simple and uncompounded nature: for the God-head withdraws from ought of double.

These things, then, are as we have said. But our opponent will perhaps say to us again: If the saints were not light by physis, why did the Savior not call them partakers of light, but simply light? And how is the creature different in physis from Him, if the rational creation is called light just as He is called Light? For the disciples heard, "You are the light of the world."

These things then are thus. But the opponent will haply say again to us, If the saints were not by nature light, why did the Saviour call them not partakers of light, but light? And how is the creature other in nature than He, if as He is called Light, so too is the rational creation? For Ye are the light of the world, did the disciples hear.

What then, excellent sir, will we reply? We are called sons of God and gods by the Divine Scriptures, as it says, "I have said you are gods and all of you are children of the Most High." Should we then, abandoning what we are, ascend to the Divine and unspeakable Essence, and remove the Word of God from His very Sonship, and sit with the Father in His place, making the kindness of the One who honors us an excuse for impiety? God forbid! Rather, the Son will remain unchangeably in what He is, while we, adopted into sonship and made gods by grace, are not ignorant of what we are. In this way we believe that the saints are light.

What then, excellent sir, will we reply? Sons of God and gods are we called by the Divine Scriptures, according as it is said, I have said Ye are gods and all of you are children of the Most High. Shall we then, leaving off being what we are, mount up to the Divine and unutterable Essence, and deposing the Word of God from His very Sonship, in place of Him sit with the Father and make the kindness of Him Who honours us a pretext for impiety? God forbid; but the Son will be unchangeably in that which He is, we, adopted unto sonship and gods by grace, not ignorant of what we are: and in this way do we believe that the saints are light.

I think we should also consider and look at this. The rational part of creation, being enlightened, enlightens others by participation in ideas poured from the mind into another's understanding, and this kind of enlightenment would rightly be called teaching rather than revelation. But the Word of God lighteth every man that cometh into the world, not in the manner of teaching, as angels or men do, but rather as God in the mode of creation. He engrafts in each of those who are called into being the seed of wisdom or of Divine knowledge, and implants a root of understanding, thus making the living creature rational and showing it to participate in His own physis. He sends into the mind certain luminous vapors, as it were, of the Unutterable Brightness, in a way and manner that He alone knows—for one should not, I think, say too much on these subjects. Therefore our forefather Adam is also seen to have attained wisdom not in time, as we do, but immediately from the very beginning of his existence. He appears perfect in understanding, preserving in himself the illumination given by God to his nature while it was still untroubled and pure, and holding the dignity of his nature unadulterated.

I think that we should consider and look at this also. The rational portion of the preation being enlightened enlightens by participation of ideas out of the mind inpoured into another's understanding, and such sort of enlightenment will rightly be called teaching rather than revelation. But the Word of God lighteth every man that cometh into the world, not after the manner of teaching, as the angels for example or men, but rather as God after the mode of creation He engrafteth in each of those that are called unto being, the seed of wisdom or of Divine knowledge, and implanteth a root of understanding and so rendereth the living creature rational, shewing it participate of His own Nature, and sending into the mind as it were certain luminous vapours of the Unutterable Brightness, in way and mode that Himself knoweth: for one may not, I deem, say on these subjects anything overmuch. Therefore our forefather Adam too is seen to have attained the being wise not in time, as we, but straightway from the first beginnings of his being does he appear perfect in understanding, preserving in himself the illumination given of God to his nature as yet untroubled and pure, and holding the dignity of his nature unadulterated.

The Son therefore lights in the manner of creation, since He Himself is the Very Light, and the creature shines forth by participation with the Light, and is therefore called and is light, rising up to what is above its nature by the kindness of Him Who glorified it and Who crowns it with various honors. This is so that each one of those who have been honored may reasonably come forth and, lifting up prayers of thanksgiving, sing with a loud voice, "Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all His benefits, Who forgives all your iniquities, Who heals all your diseases, Who redeems your life from destruction, Who crowns you with loving kindness and tender mercies, Who satisfies your mouth with good things." For truly the Lord shows mercy, making those who are small and mere nothing according to their own nature great and worthy of marvel through His Goodness toward them, just as He has, as God, willed to adorn us generously with His own goods, and therefore calls us gods and light—and what good things does He not call us?

The Son therefore lights after the manner of creation, as being Himself the Very Light, and by participation with the Light the creature shines forth, and is therefore called and is light, mounting up to what is above its nature by the kindness of Him Who glorified it and Who crowneth it with divers honours, so that each one of those who have been honoured, may with reason come forth and lifting up prayers of thanksgiving, sing with loud voice, Bless the Lord O my soul and forget not all His benefits, Who forgiveth all thine iniquities, Who healeth all thy diseases, Who redeemeth thy life from destruction, Who crowneth thee with loving kindness and tender mercies, Who satisfieth thy mouth with good things. For verily doth the Lord mercies, rendering those that are little and a mere nothing according to their own nature, great and worthy of marvel through His Goodness toward them, even as He has, as God, willed to adorn us ungrudgingly with His own goods, and hence calls us gods and light, and what of good things does He not call us?

What does he say next? That He was in the world. The Divine Scripture profitably adds this, introducing a thought that is very necessary for us. When he said, "He was the Very Light which lighteth every man coming into the world," it was not completely clear to the hearers whether this meant that the Light gives light to every man who comes into the world, or that the Very Light itself, passing from some other place into the world, gives its illumination to all people. Therefore the Spirit-bearer reveals the truth to us and interprets the meaning of his own words by saying immediately about the Light that He was in the world. From this you should understand that the phrase "coming into the world" refers to man, and that it should be applied to the enlightened nature, which is called out of non-being into being. For non-being is like a certain place conceived in thought for created things, from which they pass in a manner into being and eventually take another place, namely that of being. Therefore the nature of man can more properly and fittingly acknowledge for itself that it was given light right from the beginning, and that it received understanding that was simultaneous and co-created with its being from the Light which is in the world—that is, the Only-Begotten, who fills all things with the unspeakable light of the Godhead. He is present with the angels in Heaven, is with those on the earth, does not leave even Hell itself empty of His Godhead, and abiding everywhere with all things removes Himself from none. Reasonably, then, the very wise Psalmist, marveling at this, says: "Whither shall I go from Thy Spirit? or whither shall I flee from Thy Presence? If I ascend up into Heaven, Thou art there: if I make my bed in Hell, behold Thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there shall Thy Hand lead me, and Thy Right Hand shall hold me." For the Divine Hand grasps every place and all creation, holding created things together in being and drawing together into life those things that lack life, and implanting the spiritual light in things capable of receiving understanding. Yet it is not in a place, as we have already said, nor does it undergo movement from place to place (for this is the property of bodies), but rather it fills all things as God.

What does he say next? That He was in the world. Profitably does the Divine add this also, introducing thereby a thought most needful for us. For when he said, He was the Very Light which lighteth every man coming into the world, and it was not wholly clear to the hearers, whether it meant that the Light lighteth every man that cometh into the world, or that the Very Light itself, passing as from some other place into the world, maketh its illumination of all men: needs does the Spirit-bearer reveal to us the truth and interpret the force of his own words, saying straightway of the Light, that He was in the world: that hence you might understand the words coming into the world of man, and that it might be predicated rather of the enlightened nature, as being called out of not being into being. For like a certain place seen in thought is the not being to things originate, whence in a sort of way passing into being, it takes at length another place, that namely of being. Hence more properly and fitly will the nature of man admit of itself that it was lighted immediately from the first periods, and that it received understanding coincident and co-fashioned with its being from the Light Which is in the world, that is the Only-Begotten, Who fills all things with the unspeakable light of the God-head, and is present with the angels in Heaven, is with those on the earth, leaves not even Hellitself empty of His God-head, and everywhere abiding with all removes from none, so that with reason does the most wise Psalmist marvelling thereat say: Whither shall I go from Thy Spirit? or whither shall I flee from Thy Presence? If I ascend up into Heaven, Thou art there: if I make my bed in Hell, behold Thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there shall Thy Hand lead me, and Thy Right Hand shall hold me. For the Divine Hand graspeth every place and all creation, holding together into being things made and drawing together unto life things lacking life, and implanting the spiritual light in things recipient of understanding. Yet It is not in place, as we have already said, nor does it endure motion of place (for this is the property of bodies), but rather fulfils all things as God.

But perhaps someone will object: What then should we say, good friend, when someone brings forward to us Christ saying, I am come a light into the world? What about when the Psalmist speaks, O send out Thy Light and Thy Truth? For here He Himself clearly says that He came into the world, as if He were not in it. And the Psalmist was again asking that He who was not yet present should be sent—according, that is, to the plain meaning of the words and their statement about His being sent to us.

But perhaps some one will say to this, What then do we say, good sir, when any brings forward to us Christ saying, I am come a light into the world? what when the Psalmist speaks, O send out Thy Light and Thy Truth 1 For lo here He Himself clearly says that He is come into the world, as not being in it, that is: and the Psalmist again was entreating that He Who was not yet present should be sent, according, that is, to the meaning of the words, and its declaration of His being sent to us.

To this we say that the Divine, having clothed the Only-Begotten with God-befitting dignity, declares that He is ever and unceasingly in the world as Life by physis, as Light by ousia, fulfilling the creation as God—not limited by place, not measured by intervals, not contained by quantity, not encompassed at all by anything, nor needing to pass from one place to another, but dwelling in all and forsaking none. Yet Scripture asserts that He came into the world (although already present in it) through the Incarnation. For He appeared on earth and lived among men in flesh, making His presence in the world more evident through this, and He who was previously grasped only by thought was at last seen by the very eyes of the body as well. He implanted in us a more physical perception, so to speak, of the knowledge of God, making Himself known through wonders and mighty works. And the Psalmist prays that the Word of God may be sent to us to enlighten the world in no other way, as it seems to me, but in this manner. But I think that the thoughtful reader should consider this as well: that the mind is keener than all speech, and the movement of the understanding is sharper than the tongue. Therefore, insofar as concerns the subtlety of the mind and its refined movement, we perceive the varied beauty of the Divine physis. But we express what concerns it in a more human manner and in the speech that belongs to us, since the tongue cannot extend to the full measure of the truth. For this reason Paul too, the steward of the mysteries of the Savior, used to ask God for utterance to open his mouth. Therefore the poverty of our language will not harm the natural dignities of the Only-Begotten, but what belongs to Him will be conceived in a divine manner, yet will necessarily be expressed in a more human manner—both by Him for our sake and by the saints concerning Him according to the measure of our nature.

To this we say, that the Divine having clad the Only-Begotten with God-befitting dignity says that He is ever and unceasingly in the world, as Life by Nature, as Light by Essence, fulfilling the creation as God, not circumscript by place, not meted by intervals, not comprehended by quantity, neither compassed at all by ought, nor needing to pass from one place to another, but in all He dwells, none He forsakes: yet he asserted that He came in the world (although present therein) by the Incarnation. For He shewed Himself upon earth and conversed with men with flesh, making His Presence in the world more manifest thereby, and He Who was aforetime comprehended by idea, seen at length by the very eyes of the body also, implanted in us a grosser so to speak perception of the knowledge of God, made known by wonders and mighty deeds. And the Psalmist entreats that the Word of God may be sent to us to enlighten the world, in no other way as seems to me, but in this. But I think that the studious should consider this again, that keener is the mind than all speech, sharper the motion of the understanding than the tongue. Hence as far as pertains to the delicacy of the mind and its subtil motion, we behold the varied beauty of the Divine Nature: but we utter the things respecting it in more human wise and in the speech that belongs to us, the tongue not being able to stretch forth unto the measure of the truth. Wherefore Paul too, the steward of the Mysteries of the Saviour, used to ask of God utterance to open his mouth. Nought then will the poverty of our language hurt the Natural Dignities of the Only-Begotten, but what belongs to Him will be conceived of after a Divine sort, but will be uttered as matter of necessity in more human wise, both by Him for our sakes and by the Saints of Him according to the measure of our nature.

It would seem reasonable to be satisfied with what has already been said in explaining the words before us. But since I believe that writing about divine doctrines should never be lazy, let us bring forward this passage again and examine more carefully how the words "coming into the world," which are rightly applied to man, should be understood. For the Light was in the world, as the Evangelist himself testified to us, and we have maintained that it was not the Light that comes into the world but rather the man who is being lighted. Some therefore say, speaking from their own hearts and not from the mouth of the Lord, as it is written, that the souls of men existed beforehand in Heaven before their bodies were formed, spending a long time in bodiless blessedness and enjoying the true Good more purely. But when dissatisfaction with better things came upon them and, eventually declining toward what is worse, they fell into strange thoughts and desires, the Creator, justly displeased, sends them forth into the world and entangles them with earthly bodies, compelling them to be burdened by them. Having shut them as it were in some cave of strange pleasures, he decreed to teach them through this very experience itself how bitter it is to be carried away toward what is worse and to disregard what is good. In proof of this most ridiculous story of theirs, they first distort this passage now before us: "He was the True Light which lighteth every man coming into the world," and besides this, certain other passages of Divine Scripture, such as "Before I was afflicted I went astray." Moreover, not ashamed of such foolish babbling, they say: Look, the soul says that before its humiliation, that is, its embodiment, it transgressed, and therefore it was justly afflicted, brought into bondage to death and corruption, just as Paul also describes the body, saying "O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" But if the soul, he says, goes astray before it was afflicted, it also comes into the world as having a previous existence (for how could it sin at all if it did not yet exist?); and it comes into the world, setting out from somewhere. Stringing together such things against the doctrines of the Church and heaping up the rubbish of their empty interpretations in the ears of the faithful, they will rightly hear: "Woe unto the foolish prophets that follow their own spirit and have seen nothing!" For they are setting visions, omens from birds, and prophecies from their own hearts against the words spoken by the Spirit, and they do not perceive to what great absurdity their theory will lead, as the Psalmist says to God: "Thou, Thou art to be feared, and who may stand in Thy sight when once Thou art angry?"

It were then, it seems, not amiss to be content with what has been already said in explanation of the words before us. Yet since I deem that the pen that ministers to the Divine doctrines should be above sloth, come let us bringing forward the lection again examine more exactly how the words coming into the world predicated of man, as is fit, should be understood. For the light was in the world, as the Evangelist also himself testified to us, and we have maintained that it was not the Light that cometh into the world but rather the man who is being lighted. Some therefore say, belching forth of their own heart and not out of the mouth of the Lord, as it is "written, that the souls of men were pre-existent in Heaven before the fashioning of their bodies, passing long time in un-embodied bliss, and enjoying more purely the true Good. But when the sate of better things came into them and, declining at length to the worser, they sank to strange thoughts and desires, the Creator justly displeased sends them forth into the world, and entangled them with bodies of earth compelling them to be burdened therewith, and having shut them as it were in some cave of strange pleasures, decreed to instruct them by the very trial itself, how bitter it is to be carried away to the worser, and to make no account of what is good. And in proof of this most ridiculous fable of theirs, they wrest first of all this that is now before us: He was the Very Light Which lighteth every man coming into the world, and, besides, certain other things of the Divine Scripture, such as, Before I was afflicted I went astray, and moreover not ashamed of such foolish prating say, Lo the soul says that before its humiliation, that is, its embodiment, it transgressed and that therefore it was justly afflicted, brought in bondage to death and corruption, even as Paul too stileth the body saying O wretched man that I am I who shall deliver me from, the body of this death? But if the soul, he says, goeth astray before it was afflicted, it also cometh into the world, as having that is a previous being (for how could it sin at at all if it existed not yet?); and cometh into the world, setting out that is from some quarter. Such things as these they stringing against the doctrines of the Church and heaping up the trash of their empty expositions in the ears of the of the faithful will rightly hear, Woe unto the foolish prophets that follow their own spirit and have seen nothing! For visions in truth, and auguries by birds and prophecies of their own heart they setting against the words spoken by the Spirit, do not perceive to how great absurdity their device will run; as the Psalmist says unto God, Thou, Thou art to be feared: and who may stand in Thy Sight when once Thou art angry?

It would be completely absurd to suppose that the soul exists before the body, and to think that it was sent down into earthly bodies because of sins committed earlier. We will try to prove this to the best of our ability through the arguments that follow, keeping in mind what is written: "Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser; teach a just man, and he will increase in learning."

But that it is most exceedingly absurd to suppose that the soul pre-exists, and to think that for elder transgressions it was sent down into bodies of earth, we shall endeavour to prove according to our ability by the subjoined considerations, knowing what is written, Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning.

If the human soul exists before the body is formed, and—as some speculate—falls into evil and descends into flesh as punishment for its transgression, how does the Evangelist say that it is enlightened when it comes into the world? For this seems to be an honor and the receiving of good gifts. But no one is punished by being honored, nor is anyone disciplined by receiving divine good things; rather, punishment comes from experiencing the wrath of the one inflicting it. But since man is not in such a state when coming into the world, but instead is actually enlightened, it is clear that the one who is honored with flesh does not receive embodiment as a punishment.

1. If the soul of man have existence prior to the formation of the body, and, declining to evil according to the surmises of some, has for punishment of its transgression a descent into flesh, how, tell me, does the Evangelist say that it is lighted on coming into the world? For this I suppose is honour and the addition of fair gifts. But not by being honoured is one punished, nor yet chastised by being made recipient of the Divine good things, but by meeting with what is of the wrath of the punisher. But since man on his coming into the world is not in this condition, but on the contrary is even lighted, it is I suppose clear that he that is honoured with flesh has not his embodiment for a punishment.

Another point. If the soul existed as a pure mind before the body, living in blessedness, but then turned toward evil, fell, and for this reason came to be in flesh, how is it enlightened upon its entry into the world? For one must necessarily say that it lacked light before it came. If that is the case, how could it any longer have been that pure mind which only began to be enlightened when it came into the world, and not apart from flesh?

2. Another. If before the body the soul were a mind yet pure, living in bliss, and by turning aside to ill fell, and therefore came to be in flesh, how is it lighted on its entry into the world? For one must needs say that it was destitute of light before it came: if so, how any longer was that pure mind which had then scarce a beginning of being lighted, when it came into the world, and not without flesh?

3. Another. If the human soul existed before the body, and the mind therefore existed still pure, more naturally drawn to desire good things, but because of turning aside to what is worse is sent into an earthly body—and once it is in that body, no longer refuses the will to transgress—how is it not wronged when it is not specially entrusted with doing this at the time when it existed with a greater capacity for virtue, not yet in bondage to the evils that come from the body? Instead, when it had come into the turbid waters of sin, it is then compelled out of season to do this. But the Divinity will not miss the fitting time, nor will that one do injury to whose nature doing injury does not belong. Therefore, we rightly refuse sin when we are in the flesh at the proper time and season, having this time alone of existence in which we come into the world with bodies, leaving behind the former non-existence as though it were a certain place, and from it passing into a beginning of existence.

3. Another. If the soul of man existed before the body; and the mind therefore existed yet pure, attached more properly to the desire of good things, but from turning aside to the worser is sent into earthly body, and being therein, no longer rejects the will to transgress, how is it not wronged, not then specially entrusted with the doing of this, when it existed with a greater aptness for virtue, not as yet in bondage to the ills that proceed from the body, but when it had come into the turbid waters of sin, then out of season compelled to do this? But the Divinity will not miss of the befitting time, nor that injure to Whose Nature doing injury belongeth not. In season then and rightly do we refuse sin when in the flesh, having this season alone of being, in which with bodies we come into the world, leaving the former not being, as though a certain place, and from it passing into a beginning of being.

Another question I'd like to ask them: What reasoning justifies a soul that sinned before the body being sent into the body so that it might learn by experience the disgrace of its own lusts? For they are not ashamed to propose this idea as well, although the soul ought instead to have been withdrawn from the very imagination of evils, not thrust down into the very depths of base pleasures. For this would be a proper method of healing, rather than the other. So if embodiment increases the soul's disease by allowing it to revel in bodily pleasures, one could not praise the Corrector, who injures what was sick by the very means He thought would help it. But if embodiment is meant to make the soul cease from its passions, how is it possible that the soul, having fallen into the very depths of lust, should rise again? Would it not have been better for it to have rejected the very beginning of the disease while it was still free from what dragged it down into sin?

4. Another. What reason is there, I would fain ask them, in the soul that sinned prior to the body being sent into the body, that it might learn by experience the disgrace of its own lusts? For they are not ashamed to set forth this too, although it ought rather to have been withdrawn from the very imagination of its ills, not thrust down to the very depth of base pleasures. For this rather than the other were a mode of healing. If then it has the embodiment an increase of its disease in order that it may revel in the pleasures of the body, one would not praise the Corrector, injuring that which was sick by the very means whereby He thought to advantage it. But if it has it in order that it may cease from its passions, how is it possible that it having fallen into the very depth of lust should arise, and not rather have spurned the very beginning of the disease, while it was free from that which dragged it down into sin?

If the soul sinned before it existed and was therefore bound up with flesh and blood as punishment, shouldn't those who believe in Christ and have received forgiveness of sin immediately leave their bodies and cast off what was placed on them as punishment? How can the human soul have complete forgiveness while still carrying around the means of its punishment? But we see that believers are so far from wanting to be freed from their bodies that along with their confessions of faith in Christ they proclaim the resurrection of the flesh. Something that is honored even in the confession of faith and bears witness to the divine power of the Savior—who is able to do all things easily—through its return to life cannot be a method of punishment.

5. Another. If the soul in pre-existence transgressed and was for this reason entangled with flesh and blood, receiving this in the nature of punishment, how is it not the duty of them who believe in Christ and who received thereby the remission of sin, to go forthwith out of their bodies and to cast away that which is put about them as a punishment? How, tell me, does the soul of man have perfect remission while yet bearing about it the method of its punishment? But we see that they who believe are so far from wishing to be freed from their bodies, that together with their confessions in Christ they declare the resurrection of the flesh. No method of punishment then will that be which is honoured even with the confession of the faith, witnessing, through its return back to life, to the Divine Power of the Saviour the being able to do all things easily.

6. Another. If the soul existed before and sinned, and was for this reason entangled with flesh—as they claim—why does the Law order the graver offenses to be punished with death, and allow the person who has committed no crime to live? For I would think it would have been more fitting to let those who are guilty of the worst crimes linger longer in their bodies so they might be punished more severely, and to free those who had committed no crime from their bodies, if being embodied counts as a punishment. But the opposite happens: the murderer is punished with death, while the righteous person suffers nothing in his body. Therefore, being embodied does not belong to punishment.

6. Another. If the soul pre-existing according to them sinned and was for this reason entangled with flesh, why does the Law order the graver offences to be honoured with death, and suffer him who has committed no crime to live? For I suppose that it would rather have been right to let those who are guilty of the basest ill linger long in their bodies, that they might be the more heavily punished, and to let those who had committed no crime free from their bodies, if the embodiment ranks as a punishment. But on the contrary, the murderer is punished with death, the righteous man suffers nothing in his body. The embodiment does not therefore belong to punishment.

Another argument: If souls were placed in bodies because of earlier sins, and the body's physis was designed as a kind of punishment for them, how did the Savior benefit us by destroying death? Wouldn't decay actually be a kindness, since it destroys what punishes us and puts an end to God's anger toward us? From this perspective, one could argue that we should be more grateful to decay than to the One who imposed endless suffering on us through the resurrection of the dead. Yet we give thanks to Christ for freeing us from death and decay. Therefore, being embodied is not a form of punishment for the human soul.

7. Another. If souls were embodied for previous sins, and the nature of the body were invented as a species of punishment for them, how did the Saviour profit us by abolishing death? how was not rather decay a mercy, destroying that which punished us, and putting an end to the wrath against us? Hence one might rather say that it were meeter to give thanks to decay than on the contrary to Him Who laid on us endless infliction through the resurrection of the dead. And yet we give thanks as freed from death and decay through Christ. Hence embodiment is not of the nature of punishment to the soul of man.

8. Another argument from the same idea. If human souls were bound to earthly bodies as payment for previous sins, what reason do we have to thank God for promising us the Resurrection? For this would clearly be a renewal of punishment and a rebuilding of what harms us, since a long punishment is obviously bitter to everyone. It would be terrible if bodies were to rise that serve as instruments of punishment for their wretched souls. And yet nature has received from Christ, as a gift renewing it to joy, the resurrection. Therefore embodiment is not by nature a punishment.

8. Another from the same idea. If the souls of men were entangled with earthly bodies in satisfaction of elder transgressions, what thank tell me shall we acknowledge to God Who promises us the Resurrection? For this is clearly a renewal of punishment and a building up of what hurts us, if a long punishment is clearly bitter to every one. It is then hard that bodies should rise which have an office of punishment to their wretched souls. And yet nature has from Christ, as a gift renewing it unto joy, the resurrection. The embodiment is not therefore of the nature of punishment.

Another argument. The prophetic word appears to announce to us some great and long-awaited feast. For it says, "The dead shall arise, and those who are in the tombs shall be raised." But if embodiment were truly of the nature of punishment to the wretched souls of human beings, how could the Prophet not rather grieve when proclaiming these things as from God? How would that proclamation be in any way good if it brings us the continuation of what troubles us? For he should rather have said, if he wished to bring joy to those who had received bodies because of sin, "The dead shall not arise, and the nature of the flesh shall perish." But on the contrary, he brings them joy by saying that there shall be a resurrection of bodies by the will of God. How then can the body—in which both we ourselves rejoice and God is well pleased—be (according to the foolish notion of some) of the nature of a punishment?

9. Another. The Prophetic word appears as publishing to us some great and long desired-feast. For, says it, the dead shall arise, and they that be in the tombs shall be raised. But if the embodiment were indeed of the nature of punishment to the wretched souls of men, how would not the Prophet rather sorrow when proclaiming these things as from God? How will that proclamation be in any way good which brings us the duration of what vexes us? For he should rather have said, if he wished to rejoice those who had received bodies by reason of sin, The dead shall not arise, and the nature of the flesh shall perish. But on the contrary he rejoices them saying that there shall be a resurrection of bodies by the will of God. How then can the body wherein both ourselves rejoice and God is well pleased be (according to the uncounsel of some) of the nature of a punishment?

10. Another. God, when blessing the blessed Abraham, promised that his descendants would be as numerous as the countless stars. If it were true that the soul, having sinned before the body, is sent down to earth and flesh to be punished, then God would have promised the righteous man an ignoble multitude of condemned people, fugitives from goodness, and not descendants who share in blessing. But God speaks this as a blessing to Abraham; therefore the origin of bodies is freed from all accusation.

10. Another. God, in blessing the blessed Abraham promised that his seed should be as the multitude innumerable of the stars. If it be true that the soul sinning before the body is sent down to earth and flesh to be punished, God promised to the righteous man, an ignoble multitude of condemned, runagates from good, and not a seed participant of blessing. But God says this as a blessing to Abraham: hence the origin of bodies is freed from all accusal.

11. Another. The race of the Israelites grew into a great and countless multitude. The priest Moses rightly marvels at this and prays for them, saying, "And behold, you are this day as the stars of heaven in number. May the Lord God of your fathers make you a thousand times more numerous than you are." But if it were a punishment for the souls of men to be in the world with bodies, and they must necessarily exist this way and not without them, then Moses' words would actually be a curse, not a blessing. But this is not the case—it was spoken as a blessing. Therefore, embodiment is not of the nature of punishment.

11. Another. The race of the Israelites spread forth into a multitude great and innumerable. And indeed justly marvellous at this does the hierophant Moses pray saying to them, And behold ye are this day as the stars of heaven for multitude: the Lord God of your fathers make you a thousand times so many more as ye are. But if it were punishment to the souls of men to be in the world with bodies, and they must needs so be, and not bare of them, Moses' saying will be found to be verily a curse, not a blessing. But it is not so, it was made as a blessing: the embodiment therefore is not of the nature of punishment.

Another argument. God does not grant requests to those who ask wrongly. The Savior's disciple provides us with a reliable witness to this, saying, "You ask and receive not, because you ask amiss." If being embodied were a punishment for the soul, one could reasonably say that Hannah, the wife of Elkanah, completely missed what was proper when she so earnestly poured out her prayer to God and asked for a male child. For she would have been asking for a soul's downfall and its descent into a body. How then could God have given her the holy Samuel as her son, if it were absolutely necessary that a soul must sin in order to become entangled with a body and thereby fulfill the woman's request? Yet God did give, and it is His nature to give only good things. By readily granting her request, He clears it of all blame. Therefore, embodiment is not a result of sin, nor is it punishment by nature, as some claim.

12. Another. To those who attempt to ask amiss God endures not to give. And an unlying witness to us will be the disciple of the Saviour, saying, Ye ash and receive not, because ye ash amiss. If then it were a punishment to a soul to be embodied, how would not one with reason say that Hannah the wife of Elkanah missed widely of what was fit, when she so instantly poured her prayer unto God and asked for a man child. For she was asking for the downfall of a soul and its descent into a body. How then came God to give her the holy Samuel as her son, if it were wholly of necessity that a soul should sin, in order that so, entangled with a body, it might fulfil the woman's request. And yet God gave, to Whom it is inherent to give only good things and, by readily assenting to her, He frees her request from all blame. Hence embodiment is not a result of sin, nor yet of the nature of punishment as some say.

Another argument. If the body has been given as a punishment to the soul of man, what led Hezekiah the king of Jerusalem, though he was good and wise, to plead with bitter tears against the death of the body, and to shrink from laying aside the instrument of his punishment, and to beg that he might be granted an increase of years? Surely if he were truly good, he ought not to have pleaded against death, but rather to have considered it a burden to be entangled with a body and to have recognized this as a favor rather than the other. And how did God promise him as a favor, saying, "Behold I will add unto thy days fifteen years," when the promise would have been an addition of punishment, not an act of kindness, if those who teach this were speaking the truth? Yet the promise from above was a gift and the addition was a kindness. Therefore embodiment is not a punishment to souls.

13. Another. If the body has been given as a punishment to the soul of man, what induced Hezekiah the king of Jerusalem, although good and wise, to deprecate not without bitter tears the death of the body, and to shrink from putting off the instrument of his punishment, and to beseech that he might be honoured with an increase of years, although he surely ought, if he were really good, not to have deprecated death, but to have thought it a burden to be entangled with a body and to have acknowledged this rather than the other as a favour. And how did God promise him as a favour saying, Behold I will add unto thy days fifteen years, albeit the promise was an addition of punishment, not a mode of kindness, if these set forth the truth? Yet the promise from above was a gift and the addition a kindness. Hence the embodiment is not a punishment to souls.

Another. If the body is given to the soul of man as a punishment, what favor did God repay to the Eunuch who brought Jeremiah up out of the dungeon, when he said, "I will give you your life as a prize and will save you from the Chaldeans"? God should rather have let him die so that he might also honor him by releasing him from the prison and punishment. What, tell me, did God give to the young men of Israel when he delivered them from the flame and from the cruelty of the Babylonians? Why did he rescue the wise Daniel from the cruelty of the lions? But truly he does these things in kindness and is glorified because of them. The dwelling in the flesh is not then of the nature of punishment, so that honor and punishment at God's hands may not be one and the same thing.

14. Another. If the body is given to the soul of man in the light of punishment, what favour did God repay to the Eunuch who brought up Jeremiah out of the dungeon, saying, I will give thy life for a prey and will save thee from the Chaldeans? For He should rather have let him die that He might also honour him, releasing him from the prison and punishment. What tell me did He give to the young men of Israel, in delivering them from the flame and from the cruelty of the Babylonians? why did He rescue the wise Daniel from the cruelty of the lions? But verily He doeth these things in kindness and is glorified because of them. The dwelling in the flesh is not then of the nature of punishment, in order that honour and punishment at God's hands may not be one and the same.

Paul teaches us that in due time there will be an investigation before the Divine Judgment-seat of each person's life, saying, "For we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to what he has done, whether it be good or bad." But if a person receives punishment from the Judge or is considered worthy of appropriate reward only for the things done in the body, and no mention is made of earlier sins, nor is any charge from before his birth examined, then how could the soul have had any pre-existence? And how was it humbled as a consequence of sin, as some claim, since only its time with the flesh is marked out, given that only the things done in it are examined?

15. Another. Paul teaching us that there shall be in due time an investigation before the Divine Judgment-seat of each man's life says, For we must all appear before the judgement-seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he done, whether it be good or bad. But if it be only for the things done in the body that a man either receiveth punishment at the hands of the Judge, or is accounted worthy of befitting reward, and no mention is made of prior sins, nor any charge previous to his birth gone into: how had the soul any pre-existence, or how was it humbled in consequence of sin, as some say, seeing that its time with flesh is alone marked out, for that the things alone that were done in it are gone into?

16. Another. If souls were given bodies because of previous sins, how can Paul write to us saying, "Present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God"? For if bodies were given to our wretched souls as a form of punishment, how should we present them as a pleasing aroma to God? How can that through which we received our sentence be acceptable? Or what kind of virtue can possibly exist in something whose very nature is punishment and whose root is sin?

16. Another. If souls were embodied on account of previous sins, how does Paul write to us saying, Present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God? For if in the nature of punishment they were given to our wretched souls, how should we present then for an odour of a sweet smell to God? how will that be acceptable through which we received our sentence? or what kind of virtue at all will that admit of, whose nature is punishment, and root sin?

Another argument. In showing that corruption has spread to the whole nature (physis) of humanity because of Adam's transgression, Paul says, "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression." How then does he say that death reigned even over those who had not sinned, if the mortal body were given to us as a result of previous sins? For where are those who have not sinned, if embodiment itself is the punishment for sins, and our existence in this life with our body is evidence of a pre-existing charge against us? Therefore the argument of our opponents is ignorant.

17. Another. Shewing that corruption is extended against the whole nature of man, because of the transgression in Adam, Paul saith, Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression. How then does he say that death reigned even over them that had not sinned, if the mortal body were given us in consequence of former sins? For where at all are they that have not sinned, if the embodiment be the punishment of faults, and our being in this life with our body is a pre-existing charge against us? Unlearned then is the proposition of our opponents.

The disciples once asked our Savior about a man born blind, saying, "Master, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Since it is written in the prophetic Scriptures that God visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, the disciples thought this might be the case with this man. What does Christ say in response? "Truly I tell you, neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be made manifest in him." How does He exempt them from sin, even though they were not blameless in their lives? For being human, they were certainly subject to faults. But it is clear and obvious that the statement refers to the period before birth, during which they did not yet exist and therefore had not sinned, so that Christ's words may be true.

18. Another. The Disciples once made enquiry of our Saviour concerning one born blind, and said, Master who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind? For since it is written in the prophetic Scriptures, of God, that He visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, the disciples began to imagine that such was the case with this man. What then does Christ say to this? Verily I say to you, neither hath this man sinned nor his parents, but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. How then does He exempt them from sin, although not free from blame as to their lives? for being men, they were surely liable also to faults. But it is manifest and clear that the discourse pertains to the period prior to birth, during which they not yet existing, neither had they sinned, that Christ may be true.

The blessed prophet Isaiah, explaining the reason why the earth was made, says, "He created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited." But it was entirely right that the earth should be inhabited—not filled with bare spirits, nor with fleshless and unclothed souls, but with bodies suited to it. Was it then God's plan that worked to make souls sin, so that the physis of bodies would also come into being, and thus the earth would finally be shown to have been created not in vain? But this is absurd. Therefore the other position is better.

19. Another. The blessed Prophet Isaiah explaining the reason of the earth being made says, He created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited. But it was altogether right that the earth should be inhabited, not filled with bare spirits, nor with fleshless and unclad souls, but with bodies suitable to it. Was it then Divine Counsel that wrought that souls should sin, in order that the nature of bodies should also come into being, and thus at length the earth be shewn to have been created not in vain? But this is absurd; the other therefore has the better.

Another. Wisdom the Artificer of all things says of herself in the book of Proverbs, "I was she in whom He rejoiced, the Creator of all that is, and I daily rejoiced always before Him when He rejoiced in having completed the world and took delight in the sons of men." Now when God rejoices exceedingly at the completion of the world in the forming of man, how can anyone not be completely senseless who claims that the soul is subject to previous sins and says that it was embodied for this reason, and was punished in this way? For would God not then be the maker of a prison rather than a world? Would He not be unreasonably delighting in those who are undergoing punishment? And how can He be Good if He delights in such absurd things? But truly He is Good and therefore the Maker of good things. Therefore embodiment will not be punishment by physis.

20. Another. Wisdom the Artificer of all things says of herself in the book of Proverbs I was she in whom He rejoiced, the Creator of all that is, and I daily rejoiced always before Him when He rejoiced in having consummated the world and took delight in the sons of men. When then on His completion of the world, God rejoices exceedingly in the forming of man, how will he not be bereft of all sense who subjects the soul to previous sins and says that it was therefore embodied, and was punished after this fashion? For will not God be the maker of a prison rather than a world? will He not be delighting contrary to reason in those who are undergoing punishment? And how will He be Good who delights in things so absurd? But verily He is Good and therefore the Maker of things good: the embodiment will not therefore be of the nature of punishment.

If the human soul pays the penalty for sins committed before its birth into the world through its entanglement with flesh, and if the body serves as a punishment for it, why was the Flood brought upon the world of the ungodly while righteous Noah was preserved and received this reward for his faith from God? Shouldn't those who had sinned greatly have remained in the body for a longer time so they could be punished more severely, while the good should have been freed from their fleshly bonds and received release from the body as the reward for their piety toward God? But I believe that the Creator of all, being righteous, imposes on each order the sentence it deserves. Therefore, since He is righteous and punishes the ungodly with bodily death, yet also blesses the righteous with life together with the body, bodies cannot be a punishment for human souls—otherwise God would be unrighteous, punishing the ungodly with favor while honoring the righteous with punishment.

21. Another. If the soul of man by its entanglement with flesh pays the penalty of transgressions prior to its birth in the world, and the body occupies the position of a punishment to it, why was the Flood brought in upon the world of the ungodly, and Noah being upright was preserved and has this recompense of his faith from God? For ought not rather those who had sinned exceedingly to have lingered longer time in the body that they might be punished also more severely, and the good to have been set free from their bonds of flesh and received the release from the body as the recompense of their piety toward God? But I suppose that the Creator of all being Righteous lays on each rank the sentence due to it. Since then He being Righteous punishes the ungodly with the death of the body, gladdens again the righteous with life together with the body: bodies are no punishment to the souls of men, that God be not unrighteous, punishing the ungodly with favour, honouring again the righteous with punishment.

22. Another. If the soul has descended into flesh and body to pay the penalty for previous offenses, why did the Savior love Lazarus by raising him and compelling him—who had been set free from his bonds—to return to them again? But Christ did this to help him, and as a friend He honored the dead by raising him from the dead. Therefore the argument of the opponents is pointless.

22. Another. If to pay the penalty of previous offences the soul has descended into flesh and body, how did the Saviour love Lazarus, raising him, and compelling him. who was once set free from his bands to return to them again? But Christ did it helping him and as a friend did He honour the dead by raising him from the dead. To no purpose then is the proposition of the opponents.

23. Another. If, as those who talk nonsense claim, the body was given to the soul as a punishment devised because of its previous sin, then sin brought about the nature of human bodies. But death also entered through sin. Therefore sin clearly appears to be arming itself against itself, undoing the beginning by what follows, and Satan is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand, as our Savior says? But truly, to think this way is unbelievable. Therefore the opposite is true.

23. Another. If, as those in their nonsense say, the body was given to the soul in the light of a punishment, devised on account of former sin of its, it was sin that brought in the nature of human bodies. But again also death entered by sin: sin therefore clearly appears arming itself against itself, undoing the beginning by what follows, and Satan is therefore divided against himself, how then shall his kingdom stand? as our Saviour saith. But verily so to think is incredible: the contrary therefore is true.

God created all things in incorruption and did not make death, but death came into the world through the devil's envy. But if it is true that the body was given to the human soul as a form of punishment, why should we blame the devil's envy for bringing us the end of our misery and destroying the body that is our punishment? And why on earth would we give thanks to the Savior for binding us again to the flesh through the resurrection? Yet we do give thanks, and the devil's envy has afflicted our nature, bringing corruption to our bodies. Therefore the body is not a form of punishment, nor is it the penalty for our former sin.

24. Another. God created all things in incorruption and He made not death, but through envy of the devil came death into the world. But if it be true, that the body was given in nature of punishment to the soul of man, why, sirs, should we accuse the envy of the devil for bringing in to us the termination of wretchedness and destroying the body which is our punishment? And for what in the world do we offer thanks to the Saviour for having again bound us to the flesh through the resurrection? yet we do indeed give thanks, and the envy of the devil has vexed our nature, procuring corruption to our bodies. No mode of punishment then is the body nor yet is it the wages of our former sin.

The Evangelist in these words necessarily points out that the world was made through the Very Light, that is, the Only-Begotten. For although he had called Him Word very clearly at the beginning and affirmed that all things were made through Him, and that without Him nothing came into being, and thereby demonstrated that He was their Maker and Creator, it was still necessary now to take this up again in particular, so that no opportunity for error and destruction might be left to those who are accustomed to twisting the correctness of the Divine teachings. For when he said that the Light was in the world, so that no one might distort this statement into foolish ideas and count the Light as one among the visible parts of the universe (as the sun and moon and stars, for example, are in the world, but as parts of the universe and as limbs of one body), the Evangelist profitably and necessarily introduces the Only-Begotten as Fashioner and Maker of the whole universe, and thereby firmly establishes us again and leads us into a correct and right understanding of the truth. For who would be so foolish or have such great stupidity in his mind as not to understand that He through Whom the universe is said to have been made is wholly other than the universe, and to put the creature in its own place, to separate off the Creator in reasoning, and to understand that His physis is Divine? For the thing made must necessarily be other in physis than the Maker, so that maker and made do not appear to be the same.

The Evangelist in these words needfully indicates that the world was made through the Very Light, that is, the Only-Begotten. For although, having called Him most distinctly Word at the beginning, he affirmed that all things were made through Him, and that without Him nothing was brought into being, and demonstrated thereby that He was their Maker and Creator: yet it was necessary now most particularly to take this up again anew, that no room of error and perdition might be left to those who are wont to pervert the uprightness of the Divine dogmas. For when he said of the Light that it was in the world, that no one wresting the saying to senseless conceptions, should make the Light connumerate with the visible portions of the universe (as sun and moon and stars for example are in the world, but as parts of the universe, and as limbs of one body), profitably and of necessity does the Evangelist introduce the Only-Begotten as Fashioner and Artificer of the whole universe, and thereby again fully stablishes us and leads us into an unerring and right apprehension of the truth. For who would be so silly or have such great folly in his mind, as not to conceive that wholly other than the universe is He through Whom it is said to have been made, and to put the creature in its own place, to sever off the Creator in reasoning and to conceive that His Nature is Divine? For the thing made must needs be other in nature than the Maker, that maker and made appear not the same.

For if they are conceived of as the same, without any inherent distinction as to the mode of being, the made will rise up to the nature of the Maker, and the Creator will descend to that of the creatures. He will no longer have alone the power to bring things into being, but this will be found to exist potentially in created things also, if nothing at all separates them from being consubstantial with God. And so at length the creature will be its own creator, and the Evangelist will be giving the Only-Begotten a mere honorary title when he says that He was in the world, and the world was made by Him. But he knows that the Creator of all things is One in nature. Therefore, the made and the Maker, God and creature, will not be conceived of as the same by those who know how to believe rightly. Rather, the one will be subject as a servant, acknowledging the limit of its own physis, while the Son will reign over it, having alone with the Father the power both to call things which are not as though they were and by His ineffable Power to bring that which does not yet exist into being.

For if they be conceived of as the same, without any inherent distinction as to the mode of being, the made will mount up to the nature of the Maker, the Creator descend to that of the creatures, and will no longer have Alone the power of bringing into being, but this will be found to exist in potential in things made also, if nothing at all severs them from being consubstantial with God: and so at length the creature will be its own creator and the Evangelist will endow the Only-Begotten with a mere title of honour when he says that He was in the world, and the world, was made by Him. But he knows that the Creator of all things is One in Nature. Not as the same then will made and Maker, God and creature be conceived of by those who know how to believe aright, but the one will be subject as a bondman, acknowledging the limit of its own nature: the Son will reign over it, having Alone with the Father the power both to call things which he not as though they were and by His ineffable Power to bring that which is not yet into being.

But that the Son, being by physis God, is wholly other than the creature—since we have already sufficiently covered this in the discourse on the Holy Trinity—we will say nothing more about it here. However, we will add this for profit: that in saying the world was made through Him, he brings us up to the thought of the Father, and with the "Through Whom" he also brings in the "Of Whom." For all things are from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit.

But that the Son being by Nature God, is wholly Other than the creature, we having already sufficiently gone through in the Discourse of the Holy Trinity, will say nothing more here. But we will add this for profit, that in saying that the world was made through Him he brings us up to the thought of the Father, and with the "Through Whom" brings in also the "Of Whom." For all things are from the Father through the Son in the Holy Ghost.

The bearer of the Spirit is watchful and hurries to prevent the clever false arguments of some people, and you may marvel again at the reasoning in his thoughts. He called the Son the True Light and declared that He gives light to every person who comes into the world, and he also says that He was in the world and the world was made through Him.

The bearer of the Spirit is watchful and hastens to forestall the sophistry of some; and you may marvel again at the reasoning in his thoughts. He named the Son Very Light, and affirmed that He lighteth every man that cometh into the world, and besides says that He was in the world and the world was made through Him.

But one of our opponents might immediately say, "If the Word, gentlemen, were light and if it lit the heart of every person—that is, toward divine knowledge and toward the understanding that is appropriate for humanity—and if it were always in the world and was itself the world's Maker, how did it remain unknown even for such long periods of time? Therefore it was not lighting, nor was it the Light at all."

But one of our opponents might forthwith say, "If the Word, sirs, were light and if it lighted the heart of every man, unto Divine knowledge that is and unto the under-standing that befits man, and if it were always in the world and were Himself its Maker, how came He to be unknown even during so long periods? He therefore was not lighting nor yet was He at all the Light."

The Divine Word responds to these things with considerable passion, saying, "The world knew Him not." He was not unknown because of any deficiency on His part, he says. Rather, let the world blame its own weakness. For the Son gives light, while the creature dulls the grace. The creature had been given sight to perceive Him Who is God by Nature, but it squandered the gift. It made created things the limit of its contemplation. It shrank from going further. It buried the illumination under its negligence. It neglected the gift—the very thing Paul commands his disciple to guard against. Therefore, the fault of the enlightened is not attributed to the light. Just as the sun's light rises upon everyone, but the blind person receives no benefit from it—yet we do not reasonably blame the sun's ray, but rather find fault with the disease of the eyesight, since the one was giving light while the other did not receive the lighting—so also, I think, we ought to understand the Only-Begotten as being truly Light. But the god of this world, as Paul also says, has blinded the minds of those who do not believe, so that the light of the knowledge of God should not shine among them. We say, then, that humanity was subjected to blindness in this matter, not by reaching a total deprivation of light—for the God-given understanding is surely preserved in human nature—but by quenching it through a more foolish manner of life, and by turning aside to what is worse, thereby wasting and dissolving the measure of grace. This is why the very wise Psalmist, when representing to us the character of such a person, rightly begs to be enlightened, saying to God, "Open my eyes that I may behold wondrous things out of Your law." For He gave them the law as their help, which rekindled in us the Divine Light and purged away from the eyes of the heart the darkness that came upon them from the ancient ignorance, like a kind of discharge.

These things the Divine meets with some warmth saying The world knew Him not: not on His own account was He unknown, says he; but let the world blame its own weakness. For the Son lighteth, the creature blunts the grace. It had imparted to it sight to conceive of Him Who is God by Nature, and it squandered the gift, it made things made the limit of its contemplation, it shrank from going further, it buried the illumination under its negligence, it neglected the gift which that it might not befall him Paul commands his disciple to watch. Nought then to the light is the ill of the enlightened. For as the light of the sun rises upon all, but the blind is nothing profited, yet we do not therefore reasonably blame the sun's ray, but rather find fault with the disease of the sight (for the one was lighting, the other received not the lighting): so (I deem) ought we to conceive of the Only-Begotten also, that He is Very Light. But the god of this world, as Paul too saith, hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the knowledge of God should shine among them. We say then that the man was subjected to blindness herein, not that he reached a total deprivation of light (for the God-given understanding is surely preserved in his nature) but that he was quenching it with his more foolish manner of life and that by turning aside to the worse he was wasting and melting away the measure of the grace. Wherefore the most wise Psalmist too when representing to us the character of such an one, then indeed (and rightly) begs to be enlightened, saying to God, Open Thou mine eyes that I may behold wondrous things out of Thy law. For He gave them the law to be their help, which re-kindled in us the Divine Light and purged away like a sort of humour from the eyes of the heart the darkness which came upon them from the ancient unlearning.

The world, then, is charged both with unthankfulness and with lack of perception in this matter—being ignorant of its own Creator and producing no good fruit from being enlightened. This makes it clear that what was sung by the prophet's voice about the children of Israel applies to the world as well: "I looked for it to bring forth grapes, but it brought forth thorns." The fruit of being enlightened is truly the correct understanding of the Only Begotten, hanging like a cluster of grapes from the vine branch—that is, from human understanding. The opposite is the foolish counsel that leads to polytheistic error, which is like a sharp briar rising up within us and wounding our mind to death with its deceits.

The world then is under the charge of unthankfulness alike and want of perception in this matter, both as ignorant of its own Creator, and shewing forth no good fruit from being lighted, that that again may be manifestly true of it, which was sung by prophet's voice of the children of Israel, I looked that it should bring forth grapes, but it brought forth thorns. For the fruit of being enlightened is verily the true apprehension of the Only Begotten, hanging like a grape-bunch from the vine branch, I mean man's understanding, and not on the contrary the uncounsel that leads to polytheistic error, like the sharp briar rising up within us and wounding to death our mind with its deceits.

The Evangelist continues his argument that the world did not know its Illuminer, that is the Only-Begotten, and from the worse sin of the children of Israel, he moves quickly to strengthen the charges against the Gentiles and shows the disease of ignorance and unbelief that lay upon the whole world. Very fittingly does he press forward to discuss the Incarnation, and from speaking of the Godhead, he gradually comes down to explaining the Dispensation with Flesh, which the Son made for our sakes.⁸⁸

The Evangelist pursues his plea that the world knew not its Illuminer, that is the Only-Begotten, and from the worse sin of the children of Israel, he hastens to clench the charges against the Gentiles and shews the disease of ignorance alike and unbelief which lay upon the whole world. Very appositely does he drive forward to discourse of the Incarnation, and from speaking of the Godhead, he comes down by degrees to the exposition of the Dispensation with Flesh, which the Son made for our sakes.⁸⁸

For it would be no marvel, he says, if the world did not know the Only-Begotten, since it had abandoned the understanding that belongs to human nature and was ignorant that it was made in honor, becoming like the beasts that perish, as the Divine Psalmist also said. But even the very people who were supposed above all others to belong to Him rejected Him when He was present in the Flesh and would not receive Him when He came among them for the salvation of all, offering to faith the kingdom of Heaven. But notice how precise his language is about these things. He accuses the world of not knowing Him Who enlightens it at all, crafting for it a pardon, so to speak, on this very account, and preparing beforehand reasonable grounds for the grace given to it. But concerning those of Israel who were counted among those specially belonging to Him, he says they did not receive Him. For it would not have been true to say they did not know Him, since the older law proclaimed Him and the Prophets who came after led them by the hand to grasp the truth. Therefore the sentence of severity upon them was just, as was also the goodness shown to the Gentiles. For the world, or the Gentiles, having lost their relationship with God through their fall into evil, lost also the knowledge of Him Who enlightens them. But the others, who were rich in knowledge through the law and called to a way of life pleasing to God, were at length voluntarily falling away from it, not receiving the Word of God Who was already known to them and Who came among them as to His own. For the whole world is God's own, in regard to its creation and its being brought into existence from Him and through Him. But Israel will more fittingly be called His own and will gain this glory, both because of the election of the holy fathers and because he was named the beginning and the firstborn of the children of God. For "Israel is My son, My firstborn," God says somewhere to Moses. Setting them apart for Himself as unique and chosen, He used to call them His own people, saying to Pharaoh king of Egypt, "Let My people go." Evidence from the books of Moses also shows that Israel specially belongs to God. For it says, "When the Most High was dividing the nations, when He was separating the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God, and His people Jacob became the Lord's portion, Israel the lot of His inheritance." Among them He also walked, as in His own lot and special portion, saying, "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."^9101191011

For it were no marvel if the world knew not, says he, the Only-Begotten, seeing that it had left the understanding that befits man, and was ignorant that it is and was made in honour, and compared to the beasts that perish, as the Divine Psalmist also said; when the very people who were supposed above all to belong to Him shook Him off when present with the Flesh and would not receive Him when He came among them for salvation to all, recompensing to faith the kingdom of Heaven. But observe how exact is his language about these things. For the world he accuses of not at all knowing Him Who lighteth it, elaborating for it a pardon so to speak just on this account, and preparing beforehand reasonable causes for the grace given to it: but of those of Israel who were reckoned among those specially belonging to Him, he says, Received Him not. For it would not have been true to say, Knew Him not, when the older law preached Him, the Prophets who came after led them by the hand to the apprehension of the truth. The sentence therefore of severity upon them was just, even as the goodness too upon the Gentiles. For the world, or the Gentiles, having lost their relation with God through their downfall into evil, lost besides the knowledge of Him Who enlighteneth them: but the others, who were rich in knowledge through the law and called to a polity pleasing to God, were at length voluntarily falling away from it, not receiving the Word of God Who was already known to them and Who came among them as to His own. For the whole world is God's own, in regard of its creation, and its being brought into being from Him and through Him: but Israel will more fitly be called His own, and will gain the glory hereof, both on account of the election of the holy fathers and for that he was named the beginning and the first-born of the children of God. For Israelis My son, My first-born, says God somewhere to Moses: whom also setting apart for Himself as one and picked out, He was wont to call His own people, saying to Pharaoh king of Egypt Let My people go. Proof from the books of Moses also shews that Israel specially pertains unto God. For when, it says, the Most High was dividing the nations, when he was separating the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the nations according to the member of the angels of God, and his people Jacob became the Lord's portion, Israel the lot of his inheritance. Among whom He also walked, as in His own lot and special portion, saying, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.^9101191011

But when He was not received, He transfers the grace to the Gentiles, and the world which did not know Him at the beginning is enlightened through repentance and faith, and Israel returns to the darkness from which he had come forth. Therefore the Saviour also says, "For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see, and that they which see might be made blind."

But when He was not received, He transfers the grace to the Gentiles, and the world which knew Him not at the beginning is lighted through repentance and faith, and Israel returns to the darkness whence he had come forth. Wherefore the Saviour too saith, For judgement I am come into this world, that they which see not might see, and that they which see might be made blind.

A right judgment, truly worthy of God! The firstborn, Israel, is cast out, for he would not remain in proper relationship with God. He did not receive the Son who came among His own, he rejected the One who bestows nobility, he pushed away the Giver of Grace. The Gentiles received Him by faith. Therefore Israel will justly receive the wages of their foolishness, they will mourn the loss of good things, they will receive the bitter fruit of their own bad counsel, deprived of the sonship. And the Gentiles will delight themselves in the good things that come through faith, they will find the bright rewards of their obedience and will be planted in his place. For they will be cut out of the olive tree which is wild by physis and be grafted contrary to physis into a good olive tree. And Israel will hear, "Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters, they have forsaken the Lord, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel to anger." But one of Christ's disciples will say to the Gentiles, "But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people, that you should show forth the praises of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous Light." For since they received the Son through faith, they receive the power to be ranked among the sons of God. For the Son gives what is His alone and specially and by physis to be in their power, setting it forth as common, making this a sort of image of the love for mankind that is inherent to Him, and of His love for the world. For in no other way could we who bore the image of the earthy escape corruption, unless the beauty of the image of the heavenly were impressed upon us through our being called to sonship. For being partakers of Him through the Spirit, we were sealed to likeness with Him and mount up to the primal character of the Image after which the Divine Scripture says we were made. For thus, barely recovering the pristine beauty of our physis and re-formed to that Divine physis, we will be superior to the ills that have befallen us through the transgression. Therefore we mount up to dignity above our physis for Christ's sake, and we too will be sons of God, not like Him in exactitude, but by grace in imitation of Him. For He is Very Son, existing from the Father; we are adopted by His Kindness, through grace receiving "I have said, You are gods and all of you are children of the Most High." For the created and subject physis is called to what is above physis by the mere nod and will of the Father. But the Son and God and Lord does not possess this being God and Son by the will of God the Father, nor in that He wills it only, but beaming forth of the Very ousia of the Father, He receives to Himself by physis what is Its own Good. And again He is clearly seen to be Very Son, proved by comparison with ourselves. For since that which is by physis has another mode of being from that which is by adoption, and that which is in truth from that which is by imitation, and we are called sons of God by adoption and imitation, hence He is Son by physis and in truth, to Whom we made sons too are compared, gaining the good by grace instead of by natural endowments.

A right judgement verily and worthy of God! The firstborn, Israel, is cast out; for he would not abide in ownness with God, nor did lie receive the Son, Who came among His own, he rejected the Bestower of Nobility, he thrust away the Giver of Grace: the Gentiles received Him by faith. Therefore will Israel with reason receive the wages of their folly, they will mourn the loss of good things, they will receive the bitter fruit of their own ill-counsel, bereft of the sonship; and the Gentiles will delight them selves in the good things that are through faith, they shall find the bright rewards of their obedience and shall be planted out in his place. For they shall be cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and be grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree. And Israel shall hear, Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters, they have forsaken the Lord, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger: but one of Christ's disciples shall say to the Gentiles, But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people, that ye should shew forth the praises of Him Who hath called you out of darkness into His marvellous Light. For since they received the Son through faith, they receive the power to be ranked among the sons of God. For the Son gives what is His alone and specially and of nature to be in their power, setting it forth as common, making this a sort of image of the love for man that is inherent to Him, and of His love for the world. For in none other way could we who bore the image of the earthy escape corruption, unless the beauty of the image of the heavenly were impressed upon us, through our being called to sonship. For being partakers of Him through the Spirit, we were sealed unto likeness with Him and mount up to the primal character of the Image after which the Divine Scripture says we were made. For thus hardly recovering the pristine beauty of our nature, and re-formed unto that Divine Nature, shall we be superior to the ills that have befallen us through the transgression. Therefore we mount up unto dignity above our nature for Christ's sake, and we too shall be sons of God, not like Him in exactitude, but by grace in imitation of Him. For He is Very Son, existing from the Father; we adopted by His Kindness, through grace receiving I have said, Ye are gods and all of you are children of the Most High. For the created and subject nature is called to what is above nature by the mere nod and will of the Father: but the Son and God and Lord will not possess this being God and Son, by the will of God the Father, nor in that He wills it only, but beaming forth of the Very Essence of the Father, He receives to Himself by Nature what is Its own Good. And again He is clearly seen to be Very Son, proved by comparison with ourselves. For since that which is by Nature has another mode of being from that which is by adoption, and that which is in truth from that which is by imitation, and we are called sons of God by adoption and imitation: hence He is Son by Nature and in truth, to Whom we made sons too are compared, gaining the good by grace instead of by natural endowments.

Those who, he says, have been called through faith in Christ to sonship with God, set aside the smallness of their own nature and, adorned with the grace of the One who honors them as with a splendid robe, rise up to a dignity above nature: for they are no longer called children of flesh, but rather offspring of God by adoption.

They who, he says, have been called by faith in Christ unto sonship with God, put off the littleness of their own nature, and adorned with the grace of Him Who honoureth them as with a splendid robe mount up unto dignity above nature: for no longer are they called children of flesh, but rather offspring of God by adoption.

Notice how carefully the blessed Evangelist chose his words. Since he was about to say that believers are begotten of God, he needed to prevent two misunderstandings: first, that they are actually born from the ousia of God the Father and achieve exact likeness with the Only-Begotten; second, that the phrase "From the womb before the Day star I begot You" applies less properly to Him, which would reduce Him to the physis of creatures even though He is said to be begotten of God. So the Evangelist deliberately includes this extra safeguard. After saying that power was given to them by the One who is Son by physis to become sons of God—thereby first establishing that this is by adoption and grace—he can safely add afterward that they "were begotten of God." This shows the greatness of the grace given to them: gathering what was alien to God the Father into a kind of kinship of physis, and raising the slave to the nobility of his Lord through His deep love.

But note how great guardedness the blessed Evangelist used in his words. For since he was going to say that those who believe are begotten of God, lest any should suppose that they are in truth born of the Essence of God the Father and arrive at an exact likeness with the Only-Begotten, or that of Him too is less properly said, From the womb before the Day star begat I Thee, and so at length He too should be brought down to the nature of creatures, even though He be said to be begotten of God, needs does he contrive this additional caution. For when he had said that power was given to them from Him Who is by Nature Son, to become sons of God, and had hereby first introduced that which is of adoption and grace, without peril does he afterwards add were begotten of God; that he might shew the greatness of the grace which was conferred on them, gathering as it were into kinness of nature that which was alien from God the Father and raising up the bond to the nobility of its Lord, by means of His warm love to it.

What more, then, someone might ask, or what special privilege do those who believe in Christ have over Israel, since Israel too is said to have been begotten of God, as in "I begat and exalted sons, but they rejected Me"? To this I think we must say, first, that the Law, having a shadow of good things to come and not the actual image of those things, did not give the children of Israel this in truth, but sketched it upon them as in a type and outline, until the time of reformation, as it is written, when those who should more properly and truly call God Father would finally be revealed, because the Spirit of the Only-Begotten dwells in them. For the one group had the spirit of bondage leading to fear, while the other has the spirit of adoption leading to freedom, by which we cry "Abba, Father." Therefore the people who would attain sonship through faith in Christ were described beforehand in Israel as though in shadow, just as we understand that circumcision in the Spirit was foreshadowed in their ancient circumcision in the flesh, and in short, all our realities were present in them in type. Besides, we say that Israel was called to sonship typically through the mediator Moses. Therefore they were also baptized into him, as Paul says, in the cloud and in the sea, and were transformed from idolatry to the law of bondage, with the commandment contained in the letter being administered by angels. But those who attain sonship with God through faith in Christ are baptized not into anything created, but into the Holy Trinity itself, through the Word as Mediator, who joined human things to himself through the Flesh that was united to him, being joined by physis to the Father, in that he is by physis God. For in this way the bond to sonship reaches upward, through participation with the true Son, called and so to speak raised up to the dignity that is in him by physis. Therefore we who have received regeneration by the Spirit through faith are called and are begotten of God.

What more then, will one perchance say, or what special have they who believe in Christ over Israel, since he too is said to have been begotten of God, as in, I begat and exalted sons, but they rejected Me? To this I think one must say, first, that the Law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, did not give to the children of Israel to have even this in truth, but limned as in type and outline upon them, until the time of reformation, as it is written, wherein they should at length be manifested who should more fitly and truly call God Father, because the Spirit of the Only-Begotten dwells in them. For the one had the spirit of bondage to fear, the other the spirit of adoption unto liberty, whereby we cry Abba, Father. Therefore the people who should attain unto sonship through faith that is in Christ, were fore-described in Israel as it were in shadow, even as we conceive that the circumcision in Spirit was fore-typified in theirs of old in the flesh, and in short, all of ours were in them in type. Besides, we say that Israel was called to sonship typically through the mediator Moses. Wherefore they were baptized into him too, as Paul saith, in the cloud and in the sea, and were refashioned out of idolatry unto the law of bondage, the commandment contained in the letter being ministered by angels: but they who by faith in Christ attain unto sonship with God, are baptized into nought originate, but into the Holy Trinity Itself, through the Word as Mediator, Who conjoined to Himself things human through the Flesh which was united to Him, being conjoined of nature to the Father, in that He is by Nature God. For so mounteth up the bond unto sonship, through participation with the in truth Son, called and so to say raised up to the dignity which is in Him by Nature. Wherefore we who have received the regeneration by the Spirit through faith, are called and are begotten of God.

But since some in mad peril dare to lie not only against the Son but also against the Holy Spirit, saying that He is originate and created, and to thrust Him forth completely from consubstantiality with God the Father, come let us once again array the word of the true Faith against their unbridled tongues, and produce occasions of profit both for ourselves and for our readers. For if He who is His own Spirit—and therefore essentially present in Him—is neither God by physis, O sirs, nor of God, but is other than He and not removed from being connatural with things made, how are we who are begotten through Him said to be begotten of God? For either we shall say that the Evangelist certainly lies, or (if he is true and it is so and not otherwise) the Spirit will be God and of God by physis, of whom we too, being accounted worthy to partake through faith toward Christ, are rendered partakers of the Divine physis and are said to be begotten of God, and are therefore called gods—not by grace alone winging our flight to the glory that is above us, but as having now God too indwelling and lodging in us, according to what is said in the prophet: I will dwell in them and walk in them.

But since some in mad peril dare to lie, as against the Son, so against the Holy Ghost too, saying that He is originate and created, and to thrust Him forth altogether from. Consubstantiality with God the Father, come let us again arraying the word of the true Faith against their unbridled tongues, beget occasions of profit both to ourselves and to our readers. For if neither God by Nature, O sirs, nor yet of God, is He Who is His Own Spirit and therefore Essentially inexistent in Him, but is other than He, and not removed from being connatural with things made, how are we who are begotten through Him said to be begotten of God? For either we shall say that the Evangelist certainly lies, or (if he is true and it be so and not otherwise), the Spirit will be God and of God by Nature, of Whom we too being accounted worthy to partake through faith to Christ-ward, are rendered partakers of the Divine Nature and are said to be begotten of God, and are therefore called gods, not by grace alone winging our flight to the glory that is above us, but as having now God too indwelling and lodging in us, according to what is said in the prophet, I will dwell in them and walk in them.

Let those who are filled with such great ignorance tell us this: how can we, having the Spirit dwelling in us, be temples of God according to Paul, unless the Spirit is God by nature (physis)? For if the Spirit is a creature and originated, why does God destroy us for defiling the temple of God when we defile the body in which the Spirit dwells, when the Spirit possesses the entire natural property (physis) of God the Father and likewise of the Only-Begotten? And how will the Savior be truthful in saying: If a man loves Me, he will keep My words: and My Father will love him and we will come to him and make Our abode with him and rest in him? Yet it is the Spirit who dwells in us, and through Him we believe that we have the Father and the Son, just as John himself said again in his epistles, By this we know that we dwell in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. And how can the Spirit be called Spirit of God at all, if He is not from Him and in Him by nature (physis) and therefore God? For if, being originated as they say, He is the Spirit of God, there is nothing to prevent the other creatures from also being called spirits of God. For this status will already be available to them potentially, if it is at all possible for originated essence to be Spirit of God.

For let them tell us who are filled full with so great unlearning, how, having the Spirit dwelling in us, we are according to Paul temples of God, unless He be God by Nature. For if He be a creature and originate, wherefore does God destroy us, as defiling the temple of God when we defile the body wherein the Spirit indwells, having the whole Natural Property of God the Father and likewise of the Only-Begotten? And how will the Saviour be true in saying: If a man love Me, he will keep My Words: and My Father will love him and we will come unto him and make Our abode with him and rest in him? albeit it is the Spirit Who dwells in us, and through Him do we believe that we have the Father and the Son, even as John himself said again in his epistles, Hereby know we that we dwell in Him and He in us, because He hath given us of His Spirit. And how at all will He be called Spirit of God, if He be not of Him and in Him by Nature and therefore God? For if being, as those say, originate, He is the Spirit of God, there is nothing to hinder the other creatures too from being called spirits of God. For this will have already overtaken them in potential, if it is at all possible that originate essence should be Spirit of God.

It would truly be appropriate to present a lengthy discussion on these matters and to address them more thoroughly, refuting the foolish arguments of the heretics. However, since we have already adequately covered what concerns the Holy Spirit in the work On the Trinity, we will therefore refrain from saying much more at this point.

And it were meet in truth to set forth a long discourse upon these things and to satiate more at length, overturning the uncounsels of the heretics. But having already sufficiently gone through what relates to the Holy Ghost, in the De Trinitate, we shall therefore forbear to say much yet.

He has now openly begun to declare the Incarnation. For he clearly states that the Only-Begotten became and is called son of man; for his saying that the Word was made Flesh means this and nothing else: it is as though he said more plainly The Word was made Man. And in speaking this way he introduces nothing strange or unusual to us, since the Divine Scripture often calls the whole creature by the name of flesh alone, as in the prophet Joel: I will pour out My Spirit upon all flesh. And we do not suppose that the Prophet is saying that the Divine Spirit should be given to human flesh that is soulless and by itself (for this would certainly be absurd): but comprehending the whole by the part, he names man from the flesh: for this was the right way and not otherwise. And why this is so, I think it is necessary to explain.

He has now entered openly upon the declaration of the Incarnation. For he plainly sets forth that the Only-Begotten became and is called son of man; for this and nought else does his saying that the Word was made Flesh signify: for it is as though he said more nakedly The Word was made Man. And in thus speaking he introduces again to us nought strange or unwonted, seeing that the Divine Scripture ofttimes calls the whole creature by the name of flesh alone, as in the prophet Joel: I will pour out My Spirit upon all flesh. And we do not suppose that the Prophet says that that the Divine Spirit should be bestowed upon human flesh soul-less and alone (for this would be by no means free from absurdity): but comprehending the whole by the part, he names man from the flesh: for thus it was right and not otherwise. And why, it is needful I suppose to say.

Man is a rational creature, but a composite being made of soul and this perishable, earthly flesh. When God made him and brought him into being, he did not possess incorruption and imperishability by his own nature (for these things belong essentially to God alone). He was sealed with the spirit of life, gaining through participation with the Divinity the good that is above nature (for Scripture says, "He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul"). But when he was being punished for his transgressions, he justly heard "Dust you are and to dust you shall return," and he was stripped of grace. The breath of life—that is, the Spirit of Him who says "I am the Life"—departed from the earthly body, and the creature fell into death through the flesh alone, while the soul was kept in immortality, since it was to the flesh alone that it was said, "Dust you are and to dust you shall return." Therefore, what was especially endangered in us needed to be restored with greater care, and by being intertwined again with the Life that exists by Nature, be recalled to immortality. The sentence "Dust you are and to dust you shall return" needed finally to be relaxed, with the fallen body being united ineffably to the Word who gives life to all things. For it needed to become His Flesh so that it might share in the immortality that comes from Him. It would be utterly absurd if fire has the power to infuse into wood the perceptible quality of its inherent power and almost transform into itself the things in which it exists by participation, yet we should not fully believe that the Word of God, who is over all, would work His own Good—that is, Life—into the flesh.

Man then is a creature rational, but composite, of soul that is and of this perishable and earthly flesh. And when it had been made by God, and was brought into being, not having of its own nature incorruption and imperishableness (for these things appertain essentially to God Alone), it was sealed with the spirit of life, by participation with the Divinity gaining the good that is above nature (for He breathed, it says, into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul). But when he was being punished for his transgressions, then with justice hearing Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return, he was bared of the grace; the breath of life, that is the Spirit of Him Who says I am the Life, departed from the earthy body and the creature falls into death, through the flesh alone, the soul being kept in immortality, since to the flesh too alone was it said, Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return. It needed therefore that that in us which was specially imperilled, should with the greater zeal be restored, and by intertwining again with Life That is by Nature be recalled to immortality: it needed that at length the sentence. Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return should be relaxed, the fallen body being united ineffably to the Word That quickeneth all things. For it needed that becoming His Flesh, it should partake of the immortality that is from Him. For it were a thing most absurd, that fire should have the power of infusing into wood the perceptible quality of its inherent power and of all but transfashioning into itself the things wherein it is by participation, and that we should not fully hold that the Word of God Which is over all, would in-work in the flesh His own Good, that is Life.

For this particular reason, I believe, the holy Evangelist, pointing to the creature specifically through the part that was affected, says that the Word of God became Flesh, so that we might see at once both the wound and the medicine, the sick person and the Physician, that which had fallen into death and the One who raised it to life, that which was overcome by corruption and the One who drove away the corruption, that which was held captive by death and the One who is superior to death, that which was deprived of life and the Giver of life.

For this reason specially I suppose it was that the holy Evangelist, indicating the creature specially from the part affected, says that the Word of God became Flesh, that so we might see at once the wound and the medicine, the sick and the Physician, that which had fallen unto death and Him Who raised it unto life, that which was overcome of corruption and Him Who chased away the corruption, that which was holden of death and Him Who is superior to death, that which was bereft of life and the Giver of life.

But he does not say that the Word came into flesh, but that it was made flesh, so that you may not suppose that He came to it as in the case of the prophets or other saints by participation, but did Himself become actual flesh, that is, man—for so we just said. Therefore He is also God by nature in flesh and with flesh, as having it His own, and conceived of as being other than it, and worshipped in it and with it, according to what is written in the prophet Isaiah: Men of stature shall come over to you and they shall be yours; they shall come after you; in chains they shall come over and they shall fall down to you, they shall make supplication to you, for God is in you, and there is no God beside you. Look, they say that God is in Him, not severing the flesh from the Word; and again they affirm that there is no other God except Him, uniting to the Word that which He bears about Him as His very own, that is, the temple of the Virgin: for He is one Christ of both.

But he says not that the Word came into flesh but that It was made Flesh, that you may not suppose that He came to it as in the case of the Prophets or other of the Saints by participation, but did Himself become actual Flesh, that is man: for so we just now said. Wherefore He is also God by Nature in Flesh and with Flesh, as having it His own, and conceived of as being Other than it, and worshipped in it and with it, according to what is written in the prophet Isaiah, Men of stature shall come over unto thee and they shall be thine: they shall come after thee; in chains they shall come over and they shall fall down unto thee, they shall make supplication unto thee, for God is in thee, and there is no God beside thee. Lo they say that God is in Him, not severing the Flesh from the Word; and again they affirm that there is none other God save He, uniting to the Word that which He bears about Him, as His very own, that is the temple of the Virgin: for He is One Christ of Both.

The Evangelist profitably repeats what he has already said and brings the meaning of the idea to clearer understanding. Since he said that the Word of God was made Flesh, some people in great ignorance might imagine that He abandoned His own physis and was truly changed into flesh—something that is impossible, since the Godhead is completely removed from all variability and change into anything else in terms of mode of being. Therefore the divine author very wisely immediately added "And dwelt among us," so that by considering that two things are mentioned—the Dweller and that in which the dwelling occurs—you would not suppose that He was transformed into flesh, but rather that He dwelt in Flesh, using His own Body, the Temple that comes from the Holy Virgin. For in Him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, as Paul says.

The Evangelist profitably goes over again what he has said, and brings the force of the thought to a clearer comprehension. For since he said that the Word of God was made Flesh, lest any out of much ignorance should imagine that He forsook His own Nature, and was in truth changed into flesh, and suffered, which were impossible (for the Godhead is far removed from all. variableness and change into ought else as to mode of being): the Divine exceeding well added straightway And dwelt among us, that considering that the things mentioned are two, the Dweller and that wherein is the dwelling, you might not suppose that He is transformed into flesh, but rather that He dwelt in Flesh, using His own Body, the Temple that is from the Holy Virgin. For in Him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, as Paul saith.

But he profitably affirms that the Word dwelt in us, unveiling to us this deep mystery also: for we were all in Christ, and the community of human nature rises up to his Person. Since he was therefore named the last Adam, giving richly to the common nature all things that belong to joy and glory, just as the first Adam gave what pertained to corruption and dejection. The Word then dwelt in all through one, so that since the one was declared the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, the dignity might come to all human nature, and thus because of one of us, "I have said you are gods and all of you are children of the Most High" might come to us also. Therefore in Christ the bond is truly made free, rising up to mystical union with him who bore the form of the servant; yet in us after the likeness of the one because of the kinship according to the flesh. For why does he take on not the nature of angels but the seed of Abraham, so that in all things it was necessary for him to be made like his brothers and to become truly man? Is it not clear to all that he descended to the condition of bondage, not giving anything to himself thereby, but bestowing himself on us, so that we through his poverty might be rich, and soaring up through likeness to him to his own special good, might be made gods and children of God through faith? For he who is by physis Son and God dwelt in us, therefore in his Spirit we cry "Abba, Father." And the Word dwells in one Temple taken for our sake and from us, as in all, so that having all in himself, he might reconcile all in one body to the Father, as Paul says.

But profitably does he affirm that the Word dwelt in us, unveiling to us this deep Mystery also: for we were all in Christ, and the community of human nature mounteth up unto His Person; since therefore was He named the last Adam,, giving richly to the common nature all things that belong to joy and glory, even as the first Adam what pertained to corruption and dejection. The Word then dwelt in all through one that the One being declared the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, the dignity might come unto all the human nature and thus because of One of us, I have said Ye are gods and all of you are children of the Most High might come to us also. Therefore in Christ verily is the bond made free, mounting up unto mystic union with Him Who bare the form of the servant; yet in us after the likeness of the One because of the relation after the flesh. For why doth He take on Him not the nature of angels but the seed of Abraham, whence in all things it behoved Him to he made like unto His brethren, and to become in truth Man? Is it not clear to all, that He descended unto the condition of bondage, not Himself giving thereby ought to Himself, but bestowing Himself on us, that we through His Poverty might be rich, and, soaring up through likeness to Him unto His own special good, might be made gods and children of God through faith? For He Who is by Nature Son and God dwelt in us, wherefore in His Spirit do we cry Abba Father. And the Word dwells in One Temple taken for our sakes and of us, as in all, in order that having all in Himself, He might reconcile all in one body unto the Father, as Paul saith.

Having said that the Word became flesh, that is, man, and having brought him down to kinship with created and enslaved things, the writer still preserves his divine dignity intact and shows him again full of the Father's own nature that inherently belongs to him. For the divine nature truly has stability in itself, not capable of suffering change into anything else, but always remaining constant and abiding in its own attributes. Therefore, even though the Evangelist says that the Word became flesh, he still affirms that it was not overcome by the weaknesses of the flesh, nor did it fall from its original power and glory when it clothed itself in our frail and inglorious body. For we saw, he says, his glory surpassing that of others, and such glory as one must confess befits the Only-Begotten Son of God the Father, for he was full of grace and truth. For if one looks at the company of the saints and considers the things that are wondrously accomplished by each, one will reasonably marvel and be delighted at the good things that belong to each and will surely say that they are filled with glory from God. But the inspired writers and witnesses say that they have seen the glory and grace of the Only-Begotten, not competing with that of the rest, but far surpassing it and rising up by incomparable excellences, having no measured grace as though another gave it, but perfect and true as in the Perfect, that is, not imported nor supplied from outside by way of addition, but essentially existing within, and the fruit of the Father's essential property passing naturally to the Son who is from him.

Having said that the Word was made Flesh, that is Man, and having brought Him down to brotherhood with things made and in bondage, he preserves even thus His Divine dignity intact and shews Him again full of the own Nature of the Father inherent to Him. For the Divine Nature has truly stability in Itself, not enduring to suffer change to ought else, but rather always unvarying and abiding in Its own Endowments. Hence even though the Evangelist says that the Word was made Flesh, he yet affirms that It was not overcome by the infirmities of the flesh, nor fell from Its pristine Might and Glory, when It clad Itself in our frail and inglorious body. For we saw, he says, His Glory surpassing that of others, and such as one may confess befits the Only-Begotten Son of God the Father: for full was He of grace and truth. For if one looks at the choir of the saints and measures the things that are wondrously achieved by each, one will with reason marvel and be delighted at the good things that belong to each and will surely say that they are filled with glory from God. But the Divines and witnesses say that they have seen the glory and grace of the Only-Begotten, not competing with that of the rest, but very far surpassing it and mounting up by incomparable excellencies, having no measured grace, as though another gave it, but perfect and true as in the Perfect, that is, not imported nor supplied from without in the way of accession, but essentially in-existent, and the fruit of the Father's essential Property passing Naturally to the Son Who is of Him.

If anyone wants to test what has been said more thoroughly, let him think carefully about both the deeds that each of the saints has done miraculously and those of our Savior Christ, and he will find the difference is as great as we have just said. And there is this also: they are true servants in the house, but He is a Son over His own house. And the Divine Scripture says of the Only-Begotten, Blessed is he who comes in the Name of the Lord, but of the saints God the Father says, I have even sent to you all my servants the prophets. And the one group received the grace from above, while the other, as the Lord of Hosts says, If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me, but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe My works. So if the Only-Begotten is shown by the very works to be as great in power as the Father, He will fittingly be honored with equal honors as the One who does equal works, and He will surely surpass, even when in the Flesh, those who have been called to brotherhood, just as much as God by physis exceeds the limits of men, and the true Son surpasses the sons by adoption.

And if it seem good to any to test more largely what has been said, let him consider with himself both the deeds that are wonderfully done by each of the saints and those of our Saviour Christ and he will find the difference as great as we have just said. And there is this besides;—-they are true servants about the house, He as a Son over his own house. And the Divine Scripture says of the Only-Begotten Blessed be he that cometh in the Name of the Lord, but of the saints God the Father says, I have even sent unto you all my servants the prophets. And the one were recipients of the grace from above, the other as Lord of Hosts says, If I do not the works of My Father, believe Me not: but if I do, though ye believe not Me, believe My works. If then the Only-Begotten is seen by the very works to be as great in power as the Father, He will conformably be celebrated by equal honours, as the Doer of equal works, and will surely as much surpass, even when in the Flesh, those who have been called unto brotherhood, as God by Nature overleaps the limits of men, and the Very Son the sons by adoption.

But since it is written in blessed Luke, "And Jesus increased in wisdom and grace," we must observe here that the Spirit-inspired writer said that the Son has His glory full of grace. How then can that which is full advance, or what addition can it possibly receive when there is nothing beyond it? Therefore He is said to increase, not in that He is Word and God, but because He was ever more greatly marveled at and appeared more full of grace to those who saw Him through His achievements. The disposition of those who marveled was advancing in grace, as is more truly said, rather than He who is perfect as God. Let these things then be spoken for profit, though they are somewhat discursive.

But since it is written in the blessed Luke, And Jesus increased in wisdom and grace, we must observe here that the Spirit-clad said that the Son hath His glory full of grace. Whither then will that which is full advance, or what addition will that at all admit, beyond which there is nought? Hence He is said to increase, not in that He is Word and God, but because He ever more greatly marvelled at, appeared more full of grace to those who saw Him, through His achievements, the disposition of those who marvelled advancing, as is more true to say, in grace, than He Who is Perfect as God. Be these things then spoken for profit, though they be somewhat discursive.

The very wise Evangelist again follows the flow of his thoughts and makes what follows properly connect with what came before. When he said about the Son of God, "we beheld His Glory, the Glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father," he wanted to avoid appearing to say this alone (since the word "we" does not fit a single person), so he joins with himself his fellow witness who shares his name, who has the same piety as he does. "I bear witness," he says, "for I have seen what I said, and the Baptist likewise bears witness." These are a most weighty pair clothed with the Spirit, and a remarkable pair of men who are brothers in truth and who do not know how to lie.

The most wise Evangelist follows again the course of his thoughts and makes the sequel duly correspondent to what preceded. For when he said of the Son of God, we beheld His Glory, the Glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father, that he might not appear to alone say this (the word we have seen not suiting a single person), he joins with himself his namesake witness, having one and the same piety with himself. I then, says he, bear witness (for I have beheld what I said), and the Baptist likewise bears witness. A most weighty pair of Spirit-clad, and a notable pair of men foster-brothers in truth and unknowing how to lie.

Notice how exceptionally forceful he made his declaration. He doesn't merely say that John bears witness of Him, but usefully adds "and cried," drawing his proof from the words "The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness," and this very appropriately. For it was possible that some of the opponents might ask, "When did the Baptist testify to the Only-Begotten, or to whom did he communicate the things concerning Him?" He cried then, he says—that is, he didn't speak these things in a corner, he didn't bear witness gently and in secret. You can hear him crying aloud more clearly than a trumpet (not you alone hearing these things). His message is widespread and directed to all, the herald is glorious, the voice is remarkable, the Forerunner is great and well known.

But see how exceeding forcible he made his declaration. For he not only says that John bears witness of Him, but profitably adds and cried, taking his proof from the words The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, and this too exceeding well. For it was possible that some of the opponents might say, When did the Baptist witness to the Only-Begotten or to whom did he impart the things regarding Him? He cried then, says he, that is, not in a corner does he utter them, not gently and in secret does he bear witness: you may hear him crying aloud more clear than a trumpet, (not you alone hearing these things,) widespread and to all is his speech, glorious the herald, remarkable the voice, great and not unknown the Forerunner.

Having named the witness who shares the same mind and name with himself, and having shown that he used a powerful voice for the service of his preaching, he profitably adds the manner of his testimony as well, for this is where the whole question particularly lies. What then do we find the great John crying out regarding the Only-Begotten? He that cometh after me has become before me for He was before me. The saying is deep and demands careful investigation into its meaning.

Having named the witness same-minded and same-named with himself, and having shewn that he used a great voice for the service of his preaching, he profitably adds the mode too of his testimony: for it is in this in particular that the whole question lies. What then do we find the great John crying regarding the Only-Begotten? He that cometh after me has become before me for He was before me. Deep is the saying and one that demands keen search into its meaning.

For the obvious and commonly accepted meaning is this: As far as concerns the time of his birth in the flesh, the Baptist came before the Savior, and Emmanuel clearly followed and came after him by six full months, as the blessed Luke recorded. Some people think that John said this so it would be understood as: He who comes after me in age is preferred before me. But anyone who looks more carefully at the divine thoughts can see, first of all, that this interpretation leads us to pointless ideas and takes us far away from what we actually need to consider. For the holy Baptist is presented as a witness not to show that Christ was once later and then again earlier in the time of his birth, but as a co-witness of his glory, the glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father full of grace and truth.

For the obvious and received meaning is thus: As far as belongs to the time of the Birth according to the Flesh, the Baptist preceded the Saviour, and Emmanuel clearly followed and came after by six whole months, as the blessed Luke related. Some suppose that John said this, that it may be understood thus, He that cometh after me, in point of age, is preferred before me. But he who fixes a keener eye on the Divine thoughts may see, in the first place, that this view introduces us to futile ideas and carries us far from the needful subject of consideration. For the holy Baptist is introduced as a witness, not in order to shew that Christ was once later, then again earlier in the time of His Birth, but as a co-witness of His Glory, the Glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father full of grace and truth.

What meaning then can one give to such poorly timed explanations as these? Or how can anyone give us any clear interpretation by understanding the words before us—"He that cometh after me became before me"—in terms of time? For let it be established beyond doubt that the Lord came after the Baptist, being second to him in time according to the Flesh: how then will He also be before him, I mean in time? For proper order and sequence call us to this meaning in keeping with what came before. But I think it is evident to everyone that this is impossible. For what falls short of something in point of time will never get ahead of what leads it. Therefore it is utterly senseless and completely unbelievable to imagine that the holy Baptist was speaking about time according to the Flesh when he said, "He that cometh after me has become before me." But if we understand it instead in keeping with the line of thought that preceded, we will believe that it was said in some such sense as this: The blessed Baptist fittingly raises his way of speaking from an everyday expression to its spiritual meaning, and advances, as it were, from an image drawn from our human affairs to the explanation of more subtle thoughts.

What meaning then can one give to such unseasonably introduced explanations as these? or how can one give us any clear interpretation, by understanding of time the words before us, He That cometh after me became before me? For be it laid down beyond a doubt that the Lord came after the Baptist, as being second to him in time according to the Flesh: how will He be also before him, I mean in time? for due order and sequence call us to this sense analogously to what preceded. But I think that it is evident to every one, that this is an impossibility. For that which cometh short of anything in point of time will never have the start of its leader. Hence it is a thing utterly senseless and altogether past belief, to imagine that the holy Baptist said of time after the Flesh,. He that cometh after me has become before me. But understanding it rather in accordance with the line of thought that preceded, we will believe that it was said in some such sense as this. The blessed Baptist meetly carries up his mode of speaking from a customary phrase to its spiritual import, and advances as it were from an image drawn from our affairs to the exposition of subtler thoughts.

What leads is always considered more glorious than what is said to follow, and things that come after yield the place of honor to things that come before. For example, a skilled worker in bronze, or a carpenter, or a weaver takes the lead and has superiority over someone who is conceived as following by being a learner and advancing toward perfect knowledge. But when such a person surpasses his teacher's skill and, leaving that behind, attains something superior, I think the one who is surpassed may fittingly say of his pupil who has outstripped him: He that cometh after me has become before me.

For that which leads is ever considered to be more glorious than those which are said to follow, and things which succeed yield the palm to those that precede them. As for example, he who is a skilled worker in brass, or carpenter, or weaver, takes the lead and has superiority over him who is conceived as following by being a learner and advancing to perfect knowledge. But when such an one has surpassed the skill of his teacher and leaving that behind attains to something superior, I deem that he who is surpassed may not unfitly say of his outstripping pupil, He that cometh after me, has become before me.

Transferring this kind of reasoning to our Savior Christ and the holy Baptist, you will rightly understand it. Take now the account of each from the beginning. The Baptist was being admired by everyone, he was making many disciples, and a great crowd of those who came for baptism was always surrounding him. Christ, although superior, was unknown—they did not know that He was Very God. Since He was unknown while the Baptist was admired, He seemed to fall short of him. He came a little after someone who still held the higher position in honor and glory from people. But He who comes after has become before, being shown to be greater and superior to John. For the One was eventually revealed by His works to be God, while the other, not surpassing the measure of human physis, is found at last to have become after.

Transferring then after this sort the force of our idea to our Saviour Christ and the holy Baptist, you will rightly understand it. Take now the account of each from the beginning. The Baptist was being admired by all, he was making many disciples, a great multitude of those who came for Baptism was always surrounding him: Christ, albeit superior, was unknown, they knew not that He was Very God. Since then He was unknown, while the Baptist was admired, He seemed I suppose to fall short of him; He came a little after him who had still the higher position in honour and glory from men. But He That cometh after has become before, being shewn to be greater and superior to John. For the One was at length revealed by His works to be God, the other not surpassing the measure of human nature, is found at last to have become after.

Therefore the blessed Baptist spoke in veiled language: "He that comes after me has become before me," meaning: He who was once behind me in honor is now seen to be more glorious, and surpasses by incomparable excellencies the measure that befits and belongs to me. If we understand the words this way, we will find him to be a witness of the glory of the Only-Begotten and not an untimely proclaimer of useless things. For when he says that Christ is greater than himself—someone who has a great reputation for holiness—what else is this than witnessing to His special glory?

Hence the blessed Baptist said darkly, He that cometh after me has become before me, instead of, He who was once behind me in honour, is beheld to be more glorious, and surpasses by incomparable excellencies the measure that befits and belongs to me. Thus understanding the words, we shall find him a witness of the Glory of the Only-Begotten and not an unseasonable setter forth of useless things. For his saying that Christ is greater than himself who has a great reputation for holiness, what else is it than witnessing to His especial glory?

Having said that He has become before me, he necessarily adds, "For He was before me," ascribing to Him the most ancient glory and affirming that the priority of all things did not come to Him in time, but is inherent in Him from the beginning as God by physis. "For He was before me," he says, instead of, "Always and in every way superior and more glorious." And by His being compared with one among created things, the judgment against all is concentrated in favor of Him Who is above all. For we do not consider the great and glorious dignity of the Son as consisting in this alone—that He surpassed the glory of John—but in His surpassing every created essence.

Having said that He has become before me, he needfully adds, For He was before me, ascribing to Him glory most ancient, and affirming that the precedence of all things accrued not to Him in time, but is inherent in Him from the beginning as God by Nature. For He was before me, says he, instead of, Always and every-way superior and more glorious. And by His being compared with one among things originate, the judgment against all is concentrated in behalf of Him Who is above all. For we do not contemplate the great and glorious dignity of the Son as consisting in this alone that He surpassed the glory of John, but in His surpassing every originate essence.

The Evangelist in these words accepts the true testimony of the Baptist and makes clear the proof of our Savior's superiority and His essential possession of that which surpasses everything created, both with respect to glory itself (which he is now especially discussing) and with respect to the splendid catalog of all the other good things.

The Evangelist in these words accepts the true testimony of the Baptist, and makes clear the proof of the superiority of our Saviour, and of His possessing essentially the surpassing every thing originate, both in respect of glory itself (whereof he is now more especially speaking) and of the bright catalogue of all the other good things.

The Baptist, he says, speaks most excellently and most truly about the Only-Begotten when he says "He was before me"—that is, far surpassing and superior. For all of us who have been enrolled in the company of the saints enjoy the riches of His own goodness, and human nature is ennobled with His excellences rather than its own, whenever it is found to possess anything noble. For from the fullness of the Son, as from an ever-flowing fountain, the gift of divine graces springs forth and comes to each soul found worthy to receive it. But if the Son supplies from His natural fullness while the creature is supplied, how can He not be understood as having glory unlike the rest, but rather such glory as befits the Only-Begotten of God, possessing superiority over all as the fruit of His own nature (physis) and preeminence as the dignity of His Father's being? And I think that the most wise Paul, when defining the nature (physis) of all things, was moved by this to true understanding, so that he then addressed the creature with these words: "What do you have that you did not receive?" For together with existence, well-being of such and such a kind is God's gift to the creature, and it has nothing of its own but becomes rich only through the generosity of Him who gives to it. But we must note again that he says the Son is full—that is, completely perfect in all things, and so far removed from lacking anything whatever that He can bestow even on all, refusing diminution and preserving the greatness of His own excellence always the same.

For most excellently, says he, and most truly does the Baptist appear to me to say of the Only-Begotten, For He was before me, that is far surpassing and superior. For all we too, who have been enrolled in the choir of the saints, enjoy the riches of His proper good, and the nature of man is ennobled with His rather than its own excellences, when it is found to have ought that is noble. For from the fulness of the Son, as from a perennial fountain, the gift of the Divine graces springing forth comes to each soul that is found worthy to receive it. But if the Son supplies as of His Natural fulness, the creature is supplied:—-how will He not be conceived of as having glory not similar to the rest, but such as will beseem the Only-Begotten of God, having the superiority over all as the fruit of His own Nature, and the pre-eminence as the Dignity of His Father's Being? And I think that the most wise Paul too when defining as to the nature of all things, was moved thereby to true ideas, so as hence at length to address the creature, For what hast thou that thou didst not receive? For together with being, the well-being after such and such wise, is God's gift to the creature, and it has nothing of its own, but becomes rich only with the munificence of Him Who gives to it. But we must note again that he says that the Son is full, that is, All-perfect in all things, and so greatly removed from being lacking in anything whatever, that He can bestow even on all, refusing diminution, and preserving the greatness of His own excellence always the same.

Having said that the glory of the Only-Begotten was found more brilliant than any fame among people, and introducing the greatness in holiness that is in Him—incomparable above all saints—he works to prove this from those who have climbed to the height of virtue. About John, the Savior says, "Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist." But this great and exalted man he brought forward just now, as John himself says, crying out and saying with a loud voice, "He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me." But since John's glory was inferior and gave way to the Only-Begotten, how can one not conclude that none of the other saints is brought up to equal measure with the Savior Christ regarding the glory that appears in the splendor of their actions? The saints who lived at the time of the coming, not being able to surpass the virtue of John or climb to the measure that he achieved, will along with him yield the victor's palm to Christ. For the blessed Baptist, reaching the highest summit in what is good and having failed in no kind of excellence, receives the judgment of inferiority to Him not through the voice of another but sealed it against himself, speaking truly as a saint. But since it was necessary that Emmanuel should be shown to be greater and better than the saints of old, the blessed Evangelist necessarily comes first to the hierophant Moses, to whom it was said by God, "I know you before all, and you found grace in My sight." That he was known before all to God we can know by this again: "If there is a prophet among you, I the Lord will make Myself known to him in a vision and will speak to him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all My house. With him I will speak mouth to mouth, plainly and not in riddles." The all-wise Moses therefore having such great excellence above the earlier saints, the Evangelist shows that the Only-Begotten is in every way superior and of greater renown, so that He might be shown in all things to have the preeminence, as Paul says. Therefore he says, "And grace for grace, for the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." For I think the blessed Evangelist would indicate something like this: The great Baptist, he says, made true confession, declaring openly about the Only-Begotten, "He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me, for of His fullness we have all received." And let no one suppose that the Only-Begotten surpasses John or the rest of the saints who belonged to the times of the coming but fell short of the glory of the earlier saints who were distinguished in holiness in the times before the coming. For he will see Him, he says, far surpassing the measure of Moses, although Moses possessed superiority in holiness compared with them, for the Lawgiver clearly stated that He knew him before all. John then was convicted by his own mouth of coming behind the glory of Christ. He falls short of His splendor, and there is no question at all about him or anything to confuse the discovery of the truth.

Having said that the glory of the Only-Begotten was found more brilliant than any fame among men, and introducing the greatness in holiness incomparable above all saints that is in Him, he studies to prove this from those who have mounted up to the height of virtue. Of John then the Saviour saith, Verily I say unto you, Among them that are horn of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist. But this so great and exalted man, he brought forward but now, as himself says, crying and saying with a loud voice, He that cometh after me is preferred before me for He was before me. But since John's glory was inferior and gave place to the Only-Begotten, how must one not needs suppose that no one of the saints besides is brought up to equal measure with the Saviour Christ in regard of the glory which appears in the splendour of their actions? The Saints then that lived at the time of the Advent, not being able to surpass the virtue of John, nor mounting up to the measure that accrued to him, will with him yield the victor's palm to Christ, if the blessed Baptist gaining the highest summit in what is good, and having failed in no manner of excellence, receives not through the voice of another the judgment of inferiority to Him, but himself sealed it against himself, speaking, as a saint, truly. But since it was necessary that Emmanuel should be shewn to be greater and better than the saints of old, needs does the blessed Evangelist come to the hierophant Moses first; to whom it was said by God, I know thee before all and thou didst find grace in My sight. For that he was known before all to God, we shall know by this again: If, he says, there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make Myself known unto him in a vision and will speak unto him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all Mine house. With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently and not in dark speeches. The all-wise Moses having therefore so great excellency above the elder saints, he shews that the Only-Begotten is in every way superior and of more renown, that He might be shewn in all things to have the pre-eminence, as Paul saith: and therefore he says, And grace for grace, for the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ: for I think that the blessed Evanglist would indicate something of this kind: The great Baptist, he says, made true confession declaring openly respecting the Only-Begotten, He that cometh after me is preferred before me, for He was before me, for of His fulness have all we received. And let no one suppose that the Only-Begotten surpasses John or the rest of the saints who belonged to the times of the Advent, but came short of the glory of the elder saints, who were illustrious in holiness in the times before the Advent; for he will see Him, says he, far surpassing the measure of Moses, although he possessed the superiority in holiness as compared with them; for the Lawgiver clearly affirmed that He knew him before all. John then was convicted by his own mouth of coming behind the glory of Christ: he comes short of His splendour, and there is no question at all about him, or anything to embarrass the finding out of the truth.

Where then can we find that the sacred teacher Moses himself also fell short of the glory of the Lord? The student should, he says, carefully examine the gospel grace given to us by the Savior, in comparison with the grace of the law that came through Moses. For then he will see that the Son was far superior, as He is proven to be the Lawgiver of better things than the system of the law and introducing things superior to all those which came through Moses. For the law, he says, was given through Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. What then is the difference between the law and the grace that comes through the Savior? Let the one who loves to search and is a friend of good labor see this again. We will say a little out of much, believing that the number of thoughts relating to this is boundless and vast. Therefore the Law was condemning the world (for God through it concluded all under sin, as Paul says) and showing us subject to punishments, but the Savior rather sets it free, for He came not to judge the world but to save the world. And the Law also used to give grace to men, calling them to the knowledge of God, and drawing away from the worship of idols those who had been led astray, and in addition to this both pointing out evil and teaching good—if not perfectly, yet in the manner of a teacher and usefully. But the truth and grace which are through the Only-Begotten does not introduce to us the good which exists in types, nor sketch out profitable things as in shadow, but in glorious and most pure ordinances leads us by the hand to even perfect knowledge of the faith. And the Law used to give the spirit of bondage to fear, but Christ the spirit of adoption unto liberty. The Law likewise brings in the circumcision in the flesh which is nothing (for circumcision is nothing, as Paul writes to certain people), but our Lord Jesus Christ is the Giver of circumcision in the spirit and heart. The Law baptizes the defiled with mere water, but the Savior with the Holy Spirit and with fire. The Law brings in the tabernacle as a figure of the true one, but the Savior bears us up to Heaven itself and brings us into the truer tabernacle, which the Lord pitched and not man. And it would not be hard to pile up other proofs besides, but we must respect our limits.

Whence then shall we find that the hierophant Moses himself also came short of the glory of the Lord? Let the student, he says, diligently examine the evangelic grace given to us by the Sayiour, in contrast with the grace of the law that was through Moses. For then will he see that the Son was as much superior, as He is proved to be the Lawgiver of better things than the polity of the law and introducing things superior to all those which were through Moses. For the law, he says, was given through Moses, grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. What then is the distinction between the law and the grace that comes through the Saviour, let him again see who is fond of search and an ally of good labours; we will say a little out of much, believing that boundless and vast is the number of the thoughts thereto belonging. The Law therefore was condemning the world (for God through it concluded all under sin, as Paul saith) and shewing us subject to punishments, but the Saviour rather sets it free, for He came not to judge the world but to save the world. And the Law too used to give grace to men, calling them to the knowledge of God, and drawing away from the worship of idols those who had been led astray and in addition to this both pointing out evil and teaching good, if not perfectly, yet in the manner of a teacher and usefully: but the truth and grace which are through the Only-Begotten, does not introduce to us the good which is in types, nor limn things profitable as in shadow, but in glorious and most pure ordinances leads us by the hand unto even perfect knowledge of the faith. And the Law used to give the spirit of bondage to fear, but Christ the spirit of adoption unto liberty. The Law likewise brings in the circumcision in the flesh which is nothing (for circumcision is nothing, as Paul writes to certain): but our Lord Jesus Christ is the Giver of circumcision in the spirit and heart. The Law baptizes the defiled with mere water: the Saviour with the Holy Ghost and with fire. The Law brings in the tabernacle, for a figure of the true: the Saviour bears up to Heaven itself and brings into the truer tabernacle, which the Lord pitched and not man. And it were not hard to heap up other proofs besides, but we must respect our limits.

We should say this because it is both profitable and necessary. The blessed Paul solved this question briefly when he spoke about the law and the Savior's grace: "For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more does the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory." He says that the commandment given through Moses is the ministration of condemnation, while he calls the grace given through the Savior the ministration of righteousness, which he declares surpasses the other in glory. He examines the nature of things most perfectly, being clothed with the Spirit. Since the Law that condemns was given by Moses, while the grace that justifies came through the Only-Begotten, how is He not superior in glory, Paul asks, through whom the better things were established? The Psalmist will also be proven true, crying aloud in the Spirit that our Lord Jesus Christ surpasses the entire illustrious company of the saints. For "who among the clouds shall be made equal to the Lord? Or who shall be likened to the Lord among the sons of God?" The spiritual clouds—that is, the holy Prophets—will yield the victory to Christ and will never think they should aim for equal glory with Him, especially when Moses, who was known by God above all people, is relegated to second place. And those who were called sons of God at the time of the Advent will not be entirely likened to Him who is Son by physis, but will acknowledge their own proper measure, just as the holy Baptist says that he himself is far behind, though the One who knows hearts says of him, "Among those born of women there has not risen a greater than John the Baptist." Therefore the blessed Evangelist speaks truly when he says that he has seen His glory, the glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father—that is, the glory that befits the Only-Begotten Son of God the Father, and not rather those who are called to brotherhood with Him, of whom He is Firstborn.

But we will say this for profit and need. The blessed Paul in few words solved the question, saying of the law and of the Saviour's grace, For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For he says that the commandment by Moses is the ministration of condemnation; the grace through the Saviour, he calls the ministration of righteousness, to which he gives to surpass in glory, most perfectly examining the nature of things, as being clad with the Spirit. Since then the Law which condemns was given by Moses, the grace which justifies came by the Only-Begotten, how is not He, he says, superior in glory, through Whom the better things were ordained? The Psalmist then will also be true, crying aloud in the Spirit that our Lord Jesus Christ surpasses the whole illustrious multitude of the saints. For who, he says, among the clouds shall be made equal unto the Lord? or who shall be likened unto the Lord among the sons of God? For the spiritual clouds, that is the holy Prophets, will yield the palm to Christ, and will never think that they ought to aim at equal glory with Him, when he who was above all men known of God, Moses, is brought down to the second place: and they who were called sons of God at the time of the Advent, will not be wholly likened to Him Who is by Nature Son, but will acknowledge their own measure, when the holy Baptist says that he himself is far behind, of whom He That knoweth the hearts says, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist. True therefore is the blessed Evangelist, saying that he has seen His glory, the glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father, that is, which beseems the Only-Begotten Son of God the Father, and not rather those who are called to brotherhood with Him, of whom He is Firstborn.

No one has ever seen God at any time. The Only-Begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, has revealed Him.

18 No man hath seen God at any time; the Only-Begotten God, Which is in the Bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him.

See again here the vigilance of the one clothed by the Spirit. He was well aware that some people would surely say, bitterly questioning the things spoken about the Only-Begotten: "You said, good sir, that you had seen His Glory, the glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father. Then when you should have explained this to us and told us something worthy of God and appropriate, you based your demonstration on His superiority to Moses and to the measure of John, as if there were no other way to see His Glory. Yet the blessed Prophet Isaiah says, 'I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and lifted up and His train filled the temple. Above it stood the Seraphim, each one had six wings, with two he covered his face and with two he covered his feet and with two he did fly; and one cried to another and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory.' Ezekiel likewise cried out openly to us that he both saw the Cherubim, having a firmament like a sapphire resting upon their heads, and upon a throne the Lord of Hosts as well. His words are these: 'And there was a voice,' he says, 'from the firmament that was over their heads, and above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone, and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it. And I saw as the color of amber, from the appearance of his loins even upward and from the appearance of his loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire and it had brightness round about, as the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord.'"

See again herein the vigilance of the Spirit-clad. He was not ignorant that some would surely say, bitterly searching into the things which are spoken of the Only-Begotten: You said, good sir, that you had beheld His Glory, the glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father: then when you ought to unfold to us the explanation of this and to tell us some thing God-befitting and due, you made your demonstration from His superiority to Moses and to the measure of John, as though one could not in any other way see His Glory, although the blessed Prophet Isaiah says, I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and lifted up and His train filled the temple. Above it stood the Seraphim, each one had six wings, with twain he covered his face and with twain he covered his feet and with twain he did fly; and one cried unto another and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory: Bzekiel again cried openly to us that he both saw the Cherubim, having a firmament like a sapphire resting upon their heads, and upon a throne likewise the Lord of Hosts: his words are these, And there was a voice, says he, from the firmament that was over their heads, and above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it: and I saw as the colour of amber, from the appearance of his loins even upwards and from the appearance of his loins even downwards, I saw as it were the appearance of fire and it had brightness round about, as the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord.

Since it was quite likely that many less educated people would say such things to us, the blessed Evangelist hurries to cut short their attempts, saying, "No man has seen God at any time." For the Only-Begotten Himself, being God and in the bosom of God the Father, made this declaration to us, saying very clearly to the hierophant Moses, "No man shall see My face and live," and at one time to His own disciples, "Not that any man has seen the Father, except He who is of God—He has seen the Father." For to the Son alone who is by physis is the Father visible, and in such a way as one may think that the Divine Nature divinely sees and is seen, and to no one else among the things that exist. Yet the speech of the holy Prophets is not false when they cry out that they saw the Lord of Hosts, for they do not claim that they saw the very essential thing that the physis of God is, but they themselves openly cry out, "This is the appearance of the likeness of the Glory of the LORD." Therefore the form of the Divine Glory was dimly represented through things such as belong to us, and was rather a likeness presenting divine things as if in a picture, while the truth of them rises up to excellence beyond mind and speech. Most excellently then does the very wise Evangelist, saying, "And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth," bring in the demonstration of this from His superiority to all. For just as from the beauty of the creatures the Power of the Creator of all is proportionally beheld, and the heavens without voice declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows His handiwork, so again will the Only-Begotten be proved superior in Glory and more brilliant, surpassing understanding as regards the power of the eye, as God; and in whatever way He surpasses the creature, in that way He is considered and glorified as being above it. This thought and no other I believe the words now before us are full of. But we must note again that he both calls the Son Only-Begotten God and says that He is in the Bosom of the Father, so that He may be shown again to be outside of any shared nature with the creature and to have His own proper Being of the Father and in the Father. For if He is truly Only-Begotten God, how is He not different in physis from those who are gods and sons by adoption? For the Only-Begotten will be understood not among many brothers, but as the only one from the Father. But since, while there are as Paul says many who are called gods in heaven and on earth, the Son is Only-Begotten God, He will clearly be outside the rest and will not be counted among those who are gods by grace, but will rather be Very God with the Father. For so does Paul join Him, saying to us, "But to us there is one God the Father of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things." For the Father being by physis one God, the Word who is of Him and in Him will not remain outside of being God, outstanding in the distinctive property of Him who begat Him, and rising essentially to equal Dignity, because He is by physis God.

Since therefore it was not unlikely that not a few of the more unlearned would say some such things to us, needs does the blessed Evangelist hasten to cut short their attempts, saying, No man hath seen God at any time; for the Only-Begotten Himself being God, Which is in the bosom of God the Father, made this declaration to us, saying most clearly to the hierophant Moses, There shall no man see My Face and live: and sometime to His own disciples, Not that any man hath seen the Father, save He Which is of God, He hath seen the Father. For to the Son Alone That is by Nature is the Father visible and that in such wise as one may think that the Divine Nature Divinely sees and is seen, and to none other of things which are. Yet will the speech of the holy Prophets in no way be false when they cry aloud that they saw the Lord of Hosts: for they do not affirm that they saw that very essential Thing that the Nature of God is, but they themselves too openly cry out, This is the appearance of the likeness of the Glory of the LORD. Therefore the fashion of the Divine Glory was darkly formed out of things such as are ours, and was rather a likeness giving things Divine as it were in a picture, while the truth of them mounts up to excellence above mind and speech. Most excellently then does the most wise Evangelist saying, And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, bring in the demonstration thereof from His superiority to all. For like as from the beauty of the creatures proportionably is the Power of the Creator of all beheld, and the heavens without voice declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth His handywork: so again will the Only-Begotten be proved superior in Glory and more resplendent, surpassing apprehension, as regards the power of the eye, as God; and wherein He surpasses the creature, therein deemed of and glorified as being above it. Such thought then and no other I deem that the words now before us are replete with. But we must note again that he both calls the Son Only-Begotten God, and says that He is in the Bosom of the Father, that He may be shewn again to be outside of any connaturality with the creature and to have His own proper Being of the Father and in the Father. For if He is verily Only-Begotten God, how is He not Other in nature than they who are by adoption gods and sons? For the Only-Begotten will be conceived of not among many brethren, but as the Only one from the Father. But since, while there are as Paul saith many who are are called gods in heaven and earth, the Son is Only-Begotten God, He will clearly be outside of the rest and will not be reckoned among those who are gods by grace, but will rather be Very God with the Father. For so does Paul conjoin Him, saying to us, But to us One God the Father of Whom are all things, and One Lord Jesus Christ by Whom are all things. For the Father being by Nature One God, the Word That is of Him and in Him will not remain external from being God, eminent in the ownness of Him Who begat Him, and ascending essentially to equal Dignity, because He is by Nature God.

Therefore he says that He is in the Bosom of the Father, so that you may again understand His being in Him and of Him according to what is said in the Psalms: From the womb before the day-star begat I Thee. For just as here he uses From the womb because of His being of Him and that truly, drawing from the likeness of things belonging to us (since things born of humans proceed from the womb), so too when he says in the bosom, he would clearly show the Son as being nearly in the womb of the Father who begot Him forth (as if in some divine shining forth and inexpressible coming forth into His own Person), yet the Father still possesses Him, since the divine Offspring did not come forth from the Father by cutting away or physical division. And indeed the Son somewhere says that He is in the Father and has the Father in Him as well. For the very own of the Father's ousia passing essentially into the Son shows the Father in Him, and the Father in turn has the Son rooted in Himself in exact sameness of ousia and begotten of Him, yet not by division or spatial separation, but dwelling within and eternally coexisting. This is how we should piously understand that the Son is in the Bosom of the Father, not as some of those who are accustomed to fight against God have interpreted it, whose condemnation is just. For they pervert all equity, as the Prophet says, corrupting the ears of the simpler ones and sinning recklessly against the brethren for whom Christ died.

Therefore does he say that He is in the Bosom of the Father, that you may again conceive His being in Him and of Him according to what is said in the Psalms: From the womb before the day-star begat I Thee. For as here he puts From the womb, because of His being of Him and that really, from likeness of things belonging to us (for things born of men proceed from the womb); so too when he says in the bosom, he would plainly shew the Son all but in the womb of the Father which begat Him forth, (as it were in some Divine gleaming forth and unspeakable forth-come unto His own Person), but which yet possesses Him, since not by cutting away or division after the flesh, did the Divine Offspring come forth of the Father. And indeed the Son somewhere says that He is in the Father and has again the Father in Him. For the very own of the Father's Essence passing essentially into, the Son, shews the Father in Him, and the Father again has the Son rooted in Himself in exact sameness of Essence and begotten of Him, yet not by division or interval of place, but inherent and ever co-existing; thus rather shall we piously understand that the Son is in the Bosom of the Father, not as some of those who are wont to fight against God have taken it, whose damnation is just: for they pervert all equity, as the Prophet says, undoing the ears of the simpler ones and sinning without heed against the brethren, for whom Christ died.

Here is what these people think, say, and try to teach others, which we must address. When the holy Evangelist says that the Son is in the Bosom of God the Father, the children of the Church think correctly and affirm that He is therefore of the Father and in the Father. They rightly insist that the true mode of Generation must be preserved. But immediately those who are drunk with complete ignorance laugh openly and even dare to say: Your opinion, sirs, is complete nonsense. You do not think about God correctly when you assume that because the Son is said to be in the Bosom of the Father, He is therefore entirely of His ousia. You foolishly imagine that He is the Fruit of the Inoriginate Nature. For have you not heard, they say, in the Gospel parables, when Christ Himself was speaking about the Rich man and Lazarus, that Lazarus died and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom? Will you then grant, because Lazarus was in the bosom of Abraham, that he is therefore of him and in him by physis? Or will you not rightly refuse to say this, and even you yourselves along with us will allow that love is meant by "bosom"? We say therefore that the Son is in the Bosom of God the Father, meaning in His love, as He Himself also says, The Father loveth the Son.

What it is then that these both think and say and try to teach others, we must needs say. When the holy Evangelist says that the Son is in the Bosom of God the Father, and the children of the Church think rightly, and affirm that He is therefore of the Father and in the Father, and contend and that aright, that the true mode of Generation must be preserved; straightway they that are drunk with all unlearning laugh outright and even dare to say: Your opinion, sirs, is all nonsense: for not well-instructedly do ye think of God, deeming that because the Son is said to be in the Bosom of the Father, He is therefore wholly of His Essence, and foolishly imagining that He is the Fruit of the Inoriginate Nature. For have ye not heard, say they, in the Gospel parables, when Christ Himself was discoursing of the Rich man and Lazarus, that it came to pass that Lazarus died and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom? will ye then grant, because Lazarus was in the bosom of Abraham, that therefore he is of him and in him by nature, or will ye not rightly refuse to say this, and yourselves too with us allow that love is meant by the "bosom"? we say therefore that the Son is in the Bosom of God the Father, instead of in His love, as Himself also says, The Father loveth the Son.

When these critics attack us with such words, even though they are eager for nothing but fault-finding, we too will answer them by setting against them the true word of truth: The bosom, good sirs, according to you means love—for this is what we just heard you say. Shall we then, since God loved the world, as the Savior says, and "The Lord loves the gates of Zion," according to the holy Psalmist, boldly say that both the world itself and the gates of Zion are in the bosom of God the Father? And when He also says to the hierophant Moses, "Put your hand into your bosom," does He command him, tell me, to love his hand rather than to keep it hidden? How then shall we not invite great ridicule by this, or rather how shall we not act impiously toward the Father Himself, if we say that all things are in His Bosom, and make that which is the special privilege of the Only-Begotten common to everything else, so that the Son may have nothing above creation?

But when the fault-finders hit us with these words, though they be zealous to nought but railing, then we too will answer them, arraying against them the right word of the truth: The bosom, good sirs, according to you means love: for this we just now heard you say. Shall we then, since God loved the world, as the Saviour saith, and The Lord loveth the gates of Sion, according to the holy Psalmist, fearlessly say that both the world itself and the gates of Sion are in the bosom of God the Father? And when He says too to the hierophant Moses, Put thine hand into thy bosom, does He bid him, tell me, love his hand and not rather keep it hidden? Then how shall we not incur great laughter hereby, yea rather how shall we not behave with impiety towards the Father Himself, if we say that all things are in His Bosom, and make that common to the rest which is the special prerogative of the Only-Begotten, in order that the Son may have nought above the creature?

Therefore, setting aside their misguided advice, we will continue on the straight path of thoughts about the Truth. When the Son is said to be in the Bosom of the Father, we should understand Him as being of Him and in Him. When we carefully examine the meaning of this phrase, we will find it to be exactly this and nothing else. He says, "The Only-Begotten God, who is in the Bosom of the Father, He has declared Him." For when he said "Only-Begotten" and "God," he immediately adds "who is in the Bosom of the Father," so that He may be understood as the Son who is of Him and in Him by nature, using "Bosom of the Father" instead of "Essence," as a physical comparison. For visible things serve as patterns for spiritual things, and things in our experience guide us toward understanding things that are above us. Physical things are often used as images and lead us to grasp more subtle ideas, even though they are understood in their proper context as they were originally spoken, as in the example of "Put your hand into your bosom" spoken to Moses. Nor does it harm our argument to say that Lazarus was laid in Abraham's bosom—rather, it supports it and aligns with our reasoning. For the Divine Scripture speaks in this way: Lazarus, having died and departed from his bodily life, was carried into Abraham's bosom, meaning "was counted among Abraham's children." For God said to him, "I have made you a father of many nations," as it is written of him somewhere, "For a father of many nations have I made you."

Hence bidding good bye to their ill-counsel, we will go on the straight road of thoughts of the Truth, when the Son is said to be in the Bosom of the Father, conceiving of Him as of Him and in Him: and accurately taking in the force of the thought, we shall find it thus and not otherwise. The Only-Begotten God, he says, Which is in the Bosom of the Father, He hath declared. For when he said Only-Begotten and God, he straightway says, Which is in the Bosom of the Father, that He may be conceived of as Son of Him and in Him Naturally, saying Bosom of the Father instead of Essence, as by corporeal simile. For things manifest are types of things spiritual, and things among us lead us by the hand to the apprehension of the things which are above us: and the corporal things are often taken in the way of image and introduce to us the apprehension of subtler thoughts, even though they be in their proper time understood as they were uttered, as I mean that to Moses, Put thine hand into thy bosom. And it will no way hurt our argument to say that Lazarus was laid in Abraham's bosom, but will aid it rather and will go along with our thoughts. For the Divine Scripture says so to speak thus: Lazarus having died and deceased from his life in the body, was carried into Abraham's bosom, instead of "was numbered among Abraham's children." For "I have made thee a father of many nations," said God to him, for so is it somewhere written of him, For a father of many nations have I made thee.

This is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?" And he confessed and did not deny it, but confessed, "I am not the Christ."

19, 20 And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? And he confessed and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.

The Evangelist recalls his own words and tries to explain to us more fully (doing very well) what he had already told us briefly as a summary. For having said "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John: the same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light," he must now bring in the manner of the witness John gave. For when, he says, the leaders of the Jewish divisions under the Law sent priests and Levites to him, telling them to ask what he would say about himself, then John very clearly confessed, rejecting all shame for the truth's sake. For he said, "I am not the Christ." Therefore neither do I, he says, the compiler of this book, lie when I say of him, "He was not the Light but to bear witness of the Light."

The Evangelist recalls his own words and endeavours to explain to us more fully (doing exceeding well) what he had already told us told us briefly as in summary. For having said There was a man sent from God, whose name was John: the same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, needs does he bring in the mode also of the witness given by him. For when, he says, the chiefs of the Jewish divisions after the Law, sent priests and Levites to him, bidding them ask him, what he would say of himself, then very clearly did he confess, spurning all shame for the truth's sake. For he said, I am not the Christ. Therefore neither do I, says he, the compiler of this Book, lie saying of him, He was not the Light but to bear witness of the Light.

After explaining his confession "I am not the Christ," John tries to show how or in what manner this confession was made. He seems to me to want to expose the Jews' lack of instruction through this. For while claiming to be wise they became fools, and though puffed up with their knowledge of the Law and constantly putting forward the commandments of Moses and asserting that they were perfectly instructed in the words of the holy Prophets, their foolish questions prove that they are completely uninstructed. For Moses the hierophant (sacred teacher), saying that the Lord would be revealed as a Prophet, foretold to the children of Israel: "The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet from among you, from your brothers, like me; you shall listen to Him, according to all that you desired of the Lord your God in Horeb." The blessed Isaiah, introducing to us the forerunner and advance messenger, says: "The voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make His paths straight." And in addition to these, the Prophet Joel says of the Tishbite (he was Elijah): "Behold, I send you Elijah the Tishbite who shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, lest I come and strike the earth with a curse."^13141314

Having said by way of explanation, he confessed, I am not the Christ; he tries to shew how or in what manner the confession was made; and he appears to me to wish thereby to lay bare the ill-instructedness of the Jews. For professing themselves to be wise they became fools, and puffed up at their knowledge of the Law, and ever putting forward the commandments of Moses and asserting that they were perfectly instructed in the words of the holy Prophets, by their foolish questions they are convicted of being wholly uninstructed. For the hierophant Moses saying that the Lord should be revealed as a Prophet foretold to the children of Israel, The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me, unto Him shall ye hearken; according to all that thou desiredst of the Lord thy God in Horeb. The blessed Isaiah, introducing to us the forerunner and fore-messenger, says, The voice of one crying in the wilderness Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight: and in addition to these the Prophet Joel says of the Tishbite (he was Elias) Behold, I send you Elijah the Tishbite who shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.^13141314

Since there were three persons who were promised to come—Christ, John, and Elias—the Jews expected that even more would come, so they rightly heard, "You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures." For when they questioned the blessed Baptist and learned that he was not the Christ, they responded, "What then? Are you Elias?" And when he said "I am not," they should have asked about the forerunner (since he was the one who remained), but instead they ignorantly turned back to Christ Himself, who was revealed through the Law as a Prophet. Notice what they say, not knowing what was told to them through Moses: "Are you the Prophet?" And he answered, "No." For he was not the Christ, as he had already declared before.

There being then three, who were promised should come, Christ and John and Elias, the Jews expect that more will come, that they may rightly hear, Ye do err not knowing the Scriptures. For when they enquired of the blessed Baptist and learned that he was not the Christ, they answer, What then? art thou Elias? and on his saying I am not, when they ought to have asked respecting the fore-runner (for he it was that remained) they ignorantly return to Christ Himself, Who was revealed through the Law as a Prophet. For see what they say, not knowing what was told them through Moses, Art thou the Prophet? and he answered, No. For he was not the Christ, as he had already before declared.

He sharply accuses them of knowing nothing and confirms the purpose entrusted to him through prophetic testimony. For he says, I come to say nothing else than that the One who was looked for is finally at the doors—or rather, the Lord is already within the doors. Be ready to go whatever way He commands you. You have followed the way given through Moses; now take up the way through Christ, for this is what the company of holy prophets foretold to you.

He accuses them sharply as knowing nothing, and accredits the design or purpose entrusted to him by Prophetic testimony. For I come, he says, to say nothing else than that He, The Looked for, is at length at the doors, yea rather the Lord within the doors. Be ye ready to go whatsoever way He bids you, ye have gone the way given you through Moses, take up that by Christ: for this the choir of the holy Prophets foretold you.

Isaiah: Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob, and He will teach us His ways and we will walk in His paths.

Isaiah. Come ye and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob, and He will teach us of His ways and we will walk in His paths.

The same. There will be a highway and a road there, and it will be called The Way of Holiness. No lion will be there, and no dangerous beast will travel on it, but those who have been redeemed will walk there.

The same. And an highway shall be there and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; no lion shall be there nor any ravenous beast shall go up thereon, but the redeemed shall walk there.

The same. I will provide a beginning to Sign, and will urge Jerusalem to follow the way.¹⁵¹⁵

The same. I will give beginning to Sign, and will exhort Jerusalem unto the way.¹⁵¹⁵

The same. And I will bring the blind by a way that they did not know. I will lead them in paths that they have not known.

The same. And I will bring the blind by a way that they knew not: I will lead them in paths that they have not known.

Jeremiah. Stand in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where the good way is, and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls.

Jeremiah. Stand ye in the ways and see and ask for the old paths, where is the good way and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for you souls.

What then is the good way that purifies those who walk in it? Let Christ Himself say: I am the Way.

What then is the good way and that purifies those who walk in it, let Christ Himself say: I am the Way.

Those who were sent from the Jews (they were Levites and some who belonged to the priesthood) were convicted of asking foolish questions. Because they assumed that Christ was one person and that the Prophet declared by the Law was another, they asked, after the holy Baptist had said "I am not the Christ," "Are you the Prophet?" But look, the crowd of Pharisees is also caught up in pretending to have wisdom rather than actually having accurate knowledge of the Divine oracles. For it says, "Why do you baptize at all, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?" and they are shown again to be full of considerable foolishness against the Baptist. For apparently they do not consider him worthy to be counted among those who were expected, but sick with the pride that was their constant companion, they think he is nothing, even though he was foretold by the Prophet's voice. For though they heard "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare the way of the Lord," they did not accept his word but rebuked him without restraint, saying something like this: "There is nothing in you, sir, worthy of belief, nor wonderful nor great. Why do you baptize at all? Why do you, who are absolutely nothing, take on such a great task?" It was the habit of the ungodly Pharisees to act this way—to disparage someone who had already come while pretending to honor someone who was still to come. For in order to always secure honors for themselves from the Jews and obtain income for themselves, they wanted no one except themselves to appear distinguished. For in this same way they also killed the heir Himself, saying "Come, let us kill Him and seize His inheritance."¹⁷¹⁷

They who were sent from the Jews (they were Levites and certain of those who belonged to the priesthood) were convicted of asking foolish questions. For supposing that Christ was one person, the Prophet declared by the Law another, they said, after the holy Baptist had said, I am not the Christ, Art thou the Prophet? But lo, the multitude of the Pharisees also is caught in conceit of wisdom rather than having really an accurate knowledge of the Divine oracles. For why, it says, baptizest thou at all, if thou be not the Christ nor Elias neither the Prophet? and they are shewn again to be full of no small senselessness against the Baptist. For they do not, it seems, vouchsafe to put him in the number of those expected, but sick with the haughtiness that was their foster-sister, they deem that he is nought, albeit he be fore-announced by the Prophet's voice. For though they heard, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness Prepare ye the way of the Lord: receiving not his word, they rebuke him without restraint saying after this sort: There is nought in thee, Sir, worthy of credit, nor wondrous nor great: why baptizest thou even at all? why dost thou, who art absolutely nothing, take in hand so great a thing? It was the habit of the ungodly Pharisees to act thus, to disparage one who was already come, to pretend to honour one who was to come. For in order that they might always procure for themselves honours at the hand of the Jews, and might procure to themselves incomes of money, they desire that none save themselves should appear illustrious. For thus slew they the heir Himself also, saying Come let us kill Him and let us seize on His inheritance.¹⁷¹⁷

The blessed Baptist patiently endures those who find fault with him, and he very appropriately uses the statement about himself as a foundation for saving preaching. He teaches those who were sent from the Pharisees—now even against their will—that Christ was already present among them. For he says, I am bringing an introductory baptism, washing with water those defiled by sin as a beginning of repentance, and teaching them to rise from the lower to the more perfect. For this would be to accomplish in action what I was sent to preach: "Prepare the way of the Lord." For the Giver of the greater and most remarkable gifts, and the Supplier of all perfection of good things, stands among you, still unknown because of the veil of flesh, but so far surpassing me the Baptist that I must consider myself unworthy even to hold the position of a servant in His presence. For this, I believe, is the meaning of "I am not worthy to untie His sandal strap."

Much enduringly does the blessed Baptist bear with the fault finders: and very seasonably does he make the declaration regarding himself a basis of saving preaching: and teaches those who were sent from the Pharisees now even against their will that Christ was within the doors. For I, he says, am bringing in an introductory Baptism, washing those defiled by sin with water for a beginning of penitence and teaching them to go up from the lower unto the more perfect. For this were to accomplish in act, what I was sent to preach, Prepare ye, I mean, the way of the Lord. For the Giver of the greater and most notable gifts and Supplier of all perfection of good things, standeth among you, unknown as yet by reason of the veil of flesh, but so much surpassing me the Baptist, that I must deem myself not to have the measure even of a servant's place in His Presence. For this I deem is the meaning of, I am not worthy to unloose His shoe-latchet.

In speaking the truth, he accomplishes something else that is beneficial, for he persuades the proud Pharisee to think humbly, and he presents himself as an example of this.

And in saying what is true, he works something else that is useful, for he persuades the haughty Pharisee to think lowlily, and brings himself in as an example of this.

He says these things happened in Bethabara beyond the Jordan, adding this as a sign of precise and careful narration. For all of us are accustomed, so to speak, when giving accounts of matters that require it, to mention also the places where they occurred.

But he says that these things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, putting this too as a sign of accurate and careful narration. For we are all accustomed, so to speak, in our accounts of things that require it to mention also the places where they happened.