Category: Athanasius

You have done well in letting me know about the discussion you had with the supporters of Arianism, among whom were certain friends of Eusebius, as well as very many of the brothers who hold the teaching of the Church. I welcomed your vigilance for the love of Christ, which excellently exposed the irreligion of their heresy. At the same time, I marveled at the boldness that led the Arians, after all the previous exposure of the unsoundness and emptiness of their arguments—indeed, after everyone became convinced of their extreme perverseness—to still complain like the Jews: Why did the Fathers at Nicaea use terms not in Scripture, 'of the ousia' and 'one in ousia'? You then, as a learned man, in spite of their evasions, proved that they were talking nonsense, and in devising these evasions they were simply acting in keeping with their own evil disposition. For they are as changeable and unstable in their beliefs as chameleons are in their colors. When they are exposed they look confused, and when they are questioned they hesitate, and then they lose all shame and resort to evasions. And then, when they are caught in these, they do not stop until they invent fresh falsehoods, and, according to Scripture, 'imagine a vain thing'—all so that they may remain constant in their irreligion.

1. Thou hast done well, in signifying to me the discussion you have had with the advocates of Arianism, among whom were certain of the friends of Eusebius, as well as very many of the brethren who hold the doctrine of the Church. I hailed your vigilance for the love of Christ, which excellently exposed the irreligion of their heresy; while I marvelled at the effrontery which led the Arians, after all the past detection of unsoundness and futility in their arguments, nay, after the general conviction of their extreme perverseness, still to complain like the Jews, Why did the Fathers at Nicæa use terms not in Scripture, 'Of the essence ' and 'One in essence?' Thou then, as a man of learning, in spite of their subterfuges, convicted them of talking to no purpose; and they in devising them were but acting suitably to their own evil disposition. For they are as variable and fickle in their sentiments, as chameleons in their colors; and when exposed they look confused, and when questioned they hesitate, and then they lose shame, and betake themselves to evasions. And then, when detected in these, they do not rest till they invent fresh matters which are not, and, according to the Scripture, ' imagine a vain thing '; and all that they may be constant to their irreligion.

These kinds of efforts are nothing but a clear sign of their lack of sound reasoning and, as I said, an imitation of Jewish hostility. For the Jews too, when proven wrong by the Truth and unable to face it, made excuses like, "What sign do You do, that we may see and believe You? What do You work?" even though so many signs had been given that they themselves said, "What shall we do? For this man does many miracles." In fact, dead people were raised, the lame walked, the blind saw again, lepers were cleansed, water became wine, five loaves fed five thousand, and everyone marveled and worshiped the Lord, confessing that the prophecies were fulfilled in Him and that He was God the Son of God—everyone except the Pharisees, who, even though the signs shone brighter than the sun, still complained like ignorant people, "Why do You, being a man, make Yourself God?" Foolish and truly blind in their understanding! They should have said the opposite: Why have You, being God, become man? For His works proved He was God, so that they might worship the goodness of the Father and admire the Son's plan of salvation for us. But they did not say this. No, they did not want to acknowledge what He was doing. Or rather, they did acknowledge it—for they could not help that—but then they changed their complaint again: Why do You heal the paralyzed, why do You make the blind see, on the sabbath day? But this too was just an excuse and mere grumbling, for the Lord healed "all manner of sickness, and all manner of disease" on other days as well, yet they still complained as usual, and by calling Him Beelzebub, they chose the accusation of atheism rather than admit their own wickedness. And though the Savior showed His divinity and preached the Father to everyone at many different times and in various ways, they still resisted stubbornly, contradicting Him with foolish words. They did this, according to the divine proverb, so that by finding reasons to complain, they might separate themselves from the truth.

Now such endeavours are nothing else than an obvious token of their defect of reason, and a copying, as I have said, of Jewish malignity. For the Jews too, when convicted by the Truth, and unable to confront it, used evasions, such as, 'What sign do You do, that we may see and believe You? What do You work? John 6:30 Though so many signs were given, that they said themselves, 'What do we? For this man does many miracles.' In truth, dead men were raised, lame walked, blind saw afresh, lepers were cleansed, and the water became wine, and five loaves satisfied five thousand, and all wondered and worshipped the Lord, confessing that in Him were fulfilled the prophecies, and that He was God the Son of God; all but the Pharisees, who, though the signs shone brighter than the sun, yet complained still, as ignorant men, 'Why do You, being a man, make Yourself God?' Insensate, and verily blind in understanding! They ought contrariwise to have said, Why have You, being God, become man? for His works proved Him God, that they might both worship the goodness of the Father, and admire the Son's Economy for our sakes. However, this they did not say; no, nor liked to witness what He was doing; or they witnessed indeed, for this they could not help, but they changed their ground of complaint again, Why do You heal the paralytic, why do You make born-blind to see, on the sabbath day? But this too was an excuse, and mere murmuring; for on other days as well did the Lord heal 'all manner of sickness, and all manner of disease Matthew 4:23,' but they complained still according to their wont, and by calling Him Beelzebub, preferred the suspicion of Atheism, to a recantation of their own wickedness. And though in such sundry times and various manners the Saviour showed His Godhead and preached the Father to all men, nevertheless, as kicking against the pricks, they contradicted in the language of folly, and this they did, according to the divine proverb, that by finding occasions, they might separate themselves from the truth.

Just as the Jews of that time were justly deprived of their laws and the promises made to their fathers for acting so wickedly and denying the Lord, so the Arians now, acting like Jews, are in my view in the same situation as Caiaphas and the Pharisees of his day. Realizing that their heresy is completely unreasonable, they make up excuses: Why was this defined and not that? Don't be surprised if they act this way now, for before long they will turn to violence and soon will threaten with armed force. Indeed, their false teaching finds its support in such tactics, as we can see, for having denied the Word of God, they have no rational argument at all, as is only fitting. Knowing this, I would not have bothered to answer their questions. But since you kindly asked to know what happened at the Council, I have promptly told you what took place, showing in a few words how completely devoid of true religion Arianism is, and how their only business is to make up excuses.

2. As then the Jews of that day, for acting thus wickedly and denying the Lord, were with justice deprived of their laws and of the promise made to their fathers, so the Arians, Judaizing now, are, in my judgment, in circumstances like those of Caiaphas and the contemporary Pharisees. For, perceiving that their heresy is utterly unreasonable, they invent excuses, Why was this defined, and not that? Yet wonder not if now they practise thus; for in no long time they will turn to outrage, and next will threaten 'the band and the captain.' Forsooth in these their heterodoxy has its support, as we see; for denying the Word of God, reason have they none at all, as is equitable. Aware then of this, I would have made no reply to their interrogations: but, since your friendliness has asked to know the transactions of the Council, I have without any delay related at once what then took place, showing in few words, how destitute Arianism is of a religious spirit, and how their one business is to frame evasions.

Consider this carefully, beloved. If the devil has planted this perversion in their hearts and they feel confident in their wicked ideas, then let them defend themselves against the proofs of heresy that have been presented. After that, there will be time to criticize the definition written against them—if they can. No one who has been convicted of murder or adultery is allowed, after the trial, to attack the judge's sentence by questioning why he spoke one way and not another. This does not excuse the convicted person, but rather adds to his crime by demonstrating insolence and arrogance. In the same way, these people should either prove that their beliefs are orthodox—since they were accused and convicted at that time, and their complaints came afterwards, and it is right that those who are accused should focus on defending themselves—or if their conscience is unclean and they are aware of their own irreligion, they should not complain about what they do not understand. Otherwise they will bring a double accusation upon themselves: both irreligion and ignorance. Instead, they should examine the matter with a teachable spirit, and by learning what they have not known until now, cleanse their irreligious ears with the fountain of truth and the teachings of true religion.

And do thou, beloved, consider whether it be not so. If, the devil having sowed their hearts with this perverseness, they feel confidence in their bad inventions, let them defend themselves against the proofs of heresy which have been advanced, and then will be the time to find fault, if they can, with the definition framed against them. For no one, on being convicted of murder or adultery, is at liberty after the trial to arraign the sentence of the judge, why he spoke in this way and not in that. For this does not exculpate the convict, but rather increases his crime on the score of petulance and audacity. In like manner, let these either prove that their sentiments are religious (for they were then accused and convicted, and their complaints are subsequent, and it is just that those who are under a charge should confine themselves to their own defense), or if they have an unclean conscience, and are aware of their own irreligion, let them not complain of what they do not understand, or they will bring on themselves a double imputation, of irreligion and of ignorance. Rather let them investigate the matter in a docile spirit, and learning what hitherto they have not known, cleanse their irreligious ears with the spring of truth and the doctrines of religion.

Here's what actually happened to Eusebius and his associates at the Council of Nicaea. While they persisted in their irreligion and tried to fight against God, the language they used was filled with irreligious content. But the assembled bishops, numbering around three hundred, gently and charitably asked them to explain and defend their position on religious grounds. However, as soon as they began to speak, they were condemned, and they contradicted one another. Then, realizing the impossible position their heresy was in, they fell silent, and by their silence they admitted the disgrace that fell upon their false teaching. At this point the bishops rejected the terms they had invented and published the sound, ecclesiastical faith. When everyone signed it, Eusebius and his associates also signed it, using those very words they now complain about—I mean, "of the ousia" and "one in ousia," and that the Son of God is neither creature nor work, nor among things that came into being, but that the Word is an offspring from the ousia of the Father. What is truly remarkable is that Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine, who had denied this the day before but then signed it, sent a letter to his church saying that this was the church's faith and the tradition of the Fathers. He publicly admitted that they had previously been in error and had rashly contended against the truth. Though at the time he was ashamed to adopt these terms and excused himself to his church in his own way, he certainly implies all this in his letter by not denying "one in ousia" and "of the ousia." In doing this he got himself into difficulty, because while excusing himself, he went on to attack the Arians for saying that the Son did not exist before his generation, and thereby rejecting his existence before his birth in the flesh. Acacius is also aware of this, though he too may pretend otherwise out of fear because of the times and deny the fact. Accordingly, I have attached Eusebius's letter at the end so that you may learn from it about the disrespect that Christ's enemies, particularly Acacius himself, show toward their own teachers.

3. Now it happened to Eusebius and his fellows in the Nicene Council as follows:– while they stood out in their irreligion, and attempted their fight against God, the terms they used were replete with irreligion; but the assembled Bishops who were three hundred more or less, mildly and charitably required of them to explain and defend themselves on religious grounds. Scarcely, however, did they begin to speak, when they were condemned, and one differed from another; then perceiving the straits in which their heresy lay, they remained dumb, and by their silence confessed the disgrace which came upon their heterodoxy. On this the Bishops, having negatived the terms they had invented, published against them the sound and ecclesiastical faith; and, as all subscribed it, Eusebius and his fellows subscribed it also in those very words, of which they are now complaining, I mean, of the essence and one in essence, and that the Son of God is neither creature or work, nor in the number of things originated, but that the Word is an offspring from the substance of the Father. And what is strange indeed, Eusebius of Cæsarea in Palestine, who had denied the day before, but afterwards subscribed, sent to his Church a letter, saying that this was the Church's faith, and the tradition of the Fathers; and made a public profession that they were before in error, and were rashly contending against the truth. For though he was ashamed at that time to adopt these phrases, and excused himself to the Church in his own way, yet he certainly means to imply all this in his Epistle, by his not denying the one in essence, and of the essence. And in this way he got into a difficulty; for while he was excusing himself, he went on to attack the Arians, as stating that the Son was not before His generation, and as thereby rejecting His existence before His birth in the flesh. And this Acacius is aware of also, though he too through fear may pretend otherwise because of the times and deny the fact. Accordingly I have subjoined at the end the letter of Eusebius, that you may know from it the disrespect towards their own doctors shown by Christ's enemies, and singularly by Acacius himself.

Are they not committing a crime in even thinking about contradicting such a great and ecumenical Council? Are they not transgressing when they dare to oppose that good definition against Arianism, which is acknowledged even by those who first taught them irreligion? And even if Eusebius and his companions did change their minds after signing and returned like dogs to their own vomit of irreligion, don't those who oppose the Council today deserve even greater hatred? They sacrifice their souls' freedom to others and are willing to accept as masters of their heresy people who are, as James has said, double-minded men, unstable in all their ways, never holding one opinion but constantly changing back and forth. These people now recommend certain statements but soon dishonor them, and then turn around and recommend what they were just criticizing. But this, as the Shepherd has said, is the mark of the devil and the characteristic of peddlers rather than teachers. What our Fathers have handed down is truly doctrine, and this is truly the mark of teachers: to confess the same thing as each other and to vary neither from themselves nor from their fathers. Those who lack this character should be called not true teachers but evil ones. Thus the Greeks, since they don't witness to the same doctrines but quarrel with one another, have no truth in their teaching. But the holy and true heralds of the truth agree with each other and do not differ. For though they lived at different times, they all point the same way, being prophets of the one God and preaching the same Word harmoniously.

4. Are they not then committing a crime, in their very thought to gainsay so great and ecumenical a Council? Are they not in transgression, when they dare to confront that good definition against Arianism, acknowledged, as it is, by those who had in the first instance taught them irreligion? And supposing, even after subscription, Eusebius and his fellows did change again, and return like dogs to their own vomit of irreligion, do not the present gain-sayers deserve still greater detestation, because they thus sacrifice their souls' liberty to others; and are willing to take these persons as masters of their heresy, who are, as James James 1:8 has said, double-minded men, and unstable in all their ways, not having one opinion, but changing to and fro, and now recommending certain statements, but soon dishonouring them, and in turn recommending what just now they were blaming? But this, as the Shepherd has said, is the child of the devil, and the note of hucksters rather than of doctors. For, what our Fathers have delivered, this is truly doctrine; and this is truly the token of doctors, to confess the same thing with each other, and to vary neither from themselves nor from their fathers; whereas they who have not this character are to be called not true doctors but evil. Thus the Greeks, as not witnessing to the same doctrines, but quarrelling one with another, have no truth of teaching; but the holy and veritable heralds of the truth agree together, and do not differ. For though they lived in different times, yet they one and all tend the same way, being prophets of the one God, and preaching the same Word harmoniously.

And so what Moses taught, Abraham observed; and what Abraham observed, Noah and Enoch acknowledged, distinguishing pure from impure and becoming acceptable to God. Abel too witnessed in this way, knowing what he had learned from Adam, who himself had learned from the Lord, who said when He came at the end of the ages to abolish sin, "I give no new commandment to you, but an old commandment which you have heard from the beginning." Therefore the blessed Apostle Paul, who had learned it from Him, when describing ecclesiastical functions, forbade that deacons—not to mention bishops—should be double-tongued; and in his rebuke of the Galatians, he made a broad declaration: "If anyone preaches any other Gospel to you than what you have received, let him be anathema, as I have said, so I say again. If even we, or an angel from heaven should preach to you any other Gospel than what you have received, let him be anathema." Since the Apostle speaks this way, let these men either anathematize Eusebius and his companions, at least for changing their position and professing what contradicts their subscriptions; or, if they acknowledge that their subscriptions were good, let them not make complaints against so great a Council. But if they do neither one nor the other, they are plainly the sport of every wind and wave, and are influenced by opinions not their own but others', and being such, they are just as unworthy of attention now as before in what they claim. Rather let them stop criticizing what they do not understand, lest they fail to discriminate and simply call evil good and good evil, and think that bitter is sweet and sweet is bitter. Clearly, they want doctrines that have been judged wrong and condemned to gain the upper hand, and they make violent efforts to undermine what was rightly defined. There should be no reason for any further explanation or answer to their excuses on our part, nor for further resistance on theirs, but rather for agreement with what the leaders of their heresy subscribed. For though the subsequent change of Eusebius and his companions was suspicious and immoral, their subscription—when they had at least some small opportunity to defend themselves—is certain proof of the irreligion of their doctrine. For they would not have subscribed earlier had they not condemned the heresy, nor would they have condemned it had they not been surrounded with difficulty and shame; so that changing back again is proof of their contentious zeal for irreligion. These men should therefore, as I have said, keep quiet. But since from an extraordinary lack of modesty they perhaps hope to be able to advocate this diabolical irreligion better than the others, therefore, though in my former letter written to you I have already argued at length against them, nevertheless, come let us now also examine them in each of their separate statements, as we did their predecessors. For now no less than then their heresy shall be shown to have no soundness in it, but to be from evil spirits.

5. And thus what Moses taught, that Abraham observed; and what Abraham observed, that Noah and Enoch acknowledged, discriminating pure from impure, and becoming acceptable to God. For Abel too in this way witnessed, knowing what he had learned from Adam, who himself had learned from that Lord, who said, when He came at the end of the ages for the abolishment of sin, I give no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment, which you have heard from the beginning 1 John 2:7. Wherefore also the blessed Apostle Paul, who had learned it from Him, when describing ecclesiastical functions, forbade that deacons, not to say bishops, should be double-tongued 1 Timothy 3:8; and in his rebuke of the Galatians, he made a broad declaration, If anyone preach any other Gospel unto you than that you have received, let him be anathema, as I have said, so say I again. If even we, or an Angel from heaven should preach unto you any other Gospel than that you have received, let him be anathema Galatians 1:8-9. Since then the Apostle thus speaks, let these men either anathematise Eusebius and his fellows, at least as changing round and professing what is contrary to their subscriptions; or, if they acknowledge that their subscriptions were good, let them not utter complaints against so great a Council. But if they do neither the one nor the other, they are themselves too plainly the sport of every wind and surge, and are influenced by opinions, not their own, but of others, and being such, are as little worthy of deference now as before, in what they allege. Rather let them cease to carp at what they understand not; lest so be that not knowing to discriminate, they simply call evil good and good evil, and think that bitter is sweet and sweet is bitter. Doubtless, they desire that doctrines which have been judged wrong and have been reprobated should gain the ascendancy, and they make violent efforts to prejudice what was rightly defined. Nor should there be any reason on our part for any further explanation, or answer to their excuses, neither on theirs for further resistance, but for an acquiescence in what the leaders of their heresy subscribed; for though the subsequent change of Eusebius and his fellows was suspicious and immoral, their subscription, when they had the opportunity of at least some little defense of themselves, is a certain proof of the irreligion of their doctrine. For they would not have subscribed previously had they not condemned the heresy, nor would they have condemned it, had they not been encompassed with difficulty and shame; so that to change back again is a proof of their contentious zeal for irreligion. These men also ought therefore, as I have said, to keep quiet; but since from an extraordinary want of modesty, they hope perhaps to be able to advocate this diabolical irreligion better than the others, therefore, though in my former letter written to you, I have already argued at length against them, notwithstanding, come let us now also examine them, in each of their separate statements, as their predecessors; for now not less than then their heresy shall be shown to have no soundness in it, but to be from evil spirits.

They say what others held and dared to maintain before them: Not always Father, not always Son, for the Son did not exist before His generation, but like other creatures came to be from nothing. Consequently, God was not always Father of the Son, but only when the Son came to be and was created did God begin to be called His Father. For the Word is a creature and a work, foreign and unlike the Father in ousia, and the Son is neither by physis the Father's true Word nor His only and true Wisdom. Rather, being a creature and one of the works, He is improperly called Word and Wisdom, for He was made by the Word which is in God, just as all things were. Therefore the Son is not true God.

6. They say then what the others held and dared to maintain before them; Not always Father, not always Son; for the Son was not before His generation, but, as others, came to be from nothing; and in consequence God was not always Father of the Son; but, when the Son came to be and was created, then was God called His Father. For the Word is a creature and a work, and foreign and unlike the Father in essence; and the Son is neither by nature the Father's true Word, nor His only and true Wisdom; but being a creature and one of the works, He is improperly called Word and Wisdom; for by the Word which is in God was He made, as were all things. Wherefore the Son is not true God.

To help them understand what they are actually saying, we should first ask them this: what exactly is a son, and what does that word mean? In fact, Holy Scripture shows us two different meanings of this word. One meaning is what Moses presents to us in the Law: "When you listen to the voice of the Lord your God, keeping all His commandments which I command you this day, doing what is right in the eyes of the Lord your God, you are children of the Lord your God." We also see this meaning in the Gospel, where John says, "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the power to become the sons of God." The other meaning is the one in which Isaac is the son of Abraham, Jacob is the son of Isaac, and the Patriarchs are the sons of Jacob. So in which of these two senses do they understand the Son of God when they tell such stories as we have heard? I am quite sure they will end up with the same false teaching as Eusebius and his associates.

Now it may serve to make them understand what they are saying, to ask them first this, what in fact a son is, and of what is that name significant. In truth, Divine Scripture acquaints us with a double sense of this word:– one which Moses sets before us in the Law, 'When you shall hearken to the voice of the Lord your God, to keep all His commandments which I command you this day, to do that which is right in the eyes of the Lord your God, you are children of the Lord your God;' as also in the Gospel, John says, 'But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God John 1:12:'– and the other sense, that in which Isaac is son of Abraham, and Jacob of Isaac, and the Patriarchs of Jacob. Now in which of these two senses do they understand the Son of God that they relate such fables as the foregoing? For I feel sure they will issue in the same irreligion with Eusebius and his fellows.

If they mean the first sense—which applies to those who gain the title of son through grace based on moral progress and receive the power to become sons of God (for this is what their predecessors claimed)—then He would appear to differ from us in nothing. In fact, He would not even be Only-begotten, since He would have obtained the title of Son just like others, through His virtue. For even granting what they say—that because His qualifications were foreknown, He therefore received grace from the very beginning, along with the title and the glory that comes with it, right from His first existence—there would still be no difference between Him and those who receive the title after their actions, as long as He has the character of son on the same basis as everyone else. For Adam too, though he received grace from the start and was placed in paradise immediately upon his creation, was no different from Enoch, who was brought there some time after his birth because he pleased God, or from the Apostle, who was likewise caught up to paradise after his actions. Nor was he different from the thief who, on the basis of his confession, received a promise that he would be in paradise immediately.

If in the first, which belongs to those who gain the name by grace from moral improvement, and receive power to become sons of God (for this is what their predecessors said), then He would seem to differ from us in nothing; no, nor would He be Only-begotten, as having obtained the title of Son as others from His virtue. For granting what they say, that, whereas His qualifications were fore- known, He therefore received grace from the first, the name, and the glory of the name, from His very first beginning, still there will be no difference between Him and those who receive the name after their actions, so long as this is the ground on which He as others has the character of son. For Adam too, though he received grace from the first, and upon his creation was at once placed in paradise, differed in no respect either from Enoch, who was translated there after some time from his birth on his pleasing God, or from the Apostle, who likewise was caught up to Paradise after his actions; nay, not from him who once was a thief, who on the ground of his confession, received a promise that he should be immediately in paradise.

When pressed on this point, they will perhaps give an answer that has gotten them into trouble many times before: We believe that the Son has this special privilege over others, and is therefore called Only-begotten, because He alone was brought into being by God alone, and all other things were created by God through the Son. Now I wonder who suggested to you such a weak and novel idea—that the Father alone worked with His own hand to make the Son alone, and that all other things were brought into being by the Son as if by an assistant worker. If God was satisfied with making only the Son because of the labor involved, instead of making all things at once, this is an irreligious thought, especially for those who know the words of Isaiah: "The everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, does not hunger or grow weary; there is no searching of His understanding" (Isaiah 40:28). Rather, it is He who gives strength to the hungry and, through His Word, refreshes those who labor. Again, it is irreligious to suppose that He disdained, as if it were a lowly task, to form the creatures Himself that came after the Son. For there is no pride in that God who goes down with Jacob into Egypt, who corrects Abimelek for Abraham's sake because of Sarah, who speaks face to face with Moses (himself a man), who descends upon Mount Sinai, and who by His hidden grace fights for the people against Amalek. However, you are wrong even in this claim, for "He made us, and not we ourselves." It is He who, through His Word, made all things small and great, and we may not divide creation and say this is the Father's and this is the Son's. Rather, they are from one God, who uses His own Word as a Hand, and in Him does all things. God Himself shows us this when He says, "All these things My Hand has made" (Isaiah 66:2), while Paul taught us what he had learned: that "There is one God, from whom are all things; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things" (1 Corinthians 8:6). Thus He, always as now, speaks to the sun and it rises, and commands the clouds and it rains upon one place; and where it does not rain, it is dried up. And He commands the earth to yield her fruits, and fashions Jeremiah in the womb (Jeremiah 1:5). But if He now does all this, certainly at the beginning He did not disdain to make all things Himself through the Word, for these present acts are simply parts of the whole.

7. When thus pressed, they will perhaps make an answer which has brought them into trouble many times already; We consider that the Son has this prerogative over others, and therefore is called Only-begotten, because He alone was brought to be by God alone, and all other things were created by God through the Son. Now I wonder who it was that suggested to you so futile and novel an idea as that the Father alone wrought with His own hand the Son alone, and that all other things were brought to be by the Son as by an under-worker. If for the toil's sake God was content with making the Son only, instead of making all things at once, this is an irreligious thought, especially in those who know the words of Esaias, 'The everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, hungers not, neither is weary; there is no searching of His understanding Isaiah 40:28.' Rather it is He who gives strength to the hungry, and through His Word refreshes the labouring. Again, it is irreligious to suppose that He disdained, as if a humble task, to form the creatures Himself which came after the Son; for there is no pride in that God, who goes down with Jacob into Egypt, and for Abraham's sake corrects Abimelek because of Sara, and speaks face to face with Moses, himself a man, and descends upon Mount Sinai, and by His secret grace fights for the people against Amalek. However, you are false even in this assertion, for 'He made us, and not we ourselves.' He it is who through His Word made all things small and great, and we may not divide the creation, and says this is the Father's, and this the Son's, but they are of one God, who uses His proper Word as a Hand, and in Him does all things. This God Himself shows us, when He says, 'All these things has My Hand made Isaiah 66:2;' while Paul taught us as he had learned, that 'There is one God, from whom all things; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things 1 Corinthians 8:6.' Thus He, always as now, speaks to the sun and it rises, and commands the clouds and it rains upon one place; and where it does not rain, it is dried up. And He bids the earth yield her fruits, and fashions Jeremias Jeremiah 1:5 in the womb. But if He now does all this, assuredly at the beginning also He did not disdain to make all things Himself through the Word; for these are but parts of the whole.

But let us suppose that the other creatures could not endure being made by the direct hand of the Unoriginate, and therefore the Son alone was brought into being by the Father alone, while other things were made by the Son as an assistant and subordinate worker. This is what Asterius the sacrificer has written, and Arius has copied and passed down to his own followers, and from that time they use this formula, broken reed that it is, being ignorant—these confused men—of how fragile it is. For if it was impossible for originated things to bear the hand of God, and you consider the Son to be one of their number, how was He also able to endure this formation by God alone? And if a Mediator became necessary so that originated things might come to be, and you consider the Son to be originated, then there must have been some intermediary before Him for His creation. And that Mediator himself, being a creature, would also need another Mediator for his own creation. And even if we were to propose another, we must first propose his Mediator, so that we will never reach an end. And thus, with a Mediator always being required, the creation will never be completed, because nothing originated, as you say, can bear the direct hand of the Unoriginate. And if, when you perceive the absurdity of this, you begin to say that the Son, though a creature, was made capable of being made by the Unoriginate, then it follows that other things also, though originated, are capable of being made directly by the Unoriginate, for the Son too is only a creature in your judgment, just like all of them. And accordingly the origination of the Word is unnecessary, according to your irreligious and foolish idea, since God is sufficient for the direct formation of all things, and all originated things are capable of sustaining His direct hand.

8. But let us suppose that the other creatures could not endure to be wrought by the absolute Hand of the Unoriginate and therefore the Son alone was brought into being by the Father alone, and other things by the Son as an underworker and assistant, for this is what Asterius the sacrificer has written, and Arius has transcribed and bequeathed to his own friends, and from that time they use this form of words, broken reed as it is, being ignorant, the bewildered men, how brittle it is. For if it was impossible for things originate to bear the hand of God, and you hold the Son to be one of their number, how was He too equal to this formation by God alone? And if a Mediator became necessary that things originate might come to be, and you hold the Son to be originated, then must there have been some medium before Him, for His creation; and that Mediator himself again being a creature, it follows that he too needed another Mediator for his own constitution. And though we were to devise another, we must first devise his Mediator, so that we shall never come to an end. And thus a Mediator being ever in request, never will the creation be constituted, because nothing originate, as you say, can bear the absolute hand of the Unoriginate. And if, on your perceiving the extravagance of this, you begin to say that the Son, though a creature, was made capable of being made by the Unoriginate, then it follows that other things also, though originated, are capable of being wrought immediately by the Unoriginate; for the Son too is but a creature in your judgment, as all of them. And accordingly the origination of the Word is superfluous, according to your irreligious and futile imagination, God being sufficient for the immediate formation of all things, and all things originate being capable of sustaining His absolute hand.

These irreligious men have so little sense in their madness that we should examine whether this particular sophism is not even more irrational than the others. Adam was created alone by God alone through the Word; yet no one would say that Adam had any special privilege over other people, or was different from those who came after him, even though he alone was made and fashioned by God alone, and we all descend from Adam and exist according to the succession of the human race, since he was fashioned from the earth as others were, and at first did not exist, but afterward came to be.

These irreligious men then having so little mind amid their madness, let us see whether this particular sophism be not even more irrational than the others. Adam was created alone by God alone through the Word; yet no one would say that Adam had any prerogative over other men, or was different from those who came after him, granting that he alone was made and fashioned by God alone, and we all spring from Adam, and consist according to succession of the race, so long as he was fashioned from the earth as others, and at first not being, afterwards came to be.

Even if we were to grant Adam some special privilege because he was considered worthy of God's direct handiwork, that privilege would be one of honor, not of nature. For he came from the earth just like other people, and the hand that formed Adam back then is also the same hand that both now and always forms and gives complete existence to those who come after him. God Himself declares this to Jeremiah, as I mentioned before: "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you." And He says of all people: "All these things My hand has made." Again through Isaiah: "Thus says the Lord, your redeemer, and He that formed you from the womb, I am the Lord that makes all things; that stretches forth the heavens alone; that spreads abroad the earth by Myself." David, knowing this, says in the Psalm: "Your hands have made me and fashioned me." And the one who says in Isaiah, "Thus says the Lord who formed me from the womb to be His servant," signifies the same thing. Therefore, regarding his nature, Adam differs in no way from us even though he came before us in time, since we all have our existence and are created by the same hand. If then these are your thoughts about the Son of God too, Arians—that He exists and came to be in this same way—then in your judgment He will differ in no way regarding His nature from others, since He too was not, and then came to be, and the name was united to Him by grace at His creation because of His virtue. For according to what you say, He Himself is one of those about whom the Spirit says in the Psalms: "He spoke the word, and they were made; He commanded, and they were created." If that is so, who was it through whom God gave the command for the Son's creation? For there must be a Word through whom God gave command and in whom the works are created. But you have no one else to show except the Word you deny—unless of course you plan to invent some new idea again.

9. But though we were to allow some prerogative to the Protoplast as having been deemed worthy of the hand of God, still it must be one of honour not of nature. For he came of the earth, as other men; and the hand which then fashioned Adam, is also both now and ever fashioning and giving entire consistence to those who come after him. And God Himself declares this to Jeremiah, as I said before; 'Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you Jeremiah 1:5;' and so He says of all, 'All those things has My hand made Isaiah 66:2;' and again by Isaiah, 'Thus says the Lord, your redeemer, and He that formed you from the womb, I am the Lord that makes all things; that stretches forth the heavens alone; that spreads abroad the earth by Myself.' And David, knowing this, says in the Psalm, 'Your hands have made me and fashioned me;' and he who says in Isaiah, 'Thus says the Lord who formed me from the womb to be His servant Isaiah 49:5,' signifies the same. Therefore, in respect of nature, he differs nothing from us though he precede us in time, so long as we all consist and are created by the same hand. If then these be your thoughts, O Arians, about the Son of God too, that thus He subsists and came to be, then in your judgment He will differ nothing on the score of nature from others, so long as He too was not, and came to be, and the name was by grace united to Him in His creation for His virtue's sake. For He Himself is one of those, from what you say, of whom the Spirit says in the Psalms, 'He spoke the word, and they were made; He commanded, and they were created.' If so, who was it by whom God gave command for the Son's creation? For a Word there must be by whom God gave command, and in whom the works are created; but you have no other to show than the Word you deny, unless indeed you should devise again some new notion.

Yes, they will say, we have another argument (which I heard before from Eusebius and his associates): we believe that the Son of God has a special status above others and is called Only-begotten because He alone partakes of the Father, while all other things partake of the Son. So they exhaust themselves changing and varying their language like changing colors. However, this will not save them from being exposed as people who are earthly, speaking empty words, and wallowing in their own ideas as if in mud.

Yes, they will say, we have another; (which indeed I formerly heard Eusebius and his fellows use), on this score do we consider that the Son of God has a prerogative over others, and is called Only-begotten, because He alone partakes the Father, and all other things partake the Son. Thus they weary themselves in changing and in varying their phrases like colors; however, this shall not save them from an exposure, as men that are of the earth, speaking vainly, and wallowing in their own conceits as in mire.

If He were called God's Son and we were called the Son's sons, their made-up story might seem believable. But if we too are said to be sons of the same God of whom He is Son, then we too partake the Father, who says, "I have begotten and exalted children" (Isaiah 1:2). For if we did not partake Him, He would not have said "I have begotten." But if He Himself begot us, He and no other is our Father. And as I said before, it makes no difference whether the Son has something more and was made first, while we have something less and were made later, as long as we all partake and are called sons of the same Father. For "more or less" does not indicate a different nature, but relates to each person according to their practice of virtue—one is placed over ten cities, another over five, some sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel, others hear the words "Come, you blessed of My Father" and "Well done, good and faithful servant." With such ideas, it's no wonder they imagine that God was not always Father of such a Son, and that such a Son did not always exist but was generated from nothing as a creature and did not exist before His generation—for such a one is different from the True Son of God.

10. For if He were called God's Son, and we the Son's sons, their fiction were plausible; but if we too are said to be sons of that God, of whom He is Son, then we too partake the Father, who says, 'I have begotten and exalted children Isaiah 1:2.' For if we did not partake Him, He had not said, 'I have begotten;' but if He Himself begot us, no other than He is our Father. And, as before, it matters not, whether the Son has something more and was made first, but we something less, and were made afterwards, as long as we all partake, and are called sons, of the same Father. For the more or less does not indicate a different nature; but attaches to each according to the practice of virtue; and one is placed over ten cities, another over five; and some sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel; and others hear the words, 'Come, you blessed of My Father,' and, 'Well done, good and faithful servant.' With such ideas, however, no wonder they imagine that of such a Son God was not always Father, and such a Son was not always in being, but was generated from nothing as a creature, and was not before His generation; for such an one is other than the True Son of God.

But to continue with such teaching is incompatible with true faith, for it is more characteristic of the thinking of the Sadducees and the Samosatene. It remains, then, to say that the Son of God is called such in the other sense, in the way that Isaac was the son of Abraham. For what is naturally begotten from someone and does not come to him from outside, that is truly a son by nature, and this is what the term means. Is the Son's generation, then, a matter of human affection? (For this is likely what they, like their predecessors, will object in their ignorance.) Not at all. For God is not like man, nor are men like God. Men were created from matter, and that matter is capable of being affected. But God is immaterial and incorporeal. Even if the same terms are used of both God and man in divine Scripture, those with clear sight, as Paul instructs, will study it carefully and thereby make distinctions, and understand what is written according to the physis of each subject, and avoid any confusion of meaning. In this way they will neither conceive of the things of God in a human way, nor attribute the things of man to God. For this would be to mix wine with water, and to place upon the altar strange fire alongside that which is divine.

But to persist in such teaching does not consist with piety, for it is rather the tone of thought of Sadducees and the Samosatene; it remains then to say that the Son of God is so called according to the other sense, in which Isaac was son of Abraham; for what is naturally begotten from any one and does not accrue to him from without, that in the nature of things is a son, and that is what the name implies. Is then the Son's generation one of human affection? (for this perhaps, as their predecessors, they too will be ready to object in their ignorance;)– in no wise; for God is not as man, nor men as God. Men were created of matter, and that passible; but God is immaterial and incorporeal. And if so be the same terms are used of God and man in divine Scripture, yet the clear-sighted, as Paul enjoins, will study it, and thereby discriminate, and dispose of what is written according to the nature of each subject, and avoid any confusion of sense, so as neither to conceive of the things of God in a human way, nor to ascribe the things of man to God. For this were to mix wine with water, and to place upon the altar strange fire with that which is divine.

For God creates, and creating is also attributed to humans. God has being, and humans are said to exist, having received this gift from God. But does God create as humans do? Or is His being like human being? Absolutely not. We understand these terms in one sense when applied to God, and in another when applied to humans. For God creates by calling into being what does not exist, needing nothing to do so. But humans work with existing material, first praying and then receiving the skill to make things from God who has fashioned all things by His own Word. And again, humans, being incapable of existing on their own, are contained in place and exist by the Word of God. But God is self-existent, containing all things and contained by nothing. He is within all things according to His own goodness and power, yet outside all things in His own nature. Just as humans do not create as God creates, and their being is not like God's being, so human generation happens in one way, and the Son comes from the Father in another way. For human offspring are portions of their fathers, since the very nature of bodies is not simple but in flux and composed of parts. Men lose substance when they beget, and they gain substance again from food. For this reason, men in their time become fathers of many children. But God, being without parts, is Father of the Son without division or passion. For there is no flowing out of what is immaterial, nor flowing in from outside, as happens with humans. And being simple in nature, He is Father of the Only Son. This is why He is Only-begotten, and alone in the Father's bosom, and alone is acknowledged by the Father to be from Him, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (Matthew 3:17). And He is also the Father's Word, from which we can understand the impassible (free from passion) and impartitive (undivided) nature of the Father. Not even a human word is begotten with passion or division, much less the Word of God. Therefore He also sits, as Word, at the Father's right hand, for where the Father is, there also is His Word. But we, as His works, stand in judgment before Him. And while He is worshiped because He is Son of the adorable Father, we worship, confessing Him Lord and God, because we are creatures and different from Him.

11. For God creates, and to create is also ascribed to men; and God has being, and men are said to be, having received from God this gift also. Yet does God create as men do? Or is His being as man's being? Perish the thought; we understand the terms in one sense of God, and in another of men. For God creates, in that He calls what is not into being, needing nothing thereunto; but men work some existing material, first praying, and so gaining the wit to make, from that God who has framed all things by His proper Word. And again men, being incapable of self- existence, are enclosed in place, and consist in the Word of God; but God is self-existent, enclosing all things, and enclosed by none; within all according to His own goodness and power, yet without all in His proper nature. As then men create not as God creates, as their being is not such as God's being, so men's generation is in one way, and the Son is from the Father in another. For the offspring of men are portions of their fathers, since the very nature of bodies is not uncompounded, but in a state of flux, and composed of parts; and men lose their substance in begetting, and again they gain substance from the accession of food. And on this account men in their time become fathers of many children; but God, being without parts, is Father of the Son without partition or passion; for there is neither effluence of the Immaterial, nor influx from without, as among men; and being uncompounded in nature, He is Father of One Only Son. This is why He is Only-begotten, and alone in the Father's bosom, and alone is acknowledged by the Father to be from Him, saying, 'This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased Matthew 3:17.' And He too is the Father's Word, from which may be understood the impassible and impartitive nature of the Father, in that not even a human word is begotten with passion or partition, much less the Word of God. Wherefore also He sits, as Word, at the Father's right hand; for where the Father is, there also is His Word; but we, as His works, stand in judgment before Him; and, while He is adored, because He is Son of the adorable Father, we adore, confessing Him Lord and God, because we are creatures and other than He.

Given the situation, anyone who wishes may consider this matter so they might be put to shame by the following question: Is it right to say that what is God's offspring and belongs properly to Him came from nothing? Or is it reasonable in the very concept that a person should dare to say that the Son did not always exist, when what comes from God has come to Him? For in this respect too, the generation of the Son surpasses and goes beyond human thoughts: we become fathers of our own children in time, since we ourselves first did not exist and then came into being. But God, because He always exists, is always Father of the Son. We understand human origin from things that are similar to our experience. But since "no one knows the Son but the Father, and no one knows the Father but the Son, and he to whomever the Son will reveal Him," the sacred writers to whom the Son has revealed Him have given us a certain image from visible things, saying, "Who is the brightness of His glory, and the Expression of His Person," and again, "For with You is the well of life, and in Your light shall we see light." And when the Word rebukes Israel, He says, "You have forsaken the Fountain of wisdom," and this Fountain is the one who says, "They have forsaken Me the Fountain of living waters." This illustration is indeed poor and very dim compared to what we are seeking to understand, but it is still possible from it to grasp something above human nature, instead of thinking the Son's generation is on the same level as ours. For who can even imagine that the radiance of light ever did not exist, so that he would dare to say that the Son did not always exist, or that the Son did not exist before His generation? Or who is able to separate the radiance from the sun, or to conceive of the fountain as ever without life, that he should madly say, "The Son is from nothing," when He says, "I am the life," or that He is "alien to the Father's essence," when He says, "He that has seen Me, has seen the Father"? The sacred writers, wanting us to understand in this way, have given these illustrations. It is improper and most irreligious, when Scripture contains such images, to form ideas about our Lord from other sources which are neither in Scripture nor have any religious value.

12. The case being thus, let who will among them consider the matter, so that one may abash them by the following question; Is it right to say that what is God's offspring and proper to Him is out of nothing? Or is it reasonable in the very idea, that what is from God has accrued to Him, that a man should dare to say that the Son is not always? For in this again the generation of the Son exceeds and transcends the thoughts of man, that we become fathers of our own children in time, since we ourselves first were not and then came into being; but God, in that He ever is, is ever Father of the Son. And the origination of mankind is brought home to us from things that are parallel; but, since 'no one knows the Son but the Father, and no one knows the Father but the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him Matthew 11:27,' therefore the sacred writers to whom the Son has revealed Him, have given us a certain image from things visible, saying, 'Who is the brightness of His glory, and the Expression of His Person Hebrews 1:3;' and again, 'For with You is the well of life, and in Your light shall we see light;' and when the Word chides Israel, He says, 'You have forsaken the Fountain of wisdom Baruch 3:12;' and this Fountain it is which says, 'They have forsaken Me the Fountain of living waters.' And mean indeed and very dim is the illustration compared with what we desiderate; but yet it is possible from it to understand something above man's nature, instead of thinking the Son's generation to be on a level with ours. For who can even imagine that the radiance of light ever was not, so that he should dare to say that the Son was not always, or that the Son was not before His generation? Or who is capable of separating the radiance from the sun, or to conceive of the fountain as ever void of life, that he should madly say, 'The Son is from nothing,' who says, 'I am the life John 14:6,' or 'alien to the Father's essence,' who, says, 'He that has seen Me, has seen the Father?' for the sacred writers wishing us thus to understand, have given these illustrations; and it is unseemly and most irreligious, when Scripture contains such images, to form ideas concerning our Lord from others which are neither in Scripture, nor have any religious bearing.

Therefore let them tell us from what teacher or by what tradition they derived these ideas about the Savior. "We have read," they will say, "in the Proverbs, 'The Lord created me a beginning of His ways unto His works.'" Eusebius and his associates used to insist on this, and you write to tell me that the present men also, though overthrown and refuted by an abundance of arguments, still circulate this passage everywhere and say that the Son was one of the creatures, counting Him among things that had an origin. But they seem to me to misunderstand this passage as well, for it has a reverent and very orthodox sense, which had they understood it, they would not have blasphemed the Lord of glory. For by comparing what has been stated above with this passage, they will find a great difference between them. What person of sound understanding does not perceive that things created and made are external to the maker, but the Son, as the preceding argument has shown, exists not externally but from the Father who begot Him? For man too both builds a house and begets a son, and no one would reverse things and say that the house or the ship were begotten by the builder, but the son was created and made by him; nor again that the house was an image of the maker, but the son unlike him who begot him. Rather he will confess that the son is an image of the father, but the house a work of art, unless his mind is disordered and he is beside himself. Plainly, divine Scripture, which knows better than anyone the nature of everything, says through Moses concerning the creatures, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," but concerning the Son it introduces not another, but the Father Himself saying, "I have begotten You from the womb before the morning star," and again, "You are My Son, this day have I begotten You." And the Lord says of Himself in the Proverbs, "Before all the hills He begets me," and concerning things originated and created John speaks, "All things were made by Him," but preaching of the Lord, he says, "The Only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He declared Him." If then Son, therefore not creature; if creature, not Son. For great is the difference between them, and Son and creature cannot be the same, unless His essence be considered to be at once from God and external to God.

13. Therefore let them tell us, from what teacher or by what tradition they derived these notions concerning the Saviour? We have read, they will say, in the Proverbs, 'The Lord created me a beginning of His ways unto His works;' this Eusebius and his fellows used to insist on, and you write me word, that the present men also, though overthrown and confuted by an abundance of arguments, still were putting about in every quarter this passage, and saying that the Son was one of the creatures, and reckoning Him with things originated. But they seem to me to have a wrong understanding of this passage also; for it has a religious and very orthodox sense, which had they understood, they would not have blasphemed the Lord of glory. For on comparing what has been above stated with this passage, they will find a great difference between them. For what man of right understanding does not perceive, that what are created and made are external to the maker; but the Son, as the foregoing argument has shown, exists not externally, but from the Father who begot Him? For man too both builds a house and begets a son, and no one would reverse things, and say that the house or the ship were begotten by the builder, but the son was created and made by him; nor again that the house was an image of the maker, but the son unlike him who begot him; but rather he will confess that the son is an image of the father, but the house a work of art, unless his mind be disordered, and he beside himself. Plainly, divine Scripture, which knows better than any the nature of everything, says through Moses, of the creatures, 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth Genesis 1:1;' but of the Son it introduces not another, but the Father Himself saying, 'I have begotten You from the womb before the morning star;' and again, 'You are My Son, this day have I begotten You.' And the Lord says of Himself in the Proverbs, 'Before all the hills He begets me Proverbs 8:25;' and concerning things originated and created John speaks, 'All things were made by Him John 1:3;' but preaching of the Lord, he says, 'The Only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He declared Him.' If then son, therefore not creature; if creature, not son; for great is the difference between them, and son and creature cannot be the same, unless His essence be considered to be at once from God, and external to God.

Has this passage no meaning then? They keep buzzing this question around us like a swarm of gnats. It certainly has meaning, and a very fitting one. It is true to say that the Son was created too, but this happened when he became man, for creation belongs to man. Anyone can find this meaning clearly given in the divine Scriptures if, instead of treating their study as secondary, they investigate the time, the persons involved, and the purpose, and thus carefully study and ponder what they read. Regarding the time spoken of, they will certainly find that while the Lord always exists, eventually in the fullness of time he became man. And while he is Son of God, he also became Son of man. Regarding the purpose, they will understand that, wanting to cancel our death, he took a body from the Virgin Mary so that by offering it to the Father as a sacrifice for all, he might deliver all of us who through fear of death were subject to bondage all our lives. Regarding the person, it is indeed the Savior, but these words are said of him when he took a body and said, "The Lord created me a beginning of his ways for his works." For just as it properly belongs to God's Son to be everlasting and in the Father's bosom, so when he became man, the words "The Lord created me" were appropriate for him. These words are said of him just as it is said that he hungered, thirsted, asked where Lazarus lay, suffered, and rose again. And just as when we hear of him as Lord and God and true Light, we understand him as being from the Father, so when we hear "The Lord created," and "Servant," and "He suffered," we should rightly attribute this not to the Godhead (for that would be inappropriate), but we must interpret it by reference to the flesh which he bore for our sake. These things properly belong to that flesh, and this flesh belonged to none other than the Word. And if we want to know the purpose achieved by this, we will find it to be as follows: the Word was made flesh in order to offer up this body for all, and so that we, by partaking of his Spirit, might be deified—a gift we could not otherwise have received except by his clothing himself in our created body. From this we get our title as people of God and people in Christ. But just as we, by receiving the Spirit, do not lose our own proper substance, so the Lord, when made man for us and bearing a body, was no less God. He was not diminished by being wrapped in the body; rather, he deified it and made it immortal.

14. 'Has then the passage no meaning?' for this, like a swarm of gnats, they are droning about us. No surely, it is not without meaning, but has a very apposite one; for it is true to say that the Son was created too, but this took place when He became man; for creation belongs to man. And any one may find this sense duly given in the divine oracles, who, instead of accounting their study a secondary matter, investigates the time and characters, and the object, and thus studies and ponders what he reads. Now as to the season spoken of, he will find for certain that, whereas the Lord always is, at length in fullness of the ages He became man; and whereas He is Son of God, He became Son of man also. And as to the object he will understand, that, wishing to annul our death, He took on Himself a body from the Virgin Mary; that by offering this unto the Father a sacrifice for all, He might deliver us all, who by fear of death were all our life through subject to bondage. Hebrews 2:15 And as to the character, it is indeed the Saviour's, but is said of Him when He took a body and said, 'The Lord created me a beginning of His ways unto His works Proverbs 8:22.' For as it properly belongs to God's Son to be everlasting. and in the Father's bosom, so on His becoming man, the words befitted Him, 'The Lord created me.' For then it is said of Him, as also that He hungered, and thirsted, and asked where Lazarus lay, and suffered, and rose again. And as, when we hear of Him as Lord and God and true Light, we understand Him as being from the Father, so on hearing, 'The Lord created,' and 'Servant,' and 'He suffered,' we shall justly ascribe this, not to the Godhead, for it is irrelevant, but we must interpret it by that flesh which He bore for our sakes: for to it these things are proper, and this flesh was none other's than the Word's. And if we wish to know the object attained by this, we shall find it to be as follows: that the Word was made flesh in order to offer up this body for all, and that we partaking of His Spirit, might be deified, a gift which we could not otherwise have gained than by His clothing Himself in our created body, for hence we derive our name of men of God and men in Christ. But as we, by receiving the Spirit, do not lose our own proper substance, so the Lord, when made man for us, and bearing a body, was no less God; for He was not lessened by the envelopment of the body, but rather deified it and rendered it immortal.

This then is quite enough to expose the infamy of the Arian heresy, for as the Lord has granted, out of their own words irreligion is brought home to them. But come now and let us for our part go on the offensive and call on them for an answer. Now is a fair time, when their own ground has failed them, to question them on ours—perhaps it may shame the perverse and disclose to them from where they have fallen. We have learned from divine Scripture that the Son of God, as was said above, is the very Word and Wisdom of the Father. For the Apostle says, "Christ the power of God and the Wisdom of God" (1 Corinthians 1:24), and John, after saying "And the Word was made flesh," at once adds "And we saw His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth" (John 1:14), so that the Word being the Only-begotten Son, in this Word and in Wisdom heaven and earth and all that is in them were made. And we have learned from Baruch that God is the Fountain of this Wisdom, by Israel's being charged with having forsaken the Fountain of Wisdom. If then they deny Scripture, they are at once aliens to their name and may fitly be called by all men atheists and enemies of Christ, for they have brought these names upon themselves. But if they agree with us that the sayings of Scripture are divinely inspired, let them dare to say openly what they think in secret—that God was once wordless and wisdomless. And let them in their madness say "There was once when He was not" and "Before His generation, Christ was not," and again let them declare that the Fountain begot not Wisdom from itself but acquired it from without, until they have the daring to say "The Son came of nothing." From this it will follow that there is no longer a Fountain, but a sort of pool, as if receiving water from without and usurping the name of Fountain.

15. This then is quite enough to expose the infamy of the Arian heresy; for, as the Lord has granted, out of their own words is irreligion brought home to them. But come now and let us on our part act on the offensive, and call on them for an answer; for now is fair time, when their own ground has failed them, to question them on ours; perhaps it may abash the perverse, and disclose to them whence they have fallen. We have learned from divine Scripture, that the Son of God, as was said above, is the very Word and Wisdom of the Father. For the Apostle says, 'Christ the power of God and the Wisdom of God 1 Corinthians 1:24;' and John after saying, 'And the Word was made flesh,' at once adds, 'And we saw His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth John 1:14,' so that, the Word being the Only-begotten Son, in this Word and in Wisdom heaven and earth and all that is therein were made. And of this Wisdom that God is Fountain we have learned from Baruch, by Israel's being charged with having forsaken the Fountain of Wisdom. If then they deny Scripture, they are at once aliens to their name, and may fitly be called of all men atheists, and Christ's enemies, for they have brought upon themselves these names. But if they agree with us that the sayings of Scripture are divinely inspired, let them dare to say openly what they think in secret that God was once wordless and wisdomless; and let them in their madness say, 'There was once when He was not,' and, 'before His generation, Christ was not;' and again let them declare that the Fountain begot not Wisdom from itself, but acquired it from without, till they have the daring to say, 'The Son came of nothing;' whence it will follow that there is no longer a Fountain, but a sort of pool, as if receiving water from without, and usurping the name of Fountain.

I think anyone with even a little understanding can see how full of false teaching this is. But since they keep muttering that Word and Wisdom are just names of the Son, we must ask them: If these are only names of the Son, He must be something else besides them. And if He is higher than the names, it is not right to use lesser terms to refer to the higher; but if He is less than the names, then He surely must have within Him the basis for this more honorable title, which implies His advancement—a false teaching just as bad as anything that came before. For the One who is in the Father, and in whom the Father also is, who says "I and the Father are one," whom whoever has seen has seen the Father—to say that He has been elevated by anything external is the height of madness. However, when they are defeated on this point and, like Eusebius and his followers, are in desperate straits, they have one remaining argument left. Arius also invented this in his songs and in his own Thalia as a new difficulty: "God speaks many words; which one of these should we call Son and Word, the Only-begotten of the Father?" Foolish people, anything but Christians! For first, by using such language about God, they imagine Him almost as a human being, speaking and reversing His first words by His second words, as if one Word from God were not enough for creating all things according to the Father's will and for His providential care of all. For His speaking many words would suggest a weakness in all of them, each needing the help of the other. But the fact that God has one Word, which is the true teaching, demonstrates both the power of God and the perfection of the Word who comes from Him, and the faithful understanding of those who believe this way.

16. How full of irreligion this is, I consider none can doubt who has ever so little understanding. But since they mutter something about Word and Wisdom being only names of the Son, we must ask then, If these are only names of the Son, He must be something else beside them. And if He is higher than the names, it is not lawful from the lesser to denote the higher; but if He be less than the names, yet He surely must have in Him the principle of this more honourable appellation; and this implies his advance, which is an irreligion equal to anything that has gone before. For He who is in the Father, and in whom also the Father is, who says, 'I and the Father are one John 10:30,' whom he that has seen, has seen the Father, to say that He has been exalted by anything external, is the extreme of madness. However, when they are beaten hence, and like Eusebius and his fellows, are in these great straits, then they have this remaining plea, which Arius too in ballads, and in his own Thalia, fabled, as a new difficulty: 'Many words speaks God; which then of these are we to call Son and Word, Only-begotten of the Father?' Insensate, and anything but Christians! For first, on using such language about God, they conceive of Him almost as a man, speaking and reversing His first words by His second, just as if one Word from God were not sufficient for the framing of all things at the Father's will, and for His providential care of all. For His speaking many words would argue a feebleness in them all, each needing the service of the other. But that God should have one Word, which is the true doctrine, both shows the power of God, and the perfection of the Word that is from Him, and the religious understanding of them who thus believe.

If only they would agree to acknowledge the truth from their own statement! For if they admit that God produces words, they clearly recognize Him as a Father. And having acknowledged this, let them consider that when they refuse to attribute one Word to God, they are imagining that He is Father of many. And when they refuse to say that there is no Word of God at all, yet they do not confess that He is the Son of God—which shows ignorance of the truth and unfamiliarity with divine Scripture. For if God is Father of a word at all, why is the one who is begotten not a Son? And again, who should be Son of God except His Word? For there are not many words, or each would be imperfect, but the Word is one, so that He alone may be perfect, and because God is one, His Image too must be one, which is the Son. For the Son of God, as can be learned from the divine oracles themselves, is Himself the Word of God, and the Wisdom, and the Image, and the Hand, and the Power. For God's offspring is one, and these titles are signs of the generation from the Father. For if you say the Son, you have declared what is from the Father by nature. And if you think of the Word, you are thinking again of what is from Him and what is inseparable. And speaking of Wisdom, again you mean exactly the same thing—what is not from outside, but from Him and in Him. And if you name the Power and the Hand, again you speak of what is proper to essence. And speaking of the Image, you signify the Son, for what else is like God but the offspring from Him? Certainly the things that came to be through the Word are founded in Wisdom, and what are founded in Wisdom are all made by the Hand and came to be through the Son. And we have proof of this, not from external sources, but from the Scriptures. For God Himself says through Isaiah the Prophet, "My hand also has laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand has spanned the heavens." And again, "And I will cover you in the shadow of My Hand, by which I planted the heavens and laid the foundations of the earth." And David, being taught this and knowing that the Lord's Hand was nothing other than Wisdom, says in the Psalm, "In wisdom have You made them all; the earth is full of Your creation." Solomon also received the same from God and said, "The Lord by wisdom founded the earth." And John, knowing that the Word was the Hand and the Wisdom, preached this: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; the same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made." And the Apostle, seeing that the Hand and the Wisdom and the Word was nothing other than the Son, says, "God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the Fathers by the Prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed Heir of all things, by whom also He made the ages." And again, "There is one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through Him." And knowing also that the Word, the Wisdom, the Son Himself was the Image of the Father, he says in the Epistle to the Colossians, "Giving thanks to God and the Father, who has made us fit to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light, who has delivered us from the power of darkness and has transferred us into the kingdom of His dear Son, in whom we have redemption, even the forgiveness of sins; who is the Image of the Invisible God, the Firstborn of every creature. For by Him were all things created that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created by Him and for Him, and He is before all things, and in Him all things consist." For just as all things are created by the Word, so, because He is the Image, they are also created in Him. And in this way anyone who directs his thoughts to the Lord will avoid stumbling upon the stone of offense, but will instead move forward to the brightness in the light of truth. For this is truly the doctrine of truth, though these contentious men burst with spite, being neither reverent toward God nor ashamed at their refutation.

17. O that they would consent to confess the truth from this their own statement! For if they once grant that God produces words, they plainly know Him to be a Father; and acknowledging this, let them consider that, while they are loth to ascribe one Word to God, they are imagining that He is Father of many; and while they are loth to say that there is no Word of God at all, yet they do not confess that He is the Son of God — which is ignorance of the truth, and inexperience in divine Scripture. For if God is Father of a word at all, wherefore is not He that is begotten a Son? And again, who should be Son of God, but His Word? For there are not many words, or each would be imperfect, but one is the Word, that He only may be perfect, and because, God being one, His Image too must be one, which is the Son. For the Son of God, as may be learned from the divine oracles themselves, is Himself the Word of God, and the Wisdom, and the Image, and the Hand, and the Power; for God's offspring is one, and of the generation from the Father these titles are tokens. For if you say the Son, you have declared what is from the Father by nature; and if you think of the Word, you are thinking again of what is from Him, and what is inseparable; and, speaking of Wisdom, again you mean just as much, what is not from without, but from Him and in Him; and if you name the Power and the Hand, again you speak of what is proper to essence; and, speaking of the Image, you signify the Son; for what else is like God but the offspring from Him? Doubtless the things, which came to be through the Word, these are 'founded in Wisdom' and what are 'founded in Wisdom,' these are all made by the Hand, and came to be through the Son. And we have proof of this, not from external sources, but from the Scriptures; for God Himself says by Isaiah the Prophet; 'My hand also has laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand has spanned the heavens Isaiah 48:13.' And again, 'And I will cover you in the shadow of My Hand, by which I planted the heavens, and laid the foundations of the earth Isaiah 51:16.' And David being taught this, and knowing that the Lord's Hand was nothing else than Wisdom, says in the Psalm, 'In wisdom have You made them all; the earth is full of Your creation.' Solomon also received the same from God, and said, 'The Lord by wisdom founded the earth Proverbs 3:19,' and John, knowing that the Word was the Hand and the Wisdom, thus preached, 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; the same was in the beginning with God: all things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made John 1:1-3.' And the Apostle, seeing that the Hand and the Wisdom and the Word was nothing else than the Son, says, ' God, who at sundry times and in various manners spoke in time past unto the Fathers by the Prophets, has in these last days spoken unto us by His Son, whom He has appointed Heir of all things, by whom also He made the ages Hebrews 1:1-2.' And again, 'There is one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through Him 1 Corinthians 8:6.' And knowing also that the Word, the Wisdom, the Son Himself was the Image of the Father, he says in the Epistle to the Colossians, 'Giving thanks to God and the Father, which has made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light, who has delivered us from the power of darkness, and has translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son; in whom we have redemption, even the remission of sins; who is the Image of the Invisible God, the First-born of every creature; for by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions or principalities or powers; all things were created by Him and for Him; and He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.' For as all things are created by the Word, so, because He is the Image, are they also created in Him. And thus anyone who directs his thoughts to the Lord, will avoid stumbling upon the stone of offense, but rather will go forward to the brightness in the light of truth; for this is really the doctrine of truth, though these contentious men burst with spite, neither religious toward God, nor abashed at their confutation.

Now Eusebius and his followers were thoroughly examined during that earlier period and, as I said before, convicted themselves. After this, they signed the confession, and following this change of position they remained quiet and withdrew. But since the current group, in their renewed arrogance of irreligion and their confusion about the truth, are determined to accuse the Council, let them tell us from what Scriptures they have learned, or which saint has taught them, to pile up the phrases "out of nothing," "He was not before His generation," "once He was not," "alterable," "pre-existence," and "at the will"—which are their fabrications mocking the Lord. For the blessed Paul in his Epistle to the Hebrews says, "By faith we understand that the ages were framed by the Word of God, so that that which is seen was not made of things which do appear." But nothing is shared between the Word and the ages, for He is the one who exists before the ages, through whom the ages themselves came to be. And in the Shepherd it is written (since they also cite this book, though it is not part of the Canon), "First of all believe, that God is one, who created all things, and arranged them, and brought all things from nothing into being." But this again does not refer to the Son, for it speaks about all things that came to be through Him, from whom He is distinct. For it is impossible to count the Framer of all things among the things made by Him, unless a person is so out of his mind as to say that the architect is the same as the buildings he constructs.

18. Now Eusebius and his fellows were at the former period examined at great length, and convicted themselves, as I said before; on this they subscribed; and after this change of mind they kept in quiet and retirement; but since the present party, in the fresh arrogance of irreligion, and in dizziness about the truth, are full set upon accusing the Council, let them tell us what are the sort of Scriptures from which they have learned, or who is the Saint by whom they have been taught, that they have heaped together the phrases, 'out of nothing,' and 'He was not before His generation,' and 'once He was not,' and 'alterable,' and 'pre- existence,' and 'at the will.' which are their fables in mockery of the Lord. For the blessed Paul in his Epistle to the Hebrews says, 'By faith we understand that the ages were framed by the Word of God, so that that which is seen was not made of things which do appear Hebrews 11:3.' But nothing is common to the Word with the ages; for He it is who is in existence before the ages, by whom also the ages came to be. And in the Shepherd it is written (since they allege this book also, though it is not of the Canon), 'First of all believe, that God is one, who created all things, and arranged them, and brought all things from nothing into being;' but this again does not relate to the Son, for it speaks concerning all things which came to be through Him, from whom He is distinct; for it is not possible to reckon the Framer of all with the things made by Him, unless a man is so beside himself as to say that the architect also is the same as the buildings which he rears.

Why then, when they have invented unscriptural phrases on their part for the purposes of irreligion, do they accuse those who use them religiously? For irreligion is utterly forbidden, even if someone attempts to disguise it with clever expressions and persuasive arguments. But true religion is acknowledged by all to be lawful, even when presented in unfamiliar phrases, as long as they are used with a religious intention and a desire to make them express religious truths. Now the degraded phrases of Christ's enemies mentioned above have been shown in these remarks to be completely full of irreligion, both in the past and now. But the definition of the Council against them, if carefully examined, will be found to be altogether a representation of the truth, especially if careful attention is paid to the occasion that gave rise to these expressions, which was reasonable and was as follows:

Why then, when they have invented on their part unscriptural phrases, for the purposes of irreligion, do they accuse those who are religious in their use of them? For irreligiousness is utterly forbidden, though it be attempted to disguise it with artful expressions and plausible sophisms; but religiousness is confessed by all to be lawful, even though presented in strange phrases, provided only they are used with a religious view, and a wish to make them the expression of religious thoughts. Now the aforesaid grovelling phrases of Christ's enemies have been shown in these remarks to be both formerly and now replete with irreligion; whereas the definition of the Council against them, if accurately examined, will be found to be altogether a representation of the truth, and especially if diligent attention be paid to the occasion which gave rise to these expressions, which was reasonable, and was as follows:–

The Council wanted to eliminate the irreligious phrases of the Ariansand to use instead the accepted words of Scripture, that the Son is not from nothing but 'from God,' and is 'Word' and 'Wisdom,' and not a creature or work, but a true offspring from the Father. However, Eusebius and his associates, driven by their deep-rooted false teaching, understood the phrase 'from God' as applying to us in the same way, as if in this respect the Word of God was no different from us. They argued this because it is written, 'There is one God, from whom all things' (1 Corinthians 8:6), and again, 'Old things have passed away, behold, all things have become new, and all things are from God' (2 Corinthians 5:17). But the Fathers, recognizing their deceit and the cunning of their irreligion, were compelled to express more clearly what 'from God' means. Therefore, they wrote 'from the essence (ousia) of God,' so that 'from God' would not be understood as applying equally and in the same way to both the Son and created things, but rather so that all other things would be recognized as creatures, while the Word alone is from the Father. For although all things are said to be from God, this does not mean the same thing as when we say the Son is from Him. Regarding creatures, 'of God' is said of them because they do not exist randomly or spontaneously, nor come to be by chance according to those philosophers who attribute them to the combination of atoms and elements of similar structure, nor as certain heretics speak of a distinct Creator, nor as others again say that all things were constituted by certain Angels. Rather, it means that (since God exists), all things were brought into being by Him, not existing before, through His Word. But as for the Word, since He is not a creature, He alone is both called and is 'from the Father.' To say that the Son is 'from the essence (ousia) of the Father' signifies this meaning, for this does not apply to anything created. Indeed, when Paul says that 'all things are from God,' he immediately adds, 'and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things' (1 Corinthians 8:6), in order to show everyone that the Son is distinct from all those things which came to be from God (for the things which came to be from God came to be through His Son), and that he had used his earlier words with reference to the world as created by God, not as if all things were from the Father in the same way the Son is. For other things are not like the Son, nor is the Word one among other things, for He is Lord and Creator of all. For this reason the Holy Council declared explicitly that He was of the essence (ousia) of the Father, so that we would believe the Word to be distinct from the nature of created things, being alone truly from God, and so that no loophole would be left for the irreligious. This, then, was the reason why the Council wrote 'of the essence (ousia).'

19. The Council wishing to do away with the irreligious phrases of the Arians, and to use instead the acknowledged words of the Scriptures, that the Son is not from nothing but 'from God,' and is 'Word' and 'Wisdom,' and not creature or work, but a proper offspring from the Father, Eusebius and his fellows, led by their inveterate heterodoxy, understood the phrase 'from God?' as belonging to us, as if in respect to it the Word of God differed nothing from us, and that because it is written, 'There is one God, from whom, all things 1 Corinthians 8:6;' and again, 'Old things are passed away, behold, all things have become new, and all things are from God 2 Corinthians 5:17.' But the Fathers, perceiving their craft and the cunning of their irreligion, were forced to express more distinctly the sense of the words 'from God.' Accordingly, they wrote 'from the essence of God,' in order that 'from God?' might not be considered common and equal in the Son and in things originate, but that all others might be acknowledged as creatures, and the Word alone as from the Father. For though all things be said to be from God, yet this is not in the sense in which the Son is from Him; for as to the creatures, 'of God?' is said of them on this account, in that they exist not at random or spontaneously, nor come to be by chance, according to those philosophers who refer them to the combination of atoms, and to elements of similar structure — nor as certain heretics speak of a distinct Framer — nor as others again say that the constitution of all things is from certain Angels;– but in that (whereas God is), it was by Him that all things were brought into being, not being before, through His Word; but as to the Word, since He is not a creature, He alone is both called and is 'from the Father.' and it is significant of this sense to say that the Son is 'from the essence of the Father,' for to nothing originate does this attach. In truth, when Paul says that 'all things are from God,' he immediately adds, 'and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things 1 Corinthians 8:6,' in order to show all men, that the Son is other than all these things which came to be from God (for the things which came to be from God, came to be through His Son); and that he had used his foregoing words with reference to the world as framed by God, and not as if all things were from the Father as the Son is. For neither are other things as the Son, nor is the Word one among others, for He is Lord and Framer of all; and on this account did the Holy Council declare expressly that He was of the essence of the Father, that we might believe the Word to be other than the nature of things originate, being alone truly from God; and that no subterfuge should be left open to the irreligious. This then was the reason why the Council wrote 'of the essence.'

When the bishops stated that the Word must be described as the true Power and Image of the Father, in all things exact and like the Father, and as unalterable, and as always existing, and as in Him without division (for the Word never was not, but always existed eternally with the Father, as radiance exists with light), Eusebius and his followers reluctantly accepted this, not daring to contradict because they were put to shame by the arguments presented against them. However, they were caught whispering to each other and winking, suggesting that "like," "always," "power," and "in Him" were, as before, common to both us and the Son, and that agreeing to these terms posed no difficulty. Regarding "like," they said it is written of us, "Man is the image and glory of God" (1 Corinthians 11:7). For "always," it is written, "For we which live are always" (2 Corinthians 4:11). For "in Him," "In Him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28). For "unalterable," it is written, "Nothing shall separate us from the love of Christ." As to "power," the caterpillar and locust are called "power" and "great power" (Joel 2:25), and it is often said of the people, for instance, "All the power of the Lord came out of the land of Egypt" (Exodus 12:41). There are also others, heavenly ones, for Scripture says, "The Lord of powers is with us, the God of Jacob is our refuge." Indeed, Asterius, called the sophist, had written the same thing, having learned it from them, and before him Arius had also learned it, as has been said. But the bishops, recognizing their deceit in this as well—and since it is written, "Deceit is in the heart of the irreligious that imagine evil" (Proverbs 12:20)—were again compelled to gather the sense of the Scriptures and to restate and rewrite what they had said before, more clearly still, namely, that the Son is homoousios with the Father. This was meant to signify that the Son was from the Father, and not merely like Him, but the same in likeness, and to show that the Son's likeness and unalterability were different from the kind of copy of the same that is attributed to us, which we acquire from virtue based on observing the commandments. For bodies that are like each other can be separated and become distant from each other, as are human sons in relation to their parents (as it is written concerning Adam and Seth, who was begotten of him, that he was like him after his own pattern, Genesis 5:3). But since the generation of the Son from the Father is not according to the nature of men, and is not only like but also inseparable from the ousia of the Father, and He and the Father are one, as He Himself has said, and the Word is ever in the Father and the Father in the Word, as radiance stands toward light (for the phrase itself indicates this), therefore the Council, understanding this, appropriately wrote homoousios, so that they might both defeat the perverseness of the heretics and show that the Word was other than originated things. For after writing this, they immediately added, "But they who say that the Son of God is from nothing, or created, or alterable, or a work, or from other ousia, these the Holy Catholic Church anathematizes." By saying this, they showed clearly that "of the ousia" and homoousios are destructive of those catchwords of irreligion, such as "created," "work," "originated," "alterable," and "He was not before His generation." Whoever holds these contradicts the Council, but whoever does not hold with Arius must necessarily hold and intend the decisions of the Council, appropriately regarding them to signify the relation of radiance to light, and from this gaining the illustration of the truth.

20. Again, when the Bishops said that the Word must be described as the True Power and Image of the Father, in all things exact and like the Father, and as unalterable, and as always, and as in Him without division (for never was the Word not, but He was always, existing everlastingly with the Father, as the radiance of light), Eusebius and his fellows endured indeed, as not daring to contradict, being put to shame by the arguments which were urged against them; but withal they were caught whispering to each other and winking with their eyes, that 'like,' and 'always,' and 'power,' and 'in Him,' were, as before, common to us and the Son, and that it was no difficulty to agree to these. As to 'like,' they said that it is written of us, 'Man is the image and glory of God 1 Corinthians 11:7:' 'always,' that it was written, 'For we which live are always 2 Corinthians 4:11:' 'in Him,' 'In Him we live and move and have our being Acts 17:28:' 'unalterable,' that it is written, 'Nothing shall separate us from the love of Christ:' as to 'power,' that the caterpillar and the locust are called 'power' and 'great power Joel 2:25,' and that it is often said of the people, for instance, 'All the power of the Lord came out of the land of Egypt Exodus 12:41:' and there are others also, heavenly ones, for Scripture says, 'The Lord of powers is with us, the God of Jacob is our refuge.' Indeed Asterius, by title the sophist, had said the like in writing, having learned it from them, and before him Arius having learned it also, as has been said. But the Bishops discerning in this too their dissimulation, and whereas it is written, 'Deceit is in the heart of the irreligious that imagine evil Proverbs 12:20,' were again compelled on their part to collect the sense of the Scriptures, and to re-say and re-write what they had said before, more distinctly still, namely, that the Son is 'one in essence ' with the Father: by way of signifying, that the Son was from the Father, and not merely like, but the same in likeness, and of showing that the Son's likeness and unalterableness was different from such copy of the same as is ascribed to us, which we acquire from virtue on the ground of observance of the commandments. For bodies which are like each other may be separated and become at distances from each other, as are human sons relatively to their parents (as it is written concerning Adam and Seth, who was begotten of him that he was like him after his own pattern Genesis 5:3); but since the generation of the Son from the Father is not according to the nature of men, and not only like, but also inseparable from the essence of the Father, and He and the Father are one, as He has said Himself, and the Word is ever in the Father and the Father in the Word, as the radiance stands towards the light (for this the phrase itself indicates), therefore the Council, as understanding this, suitably wrote 'one in essence,' that they might both defeat the perverseness of the heretics, and show that the Word was other than originated things. For, after thus writing, they at once added, 'But they who say that the Son of God is from nothing, or created, or alterable, or a work, or from other essence, these the Holy Catholic Church anathematizes.' And by saying this, they showed clearly that 'of the essence,' and 'one in essence,' are destructive of those catchwords of irreligion, such as 'created,' and 'work,' and 'originated,' and 'alterable,' and 'He was not before His generation.' And he who holds these, contradicts the Council; but he who does not hold with Arius, must needs hold and intend the decisions of the Council, suitably regarding them to signify the relation of the radiance to the light, and from thence gaining the illustration of the truth.

Therefore, if they make the excuse—as others do—that these terms are strange, let them consider the meaning in which the Council wrote them. They should condemn what the Council condemned, and then, if they can, criticize the expressions. But I know well that if they accept the Council's meaning, they will fully accept the terms that convey it. However, if what they really want to complain about is the meaning itself, everyone can see that it is pointless for them to argue about the wording when they are merely looking for excuses for irreligion. This, then, was the reason for these expressions. But if they still complain that such terms are not scriptural, that very complaint is itself a reason why they should be rejected as speaking foolishly and having disordered minds. They should blame themselves in this matter, for they set the example by beginning their war against God with words not in Scripture. However, if anyone is interested in the question, let him know that even if the expressions are not found word for word in the Scriptures, yet, as was said before, they contain the sense of the Scriptures. By expressing that sense, they convey it to those whose hearing remains unimpaired for religious doctrine. Now this is something you should consider, and those poorly instructed men should pay attention to. It has been shown above and must be believed as true that the Word is from the Father, and is the only Offspring proper to Him and natural. For from where could one understand the Son to come—He who is the Wisdom and the Word in whom all things came to be—except from God Himself? However, the Scriptures also teach us this, since the Father says through David, "My heart uttered a good Word," and, "From the womb before the morning star I begot You." The Son indicates to the Jews about Himself, "If God were your Father, you would love Me; for I proceeded forth from the Father" (John 8:42). And again, "Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God—He has seen the Father." Moreover, "I and My Father are one," and "I in the Father and the Father in Me," is equivalent to saying, "I am from the Father and inseparable from Him." And John, in saying, "The Only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him," spoke of what he had learned from the Savior. Besides, what else does "in the bosom" indicate but the Son's genuine generation from the Father?

21. Therefore if they, as the others, make an excuse that the terms are strange, let them consider the sense in which the Council so wrote, and anathematize what the Council anathematized; and then if they can, let them find fault with the expressions. But I well know that, if they hold the sense of the Council, they will fully accept the terms in which it is conveyed; whereas if it be the sense which they wish to complain of, all must see that it is idle in them to discuss the wording, when they are but seeking handles for irreligion. This then was the reason of these expressions; but if they still complain that such are not scriptural, that very complaint is a reason why they should be cast out, as talking idly and disordered in mind. And let them blame themselves in this matter, for they set the example, beginning their war against God with words not in Scripture. However, if a person is interested in the question, let him know, that, even if the expressions are not in so many words in the Scriptures, yet, as was said before, they contain the sense of the Scriptures, and expressing it, they convey it to those who have their hearing unimpaired for religious doctrine. Now this circumstance it is for you to consider, and for those ill-instructed men to give ear to. It has been shown above, and must be believed as true, that the Word is from the Father, and the only Offspring proper to Him and natural. For whence may one conceive the Son to be, who is the Wisdom and the Word, in whom all things came to be, but from God Himself? However, the Scriptures also teach us this, since the Father says by David, 'My heart uttered a good Word,' and, 'From the womb before the morning star I begot You;' and the Son signifies to the Jews about Himself, 'If God were your Father, you would love Me; for I proceeded forth from the Father John 8:42.' And again; 'Not that anyone has seen the Father, save He which is from God, He has seen the Father.' And moreover, 'I and My Father are one,' and, 'I in the Father and the Father in Me,' is equivalent to saying, 'I am from the Father, and inseparable from Him.' And John in saying, 'The Only-begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him, ' spoke of what He had learned from the Saviour. Besides, what else does 'in the bosom' intimate, but the Son's genuine generation from the Father?

If someone thinks of God as composite—like an accident exists in an essence, or as having some external covering and being enclosed, or as if there is anything around Him that completes His essence, so that when we say "God" or name "Father" we do not signify the invisible and incomprehensible essence but something around it—then let them complain about the Council's statement that the Son was from the essence of God. But let them realize that in thinking this way they are uttering two blasphemies: they make God corporeal, and they falsely say that the Lord is not Son of the very Father but of what is around Him. But if God is simple, as He is, it follows that in saying "God" and naming "Father," we name nothing as if around Him, but signify His essence itself. For though it is impossible to comprehend what the essence of God is, yet if we only understand that God exists, and if Scripture indicates Him by means of these titles, we, with the intention of indicating Him and none other, call Him God and Father and Lord. When He says, "I am that I am," and "I am the Lord God," or when Scripture says "God," we understand nothing else by it except the indication of His incomprehensible essence itself, and that He who is spoken of exists. Therefore let no one be startled on hearing that the Son of God is from the essence of the Father; but rather let him accept the explanation of the Fathers, who in more explicit but equivalent language have written "of the essence" for "from God." For they considered it the same thing to say that the Word was "of God" and "of the essence of God," since the word "God," as I have already said, signifies nothing but the essence of Him who exists. If then the Word is not in such a sense from God as a son, genuine and natural, from a father, but only as creatures because they are made, and as "all things are from God," then He is not from the essence of the Father, nor is the Son again Son according to essence, but in consequence of virtue, as we who are called sons by grace. But if He alone is from God as a genuine Son, as He is, then the Son may reasonably be called from the essence of God.

22. If then any man conceives God to be compound, as accident is in essence, or to have any external envelopement, and to be encompassed, or as if there is anything about Him which completes the essence, so that when we say ' God,' or name 'Father,' we do not signify the invisible and incomprehensible essence, but something about it, then let them complain of the Council's stating that the Son was from the essence of God; but let them reflect, that in thus considering they utter two blasphemies; for they make God corporeal, and they falsely say that the Lord is not Son of the very Father, but of what is about Him. But if God be simple, as He is, it follows that in saying 'God' and naming 'Father,' we name nothing as if about Him, but signify his essence itself. For though to comprehend what the essence of God is be impossible, yet if we only understand that God is, and if Scripture indicates Him by means of these titles, we, with the intention of indicating Him and none else, call Him God and Father and Lord. When then He says, 'I am that I am,' and 'I am the Lord God Exodus 3:14-15,' or when Scripture says, ' God,' we understand nothing else by it but the intimation of His incomprehensible essence Itself, and that He Is, who is spoken of. Therefore let no one be startled on hearing that the Son of God is from the Essence of the Father; but rather let him accept the explanation of the Fathers, who in more explicit but equivalent language have for 'from God?' written 'of the essence.' For they considered it the same thing to say that the Word was 'of God?' and 'of the essence of God,' since the word ' God,' as I have already said, signifies nothing but the essence of Him Who Is. If then the Word is not in such sense from God, as a son, genuine and natural, from a father, but only as creatures because they are framed, and as 'all things are from God,' then neither is He from the essence of the Father, nor is the Son again Son according to essence, but in consequence of virtue, as we who are called sons by grace. But if He only is from God, as a genuine Son, as He is, then the Son may reasonably be called from the essence of God.

Again, the illustration of Light and Radiance has this meaning. For the saints have not said that the Word was related to God as fire kindled from the heat of the sun, which is commonly put out again, for this is an external work and a creature of its maker. Rather, they all preach of him as Radiance, in order to signify his being from the ousia, proper and indivisible, and his oneness with the Father. This will also secure his true unchangeableness and immutability, for how can these belong to him unless he is the proper offspring of the Father's ousia? For this too must be understood to confirm his identity with his own Father. Since our explanation has such a religious character, Christ's enemies should not be startled at the phrase one in ousia either, since this term also has a sound sense and good reasons. Indeed, if we say that the Word is from the ousia of God (for after what has been said, this must be a phrase they admit), what does this mean except the truth and eternity of the ousia from which he is begotten? For he is not different in kind, lest he be combined with the ousia of God as something foreign and unlike it. Nor is he merely like in outward appearance, lest he seem in some respect or wholly to be other in ousia, as brass shines like gold and silver like tin. For these are foreign and of a different nature, separated from each other in nature and qualities, nor is brass proper to gold, nor is the pigeon born from the dove. Though they are considered alike, yet they differ in ousia. If then it is thus with the Son, let him be a creature as we are and not one in ousia. But if the Son is Word, Wisdom, Image of the Father, Radiance, he must by all reason be one in ousia. For unless it is proved that he is not from God, but an instrument different in nature and different in ousia, surely the Council was sound in its doctrine and correct in its decree.

23. Again, the illustration of the Light and the Radiance has this meaning. For the Saints have not said that the Word was related to God as fire kindled from the heat of the sun, which is commonly put out again, for this is an external work and a creature of its author, but they all preach of Him as Radiance, thereby to signify His being from the essence, proper and indivisible, and His oneness with the Father. This also will secure His true unchangableness and immutability; for how can these be His, unless He be proper Offspring of the Father's essence? For this too must be taken to confirm His identity with His own Father. Our explanation then having so religious an aspect, Christ's enemies should not be startled at the 'One in essence,' either, since this term also has a sound sense and good reasons. Indeed, if we say that the Word is from the essence of God (for after what has been said this must be a phrase admitted by them), what does this mean but the truth and eternity of the essence from which He is begotten? For it is not different in kind, lest it be combined with the essence of God as something foreign and unlike it. Nor is He like only outwardly, lest He seem in some respect or wholly to be other in essence, as brass shines like gold and silver like tin. For these are foreign and of other nature, are separated off from each other in nature and virtues, nor is brass proper to gold, nor is the pigeon born from the dove; but though they are considered like, yet they differ in essence. If then it be thus with the Son, let Him be a creature as we are, and not One in essence; but if the Son is Word, Wisdom, Image of the Father, Radiance, He must in all reason be One in essence. For unless it be proved that He is not from God, but an instrument different in nature and different in essence, surely the Council was sound in its doctrine and correct in its decree.

Furthermore, let all physical comparisons be set aside in this matter. Rising above every sense-based imagination, let us grasp with pure understanding and mind alone the genuine relationship of son to father, the Word's proper relationship to God, and the unchanging likeness of the radiance to the light. Just as the words 'Offspring' and 'Son' carry, and are meant to carry, no human meaning but one appropriate to God, so also when we hear the phrase 'one in essence,' we must not fall back on human concepts and imagine partitions and divisions of the Godhead. Instead, directing our thoughts to immaterial realities, let us preserve undivided the oneness of nature and the identity of light. This is what is proper to a son in relation to a father, and in this is shown that God is truly Father of the Word. Here again, the illustration of light and its radiance is relevant. Who would dare to say that the radiance is unlike and foreign to the sun? Rather, who, considering the radiance in relation to the sun and the identity of the light, would not say with confidence, 'Truly the light and the radiance are one, and the one is revealed in the other, and the radiance is in the sun, so that whoever sees this, sees that also'? But such a oneness and natural property, what should those who believe and see correctly call it, except Offspring one in essence? And what should we appropriately and fittingly consider God's Offspring to be, except Word, and Wisdom, and Power? It would be a sin to say this was foreign to the Father, or a crime even to imagine it as anything other than eternally with Him. For through this Offspring the Father made all things and extends His Providence to all things; through Him He exercises His love for humanity, and thus He and the Father are one, as has been said. Unless indeed these perverse people make a fresh attempt and say that the ousia of the Word is not the same as the Light which is in Him from the Father, as if the Light in the Son were one with the Father, but He Himself foreign in ousia as being a creature. Yet this is simply the belief of Caiaphas and the Samosatene, which the Church cast out, but which these people are now disguising. By this they fell from the truth and were declared to be heretics. For if He partakes in fullness the light from the Father, why is He not rather that which others partake, so that no intermediary is introduced between Him and the Father? Otherwise, it is no longer clear that all things were generated by the Son, but by Him of whom He too partakes. And if this is the Word, the Wisdom of the Father, in whom the Father is revealed and known, and frames the world, and without whom the Father does nothing, evidently He is the one who is from the Father. For all created things partake of Him, as they partake of the Holy Spirit. And being such, He cannot be from nothing, nor a creature at all, but rather a proper Offspring from the Father, as the radiance from light.

24. Further, let every corporeal reference be banished on this subject; and transcending every imagination of sense, let us, with pure understanding and with mind alone, apprehend the genuine relation of son to father, and the Word's proper relation towards God, and the unvarying likeness of the radiance towards the light: for as the words 'Offspring' and 'Son' bear, and are meant to bear, no human sense, but one suitable to God, in like manner when we hear the phrase 'one in essence,' let us not fall upon human senses, and imagine partitions and divisions of the Godhead, but as having our thoughts directed to things immaterial, let us preserve undivided the oneness of nature and the identity of light; for this is proper to a son as regards a father, and in this is shown that God is truly Father of the Word. Here again, the illustration of light and its radiance is in point. Who will presume to say that the radiance is unlike and foreign to the sun? Rather who, thus considering the radiance relatively to the sun, and the identity of the light, would not say with confidence, 'Truly the light and the radiance are one, and the one is manifested in the other, and the radiance is in the sun, so that whoever sees this, sees that also?' but such a oneness and natural property, what should it be named by those who believe and see aright, but Offspring one in essence? And God's Offspring what should we fittingly and suitably consider, but Word, and Wisdom, and Power? Which it were a sin to say was foreign to the Father, or a crime even to imagine as other than with Him everlastingly. For by this Offspring the Father made all things, and extended His Providence unto all things; by Him He exercises His love to man, and thus He and the Father are one, as has been said; unless indeed these perverse men make a fresh attempt, and say that the essence of the Word is not the same as the Light which is in Him from the Father, as if the Light in the Son were one with the Father, but He Himself foreign in essence as being a creature. Yet this is simply the belief of Caiaphas and the Samosatene, which the Church cast out, but these now are disguising; and by this they fell from the truth, and were declared to be heretics. For if He partakes in fullness the light from the Father, why is He not rather that which others partake, that there be no medium introduced between Him and the Father? Otherwise, it is no longer clear that all things were generated by the Son, but by Him, of whom He too partakes. And if this is the Word, the Wisdom of the Father, in whom the Father is revealed and known, and frames the world, and without whom the Father does nothing, evidently He it is who is from the Father: for all things originated partake of Him, as partaking of the Holy Ghost. And being such, He cannot be from nothing, nor a creature at all, but rather a proper Offspring from the Father, as the radiance from light.

This is the meaning in which those who gathered at Nicaea used these expressions. But next, to prove that they did not invent these terms themselves (since this is one of their excuses), but rather spoke what they had received from their predecessors, let us proceed to demonstrate this as well, so as to remove even this excuse from them. Know then, O Arians, enemies of Christ, that Theognostus, a learned man, did not avoid the phrase 'of the ousia,' for in the second book of his Hypotyposes he writes the following about the Son:

25. This then is the sense in which they who met at Nicæa made use of these expressions. But next that they did not invent them for themselves (since this is one of their excuses), but spoke what they had received from their predecessors, proceed we to prove this also, to cut off even this excuse from them. Know then, O Arians, foes of Christ, that Theognostus, a learned man, did not decline the phrase 'of the essence,' for in the second book of his Hypotyposes, he writes thus of the Son: —

The essence of the Son is not something obtained from outside, nor does it come from nothing, but it originated from the Father's essence, like the radiance of light or the vapor of water. Neither the radiance nor the vapor is the water itself or the sun itself, nor is it alien to them; rather, it is an emanation of the Father's essence, which nonetheless suffers no division. Just as the sun remains unchanged and is not diminished by the rays it pours forth, so the Father's essence does not undergo change, even though it has the Son as an Image of Itself.

The essence of the Son is not one procured from without, nor accruing out of nothing, but it sprang from the Father's essence, as the radiance of light, as the vapour of water; for neither the radiance, nor the vapour, is the water itself or the sun itself, nor is it alien; but it is an effluence of the Father's essence, which, however, suffers no partition. For as the sun remains the same, and is not impaired by the rays poured forth by it, so neither does the Father's essence suffer change, though it has the Son as an Image of Itself.

Theognostus, after having previously investigated the matter by way of an exercise, proceeds to set forth his views in the words just quoted. Next, Dionysius, who was Bishop of Alexandria, wrote extensively against Sabellius, explaining in detail the Savior's economy (plan of salvation) according to the flesh. In doing so, he argued against the Sabellians that it was not the Father but His Word who became flesh, just as John said. Because of this, he was suspected of saying that the Son was something made and originated, and not one in ousia with the Father. Concerning this accusation, he wrote to his namesake Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, to defend himself by claiming that this was a slander against him. He assured him that he had not called the Son made, but rather confessed Him to be even one in ousia. His words were as follows:

Theognostus then, after previously investigating in the way of an exercise, proceeds to lay down his sentiments in the foregoing words. Next, Dionysius, who was Bishop of Alexandria, upon his writing against Sabellius and expounding at large the Saviour's Economy according to the flesh, and thence proving against the Sabellians that not the Father but His Word became flesh, as John has said, was suspected of saying that the Son as a thing made and originated, and not one in essence with the Father; on this he writes to his namesake Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, to allege in his defense that this was a slander upon him. And he assured him that he had not called the Son made, nay, did confess Him to be even one in essence. And his words ran thus:–

And I have written in another letter a refutation of the false charge they bring against me, that I deny that Christ was one in ousia with God. For though I say that I have not found this term anywhere in Holy Scripture, yet my remarks which follow, and which they have not noticed, are not inconsistent with that belief. For I used human birth as an example of being clearly of the same nature, and I pointed out that undeniably parents differed from their children only in not being the same individuals, otherwise there could be neither parents nor children. And my letter, as I said before, owing to present circumstances I am unable to produce; or I would have sent you the very words I used, or rather a copy of it all, which, if I have an opportunity, I will do still. But I am sure from memory that I used parallels of things related to each other; for instance, that a plant grown from seed or from root was different from that from which it sprang, yet was altogether one in nature with it: and that a stream flowing from a fountain gained a new name, for neither the fountain was called stream, nor the stream fountain, and both existed, and the stream was the water from the fountain

And I have written in another letter a refutation of the false charge they bring against me, that I deny that Christ was one in essence with God. For though I say that I have not found this term anywhere in Holy Scripture, yet my remarks which follow, and which they have not noticed, are not inconsistent with that belief. For I instanced human birth as being evidently homogeneous, and I observed that undeniably parents differed from their children only in not being the same individuals, otherwise there could be neither parents nor children. And my letter, as I said before, owing to present circumstances I am unable to produce; or I would have sent you the very words I used, or rather a copy of it all, which, if I have an opportunity, I will do still. But I am sure from recollection that I adduced parallels of things kindred with each other; for instance, that a plant grown from seed or from root, was other than that from which it sprang, yet was altogether one in nature with it: and that a stream flowing from a fountain, gained a new name, for that neither the fountain was called stream, nor the stream fountain, and both existed, and the stream was the water from the fountain

And to show that the Word of God is not a work or creature, but an offspring that properly belongs to the Father's ousia and is indivisible from it—as the great Council wrote—you can see this in the words of Dionysius, Bishop of Rome. While writing against the Sabellians, he strongly condemns those who dared to say otherwise:

26. And that the Word of God is not a work or creature, but an offspring proper to the Father's essence and indivisible, as the great Council wrote, here you may see in the words of Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, who, while writing against the Sabellians, thus inveighs against those who dared to say so:–

Now I may reasonably turn to those who divide and cut to pieces and destroy the most sacred doctrine of the Church of God, the Divine Monarchy, making it into three powers and divided subsistences and three godheads. I am told that some among you who are catechists and teachers of the Divine Word take the lead in this position, and they are completely opposed, so to speak, to Sabellius's opinions. For he blasphemously says that the Son is the Father and the Father the Son, but they in some way preach three Gods by dividing the sacred Monad into three subsistences that are foreign to each other and completely separate. For it must be that the Divine Word is united with the God of the Universe, and the Holy Spirit must rest and dwell in God. Thus in one person—as in a summit, I mean the God of the Universe—the Divine Triad must be gathered up and brought together. For it is the doctrine of the presumptuous Marcion to sever and divide the Divine Monarchy into three origins—a devil's teaching, not that of Christ's true disciples and lovers of the Savior's teachings. For they know well that a Triad is preached by divine Scripture, but that neither Old Testament nor New preaches three Gods. Equally, one must censure those who hold the Son to be a work and consider that the Lord came into being as one of the things that really came to be, whereas the divine oracles witness to a generation suitable to Him and fitting, but not to any fashioning or making. It is a blasphemy, then, not ordinary but even the highest, to say that the Lord is in any way a handiwork. For if He came to be Son, once He was not; but He was always, if He is in the Father, as He says Himself, and if the Christ is Word and Wisdom and Power (which, as you know, divine Scripture says), and these attributes are powers of God. If then the Son came into being, once these attributes were not; consequently there was a time when God was without them, which is most absurd. And why say more on these points to you, men full of the Spirit and well aware of the absurdities that come into view from saying that the Son is a work? Not paying attention, as I consider, to this point, the authors of this opinion have entirely missed the truth in explaining, contrary to the sense of divine and prophetic Scripture in the passage, the words, "The Lord created me a beginning of His ways unto His works." For the sense of "He created," as you know, is not single, for we must understand "He created" in this place as "He set over the works made by Him," that is, made by the Son Himself. And "He created" here must not be taken as "made," for creating differs from making. "Is not He your Father that has bought you? Has He not made you and created you?" says Moses in his great song in Deuteronomy. And one may say to them, O reckless men, is He a work who is "the Firstborn of every creature, who is born from the womb before the morning star," who said, as Wisdom, "Before all the hills He begets me"? And in many passages of the divine oracles the Son is said to have been generated, but nowhere to have come into being, which clearly convicts those of misconception about the Lord's generation who presume to call His divine and ineffable generation a making. Therefore we may neither divide the wonderful and divine Monad into three Godheads, nor disparage the dignity and exceeding majesty of the Lord with the name of "work," but we must believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Christ Jesus His Son, and in the Holy Spirit, and hold that the Word is united to the God of the universe. For "I," says He, "and the Father are one," and "I in the Father and the Father in Me." For thus both the Divine Triad and the holy preaching of the Monarchy will be preserved.

Next, I may reasonably turn to those who divide and cut to pieces and destroy that most sacred doctrine of the Church of God, the Divine Monarchy, making it as it were three powers and partitive subsistences and god-heads three. I am told that some among you who are catechists and teachers of the Divine Word, take the lead in this tenet, who are diametrically opposed, so to speak, to Sabellius's opinions; for he blasphemously says that the Son is the Father, and the Father the Son, but they in some sort preach three Gods, as dividing the sacred Monad into three subsistences foreign to each other and utterly separate. For it must needs be that with the God of the Universe, the Divine Word is united, and the Holy Ghost must repose and habitate in God; thus in one as in a summit, I mean the God of the Universe, must the Divine Triad be gathered up and brought together. For it is the doctrine of the presumptuous Marcion, to sever and divide the Divine Monarchy into three origins — a devil's teaching, not that of Christ's true disciples and lovers of the Saviour's lessons. For they know well that a Triad is preached by divine Scripture, but that neither Old Testament nor New preaches three Gods. Equally must one censure those who hold the Son to be a work, and consider that the Lord has come into being, as one of things which really came to be; whereas the divine oracles witness to a generation suitable to Him and becoming, but not to any fashioning or making. A blasphemy then is it, not ordinary, but even the highest, to say that the Lord is in any sort a handiwork. For if He came to be Son, once He was not; but He was always, if (that is) He be in the Father, as He says Himself, and if the Christ be Word and Wisdom and Power (which, as you know, divine Scripture says), and these attributes be powers of God. If then the Son came into being, once these attributes were not; consequently there was a time, when God was without them; which is most absurd. And why say more on these points to you, men full of the Spirit and well aware of the absurdities which come to view from saying that the Son is a work? Not attending, as I consider, to this circumstance, the authors of this opinion have entirely missed the truth, in explaining, contrary to the sense of divine and prophetic Scripture in the passage, the words, 'The Lord created me a beginning of His ways unto His works Proverbs 8:22.' For the sense of 'He created,' as you know, is not one, for we must understand 'He created' in this place, as 'He set over the works made by Him,' that is, 'made by the Son Himself.' And 'He created' here must not be taken for 'made,' for creating differs from making. 'Is not He your Father that has bought you? Has He not made you and created you Deuteronomy 32:6?'says Moses in his great song in Deuteronomy. And one may say to them, O reckless men, is He a work, who is 'the First-born of every creature, who is born from the womb before the morning star,' who said, as Wisdom, 'Before all the hills He begets me Proverbs 8:25?' And in many passages of the divine oracles is the Son said to have been generated, but nowhere to have come into being; which manifestly convicts those of misconception about the Lord's generation, who presume to call His divine and ineffable generation a making. Neither then may we divide into three Godheads the wonderful and divine Monad; nor disparage with the name of 'work' the dignity and exceeding majesty of the Lord; but we must believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Christ Jesus His Son, and in the Holy Ghost, and hold that to the God of the universe the Word is united. For 'I,' says He, 'and the Father are one;' and, 'I in the Father and the Father in Me.' For thus both the Divine Triad, and the holy preaching of the Monarchy, will be preserved.

And concerning the eternal co-existence of the Word with the Father, and that He is not of another ousia or hypostasis, but proper to the Father's, as the Bishops in the Council said, you may also hear from the hard-working Origen. For what he has written as if inquiring and by way of exercise, no one should take as expressing his own views, but rather the views of parties who are arguing in investigation. What he clearly declares, however, that is the opinion of this hard-working man. After his preliminary exercises (so to speak) against the heretics, he immediately introduces his personal belief, as follows:

27. And concerning the everlasting co-existence of the Word with the Father, and that He is not of another essence or subsistence, but proper to the Father's, as the Bishops in the Council said, you may hear again from the labour-loving Origen also. For what he has written as if inquiring and by way of exercise, that let no one take as expressive of his own sentiments, but of parties who are contending in investigation, but what he definitely declares, that is the sentiment of the labour-loving man. After his prolusions then (so to speak) against the heretics, straightway he introduces his personal belief, thus:–

If there exists an Image of the Invisible God, it must be an invisible Image. Indeed, I will be bold enough to add that, being the likeness of the Father, it never did not exist. For when was God, who according to John is called Light (for "God is Light"), ever without the radiance of His proper glory, such that anyone should dare to claim the Son began to exist, as if before that He did not exist? But when did that Image of the Father's Ineffable and Nameless and Unutterable hypostasis not exist—that Expression and Word, and He who knows the Father? For let anyone who dares to say "Once the Son was not" understand clearly that he is saying "Once Wisdom was not" and "Word was not" and "Life was not."

If there be an Image of the Invisible God, it is an invisible Image; nay, I will be bold to add, that, as being the likeness of the Father, never was it not. For when was that God, who, according to John, is called Light (for 'God is Light'), without a radiance of His proper glory, that a man should presume to assert the Son's origin of existence, as if before He was not? But when was not that Image of the Father's Ineffable and Nameless and Unutterable subsistence, that Expression and Word, and He that knows the Father? For let him understand well who dares to say, 'Once the Son was not,' that he is saying, 'Once Wisdom was not,' and 'Word was not,' and 'Life was not.'

And again in another place he says:

And again elsewhere he says:–

But it is neither innocent nor without danger if, because of our weak understanding, we deprive God—as far as it depends on us—of the Only-begotten Word who eternally co-exists with Him, and of the Wisdom in which He rejoiced; otherwise He must be understood as not always having possessed joy.

But it is not innocent nor without peril, if because of our weakness of understanding we deprive God, as far as in us lies, of the Only-begotten Word ever co-existing with Him; and the Wisdom in which He rejoiced; else He must be conceived as not always possessed of joy.

Look, we are proving that this view has been passed down from generation to generation; but you, O modern Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, how many earlier teachers can you claim for your expressions? Not one who is understanding and wise, for all reject you except the devil alone. Only he is your father in this apostasy, who both in the beginning planted in you the seed of this false religion, and now persuades you to slander the Ecumenical Council for writing down not your doctrines, but what those who were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word have handed down to us from the beginning. For the faith which the Council has confessed in writing is the faith of the Catholic Church. To assert this, the blessed Fathers expressed themselves in this way while condemning the Arian heresy, and this is a chief reason why these people apply themselves to slandering the Council. For it is not the terms themselves that trouble them, but the fact that those terms prove them to be heretics and more presumptuous than other heresies.

See, we are proving that this view has been transmitted from father to father; but you, O modern Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, how many fathers can you assign to your phrases? Not one of the understanding and wise; for all abhor you, but the devil alone; none but he is your father in this apostasy, who both in the beginning sowed you with the seed of this irreligion, and now persuades you to slander the Ecumenical Council, for committing to writing, not your doctrines, but that which from the beginning those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word have handed down to us. For the faith which the Council has confessed in writing, that is the faith of the Catholic Church; to assert this, the blessed Fathers so expressed themselves while condemning the Arian heresy; and this is a chief reason why these apply themselves to calumniate the Council. For it is not the terms which trouble them, but that those terms prove them to be heretics, and presumptuous beyond other heresies.

This, in fact, was the reason why, when the flawed nature of their statements had been exposed at that time and they were now openly liable to the charge of impiety, they went on to borrow from the Greeks the term Unoriginate. They did this so that, under cover of this term, they might classify the Word of God—through whom these very things came into existence—among originated things and creatures. So shameless are they in their impiety, so stubborn in their blasphemies against the Lord. If this lack of shame comes from ignorance of the term, they should have learned from those who gave it to them, who have not hesitated to say that even intellect, which they derive from the Good, and the soul which proceeds from intellect, though their respective origins are known, are nevertheless unoriginated. For they understand that by saying this they do not diminish that first Origin from which the others come. Since this is the case, let them say the same thing themselves, or else not speak at all about what they do not know. But if they think they are familiar with the subject, then they must be questioned. For the expression is not from divine Scripture, but they are arguing, as they do elsewhere, for unscriptural positions. Just as I have explained the reason and meaning with which the Council and the Fathers before it defined and published "of the ousia" and "one in ousia," in agreement with what Scripture says of the Savior, so now let them, if they can, answer for their part what has led them to this unscriptural phrase, and in what sense they call God Unoriginate. In truth, I am told that the name has different meanings. Philosophers say that it means, first, "what has not yet come to be, but may"; second, "what neither exists nor can come into being"; and third, "what exists indeed, but was neither originated nor had origin of being, but is everlasting and indestructible." Now perhaps they will want to pass over the first two meanings because of the absurdity that follows. For according to the first, things that have already come to be and things that are expected to come to be are unoriginated; and the second is even more absurd. Accordingly, they will proceed to the third meaning and use the word in that sense. Yet even here, in this sense too, their impiety will be just as great. For if by unoriginated they mean what has no origin of being, nor is originated or created, but eternal, and they say that the Word of God is the opposite of this, who does not comprehend the cunning of these enemies of God? Who would not stone such madmen? For when they are ashamed to bring forward again those first statements which they invented and which were condemned, the wretches have found another way to convey them, by means of what they call unoriginate. For if the Son belongs to originated things, it follows that He too came to be from nothing; and if He has an origin of being, then He did not exist before His generation; and if He is not eternal, there was once when He was not.

28. This in fact was the reason, when the unsound nature of their phrases had been exposed at that time, and they were henceforth open to the charge of irreligion, that they proceeded to borrow of the Greeks the term Unoriginate, that, under shelter of it, they might reckon among the things originated and the creatures, that Word of God, by whom these very things came to be; so unblushing are they in their irreligion, so obstinate in their blasphemies against the Lord. If then this want of shame arises from ignorance of the term, they ought to have learned of those who gave it them, and who have not scrupled to say that even intellect, which they derive from Good, and the soul which proceeds from intellect, though their respective origins be known, are notwithstanding unoriginated, for they understand that by so saying they do not disparage that first Origin of which the others come. This being the case, let them say the like themselves, or else not speak at all of what they do not know. But if they consider they are acquainted with the subject, then they must be interrogated; for the expression is not from divine Scripture, but they are contentious, as elsewhere, for unscriptural positions. Just as I have related the reason and sense, with which the Council and the Fathers before it defined and published 'of the essence,' and 'one in essence,' agreeably to what Scripture says of the Saviour; so now let them, if they can, answer on their part what has led them to this unscriptural phrase, and in what sense they call God Unoriginated? In truth, I am told, that the name has different senses; philosophers say that it means, first 'what has not yet, but may, come to be;' next, 'what neither exists, nor can come into being;' and thirdly, 'what exists indeed, but was neither originated nor had origin of being, but is everlasting and indestructible.' Now perhaps they will wish to pass over the first two senses, from the absurdity which follows; for according to the first, things that already have come to be, and things that are expected to come to be, are unoriginated; and the second is more absurd still; accordingly they will proceed to the third sense, and use the word in it; though here, in this sense too, their irreligion will be quite as great. For if by unoriginated they mean what has no origin of being, nor is originated or created, but eternal, and say that the Word of God is contrary to this, who comprehends not the craft of these foes of God? Who but would stone such madmen? For, when they are ashamed to bring forward again those first phrases which they fabled, and which were condemned, the wretches have taken another way to signify them, by means of what they call unoriginate. For if the Son be of things originate, it follows, that He too came to be from nothing; and if He has an origin of being, then He was not before His generation; and if He is not eternal, there was once when He was not.

If these are their beliefs, they ought to express their heretical views in their own words and not hide their wickedness behind the term Unoriginate. But instead, these evil-minded men do everything with cunning, just like their father, the devil. For just as he tries to deceive by disguising himself as others, so these have introduced the term Unoriginate so that they might appear to speak reverently about God, while secretly harboring blasphemy against the Lord and teaching it to others under cover. However, once this deception is exposed, what is left to them? "We have found another explanation," say these evildoers, and then they go on to add to what they have already said—that Unoriginate means what has no author of being but itself stands in this relation to things that have originated. How ungrateful, and truly deaf to the Scriptures! They do everything and say everything not to honor God but to dishonor the Son, ignorant that whoever dishonors the Son dishonors the Father. For first, even if they describe God in this way, the Word is still not proven to be among originated things. For again, since He is an offspring of the Father's ousia, He is consequently eternal with Him. For this name "offspring" does not detract from the nature of the Word, nor does Unoriginated take its meaning from contrast with the Son, but with the things that come to be through the Son. Just as someone who addresses an architect and calls him the builder of a house or city does not by this title refer to the son begotten from him, but on account of the skill and knowledge he displays in his work calls him an artificer—meaning by this that he is not like the things he has made—and while knowing the nature of the builder, also knows that the one he begets is different from his works, and calls him father in regard to his son but creator and maker in regard to his works—in the same way, anyone who says in this sense that God is Unoriginate names Him from His works, signifying not only that He is not originated but that He is the maker of things that are originated. Yet this person knows at the same time that the Word is different from originated things and is the unique proper offspring of the Father, through whom all things came to be and hold together.

29. If these are their sentiments they ought to signify their heterodoxy in their own phrases, and not to hide their perverseness under the cloke of the Unoriginate. But instead of this, the evil-minded men do all things with craftiness like their father, the devil; for as he attempts to deceive in the guise of others, so these have broached the term Unoriginate, that they might pretend to speak piously of God, yet might cherish a concealed blasphemy against the Lord, and under a veil might teach it to others. However, on the detecting of this sophism, what remains to them? 'We have found another,' say the evildoers; and then proceed to add to what they have said already, that Unoriginate means what has no author of being, but stands itself in this relation to things originated. Unthankful, and in truth deaf to the Scriptures! Who do everything, and say everything, not to honour God, but to dishonour the Son, ignorant that he who dishonours the Son, dishonours the Father. For first, even though they denote God in this way, still the Word is not proved to be of things originated. For again, as being an offspring of the essence of the Father, He is of consequence with Him eternally. For this name of offspring does not detract from the nature of the Word, nor does Unoriginated take its sense from contrast with the Son, but with the things which come to be through the Son; and as he who addresses an architect, and calls him framer of house or city, does not under this designation allude to the son who is begotten from him, but on account of the art and science which he displays in his work, calls him artificer, signifying thereby that he is not such as the things made by him, and while he knows the nature of the builder, knows also that he whom he begets is other than his works; and in regard to his son calls him father, but in regard to his works, creator and maker; in like manner he who says in this sense that God is unoriginate, names Him from His works, signifying, not only that He is not originated, but that He is maker of things which are so; yet is aware withal that the Word is other than the things originate, and alone a proper offspring of the Father, through whom all things came to be and consist.

In the same way, when the Prophets spoke of God as All-ruling, they did not give Him that name as if the Word were included in that "All." For they knew that the Son was distinct from created things and was Himself Sovereign over them, according to His likeness to the Father. Rather, they called Him this because He rules over all things which He made through the Son, and has given authority over all things to the Son, and having given it, is Himself once more Lord of all things through the Word. Again, when they called God Lord of the powers, they did not say this as if the Word were one of those powers, but because while He is Father of the Son, He is Lord of the powers which have come into being through the Son. For the Word too, being in the Father, is Lord of them all and Sovereign over all, for all things that the Father has belong to the Son. This being the meaning of such titles, in the same way let someone call God unoriginated, if he wishes, but not as if the Word were among originated things. Rather, as I said before, God is not only unoriginated but through His own Word is the maker of things that are originated. For even though the Father is called this, the Word is still the Father's Image and one in ousia with Him. And being His Image, He must be distinct from originated things and from everything else, for He has the property and likeness of the One whose Image He is. So whoever calls the Father unoriginated and almighty perceives in the Unoriginated and the Almighty His Word and His Wisdom, which is the Son. But these people, so ready for irreligion, latched onto the term "Unoriginated" not because they care about God's honor, but from malice toward the Savior. For if they had any regard for honor and reverent language, it would have been right and good to acknowledge and call God Father rather than to give Him this name. For in calling God unoriginated, they are, as I said before, naming Him in relation to things that came into being, and merely as a Maker, so that they can imply the Word is a work according to their own wishes. But whoever calls God Father signifies His Son as well, and cannot fail to know that, since there is a Son, all things that came into being were created through this Son.

30. In like manner, when the Prophets spoke of God as All-ruling, they did not so name Him, as if the Word were included in that All; (for they knew that the Son was other than things originated, and Sovereign over them Himself, according to His likeness to the Father); but because He is Ruler over all things which through the Son He has made, and has given the authority of all things to the Son, and having given it, is Himself once more the Lord of all things through the Word. Again, when they called God, Lord of the powers, they said not this as if the Word was one of those powers, but because while He is Father of the Son, He is Lord of the powers which through the Son have come to be. For again, the Word too, as being in the Father, is Lord of them all, and Sovereign over all; for all things, whatsoever the Father has, are the Son's. This then being the force of such titles, in like manner let a man call God unoriginated, if it so please him; not however as if the Word were of originated things, but because, as I said before, God not only is not originated, but through His proper Word is He the maker of things which are so. For though the Father be called such, still the Word is the Father's Image, and one in essence with Him; and being His Image, He must be distinct from things originated, and from everything; for whose Image He is, His property and likeness He has: so that he who calls the Father unoriginated and almighty, perceives in the Unoriginated and the Almighty, His Word and His Wisdom, which is the Son. But these wondrous men, and prompt for irreligion, hit upon the term Unoriginated, not as caring for God's honour, but from malevolence towards the Saviour; for if they had regard to honour and reverent language, it rather had been right and good to acknowledge and to call God Father, than to give Him this name; for in calling God unoriginated, they are, as I said before, calling Him from things which came to be, and as a Maker only, that so they may imply the Word to be a work after their own pleasure; but he who calls God Father, in Him withal signifies His Son also, and cannot fail to know that, whereas there is a Son, through this Son all things that came to be were created.

Therefore it will be much more accurate to identify God from the Son and call Him Father, than to name and call Him Unoriginated based only on His works. The latter term refers to the works that have come into being by God's will through the Word, but the name Father points to the proper offspring from His ousia. And just as the Word surpasses created things, by that much and more does calling God Father surpass calling Him Unoriginated. The latter is non-scriptural and suspicious, since it has various meanings, but the former is simple and scriptural, and more accurate, and alone implies the Son. "Unoriginated" is a word of the Greeks who do not know the Son, but "Father" has been acknowledged and granted by our Lord. For He, knowing whose Son He was, said, "I in the Father and the Father in Me," and "He that has seen Me has seen the Father," and "I and the Father are one." But nowhere is He found calling the Father Unoriginated. Moreover, when He teaches us to pray, He does not say, "When you pray, say, O God Unoriginated," but rather, "When you pray, say, Our Father, which art in heaven." And it was His will that the summary of our faith should have the same character. For He has commanded us to be baptized, not in the name of Unoriginate and Originate, not into the name of Uncreate and Creature, but into the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, for with such an initiation we too are made sons truly, and using the name of the Father, we acknowledge from that name the Word in the Father. But if He wills that we should call His own Father our Father, we must not on that account measure ourselves with the Son according to nature, for it is because of the Son that the Father is so called by us. For since the Word bore our body and came to be in us, therefore by reason of the Word in us, God is called our Father. For the Spirit of the Word in us names through us His own Father as ours, which is the Apostle's meaning when he says, "God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father."

31. Therefore it will be much more accurate to denote God from the Son and to call Him Father, than to name Him and call Him Unoriginated from His works only; for the latter term refers to the works that have come to be at the will of God through the Word, but the name of Father points out the proper offspring from His essence. And whereas the Word surpasses things originated, by so much and more also does calling God Father surpass the calling Him Unoriginated; for the latter is non-scriptural and suspicious, as it has various senses; but the former is simple and scriptural, and more accurate, and alone implies the Son. And 'Unoriginated' is a word of the Greeks who know not the Son: but 'Father' has been acknowledged and vouchsafed by our Lord; for He knowing Himself whose Son He was, said, 'I in the Father and the Father in Me John 14:9-10;' and, 'He that has seen Me has seen the Father.' and, 'I and the Father are one;' but nowhere is He found to call the Father Unoriginated. Moreover, when He teaches us to pray, He says not, 'When ye pray, say, O God Unoriginated,' but rather, 'When ye pray, say, Our Father, which art in heaven Matthew 6:9.' And it was His Will, that the Summary of our faith should have the same bearing. For He has bid us be baptized, not in the name of Unoriginate and Originate, not into the name of Uncreate and Creature, but into the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, for with such an initiation we too are made sons verily, and using the name of the Father, we acknowledge from that name the Word in the Father. But if He wills that we should call His own Father our Father, we must not on that account measure ourselves with the Son according to nature, for it is because of the Son that the Father is so called by us; for since the Word bore our body and came to be in us, therefore by reason of the Word in us, is God called our Father. For the Spirit of the Word in us names through us His own Father as ours, which is the Apostle's meaning when he says, 'God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father Galatians 4:6.'

But perhaps, having been refuted concerning the term Unoriginate as well, they will say according to their evil nature, "It was necessary, as regards our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ also, to state from the Scriptures what is written there about Him, and not to introduce non-scriptural expressions." Yes, it was necessary, I also say. For the signs of truth are more precise when drawn from Scripture than from other sources. But the ill will and the shifting and crafty irreligion of Eusebius and his associates compelled the bishops, as I said before, to state more clearly the terms which overthrew their irreligion. And what the Council wrote has already been shown to have an orthodox sense, while the Arians have been shown to be corrupt in their phrases and evil in their dispositions. Though the term Unoriginate has its own sense and allows for a religious use, they nevertheless, according to their own idea and as they wish, use it to dishonor the Savior, all for the sake of contentiously maintaining, like giants, their fight against God. But just as they did not escape condemnation when they put forward those earlier phrases, so when they misunderstand the Unoriginated—which in itself allows for good and religious use—they were exposed, being disgraced before all, and their heresy proscribed everywhere. This, then, as I was able, I have related by way of explaining what was formerly done in the Council. But I know that the contentious among Christ's enemies will not be willing to change even after hearing this, but will always search about for other pretexts, and for others again after those. For as the Prophet says, "If the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots," then will those who have been taught irreligion be willing to think religiously. But you, beloved, when you receive this, read it yourself. And if you approve of it, read it also to the brethren who happen to be present, so that they too, on hearing it, may welcome the Council's zeal for the truth and the precision of its meaning, and may condemn that of Christ's enemies, the Arians, and the futile pretexts which for the sake of their irreligious heresy they have taken pains to devise among themselves. For to God and the Father is due the glory, honor, and worship with His co-existent Son and Word, together with the All-holy and Life-giving Spirit, now and unto endless ages of ages. Amen.

32. But perhaps being refuted as touching the term Unoriginate also, they will say according to their evil nature, 'It behooved, as regards our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ also, to state from the Scriptures what is there written of Him, and not to introduce non-scriptural expressions.' Yes, it behooved, say I too; for the tokens of truth are more exact as drawn from Scripture, than from other sources; but the ill disposition and the versatile and crafty irreligion of Eusebius and his fellows, compelled the Bishops, as I said before, to publish more distinctly the terms which overthrew their irreligion; and what the Council did write has already been shown to have an orthodox sense, while the Arians have been shown to be corrupt in their phrases, and evil in their dispositions. The term Unoriginate, having its own sense, and admitting of a religious use, they nevertheless, according to their own idea, and as they will, use for the dishonour of the Saviour, all for the sake of contentiously maintaining, like giants, their fight with God. But as they did not escape condemnation when they adduced these former phrases, so when they misconceive of the Unoriginated which in itself admits of being used well and religiously, they were detected, being disgraced before all, and their heresy everywhere proscribed. This then, as I could, have I related, by way of explaining what was formerly done in the Council; but I know that the contentious among Christ's foes will not be disposed to change even after hearing this, but will ever search about for other pretences, and for others again after those. For as the Prophet speaks, 'If the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots Jeremiah 13:23 ', then will they be willing to think religiously, who have been instructed in irreligion. Thou however, beloved, on receiving this, read it by yourself; and if you approve of it, read it also to the brethren who happen to be present, that they too on hearing it, may welcome the Council's zeal for the truth, and the exactness of its sense; and may condemn that of Christ's foes, the Arians, and the futile pretences, which for the sake of their irreligious heresy they have been at the pains to frame among themselves; because to God and the Father is due the glory, honour, and worship with His co-existent Son and Word, together with the All- holy and Life-giving Spirit, now and unto endless ages of ages. Amen.

The Word is God from God, for "the Word was God," and again, "Of whom are the Fathers, and of whom Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen." And since Christ is God from God, and God's Word, Wisdom, Son, and Power, therefore only One God is declared in the divine Scriptures. For the Word, being Son of the One God, is referred to Him from whom He also is, so that Father and Son are two, yet the Monad of the Godhead is indivisible and inseparable. And in this way we also preserve One Beginning of Godhead and not two Beginnings, which means there is strictly a Monarchy. And the Word is by nature Son of this very Beginning—not as if He were another beginning existing by Himself, nor as if He had come into being external to that Beginning, in case a Dyarchy and Polyarchy should result from that diversity. Rather, He is the own Son, own Wisdom, own Word of the one Beginning, existing from It. For according to John, "in" that "Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God," for the Beginning was God; and since He is from It, therefore also "the Word was God." And just as there is one Beginning and therefore one God, so there is one Essence and one hypostasis which indeed and truly and really is, and which said "I am that I am," and not two, so that there would not be two Beginnings. And from the One, a Son in nature and truth—Its own Word, Its Wisdom, Its Power—is inseparable from It. And just as there is not another ousia (lest there be two Beginnings), so the Word who is from that One Essence has no dissolution, nor is He a sound that signifies, but is an essential Word and essential Wisdom, which is the true Son. For if He were not essential, God would be speaking into the air and having a body, in no way different from men. But since He is not man, neither is His Word according to the weakness of man. For just as the Beginning is one Essence, so Its Word is one, essential, and subsisting, and Its Wisdom. For as He is God from God, and Wisdom from the Wise, and Word from the Rational, and Son from Father, so is He from hypostasis subsistent, and from Essence essential and substantive, and Being from Being.

1. The Word is God from God; for 'the Word was God John 1:1,' and again, 'Of whom are the Fathers, and of whom Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen Romans 9:5.' And since Christ is God from God, and God's Word, Wisdom, Son, and Power, therefore but One God is declared in the divine Scriptures. For the Word, being Son of the One God, is referred to Him of whom also He is; so that Father and Son are two, yet the Monad of the Godhead is indivisible and inseparable. And thus too we preserve One Beginning of Godhead and not two Beginnings, whence there is strictly a Monarchy. And of this very Beginning the Word is by nature Son, not as if another beginning, subsisting by Himself, nor having come into being externally to that Beginning, lest from that diversity a Dyarchy and Polyarchy should ensue; but of the one Beginning He is own Son, own Wisdom, own Word, existing from It. For, according to John, 'in' that 'Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,' for the Beginning was God; and since He is from It, therefore also 'the Word was God.' And as there is one Beginning and therefore one God, so one is that Essence and Subsistence which indeed and truly and really is, and which said 'I am that I am Exodus 3:14,' and not two, that there be not two Beginnings; and from the One, a Son in nature and truth, is Its own Word, Its Wisdom, Its Power, and inseparable from It. And as there is not another essence, lest there be two Beginnings, so the Word which is from that One Essence has no dissolution, nor is a sound significative, but is an essential Word and essential Wisdom, which is the true Son. For were He not essential, God will be speaking into the air 1 Corinthians 14:9, and having a body, in nothing differently from men; but since He is not man, neither is His Word according to the infirmity of man. For as the Beginning is one Essence, so Its Word is one, essential, and subsisting, and Its Wisdom. For as He is God from God, and Wisdom from the Wise, and Word from the Rational, and Son from Father, so is He from Subsistence Subsistent, and from Essence Essential and Substantive, and Being from Being.

Since if He were not essential Wisdom and substantive Word and truly existing Son, but simply Wisdom and Word and Son in the Father, then the Father Himself would have a nature compounded of Wisdom and Word. But if this were so, the previously mentioned absurdities would follow. He would be His own Father, and the Son would be both begetting and begotten by Himself. Or else Word, Wisdom, and Son would be a name only, and He who owns—or rather who is—these titles would not actually exist. If He does not actually exist, then the names are meaningless and empty, unless we say that God is Very Wisdom and Very Word. But if that is so, then He is His own Father and Son—Father when Wise, Son when Wisdom. But these things are not in God as a certain quality. Away with such a dishonorable thought, for it would mean that God is compounded of essence and quality. Since all quality exists in essence, it would clearly follow that the Divine Monad, though indivisible, must be compound, being split into essence and accident. We must therefore ask these reckless men: The Son was proclaimed as God's Wisdom and Word—how is He such? If as a quality, the absurdity has been shown. But if God is that Very Wisdom, then it is the absurdity of Sabellius. Therefore He is so as an Offspring in a proper sense from the Father Himself, according to the illustration of light. For just as there is light from fire, so from God there is a Word, and Wisdom from the Wise, and from the Father a Son. In this way the Monad remains undivided and entire, and Its Son and Word are not unessential or non-subsisting, but truly essential. For if this were not so, everything said would be said notionally and verbally only. But if we must avoid that absurdity, then the Word is truly essential. For just as there is a Father truly, so there is Wisdom truly. In this respect they are two—not because, as Sabellius said, Father and Son are the same, but because the Father is Father and the Son is Son, and they are one because He is Son of the essence of the Father by nature, existing as His own Word. This is what the Lord said: "I and the Father are One." For neither is the Word separated from the Father, nor was or is the Father ever without His Word. For this reason He says, "I in the Father and the Father in Me."

2. Since were He not essential Wisdom and substantive Word, and Son existing, but simply Wisdom and Word and Son in the Father, then the Father Himself would have a nature compounded of Wisdom and Word. But if so, the forementioned absurdities would follow; and He will be His own Father, and the Son begetting and begotten by Himself; or Word, Wisdom, Son, is a name only, and He does not subsist who owns, or rather who is, these titles. If then He does not subsist, the names are idle and empty, unless we say that God is Very Wisdom and Very Word. But if so, He is His own Father and Son; Father, when Wise, Son, when Wisdom; but these things are not in God as a certain quality; away with the dishonourable thought; for it will issue in this, that God is compounded of essence and quality. For whereas all quality is in essence, it will clearly follow that the Divine Monad, indivisible as it is, must be compound, being severed into essence and accident. We must ask then these headstrong men; The Son was proclaimed as God's Wisdom and Word; how then is He such? If as a quality, the absurdity has been shown; but if God is that Very Wisdom, then it is the absurdity of Sabellius; therefore He is so, as an Offspring in a proper sense from the Father Himself, according to the illustration of light. For as there is light from fire, so from God is there a Word, and Wisdom from the Wise, and from the Father a Son. For in this way the Monad remains undivided and entire, and Its Son, Word not unessential, nor not subsisting, but essential truly. For were it not so, all that is said would be said notionally and verbally. But if we must avoid that absurdity, then is a true Word essential. For as there is a Father truly, so Wisdom truly. In this respect then they are two; not because, as Sabellius said, Father and Son are the same, but because the Father is Father and the Son Son, and they are one, because He is Son of the Essence of the Father by nature, existing as His own Word. This the Lord said, viz. 'I and the Father are One John 10:30;' for neither is the Word separated from the Father, nor was or is the Father ever Wordless; on this account He says, 'I in the Father and the Father in Me. '

Christ is the Word of God. Did He exist by Himself and then, already existing, become joined to the Father? Or did God make Him or call Him His Word? If the first option is true—meaning He existed by Himself and is God—then there are two ultimate Origins. Moreover, it's clear He would not belong to the Father as His own, since He would not be from the Father but from Himself. But if instead He was made externally, then He is a creature. The only remaining option is that He is from God Himself. If so, then what comes from another is one thing, and that from which it comes is a second thing. According to this, there are two. But if they are not two, and the names belong to the same being, then cause and effect would be the same, and begotten and begetting would be the same—which has already been shown absurd in the case of Sabellius. But if He is from Him yet not another, then He would be both begetting and not begetting: begetting because He produces from Himself, and not begetting because it is nothing other than Himself. If this is the case, then the same being is called Father and Son merely in concept. But if it is wrong to say this, Father and Son must be two. And they are one because the Son is not from outside but begotten of God. If anyone recoils from saying "Offspring" and only says that the Word exists with God, let that person fear that by shrinking from what Scripture says, he falls into absurdity by making God a being of double nature (physis). For by not granting that the Word is from the Monad but simply treating Him as if He were joined to the Father, he introduces a twofold essence (ousia), with neither of them being Father of the other. The same applies to Power. We can see this more clearly if we consider it in relation to the Father. There is One Father, not two, and from that One comes the Son. Just as there are not two Fathers but One, so there are not two ultimate Origins but One, and from that One comes the Son who is essential.

3. And again, Christ is the Word of God. Did He then subsist by Himself, and subsisting, has He become joined to the Father, or did God make Him or call Him His Word? If the former, I mean if He subsisted by Himself and is God, then there are two Beginnings; and moreover, as is plain, He is not the Father's own, as being not of the Father, but of Himself. But if on the contrary He be made externally, then is He a creature. It remains then to say that He is from God Himself; but if so, that which is from another is one thing, and that from which it is, is a second; according to this then there are two. But if they be not two, but the names belong to the same, cause and effect will be the same, and begotten and begetting, which has been shown absurd in the instance of Sabellius. But if He be from Him, yet not another, He will be both begetting and not begetting; begetting because He produces from Himself, and not begetting, because it is nothing other than Himself. But if so, the same is called Father and Son notionally. But if it be unseemly so to say, Father and Son must be two; and they are one, because the Son is not from without, but begotten of God. But if any one shrinks from saying 'Offspring,' and only says that the Word exists with God, let such a one fear lest, shrinking from what is said in Scripture, he fall into absurdity, making God a being of double nature. For not granting that the Word is from the Monad, but simply as if He were joined to the Father, he introduces a twofold essence, and neither of them Father of the other. And the same of Power. And we may see this more clearly, if we consider it with reference to the Father; for there is One Father, and not two, but from that One the Son. As then there are not two Fathers, but One, so not two Beginnings, but One, and from that One the Son essential.

We must ask the Arians the opposite question. (For the Sabellians must be refuted from the concept of a Son, and the Arians from the concept of a Father.) Let us say this: Is God wise and not wordless, or is He without wisdom and without word? If the latter, that is absurd right away. If the former, we must ask: How is He wise and not wordless? Does He possess the Word and the Wisdom from outside, or from Himself? If from outside, then there must be someone who first gave them to Him, and before He received them He was without wisdom and without word. But if from Himself, it is clear that the Word is not from nothing, nor was there ever a time when He was not. For He has always existed, since the One whose Image He is exists always. But if they say that God is indeed wise and not wordless, but that He has in Himself His own wisdom and own word—and that this is not Christ, but rather that by which He made Christ—we must answer this way: If Christ came into being by that word, then clearly all things did too. And it must be He of whom John says, "All things were made by Him," and the Psalmist, "In Wisdom have You made them all." And Christ will be found to speak falsely when He says, "I in the Father," since there would be another in the Father. And "the Word became flesh" is not true according to them. For if He in whom all things came to be Himself became flesh, but Christ is not in the Father as the Word by whom all things came to be, then Christ has not become flesh—but perhaps Christ was merely named Word. But if that is so, first, there will be another besides the name, and second, all things were not brought into being by Him, but rather in that other, in whom Christ also was made. But if they say that Wisdom is in the Father as a quality, or that He is Wisdom itself, the absurdities already mentioned will follow. For He will be compound, and will prove to be His own Son and Father. Moreover, we must refute and silence them on this ground: that the Word who is in God cannot be a creature or from nothing. But if there is a Word in God, then He must be Christ who says, "I am in the Father and the Father in Me," who is therefore the Only-begotten, since no other was begotten from Him. This is the one Son, who is Word, Wisdom, Power—for God is not compounded of these, but is generative of them. For just as He creates the creatures by the Word, so according to the nature of His own ousia He has the Word as an Offspring, through whom He creates and makes and orders all things. For by the Word and the Wisdom all things have come to be, and all things together remain according to His ordering. And the same applies to the word "Son": if God is without Son, then He is without work, for the Son is His Offspring through whom He works. But if not, the same questions and the same absurdities will follow their audacity.

4. But the Arians we must ask contrariwise: (for the Sabellianisers must be confuted from the notion of a Son, and the Arians from that of a Father:) let us say then — Is God wise and not word-less: or on the contrary, is He wisdom-less and word-less? If the latter, there is an absurdity at once; if the former, we must ask, how is He wise and not word-less? Does He possess the Word and the Wisdom from without, or from Himself? If from without, there must be one who first gave to Him, and before He received He was wisdom-less and word-less. But if from Himself, it is plain that the Word is not from nothing, nor once was not; for He was ever; since He of whom He is the Image, exists ever. But if they say that He is indeed wise and not word-less, but that He has in Himself His own wisdom and own word, and that, not Christ, but that by which He made Christ, we must answer that, if Christ in that word was brought to be, plainly so were all things; and it must be He of whom John says, 'All things were made by Him,' and the Psalmist, 'In Wisdom have You made them all.' And Christ will be found to speak untruly, 'I in the Father,' there being another in the Father. And 'the Word became flesh John 1:14 ' is not true according to them. For if He in whom 'all things came to be,' Himself became flesh, but Christ is not in the Father, as Word 'by whom all things came to be,' then Christ has not become flesh, but perhaps Christ was named Word. But if so, first, there will be another besides the name, next, all things were not by Him brought to be, but in that other, in whom Christ also was made. But if they say that Wisdom is in the Father as a quality or that He is Very Wisdom, the absurdities will follow already mentioned. For He will be compound, and will prove His own Son and Father. Moreover, we must confute and silence them on the ground, that the Word which is in God cannot be a creature nor out of nothing; but if once a Word be in God, then He must be Christ who says, 'I am in the Father and the Father in Me John 14:20,' who also is therefore the Only-begotten, since no other was begotten from Him. This is One Son, who is Word, Wisdom, Power; for God is not compounded of these, but is generative of them. For as He frames the creatures by the Word, so according to the nature of His own Essence has He the Word as an Offspring, through whom He frames and creates and dispenses all things. For by the Word and the Wisdom all things have come to be, and all things together remain according to His ordinance. And the same concerning the word 'Son;' if God be without Son, then is He without Work; for the Son is His Offspring through whom He works; but if not, the same questions and the same absurdities will follow their audacity.

From Deuteronomy: "But you who did attach yourselves to the Lord your God are alive, every one of you, this day" (Deuteronomy 4:4). From this we can see the difference and know that the Son of God is not a creature. For the Son says, "I and the Father are one," and "I in the Father, and the Father in me." But created things, when they make progress, are attached to the Lord. The Word, then, is in the Father as being his own, but created things, being external, are attached—since they are by nature foreign and attached by free choice. For a son who exists by nature is one with the one who begot him, but someone who is from outside and is made a son will be attached to the family. Therefore the text immediately adds, "What nation is there so great who has God drawing near to them?" And elsewhere, "I am a God drawing near." For to created things he draws near, since they are foreign to him, but to the Son, as his own, he does not draw near—rather, he is in him. And the Son is not attached to the Father but co-exists with him. This is why Moses says again in the same book of Deuteronomy, "You shall obey his voice and apply yourselves to him" (Deuteronomy 13:4). But what is applied is applied from outside.

5. From Deuteronomy; 'But ye that did attach yourselves unto the Lord your God are alive every one of you this day Deuteronomy 4:4.' From this we may see the difference, and know that the Son of God is not a creature. For the Son says, 'I and the Father are One,' and, 'I in the Father, and the Father in Me;' but things originate, when they make advance, are attached unto the Lord. The Word then is in the Father as being His own; but things originate, being external, are attached, as being by nature foreign, and attached by free choice. For a son which is by nature, is one with him who begot him; but he who is from without, and is made a son, will be attached to the family. Therefore he immediately adds, 'What nation is there so great who has God drawing near unto them?' and elsewhere, 'I a God drawing near;' for to things originate He draws near, as being strange to Him, but to the Son, as being His own, He does not draw near, but He is in Him. And the Son is not attached to the Father, but co-exists with Him; whence also Moses says again in the same Deuteronomy, 'You shall obey His voice, and apply yourselves unto Him Deuteronomy 13:4;' but what is applied, is applied from without.

In response to the weak and human thinking of the Arians, who suppose that the Lord is in need when He says "is given unto Me" and "I received," and when Paul says "wherefore He highly exalted Him" and "He set Him at the right hand," and similar statements, we must say this: Our Lord, being Word and Son of God, took on a body and became Son of Man so that, having become Mediator between God and men, He might bring the things of God to us and our things to God. When He is said to hunger and weep and grow weary, and to cry "Eloi, Eloi"—which are our human experiences—He receives them from us and offers them to the Father, interceding for us so that in Him they may be destroyed. And when it is said "all power is given unto Me," and "I received," and "wherefore God highly exalted Him," these are gifts given from God to us through Him. For the Word was never in need, nor has He come into being. And again, human beings were not sufficient to obtain these things for themselves, but through the Word they are given to us. Therefore, as if given to Him, they are passed on to us. For this was the reason He became human: that, as being given to Him, they might pass on to us. For mere human beings had not become worthy of such gifts, and again the mere Word had not needed them. The Word then was united to us, and then gave us power and highly exalted us. For the Word being in a human being highly exalted the human being himself, and when the Word was in a human being, the human being himself received. Since then the Word being in flesh meant that the human being himself was exalted and received power, therefore these things are attributed to the Word, since they were given on His account—for on account of the Word in humanity were these gifts given. And as "the Word became flesh," so also the human being himself received the gifts which came through the Word. For all that the human being himself has received, the Word is said to have received, so that it might be shown that the human being himself, being unworthy to receive as far as his own nature is concerned, yet has received because of the Word become flesh. Therefore if anything is said to be given to the Lord, or similar statements, we must understand that it is given, not to Him as needing it, but to humanity itself through the Word. For everyone interceding for another receives the gift in his own person, not as needing it, but on account of the one for whom he intercedes.

6. But in answer to the weak and human notion of the Arians, their supposing that the Lord is in want, when He says, 'Is given unto Me,' and 'I received,' and if Paul says, 'Wherefore He highly exalted Him,' and 'He set Him at the right hand,' and the like, we must say that our Lord, being Word and Son of God, bore a body, and became Son of Man, that, having become Mediator between God, and men, He might minister the things of God to us, and ours to God. When then He is said to hunger and weep and weary, and to cry Eloi, Eloi, which are our human affections, He receives them from us and offers to the Father, interceding for us, that in Him they may be annulled. And when it is said, 'All power is given unto Me,' and 'I received,' and 'Wherefore God highly exalted Him,' these are gifts given from God to us through Him. For the Word was never in want, nor has come into being; nor again were men sufficient to minister these things for themselves, but through the Word they are given to us; therefore, as if given to Him, they are imparted to us. For this was the reason of His becoming man, that, as being given to Him, they might pass on to us. For of such gifts mere man had not become worthy; and again the mere Word had not needed them; the Word then was united to us, and then imparted to us power, and highly exalted us. For the Word being in man, highly exalted man himself; and, when the Word was in man, man himself received. Since then, the Word being in flesh, man himself was exalted, and received power, therefore these things are referred to the Word, since they were given on His account; for on account of the Word in man were these gifts given. And as 'the Word became flesh John 1:14,' so also man himself received the gifts which came through the Word. For all that man himself has received, the Word is said to have received; that it might be shown, that man himself, being unworthy to receive, as far as his own nature is concerned, yet has received because of the Word become flesh. Wherefore if anything be said to be given to the Lord, or the like, we must consider that it is given, not to Him as needing it, but to man himself through the Word. For every one interceding for another, receives the gift in his own person, not as needing, but on his account for whom he intercedes.

Just as He takes on our weaknesses without being weak Himself, and hungers without actually hungering, but offers up what is ours so that it may be destroyed, so too He Himself receives the gifts that come from God in place of our weaknesses, so that man, being united to Him, may be able to share in them. This is why the Lord says, "All things whatsoever You have given Me, I have given them," and again, "I pray for them." For He prayed for us by taking on what is ours, and He was giving what He received. Since the Word was united to man Himself, the Father, looking upon Him, granted to man the privilege of being exalted, of having all power, and the like. Therefore, all things which we receive through Him are referred to the Word Himself and are treated as if given to Him. For just as He became man for our sake, so we are exalted for His sake. It is no absurdity then, if, just as He humbled Himself for our sake, so also for our sake He is said to be highly exalted. So "He gave to Him," that is, "to us for His sake," and "He highly exalted Him," that is, "us in Him." And the Word Himself, when we are exalted and receive and are helped, gives thanks to the Father as if He Himself were exalted and received and were helped, attributing what is ours to Himself and saying, "All things, whatsoever You have given Me, I have given unto them."

7. For as He takes our infirmities, not being infirm, and hungers not hungering, but sends up what is ours that it may be abolished, so the gifts which come from God instead of our infirmities, does He too Himself receive, that man, being united to Him, may be able to partake them. Hence it is that the Lord says, 'All things whatsoever You have given Me, I have given them,' and again, 'I pray for them John 17:7-9.' For He prayed for us, taking on Him what is ours, and He was giving what He received. Since then, the Word being united to man himself, the Father, regarding Him, vouchsafed to man to be exalted, to have all power and the like; therefore are referred to the Word Himself, and are as if given to Him, all things which through Him we receive. For as He for our sake became man, so we for His sake are exalted. It is no absurdity then, if, as for our sake He humbled Himself, so also for our sake He is said to be highly exalted. So 'He gave to Him,' that is, 'to us for His sake;' 'and He highly exalted Him Philippians 2:9,' that is, 'us in Him.' And the Word Himself, when we are exalted, and receive, and are succoured, as if He Himself were exalted and received and were succoured, gives thanks to the Father, referring what is ours to Himself, and saying, 'All things, whatsoever You have given Me, I have given unto them John 17:7-8.'

Eusebius and his associates, that is, the Arian fanatics, claim that the Son has a beginning of existence, yet they pretend they don't want Him to have a beginning of kingship. But this is absurd, because anyone who says the Son has a beginning of existence is clearly also saying He has a beginning of reigning. They are so blind that they confess what they deny. Furthermore, those who say that the Son is only a name, and that the Son of God—that is, the Word of the Father—has no ousia and no hypostasis, pretend to be angry with those who say "Once He was not." This is also absurd, because people who give Him no existence at all are angry with those who at least admit He exists in time. So these people also confess what they deny by criticizing the others. And again, Eusebius and his associates, while confessing a Son, deny that He is the Word by physis, and claim that the Son is called Word only notionally. Meanwhile, the others, while confessing Him to be Word, deny Him to be Son, and claim that the Word is called Son only notionally. Both positions are equally without foundation.

8. Eusebius and his fellows, that is, the Ario-maniacs, ascribing a beginning of being to the Son, yet pretend not to wish Him to have a beginning of kingship. But this is ridiculous; for he who ascribes to the Son a beginning of being, very plainly ascribes to Him also a beginning of reigning; so blind are they, confessing what they deny. Again, those who say that the Son is only a name, and that the Son of God, that is, the Word of the Father, is unessential and non-subsistent, pretend to be angry with those who say, 'Once He was not.' This is ridiculous also; for they who give Him no being at all, are angry with those who at least grant Him to be in time. Thus these also confess what they deny, in the act of censuring the others. And again Eusebius and his fellows, confessing a Son, deny that He is the Word by nature, and would have the Son called Word notionally; and the others confessing Him to be Word, deny Him to be Son, and would have the Word called Son notionally, equally void of footing.

"I and the Father are One" (John 10:30). You claim that either the two things are one, or that the one has two names, or that the one is divided into two. Now if the one is divided into two, then what is divided must necessarily be a body, and neither part would be perfect, because each would be only a part and not a whole. But if the one has two names, this is the scheme of Sabellius, who said that Son and Father were the same person, and did away with both—the Father when there is a Son, and the Son when there is a Father. But if the two are one, then they are necessarily two, yet one according to the Godhead and according to the Son's being coessential with the Father, and according to the Word's being from the Father Himself. So there are two because there is Father and Son, namely the Word, and one because there is one God. For if this were not so, He would have said "I am the Father" or "I and the Father am." But in fact, in saying "I" He signifies the Son, and in saying "and the Father" He signifies the one who begot Him, and in saying "One" He signifies the one Godhead and His being coessential. For the Same is not, as the Gentiles believe, both Wise and Wisdom, or the Same both Father and Word, for it would be unfitting for Him to be His own Father. Rather, the divine teaching knows Father and Son, and Wise and Wisdom, and God and Word, while it always guards Him as indivisible and inseparable and indissoluble in all respects.

9. 'I and the Father are One John 10:30.' You say that the two things are one, or that the one has two names, or again that the one is divided into two. Now if the one is divided into two, that which is divided must need be a body, and neither part perfect, for each is a part and not a whole. But if again the one have two names, this is the expedient of Sabellius, who said that Son and Father were the same, and did away with either, the Father when there is a Son, and the Son when there is a Father. But if the two are one, then of necessity they are two, but one according to the Godhead, and according to the Son's coessentiality with the Father, and the Word's being from the Father Himself; so that there are two, because there is Father, and Son, namely the Word; and one because one God. For if not, He would have said, 'I am the Father,' or 'I and the Father am;' but, in fact, in the 'I' He signifies the Son, and in the 'And the Father,' Him who begot Him; and in the 'One' the one Godhead and His coessentiality. For the Same is not, as the Gentiles hold, Wise and Wisdom, or the Same Father and Word; for it were unfit for Him to be His own Father, but the divine teaching knows Father and Son, and Wise and Wisdom, and God and Word; while it ever guards Him indivisible and inseparable and indissoluble in all respects.

If anyone, upon hearing that the Father and the Son are two, misrepresents us as preaching two Gods (for this is what some people imagine for themselves and immediately mock, saying, "You hold two Gods"), we must answer them this way: If acknowledging Father and Son means holding two Gods, then it immediately follows that to confess only one we must deny the Son and embrace Sabellianism. For if speaking of two means falling into paganism, then if we speak of one, we must fall into Sabellianism. But this is not so—perish the thought! Rather, just as when we say that Father and Son are two, we still confess one God, so when we say that there is one God, let us consider Father and Son as two, while they are one in the Godhead and in the Father's Word being indissoluble and indivisible and inseparable from Him. And let fire and the radiance from it serve as an illustration for humanity: these are two in being and in appearance, but one in that the radiance comes from the fire indivisibly.

10. But if any one, on hearing that the Father and the Son are two, misrepresent us as preaching two Gods (for this is what some feign to themselves, and immediately mock, saying, 'You hold two God.'), we must answer to such, If to acknowledge Father and Son, is to hold two Gods, it instantly follows that to confess but one we must deny the Son and Sabellianise. For if to speak of two is to fall into Gentilism, therefore if we speak of one, we must fall into Sabellianism. But this is not so; perish the thought! But, as when we say that Father and Son are two, we still confess one God, so when we say that there is one God, let us consider Father and Son two, while they are one in the Godhead, and in the Father's Word being indissoluble and indivisible and inseparable from Him. And let the fire and the radiance from it be a similitude of man, which are two in being and in appearance, but one in that its radiance is from it indivisibly.

They fall into the same foolishness as the Arians, for Arians also say that He was created for us so that He might create us—as if God waited until our creation for His issuing forth, as one group says, or His creation, as the other says. The Arians then are more generous to us than to the Son, for they say not that we exist for His sake, but He for ours came to be—that is, if He was therefore created and subsisted so that God through Him might create us. And these people, just as irreligious or more so, give to God less than to us. For we often, even when silent, are still active in thinking, so as to form the results of our thoughts into images; but they would have God inactive when silent, and when He speaks then to exert strength—that is, if when silent He could not make, and when speaking He began to create. For it is right to ask them whether the Word, when He was in God, was perfect so as to be able to make. If on the one hand He was imperfect when in God, but by being begotten became perfect, we are the cause of His perfection—that is, if He has been begotten for us, for on our behalf He has received the power of making. But if He was perfect in God so as to be able to make, His generation is superfluous, for He, even when in the Father, could frame the world; so that either He has not been begotten, or He was begotten not for us but because He is ever from the Father. For His generation demonstrates not that we were created, but that He is from God, for He was even before our creation.

11. They fall into the same folly with the Arians; for Arians also say that He was created for us, that He might create us, as if God waited till our creation for His issue, as the one party say, or His creation, as the other. Arians then are more bountiful to us than to the Son; for they say, not we for His sake, but He for ours, came to be; that is, if He was therefore created, and subsisted, that God through Him might create us. And these, as irreligious or more so, give to God less than to us. For we oftentimes, even when silent, yet are active in thinking, so as to form the results of our thoughts into images; but God they would have inactive when silent, and when He speaks then to exert strength; if, that is, when silent He could not make, and when speaking He began to create. For it is just to ask them, whether the Word, when He was in God, was perfect, so as to be able to make. If on the one hand He was imperfect, when in God, but by being begotten became perfect, we are the cause of His perfection, that is, if He has been begotten for us; for on our behalf He has received the power of making. But if He was perfect in God, so as to be able to make, His generation is superfluous; for He, even when in the Father, could frame the world; so that either He has not been begotten, or He was begotten, not for us, but because He is ever from the Father. For His generation evidences, not that we were created, but that He is from God; for He was even before our creation.

The same accusation can be made against them concerning the Father. If God could not create when He was silent, then He must have gained power by begetting—that is, by speaking. But where did He gain this power from? And why? If He could create when the Word was still within Him, then He begets unnecessarily, since He could create even in silence. Furthermore, if the Word was in God before He was begotten, then once begotten He must be outside and external to Him. But if that is so, how can He say now, "I in the Father and the Father in Me"? But if He is now in the Father, then He was always in the Father just as He is now, and it is pointless to say, "He was begotten for us, and He returns after we are formed, so that He may be as He was." For He was not anything that He is not now, nor is He what He was not. Rather, He is as He always was, in the same state and in the same respects. Otherwise He will appear to be imperfect and changeable. For if what He was is what He will be afterwards—as if He were not that way now—it is clear that He is not now what He was and will be. I mean, if He was previously in God and will be in God again afterwards, it follows that now the Word is not in God. But the Lord refutes such people when He says, "I in the Father and the Father in Me," for He is now as He always was. But if He is now as He always was, it follows that He was not begotten at one time and not at another, nor that once there was silence with God and then He spoke. Rather, there is always a Father, and a Son who is His Word—not a Word in name alone, nor the Word a Son in concept only, but existing coessential with the Father, not begotten for us, since we are brought into being for Him. For if He were begotten for us, and in His begetting we were created, and in His generation the creature exists, and then He returns so that He may be what He was before, then first, He who was begotten will again be not begotten. For if His going forth is generation, His return will be the end of that generation, because when He comes to be in God, God will be silent again. But if He will be silent, there will be what there was when He was silent—stillness and not creation, for the creation will cease to exist. For just as the creation came to be and existed when the Word went out, so when the Word returns, the creation will not exist. What is the point, then, of it coming into being if it is going to cease? Or why did God speak if He was then going to be silent? And why did He send forth One whom He recalls? And why did He beget One whose generation He wanted to end? Again, it is uncertain what He will be. For either He will be silent forever, or He will beget again and devise a different creation (for He will not make the same one, otherwise what was made would have remained, but another). And in due course He will bring that also to a close and devise another, and so on without end.

12. And the same presumption will be proved against them concerning the Father; for if, when silent, He could not make, of necessity He has gained power by begetting, that is, by speaking. And whence has He gained it? And wherefore? If, when He had the Word within Him, He could make, He begets needlessly, being able to make even in silence. Next, if the Word was in God before He was begotten, then being begotten He is without and external to Him. But if so, how says He now, 'I in the Father and the Father in Me John 14:10?' but if He is now in the Father, then always was He in the Father, as He is now, and needless is it to say, 'For us was He begotten, and He reverts after we are formed, that He may be as He was.' For He was not anything which He is not now, nor is He what He was not; but He is as He ever was, and in the same state and in the same respects; otherwise He will seem to be imperfect and alterable. For if, what He was, that He shall be afterwards, as if now He were not so, it is plain, He is not now what He was and shall be. I mean, if He was before in God, and afterwards shall be again, it follows that now the Word is not in God. But the Lord refutes such persons when He says, 'I in the Father and the Father in Me;' for so is He now as He ever was. But if so He now is, as He was ever, it follows, not that at one time He was begotten and not at another, nor that once there was silence with God, and then He spoke, but there is ever a Father, and a Son who is His Word, not in name alone a Word, nor the Word in notion only a Son, but existing coessential with the Father, not begotten for us, for we are brought into being for Him. For, if He were begotten for us, and in His begetting we were created, and in His generation the creature consists, and then He returns that He may be what He was before, first, He that was begotten will be again not begotten. For if His progression be generation, His return will be the close of that generation, for when He has come to be in God, God will be silent again. But if He shall be silent, there will be what there was when He was silent, stillness and not creation, for the creation will cease to be. For, as on the Word's outgoing, the creation came to be, and existed, so on the Word's retiring, the creation will not exist. What use then for it to come into being, if it is to cease? Or why did God speak, that then He should be silent? And why did He issue One whom He recalls? And why did He beget One whose generation He willed to cease? Again it is uncertain what He shall be. For either He will ever be silent, or He will again beget, and will devise a different creation (for He will not make the same, else that which was made would have remained, but another); and in due course He will bring that also to a close, and will devise another, and so on without end.

This idea he perhaps borrowed from the Stoics, who claim that their god contracts and then expands along with creation, and afterward remains at rest endlessly. For whatever is dilated must first be constricted, and whatever is expanded must first be contracted; it remains what it was but simply undergoes an affection. If then the Monad was dilated and became a Triad, and the Monad was the Father, and the Triad is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then first the Monad, by being dilated, underwent an affection and became what it was not, for it was dilated when previously it had not been dilated. Next, if the Monad itself was dilated into a Triad, namely into Father and Son and Holy Spirit, then Father and Son and Spirit turn out to be the same, just as Sabellius taught, unless the Monad he speaks of is something other than the Father—and then he should not speak of dilatation, since the Monad would simply make three things, so that there was a Monad and then Father, Son, and Spirit. For if the Monad were dilated and expanded itself, it must itself be what was expanded. And a Triad when dilated is no longer a Monad, and when it is a Monad it is not yet a Triad. And so, he who was Father was not yet Son and Spirit; but when he became these, he is no longer only Father. Anyone who lies in this way must attribute a body to God and portray him as subject to affection, for what is dilatation except an affection of what is dilated? Or what is the dilated thing except what previously was not so but was indeed constricted, for it is the same thing differing from itself only in time?

13. This perhaps he borrowed from the Stoics, who maintain that their God contracts and again expands with the creation, and then rests without end. For what is dilated is first straitened; and what is expanded is at first contracted; and it is what it was, and does but undergo an affection. If then the Monad being dilated became a Triad, and the Monad was the Father, and the Triad is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, first the Monad being dilated, underwent an affection and became what it was not; for it was dilated, whereas it had not been dilate. Next, if the Monad itself was dilated into a Triad, and that, Father and Son and Holy Ghost, then Father and Son and Spirit prove the same, as Sabellius held, unless the Monad which he speaks of is something besides the Father, and then he ought not to speak of dilatation, since the Monad was to make Three, so that there was a Monad, and then Father, Son, and Spirit. For if the Monad were dilated, and expanded itself, it must itself be that which was expanded. And a Triad when dilated is no longer a Monad, and when a Monad it is not yet a Triad. And so, He that was Father was not yet Son and Spirit; but, when become These, is no longer only Father. And a man who thus should lie, must ascribe a body to God, and represent Him as passible; for what is dilatation, but an affection of that which is dilated? Or what the dilated, but what before was not so, but was strait indeed; for it is the same, in time only differing from itself.

The divine Apostle understands this when he writes to the Corinthians, "Do not be straitened in us, but you yourselves be dilated, O Corinthians" (2 Corinthians 6:12-13). He is advising the same people to change from being straitened to being dilated. Just as the Corinthians, if they were straitened and then dilated, would not become different people but would still be Corinthians, so if the Father was dilated into a Triad, the Triad would simply be the Father alone. He says the same thing again: "Our heart is dilated." And Noah says, "May God dilate for Japheth," for the same heart and the same Japheth exists in the dilatation. So if the Monad was dilated, it would be dilated for others. But if it was dilated for itself, then it would be that which was dilated—and what is that but the Son and Holy Spirit? It is worth asking him, when he speaks this way, what was the purpose of this dilatation? Or indeed, why did it happen at all? For whatever does not remain the same but is dilated over time must necessarily have a cause for its dilatation. If it was in order that the Word and Spirit might be with Him, it is pointless to say "first a Monad, then dilated," because the Word and Spirit were not later additions but eternal—otherwise God would be wordless, as the Arians claim. So if the Word and Spirit always existed, then it was always dilated and not at first a Monad. But if it was dilated afterwards, then the Word came afterwards. But if it was dilated for the Incarnation and then became a Triad, then before the Incarnation there was not yet a Triad. And it will even seem that the Father became flesh, if He is the Monad and was dilated in the Man. Thus perhaps there will only be a Monad and flesh and thirdly Spirit—if, that is, He Himself was dilated—and there will be a Triad in name only. It is also absurd to say that it was dilated for the purpose of creating, for it would have been possible for it to make all things while remaining a Monad. The Monad did not need dilatation, nor was it lacking in power before being dilated. It is surely absurd and impious to think or speak this way about God. Another absurdity follows as well. For if it was dilated for the sake of creation, and while it was a Monad the creation did not exist, but at the Consummation it will again be a Monad after dilatation, then the creation will also come to nothing. For just as it was dilated for the sake of creating, so when the dilatation ceases, the creation will also cease.

14. And this the divine Apostle knows, when he writes to the Corinthians, 'Be not straitened in us, but be yourselves dilated, O Corinthians 2 Corinthians 6:12-13;' for he advises identical persons to change from straitness to dilatation. And as, supposing the Corinthians being straitened were in turn dilated, they had not been others, but still Corinthians, so if the Father was dilated into a Triad, the Triad again is the Father alone. And he says again the same thing, 'Our heart is dilated;' and Noah says, 'May God dilate for Japheth,' for the same heart and the same Japheth is in the dilatation. If then the Monad dilated, it would dilate for others; but if it dilated for itself, then it would be that which was dilated; and what is that but the Son and Holy Spirit? And it is well to ask him, when thus speaking, what was the action of this dilatation? Or, in very truth, wherefore at all it took place? For what does not remain the same, but is in course of time dilated, must necessarily have a cause of dilatation. If then it was in order that Word and Spirit should be with Him, it is beside the purpose to say, 'First Monad, and then dilated;' for Word and Spirit were not afterwards, but ever, or God would be wordless, as the Arians hold. So that if Word and Spirit were ever, ever was it dilated, and not at first a Monad; but if it were dilated afterwards, then afterwards is there a Word. But if for the Incarnation it was dilated, and then became a Triad, then before the Incarnation there was not yet a Triad. And it will seem even that the Father became flesh, if, that is, He be the Monad, and was dilated in the Man; and thus perhaps there will only be a Monad, and flesh, and thirdly Spirit; if, that is, He was Himself dilated; and there will be in name only a Triad. It is absurd too to say that it was dilated for creating; for it were possible for it, remaining a Monad, to make all; for the Monad did not need dilatation, nor was wanting in power before being dilated; it is absurd surely and impious, to think or speak thus in the case of God. Another absurdity too will follow. For if it was dilated for the sake of the creation, and while it was a Monad the creation was not, but upon the Consummation it will be again a Monad after dilatation, then the creation too will come to nought. For as for the sake of creating it was dilated, so, the dilatation ceasing, the creation will cease also.

Such absurdities will follow from saying that the Monad is dilated into a Triad. But since those who say this dare to separate the Word and the Son, claiming that the Word is one thing and the Son another, and that the Word existed first and then the Son, let us examine this teaching as well. Their presumption takes various forms. Some say that the man whom the Savior assumed is the Son. Others say that both the man and the Word became Son when they were united. Still others say that the Word Himself became Son when He became man. According to them, He changed from being the Word to being the Son, not being Son before but only Word. Both positions are Stoic doctrines, whether to say that God was dilated or to deny the Son, but it is especially absurd to acknowledge the Word yet deny that He is Son. For if the Word is not from God, they might reasonably deny He is Son. But if He is from God, how do they not see that what exists from something is the son of that from which it comes? Furthermore, if God is Father of the Word, why is the Word not Son of His own Father? For one is and is called father whose son he has, and one is and is called son of another whose father he has. If then God is not Father of Christ, neither is the Word Son. But if God is Father, then reasonably the Word is also Son. But if He is Father afterward and God first, this is an Arian idea. Moreover, it is absurd to say that God changes, for that belongs to bodies. If they argue that He became a Maker afterward in the case of creation, they should know that the change is in the things that came to be afterward, not in God.

15. Such absurdities will be the consequence of saying that the Monad is dilated into a Triad. But since those who say so venture to separate Word and Son, and to say that the Word is one and the Son another, and that first was the Word and then the Son, come let us consider this doctrine also. Now their presumption takes various forms; for some say that the man whom the Saviour assumed is the Son; and others both that the man and the Word then became Son, when they were united. And others say that the Word Himself then became Son when He became man; for from being Word, they say, He has become Son, not being Son before, but only Word. Now both are Stoic doctrines, whether to say that God was dilated or to deny the Son, but especially is it absurd to name the Word, yet deny Him to be Son. For if the Word be not from God, reasonably might they deny Him to be Son; but if He is from God, how see they not that what exists from anything is son of him from whom it is? Next, if God is Father of the Word, why is not the Word Son of His own Father? For one is and is called father, whose is the son; and one is and is called son of another, whose is the father. If then God is not Father of Christ, neither is the Word Son; but if God be Father, then reasonably also the Word is Son. But if afterwards there is Father, and first God, this is an Arian thought. Next, it is absurd that God should change; for that belongs to bodies; but if they argue that in the instance of creation He became afterwards a Maker, let them know that the change is in the things which afterwards came to be, and not in God.

If the Son were a created work, then God might have begun to be a Father to Him as to others. But if the Son is not a created work, then the Father has always existed and the Son has always existed. But if the Son has always existed, He must be the Word. For if the Word is not the Son—and this is what some dare to say—then either they consider the Word to be the Father, or they consider the Son to be superior to the Word. Since the Son is "in the bosom of the Father," it necessarily follows that either the Word does not exist before the Son (for nothing exists before Him who is in the Father), or if the Word is other than the Son, the Word must be the Father in whom the Son exists. But if the Word is not the Father but is the Word, then the Word must be external to the Father, since it is the Son who is "in the bosom of the Father." For both the Word and the Son cannot be in the bosom; only one can be, and He is the Son, who is the Only-begotten. For another reason it follows that if the Word is one thing and the Son is another, the Son must be superior to the Word. For "no one knows the Father except the Son," not the Word. So either the Word does not know, or if He does know, it is not true that "no one knows." The same applies to "He who has seen Me has seen the Father" and "I and the Father are One," for this is spoken by the Son, not the Word as they claim, as is clear from the Gospel. According to John, when the Lord said "I and the Father are One," the Jews picked up stones to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from My Father; for which of those works do you stone Me?" The Jews answered Him, "We do not stone You for a good work, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a man, make Yourself God." Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, you are gods'? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken, do you say of Him whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, 'You blaspheme,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'? 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 the works, so that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father." Yet, as far as the surface meaning of the words indicated, He said neither "I am God" nor "I am Son of God," but "I and the Father are One."

16. If then the Son too were a work, well might God begin to be a Father towards Him as others; but if the Son is not a work, then ever was the Father and ever the Son. But if the Son was ever, He must be the Word; for if the Word be not Son, and this is what a man waxes bold to say, either he holds that Word to be Father or the Son superior to the Word. For the Son being 'in the bosom of the Father John 1:18,' of necessity either the Word is not before the Son (for nothing is before Him who is in the Father), or if the Word be other than the Son, the Word must be the Father in whom is the Son. But if the Word is not Father but Word, the Word must be external to the Father, since it is the Son who is 'in the bosom of the Father.' For not both the Word and the Son are in the bosom, but one must be, and He the Son, who is Only-begotten. And it follows for another reason, if the Word is one, and the Son another, that the Son is superior to the Word; for 'no one knows the Father save the Son Matthew 11:27,' not the Word. Either then the Word does not know, or if He knows, it is not true that 'no one knows.' And the same of 'He that has seen Me, has seen the Father,' and 'I and the Father are One,' for this is uttered by the Son, not the Word, as they would have it, as is plain from the Gospel; for according to John when the Lord said, 'I and the Father are One,' the Jews took up stones to stone Him. 'Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from My Father, for which of those works do ye stone Me? The Jews answered Him, saying, For a good work we stone You not, but for blasphemy, and because that You, being a man, make Yourself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, You are gods? If he called them gods unto whom the Word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken, say ye of Him, whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blaspheme, because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of My Father, believe Me not. But if I do, though ye believe not Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.' And yet, as far as the surface of the words intimated, He said neither 'I am God,' nor 'I am Son of God,' but 'I and the Father are One.'

The Jews, when they heard "One," thought like Sabellius that Jesus was saying He was the Father. But our Savior exposed their error with this argument: "Even though I said 'God,' you should have remembered what is written: 'I said, You are gods.'" Then to clarify "I and the Father are One," He explained the Son's oneness with the Father in these words: "Because I said, I am the Son of God." For even if He did not say it explicitly in those words, He has connected the meaning of "are One" to the Son. Nothing is one with the Father except what is from Him. What is from Him but the Son? Therefore He adds, "that you may know that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me." When explaining the meaning of "One," He said that the union and inseparability did not mean that one thing is the same as the other thing with which it is one, but rather that He is in the Father and the Father is in the Son. In this way He refutes both Sabellius, by saying "I am" not the Father but "the Son of God," and Arius, by saying "are One." If the Son and the Word are not the same, then it is not the Word who is one with the Father, but the Son. Nor is it the one who has seen the Word who "has seen the Father," but rather "he who has seen" the Son. From this it follows that either the Son is greater than the Word, or the Word has nothing beyond the Son. For what can be greater or more complete than "One," and "I in the Father and the Father in Me," and "He who has seen Me has seen the Father"? These statements also belong to the Son. Therefore the same John says, "He who has seen Me has seen Him who sent Me," and "He who receives Me receives Him who sent Me," and "I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in Me should not remain in darkness. And if anyone hears My words and does not keep them, I do not judge him, for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. The word that he hears will judge him on the last day, because I go to the Father." The preaching, He says, judges the one who has not kept the commandment. "For if," He says, "I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have had sin; but now they have no excuse," He says, having heard My words, through which those who keep them will receive salvation.

17. The Jews then, when they heard 'One,' thought like Sabellius that He said that He was the Father, but our Saviour shows their sin by this argument: 'Though I had said God, you should have remembered what is written, I said, You are gods; ' then to clear up 'I and the Father are One,' He has explained the Son's oneness with the Father in the words, 'Because I said, I am the Son of God.' For if He did not say it in words, still He has referred the sense of 'are One' to the Son. For nothing is one with the Father, but what is from Him. What is that which is from Him but the Son? And therefore He adds, 'that you may know that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me.' For, when expounding the 'One,' He said that the union and the inseparability lay, not in This being That, with which It was One, but in His being in the Father and the Father in the Son. For thus He overthrows both Sabellius, in saying, 'I am' not, the Father, but, 'the Son of God;' and Arius, in saying, 'are One.' If then the Son and the Word are not the same, it is not that the Word is one with the Father, but the Son; nor he that has seen the Word 'has seen the Father,' but 'he that has seen' the Son. And from this it follows, either that the Son is greater than the Word, or the Word has nothing beyond the Son. For what can be greater or more perfect than 'One,' and 'I in the Father and the Father in Me,' and 'He that has seen Me, has seen the Father.' for these utterances also belong to the Son. And hence the same John says, 'He that has seen Me, has seen Him that sent Me,' and, 'He that receives Me, receives Him that sent Me;' and, 'I have come a light into the world, that whosoever believes in Me, should not abide in darkness. And, if any one hear My words and observe them not, I judge him not; for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. The word which he shall hear, the same shall judge him in the last day, because I go unto the Father.' The preaching, He says, judges him who has not observed the commandment; 'for if,' He says, 'I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin; but now they shall have no cloke John 15:22,' He says, having heard My words, through which those who observe them shall reap salvation.

Perhaps they will be shameless enough to claim that this statement comes from the Word and not from the Son. But the preceding text made it perfectly clear that the speaker was the Son. The one who says here, "I came not to judge the world but to save," is shown to be none other than the Only-begotten Son of God by what the same John said earlier: "For God so loved the world that He gave His Only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. He that believes in Him is not condemned, but he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the Name of the Only-begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil." If the one who says, "For I came not to judge the world, but that I might save it," is the same one who says, "He that sees Me, sees Him that sent Me," and if the one who came to save the world and not judge it is the Only-begotten Son of God, then clearly it is the same Son who says, "He that sees Me, sees Him that sent Me." For the one who said, "He that believes in Me," and, "If anyone hears My words, I judge him not," is the Son Himself, of whom Scripture says, "He that believes in Him is not condemned, but he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the Name of the Only-begotten Son of God." And again: "And this is the condemnation" of the one who does not believe in the Son, "that light has come into the world," and they did not believe in Him—that is, in the Son—for He must be "the Light which lights every man that comes into the world." And as long as He was on earth according to the Incarnation, He was Light in the world, as He said Himself, "While you have light, believe in the light, that you may be the children of light," for "I," He says, "have come a light into the world."

18. Perhaps they will have so little shame as to say, that this utterance belongs not to the Son but to the Word; but from what preceded it appeared plainly that the speaker was the Son. For He who here says, 'I came not to judge the world but to save John 12:47,' is shown to be no other than the Only-begotten Son of God, by the same John's saying before, 'For God so loved the world that He gave His Only-begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. He that believes in Him is not condemned, but he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the Name of the Only-begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil.' If He who says, 'For I came not to judge the world, but that I might save it,' is the Same as says, 'He that sees Me, sees Him that sent Me,' and if He who came to save the world and not judge it is the Only-begotten Son of God, it is plain that it is the same Son who says, 'He that sees Me, sees Him that sent Me.' For He who said, 'He that believes in Me,' and, 'If any one hear My words, I judge him not,' is the Son Himself, of whom Scripture says, 'He that believes in Him is not condemned, but He that believes not is condemned already, because He has not believed in the Name of the Only-begotten Son of God.' And again: 'And this is the condemnation' of him who believes not on the Son, 'that light has come into the world,' and they believed not in Him, that is, in the Son; for He must be 'the Light which lights every man that comes into the world.' And as long as He was upon earth according to the Incarnation, He was Light in the world, as He said Himself, 'While you have light, believe in the light, that you may be the children of light;' for 'I,' says He, 'have come a light into the world. '

Since this has been demonstrated, it follows that the Word is the Son. But if the Son is the Light who has come into the world, then without question the world was made by the Son. At the beginning of the Gospel, the Evangelist speaks about John the Baptist, saying, "He was not that Light, but came to bear witness concerning that Light." For Christ Himself was, as we said before, the True Light that lights every person who comes into the world. For if "He was in the world, and the world was made by Him," then He must be the Word of God, about whom the Evangelist also testifies that all things were made by Him. Either they will be forced to speak of two worlds—so that one came into being by the Son and the other by the Word—or, if the world is one and the creation is one, it follows that Son and Word are one and the same before all creation, for by Him it came into being. Therefore, if all things came to be by the Son just as they did by the Word, it will not be contradictory but actually identical to say, for instance, "In the beginning was the Word," or "In the beginning was the Son." But if they maintain that the attributes of the Word do not apply to the Son simply because John did not say "In the beginning was the Son," it immediately follows that the attributes of the Son do not apply to the Word. But it was shown that "I and the Father are One" belongs to the Son, and that it is He "who is in the bosom of the Father," and "He that sees Me, sees Him that sent Me." And "the world was brought into being by Him" is common to both the Word and the Son, so that from this the Son is shown to exist before the world, for necessarily the Maker exists before the things brought into being. And according to them, what is said to Philip must belong not to the Word but to the Son. For Scripture says, "Jesus said, 'Have I been so long time with you, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He that has seen Me, has seen the Father. And how do you say then, Show us the Father? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you, I speak not of Myself, but the Father that dwells in Me, He does the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the very works' sake. Verily, verily, I say to you, he that believes in Me, the works that I do shall he do also, and greater works than these shall he do, because I go to the Father. And whatsoever you shall ask in My Name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.'" Therefore, if the Father is glorified in the Son, the Son must be the one who said, "I in the Father and the Father in Me," and the one who said, "He that has seen Me, has seen the Father." For He, the same who spoke this way, shows Himself to be the Son by adding, "that the Father may be glorified in the Son."

19. This then being shown, it follows that the Word is the Son. But if the Son is the Light, which has come into the world, beyond all dispute the world was made by the Son. For in the beginning of the Gospel, the Evangelist, speaking of John the Baptist, says, 'He was not that Light, but that he might bear witness concerning that Light.' For Christ Himself was, as we have said before, the True Light that lights every man that comes into the world. For if 'He was in the world, and the world was made by Him,' of necessity He is the Word of God, concerning whom also the Evangelist witnesses that all things were made by Him. For either they will be compelled to speak of two worlds, that the one may have come into being by the Son and the other by the Word, or, if the world is one and the creation one, it follows that Son and Word are one and the same before all creation, for by Him it came into being. Therefore if as by the Word, so by the Son also all things came to be, it will not be contradictory, but even identical to say, for instance, 'In the beginning was the Word,' or, 'In the beginning was the Son.' But if because John did not say, 'In the beginning was the Son,' they shall maintain that the attributes of the Word do not suit with the Son, it at once follows that the attributes of the Son do not suit with the Word. But it was shown that to the Son belongs, 'I and the Father are One,' and that it is He 'Who is in the bosom of the Father,' and, 'He that sees Me, sees Him that sent Me;' and that 'the world was brought into being by Him,' is common to the Word and the Son; so that from this the Son is shown to be before the world; for of necessity the Framer is before the things brought into being. And what is said to Philip must belong, according to them, not to the Word, but to the Son. For, 'Jesus said,' says Scripture, 'Have I been so long time with you, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He that has seen Me, has seen the Father. And how do you say then, Show us the Father? Do you not believe, that I am in the Father and the Father in Me? The words that I speak unto you, I speak not of Myself, but the Father that dwells in Me, He does the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else, believe Me for the very works' sake. Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believes in Me, the works that I do shall he do also, and greater works than these shall he do, because I go unto the Father. And whatsoever you shall ask in My Name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.' Therefore if the Father be glorified in the Son, the Son must be He who said, 'I in the Father and the Father in Me;' and He who said, 'He that has seen Me, has seen the Father.' for He, the same who thus spoke, shows Himself to be the Son, by adding, 'that the Father may be glorified in the Son.'

If they claim that the Man whom the Word wore, and not the Word, is the Son of God the Only-begotten, then the Man must consequently be He who is in the Father, in whom also the Father is. The Man must be He who is One with the Father, who is in the bosom of the Father, and who is the True Light. They will be forced to say that through the Man Himself the world came into being, and that the Man was He who came not to judge the world but to save it, and that He existed before Abraham came to be. For Scripture says, Jesus said to them, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am." Is it not absurd to say, as they do, that one who came from the seed of Abraham after forty-two generations should exist before Abraham came to be? Is it not absurd, if the flesh which the Word bore is itself the Son, to say that the flesh from Mary is that by which the world was made? And how will they maintain "He was in the world"? For the Evangelist, to signify the Son's existence prior to the birth according to the flesh, goes on to say, "He was in the world." And how, if not the Word but the Man is the Son, can He save the world, being Himself one of the world? And if this does not shame them, where shall the Word be, if the Man is in the Father? And where will the Word stand in relation to the Father, if the Man and the Father are One? But if the Man is the Only-begotten, what will be the place of the Word? Either one must say that He comes second, or, if He is above the Only-begotten, He must be the Father Himself. For as the Father is One, so also the Only-begotten from Him is One. And what has the Word above the Man, if the Word is not the Son? For while Scripture says that through the Son and the Word the world was brought into being, and it is common to both the Word and the Son to frame the world, yet Scripture proceeds to place the sight of the Father not in the Word but in the Son, and to attribute the saving of the world not to the Word but to the Only-begotten Son. For it says, Jesus said, "Have I been so long while with you, and yet have you not known Me, Philip? He that has seen Me, has seen the Father." Nor does Scripture say that the Word knows the Father, but the Son; and that not the Word sees the Father, but the Only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father.

20. If then they say that the Man whom the Word wore, and not the Word, is the Son of God the Only-begotten, the Man must be by consequence He who is in the Father, in whom also the Father is; and the Man must be He who is One with the Father, and who is in the bosom of the Father, and the True Light. And they will be compelled to say that through the Man Himself the world came into being, and that the Man was He who came not to judge the world but to save it; and that He it was who was in being before Abraham came to be. For, says Scripture, Jesus said to them, 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am John 8:58.' And is it not absurd to say, as they do, that one who came of the seed of Abraham after two and forty generations, should exist before Abraham came to be? Is it not absurd, if the flesh, which the Word bore, itself is the Son, to say that the flesh from Mary is that by which the world was made? And how will they retain 'He was in the world?' for the Evangelist, by way of signifying the Son's antecedence to the birth according to the flesh, goes on to say, 'He was in the world.' And how, if not the Word but the Man is the Son, can He save the world, being Himself one of the world? And if this does not shame them, where shall be the Word, the Man being in the Father? And where will the Word stand to the Father, the Man and the Father being One? But if the Man be Only-begotten, what will be the place of the Word? Either one must say that He comes second, or, if He be above the Only-begotten, He must be the Father Himself. For as the Father is One, so also the Only-begotten from Him is One; and what has the Word above the Man, if the Word is not the Son? For, while Scripture says that through the Son and the Word the world was brought to be, and it is common to the Word and to the Son to frame the world, yet Scripture proceeds to place the sight of the Father, not in the Word but in the Son, and to attribute the saving of the world, not to the Word, but to the Only-begotten Son. For, says it, Jesus said, 'Have I been so long while with you, and yet have you not known Me, Philip? He that has seen Me, has seen the Father.' Nor does Scripture say that the Word knows the Father, but the Son; and that not the Word sees the Father, but the Only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father.

And what more does the Word contribute to our salvation than the Son does, if the Son is one person and the Word is another, as they claim? For the command is that we should believe not in the Word, but in the Son. John says, "He that believes in the Son has everlasting life; but he that believes not the Son shall not see life" (John 3:36). And Holy Baptism, in which the substance of the whole faith is contained, is given not in the Word, but in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If, as they claim, the Word is one and the Son is another, and the Word is not the Son, then Baptism has no connection with the Word. How then can they claim that the Word is with the Father, when He is not with Him in the giving of Baptism? But perhaps they will say that the Word is included in the Father's Name. Why then not the Spirit also? Or is the Spirit external to the Father? And then the Man (if the Word is not the Son) is named after the Father, but the Spirit is named after the Man? And so the Monad, instead of expanding into a Triad, expands according to them into a Tetrad: Father, Word, Son, and Holy Spirit. Being exposed to shame on this point, they take another approach and say that not the Man by Himself whom the Lord bore, but both together, the Word and the Man, are the Son; for both joined together are named Son, they say. Which then is the cause of which? And which has made which a Son? Or, to speak more clearly, is the Word a Son because of the flesh? Or is the flesh called Son because of the Word? Or is neither the cause, but rather the combination of the two? If the Word is Son because of the flesh, then necessarily the flesh is Son, and all those absurdities follow that have already been drawn from saying that the Man is Son. But if the flesh is called Son because of the Word, then even before the flesh the Word certainly, being such, was Son. For how could a being make other sons if he is not himself a son, especially when there is a father? If He makes sons for Himself, then He Himself is Father; but if for the Father, then He must be Son, or rather that Son by reason of whom the rest are made sons.

21. And what more does the Word contribute to our salvation than the Son, if, as they hold, the Son is one, and the Word another? For the command is that we should believe, not in the Word, but in the Son. For John says, 'He that believes in the Son, has everlasting life; but he that believes not the Son, shall not see life John 3:36.' And Holy Baptism, in which the substance of the whole faith is lodged, is administered not in the Word, but in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. If then, as they hold, the Word is one and the Son another, and the Word is not the Son, Baptism has no connection with the Word. How then are they able to hold that the Word is with the Father, when He is not with Him in the giving of Baptism? But perhaps they will say, that in the Father's Name the Word is included? Wherefore then not the Spirit also? Or is the Spirit external to the Father? And the Man indeed (if the Word is not Son) is named after the Father, but the Spirit after the Man? And then the Monad, instead of dilating into a Triad, dilates according to them into a Tetrad, Father, Word, Son, and Holy Ghost. Being brought to shame on this ground, they have recourse to another, and say that not the Man by Himself whom the Lord bore, but both together, the Word and the Man, are the Son; for both joined together are named Son, as they say. Which then is cause of which? And which has made which a Son? Or, to speak more clearly, is the Word a Son because of the flesh? Or is the flesh called Son because of the Word? Or is neither the cause, but the concurrence of the two? If then the Word be a Son because of the flesh, of necessity the flesh is Son, and all those absurdities follow which have been already drawn from saying that the Man is Son. But if the flesh is called Son because of the Word, then even before the flesh the Word certainly, being such, was Son. For how could a being make other sons, not being himself a son, especially when there was a father? If then He makes sons for Himself, then is He Himself Father; but if for the Father, then must He be Son, or rather that Son, by reason of Whom the rest are made sons.

If He is not the Son, yet we are sons, then God is our Father and not His. So how can He claim the name for Himself, saying "My Father" and "I from the Father"? For if God is the common Father of all, He is not His Father only, nor did He alone come out from the Father. But they say that God is sometimes called our Father also because He Himself has become partaker in our flesh. For on this account the Word has become flesh—so that, since the Word is Son, therefore because of the Son dwelling in us, He may be called our Father also. For "He sent forth," Scripture says, "the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father" (Galatians 4:6). Therefore the Son in us, calling upon His own Father, causes Him to be named our Father also. Surely those in whose hearts the Son is not—neither can God be called their Father. But if the Man is called Son because of the Word, it follows necessarily, since the ancients are called sons even before the Incarnation, that the Word is Son even before His sojourn among us. For "I begot sons," Scripture says; and in the time of Noah, "When the sons of God saw," and in the Song, "Is not He your Father?" Therefore there was also that True Son, for whose sake they too were sons. But if, as they say again, neither of the two is Son, but it depends on the combination of the two, it follows that neither is Son—I say, neither the Word nor the Man, but some cause on account of which they were united. And accordingly that cause which makes the Son will precede the uniting. Therefore in this way also the Son existed before the flesh. When this is urged against them, they will take refuge in another excuse, saying that neither the Man is Son, nor both together, but that the Word was Word indeed simply in the beginning, but when He became Man, then He was named Son. For before His appearing He was not Son but Word only. And just as the Word became flesh, not being flesh before, so the Word became Son, not being Son before. Such are their idle words, but they admit of an obvious refutation.

22. For if, while He is not Son, we are sons, God is our Father and not His. How then does He appropriate the name instead, saying, 'My Father,' and 'I from the Father?' for if He be common Father of all, He is not His Father only, nor did He alone come out from the Father. But he says, that He is sometimes called our Father also, because He has Himself become partaker in our flesh. For on this account the Word has become flesh, that, since the Word is Son, therefore, because of the Son dwelling in us, He may be called our Father also; for 'He sent forth,' says Scripture, 'the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father Galatians 4:6.' Therefore the Son in us, calling upon His own Father, causes Him to be named our Father also. Surely in whose hearts the Son is not, of them neither can God be called Father. But if because of the Word the Man is called Son, it follows necessarily, since the ancients are called sons even before the Incarnation, that the Word is Son even before His sojourn among us; for 'I begot sons,' says Scripture; and in the time of Noah, 'When the sons of God saw,' and in the Song, 'Is not He your Father?' Therefore there was also that True Son, for whose sake they too were sons. But if, as they say again, neither of the two is Son, but it depends on the concurrence of the two, it follows that neither is Son; I say, neither the Word nor the Man, but some cause, on account of which they were united; and accordingly that cause which makes the Son will precede the uniting. Therefore in this way also the Son was before the flesh. When this then is urged, they will take refuge in another pretext, saying, neither that the Man is Son, nor both together, but that the Word was Word indeed simply in the beginning, but when He became Man, then He was named Son; for before His appearing He was not Son but Word only; and as the 'Word became flesh,' not being flesh before, so the Word became Son, not being Son before. Such are their idle words; but they admit of an obvious refutation.

If He simply became Son when He became Man, then becoming Man would be the cause. And if the Man is the cause of His being Son, or both together are the cause, then the same absurdities follow. Next, if He is first Word and then Son, it will appear that He knew the Father only afterward, not before; for He does not know Him as Word but as Son. For "No one knows the Father but the Son." This will also mean that He came to be "in the bosom of the Father" only afterward, and that He and the Father became One only afterward, and only afterward is it true that "He that has seen Me has seen the Father." For all these things are said of the Son. Therefore they will be forced to say that the Word was nothing but a name. For it is not the Word who is in us with the Father, nor does whoever has seen the Word see the Father, nor was the Father known to anyone at all, because the Father is known through the Son (for so it is written, "And he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him"). And if the Word is not yet Son, then no one yet knew the Father. How then was He seen by Moses, how by the fathers? For He Himself says in the Kingdoms, "Was I not plainly revealed to the house of your father?" But if God was revealed, there must have been a Son to reveal Him, as He Himself says, "And he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him." It is therefore irreligious and foolish to say that the Word is one and the Son another, and it would be good to ask them where they got such an idea. They answer: Because no mention is made in the Old Testament of the Son, but of the Word; and for this reason they are certain in their opinion that the Son came later than the Word, because He is spoken of not in the Old but only in the New. This is what they irreligiously say; for first, to separate the Testaments so that one does not agree with the other is the strategy of Manichees and Jews, one group opposing the Old and the other the New. Next, on their reasoning, if what is contained in the Old is older and what is in the New is later, and times depend upon the writing, it follows that "I and the Father are One," and "Only-begotten," and "He that has seen Me has seen the Father" are later, for these testimonies are drawn not from the Old but from the New.

23. For if simply, when made Man, He has become Son, the becoming Man is the cause. And if the Man is cause of His being Son, or both together, then the same absurdities result. Next, if He is first Word and then Son, it will appear that He knew the Father afterwards, not before; for not as being Word does He know Him, but as Son. For 'No one knows the Father but the Son.' And this too will result, that He has come afterwards to be 'in the bosom of the Father Matthew 11:27; John 1:18,' and afterwards He and the Father have become One; and afterwards is, 'He that has seen Me, has seen the Father John 14:9.' For all these things are said of the Son. Hence they will be forced to say, The Word was nothing but a name. For neither is it He who is in us with the Father, nor whoever has seen the Word, has seen the Father, nor was the Father known to any one at all, for through the Son is the Father known (for so it is written, 'And he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him'), and, the Word not being yet Son, not yet did any know the Father. How then was He seen by Moses, how by the fathers? For He says Himself in the Kingdoms, 'Was I not plainly revealed to the house of your father?' But if God was revealed, there must have been a Son to reveal, as He says Himself, 'And he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him.' It is irreligious then and foolish to say that the Word is one and the Son another, and whence they gained such an idea it were well to ask them. They answer, Because no mention is made in the Old Testament of the Son, but of the Word; and for this reason they are positive in their opinion that the Son came later than the Word, because not in the Old, but in the New only, is He spoken of. This is what they irreligiously say; for first to separate between the Testaments, so that the one does not hold with the other, is the device of Manichees and Jews, the one of whom oppose the Old, and the other the New. Next, on their showing, if what is contained in the Old is of older date, and what in the New of later, and times depend upon the writing, it follows that 'I and the Father are One,' and 'Only-begotten,' and 'He that has seen Me has seen the Father,' are later, for these testimonies are adduced not from the Old but from the New.

But it is not so; for in truth much is said in the Old Testament about the Son as well, such as in the second Psalm, 'You are My Son, this day have I begotten You;' and in the ninth, the title, Unto the 'end concerning the hidden things of the Son, a Psalm of David;' and in the forty-fourth, 'Unto the end, concerning the things that shall be changed to the Sons of Korah for understanding, a song about the Well-beloved;' and in Isaiah, 'I will sing to my Well-beloved a song of my Well-beloved touching my vineyard. My Well-beloved has a vineyard Isaiah 5:1;' Who is this 'Well-beloved' except the Only-begotten Son? Likewise in the hundred and ninth, 'From the womb I begot You before the morning star,' about which I shall speak later; and in the Proverbs, 'Before the hills He begot me;' and in Daniel, 'And the form of the Fourth is like the Son of God;' and many others. So if antiquity comes from the Old Testament, the Son must be ancient, since He is clearly described in the Old Testament in many places. 'Yes,' they say, 'that is so, but it must be understood prophetically.' Therefore the Word must also be said to be spoken of prophetically; for this is not to be taken one way and that another. For if 'You are My Son?' refers to the future, so does 'By the Word of the Lord were the heavens established;' for it does not say 'were brought into being,' nor 'He made.' But that 'established' refers to the future is stated elsewhere: 'The Lord reigned,' followed by 'He so established the earth that it can never be moved.' And if the words in the forty-fourth Psalm 'for My Well-beloved' refer to the future, so does what follows them, 'My heart uttered a good Word.' And if 'From the womb' relates to a man, therefore also 'From the heart.' For if the womb is human, so is the heart corporeal. But if what is from the heart is eternal, then what is 'From the womb' is eternal. And if the 'Only-begotten' is 'in the bosom,' therefore the 'Well-beloved' is 'in the bosom.' For 'Only-begotten' and 'Well-beloved' are the same, as in the words 'This is My Well-beloved Son.' For He did not say 'Well-beloved' as if wishing to indicate His love toward Him, as though it might appear that He hated others, but He made clear by this His being Only-begotten, in order to show that He alone was from Him. And so the Word, intending to convey to Abraham the idea of 'Only-begotten,' says, 'Offer your son your well-beloved Genesis 22:2;' but it is plain to anyone that Isaac was the only son from Sarah. The Word then is Son, not having recently come to be or been named Son, but always Son. For if not Son, neither is He Word; and if not Word, neither is He Son. For that which is from the father is a son; and what is from the Father, except that Word which went forth from the heart and was born from the womb? For the Father is not Word, nor the Word Father, but one is Father and the other Son; and one begets and the other is begotten.

24. But it is not so; for in truth much is said in the Old also about the Son, as in the second Psalm, 'You are My Son, this day have I begotten You;' and in the ninth the title, Unto the 'end concerning the hidden things of the Son, a Psalm of David;' and in the forty-fourth, 'Unto the end, concerning the things that shall be changed to the Sons of Korah for understanding, a song about the Well-beloved;' and in Isaiah, 'I will sing to my Well-beloved a song of my Well-beloved touching my vineyard. My Well-beloved has a vineyard Isaiah 5:1;' Who is this 'Well-beloved' but the Only-begotten Son? As also in the hundred and ninth, 'From the womb I begot You before the morning star,' concerning which I shall speak afterwards; and in the Proverbs, 'Before the hills He begot me;' and in Daniel, 'And the form of the Fourth is like the Son of God;' and many others. If then from the Old be ancientness, ancient must be the Son, who is clearly described in the Old Testament in many places. 'Yes,' they say, 'so it is, but it must be taken prophetically.' Therefore also the Word must be said to be spoken of prophetically; for this is not to be taken one way, that another. For if 'You are My Son?' refer to the future, so does 'By the Word of the Lord were the heavens established;' for it is not said 'were brought to be,' nor 'He made.' But that 'established' refers to the future, it states elsewhere: 'The Lord reigned,' followed by 'He so established the earth that it can never be moved.' And if the words in the forty-fourth Psalm 'for My Well-beloved' refer to the future, so does what follows upon them, 'My heart uttered a good Word.' And if 'From the womb' relates to a man, therefore also 'From the heart.' For if the womb is human, so is the heart corporeal. But if what is from the heart is eternal, then what is 'From the womb' is eternal. And if the 'Only-begotten' is 'in the bosom,' therefore the 'Well-beloved' is 'in the bosom.' For 'Only-begotten' and 'Well-beloved' are the same, as in the words 'This is My Well-beloved Son.' For not as wishing to signify His love towards Him did He say 'Well-beloved,' as if it might appear that He hated others, but He made plain thereby His being Only-begotten, that He might show that He alone was from Him. And hence the Word, with a view of conveying to Abraham the idea of 'Only-begotten,' says, 'Offer your son your well-beloved Genesis 22:2;' but it is plain to any one that Isaac was the only son from Sara. The Word then is Son, not lately come to be, or named Son, but always Son. For if not Son, neither is He Word; and if not Word, neither is He Son. For that which is from the father is a son; and what is from the Father, but that Word that went forth from the heart, and was born from the womb? For the Father is not Word, nor the Word Father, but the one is Father, and the other Son; and one begets, and the other is begotten.

Arius raves when he says that the Son is from nothing and that once He did not exist, while Sabellius also raves when he says that the Father is Son, and again, the Son is Father—one in subsistence but two in name. He also raves when he uses the grace of the Spirit as an example. For he says, "Just as there are varieties of gifts but the same Spirit, so also the Father is the same but is expanded into Son and Spirit." Now this is completely absurd. For if God operates as the Spirit does, then the Father will be Word and Holy Spirit, becoming Father to one person, Son to another, and Spirit to another, adapting himself to each person's need. He would be Son and Spirit in name only, but in reality Father alone. He would have a beginning when He becomes Son, then cease to be called Father, and become man in name only without actually coming among us. He would be dishonest in saying "I and the Father," when He is actually Himself the Father. These and other absurdities follow in Sabellius's case. The name of the Son and the Spirit will necessarily cease when the need has been met, and everything that happens will be mere pretense, displayed in name only rather than in truth. When the name of Son ceases, as they claim, then the grace of Baptism will also cease, since it was given in the Son. Indeed, what will follow except the destruction of creation? For if the Word came forth so that we might be created, and we came into being when He came forth, then clearly when He withdraws back into the Father, as they say, we will no longer exist. For He will be as He was before, so we too will not exist, just as we did not exist then. For when He is no longer gone forth, there will no longer be a creation. This is absurd.

25. Arius then raves in saying that the Son is from nothing, and that once He was not, while Sabellius also raves in saying that the Father is Son, and again, the Son Father, in subsistence One, in name Two; and he raves also in using as an example the grace of the Spirit. For he says, 'As there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit, so also the Father is the same, but is dilated into Son and Spirit.' Now this is full of absurdity; for if as with the Spirit, so it is with God, the Father will be Word and Holy Spirit, to one becoming Father, to another Son, to another Spirit, accommodating himself to the need of each, and in name indeed Son and Spirit, but in reality Father only; having a beginning in that He becomes a Son, and then ceasing to be called Father, and made man in name, but in truth not even coming among us; and untrue in saying 'I and the Father,' but in reality being Himself the Father, and the other absurdities which result in the instance of Sabellius. And the name of the Son and the Spirit will necessarily cease, when the need has been supplied; and what happens will altogether be but make-belief, because it has been displayed, not in truth, but in name. And the Name of Son ceasing, as they hold, then the grace of Baptism will cease too; for it was given in the Son. Nay, what will follow but the annihilation of the creation? For if the Word came forth that we might be created, and when He had come forth, we were, it is plain that when He retires into the Father, as they say, we shall be no longer. For He will be as He was; so also we shall not be, as then we were not; for when He is no more gone forth, there will no more be a creation. This then is absurd.

John makes clear in his first letter that the Son has no beginning of existence but was always with the Father before he became human. He writes: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the Word of Life; and the Life was manifested, and we have seen it; and we bear witness and declare unto you that Eternal Life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us." While he says here that "the Life" not "became" but "was with the Father," at the end of his letter he says the Son is the Life, writing, "And we are in Him that is True, even in His Son, Jesus Christ; this is the True God and Eternal Life." But if the Son is the Life, and the Life was with the Father, and if the Son was with the Father, and the same evangelist says, "And the Word was with God," the Son must be the Word, which is always with the Father. And just as the "Son" is the "Word," so "God" must be "the Father." Moreover, according to John, the Son is not merely "God" but "True God," for according to the same evangelist, "And the Word was God," and the Son said, "I am the Life." Therefore the Son is the Word and Life which is with the Father. And again, what is said in the same John, "The Only-begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father," shows that the Son always existed. For the one John calls Son, David mentions in the Psalm as God's Hand, saying, "Why do you not stretch forth your Right Hand out of your bosom?" Therefore if the Hand is in the bosom, and the Son in the bosom, the Son will be the Hand, and the Hand will be the Son, through whom the Father made all things; for it is written, "Your Hand made all these things," and "He led out His people with His Hand"—therefore through the Son. And if "this is the changing of the Right Hand of the Most Highest," and again, "Unto the end, concerning the things that shall be changed, a song for My Well-beloved," the Well-beloved then is the Hand that was changed. Concerning him the Divine Voice also says, "This is My Beloved Son." This "My Hand" then is equivalent to "This My Son."

26. But that the Son has no beginning of being, but before He was made man was ever with the Father, John makes clear in his first Epistle, writing thus: 'That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the Word of Life; and the Life was manifested, and we have seen it; and we bear witness and declare unto you that Eternal Life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us 1 John 1:1-2.' While he says here that 'the Life,' not 'became,' but 'was with the Father,' in the end of his Epistle he says the Son is the Life, writing, 'And we are in Him that is True, even in His Son, Jesus Christ; this is the True God and Eternal Life.' But if the Son is the Life, and the Life was with the Father, and if the Son was with the Father, and the same Evangelist says, 'And the Word was with God John 1:1,' the Son must be the Word, which is ever with the Father. And as the 'Son' is 'Word,' so 'God' must be 'the Father.' Moreover, the Son, according to John, is not merely 'God' but 'True God;' for according to the same Evangelist, 'And the Word was God;' and the Son said, 'I am the Life.' Therefore the Son is the Word and Life which is with the Father. And again, what is said in the same John, 'The Only-begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father,' shows that the Son was ever. For whom John calls Son, Him David mentions in the Psalm as God's Hand, saying, 'Why do You not strech forth Your Right Hand out of Your bosom?' Therefore if the Hand is in the bosom, and the Son in the bosom, the Son will be the Hand, and the Hand will be the Son, through whom the Father made all things; for it is written, 'Your Hand made all these things,' and 'He led out His people with His Hand;' therefore through the Son. And if 'this is the changing of the Right Hand of the Most Highest,' and again, 'Unto the end, concerning the things that shall be changed, a song for My Well-beloved;' the Well-beloved then is the Hand that was changed; concerning whom the Divine Voice also says, 'This is My Beloved Son.' This 'My Hand' then is equivalent to 'This My Son.'

Since there are poorly instructed people who resist the doctrine of a Son and dismiss the words "From the womb before the morning star I begot You" as if this referred to His relationship to Mary—claiming that He was born of Mary "before the morning star" and that "womb" could not refer to His relationship toward God—we must say a few words here. If "womb" is rejected as applying to God because it is human, then clearly "heart" must also be rejected, since whatever has a heart also has a womb. Since both are human terms, we must either deny both or seek to explain both. Now just as a word comes from the heart, so an offspring comes from the womb. And just as when Scripture speaks of God's heart we do not understand it in a human way, so if Scripture says "from the womb," we must not take it in a bodily sense. For it is the custom of divine Scripture to speak and signify in human terms what is above humanity. Thus in speaking of creation it says, "Your hands made me and fashioned me," and "Your hand made all these things," and "He commanded and they were created." Its language is appropriate for everything: it attributes to the Son propriety and genuineness, and to creation the beginning of existence. For the one God makes and creates, but Him He begets from Himself, as Word or Wisdom. Now "womb" and "heart" clearly declare what is proper and genuine, for we too have this from the womb, but our works we make by the hand.

27. But since there are ill-instructed men who, while resisting the doctrine of a Son, think little of the words, 'From the womb before the morning star I begot You;' as if this referred to His relation to Mary, alleging that He was born of Mary 'before the morning star,' for that to say 'womb' could not refer to His relation towards God, we must say a few words here. If then, because the 'womb' is human, therefore it is foreign to God, plainly 'heart' too has a human meaning, for that which has heart has womb also. Since then both are human, we must deny both, or seek to explain both. Now as a word is from the heart, so is an offspring from the womb; and as when the heart of God is spoken of, we do not conceive of it as human, so if Scripture says 'from the womb,' we must not take it in a corporeal sense. For it is usual with divine Scripture to speak and signify in the way of man what is above man. Thus speaking of the creation it says, 'Your hands made me and fashioned me,' and, 'Your hand made all these things,' and, 'He commanded and they were created.' Suitable then is its language about everything; attributing to the Son 'propriety' and 'genuineness,' and to the creation 'the beginning of being.' For the one God makes and creates; but Him He begets from Himself, Word or Wisdom. Now 'womb' and 'heart' plainly declare the proper and the genuine; for we too have this from the womb; but our works we make by the hand.

What then do they mean by saying "Before the morning star?" I would answer that if "Before the morning star" shows that His birth from Mary was wonderful, many others besides Him have been born before the rising of the star. What then is so wonderful about His case that He should record it as some special privilege, when it is common to many? Furthermore, begetting differs from bringing forth. Begetting involves the original foundation, but bringing forth is simply the production of what already exists. If then the term refers to the body, let it be noted that He did not begin to come into being when He was announced to the shepherds at night, but when the Angel spoke to the Virgin. And that was not night, for this is not said; instead, it was night when He came forth from the womb. Scripture makes this distinction, saying on the one hand that He was begotten before the morning star, and on the other speaking of His coming forth from the womb, as in the twenty-first Psalm: "You are He who drew Me from the womb." Besides, He did not say "before the rising of the morning star," but simply "before the morning star." If then the phrase must be understood of the body, then either the body must be before Adam, since the stars were before Adam, or we must investigate the meaning of the text. John enables us to do this, saying in the Apocalypse: "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. Blessed are they who make broad their robes, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever makes and loves a lie. I Jesus have sent My Angel, to testify these things in the Churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star. And the Spirit and the Bride say, Come; and let him that hears say, Come; and let him that is thirsty, Come; and whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely." If then "the Offspring of David" is "the Bright and Morning Star," it is clear that the flesh of the Savior is called "the Morning Star," which the Offspring from God preceded. So the meaning of the Psalm is this: "I have begotten You from Myself before Your appearance in the flesh." For "before the Morning Star" is the same as "before the Incarnation of the Word."

28. What means then, say they, 'Before the morning star?' I would answer, that if 'Before the morning star' shows that His birth from Mary was wonderful, many others besides have been born before the rising of the star. What then is said so wonderful in His instance, that He should record it as some choice prerogative, when it is common to many? Next, to beget differs from bringing forth; for begetting involves the primary foundation, but to bring forth is nothing else than the production of what exists. If then the term belongs to the body, let it be observed that He did not then receive a beginning of coming to be when he was evangelized to the shepherds by night, but when the Angel spoke to the Virgin. And that was not night, for this is not said; on the contrary, it was night when He issued from the womb. This difference Scripture makes, and says on the one hand that He was begotten before the morning star, and on the other speaks of His proceeding from the womb, as in the twenty-first Psalm, 'You are he that drew Me from the womb.' Besides, He did not say, 'before the rising of the morning star,' but simply 'before the morning star.' If then the phrase must be taken of the body, then either the body must be before Adam, for the stars were before Adam, or we have to investigate the sense of the letter. And this John enables us to do, who says in the Apocalypse, 'I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. Blessed are they who make broad their robes, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever makes and loves a lie. I Jesus have sent My Angel, to testify these things in the Churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star. And the Spirit and the Bride say, Come; and let him that hears say, Come; and let him that is thirsty, Come; and whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely.' If then 'the Offspring of David' be the 'Bright and Morning Star,' it is plain that the flesh of the Saviour is called 'the Morning Star,' which the Offspring from God preceded; so that the sense of the Psalm is this, 'I have begotten You from Myself before Your appearance in the flesh;' for 'before the Morning Star' is equivalent to 'before the Incarnation of the Word.'

In the Old Testament, statements about the Son are clearly made. At the same time, it's unnecessary to argue this point. For if what is not stated in the Old Testament is of later date, let those who make this argument explain where in the Old Testament the Spirit as Paraclete is mentioned. The Holy Spirit is mentioned, but the Paraclete is nowhere mentioned. Is the Holy Spirit one thing and the Paraclete another, with the Paraclete being later since it's not mentioned in the Old Testament? But it would be wrong to say that the Spirit is later, or to distinguish the Holy Spirit as one thing and the Paraclete as another. The Spirit is one and the same, both then and now, sanctifying and comforting those who receive Him—just as one and the same Word and Son led even then to the adoption of sons those who were worthy. For sons under the Old Testament were made sons through none other than the Son. Unless there was already a Son who was of God before Mary, how is He before all, when there are sons before Him? And how is He "First-born" if He comes second after many? But the Paraclete is not second, for He existed before all, nor is the Son later, for "in the beginning was the Word" (John 1:1). And just as the Spirit and Paraclete are the same, so the Son and Word are the same. Just as the Savior says concerning the Spirit, "But the Paraclete which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My Name," speaking of one and the same and not distinguishing, so John describes similarly when he says, "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of one Only-begotten from the Father." For here too he does not distinguish but witnesses to the identity. And as the Paraclete is not one thing and the Holy Ghost another, but one and the same, so Word is not one thing and Son another, but the Word is Only-Begotten. For he does not say the glory of the flesh itself, but of the Word. So whoever dares to distinguish between Word and Son should also distinguish between Spirit and Paraclete. But if the Spirit cannot be distinguished, neither can the Word, being also Son and Wisdom and Power. Moreover, the word "Well-beloved" even the Greeks who are skilled in language know to be equivalent to "Only-begotten." For Homer speaks this way of Telemachus, who was the only-begotten of Ulysses, in the second book of the Odyssey:

29. Thus in the Old also, statements are plainly made concerning the Son; at the same time it is superfluous to argue the point; for if what is not stated in the Old is of later date, let them who are thus disputatious, say where in the Old is mention made of the Spirit, the Paraclete? For of the Holy Spirit there is mention, but nowhere of the Paraclete. Is then the Holy Spirit one, and the Paraclete another, and the Paraclete the later, as not mentioned in the Old? But far be it to say that the Spirit is later, or to distinguish the Holy Ghost as one and the Paraclete as another; for the Spirit is one and the same, then and now hallowing and comforting those who are His recipients; as one and the same Word and Son led even then to adoption of sons those who were worthy. For sons under the Old were made such through no other than the Son. For unless even before Mary there were a Son who was of God, how is He before all, when they are sons before Him? And how also 'First-born,' if He comes second after many? But neither is the Paraclete second, for He was before all, nor the Son later; for 'in the beginning was the Word John 1:1.' And as the Spirit and Paraclete are the same, so the Son and Word are the same; and as the Saviour says concerning the Spirit, 'But the Paraclete which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My Name,' speaking of One and Same, and not distinguishing, so John describes similarly when he says, 'And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of one Only-begotten from the Father.' For here too he does not distinguish but witnesses the identity. And as the Paraclete is not one and the Holy Ghost another, but one and the same, so Word is not one, and Son another, but the Word is Only-Begotten; for He says not the glory of the flesh itself, but of the Word. He then who dares distinguish between Word and Son, let him distinguish between Spirit and Paraclete; but if the Spirit cannot be distinguished, so neither can the Word, being also Son and Wisdom and Power. Moreover, the word 'Well-beloved' even the Greeks who are skilful in phrases know to be equivalent with 'Only-begotten.' For Homer speaks thus of Telemachus, who was the only-begotten of Ulysses, in the second book of the Odyssey:

I notice there seems to be a mismatch between the chapter description provided and the paragraph text given. The chapter heading indicates this should be a theological discussion about the Son as the Co-existing Word with references to Scripture and theological arguments, while the paragraph provided appears to be poetry about Ulysses that doesn't match the theological context at all.

Could you please verify and provide the correct paragraph from Chapter 26-36 that discusses the Son as the Co-existing Word? The paragraph should contain theological content related to the chapter's themes about the Word, Old and New Testament references, and the necessity of the Incarnation.

O'er the wide earth, dear youth, why seek to run, An only child, a well-beloved son? He whom you mourn, divine Ulysses, fell Far from his country, where the strangers dwell.

Therefore, the one who is the only son of his father is called well-beloved.

Therefore he who is the only son of his father is called well-beloved.

Some followers of the Samosatene, distinguishing the Word from the Son, claim that the Son is Christ while the Word is something else. They base this on Peter's words in Acts, which he spoke correctly but which they interpret wrongly. The passage says: "The Word He sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ; this is Lord of all Acts 10:36." They argue that since the Word spoke through Christ, just as in the case of the Prophets where it says "Thus says the Lord," the prophet was one person and the Lord another. But we can counter this by pointing to the words in First Corinthians: "waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall also confirm you unto the end unblameable in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ 1 Corinthians 1:7-8." Just as one Christ does not confirm the day of another Christ, but He Himself confirms in His own day those who wait for Him, so the Father sent the Word made flesh, so that having become man He might preach through Himself. That is why the text immediately adds, "This is Lord of all," and the Lord of all is the Word.

30. Some of the followers of the Samosatene, distinguishing the Word from the Son, pretend that the Son is Christ, and the Word another; and they ground this upon Peter's words in the Acts, which he spoke well, but they explain badly. It is this: 'The Word He sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ; this is Lord of all Acts 10:36.' For they say that since the Word spoke through Christ, as in the instance of the Prophets, 'Thus says the Lord,' the prophet was one and the Lord another. But to this it is parallel to oppose the words in the first to the Corinthians, 'waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall also confirm you unto the end unblameable in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ 1 Corinthians 1:7-8.' For as one Christ does not confirm the day of another Christ, but He Himself confirms in His own day those who wait for Him, so the Father sent the Word made flesh, that being made man He might preach by means of Himself. And therefore he straightway adds, 'This is Lord of all;' but Lord of all is the Word.

Look at this example: 'And Moses said to Aaron, Go to the altar and offer your sin-offering, and your burnt-offering, and make an atonement for yourself and for the people; and offer the offering of the people, and make an atonement for them, as the Lord commanded Moses Leviticus 9:7.' Notice that even though Moses is one person, Moses himself speaks as if referring to another Moses, saying 'as the Lord commanded Moses.' In the same way, if blessed Peter speaks of the Divine Word as sent to the children of Israel by Jesus Christ, we don't need to understand the Word as one thing and Christ as another. Rather, they are one and the same because of the union that took place in His divine and loving condescension when He became man. Even if He is considered in two ways, there is still no division of the Word, just as when the inspired John says, 'And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us John 1:14.' What blessed Peter says well and rightly, the followers of the Samosatene understand badly and wrongly, and so they do not stand in the truth. For Christ is understood in both ways in Divine Scripture, as when it says Christ is 'God's power and God's wisdom 1 Corinthians 1:24.' So if Peter says that the Word was sent through Jesus Christ to the children of Israel, let him be understood to mean that the Word incarnate appeared to the children of Israel, so that it corresponds to 'And the Word became flesh.' But if they understand it differently, and while confessing the Word to be divine, as He is, they separate from Him the Man that He has taken—with whom we also believe He is made one—saying that He was sent through Jesus Christ, then they are contradicting themselves without realizing it. For those who in this passage separate the divine Word from the divine Incarnation seem to have a degraded understanding of the doctrine of His becoming flesh, and they entertain Gentile ideas by thinking that the divine Incarnation is an alteration of the Word. But it is not so; God forbid.

31. 'And Moses said to Aaron, Go unto the altar and offer your sin-offering, and your burnt-offering, and make an atonement for yourself and for the people; and offer the offering of the people, and make an atonement for them, as the Lord commanded Moses Leviticus 9:7.' See now here, though Moses be one, Moses himself speaks as if about another Moses, 'as the Lord commanded Moses.' In like manner then, if the blessed Peter speak of the Divine Word also, as sent to the children of Israel by Jesus Christ, it is not necessary to understand that the Word is one and Christ another, but that they were one and the same by reason of the uniting which took place in His divine and loving condescension and becoming man. And even if He be considered in two ways, still it is without any division of the Word, as when the inspired John says, 'And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us John 1:14.' What then is said well and rightly by the blessed Peter, the followers of the Samosatene, understanding badly and wrongly, stand not in the truth. For Christ is understood in both ways in Divine Scripture, as when it says Christ 'God's power and God's wisdom 1 Corinthians 1:24.' If then Peter says that the Word was sent through Jesus Christ unto the children of Israel, let him be understood to mean, that the Word incarnate has appeared to the children of Israel, so that it may correspond to 'And the Word became flesh.' But if they understand it otherwise, and, while confessing the Word to be divine, as He is, separate from Him the Man that He has taken, with which also we believe that He is made one, saying that He has been sent through Jesus Christ, they are, without knowing it, contradicting themselves. For those who in this place separate the divine Word from the divine Incarnation, have, it seems, a degraded notion of the doctrine of His having become flesh, and entertain Gentile thoughts, as they do, conceiving that the divine Incarnation is an alteration of the Word. But it is not so; perish the thought.

In the same way that John here preaches that incomprehensible union—"the mortal being swallowed up of life" (2 Corinthians 5:4), indeed, of Him who is Very Life (as the Lord said to Martha, "I am the Life" [John 11:25])—so when the blessed Peter says that through Jesus Christ the Word was sent, he also implies the divine union. For just as when a man heard "The Word became flesh," he would not think that the Word ceased to be (which is absurd, as has been said before), so also when hearing of the Word who has been united to the flesh, let him understand the divine mystery as one and simple. However, more clearly and indisputably than all reasoning, what was said by the Archangel to the Bearer of God herself shows the oneness of the Divine Word and Man. For he says, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon you, and the Power of the Highest shall overshadow you: therefore also that Holy Thing which shall be born of you, shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35). The followers of the Samosatene therefore act irrationally when they separate the Word, who is clearly declared to be made one with the Man from Mary. He is not therefore sent through that Man; but He rather in Him sent, saying, "Go, teach all nations" (Matthew 28:19).

32. For in the same way that John here preaches that incomprehensible union. 'the mortal being swallowed up of life 2 Corinthians 5:4,' nay, of Him who is Very Life (as the Lord said to Martha, 'I am the Life John 11:25 '), so when the blessed Peter says that through Jesus Christ the Word was sent, he implies the divine union also. For as when a man heard 'The Word became flesh,' he would not think that the Word ceased to be, which is absurd, as has been said before, so also hearing of the Word which has been united to the flesh, let him understand the divine mystery one and simple. More clearly however and indisputably than all reasoning does what was said by the Archangel to the Bearer of God herself, show the oneness of the Divine Word and Man. For he says, 'The Holy Ghost shall come upon you, and the Power of the Highest shall overshadow you: therefore also that Holy Thing which shall be born of you, shall be called the Son of God Luke 1:35.' Irrationally then do the followers of the Samosatene separate the Word who is clearly declared to be made one with the Man from Mary. He is not therefore sent through that Man; but He rather in Him sent, saying, 'Go, teach all nations Matthew 28:19.'

This kind of expression is typical of Scripture—it uses simple and straightforward language. For example, in Numbers we find that Moses spoke to Raguel the Midianite, Moses' father-in-law. There were not two different people—one Moses who spoke and another Moses whose father-in-law was Raguel—but one Moses. Similarly, the Word of God is called Wisdom, Power, Right Hand, Arm, and similar titles. In His love for humanity, He became one with us, taking on our first-fruits and blending with it. Therefore, these other titles have naturally become the Word's as well. When John says that in the beginning was the Word, that He was with God and was Himself God, that all things came through Him and nothing was made without Him, this clearly shows that humanity itself is created by God the Word. If, after taking humanity in its weakened state into Himself, He renews it through that certain renewal into endless permanence, and therefore becomes one with it in order to raise it to a more divine state, how can we possibly say that the Word was sent through the man who was from Mary, or rank Him, the Lord of the Apostles, among the other Apostles—that is, the prophets—who were sent by Him? And how can Christ be called a mere man? On the contrary, having become one with the Word, He is rightly called Christ and Son of God. The prophet long ago clearly attributed the Father's hypostasis to Him, saying, "And I will send My Son Christ," and at the Jordan, "This is My Beloved Son." When He fulfilled His promise, He appropriately showed that the one He sent was the one He said He would send.

33. And this is usual with Scripture, to express itself in inartificial and simple phrases. For so also in Numbers we shall find, Moses said to Raguel the Midianite, the father-in- law of Moses; for there was not one Moses who spoke, and another whose father-in-law was Raguel, but Moses was one. And if in like manner the Word of God is called Wisdom and Power and Right-Hand and Arm and the like, and if in His love to man He has become one with us, putting on our first-fruits and blended with it, therefore the other titles also have, as was natural, become the Word's portions. For that John has said, that in the beginning was the Word, and He with God and Himself God, and all things through Him, and without Him nothing made, shows clearly that even man is the formation of God the Word. If then after taking him, when enfeebled, into Himself, He renews him again through that sure renewal unto endless permanence, and therefore is made one with him in order to raise him to a diviner lot, how can we possibly say that the Word was sent through the Man who was from Mary, and reckon Him, the Lord of Apostles, with the other Apostles, I mean prophets, who were sent by Him? And how can Christ be called a mere man? On the contrary, being made one with the Word, He is with reason called Christ and Son of God, the prophet having long since loudly and clearly ascribed the Father's subsistence to Him, and said, 'And I will send My Son Christ,' and in the Jordan, 'This is My Well-beloved Son.' For when He had fulfilled His promise, He showed, as was suitable, that He was He whom He said He had sent.

Let us then consider Christ in both ways: the divine Word made one in Mary with that which is from Mary. For in her womb the Word fashioned for Himself His house, just as at the beginning He formed Adam from the earth—or rather more divinely. Concerning this, Solomon too speaks openly, knowing that the Word was also called Wisdom: "Wisdom built herself a house" (Proverbs 9:1). The Apostle interprets this when he says, "Which house are we" (Hebrews 3:6), and elsewhere calls us a temple, insofar as it is fitting for God to inhabit a temple. The image of this, made of stones, He commanded the ancient people to build through Solomon. When the Truth appeared, the image ceased. For when the ruthless men wished to prove the image to be the truth and to destroy that true dwelling which we surely believe to be His union with us, He did not threaten them. But knowing that their crime was against themselves, He says to them, "Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up" (John 2:19). Our Savior was surely showing by this that the things men busy themselves with carry their own dissolution. For unless the Lord had built the house and kept the city, the builders would have toiled in vain and the keepers watched in vain. And so the works of the Jews are undone, for they were a shadow. But the Church is firmly established; it is "founded on the rock," and "the gates of hades shall not prevail against it." It was theirs to say, "Why do You, being a man, make Yourself God?" and their disciple is the Samosatene. For this reason he teaches his heresy to his followers. But we did not so learn Christ, if indeed we heard Him and were taught by Him, "putting off the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts," and taking up "the new, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness." Let Christ then be religiously considered in both ways.

34. Let us then consider Christ in both ways, the divine Word made one in Mary with Him which is from Mary. For in her womb the Word fashioned for Himself His house, as at the beginning He formed Adam from the earth; or rather more divinely, concerning whom Solomon too says openly, knowing that the Word was also called Wisdom, 'Wisdom built herself a house Proverbs 9:1;' which the Apostle interprets when he says, 'Which house are we Hebrews 3:6,' and elsewhere calls us a temple, as far as it is fitting to God to inhabit a temple, of which the image, made of stones, He by Solomon commanded the ancient people to build; whence, on the appearance of the Truth, the image ceased. For when the ruthless men wished to prove the image to be the truth, and to destroy that true habitation which we surely believe His union with us to be, He threatened them not; but knowing that their crime was against themselves, He says to them, 'Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up John 2:19,' He, our Saviour, surely showing thereby that the things about which men busy themselves, carry their dissolution with them. For unless the Lord had built the house, and kept the city, in vain did the builders toil, and the keepers watch. And so the works of the Jews are undone, for they were a shadow; but the Church is firmly established; it is 'founded on the rock,' and 'the gates of hades shall not prevail against it.' Theirs it was to say, 'Why do You, being a man, make Yourself God?' and their disciple is the Samosatene; whence to his followers with reason does he teach his heresy. But 'we did not so learn Christ, if so be that we heard' Him, and were taught from Him, 'putting off the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts,' and taking up 'the new, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.' Let Christ then in both ways be religiously considered.

But if Scripture often calls even the body by the name of Christ, as in blessed Peter's words to Cornelius when he teaches him about "Jesus of Nazareth, whom God anointed with the Holy Spirit," and again to the Jews, "Jesus of Nazareth, a Man approved of God for you," and again blessed Paul to the Athenians, "By that Man, whom He ordained, giving assurance to all men, in that He raised Him from the dead" (for we find the appointment and the mission often synonymous with the anointing, from which anyone who wishes may learn that there is no discord in the words of the sacred writers, but that they simply give various names to the union of God the Word with the Man from Mary—sometimes as anointing, sometimes as mission, sometimes as appointment), it follows that what blessed Peter says is right, and he proclaims in purity the Godhead of the Only-begotten, without separating the hypostasis of God the Word from the Man from Mary (God forbid! For how could he, who had heard in so many ways, "I and the Father are one," and "He that has seen Me has seen the Father?"). In this Man, even after the resurrection, when the doors were shut, we know of His coming to the whole group of the Apostles, and dispelling all that was hard to believe in it by His words, "Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see Me have." And He did not say, "This," or "this Man which I have taken to Me," but "Me." Therefore the Samosatene will gain no support, being refuted by so many arguments for the union of God the Word—indeed, by God the Word Himself, who now brings the news to all and assures them by eating and permitting them that handling of Him which then took place. For certainly he who gives food to others, and those who give to him, touch hands. For Scripture says, "They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and of a honeycomb, and when He had eaten before them, He took the remains and gave to them." See now, though not as Thomas was allowed, yet by another way, He provided them with full assurance in being touched by them. But if you would now see the scars, learn from Thomas: "Reach here your hand and thrust it into My side, and reach here your finger and behold My hands"—so says God the Word, speaking of His own side and hands, and of Himself as whole man and God together, first providing to the Saints even perception of the Word through the body, as we may consider, by entering when the doors were shut, and next standing near them in the body and providing full assurance. This much may be conveniently said for confirmation of the faithful and correction of the unbelieving.

35. But if Scripture often calls even the body by the name of Christ, as in the blessed Peter's words to Cornelius, when he teaches him of ' Jesus of Nazareth, whom God anointed with the Holy Ghost,' and again to the Jews, ' Jesus of Nazareth, a Man approved of God for you,' and again the blessed Paul to the Athenians, 'By that Man, whom He ordained, giving assurance to all men, in that He raised Him from the dead Acts 17:31 ' (for we find the appointment and the mission often synonymous with the anointing; from which any one who will may learn, that there is no discordance in the words of the sacred writers, but that they but give various names to the union of God the Word with the Man from Mary, sometimes as anointing, sometimes as mission, sometimes as appointment), it follows that what the blessed Peter says is right, and he proclaims in purity the Godhead of the Only begotten, without separating the subsistence of God the Word from the Man from Mary (perish the thought! For how should he, who had heard in so many ways, 'I and the Father are one,' and 'He that has seen Me, has seen the Father?)' In which Man, after the resurrection also, when the doors were shut, we know of His coming to the whole band of the Apostles, and dispersing all that was hard to believe in it by His words, 'Handle Me and see, for a spirit has not flesh and bones, as you see Me have Luke 24:39.' And He did not say, 'This,' or 'this Man which I have taken to Me,' but 'Me.' Wherefore the Samosatene will gain no allowance, being refuted by so many arguments for the union of God the Word, nay by God the Word Himself, who now brings the news to all, and assures them by eating, and permitting to them that handling of Him which then took place. For certainly he who gives food to others, and they who give him, touch hands. For 'they gave Him,' Scripture says, 'a piece of a broiled fish and of an honey-comb, and' when He had 'eaten before them, He took the remains and gave to them.' See now, though not as Thomas was allowed, yet by another way, He afforded to them full assurance, in being touched by them; but if you would now see the scars, learn from Thomas. 'Reach hither your hand and thrust it into My side, and reach hither your finger and behold My hands John 20:27;' so says God the Word, speaking of His own side and hands, and of Himself as whole man and God together, first affording to the Saints even perception of the Word through the body, as we may consider, by entering when the doors were shut; and next standing near them in the body and affording full assurance. So much may be conveniently said for confirmation of the faithful, and correction of the unbelieving.

And so let Paul of Samosata also be corrected when he hears the divine voice of the One who said "My body," not "Christ besides Me who am the Word," but "Him with Me, and Me with Him." For I the Word am the anointing, and what has the anointing from Me is the Man. Therefore He could not be called Christ without Me, but only by being with Me and I in Him. So the mention of the sending of the Word shows the union that took place with Jesus, born of Mary, whose name means Savior, not for any other reason but because the Man was made one with God the Word. This passage has the same meaning as "the Father who sent Me" and "I did not come of Myself, but the Father sent Me." For he has given the name of mission to the union with the Man, through whom the invisible nature might be known to men through the visible. For God does not change location like we do, who are confined to places, when in the form of our smallness He reveals Himself in His existence in the flesh—for how could He, who fills heaven and earth? But because of His presence in the flesh, the righteous have spoken of His mission. Therefore God the Word Himself is Christ from Mary, God and Man—not some other Christ but One and the Same: He before the ages from the Father, He also in the last times from the Virgin; invisible before even to the holy powers of heaven, visible now because of His being one with the Man who is visible; seen, I say, not in His invisible Godhead but in the working of the Godhead through the human body and whole Man, which He has renewed by making it His own. To Him be the adoration and the worship, who was before, and now is, and ever shall be, even to all ages. Amen.

36. And so let Paul of Samosata also stand corrected on hearing the divine voice of Him who said 'My body,' not 'Christ besides Me who am the Word,' but 'Him with Me, and Me with Him.' For I the Word am the chrism, and that which has the chrism from Me is the Man; not then without Me could He be called Christ, but being with Me and I in Him. Therefore the mention of the mission of the Word shows the uniting which took place with Jesus, born of Mary, Whose Name means Saviour, not by reason of anything else, but from the Man's being made one with God the Word. This passage has the same meaning as 'the Father that sent Me,' and 'I came not of Myself, but the Father sent Me.' For he has given the name of mission to the uniting with the Man, with Whom the Invisible nature might be known to men, through the visible. For God changes not place, like us who are hidden in places, when in the fashion of our littleness He displays Himself in His existence in the flesh; for how should He, who fills the heaven and the earth? But on account of the presence in the flesh the just have spoken of His mission. Therefore God the Word Himself is Christ from Mary, God and Man; not some other Christ but One and the Same; He before ages from the Father, He too in the last times from the Virgin; invisible before even to the holy powers of heaven, visible now because of His being one with the Man who is visible; seen, I say, not in His invisible Godhead but in the operation of the Godhead through the human body and whole Man, which He has renewed by its appropriation to Himself. To Him be the adoration and the worship, who was before, and now is, and ever shall be, even to all ages. Amen.

The Arians, as it seems, having once decided to transgress and rebel against the Truth, are energetic in misusing the words of Scripture, "When the impious comes into a depth of evils, he despises." Refutation does not stop them, nor does confusion embarrass them; instead, as having "a whore's forehead," they "refuse to be ashamed" before all men in their irreligion. For whereas the passages they cited—"The Lord created me," and "Made better than the Angels," and "First-born," and "Faithful to Him that made Him"—have a correct interpretation and teach proper reverence toward Christ, these men still, as if poisoned by the serpent's venom, not seeing what they ought to see nor understanding what they read, as if vomiting from the depth of their irreligious heart, have now proceeded to disparage our Lord's words, "I in the Father and the Father in Me," saying, "How can the One be contained in the Other and the Other in the One?" or "How at all can the Father who is the greater be contained in the Son who is the less?" or "What is remarkable if the Son is in the Father," considering it is written even of us, "In Him we live and move and have our being?" This mindset is consistent with their perverseness, who think God is material and do not understand what "True Father" and "True Son" mean, nor "Invisible Light" and "Eternal," and its "Invisible Radiance," nor "Invisible Subsistence" and "Immaterial Expression" and "Immaterial Image." For if they knew these things, they would not dishonor and ridicule the Lord of glory, nor by interpreting immaterial things in a material manner would they pervert good words. It would be sufficient simply to hear words that are the Lord's and believe at once, since the faith of simplicity is better than an elaborate process of persuasion; but since they have attempted to corrupt even this passage to serve their heresy, it becomes necessary to expose their perverseness and show the true meaning, at least for the security of the faithful. For when it is said, "I in the Father and the Father in Me," They are not therefore, as these people suppose, poured into Each Other, filling the One the Other, as in the case of empty vessels, so that the Son fills the Father's emptiness and the Father fills the Son's, and Each of Them by Himself is not complete and perfect (for this is characteristic of bodies, and therefore the mere assertion of it is full of irreligion), for the Father is full and perfect, and the Son is the Fullness of Godhead. Nor again, as God, by coming into the Saints, strengthens them, is He also in the Son in this way. For He is Himself the Father's Power and Wisdom, and by partaking of Him created things are sanctified in the Spirit; but the Son Himself is not Son by participation, but is the Father's own Offspring. Nor again is the Son in the Father in the sense of the passage, "In Him we live and move and have our being," for He, as being from the Fountain of the Father, is the Life in which all things are both made alive and exist; for the Life does not live in life, otherwise it would not be Life, but rather He gives life to all things.

1. The Ario-maniacs, as it appears, having once made up their minds to transgress and revolt from the Truth, are strenuous in appropriating the words of Scripture, 'When the impious comes into a depth of evils, he despises;' for refutation does not stop them, nor perplexity abash them; but, as having 'a whore's forehead,' they 'refuse to be ashamed Jeremiah 3:3 ' before all men in their irreligion. For whereas the passages which they alleged, 'The Lord created me,' and 'Made better than the Angels,' and 'First-born,' and 'Faithful to Him that made Him ' have a right sense, and inculcate religiousness towards Christ, so it is that these men still, as if bedewed with the serpent's poison, not seeing what they ought to see, nor understanding what they read, as if in vomit from the depth of their irreligious heart, have next proceeded to disparage our Lord's words, 'I in the Father and the Father in Me John 14:10;' saying, 'How can the One be contained in the Other and the Other in the One?' or 'How at all can the Father who is the greater be contained in the Son who is the less?' or 'What wonder, if the Son is in the Father,' considering it is written even of us, 'In Him we live and move and have our being?' And this state of mind is consistent with their perverseness, who think God to be material, and understand not what is 'True Father?' and 'True Son,' nor 'Light Invisible' and 'Eternal,' and Its 'Radiance Invisible,' nor 'Invisible Subsistence,' and 'Immaterial Expression' and 'Immaterial Image.' For did they know, they would not dishonour and ridicule the Lord of glory, nor interpreting things immaterial after a material manner, pervert good words. It were sufficient indeed, on hearing only words which are the Lord's, at once to believe, since the faith of simplicity is better than an elaborate process of persuasion; but since they have endeavoured to profane even this passage to their own heresy, it becomes necessary to expose their perverseness and to show the mind of the truth, at least for the security of the faithful. For when it is said, 'I in the Father and the Father in Me,' They are not therefore, as these suppose, discharged into Each Other, filling the One the Other, as in the case of empty vessels, so that the Son fills the emptiness of the Father and the Father that of the Son, and Each of Them by Himself is not complete and perfect (for this is proper to bodies, and therefore the mere assertion of it is full of irreligion), for the Father is full and perfect, and the Son is the Fulness of Godhead. Nor again, as God, by coming into the Saints, strengthens them, thus is He also in the Son. For He is Himself the Father's Power and Wisdom, and by partaking of Him things originate are sanctified in the Spirit; but the Son Himself is not Son by participation, but is the Father's own Offspring. Nor again is the Son in the Father, in the sense of the passage, 'In Him we live and move and have our being;' for, He as being from the Fount of the Father is the Life, in which all things are both quickened and consist; for the Life does not live in life, else it would not be Life, but rather He gives life to all things.

But now let's see what Asterius the Sophist says, the hired advocate for this heresy. Imitating the Jews in this respect, he writes as follows: "It is very clear that He has said that He is in the Father and the Father again in Him for this reason: that neither the word about which He was speaking is, as He says, His own, but the Father's, nor do the works belong to Him, but to the Father who gave Him the power." Now if this were spoken randomly by a small child, it could be excused because of his age. But when someone who bears the title of Sophist and claims universal knowledge is the writer, what serious condemnation does he deserve! Doesn't he show himself ignorant of the Apostle, being puffed up with persuasive words of wisdom and thinking he can succeed in deceiving, not understanding what he says or what he affirms? For what the Son has said as proper and suitable only to a Son, who is Word and Wisdom and Image of the Father's ousia, Asterius reduces to the level of all creatures and makes common to the Son and to them. This lawless man says that the Power of the Father receives power, so that from this irreligion it would follow that in a son the Son was made a son, and the Word received a word's authority. Far from acknowledging that He spoke this as a Son, Asterius ranks Him with all created things as having learned it just as they have. For if the Son said "I am in the Father and the Father in Me" because His discourses were not His own words but the Father's, and the same for His works, then—since David says "I will hear what the Lord God shall say in me," and again Solomon says "My words are spoken by God," and since Moses was a minister of words that came from God, and each of the Prophets spoke not what was his own but what was from God, saying "Thus says the Lord," and since the works of the Saints, as they declared, were not their own but God's who gave them the power—Elijah and Elisha for instance invoking God that He Himself would raise the dead, and Elisha saying to Naaman when cleansing him from leprosy "that you may know that there is a God in Israel," and Samuel too in the days of harvest praying to God to grant rain, and the Apostles saying that they did miracles not in their own power but by the Lord's grace—it is clear that, according to Asterius, such a statement must be common to all, so that each of them could say "I in the Father and the Father in me," and as a result He is no longer the one Son of God and Word and Wisdom, but is simply one among many like all the others.

2. But now let us see what Asterius the Sophist says, the retained pleader for the heresy. In imitation then of the Jews so far, he writes as follows; 'It is very plain that He has said, that He is in the Father and the Father again in Him, for this reason, that neither the word on which He was discoursing is, as He says, His own, but the Father's, nor the works belong to Him, but to the Father who gave Him the power.' Now this, if uttered at random by a little child, had been excused from his age; but when one who bears the title of Sophist, and professes universal knowledge, is the writer, what a serious condemnation does he deserve! And does he not show himself a stranger to the Apostle 1 Corinthians 2:4, as being puffed up with persuasive words of wisdom, and thinking thereby to succeed in deceiving, not understanding himself what he says nor whereof he affirms 1 Timothy 1:7? For what the Son has said as proper and suitable to a Son only, who is Word and Wisdom and Image of the Father's Essence, that he levels to all the creatures, and makes common to the Son and to them; and he says, lawless man, that the Power of the Father receives power, that from this his irreligion it may follow to say that in a son the Son was made a son, and the Word received a word's authority; and, far from granting that He spoke this as a Son, He ranks Him with all things made as having learned it as they have. For if the Son said, 'I am in the Father and the Father in Me,' because His discourses were not His own words but the Father's, and so of His works, then — since David says, 'I will hear what the Lord God shall say in me,' and again Solomon, 'My words are spoken by God,' and since Moses was minister of words which were from God, and each of the Prophets spoke not what was his own but what was from God, 'Thus says the Lord,' and since the works of the Saints, as they professed, were not their own but God's who gave the power, Elijah for instance and Elisha invoking God that He Himself would raise the dead, and Elisha saying to Naaman, on cleansing him from the leprosy, 'that you may know that there is a God in Israel 2 Kings 5:8, 15,' and Samuel too in the days of the harvest praying to God to grant rain, and the Apostles saying that not in their own power they did miracles but in the Lord's grace — it is plain that, according to Asterius such a statement must be common to all, so that each of them is able to say, 'I in the Father and the Father in me;' and as a consequence that He is no longer one Son of God and Word and Wisdom, but, as others, is only one out of many.

But if the Lord had said this, His words would not rightly have been "I in the Father and the Father in Me," but rather "I too am in the Father, and the Father is in Me too," so that He would have nothing of His own by special right in relation to the Father as a Son, but only the same grace in common with everyone else. But this is not so, as they suppose. Not understanding that He is the true Son from the Father, they misrepresent Him who is exactly that—the one to whom alone it is fitting to say "I in the Father and the Father in Me." For the Son is in the Father, as far as we are permitted to know, because the entire Being of the Son is proper to the Father's ousia, like radiance from light and a stream from a fountain. Therefore, whoever sees the Son sees what is proper to the Father and knows that the Son's Being, because it is from the Father, is therefore in the Father. The Father is in the Son because the Son is what is from the Father and proper to Him, just as the sun is in its radiance, the thought is in the word, and the fountain is in the stream. For whoever contemplates the Son in this way contemplates what is proper to the Father's ousia and knows that the Father is in the Son. Since the Form and Godhead of the Father is the Being of the Son, it follows that the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son.

3. But if the Lord said this, His words would not rightly have been, 'I in the Father and the Father in Me,' but rather, 'I too am in the Father, and the Father is in Me too,' that He may have nothing of His own and by prerogative, relatively to the Father, as a Son, but the same grace in common with all. But it is not so, as they think; for not understanding that He is genuine Son from the Father, they belie Him who is such, whom alone it befits to say, 'I in the Father and the Father in Me.' For the Son is in the Father, as it is allowed us to know, because the whole Being of the Son is proper to the Father's essence, as radiance from light, and stream from fountain; so that whoever sees the Son, sees what is proper to the Father, and knows that the Son's Being, because from the Father, is therefore in the Father. For the Father is in the Son, since the Son is what is from the Father and proper to Him, as in the radiance the sun, and in the word the thought, and in the stream the fountain: for whoever thus contemplates the Son, contemplates what is proper to the Father's Essence, and knows that the Father is in the Son. For whereas the Form and Godhead of the Father is the Being of the Son, it follows that the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son.

Because of this, and reasonably so, after saying "I and the Father are One," He added "I in the Father and the Father in Me" to show the identity of Godhead and the unity of ousia. For they are one, not as one thing divided into two parts that are nothing but one, nor as one thing twice named so that the same becomes at one time Father and at another time His own Son—for Sabellius who held this was judged a heretic. But they are two, because the Father is Father and is not also Son, and the Son is Son and not also Father. Yet the physis is one, for the offspring is not unlike its parent since it is his image, and all that is the Father's is the Son's. Therefore the Son is not another God, for He was not obtained from outside—otherwise there would be many gods if a godhead were obtained foreign to the Father's. For if the Son is other as an Offspring, still He is the Same as God, and He and the Father are one in the propriety and distinctiveness of physis and in the identity of the one Godhead, as has been said. For radiance is also light, not secondary to the sun nor a different light nor derived from participating in it, but a complete and proper offspring of it. And such an offspring is necessarily one light, and no one would say that they are two lights, but rather sun and radiance two, yet one the light from the sun enlightening all things in its radiance. So also the Godhead of the Son is the Father's, which is why it is indivisible, and thus there is one God and none other but He. And so, since they are one and the Godhead itself one, the same things are said of the Son that are said of the Father, except His being called Father—for instance, that He is God: "And the Word was God"; Almighty: "Thus says He which was and is and is to come, the Almighty"; Lord: "One Lord Jesus Christ"; that He is Light: "I am the Light"; that He wipes out sins: "that you may know," He says, "that the Son of man has power upon earth to forgive sins"; and so with other attributes. For "all things," says the Son Himself, "whatsoever the Father has, are Mine," and again, "And Mine are Yours."

4. On this account and reasonably, having said before, 'I and the Father are One,' He added, 'I in the Father and the Father in Me, John 10:30 ' by way of showing the identity of Godhead and the unity of Essence. For they are one, not as one thing divided into two parts, and these nothing but one, nor as one thing twice named, so that the Same becomes at one time Father, at another His own Son, for this Sabellius holding was judged an heretic. But They are two, because the Father is Father and is not also Son, and the Son is Son and not also Father; but the nature is one; (for the offspring is not unlike its parent, for it is his image), and all that is the Father's, is the Son's. Wherefore neither is the Son another God, for He was not procured from without, else were there many, if a godhead be procured foreign from the Father's; for if the Son be other, as an Offspring, still He is the Same as God; and He and the Father are one in propriety and peculiarity of nature, and in the identity of the one Godhead, as has been said. For the radiance also is light, not second to the sun, nor a different light, nor from participation of it, but a whole and proper offspring of it. And such an offspring is necessarily one light; and no one would say that they are two lights, but sun and radiance two, yet one the light from the sun enlightening in its radiance all things. So also the Godhead of the Son is the Father's; whence also it is indivisible; and thus there is one God and none other but He. And so, since they are one, and the Godhead itself one, the same things are said of the Son, which are said of the Father, except His being said to be Father:– for instance, that He is God, 'And the Word was God John 1:1;' Almighty, 'Thus says He which was and is and is to come, the Almighty Revelation 1:8;' Lord, 'One Lord Jesus Christ 1 Corinthians 8:6;' that He is Light, 'I am the Light John 8:12;' that He wipes out sins, 'that you may know,' He says, 'that the Son of man has power upon earth to forgive sins Luke 5:24;' and so with other attributes. For 'all things,' says the Son Himself, 'whatsoever the Father has, are Mine;' and again, 'And Mine are Yours.'

When we hear the Father's attributes spoken of in relation to the Son, we will see the Father in the Son through these attributes. We will also contemplate the Son in the Father when what is said of the Son is also said of the Father. Why are the Father's attributes ascribed to the Son, except that the Son is an Offspring from Him? And why do the Son's attributes properly belong to the Father, except because the Son is the proper Offspring of His ousia? Since the Son is the proper Offspring of the Father's ousia, He reasonably says that the Father's attributes are also His own. Therefore, consistently with saying "I and the Father are One," He adds "that you may know that I am in the Father and the Father in Me." He has also added "He that has seen Me, has seen the Father," and these three passages have one and the same meaning. Whoever understands in this sense that the Son and the Father are one, knows that He is in the Father and the Father in the Son, for the Godhead of the Son is the Father's and exists in the Son. Whoever grasps this is convinced that "He that has seen the Son, has seen the Father," because the Father's Godhead is contemplated in the Son. We can perceive this immediately from the illustration of the Emperor's image. In the image is the shape and form of the Emperor, and in the Emperor is that shape which is in the image. The likeness of the Emperor in the image is exact, so that a person who looks at the image sees the Emperor in it, and whoever sees the Emperor recognizes that it is he who is in the image. Because the likeness does not differ, the image might say to someone who wished to view the Emperor after seeing the image, "I and the Emperor are one; for I am in him, and he in me; and what you see in me, you behold in him, and what you have seen in him, you grasp in me." Accordingly, whoever worships the image also worships the Emperor in it, for the image is his form and appearance. Since the Son is the Father's Image, it must necessarily be understood that the Godhead and propriety of the Father is the Being of the Son.

5. And on hearing the attributes of the Father spoken of a Son, we shall thereby see the Father in the Son; and we shall contemplate the Son in the Father, when what is said of the Son is said of the Father also. And why are the attributes of the Father ascribed to the Son, except that the Son is an Offspring from Him? And why are the Son's attributes proper to the Father, except again because the Son is the proper Offspring of His Essence? And the Son, being the proper Offspring of the Father's Essence, reasonably says that the Father's attributes are His own also; whence suitably and consistently with saying, 'I and the Father are One,' He adds, 'that you may know that I am in the Father and the Father in Me.' Moreover, He has added this again, 'He that has seen Me, has seen the Father;' and there is one and the same sense in these three passages. For he who in this sense understands that the Son and the Father are one, knows that He is in the Father and the Father in the Son; for the Godhead of the Son is the Father's, and it is in the Son; and whoever enters into this, is convinced that 'He that has seen the Son, has seen the Father.' for in the Son is contemplated the Father's Godhead. And we may perceive this at once from the illustration of the Emperor's image. For in the image is the shape and form of the Emperor, and in the Emperor is that shape which is in the image. For the likeness of the Emperor in the image is exact; so that a person who looks at the image, sees in it the Emperor; and he again who sees the Emperor, recognises that it is he who is in the image. And from the likeness not differing, to one who after the image wished to view the Emperor, the image might say, 'I and the Emperor are one; for I am in him, and he in me; and what you see in me, that you behold in him, and what you have seen in him, that you hold in me.' Accordingly he who worships the image, in it worships the Emperor also; for the image is his form and appearance. Since then the Son too is the Father's Image, it must necessarily be understood that the Godhead and propriety of the Father is the Being of the Son.

This is what is meant by "Who being in the form of God" and "the Father in Me." This form of the Godhead is not merely partial, but the fullness of the Father's Godhead is the Being of the Son, and the Son is wholly God. Therefore, being equal to God, He "thought it not a prize to be equal to God." And again, since the Godhead and the form of the Son is none other than the Father's, this is what He says: "I in the Father." Thus "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself," for the distinctive character of the Father's Essence is that Son, in whom the creation was then reconciled with God. Thus the things the Son accomplished are the Father's works, for the Son is the form of that Godhead of the Father which accomplished the works. And so whoever looks at the Son sees the Father, for in the Father's Godhead the Son exists and is contemplated, and the Father's form which is in Him shows the Father in Him, and thus the Father is in the Son. And that distinctive character and Godhead which is from the Father in the Son shows the Son in the Father and His inseparability from Him. And whoever hears and sees that what is said of the Father is also said of the Son—not as something added to His Essence by grace or participation, but because the very Being of the Son is the distinctive offspring of the Father's Essence—will rightly understand the words, as I said before, "I in the Father, and the Father in Me" and "I and the Father are One." For the Son is such as the Father is, because He has all that is the Father's. Therefore He is also implied together with the Father. For if there is no son, one cannot say father; whereas when we call God a Maker, we do not necessarily indicate the things that have come to be, for a maker exists before his works. But when we call God Father, we immediately signify the Son's existence along with the Father. Therefore whoever believes in the Son also believes in the Father, for he believes in what is distinctive to the Father's Essence, and thus the faith is one in one God. And whoever worships and honors the Son worships and honors the Father in the Son, for the Godhead is one, and therefore the honor and worship paid to the Father in and through the Son is one. And whoever worships in this way worships one God, for there is one God and no other than He. Accordingly, when the Father is called the only God, and we read that there is one God, and "I am," and "beside Me there is no God," and "I the first and I the last," this has a proper meaning. For God is One and Only and First, but this is not said to deny the Son—God forbid—for He is in that One and First and Only, as being of that One and Only and First the Only Word and Wisdom and Radiance. And He too is the First, as the fullness of the Godhead of the First and Only, being wholly and fully God. This then is not said on His account, but to deny that there is another such as the Father and His Word.

6. And this is what is said, 'Who being in the form of God Philippians 2:6,' and 'the Father in Me.' Nor is this Form of the Godhead partial merely, but the fullness of the Father's Godhead is the Being of the Son, and the Son is whole God. Therefore also, being equal to God, He 'thought it not a prize to be equal to God;' and again since the Godhead and the Form of the Son is none other's than the Father's, this is what He says, 'I in the Father.' Thus 'God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself 2 Corinthians 5:19;' for the propriety of the Father's Essence is that Son, in whom the creation was then reconciled with God. Thus what things the Son then wrought are the Father's works, for the Son is the Form of that Godhead of the Father, which wrought the works. And thus he who looks at the Son, sees the Father; for in the Father's Godhead is and is contemplated the Son; and the Father's Form which is in Him shows in Him the Father; and thus the Father is in the Son. And that propriety and Godhead which is from the Father in the Son, shows the Son in the Father, and His inseparability from Him; and whoever hears and beholds that what is said of the Father is also said of the Son, not as accruing to His Essence by grace or participation, but because the very Being of the Son is the proper Offspring of the Father's Essence, will fitly understand the words, as I said before, 'I in the Father, and the Father in Me;' and 'I and the Father are One.' For the Son is such as the Father is, because He has all that is the Father's. Wherefore also is He implied together with the Father. For, a son not being, one cannot say father; whereas when we call God a Maker, we do not of necessity intimate the things which have come to be; for a maker is before his works. But when we call God Father, at once with the Father we signify the Son's existence. Therefore also he who believes in the Son, believes also in the Father: for he believes in what is proper to the Father's Essence; and thus the faith is one in one God. And he who worships and honours the Son, in the Son worships and honours the Father; for one is the Godhead; and therefore one the honour and one the worship which is paid to the Father in and through the Son. And he who thus worships, worships one God; for there is one God and none other than He. Accordingly when the Father is called the only God, and we read that there is one God Mark 12:29, and 'I am,' and 'beside Me there is no God,' and 'I the first and I the last,' this has a fit meaning. For God is One and Only and First; but this is not said to the denial of the Son, perish the thought; for He is in that One, and First and Only, as being of that One and Only and First the Only Word and Wisdom and Radiance. And He too is the First, as the Fulness of the Godhead of the First and Only, being whole and full God. This then is not said on His account, but to deny that there is other such as the Father and His Word.

Now that this is the meaning of the Prophet and is clear and obvious to everyone, since these irreligious people cite such passages to dishonor the Lord and attack us, saying, "Look, God is said to be One and Only and First; how can you say that the Son is God? For if He were God, He would not have said, 'I Alone,' nor 'God is One,'" we must also explain the meaning of these phrases, as much as we can, so that everyone may know from this too that the Arians are truly fighting against God. If there is competition between the Son and the Father, then let such words be spoken against Him. And if the Father looks upon the Son in the same way that David regarded Adonijah and Absalom, then let Him speak and press such words against Himself, in case the Son, by calling Himself God, causes anyone to revolt from the Father. But if the person who knows the Son actually knows the Father instead, with the Son Himself revealing Him to him, and if in the Word he will rather see the Father, as has been said, and if the Son when He came did not glorify Himself but the Father, saying to someone who approached Him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except One, that is, God," and to someone who asked what the great commandment in the Law was, answering, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is One Lord," and saying to the crowds, "I came down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me," and teaching the disciples, "My Father is greater than I," and "He who honors Me, honors Him who sent Me"—if the Son is like this toward His own Father, what is the problem that requires one to interpret such passages this way? And on the other hand, if the Son is the Father's Word, who is so foolish, besides these enemies of Christ, as to think that God has spoken this way, as if attacking and denying His own Word? This is not the belief of Christians—God forbid—for this was not written with reference to the Son, but to deny those falsely called gods, which were invented by men.

7. Now that this is the sense of the Prophet is clear and manifest to all; but since the irreligious men, alleging such passages also, dishonour the Lord and reproach us, saying, 'Behold God is said to be One and Only and First; how say ye that the Son is God? For if He were God, He had not said, I Alone, nor God is One; ' it is necessary to declare the sense of these phrases in addition, as far as we can, that all may know from this also that the Arians are really contending with God. If there then is rivalry of the Son towards the Father, then be such words uttered against Him; and if according to what is said to David concerning Adonijah and Absalom, so also the Father looks upon the Son, then let Him utter and urge such words against Himself, lest He the Son, calling Himself God, make any to revolt from the Father. But if he who knows the Son, on the contrary, knows the Father, the Son Himself revealing Him to him, and in the Word he shall rather see the Father, as has been said, and if the Son on coming, glorified not Himself but the Father, saying to one who came to Him, 'Why do you call Me good? None is good save One, that is, God;' and to one who asked, what was the great commandment in the Law, answering, 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is One Lord Mark 12:29;' and saying to the multitudes, 'I came down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him that sent Me;' and teaching the disciples, 'My Father is greater than I,' and 'He that honours Me, honours Him that sent Me;' if the Son is such towards His own Father, what is the difficulty, that one must need take such a view of such passages? And on the other hand, if the Son is the Father's Word, who is so wild, besides these Christ-opposers, as to think that God has thus spoken, as traducing and denying His own Word? This is not the mind of Christians; perish the thought; for not with reference to the Son is it thus written, but for the denial of those falsely called gods, invented by men.

This explanation of these passages makes good sense. Those who devote themselves to false gods turn away from the true God. Therefore God, being good and caring for humanity, calls these wanderers back by saying "I am the Only God" and "I Am" and "Besides Me there is no God" and similar statements. He does this to condemn things that are not really gods and to turn all people back to Himself. Here's an illustration: suppose during the daytime when the sun is shining, someone crudely painted a piece of wood that didn't even look like it gave light, and called that image the source of light. If the sun said in response, "I alone am the light of the day, and there is no other light of the day but me," it would be speaking not about its own radiance, but about the error of the wooden image and how unlike that worthless representation is to true light. The same applies to "I am" and "I am the Only God" and "There is none other besides Me"—these statements are meant to make people renounce false gods and recognize Him as the true God instead. Indeed, when God said this, He said it through His own Word—unless these modern Jews go so far as to claim He did not say it through His Word. But He has spoken this way, no matter how much these followers of the devil rage. For the Word of the Lord came to the Prophet, and this is what was heard. There is nothing that God says or does except He says and does it in the Word. So these statements are not said with reference to Christ, you enemies of Christ, but with reference to things foreign to Him and not from Him. According to the illustration given, if the sun had spoken those words, it would have been correcting an error, speaking not as if its radiance were separate from it, but showing its own light within that radiance. Therefore such passages are not meant to deny the Son or refer to Him, but to overthrow falsehood. Accordingly, God did not speak such words to Adam in the beginning, even though His Word was with Him, through whom all things came to be—there was no need before idols appeared. But when people rebelled against the truth and named gods for themselves as they wished, then such words became necessary to deny gods that were not real. I would even add that these words were spoken in anticipation of the foolishness of these opponents of Christ, so they might know that whatever god they imagine outside the Father's ousia, he is not the true God, nor the Image and Son of the Only and First.

8. And this account of the meaning of such passages is satisfactory; for since those who are devoted to gods falsely so called, revolt from the True God, therefore God, being good and careful for mankind, recalling the wanderers, says, 'I am Only God,' and 'I Am,' and 'Besides Me there is no God,' and the like; that He may condemn things which are not, and may convert all men to Himself. And as, supposing in the daytime when the sun was shining, a man were rudely to paint a piece of wood, which had not even the appearance of light, and call that image the cause of light, and if the sun with regard to it were to say, 'I alone am the light of the day, and there is no other light of the day but I,' he would say this, with regard, not to his own radiance, but to the error arising from the wooden image and the dissimilitude of that vain representation; so it is with 'I am,' and 'I am Only God,' and 'There is none other besides Me,' viz. that He may make men renounce falsely called gods, and that they may recognise Him the true God instead. Indeed when God said this, He said it through His own Word, unless forsooth the modern Jews add this too, that He has not said this through His Word; but so has He spoken, though they rave, these followers of the devil. For the Word of the Lord came to the Prophet, and this was what was heard; nor is there a thing which God says or does, but He says and does it in the Word. Not then with reference to Him is this said, O Christ's enemies, but to things foreign to Him and not from Him. For according to the aforesaid illustration, if the sun had spoken those words, he would have been setting right the error and have so spoken, not as having his radiance without him, but in the radiance showing his own light. Therefore not for the denial of the Son, nor with reference to Him, are such passages, but to the overthrow of falsehood. Accordingly God spoke not such words to Adam at the beginning, though His Word was with Him, by whom all things came to be; for there was no need, before idols came in; but when men made insurrection against the truth and named for themselves gods such as they would, then it was that need arose of such words, for the denial of gods that were not. Nay I would add, that they were said even in anticipation of the folly of these Christ-opposers, that they might know, that whatsoever god they devise external to the Father's Essence, he is not True God, nor Image and Son of the Only and First.

If the Father is called the only true God, this is not said to deny Him who said, "I am the Truth," but rather to distinguish from those things that by nature are not true, as the Father and His Word are. The Lord Himself immediately added, "And Jesus Christ whom You sent." If He had been a creature, He would not have added this and placed Himself alongside His Creator (for what fellowship exists between the True and the not-true?). But by adding Himself to the Father, He has shown that He is of the Father's nature, and He has revealed to us that He is the True Offspring of the True Father. John also teaches this as he had learned it, writing in his letter, "And we are in the True, even in His Son Jesus Christ; This is the True God and eternal life." When the Prophet says about the creation, "That stretches forth the heavens alone," and when God says, "I only stretch out the heavens," it becomes clear to everyone that in the Only is also signified the Word of the Only, in whom "all things were made," and without whom "was made not one thing." Therefore, if things were made through the Word, and yet He says "I Only," and together with that Only the Son is understood—through whom the heavens were made—then likewise, if it is said "One God," and "I Only," and "I the First," in that One and Only and First the Word is understood as coexisting, just as the Radiance exists in the Light. This can be understood of no other than the Word alone. For all other things came into existence out of nothing through the Son and are greatly different in nature. But the Son Himself is natural and true Offspring from the Father. Thus the very passage that these foolish people have chosen to cite, "I the First," in defense of their heresy actually exposes their perverse thinking. For God says, "I the First and I the Last." If, then, as though ranked with the things that come after Him, He is said to be first of them so that they follow next to Him, then you will have shown that He Himself precedes His works only in time—which, to say no more, is extreme irreligion. But if it is to prove that He is not from anyone, nor is anyone before Him, but that He is Origin and Cause of all things, and to destroy the pagan myths, that He has said "I the First," it is also clear that when the Son is called Firstborn, this is not done to rank Him with creation, but to prove the making and adoption of all things through the Son. For just as the Father is First, so also is He both First as Image of the First and because the First is in Him, and also Offspring from the Father, in whom the whole creation is created and adopted into sonship.

9. If then the Father be called the only true God, this is said not to the denial of Him who said, 'I am the Truth John 14:6,' but of those on the other hand who by nature are not true, as the Father and His Word are. And hence the Lord Himself added at once, 'And Jesus Christ whom You sent.' Now had He been a creature, He would not have added this, and ranked Himself with His Creator (for what fellowship is there between the True and the not true?); but as it is, by adding Himself to the Father, He has shown that He is of the Father's nature; and He has given us to know that of the True Father He is True Offspring. And John too, as he had learned, so he teaches this, writing in his Epistle, 'And we are in the True, even in His Son Jesus Christ; This is the True God and eternal life 1 John 5:20.' And when the Prophet says concerning the creation, 'That stretches forth the heavens alone Isaiah 44:24,' and when God says, 'I only stretch out the heavens,' it is made plain to every one, that in the Only is signified also the Word of the Only, in whom 'all things were made,' and without whom 'was made not one thing.' Therefore, if they were made through the Word, and yet He says, 'I Only,' and together with that Only is understood the Son, through whom the heavens were made, so also then, if it be said, 'One God,' and 'I Only,' and 'I the First,' in that One and Only and First is understood the Word coexisting, as in the Light the Radiance. And this can be understood of no other than the Word alone. For all other things subsisted out of nothing through the Son, and are greatly different in nature; but the Son Himself is natural and true Offspring from the Father; and thus the very passage which these insensates have thought fit to adduce, 'I the First,' in defense of their heresy, does rather expose their perverse spirit. For God says, 'I the First and I the Last;' if then, as though ranked with the things after Him, He is said to be first of them, so that they come next to Him, then certainly you will have shown that He Himself precedes the works in time only; which, to go no further, is extreme irreligion; but if it is in order to prove that He is not from any, nor any before Him, but that He is Origin and Cause of all things, and to destroy the Gentile fables, that He has said 'I the First,' it is plain also, that when the Son is called First-born, this is done not for the sake of ranking Him with the creation, but to prove the framing and adoption of all things through the Son. For as the Father is First, so also is He both First, as Image of the First, and because the First is in Him, and also Offspring from the Father, in whom the whole creation is created and adopted into sonship.

However, here too they introduce their own private ideas and claim that the Son and the Father are not 'one' or 'like' in the way the Church teaches, but as they themselves prefer. For they say that since what the Father wills, the Son also wills, and He is not opposed either in what He thinks or in what He judges, but is in all respects in agreement with Him, declaring doctrines that are the same and a word that is consistent and united with the Father's teaching—therefore He and the Father are One. Some of them have even dared to write this as well as say it. Now what could be more improper or irrational than this? For if the Son and the Father are One for this reason, and if in this way the Word is like the Father, then it immediately follows that the Angels too, and the other beings above us—Powers and Authorities and Thrones and Dominions—and what we see, the Sun and Moon and the Stars, should also be sons like the Son. And it should be said of them too that they and the Father are one, and that each is God's Image and Word. For what God wills, they also will; and neither in judgment nor in doctrine are they in disagreement, but in all things they are obedient to their Maker. For they would not have remained in their own glory unless they had also willed what the Father willed. The one who did not remain but went astray heard the words, 'How are you fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning?' But if this is so, how is He alone the Only-begotten Son and Word and Wisdom? Or how, when so many are like the Father, is He alone an Image? For among human beings too many will be found who are like the Father—numbers of martyrs, for instance, and before them the Apostles and Prophets, and again before them the Patriarchs. And many people now also keep the Savior's command, being merciful 'as their Father which is in heaven,' and observing the exhortation, 'Be therefore followers of God as dear children, and walk in love, as Christ also has loved us.' Many too have become followers of Paul as he also of Christ. And yet no one of these is Word or Wisdom or Only-begotten Son or Image; nor did any one of them dare to say, 'I and the Father are One,' or 'I in the Father, and the Father in Me.' But it is said of all of them, 'Who is like You among the gods, O Lord? And who shall be likened to the Lord among the sons of Gods?' Of Him, on the contrary, it is said that He alone is the true and natural Image of the Father. For though we have been made after the Image and called both image and glory of God, we have this designation not on our own account but because of that Image and true Glory of God dwelling in us, which is His Word, who was for our sake afterwards made flesh. It is because of Him that we have this grace of our designation.

10. However here too they introduce their private fictions, and contend that the Son and the Father are not in such wise 'one,' or 'like,' as the Church preaches, but, as they themselves would have it. For they say, since what the Father wills, the Son wills also, and is not contrary either in what He thinks or in what He judges, but is in all respects concordant with Him, declaring doctrines which are the same, and a word consistent and united with the Father's teaching, therefore it is that He and the Father are One; and some of them have dared to write as well as say this. Now what can be more unseemly or irrational than this? For if therefore the Son and the Father are One and if in this way the Word is like the Father, it follows immediately that the Angels too, and the other beings above us, Powers and Authorities, and Thrones and Dominions, and what we see, Sun and Moon, and the Stars, should be sons also, as the Son; and that it should be said of them too, that they and the Father are one, and that each is God's Image and Word. For what God wills, that will they; and neither in judging nor in doctrine are they discordant, but in all things are obedient to their Maker. For they would not have remained in their own glory, unless, what the Father willed, that they had willed also. He, for instance, who did not remain, but went astray, heard the words, 'How are you fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning Isaiah 14:12?' But if this be so, how is only He Only-begotten Son and Word and Wisdom? Or how, whereas so many are like the Father, is He only an Image? For among men too will be found many like the Father, numbers, for instance, of martyrs, and before them the Apostles and Prophets, and again before them the Patriarchs. And many now too keep the Saviour's command, being merciful 'as their Father which is in heaven,' and observing the exhortation, 'Be therefore followers of God as dear children, and walk in love, as Christ also has loved us Ephesians 5:1-2;' many too have become followers of Paul as he also of Christ. 1 Corinthians 11:1 And yet no one of these is Word or Wisdom or Only-begotten Son or Image; nor did any one of them make bold to say, 'I and the Father are One,' or, 'I in the Father, and the Father in Me;' but it is said of all of them, 'Who is like You among the gods, O Lord? And who shall be likened to the Lord among the sons of Gods?' and of Him on the contrary that He only is Image true and natural of the Father. For though we have been made after the Image, and called both image and glory of God, yet not on our own account still, but for that Image and true Glory of God inhabiting us, which is His Word, who was for us afterwards made flesh, have we this grace of our designation.

This notion of theirs is clearly inappropriate and irrational like the rest, so the likeness and oneness must be referred to the very ousia of the Son. Unless it is understood this way, He will not be shown to have anything beyond created things, as has been said, nor will He be like the Father. Instead, He will merely be like the Father's doctrines, and He differs from the Father in that the Father is Father, but the doctrines and teaching belong to the Father. If the Son is like the Father only in respect to doctrines and teaching, then according to them the Father will be Father in name only, and the Son will not be an exact Image, or rather will be seen to have no genuine characteristic or likeness of the Father at all. For what likeness or characteristic does someone have who is so completely different from the Father? Paul taught like the Savior, yet was not like Him in ousia. Having such notions, they speak falsely. In reality, the Son and the Father are one in the way that has been described, and the Son is like the Father Himself and from Him in the way we can see and understand a son to be toward a father, and as we can see radiance toward the sun. Since the Son is this way, when the Son works, the Father is the one working, and when the Son comes to the Saints, the Father is the one who comes in the Son, as He promised when He said, "I and My Father will come, and will make Our abode with him" (John 14:23). For in the Image the Father is contemplated, and in the Radiance is the Light. Therefore, as we just said, when the Father gives grace and peace, the Son also gives it, as Paul indicates in every letter, writing, "Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." For one and the same grace is from the Father in the Son, just as the light of the sun and of the radiance is one, and just as the sun's illumination is accomplished through the radiance. Similarly, when he prays for the Thessalonians, saying, "Now God Himself even our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ, may He direct our way unto you" (1 Thessalonians 3:11), he has preserved the unity of the Father and of the Son. For he has not said, "May they direct," as if a double grace were given from two separate sources, this one and that one, but "May He direct," to show that the Father gives it through the Son—at which these irreligious people will not blush, though they certainly should.

11. This their notion then being evidently unseemly and irrational as well as the rest, the likeness and the oneness must be referred to the very Essence of the Son; for unless it be so taken, He will not be shown to have anything beyond things originate, as has been said, nor will He be like the Father, but He will be like the Father's doctrines; and He differs from the Father, in that the Father is Father, but the doctrines and teaching are the Father's. If then in respect to the doctrines and the teaching the Son is like the Father, then the Father according to them will be Father in name only, and the Son will not be an exact Image, or rather will be seen to have no propriety at all or likeness of the Father; for what likeness or propriety has he who is so utterly different from the Father? For Paul taught like the Saviour, yet was not like 'Him in essence.' Having then such notions, they speak falsely; whereas the Son and the Father are one in such wise as has been said, and in such wise is the Son like the Father Himself and from Him, as we may see and understand son to be towards father, and as we may see the radiance towards the sun. Such then being the Son, therefore when the Son works, the Father is the Worker, and the Son coming to the Saints, the Father is He who comes in the Son, as He promised when He said, 'I and My Father will come, and will make Our abode with him John 14:23;' for in the Image is contemplated the Father, and in the Radiance is the Light. Therefore also, as we said just now, when the Father gives grace and peace, the Son also gives it, as Paul signifies in every Epistle, writing, 'Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.' For one and the same grace is from the Father in the Son, as the light of the sun and of the radiance is one, and as the sun's illumination is effected through the radiance; and so too when he prays for the Thessalonians, in saying, 'Now God Himself even our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ, may He direct our way unto you 1 Thessalonians 3:11,' he has guarded the unity of the Father and of the Son. For he has not said, 'May they direct,' as if a double grace were given from two Sources, This and That, but 'May He direct,' to show that the Father gives it through the Son;– at which these irreligious ones will not blush, though they well might.

If there were no unity, and if the Word were not the true Offspring of the Father's essence—like radiance from light—but instead the Son were separated in nature from the Father, it would be enough for the Father alone to give, since none of created things share with their Maker in His giving. But as it actually is, this manner of giving demonstrates the oneness of the Father and the Son. For instance, no one would pray to receive from God and the Angels, or from any other creature, nor would anyone say, "May God and the Angel give you." But we do pray to the Father and the Son because of their oneness and the oneness of their giving. For what is given is given through the Son, and there is nothing that the Father does not accomplish through the Son. In this way grace is secure for whoever receives it. When the Patriarch Jacob blessed his grandchildren Ephraim and Manasseh, he said, "God who fed me all my life long until this day, the Angel who delivered me from all evil, bless the lads." Yet he did not join any created or natural Angel to God their Creator, nor did he reject God who had fed him and ask an Angel to bless his grandsons. Rather, by saying "who delivered me from all evil," he showed that it was no created Angel but the Word of God whom he joined to the Father in his prayer, through whom God delivers whomever He will. Knowing that He is also called the Father's "Angel of great Counsel," Jacob said that none other than He was the Giver of blessing and Deliverer from evil. He did not desire a blessing for himself from God but for his grandchildren from an Angel. Rather, the one whom he had entreated saying, "I will not let You go unless You bless me"—for that was God, as he himself says, "I have seen God face to face"—him he prayed to bless also the sons of Joseph. It is proper for an Angel to minister at God's command. Often an Angel goes out to cast out the Amorite and is sent to guard the people on the way. But these are not the Angel's own works, but the works of God who commanded and sent him, whose work it is to deliver whomever He will deliver. Therefore, it was none other than the Lord God Himself whom Jacob had seen, who said to him, "And behold I am with you, to guard you in all the way wherever you go." It was none other than God whom he had seen who kept Laban from his treachery, ordering him not to speak evil words to Jacob. It was none other than God whom he himself entreated, saying, "Rescue me from the hand of my brother Esau, for I fear him." Even in conversation with his wives he said, "God has not allowed Laban to injure me."

12. For if there were no unity, nor the Word the own Offspring of the Father's Essence, as the radiance of the light, but the Son were divided in nature from the Father, it were sufficient that the Father alone should give, since none of originate things is a partner with his Maker in His givings; but, as it is, such a mode of giving shows the oneness of the Father and the Son. No one, for instance, would pray to receive from God and the Angels, or from any other creature, nor would any one say, 'May God and the Angel give you;' but from Father and the Son, because of Their oneness and the oneness of Their giving. For through the Son is given what is given; and there is nothing but the Father operates it through the Son; for thus is grace secure to him who receives it. And if the Patriarch Jacob, blessing his grandchildren Ephraim and Manasses, said, 'God which fed me all my life long unto this day, the Angel which delivered me from all evil, bless the lads,' yet none of created and natural Angels did he join to God their Creator, nor rejecting God that fed him, did he from Angel ask the blessing on his grandsons; but in saying, 'Who delivered me from all evil,' he showed that it was no created Angel, but the Word of God, whom he joined to the Father in his prayer, through whom, whomsoever He will, God does deliver. For knowing that He is also called the Father's 'Angel of great Counsel,' he said that none other than He was the Giver of blessing, and Deliverer from evil. Nor was it that he desired a blessing for himself from God but for his grandchildren from the Angel, but whom He Himself had besought saying, 'I will not let You go except Thou bless me ' (for that was God, as he says himself, 'I have seen God face to face'), Him he prayed to bless also the sons of Joseph. It is proper then to an Angel to minister at the command of God, and often does he go forth to cast out the Amorite, and is sent to guard the people in the way; but these are not his doings, but of God who commanded and sent him, whose also it is to deliver, whom He will deliver. Therefore it was no other than the Lord God Himself whom he had seen, who said to him, 'And behold I am with you, to guard you in all the way wherever you go;' and it was no other than God whom he had seen, who kept Laban from his treachery, ordering him not to speak evil words to Jacob; and none other than God did he himself beseech, saying, 'Rescue me from the hand of my brother Esau, for I fear him;' for in conversation too with his wives he said, 'God has not suffered Laban to injure me.'

Therefore, David too prayed to none other than God Himself about his deliverance: 'When I was in trouble, I called upon the Lord, and He heard me; deliver my soul, O Lord, from lying lips and from a deceitful tongue.' To Him also, giving thanks, David spoke the words of the Song in the seventeenth Psalm, on the day when the Lord delivered him from the hand of all his enemies and from the hand of Saul, saying, 'I will love You, O Lord my strength; the Lord is my strong rock and my defense and deliverer.' And Paul, after enduring many persecutions, gave thanks to none other than God, saying, 'Out of them all the Lord delivered me; and He will deliver in Whom we trust.' And none other than God blessed Abraham and Isaac. When Isaac prayed for Jacob, he said, 'May God bless you and increase you and multiply you, and you shall be for many companies of nations, and may He give you the blessing of Abraham my father.' But if blessing and delivering belong to none other than God, and the deliverer of Jacob was none other than the Lord Himself, and the Patriarch prayed to Him who delivered Jacob for his grandsons, then evidently he joined to God in his prayer none other than God's Word, whom he therefore called Angel because He alone reveals the Father. The Apostle also did this when he said, 'Grace unto you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.' For in this way the blessing was secure, because of the Son's indivisibility from the Father, and because the grace given by Them is one and the same. For though the Father gives it, the gift comes through the Son; and though the Son is said to grant it, it is the Father who supplies it through and in the Son. For 'I thank my God,' says the Apostle writing to the Corinthians, 'always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you in Christ Jesus.' And one may see this in the example of light and radiance. For what the light enlightens, that the radiance illuminates; and what the radiance illuminates receives its enlightenment from the light. So also when the Son is seen, so is the Father, for He is the Father's radiance; and thus the Father and the Son are one.

13. Therefore it was none other than God Himself that David too besought concerning his deliverance, 'When I was in trouble, I called upon the Lord, and He heard me; deliver my soul, O Lord, from lying lips and from a deceitful tongue.' To Him also giving thanks he spoke the words of the Song in the seventeenth Psalm, in the day in which the Lord delivered him from the hand of all his enemies and from the hand of Saul, saying, 'I will love You, O Lord my strength; the Lord is my strong rock and my defense and deliverer.' And Paul, after enduring many persecutions, to none other than God gave thanks, saying, 'Out of them all the Lord delivered me; and He will deliver in Whom we trust.' And none other than God blessed Abraham and Isaac; and Isaac praying for Jacob, said, 'May God bless you and increase you and multiply you, and you shall be for many companies of nations, and may He give you the blessing of Abraham my father.' But if it belong to none other than God to bless and to deliver, and none other was the deliverer of Jacob than the Lord Himself and Him that delivered him the Patriarch besought for his grandsons, evidently none other did he join to God in his prayer, than God's Word, whom therefore he called Angel, because it is He alone who reveals the Father. Which the Apostle also did when he said, 'Grace unto you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.' For thus the blessing was secure, because of the Son's indivisibility from the Father, and for that the grace given by Them is one and the same. For though the Father gives it, through the Son is the gift; and though the Son be said to vouchsafe it, it is the Father who supplies it through and in the Son; for 'I thank my God,' says the Apostle writing to the Corinthians, 'always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you in Christ Jesus 1 Corinthians 1:4.' And this one may see in the instance of light and radiance; for what the light enlightens, that the radiance irradiates; and what the radiance irradiates, from the light is its enlightenment. So also when the Son is beheld, so is the Father, for He is the Father's radiance; and thus the Father and the Son are one.

But this is not the case with created things and creatures. When the Father works, it is not that some angel works, or any other creature, for none of these is an active cause—rather, they are among the things that come to be. Moreover, being separate and divided from the only God, and other in nature, and being works themselves, they can neither work what God works nor, as I said before, give grace alongside Him when God gives grace. Nor would someone who saw an angel say that he had seen the Father, for angels, as it is written, are "ministering spirits sent forth to minister" (Hebrews 1:14), and are messengers of gifts given by Him through the Word to those who receive them. And when the angel appears, he himself admits that he has been sent by his Lord, just as Gabriel admitted in the case of Zacharias and also in the case of Mary, the God-bearer. And the one who sees a vision of angels knows that he has seen an angel and not God. For Zacharias saw an angel, and Isaiah saw the Lord. Manoah, the father of Samson, saw an angel, but Moses beheld God. Gideon saw an angel, but to Abraham God appeared. And neither did the one who saw God behold an angel, nor did the one who saw an angel think that he saw God, for things that are by nature created differ greatly, or rather completely, from God the Creator. But if at any time, when the angel was seen, the one who saw it heard God's voice—as happened at the bush, for "the Angel of the Lord was seen in a flame of fire out of the bush, and the Lord called Moses out of the bush, saying, I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob"—yet the angel was not the God of Abraham, but in the angel God spoke. And what was seen was an angel, but God spoke in him. For just as He spoke to Moses in the pillar of cloud in the tabernacle, so also God appears and speaks in angels. So again to the son of Nun He spoke by an angel. But what God speaks, it is very plain He speaks through the Word, and not through another. And the Word, as being not separate from the Father, nor unlike and foreign to the Father's ousia, what He works, those are the Father's works, and His framing of all things is one with His. And what the Son gives, that is the Father's gift. And the one who has seen the Son knows that, in seeing Him, he has seen not an angel, nor one merely greater than angels, nor in short any creature, but the Father Himself. And the one who hears the Word knows that he hears the Father, just as the one who is irradiated by the radiance knows that he is enlightened by the sun.

14. But this is not so with things originate and creatures; for when the Father works, it is not that any Angel works, or any other creature; for none of these is an efficient cause, but they are of things which come to be; and moreover being separate and divided from the only God, and other in nature, and being works, they can neither work what God works, nor, as I said before, when God gives grace, can they give grace with Him. Nor, on seeing an Angel would a man say that he had seen the Father; for Angels, as it is written, are 'ministering spirits sent forth to minister Hebrews 1:14,' and are heralds of gifts given by Him through the Word to those who receive them. And the Angel on his appearance, himself confesses that he has been sent by his Lord; as Gabriel confessed in the case of Zacharias, and also in the case of Mary, bearer of God. And he who beholds a vision of Angels, knows that he has seen the Angel and not God. For Zacharias saw an Angel; and Isaiah saw the Lord. Manoah, the father of Samson, saw an Angel; but Moses beheld God. Gideon saw an Angel, but to Abraham appeared God. And neither he who saw God, beheld an Angel, nor he who saw an Angel, considered that he saw God; for greatly, or rather wholly, do things by nature originate differ from God the Creator. But if at any time, when the Angel was seen, he who saw it heard God's voice, as took place at the bush; for 'the Angel of the Lord was seen in a flame of fire out of the bush, and the Lord called Moses out of the bush, saying, I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob,' yet was not the Angel the God of Abraham, but in the Angel God spoke. And what was seen was an Angel; but God spoke in him. For as He spoke to Moses in the pillar of a cloud in the tabernacle, so also God appears and speaks in Angels. So again to the son of Nun He spoke by an Angel. But what God speaks, it is very plain He speaks through the Word, and not through another. And the Word, as being not separate from the Father, nor unlike and foreign to the Father's Essence, what He works, those are the Father's works, and His framing of all things is one with His; and what the Son gives, that is the Father's gift. And he who has seen the Son, knows that, in seeing Him, he has seen, not Angel, nor one merely greater than Angels, nor in short any creature, but the Father Himself. And he who hears the Word, knows that he hears the Father; as he who is irradiated by the radiance, knows that he is enlightened by the sun.

For Holy Scripture, wanting us to understand the matter this way, has provided such illustrations (as we said above) that enable us both to challenge the treacherous Jews and to refute the claim of Gentiles who maintain and think that because of the Trinity we profess many gods. As the illustration shows, we do not introduce three Origins or three Fathers, like the followers of Marcion and Manichaeus do. We have not suggested the image of three suns, but rather sun and radiance. There is one light from the sun in the radiance, and so we know of only one origin. We profess that the All-framing Word has no other manner of godhead than that of the Only God, because He is born from Him. Rather, it is the Arian-maniacs who rightly incur the charge of polytheism or else of atheism, because they foolishly speak of the Son as external and a creature, and again the Spirit as from nothing. Either they will say that the Word is not God, or else, saying that He is God (because it is so written) but not proper to the Father's Essence, they will introduce many gods because of their difference of kind—unless perhaps they dare to say that by participation only, He, like all other things, is called God. But if this is their view, their irreligion is the same, since they consider the Word as one among all things. But let this never even come into our mind. For there is only one form of Godhead, which is also in the Word, and one God, the Father, existing by Himself according as He is above all, and appearing in the Son according as He pervades all things, and in the Spirit according as in Him He acts in all things through the Word. For thus we confess God to be one through the Triad, and we say that it is much more religious than the godhead of the heretics with its many kinds and many parts, to hold a belief in the One Godhead in a Triad.

15. For divine Scripture wishing us thus to understand the matter, has given such illustrations, as we have said above, from which we are able both to press the traitorous Jews, and to refute the allegation of Gentiles who maintain and think, on account of the Trinity, that we profess many gods. For, as the illustration shows, we do not introduce three Origins or three Fathers, as the followers of Marcion and Manichæus; since we have not suggested the image of three suns, but sun and radiance. And one is the light from the sun in the radiance; and so we know of but one origin; and the All-framing Word we profess to have no other manner of godhead, than that of the Only God, because He is born from Him. Rather then will the Ario-maniacs with reason incur the charge of polytheism or else of atheism, because they idly talk of the Son as external and a creature, and again the Spirit as from nothing. For either they will say that the Word is not God; or saying that He is God, because it is so written, but not proper to the Father's Essence, they will introduce many because of their difference of kind (unless forsooth they shall dare to say that by participation only, He, as all things else, is called God; though, if this be their sentiment, their irreligion is the same, since they consider the Word as one among all things). But let this never even come into our mind. For there is but one form of Godhead, which is also in the Word; and one God, the Father, existing by Himself according as He is above all, and appearing in the Son according as He pervades all things, and in the Spirit according as in Him He acts in all things through the Word. For thus we confess God to be one through the Triad, and we say that it is much more religious than the godhead of the heretics with its many kinds, and many parts, to entertain a belief of the One Godhead in a Triad.

If this is not the case, but the Word is a creature and a work out of nothing, then either He is not True God because He is Himself one of the creatures, or if they call Him God out of regard for the Scriptures, they must necessarily say that there are two Gods—one Creator and the other creature—and must serve two Lords, one Unoriginate and the other originate and a creature. They must also have two faiths, one in the True God and the other in one who is made and fashioned by themselves and called God. It follows necessarily from such great blindness that when they worship the Unoriginate, they renounce the originate, and when they come to the creature, they turn from the Creator. For they cannot see the One in the Other, because their natures and operations are foreign and distinct. With such beliefs, they will certainly go on to believe in more gods, for this will be the path of those who revolt from the One God. Why then, when the Arians hold these ideas and views, do they not count themselves among the Gentiles? For they too, like the Gentiles, worship the creature rather than God the Creator of all, and though they shrink from the Gentile name in order to deceive the unskilful, they secretly hold the same belief as them. Their subtle saying which they are accustomed to use—"We do not say two Unoriginates"—they plainly say to deceive the simple. For in the very act of professing "We do not say two Unoriginates," they imply two Gods with different natures, one originate and one Unoriginate. Though the Greeks worship one Unoriginate and many originate gods, while these worship one Unoriginate and one originate, there is no difference between them. For the God whom they call originate is one out of many, and the many gods of the Greeks have the same nature as this one, for both he and they are creatures. They are unhappy, and all the more because their harm comes from thinking wrongly about Christ. They have fallen from the truth and are greater traitors than the Jews in denying the Christ, and they wallow with the Gentiles, hateful as they are to God, worshipping the creature and many deities. For there is One God, not many, and One is His Word, not many, for the Word is God, and He alone has the Form of the Father. Being such, the Saviour Himself troubled the Jews with these words: "The Father Himself who has sent Me has borne witness of Me; you have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His Form; and you do not have His Word abiding in you; for you do not believe Him whom He has sent." He fittingly joined "Word" to "Form" to show that the Word of God is Himself the Image and Expression and Form of His Father, and that the Jews who did not receive Him who spoke to them thereby did not receive the Word, which is the Form of God. This too was what the Patriarch Jacob saw and received a blessing from Him and the name of Israel instead of Jacob, as divine Scripture testifies, saying, "And as he passed by the Form of God, the Sun rose upon him." This was He who said, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father," and "I in the Father and the Father in Me," and "I and the Father are one." For thus God is One, and one is the faith in the Father and Son. For though the Word is God, the Lord our God is one Lord, for the Son is proper to that One and inseparable according to the propriety and peculiarity of His ousia.

16. For if it be not so, but the Word is a creature and a work out of nothing, either He is not True God because He is Himself one of the creatures, or if they name Him God from regard for the Scriptures, they must of necessity say that there are two Gods, one Creator, the other creature, and must serve two Lords, one Unoriginate, and the other originate and a creature; and must have two faiths, one in the True God, and the other in one who is made and fashioned by themselves and called God. And it follows of necessity in so great blindness, that, when they worship the Unoriginate, they renounce the originate, and when they come to the creature, they turn from the Creator. For they cannot see the One in the Other, because their natures and operations are foreign and distinct. And with such sentiments, they will certainly be going on to more gods, for this will be the essay of those who revolt from the One God. Wherefore then, when the Arians have these speculations and views, do they not rank themselves with the Gentiles? For they too, as these, worship the creature rather than God the Creator of all, and though they shrink from the Gentile name, in order to deceive the unskilful, yet they secretly hold a like sentiment with them. For their subtle saying which they are accustomed to urge, We say not two 'Unoriginates,' they plainly say to deceive the simple; for in their very professing 'We say not two Unoriginates,' they imply two Gods, and these with different natures, one originate and one Unoriginate. And though the Greeks worship one Unoriginate and many originate, but these one Unoriginate and one originate, this is no difference from them; for the God whom they call originate is one out of many, and again the many gods of the Greeks have the same nature with this one, for both he and they are creatures. Unhappy are they, and the more for that their hurt is from thinking against Christ; for they have fallen from the truth, and are greater traitors than the Jews in denying the Christ, and they wallow with the Gentiles, hateful as they are to God, worshipping the creature and many deities. For there is One God, and not many, and One is His Word, and not many; for the Word is God, and He alone has the Form of the Father. Being then such, the Saviour Himself troubled the Jews with these words, 'The Father Himself which has sent Me, has borne witness of Me; you have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His Form; and you have not His Word abiding in you; for whom He has sent, Him ye believe not John 5:37.' Suitably has He joined the 'Word' to the 'Form,' to show that the Word of God is Himself Image and Expression and Form of His Father; and that the Jews who did not receive Him who spoke to them, thereby did not receive the Word, which is the Form of God. This too it was that the Patriarch Jacob having seen, received a blessing from Him and the name of Israel instead of Jacob, as divine Scripture witnesses, saying, 'And as he passed by the Form of God, the Sun rose upon him.' And This it was who said, 'He that has seen Me has seen the Father,' and, 'I in the Father and the Father in Me,' and, 'I and the Father are one;' for thus God is One, and one the faith in the Father and Son; for, though the Word be God, the Lord our God is one Lord; for the Son is proper to that One, and inseparable according to the propriety and peculiarity of His Essence.

However, the Arians, not even shamed by this, reply, "Not as you say, but as we will." Since you have refuted our previous arguments, we have invented a new one, which is this: The Son and the Father are One, and the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father, in the same way that we too may become one in Him. For this is written in the Gospel according to John, and Christ desired it for us in these words: "Holy Father, keep through Your own Name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one, as We are." And shortly after: "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe in Me through their Word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You have sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one, even as We are one; I in them, and You in Me, that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You sent Me." Then, as if they have found an escape, these crafty men add: "If the Son and the Father are one in the same way that we become one in the Father, and if He is in the Father in this way, how can you claim from His saying 'I and the Father are One' and 'I in the Father and the Father in Me' that He is proper to and like the Father's ousia? For it follows that either we too are proper to the Father's ousia, or He is foreign to it, just as we are foreign." Thus they talk nonsense. But in this perverseness I see nothing except irrational audacity and recklessness from the devil, since they are speaking according to his pattern: "We will ascend to heaven, we will be like the Most High." For what is given to man by grace, they would make equal to the Godhead of the Giver. Thus, hearing that men are called sons, they thought themselves equal to the True Son who is such by nature. And now again, hearing from the Savior "that they may be one as We are," they deceive themselves and are arrogant enough to think that they may be such as the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son, not considering the fall of their "father the devil," which happened because of such an imagination.

17. The Arians, however, not even thus abashed, reply, 'Not as you say, but as we will;' for, whereas you have overthrown our former expedients, we have invented a new one, and it is this:– So are the Son and the Father One, and so is the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father, as we too may become one in Him. For this is written in the Gospel according to John, and Christ desired it for us in these words, 'Holy Father, keep through Your own Name, those whom You have given Me, that they may be one, as We are John 17:11.' And shortly after; 'Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe in Me through their Word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You have sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one, even as We are one; I in them, and You in Me, that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You sent Me.' Then, as having found an evasion, these men of craft add, 'If, as we become one in the Father, so also He and the Father are one, and thus He too is in the Father, how pretend you from His saying, I and the Father are One, and I in the Father and the Father in Me, that He is proper and like the Father's Essence? For it follows either that we too are proper to the Father's Essence, or He foreign to it, as we are foreign.' Thus they idly babble; but in this their perverseness I see nothing but unreasoning audacity and recklessness from the devil, since it is saying after his pattern, 'We will ascend to heaven, we will be like the Most High.' For what is given to man by grace, this they would make equal to the Godhead of the Giver. Thus hearing that men are called sons, they thought themselves equal to the True Son by nature such. And now again hearing from the Saviour, 'that they may be one as We are John 8:44,' they deceive themselves, and are arrogant enough to think that they may be such as the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son; not considering the fall of their 'father the devil,' which happened upon such an imagination.

If then, as we have said many times, the Word of God is the same as us and differs from us in nothing except in time, let Him be like us and have the same place with the Father as we have. Nor let Him be called Only-begotten, nor Only Word or Wisdom of the Father. Instead, let the same name apply commonly to all of us who are like Him. For it is right that those who have one physis should have their name in common, even though they differ from each other in point of time. For Adam was a man, and Paul a man, and he who is now born is a man, and time is not what alters the physis of the race. If then the Word also differs from us only in time, then we must be as He is. But in truth neither are we Word or Wisdom, nor is He creature or work. Otherwise, why are we all sprung from one, and He the Only Word? But though it may be suitable for them to speak this way, it is unsuitable for us to entertain their blasphemies. And yet, needless though it is to examine these passages closely, considering their clear and religious meaning and our own orthodox belief, still, so that their irreligion may be shown here also, come let us briefly, as we have received from the fathers, expose their heterodoxy from the passage. It is a custom with divine Scripture to take the things of nature as images and illustrations for mankind, and this it does so that from these physical objects the moral impulses of man may be explained and thus their conduct shown to be either bad or righteous. For instance, in the case of the bad, as when it charges, "Be not like to horse and mule which have no understanding." Or as when it says, complaining of those who have become such, "Man, being in honor, has no understanding, but is compared unto the beasts that perish." And again, "They were as wanton horses." And the Savior, to expose Herod, said, "Tell that fox," but on the other hand, charged His disciples, "Behold I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves; be therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves." And He said this, not that we may become in nature beasts of burden, or become serpents and doves—for He has not so made us Himself, and therefore nature does not allow it—but that we might avoid the irrational impulses of the one, and being aware of the wisdom of that other animal, might not be deceived by it, and might take on the meekness of the dove.

18. If then, as we have many times said, the Word of God is the same with us, and nothing differs from us except in time, let Him be like us, and have the same place with the Father as we have; nor let Him be called Only-begotten, nor Only Word or Wisdom of the Father; but let the same name be of common application to all us who are like Him. For it is right, that they who have one nature, should have their name in common, though they differ from each other in point of time. For Adam was a man, and Paul a man, and he who is now born is a man, and time is not that which alters the nature of the race. If then the Word also differs from us only in time, then we must be as He. But in truth neither we are Word or Wisdom, nor is He creature or work; else why are we all sprung from one, and He the Only Word? But though it be suitable in them thus to speak, in us at least it is unsuitable to entertain their blasphemies. And yet, needless though it be to refine upon these passages, considering their so clear and religious sense, and our own orthodox belief, yet that their irreligion may be shown here also, come let us shortly, as we have received from the fathers, expose their heterodoxy from the passage. It is a custom with divine Scripture to take the things of nature as images and illustrations for mankind; and this it does, that from these physical objects the moral impulses of man may be explained; and thus their conduct shown to be either bad or righteous. For instance, in the case of the bad, as when it charges, 'Be not like to horse and mule which have no understanding.' Or as when it says, complaining of those who have become such, 'Man, being in honour, has no understanding, but is compared unto the beasts that perish.' And again, 'They were as wanton horses Jeremiah 5:8.' And the Saviour to expose Herod said, 'Tell that fox Luke 13:32;' but, on the other hand, charged His disciples, 'Behold I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves; be ye therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves Matthew 10:16.' And He said this, not that we may become in nature beasts of burden, or become serpents and doves; for He has not so made us Himself, and therefore nature does not allow of it; but that we might eschew the irrational motions of the one, and being aware of the wisdom of that other animal, might not be deceived by it, and might take on us the meekness of the dove.

Again, taking examples for humanity from divine subjects, the Savior says, "Be merciful, as your Father which is in heaven is merciful" (Luke 6:36), and "Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matthew 5:48). And He said this not so that we might become such as the Father, for becoming like the Father is impossible for us creatures who have been brought into being out of nothing. Rather, just as He commanded us "Be not like to horse"—not to prevent us from becoming draft animals, but so we would not imitate their lack of reason—likewise He did not say "Be merciful as your Father" so that we might become as God, but so that by looking at His beneficial acts, whatever we do well we might do not for men's sake but for His sake, so that we may receive our reward from Him and not from men. For just as, although there is one Son by nature—true and only-begotten—we too become sons, yet not as He is in nature and truth, but according to the grace of Him who calls; and though we are people from the earth, we are still called gods, yet not as the true God or His Word, but as has pleased God who has given us that grace. Similarly, we become merciful as God, not by being made equal to God, nor by becoming benefactors in nature and truth (for it is not our gift to benefit, but belongs to God), but so that what has come to us from God Himself by grace, we may give to others, without making distinctions, but extending our kind service generously to all. For only in this way can we in any sense become imitators, and in no other—when we minister to others what comes from Him. And just as we put a proper and right interpretation on these texts, so too should we understand the passage in John. For he does not say that we must become as the Son is in the Father—how could we? When He is God's Word and Wisdom, and we were fashioned out of the earth; and He is by nature and ousia Word and true God (for thus John speaks: "We know that the Son of God has come, and He has given us an understanding to know Him that is true, and we are in Him that is true, even in His Son Jesus Christ; this is the true God and eternal life" [1 John 5:20]); and we are made sons through Him by adoption and grace, as partakers of His Spirit (for "as many as received Him," he says, "to them gave He power to become children of God, even to them that believe in His Name" [John 1:12]); and therefore also He is the Truth (saying "I am the Truth," and in His address to His Father, He said "Sanctify them through Your Truth, Your Word is Truth"). But we become virtuous and sons by imitation. Therefore, when He said "that they may be one as We are," it was not so that we might become such as He is, but so that just as He, being the Word, is in His own Father, we too, taking Him as an example and looking to Him, might become one toward each other in harmony and unity of spirit, and not be at odds as the Corinthians were, but be of the same mind, like those five thousand in Acts (Acts 4:4, 32) who were as one.

19. Again, taking patterns for man from divine subjects, the Saviour says; 'Be merciful, as your Father which is in heaven is merciful Luke 6:36;' and, 'Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect Matthew 5:48.' And He said this too, not that we might become such as the Father; for to become as the Father, is impossible for us creatures, who have been brought to be out of nothing; but as He charged us, 'Be not like to horse,' not lest we should become as draught animals, but that we should not imitate their want of reason, so, not that we might become as God, did He say, 'Be merciful as your Father,' but that looking at His beneficent acts, what we do well, we might do, not for men's sake, but for His sake, so that from Him and not from men we may have the reward. For as, although there be one Son by nature, True and Only-begotten, we too become sons, not as He in nature and truth, but according to the grace of Him that calls, and though we are men from the earth, are yet called gods, not as the True God or His Word, but as has pleased God who has given us that grace; so also, as God do we become merciful, not by being made equal to God, nor becoming in nature and truth benefactors (for it is not our gift to benefit but belongs to God), but in order that what has accrued to us from God Himself by grace, these things we may impart to others, without making distinctions, but largely towards all extending our kind service. For only in this way can we anyhow become imitators, and in no other, when we minister to others what comes from Him. And as we put a fair and right sense upon these texts, such again is the sense of the lection in John. For he does not say, that, as the Son is in the Father, such we must become:– whence could it be? When He is God's Word and Wisdom, and we were fashioned out of the earth, and He is by nature and essence Word and true God (for thus speaks John, 'We know that the Son of God has come, and He has given us an understanding to know Him that is true, and we are in Him that is true, even in His Son Jesus Christ; this is the true God and eternal life 1 John 5:20 ') and we are made sons through Him by adoption and grace, as partaking of His Spirit (for 'as many as received Him,' he says, 'to them gave He power to become children of God, even to them that believe in His Name John 1:12 '), and therefore also He is the Truth (saying, 'I am the Truth,' and in His address to His Father, He said, 'Sanctify them through Your Truth, Your Word is Truth '); but we by imitation become virtuous and sons:– therefore not that we might become such as He, did He say 'that they may be one as We are;' but that as He, being the Word, is in His own Father, so that we too, taking an examplar and looking at Him, might become one towards each other in concord and oneness of spirit, nor be at variance as the Corinthians, but mind the same thing, as those five thousand in the Acts Acts 4:4, 32, who were as one.

For it is as 'sons,' not as the Son; as 'gods,' not as He Himself; and not as the Father, but 'merciful as the Father.' And as has been said, by becoming one as the Father and the Son are, we will be such—not as the Father is by physis in the Son and the Son in the Father, but according to our own physis, and as it is possible for us to be shaped by this and to learn how we ought to be one, just as we also learned to be merciful. For like things are naturally one with like; thus all flesh is grouped together in kind. But the Word is unlike us and like the Father. Therefore, while He is one by physis and in truth with His own Father, we—being of one kind with each other (for all were made from one, and the physis of all human beings is one)—become one with each other in good disposition, having as our model the Son's natural unity with the Father. For just as He taught us meekness from Himself, saying, 'Learn of Me for I am meek and lowly in heart,' not so that we might become equal to Him, which is impossible, but so that by looking toward Him we may remain continually meek, so also here, wishing that our good disposition toward each other should be true and firm and unbreakable, He takes the pattern from Himself and says, 'that they may be one as We are,' whose oneness is indivisible. That is, He says this so that they, learning from us of that indivisible nature, may likewise preserve agreement with one another. And this imitation of natural conditions is especially safe for human beings, as has been said. For since these conditions remain and never change, whereas human conduct is very changeable, one may look to what is unchangeable by physis and avoid what is bad and reshape himself according to what is best.

20. For it is as 'sons,' not as the Son; as 'gods,' not as He Himself; and not as the Father, but 'merciful as the Father.' And, as has been said, by so becoming one, as the Father and the Son, we shall be such, not as the Father is by nature in the Son and the Son in the Father, but according to our own nature, and as it is possible for us thence to be moulded and to learn how we ought to be one, just as we learned also to be merciful. For like things are naturally one with like; thus all flesh is ranked together in kind; but the Word is unlike us and like the Father. And therefore, while He is in nature and truth one with His own Father, we, as being of one kind with each other (for from one were all made, and one is the nature of all men), become one with each other in good disposition, having as our copy the Son's natural unity with the Father. For as He taught us meekness from Himself, saying, 'Learn of Me for I am meek and lowly in heart Matthew 11:29,' not that we may become equal to Him, which is impossible, but that looking towards Him, we may remain meek continually, so also here wishing that our good disposition towards each other should be true and firm and indissoluble, from Himself taking the pattern, He says, 'that they may be one as We are,' whose oneness is indivisible; that is, that they learning from us of that indivisible Nature, may preserve in like manner agreement one with another. And this imitation of natural conditions is especially safe for man, as has been said; for, since they remain and never change, whereas the conduct of men is very changeable, one may look to what is unchangeable by nature, and avoid what is bad and remodel himself on what is best.

And for this reason also the words "that they may be one in Us" have a right sense. For instance, if it were possible for us to become as the Son in the Father, the words should have said "that they may be one in You," as the Son is in the Father. But since He has not said this, and has instead said "in Us," He has pointed out the distance and difference: that He indeed is alone in the Father alone, as the Only Word and Wisdom, but we are in the Son, and through Him in the Father. And in speaking this way, He meant only this: "By Our unity may they also be so one with each other, as We are one in nature and truth; for otherwise they could not be one, except by learning unity in Us." And that "in Us" has this meaning, we can learn from Paul, who says, "These things I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos, that you may learn in us not to be puffed up above that is written" (1 Corinthians 4:6). The words "in Us" then, do not mean "in the Father" as the Son is in Him, but imply an example and image, instead of saying "Let them learn from Us." For just as Paul to the Corinthians, so the oneness of the Son and the Father is a pattern and lesson to all, by which they may learn, looking to that natural unity of the Father and the Son, how they themselves ought to be one in spirit toward each other. Or if it needs to be explained differently, the words "in Us" may mean the same as saying that in the power of the Father and the Son they may be one, speaking the same things; for without God this is impossible. And this way of speaking we can also find in the divine writings, as "In God will we do great acts," and "In God I shall leap over the wall," and "In You will we tread down our enemies." Therefore it is clear that in the Name of Father and Son we shall be able, becoming one, to hold firm the bond of charity. For, dwelling still on the same thought, the Lord says, "And the glory which You gave Me, I have given to them, that they may be one as We are one." He has appropriately said here too, not "that they may be in You as I am," but "as We are." Now whoever says "as" signifies not identity, but an image and example of the matter at hand.

21. And for this reason also the words, 'that they may be one in Us,' have a right sense. If, for instance, it were possible for us to become as the Son in the Father, the words ought to run, 'that they may be one in You,' as the Son is in the Father; but, as it is, He has not said this; but by saying 'in Us' He has pointed out the distance and difference; that He indeed is alone in the Father alone, as Only Word and Wisdom; but we in the Son, and through Him in the Father. And thus speaking, He meant this only, 'By Our unity may they also be so one with each other, as We are one in nature and truth; for otherwise they could not be one, except by learning unity in Us.' And that 'in Us' has this signification, we may learn from Paul, who says, 'These things I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos, that you may learn in us not to be puffed up above that is written 1 Corinthians 4:6.' The words 'in Us' then, are not 'in the Father,' as the Son is in Him; but imply an example and image, instead of saying, 'Let them learn of Us.' For as Paul to the Corinthians, so is the oneness of the Son and the Father a pattern and lesson to all, by which they may learn, looking to that natural unity of the Father and the Son, how they themselves ought to be one in spirit towards each other. Or if it needs to account for the phrase otherwise, the words 'in Us' may mean the same as saying, that in the power of the Father and the Son they may be one, speaking the same things; for without God this is impossible. And this mode of speech also we may find in the divine writings, as 'In God will we do great acts;' and 'In God I shall leap over the wall;' and 'In You will we tread down our enemies.' Therefore it is plain, that in the Name of Father and Son we shall be able, becoming one, to hold firm the bond of charity. For, dwelling still on the same thought, the Lord says, 'And the glory which You gave Me, I have given to them, that they may be one as We are one.' Suitably has He here too said, not, 'that they may be in You as I am,' but 'as We are;' now he who says 'as', signifies not identity, but an image and example of the matter in hand.

The Word, then, has a real and true identity of nature with the Father. But for us, it is given only to imitate it, as has been said. For Christ immediately adds, "I in them and You in Me, that they may be made perfect in one." Here at last the Lord asks for something greater and more complete for us. It is clear that the Word has come to be in us because He has taken on our body. "And You, Father, in Me"—for I am Your Word, and since You are in Me because I am Your Word, and I am in them because of my body, and because of You the salvation of humanity is perfected in Me, therefore I ask that they also may become one, according to the body that is in Me and according to its perfection. That is, that they too may become perfect, having oneness with it and having become one in it, so that as if all were carried by Me, all may be one body and one spirit, and may grow up into a perfect man. For we all, sharing in the Same, become one body, having the one Lord in ourselves. This passage, understood this way, even more clearly refutes the false teaching of Christ's enemies. I repeat: if He had said simply and without qualification "that they may be one in You," or "that they and I may be one in You," God's enemies would have had some argument, though a shameless one. But in fact He has not spoken simply, but rather "As You, Father, in Me, and I in You, that they may be all one." Moreover, by using the word "as," He indicates those who become distantly as He is in the Father—distantly not in place but in physis. For in place nothing is far from God, but in physis only do all things stand far from Him. And, as I said before, whoever uses the particle "as" implies not identity nor equality, but a pattern of the matter in question, viewed in a certain respect.

22. The Word then has the real and true identity of nature with the Father; but to us it is given to imitate it, as has been said; for He immediately adds, 'I in them and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one.' Here at length the Lord asks something greater and more perfect for us; for it is plain that the Word has come to be in us, for He has put on our body. 'And Thou Father in Me;' 'for I am Your Word, and since You are in Me, because I am Your Word, and I in them because of the body, and because of You the salvation of men is perfected in Me, therefore I ask that they also may become one, according to the body that is in Me and according to its perfection; that they too may become perfect, having oneness with It, and having become one in It; that, as if all were carried by Me, all may be one body and one spirit, and may grow up unto a perfect man.' For we all, partaking of the Same, become one body, having the one Lord in ourselves. The passage then having this meaning, still more plainly is refuted the heterodoxy of Christ's enemies. I repeat it; if He had said simply and absolutely 'that they may be one in You,' or 'that they and I may be one in You,' God's enemies had had some plea, though a shameless one; but in fact He has not spoken simply, but, 'As Thou, Father, in Me, and I in You, that they may be all one.' Moreover, using the word 'as,' He signifies those who become distantly as He is in the Father; distantly not in place but in nature; for in place nothing is far from God, but in nature only all things are far from Him. And, as I said before, whoever uses the particle 'as' implies, not identity, nor equality, but a pattern of the matter in question, viewed in a certain respect.

We can also learn this from the Savior Himself when He says, "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matthew 12:40). Jonah was not like the Savior, nor did Jonah descend to hades; the whale was not hades; and when Jonah was swallowed up, he did not bring up those who had previously been swallowed by the whale—only he came out when the whale was commanded. Therefore the word "as" does not signify identity or equality, but one thing and another; it shows a certain kind of parallel in Jonah's case, because of the three days. In the same way, when the Lord says "as," we do not become as the Son is in the Father, or as the Father is in the Son. We become one like the Father and the Son in mind and agreement of spirit, and the Savior will be like Jonah in the earth. But just as the Savior is not Jonah, and His descent into hades was not the same as Jonah being swallowed up—it is only a parallel—in the same way, if we too become one as the Son is in the Father, we will not be as the Son or equal to Him, for He and we are only parallel. This is why the word "as" is applied to us: things that differ from others in nature can become like them when viewed in a certain relation. Therefore the Son Himself is in the Father simply and without any condition, for this attribute He has by nature. But for us, to whom it is not natural, an image and example is needed, so that He may say of us, "As You in Me, and I in You." "And when they are perfected in this way," He says, "then the world will know that You have sent Me, for unless I had come and borne their body, none of them would have been perfected, but all would have remained corruptible. Work in them then, O Father, and as You have given Me to bear this, grant them Your Spirit, so that they too may become one in It and be perfected in Me. For their perfecting shows that Your Word has lived among them; and the world, seeing them perfect and full of God, will believe completely that You have sent Me and that I have lived here. For where does this perfecting of theirs come from, except that I, Your Word, having borne their body and become man, have completed the work that You gave Me, O Father? And the work is completed because men, redeemed from sin, no longer remain dead, but being deified, have in each other, by looking at Me, the bond of love."

23. Indeed we may learn also from the Saviour Himself, when He says, 'For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth Matthew 12:40.' For Jonah was not as the Saviour, nor did Jonah go down to hades; nor was the whale hades; nor did Jonah, when swallowed up, bring up those who had before been swallowed by the whale, but he alone came forth, when the whale was bidden. Therefore there is no identity nor equality signified in the term 'as,' but one thing and another; and it shows a certain kind of parallel in the case of Jonah, on account of the three days. In like manner then we too, when the Lord says 'as,' neither become as the Son in the Father, nor as the Father is in the Son. For we become one as the Father and the Son in mind and agreement of spirit, and the Saviour will be as Jonah in the earth; but as the Saviour is not Jonah, nor, as he was swallowed up, so did the Saviour descend into hades, but it is but a parallel, in like manner, if we too become one, as the Son in the Father, we shall not be as the Son, nor equal to Him; for He and we are but parallel. For on this account is the word 'as' applied to us; since things differing from others in nature, become as they, when viewed in a certain relation. Wherefore the Son Himself, simply and without any condition is in the Father; for this attribute He has by nature; but for us, to whom it is not natural, there is needed an image and example, that He may say of us, 'As Thou in Me, and I in You.' 'And when they shall be so perfected,' He says, 'then the world knows that You have sent Me, for unless I had come and borne this their body, no one of them had been perfected, but one and all had remained corruptible. Work Thou then in them, O Father, and as You have given to Me to bear this, grant to them Your Spirit, that they too in It may become one, and may be perfected in Me. For their perfecting shows that Your Word has sojourned among them; and the world seeing them perfect and full of God, will believe altogether that You have sent Me, and I have sojourned here. For whence is this their perfecting, but that I, Your Word, having borne their body, and become man, have perfected the work, which You gave Me, O Father? And the work is perfected, because men, redeemed from sin, no longer remain dead; but being deified, have in each other, by looking at Me, the bond of charity. '

We have given a rough explanation of the expressions in this passage, though it has required many words. But the blessed John will explain the meaning of these words in his Epistle, more concisely and more perfectly than we can. He will both refute the interpretation of these irreligious men and teach us how we come to be in God and God in us. He will also show how we become one in Him, how far the Son differs from us in nature, and will prevent the Arians from continuing to think they shall be like the Son. Otherwise they will hear it said to them, "You are a man and not God," and "Do not stretch yourself, being poor, beside a rich man." John writes this: "By this we know that we dwell in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit." Therefore, because of the grace of the Spirit that has been given to us, we come to be in Him, and He in us. Since it is the Spirit of God, we who have the Spirit are reasonably considered to be in God through His dwelling in us, and thus God is in us. But we do not become in the Father in the same way the Son is in the Father. The Son does not merely partake of the Spirit so that He might be in the Father, nor does He receive the Spirit. Rather, He Himself supplies it to all. The Spirit does not unite the Word to the Father; rather, the Spirit receives from the Word. The Son is in the Father as His own Word and Radiance. But we, apart from the Spirit, are foreign and distant from God, and through participation in the Spirit we are joined to the Godhead. So our being in the Father is not our own, but belongs to the Spirit that is in us and remains in us, while we preserve it in us through true confession. John says again, "Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwells in him and he in God." What then is our likeness and equality to the Son? Are not the Arians refuted on every side, especially by John, who shows that the Son is in the Father in one way and we become in Him in another way? We shall never be as He is, nor is the Word as we are—unless they dare to say, as they commonly do, that the Son also came to be in the Father through participation in the Spirit and through improvement of conduct. But this would be an extreme irreligion, even to admit such a thought. For He, as has been said, gives the Spirit, and whatever the Spirit has, He has from the Word.

24. We then, by way of giving a rude view of the expressions in this passage, have been led into many words, but blessed John will show from his Epistle the sense of the words, concisely and much more perfectly than we can. And he will both disprove the interpretation of these irreligious men, and will teach how we become in God and God in us; and how again we become One in Him, and how far the Son differs in nature from us, and will stop the Arians from any longer thinking that they shall be as the Son, lest they hear it said to them, 'You are a man and not God,' and 'Stretch not yourself, being poor, beside a rich man.' John then thus writes; 'Hereby know we that we dwell in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit 1 John 4:13.' Therefore because of the grace of the Spirit which has been given to us, in Him we come to be, and He in us; and since it is the Spirit of God, therefore through His becoming in us, reasonably are we, as having the Spirit, considered to be in God, and thus is God in us. Not then as the Son in the Father, so also we become in the Father; for the Son does not merely partake the Spirit, that therefore He too may be in the Father; nor does He receive the Spirit, but rather He supplies It Himself to all; and the Spirit does not unite the Word to the Father, but rather the Spirit receives from the Word. And the Son is in the Father, as His own Word and Radiance; but we, apart from the Spirit, are strange and distant from God, and by the participation of the Spirit we are knit into the Godhead; so that our being in the Father is not ours, but is the Spirit's which is in us and abides in us, while by the true confession we preserve it in us, John again saying, 'Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwells in him and he in God 1 John 4:15.' What then is our likeness and equality to the Son? Rather, are not the Arians confuted on every side? And especially by John, that the Son is in the Father in one way, and we become in Him in another, and that neither we shall ever be as He, nor is the Word as we; except they shall dare, as commonly, so now to say, that the Son also by participation of the Spirit and by improvement of conduct came to be Himself also in the Father. But here again is an excess of irreligion, even in admitting the thought. For He, as has been said, gives to the Spirit, and whatever the Spirit has, He has from the Word.

The Savior, when saying of us, "As You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, that they too may be one in Us," does not mean that we were to have identity with Him—this was shown from the example of Jonah. Rather, it is a request to the Father, as John has written, that the Spirit should be given through Him to those who believe. Through the Spirit we are found to be in God and in this way joined together in Him. Since the Word is in the Father, and the Spirit is given from the Word, He wants us to receive the Spirit so that when we receive it—having the Spirit of the Word which is in the Father—we too may be found, because of the Spirit, to become one in the Word, and through Him in the Father. When He says "as we," this again is simply a request that the grace of the Spirit given to the disciples would be without failure or withdrawal. For what the Word has by nature in the Father, as I said, He wishes to be given to us through the Spirit irrevocably. The Apostle, knowing this, said, "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?" for "the gifts of God" and "the grace of His calling are without repentance." It is the Spirit that is in God, not we in our own selves. Just as we are sons and gods because of the Word in us, so we shall be in the Son and in the Father, and we shall be considered to have become one in the Son and in the Father, because the Spirit that is in the Word which is in the Father is in us. When a person falls from the Spirit because of any wickedness, if he repents after his fall, the grace remains irrevocably for those who are willing. Otherwise, the one who has fallen is no longer in God (because the Holy Spirit and Paraclete which is in God has abandoned him), but the sinner shall be in the one to whom he has subjected himself, as happened in Saul's case—for the Spirit of God departed from him and an evil spirit was tormenting him. God's enemies, hearing this, ought to be ashamed from now on and no longer pretend to be equal to God. But they neither understand (for "the irreligious person," he says, "does not understand knowledge") nor tolerate religious words, but find them burdensome even to hear.

25. The Saviour, then, saying of us, 'As Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in You, that they too may be one in Us,' does not signify that we were to have identity with Him; for this was shown from the instance of Jonah; but it is a request to the Father, as John has written, that the Spirit should be vouchsafed through Him to those who believe, through whom we are found to be in God, and in this respect to be conjoined in Him. For since the Word is in the Father, and the Spirit is given from the Word, He wills that we should receive the Spirit, that, when we receive It, thus having the Spirit of the Word which is in the Father, we too may be found on account of the Spirit to become One in the Word, and through Him in the Father. And if He say, 'as we,' this again is only a request that such grace of the Spirit as is given to the disciples may be without failure or revocation. For what the Word has by nature, as I said, in the Father, that He wishes to be given to us through the Spirit irrevocably; which the Apostle knowing, said, 'Who shall separate us from the love of Christ.' for 'the gifts of God?' and ' grace of His calling are without repentance.' It is the Spirit then which is in God, and not we viewed in our own selves; and as we are sons and gods because of the Word in us, so we shall be in the Son and in the Father, and we shall be accounted to have become one in Son and in Father, because that that Spirit is in us, which is in the Word which is in the Father. When then a man falls from the Spirit for any wickedness, if he repent upon his fall, the grace remains irrevocably to such as are willing; otherwise he who has fallen is no longer in God (because that Holy Spirit and Paraclete which is in God has deserted him), but the sinner shall be in him to whom he has subjected himself, as took place in Saul's instance; for the Spirit of God departed from him and an evil spirit was afflicting him. 1 Samuel 16:14 God's enemies hearing this ought to be henceforth abashed, and no longer to feign themselves equal to God. But they neither understand (for 'the irreligious,' he says, 'does not understand knowledge ') nor endure religious words, but find them heavy even to hear.

Look at this: as if not worn out by their irreligious words, but hardened like Pharaoh, when they hear and see the Saviour's human attributes in the Gospels, they have completely forgotten, like the Samosatene, the Son's paternal Godhead. With arrogant and audacious tongues they say: "How can the Son be from the Father by physis and be like Him in ousia, when He says, 'All power is given to Me,' and 'The Father judges no man, but has committed all judgment to the Son,' and 'The Father loves the Son and has given all things into His hand; he that believes in the Son has everlasting life,' and again, 'All things were delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son, and he to whomever the Son will reveal Him,' and again, 'All that the Father has given to Me shall come to Me'?" About this they observe: "If He was, as you say, Son by physis, He had no need to receive, but He had it by physis as a Son." Or how can He be the natural and true Power of the Father, who near the time of the passion says, "Now is My soul troubled, and what shall I say? Father, save Me from this hour; but for this I came to this hour. Father, glorify Your Name. Then a voice came from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again." And He said the same thing another time: "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me," and "When Jesus had said this, He was troubled in spirit and testified and said, Truly, truly, I say to you, that one of you shall betray Me." Then these perverse men argue: "If He were Power, He would not have feared, but rather He would have supplied power to others." Further they say: "If He were by physis the true and own Wisdom of the Father, how is it written, 'And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man'?" In the same way, when He had come into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked the disciples whom men said that He was, and when He was at Bethany He asked where Lazarus lay, and He said besides to His disciples, "How many loaves do you have?" "How then," they say, "is He Wisdom, who increased in wisdom and was ignorant of what He asked of others?" They also urge this: How can He be the own Word of the Father, without whom the Father never was, through whom He makes all things, as you think, who said upon the Cross "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" and before that had prayed, "Glorify Your Name," and "O Father, glorify Me with the glory which I had with You before the world was"? And He used to pray in the deserts and charge His disciples to pray lest they should enter into temptation, and "The spirit indeed is willing," He said, "but the flesh is weak." And "Of that day and that hour knows no man, no, nor the Angels, neither the Son." Upon this again the miserable men say: If the Son were, according to your interpretation, eternally existent with God, He would not have been ignorant of the Day, but would have known as Word; nor would have been forsaken as being coexistent; nor would have asked to receive glory, as having it in the Father; nor would have prayed at all; for, being the Word, He would have needed nothing. But since He is a creature and one of things originate, therefore He spoke this way and needed what He did not have; for it is proper to creatures to require and to need what they do not have.

26. For behold, as if not wearied in their words of irreligion, but hardened with Pharaoh, while they hear and see the Saviour's human attributes in the Gospels, they have utterly forgotten, like the Samosatene, the Son's paternal Godhead, and with arrogant and audacious tongue they say, 'How can the Son be from the Father by nature, and be like Him in essence,' who says, 'All power is given unto Me;' and 'The Father judges no man, but has committed all judgment unto the Son.' and 'The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand; he that believes in the Son has everlasting life;' and again, 'All things were delivered unto Me of My Father, and no one knows the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him;' and again, 'All that the Father has given unto Me, shall come to Me.' On this they observe, 'If He was, as you say, Son by nature, He had no need to receive, but He had by nature as a Son.' Or how can He be the natural and true Power of the Father, who near upon the season of the passion says, 'Now is My soul troubled, and what shall I say? Father, save Me from this hour; but for this came I unto this hour. Father, glorify Your Name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again John 12:27-28.' And He said the same another time; 'Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me;' and 'When Jesus had thus said, He was troubled in spirit and testified and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray Me. ' Then these perverse men argue; 'If He were Power, He had not feared, but rather He had supplied power to others.' Further they say; 'If He were by nature the true and own Wisdom of the Father,' how is it written, 'And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man?' In like manner, when He had come into the parts of Cæsarea Philippi, He asked the disciples whom men said that He was; and when He was at Bethany He asked where Lazarus lay; and He said besides to His disciples, 'How many loaves have ye? How then,' say they, 'is He Wisdom, who increased in wisdom and was ignorant of what He asked of others?' This too they urge; How can He be the own Word of the Father, without whom the Father never was, through whom He makes all things, as you think, who said upon the Cross 'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?' and before that had prayed, 'Glorify Your Name,' and, 'O Father, glorify Thou Me with the glory which I had with You before the world was.' And He used to pray in the deserts and charge His disciples to pray lest they should enter into temptation; and, 'The spirit indeed is willing,' He said, 'but the flesh is weak.' And, 'Of that day and that hour knows no man, no, nor the Angels, neither the Son. ' Upon this again say the miserable men, If the Son were, according to your interpretation, eternally existent with God, He had not been ignorant of the Day, but had known as Word; nor had been forsaken as being coexistent; nor had asked to receive glory, as having it in the Father; nor would have prayed at all; for, being the Word, He had needed nothing; but since He is a creature and one of things originate, therefore He thus spoke, and needed what He had not; for it is proper to creatures to require and to need what they have not.

This is what these irreligious people claim in their arguments. If they reason this way, they might consistently speak even more boldly: "Why did the Word become flesh at all?" And they might add: "For how could He, being God, become man?" or "How could the Immaterial One take on a body?" Or they might speak even more like the Jews with Caiaphas: "Why did Christ, being a man, make Himself God?" For this and similar things the Jews muttered back then when they saw, and now the Ario-maniacs refuse to believe when they read, and have fallen into blasphemies. If someone carefully compares the words of these two groups, he will certainly find them both arriving at the same unbelief, with equal daring in their irreligion, and sharing a common dispute with us. For the Jews said: "How, being a man, can He be God?" And the Arians say: "If He were truly God from God, how could He become man?" And the Jews were offended back then and mocked, saying: "If He had been Son of God, He would not have endured the Cross." And the Arians, standing opposite them, press us: "How dare you say that He is the Word proper to the Father's ousia, when He had a body and endured all this?" Next, while the Jews sought to kill the Lord because He said that God was His own Father and made Himself equal to Him by working what the Father works, the Arians have not only learned to deny both that He is equal to God and that God is the own and natural Father of the Word, but they also seek to kill those who hold this. Again, whereas the Jews said: "Is not this the Son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then does He say, 'Before Abraham was, I am,' and 'I came down from heaven'?" the Arians respond in agreement and say: "How can He be Word or God when He slept as man, and wept, and asked questions?" Thus both groups deny the eternity and Godhead of the Word because of those human attributes which the Savior took on by reason of the flesh which He bore.

27. This then is what the irreligious men allege in their discourses; and if they thus argue, they might consistently speak yet more daringly; 'Why did the Word become flesh at all?' and they might add; 'For how could He, being God, become man?' or, 'How could the Immaterial bear a body?' or they might speak with Caiaphas still more Judaically, 'Wherefore at all did Christ, being a man, make Himself God?' for this and the like the Jews then muttered when they saw, and now the Ario-maniacs disbelieve when they read, and have fallen away into blasphemies. If then a man should carefully parallel the words of these and those, he will of a certainty find them both arriving at the same unbelief, and the daring of their irreligion equal, and their dispute with us a common one. For the Jews said; 'How, being a man, can He be God.' And the Arians, 'If He were very God from God, how could He become man?' And the Jews were offended then and mocked, saying, 'Had He been Son of God, He had not endured the Cross;' and the Arians standing over against them, urge upon us, 'How dare ye say that He is the Word proper to the Father's Essence, who had a body, so as to endure all this?' Next, while the Jews sought to kill the Lord, because He said that God was His own Father and made Himself equal to Him, as working what the Father works, the Arians also, not only have learned to deny, both that He is equal to God and that God is the own and natural Father of the Word, but those who hold this they seek to kill. Again, whereas the Jews said, 'Is not this the Son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then is it that He says, Before Abraham was, I am, and I came down from heaven?' the Arians on the other hand make response and say conformably, 'How can He be Word or God who slept as man, and wept, and inquired?' Thus both parties deny the Eternity and Godhead of the Word in consequence of those human attributes which the Saviour took on Him by reason of that flesh which He bore.

Such error then is Jewish in character, indeed Jewish according to the mind of Judas the traitor. So let them openly confess themselves to be disciples of Caiaphas and Herod, instead of cloaking Judaism with the name of Christianity. Let them deny outright, as we have said before, the Savior's appearance in the flesh, for this teaching is closely related to their heresy. Or if they are afraid to openly practice Judaism and be circumcised—out of servility toward Constantius and for the sake of those they have deceived—then let them not say what the Jews say. For if they reject the name, let them fairly renounce the doctrine. For we are Christians, O Arians, Christians we are. It is our privilege to know the Gospels concerning the Savior well, and neither to stone Him with the Jews when we hear of His Godhead and Eternity, nor to stumble with you at such humble sayings as He may speak for our sake as man. If then you would become Christians, put off the madness of Arius and cleanse with the words of true religion those ears of yours which blasphemy has defiled. Know that by ceasing to be Arians, you will also cease from the hostility of the present-day Jews. Then at once truth will shine on you out of darkness, and you will no longer accuse us of holding two Eternals, but you will yourselves acknowledge that the Lord is God's true Son by nature (physis), and not as merely eternal, but revealed as co-existing in the Father's eternity. For there are things called eternal of which He is Maker; for in the twenty-third Psalm it is written, "Lift up your gates, O you rulers, and be lifted up, you everlasting gates;" and it is plain that through Him these things were made. But if He is the Maker even of things everlasting, who among us will be able from now on to dispute that He is prior to those things eternal, and consequently is proved to be Lord not so much from His eternity, but because He is God's Son? For being the Son, He is inseparable from the Father, and there never was a time when He was not, but He always was. And being the Father's Image and Radiance, He has the Father's eternity. Now what has been briefly said above may suffice to show their misunderstanding of the passages they alleged earlier. And that they certainly give an unsound interpretation of what they now allege from the Gospels, we may easily see if we now consider the scope of that faith which we Christians hold, and using it as a rule, apply ourselves, as the Apostle teaches, to the reading of inspired Scripture. For Christ's enemies, being ignorant of this scope, have wandered from the way of truth and have stumbled on a stone of stumbling, thinking otherwise than they should think.

28. Such error then being Judaic, and Judaic after the mind of Judas the traitor, let them openly confess themselves scholars of Caiaphas and Herod, instead of cloking Judaism with the name of Christianity, and let them deny outright, as we have said before, the Saviour's appearance in the flesh, for this doctrine is akin to their heresy; or if they fear openly to Judaize and be circumcised, from servility towards Constantius and for their sake whom they have beguiled, then let them not say what the Jews say; for if they disown the name, let them in fairness renounce the doctrine. For we are Christians, O Arians, Christians we; our privilege is it well to know the Gospels concerning the Saviour, and neither, with Jews to stone Him, if we hear of His Godhead and Eternity, nor with you to stumble at such lowly sayings as He may speak for our sakes as man. If then you would become Christians, put off Arius's madness, and cleanse with the words of religion those ears of yours which blaspheming has defiled; knowing that, by ceasing to be Arians, you will cease also from the malevolence of the present Jews. Then at once will truth shine on you out of darkness, and you will no longer reproach us with holding two Eternals, but you will yourselves acknowledge that the Lord is God's true Son by nature, and not as merely eternal, but revealed as co-existing in the Father's eternity. For there are things called eternal of which He is Framer; for in the twenty-third Psalm it is written, 'Lift up your gates, O you rulers, and be lifted up, you everlasting gates;' and it is plain that through Him these things were made; but if even of things everlasting He is the Framer, who of us shall be able henceforth to dispute that He is anterior to those things eternal, and in consequence is proved to be Lord not so much from His eternity, as in that He is God's Son; for being the Son, He is inseparable from the Father, and never was there when He was not, but He was always; and being the Father's Image and Radiance, He has the Father's eternity. Now what has been briefly said above may suffice to show their misunderstanding of the passages they then alleged; and that of what they now allege from the Gospels they certainly give an unsound interpretation, we may easily see, if we now consider the scope of that faith which we Christians hold, and using it as a rule, apply ourselves, as the Apostle teaches, to the reading of inspired Scripture. For Christ's enemies, being ignorant of this scope, have wandered from the way of truth, and have stumbled Romans 9:32 on a stone of stumbling, thinking otherwise than they should think.

Now the scope and character of Holy Scripture, as we have often said, is this: it contains a double account of the Savior—that He was always God and is the Son, being the Father's Word and Radiance and Wisdom, and that afterward for our sake He took flesh from a Virgin, Mary Bearer of God, and was made man. This scope is found throughout inspired Scripture, as the Lord Himself has said, "Search the Scriptures, for they are they which testify of Me." But to avoid writing too much by bringing together all the passages on this subject, let it be enough to mention as an example, first John saying, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was made not one thing," and next, "And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of one Only-begotten from the Father," and next Paul writing, "Who being in the form of God, thought it not a prize to be equal with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion like a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross." Anyone, beginning with these passages and going through the whole of Scripture according to the interpretation they suggest, will see how in the beginning the Father said to Him, "Let there be light," and "Let there be a firmament," and "Let us make man," but in the fullness of time He sent Him into the world, not that He might judge the world, but that the world by Him might be saved, and how it is written "Behold, the Virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a Son, and they shall call his Name Emmanuel, which, being interpreted, is God with us."

29. Now the scope and character of Holy Scripture, as we have often said, is this — it contains a double account of the Saviour; that He was ever God, and is the Son, being the Father's Word and Radiance and Wisdom; and that afterwards for us He took flesh of a Virgin, Mary Bearer of God, and was made man. And this scope is to be found throughout inspired Scripture, as the Lord Himself has said, 'Search the Scriptures, for they are they which testify of Me John 5:39.' But lest I should exceed in writing, by bringing together all the passages on the subject, let it suffice to mention as a specimen, first John saying, 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was made not one thing;' next, 'And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of one Only-begotten from the Father;' and next Paul writing, 'Who being in the form of God, thought it not a prize to be equal with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion like a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross Philippians 2:6-8.' Any one, beginning with these passages and going through the whole of the Scripture upon the interpretation which they suggest, will perceive how in the beginning the Father said to Him, 'Let there be light,' and 'Let there be a firmament,' and 'Let us make man;' but in fullness of the ages, He sent Him into the world, not that He might judge the world, but that the world by Him might be saved, and how it is written 'Behold, the Virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a Son, and they shall call his Name Emmanuel, which, being interpreted, is God with us Matthew 1:23.'

The reader of divine Scripture can learn about these passages from the ancient books, and from the Gospels he will understand that the Lord became man, for as it says, "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14). He became man—He did not come into man. This is necessary to know, or else these irreligious people might fall into this idea too and mislead anyone into thinking that just as the Word used to come into each of the Saints in former times, so now He simply dwelt in a man, sanctifying him and revealing Himself as He did in the others. If that were the case, and He only appeared in a man, it would be nothing unusual, and those who saw Him would not have been shocked, saying, "Where is He from?" and "Why do You, being a man, make Yourself God?" They were familiar with that concept from the words "And the Word of the Lord came" to this or that prophet. But now, since the Word of God, by whom all things came to be, endured to become also Son of man and humbled Himself by taking a servant's form, therefore to the Jews the Cross of Christ is a scandal, but to us Christ is "God's power" and "God's wisdom" (1 Corinthians 1:24). For "the Word," as John says, "became flesh"—it being Scripture's custom to call man by the name of "flesh," as it says through the prophet Joel, "I will pour out My Spirit upon all flesh," and as Daniel said to Astyages, "I do not worship idols made with hands, but the Living God, who has created the heaven and the earth, and has sovereignty over all flesh." Both he and Joel call mankind flesh.

30. The reader then of divine Scripture may acquaint himself with these passages from the ancient books; and from the Gospels on the other hand he will perceive that the Lord became man; for 'the Word,' he says, 'became flesh, and dwelt among us John 1:14.' And He became man, and did not come into man; for this it is necessary to know, lest perchance these irreligious men fall into this notion also, and beguile any into thinking, that, as in former times the Word was used to come into each of the Saints, so now He sojourned in a man, hallowing him also, and manifesting Himself as in the others. For if it were so, and He only appeared in a man, it were nothing strange, nor had those who saw Him been startled, saying, Whence is He? And wherefore do You, being a man, make Yourself God? For they were familiar with the idea, from the words, 'And the Word of the Lord came' to this or that of the Prophets. But now, since the Word of God, by whom all things came to be, endured to become also Son of man, and humbled Himself, taking a servant's form, therefore to the Jews the Cross of Christ is a scandal, but to us Christ is 'God's power' and 'God's wisdom 1 Corinthians 1:24;' for 'the Word,' as John says, 'became flesh' (it being the custom of Scripture to call man by the name of 'flesh,' as it says by Joel the Prophet, 'I will pour out My Spirit upon all flesh;' and as Daniel said to Astyages, 'I do not worship idols made with hands, but the Living God, who has created the heaven and the earth, and has sovereignty over all flesh;' for both he and Joel call mankind flesh).

In former times He used to come to the individual saints and make holy those who properly received Him, but when they were born it was not said that He had become man, nor when they suffered was it said that He Himself suffered. But when He came among us from Mary once at the end of the ages to abolish sin (for it pleased the Father to send His own Son 'made of a woman, made under the Law'), then it is said that He took flesh and became man, and in that flesh He suffered for us (as Peter says, 'Christ therefore having suffered for us in the flesh'), so that it might be shown, and so that all might believe, that although He was always God, and made holy those to whom He came, and ordered all things according to the Father's will, afterwards for our sakes He became man, and 'bodily,' as the Apostle says, the Godhead dwelt in the flesh. This means that being God, He had His own body, and using this as an instrument, He became man for our sakes. And because of this, the properties of the flesh are said to be His, since He was in it—such things as hunger, thirst, suffering, weariness, and similar things of which the flesh is capable—while on the other hand the works proper to the Word Himself, such as raising the dead, restoring sight to the blind, and curing the woman with an issue of blood, He did through His own body. And the Word bore the weaknesses of the flesh as His own, for the flesh was His, and the flesh served the works of the Godhead, because the Godhead was in it, for the body was God's. And the Prophet has rightly said 'carried' and has not said 'He remedied our infirmities,' lest, as being external to the body and only healing it, as He has always done, He should leave men still subject to death. But He carries our weaknesses, and He Himself bears our sins, so that it might be shown that He has become man for us, and that the body which bore them in Him was His own body. And while He received no harm Himself by 'bearing our sins in His body on the tree,' as Peter says, we men were redeemed from our own afflictions and were filled with the righteousness of the Word.

31. Of old time He was wont to come to the Saints individually, and to hallow those who rightly received Him; but neither, when they were begotten was it said that He had become man, nor, when they suffered, was it said that He Himself suffered. But when He came among us from Mary once at the end of the ages for the abolition of sin (for so it was pleasing to the Father, to send His own Son 'made of a woman, made under the Law'), then it is said, that He took flesh and became man, and in that flesh He suffered for us (as Peter says, 'Christ therefore having suffered for us in the flesh Galatians 4:4; 1 Peter 4:1,' that it might be shown, and that all might believe, that whereas He was ever God, and hallowed those to whom He came, and ordered all things according to the Father's will, afterwards for our sakes He became man, and 'bodily Colossians 2:9,' as the Apostle says, the Godhead dwelt in the flesh; as much as to say, 'Being God, He had His own body, and using this as an instrument, He became man for our sakes.' And on account of this, the properties of the flesh are said to be His, since He was in it, such as to hunger, to thirst, to suffer, to weary, and the like, of which the flesh is capable; while on the other hand the works proper to the Word Himself, such as to raise the dead, to restore sight to the blind, and to cure the woman with an issue of blood, He did through His own body. And the Word bore the infirmities of the flesh, as His own, for His was the flesh; and the flesh ministered to the works of the Godhead, because the Godhead was in it, for the body was God's. And well has the Prophet said 'carried Isaiah 53:4;' and has not said, 'He remedied our infirmities,' lest, as being external to the body, and only healing it, as He has always done, He should leave men subject still to death; but He carries our infirmities, and He Himself bears our sins, that it might be shown that He has become man for us, and that the body which in Him bore them, was His own body; and, while He received no hurt Himself by 'bearing our sins in His body on the tree,' as Peter speaks, we men were redeemed from our own affections, and were filled with the righteousness of the Word.

This is why when the flesh suffered, the Word was not separate from it, and therefore the suffering is called His. And when He performed His Father's works divinely, the flesh was not separate from Him, but the Lord did these works in the body itself. That is why when He became man, He said, "If I do not the works of the Father, believe Me not; but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know that the Father is in Me and I in Him." So when it was necessary to raise Peter's mother-in-law, who was sick with a fever, He stretched out His hand in a human way, but He stopped the illness divinely. In the case of the man born blind, the saliva He produced from the flesh was human, but He opened the eyes through the clay divinely. In the case of Lazarus, He spoke with a human voice as a man, but as God He raised Lazarus from the dead divinely. These things were done and shown this way because He had a body not in appearance but in truth. It was fitting for the Lord, when taking on human flesh, to take it on completely with the affections natural to it, so that just as we say the body was His own, we can also say that the affections of the body belonged properly to Him alone, even though they did not affect Him according to His Godhead. If the body had belonged to someone else, the affections would have been attributed to that person too. But since the flesh is the Word's (for "the Word became flesh"), then necessarily the affections of the flesh are also attributed to Him whose flesh it is. And the one to whom the affections are attributed—such as being condemned, scourged, thirsting, and the cross, death, and the other weaknesses of the body—to Him also belongs the triumph and the grace. For this reason, then, consistently and fittingly such affections are attributed not to another but to the Lord, so that the grace may also come from Him, and so that we may become not worshippers of another but truly devout toward God, because we call upon no created thing, no ordinary man, but the natural and true Son from God, who has become man yet is no less Lord and God and Savior.

32. Whence it was that, when the flesh suffered, the Word was not external to it; and therefore is the passion said to be His: and when He did divinely His Father's works, the flesh was not external to Him, but in the body itself did the Lord do them. Hence, when made man, He said, 'If I do not the works of the Father, believe Me not; but if I do, though ye believe not Me, believe the works, that you may know that the Father is in Me and I in Him.' And thus when there was need to raise Peter's wife's mother, who was sick of a fever, He stretched forth His hand humanly, but He stopped the illness divinely. And in the case of the man blind from the birth, human was the spittle which He gave forth from the flesh, but divinely did He open the eyes through the clay. And in the case of Lazarus, He gave forth a human voice as man; but divinely, as God, did He raise Lazarus from the dead. These things were so done, were so manifested, because He had a body, not in appearance, but in truth; and it became the Lord, in putting on human flesh, to put it on whole with the affections proper to it; that, as we say that the body was His own, so also we may say that the affections of the body were proper to Him alone, though they did not touch Him according to His Godhead. If then the body had been another's, to him too had been the affections attributed; but if the flesh is the Word's (for 'the Word became flesh'), of necessity then the affections also of the flesh are ascribed to Him, whose the flesh is. And to whom the affections are ascribed, such namely as to be condemned, to be scourged, to thirst, and the cross, and death, and the other infirmities of the body, of Him too is the triumph and the grace. For this cause then, consistently and fittingly such affections are ascribed not to another, but to the Lord; that the grace also may be from Him, and that we may become, not worshippers of any other, but truly devout towards God, because we invoke no originate thing, no ordinary man, but the natural and true Son from God, who has become man, yet is not the less Lord and God and Saviour.

Who will not be amazed by this? Or who will not agree that such a thing is truly divine? For if the works of the Word's divinity had not taken place through the body, humanity would not have been deified. And again, if the properties of the flesh had not been attributed to the Word, humanity would not have been thoroughly delivered from them. Though these properties might have stopped for a little while, as I said before, sin and corruption would still have remained in humanity, just as was the case with all people before Him. Here is the reason: Many people, for instance, have been made holy and clean from all sin. Indeed, Jeremiah was sanctified even from the womb, and John, while still in the womb, leaped for joy at the voice of Mary, Bearer of God. Nevertheless, 'death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression' (Romans 5:14). And so humanity remained mortal and corruptible as before, subject to the affections proper to their nature. But now, since the Word has become man and has taken to himself what belongs to the flesh, these things no longer touch the body, because of the Word who has come into it. Rather, they are destroyed by Him. From now on, people no longer remain sinners and dead according to their proper affections. Instead, having been raised according to the Word's power, they remain forever immortal and incorruptible. For this reason also, whereas the flesh is born of Mary, Bearer of God, He Himself is said to have been born—He who gives to others their origin of being. This is so that He may transfer our origin into Himself, and we may no longer, as mere earth, return to earth. Rather, being united to the Word from heaven, we may be carried to heaven by Him. Therefore, in the same way and not without reason, He has also transferred to Himself the other affections of the body, so that we, no longer as being merely human, but as belonging to the Word, may have a share in eternal life. For we no longer die according to our former origin in Adam. Instead, from now on, our origin and all the weakness of the flesh being transferred to the Word, we rise from the earth. The curse from sin is removed because of Him who is in us and who has become a curse for us. And rightly so. For just as we are all from earth and die in Adam, so being born again from above of water and Spirit, in the Christ we are all made alive. The flesh is no longer earthly, but has from now on been made Word, by reason of God's Word who for our sake 'became flesh.'

33. Who will not admire this? Or who will not agree that such a thing is truly divine? For if the works of the Word's Godhead had not taken place through the body, man had not been deified; and again, had not the properties of the flesh been ascribed to the Word, man had not been thoroughly delivered from them; but though they had ceased for a little while, as I said before, still sin had remained in him and corruption, as was the case with mankind before Him; and for this reason:– Many for instance have been made holy and clean from all sin; nay, Jeremiah was hallowed even from the womb, and John, while yet in the womb, leapt for joy at the voice of Mary Bearer of God; nevertheless 'death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression Romans 5:14;' and thus man remained mortal and corruptible as before, liable to the affections proper to their nature. But now the Word having become man and having appropriated what pertains to the flesh, no longer do these things touch the body, because of the Word who has come in it, but they are destroyed by Him, and henceforth men no longer remain sinners and dead according to their proper affections, but having risen according to the Word's power, they abide ever immortal and incorruptible. Whence also, whereas the flesh is born of Mary Bearer of God, He Himself is said to have been born, who furnishes to others an origin of being; in order that He may transfer our origin into Himself, and we may no longer, as mere earth, return to earth, but as being knit into the Word from heaven, may be carried to heaven by Him. Therefore in like manner not without reason has He transferred to Himself the other affections of the body also; that we, no longer as being men, but as proper to the Word, may have share in eternal life. For no longer according to our former origin in Adam do we die; but henceforward our origin and all infirmity of flesh being transferred to the Word, we rise from the earth, the curse from sin being removed, because of Him who is in us, and who has become a curse for us. And with reason; for as we are all from earth and die in Adam, so being regenerated from above of water and Spirit, in the Christ we are all quickened; the flesh being no longer earthly, but being henceforth made Word, by reason of God's Word who for our sake 'became flesh.'

To gain a more precise understanding of the Word's nature being incapable of suffering (impassibility) and the weaknesses attributed to Him because of the flesh, it will be good to listen to the blessed Peter, for he will be a reliable witness concerning the Savior. He writes in his Epistle: "Christ then having suffered for us in the flesh" (1 Peter 4:1). Therefore, when He is said to hunger and thirst and to work and not to know, and to sleep and to weep and to ask and to flee and to be born and to shrink from the cup, and in short to experience everything that belongs to the flesh, let it be said appropriately in each case: "Christ then hungering and thirsting for us in the flesh," and saying "He did not know," and being beaten and working for us in the flesh, and being exalted too, and born and growing in the flesh, and fearing and hiding in the flesh, and saying "If it be possible let this cup pass from Me" (Matthew 26:39), and being beaten and receiving for us in the flesh—and in short all such things "for us in the flesh." For this is why the Apostle himself said "Christ then having suffered," not in His Godhead, but "for us in the flesh," so that these experiences may be recognized as not belonging by nature to the Word Himself, but belonging by nature to the flesh itself.

34. And that one may attain to a more exact knowledge of the impassibility of the Word's nature and of the infirmities ascribed to Him because of the flesh, it will be well to listen to the blessed Peter; for he will be a trustworthy witness concerning the Saviour. He writes then in his Epistle thus; 'Christ then having suffered for us in the flesh 1 Peter 4:1.' Therefore also when He is said to hunger and thirst and to toil and not to know, and to sleep, and to weep, and to ask, and to flee, and to be born, and to deprecate the cup, and in a word to undergo all that belongs to the flesh, let it be said, as is congruous, in each case 'Christ then hungering and thirsting for us in the flesh; ' and saying 'He did not know, and being buffeted, and toiling for us in the flesh; ' and 'being exalted too, and born, and growing in the flesh; ' and 'fearing and hiding in the flesh; ' and 'saying, If it be possible let this cup pass from Me Matthew 26:39, and being beaten, and receiving, for us in the flesh; ' and in a word all such things 'for us in the flesh.' For on this account has the Apostle himself said, 'Christ then having suffered,' not in His Godhead, but 'for us in the flesh,' that these affections may be acknowledged as, not proper to the very Word by nature, but proper by nature to the very flesh.

Let no one stumble at what belongs to man. Rather, let a person understand that in nature the Word Himself is impassible, and yet because of that flesh which He put on, these things are ascribed to Him, since they are proper to the flesh, and the body itself is proper to the Savior. And while He Himself, being impassible in nature, remains as He is, not harmed by these affections, but rather erasing and destroying them, human beings—their passions as if changed and abolished in the Impassible one—from then on become themselves also impassible and free from them forever, as John taught, saying, "And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him is no sin" (1 John 3:5). And this being so, no heretic shall object, "Why does the flesh rise, being by nature mortal? And if it rises, why does it not also hunger and thirst and suffer and remain mortal? For it came from the earth, and how can its natural condition pass away from it?" since the flesh is now able to answer this contentious heretic, "I am from earth, being by nature mortal, but afterwards I have become the Word's flesh," and He "carried" my affections, though He is without them; and so I became free from them, no longer enslaved to their service because of the Lord who has made me free from them. For if you object to my being rid of that corruption which is by nature, see that you do not also object to God's Word having taken my form of servitude; for just as the Lord, putting on the body, became man, so we human beings are deified by the Word as we are taken to Him through His flesh, and from that point forward inherit everlasting life.

Let no one then stumble at what belongs to man, but rather let a man know that in nature the Word Himself is impassible, and yet because of that flesh which He put on, these things are ascribed to Him, since they are proper to the flesh, and the body itself is proper to the Saviour. And while He Himself, being impassible in nature, remains as He is, not harmed by these affections, but rather obliterating and destroying them, men, their passions as if changed and abolished in the Impassible, henceforth become themselves also impassible and free from them for ever, as John taught, saying, 'And ye know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him is no sin 1 John 3:5.' And this being so, no heretic shall object, 'Wherefore rises the flesh, being by nature mortal? And if it rises, why not hunger too and thirst, and suffer, and remain mortal? For it came from the earth, and how can its natural condition pass from it?' since the flesh is able now to make answer to this so contentious heretic, 'I am from earth, being by nature mortal, but afterwards I have become the Word's flesh,' and He 'carried' my affections, though He is without them; and so I became free from them, being no more abandoned to their service because of the Lord who has made me free from them. For if you object to my being rid of that corruption which is by nature, see that you object not to God's Word having taken my form of servitude; for as the Lord, putting on the body, became man, so we men are deified by the Word as being taken to Him through His flesh, and henceforward inherit life 'everlasting.'

These points we have found it necessary to examine first, so that when we see Him doing or saying something divinely through the instrument of His own body, we may know that He does this as God. And also, if we see Him speaking or suffering humanly, we may not be unaware that He bore flesh and became man, and therefore He acts and speaks this way. For if we recognize what is proper to each, and see and understand that both these things and those are done by One, we are right in our faith and shall never go astray. But if a person, looking at what is done divinely by the Word, denies the body, or looking at what is proper to the body, denies the Word's presence in the flesh, or from what is human has low thoughts concerning the Word, such a person—like a Jewish vintner mixing water with the wine—will consider the Cross an offense, or as a Gentile will consider the preaching foolishness. This is what happens to God's enemies the Arians, for looking at what is human in the Savior, they have judged Him a creature. Therefore they ought, looking also at the divine works of the Word, to deny the origination of His body and then rank themselves with Manichees. But as for them, let them learn, however late, that 'the Word became flesh.' And let us, keeping to the general scope of the faith, acknowledge that what they interpret wrongly has a right interpretation.

35. These points we have found it necessary first to examine, that, when we see Him doing or saying anything divinely through the instrument of His own body, we may know that He so works, being God, and also, if we see Him speaking or suffering humanly, we may not be ignorant that He bore flesh and became man, and hence He so acts and so speaks. For if we recognise what is proper to each, and see and understand that both these things and those are done by One, we are right in our faith, and shall never stray. But if a man looking at what is done divinely by the Word, deny the body, or looking at what is proper to the body, deny the Word's presence in the flesh, or from what is human entertain low thoughts concerning the Word, such a one, as a Jewish vintner, mixing water with the wine, shall account the Cross an offense, or as a Gentile, will deem the preaching folly. This then is what happens to God's enemies the Arians; for looking at what is human in the Saviour, they have judged Him a creature. Therefore they ought, looking also at the divine works of the Word, to deny the origination of His body, and henceforth to rank themselves with Manichees. But for them, learn they, however tardily, that 'the Word became flesh;' and let us, retaining the general scope of the faith, acknowledge that what they interpret ill, has a right interpretation.

For "The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand," and "All things were given unto Me of My Father," and "I can do nothing of Myself, but as I hear, I judge," and similar passages do not show that the Son once lacked these prerogatives. For did He not possess eternally what the Father has, being the Only Word and Wisdom of the Father in ousia (essence), who also says, "All that the Father has are Mine," and what are Mine are the Father's? For if the things of the Father are the Son's and the Father has them forever, it is clear that what the Son has, being the Father's, were forever in the Son. It is not, then, because He once lacked them that He said this, but because, although the Son eternally possesses what He has, He nevertheless has them from the Father.

35 ( continued). For, 'The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand;' and, 'All things were given unto Me of My Father.' and, 'I can do nothing of Myself, but as I hear, I judge;' and the like passages do not show that the Son once had not these prerogatives — (for had not He eternally what the Father has, who is the Only Word and Wisdom of the Father in essence, who also says, 'All that the Father has are Mine,' and what are Mine, are the Father's? For if the things of the Father are the Son's and the Father has them ever, it is plain that what the Son has, being the Father's, were ever in the Son) — not then because once He had them not, did He say this, but because, whereas the Son has eternally what He has, yet He has them from the Father.

To prevent someone who realizes that the Son has all that the Father has—because of the exact likeness and identity of what He has—from straying into the irreligious position of Sabellius by thinking He is the Father, He said "was given unto Me," "I received," and "were delivered to Me" only to show that He is not the Father, but the Father's Word and the Eternal Son. Because of His likeness to the Father, He eternally has what He has from Him, and because He is the Son, He has from the Father what He has eternally. Moreover, we can learn from the passages themselves that "was given," "were delivered," and similar expressions do not diminish the Godhead of the Son but rather show Him to be truly Son. For if all things are delivered to Him, first, He is distinct from all those things which He has received. Next, being Heir of all things, He alone is the Son and proper according to the ousia of the Father. For if He were one among all, then He would not be "heir of all," but each would have received according to what the Father willed and gave. But now, as receiving all things, He is distinct from them all and alone proper to the Father. Moreover, we can conclude from a similar passage that "was given" and "were delivered" do not show that He once did not have them, and we can reason the same way about all such passages. For the Savior Himself says, "As the Father has life in Himself, so has He given also to the Son to have life in Himself." Now from the words "has given," He indicates that He is not the Father, but in saying "so," He shows the Son's natural likeness and propriety toward the Father. If once the Father did not have life, then plainly the Son once did not have it, for the Son has as the Father has. But if it is irreligious to say this, and religious instead to say that the Father has always had life, is it not improper for them, when the Son says that He has as the Father has, to say that He does not have it in the same way but differently? Rather, the Word is faithful, and all things which He says He has received, He has always, yet has from the Father—the Father indeed from no one, but the Son from the Father. For just as with radiance, if the radiance itself should say, "All places the light has given me to illuminate, and I do not illuminate of myself, but as the light wills," yet in saying this it does not imply that it once did not exist, but means, "I am proper to the light, and all things of the light are mine"—so, and much more, must we understand in the case of the Son. For the Father, having given all things to the Son, still has all things in the Son; and the Son having them, the Father still has them. For the Son's Godhead is the Father's Godhead, and thus the Father exercises His Providence over all things in the Son.

36. For lest a man, perceiving that the Son has all that the Father has, from the exact likeness and identity of that He has, should wander into the irreligion of Sabellius, considering Him to be the Father, therefore He has said 'Was given unto Me,' and 'I received,' and 'Were delivered to Me John 10:18; Matthew 28:18,' only to show that He is not the Father, but the Father's Word, and the Eternal Son, who because of His likeness to the Father, has eternally what He has from Him, and because He is the Son, has from the Father what He has eternally. Moreover that 'Was given' and 'Were delivered,' and the like, do not impair the Godhead of the Son, but rather show Him to be truly Son, we may learn from the passages themselves. For if all things are delivered unto Him, first, He is other than that all which He has received; next, being Heir of all things, He alone is the Son and proper according to the Essence of the Father. For if He were one of all, then He were not 'heir of all Hebrews 1:2,' but every one had received according as the Father willed and gave. But now, as receiving all things, He is other than them all, and alone proper to the Father. Moreover that 'Was given' and 'Were delivered' do not show that once He had them not, we may conclude from a similar passage, and in like manner concerning them all; for the Saviour Himself says, 'As the Father has life in Himself, so has He given also to the Son to have life in Himself John 5:26.' Now from the words 'Hath given,' He signifies that He is not the Father; but in saying 'so,' He shows the Son's natural likeness and propriety towards the Father. If then once the Father had not, plainly the Son once had not; for as the Father, 'so' also the Son has. But if this is irreligious to say, and religious on the contrary to say that the Father had ever, is it not unseemly in them when the Son says that, 'as' the Father has, 'so' also the Son has, to say that He has not 'so,' but otherwise? Rather then is the Word faithful, and all things which He says that He has received, He has always, yet has from the Father; and the Father indeed not from any, but the Son from the Father. For as in the instance of the radiance, if the radiance itself should say, 'All places the light has given me to enlighten, and I do not enlighten from myself, but as the light wills,' yet, in saying this, it does not imply that it once had not, but it means, 'I am proper to the light, and all things of the light are mine;' so, and much more, must we understand in the instance of the Son. For the Father, having given all things to the Son, in the Son still has all things; and the Son having, still the Father has them; for the Son's Godhead is the Father's Godhead, and thus the Father in the Son exercises His Providence over all things.

And while this is the correct interpretation of such expressions, those passages that speak of the Savior in human terms also allow for a religious understanding. We have examined them beforehand with this purpose: so that when we hear Him asking where Lazarus is buried, or when He comes into the region of Caesarea and asks, "Whom do men say that I am?" or "How many loaves do you have?" and "What will you that I shall do unto you?" we may know from what has already been said the correct meaning of these passages and not stumble as Christ's enemies the Arians do. First, we must pose this question to the irreligious: why do they think He is ignorant? For someone who asks does not necessarily ask from ignorance; it is possible for someone who knows to still ask about what he knows. Thus John was aware that when Christ asked, "How many loaves do you have?" He was not ignorant, for John says, "And this He said to prove him, for He Himself knew what He would do." But if He knew what He was doing, then He asked not in ignorance but with knowledge. From this example we can understand similar cases: that when the Lord asks, He does not ask in ignorance about where Lazarus is buried, nor about whom men say He is, but He knows the thing He is asking about and is aware of what He is about to do. Their clever argument is thus easily refuted. But if they still persist because of His asking, then they must be told that ignorance does not belong to the Godhead, but ignorance is proper to the flesh, as has been said. That this is truly so can be seen in how the Lord who inquired where Lazarus lay Himself said, when He was not there but far away, "Lazarus is dead," and where he had died. And He whom they consider ignorant is the very one who foreknew the disciples' thoughts and was aware of what was in each person's heart and "what was in man," and, what is greater, alone knows the Father and says, "I in the Father and the Father in Me."

37. And while such is the sense of expressions like these, those which speak humanly concerning the Saviour admit of a religious meaning also. For with this end have we examined them beforehand, that, if we should hear Him asking where Lazarus is laid, or when He asks on coming into the parts of Cæsarea, 'Whom do men say that I am?' or, 'How many loaves do you have?' and, 'What will you that I shall do unto you?' we may know, from what has been already said, the right sense of the passages, and may not stumble as Christ's enemies the Arians. First then we must put this question to the irreligious, why they consider Him ignorant? For one who asks, does not for certain ask from ignorance; but it is possible for one who knows, still to ask concerning what He knows. Thus John was aware that Christ, when asking, 'How many loaves do you have?' was not ignorant, for he says, 'And this He said to prove him, for He Himself knew what He would do John 6:6.' But if He knew what He was doing, therefore not in ignorance, but with knowledge did He ask. From this instance we may understand similar ones; that, when the Lord asks, He does not ask in ignorance, where Lazarus lies, nor again, whom men do say that He is; but knowing the thing which He was asking, aware what He was about to do. And thus with ease is their clever point exploded; but if they still persist on account of His asking, then they must be told that in the Godhead indeed ignorance is not, but to the flesh ignorance is proper, as has been said. And that this is really so, observe how the Lord who inquired where Lazarus lay, Himself said, when He was not on the spot but a great way off, 'Lazarus is dead John 11:14,' and where he was dead; and how that He who is considered by them as ignorant, is He Himself who foreknew the reasonings of the disciples, and was aware of what was in the heart of each, and of 'what was in man,' and, what is greater, alone knows the Father and says, 'I in the Father and the Father in Me. '

Therefore this is clear to everyone: the flesh is indeed ignorant, but the Word Himself, considered as the Word, knows all things even before they happen. For when He became man, He did not cease to be God; nor does He, being God, shrink from what belongs to humanity—far from it! Rather, being God, He has taken flesh to Himself, and being in the flesh He deifies the flesh. For just as He asked questions in it, so also in it He raised the dead. And He showed everyone that He who gives life to the dead and recalls the soul much more easily discerns everyone's secrets. He knew where Lazarus lay, yet He asked. For the All-holy Word of God, who endured all things for our sake, did this so that by carrying our ignorance, He might grant us knowledge of His own only and true Father, and of Himself, sent for our sake for the salvation of all—than which no grace could be greater. When the Savior uses the words they cite in their defense, "Power is given to Me," and "Glorify Your Son," and Peter says, "Power is given to Him," we understand all these passages in the same sense: that He says all this humanly because of the body. For though He had no need, He is nevertheless said to have received what He received humanly, so that on the other hand, since the Lord has received and the gift is secured in Him, the grace may remain certain. For while a mere human being receives, he is liable to lose again (as was shown in Adam's case, for he received and lost), but so that the grace may be irrevocable and kept secure by human beings, He Himself appropriates the gift. He says that He has received power as man—power which He always had as God—and He says "Glorify Me," though He glorifies others, to show that He has a flesh which needs these things. Therefore, when the flesh receives, since what receives is in Him, and by taking it He has become man, He is said to have received it Himself.

38. Therefore this is plain to every one, that the flesh indeed is ignorant, but the Word Himself, considered as the Word, knows all things even before they come to be. For He did not, when He became man, cease to be God; nor, whereas He is God does He shrink from what is man's; perish the thought; but rather, being God, He has taken to Him the flesh, and being in the flesh deifies the flesh. For as He asked questions in it, so also in it did He raise the dead; and He showed to all that He who quickens the dead and recalls the soul, much more discerns the secret of all. And He knew where Lazarus lay, and yet He asked; for the All- holy Word of God, who endured all things for our sakes, did this, that so carrying our ignorance, He might vouchsafe to us the knowledge of His own only and true Father, and of Himself, sent because of us for the salvation of all, than which no grace could be greater. When then the Saviour uses the words which they allege in their defense, 'Power is given to Me,' and, 'Glorify Your Son,' and Peter says, 'Power is given unto Him,' we understand all these passages in the same sense, that humanly because of the body He says all this. For though He had no need, nevertheless He is said to have received what He received humanly, that on the other hand, inasmuch as the Lord has received, and the grant is lodged with Him, the grace may remain sure. For while mere man receives, he is liable to lose again (as was shown in the case of Adam, for he received and he lost), but that the grace may be irrevocable, and may be kept sure by men, therefore He Himself appropriates the gift; and He says that He has received power, as man, which He ever had as God, and He says, 'Glorify Me,' who glorifies others, to show that He has a flesh which has need of these things. Wherefore, when the flesh receives, since that which receives is in Him, and by taking it He has become man, therefore He is said Himself to have received.

If, then (as has been said many times), the Word has not become man, then ascribe to the Word, as you would have it, receiving and needing glory and being ignorant. But if He has become man (and He has), and it belongs to man to receive, to need, and to be ignorant, why do we consider the Giver to be a receiver? Why do we suspect that the Dispenser to others is Himself in need? Why do we separate the Word from the Father as if He were imperfect and needy, while at the same time we strip human nature of grace? For if the Word Himself, considered as Word, has received and been glorified for His own sake, and if according to His Godhead He is the one who is sanctified and has risen again, what hope is there for humanity? For we remain as we were: naked, wretched, and dead, having no share in the things given to the Son. Why, then, did the Word come among us and become flesh? If it was so that He might receive these things which He says He has received, then He was without them before, and He would necessarily owe thanks to the body instead, because when He entered into it, He then received these things from the Father which He did not have before His descent into the flesh. For according to this view, He Himself seems to be elevated because of the body, rather than the body being elevated because of Him. But this idea is Jewish. However, if the Word came among us in order to redeem humanity, and the Word became flesh in order to sanctify and deify them (and He did become flesh for this purpose), who does not see that it follows that what He says He received when He became flesh, He mentions not for His own sake but for the sake of the flesh? For the gifts given through Him from the Father belonged to the flesh in which He was speaking. But let us examine what He asked for and what the things were that He said He had received, so that in this way they too may come to understand. He asked for glory, yet He had already said, "All things were delivered unto Me." And after the resurrection, He says He has received all power; but even before that, when He had said, "All things were delivered unto Me," He was Lord of all, for "all things were made by Him," and "there is One Lord by whom are all things." And when He asked for glory, He was, as He is, the Lord of glory, as Paul says, "If they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory," for He had that glory which He asked for when He said, "the glory which I had with You before the world was."

39. If then (as has many times been said) the Word has not become man, then ascribe to the Word, as you would have it, to receive, and to need glory, and to be ignorant; but if He has become man (and He has become), and it is man's to receive, and to need, and to be ignorant, wherefore do we consider the Giver as receiver, and the Dispenser to others do we suspect to be in need, and divide the Word from the Father as imperfect and needy, while we strip human nature of grace? For if the Word Himself, considered as Word, has received and been glorified for His own sake, and if He according to His Godhead is He who is hallowed and has risen again, what hope is there for men? For they remain as they were, naked, and wretched, and dead, having no interest in the things given to the Son. Why too did the Word come among us, and become flesh? If that He might receive these things, which He says that He has received, He was without them before that, and of necessity will rather owe thanks Himself to the body, because, when He came into it, then He receives these things from the Father, which He had not before His descent into the flesh. For on this showing He seems rather to be Himself promoted because of the body, than the body promoted because of Him. But this notion is Judaic. But if that He might redeem mankind, the Word did come among us; and that He might hallow and deify them, the Word became flesh (and for this He did become), who does not see that it follows, that what He says that He received, when He became flesh, that He mentions, not for His own sake, but for the flesh? For to it, in which He was speaking, pertained the gifts given through Him from the Father. But let us see what He asked, and what the things altogether were which He said that He had received, that in this way also they may be brought to feeling. He asked then glory, yet He had said, 'All things were delivered unto Me Luke 10:22.' And after the resurrection, He says that He has received all power; but even before that He had said, 'All things were delivered unto Me,' He was Lord of all, for 'all things were made by Him;' and 'there is One Lord by whom are all things 1 Corinthians 8:6.' And when He asked glory, He was as He is, the Lord of glory; as Paul says, 'If they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory 1 Corinthians 2:8;' for He had that glory which He asked when He said, 'the glory which I had with You before the world was John 17:5.'

The power He said He received after the resurrection was already His before He received it and before the resurrection. For He personally rebuked Satan, saying, "Get behind Me, Satan" (Luke 4:8), and He gave power over Satan to the disciples, saying on their return, "I beheld Satan, as lightning, fall from heaven" (Luke 10:18-19). And again, it is clear that what He said He received He actually possessed before receiving it, as shown by His casting out demons, His releasing those whom Satan had bound (as in the case of the daughter of Abraham), and His forgiving sins, saying to the paralytic and to the woman who washed His feet, "Your sins be forgiven you." He also raised the dead and restored the original nature of the blind man, granting him sight. He did all this not by waiting to receive power, but by already possessing it. From all this it is evident that what He possessed as the Word, He says He received humanly after becoming man and rising again—so that from then on, human beings might have power over demons on earth by becoming partakers of a divine nature, and in heaven, delivered from corruption, might reign eternally. Therefore we must acknowledge once and for all that He did not receive as though He lacked what He says He received. For the Word, being God, always possessed these things. But in these passages He is said humanly to have received them, so that since the flesh received them in Him, from that point forward the gift might remain secure for us. What Peter says—"receiving from God honor and glory, Angels being made subject unto Him"—has this meaning: just as He inquired humanly and raised Lazarus divinely, so "He received" is spoken of Him humanly, but the subjection of the Angels demonstrates the Godhead of the Word.

40. Also the power which He said He received after the resurrection, that He had before He received it, and before the resurrection. For He of Himself rebuked Satan, saying, 'Get behind Me, Satan Luke 4:8;' and to the disciples He gave the power against him, when on their return He said, 'I beheld Satan, as lightning, fall from heaven Luke 10:18-19.' And again, that what He said that He had received, that He possessed before receiving it, appears from His driving away the demons, and from His unbinding what Satan had bound, as He did in the case of the daughter of Abraham; and from His remitting sins, saying to the paralytic, and to the woman who washed His feet, 'Your sins be forgiven you;' and from His both raising the dead, and repairing the first nature of the blind, granting to him to see. And all this He did, not waiting till He should receive, but being 'possessed of power.' From all this it is plain that what He had as Word, that when He had become man and was risen again, He says that He received humanly; that for His sake men might henceforward upon earth have power against demons, as having become partakers of a divine nature; and in heaven, as being delivered from corruption, might reign everlastingly. Thus we must acknowledge this once for all, that nothing which He says that He received, did He receive as not possessing before; for the Word, as being God, had them always; but in these passages He is said humanly to have received, that, whereas the flesh received in Him, henceforth from it the gift might abide surely for us. For what is said by Peter, 'receiving from God honour and glory, Angels being made subject unto Him,' has this meaning. As He inquired humanly, and raised Lazarus divinely, so 'He received' is spoken of Him humanly, but the subjection of the Angels marks the Word's Godhead.

Stop then, you who are hated by God, and do not degrade the Word or diminish His Godhead, which belongs to the Father, as if He were in need or ignorant. Otherwise you will be throwing your own arguments against Christ, just like the Jews who once stoned Him. For these things do not belong to the Word as Word, but are proper to human beings. Just as when He spat, stretched out His hand, and called Lazarus, we did not say that these victories were human—even though they were done through the body—but were God's, so likewise, even though human things are attributed to the Savior in the Gospel, let us consider the nature of what is said and recognize that they are foreign to God, and not attribute them to the Word's Godhead but to His manhood. For although "the Word became flesh," the affections properly belong to the flesh. And although the flesh is possessed by God in the Word, the grace and the power belong to the Word. He performed the Father's works through the flesh, and just as truly the affections of the flesh were displayed in Him. For instance, He asked questions and He raised Lazarus; He rebuked His Mother, saying, "My hour has not yet come," and then immediately He turned the water into wine. For He was truly God in the flesh, and He was true flesh in the Word. Therefore from His works He revealed both Himself as Son of God and His own Father, and from the affections of the flesh He showed that He bore a true body and that it was His own.

41. Cease then, O abhorred of God, and degrade not the Word; nor detract from His Godhead, which is the Father's, as though He needed or were ignorant; lest ye be casting your own arguments against the Christ, as the Jews who once stoned Him. For these belong not to the Word, as the Word; but are proper to men and, as when He spat, and stretched forth the hand, and called Lazarus, we did not say that the triumphs were human, though they were done through the body, but were God's, so, on the other hand, though human things are ascribed to the Saviour in the Gospel, let us, considering the nature of what is said and that they are foreign to God, not impute them to the Word's Godhead, but to His manhood. For though 'the Word became flesh,' yet to the flesh are the affections proper; and though the flesh is possessed by God in the Word, yet to the Word belong the grace and the power. He did then the Father's works through the flesh; and as truly contrariwise were the affections of the flesh displayed in Him; for instance, He inquired and He raised Lazarus, He chid His Mother, saying, 'My hour is not yet come,' and then at once He made the water wine. For He was Very God in the flesh, and He was true flesh in the Word. Therefore from His works He revealed both Himself as Son of God, and His own Father, and from the affections of the flesh He showed that He bore a true body, and that it was His own.

These things being so, let us now examine the verse "But of that day and that hour knows no man, neither the Angels of God, nor the Son." Because they are in great ignorance concerning these words and are confused about them, they think they have in them an important argument for their heresy. But when the heretics bring this up and prepare to use it, I see in them the giants fighting against God once again. For the Lord of heaven and earth, by whom all things were made, has to defend Himself before them concerning a day and an hour. The Word who knows all things is accused by them of ignorance about a day, and the Son who knows the Father is said to be ignorant of an hour of a day. What could be spoken more contrary to sense, or what madness can be compared to this? Through the Word all things have been made—times and seasons and night and day and the whole creation. Is the Maker of all to be said ignorant of His own work? The very context of the passage shows that the Son of God knows that hour and that day, though the Arians fall headlong in their ignorance. For after saying "nor the Son," He tells the disciples what will happen before the day, saying "This and that shall be, and then the end." But He who speaks of what comes before the day certainly knows the day also, which will be revealed after the things He foretold. If He had not known the hour, He would not have indicated the events before it, since He would not know when it should be. Just as anyone who, in order to point out a house or city to those who did not know it, gave an account of what comes before the house or city, and having described everything said "Then immediately comes the city or the house," would of course know where the house or the city was (for if he had not known, he would not have described what comes before, lest from ignorance he should mislead his hearers badly or in speaking should unintentionally go beyond the destination)—so the Lord, in telling what comes before that day and that hour, knows exactly and is not ignorant when the hour and the day are at hand.

42. These things being so, come let us now examine into 'But of that day and that hour knows no man, neither the Angels of God, nor the Son;' for being in great ignorance as regards these words, and being stupefied about them, they think they have in them an important argument for their heresy. But I, when the heretics allege it and prepare themselves with it, see in them the giants again fighting against God. For the Lord of heaven and earth, by whom all things were made, has to litigate before them about day and hour; and the Word who knows all things is accused by them of ignorance about a day; and the Son who knows the Father is said to be ignorant of an hour of a day; now what can be spoken more contrary to sense, or what madness can be likened to this? Through the Word all things have been made, times and seasons and night and day and the whole creation; and is the Framer of all said to be ignorant of His work? And the very context of the lection shows that the Son of God knows that hour and that day, though the Arians fall headlong in their ignorance. For after saying, 'nor the Son,' He relates to the disciples what precedes the day, saying, 'This and that shall be, and then the end.' But He who speaks of what precedes the day, knows certainly the day also, which shall be manifested subsequently to the things foretold. But if He had not known the hour, He had not signified the events before it, as not knowing when it should be. And as any one, who, by way of pointing out a house or city to those who were ignorant of it, gave an account of what comes before the house or city, and having described all, said, 'Then immediately comes the city or the house,' would know of course where the house or the city was (for had he not known, he had not described what comes before lest from ignorance he should throw his hearers far out of the way, or in speaking he should unawares go beyond the object), so the Lord saying what precedes that day and that hour, knows exactly, nor is ignorant, when the hour and the day are at hand.

We shouldn't ask why, though He knew, He didn't tell His disciples plainly at that time—no one should be curious about what He has kept silent, for "Who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been His counselor?" (Romans 11:34). But why, though He knew, He said "not even the Son knows"—I don't think any believer is ignorant of this: He made this statement, like those other declarations, as man by reason of the flesh. For this, as before, is not a deficiency in the Word, but in that human nature whose property it is to be ignorant. This will be clearly seen by honestly examining when and to whom the Savior spoke these words. He didn't say this when heaven was made by Him, nor when He was with the Father Himself, the Word ordering all things, nor before He became man did He say it, but when "the Word became flesh" (John 1:14). For this reason, it's right to attribute to His manhood everything which, after He became man, He speaks humanly. For it's proper to the Word to know what was made, and not to be ignorant of either the beginning or the end of these things (for the works are His), and He knows how many things He made and the limit of their existence. And knowing the beginning and end of each thing, He surely knows the general and common end of all things. Certainly when He says in the Gospel concerning Himself in His human character, "Father, the hour has come, glorify Your Son," it's clear that He also knows the hour of the end of all things as the Word, though as man He is ignorant of it, for ignorance is proper to man, and especially ignorance of these things. Moreover, this is proper to the Savior's love for humanity; for since He was made man, He is not ashamed, because of the flesh which is ignorant, to say "I do not know," so that He may show that while knowing as God, He is ignorant according to the flesh. Therefore He didn't say "not even the Son of God knows," lest the Godhead should seem ignorant, but simply "not even the Son," so that the ignorance might belong to the Son as born from among men.

43. Now why it was that, though He knew, He did not tell His disciples plainly at that time, no one may be curious where He has been silent; for 'Who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been His counsellor Romans 11:34?' but why, though He knew, He said, 'no, not the Son knows,' this I think none of the faithful is ignorant, viz. that He made this as those other declarations as man by reason of the flesh. For this as before is not the Word's deficiency, but of that human nature whose property it is to be ignorant. And this again will be well seen by honestly examining into the occasion, when and to whom the Saviour spoke thus. Not then when the heaven was made by Him, nor when He was with the Father Himself, the Word 'disposing all things,' nor before He became man did He say it, but when 'the Word became flesh John 1:14.' On this account it is reasonable to ascribe to His manhood everything which, after He became man, He speaks humanly. For it is proper to the Word to know what was made, nor be ignorant either of the beginning or of the end of these (for the works are His), and He knows how many things He wrought, and the limit of their consistence. And knowing of each the beginning and the end, He knows surely the general and common end of all. Certainly when He says in the Gospel concerning Himself in His human character, 'Father, the hour has come, glorify Your Son,' it is plain that He knows also the hour of the end of all things, as the Word, though as man He is ignorant of it, for ignorance is proper to man, and especially ignorance of these things. Moreover this is proper to the Saviour's love of man; for since He was made man, He is not ashamed, because of the flesh which is ignorant, to say 'I know not,' that He may show that knowing as God, He is but ignorant according to the flesh. And therefore He said not, 'no, not the Son of God knows,' lest the Godhead should seem ignorant, but simply, 'no, not the Son,' that the ignorance might be the Son's as born from among men.

On this account, He refers to the Angels, but He did not go on to say "not the Holy Spirit." Instead, He was silent, conveying a double meaning. First, if the Spirit knew, then certainly the Word must know even more when considered as the Word, since the Spirit receives from Him. Second, by His silence about the Spirit, He made it clear that He spoke in terms of His human ministry when He said "no, not the Son." Here is proof of this: after speaking humanly by saying "No, not the Son knows," He nevertheless shows that divinely He knew all things. For the Son whom He declares not to know the day, Him He declares to know the Father, saying "No one knows the Father except the Son." And everyone except the Arians would agree that He who knows the Father certainly knows the whole creation even more, and within that whole, its end. And if the day and the hour have already been determined by the Father, it is clear that they were determined through the Son, and He knows what has been determined through Him, for nothing has come to be or been determined except through the Son. Therefore, since He is the Maker of the universe, He knows what nature, what size, and what limits the Father has willed it to have, and within the how much and how far is included its duration. And again, if all that is the Father's is the Son's—and this He Himself has said—and it is the Father's attribute to know the day, it is plain that the Son also knows it, having this as His own from the Father. And again, if the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son, and the Father knows the day and the hour, it is clear that the Son, being in the Father and knowing the things of the Father, also knows the day and the hour. And if the Son is also the Father's very Image, and the Father knows the day and the hour, it is plain that the Son has this likeness to the Father of knowing them as well. And it is not surprising that He through whom all things were made, and in whom the universe holds together, should know what has been brought into being and when the end of each thing and of all things together will be. What is surprising is that this audacity, fitting for the madness of the Arian-maniacs, has forced us to make such a lengthy defense. For by placing the Son of God, the Eternal Word, among created things, they come close to daring to claim that the Father Himself is second to creation. For if He who knows the Father does not know the day or the hour, I fear that knowledge of creation, or rather of the lower part of it, would be greater—as they in their madness would say—than knowledge concerning the Father.

44. On this account, He alludes to the Angels, but He did not go further and say, 'not the Holy Ghost;' but He was silent, with a double intimation; first that if the Spirit knew, much more must the Word know, considered as the Word, from whom the Spirit receives; and next by His silence about the Spirit, He made it clear, that He said of His human ministry, 'no, not the Son.' And a proof of it is this; that, when He had spoken humanly 'No, not the Son knows,' He yet shows that divinely He knew all things. For that Son whom He declares not to know the day, Him He declares to know the Father; for 'No one,' He says, ' knows the Father save the Son Matthew 11:27.' And all men but the Arians would join in confessing, that He who knows the Father, much more knows the whole of the creation; and in that whole, its end. And if already the day and the hour be determined by the Father, it is plain that through the Son are they determined, and He knows Himself what through Him has been determined, for there is nothing but has come to be and has been determined through the Son. Therefore He, being the Framer of the universe, knows of what nature, and of what magnitude, and with what limits, the Father has willed it to be made; and in the how much and how far is included its period. And again, if all that is the Father's, is the Son's (and this He Himself has John 16:15 said), and it is the Father's attribute to know the day, it is plain that the Son too knows it, having this proper to Him from the Father. And again, if the Son be in the Father and the Father in the Son, and the Father knows the day and the hour, it is clear that the Son, being in the Father and knowing the things of the Father, knows Himself also the day and the hour. And if the Son is also the Father's Very Image, and the Father knows the day and the hour, it is plain that the Son has this likeness also to the Father of knowing them. And it is not wonderful if He, through whom all things were made, and in whom the universe consists, Himself knows what has been brought to be, and when the end will be of each and of all together; rather is it wonderful that this audacity, suitable as it is to the madness of the Ario-maniacs, should have forced us to have recourse to so long a defense. For ranking the Son of God, the Eternal Word, among things originate, they are not far from venturing to maintain that the Father Himself is second to the creation; for if He who knows the Father knows not the day nor the hour, I fear lest the knowledge of the creation, or rather of the lower portion of it, be greater, as they in their madness would say, than knowledge concerning the Father.

But as for them, when they blaspheme the Spirit in this way, they should expect no forgiveness ever for such irreligion, as the Lord has said. But let us who love Christ and bear Christ within us understand that the Word, not as ignorant considered as Word, said "I know not"—for He does know—but as showing His manhood, since being ignorant is proper to man, and He had taken on flesh that was ignorant. Being in that flesh, He said according to the flesh, "I know not." For this reason, after saying "No, not the Son knows," and mentioning the ignorance of the people in Noah's day, He immediately added, "Watch therefore, for you know not in what hour your Lord does come," and again, "In such an hour as you think not, the Son of man comes." For I too, having become as you are for your sake, said "no, not the Son." Had He been ignorant divinely, He would have had to say, "Watch therefore, for I know not," and "In an hour when I think not." But in fact He has not said this. Rather, by saying "You know not" and "When you think not," He has shown that it belongs to man to be ignorant. For their sake, He too, having a flesh like theirs and having become man, said "No, not the Son knows," for He did not know in flesh, though knowing as Word. And again the example from Noah exposes the shamelessness of Christ's enemies, for there too He did not say "I knew not," but "They knew not until the flood came." For men did not know, but He who brought the flood (and it was the Saviour Himself) knew the day and the hour in which He opened the cataracts of heaven and broke up the great deep, and said to Noah, "Come, you and all your house into the ark." For if He had been ignorant, He would not have foretold to Noah, "Yet seven days and I will bring a flood upon the earth." But if in describing the day He uses the parallel of Noah's time, and He did know the day of the flood, therefore He knows also the day of His own coming.

45. But for them, when they thus blaspheme the Spirit, they must expect no remission ever of such irreligion, as the Lord has said; but let us, who love Christ and bear Christ within us, know that the Word, not as ignorant, considered as Word, has said 'I know not,' for He knows, but as showing His manhood, in that to be ignorant is proper to man, and that He had put on flesh that was ignorant, being in which, He said according to the flesh, 'I know not.' And for this reason, after saying, 'No not the Son knows,' and mentioning the ignorance of the men in Noah's day, immediately He added, 'Watch therefore, for you know not in what hour your Lord does come,' and again, 'In such an hour as you think not, the Son of man comes Matthew 24:42, 44.' For I too, having become as you for you, said 'no, not the Son.' For, had He been ignorant divinely, He must have said, 'Watch therefore, for I know not,' and, 'In an hour when I think not;' but in fact this has He not said; but by saying 'You know not' and 'When ye think not,' He has signified that it belongs to man to be ignorant; for whose sake He too having a flesh like theirs and having become man, said 'No, not the Son knows,' for He knew not in flesh, though knowing as Word. And again the example from Noah exposes the shamelessness of Christ's enemies; for there too He said not, 'I knew not,' but 'They knew not until the flood came Matthew 24:39.' For men did not know, but He who brought the flood (and it was the Saviour Himself) knew the day and the hour in which He opened the cataracts of heaven and broke up the great deep, and said to Noah, 'Come thou and all your house into the ark Genesis 7:1.' For were He ignorant, He had not foretold to Noah, 'Yet seven days and I will bring a flood upon the earth.' But if in describing the day He makes use of the parallel of Noah's time, and He did know the day of the flood, therefore He knows also the day of His own coming.

Moreover, after telling the parable of the Virgins, He again shows more clearly who are the ones who do not know the day and the hour, saying, "Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour." He who said shortly before, "No one knows, not even the Son," now does not say "I do not know," but "you do not know." In the same way, then, when His disciples asked about the end, He appropriately said, "no, nor the Son," according to the flesh because of the body, so that He might show that as man He does not know, for ignorance is proper to man. However, if He is the Word, if it is He who is to come, He who is to be Judge, He who is to be the Bridegroom, He knows when and at what hour He comes, and when He is to say, "Awake, you that sleep, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give you light." For just as, having become man, He hungers and thirsts and suffers with men, so with men as man He does not know; though divinely, being in the Father as Word and Wisdom, He knows, and there is nothing that He does not know. In the same way also concerning Lazarus He asks as a human, though He was on His way to raise him and knew from where He would recall Lazarus's soul; and it was a greater thing to know where the soul was than to know where the body lay; but He asked as a human, so that He might raise divinely. Similarly He asks the disciples when coming into the region of Caesarea, though knowing even before Peter answered. For if the Father revealed to Peter the answer to the Lord's question, it is clear that the revelation came through the Son, for "No one knows the Son," He says, "except the Father, nor the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him." But if through the Son is revealed the knowledge both of the Father and the Son, there is no room for doubting that the Lord who asked, having first revealed it to Peter from the Father, then asked as a human; in order to show that while asking according to the flesh, He knew divinely what Peter was about to say. The Son then knew, as knowing all things and knowing His own Father, than which knowledge nothing can be greater or more perfect.

46. Moreover, after narrating the parable of the Virgins, again He shows more clearly who they are who are ignorant of the day and the hour, saying, 'Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour Matthew 25:13.' He who said shortly before, 'No one knows, no not the Son,' now says not 'I know not,' but 'ye know not.' In like manner then, when His disciples asked about the end, suitably said He then, 'no, nor the Son,' according to the flesh because of the body; that He might show that, as man, He knows not; for ignorance is proper to man. If however He is the Word, if it is He who is to come, He to be Judge, He to be the Bridegroom, He knows when and in what hour He comes, and when He is to say, 'Awake, you that sleep, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give you light Ephesians 5:14.' For as, on becoming man, He hungers and thirsts and suffers with men, so with men as man He knows not; though divinely, being in the Father Word and Wisdom, He knows, and there is nothing which He knows not. In like manner also about Lazarus He asks humanly, who was on His way to raise him, and knew whence He should recall Lazarus's soul; and it was a greater thing to know where the soul was, than to know where the body lay; but He asked humanly, that He might raise divinely. So too He asks of the disciples, on coming into the parts of Cæsarea, though knowing even before Peter made answer. For if the Father revealed to Peter the answer to the Lord's question, it is plain that through the Son was the revelation, for 'No one knows the Son,' says He, 'save the Father, neither the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him Luke 10:22.' But if through the Son is revealed the knowledge both of the Father and the Son, there is no room for doubting that the Lord who asked, having first revealed it to Peter from the Father, next asked humanly; in order to show, that asking after the flesh, He knew divinely what Peter was about to say. The Son then knew, as knowing all things, and knowing His own Father, than which knowledge nothing can be greater or more perfect.

This is sufficient to refute them, but to show even more clearly that they are hostile to the truth and enemies of Christ, I would like to ask them a question. The Apostle writes in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, "I knew a man in Christ, above fourteen years ago, whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know; God knows." What do you say now? Did the Apostle know what had happened to him in the vision, even though he says "I know not," or did he not know? If he did not know, be careful, lest by being so familiar with error, you fall into the sin of the Phrygians, who say that the Prophets and the other ministers of the Word know neither what they do nor what they announce. But if he knew when he said "I know not," since he had Christ within him revealing all things to him, is not the heart of God's enemies truly perverted and self-condemned? For when the Apostle says "I know not," they say that he knows; but when the Lord says "I know not," they say that He does not know. For if Paul knew that of which he says "I know not" because Christ was within him, does not Christ Himself know much more, even though He says "I know not"? The Apostle then, with the Lord revealing it to him, knew what happened to him; for this is why he says "I knew a man in Christ," and knowing the man, he also knew how the man was caught away. Similarly, Elisha, who saw Elijah, also knew how he was taken up; but though he knew, when the sons of the Prophets thought that Elijah was cast upon one of the mountains by the Spirit, he, knowing from the beginning what he had seen, tried to persuade them otherwise; but when they insisted, he was silent and let them go after him. Did he then not know because he was silent? He knew indeed, but as if not knowing, he allowed them to go, so that being convinced, they might no longer doubt Elijah's being taken up. Therefore, much more did Paul, himself being the person caught away, also know how he was caught; for Elijah knew, and had anyone asked, he would have said how. And yet Paul says "I know not," for these two reasons, as I think at least: one, as he himself said, lest because of the abundance of the revelations anyone should think of him beyond what he saw; the other, because our Savior had said "I know not," so it was fitting for him also to say "I know not," lest the servant should appear above his Lord, and the disciple above his Master.

47. This is sufficient to confute them; but to show still further that they are hostile to the truth and Christ's enemies, I could wish to ask them a question. The Apostle in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians writes, 'I knew a man in Christ, above fourteen years ago, whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know; God knows.' What now say ye? Knew the Apostle what had happened to him in the vision, though he says 'I know not,' or knew he not? If he knew not, see to it, lest, being familiar with error, you err in the trespass of the Phrygians, who say that the Prophets and the other ministers of the Word know neither what they do nor concerning what they announce. But if he knew when he said 'I know not,' for he had Christ within him revealing to him all things, is not the heart of God's enemies indeed perverted and 'self-condemned?' for when the Apostle says, 'I know not,' they say that he knows; but when the Lord says, 'I know not,' they say that He does not know. For if since Christ was within him, Paul knew that of which he says, 'I know not,' does not much more Christ Himself know, though He say, 'I know not?' The Apostle then, the Lord revealing it to him, knew what happened to him; for on this account he says, 'I knew a man in Christ.' and knowing the man, he knew also how the man was caught away. Thus Elisha, who beheld Elijah, knew also how he was taken up; but though knowing, yet when the sons of the Prophets thought that Elijah was cast upon one of the mountains by the Spirit, he knowing from the first what he had seen, tried to persuade them; but when they urged it, he was silent, and suffered them to go after him. Did he then not know, because he was silent? He knew indeed, but as if not knowing, he suffered them, that they being convinced, might no more doubt about the taking up of Elijah. Therefore much more Paul, himself being the person caught away, knew also how he was caught; for Elijah knew; and had any one asked, he would have said how. And yet Paul says 'I know not,' for these two reasons, as I think at least; one, as he has said himself, lest because of the abundance of the revelations any one should think of him beyond what he saw; the other, because, our Saviour having said 'I know not,' it became him also to say 'I know not,' lest the servant should appear above his Lord, and the disciple above his Master.

Therefore, the one who gave Paul the ability to know something certainly knew it himself even more. Since he spoke about the events leading up to the day, he also knew—as I said before—when the Day and when the Hour would be. Yet even though he knew, he says, "No, not the Son knows." Why then did he say at that time "I do not know" what he, as Lord, actually knew? As we may discover through careful consideration—for our benefit, I believe at least—he did this for the following reason. May he grant that what we are now proposing has a true meaning! The Savior secured our advantage in both respects. He made known the signs that come before the end so that, as he himself said, we would not be startled or frightened when they happen, but would expect the end to follow them. Concerning the day and the hour, however, he was unwilling to speak according to his divine nature and say "I know." Instead, he spoke according to the flesh and said "I do not know," for the sake of the flesh which was ignorant, as I said before. He did this to prevent them from questioning him further, which would have forced him either to cause the disciples pain by not speaking, or to harm them and all of us by speaking. For whatever he does, he does entirely for our sake, since "the Word became flesh" for us. Therefore, for us he said, "No, not the Son knows." In saying this, he was not being untruthful—for he spoke humanly, as a human being, when he said "I do not know"—nor did he allow the disciples to force him to speak, because by saying "I do not know" he stopped their inquiries. Likewise, in the Acts of the Apostles it is written that when he ascended above the angels as a human being, carrying up to heaven the flesh he had taken, and the disciples saw this and asked again, "When will the end be, and when will you be present?" he answered them more clearly: "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons which the Father has put in his own power." He did not then say "No, not the Son," as he had said before in human terms. Instead, he said "It is not for you to know." For by that time the flesh had risen, had put off its mortality, and had been deified. It was no longer appropriate for him to answer according to the flesh when he was going into the heavens. Rather, from then on he taught in a divine manner: "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in his own power, but you will receive Power." And what is that Power of the Father except the Son? For Christ is "God's Power and God's Wisdom."

48. Therefore He who gave to Paul to know, much rather knew Himself; for since He spoke of the antecedents of the day, He also knew, as I said before, when the Day and when the Hour, and yet though knowing, He says, 'No, not the Son knows.' Why then said He at that time 'I know not,' what He as Lord, knew? As we may by searching conjecture, for our profit, as I think at least, did He this; and may He grant to what we are now proposing a true meaning! On both sides did the Saviour secure our advantage; for He has made known what comes before the end, that, as He said Himself, we might not be startled nor scared, when they happen, but from them may expect the end after them. And concerning the day and the hour He was not willing to say according to His divine nature, 'I know,' but after the flesh, 'I know not,' for the sake of the flesh which was ignorant, as I have said before; lest they should ask Him further, and then either He should have to pain the disciples by not speaking, or by speaking might act to the prejudice of them and us all. For whatever He does, that altogether He does for our sakes, since also for us 'the Word became flesh.' For us therefore He said 'No, not the Son knows;' and neither was He untrue in thus saying (for He said humanly, as man, 'I know not'), nor did He suffer the disciples to force Him to speak, for by saying 'I know not' He stopped their inquiries. And so in the Acts of the Apostles it is written, when He went upon the Angels, ascending as man, and carrying up to heaven the flesh which He bore, on the disciples seeing this, and again asking, 'When shall the end be, and when will You be present?' He said to them more clearly, 'It is not for you to know the times or the seasons which the Father has put in His own power Acts 1:7.' And He did not then say, 'No, not the Son,' as He said before humanly, but, 'It is not for you to know.' For now the flesh had risen and put off its mortality and been deified; and no longer did it become Him to answer after the flesh when He was going into the heavens; but henceforth to teach after a divine manner, 'It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own power; but you shall receive Power.' And what is that Power of the Father but the Son? For Christ is 'God's Power and God's Wisdom.'

The Son did know, as the Word. He implied this in what He said: "I know, but it is not for you to know." For it was for your sakes that, sitting on the mount, I also said according to the flesh, "No, not the Son knows"—for your benefit and for everyone's benefit. For it is profitable for you to hear this about both the Angels and the Son, because of the deceivers who will come later. Even if demons should disguise themselves as Angels and try to speak about the end, you should not believe them, since they are ignorant. And if Antichrist, disguising himself, should say "I am Christ" and try to speak about that day and end in order to deceive his hearers, you, having these words from Me—"No, not the Son"—should disbelieve him also. Furthermore, not knowing when the end is, or when the day of the end is, is beneficial for humanity, lest knowing it they might become careless during the time in between, simply waiting for the days near the end. For they would reason that only then must they pay attention to themselves. Therefore He has also kept silent about the time when each person will die, lest people, feeling secure because of their knowledge, should neglect themselves for most of their time. The Word has concealed from us both the end of all things and the limit of each of us (for in the end of all is the end of each, and in the end of each the end of all is included), so that, since it is uncertain and always approaching, we may advance day by day as if summoned, reaching forward to what lies ahead and forgetting what lies behind. For who, knowing the day of the end, would not be lazy during the interval? But if ignorant, would he not be ready day by day? It was for this reason that the Savior added, "Watch therefore, for you know not what hour your Lord comes," and "In such an hour as you think not, the Son of man comes." He said this for the benefit that comes from ignorance. For in saying it, He wants us always to be prepared. "For you," He says, "do not know; but I, the Lord, know when I come, even though the Arians do not wait for Me, who am the Word of the Father."

49. The Son then did know, as being the Word; for He implied this in what He said –'I know but it is not for you to know;' for it was for your sakes that sitting also on the mount I said according to the flesh, 'No, not the Son knows,' for the profit of you and all. For it is profitable to you to hear so much both of the Angels and of the Son, because of the deceivers which shall be afterwards; that though demons should be transfigured as Angels, and should attempt to speak concerning the end, you should not believe, since they are ignorant; and that, if Antichrist too, disguising himself, should say, 'I am Christ,' and should try in his turn to speak of that day and end, to deceive the hearers, ye, having these words from Me, 'No, not the Son,' may disbelieve him also. And further, not to know when the end is, or when the day of the end, is expedient for man, lest knowing, they might become negligent of the time between, awaiting the days near the end; for they will argue that then only must they attend to themselves. Therefore also has He been silent of the time when each shall die, lest men, being elated on the ground of knowledge, should immediately neglect themselves for the greater part of their time. Both then, the end of all things and the limit of each of us has the Word concealed from us (for in the end of all is the end of each, and in the end of each the end of all is comprehended), that, whereas it is uncertain and always in prospect, we may advance day by day as if summoned, reaching forward to the things before us and forgetting the things behind. For who, knowing the day of the end, would not be dilatory with the interval? But, if ignorant, would not be ready day by day? It was on this account that the Saviour added, 'Watch therefore, for you know not what hour your Lord does come;' and, 'In such an hour as you think not, the Son of man comes Matthew 24:42; Luke 12:40.' For the advantage then which comes of ignorance has He said this; for in saying it, He wishes that we should always be prepared; 'for you,' He says, ' know not; but I, the Lord, know when I come, though the Arians do not wait for Me, who am the Word of the Father.'

The Lord, then, knowing what is good for us better than we know ourselves, taught the disciples in this way. They in turn, having been thus instructed, corrected the believers in Thessalonica when they were about to fall into error on this point. However, since Christ's enemies do not yield even to these arguments, I want to question them again about this, even though I know they have hearts harder than Pharaoh's. In Paradise, God asks, "Adam, where are you?" and He inquires of Cain as well, "Where is Abel your brother?" What do you say about this? If you think He was ignorant and therefore asked, you already belong to the party of the Manichees, for this is their bold thinking. But if, fearing the open label, you force yourselves to say that He asks while knowing, what is excessive or strange in the doctrine such that you should stumble when you find that the Son—in whom God then inquired, the same Son who now is clothed in flesh—inquires of the disciples as man? Unless, having become Manichees, you are willing to criticize the question then put to Adam, all so that you may give full expression to your perversity. For though exposed on all sides, you still raise objections from the words of Luke, which are rightly said but wrongly understood by you. And what this objection is, we must explain, so that their corrupt interpretation may also be shown.

50. The Lord then, knowing what is good for us beyond ourselves, thus secured the disciples; and they, being thus taught, set right those of Thessalonica when likely on this point to run into error. However, since Christ's enemies do not yield even to these considerations, I wish, though knowing that they have a heart harder than Pharaoh, to ask them again concerning this. In Paradise God asks, 'Adam, where are You ' and He inquires of Cain also, 'Where is Abel your brother?' What then say you to this? For if you think Him ignorant and therefore to have asked, you are already of the party of the Manichees, for this is their bold thought; but if, fearing the open name, you force yourselves to say, that He asks knowing, what is there extravagant or strange in the doctrine, that you should thus fall, on finding that the Son, in whom God then inquired, that same Son who now is clad in flesh, inquires of the disciples as man? Unless forsooth, having become Manichees, you are willing to blame the question then put to Adam and all that you may give full play to your perverseness. For being exposed on all sides, you still make a whispering from the words of Luke, which are rightly said, but ill understood by you. And what this is, we must state, that so also their corrupt meaning may be shown.

Now Luke says, "And Jesus advanced in wisdom and stature, and in grace with God and man." This is the passage, and since they stumble over it, we are forced to ask them, like the Pharisees and Sadducees, about the person Luke is speaking of. The question is this: Is Jesus Christ a man like all other men, or is He God bearing flesh? If He is an ordinary man like the rest, then let Him advance as a man. However, this is the view of the Samosatene, which you actually hold as well, though you deny it in name because of other people. But if He is God bearing flesh, as He truly is, and "the Word became flesh," and being God descended to earth, what advance could He have who existed equal to God? Or how could the Son increase, being always in the Father? For if He who was always in the Father advanced, what, I ask, is there beyond the Father from which His advance could be made? Next, it is appropriate here to repeat what was said about His receiving and being glorified. If He advanced when He became man, it is clear that before He became man, He was imperfect, and the flesh became a cause of perfection for Him rather than He for the flesh. And again, if He advances as the Word, what more can He become than Word and Wisdom and Son and God's Power? For the Word is all these things, and if someone can somehow partake of even one ray of them, that person becomes completely perfect among men and equal to Angels. For Angels, Archangels, Dominions, and all the Powers and Thrones, as they partake of the Word, always behold the face of His Father. How then does He who supplies perfection to others Himself advance later than they do? For Angels even ministered at His human birth, and the passage from Luke comes later than the ministry of the Angels. How then can this even enter human thought? Or how did Wisdom advance in wisdom? Or how did He who gives grace to others—as Paul says in every epistle, knowing that grace is given through Him: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all"—how did He advance in grace? For either let them say that the Apostle is lying and dare to claim that the Son is not Wisdom, or else if He is Wisdom as Solomon said, and if Paul wrote, "Christ, God's Power and God's Wisdom," what further advance could Wisdom possibly undergo?

51. Now Luke says, 'And Jesus advanced in wisdom and stature, and in grace with God and man Luke 2:52.' This then is the passage, and since they stumble in it, we are compelled to ask them, like the Pharisees and the Sadducees, of the person concerning whom Luke speaks. And the case stands thus. Is Jesus Christ man, as all other men, or is He God bearing flesh? If then He is an ordinary man as the rest, then let Him, as a man, advance; this however is the sentiment of the Samosatene, which virtually indeed you entertain also, though in name you deny it because of men. But if He be God bearing flesh, as He truly is, and 'the Word became flesh,' and being God descended upon earth, what advance had He who existed equal to God? Or how had the Son increase, being ever in the Father? For if He who was ever in the Father, advanced, what, I ask, is there beyond the Father from which His advance might be made? Next it is suitable here to repeat what was said upon the point of His receiving and being glorified. If He advanced when He became man, it is plain that, before He became man, He was imperfect; and rather the flesh became to Him a cause of perfection, than He to the flesh. And again, if, as being the Word, He advances, what has He more to become than Word and Wisdom and Son and God's Power? For the Word is all these, of which if one can anyhow partake as it were one ray, such a man becomes all perfect among men, and equal to Angels. For Angels, and Archangels, and Dominions, and all the Powers, and Thrones, as partaking the Word, behold always the face of His Father. How then does He who to others supplies perfection, Himself advance later than they? For Angels even ministered to His human birth, and the passage from Luke comes later than the ministration of the Angels. How then at all can it even come into thought of man? Or how did Wisdom advance in wisdom? Or how did He who to others gives grace (as Paul says in every Epistle, knowing that through Him grace is given, 'The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all'), how did He advance in grace? For either let them say that the Apostle is untrue, and presume to say that the Son is not Wisdom, or else if He is Wisdom as Solomon said, and if Paul wrote, 'Christ God's Power and God's Wisdom,' of what advance did Wisdom admit further?

For human beings, as creatures, are able in some way to move forward and grow in virtue. Enoch, for instance, was translated in this way, and Moses grew and was perfected; and Isaac 'by advancing became great;' and the Apostle said that he 'reached forth' day by day to what was before him. For each had room for advancing, looking to the step before him. But the Son of God, who is One and Only, what room did He have for moving forward? For all things advance by looking at Him; and He, being One and Only, is in the Only Father, from whom again He does not move forward, but in Him abides always. To human beings, then, belongs advancement; but the Son of God, since He could not advance, being perfect in the Father, humbled Himself for us, so that in His humbling we on the other hand might be able to increase. And our increase is nothing other than renouncing things sensible, and coming to the Word Himself; since His humbling is nothing else than His taking our flesh. It was not then the Word, considered as the Word, who advanced; who is perfect from the perfect Father, who needs nothing, and in fact brings forward others to advancement; but humanly is He here also said to advance, since advancement belongs to human beings. So the Evangelist, speaking with careful precision, has mentioned stature in the advance; but being Word and God He is not measured by stature, which belongs to bodies. Of the body then is the advancement; for, as it advanced, in it advanced also the manifestation of the Godhead to those who saw it. And, as the Godhead was more and more revealed, by so much more did His grace as man increase before all people. For as a child He was carried to the Temple; and when He became a boy, He remained there, and questioned the priests about the Law. And gradually His body increasing, and the Word manifesting Himself in it, He is confessed from then on by Peter first, then also by all, 'Truly this is the Son of God;' however willfully the Jews, both the ancient and these modern, shut fast their eyes, lest they see that to advance in wisdom is not the advance of Wisdom Itself, but rather the manhood's advance in It. For 'Jesus advanced in wisdom and grace;' and, if we may speak what is both explanatory and true, He advanced in Himself; for 'Wisdom built herself a house,' and in herself she gave the house advancement.

52. For men, creatures as they are, are capable in a certain way of reaching forward and advancing in virtue. Enoch, for instance, was thus translated, and Moses increased and was perfected; and Isaac 'by advancing became great;' and the Apostle said that he 'reached forth Philippians 3:13 ' day by day to what was before him. For each had room for advancing, looking to the step before him. But the Son of God, who is One and Only, what room had He for reaching forward? For all things advance by looking at Him; and He, being One and Only, is in the Only Father, from whom again He does not reach forward, but in Him abides ever. To men then belongs advance; but the Son of God, since He could not advance, being perfect in the Father, humbled Himself for us, that in His humbling we on the other hand might be able to increase. And our increase is no other than the renouncing things sensible, and coming to the Word Himself; since His humbling is nothing else than His taking our flesh. It was not then the Word, considered as the Word, who advanced; who is perfect from the perfect Father, who needs nothing, nay brings forward others to an advance; but humanly is He here also said to advance, since advance belongs to man. Hence the Evangelist, speaking with cautious exactness, has mentioned stature in the advance; but being Word and God He is not measured by stature, which belongs to bodies. Of the body then is the advance; for, it advancing, in it advanced also the manifestation of the Godhead to those who saw it. And, as the Godhead was more and more revealed, by so much more did His grace as man increase before all men. For as a child He was carried to the Temple; and when He became a boy, He remained there, and questioned the priests about the Law. And by degrees His body increasing, and the Word manifesting Himself in it, He is confessed henceforth by Peter first, then also by all, 'Truly this is the Son of God;' however wilfully the Jews, both the ancient and these modern, shut fast their eyes, lest they see that to advance in wisdom is not the advance of Wisdom Itself, but rather the manhood's advance in It. For 'Jesus advanced in wisdom and grace;' and, if we may speak what is explanatory as well as true, He advanced in Himself; for 'Wisdom built herself a house,' and in herself she gave the house advancement.

What is this advancement that is spoken of? As I said before, it is the deifying and grace given from Wisdom to human beings, with sin being wiped away in them and their inner corruption removed, according to their likeness and relation to the flesh of the Word. For in this way, as the body grew in physical stature, the manifestation of the Godhead also developed in it, and it was shown to everyone that the body was God's Temple and that God was in the body. And if they insist that "The Word become flesh" is called Jesus, and they apply the term "advanced" to Him, they must be told that this does not diminish the Father's Light, which is the Son, but rather it still demonstrates that the Word became man and bore true flesh. And just as we said that He suffered in the flesh, and hungered in the flesh, and was tired in the flesh, so also it is reasonable to say that He advanced in the flesh. For the advancement we have described did not happen to the Word apart from the flesh, because the flesh which advanced was in Him and is called His—and this, as before, so that man's advancement might remain and not fail, because of the Word who is with it. Therefore the advancement was not the Word's, nor was the flesh Wisdom, but the flesh became the body of Wisdom. Consequently, as we have already said, Wisdom did not advance in respect to Itself as Wisdom. Rather, the manhood advanced in Wisdom, surpassing human nature by degrees, being deified, and becoming and appearing to all as the instrument of Wisdom for the activity and shining forth of the Godhead. Therefore he did not say "The Word advanced," but Jesus, which is the Name by which the Lord was called when He became man. So the advancement belongs to the human nature in the way we explained above.

53. (What moreover is this advance that is spoken of, but, as I said before, the deifying and grace imparted from Wisdom to men, sin being obliterated in them and their inward corruption, according to their likeness and relationship to the flesh of the Word?) For thus, the body increasing in stature, there developed in it the manifestation of the Godhead also, and to all was it displayed that the body was God's Temple, and that God was in the body. And if they urge, that 'The Word become flesh' is called Jesus, and refer to Him the term 'advanced,' they must be told that neither does this impair the Father's Light, which is the Son, but that it still shows that the Word has become man, and bore true flesh. And as we said that He suffered in the flesh, and hungered in the flesh, and was fatigued in the flesh, so also reasonably may He be said to have advanced in the flesh; for neither did the advance, such as we have described it, take place with the Word external to the flesh, for in Him was the flesh which advanced and His is it called, and that as before, that man's advance might abide and fail not, because of the Word which is with it. Neither then was the advance the Word's, nor was the flesh Wisdom, but the flesh became the body of Wisdom. Therefore, as we have already said, not Wisdom, as Wisdom, advanced in respect of Itself; but the manhood advanced in Wisdom, transcending by degrees human nature, and being deified, and becoming and appearing to all as the organ of Wisdom for the operation and the shining forth of the Godhead. Wherefore neither said he, 'The Word advanced,' but Jesus, by which Name the Lord was called when He became man; so that the advance is of the human nature in such wise as we explained above.

Therefore, just as when the flesh advanced He is said to have advanced because the body was His own, so also what is said at the time of His death—that He was troubled, that He wept—must be understood in the same way. For they go back and forth, as if thereby promoting their heresy anew, and they claim: Look, He wept and said, "Now is My soul troubled," and He prayed that the cup might pass away. How then, if He spoke this way, is He God and Word of the Father? Yes, it is written that He wept, O enemies of God, and that He said, "I am troubled," and on the Cross He said, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani," that is, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" and He prayed that the cup might pass away. This is certainly written, but again I would ask you (for the same response must necessarily be made to each of your objections): If the speaker is merely man, let him weep and fear death, being man; but if He is the Word in flesh (for one must not hesitate to repeat this), whom did He have to fear, being God? Or why should He fear death, who was Himself Life and was rescuing others from death? Or how, since He said, "Fear not him that kills the body," should He Himself fear? And how should He who said to Abraham, "Fear not, for I am with you," and encouraged Moses against Pharaoh, and said to the son of Nun, "Be strong and of good courage," Himself feel terror before Herod and Pilate? Furthermore, He who helps others against fear (for Scripture says, "The Lord is on my side; I will not fear what man shall do unto me"), did He fear governors, mortal men? Did He who Himself had come against death feel terror of death? Is it not both unseemly and irreligious to say that He was terrified at death or hades, whom the keepers of the gates of hades saw and shuddered? But if, as you claim, the Word was in terror, why, when He spoke long before of the conspiracy of the Jews, did He not flee, but rather said when actually sought, "I am He"? For He could have avoided death, as He said, "I have power to lay down My life, and I have power to take it again," and "No one takes it from Me."

54. Therefore as, when the flesh advanced, He is said to have advanced, because the body was His own, so also what is said at the season of His death, that He was troubled, that He wept, must be taken in the same sense. For they, going up and down, as if thereby recommending their heresy anew, allege; Behold, 'He wept,' and said, 'Now is My soul troubled,' and He besought that the cup might pass away; how then, if He so spoke, is He God, and Word of the Father? Yea, it is written that He wept, O God's enemies, and that He said, 'I am troubled,' and on the Cross He said, 'Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani,' that is, 'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?' and He besought that the cup might pass away. Thus certainly it is written; but again I would ask you (for the same rejoinder must of necessity be made to each of your objections), If the speaker is mere man, let him weep and fear death, as being man; but if He is the Word in flesh (for one must not be reluctant to repeat), whom had He to fear being God? Or wherefore should He fear death, who was Himself Life, and was rescuing others from death? Or how, whereas He said, 'Fear not him that kills the body Luke 12:4,' should He Himself fear? And how should He who said to Abraham, 'Fear not, for I am with you,' and encouraged Moses against Pharaoh, and said to the son of Nun, 'Be strong, and of a good courage,' Himself feel terror before Herod and Pilate? Further, He who succours others against fear (for 'the Lord,' says Scripture, 'is on my side, I will not fear what man shall do unto me '), did He fear governors, mortal men? Did He who Himself had come against death, feel terror of death? Is it not both unseemly and irreligious to say that He was terrified at death or hades, whom the keepers of the gates of hades saw and shuddered? But if, as you would hold, the Word was in terror wherefore, when He spoke long before of the conspiracy of the Jews, did He not flee, nay said when actually sought, 'I am He?' for He could have avoided death, as He said, 'I have power to lay down My life, and I have power to take it again;' and 'No one takes it from Me. '

But these experiences were not proper to the nature of the Word, insofar as He was Word. Rather, it was in the flesh—which was affected in these ways—that the Word was present, O enemies of Christ and ungrateful Jews! For He did not say all this before taking on flesh; but when the Word became flesh and became man, then it is written that He said this—that is, He said it humanly. Certainly the one of whom this is written was the same one who raised Lazarus from the dead, turned water into wine, gave sight to the man born blind, and said, "I and My Father are one." If they use His human attributes as grounds for low thoughts concerning the Son of God—indeed, if they consider Him altogether a man from the earth and not from heaven—why do they not recognize from His divine works the Word who is in the Father, and from now on renounce their self-willed irreligion? For they are given the opportunity to see how the one who did the works is the same as the one who showed that His body was passible by permitting it to weep and hunger and to show other properties of a body. For while through such things He made it known that, though He was God who is impassible, He had taken passible flesh, yet from the works He showed Himself to be the Word of God who had afterwards become man, saying, "Though you do not believe Me, seeing Me clothed in a human body, yet believe the works, so that you may know that I am in the Father and the Father in Me." And Christ's enemies seem to me to show plain shamelessness and blasphemy. For when they hear "I and the Father are one," they violently distort the meaning and separate the unity of the Father and the Son; but when reading of His tears or sweat or sufferings, they do not pay attention to His body, but because of these things they rank in the creation Him by whom the creation was made. What then is left for them to differ from the Jews in? For just as the Jews blasphemously ascribed God's works to Beelzebub, so also will these people, by ranking with the creatures the Lord who wrought those works, undergo the same condemnation as theirs without mercy.

55. But these affections were not proper to the nature of the Word, as far as He was Word; but in the flesh which was thus affected was the Word, O Christ's enemies and unthankful Jews! For He said not all this prior to the flesh; but when the 'Word became flesh,' and has become man, then is it written that He said this, that is, humanly. Surely He of whom this is written was He who raised Lazarus from the dead, and made the water wine, and vouchsafed sight to the man born blind, and said, 'I and My Father are one.' If then they make His human attributes a ground for low thoughts concerning the Son of God, nay consider Him altogether man from the earth, and not from heaven, wherefore not from His divine works recognise the Word who is in the Father, and henceforward renounce their self-willed irreligion? For they are given to see, how He who did the works is the same as He who showed that His body was passible by His permitting it to weep and hunger, and to show other properties of a body. For while by means of such He made it known that, though God impassible, He had taken a passible flesh; yet from the works He showed Himself the Word of God, who had afterwards become man, saying, Though you believe not Me, beholding Me clad in a human body, yet believe the works, that you may know that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me. 'And Christ's enemies seem to me to show plain shamelessness and blasphemy;' for, when they hear 'I and the Father are one,' they violently distort the sense, and separate the unity of the Father and the Son; but reading of His tears or sweat or sufferings, they do not advert to His body, but on account of these rank in the creation Him by whom the creation was made. What then is left for them to differ from the Jews in? For as the Jews blasphemously ascribed God's works to Beelzebub, so also will these, ranking with the creatures the Lord who wrought those works, undergo the same condemnation as theirs without mercy.

When they hear "I and the Father are one," they ought to recognize in Him the oneness of the Godhead and the distinctive character of the Father's ousia. And when they hear "He wept" and similar things, they should say these are proper to the body. This is especially so since each side has an understandable basis—namely, that one is written of Him as God and the other with reference to His manhood. For in what is incorporeal, the properties of body would not have existed unless He had taken a corruptible and mortal body. For Holy Mary, from whom His body came, was mortal. Therefore, when He was in a body that suffered, wept, and grew weary, these things that are proper to the flesh are necessarily attributed to Him along with the body. So if He wept and was troubled, it was not the Word, considered as Word, who wept and was troubled, but this was proper to the flesh. And if He asked that the cup might pass away, it was not the Godhead that was terrified, but this emotion too was proper to the manhood. And though the words "Why have You forsaken Me?" are His, according to the explanations given earlier (even though He suffered nothing, for the Word was impassible), they are nevertheless recorded by the Evangelists. Since the Lord became man, these things are done and said as if by a man, so that He Himself might ease these very sufferings of the flesh and free it from them. Therefore, the Lord cannot be forsaken by the Father, since He is always in the Father, both before He spoke and when He uttered this cry. Nor is it permissible to say that the Lord was terrified, when the keepers of hell's gates shuddered at Him and opened hell, the graves split open, and many bodies of the saints arose and appeared to their own people. Therefore let every heretic be silent and not dare to attribute terror to the Lord from whom death flees like a serpent, at whom demons tremble and the sea is alarmed, for whom the heavens are torn and all the powers are shaken. For when He says "Why have You forsaken Me?" the Father showed that He was always and even then in Him. The earth, knowing its Lord who spoke, immediately trembled, the veil was torn, the sun was hidden, the rocks were split, and the graves, as I said, opened, and the dead in them arose. What is wonderful is that those who were present then and had previously denied Him, seeing these signs, confessed that "truly He was the Son of God."

56. But they ought, when they hear 'I and the Father are one,' to see in Him the oneness of the Godhead and the propriety of the Father's Essence; and again when they hear, 'He wept' and the like, to say that these are proper to the body; especially since on each side they have an intelligible ground, viz. that this is written as of God and that with reference to His manhood. For in the incorporeal, the properties of body had not been, unless He had taken a body corruptible and mortal; for mortal was Holy Mary, from whom was His body. Wherefore of necessity when He was in a body suffering, and weeping, and toiling, these things which are proper to the flesh, are ascribed to Him together with the body. If then He wept and was troubled, it was not the Word, considered as the Word, who wept and was troubled, but it was proper to the flesh; and if too He besought that the cup might pass away, it was not the Godhead that was in terror, but this affection too was proper to the manhood. And that the words 'Why have You forsaken Me?' are His, according to the foregoing explanations (though He suffered nothing, for the Word was impassible), is notwithstanding declared by the Evangelists; since the Lord became man, and these things are done and said as from a man, that He might Himself lighten these very sufferings of the flesh, and free it from them. Whence neither can the Lord be forsaken by the Father, who is ever in the Father, both before He spoke, and when He uttered this cry. Nor is it lawful to say that the Lord was in terror, at whom the keepers of hell's gates shuddered and set open hell, and the graves did gape, and many bodies of the saints arose and appeared to their own people. Therefore be every heretic dumb, nor dare to ascribe terror to the Lord whom death, as a serpent, flees, at whom demons tremble, and the sea is in alarm; for whom the heavens are rent and all the powers are shaken. For behold when He says, 'Why have You forsaken Me?' the Father showed that He was ever and even then in Him; for the earth knowing its Lord who spoke, straightway trembled, and the veil was rent, and the sun was hidden, and the rocks were torn asunder, and the graves, as I have said, did gape, and the dead in them arose; and, what is wonderful, they who were then present and had before denied Him, then seeing these signs, confessed that ' truly He was the Son of God. '

And as to His saying, "If it be possible, let the cup pass," observe how, though He said this, He rebuked Peter, saying, "You do not think about the things of God, but the things of men." For He actually willed what He seemed to reject, since that was why He had come. The willing was His (for He came for this purpose), but the terror belonged to the flesh. Therefore He speaks these words as man, yet both statements were made by the Same person, to show that He was God willing in Himself, but when He had become man, having a flesh that was experiencing terror. For the sake of this flesh, He joined His own will with human weakness, so that by destroying this experience He might in turn make man fearless in the face of death. Look at this strange thing! Those who attribute words of terror to Christ find that He, through this so-called terror, makes men bold and fearless. And so the blessed Apostles, after Him, learned from such words of His to have such great contempt for death that they did not even care about those who questioned them, but answered, "We ought to obey God rather than men." And the other holy martyrs were so courageous that they believed they were passing to life rather than undergoing death. Is it not absurd, then, to admire the courage of the Word's servants, yet to say that the Word Himself was terrified—the Word through whom they despised death? But from the most enduring resolve and courage of the holy martyrs it is shown that the Godhead was not in terror, but the Savior took away our terror. For just as He abolished death by death, and by human means all human evils, so by this so-called terror He removed our terror and brought it about that men would never again fear death. His word and deed go together. For the sayings "Let the cup pass" and "Why have You forsaken Me?" were human, while the act whereby the Same caused the sun to fail and the dead to rise was divine. Again He said as man, "Now is My soul troubled," and He said as God, "I have power to lay down My life, and power to take it again." For being troubled was proper to the flesh, but having power to lay down His life and take it again, when He willed, was not a property of men but of the Word's power. For man dies not by his own power but by necessity of nature and against his will. But the Lord, being Himself immortal yet having mortal flesh, had power, as God, to become separate from the body and to take it again when He willed. David speaks about this in the Psalm: "You will not leave My soul in hades, neither will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption." For it was fitting that the flesh, though it was corruptible, should no longer remain mortal according to its own nature, but should abide incorruptible because of the Word who had put it on. For just as He, having come in our body, was conformed to our condition, so we, receiving Him, partake of the immortality that comes from Him.

57. And as to His saying, 'If it be possible, let the cup pass,' observe how, though He thus spoke, He rebuked Peter, saying, 'You savour not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.' For He willed what He deprecated, for therefore had He come; but His was the willing (for for it He came), but the terror belonged to the flesh. Wherefore as man He utters this speech also, and yet both were said by the Same, to show that He was God, willing in Himself, but when He had become man, having a flesh that was in terror. For the sake of this flesh He combined His own will with human weakness, that destroying this affection He might in turn make man undaunted in face of death. Behold then a thing strange indeed! He to whom Christ's enemies impute words of terror, He by that so-called tenor renders men undaunted and fearless. And so the Blessed Apostles after Him from such words of His conceived so great a contempt of death, as not even to care for those who questioned them, but to answer, 'We ought to obey God rather than men Acts 5:29.' And the other Holy Martyrs were so bold, as to think that they were rather passing to life than undergoing death. Is it not extravagant then, to admire the courage of the servants of the Word, yet to say that the Word Himself was in terror, through whom they despised death? But from that most enduring purpose and courage of the Holy Martyrs is shown, that the Godhead was not in terror, but the Saviour took away our terror. For as He abolished death by death, and by human means all human evils, so by this so-called terror did He remove our terror, and brought about that never more should men fear death. His word and deed go together. For human were the sayings, 'Let the cup pass,' and 'Why have You forsaken Me?' and divine the act whereby the Same did cause the sun to fail and the dead to rise. Again He said humanly, 'Now is My soul troubled;' and He said divinely, 'I have power to lay down My life, and power to take it again.' For to be troubled was proper to the flesh, and to have power to lay down His life and take it again, when He will, was no property of men but of the Word's power. For man dies, not by his own power, but by necessity of nature and against his will; but the Lord, being Himself immortal, but having a mortal flesh, had power, as God, to become separate from the body and to take it again, when He would. Concerning this too speaks David in the Psalm, 'You shall not leave My soul in hades, neither shall Thou suffer Your Holy One to see corruption.' For it beseemed that the flesh, corruptible as it was, should no longer after its own nature remain mortal, but because of the Word who had put it on, should abide incorruptible. For as He, having come in our body, was conformed to our condition, so we, receiving Him, partake of the immortality that is from Him.

The excuse for stumbling is pointless, and the ideas about the Word held by these Arian madmen are trivial, simply because Scripture says "He was troubled" and "He wept." They seem not even to possess human feeling if they are so ignorant of human nature and its characteristics. This only makes it more remarkable that the Word should exist in such suffering flesh, yet neither prevented those who were plotting against Him nor took vengeance on those who were putting Him to death, even though He was able to do so—He who stopped some from dying and raised others from the dead. He allowed His own body to suffer, for that is why He came, as I said before: so that in the flesh He might suffer, and afterward the flesh might be made incapable of suffering and immortal. As we have said many times, this was so that insults and other troubles might fall upon Him and fall short of reaching others after Him, being completely destroyed by Him, and so that from then on humanity might remain incorruptible forever, as a temple of the Word. If Christ's enemies had focused on these truths and recognized the ecclesiastical rule of faith as an anchor for the faith, they would not have shipwrecked the faith, nor would they be so shameless as to resist those who want to help them recover from their error, and to regard as enemies those who are urging them to be faithful.

58. Idle then is the excuse for stumbling, and petty the notions concerning the Word, of these Ario-maniacs, because it is written, 'He was troubled,' and 'He wept.' For they seem not even to have human feeling, if they are thus ignorant of man's nature and properties; which do but make it the greater wonder, that the Word should be in such a suffering flesh, and neither prevented those who were conspiring against Him, nor took vengeance of those who were putting Him to death, though He was able, He who hindered some from dying, and raised others from the dead. And He let His own body suffer, for therefore did He come, as I said before, that in the flesh He might suffer, and thenceforth the flesh might be made impassible and immortal, and that, as we have many times said, contumely and other troubles might determine upon Him and come short of others after Him, being by Him annulled utterly; and that henceforth men might for ever abide incorruptible, as a temple of the Word. Had Christ's enemies thus dwelt on these thoughts, and recognised the ecclesiastical scope as an anchor for the faith, they would not have made shipwreck of the faith, nor been so shameless as to resist those who would fain recover them from their fall, and to deem those as enemies who are admonishing them to be religious.

But it seems that a heretic is truly a wicked thing, and in every respect his heart is corrupt and irreligious. For look, though they have been refuted on every point and shown to be completely without understanding, they feel no shame. Rather, just as the hydra of pagan legend, when its earlier serpents were destroyed, gave birth to new ones, fighting against the one who killed the old ones by producing new heads, so also these people, hostile and hateful toward God like hydras, though their previous objections have been defeated, invent for themselves other questions that are Jewish and foolish, along with new schemes, as if Truth were their enemy. In this way they show all the more that they are opponents of Christ in everything.

58. ( continued). But, as it seems, a heretic is a wicked thing in truth, and in every respect his heart is depraved and irreligious. For behold, though convicted on all points, and shown to be utterly bereft of understanding, they feel no shame; but as the hydra of Gentile fable, when its former serpents were destroyed, gave birth to fresh ones, contending against the slayer of the old by the production of new, so also they, hostile and hateful to God, as hydras, losing their life in the objections which they advance, invent for themselves other questions Judaic and foolish, and new expedients, as if Truth were their enemy, thereby to show the rather that they are Christ's opponents in all things.

After so many proofs against them, at which even the devil who is their father would himself have been ashamed and retreated, once again from their corrupt heart they murmur other schemes, sometimes in whispers, sometimes with the buzzing of gnats. "Let it be so," they say. "Interpret these passages as you wish and win the argument with your reasonings and proofs. Still, you must say that the Son received His being from the Father by His will and pleasure." For in this way they deceive many by putting forward the will and pleasure of God. Now if any of those who believe rightly were to say this in simplicity, there would be no cause to be suspicious of the expression, since the right intention would overcome that somewhat simple use of words. But since the phrase comes from the heretics and the words of heretics are suspicious, and as it is written, "The wicked are deceitful," and "The words of the wicked are deceit," even when they only make signs, for their heart is corrupt, come let us examine this phrase too, lest, though refuted on all sides, still like hydras they invent a new word, and through such clever language and plausible evasion, they sow their irreligion again in another way. For he who says, "The Son came to be by the Divine will," means the same thing as another who says, "Once He was not," and "The Son came to be out of nothing," and "He is a creature." But since they are now ashamed of these phrases, these crafty ones have tried to convey their meaning in another way, putting forward the word "will," as cuttlefish their ink, thereby to blind the simple and to keep in mind their particular heresy. For where do they get "by will and pleasure"? Or from what Scripture? Let them say, who are so suspect in their words and so inventive of irreligion. For the Father who revealed from heaven His own Word declared, "This is My beloved Son," and through David He said, "My heart uttered a good Word," and He commanded John to say, "In the beginning was the Word," and David says in the Psalm, "With You is the well of life, and in Your light shall we see light," and the Apostle writes, "Who being the Radiance of Glory," and again, "Who being in the form of God," and, "Who is the Image of the invisible God."

59. After so many proofs against them, at which even the devil who is their father had himself been abashed and gone back, again as from their perverse heart they mutter forth other expedients, sometimes in whispers, sometimes with the drone of gnats; 'Be it so,' say they; 'interpret these places thus, and gain the victory in reasonings and proofs; still you must say that the Son has received being from the Father at His will and pleasure;' for thus they deceive many, putting forward the will and the pleasure of God. Now if any of those who believe aright were to say this in simplicity, there would be no cause to be suspicious of the expression, the right intention prevailing over that somewhat simple use of words. But since the phrase is from the heretics and the words of heretics are suspicious, and, as it is written, 'The wicked are deceitful,' and 'The words of the wicked are deceit,' even though they but make signs, for their heart is depraved, come let us examine this phrase also, lest, though convicted on all sides, still, as hydras, they invent a fresh word, and by such clever language and specious evasion, they sow again that irreligion of theirs in another way. For he who says, 'The Son came to be at the Divine will,' has the same meaning as another who says, 'Once He was not,' and 'The Son came to be out of nothing,' and 'He is a creature.' But since they are now ashamed of these phrases, these crafty ones have endeavoured to convey their meaning in another way, putting forth the word 'will,' as cuttlefish their blackness, thereby to blind the simple, and to keep in mind their peculiar heresy. For whence bring they 'by will and pleasure?' or from what Scripture? Let them say, who are so suspicious in their words and so inventive of irreligion. For the Father who revealed from heaven His own Word, declared, 'This is My beloved Son.' and by David He said, 'My heart uttered a good Word.' and John He bade say, 'In the beginning was the Word.' and David says in the Psalm, 'With You is the well of life, and in Your light shall we see light;' and the Apostle writes, 'Who being the Radiance of Glory,' and again, 'Who being in the form of God,' and, 'Who is the Image of the invisible God. '

All the Scriptures tell us about the being of the Word, but none speak of His being "by will," nor do they speak of His being made at all. But where, I ask, did they find a will or pleasure "preceding" the Word of God, unless they have abandoned the Scriptures and are imitating the perverseness of Valentinus? For Ptolemy the Valentinian said that the Unoriginate had a pair of attributes, Thought and Will, and first He thought and then He willed, and what He thought, He could not bring forth unless the power of the Will was added. From this the Arians have taken a lesson and want to place will and pleasure before the Word. Let them then compete with the doctrine of Valentinus, but we, when we read the divine writings, found "He was" applied to the Son, and we heard of Him alone as being in the Father and as the Father's Image. In the case of created things only—since these things by nature once were not but afterwards came to be—did we recognize a preceding will and pleasure. David says in Psalm 113, "As for our God, He is in heaven; He has done whatever pleased Him," and in Psalm 110, "The works of the Lord are great, sought out according to all His good pleasure," and again in Psalm 134, "Whatever the Lord pleased, that He did in heaven and on earth and in the sea and in all deep places." If then He is a work and a thing made, and one among others, let Him, like the others, be said to have come to be "by will," and Scripture shows that these things are brought into being in this way. And Asterius, the advocate for the heresy, agrees when he writes, "For if it is unworthy of the Framer of all to make at pleasure, let His being pleased be removed equally in the case of all, so that His Majesty may be preserved unimpaired. Or if it is fitting for God to will, then let this better way apply in the case of the first Offspring. For it is not possible that it should be fitting for one and the same God to make things at His pleasure and not also by His will." Despite the Sophist having introduced abundant impiety in his words—namely, that the Offspring and the thing made are the same, and that the Son is one offspring among all the offspring that exist—he concludes that it is fitting to say that the works are by will and pleasure.

60. All everywhere tell us of the being of the Word, but none of His being 'by will,' nor at all of His making; but they, where, I ask, did they find will or pleasure 'precedent ' to the Word of God, unless forsooth, leaving the Scriptures, they simulate the perverseness of Valentinus? For Ptolemy the Valentinian said that the Unoriginate had a pair of attributes, Thought and Will, and first He thought and then He willed; and what He thought, He could not put forth, unless when the power of the Will was added. Thence the Arians taking a lesson, wish will and pleasure to precede the Word. For them then, let them rival the doctrine of Valentinus; but we, when we read the divine discourses, found 'He was' applied to the Son, but of Him only did we hear as being in the Father and the Father's Image; while in the case of things originate only, since also by nature these things once were not, but afterwards came to be, did we recognise a precedent will and pleasure, David saying in the hundred and thirteenth Psalm, 'As for our God He is in heaven, He has done whatsoever pleased Him,' and in the hundred and tenth, 'The works of the Lord are great, sought out unto all His good pleasure;' and again, in the hundred and thirty-fourth, 'Whatsoever the Lord pleased, that did He in heaven, and in earth, and in the sea, and in all deep places.' If then He be work and thing made, and one among others, let Him, as others, be said 'by will?' to have come to be, and Scripture shows that these are thus brought into being. And Asterius, the advocate for the heresy, acquiesces, when he thus writes, 'For if it be unworthy of the Framer of all, to make at pleasure, let His being pleased be removed equally in the case of all, that His Majesty be preserved unimpaired. Or if it be befitting God to will, then let this better way obtain in the case of the first Offspring. For it is not possible that it should be fitting for one and the same God to make things at His pleasure, and not at His will also.' In spite of the Sophist having introduced abundant irreligion in his words, namely, that the Offspring and the thing made are the same, and that the Son is one offspring out of all offsprings that are, He ends with the conclusion that it is fitting to say that the works are by will and pleasure.

Therefore, if He is different from all created things, as has been shown above, and the works came to be through Him, then "by will" should not be applied to Him, or else He has come to be in the same way as the things that come to be through Him. For Paul, who did not exist before, later became an Apostle "by the will of God," and our own calling, which itself once did not exist but now takes place afterwards, is preceded by will, and as Paul himself says again, has been made "according to the good pleasure of His will Ephesians 1:5." And what Moses records—"Let there be light," and "Let the earth appear," and "Let Us make man"—signifies, I think, according to what has gone before, the will of the Agent. For things that once did not exist but came into being afterwards from external causes are what the Framer deliberates to make. But His own Word, begotten from Him by nature—concerning Him He did not deliberate beforehand, for in Him the Father makes and frames whatever other things He deliberates about, as the Apostle James teaches, saying, "Of His own will begot He us with the Word of truth James 1:18." Therefore the will of God concerning all things, whether they are begotten again or brought into being initially, is in His Word, in whom He both makes and begets again whatever seems right to Him, as the Apostle 1 Thessalonians 5:18 again indicates, writing to Thessalonica: "for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you." But if He makes in Him, and in Him also is the will, and in Christ is the pleasure of the Father, how can He, like other things, come into being by will and pleasure? For if He too came to be by will, as you claim, it follows that the will concerning Him exists in some other Word, through whom He in turn comes to be, for it has been shown that God's will is not in the things He brings into being, but in Him through whom and in whom all things made are brought to be. Furthermore, since it is the same thing to say "By will" and "Once He was not," let them decide to say "Once He was not," so that, perceiving with shame that times are indicated by the latter, they may understand that to say "by will" is to place times before the Son, for deliberation precedes things that once did not exist, as in the case of all creatures. But if the Word is the Framer of the creatures and He coexists with the Father, how can deliberation precede the Everlasting as if He did not exist? For if deliberation precedes, how are all things through Him? Rather, He too, like one among others, would be begotten by will to be a Son, just as we too were made sons by the Word of Truth, and it remains, as was said, to seek another Word through whom He too has come to be and was begotten together with all things that came to be according to God's pleasure.

61. Therefore if He be other than all things, as has been above shown, and through Him the works rather came to be, let not 'by will?' be applied to Him, or He has similarly come to be as the things consist which through Him come to be. For Paul, whereas he was not before, became afterwards an Apostle 'by the will of God;' and our own calling, as itself once not being, but now taking place afterwards, is preceded by will, and, as Paul himself says again, has been made 'according to the good pleasure of His will Ephesians 1:5.' And what Moses relates, 'Let there be light,' and 'Let the earth appear,' and 'Let Us make man,' is, I think, according to what has gone before, significant of the will of the Agent. For things which once were not but happened afterwards from external causes, these the Framer counsels to make; but His own Word begotten from Him by nature, concerning Him He did not counsel beforehand; for in Him the Father makes, in Him frames, other things whatever He counsels; as also James the Apostle teaches, saying, 'Of His own will begot He us with the Word of truth James 1:18.' Therefore the Will of God concerning all things, whether they be begotten again or are brought into being at the first, is in His Word, in whom He both makes and begets again what seems right to Him; as the Apostle 1 Thessalonians 5:18 again signifies, writing to Thessalonica; 'for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.' But if, in whom He makes, in Him also is the will, and in Christ is the pleasure of the Father, how can He, as others, come into being by will and pleasure? For if He too came to be as you maintain, by will, it follows that the will concerning Him consists in some other Word, through whom He in turn comes to be; for it has been shown that God's will is not in the things which He brings into being, but in Him through whom and in whom all things made are brought to be. Next, since it is all one to say 'By will?' and Once He was not,' let them make up their minds to say, 'Once He was not,' that, perceiving with shame that times are signified by the latter, they may understand that to say 'by will?' is to place times before the Son; for counselling goes before things which once were not, as in the case of all creatures. But if the Word is the Framer of the creatures, and He coexists with the Father, how can to counsel precede the Everlasting as if He were not? For if counsel precedes, how through Him are all things? For rather He too, as one among others is by will begotten to be a Son, as we too were made sons by the Word of Truth; and it rests, as was said, to seek another Word, through whom He too has come to be, and was begotten together with all things, which were according to God's pleasure.

If there is another Word of God, then let the Son be originated by a word. But if there is not—which is the case—and all things have come to be through Him according to what the Father has willed, doesn't this expose the many-headed craftiness of these men? Though they feel shame at saying "work" and "creature" and "God's Word did not exist before His generation," they still assert in another way that He is a creature by putting forward "will" and saying, "Unless He came to be by will, therefore God had a Son by necessity and against His good pleasure." But who is it who imposes necessity on Him, you most wicked men who twist everything to serve your heresy? For they see what is contrary to will, but what is greater and transcends it has escaped their perception. For just as what is beside purpose is contrary to will, so what is according to nature transcends and precedes deliberation. A man builds a house by deliberation, but begets a son by nature. What is built begins to come into being by will and is external to the maker. But the son is the proper offspring of the father's essence and is not external to him. Therefore the father does not deliberate about him, lest he appear to deliberate about himself. Just as much as the Son transcends the creature, by that much does what is by nature transcend will. When they hear about Him, they ought not to measure by will what is by nature. Yet forgetting that they are hearing about God's Son, they dare to apply human contraries—"necessity" and "beside purpose"—to God in order to be able to deny that there is a true Son of God. For let them tell us themselves: that God is good and merciful—does this attach to Him by will or not? If by will, we must consider that He began to be good and that His not being good is possible, for deliberating and choosing implies an inclination in two directions and is incidental to a rational nature. But if it is too unseemly that He should be called good and merciful by will, then what they themselves have said must be turned back on them: "therefore by necessity and not at His pleasure He is good," and "who is it that imposes this necessity on Him?" But if it is unseemly to speak of necessity in God's case, and therefore it is by nature that He is good, much more is He—and more truly—Father of the Son by nature and not by will.

62. If then there is another Word of God, then be the Son originated by a word; but if there be not, as is the case, but all things by Him have come to be, which the Father has willed, does not this expose the many-headed craftiness of these men? That feeling shame at saying 'work,' and 'creature,' and 'God's Word was not before His generation,' yet in another way they assert that He is a creature, putting forward 'will,' and saying, 'Unless He has by will come to be, therefore God had a Son by necessity and against His good pleasure.' And who is it then who imposes necessity on Him, O men most wicked, who draw everything to the purpose of your heresy? For what is contrary to will they see; but what is greater and transcends it has escaped their perception. For as what is beside purpose is contrary to will, so what is according to nature transcends and precedes counselling. A man by counsel builds a house, but by nature he begets a son; and what is in building began to come into being at will, and is external to the maker; but the son is proper offspring of the father's essence, and is not external to him; wherefore neither does he counsel concerning him, lest he appear to counsel about himself. As far then as the Son transcends the creature, by so much does what is by nature transcend the will. And they, on hearing of Him, ought not to measure by will what is by nature; forgetting however that they are hearing about God's Son, they dare to apply human contrarieties in the instance of God, 'necessity' and 'beside purpose,' to be able thereby to deny that there is a true Son of God. For let them tell us themselves — that God is good and merciful, does this attach to Him by will or not? If by will, we must consider that He began to be good, and that His not being good is possible; for to counsel and choose implies an inclination two ways, and is incidental to a rational nature. But if it be too unseemly that He should be called good and merciful upon will, then what they have said themselves must be retorted on them –'therefore by necessity and not at His pleasure He is good;' and, 'who is it that imposes this necessity on Him?' But if it be unseemly to speak of necessity in the case of God, and therefore it is by nature that He is good, much more is He, and more truly, Father of the Son by nature and not by will.

Moreover, let them answer us this—for against their shamelessness I wish to press a further question, bold indeed, but with a religious intent; be propitious, O Lord! Does the Father Himself exist, first having deliberated, then being pleased, or before deliberating? Since they are so bold in the case of the Word, they must receive the same answer in return, so they may know that their presumption reaches even to the Father Himself. If they themselves take counsel about will and say that even He is from will, what then was He before He deliberated, or what did He gain, as you think, after deliberating? But if such a question is unseemly and self-destructive, and shocking even to ask—for it is enough only to hear God's Name for us to know and understand that He is He that Is—will it not also be unreasonable to have parallel thoughts concerning the Word of God, and to make pretenses of will and pleasure? For it is enough in the same way only to hear the Name of the Word to know and understand that He who is God not by will has not by will but by nature His own Word. And does it not surpass all conceivable madness to entertain even the thought that God Himself deliberates and considers and chooses and proceeds to have a good pleasure, so that He be not without Word and without Wisdom, but have both? For He seems to be deliberating about Himself, who deliberates about what is proper to His Essence. There being then much blasphemy in such a thought, it will be right to say that things originate have come to be by favor and will, but the Son is not a work of will, nor has come after, as the creation, but is by nature the own Offspring of God's Essence. For being the own Word of the Father, He allows us not to account of will as before Himself, since He is Himself the Father's Living Counsel, and Power, and Framer of the things which seemed good to the Father. And this is what He says of Himself in the Proverbs: "Counsel is mine and security, mine is understanding, and mine strength." For as, although Himself the Understanding in which He prepared the heavens, and Himself Strength and Power—for Christ is God's Power and God's Wisdom—He here has altered the terms and said, "Mine is understanding" and "Mine strength," so while He says, "Mine is counsel," He must Himself be the Living Counsel of the Father; as we have learned from the Prophet also, that He becomes the Angel of great Counsel, and was called the good pleasure of the Father; for thus we must refute them, using human illustrations concerning God.

63. Moreover let them answer us this:– (for against their shamelessness I wish to urge a further question, bold indeed, but with a religious intent; be propitious, O Lord!)– the Father Himself, does He exist, first having counselled, then being pleased, or before counselling? For since they are so bold in the instance of the Word, they must receive the like answer, that they may know that this their presumption reaches even to the Father Himself. If then they shall themselves take counsel about will, and say that even He is from will, what then was He before He counselled, or what gained He, as you consider, after counselling? But if such a question be unseemly and self-destructive, and shocking even to ask (for it is enough only to hear God's Name for us to know and understand that He is He that Is), will it not also be against reason to have parallel thoughts concerning the Word of God, and to make pretences of will and pleasure? For it is enough in like manner only to hear the Name of the Word, to know and understand that He who is God not by will, has not by will but by nature His own Word. And does it not surpass all conceivable madness, to entertain the thought only, that God Himself counsels and considers and chooses and proceeds to have a good pleasure, that He be not without Word and without Wisdom, but have both? For He seems to be considering about Himself, who counsels about what is proper to His Essence. There being then much blasphemy in such a thought, it will be religious to say that things originate have come to be 'by favour and will,' but the Son is not a work of will, nor has come after, as the creation, but is by nature the own Offspring of God's Essence. For being the own Word of the Father, He allows us not to account of will as before Himself, since He is Himself the Father's Living Counsel, and Power, and Framer of the things which seemed good to the Father. And this is what He says of Himself in the Proverbs; 'Counsel is mine and security, mine is understanding, and mine strength Proverbs 8:14.' For as, although Himself the 'Understanding,' in which He prepared the heavens, and Himself 'Strength and Power' (for Christ is 'God's Power and God's Wisdom' 1 Corinthians 1:24), He here has altered the terms and said, 'Mine is understanding' and 'Mine strength,' so while He says, 'Mine is counsel,' He must Himself be the Living Counsel of the Father; as we have learned from the Prophet also, that He becomes 'the Angel of great Counsel Isaiah 9:6,' and was called the good pleasure of the Father; for thus we must refute them, using human illustrations concerning God.

Therefore, if the works exist by will and favor, and all creation is made according to God's good pleasure, and Paul was called to be an Apostle by the will of God, and our calling came about by His good pleasure and will, and all things came into being through the Word, then He is external to the things that came to be by will. Rather, He Himself is the Living Counsel of the Father, through which all these things came to be, by which David also gives thanks in the seventy-second Psalm: "You have held me by my right hand; You shall guide me with Your Counsel." How then can the Word, being the Counsel and Good Pleasure of the Father, Himself come into being by good pleasure and will, like everyone else? Unless, as I said before, in their madness they claim that He came into being through Himself, or through some other. Who then is it through whom He came to be? Let them fashion another Word, and let them name another Christ, copying the doctrine of Valentinus, for it is not Scripture. And even if they fashion another, yet surely he too comes into being through someone, and so, while we reckon up and investigate the succession of them, the many-headed heresy of the atheists is discovered to result in polytheism and unlimited madness. In this heresy, wishing the Son to be a creature and from nothing, they imply the same thing in other words by using the terms will and pleasure, which rightly belong to things that originate and to creatures. Is it not irreligious then to attribute the characteristics of things that originate to the Framer of all? And is it not blasphemous to say that will existed in the Father before the Word? For if will comes before in the Father, the Son's words are not true: "I in the Father." Or even if He is in the Father, yet He will hold only a second place, and it would not be fitting for Him to say "I in the Father," since will was before Him, in which all things were brought into being and He Himself existed, according to their view. For though He excels in glory, He is nonetheless one of the things that come into being by will. And, as we said before, if this is so, how is He Lord and they servants? But He is Lord of all because He is one with the Father's Lordship, and all creation is in bondage, since it is external to the Oneness of the Father, and whereas it once was not, it was brought to be.

64. Therefore if the works subsist 'by will and favour,' and the whole creature is made 'at God's good pleasure,' and Paul was called to be an Apostle 'by the will of God,' and our calling has come about 'by His good pleasure and will,' and all things have come into being through the Word, He is external to the things which have come to be by will, but rather is Himself the Living Counsel of the Father, by which all these things have come to be; by which David also gives thanks in the seventy-second Psalm. 'You have holden me by my right hand; You shall guide me with Your Counsel.' How then can the Word, being the Counsel and Good Pleasure of the Father, come into being Himself 'by good pleasure and will,' like every one else? Unless, as I said before, in their madness they repeat that He has come into being through Himself, or through some other. Who then is it through whom He has come to be? Let them fashion another Word; and let them name another Christ, rivalling the doctrine of Valentinus; for Scripture it is not. And though they fashion another, yet assuredly he too comes into being through some one; and so, while we are thus reckoning up and investigating the succession of them, the many-headed heresy of the Atheists is discovered to issue in polytheism and madness unlimited; in the which, wishing the Son to be a creature and from nothing, they imply the same thing in other words by pretending the words will and pleasure, which rightly belong to things originate and creatures. Is it not irreligious then to impute the characteristics of things originate to the Framer of all? And is it not blasphemous to say that will was in the Father before the Word? For if will precedes in the Father, the Son's words are not true, 'I in the Father.' or even if He is in the Father, yet He will hold but a second place, and it became Him not to say 'I in the Father,' since will was before Him, in which all things were brought into being and He Himself subsisted, as you hold. For though He excel in glory, He is not the less one of the things which by will come into being. And, as we have said before, if it be so, how is He Lord and they servants? But He is Lord of all, because He is one with the Father's Lordship; and the creation is all in bondage, since it is external to the Oneness of the Father, and, whereas it once was not, was brought to be.

Moreover, if they say that the Son exists by will, they should also say that He came to be by understanding, for I consider understanding and will to be the same thing. What a person decides is also what they understand, and what they understand is also what they decide. Certainly the Savior Himself has shown they correspond, being related, when He says, "Counsel is mine and security; mine is understanding, and mine strength" (Proverbs 8:14). Just as strength and security are the same (for they mean one attribute), so we may say that Understanding and Counsel are the same, which is the Lord. But these irreligious people are unwilling that the Son should be Word and Living Counsel. Instead, they make up a story that there is with God, as if it were a habit that comes and goes like in human beings, understanding, counsel, and wisdom. They leave nothing undone and they put forward the "Thought" and "Will" of Valentinus, so that they may separate the Son from the Father and may call Him a creature instead of the proper Word of the Father. To them must be said what was said to Simon Magus: "May the irreligion of Valentinus perish with you" (Acts 8:20). Let everyone rather trust Solomon, who says that the Word is Wisdom and Understanding. He says, "The Lord by Wisdom founded the earth, by Understanding He established the heavens." And just as here by Understanding, so in the Psalms, "By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made." And just as by the Word the heavens were made, so "He has done whatsoever pleased Him." And as the Apostle writes to the Thessalonians, "The will of God is in Christ Jesus." The Son of God, then, is the Word and the Wisdom; He is the Understanding and the Living Counsel; and in Him is the Good Pleasure of the Father. He is Truth and Light and Power of the Father. But if the Will of God is Wisdom and Understanding, and the Son is Wisdom, then whoever says that the Son exists by will is virtually saying that Wisdom has come into being in wisdom, and the Son is made in a son, and the Word created through the Word—which is incompatible with God and opposed to His Scriptures. For the Apostle proclaims the Son to be the own Radiance and Expression, not of the Father's will, but of His ousia itself, saying, "Who being the Radiance of His glory and the Expression of His hypostasis" (Hebrews 1:3). But if, as we have said before, the Father's ousia and hypostasis are not from will, then neither, as is very plain, is what is proper to the Father's hypostasis from will, for the proper Offspring from It must be such as, and in the same way as, that Blessed hypostasis. And accordingly the Father Himself did not say, "This is the Son originated at My will," nor "the Son whom I have by My favor," but simply "My Son," and more than that, "in whom I am well pleased"—meaning by this, "This is the Son by nature; and in Him is lodged My will about what pleases Me."

65. Moreover, if they say that the Son is by will, they should say also that He came to be by understanding; for I consider understanding and will to be the same. For what a man counsels, about that also he has understanding; and what he has in understanding, that also he counsels. Certainly the Saviour Himself has made them correspond, as being cognate, when He says, 'Counsel is mine and security; mine is understanding, and mine strength Proverbs 8:14.' For as strength and security are the same (for they mean one attribute), so we may say that Understanding and Counsel are the same, which is the Lord. But these irreligious men are unwilling that the Son should be Word and Living Counsel; but they fable that there is with God, as if a habit, coming and going, after the manner of men, understanding, counsel, wisdom; and they leave nothing undone, and they put forward the 'Thought' and 'Will' of Valentinus, so that they may but separate the Son from the Father, and may call Him a creature instead of the proper Word of the Father. To them then must be said what was said to Simon Magus; 'the irreligion of Valentinus perish with you Acts 8:20;' and let every one rather trust to Solomon, who says, that the Word is Wisdom and Understanding. For he says, 'The Lord by Wisdom founded the earth, by Understanding He established the heavens.' And as here by Understanding, so in the Psalms, 'By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made.' And as by the Word the heavens, so 'He has done whatsoever pleased Him.' And as the Apostle writes to Thessalonians, 'the will of God is in Christ Jesus.' The Son of God then, He is the 'Word' and the 'Wisdom;' He the 'Understanding' and the Living 'Counsel;' and in Him is the 'Good Pleasure of the Father.' He is 'Truth' and 'Light' and 'Power' of the Father. But if the Will of God is Wisdom and Understanding, and the Son is Wisdom, he who says that the Son is 'by will,' says virtually that Wisdom has come into being in wisdom, and the Son is made in a son, and the Word created through the Word; which is incompatible with God and is opposed to His Scriptures. For the Apostle proclaims the Son to be the own Radiance and Expression, not of the Father's will, but of His Essence Itself, saying, 'Who being the Radiance of His glory and the Expression of His Subsistence Hebrews 1:3.' But if, as we have said before, the Father's Essence and Subsistence be not from will, neither, as is very plain, is what is proper to the Father's Subsistence from will; for such as, and so as, that Blessed Subsistence, must also be the proper Offspring from It. And accordingly the Father Himself said not, 'This is the Son originated at My will,' nor 'the Son whom I have by My favour,' but simply 'My Son,' and more than that, 'in whom I am well pleased;' meaning by this, This is the Son by nature; and 'in Him is lodged My will about what pleases Me.'

Since the Son exists by nature and not by will, does He exist without the Father's pleasure and not with the Father's will? Certainly not. Rather, the Son exists with the Father's pleasure, and as He Himself says, 'The Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things.' For just as the Father did not begin to be good 'from will,' nor is He good without will and pleasure (for what He is, that also is His pleasure), so also the Son's existence, though it did not come 'from will,' is not without the Father's pleasure or against His purpose. For just as the Father's own existence is by His pleasure, so also the Son, being proper to His ousia, is not without His pleasure. Therefore let the Son be the object of the Father's pleasure and love, and let everyone think religiously about God's pleasure and willingness. For by that good pleasure by which the Son is the object of the Father's pleasure, the Father is the object of the Son's love, pleasure, and honor. And the good pleasure that flows from Father in Son is one, so that here too we may contemplate the Son in the Father and the Father in the Son. Let no one then, like Valentinus, introduce a precedent will; nor let anyone, by this pretense of 'counsel,' intrude between the Only Father and the Only Word, for it would be madness to place will and consideration between them. For it is one thing to say, 'He came to be of will,' and another to say that the Father has love and good pleasure toward His Son who is His own by nature. For to say 'He came to be of will' implies, in the first place, that once He was not, and next it implies an inclination in two directions, as has been said, so that one might suppose that the Father could even not will the Son. But to say of the Son, 'He might not have been,' is an irreligious presumption that reaches even to the ousia of the Father, as if what is His own might not have been. For it is the same as saying, 'The Father might not have been good.' And as the Father is always good by nature, so He is always generative by nature. And to say, 'The Father's good pleasure is the Son,' and 'The Word's good pleasure is the Father,' implies not a precedent will, but genuineness of nature and propriety and likeness of ousia. For just as in the case of radiance and light one might say that there is no will preceding radiance in the light, but it is its natural offspring, existing at the pleasure of the light which begot it, not by will and consideration but in nature and truth, so also in the case of the Father and the Son, one might rightly say that the Father has love and good pleasure toward the Son, and the Son has love and good pleasure toward the Father.

66. Since then the Son is by nature and not by will, is He without the pleasure of the Father and not with the Father's will? No, verily; but the Son is with the pleasure of the Father, and, as He says Himself, 'The Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things.' For as not 'from will?' did He begin to be good, nor yet is good without will and pleasure (for what He is, that also is His pleasure), so also that the Son should be, though it came not 'from will,' yet it is not without His pleasure or against His purpose. For as His own Subsistence is by His pleasure, so also the Son, being proper to His Essence, is not without His pleasure. Be then the Son the object of the Father's pleasure and love; and thus let every one religiously account of the pleasure and the not-unwillingness of God. For by that good pleasure wherewith the Son is the object of the Father's pleasure, is the Father the object of the Son's love, pleasure, and honour; and one is the good pleasure which is from Father in Son, so that here too we may contemplate the Son in the Father and the Father in the Son. Let no one then, with Valentinus, introduce a precedent will; nor let any one, by this pretence of 'counsel,' intrude between the Only Father and the Only Word; for it were madness to place will and consideration between them. For it is one thing to say, 'Of will He came to be,' and another, that the Father has love and good pleasure towards His Son who is His own by nature. For to say, 'Of will He came to be,' in the first place implies that once He was not; and next it implies an inclination two ways, as has been said, so that one might suppose that the Father could even not will the Son. But to say of the Son, 'He might not have been,' is an irreligious presumption reaching even to the Essence of the Father, as if what is His own might not have been. For it is the same as saying, 'The Father might not have been good.' And as the Father is always good by nature, so He is always generative by nature; and to say, 'The Father's good pleasure is the Son,' and 'The Word's good pleasure is the Father,' implies, not a precedent will, but genuineness of nature, and propriety and likeness of Essence. For as in the case of the radiance and light one might say, that there is no will preceding radiance in the light, but it is its natural offspring, at the pleasure of the light which begot it, not by will and consideration, but in nature and truth, so also in the instance of the Father and the Son, one might rightly say, that the Father has love and good pleasure towards the Son, and the Son has love and good pleasure towards the Father.

Therefore, do not call the Son a work of good pleasure, and do not bring the doctrine of Valentinus into the Church. Rather, let Him be the Living Counsel and Offspring in truth and nature, as the Radiance from the Light. For the Father has spoken in this way: 'My heart uttered a good Word,' and the Son correspondingly says, 'I in the Father and the Father in Me.' But if the Word is in the heart, where is will? And if the Son is in the Father, where is good pleasure? And if He is Will Himself, how is counsel in Will? This is improper, lest the Word come into being in a word, and the Son in a son, and Wisdom in a wisdom, as has been said repeatedly. For the Son is the Father's All, and nothing was in the Father before the Word; but in the Word is will also, and through Him the objects of will are accomplished, as the holy Scriptures have shown. And I wish that these irreligious men, having fallen into such unreasonableness as to be pondering about will, would now stop asking their childbearing women, whom they used to ask, 'Did you have a son before conceiving him?' but would instead ask the father, 'Do you become fathers by counsel, or by the natural law of your will?' or 'Are your children like your nature and essence?' so that even from fathers they may learn shame—from the very ones from whom they took this proposition about birth and from whom they hoped to gain understanding. For they will reply to them, 'What we beget is not like our good pleasure, but like ourselves; nor do we become parents by prior counsel, but to beget is proper to our nature, since we too are images of our fathers.' So let them either condemn themselves and stop asking women about the Son of God, or let them learn from them that the Son is begotten not by will, but in nature and truth. A refutation from human examples is fitting and appropriate for them, since these perverse-minded men argue about the Godhead in a human way. Why then do Christ's enemies still rage? For this pretense, like their others, is shown and proven to be mere fantasy and fable. On this account, they ought, however late, contemplating the precipice of folly into which they have fallen, to rise again from the depth and flee the snare of the devil, as we warn them. For Truth is loving toward humanity and cries out continually, 'If you do not believe Me because of My clothing of the body, yet believe the works, that you may know that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, and I and the Father are one, and whoever has seen Me has seen the Father.' And the Lord, according to His custom, is loving toward humanity and desires to 'help those who are fallen,' as the praise of David says. But these irreligious men, not wanting to hear the Lord's voice nor willing to see Him acknowledged by all as God and God's Son, go about, miserable as they are, like beetles, seeking with their father the devil pretexts for irreligion. What pretexts then, and from where, will they be able to find next? Unless they borrow blasphemies from Jews and Caiaphas and take atheism from Gentiles? For the divine Scriptures are closed to them, and from every part of them they are refuted as senseless and as Christ's enemies.

67. Therefore call not the Son a work of good pleasure; nor bring in the doctrine of Valentinus into the Church; but be He the Living Counsel, and Offspring in truth and nature, as the Radiance from the Light. For thus has the Father spoken, 'My heart uttered a good Word.' and the Son conformably, 'I in the Father and the Father in Me.' But if the Word be in the heart, where is will? And if the Son in the Father, where is good pleasure? And if He be Will Himself, how is counsel in Will? It is unseemly; lest the Word come into being in a word, and the Son in a son, and Wisdom in a wisdom, as has been repeatedly said. For the Son is the Father's All; and nothing was in the Father before the Word; but in the Word is will also, and through Him the objects of will are carried into effect, as holy Scriptures have shown. And I could wish that the irreligious men, having fallen into such want of reason as to be considering about will, would now ask their childbearing women no more, whom they used to ask, 'Had you a son before conceiving him?' but the father, 'Do ye become fathers by counsel, or by the natural law of your will.' or 'Are your children like your nature and essence?' that, even from fathers they may learn shame, from whom they assumed this proposition about birth, and from whom they hoped to gain knowledge in point. For they will reply to them, 'What we beget, is like, not our good pleasure, but like ourselves; nor become we parents by previous counsel, but to beget is proper to our nature; since we too are images of our fathers.' Either then let them condemn themselves, and cease asking women about the Son of God, or let them learn from them, that the Son is begotten not by will, but in nature and truth. Becoming and suitable to them is a refutation from human instances, since the perverse-minded men dispute in a human way concerning the Godhead. Why then are Christ's enemies still mad? For this, as well as their other pretences, is shown and proved to be mere fantasy and fable; and on this account, they ought, however late, contemplating the precipice of folly down which they have fallen, to rise again from the depth and to flee the snare of the devil, as we admonish them. For Truth is loving unto men and cries continually, 'If because of My clothing of the body ye believe Me not, yet believe the works, that you may know that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, and I and the Father are one, and He that has seen Me has seen the Father. ' But the Lord according to His wont is loving to man, and would fain 'help them that are fallen,' as the praise of David says; but the irreligious men, not desirous to hear the Lord's voice, nor bearing to see Him acknowledged by all as God and God's Son, go about, miserable men, as beetles, seeking with their father the devil pretexts for irreligion. What pretexts then, and whence will they be able next to find? Unless they borrow blasphemies of Jews and Caiaphas, and take atheism from Gentiles? For the divine Scriptures are closed to them, and from every part of them they are refuted as insensate and Christ's enemies.

I thought I had already said enough against the empty teachers of Arius's madness, both to refute them and to defend the truth, so that they would stop and repent of their evil thoughts and words about the Savior. But for whatever reason, they still do not give up. Instead, like pigs and dogs wallowing in their own vomit and filth, they keep inventing new ways to be irreligious. They misinterpret the passage in Proverbs, "The Lord has created me a beginning of His ways for His works," and the words of the Apostle, "Who was faithful to Him that made Him," and immediately argue that the Son of God is a work and a creature. Even though they could have learned from what was said earlier—if they had not completely lost their ability to understand—that the Son is not from nothing and is not counted among created things at all (the Truth itself testifies to this, for being God, He cannot be a work, and it is wrong to call Him a creature; we say "out of nothing" and "it was not before its generation" only about creatures and works), yet because they seem afraid to abandon their own invention, they habitually quote these Scripture passages, which have a good meaning but which they twist. So let us examine again what these passages mean, to reassure the faithful and to show from each passage that these people know nothing at all about Christianity. If they did, they would not have trapped themselves in the unbelief of today's Jews, but would have inquired and learned that since "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," it follows that when the Word became man at the Father's good pleasure, it was said of Him, as John said, "The Word became flesh," as Peter said, "He has made Him Lord and Christ," as by Solomon in the person of the Lord Himself, "The Lord created me a beginning of His ways for His works," as Paul said, "Become so much better than the Angels," and again, "He emptied Himself, and took upon Him the form of a servant," and again, "Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Jesus, who was faithful to Him that made Him." All these texts have the same meaning and purpose, a reverent one, declaring the divinity of the Word—even those that speak of Him in human terms as having become the Son of man. Though this distinction is enough to refute them, still, because they misunderstand the Apostle's words (to mention them first) and think the Word of God is one of the works because it is written "Who was faithful to Him that made Him," I have thought it necessary to answer this further argument of theirs, taking up their claim as I did before.

1. I did indeed think that enough had been said already against the hollow professors of Arius's madness, whether for their refutation or in the truth's behalf, to insure a cessation and repentance of their evil thoughts and words about the Saviour. They, however, for whatever reason, still do not succumb; but, as swine and dogs wallow in their own vomit and their own mire, rather invent new expedients for their irreligion. Thus they misunderstand the passage in the Proverbs, 'The Lord has created me a beginning of His ways for His works,' and the words of the Apostle, 'Who was faithful to Him that made Him Hebrews 3:2,' and straightway argue, that the Son of God is a work and a creature. But although they might have learned from what is said above, had they not utterly lost their power of apprehension, that the Son is not from nothing nor in the number of things originate at all, the Truth witnessing it (for, being God, He cannot be a work, and it is impious to call Him a creature, and it is of creatures and works that we say, 'out of nothing,' and 'it was not before its generation'), yet since, as if dreading to desert their own fiction, they are accustomed to allege the aforesaid passages of divine Scripture, which have a good meaning, but are by them practised on, let us proceed afresh to take up the question of the sense of these, to remind the faithful, and to show from each of these passages that they have no knowledge at all of Christianity. Were it otherwise, they would not have shut themselves up in the unbelief of the present Jews, but would have inquired and learned that, whereas 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,' in consequence, it was when at the good pleasure of the Father the Word became man, that it was said of Him, as by John, 'The Word became flesh John 1:14;' so by Peter, 'He has made Him Lord and Christ Acts 2:36 ' — as by means of Solomon in the Person of the Lord Himself, 'The Lord created me a beginning of His ways for His works Proverbs 8:22;' so by Paul, 'Become so much better than the Angels Hebrews 1:4;' and again, 'He emptied Himself, and took upon Him the form of a servant Philippians 2:7;' and again, 'Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Jesus, who was faithful to Him that made Him.' For all these texts have the same force and meaning, a religious one, declarative of the divinity of the Word, even those of them which speak humanly concerning Him, as having become the Son of man. But, though this distinction is sufficient for their refutation, still, since from a misconception of the Apostle's words (to mention them first), they consider the Word of God to be one of the works, because of its being written, 'Who was faithful to Him that made Him,' I have thought it needful to silence this further argument of theirs, taking in hand, as before, their statement.

If He is not a Son, then let Him be called a work, and let everything that is said about created works be said about Him. Let Him not be called Son, or Word, or Wisdom—and let God not be called Father, but only Maker and Creator of the things that come to be through Him. And let the creature be the image and expression of His creative will, and let Him be without generative nature, as they would have it, so that there is neither Word nor Wisdom, nor even an Image, of His proper ousia. For if He is not Son, neither is He Image. But if there is no Son, how can you say that God is a Creator? Since all things that come to be exist through the Word and in Wisdom, and nothing can exist without this, yet you say He does not have that in and through which He makes all things. For if the divine essence is not fruitful in itself but barren, as they claim—like a light that does not shine or a dry spring—are they not ashamed to speak of His possessing creative power? And while they deny what exists by nature, do they not blush to put before it what exists by will? But if He creates things that are external to Him and did not exist before, by willing them to be, and becomes their Maker, how much more will He first be Father of an Offspring from His proper ousia. For if they attribute to God the willing of things that do not exist, why do they not recognize in God what is above will? Now it is something that surpasses will, that He should exist by nature and should be Father of His proper Word. If, then, what comes first—what is according to nature—did not exist, as they foolishly claim, how could what is second—what is according to will—come to be? For the Word is first, and then the creation. On the contrary, the Word exists, whatever these irreligious people claim; for through Him creation came to be, and God, being Maker, plainly also has His creative Word—not external, but proper to Him, for this must be repeated. If He has the power of will, and His will is effective and sufficient for the existence of the things that come to be, and His Word is effective and a Maker, that Word must surely be the living Will of the Father, and an essential energy, and a real Word, in whom all things both exist and are excellently governed. No one can even doubt that He who orders is prior to the ordering and the things ordered. And thus, as I said, God's creating is second to His begetting; for Son implies something proper to Him and truly from that blessed and everlasting essence; but what is from His will comes into existence from without, and is created through His proper Offspring who is from it.

2. If then He be not a Son, let Him be called a work, and let all that is said of works be said of Him, nor let Him and Him alone be called Son, nor Word, nor Wisdom; neither let God be called Father, but only Framer and Creator of things which by Him come to be; and let the creature be Image and Expression of His framing will, and let Him, as they would have it, be without generative nature, so that there be neither Word, nor Wisdom, no, nor Image, of His proper substance. For if He be not Son, neither is He Image. But if there be not a Son, how then say you that God is a Creator? Since all things that come to be are through the Word and in Wisdom, and without This nothing can be, whereas you say He has not That in and through which He makes all things. For if the Divine Essence be not fruitful itself, but barren, as they hold, as a light that lightens not, and a dry fountain, are they not ashamed to speak of His possessing framing energy? And whereas they deny what is by nature, do they not blush to place before it what is by will? But if He frames things that are external to Him and before were not, by willing them to be, and becomes their Maker, much more will He first be Father of an Offspring from His proper Essence. For if they attribute to God the willing about things which are not, why recognise they not that in God which lies above the will? Now it is a something that surpasses will, that He should be by nature, and should be Father of His proper Word. If then that which comes first, which is according to nature, did not exist, as they would have it in their folly, how could that which is second come to be, which is according to will? For the Word is first, and then the creation. On the contrary the Word exists, whatever they affirm, those irreligious ones; for through Him did creation come to be, and God, as being Maker, plainly has also His framing Word, not external, but proper to Him — for this must be repeated. If He has the power of will, and His will is effective, and suffices for the consistence of the things that come to be, and His Word is effective, and a Framer, that Word must surely be the living Will of the Father, and an essential energy, and a real Word, in whom all things both consist and are excellently governed. No one can even doubt, that He who disposes is prior to the disposition and the things disposed. And thus, as I said, God's creating is second to His begetting; for Son implies something proper to Him and truly from that blessed and everlasting Essence; but what is from His will, comes into consistence from without, and is framed through His proper Offspring who is from It.

We have shown, then, that those who say the Lord is not the Son of God but a work are guilty of great extravagance, and it follows that we must all necessarily confess that He is Son. And if He is Son—as He indeed is—and a son is understood to be not external to his father but from him, then they should not raise questions about the terms the sacred writers use of the Word Himself, namely not "to Him that begot Him" but "to Him that made Him." As I said before, once we have established what His nature is, the words used in such cases need not raise any question. For terms do not diminish His nature; rather that nature draws those terms to itself and changes them. Terms are not prior to essences; essences come first, and terms come second. Therefore, when the essence is a work or creature, then the words "He made," "He became," and "He created" are used properly and designate the work. But when the essence is an offspring and son, then "He made," "He became," and "He created" no longer properly apply to it, nor do they designate a work. Instead, we use "He made" without question to mean "He begot." In this way, fathers often call the sons born of them their servants, yet without denying the genuineness of their nature; and often they affectionately call their own servants children, yet without overlooking the fact that they originally purchased them. They use the one term because of their authority as fathers, but in the other case they speak from affection. Thus Sarah called Abraham lord, though she was not a servant but a wife. And while the Apostle joined Onesimus the servant to Philemon the master as a brother, Bathsheba, although mother, called her son servant, saying to his father, "Your servant Solomon" (1 Kings 1:19). Afterward Nathan the prophet also came in and repeated her words to David: "Solomon your servant." They did not hesitate to call the son a servant, for while David heard it, he recognized the nature, and while they spoke it, they did not forget the genuineness. They prayed that he might be made his father's heir, though they gave him the name of servant, for to David he was son by nature.

3. As we have shown then they are guilty of great extravagance who say that the Lord is not Son of God, but a work, and it follows that we all of necessity confess that He is Son. And if He be Son, as indeed He is, and a son is confessed to be not external to his father but from him, let them not question about the terms, as I said before, which the sacred writers use of the Word Himself, viz. not 'to Him that begot Him,' but 'to Him that made Him;' for while it is confessed what His nature is, what word is used in such instances need raise no question. For terms do not disparage His Nature; rather that Nature draws to Itself those terms and changes them. For terms are not prior to essences, but essences are first, and terms second. Wherefore also when the essence is a work or creature, then the words 'He made,' and 'He became,' and 'He created,' are used of it properly, and designate the work. But when the Essence is an Offspring and Son, then 'He made,' and 'He became,' and 'He created,' no longer properly belong to it, nor designate a work; but 'He made' we use without question for 'He begot.' Thus fathers often call the sons born of them their servants, yet without denying the genuineness of their nature; and often they affectionately call their own servants children, yet without putting out of sight their purchase of them originally; for they use the one appellation from their authority as being fathers, but in the other they speak from affection. Thus Sara called Abraham lord, though not a servant but a wife; and while to Philemon the master the Apostle joined Onesimus the servant as a brother, Bathsheba, although mother, called her son servant, saying to his father, 'Your servant Solomon 1 Kings 1:19;'– afterwards also Nathan the Prophet came in and repeated her words to David, 'Solomon your servant.' Nor did they mind calling the son a servant, for while David heard it, he recognised the 'nature,' and while they spoke it, they forgot not the 'genuineness,' praying that he might be made his father's heir, to whom they gave the name of servant; for to David he was son by nature.

When we read Scripture this way, we interpret it fairly. We don't consider Solomon a servant just because we hear him called that, but rather a natural and genuine son. In the same way, even though the Savior is confessed to be truly the Son and to be the Word by nature, if the saints say "Who was faithful to Him that made Him," or if He says of Himself "The Lord created me" and "I am Your servant and the Son of Your handmaid" and similar things, no one should deny that He is proper to the Father and from Him. Just as in the case of Solomon and David, people should have a right understanding of the Father and the Son. If people acknowledge Solomon to be a son even though they hear him called a servant, aren't those people deserving of many deaths who, instead of keeping the same interpretation when it comes to the Lord, forcibly misinterpret and deny the natural and genuine generation of the Son from the Father whenever they hear "Offspring" and "Word" and "Wisdom"? Yet when they hear words and terms proper to a work, they immediately jump to the idea that He is by nature a work and deny the Word—even though it is possible to refer all these terms to His humanity, since He was made man. Aren't they proved to be "an abomination" also "unto the Lord," since they have "diverse weights" with them, using one standard to evaluate those other cases and another standard to blaspheme the Lord? Perhaps they grant that the word "servant" is used with a certain understanding, but they insist on "Who made" as some great support for their heresy. But this support of theirs is also just a broken reed, for if they are aware of Scripture's style, they must immediately pass judgment against themselves. Just as Solomon, though a son, is called a servant, so—to repeat what was said above—even though parents call the sons springing from themselves "made" and "created" and "becoming," they do not for all this deny their nature. Thus Hezekiah, as it is written in Isaiah, said in his prayer, "From this day I will make children, who shall declare Your righteousness, O God of my salvation." He said "I will make," but the Prophet in that very book and in the Fourth Book of Kings speaks this way: "And the sons who shall come forth of you." He uses "make" for "beget," and he calls those who were to spring from him "made," and no one questions whether the term refers to a natural offspring. Again, Eve on bearing Cain said, "I have gotten a man from the Lord." She too used "gotten" for "brought forth." First she saw the child, yet then she said "I have gotten." No one would consider, because of "I have gotten," that Cain was purchased from outside instead of being born of her. Again, the Patriarch Jacob said to Joseph, "And now your two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, which became yours in Egypt, before I came unto you into Egypt, are mine." And Scripture says about Job, "And there came to him seven sons and three daughters." Moses too has said in the Law, "If sons become to any one" and "If he make a son." Here again they speak of those who are begotten as "become" and "made," knowing that while they are acknowledged to be sons, we need not question "they became" or "I have gotten" or "I made." For nature and truth draw the meaning to themselves.

4. As then, when we read this, we interpret it fairly, without accounting Solomon a servant because we hear him so called, but a son natural and genuine, so also, if, concerning the Saviour, who is confessed to be in truth the Son, and to be the Word by nature, the saints say, 'Who was faithful to Him that made Him,' or if He say of Himself, 'The Lord created me,' and, 'I am Your servant and the Son of Your handmaid,' and the like, let not any on this account deny that He is proper to the Father and from Him; but, as in the case of Solomon and David, let them have a right idea of the Father and the Son. For if, though they hear Solomon called a servant, they acknowledge him to be a son, are they not deserving of many deaths, who, instead of preserving the same explanation in the instance of the Lord, whenever they hear 'Offspring,' and 'Word,' and 'Wisdom,' forcibly misinterpret and deny the generation, natural and genuine, of the Son from the Father; but on hearing words and terms proper to a work, immediately drop down to the notion of His being by nature a work, and deny the Word; and this, though it is possible, from His having been made man, to refer all these terms to His humanity? And are they not proved to be 'an abomination' also 'unto the Lord,' as having 'diverse weights Proverbs 20:23 ' with them, and with this estimating those other instances, and with that blaspheming the Lord? But perhaps they grant that the word 'servant' is used under a certain understanding, but lay stress upon 'Who made' as some great support of their heresy. But this stay of theirs also is but a broken reed; for if they are aware of the style of Scripture, they must at once give sentence against themselves. For as Solomon, though a son, is called a servant, so, to repeat what was said above, although parents call the sons springing from themselves 'made' and 'created' and 'becoming,' for all this they do not deny their nature. Thus Hezekiah, as it is written in Isaiah, said in his prayer, 'From this day I will make children, who shall declare Your righteousness, O God of my salvation.' He then said, 'I will make;' but the Prophet in that very book and the Fourth of Kings, thus speaks, 'And the sons who shall come forth of you 2 Kings 20:18; Isaiah 39:7.' He uses then 'make' for 'beget,' and he calls them who were to spring from him, 'made,' and no one questions whether the term has reference to a natural offspring. Again, Eve on bearing Cain said, 'I have gotten a man from the Lord;' thus she too used 'gotten' for 'brought forth.' For, first she saw the child, yet next she said, 'I have gotten.' Nor would any one consider, because of 'I have gotten,' that Cain was purchased from without, instead of being born of her. Again, the Patriarch Jacob said to Joseph, 'And now your two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, which became yours in Egypt, before I came unto you into Egypt, are mine.' And Scripture says about Job, 'And there came to him seven sons and three daughters.' As Moses too has said in the Law, 'If sons become to any one,' and 'If he make a son.' Here again they speak of those who are begotten, as 'become' and 'made,' knowing that, while they are acknowledged to be sons, we need not make a question of 'they became,' or 'I have gotten,' or 'I made.' For nature and truth draw the meaning to themselves.

Given this, when people ask whether the Lord is a creature or a work, we should first ask them this: whether He is Son and Word and Wisdom. If this is demonstrated, then the speculation about work and creation immediately collapses and ends. A work could never be Son and Word, nor could the Son be a work. And again, since this is how things stand, the proof is clear to everyone that the phrase "to Him who made Him" does not support their heresy but actually condemns it. For it has been shown that the expression "He made" is applied in divine Scripture even to children who are genuine and natural. Therefore, since the Lord is proven to be the Father's Son naturally and genuinely, and Word and Wisdom, even if "He made" is used concerning Him, or "He became," this is not said of Him as if He were a work. Rather, the saints have no hesitation about using such expressions—for instance, in the case of Solomon and Hezekiah's children. For even though the fathers had begotten them from themselves, it is still written "I have made" and "I have gotten" and "He became." Therefore God's enemies, despite their repeated citing of such phrases, ought now—even if belatedly, after what has been said—to renounce their irreligious ideas and think of the Lord as a true Son, Word, and Wisdom of the Father, not a work, not a creature. For if the Son is a creature, then by what word and by what wisdom was He Himself made? For all the works were made through the Word and the Wisdom, as it is written: "In wisdom You have made them all," and "All things were made by Him, and without Him nothing was made." But if He is the one who is the Word and the Wisdom by which all things come to be, it follows that He is not among the works, nor indeed among things that have an origin, but is the Offspring of the Father.

5. This being so, when persons ask whether the Lord is a creature or work, it is proper to ask of them this first, whether He is Son and Word and Wisdom. For if this is shown, the surmise about work and creation falls to the ground at once and is ended. For a work could never be Son and Word; nor could the Son be a work. And again, this being the state of the case, the proof is plain to all, that the phrase, 'To Him who made Him' does not serve their heresy, but rather condemns it. For it has been shown that the expression 'He made' is applied in divine Scripture even to children genuine and natural; whence, the Lord being proved to be the Father's Son naturally and genuinely, and Word, and Wisdom, though 'He made' be used concerning Him, or 'He became,' this is not said of Him as if a work, but the saints make no question about using the expression — for instance in the case of Solomon, and Hezekiah's children. For though the fathers had begotten them from themselves, still it is written, 'I have made,' and 'I have gotten,' and 'He became.' Therefore God's enemies, in spite of their repeated allegation of such phrases, ought now, though late in the day, after what has been said, to disown their irreligious thoughts, and think of the Lord as of a true Son, Word, and Wisdom of the Father, not a work, not a creature. For if the Son be a creature, by what word then and by what wisdom was He made Himself? For all the works were made through the Word and the Wisdom, as it is written, 'In wisdom have You made them all,' and, 'All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made.' But if it be He who is the Word and the Wisdom, by which all things come to be, it follows that He is not in the number of works, nor in short of things originate, but the Offspring of the Father.

Consider how serious an error it is to call God's Word a work. Solomon says in one place in Ecclesiastes that "God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good or whether it be evil." If then the Word is a work, do you mean that He as well as others will be brought into judgment? And what room is there for judgment when the Judge is on trial? Who will give the just their blessing and the unworthy their punishment, if the Lord, as you must suppose, is standing on trial with the rest? By what law shall He, the Lawgiver, Himself be judged? These things are proper to the works: to be on trial, to be blessed, and to be punished by the Son. Now then fear the Judge, and let Solomon's words convince you. For if God shall bring all the works into judgment, but the Son is not in the number of things put on trial, but rather is Himself the Judge of all works, is not the proof clearer than the sun that the Son is not a work but the Father's Word, in whom all the works both come to be and come into judgment? Further, if the expression "who was faithful" is a difficulty to them, from the thought that "faithful" is used of Him as of others—as if He exercises faith and so receives the reward of faith—they must proceed at this rate to find fault with Moses for saying "God faithful and true," and with St. Paul for writing "God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that you are able." But when the saints spoke this way, they were not thinking of God in a human way, but they acknowledged two senses of the word "faithful" in Scripture: first "believing," then "trustworthy," of which the former belongs to man, the latter to God. Thus Abraham was faithful because he believed God's word; and God is faithful, for, as David says in the Psalm, "The Lord is faithful in all His words," or is trustworthy, and cannot lie. Again, "If any faithful woman have widows," she is so called for her right faith; but "It is a faithful saying" because what He has spoken has a claim on our faith, for it is true and not otherwise. Accordingly the words "who is faithful to Him that made Him" imply no parallel with others, nor mean that by having faith He became well-pleasing; but that, being Son of the True God, He too is faithful and ought to be believed in all He says and does, Himself remaining unalterable and not changed in His human economy (divine plan of salvation) and fleshly presence.

6. For consider how grave an error it is, to call God's Word a work. Solomon says in one place in Ecclesiastes, that 'God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good or whether it be evil Ecclesiastes 12:14.' If then the Word be a work, do you mean that He as well as others will be brought into judgment? And what room is there for judgment, when the Judge is on trial? Who will give to the just their blessing, who to the unworthy their punishment, the Lord, as you must suppose, standing on trial with the rest? By what law shall He, the Lawgiver, Himself be judged? These things are proper to the works, to be on trial, to be blessed and to be punished by the Son. Now then fear the Judge, and let Solomon's words convince you. For if God shall bring the works one and all into judgment, but the Son is not in the number of things put on trial, but rather is Himself the Judge of works one and all, is not the proof clearer than the sun, that the Son is not a work but the Father's Word, in whom all the works both come to be and come into judgment? Further, if the expression, 'Who was faithful,' is a difficulty to them, from the thought that 'faithful' is used of Him as of others, as if He exercises faith and so receives the reward of faith, they must proceed at this rate to find fault with Moses for saying, 'God faithful and true,' and with St. Paul for writing, 'God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that you are able 1 Corinthians 10:13.' But when the saints spoke thus, they were not thinking of God in a human way, but they acknowledged two senses of the word 'faithful' in Scripture, first 'believing,' then 'trustworthy,' of which the former belongs to man, the latter to God. Thus Abraham was faithful, because He believed God's word; and God faithful, for, as David says in the Psalm, 'The Lord is faithful in all His words,' or is trustworthy, and cannot lie. Again, 'If any faithful woman have widows 1 Timothy 5:16,' she is so called for her right faith; but, 'It is a faithful saying,' because what He has spoken has a claim on our faith, for it is true, and is not otherwise. Accordingly the words, 'Who is faithful to Him that made Him,' implies no parallel with others, nor means that by having faith He became well-pleasing; but that, being Son of the True God, He too is faithful, and ought to be believed in all He says and does, Himself remaining unalterable and not changed in His human Economy and fleshly presence.

Thus we can confront these shameless people and show from the single expression "He made" that they are mistaken in thinking the Word of God is a work. But further, since the meaning of the context is orthodox, showing the time and circumstances to which this expression refers, I should demonstrate from it as well how unreasonable the heretics are. We should consider, as we did above, the occasion when this was said and for what purpose. Now the Apostle is not discussing things before creation when he speaks this way, but rather when "the Word became flesh." For it is written: "Therefore, holy brothers, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession Jesus, who was faithful to Him that made Him." When did He become "Apostle" except when He put on our flesh? And when did He become "High Priest of our profession" except when, after offering Himself for us, He raised His Body from the dead and now Himself brings near and offers to the Father those who approach Him in faith, redeeming all and making propitiation to God for all? The Apostle did not say "who was faithful to Him that made Him" intending to indicate the essence (ousia) of the Word or His natural generation from the Father—God forbid, for the Word is not made but makes—but rather to indicate His descent to mankind and His priesthood, which did "become." This is easily seen from the account of the Law and of Aaron. Aaron was not born a high priest but a man, and in due time, when God willed, he became a high priest. Yet he became so not simply or as indicated by his ordinary garments, but by putting on over them the ephod, the breastplate, the robe which the women made at God's command, and going in them into the holy place, he offered the sacrifice for the people. In these garments he mediated, as it were, between the vision of God and the sacrifices of men. In the same way the Lord also—"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"—but when the Father willed that ransoms should be paid for all and grace should be given to all, then truly the Word took earthly flesh, just as Aaron took his robe, having Mary for the Mother of His Body as if she were virgin earth. As a High Priest having an offering as others do, He offered Himself to the Father and cleansed us all from sins in His own blood and rose from the dead.

7. Thus then we may meet these men who are shameless, and from the single expression 'He made,' may show that they err in thinking that the Word of God is a work. But further, since the drift also of the context is orthodox, showing the time and the relation to which this expression points, I ought to show from it also how the heretics lack reason; viz. by considering, as we have done above, the occasion when it was used and for what purpose. Now the Apostle is not discussing things before the creation when he thus speaks, but when 'the Word became flesh;' for thus it is written, 'Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession Jesus, who was faithful to Him that made Him.' Now when became He 'Apostle,' but when He put on our flesh? And when became He 'High Priest of our profession,' but when, after offering Himself for us, He raised His Body from the dead, and, as now, Himself brings near and offers to the Father those who in faith approach Him, redeeming all, and for all propitiating God? Not then as wishing to signify the Essence of the Word nor His natural generation from the Father, did the Apostle say, 'Who was faithful to Him that made Him'– (perish the thought! For the Word is not made, but makes)– but as signifying His descent to mankind and High- priesthood which did 'become'– as one may easily see from the account given of the Law and of Aaron. I mean, Aaron was not born a high-priest, but a man; and in process of time, when God willed, he became a high-priest; yet became so, not simply, nor as betokened by his ordinary garments, but putting over them the ephod, the breastplate Exodus 29:5, the robe, which the women wrought at God's command, and going in them into the holy place, he offered the sacrifice for the people; and in them, as it were, mediated between the vision of God and the sacrifices of men. Thus then the Lord also, 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;' but when the Father willed that ransoms should be paid for all and to all, grace should be given, then truly the Word, as Aaron his robe, so did He take earthly flesh, having Mary for the Mother of His Body as if virgin earth, that, as a High Priest, having He as others an offering, He might offer Himself to the Father, and cleanse us all from sins in His own blood, and might rise from the dead.

What happened long ago was a shadow of this reality, and what the Savior did when He came, Aaron foreshadowed according to the Law. Just as Aaron remained the same person and did not change by putting on the high-priestly robes, but stayed the same while simply being clothed, so that if someone had seen him offering sacrifice and said, "Look, Aaron has today become high priest," they would not have meant that he was then born as a man—for he was a man even before becoming high priest—but rather that he had been made high priest in his ministry by putting on the garments made and prepared for the high priesthood. In the same way, it is possible to understand rightly in the Lord's case that He did not become something other than Himself when He took on flesh, but being the same as before, He was clothed in it. The expressions "He became" and "He was made" must not be understood as if the Word, considered as the Word, were made, but rather that the Word, being the Framer of all things, was afterwards made High Priest by putting on a body that was originate and made, and such as He can offer for us. This is why He is said to be made. Now if the Lord did not become man, that is a point for the Arians to argue about; but if "the Word became flesh," what else should have been said about Him when He became man, except "who was faithful to Him that made Him"? For just as it is proper to the Word to have it said of Him, "In the beginning was the Word," so it is proper to man to "become" and to be "made." Who then, seeing the Lord as a man walking about, yet appearing to be God from His works, would not have asked, "Who made Him man?" And who again, when asked such a question, would not have answered that the Father made Him man and sent Him to us as High Priest? This meaning, time, and character the Apostle himself, the writer of the words "who is faithful to Him that made Him," will best make clear to us if we pay attention to what comes before them. For there is one train of thought, and the entire passage is about One and the Same. He writes in the Epistle to the Hebrews: "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily He took not on Him the nature of Angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behooved Him to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself has suffered being tempted, He is able to succour them that are tempted. Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Jesus; who was faithful to Him that made Him."

8. For what happened of old was a shadow of this; and what the Saviour did on His coming, this Aaron shadowed out according to the Law. As then Aaron was the same and did not change by putting on the high-priestly dress, but remaining the same was only robed, so that, had any one seen him offering, and had said, 'Lo, Aaron has this day become high-priest,' he had not implied that he then had been born man, for man he was even before he became high-priest, but that he had been made high-priest in his ministry, on putting on the garments made and prepared for the high- priesthood; in the same way it is possible in the Lord's instance also to understand aright, that He did not become other than Himself on taking the flesh, but, being the same as before, He was robed in it; and the expressions 'He became' and 'He was made,' must not be understood as if the Word, considered as the Word, were made, but that the Word, being Framer of all, afterwards was made High Priest, by putting on a body which was originate and made, and such as He can offer for us; wherefore He is said to be made. If then indeed the Lord did not become man, that is a point for the Arians to battle; but if the 'Word became flesh,' what ought to have been said concerning Him when become man, but 'Who was faithful to Him that made Him?' for as it is proper to the Word to have it said of Him, 'In the beginning was the Word,' so it is proper to man to 'become' and to be 'made.' Who then, on seeing the Lord as a man walking about, and yet appearing to be God from His works, would not have asked, Who made Him man? And who again, on such a question, would not have answered, that the Father made Him man, and sent Him to us as High Priest? And this meaning, and time, and character, the Apostle himself, the writer of the words, 'Who is faithful to Him that made Him,' will best make plain to us, if we attend to what goes before them. For there is one train of thought, and the lection is all about One and the Same. He writes then in the Epistle to the Hebrews thus; 'Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily He took not on Him the nature of Angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behooved Him to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself has suffered being tempted, He is able to succour them that are tempted. Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Jesus; who was faithful to Him that made Him. '

Anyone who reads this entire passage must condemn the Arians and admire the blessed Apostle, who has spoken well. For when was Christ "made," when did He become "Apostle," except when, like us, He "took part in flesh and blood"? And when did He become "a merciful and faithful High Priest," except when "in all things He was made like His brethren"? And He was "made like" when He became man, having put upon Himself our flesh. Therefore Paul was writing concerning the Word's human economy when he said, "Who was faithful to Him that made Him," and not concerning His ousia. So do not have the madness any longer to say that the Word of God is a work, whereas He is Son by nature Only-begotten, and then had "brethren" when He took on flesh like ours. Moreover, by offering Himself, He was named and became "merciful and faithful"—merciful, because in mercy to us He offered Himself for us, and faithful, not as sharing faith with us, nor as having faith in anyone as we have, but as deserving to receive faith in all He says and does, and as offering a faithful sacrifice, one which remains and does not come to nothing. For those sacrifices which were offered according to the Law did not have this faithfulness, passing away with the day and needing further cleansing. But the Saviour's sacrifice, taking place once, has perfected everything and has become faithful as remaining forever. And Aaron had successors, and in a word the priesthood under the Law exchanged its first ministers as time and death went on. But the Lord, having a high priesthood without transition and without succession, has become a "faithful High Priest" as continuing forever, and faithful too by promise, so that He may hear and not mislead those who come to Him. This may also be learned from the Epistle of the great Peter, who says, "Let them that suffer according to the will of God, commit their souls to a faithful Creator." For He is faithful as not changing, but abiding ever, and rendering what He has promised.

9. Who can read this whole passage without condemning the Arians, and admiring the blessed Apostle, who has spoken well? For when was Christ 'made,' when became He 'Apostle,' except when, like us, He 'took part in flesh and blood.' And when became He 'a merciful and faithful High Priest,' except when 'in all things He was made like His brethren.' And then was He 'made like,' when He became man, having put upon Him our flesh. Wherefore Paul was writing concerning the Word's human Economy, when he said, 'Who was faithful to Him that made Him,' and not concerning His Essence. Have not therefore any more the madness to say that the Word of God is a work; whereas He is Son by nature Only-begotten, and then had 'brethren,' when He took on Him flesh like ours; which moreover, by Himself offering Himself, He was named and became 'merciful and faithful,'– merciful, because in mercy to us He offered Himself for us, and faithful, not as sharing faith with us, nor as having faith in any one as we have, but as deserving to receive faith in all He says and does, and as offering a faithful sacrifice, one which remains and does not come to nought. For those which were offered according to the Law, had not this faithfulness, passing away with the day and needing a further cleansing; but the Saviour's sacrifice, taking place once, has perfected everything, and has become faithful as remaining forever. And Aaron had successors, and in a word the priesthood under the Law exchanged its first ministers as time and death went on; but the Lord having a high priesthood without transition and without succession, has become a 'faithful High Priest,' as continuing for ever; and faithful too by promise, that He may hear and not mislead those who come to Him. This may be also learned from the Epistle of the great Peter, who says, 'Let them that suffer according to the will of God, commit their souls to a faithful Creator 1 Peter 4:19.' For He is faithful as not changing, but abiding ever, and rendering what He has promised.

Now the so-called gods of the Greeks, unworthy of the name, are faithful neither in their essence nor in their promises. They are not present everywhere. Rather, these local deities eventually come to nothing and undergo natural dissolution. This is why the Word cries out against them, saying that "faith is not strong in them," but they are "waters that fail," and "there is no faith in them." But the God of all, being one really and truly, is faithful. He is always the same and says, "See now, that I, even I am He," and "I change not." Therefore His Son is faithful, being always the same and unchanging, deceiving neither in His essence nor in His promise. As the Apostle again says when writing to the Thessalonians, "Faithful is He who calls you, who also will do it" (1 Thessalonians 5:24). In doing what He promises, He is faithful to His words. And he writes to the Hebrews about the word's meaning "unchangeable": "If we believe not, yet He abides faithful; He cannot deny Himself" (2 Timothy 2:13). Therefore the Apostle reasonably, when discussing the bodily presence of the Word, says he is "an Apostle and faithful to Him that made Him," showing us that even when made man, "Jesus Christ" is "the same yesterday, and today, and forever" (Hebrews 13:8)—unchangeable. And just as the Apostle mentions His being made man when speaking of His High Priesthood, so too he did not keep silent about His Godhead. Rather, he mentions it immediately, giving us protection on every side, and especially when he speaks of His humility, so that we may immediately know His loftiness and His majesty, which is the Father's. For instance, he says, "Moses as a servant, but Christ as a Son" (Hebrews 3:5-6), and the former "faithful in his house" and the latter "over the house," since He Himself built it and is its Lord and Framer, and as God sanctifying it. For Moses, a man by nature, became faithful by believing God who spoke to him by His Word. But the Word was not as one of created things in a body, nor as creature in creature, but as God in flesh, and Framer of all and Builder in that which was built by Him. Men are clothed in flesh in order to exist and subsist, but the Word of God was made man in order to sanctify the flesh, and though He was Lord, was in the form of a servant. For the whole creation is the Word's servant, which came to be through Him and was made.

10. Now the so-called gods of the Greeks, unworthy the name, are faithful neither in their essence nor in their promises; for the same are not everywhere, nay, the local deities come to nought in course of time, and undergo a natural dissolution; wherefore the Word cries out against them, that ' faith is not strong in them,' but they are 'waters that fail,' and 'there is no faith in them.' But the God of all, being one really and indeed and true, is faithful, who is ever the same, and says, 'See now, that I, even I am He,' and I 'change not;' and therefore His Son is 'faithful,' being ever the same and unchanging, deceiving neither in His essence nor in His promise — as again says the Apostle writing to the Thessalonians, 'Faithful is He who calls you, who also will do it 1 Thessalonians 5:24;' for in doing what He promises, 'He is faithful to His words.' And he thus writes to the Hebrews as to the word's meaning 'unchangeable;' 'If we believe not, yet He abides faithful; He cannot deny Himself 2 Timothy 2:13.' Therefore reasonably the Apostle, discoursing concerning the bodily presence of the Word, says, an 'Apostle and faithful to Him that made Him,' showing us that, even when made man, ' Jesus Christ ' is 'the same yesterday, and today, and for ever Hebrews 13:8 ' is unchangeable. And as the Apostle makes mention in his Epistle of His being made man when mentioning His High Priesthood, so too he kept no long silence about His Godhead, but rather mentions it immediately, furnishing to us a safeguard on every side, and most of all when he speaks of His humility, that we may immediately know His loftiness and His majesty which is the Father's. For instance, he says, ' Moses as a servant, but Christ as a Son Hebrews 3:5-6;' and the former 'faithful in his house,' and the latter 'over the house,' as having Himself built it, and being its Lord and Framer, and as God sanctifying it. For Moses, a man by nature, became faithful, in believing God who spoke to Him by His Word; but the Word was not as one of things originate in a body, nor as creature in creature, but as God in flesh, and Framer of all and Builder in that which was built by Him. And men are clothed in flesh in order to be and to subsist; but the Word of God was made man in order to sanctify the flesh, and, though He was Lord, was in the form of a servant; for the whole creature is the Word's servant, which by Him came to be, and was made.

Therefore, what the Apostle says—"He made"—does not prove that the Word is made, but rather refers to the body which He took on like ours. Consequently, He is called our brother because He became man. But if it has been demonstrated that even when the word "made" is applied to the Word Himself, it means "begot," what further distorted argument will they be able to devise? The present discussion has clarified the word from every angle and shown that the Son is not a created work. Rather, in His essence (ousia) He is the Father's offspring, while in the divine plan—according to the Father's good pleasure—He was made on our behalf and exists as man. For this reason the Apostle says, "Who was faithful to Him that made Him," and in Proverbs even creation is mentioned. For as long as we confess that He became man, there is no problem with saying—as noted before—whether "He became," or "He has been made," or "created," or "formed," or "servant," or "son of a handmaid," or "son of man," or "was constituted," or "took His journey," or "bridegroom," or "brother's son," or "brother." All these terms properly apply to man's nature, and expressions like these do not designate the essence (ousia) of the Word, but rather indicate that He has become man.

11. Hence it holds that the Apostle's expression, 'He made,' does not prove that the Word is made, but that body, which He took like ours; and in consequence He is called our brother, as having become man. But if it has been shown, that, even though the word 'made' be referred to the Very Word, it is used for 'begot,' what further perverse expedient will they be able to fall upon, now that the present discussion has cleared up the word in every point of view, and shown that the Son is not a work, but in Essence indeed the Father's offspring, while in the Economy, according to the good pleasure of the Father, He was on our behalf made, and consists as man? For this reason then it is said by the Apostle, 'Who was faithful to Him that made Him;' and in the Proverbs, even creation is spoken of. For so long as we are confessing that He became man, there is no question about saying, as was observed before, whether 'He became,' or 'He has been made,' or 'created,' or 'formed,' or 'servant,' or 'son of an handmaid,' or ' son of man,' or 'was constituted,' or 'took His journey,' or 'bridegroom,' or 'brother's son,' or 'brother.' All these terms happen to be proper to man's constitution; and such as these do not designate the Essence of the Word, but that He has become man.

The same meaning applies to the passage from Acts which they also cite, where Peter says, 'He has made both Lord and Christ that same Jesus whom you have crucified.' For here too it is not written, 'He made for Himself a Son,' or 'He made Himself a Word,' which would justify their interpretations. If they have not forgotten that they are speaking about the Son of God, let them search whether it is anywhere written, 'God made Himself a Son,' or 'He created for Himself a Word,' or again, whether anywhere it is written in plain terms, 'The Word is a work or creation.' Then let them proceed to make their argument, these foolish men, so that they may receive their answer even on those grounds. But if they cannot produce anything of this kind, and only seize upon such isolated expressions as 'He made' and 'He has been made,' I fear that from hearing, 'In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth,' and 'He made the sun and the moon,' and 'He made the sea,' they might eventually come to call the Word the heaven, and the Light which came into being on the first day, and the earth, and each particular thing that has been made, so that they would end up resembling the Stoics, as they are called—the one extending their God into all things, the other ranking God's Word alongside each individual created work. They have nearly done this already, saying that He is one of His works.

11 ( continued). The same is the meaning of the passage in the Acts which they also allege, that in which Peter says, that 'He has made both Lord and Christ that same Jesus whom you have crucified.' For here too it is not written, 'He made for Himself a Son,' or 'He made Himself a Word,' that they should have such notions. If then it has not escaped their memory, that they speak concerning the Son of God, let them make search whether it is anywhere written, 'God made Himself a Son,' or 'He created for Himself a Word.' or again, whether it is anywhere written in plain terms, 'The Word is a work or creation.' and then let them proceed to make their case, the insensate men, that here too they may receive their answer. But if they can produce nothing of the kind, and only catch at such stray expressions as 'He made' and 'He has been made,' I fear lest, from hearing, 'In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth,' and 'He made the sun and the moon,' and 'He made the sea,' they should come in time to call the Word the heaven, and the Light which took place on the first day, and the earth, and each particular thing that has been made, so as to end in resembling the Stoics, as they are called, the one drawing out their God into all things, the other ranking God's Word with each work in particular; which they have well near done already, saying that He is one of His works.

Here they must receive the same answer as before. First, they should be told that the Word is a Son, as has been said above, and not a created work. Such terms should not be understood as referring to His Godhead, but their reason and manner should be investigated. To those who inquire in this way, the human Economy that He undertook for our sake will plainly present itself. For Peter, after saying "He has made Lord and Christ," immediately added "this Jesus whom you crucified." This makes it plain to anyone, even to them if they pay attention to the context, that it is not the Essence of the Word but He according to His manhood that is said to have been made. For what was crucified except the body? And how could what was bodily in the Word be signified except by saying "He made"? The phrase "He made" has a meaning especially consistent with orthodoxy, in that Peter has not said, as I observed before, "He made Him Word," but "He made Him Lord." Nor did he say this in general terms, but "towards" us and "in the midst of" us, as much as to say "He manifested Him." Peter himself carefully expressed this when he began his primary teaching, saying to them, "You men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man manifested of God towards you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by Him in the midst of you, as you yourselves know." Consequently, the term he uses at the end, "made," he has explained at the beginning by "manifested." For by the signs and wonders that the Lord did, He was manifested to be not merely man, but God in a body and also Lord, the Christ. The passage in the Gospel according to John is similar: "Therefore the Jews persecuted Him all the more, because He not only broke the Sabbath but also said that God was His own Father, making Himself equal with God." For the Lord did not then fashion Himself to be God—nor indeed is a made God conceivable—but He manifested it by His works, saying, "Though you believe not Me, believe My works, that you may know that I am in the Father and the Father in Me." Thus the Father has "made" Him Lord and King in the midst of us and towards us who were once disobedient. It is plain that He who is now displayed as Lord and King does not then begin to be King and Lord, but begins to show His Lordship and to extend it even over the disobedient.

12. But here they must have the same answer as before, and first be told that the Word is a Son, as has been said above, and not a work, and that such terms are not to be understood of His Godhead, but the reason and manner of them investigated. To persons who so inquire, the human Economy will plainly present itself, which He undertook for our sake. For Peter, after saying, 'He has made Lord and Christ,' straightway added, 'this Jesus whom you crucified;' which makes it plain to any one, even, if so be, to them, provided they attend to the context, that not the Essence of the Word, but He according to His manhood is said to have been made. For what was crucified but the body? And how could be signified what was bodily in the Word, except by saying 'He made?' Especially has that phrase, 'He made,' a meaning consistent with orthodoxy; in that he has not said, as I observed before, 'He made Him Word,' but 'He made Him Lord,' nor that in general terms, but 'towards' us, and 'in the midst of' us, as much as to say, 'He manifested Him.' And this Peter himself, when he began this primary teaching, carefully expressed, when he said to them, 'You men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man manifested of God towards you by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by Him in the midst of you, as you yourselves know Acts 2:22.' Consequently the term which he uses in the end, 'made', this He has explained in the beginning by 'manifested,' for by the signs and wonders which the Lord did, He was manifested to be not merely man, but God in a body and Lord also, the Christ. Such also is the passage in the Gospel according to John, 'Therefore the more did the Jews persecute Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but said also that God was His own Father, making Himself equal with God.' For the Lord did not then fashion Himself to be God, nor indeed is a made God conceivable, but He manifested it by the works, saying, 'Though you believe not Me, believe My works, that you may know that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me.' Thus then the Father has 'made' Him Lord and King in the midst of us, and towards us who were once disobedient; and it is plain that He who is now displayed as Lord and King, does not then begin to be King and Lord, but begins to show His Lordship, and to extend it even over the disobedient.

If they suppose that the Savior was not Lord and King even before He became human and endured the Cross, but only began to be Lord at that point, they should know that they are openly reviving the teachings of the Samosatene. But if, as we have quoted and shown above, He is Lord and King everlasting—since Abraham worships Him as Lord, and Moses says, "Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven," and David says in the Psalms, "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit on My right hand," and "Your Throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your Kingdom," and "Your Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom"—it is clear that even before He became human, He was King and Lord everlasting, being the Image and Word of the Father. And since the Word is everlasting Lord and King, it is very clear again that Peter was not saying that the ousia of the Son was made, but was speaking of His Lordship over us, which came into being when He became human, and by redeeming all through the Cross, became Lord of all and King. But if they continue to argue based on the fact that it is written "He made," refusing to accept that "He made" should be understood as "He manifested"—whether from lack of understanding or from their Christ-opposing purpose—let them pay attention to another sound interpretation of Peter's words. For someone who becomes Lord of others comes into possession of beings that already exist. But if the Lord is Maker of all and everlasting King, and when He became human, He then gained possession of us, here too we have a way in which Peter's language clearly does not mean that the ousia of the Word is a work, but rather the subsequent subjection of all things and the Savior's Lordship which came to be over all. And this agrees with what we said before. For just as we earlier introduced the words "Become my God and defense" and "the Lord became a refuge for the oppressed," and it made sense that these expressions do not show that God is originated but that His beneficence comes into being toward each individual, Peter's expression has the same meaning.

13. If then they suppose that the Saviour was not Lord and King, even before He became man and endured the Cross, but then began to be Lord, let them know that they are openly reviving the statements of the Samosatene. But if, as we have quoted and declared above, He is Lord and King everlasting, seeing that Abraham worships Him as Lord, and Moses says, 'Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrha brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven Genesis 19:24;' and David in the Psalms, 'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit on My right hand;' and, 'Your Throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Your Kingdom;' and, 'Your Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom;' it is plain that even before He became man, He was King and Lord everlasting, being Image and Word of the Father. And the Word being everlasting Lord and King, it is very plain again that Peter said not that the Essence of the Son was made, but spoke of His Lordship over us, which 'became' when He became man, and, redeeming all by the Cross, became Lord of all and King. But if they continue the argument on the ground of its being written, 'He made,' not willing that 'He made' should be taken in the sense of 'He manifested,' either from want of apprehension, or from their Christ-opposing purpose, let them attend to another sound exposition of Peter's words. For he who becomes Lord of others, comes into the possession of beings already in existence; but if the Lord is Framer of all and everlasting King, and when He became man, then gained possession of us, here too is a way in which Peter's language evidently does not signify that the Essence of the Word is a work, but the after-subjection of all things, and the Saviour's Lordship which came to be over all. And this coincides with what we said before; for as we then introduced the words, 'Become my God and defense,' and 'the Lord became a refuge for the oppressed,' and it stood to reason that these expressions do not show that God is originate, but that His beneficence 'becomes' towards each individual, the same sense has the expression of Peter also.

The Son of God, who is Himself the Word, is Lord of all. But we were once subject from the beginning to the slavery of corruption and the curse of the Law. Then, gradually making for ourselves things that did not exist, we served what the blessed Apostle calls "them which by nature are no Gods" (Galatians 4:8). Being ignorant of the true God, we preferred what was not real to the truth. But afterward, just as the ancient people groaned when they were oppressed in Egypt, so we too, when we had the Law "engrafted" (James 1:21) in us and made our intercession according to the unspeakable groanings (Romans 8:26) of the Spirit, cried "O Lord our God, take possession of us." Then, just as He became "a house of refuge" and "a God and defense," so also He became our Lord. He did not then begin to exist, but we began to have Him as our Lord. For at that point, God being good and Father of the Lord, in pity and desiring to be known by all, makes His own Son put on a human body and become man and be called Jesus, so that in this body offering Himself for all, He might deliver all from false worship and corruption, and might Himself become Lord and King of all. His becoming Lord and King in this way—this is what Peter means by "He has made Him Lord" and "has sent Christ"—as much as to say that the Father, in making Him man (for being made belongs to man), did not simply make Him man, but has made Him in order that He might be Lord of all people and hallow all through the Anointing. For though the Word, existing in the form of God, took a servant's form, the assumption of the flesh did not make a servant of the Word, who was by nature Lord. Rather, not only was there the liberation of all humanity that takes place by the Word, but that very Word who was by nature Lord and was then made man has, by means of a servant's form, been made Lord of all and Christ—that is, in order to hallow all by the Spirit. And just as God, when "becoming a God and defense" and saying "I will be a God to them," does not then become God more than before, nor then begins to become God, but what He always is He then becomes to those who need Him when it pleases Him, so Christ also, being by nature Lord and King everlasting, does not become Lord more than He was at the time He is sent forth, nor then begins to be Lord and King, but what He always is, that He is then made according to the flesh. And having redeemed all, He becomes thereby again Lord of the living and the dead. For all things henceforth serve Him, and this is David's meaning in the Psalm: "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit on My right hand, until I make Your enemies Your footstool." For it was fitting that the redemption should take place through none other than Him who is Lord by nature, lest, though created by the Son, we should name another Lord and fall into the Arian and Greek folly of serving the creature rather than the all-creating God.

14. For the Son of God indeed, being Himself the Word, is Lord of all; but we once were subject from the first to the slavery of corruption and the curse of the Law, then by degrees fashioning for ourselves things that were not, we served, as says the blessed Apostle, 'them which by nature are no Gods Galatians 4:8,' and, ignorant of the true God, we preferred things that were not to the truth; but afterwards, as the ancient people when oppressed in Egypt groaned, so, when we too had the Law 'engrafted James 1:21 ' in us, and according to the unutterable sighings Romans 8:26 of the Spirit made our intercession, 'O Lord our God, take possession of us,' then, as 'He became for a house of refuge' and a 'God and defense,' so also He became our Lord. Nor did He then begin to be, but we began to have Him for our Lord. For upon this, God being good and Father of the Lord, in pity, and desiring to be known by all, makes His own Son put on Him a human body and become man, and be called Jesus, that in this body offering Himself for all, He might deliver all from false worship and corruption, and might Himself become of all Lord and King. His becoming therefore in this way Lord and King, this it is that Peter means by, 'He has made Him Lord,' and 'has sent Christ.' as much as to say, that the Father in making Him man (for to be made belongs to man), did not simply make Him man, but has made Him in order to His being Lord of all men, and to His hallowing all through the Anointing. For though the Word existing in the form of God took a servant's form, yet the assumption of the flesh did not make a servant of the Word, who was by nature Lord; but rather, not only was it that emancipation of all humanity which takes place by the Word, but that very Word who was by nature Lord, and was then made man, has by means of a servant's form been made Lord of all and Christ, that is, in order to hallow all by the Spirit. And as God, when 'becoming a God and defense,' and saying, 'I will be a God to them,' does not then become God more than before, nor then begins to become God, but, what He ever is, that He then becomes to those who need Him, when it pleases Him, so Christ also being by nature Lord and King everlasting, does not become Lord more than He was at the time He is sent forth, nor then begins to be Lord and King, but what He is ever, that He then is made according to the flesh; and, having redeemed all, He becomes thereby again Lord of quick and dead. For Him henceforth do all things serve, and this is David's meaning in the Psalm, 'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit on My right hand, until I make Your enemies Your footstool.' For it was fitting that the redemption should take place through none other than Him who is the Lord by nature, lest, though created by the Son, we should name another Lord, and fall into the Arian and Greek folly, serving the creature beyond the all-creating God.

According to my humble understanding, this is what this passage means. Moreover, Peter's words have a true and good meaning when directed toward the Jews. For the Jews, having strayed from the truth, do expect the Christ to come, but they do not accept that He undergoes suffering, saying what they do not understand: "We know that when the Christ comes, He remains forever, so how can You say that He must be lifted up?" Furthermore, they suppose Him to be not the Word coming in flesh, but merely a man, like all the other kings. The Lord, therefore, when instructing Cleopas and the other disciple, taught them that the Christ must first suffer. And to the rest of the Jews, He taught that God had come among them, saying: "If He called them gods to whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken, do you say of Him whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, 'You blaspheme,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?"

15. This, at least according to my nothingness, is the meaning of this passage; moreover, a true and a good meaning have these words of Peter as regards the Jews. For Jews, astray from the truth, expect indeed the Christ as coming, but do not reckon that He undergoes a passion, saying what they understand not; 'We know that, when the Christ comes, He abides for ever, and how do You say, that He must be lifted up?' Next they suppose Him, not the Word coming in flesh, but a mere man, as were all the kings. The Lord then, admonishing Cleopas and the other, taught them that the Christ must first suffer; and the rest of the Jews that God had come among them, saying, 'If He called them gods to whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken, say ye of Him whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blaspheme, because I said, I am the Son of God John 10:36?'

Peter, having learned this from the Savior, corrected the Jews on both points. He said: O Jews, the divine Scriptures announce that Christ comes, and you consider Him a mere man, one of David's descendants. But what is written about Him shows He is not as you say. Rather, Scripture announces Him as Lord and God, immortal and the giver of life. For Moses said, "You shall see your Life hanging before your eyes." And David in Psalm 109 says, "The Lord said to My Lord, Sit on My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool," and in Psalm 15, "You shall not leave my soul in hades, neither shall You suffer Your Holy One to see corruption." David himself witnesses that these passages are not about him, declaring that the one who was coming was his own Lord. Indeed, you yourselves know that he is dead and his remains are with you. You will plainly confess that the Christ must be as the Scriptures say. For those announcements come from God, and there can be no falsehood in them. If you can state that such a one has already come and can prove him God from the signs and wonders he did, you have reason to maintain the argument. But if you cannot prove His coming and are still expecting such a one, recognize the true time from Daniel, for his words relate to the present time. If this present time is the one announced long ago, and you have seen what has taken place among us, be sure that this Jesus, whom you crucified, is the expected Christ. For David and all the Prophets died, and the tombs of all are with you. But the resurrection that has now taken place has shown that these passages refer to Jesus. The crucifixion is indicated by "You shall see your Life hanging," and the wound in the side by the spear fulfills "He was led as a sheep to the slaughter" (Isaiah 53:7). The resurrection—indeed, the rising of the ancient dead from their tombs, which most of you have seen—this is "You shall not leave My soul in hades" and "He swallowed up death in strength" (Isaiah 25:8) and again, "God will wipe away." The signs that actually took place show that He who was in a body was God, and also the Life and Lord of death. For it was fitting that the Christ, when giving life to others, should not Himself be held by death. But this could not have happened if He had been, as you suppose, a mere man. In truth He is the Son of God, for all men are subject to death. Let no one doubt, but let the whole house of Israel know with certainty that this Jesus, whom you saw in the form of a man, doing signs and works such as no one had ever done before, is Himself the Christ and Lord of all. For though made man and called Jesus, as we said before, He suffered no loss by that human suffering. Rather, by being made man, He is revealed as Lord of the living and the dead. For since, as the Apostle said, "in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe" (1 Corinthians 1:21). And so, since we humans would not acknowledge God through His Word, nor serve the Word of God our natural Master, it pleased God to show His own Lordship in man, and thus to draw all people to Himself. But to do this through a mere man would not be fitting, lest, having a man for our Lord, we should become worshippers of man. Therefore the Word Himself became flesh, and the Father called His name Jesus, and so "made" Him Lord and Christ—which is to say, He made Him to rule and to reign. This was so that when in the name of Jesus, whom you crucified, every knee bows, we may acknowledge as Lord and King both the Son and through Him the Father.

16. Peter then, having learned this from the Saviour, in both points set the Jews right, saying, O Jews, the divine Scriptures announce that Christ comes, and you consider Him a mere man as one of David's descendants, whereas what is written of Him shows Him to be not such as you say, but rather announces Him as Lord and God, and immortal, and dispenser of life. For Moses has said, 'You shall see your Life hanging before your eyes.' And David in the hundred and ninth Psalm, 'The Lord said to My Lord, Sit on My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool;' and in the fifteenth, 'You shall not leave my soul in hades, neither shall Thou suffer Your Holy One to see corruption.' Now that these passages have not David for their scope he himself witnesses, avowing that He who was coming was His own Lord. Nay you yourselves know that He is dead, and His remains are with you. That the Christ then must be such as the Scriptures say, you will plainly confess yourselves. For those announcements come from God, and in them falsehood cannot be. If then ye can state that such a one has come before, and can prove him God from the signs and wonders which he did, you have reason for maintaining the contest, but if you are not able to prove His coming, but are expecting such an one still, recognise the true season from Daniel, for his words relate to the present time. But if this present season be that which was of old, afore-announced, and you have seen what has taken place among us, be sure that this Jesus, whom you crucified, this is the expected Christ. For David and all the Prophets died, and the sepulchres of all are with you, but that Resurrection which has now taken place, has shown that the scope of these passages is Jesus. For the crucifixion is denoted by 'You shall see your Life hanging,' and the wound in the side by the spear answers to 'He was led as a sheep to the slaughter Isaiah 53:7,' and the resurrection, nay more, the rising of the ancient dead from out their sepulchres (for these most of you have seen), this is, 'You shall not leave My soul in hades,' and 'He swallowed up death in strength Isaiah 25:8,' and again, 'God will wipe away.' For the signs which actually took place show that He who was in a body was God, and also the Life and Lord of death. For it became the Christ, when giving life to others, Himself not to be detained by death; but this could not have happened, had He, as you suppose, been a mere man. But in truth He is the Son of God, for men are all subject to death. Let no one therefore doubt, but the whole house of Israel know assuredly that this Jesus, whom you saw in shape a man, doing signs and such works, as no one ever yet had done, is Himself the Christ and Lord of all. For though made man, and called Jesus, as we said before, He received no loss by that human passion, but rather, in being made man, He is manifested as Lord of quick and dead. For since, as the Apostle said, 'in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe 1 Corinthians 1:21.' And so, since we men would not acknowledge God through His Word, nor serve the Word of God our natural Master, it pleased God to show in man His own Lordship, and so to draw all men to Himself. But to do this by a mere man beseemed not; lest, having man for our Lord, we should become worshippers of man. Therefore the Word Himself became flesh, and the Father called His Name Jesus, and so 'made' Him Lord and Christ, as much as to say, 'He made Him to rule and to reign;' that while in the Name of Jesus, whom you crucified, every knee bows, we may acknowledge as Lord and King both the Son and through Him the Father.

The Jews, most of them, upon hearing this came to their senses and immediately acknowledged the Christ, as it is written in the Acts. But the Arian-maniacs, on the contrary, choose to remain like Jews and to argue with Peter. So let us set before them some parallel phrases—perhaps it may have some effect on them to discover how divine Scripture typically uses such language. Now that Christ is everlasting Lord and King has become clear from what has gone before, nor is there anyone to doubt it. For being Son of God, He must be like Him, and being like, He is certainly both Lord and King, for He Himself says, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father." On the other hand, that Peter's simple words, "He has made Him both Lord and Christ," do not imply the Son is a creature may be seen from Isaac's blessing, though this illustration is only a faint one for our subject. Now Isaac said to Jacob, "Become lord over your brother," and to Esau, "Behold, I have made him your lord." Now even if the word "made" referred to Jacob's essence and his coming into being, it still would not be right for them to imagine the same of the Word of God, for the Son of God is no creature as Jacob was. Besides, they might inquire and so rid themselves of that absurdity. But if they do not understand it as referring to his essence or to his coming into being, though Jacob was by nature (physis) a creature and a work, is not their madness worse than the Devil's, if what they dare not ascribe to things that are by nature (physis) originated, even when similar phrasing is used, they attach to the Son of God, saying that He is a creature? For Isaac said "Become" and "I have made," signifying neither the coming into being nor the essence of Jacob (for he said this more than thirty years after his birth), but his authority over his brother, which came about subsequently.

17. The Jews then, most of them, hearing this, came to themselves and immediately acknowledged the Christ, as it is written in the Acts. But, the Ario-maniacs on the contrary choose to remain Jews, and to contend with Peter; so let us proceed to place before them some parallel phrases; perhaps it may have some effect upon them, to find what the usage is of divine Scripture. Now that Christ is everlasting Lord and King, has become plain by what has gone before, nor is there a man to doubt about it; for being Son of God, He must be like Him, and being like, He is certainly both Lord and King, for He says Himself, 'He that has seen Me, has seen the Father.' On the other hand, that Peter's mere words, 'He has made Him both Lord and Christ,' do not imply the Son to be a creature, may be seen from Isaac's blessing, though this illustration is but a faint one for our subject. Now he said to Jacob, 'Become thou lord over your brother;' and to Esau, 'Behold, I have made him your lord.' Now though the word 'made' had implied Jacob's essence and the coming into being, even then it would not be right in them as much as to imagine the same of the Word of God, for the Son of God is no creature as Jacob was; besides, they might inquire and so rid themselves of that extravagance. But if they do not understand it of his essence nor of his coming into being, though Jacob was by nature creature and work, is not their madness worse than the Devil's, if what they dare not ascribe in consequence of a like phrase even to things by nature originate, that they attach to the Son of God, saying that He is a creature? For Isaac said 'Become' and 'I have made,' signifying neither the coming into being nor the essence of Jacob (for after thirty years and more from his birth he said this); but his authority over his brother, which came to pass subsequently.

Peter said this without meaning that the essence (ousia) of the Word was something created. He knew Christ was God's Son, confessing, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God" (Matthew 16:16). Rather, he meant Christ's Kingdom and Lordship, which were formed and came to be according to grace, and existed in relation to us. While saying this, Peter was not silent about the Son of God's eternal Godhead, which belongs to the Father. He had already said that Christ poured out the Spirit on us. Now, giving the Spirit with authority is not within the power of any creature or created thing, since the Spirit is God's Gift. Creatures are sanctified by the Holy Spirit, but the Son is not sanctified by the Spirit. On the contrary, He Himself gives the Spirit to all. Therefore, He is not a creature but the true Son of the Father. Yet the one who gives the Spirit is also said to be made—that is, made Lord among us because of His manhood, while giving the Spirit because He is God's Word. For He always was and is, as Son, also Lord and Sovereign of all, being like the Father in all things and having all that belongs to the Father, as He Himself has said.

18. Much more then did Peter say this without meaning that the Essence of the Word was a work; for he knew Him to be God's Son, confessing, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God Matthew 16:16;' but he meant His Kingdom and Lordship which was formed and came to be according to grace, and was relatively to us. For while saying this, he was not silent about the Son of God's everlasting Godhead which is the Father's; but He had said already, that He had poured the Spirit on us; now to give the Spirit with authority, is not in the power of creature or work, but the Spirit is God's Gift. For the creatures are hallowed by the Holy Spirit; but the Son, in that He is not hallowed by the Spirit, but on the contrary Himself the Giver of it to all, is therefore no creature, but true Son of the Father. And yet He who gives the Spirit, the same is said also to be made; that is, to be made among us Lord because of His manhood, while giving the Spirit because He is God's Word. For He ever was and is, as Son, so also Lord and Sovereign of all, being like in all things to the Father, and having all that is the Father's as He Himself has said.

Now let us consider the passage in Proverbs: "The Lord created me a beginning of His ways for His works." However, in showing that the Word is no work, it has also been shown that He is no creature. For it is the same to say "work" or "creature," so that the proof that He is no work is also a proof that He is no creature. One may marvel at these men who devise such excuses for their irreligion and are not deterred by the refutations they meet on every point. First, they set about deceiving simple people with their questions: "Did He who exists make from what did not exist something that did not exist or something that existed?" and "Did you have a son before begetting him?" When this was proved worthless, next they invented the question: "Is the Unoriginate one or two?" Then, when they were refuted in this, they immediately formed another question: "Does He have free will and an alterable nature?" But being forced to give this up, they next started saying: "Being made so much better than the Angels." And when the truth exposed this pretense, now again, gathering all these together, they think to promote their heresy through "work" and "creature." For they mean those very same things over again and remain true to their own perverseness, putting the same errors into various shapes and turning them this way and that, hoping thereby to deceive some through that variety. Although abundant proof of this reckless expedient of theirs has been given above, yet since they make every place echo with this passage from Proverbs, and seem to many who are ignorant of the faith of Christians to be saying something significant, it is necessary to examine separately both "He created" and "who was faithful to Him that made Him," so that in this text, as in all others, they may be proved to have achieved nothing more than a fantasy.

18. ( continued). Now in the next place let us consider the passage in the Proverbs, 'The Lord created me a beginning of His ways for His works;' although in showing that the Word is no work, it has been also shown that He is no creature. For it is the same to say work or creature, so that the proof that He is no work is a proof also that He is no creature. Whereas one may marvel at these men, thus devising excuses to be irreligious, and nothing daunted at the refutations which meet them upon every point. For first they set about deceiving the simple by their questions, 'Did He who is make from that which was not one that was not or one that was?' and, 'Had you a son before begetting him?' And when this had been proved worthless, next they invented the question, 'Is the Unoriginate one or two?' Then, when in this they had been confuted, straightway they formed another, 'Has He free-will and an alterable nature?' But being forced to give up this, next they set about saying, 'Being made so much better than the Angels;' and when the truth exposed this pretence, now again, collecting them all together, they think to recommend their heresy by 'work' and 'creature.' For they mean those very things over again, and are true to their own perverseness, putting into various shapes and turning to and fro the same errors, if so be to deceive some by that variousness. Although then abundant proof has been given above of this their reckless expedient, yet, since they make all places sound with this passage from the Proverbs, and to many who are ignorant of the faith of Christians, seem to say somewhat, it is necessary to examine separately, 'He created' as well as 'Who was faithful to Him that made Him;' that, as in all others, so in this text also, they may be proved to have got no further than a fantasy.

Let us first examine the responses that the Arians gave to the blessed Alexander in the beginning, while their heresy was still being formed. They wrote this: "He is a creature, but not as one of the creatures; a work, but not as one of the works; an offspring, but not as one of the offsprings." Everyone should consider the wickedness and cunning of this heresy. Knowing the bitterness of its own evil teaching, it tries to disguise itself with attractive words. It says what it actually believes—that He is a creature—yet thinks it can hide this by adding "but not as one of the creatures." However, by writing this way, they only convict themselves of impiety. For if you believe He is simply a creature, why add the pretense "but not as one of the creatures"? And if He is simply a work, how can He be "not as one of the works"? In this we can see the poison of the heresy. For by saying "offspring, but not as one of the offsprings," they imagine many sons, and declare that the Lord is one of these. According to them, He is no longer the Only-begotten, but one among many brothers, and is called offspring and son. What good is this pretense of saying that He is a creature and not a creature? For even though you say "not as one of the creatures," I will prove this argument of yours to be foolish. You still declare Him to be one of the creatures, and whatever one might say about the other creatures, you hold the same view about the Son—you truly "fools and blind." For is any one creature exactly the same as another, that you should claim this as some special privilege for the Son? All the visible creation was made in six days: on the first, the light which He called day; on the second, the firmament; on the third, He gathered the waters together, exposed the dry land, and brought forth the various plants in it; on the fourth, He made the sun and moon and all the host of stars; on the fifth, He created living creatures in the sea and birds in the air; on the sixth, He made the land animals and finally man. And "the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made"; and the light is not like the night, nor the sun like the moon, nor irrational creatures like rational man, nor the Angels like the Thrones, nor the Thrones like the Authorities. Yet they are all creatures, and each thing that was made exists and remains in its own essence according to its kind, just as it was made.

19. And first let us see the answers, which they returned to Alexander of blessed memory, in the outset, while their heresy was in course of formation. They wrote thus: 'He is a creature, but not as one of the creatures; a work, but not as one of the works; an offspring, but not as one of the offsprings.' Let every one consider the profligacy and craft of this heresy; for knowing the bitterness of its own malignity, it makes an effort to trick itself out with fair words, and says, what indeed it means, that He is a creature, yet thinks to be able to screen itself by adding, 'but not as one of the creatures.' However, in thus writing, they rather convict themselves of irreligion; for if, in your opinion, He is simply a creature, why add the pretence, 'but not as one of the creatures?' And if He is simply a work, how 'not as one of the works?' In which we may see the poison of the heresy. For by saying, 'offspring, but not as one of the offsprings,' they reckon many sons, and one of these they pronounce to be the Lord; so that according to them He is no more Only begotten, but one out of many brethren, and is called offspring and son. What use then is this pretence of saying that He is a creature and not a creature? For though you shall say, Not as 'one of the creatures,' I will prove this sophism of yours to be foolish. For still ye pronounce Him to be one of the creatures; and whatever a man might say of the other creatures, such ye hold concerning the Son, you truly 'fools and blind Matthew 23:19.' For is any one of the creatures just what another is, that you should predicate this of the Son as some prerogative? And all the visible creation was made in six days:– in the first, the light which He called day; in the second the firmament; in the third, gathering together the waters, He bared the dry land, and brought out the various fruits that are in it; and in the fourth, He made the sun and the moon and all the host of the stars; and on the fifth, He created the race of living things in the sea, and of birds in the air; and on the sixth, He made the quadrupeds on the earth, and at length man. And 'the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made Romans 1:20;' and neither the light is as the night, nor the sun as the moon; nor the irrational as rational man; nor the Angels as the Thrones, nor the Thrones as the Authorities, yet they are all creatures, but each of the things made according to its kind exists and remains in its own essence, as it was made.

Let the Word then be set apart from created works, and as Creator be restored to the Father, and be confessed to be Son by nature. Or if He is simply a creature, then let Him be assigned the same status as the rest in relation to one another, and let each of them be said to be "a creature but not as one of the creatures, offspring or work, but not as one of the works or offsprings." For you say that an offspring is the same as a work, writing "generated or made." Even if the Son surpasses the rest by comparison, He is still a creature just as they are, since among things that are creatures by nature one may find some surpassing others. For instance, star differs from star in glory, and all the rest have their own differences when compared to one another. Yet it does not follow that some are lords and others servants to the superior ones, nor that some are efficient causes while others come into being through them. Rather, all have a nature that comes to be and is created, acknowledging in themselves their Maker, as David says in the Psalms: "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows His handy work." And as Zorobabel the wise says: "All the earth calls upon the Truth, and the heaven blesses it: all works shake and tremble at it." But if the whole earth hymns the Maker and the Truth, and blesses and fears it, and its Maker is the Word, and He Himself says "I am the Truth," it follows that the Word is not a creature, but alone proper to the Father, in whom all things are ordered, and He is celebrated by all as Maker. For "I was by Him disposing," and "My Father works until now, and I work." And the word "until now" shows His eternal existence in the Father as the Word, for it is proper to the Word to work the Father's works and not to be external to Him.

20. Let the Word then be excepted from the works, and as Creator be restored to the Father, and be confessed to be Son by nature; or if simply He be a creature, then let Him be assigned the same condition as the rest one with another, and let them as well as He be said every one of them to be 'a creature but not as one of the creatures, offspring or work, but not as one of the works or offsprings.' For you say that an offspring is the same as a work, writing 'generated or made.' For though the Son excel the rest on a comparison, still a creature He is nevertheless, as they are; since in those which are by nature creatures one may find some excelling others. Star, for instance, differs from star in glory, and the rest have all of them their mutual differences when compared together; yet it follows not for all this that some are lords, and others servants to the superior, nor that some are efficient causes, others by them come into being, but all have a nature which comes to be and is created, confessing in their own selves their Framer: as David says in the Psalms, 'The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows His handy work;' and as Zorobabel the wise says, 'All the earth calls upon the Truth, and the heaven blesses it: all works shake and tremble at it Ezra 4:36.' But if the whole earth hymns the Framer and the Truth, and blesses, and fears it, and its Framer is the Word, and He Himself says, 'I am the Truth John 14:6,' it follows that the Word is not a creature, but alone proper to the Father, in whom all things are disposed, and He is celebrated by all, as Framer; for 'I was by Him disposing;' and 'My Father works hitherto, and I work John 5:17.' And the word 'hitherto' shows His eternal existence in the Father as the Word; for it is proper to the Word to work the Father's works and not to be external to Him.

But if the Father's works are also the Son's works, and what the Son creates is the Father's creation, and yet the Son is the Father's work or creature, then either He will work Himself and be His own creator (since the Father's works are also the Son's works), which is absurd and impossible; or, since He creates and works the Father's things, He Himself is not a work or a creature. Otherwise, being Himself an efficient cause, He might cause things caused to have what He Himself has become—or rather, He would have no power to cause anything at all.

21. But if what the Father works, that the Son works also, and what the Son creates, that is the creation of the Father, and yet the Son be the Father's work or creature, then either He will work His own self, and will be His own creator (since what the Father works is the Son's work also), which is absurd and impossible; or, in that He creates and works the things of the Father, He Himself is not a work nor a creature; for else being Himself an efficient cause, He may cause that to be in the case of things caused, which He Himself has become, or rather He may have no power to cause at all.

For how, if as you claim He came from nothing, is He able to create things that are nothing into existence? Or if He, being a creature, actually creates another creature, then the same thing would be possible for every creature—namely, the power to create others. And if this idea pleases you, what is the need for the Word, since inferior things could be brought into existence by superior things? Or at any rate, everything that is brought into being could have simply heard God's words in the beginning, "Become" and "be made," and so would have been created. But this is not what is written, nor could it be. For none of the things that are brought into being is an efficient cause, but all things were made through the Word. He would not have created all things if He Himself were numbered among the creatures. For the Angels would not be able to create either, since they too are creatures, even though Valentinus and Marcion and Basilides think so, and you are copying them. Nor will the sun, being a creature, ever make what does not exist into what exists. Nor will a human being fashion a human being, nor will stone produce stone, nor will wood make wood grow. But God is the one who fashions the human being in the womb, establishes the mountains, and makes wood grow. Meanwhile, a human being, having the capacity for knowledge, puts together and arranges existing material and works with things that already exist, as he has learned. And he is satisfied if they merely come to be, and being conscious of what his nature is, if he needs anything, he knows to ask it of God.

For how, if, as you hold, He has come of nothing, is He able to frame things that are nothing into being? Or if He, a creature, withal frames a creature, the same will be conceivable in the case of every creature, viz. the power to frame others. And if this pleases you, what is the need of the Word, seeing that things inferior can be brought to be by things superior? Or at all events, every thing that is brought to be could have heard in the beginning God's words, 'Become' and 'be made,' and so would have been framed. But this is not so written, nor could it be. For none of things which are brought to be is an efficient cause, but all things were made through the Word: who would not have wrought all things, were He Himself in the number of the creatures. For neither would the Angels be able to frame, since they too are creatures, though Valentinus, and Marcion, and Basilides think so, and you are their copyists; nor will the sun, as being a creature, ever make what is not into what is; nor will man fashion man, nor stone devise stone, nor wood give growth to wood. But God is He who fashions man in the womb, and fixes the mountains, and makes wood grow; whereas man, as being capable of science, puts together and arranges that material, and works things that are, as he has learned; and is satisfied if they are but brought to be, and being conscious of what his nature is, if he needs anything, knows to ask it of God.

If God worked with and shaped pre-existing materials, this is a pagan idea—according to which God is a craftsman rather than a Creator—but even in that case, let the Word work with the materials at the Father's command and in His service. But if God calls into existence things that did not exist by His own Word, then the Word is not among the things that are non-existent and called into being; otherwise we would need to look for another Word through whom He too was called, for it is by the Word that things which did not exist have come to be. And if the Father creates and makes through Him, then He is not Himself among created and made things; rather He is the Word of the Creator God and is known from the Father's works which He Himself performs, so that He is "in the Father and the Father in Him," and "whoever has seen Him has seen the Father," because the Son's ousia is proper to the Father, and He is in all respects like Him. How then does the Father create through Him, unless He is His Word and His Wisdom? And how can He be Word and Wisdom, unless He is the proper offspring of His ousia, and did not come into being, as all other things did, out of nothing? While all things are from nothing and are creatures, and the Son—according to what they say—is one of the creatures and among things that once did not exist, how does He alone reveal the Father, and how does no one but He know the Father? For if He, being a created work, could possibly know the Father, then the Father must also be known by all according to the capacity of each one, for all of them are works just as He is. But if it is impossible for created things either to see or to know, because the sight and knowledge of Him surpasses all (since God Himself says, "No one shall see My face and live"), yet the Son has declared, "No one knows the Father except the Son," therefore the Word is different from all created things, in that He alone knows and alone sees the Father, as He says, "Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from the Father," and "no one knows the Father except the Son"—though Arius thinks otherwise. How then did He alone know, except that He alone is proper to Him? And how is He proper, if He is a creature and not a true Son from Him? (For one must not hesitate to say the same thing often for the sake of true religion.) Therefore it is irreligious to think that the Son is one among all things, and blasphemous and meaningless to call Him "a creature, but not as one of the creatures, and a work, but not as one of the works, and an offspring, but not as one of the offspring." For how is He not as one of these, if, as they say, He did not exist before His generation? For it is characteristic of creatures and works not to exist before they originate, and to come into being out of nothing, even if they surpass other creatures in glory; for this difference between one and another is found in all creatures, as is evident in those which are visible.

22. If then God also wrought and compounded out of materials, this indeed is a gentile thought, according to which God is an artificer and not a Maker, but yet even in that case let the Word work the materials, at the bidding and in the service of God. But if He calls into existence things which existed not by His proper Word, then the Word is not in the number of things non-existing and called; or we have to seek another Word, through whom He too was called; for by the Word the things which were not have come to be. And if through Him He creates and makes, He is not Himself of things created and made; but rather He is the Word of the Creator God and is known from the Father's works which He Himself works, to be 'in the Father and the Father in Him,' and 'He that has seen Him has seen the Father,' because the Son's Essence is proper to the Father, and He in all points like Him. How then does He create through Him, unless it be His Word and His Wisdom? And how can He be Word and Wisdom, unless He be the proper offspring of His Essence, and did not come to be, as others, out of nothing? And whereas all things are from nothing, and are creatures, and the Son, as they say, is one of the creatures too and of things which once were not, how does He alone reveal the Father, and none else but He know the Father? For could He, a work, possibly know the Father, then must the Father be also known by all according to the proportion of the measures of each: for all of them are works as He is. But if it be impossible for things originate either to see or to know, for the sight and the knowledge of Him surpasses all (since God Himself says, 'No one shall see My face and live '), yet the Son has declared, 'No one knows the Father, save the Son Matthew 11:27,' therefore the Word is different from all things originate, in that He alone knows and alone sees the Father, as He says, 'Not that any one has seen the Father, save He that is from the Father,' and 'no one knows the Father save the Son,' though Arius think otherwise. How then did He alone know, except that He alone was proper to Him? And how proper, if He were a creature, and not a true Son from Him? (For one must not mind saying often the same thing for religion's sake.) Therefore it is irreligious to think that the Son is one of all things; and blasphemous and unmeaning to call Him 'a creature, but not as one of the creatures, and a work, but not as one of the works, an offspring, but not as one of the offsprings.' for how not as one of these, if, as they say, He was not before His generation? For it is proper to the creatures and works not to be before their origination, and to subsist out of nothing, even though they excel other creatures in glory; for this difference of one with another will be found in all creatures, which appears in those which are visible.

Moreover, if the Son were a creature or work—but not like the other creatures because he exceeds them in glory, as the heretics claim—then Scripture would naturally describe and display him through favorable comparisons with other works. For instance, it would say he is greater than the Archangels, more honorable than the Thrones, brighter than the sun and moon, and greater than the heavens. But in fact this is not how he is referred to. Instead, the Father shows him to be his own proper and only Son, saying, "You are My Son," and "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Accordingly, the Angels ministered to him as one beyond themselves, and they worship him not as someone greater in glory, but as someone beyond all creatures, beyond themselves, and alone the Father's proper Son according to ousia. For if he were worshipped because he excels them in glory, then each subordinate thing ought to worship whatever excels it. But this is not the case. For creature does not worship creature, but servant worships Lord, and creature worships God. Thus the Apostle Peter prevents Cornelius from worshipping him, saying, "I myself also am a man" (Acts 10:26). And an Angel, when John would worship him in the Apocalypse, prevents him, saying, "See that you do it not; for I am your fellow-servant, and of your brethren the Prophets, and of them that keep the sayings of this book: worship God" (Revelation 22:9). Therefore worship belongs to God alone, and the very Angels know this—that though they excel other beings in glory, they are all creatures and are not to be worshipped, but worship the Lord. Thus Manoah, the father of Samson, when wishing to offer sacrifice to the Angel, was prevented by him, who said, "Offer not to me, but to God." On the other hand, the Lord is worshipped even by the Angels, for it is written, "Let all the Angels of God worship Him" (Hebrews 1:6), and by all the Gentiles, as Isaiah says, "The labor of Egypt and merchandise of Ethiopia and of the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto you, and they shall be your servants," and then, "they shall fall down unto you, and shall make supplication unto you, saying, Surely God is in you, and there is none else, there is no God" (Isaiah 45:14). And he accepts his disciples' worship and confirms to them who he is, saying, "Call ye me not Lord and Master? And you say well, for so I am." And when Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God," he allows his words, or rather accepts him instead of preventing him. For he is, as the other Prophets declare and David says in the Psalm, "the Lord of hosts, the Lord of Sabaoth"—which is interpreted "the Lord of Armies"—and God True and Almighty, though the Arians burst at the news.

23. Moreover if, as the heretics hold, the Son were creature or work, but not as one of the creatures, because of His excelling them in glory, it were natural that Scripture should describe and display Him by a comparison in His favour with the other works; for instance, that it should say that He is greater than Archangels, and more honourable than the Thrones, and both brighter than sun and moon, and greater than the heavens. But he is not in fact thus referred to; but the Father shows Him to be His own proper and only Son, saying, 'You are My Son,' and 'This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.' Accordingly the Angels ministered unto Him, as being one beyond themselves; and they worship Him, not as being greater in glory, but as being some one beyond all the creatures, and beyond themselves, and alone the Father's proper Son according to essence. For if He was worshipped as excelling them in glory, each of things subservient ought to worship what excels itself. But this is not the case; for creature does not worship creature, but servant Lord, and creature God. Thus Peter the Apostle hinders Cornelius who would worship him, saying, 'I myself also am a man Acts 10:26.' And an Angel, when John would worship him in the Apocalypse, hinders him, saying, 'See thou do it not; for I am your fellow-servant, and of your brethren the Prophets, and of them that keep the sayings of this book: worship God Revelation 22:9.' Therefore to God alone appertains worship, and this the very Angels know, that though they excel other beings in glory, yet they are all creatures and not to be worshipped, but worship the Lord. Thus Manoah, the father of Samson, wishing to offer sacrifice to the Angel, was thereupon hindered by him, saying, 'Offer not to me, but to God.' On the other hand, the Lord is worshipped even by the Angels; for it is written, 'Let all the Angels of God worship Him Hebrews 1:6;' and by all the Gentiles, as Isaiah says, 'The labour of Egypt and merchandize of Ethiopia and of the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto you, and they shall be your servants;' and then, 'they shall fall down unto you, and shall make supplication unto you, saying, Surely God is in you, and there is none else, there is no God Isaiah 45:14.' And He accepts His disciples' worship, and certifies them who He is, saying, 'Call ye Me not Lord and Master? And you say well, for so I am.' And when Thomas said to Him, 'My Lord and my God,' He allows his words, or rather accepts him instead of hindering him. For He is, as the other Prophets declare, and David says in the Psalm, 'the Lord of hosts, the Lord of Sabaoth,' which is interpreted, 'the Lord of Armies,' and God True and Almighty, though the Arians burst at the tidings.

But He would not have been worshipped this way or spoken of in these terms if He were merely a creature. But since He is not a creature, but rather the proper offspring of the ousia of that God who is worshipped, and His Son by nature, therefore He is worshipped and believed to be God, and is Lord of armies, and in authority, and Almighty, just as the Father is. For He Himself has said, "All things that the Father has are Mine" (John 16:15). For it is proper to the Son to have the things of the Father, and to be such that the Father is seen in Him, and that through Him all things were made, and that the salvation of all comes to pass and exists in Him.

24. But He had not been thus worshipped, nor been thus spoken of, were He a creature merely. But now since He is not a creature, but the proper offspring of the Essence of that God who is worshipped, and His Son by nature, therefore He is worshipped and is believed to be God, and is Lord of armies, and in authority, and Almighty, as the Father is; for He has said Himself, 'All things that the Father has, are Mine John 16:15.' For it is proper to the Son, to have the things of the Father, and to be such that the Father is seen in Him, and that through Him all things were made, and that the salvation of all comes to pass and consists in Him.

Here it would be good to ask them this question too, to refute their heresy even more clearly: Since all things are creatures brought into existence from nothing, and the Son Himself, according to you, is a creature and work who once did not exist, why has God made all things through Him alone, and without Him not one thing was made? Or why is it that when Scripture speaks of all things, no one thinks the Son is included in that number, but only created things? Yet when Scripture speaks of the Word, it does not count Him among all things, but places Him with the Father as the one through whom Providence and salvation for all things are accomplished and carried out by the Father. Surely all things could have come to be at the same command by which He was brought into being by God alone. For God does not grow weary by commanding, nor is His strength insufficient for making all things, so that He would need to create the only Son alone and then require His service and help for forming the rest. God does not leave undone anything He wills to be done. He willed only, and all things came into existence, and no one has resisted His will. Why then were not all things brought into being by God alone at that same command by which the Son came into being? Or let them tell us why all things came to be through Him, who was Himself merely a created being. How unreasonable! Yet they say concerning Him that God, wanting to create originate nature but seeing that it could not endure the untempered hand of the Father and be created by Him, makes and creates first and alone one only being, and calls Him Son and Word, so that through Him as a medium all things might then be brought into being. They have not only said this but have dared to put it in writing, namely Eusebius, Arius, and Asterius who sacrificed.

24. ( continued). And here it were well to ask them also this question, for a still clearer refutation of their heresy — Wherefore, when all things are creatures, and all are brought into consistence from nothing, and the Son Himself, according to you, is creature and work, and once was not, wherefore has He made 'all things through Him' alone, 'and without Him was made not one thing John 1:3?' or why is it, when 'all things' are spoken of, that no one thinks the Son is signified in the number, but only things originate; whereas when Scripture speaks of the Word, it does not understand Him as being in the number of 'all,' but places Him with the Father, as Him in whom Providence and salvation for 'all' are wrought and effected by the Father, though all things surely might at the same command have come to be, at which He was brought into being by God alone? For God is not wearied by commanding, nor is His strength unequal to the making of all things, that He should alone create the only Son, and need His ministry and aid for the framing of the rest. For He lets nothing stand over, which He wills to be done; but He willed only, and all things subsisted, and no one 'has resisted His will Romans 9:19.' Why then were not all things brought into being by God alone at that same command, at which the Son came into being? Or let them tell us, why did all things through Him come to be, who was Himself but originate? How void of reason! However, they say concerning Him, that 'God willing to create originate nature, when He saw that it could not endure the untempered hand of the Father, and to be created by Him, makes and creates first and alone one only, and calls Him Son and Word, that, through Him as a medium, all things might thereupon be brought to be.' This they not only have said, but they have dared to put it into writing, namely, Eusebius, Arius, and Asterius who sacrificed.

Is this not full proof of the irreligion they have poisoned themselves with through such great madness that they are not ashamed to be drunk on opposition to the truth? For if they claim that God made only the Son because the toil of making all things was too much, the whole creation will cry out against them for speaking unworthily of God, as will Isaiah, who has said in Scripture, "The Everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, neither faints nor grows weary; there is no searching of His understanding." And if God made only the Son, not deigning to make the rest but assigning them to the Son as an assistant, this too is unworthy of God, for there is no pride in Him. Indeed, the Lord rebukes this very thought when He says, "Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing, and one of them shall not fall to the ground without your Father which is in heaven?" And again, "Take no thought for your life, what you shall eat, nor yet for your body, what you shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air, for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them; are you not much better than they? Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: and yet I say unto you, that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Wherefore if God so clothe the grass of the field which today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, shall He not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?" If then it is not unworthy of God to exercise His providence even down to such small things as a hair of the head, a sparrow, and the grass of the field, it was also not unworthy of Him to make them. For whatever things are subjects of His providence, of those He is Maker through His proper Word. Indeed, an even worse absurdity confronts these men who speak this way; for they distinguish between the creatures and the making, considering the latter the work of the Father and the creatures the work of the Son. Yet either all things must be brought into being by the Father with the Son, or if all that is originated comes to be through the Son, we must not call Him one of the originated things.

25. Is not this a full proof of that irreligion, with which they have drugged themselves with much madness, till they blush not to be intoxicate against the truth? For if they shall assign the toil of making all things as the reason why God made the Son only, the whole creation will cry out against them as saying unworthy things of God; and Isaiah too who has said in Scripture, 'The Everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, faints not, neither is weary: there is no searching of His understanding Isaiah 40:28.' And if God made the Son alone, as not deigning to make the rest, but committed them to the Son as an assistant, this on the other hand is unworthy of God, for in Him there is no pride. Nay the Lord reproves the thought, when He says, 'Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing?' and 'one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father which is in heaven.' And again, 'Take no thought for your life, what you shall eat, nor yet for your body, what you shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air, for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them; are you not much better than they? Which of you by taking thought, can add one cubit unto his stature? And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: and yet I say unto you, that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Wherefore if God so clothe the grass of the field which today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, shall He not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?' If then it be not unworthy of God to exercise His Providence, even down to things so small, a hair of the head, and a sparrow, and the grass of the field, also it was not unworthy of Him to make them. For what things are the subjects of His Providence, of those He is Maker through His proper Word. Nay a worse absurdity lies before the men who thus speak; for they distinguish between the creatures and the framing; and consider the latter the work of the Father, the creatures the work of the Son; whereas either all things must be brought to be by the Father with the Son, or if all that is originate comes to be through the Son, we must not call Him one of the originated things.

Next, their foolishness can be shown as follows: if even the Word is of created nature, then since this nature is too weak to be God's own direct work, how could He alone out of everything endure being made by the uncreated and undiminished Essence of God, as you claim? For it follows that either, if He could endure it, all could endure it, or, if it was endurable by none, it was not endurable by the Word either, since you say He is one of created things. And again, if a mediator became necessary because created nature could not endure being God's own direct work, it must follow that, since the Word is created and a creature, a medium is also needed for His making, since He too is of that created nature which cannot endure being made by God but needs a medium. But if some being is found as a medium for Him, then again a fresh mediator is needed for that second one, and thus tracing backward and forward, we will invent a vast crowd of accumulating mediators. And so it will be impossible for creation to exist, since it will always need a mediator, and that medium cannot come into being without another mediator, for all of them will be of that created nature which cannot endure being made by God alone, as you say. How abundant is the foolishness that forces them to hold that what has already come into being cannot admit of coming into being! Or perhaps they think that these things have not even come to be, since they are still seeking their mediator. For on the basis of their irreligious and futile notion, what exists would have no existence for lack of the medium.

26. Next, their folly may be exposed thus:– if even the Word be of originated nature, how, whereas this nature is too feeble to be God's own handywork, could He alone of all endure to be made by the unoriginate and unmitigated Essence of God, as you say? For it follows either that, if He could endure it, all could endure it, or, it being endurable by none, it was not endurable by the Word, for you say that He is one of originate things. And again, if because originate nature could not endure to be God's own handywork, there arose need of a mediator, it must follow, that, the Word being originate and a creature, there is need of medium in His framing also, since He too is of that originate nature which endures not to be made of God, but needs a medium. But if some being as a medium be found for Him, then again a fresh mediator is needed for that second, and thus tracing back and following out, we shall invent a vast crowd of accumulating mediators; and thus it will be impossible that the creation should subsist, as ever wanting a mediator, and that medium not coming into being without another mediator; for all of them will be of that originate nature which endures not to be made of God alone, as you say. How abundant is that folly, which obliges them to hold that what has already come into being, admits not of coming! Or perhaps they opine that they have not even come to be, as still seeking their mediator; for, on the ground of their so irreligious and futile notion, what is would not have subsistence, for want of the medium.

But again they make this claim: 'Look, God led the people out of Egypt through Moses, and through him He gave the Law, yet Moses was a man; so it is possible for like to be brought into being by like.' They should cover their faces when they say this, to hide their great shame. For Moses was not sent to form the world, nor to call into existence things that did not exist, or to fashion men like himself, but only to serve as a messenger of words to the people and to King Pharaoh. And this is very different, because to serve is the role of created beings as servants, but to form and to create belongs to God alone, and to His own Word and His Wisdom. Therefore, in the matter of forming, we find none but God's Word; for 'all things are made in Wisdom,' and 'without the Word was made not one thing.' But regarding services, there are not one only, but many from their whole number, whomever the Lord chooses to send. For there are many Archangels, many Thrones, and Authorities, and Dominions, thousands of thousands, and myriads of myriads, standing before Him, serving and ready to be sent. And many Prophets, and twelve Apostles, and Paul. And Moses himself was not alone, but Aaron was with him, and then seventy others were filled with the Holy Spirit. And Moses was succeeded by Joshua the Son of Nun, and he by the Judges, and they not by one, but by a number of Kings. If then the Son were a creature and one of the things that have come into being, there must have been many such sons, so that God might have many such ministers, just as there is a multitude of those others. But if this is not what we observe, and while the creatures are many, the Word is one, anyone will conclude from this that the Son differs from all, and is not on the same level with the creatures, but is proper to the Father. Hence there are not many Words, but one only Word of the one Father, and one Image of the one God. 'But look,' they say, 'there is one sun only, and one earth.' Let them maintain, foolish as they are, that there is one water and one fire, and then they may be told that everything that is brought into being is one in its own essence; but for the ministry and service assigned to it, by itself it is not adequate nor sufficient alone. For God said, 'Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven, to give light upon the earth and to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years.' And then he says, 'And God made two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: He made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven, to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night.'

27. But again they allege this:– 'Behold, through Moses too did He lead the people from Egypt, and through him He gave the Law, yet he was a man; so that it is possible for like to be brought into being by like.' They should veil their face when they say this, to save their much shame. For Moses was not sent to frame the world, nor to call into being things which were not, or to fashion men like himself, but only to be the minister of words to the people, and to King Pharaoh. And this is a very different thing, for to minister is of things originate as of servants, but to frame and to create is of God alone, and of His proper Word and His Wisdom. Wherefore, in the matter of framing, we shall find none but God's Word; for 'all things are made in Wisdom,' and 'without the Word was made not one thing.' But as regards ministrations there are, not one only, but man out of their whole number, whomever the Lord will send. For there are many Archangels, many Thrones, and Authorities, and Dominions, thousands of thousands, and myriads of myriads, standing before Him, ministering and ready to be sent. And many Prophets, and twelve Apostles, and Paul. And Moses himself was not alone, but Aaron with him, and next other seventy were filled with the Holy Ghost. And Moses was succeeded by Joshua the Son of Nun, and he by the Judges, and they not by one, but by a number of Kings. If then the Son were a creature and one of things originate, there must have been many such sons, that God might have many such ministers, just as there is a multitude of those others. But if this is not to be seen, but while the creatures are many, the Word is one, any one will collect from this, that the Son differs from all, and is not on a level with the creatures, but proper to the Father. Hence there are not many Words, but one only Word of the one Father, and one Image of the one God. 'But behold,' they say, 'there is one sun only, and one earth.' Let them maintain, senseless as they are, that there is one water and one fire, and then they may be told that everything that is brought to be, is one in its own essence; but for the ministry and service committed to it, by itself it is not adequate nor sufficient alone. For God said, 'Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven, to give light upon the earth and to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years.' And then he says, 'And God made two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: He made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven, to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night. '

Behold there are many lights, not just the sun or the moon, but each is one in ousia (essence), and yet the service of all is one and common. What each lacks is supplied by the other, and the work of lighting is performed by all. Thus the sun has authority to shine throughout the day and no more, and the moon through the night, and the stars together with them accomplish the seasons and years, and become signs, each according to the need that calls for it. Likewise the earth is not for all things, but for fruits only, and to be a ground for the living things that inhabit it to walk on. And the firmament is to divide between waters and waters, and to be a place to set the stars in. So also fire and water, with other things, have been brought into being to be the constituent parts of bodies. In short, no one thing is alone, but all things that are made, as if members of each other, make up as it were one body, namely the world. If then they conceive of the Son in this way, let all men throw stones at them, considering the Word to be a part of this universe, and a part insufficient without the rest for the service committed to Him. But if this is clearly irreligious, let them acknowledge that the Word is not in the number of things originate, but the sole and proper Word of the Father, and their Framer. But they say, though He is a creature and of things originate, yet as from a master and craftsman He has learned to frame, and thus ministered to God who taught Him. For thus the Sophist Asterius, on the strength of having learned to deny the Lord, has dared to write, not observing the absurdity which follows. For if framing is a thing to be taught, let them beware lest they say that God Himself is a Framer not by nature but by knowledge, so as to admit of His losing the power. Besides, if the Wisdom of God attained to frame by teaching, how is He still Wisdom when He needs to learn? And what was He before He learned? For it was not Wisdom if it needed teaching. It was surely but some empty thing, and not essential Wisdom, but from advancement it had the name of Wisdom, and will be Wisdom only so long as it can keep what it has learned. For what has accrued not by any nature but from learning admits of being at some time unlearned. But to speak thus of the Word of God is not the part of Christians but of Greeks.

28. Behold there are many lights, and not the sun only, nor the moon only, but each is one in essence, and yet the service of all is one and common; and what each lacks, is supplied by the other, and the office of lighting is performed by all. Thus the sun has authority to shine throughout the day and no more; and the moon through the night; and the stars together with them accomplish the seasons and years, and become for signs, each according to the need that calls for it. Thus too the earth is not for all things, but for the fruits only, and to be a ground to tread on for the living things that inhabit it. And the firmament is to divide between waters and waters, and to be a place to set the stars in. So also fire and water, with other things, have been brought into being to be the constituent parts of bodies; and in short no one thing is alone, but all things that are made, as if members of each other, make up as it were one body, namely, the world. If then they thus conceive of the Son, let all men throw stones at them, considering the Word to be a part of this universe, and a part insufficient without the rest for the service committed to Him. But if this be manifestly irreligious, let them acknowledge that the Word is not in the number of things originate, but the sole and proper Word of the Father, and their Framer. 'But,' say they, 'though He is a creature and of things originate; yet as from a master and artificer has He learned to frame, and thus ministered to God who taught Him.' For thus the Sophist Asterius, on the strength of having learned to deny the Lord, has dared to write, not observing the absurdity which follows. For if framing be a thing to be taught, let them beware lest they say that God Himself be a Framer not by nature but by science, so as to admit of His losing the power. Besides, if the Wisdom of God attained to frame by teaching, how is He still Wisdom, when He needs to learn? And what was He before He learned? For it was not Wisdom, if it needed teaching; it was surely but some empty thing, and not essential Wisdom, but from advancement it had the name of Wisdom, and will be only so long Wisdom as it can keep what it has learned. For what has accrued not by any nature, but from learning, admits of being one time unlearned. But to speak thus of the Word of God, is not the part of Christians but of Greeks.

If the ability to create comes to someone through teaching, then these foolish people are attributing jealousy and weakness to God. Jealousy, because He has not taught many how to create, so that just as there are many Archangels and Angels around Him, there might also be many creators. And weakness, because He could not make things by Himself but needed a fellow-worker or subordinate worker. Yet it has already been shown that created nature can be made by God alone, since they consider the Son to be of that nature and made in that way. But God lacks nothing—God forbid! For He Himself has said, "I am full." Nor did the Word become Creator of all through teaching. Rather, being the Image and Wisdom of the Father, He does the Father's works. Nor has the Father made the Son for the purpose of making created things. For look—even though the Son exists, the Father is still seen to work, as the Lord Himself says, "My Father works until now, and I work." However, if, as you say, the Son came into being for the purpose of making the things after Him, and yet the Father is seen to work even after the Son exists, you must conclude that even in this view the making of such a Son is pointless. Besides, why would God seek a mediator at all when He wants to create us, as if His will were not sufficient to bring into existence whatever seemed good to Him? Yet the Scriptures say, "He has done whatever pleased Him," and "Who has resisted His will?" And if His will alone is sufficient for the creation of all things, you make the role of a mediator unnecessary. Your example of Moses, and of the sun and moon, has been shown not to apply. And here is another argument to silence you. You say that God, wanting to create originated nature and deliberating about it, plans and creates the Son so that through Him He may create us. Now if this is so, consider what a great impiety you have dared to speak.

29. For if the power of framing accrues to anyone from teaching, these insensate men are ascribing jealousy and weakness to God — jealousy, in that He has not taught many how to frame, so that there may be around Him, as Archangels and Angels many, so framers many; and weakness, in that He could not make by Himself, but needed a fellow-worker, or under-worker; and that, though it has been already shown that created nature admits of being made by God alone, since they consider the Son to be of such a nature and so made. But God is deficient in nothing: perish the thought! For He has said Himself, 'I am full Isaiah 1:11.' Nor did the Word become Framer of all from teaching; but being the Image and Wisdom of the Father, He does the things of the Father. Nor has He made the Son for the making of things created; for behold, though the Son exists, still the Father is seen to work, as the Lord Himself says, 'My Father works hitherto and I work John 5:17.' If however, as you say, the Son came into being for the purpose of making the things after Him, and yet the Father is seen to work even after the Son, you must hold even in this light the making of such a Son to be superfluous. Besides, why, when He would create us, does He seek for a mediator at all, as if His will did not suffice to constitute whatever seemed good to Him? Yet the Scriptures say, 'He has done whatsoever pleased Him,' and 'Who has resisted His will Romans 9:19?' And if His mere will is sufficient for the framing of all things, you make the office of a mediator superfluous; for your instance of Moses, and the sun and the moon has been shown not to hold. And here again is an argument to silence you. You say that God, willing the creation of originated nature, and deliberating concerning it, designs and creates the Son, that through Him He may frame us; now, if so, consider how great an irreligion you have dared to utter.

If the Son was created for us, then it seems He exists for our sake rather than we for His. We were not created for Him; rather, He was made for us. By this reasoning, He should thank us, not we Him—just as Scripture says the woman should thank the man: "For the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man." Therefore, just as "the man is the image and glory of God, and the woman the glory of the man," so we are made in God's image and for His glory, while the Son becomes our image and exists for our glory. We were brought into being simply to exist, but God's Word was made—according to this view—not to exist for His own sake, but as a tool for our needs. On this view, we do not derive from Him; rather, He derives from our need. Are not people who even think such thoughts worse than senseless? For if the Word was made for us, He has no priority over us with God. God did not take counsel about us while already having the Word within Himself; instead, having us in His mind, He then deliberated about His own Word. If this were so, perhaps the Father had no desire for the Son at all, since He did not create Him out of desire for Him, but formed Him for our sake out of desire for us. He designed the Son after designing us, so that—according to these irreligious people—the Son, who was made as an instrument, is now superfluous once those for whom He was created have been made. But if the Son alone was made by God alone because He could endure it, while we were made by the Word because we could not endure God's direct hand, why does God not first take counsel about the Word, who could endure being made by Him, instead of taking counsel about us? Why does He not pay more attention to the one who was strong rather than to us who were weak? Why, if He makes the Son first, does He not deliberate about Him first? Why, if He deliberates about us first, does He not make us first, since His will is sufficient to bring all things into existence? Yet He creates the Son first but deliberates about us first. He desires us before the Mediator. When He wills to create us and deliberates about us, He calls us creatures, but the one He fashions for us He calls Son and rightful Heir. Yet we, for whose sake He supposedly made Him, ought rather to be called sons; or certainly the one who is His Son should be the primary object of His thought and will, the one for whom He makes all of us. Such is the sickness, such is the vomit of the heretics.

30. First, the Son appears rather to have been for us brought to be, than we for Him; for we were not created for Him, but He is made for us; so that He owes thanks to us, not we to Him, as the woman to the man. 'For the man,' says Scripture, 'was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man.' Therefore, as 'the man is the image and glory of God, and the woman the glory of the man 1 Corinthians 11:7, 9,' so we are made God's image and to His glory; but the Son is our image, and exists for our glory. And we were brought into being that we might be; but God's Word was made, as you must hold, not that He might be; but as an instrument for our need, so that not we from Him, but He is constituted from our need. Are not men who even conceive such thoughts, more than insensate? For if for us the Word was made, He has not precedence of us with God; for He did not take counsel about us having Him within Him, but having us in Himself, counselled, as they say, concerning His own Word. But if so, perchance the Father had not even a will for the Son at all; for not as having a will for Him, did He create Him, but with a will for us, He formed Him for our sake; for He designed Him after designing us; so that, according to these irreligious men, henceforth the Son, who was made as an instrument, is superfluous, now that they are made for whom He was created. But if the Son alone was made by God alone, because He could endure it, but we, because we could not, were made by the Word, why does He not first take counsel about the Word, who could endure His making, instead of taking counsel about us? Or why does He not make more of Him who was strong, than of us who were weak? Or why making Him first, does He not counsel about Him first? Or why counselling about us first, does He not make us first, His will being sufficient for the constitution of all things? But He creates Him first, yet counsels first about us; and He wills us before the Mediator; and when He wills to create us, and counsels about us, He calls us creatures; but Him, whom He frames for us, He calls Son and proper Heir. But we, for whose sake He made Him, ought rather to be called sons; or certainly He, who is His Son, is rather the object of His previous thoughts and of His will, for whom He makes all us. Such the sickness, such the vomit of the heretics.

The truth about this matter must not be concealed but openly declared. For the Word of God was not made for us, but rather we for Him, and "in Him all things were created" (Colossians 1:16). Nor was He made strong by the Father alone because we were weak, so that the Father might use Him as an instrument to create us—certainly not! It is not like that. For even if God had chosen not to make created things, the Word would still have been with God, and the Father in Him. At the same time, created things could not have come into being without the Word; therefore they were made through Him—and rightly so. For since the Word is the Son of God by nature proper to His ousia, and is from Him and in Him, as He Himself said, the creatures could not have come to be except through Him. For just as light illuminates all things by its radiance, and without its radiance nothing would be illuminated, so also the Father, as if by a hand, worked all things in the Word, and without Him makes nothing. For example, God said, as Moses records, "Let there be light," and "Let the waters be gathered together," and "let the dry land appear," and "Let Us make man"; as also Holy David says in the Psalm, "He spoke and they were made; He commanded and they were created." And He spoke, not so that, as with humans, some subordinate worker might hear and, learning the will of the one who spoke, might go away and do it; for this is proper to creatures, but it is improper to think or speak this way about the Word. For the Word of God is Framer and Maker, and He is the Father's Will. Therefore Scripture does not say that someone heard and answered concerning the manner or nature of the things He wished to be made; but God only said, "Let it become," and Scripture adds, "And it became"; for what He thought good and purposed, the Word immediately began to do and complete. For when God commands others, whether the Angels, or converses with Moses, or commands Abraham, then the hearer answers; and one says, "How shall I know?" (Genesis 15:8) and another, "Send someone else" (Exodus 4:13); and again, "If they ask me, what is His Name, what shall I say to them?" and the Angel said to Zacharias, "Thus says the Lord"; and he asked the Lord, "O Lord of hosts, how long will You not have mercy on Jerusalem?" and waits to hear good and comforting words. For each of these has the Mediator Word, and the Wisdom of God which makes known the will of the Father. But when that Word Himself works and creates, then there is no questioning and answering, for the Father is in Him and the Word in the Father; but it is sufficient to will, and the work is done; so that the expression "He said" signifies the will for our sake, and "It was so" denotes the work that is accomplished through the Word and the Wisdom, in which Wisdom also is the Will of the Father. And "God said" is explained in "the Word," for Scripture says, "You have made all things in Wisdom"; and "By the Word of the Lord the heavens were made firm"; and "There is one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him."

31. But the sentiment of Truth in this matter must not be hidden, but must have high utterance. For the Word of God was not made for us, but rather we for Him, and 'in Him all things were created Colossians 1:16.' Nor for that we were weak, was He strong and made by the Father alone, that He might frame us by means of Him as an instrument; perish the thought! It is not so. For though it had seemed good to God not to make things originate, still had the Word been no less with God, and the Father in Him. At the same time, things originate could not without the Word be brought to be; hence they were made through Him — and reasonably. For since the Word is the Son of God by nature proper to His essence, and is from Him, and in Him, as He said Himself, the creatures could not have come to be, except through Him. For as the light enlightens all things by its radiance, and without its radiance nothing would be illuminated, so also the Father, as by a hand, in the Word wrought all things, and without Him makes nothing. For instance, God said, as Moses relates, 'Let there be light,' and 'Let the waters be gathered together,' and 'let the dry land appear,' and 'Let Us make man;' as also Holy David in the Psalm, 'He spoke and they were made; He commanded and they were created.' And He spoke, not that, as in the case of men, some under-worker might hear, and learning the will of Him who spoke might go away and do it; for this is what is proper to creatures, but it is unseemly so to think or speak of the Word. For the Word of God is Framer and Maker, and He is the Father's Will. Hence it is that divine Scripture says not that one heard and answered, as to the manner or nature of the things which He wished made; but God only said, 'Let it become,' and he adds, 'And it became;' for what He thought good and counselled, that immediately the Word began to do and to finish. For when God commands others, whether the Angels, or converses with Moses, or commands Abraham, then the hearer answers; and the one says, 'Whereby shall I know Genesis 15:8?' and the other, 'Send some one else Exodus 4:13;' and again, 'If they ask me, what is His Name, what shall I say to them?' and the Angel said to Zacharias, 'Thus says the Lord;' and he asked the Lord, 'O Lord of hosts, how long will You not have mercy on Jerusalem.' and waits to hear good words and comfortable. For each of these has the Mediator Word, and the Wisdom of God which makes known the will of the Father. But when that Word Himself works and creates, then there is no questioning and answer, for the Father is in Him and the Word in the Father; but it suffices to will, and the work is done; so that the word 'He said' is a token of the will for our sake, and 'It was so,' denotes the work which is done through the Word and the Wisdom, in which Wisdom also is the Will of the Father. And 'God said' is explained in 'the Word,' for, he says, 'You have made all things in Wisdom;' and 'By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made fast.' and 'There is one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him. '

It is clear from this that the Arians are not really fighting with us about their heresy; rather, while they pretend to oppose us, their real fight is against the Godhead itself. For if it were our voice saying, "This is My Son," our complaint against them would be minor; but since it is the Father's voice, and the disciples heard it, and the Son also says of Himself, "Before all the mountains He begot me," are they not fighting against God, like the giants in mythology, having their tongue, as the Psalmist says, a sharp sword for irreligion? For they neither feared the Father's voice, nor reverenced the Savior's words, nor trusted the Saints, one of whom writes, "Who being the Brightness of His glory and the Expression of His hypostasis," and "Christ the power of God and the Wisdom of God;" and another says in the Psalm, "With You is the well of life, and in Your Light shall we see light," and "You made all things in Wisdom;" and the Prophets say, "And the Word of the Lord came to me;" and John says, "In the beginning was the Word," and Luke says, "As they delivered them unto us which from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word;" and as David again says, "He sent His Word and healed them." All these passages condemn the Arian heresy in every way, and signify the eternity of the Word, and that He is not foreign but proper to the Father's ousia. For when has anyone seen light without radiance? Or who dares to say that the expression can be different from the hypostasis? Or has not a man lost his mind who even entertains the thought that God was ever without Reason and without Wisdom? For Scripture has proposed such illustrations and such images so that, considering human nature's inability to comprehend God, we might be able to form ideas even from these, however poorly and dimly, and as far as is possible. And just as the creation contains abundant material for the knowledge of the being of a God and a Providence ("for by the greatness and beauty of the creatures proportionably the Maker of them is seen"), and we learn from them without asking for voices, but hearing the Scriptures we believe, and surveying the very order and harmony of all things, we acknowledge that He is Maker and Lord and God of all, and apprehend His marvelous Providence and governance over all things; so in the same way concerning the Son's Godhead, what has been said above is sufficient, and it becomes unnecessary, or rather it is very mad to dispute about it, or to ask in a heretical way, How can the Son be from eternity? Or how can He be from the Father's ousia, yet not a part? Since what is said to be of another, is a part of him; and what is divided, is not whole.

32. It is plain from this that the Arians are not fighting with us about their heresy; but while they pretend us, their real fight is against the Godhead Itself. For if the voice were ours which says, 'This it My Son,' small were our complaint of them; but if it is the Father's voice, and the disciples heard it, and the Son too says of Himself, 'Before all the mountains He begot me,' are they not fighting against God, as the giants in story, having their tongue, as the Psalmist says, a sharp sword for irreligion? For they neither feared the voice of the Father, nor reverenced the Saviour's words, nor trusted the Saints, one of whom writes, 'Who being the Brightness of His glory and the Expression of His subsistence,' and 'Christ the power of God and the Wisdom of God;' and another says in the Psalm, 'With You is the well of life, and in Your Light shall we see light,' and 'You made all things in Wisdom;' and the Prophets say, 'And the Word of the Lord came to me Jeremiah 2:1;' and John, 'In the beginning was the Word.' and Luke, 'As they delivered them unto us which from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word John 1:1; Luke 1:2;' and as David again says, 'He sent His Word and healed them.' All these passages proscribe in every light the Arian heresy, and signify the eternity of the Word, and that He is not foreign but proper to the Father's Essence. For when saw any one light without radiance? Or who dares to say that the expression can be different from the subsistence? Or has not a man himself lost his mind who even entertains the thought that God was ever without Reason and without Wisdom? For such illustrations and such images has Scripture proposed, that, considering the inability of human nature to comprehend God, we might be able to form ideas even from these however poorly and dimly, and as far as is attainable. And as the creation contains abundant matter for the knowledge of the being of a God and a Providence ('for by the greatness and beauty of the creatures proportionably the Maker of them is seen Wisdom 13:5 '), and we learn from them without asking for voices, but hearing the Scriptures we believe, and surveying the very order and the harmony of all things, we acknowledge that He is Maker and Lord and God of all, and apprehend His marvellous Providence and governance over all things; so in like manner about the Son's Godhead, what has been above said is sufficient, and it becomes superfluous, or rather it is very mad to dispute about it, or to ask in an heretical way, How can the Son be from eternity? Or how can He be from the Father's Essence, yet not a part? Since what is said to be of another, is a part of him; and what is divided, is not whole.

These are the evil sophistries of the heterodox. Yet, though we have already shown their shallowness, the exact sense of these passages themselves and the force of these illustrations will serve to show the baseless nature of their loathsome doctrine. For we see that reason is always present, and comes from the one whose reason it is and is proper to his essence, and does not admit a before and an after. So again we see that the radiance from the sun is proper to it, and the sun's essence is not divided or impaired. Rather, its essence is whole and its radiance perfect and whole, yet without impairing the essence of light, but as a true offspring from it. We understand in the same way that the Son is begotten not from outside but from the Father, and while the Father remains whole, the Expression of His Subsistence always exists and preserves the Father's likeness and unchanging Image, so that whoever sees Him sees in Him the Subsistence too, of which He is the Expression. And from the operation of the Expression we understand the true Godhead of the Subsistence, as the Savior Himself teaches when He says, "The Father who dwells in Me, He does the works which I do," and "I and the Father are one," and "I in the Father and the Father in Me." Therefore let this Christ-opposing heresy first attempt to divide the examples found in created things, and say, "Once the sun was without its radiance," or "Radiance is not proper to the essence of light," or "It is indeed proper, but it is a part of light by division." And then let it divide Reason, and declare that it is foreign to mind, or that once it was not, or that it was not proper to its essence, or that it is by division a part of mind. And so with His Expression and the Light and the Power, let it do violence to these as in the case of Reason and Radiance, and instead let it imagine what it will. But if such extravagance is impossible for them, are they not greatly beside themselves, presumptuously intruding into what is higher than created things and their own nature, and attempting impossibilities?

33. These are the evil sophistries of the heterodox; yet, though we have already shown their shallowness, the exact sense of these passages themselves and the force of these illustrations will serve to show the baseless nature of their loathsome tenet. For we see that reason is ever, and is from him and proper to his essence, whose reason it is, and does not admit a before and an after. So again we see that the radiance from the sun is proper to it, and the sun's essence is not divided or impaired; but its essence is whole and its radiance perfect and whole, yet without impairing the essence of light, but as a true offspring from it. We understand in like manner that the Son is begotten not from without but from the Father, and while the Father remains whole, the Expression of His Subsistence is ever, and preserves the Father's likeness and unvarying Image, so that he who sees Him, sees in Him the Subsistence too, of which He is the Expression. And from the operation of the Expression we understand the true Godhead of the Subsistence, as the Saviour Himself teaches when He says, 'The Father who dwells in Me, He does the works John 14:10 ' which I do; and 'I and the Father are one,' and 'I in the Father and the Father in Me John 10:30.' Therefore let this Christ — opposing heresy attempt first to divide the examples found in things originate, and say, 'Once the sun was without his radiance,' or, 'Radiance is not proper to the essence of light,' or 'It is indeed proper, but it is a part of light by division; and then let it divide Reason, and pronounce that it is foreign to mind, or that once it was not, or that it was not proper to its essence, or that it is by division a part of mind.' And so of His Expression and the Light and the Power, let it do violence to these as in the case of Reason and Radiance; and instead let it imagine what it will. But if such extravagance be impossible for them, are they not greatly beside themselves, presumptuously intruding into what is higher than things originate and their own nature, and essaying impossibilities?

If offspring can be found in the case of these created and non-rational things that are not parts of the essences from which they come, nor exist through passion, nor damage the essences of their sources, are they not foolish again in seeking and imagining parts and passions in the case of the immaterial and true God, and attributing divisions to Him who is beyond passion and change, thereby confusing the ears of the simple and turning them away from the Truth? For who hears of a son but thinks of that which is proper to the father's essence? Who heard, in his first instruction, that God has a Son and has made all things by His proper Word, but understood it in the sense in which we now mean it? Who, when this hateful heresy of the Arians arose, was not immediately shocked by what he heard, as something strange, and a second sowing, different from that Word which had been sown from the beginning? For what is sown in every soul from the beginning is that God has a Son, the Word, the Wisdom, the Power, that is, His Image and Radiance; from which it immediately follows that He always exists; that He is from the Father; that He is like; that He is the eternal offspring of His essence; and there is no idea of creature or work involved in these. But when the man who is an enemy, while men slept, made a second sowing, of 'He is a creature,' and 'There was once when He was not,' and 'How can it be?' then the wicked heresy of Christ's enemies rose like weeds, and immediately, as if stripped of every right thought, they interfere like robbers, and dare to say, 'How can the Son always exist with the Father?' For men come from men and are sons, after a time; and the father is thirty years old when the son begins to exist, being begotten; and in short, of every son of man, it is true that he did not exist before his generation. And again they whisper, 'How can the Son be Word, or the Word be God's Image? For the word of men is composed of syllables, and only signifies the speaker's will, and then is over and is lost.'

34. For if in the case of these originate and irrational things offsprings are found which are not parts of the essences from which they are, nor subsist with passion, nor impair the essences of their originals, are they not mad again in seeking and conjecturing parts and passions in the instance of the immaterial and true God, and ascribing divisions to Him who is beyond passion and change, thereby to perplex the ears of the simple and to pervert them from the Truth? For who hears of a son but conceives of that which is proper to the father's essence? Who heard, in his first catechising, that God has a Son and has made all things by His proper Word, but understood it in that sense in which we now mean it? Who on the rise of this odious heresy of the Arians, was not at once startled at what he heard, as strange, and a second sowing, besides that Word which had been sown from the beginning? For what is sown in every soul from the beginning is that God has a Son, the Word, the Wisdom, the Power, that is, His Image and Radiance; from which it at once follows that He is always; that He is from the Father; that He is like; that He is the eternal offspring of His essence; and there is no idea involved in these of creature or work. But when the man who is an enemy, while men slept, made a second sowing, of 'He is a creature,' and 'There was once when He was not,' and 'How can it be?' thenceforth the wicked heresy of Christ's enemies rose as tares, and immediately, as bereft of every right thought, they meddle like robbers, and venture to say, 'How can the Son always exist with the Father.' for men come of men and are sons, after a time; and the father is thirty years old, when the son begins to be, being begotten; and in short of every son of man, it is true that he was not before his generation. And again they whisper, 'How can the Son be Word, or the Word be God's Image? For the word of men is composed of syllables, and only signifies the speaker's will, and then is over and is lost.'

They then once again, as if forgetting the proofs already urged against them, pierce themselves through with these bonds of irreligion and argue in this way. But the word of truth refutes them as follows: if they were disputing about any human being, then let them use human reasoning in this way concerning both His Word and His Son. But if they are discussing God who created humanity, they should no longer entertain human thoughts but ones that are above human nature. For whatever the one who begets is like, so necessarily is the offspring; and whatever the Word's Father is like, so also must His Word be. Now a human being, begotten in time, also begets his child in time; and since he came to be from nothing, his word also passes away and does not continue. But God is not like a human being, as Scripture has said, but exists and is forever; therefore His Word also exists and is everlastingly with the Father, as radiance is of light. A human being's word is composed of syllables and neither lives nor accomplishes anything, but only signifies the speaker's intention, and merely goes forth and passes by, never to appear again, since it did not exist at all before it was spoken. Therefore a human being's word neither lives nor accomplishes anything, nor in short is it a human being. This happens to it, as I said before, because the human being who begets it has his nature out of nothing. But God's Word is not merely pronounced, as one might say, nor a sound of accents, nor is His command meant by His Son; but as radiance is of light, so He is perfect offspring from perfect. Hence He is also God, as being God's Image, for Scripture says "the Word was God." And human words do not avail for accomplishment; hence a human being works not by means of words but of hands, for they have being, and a human being's word does not subsist. But the "Word of God," as the Apostle says, "is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in His sight; but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of Him with whom we have to do." He is then the Framer of all, "and without Him was made not one thing," nor can anything be made without Him.

35. They then afresh, as if forgetting the proofs which have been already urged against them, 'pierce themselves through ' with these bonds of irreligion, and thus argue. But the word of truth confutes them as follows:– if they were disputing concerning any man, then let them exercise reason in this human way, both concerning His Word and His Son; but if of God who created man, no longer let them entertain human thoughts, but others which are above human nature. For such as he that begets, such of necessity is the offspring; and such as is the Word's Father, such must be also His Word. Now man, begotten in time, in time also himself begets the child; and whereas from nothing he came to be, therefore his word also is over and continues not. But God is not as man, as Scripture has said; but is existing and is ever; therefore also His Word is existing and is everlastingly with the Father, as radiance of light. And man's word is composed of syllables, and neither lives nor operates anything, but is only significant of the speaker's intention, and does but go forth and go by, no more to appear, since it was not at all before it was spoken; wherefore the word of man neither lives nor operates anything, nor in short is man. And this happens to it, as I said before, because man who begets it, has his nature out of nothing. But God's Word is not merely pronounced, as one may say, nor a sound of accents, nor by His Son is meant His command; but as radiance of light, so is He perfect offspring from perfect. Hence He is God also, as being God's Image; for 'the Word was God John 1:1 ' says Scripture. And man's words avail not for operation; hence man works not by means of words but of hands, for they have being, and man's word subsists not. But the ' Word of God,' as the Apostle says, 'is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in His sight; but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of Him with whom we have to do. Hebrews 4:12-13 ' He is then Framer of all, 'and without Him was made not one thing John 1:3,' nor can anything be made without Him.

We must not ask why God's Word is not like our word, since God is not like us, as has already been said. Nor is it right to seek how the Word comes from God, or how He is God's radiance, or how God begets, and what the manner of His begetting is. For a person must be out of his mind to venture into such questions, since this is something ineffable and proper to God's nature, known to Him alone and to the Son, and yet he demands it be explained in words. It is the same as if they were asking where God is, and how God is, and of what nature the Father is. But just as asking such questions is irreligious and shows ignorance of God, so it is unholy to venture such questions about the generation of the Son of God, or to measure God and His Wisdom by our own nature and weakness. Nor may a person use that as an excuse to stray in his thoughts from the truth, nor, if anyone is puzzled by such inquiries, should he disbelieve what is written. For it is better in puzzlement to be silent and believe, than to disbelieve on account of the puzzlement. For he who is puzzled may somehow obtain mercy, because though he has questioned, he has still kept quiet. But when a person is led by his puzzlement into forming doctrines for himself that are unworthy, and utters what is unworthy of God, such boldness receives a sentence without mercy. For in such puzzlements divine Scripture is able to offer him some relief, so as to understand rightly what is written, and to consider our word as an illustration: that just as it is proper to us and is from us, and not an external work to us, so also God's Word is proper to Him and from Him, and is not a work. And yet He is not like the word of man, or else we must suppose God to be man. For observe, many and varied are human words which pass away day by day, because those that come before others do not continue but vanish. Now this happens because their authors are human and have seasons that pass away and ideas that are successive, and what strikes them first and second, that they utter. So they have many words, and yet after them all nothing at all remains, for the speaker ceases and his word is immediately spent. But God's Word is one and the same, and as it is written, "The Word of God endures forever," not changed, not before or after another, but existing the same always. For it was fitting, since God is One, that His Image should also be One, and His Word One and His Wisdom One.

36. Nor must we ask why the Word of God is not such as our word, considering God is not such as we, as has been before said; nor again is it right to seek how the word is from God, or how He is God's radiance, or how God begets, and what is the manner of His begetting. For a man must be beside himself to venture on such points; since a thing ineffable and proper to God's nature, and known to Him alone and to the Son, this he demands to be explained in words. It is all one as if they sought where God is, and how God is, and of what nature the Father is. But as to ask such questions is irreligious, and argues an ignorance of God, so it is not holy to venture such questions concerning the generation of the Son of God, nor to measure God and His Wisdom by our own nature and infirmity. Nor is a person at liberty on that account to swerve in his thoughts from the truth, nor, if any one is perplexed in such inquiries, ought he to disbelieve what is written. For it is better in perplexity to be silent and believe, than to disbelieve on account of the perplexity: for he who is perplexed may in some way obtain mercy, because, though he has questioned, he has yet kept quiet; but when a man is led by his perplexity into forming for himself doctrines which beseem not, and utters what is unworthy of God, such daring recurs a sentence without mercy. For in such perplexities divine Scripture is able to afford him some relief, so as to take rightly what is written, and to dwell upon our word as an illustration; that as it is proper to us and is from us, and not a work external to us, so also God's Word is proper to Him and from Him, and is not a work; and yet is not like the word of man, or else we must suppose God to be man. For observe, many and various are men's words which pass away day by day; because those that come before others continue not, but vanish. Now this happens because their authors are men, and have seasons which pass away, and ideas which are successive; and what strikes them first and second, that they utter; so that they have many words, and yet after them all nothing at all remaining; for the speaker ceases, and his word immediately is spent. But God's Word is one and the same, and, as it is written, 'The Word of God endures for ever,' not changed, not before or after other, but existing the same always. For it was fitting, whereas God is One, that His Image should be One also, and His Word One and One His Wisdom.

I am amazed that, even though God is One, these men introduce according to their own private ideas many images and wisdoms and words. They say that the Father's proper and natural Word is something other than the Son, and that by this Word He even made the Son. They claim that He who is really the Son is only called Word notionally, like vine and way and door and tree of life, and that He is called Wisdom in name only. They assert that the proper and true Wisdom of the Father, which coexists ingenerately with Him, is other than the Son, and that by this Wisdom He even made the Son and named Him Wisdom as one who partakes of it. They have not kept this to mere words, but Arius composed it in his Thalia, and the sophist Asterius wrote what we stated above, as follows: "Blessed Paul did not say that he preached Christ, the Power of God or the Wisdom of God, but without the article, 'God's power' and 'God's wisdom,' thus preaching that the proper Power of God Himself which is natural to Him and coexistent in Him ingenerately is something besides, which generated Christ and created the whole world. Concerning this he teaches in his Epistle to the Romans thus: 'The invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal Power and Godhead.' For just as no one would say that the Godhead mentioned there was Christ, but the Father Himself, so, as I think, His eternal Power and Godhead also is not the Only-Begotten Son, but the Father who begot Him." And he teaches that there is another power and wisdom of God, manifested through Christ. And shortly after, the same Asterius says, "However His eternal power and wisdom, which truth argues to be without beginning and ingenerate, must surely be one. For there are many wisdoms which are created one by one by Him, of whom Christ is the first-born and only-begotten. Yet all equally depend on their Possessor. And all the powers are rightly called His who created and uses them, just as the Prophet says that the locust, which came to be a divine punishment of human sins, was called by God Himself not only a power, but a great power, and blessed David in most of the Psalms invites not the Angels alone, but the Powers to praise God."

37. Wherefore I am in wonder how, whereas God is One, these men introduce, after their private notions, many images and wisdoms and words, and say that the Father's proper and natural Word is other than the Son, by whom He even made the Son and that He who is really Son is but notionally called Word, as vine, and way, and door, and tree of life; and that He is called Wisdom also in name, the proper and true Wisdom of the Father, which coexist ingenerately with Him, being other than the Son, by which He even made the Son, and named Him Wisdom as partaking of it. This they have not confined to words, but Arius composed in his Thalia, and the Sophist Asterius wrote, what we have stated above, as follows: 'Blessed Paul said not that he preached Christ, the Power of God or the Wisdom of God,' but without the addition of the article, 'God's power' and 'God's wisdom 1 Corinthians 1:24,' thus preaching that the proper Power of God Himself which is natural to Him, and co-existent in Him ingenerately, is something besides, generative indeed of Christ, and creative of the whole world, concerning which he teaches in his Epistle to the Romans thus –'The invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal Power and Godhead Romans 1:20.' For as no one would say that the Godhead there mentioned was Christ, but the Father Himself, so, as I think, 'His eternal Power and Godhead also is not the Only Begotten Son, but the Father who begot Him.' And he teaches that there is another power and wisdom of God, manifested through Christ. And shortly after the same Asterius says, 'However His eternal power and wisdom, which truth argues to be without beginning and ingenerate, the same must surely be one. For there are many wisdoms which are one by one created by Him, of whom Christ is the first-born and only-begotten; all however equally depend on their Possessor. And all the powers are rightly called His who created and uses them:– as the Prophet says that the locust, which came to be a divine punishment of human sins, was called by God Himself not only a power, but a great power; and blessed David in most of the Psalms invites, not the Angels alone, but the Powers to praise God.'

Are they not worthy of every hatred for merely saying this? For if, as they claim, He is called Son not because He is begotten of the Father and proper to His ousia, but is called Word only because of rational things, and Wisdom because of things gifted with wisdom, and Power because of things gifted with power, surely He must be named Son because of those who are made sons. And perhaps because things exist, He has even His existence only in our notions. And then what is He after all? For He is none of these Himself if they are merely His names, and He has only a semblance of being and is decorated with these names from us. Rather, this is some recklessness of the devil, or worse, if they are not unwilling that they themselves should truly exist, but think that God's Word exists only in name. Is this not outrageous, to say that Wisdom coexists with the Father, yet not to say that this is the Christ, but that there are many created powers and wisdoms, of which one is the Lord whom they go on to compare to the caterpillar and locust? And are they not shameless, when they hear us say that the Word coexists with the Father and immediately object, "Are you not speaking of two Unoriginates?" yet when they themselves speak of "His Unoriginate Wisdom," do not see that they have already incurred the very charge which they so rashly urge against us? Moreover, what folly is there in that thought of theirs, that the Unoriginate Wisdom coexisting with God is God Himself! For what coexists does not coexist with itself, but with someone else, as the Evangelists say of the Lord that He was together with His disciples—for He was not together with Himself, but with His disciples—unless indeed they would say that God is of a compound nature, having wisdom as a constituent or complement of His ousia, unoriginate as well as Himself, which moreover they claim to be the framer of the world, so that they may deprive the Son of the framing of it. For there is nothing they would not maintain, sooner than hold the truth concerning the Lord.

38. Now are they not worthy of all hatred for merely uttering this? For if, as they hold, He is Son, not because He is begotten of the Father and proper to His Essence, but that He is called Word only because of things rational, and Wisdom because of things gifted with wisdom, and Power because of things gifted with power, surely He must be named a Son because of those who are made sons: and perhaps because there are things existing, He has even His existence, in our notions only. And then after all what is He? For He is none of these Himself, if they are but His names: and He has but a semblance of being, and is decorated with these names from us. Rather this is some recklessness of the devil, or worse, if they are not unwilling that they should truly subsist themselves, but think that God's Word is but in name. Is not this portentous, to say that Wisdom coexists with the Father, yet not to say that this is the Christ, but that there are many created powers and wisdoms, of which one is the Lord whom they go on to compare to the caterpillar and locust? And are they not profligate, who, when they hear us say that the Word coexists with the Father, immediately murmur out, 'Are you not speaking of two Unoriginates?' yet in speaking themselves of 'His Unoriginate Wisdom,' do not see that they have already incurred themselves the charge which they so rashly urge against us? Moreover, what folly is there in that thought of theirs, that the Unoriginate Wisdom coexisting with God is God Himself! For what coexists does not coexist with itself, but with some one else, as the Evangelists say of the Lord, that He was together with His disciples; for He was not together with Himself, but with His disciples — unless indeed they would say that God is of a compound nature, having wisdom a constituent or complement of His Essence, unoriginate as well as Himself, which moreover they pretend to be the framer of the world, that so they may deprive the Son of the framing of it. For there is nothing they would not maintain, sooner than hold the truth concerning the Lord.

Where have they found in divine Scripture, or from whom have they heard, that there is another Word and another Wisdom besides this Son, that they should construct such a doctrine for themselves? True, it is written, "Are not My words like fire, and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?" (Jeremiah 23:29), and in Proverbs, "I will make known My words unto you" (Proverbs 1:23). But these are precepts and commands which God has spoken to the saints through His proper and only true Word, concerning which the Psalmist said, "I have refrained my feet from every evil way, that I may keep Your words." The Savior shows that such words are distinct from Himself when He says in His own person, "The words which I have spoken unto you" (John 6:63). For certainly such words are not offspring or sons, nor are there so many words that create the world, nor so many images of the One God, nor so many who have become men for us, nor as if from many such there were one who has become flesh, as John says. Rather, He was preached by John as the only Word of God: "The Word was made flesh," and "all things were made by Him." Therefore concerning Him alone, our Lord Jesus Christ, and of His oneness with the Father, are the testimonies written and set forth, both of the Father signifying that the Son is One, and of the saints, aware of this and saying that the Word is One and that He is Only-Begotten. His works also are set forth, for all things, visible and invisible, have been brought into being through Him, and "without Him was made not one thing." But concerning another or anyone else they have no thought, nor do they construct for themselves words or wisdoms of which neither name nor deed are indicated by Scripture, but are named only by these heretics. For it is their invention and Christ-opposing speculation, and they make the most of the name of the Word and the Wisdom. By constructing others for themselves, they deny the true Word of God and the real and only Wisdom of the Father, and thereby, miserable men, rival the Manichees. For they too, when they behold the works of God, deny Him the only and true God, and construct for themselves another whom they can show neither by work nor in any testimony drawn from the divine oracles.

39. For where at all have they found in divine Scripture, or from whom have they heard, that there is another Word and another Wisdom besides this Son, that they should frame to themselves such a doctrine? True, indeed, it is written, 'Are not My words like fire, and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces Jeremiah 23:29?' and in the Proverbs, 'I will make known My words unto you Proverbs 1:23;' but these are precepts and commands, which God has spoken to the saints through His proper and only true Word, concerning which the Psalmist said, 'I have refrained my feet from every evil way, that I may keep Your words.' Such words accordingly the Saviour signifies to be distinct from Himself, when He says in His own person, 'The words which I have spoken unto you John 6:63.' For certainly such words are not offsprings or sons, nor are there so many words that frame the world, nor so many images of the One God, nor so many who have become men for us, nor as if from many such there were one who has become flesh, as John says; but as being the only Word of God was He preached by John, 'The Word was made flesh,' and 'all things were made by Him.' Wherefore of Him alone, our Lord Jesus Christ, and of His oneness with the Father, are written and set forth the testimonies, both of the Father signifying that the Son is One, and of the saints, aware of this and saying that the Word is One, and that He is Only-Begotten. And His works also are set forth; for all things, visible and invisible, have been brought to be through Him, and 'without Him was made not one thing.' But concerning another or any one else they have not a thought, nor frame to themselves words or wisdoms, of which neither name nor deed are signified by Scripture, but are named by these only. For it is their invention and Christ-opposing surmise, and they make the most of the name of the Word and the Wisdom; and framing to themselves others, they deny the true Word of God, and the real and only Wisdom of the Father, and thereby, miserable men, rival the Manichees. For they too, when they behold the works of God, deny Him the only and true God, and frame to themselves another, whom they can show neither by work, nor in any testimony drawn from the divine oracles.

Therefore, if neither in the divine Scriptures is found another wisdom besides this Son, nor from the fathers have we heard of any such, yet they have confessed and written of the Wisdom coexisting with the Father without beginning, proper to Him, and the Maker of the world, this must be the Son who even according to them exists eternally with the Father. For He is Maker of all, as it is written, "In Wisdom have You made them all." Indeed, Asterius himself, as if forgetting what he wrote before, afterwards, in the manner of Caiaphas, involuntarily, when addressing the Greeks, instead of naming many wisdoms or the caterpillar, confesses only one, in these words: "God the Word is one, but many are the things rational; and one is the essence and physis of Wisdom, but many are the things wise and beautiful." And soon afterwards he says again: "Who are they whom they honor with the title of God's children? For they will not say that they too are words, nor maintain that there are many wisdoms. For it is not possible, whereas the Word is one, and Wisdom has been set forth as one, to distribute to the multitude of children the Essence of the Word, and to bestow on them the name of Wisdom." It is not at all surprising, then, that the Arians should fight against the truth, when they clash with their own principles and conflict with each other, at one time saying that there are many wisdoms, at another maintaining one; at one time grouping wisdom with the caterpillar, at another saying that it coexists with the Father and is proper to Him; now that the Father alone is without beginning, and then again that His Wisdom and His Power are also without beginning. And they fight with us for saying that the Word of God is eternal, yet forget their own teachings, and say themselves that Wisdom coexists with God without beginning. So confused are they in all these matters, denying the true Wisdom, and inventing one which does not exist, like the Manichees who make for themselves another God, after denying Him who is.

40. Therefore, if neither in the divine oracles is found another wisdom besides this Son, nor from the fathers have we heard of any such, yet they have confessed and written of the Wisdom coexisting with the Father unoriginately, proper to Him, and the Framer of the world, this must be the Son who even according to them is eternally coexistent with the Father. For He is Framer of all, as it is written, 'In Wisdom have You made them all.' Nay, Asterius himself, as if forgetting what he wrote before, afterwards, in Caiaphas's fashion, involuntarily, when urging the Greeks, instead of naming many wisdoms, or the caterpillar, confesses but one, in these words –' God the Word is one, but many are the things rational; and one is the essence and nature of Wisdom, but many are the things wise and beautiful.' And soon afterwards he says again:– 'Who are they whom they honour with the title of God's children? For they will not say that they too are words, nor maintain that there are many wisdoms. For it is not possible, whereas the Word is one, and Wisdom has been set forth as one, to dispense to the multitude of children the Essence of the Word, and to bestow on them the appellation of Wisdom.' It is not then at all wonderful, that the Arians should battle with the truth, when they have collisions with their own principles and conflict with each other, at one time saying that there are many wisdoms, at another maintaining one; at one time classing wisdom with the caterpillar, at another saying that it coexists with the Father and is proper to Him; now that the Father alone is unoriginate, and then again that His Wisdom and His Power are unoriginate also. And they battle with us for saying that the Word of God is ever, yet forget their own doctrines, and say themselves that Wisdom coexists with God unoriginately. So dizzied are they in all these matters, denying the true Wisdom, and inventing one which is not, as the Manichees who make to themselves another God, after denying Him that is.

However, let the other heresies and the Manichees also know that the Father of Christ is One, and is Lord and Maker of creation through His own Word. And let the Ario-maniacs in particular know that the Word of God is One, being the only Son who is proper and genuine from His ousia, and having with His Father an indivisible oneness of Godhead, as we have said many times, taught by the Savior Himself. For if this were not so, why does the Father create through Him and reveal Himself in Him to whomever He wishes, and enlighten them? Or why is the Son named together with the Father in baptismal consecration? If they say the Father is not all-sufficient, then their answer is irreligious. But if He is all-sufficient, it is right to ask: what need is there of the Son for creating the worlds or for the holy washing? What fellowship exists between creature and Creator? Why is something created classified with the Maker in the consecration of all of us? Why, according to your view, is faith in one Creator and one creature delivered to us? If it was so we might be joined to the Godhead, what need is there of the creature? But if it was so we might be united to the Son as a creature, then according to you, naming the Son in Baptism is superfluous, because the God who made Him a Son can make us sons as well. Besides, if the Son is a creature, then since the nature of rational creatures is one, no help will come to creatures from a creature, because all need grace from God. We said a few words earlier about how fitting it is that all things should be made by Him. But since the discussion has led us to mention holy Baptism, it is necessary to state what I think and believe: the Son is named with the Father not as if the Father were not all-sufficient, not without meaning, and not by accident. Rather, since He is God's Word and own Wisdom, and being His Radiance, is always with the Father, it is impossible for the Father to bestow grace without giving it in the Son, because the Son is in the Father as the radiance is in the light. Not as if in need, but as a Father in His own Wisdom, God has founded the earth and made all things in the Word who is from Him, and in the Son He confirms the Holy Laver. For where the Father is, there is the Son, and where the light is, there is the radiance. Just as what the Father works, He works through the Son, and the Lord Himself says, "What I see the Father do, that I also do," so too when baptism is given, whoever the Father baptizes, the Son baptizes. And whoever the Son baptizes is consecrated in the Holy Ghost. Again, just as when the sun shines, one might say that the radiance illuminates—for the light is one and indivisible and cannot be detached—so where the Father is or is named, there plainly is the Son also. Is the Father named in Baptism? Then the Son must be named with Him.

41. But let the other heresies and the Manichees also know that the Father of the Christ is One, and is Lord and Maker of the creation through His proper Word. And let the Ario-maniacs know in particular, that the Word of God is One, being the only Son proper and genuine from His Essence, and having with His Father the oneness of Godhead indivisible, as we said many times, being taught it by the Saviour Himself. Since, were it not so, wherefore through Him does the Father create, and in Him reveal Himself to whom He will, and illuminate them? Or why too in the baptismal consecration is the Son named together with the Father? For if they say that the Father is not all-sufficient, then their answer is irreligious, but if He be, for this it is right to say, what is the need of the Son for framing the worlds, or for the holy laver? For what fellowship is there between creature and Creator? Or why is a thing made classed with the Maker in the consecration of all of us? Or why, as you hold, is faith in one Creator and in one creature delivered to us? For if it was that we might be joined to the Godhead, what need of the creature? But if that we might be united to the Son a creature, superfluous, according to you, is this naming of the Son in Baptism, for God who made Him a Son is able to make us sons also. Besides, if the Son be a creature, the nature of rational creatures being one, no help will come to creatures from a creature, since all need grace from God. We said a few words just now on the fitness that all things should be made by Him; but since the course of the discussion has led us also to mention holy Baptism, it is necessary to state, as I think and believe, that the Son is named with the Father, not as if the Father were not all-sufficient, not without meaning, and by accident; but, since He is God's Word and own Wisdom, and being His Radiance, is ever with the Father, therefore it is impossible, if the Father bestows grace, that He should not give it in the Son, for the Son is in the Father as the radiance in the light. For, not as if in need, but as a Father in His own Wisdom has God founded the earth, and made all things in the Word which is from Him, and in the Son confirms the Holy Laver. For where the Father is, there is the Son, and where the light, there the radiance; and as what the Father works, He works through the Son, and the Lord Himself says, 'What I see the Father do, that do I also;' so also when baptism is given, whom the Father baptizes, him the Son baptizes; and whom the Son baptizes, he is consecrated in the Holy Ghost. And again as when the sun shines, one might say that the radiance illuminates, for the light is one and indivisible, nor can be detached, so where the Father is or is named, there plainly is the Son also; and is the Father named in Baptism? Then must the Son be named with Him.

Therefore, when He made His promise to the saints, He spoke this way: "I and the Father will come and make Our abode in him," and again, "that, as I and You are One, so they may be one in Us." And the grace given is one, given from the Father in the Son, as Paul writes in every letter: "Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." For the light must be with the ray, and the radiance must be contemplated together with its own light. This is why the Jews, in denying the Son, do not have the Father either. For having abandoned the "Fountain of Wisdom," as Baruch accuses them, they rejected the Wisdom springing from it, our Lord Jesus Christ (for "Christ," says the Apostle, is "God's power and God's wisdom"), when they said, "We have no king but Caesar." The Jews therefore have the penalty of their denial, for both their city and their reasoning came to nothing. And these heretics too put at risk the fullness of the mystery—I mean Baptism. For if the consecration is given to us into the Name of Father and Son, and they do not confess a true Father because they deny what is from Him and like His ousia, and deny also the true Son and name instead another of their own invention as created out of nothing, is not the rite administered by them completely empty and useless, making a show but in reality providing no help toward true religion? For the Arians do not baptize into Father and Son, but into Creator and creature, and into Maker and work. And just as a creature is different from the Son, so the Baptism supposedly given by them is different from the truth, even though they pretend to name the Name of the Father and the Son because of the words of Scripture. For it is not the one who simply says "O Lord" who gives Baptism, but the one who has the right faith along with the Name. For this reason our Savior also did not simply command to baptize, but first said, "Teach," and then, "Baptize into the Name of Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit," so that the right faith might follow upon learning, and together with faith might come the consecration of Baptism.

42. Therefore, when He made His promise to the saints, He thus spoke; 'I and the Father will come, and make Our abode in him;' and again, 'that, as I and Thou are One, so they may be one in Us.' And the grace given is one, given from the Father in the Son, as Paul writes in every Epistle, 'Grace unto you, and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.' For the light must be with the ray, and the radiance must be contemplated together with its own light. Whence the Jews, as denying the Son as well as they, have not the Father either; for, as having left the 'Fountain of Wisdom Baruch 3:12,' as Baruch reproaches them, they put from them the Wisdom springing from it, our Lord Jesus Christ (for 'Christ,' says the Apostle, is 'God's power and God's wisdom 1 Corinthians 1:24),' when they said, 'We have no king but Cæsar John 19:15.' The Jews then have the penal award of their denial; for their city as well as their reasoning came to nought. And these too hazard the fullness of the mystery, I mean Baptism; for if the consecration is given to us into the Name of Father and Son, and they do not confess a true Father, because they deny what is from Him and like His Essence, and deny also the true Son, and name another of their own framing as created out of nothing, is not the rite administered by them altogether empty and unprofitable, making a show, but in reality being no help towards religion? For the Arians do not baptize into Father and Son, but into Creator and creature, and into Maker and work. And as a creature is other than the Son, so the Baptism, which is supposed to be given by them, is other than the truth, though they pretend to name the Name of the Father and the Son, because of the words of Scripture, For not he who simply says, 'O Lord,' gives Baptism; but he who with the Name has also the right faith. On this account therefore our Saviour also did not simply command to baptize, but first says, 'Teach;' then thus: 'Baptize into the Name of Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost;' that the right faith might follow upon learning, and together with faith might come the consecration of Baptism.

There are many other heresies that use the words, but not in the right sense, as I have said, and not with sound faith. As a result, the water they administer is useless, being deficient in piety, so that anyone sprinkled by them is polluted by irreligion rather than redeemed. Similarly, Gentiles also, though the name of God is on their lips, face the charge of atheism because they do not know the real and true God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Likewise, the Manichees and Phrygians, and the disciples of the Samosatene, though using the Names, are nevertheless heretics, and the Arians follow the same course. Though they read the words of Scripture and use the Names, they too mock those who receive the rite from them, being more irreligious than the other heresies and going beyond them, making them seem innocent by comparison through their own reckless speech. These other heresies lie against the truth in some specific respect, either erring about the Lord's Body, as if He did not take flesh from Mary, or as if He did not die at all or become man but only appeared and was not truly so, seeming to have a body when He had none and seeming to have the form of man like visions in a dream. But the Arians are openly irreligious against the Father Himself. For hearing from the Scriptures that His Godhead is represented in the Son as in an image, they blaspheme by saying that it is a creature, and everywhere they carry around the phrase "He was not" like mud in a bag, spitting it out like serpents their venom. Then, since their doctrine is repulsive to all people, they immediately prop up the heresy with human patronage as support against its collapse, so that simple people, at the sight or even from fear, may overlook the evil of their perversity. It is right to pity those they deceive and proper to weep over them, because they sacrifice their own interest for that fleeting fantasy that pleasures provide and forfeit their future hope. In thinking they are baptized into the name of one who does not exist, they will receive nothing. Ranking themselves with a creature, they will receive no help from the creation. Believing in one unlike and foreign to the Father in ousia, they will not be joined to the Father, not having His own Son by physis, who is from Him, who is in the Father, and in whom the Father is, as He Himself has said. Being led astray by them, these wretched people remain destitute and stripped of the Godhead. This fantasy of earthly goods will not follow them after death, and when they see the Lord whom they have denied sitting on His Father's throne and judging the living and the dead, they will not be able to call for help from any of those who have now deceived them. They will see them also at the judgment seat, repenting for their sinful and irreligious deeds.

43. There are many other heresies too, which use the words only, but not in a right sense, as I have said, nor with sound faith, and in consequence the water which they administer is unprofitable, as deficient in piety, so that he who is sprinkled by them is rather polluted by irreligion than redeemed. So Gentiles also, though the name of God is on their lips, incur the charge of Atheism, because they know not the real and very God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. So Manichees and Phrygians, and the disciples of the Samosatene, though using the Names, nevertheless are heretics, and the Arians follow in the same course, though they read the words of Scripture, and use the Names, yet they too mock those who receive the rite from them, being more irreligious than the other heresies, and advancing beyond them, and making them seem innocent by their own recklessness of speech. For these other heresies lie against the truth in some certain respect, either erring concerning the Lord's Body, as if He did not take flesh of Mary, or as if He has not died at all, nor become man, but only appeared, and was not truly, and seemed to have a body when He had not, and seemed to have the shape of man, as visions in a dream; but the Arians are without disguise irreligious against the Father Himself. For hearing from the Scriptures that His Godhead is represented in the Son as in an image, they blaspheme, saying, that it is a creature, and everywhere concerning that Image, they carry about with them the phrase, 'He was not,' as mud in a wallet, and spit it forth as serpents their venom. Then, whereas their doctrine is nauseous to all men, immediately, as a support against its fall, they prop up the heresy with human patronage, that the simple, at the sight or even by the fear may overlook the mischief of their perversity. Right indeed is it to pity their dupes; well is it to weep over them, for that they sacrifice their own interest for that immediate phantasy which pleasures furnish, and forfeit their future hope. In thinking to be baptized into the name of one who exists not, they will receive nothing; and ranking themselves with a creature, from the creation they will have no help, and believing in one unlike and foreign to the Father in essence, to the Father they will not be joined, not having His own Son by nature, who is from Him, who is in the Father, and in whom the Father is, as He Himself has said; but being led astray by them, the wretched men henceforth remain destitute and stripped of the Godhead. For this phantasy of earthly goods will not follow them upon their death; nor when they see the Lord whom they have denied, sitting on His Father's throne, and judging quick and dead, will they be able to call to their help any one of those who have now deceived them; for they shall see them also at the judgment-seat, repenting for their deeds of sin and irreligion.

We have covered all this before discussing the passage in Proverbs, refuting the senseless tales their hearts have invented, so they may know that the Son of God should not be called a creature, and may learn to read correctly what truly admits of a right interpretation. For it is written, 'The Lord created me a beginning of His ways, for His works.' However, since these are proverbs and expressed in the manner of proverbs, we must not interpret them simply according to their surface meaning, but we must investigate the person speaking, and thus interpret the sense religiously. For what is said in proverbs is not said plainly, but is presented in a hidden way, as the Lord Himself taught us in the Gospel according to John, saying, 'These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs, but the time comes when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but openly.' Therefore it is necessary to unpack the meaning of what is said, and to seek it as something hidden, and not to interpret it simply as if the meaning were spoken plainly, lest we stray from the truth through false interpretation. If what is written concerns an angel or any other created thing, as concerning one of us who are works, then let it be said, 'created me.' But if it is the Wisdom of God, in whom all created things have been framed, that speaks concerning Itself, what should we understand except that 'He created' means nothing contrary to 'He begot'? Nor, as if forgetting that It is Creator and Framer, or ignorant of the difference between the Creator and the creatures, does It count Itself among the creatures. Rather, It signifies a certain meaning, as in proverbs, not plainly but hidden—which It inspired the saints to use in prophecy—while soon after It does Itself give the meaning of 'He created' in other but parallel expressions, saying, 'Wisdom made herself a house.' Now it is clear that our body is Wisdom's house, which It took upon Itself to become man. Hence John consistently says, 'The Word was made flesh,' and through Solomon, Wisdom says of Itself with careful precision, not 'I am a creature,' but only 'The Lord created me a beginning of His ways for His works'—yet not 'created me that I might have being,' nor 'because I have a creature's beginning and origin.'

44. We have gone through thus much before the passage in the Proverbs, resisting the insensate fables which their hearts have invented, that they may know that the Son of God ought not to be called a creature, and may learn lightly to read what admits in truth of a right explanation. For it is written, 'The Lord created me a beginning of His ways, for His works;' since, however, these are proverbs, and it is expressed in the way of proverbs, we must not expound them nakedly in their first sense, but we must inquire into the person, and thus religiously put the sense on it. For what is said in proverbs, is not said plainly, but is put forth latently, as the Lord Himself has taught us in the Gospel according to John, saying, 'These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs, but the time comes when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but openly John 16:25.' Therefore it is necessary to unfold the sense of what is said, and to seek it as something hidden, and not nakedly to expound as if the meaning were spoken 'plainly,' lest by a false interpretation we wander from the truth. If then what is written be about Angel, or any other of things originate, as concerning one of us who are works, let it be said, 'created me;' but if it be the Wisdom of God, in whom all things originate have been framed, that speaks concerning Itself, what ought we to understand but that 'He created' means nothing contrary to 'He begot.' Nor, as forgetting that It is Creator and Framer, or ignorant of the difference between the Creator and the creatures, does It number Itself among the creatures; but It signifies a certain sense, as in proverbs, not 'plainly,' but latent; which It inspired the saints to use in prophecy, while soon after It does Itself give the meaning of 'He created' in other but parallel expressions, saying, 'Wisdom made herself a house Proverbs 9:1.' Now it is plain that our body is Wisdom's house, which It took on Itself to become man; hence consistently does John say, 'The Word was made flesh John 1:14;' and by Solomon Wisdom says of Itself with cautious exactness, not 'I am a creature,' but only 'The Lord created me a beginning of His ways for His works,' yet not 'created me that I might have being,' nor 'because I have a creature's beginning and origin.'

For in this passage, the Word spoken by Solomon does not signify the essence of His Godhead or His own everlasting and genuine generation from the Father, but rather His manhood and His plan for our salvation. And as I said before, He has not said "I am a creature" or "I became a creature," but only "He created." For creatures, having a created essence, are originate and are said to be created, and of course the creature is created. But this mere term "He created" does not necessarily signify the essence or the generation, but indicates something else coming to pass in Him of whom it speaks, and not simply that He who is said to be created is at once in His nature and essence a creature. And divine Scripture recognizes this difference, saying concerning the creatures, "The earth is full of Your creation," and "the creation itself groans together and travails together." And in the Apocalypse it says, "And the third part of the creatures in the sea died which had life." As also Paul says, "Every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving." And in the book of Wisdom it is written, "Having ordained man through Your wisdom, that he should have dominion over the creatures which You have made." And these, being creatures, are also said to be created, as we may further hear from the Lord, who says, "He who created them, made them male and female," and from Moses in the Song, who writes, "Ask now of the days that are past, which were before you since the day that God created man upon the earth, and from the one side of heaven unto the other." And Paul in Colossians, "Who is the Image of the Invisible God, the Firstborn of every creature, for in Him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created through Him, and for Him, and He is before all."

45. For in this passage, not as signifying the Essence of His Godhead, nor His own everlasting and genuine generation from the Father, has the Word spoken by Solomon, but on the other hand His manhood and Economy towards us. And, as I said before, He has not said 'I am a creature,' or 'I became a creature,' but only 'He created.' For the creatures, having a created essence, are originate, and are said to be created, and of course the creature is created: but this mere term 'He created' does not necessarily signify the essence or the generation, but indicates something else as coming to pass in Him of whom it speaks, and not simply that He who is said to be created, is at once in His Nature and Essence a creature. And this difference divine Scripture recognises, saying concerning the creatures, 'The earth is full of Your creation,' and 'the creation itself groans together and travails together;' and in the Apocalypse it says, 'And the third part of the creatures in the sea died which had life;' as also Paul says, 'Every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving;' and in the book of Wisdom it is written, 'Having ordained man through Your wisdom, that he should have dominion over the creatures which You have made Wisdom 9:2.' And these, being creatures, are also said to be created, as we may further hear from the Lord, who says, 'He who created them, made them male and female;' and from Moses in the Song, who writes, 'Ask now of the days that are past, which were before you since the day that God created man upon the earth, and from the one side of heaven unto the other Deuteronomy 4:32.' And Paul in Colossians, 'Who is the Image of the Invisible God, the Firstborn of every creature, for in Him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created through Him, and for Him, and He is before all. '

That being called creatures and being created belongs to things which have by nature a created essence, these passages are enough to remind us, though Scripture is full of similar examples. On the other hand, that the single word "He created" does not simply denote the essence and mode of generation, David shows in the Psalm: "This shall be written for another generation, and the people that is created shall praise the Lord," and again, "Create in me a clean heart, O God." And Paul says in Ephesians, "Having abolished the law of commandments contained in ordinances, for to create in Himself of two one new man," and again, "Put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness." For David spoke of no people created in essence, nor prayed to have a different heart than the one he had, but meant renovation according to God and renewal. Nor did Paul signify two persons created in essence in the Lord, nor did he counsel us to put on any other man. Rather, he called the life according to virtue "the man after God," and by "created" in Christ he meant the two peoples who are renewed in Him. Such too is the language of the book of Jeremiah: "The Lord created a new salvation for a planting, in which salvation men shall walk to and fro." In thus speaking, he does not mean any essence of a creature, but prophesies of the renewal of salvation among men, which has taken place in Christ for us. Such then being the difference between "the creatures" and the single word "He created," if you find anywhere in divine Scripture the Lord called "creature," produce it and fight. But if it is nowhere written that He is a creature, only He Himself says about Himself in the Proverbs, "The Lord created me," shame upon you, both on the ground of the distinction mentioned before and because the diction is like that of proverbs. Accordingly let "He created" be understood, not of His being a creature, but of that human nature which became His, for to this belongs creation. Indeed is it not evidently unfair in you, when David and Paul say "He created," then indeed not to understand it of the essence and the generation, but of renewal, yet when the Lord says "He created" to number His essence with the creatures? And again when Scripture says, "Wisdom built her a house, she set it upon seven pillars," to understand "house" allegorically, but to take "He created" as it stands, and to fasten on it the idea of creature? Neither His being Framer of all has had any weight with you, nor have you feared His being the sole and proper Offspring of the Father, but recklessly, as if you had enlisted against Him, you fight, and think less of Him than of men.

46. That to be called creatures, then, and to be created belongs to things which have by nature a created essence, these passages are sufficient to remind us, though Scripture is full of the like; on the other hand that the single word 'He created' does not simply denote the essence and mode of generation, David shows in the Psalm, 'This shall be written for another generation, and the people that is created shall praise the Lord;' and again, 'Create in me a clean heart, O God;' and Paul in Ephesians says, 'Having abolished the law of commandments contained in ordinances, for to create in Himself of two one new man Ephesians 2:15;' and again, 'Put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.' For neither David spoke of any people created in essence, nor prayed to have another heart than that he had, but meant renovation according to God and renewal; nor did Paul signify two persons created in essence in the Lord, nor again did he counsel us to put on any other man; but he called the life according to virtue the 'man after God,' and by the 'created' in Christ he meant the two people who are renewed in Him. Such too is the language of the book of Jeremiah; 'The Lord created a new salvation for a planting, in which salvation men shall walk to and fro;' and in thus speaking, he does not mean any essence of a creature, but prophesies of the renewal of salvation among men, which has taken place in Christ for us. Such then being the difference between 'the creatures' and the single word 'He created,' if you find anywhere in divine Scripture the Lord called 'creature,' produce it and fight; but if it is nowhere written that He is a creature, only He Himself says about Himself in the Proverbs, 'The Lord created me,' shame upon you, both on the ground of the distinction aforesaid and for that the diction is like that of proverbs; and accordingly let 'He created' be understood, not of His being a creature, but of that human nature which became His, for to this belongs creation. Indeed is it not evidently unfair in you, when David and Paul say 'He created,' then indeed not to understand it of the essence and the generation, but the renewal; yet, when the Lord says 'He created' to number His essence with the creatures? And again when Scripture says, 'Wisdom built her a house, she set it upon seven pillars Proverbs 9:1,' to understand 'house' allegorically, but to take 'He created' as it stands, and to fasten on it the idea of creature? And neither His being Framer of all has had any weight with you, nor have you feared His being the sole and proper Offspring of the Father, but recklessly, as if you had enlisted against Him, do ye fight, and think less of Him than of men.

The very passage itself proves that calling the Lord a creature is just your own invention. For the Lord, knowing His own Essence to be the Only-begotten Wisdom and Offspring of the Father, and to be other than originated things and natural creatures, says in love for humanity, "The Lord created me a beginning of His ways," as if to say, "My Father has prepared for Me a body, and has created Me for the sake of humanity and their salvation." For just as when John says, "The Word was made flesh," we do not understand the whole Word Himself to be flesh, but rather to have put on flesh and become man, and when we hear, "Christ has become a curse for us," and "He has made Him sin for us who knew no sin," we do not simply understand this to mean that the whole Christ has become curse and sin, but that He took upon Himself the curse that lay against us (as the Apostle has said, "has redeemed us from the curse," and "has carried," as Isaiah has said, "our sins," and as Peter has written, "has borne them in the body on the wood")—so, if it is said in the Proverbs "He created," we must not understand that the whole Word is by nature a creature, but that He put on the created body and that God created Him for our sakes, preparing for Him the created body, as it is written, for us, so that in Him we might be capable of being renewed and deified. What then has deceived you, O senseless ones, to call the Creator a creature? Or where did you acquire this new idea to parade around? For the Proverbs say "He created," but they do not call the Son creature, but Offspring; and, according to the distinction in Scripture mentioned earlier between "He created" and "creature," they acknowledge what is by nature proper to the Son, that He is the Only-begotten Wisdom and Framer of the creatures, and when they say "He created," they do not say it in respect of His Essence, but signify that He was becoming a beginning of many ways; so that "He created" stands in contrast to "Offspring," and His being called the "Beginning of ways" stands in contrast to His being the Only-begotten Word.

47. For the very passage proves that it is only an invention of your own to call the Lord creature. For the Lord, knowing His own Essence to be the Only-begotten Wisdom and Offspring of the Father, and other than things originate and natural creatures, says in love to man, 'The Lord created me a beginning of His ways,' as if to say, 'My Father has prepared for Me a body, and has created Me for men in behalf of their salvation.' For, as when John says, 'The Word was made flesh John 1:14,' we do not conceive the whole Word Himself to be flesh, but to have put on flesh and become man, and on hearing, 'Christ has become a curse for us,' and 'He has made Him sin for us who knew no sin,' we do not simply conceive this, that whole Christ has become curse and sin, but that He has taken on Him the curse which lay against us (as the Apostle has said, 'Has redeemed us from the curse,' and 'has carried,' as Isaiah has said, 'our sins,' and as Peter has written, 'has borne them in the body on the wood '); so, if it is said in the Proverbs 'He created,' we must not conceive that the whole Word is in nature a creature, but that He put on the created body and that God created Him for our sakes, preparing for Him the created body, as it is written, for us, that in Him we might be capable of being renewed and deified. What then deceived you, O senseless, to call the Creator a creature? Or whence did you purchase for you this new thought, to parade it? For the Proverbs say 'He created,' but they call not the Son creature, but Offspring; and, according to the distinction in Scripture aforesaid of 'He created' and 'creature,' they acknowledge, what is by nature proper to the Son, that He is the Only-begotten Wisdom and Framer of the creatures, and when they say 'He created,' they say it not in respect of His Essence, but signify that He was becoming a beginning of many ways; so that 'He created' is in contrast to 'Offspring,' and His being called the 'Beginning of ways ' to His being the Only-begotten Word.

For if He is Offspring, how can you call Him creature? No one says that He begets what He creates, nor calls His own offspring creatures. And again, if He is Only-begotten, how does He become 'beginning of the ways'? For necessarily, if He was created as a beginning of all things, He is no longer alone, since He would have those who came into being after Him. For Reuben, when he became a beginning of the children, was not only-begotten, but first in time indeed, yet in nature and relationship one among those who came after him. Therefore if the Word is also 'a beginning of the ways,' He must be such as the ways are, and the ways must be such as the Word, though in point of time He may be created first of them. For the beginning or starting point of a city is such as the other parts of the city are, and the members joined to it make the city whole and one, like the many members of one body. Nor does one part of it make while another comes to be and is subject to the former, but all the city equally has its government and constitution from its maker. If then the Lord is created as a 'beginning' of all things in this sense, it would follow that He and all other things together make up the unity of creation, and He neither differs from all others, though He becomes the 'beginning' of all, nor is He Lord of them, though older in point of time. But He would have the same manner of formation and the same Lord as the rest. Indeed, if He is a creature, as you claim, how can He be created sole and first at all, so as to be beginning of all? When it is clear from what has been said that among the creatures, none is of a constant nature and of prior formation, but each has its origin together with all the rest, however it may excel others in glory. For as to the separate stars or the great lights, this one did not appear first and that one second, but in one day and by the same command, they were all called into being. And such was the original formation of the quadrupeds, and of birds, and fishes, and cattle, and plants. Thus also the race made after God's Image came to be, namely humans. For though Adam alone was formed out of earth, yet in him was involved the succession of the whole race.

48. For if He is Offspring, how call ye Him creature? For no one says that He begets what He creates, nor calls His proper offspring creatures; and again, if He is Only-begotten, how becomes He 'beginning of the ways?' for of necessity, if He was created a beginning of all things, He is no longer alone, as having those who came into being after Him. For Reuben, when he became a beginning of the children, was not only-begotten, but in time indeed first, but in nature and relationship one among those who came after him. Therefore if the Word also is 'a beginning of the ways,' He must be such as the ways are, and the ways must be such as the Word, though in point of time He be created first of them. For the beginning or initiative of a city is such as the other parts of the city are, and the members too being joined to it, make the city whole and one, as the many members of one body; nor does one part of it make, and another come to be, and is subject to the former, but all the city equally has its government and constitution from its maker. If then the Lord is in such sense created as a 'beginning' of all things, it would follow that He and all other things together make up the unity of the creation, and He neither differs from all others, though He become the 'beginning' of all, nor is He Lord of them, though older in point of time; but He has the same manner of framing and the same Lord as the rest. Nay, if He be a creature, as you hold, how can He be created sole and first at all, so as to be beginning of all? When it is plain from what has been said, that among the creatures not any is of a constant nature and of prior formation, but each has its origination with all the rest, however it may excel others in glory. For as to the separate stars or the great lights, not this appeared first, and that second, but in one day and by the same command, they were all called into being. And such was the original formation of the quadrupeds, and of birds, and fishes, and cattle, and plants; thus too has the race made after God's Image come to be, namely men; for though Adam only was formed out of earth, yet in him was involved the succession of the whole race.

And from the visible creation, we clearly understand that His invisible things also, "being perceived by the things that are made" (Romans 1:20), are not independent of each other. For it was not first one thing and then another, but all things were constituted at once according to their kind. The Apostle did not list them individually, saying "whether Angel, or Throne, or Dominion, or Authority," but he mentions all together according to their kind: "whether Angels, or Archangels, or Principalities." This is how the creatures came into existence. If then, as I have said, the Word were a creature, He must have been brought into being not first among them, but together with all the other Powers, even though He might greatly excel the rest in glory. For we find this to be the case with them: they all came to be at once, with neither first nor second, and they differ from each other in glory—some on the right of the throne, some all around, and some on the left—but all praising and standing in service before the Lord. Therefore, if the Word were a creature, He would not be first or beginning of the rest. Yet if He is before all, as indeed He is, and is Himself alone First and Son, it does not follow that He is beginning of all things in His ousia. For whatever is the beginning of all is counted among all. And if He is not such a beginning, then neither is He a creature. Rather, it is very plain that He differs in ousia and physis from the creatures, and is other than they, and is Likeness and Image of the sole and true God, being Himself sole also. Hence He is not classed with creatures in Scripture, but David rebukes those who dare even to think of Him as such, saying, "Who among the gods is like the Lord?" and "Who is like the Lord among the sons of God?" and Baruch says, "This is our God, and another shall not be reckoned with Him" (Baruch 3:35). For the One creates, and the rest are created; and the One is the own Word and Wisdom of the Father's ousia, and through this Word the things which came to be, which before did not exist, were made.

49. And from the visible creation, we clearly discern that His invisible things also, 'being perceived by the things that are made Romans 1:20,' are not independent of each other; for it was not first one and then another, but all at once were constituted after their kind. For the Apostle did not number individually, so as to say 'whether Angel, or Throne, or Dominion, or Authority,' but he mentions together all according to their kind, 'whether Angels, or Archangels, or Principalities:' for in this way is the origination of the creatures. If then, as I have said, the Word were creature He must have been brought into being, not first of them, but with all the other Powers, though in glory He excel the rest ever so much. For so we find it to be in their case, that at once they came to be, with neither first nor second, and they differ from each other in glory, some on the right of the throne, some all around, and some on the left, but one and all praising and standing in service before the Lord. Therefore if the Word be creature He would not be first or beginning of the rest; yet if He be before all, as indeed He is, and is Himself alone First and Son, it does not follow that He is beginning of all things as to His Essence, for what is the beginning of all is in the number of all. And if He is not such a beginning, then neither is He a creature, but it is very plain that He differs in essence and nature from the creatures, and is other than they, and is Likeness and Image of the sole and true God, being Himself sole also. Hence He is not classed with creatures in Scripture, but David rebukes those who dare even to think of Him as such, saying, 'Who among the gods is like the Lord?' and 'Who is like the Lord among the sons of God.' and Baruch, 'This is our God, and another shall not be reckoned with Him Baruch 3:35.' For the One creates, and the rest are created; and the One is the own Word and Wisdom of the Father's Essence, and through this Word things which came to be, which before existed not, were made.

Your famous claim that the Son is a creature is not true but merely your fantasy. In fact, Solomon convicts you of slandering him many times. He has not called Him a creature but God's Offspring and Wisdom, saying "God in Wisdom established the earth" and "Wisdom built her a house." The very passage in question proves your irreligious spirit. It is written, "The Lord created me a beginning of His ways for His works." Therefore, if He exists before all things yet says "He created me" (not "that I might make the works" but "for the works"), then unless "He created" refers to something later than Himself, He would seem to be later than the works, finding them already existing before Him when He is created—works for whose sake He is also brought into being. If that were so, how is He before all things? And how were all things made through Him and consist in Him? Look, you are saying that the works existed before Him, works for which He is created and sent. But this is not so—perish the thought! The heretics' supposition is false. For the Word of God is not a creature but Creator, and He says in the manner of proverbs "He created me" when He put on created flesh. Something else can also be understood from the passage itself. Although He is Son and has God for His Father, being His proper Offspring, here He names the Father Lord—not because He was a servant, but because He took the servant's form. For it was fitting that, on the one hand, being the Word from the Father, He should call God Father, which is proper for a son toward a father. On the other hand, having come to finish the work and having taken a servant's form, He should name the Father Lord. He Himself taught this distinction clearly, saying in the Gospels, "I thank You, O Father" and then "Lord of heaven and earth." He calls God His Father, but He names Him Lord of the creatures, showing clearly from these words that when He put on the creature, then He called the Father Lord. In David's prayer, the Holy Spirit marks the same distinction, saying in the Psalms, "Give Your strength unto Your Child, and help the Son of Your handmaid." For the natural and true child of God is one thing, and the sons of the handmaid—that is, of the nature of created things—are another. Therefore the One, as Son, has the Father's might, but the rest need salvation.

50. Your famous assertion then, that the Son is a creature, is not true, but is your fantasy only; nay Solomon convicts you of having many times slandered him. For he has not called Him creature, but God's Offspring and Wisdom, saying, 'God in Wisdom established the earth,' and 'Wisdom built her an house.' And the very passage in question proves your irreligious spirit; for it is written, 'The Lord created me a beginning of His ways for His works.' Therefore if He is before all things, yet says 'He created me' (not 'that I might make the works,' but) 'for the works,' unless 'He created' relates to something later than Himself, He will seem later than the works, finding them on His creation already in existence before Him, for the sake of which He is also brought into being. And if so, how is He before all things notwithstanding? And how were all things made through Him and consist in Him? For behold, you say that the works consisted before Him, for which He is created and sent. But it is not so; perish the thought! false is the supposition of the heretics. For the Word of God is not creature but Creator; and says in the manner of proverbs, 'He created me' when He put on created flesh. And something besides may be understood from the passage itself; for, being Son and having God for His Father, for He is His proper Offspring, yet here He names the Father Lord; not that He was servant, but because He took the servant's form. For it became Him, on the one hand being the Word from the Father, to call God Father: for this is proper to son towards father; on the other, having come to finish the work, and taken a servant's form, to name the Father Lord. And this difference He Himself has taught by an apt distinction, saying in the Gospels, 'I thank You, O Father,' and then, 'Lord of heaven and earth Matthew 11:25.' For He calls God His Father, but of the creatures He names Him Lord; as showing clearly from these words, that, when He put on the creature, then it was He called the Father Lord. For in the prayer of David the Holy Spirit marks the same distinction, saying in the Psalms, 'Give Your strength unto Your Child, and help the Son of Your handmaid.' For the natural and true child of God is one, and the sons of the handmaid, that is, of the nature of things originate, are other. Wherefore the One, as Son, has the Father's might; but the rest are in need of salvation.

Even if they make empty arguments because He was called child, they should know that Isaac was also named Abraham's child, and the son of the Shunamite was called young child. It makes sense, then, that when He became as we are—we being servants—He too calls the Father Lord, as we do. He has done this from love for humanity, so that we too, though servants by nature, might receive the Spirit of the Son and have confidence to call by grace Father the one who is by nature our Lord. But just as we, in calling the Lord Father, do not deny our servitude by nature (for we are His works, and it is He who has made us, and not we ourselves), so when the Son, after taking the servant's form, says "The Lord created me a beginning of His ways," they must not deny the eternity of His Godhead, and that "in the beginning was the Word," and "all things were made by Him," and "in Him all things were created."

51. (But if, because He was called child, they idly talk, let them know that both Isaac was named Abraham's child, and the son of the Shunamite was called young child.) Reasonably then, we being servants, when He became as we, He too calls the Father Lord, as we do; and this He has so done from love to man, that we too, being servants by nature, and receiving the Spirit of the Son, might have confidence to call Him by grace Father, who is by nature our Lord. But as we, in calling the Lord Father, do not deny our servitude by nature (for we are His works, and it is 'He that has made us, and not we ourselves '), so when the Son, on taking the servant's form, says, 'The Lord created me a beginning of His ways,' let them not deny the eternity of His Godhead, and that 'in the beginning was the Word,' and 'all things were made by Him,' and 'in Him all things were created. '

The passage in Proverbs, as I've said before, refers not to the Essence but to the manhood of the Word. If it says He was created 'for the works,' it shows the intention to signify not His Essence but the Economy that took place 'for His works,' which comes second to being. Things that are being formed and created are made specifically so they may be and exist, and after that they do whatever the Word commands them, as can be seen in all things. Adam was created not so that he might work, but so that first he might be human. Only after this did he receive the command to work. Noah was created not because of the ark, but so that first he might exist and be a man. Only after this did he receive the command to prepare the ark. The same pattern can be found in every case when you examine it. The great Moses first became a man, and only then was entrusted with governing the people. Therefore, we must suppose the same pattern here. You see, the Word is not created into existence, but 'In the beginning was the Word,' and He is sent afterward 'for the works' and the Economy toward them. Before the works were made, the Son always existed, and there was not yet any need for Him to be created. But when the works were created and afterward there arose a need for the Economy for their restoration, then the Word took upon Himself this condescension and likeness to the works, which He has shown us by the word 'He created.' Through the Prophet Isaiah, wishing to signify the same thing, He says again: 'And now thus says the Lord, who formed me from the womb to be His servant, to gather together Jacob unto Him and Israel, I shall be brought together and be glorified before the Lord.'

51 ( continued). For the passage in the Proverbs, as I have said before, signifies, not the Essence, but the manhood of the Word; for if He says that He was created 'for the works,' He shows His intention of signifying, not His Essence, but the Economy which took place 'for His works,' which comes second to being. For things which are in formation and creation are made specially that they may be and exist, and next they have to do whatever the Word bids them, as may be seen in the case of all things. For Adam was created, not that He might work, but that first he might be man; for it was after this that he received the command to work. And Noah was created, not because of the ark, but that first he might exist and be a man; for after this he received commandment to prepare the ark. And the like will be found in every case on inquiring into it — thus the great Moses first was made a man, and next was entrusted with the government of the people. Therefore here too we must suppose the like; for you see, that the Word is not created into existence, but, 'In the beginning was the Word,' and He is afterwards sent 'for the works' and the Economy towards them. For before the works were made, the Son was ever, nor was there yet need that He should be created; but when the works were created and need arose afterwards of the Economy for their restoration, then it was that the Word took upon Himself this condescension and assimilation to the works; which He has shown us by the word 'He created.' And through the Prophet Isaiah willing to signify the like, He says again: 'And now thus says the Lord, who formed me from the womb to be His servant, to gather together Jacob unto Him and Israel, I shall be brought together and be glorified before the Lord. '

Look at this too: He is formed, not into existence, but in order to gather together the tribes, which already existed before He was formed. For just as in the former passage it says 'He created,' so in this one 'He formed'; and just as there it says 'for the works,' so here 'to gather together.' Therefore from every perspective it is clear that 'He created' and 'He formed' are said after 'the Word was.' For just as the tribes existed before His forming, for whose sake He was formed, so the works exist, for which He was created. And when 'in the beginning was the Word,' the works did not yet exist, as I have said before. But when the works were made and the need arose, then 'He created' was said. Consider this analogy: if some son, when the servants were lost and in the hands of the enemy through their own carelessness, and the need was urgent, were sent by his father to rescue and recover them, and upon setting out were to put on clothing like theirs, and fashion himself as they are, lest the captors, recognizing him as the master, should flee and prevent him from descending to those who were hidden under the earth by them—and then if someone were to ask him why he did this, he would answer, 'My Father thus formed and prepared me for his works.' In speaking this way, he neither implies that he is a servant or one of the works, nor speaks of the beginning of his origination, but of the subsequent charge given him over the works. In the same way the Lord also, having put on our flesh and 'being found in fashion as a man,' if questioned by those who saw Him thus and marveled, would say, 'The Lord created Me the beginning of His ways for His works,' and 'He formed Me to gather together Israel.' The Spirit foretells this again in the Psalms, saying, 'You set Him over the works of Your hands,' which elsewhere the Lord signified of Himself: 'I am set as King by Him upon His holy hill of Sion.' And just as when He shone in the body upon Sion, He had not His beginning of existence or of reign, but being God's Word and everlasting King, He graciously allowed His kingdom to shine in a human way in Sion, so that by redeeming them and us from the sin which reigned in them, He might bring them under His Father's Kingdom—so too, when set 'for the works,' He is not set for things which did not yet exist, but for such as already were and needed restoration.

52. See here too, He is formed, not into existence, but in order to gather together the tribes, which were in existence before He was formed. For as in the former passage stands 'He created,' so in this 'He formed;' and as there 'for the works,' so here 'to gather together;' so that in every point of view it appears that 'He created' and 'He formed' are said after 'the Word was.' For as before His forming the tribes existed, for whose sake He was formed, so does it appear that the works exist, for which He was created. And when 'in the beginning was the Word,' not yet were the works, as I have said before; but when the works were made and the need required, then 'He created' was said; and as if some son, when the servants were lost, and in the hands of the enemy by their own carelessness, and need was urgent, were sent by his father to succour and recover them, and on setting out were to put over him the like dress with them, and should fashion himself as they, lest the capturers, recognising him as the master, should take to flight and prevent his descending to those who were hidden under the earth by them; and then were any one to inquire of him, why he did so, were to make answer, 'My Father thus formed and prepared me for his works,' while in thus speaking, he neither implies that he is a servant nor one of the works, nor speaks of the beginning of His origination, but of the subsequent charge given him over the works — in the same way the Lord also, having put over Him our flesh, and 'being found in fashion as a man,' if He were questioned by those who saw Him thus and marvelled, would say, 'The Lord created Me the beginning of His ways for His works,' and 'He formed Me to gather together Israel.' This again the Spirit foretells in the Psalms, saying, 'You set Him over the works of Your hands Hebrews 2:7;' which elsewhere the Lord signified of Himself, 'I am set as King by Him upon His holy hill of Sion.' And as, when He shone in the body upon Sion, He had not His beginning of existence or of reign, but being God's Word and everlasting King, He vouchsafed that His kingdom should shine in a human way in Sion, that redeeming them and us from the sin which reigned in them, He might bring them under His Father's Kingdom, so, on being set 'for the works,' He is not set for things which did not yet exist, but for such as already were and needed restoration.

The phrases "He created," "He formed," and "He set" all mean the same thing. They do not indicate the beginning of His existence or suggest that His essence was created. Instead, they refer to His gracious work of renewal that happened for our sake. Accordingly, even though He speaks this way, He also taught that He existed before this when He said, "Before Abraham came to be, I am" (John 8:58), and "when He prepared the heavens, I was present with Him," and "I was with Him disposing things." Just as He Himself existed before Abraham came to be, and Israel came into being after Abraham, clearly He exists first and is formed afterwards. His forming does not signify His beginning of being but His taking on of manhood, in which He also gathers together the tribes of Israel. Similarly, since He is "always with the Father," He Himself is the Framer of creation, and His works are clearly later than Himself. Therefore "He created" does not signify His beginning of being, but the divine plan that took place for the works, which He accomplished in the flesh. For it was fitting that He, being different from the works—indeed their Framer—should take upon Himself their renewal, so that since He is created for us, all things may now be created in Him. When He said "He created," He immediately added the reason by naming "the works," so that His creation for the works might signify His becoming human for their renewal. This is typical of divine Scripture: when it indicates the fleshly origin of the Son, it also adds the reason why He became human. But when He speaks, or His servants declare anything about His Godhead, everything is said in simple language, with absolute meaning, and without any reason being added. For He is the Father's Radiance, and just as the Father exists without any reason, we must not seek a reason for that Radiance either. Thus it is written, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1), and no reason is given. But when "the Word was made flesh" (John 1:14), then it adds the reason, saying, "and dwelt among us." Again, when the Apostle says, "Who being in the form of God," he does not introduce the reason until "He took on Him the form of a servant." Then he continues, "He humbled Himself unto death, even the death of the cross" (Philippians 2:6-8), for it was for this purpose that He both became flesh and took the form of a servant.

53. 'He created' then and 'He formed' and 'He set,' having the same meaning, do not denote the beginning of His being, or of His essence as created, but His beneficent renovation which came to pass for us. Accordingly, though He thus speaks, yet He taught also that He Himself existed before this, when He said, 'Before Abraham came to be, I am John 8:58;' and 'when He prepared the heavens, I was present with Him;' and 'I was with Him disposing things.' And as He Himself was before Abraham came to be, and Israel had come into being after Abraham, and plainly He exists first and is formed afterwards, and His forming signifies not His beginning of being but His taking manhood, wherein also He collects together the tribes of Israel; so, as 'being always with the Father,' He Himself is Framer of the creation, and His works are evidently later than Himself, and 'He created' signifies, not His beginning of being, but the Economy which took place for the works, which He effected in the flesh. For it became Him, being other than the works, nay rather their Framer, to take upon Himself their renovation, that, whereas He is created for us, all things may be now created in Him. For when He said 'He created,' He immediately added the reason, naming 'the works,' that His creation for the works might signify His becoming man for their renovation. And this is usual with divine Scripture; for when it signifies the fleshly origination of the Son, it adds also the cause for which He became man; but when he speaks or His servants declare anything of His Godhead, all is said in simple diction, and with an absolute sense, and without reason being added. For He is the Father's Radiance; and as the Father is, but not for any reason, neither must we seek the reason of that Radiance. Thus it is written, 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God John 1:1;' and the wherefore it assigns not; but when 'the Word was made flesh John 1:14,' then it adds the reason why, saying, 'And dwelt among us.' And again the Apostle saying, 'Who being in the form of God,' has not introduced the reason, till 'He took on Him the form of a servant;' for then he continues, 'He humbled Himself unto death, even the death of the cross Philippians 2:6-8;' for it was for this that He both became flesh and took the form of a servant.

The Lord Himself has spoken many things in proverbs, but when giving us information about Himself, He has spoken absolutely: "I in the Father and the Father in Me," and "I and the Father are one," and "He that has seen Me has seen the Father," and "I am the Light of the world," and "I am the Truth." He does not specify in every case the reason or the purpose, lest He should seem secondary to those things for which He was made. For that reason would necessarily take precedence over Him, without which He Himself would not have come into being. Paul, for instance, "separated an Apostle for the Gospel, which the Lord had promised before by the Prophets," was thereby made subordinate to the Gospel of which he was made minister, and John, being chosen to prepare the Lord's way, was made subordinate to the Lord. But the Lord, not being made subordinate to any reason why He should be Word, except only that He is the Father's Offspring and Only-begotten Wisdom, when He becomes man, then assigns the reason why He is about to take flesh. For the need of humanity preceded His becoming man, apart from which He would not have taken on flesh. And what the need was for which He became man, He Himself indicates in this way: "I came down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him that sent Me. And this is the will of Him which has sent Me, that of all which He has given Me, I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of My Father, that every one which sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life, and I will raise him up at the last day." And again: "I have come a light into the world, that whosoever believes in Me, should not abide in darkness." And again he says: "To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth." And John has written: "For this was manifested the Son of God, that He might destroy the works of the devil."

54. And the Lord Himself has spoken many things in proverbs; but when giving us notices about Himself, He has spoken absolutely; 'I in the Father and the Father in Me,' and 'I and the Father are one,' and, 'He that has seen Me, has seen the Father,' and 'I am the Light of the world,' and, 'I am the Truth;' not setting down in every case the reason, nor the wherefore, lest He should seem second to those things for which He was made. For that reason would needs take precedence of Him, without which not even He Himself had come into being. Paul, for instance, 'separated an Apostle for the Gospel, which the Lord had promised afore by the Prophets Romans 1:1-2,' was thereby made subordinate to the Gospel, of which he was made minister, and John, being chosen to prepare the Lord's way, was made subordinate to the Lord; but the Lord, not being made subordinate to any reason why He should be Word, save only that He is the Father's Offspring and Only-begotten Wisdom, when He becomes man, then assigns the reason why He is about to take flesh. For the need of man preceded His becoming man, apart from which He had not put on flesh. And what the need was for which He became man, He Himself thus signifies, 'I came down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him that sent Me. And this is the will of Him which has sent Me, that of all which He has given Me, I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of My Father, that every one which sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life, and I will raise him up at the last day.' And again; 'I have come a light into the world, that whosoever believes in Me, should not abide in darkness.' And again he says; 'To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth.' And John has written: 'For this was manifested the Son of God, that He might destroy the works of the devil 1 John 3:8.'

To give witness, and to undergo death for our sake, to raise humanity and destroy the devil's works, the Savior came—and this is the reason for His incarnate presence. Otherwise, there would have been no resurrection unless there had been death; and how could there have been death unless He had possessed a mortal body? The Apostle, learning from Him, expresses this as follows: "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death He might bring to nought him that had the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage" (Hebrews 2:14-15). And, "Since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead" (1 Corinthians 15:21). And again, "For what the Law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh; that the ordinance of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit" (Romans 8:3-4). And John says, "For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved" (John 3:17). And again, the Savior has spoken in His own person, "For judgment am I come into this world, that they who see not might see, and that they which see might become blind." He came not for Himself, then, but for our salvation, and to abolish death, condemn sin, give sight to the blind, and raise everyone from the dead. But if not for Himself, but for us, then consequently He is created not for Himself but for us. But if He is not created for Himself but for us, then He is not Himself a creature; rather, having put on our flesh, He uses such language. And that this is the sense of the Scriptures we may learn from the Apostle, who says in Ephesians: "Having broken down the middle wall of partition between us, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances, to create in Himself of two one new man, so making peace" (Ephesians 2:14-15). But if the two are created in Him, and these are in His body, then reasonably, bearing the two in Himself, He is as if Himself created; for those who were created in Himself He made one, and He was in them as they were in Him. And thus, with the two being created in Him, He may suitably say, "The Lord created me." For just as by receiving our infirmities He is said to be infirm Himself, though He is not Himself infirm—for He is the Power of God—and He became sin for us and a curse, though He had not sinned Himself, but because He Himself bore our sins and our curse, so, by creating us in Him, let Him say, "He created me for the works," though He is not Himself a creature.

55. To give a witness then, and for our sakes to undergo death, to raise man up and destroy the works of the devil, the Saviour came, and this is the reason of His incarnate presence. For otherwise a resurrection had not been, unless there had been death; and how had death been, unless He had had a mortal body? This the Apostle, learning from Him, thus sets forth, 'Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death He might bring to nought him that had the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage Hebrews 2:14-15.' And, 'Since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead 1 Corinthians 15:21.' And again, 'For what the Law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh; that the ordinance of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit Romans 8:3-4.' And John says, 'For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved John 3:17.' And again, the Saviour has spoken in His own person, 'For judgment am I come into this world, that they who see not might see, and that they which see might become blind.' Not for Himself then, but for our salvation, and to abolish death, and to condemn sin, and to give sight to the blind, and to raise up all from the dead, has He come; but if not for Himself, but for us, by consequence not for Himself but for us is He created. But if not for Himself is He created, but for us, then He is not Himself a creature, but, as having put on our flesh, He uses such language. And that this is the sense of the Scriptures, we may learn from the Apostle, who says in Ephesians, 'Having broken down the middle wall of partition between us, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances, to create in Himself of two one new man, so making peace Ephesians 2:14-15.' But if in Him the two are created, and these are in His body, reasonably then, bearing the two in Himself, He is as if Himself created; for those who were created in Himself He made one, and He was in them, as they. And thus, the two being created in Him, He may say suitably, 'The Lord created me.' For as by receiving our infirmities, He is said to be infirm Himself, though not Himself infirm, for He is the Power of God, and He became sin for us and a curse, though not having sinned Himself, but because He Himself bare our sins and our curse, so, by creating us in Him, let Him say, 'He created me for the works,' though not Himself a creature.

For if, as they claim, the essence (ousia) of the Word is of created nature, and therefore He says "The Lord created me"—being a creature—then He was not created for us. But if He was not created for us, we are not created in Him. And if not created in Him, we do not have Him in ourselves but only externally, like receiving instruction from Him as from a teacher. If this were the case with us, sin would not have lost its reign over the flesh, since it would remain inherent and not cast out of it. But the Apostle contradicts such teaching a little earlier when he says, "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus" (Ephesians 2:10). And if we are created in Christ, then it is not He who is created, but we in Him. Thus the words "He created" are for our sake. Because of our need, the Word, though being Creator, accepted words that are used of creatures—words that are not proper to Him as the Word, but are ours who are created in Him. And just as the Father always exists, so does His Word, and being always, He always says "I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him" (Proverbs 8:30), and "I am in the Father and the Father in Me" (John 14:10). So when He became man for our need, He consistently uses language as we do: "The Lord has created Me," so that by His dwelling in the flesh, sin might be completely expelled from the flesh, and we might have a free mind. For what ought He to say when made man? "In the beginning I was man"? This would neither be fitting for Him nor true. And just as it would not be fitting to say this, so it is natural and proper in the case of man to say "He created" and "He made" Him. Therefore, the reason for "He created" is added, namely, the need of the works. And where the reason is added, surely that reason correctly explains the text. Thus here, when He says "He created," He sets down the cause: "the works." On the other hand, when He indicates absolutely the generation from the Father, He immediately adds, "Before all the hills He begets me" (Proverbs 8:25). But He does not add the "why," as in the case of "He created" when He says "for the works," but absolutely "He begets me," as in the text "In the beginning was the Word" (John 1:1). For even if no works had been created, still the Word of God existed, and the Word was God. And His becoming man would not have taken place if the need of humanity had not become a cause. Therefore, the Son is not a creature.

56. For if, as they hold, the Essence of the Word being of created nature, therefore He says, 'The Lord created me,' being a creature, He was not created for us; but if He was not created for us, we are not created in Him; and, if not created in Him, we have Him not in ourselves but externally; as, for instance, as receiving instruction from Him as from a teacher. And it being so with us, sin has not lost its reign over the flesh, being inherent and not cast out of it. But the Apostle opposes such a doctrine a little before, when he says, 'For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus Ephesians 2:10;' and if in Christ we are created, then it is not He who is created, but we in Him; and thus the words 'He created' are for our sake. For because of our need, the Word, though being Creator, endured words which are used of creatures; which are not proper to Him, as being the Word, but are ours who are created in Him. And as, since the Father is always, so is His Word, and always being, always says 'I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him Proverbs 8:30,' and 'I am in the Father and the Father in Me John 14:10;' so, when for our need He became man, consistently does He use language, as ourselves, 'The Lord has created Me,' that, by His dwelling in the flesh, sin might perfectly be expelled from the flesh, and we might have a free mind. For what ought He, when made man, to say? 'In the beginning I was man?' this were neither suitable to Him nor true; and as it beseemed not to say this, so it is natural and proper in the case of man to say, 'He created' and 'He made' Him. On this account then the reason of 'He created' is added, namely, the need of the works; and where the reason is added, surely the reason rightly explains the lection. Thus here, when He says 'He created,' He sets down the cause, 'the works;' on the other hand, when He signifies absolutely the generation from the Father, straightway He adds, 'Before all the hills He begets me Proverbs 8:25;' but He does not add the 'wherefore,' as in the case of 'He created,' saying, 'for the works,' but absolutely, 'He begets me,' as in the text, 'In the beginning was the Word John 1:1.' For, though no works had been created, still 'the Word' of God 'was,' and 'the Word was God.' And His becoming man would not have taken place, had not the need of men become a cause. The Son then is not a creature.

If He had been a creature, He would not have said "He begets me," for creatures come from outside and are works of the Maker. But the Offspring is not from outside nor a work, but from the Father and proper to His ousia. Therefore they are creatures, while this is God's Word and Only-begotten Son. For example, Moses did not say of creation "In the beginning He begot" or "In the beginning was," but "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Nor did David say in the Psalm "Your hands have begotten me," but "made me and fashioned me," everywhere applying the word "made" to creatures. But to the Son it is the opposite—he has not said "I made" but "I begot" and "He begets me" and "My heart uttered a good Word." And in the case of creation, "In the beginning He made," but in the case of the Son, "In the beginning was the Word." And there is this difference: creatures are made at a beginning and have a beginning of existence connected with an interval. Therefore what is said of them, "In the beginning He made," means the same as "From the beginning He made"—as the Lord, knowing what He had made, taught when He silenced the Pharisees with the words "He which made them from the beginning, made them male and female." For from some beginning, when they did not yet exist, created things were brought into being and created. The Holy Spirit has signified this in the Psalms, saying "You, Lord, at the beginning have laid the foundation of the earth," and again "O think upon Your congregation which You have purchased from the beginning." Now it is clear that what takes place at the beginning has a beginning of creation, and that from some beginning God purchased His congregation. And that "In the beginning He made," by saying "made," means "began to make," Moses himself shows by saying after the completion of all things, "And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because that in it He had rested from all His work which God began to make." Therefore the creatures began to be made. But the Word of God, not having a beginning of being, certainly did not begin to be or begin to come to be, but always was. And the works have their beginning in their making, and their beginning comes before their coming to be. But the Word, not being one of the things that come to be, rather comes to be Himself the Framer of those which have a beginning. And the being of created things is measured by their becoming, and from some beginning God begins to make them through the Word, so that it may be known that they did not exist before their creation. But the Word has His being in no other beginning than the Father, whom they allow to be without beginning, so that He too exists without beginning in the Father, being His Offspring, not His creature.

57. For had He been a creature, He had not said, 'He begets me,' for the creatures are from without, and are works of the Maker; but the Offspring is not from without nor a work, but from the Father, and proper to His Essence. Wherefore they are creatures; this God's Word and Only-begotten Son. For instance, Moses did not say of the creation, 'In the beginning He begot,' nor 'In the beginning was,' but 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth Genesis 1:1.' Nor did David say in the Psalm, 'Your hands have begotten me, ' but 'made me and fashioned me,' everywhere applying the word 'made' to the creatures. But to the Son contrariwise; for he has not said 'I made,' but 'I begot,' and 'He begets me,' and 'My heart uttered a good Word.' And in the instance of the creation, 'In the beginning He made;' but in the instance of the Son, 'In the beginning was the Word John 1:1.' And there is this difference, that the creatures are made upon the beginning, and have a beginning of existence connected with an interval; wherefore also what is said of them, 'In the beginning He made,' is as much as saying of them, 'From the beginning He made:'– as the Lord, knowing that which He had made, taught, when He silenced the Pharisees, with the words, 'He which made them from the beginning, made them male and female Matthew 19:4;' for from some beginning, when they were not yet, were originate things brought into being and created. This too the Holy Spirit has signified in the Psalms, saying, 'Thou, Lord, at the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth;' and again, 'O think upon Your congregation which You have purchased from the beginning;' now it is plain that what takes place at the beginning, has a beginning of creation, and that from some beginning God purchased His congregation. And that 'In the beginning He made,' from his saying 'made,' means 'began to make,' Moses himself shows by saying, after the completion of all things, 'And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because that in it He had rested from all His work which God began to make Genesis 2:3.' Therefore the creatures began to be made; but the Word of God, not having beginning of being, certainly did not begin to be, nor begin to come to be, but was ever. And the works have their beginning in their making, and their beginning precedes their coming to be; but the Word, not being of things which come to be, rather comes to be Himself the Framer of those which have a beginning. And the being of things originate is measured by their becoming, and from some beginning does God begin to make them through the Word, that it may be known that they were not before their origination; but the Word has His being, in no other beginning than the Father, whom they allow to be without beginning, so that He too exists without beginning in the Father, being His Offspring, not His creature.

Divine Scripture recognizes the difference between the Offspring and created things, showing that the Offspring is a Son who did not begin from any starting point but is eternal. Created things, however, as external works of the Maker, began to come into existence. Therefore John, when teaching divine doctrine about the Son and understanding the difference in these terms, did not say "In the beginning has become" or "been made," but "In the beginning was the Word." This shows us that we should understand "Offspring" from the word "was," and not think of Him in terms of time intervals, but believe that the Son exists always and eternally. Given these proofs, how could you Arians, misunderstanding the passage in Deuteronomy, dare to commit this fresh act of irreligion against the Lord by saying that He is a work, a creature, or even offspring? For you treat offspring and work as meaning the same thing. But here too you will be shown to be as ignorant as you are irreligious. Your first passage is this: "Is not He your Father that bought you? Did He not make you and create you?" Shortly after in the same Song he says, "You deserted God Who begot you, and forgot God Who nourished you." The meaning conveyed in these passages is very striking. He does not say first "He begot," in case that term should be taken as interchangeable with "He made," and these people should have an excuse for saying, "Moses tells us that God said from the beginning, 'Let Us make man,'" but he soon after says himself, "God that begot you you deserted," as if the terms were equivalent—as if offspring and work were the same. But after the words "bought" and "made," he has added last of all "begot," so that the sentence might carry its own interpretation. In the word "made" he accurately indicates what belongs to human beings by nature—to be works and created things. But in the word "begot" he shows God's loving kindness exercised toward human beings after He had created them. And since they proved ungrateful for this, Moses reproaches them, saying first, "Do you thus repay the Lord?" and then adds, "Is not He your Father that bought you? Did He not make you and create you?" Next he says, "They sacrificed to demons, not to God, to gods whom they knew not. New gods and strange came up, whom your fathers knew not; the God that begot you you deserted."

58. Thus does divine Scripture recognise the difference between the Offspring and things made, and show that the Offspring is a Son, not begun from any beginning, but eternal; but that the thing made, as an external work of the Maker, began to come into being. John therefore delivering divine doctrine about the Son, and knowing the difference of the phrases, said not, 'In the beginning has become' or 'been made,' but 'In the beginning was the Word.' that we might understand 'Offspring' by 'was,' and not account of Him by intervals, but believe the Son always and eternally to exist. And with these proofs, how, O Arians, misunderstanding the passage in Deuteronomy, did you venture a fresh act of irreligion against the Lord, saying that 'He is a work,' or 'creature,' or indeed 'offspring?' for offspring and work you take to mean the same thing; but here too you shall be shown to be as unlearned as you are irreligious. Your first passage is this, 'Is not He your Father that bought you? Did He not make you and create you?' And shortly after in the same Song he says, 'You deserted God Who begot you, and forgot God Who nourished you.' Now the meaning conveyed in these passages is very remarkable; for he says not first 'He begot,' lest that term should be taken as indiscriminate with 'He made,' and these men should have a pretence for saying, ' Moses tells us indeed that God said from the beginning, Let Us make man Genesis 1:26, ' but he soon after says himself, 'God that begot you you deserted,' as if the terms were indifferent; for offspring and work are the same. But after the words 'bought' and 'made,' he has added last of all 'begot,' that the sentence might carry its own interpretation; for in the word 'made' he accurately denotes what belongs to men by nature, to be works and things made; but in the word 'begot' he shows God's lovingkindness exercised towards men after He had created them. And since they have proved ungrateful upon this, thereupon Moses reproaches them, saying first, 'Do ye thus requite the Lord.' and then adds, 'Is not He your Father that bought you? Did He not make you and create you Deuteronomy 32:6?' And next he says, 'They sacrificed unto devils, not to God, to gods whom they knew not. New gods and strange came up, whom your fathers knew not; the God that begot you you deserted. '

God not only created people to be human, but called them to be sons, having begotten them. The term "begot" here, as elsewhere, refers to a Son, as He says through the Prophet, "I begot sons and exalted them." Generally, when Scripture wants to signify a son, it does so not by the term "created," but certainly by "begot." John seems to say this: "He gave to them power to become children of God, even to them that believe in His Name; which were begotten not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." Here too the careful distinction is well maintained, for first he says "become," because they are not called sons by nature but by adoption. Then he says "were begotten," because they too had at least received the name of son. But the People, as the Prophet says, "despised" their Benefactor. This is God's kindness to humanity: those of whom He is Maker, of them according to grace He afterwards becomes Father also. He becomes Father when people, His creatures, receive into their hearts, as the Apostle says, "the Spirit of His Son, crying, Abba, Father." These are they who, having received the Word, gained power from Him to become sons of God, for they could not become sons, being by physis creatures, except by receiving the Spirit of the natural and true Son. Therefore, so that this might happen, "The Word became flesh," that He might make humanity capable of Godhead. This same meaning can also be gained from the Prophet Malachi, who says, "Hath not One God created us? Have we not all one Father?" First he puts "created," next "Father," to show, like the other writers, that from the beginning we were creatures by nature, and God is our Creator through the Word. But afterwards we were made sons, and from then on God the Creator becomes our Father also. Therefore "Father" is proper to the Son, and not "creature," but "Son" is proper to the Father. Accordingly this passage also proves that we are not sons by nature, but the Son who is in us is. And again, God is not our Father by nature, but of that Word in us, in whom and because of whom we "cry, Abba, Father." Likewise, the Father calls them sons in whomever He sees His own Son, and says, "I begot," since begetting signifies a Son, and making indicates the works. Thus it is that we are not begotten first, but made, for it is written, "Let Us make man." But afterwards, on receiving the grace of the Spirit, we are said from then on to be begotten also, just as the great Moses in his Song with fitting meaning says first "He bought," and afterwards "He begot," lest, hearing "He begot," they might forget their own original nature. Rather, they might know that from the beginning they are creatures, but when according to grace they are said to be begotten as sons, still no less than before are they works according to nature.

59. For God not only created them to be men, but called them to be sons, as having begotten them. For the term 'begot' is here as elsewhere expressive of a Son, as He says by the Prophet, 'I begot sons and exalted them;' and generally, when Scripture wishes to signify a son, it does so, not by the term 'created,' but undoubtedly by that of 'begot.' And this John seems to say, 'He gave to them power to become children of God, even to them that believe in His Name; which were begotten not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God John 1:12-13.' And here too the cautious distinction is well kept up, for first he says 'become,' because they are not called sons by nature but by adoption; then he says 'were begotten,' because they too had received at any rate the name of son. But the People, as says the Prophet, 'despised' their Benefactor. But this is God's kindness to man, that of whom He is Maker, of them according to grace He afterwards becomes Father also; becomes, that is, when men, His creatures, receive into their hearts, as the Apostle says, 'the Spirit of His Son, crying, Abba, Father.' And these are they who, having received the Word, gained power from Him to become sons of God; for they could not become sons, being by nature creatures, otherwise than by receiving the Spirit of the natural and true Son. Wherefore, that this might be, 'The Word became flesh,' that He might make man capable of Godhead. This same meaning may be gained also from the Prophet Malachi, who says, 'Hath not One God created us? Have we not all one Father Malachi 2:10?' for first he puts 'created,' next 'Father,' to show, as the other writers, that from the beginning we were creatures by nature, and God is our Creator through the Word; but afterwards we were made sons, and thenceforward God the Creator becomes our Father also. Therefore 'Father' is proper to the Son; and not 'creature,' but 'Son' is proper to the Father. Accordingly this passage also proves, that we are not sons by nature, but the Son who is in us; and again, that God is not our Father by nature, but of that Word in us, in whom and because of whom we 'cry, Abba, Father Galatians 4:6.' And so in like manner, the Father calls them sons in whomsoever He sees His own Son, and says, 'I begot.' since begetting is significant of a Son, and making is indicative of the works. And thus it is that we are not begotten first, but made; for it is written, 'Let Us make man Genesis 1:26;' but afterwards, on receiving the grace of the Spirit, we are said thenceforth to be begotten also; just as the great Moses in his Song with an apposite meaning says first 'He bought,' and afterwards 'He begot.' lest, hearing 'He begot,' they might forget their own original nature; but that they might know that from the beginning they are creatures, but when according to grace they are said to be begotten, as sons, still no less than before are men works according to nature.

The Lord Himself shows in Proverbs that creature and offspring are not the same but differ from each other in nature and in the meaning of the words. After saying, "The Lord created me a beginning of His ways," He added, "But before all the hills He begot me." If the Word were by nature and in His ousia a creature, and if there were no difference between offspring and creature, He would not have added "He begot me" but would have been satisfied with "He created," as if that term meant the same as "He begot." But as it is, after saying "He created me a beginning of His ways for His works," He added not simply "begot me" but with the connecting word "But," thereby guarding the term "created" when He says, "But before all the hills He begot me." The phrase "begot me" following so closely after "created me" makes the meaning unified and shows that "created" is said with a purpose, while "begot me" comes before "created me." Just as if He had said the reverse—"The Lord begot me" and then continued "But before the hills He created me"—"created" would certainly come before "begot," so having first said "created" and then added "But before all the hills He begot me," He necessarily shows that "begot" came before "created." In saying "Before all He begot me," He indicates that He is different from all things, since it was shown to be true earlier in this book that no one creature was made before another, but all things came into existence together at once upon one and the same command. Therefore the words that follow "created" do not also follow "begot me." With "created" is added "beginning of ways," but with "begot me" He does not say "He begot me as a beginning" but "before all He begot me." But He who is before all is not a beginning of all but is different from all. If He is different from all—in which "all" includes the beginning of all—it follows that He is different from the creatures. The point becomes clear that the Word, being different from all things and before all, was afterwards created "a beginning of the ways for works" because He became man, so that, as the Apostle has said, He who is the "Beginning" and "First-born from the dead" might "in all things have the preeminence."

60. And that creature and offspring are not the same, but differ from each other in nature and the signification of the words, the Lord Himself shows even in the Proverbs. For having said, 'The Lord created me a beginning of His ways;' He has added, 'But before all the hills He begot me.' If then the Word were by nature and in His Essence a creature, and there were no difference between offspring and creature, He would not have added, 'He begot me,' but had been satisfied with 'He created,' as if that term implied 'He begot.' but, as it is, after saying, 'He created me a beginning of His ways for His works,' He has added, not simply 'begot me,' but with the connection of the conjunction 'But,' as guarding thereby the term 'created,' when he says, 'But before all the hills He begot me.' For 'begot me' succeeding in such close connection to 'created me,' makes the meaning one, and shows that 'created' is said with an object, but that 'begot me' is prior to 'created me.' For as, if He had said the reverse, 'The Lord begot me,' and went on, 'But before the hills He created me,' 'created' would certainly precede 'begot,' so having said first 'created,' and then added 'But before all the hills He begot me,' He necessarily shows that 'begot' preceded 'created.' For in saying, 'Before all He begot me,' He intimates that He is other than all things; it having been shown to be true in an earlier part of this book, that no one creature was made before another, but all things originate subsisted at once together upon one and the same command. Therefore neither do the words which follow 'created,' also follow 'begot me;' but in the case of 'created' is added 'beginning of ways,' but of 'begot me,' He says not, 'He begot me as a beginning,' but 'before all He begot me.' But He who is before all is not a beginning of all, but is other than all; but if other than all (in which 'all' the beginning of all is included), it follows that He is other than the creatures; and it becomes a clear point, that the Word, being other than all things and before all, afterwards is created 'a beginning of the ways for works,' because He became man, that, as the Apostle has said, He who is the 'Beginning' and 'First-born from the dead, in all things might have the preeminence Colossians 1:18.'

Such, then, is the difference between "created" and "begot me," and between "beginning of ways" and "before all." God, being first Creator, next becomes Father of people because His Word dwells in them, as has been said. But in the case of the Word, the reverse happens. God, being His Father by nature, becomes afterwards both His Creator and Maker when the Word takes on that flesh which was created and made, and becomes human. Just as people, receiving the Spirit of the Son, become children through Him, so the Word of God, when He Himself takes on human flesh, is then said both to be created and to have been made. If we are sons by nature, then He is by nature creature and work. But if we become sons by adoption and grace, then the Word also, when in grace toward us He became human, said, "The Lord created me." And furthermore, when He took on a created nature and became like us in body, He was reasonably called both our Brother and "First-born." For though it was after us that He was made human for us, and our brother by similarity of body, still He is therefore called and is the "First-born" of us because, when all people were lost according to the transgression of Adam, His flesh before all others was saved and liberated, as being the Word's body. And from then on we, becoming incorporate with It, are saved after Its pattern. For in It the Lord becomes our guide to the Kingdom of Heaven and to His own Father, saying, "I am the way" and "the door," and "through Me all must enter." This is also why He is said to be "First-born from the dead," not that He died before us, for we had died first, but because having undergone death for us and abolished it, He was the first to rise, as human, raising His own Body for our sakes. From then on, since He has risen, we too from Him and because of Him rise in due course from the dead.

61. Such then being the difference between 'created' and 'begot me,' and between 'beginning of ways' and 'before all,' God, being first Creator, next, as has been said, becomes Father of men, because of His Word dwelling in them. But in the case of the Word the reverse; for God, being His Father by nature, becomes afterwards both His Creator and Maker, when the Word puts on that flesh which was created and made, and becomes man. For, as men, receiving the Spirit of the Son, become children through Him, so the Word of God, when He Himself puts on the flesh of man, then is said both to be created and to have been made. If then we are by nature sons, then is He by nature creature and work; but if we become sons by adoption and grace, then has the Word also, when in grace towards us He became man, said, 'The Lord created me.' And in the next place, when He put on a created nature and became like us in body, reasonably was He therefore called both our Brother and 'First-born.' For though it was after us that He was made man for us, and our brother by similitude of body, still He is therefore called and is the 'First-born' of us, because, all men being lost, according to the transgression of Adam, His flesh before all others was saved and liberated, as being the Word's body; and henceforth we, becoming incorporate with It, are saved after Its pattern. For in It the Lord becomes our guide to the Kingdom of Heaven and to His own Father, saying, 'I am the way' and 'the door,' and 'through Me all must enter.' Whence also is He said to be 'First-born from the dead Revelation 1:5,' not that He died before us, for we had died first; but because having undergone death for us and abolished it, He was the first to rise, as man, for our sakes raising His own Body. Henceforth He having risen, we too from Him and because of Him rise in due course from the dead.

But if He is also called "First-born of the creation," this is not because He is reduced to the level of creatures and is simply first among them in time (for how could that be, since He is "Only-begotten?"). Rather, it is because of the Word's condescension to the creatures, through which He has become the "Brother" of "many." For the term "Only-begotten" is used where there are no brothers, but "First-born" is used because of brothers. Accordingly, it is nowhere written in the Scriptures "the first-born of God" or "the creature of God." But "Only-begotten" and "Son" and "Word" and "Wisdom" refer to Him as belonging properly to the Father. Thus, "We have seen His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father" (John 1:14), and "God sent His Only-begotten Son" (1 John 4:9), and "O Lord, Your Word endures forever," and "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God," and "Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of God" (1 Corinthians 1:24), and "This is My beloved Son," and "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." But "First-born" refers to His descent to the creation, for it is of the creation that He has been called first-born, and "He created" refers to His grace toward the works, for it is for them that He is created. If then He is Only-begotten, as He truly is, "First-born" needs some explanation. But if He is really First-born, then He is not Only-begotten. For the same person cannot be both Only-begotten and First-born, except in different relations—that is, Only-begotten because of His generation from the Father, as has been said, and First-born because of His condescension to the creation and His making the many His brothers. Certainly, since these two terms are inconsistent with each other, one should say that the attribute of being Only-begotten rightly has preference in the case of the Word, in that there is no other Word or other Wisdom, but He alone is the true Son of the Father. Moreover, as was said before, He is called "The Only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father" (John 1:18) without any qualifying reason, but absolutely. But the word "First-born" has the creation as a reason connected with it, which Paul goes on to state: "for in Him all things were created" (Colossians 1:16). But if all the creatures were created in Him, He is other than the creatures and is not a creature, but the Creator of the creatures.

62. But if He is also called 'First-born of the creation,' still this is not as if He were levelled to the creatures, and only first of them in point of time (for how should that be, since He is 'Only-begotten?'), but it is because of the Word's condescension to the creatures, according to which He has become the 'Brother' of 'many.' For the term 'Only-begotten' is used where there are no brethren, but 'First-born ' because of brethren. Accordingly it is nowhere written in the Scriptures, 'the first-born of God,' nor 'the creature of God;' but 'Only-begotten' and 'Son' and 'Word' and 'Wisdom,' refer to Him as proper to the Father. Thus, 'We have seen His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father John 1:14;' and 'God sent His Only-begotten Son 1 John 4:9;' and 'O Lord, Your Word endures for ever;' and 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God;' and 'Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of God 1 Corinthians 1:24;' and 'This is My beloved Son.' and 'You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.' But ' first-born ' implied the descent to the creation; for of it has He been called first-born; and 'He created' implies His grace towards the works, for for them is He created. If then He is Only-begotten, as indeed He is, 'First-born' needs some explanation; but if He be really First-born, then He is not Only-begotten. For the same cannot be both Only-begotten and First-born, except in different relations;– that is, Only-begotten, because of His generation from the Father, as has been said; and First-born, because of His condescension to the creation and His making the many His brethren. Certainly, those two terms being inconsistent with each other, one should say that the attribute of being Only-begotten has justly the preference in the instance of the Word, in that there is no other Word, or other Wisdom, but He alone is very Son of the Father. Moreover, as was before said, not in connection with any reason, but absolutely it is said of Him, 'The Only-begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father John 1:18;' but the word 'First-born' has again the creation as a reason in connection with it, which Paul proceeds to say, 'for in Him all things were created Colossians 1:16.' But if all the creatures were created in Him, He is other than the creatures, and is not a creature, but the Creator of the creatures.

The title "First-born" was not given to Him because He is from the Father, but because creation came into being in Him. Just as He was the Son before creation existed—the Son through whom creation came to be—so also before He was called the First-born of the whole creation, the Word Himself was already with God and the Word was God. But these irreligious people do not understand this, and they go around saying, "If He is First-born of all creation, then clearly He too is one of the creatures." How foolish! If He is simply "First-born of the whole creation," then He is distinct from the whole creation. The text does not say "He is First-born above the rest of the creatures," which would suggest He is counted as one of the creatures. Rather, it says "of the whole creation," to show that He is distinct from creation. For example, Reuben is not called the first-born of all the children of Jacob, but of Jacob himself and his brothers, so that he would not be thought to be someone other than one of Jacob's children. Similarly, the Apostle does not say concerning the Lord that He became First-born of all, which would suggest He has a body different from ours, but rather "among many brethren," because of the likeness of the flesh. Therefore, if the Word were one of the creatures, Scripture would have said that He was First-born of other creatures. But since the saints say that He is "First-born of the whole creation," the Son of God is clearly shown to be distinct from the whole creation and not a creature. For if He is a creature, He would be First-born of Himself. How then is it possible, O Arians, for Him to be both before and after Himself? Furthermore, if He is a creature, and the whole creation came to be through Him and holds together in Him, how can He both create the creation and be one of the things that hold together in Him? Since such an idea is absurd in itself, the truth proves against them that He is called "First-born among many brethren" because of the relationship of the flesh, and "First-born from the dead" because the resurrection of the dead comes from Him and after Him, and "First-born of the whole creation" because of the Father's love for humanity. This love brought it about that in His Word not only do "all things hold together," but the creation itself, of which the Apostle speaks when he says it is "waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God" and "shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God," will one day be delivered. The Lord will be First-born of this delivered creation and of all those who are made children, so that by His being called first, those who come after Him may remain secure, depending on the Word as their beginning.

63. Not then because He was from the Father was He called 'First-born,' but because in Him the creation came to be; and as before the creation He was the Son, through whom was the creation, so also before He was called the First-born of the whole creation, not the less was the Word Himself with God and the Word was God. But this also not understanding, these irreligious men go about saying, 'If He is First-born of all creation, it is plain that He too is one of the creation.' Senseless men! If He is simply 'First-born of the whole creation,' then He is other than the whole creation; for he says not, 'He is First-born above the rest of the creatures,' lest He be reckoned to be as one of the creatures, but it is written, 'of the whole creation,' that He may appear other than the creation. Reuben, for instance, is not said to be first-born of all the children of Jacob, but of Jacob himself and his brethren; lest he should be thought to be some other beside the children of Jacob. Nay, even concerning the Lord Himself the Apostle says not, 'that He may become First-born of all,' lest He be thought to bear a body other than ours, but 'among many brethren Romans 8:29,' because of the likeness of the flesh. If then the Word also were one of the creatures, Scripture would have said of Him also that He was First-born of other creatures; but in fact, the saints saying that He is 'First-born of the whole creation Colossians 1:15,' the Son of God is plainly shown to be other than the whole creation and not a creature. For if He is a creature, He will be First-born of Himself. How then is it possible, O Arians, for Him to be before and after Himself? Next, if He is a creature, and the whole creation through Him came to be, and in Him consists, how can He both create the creation and be one of the things which consist in Him? Since then such a notion is in itself unseemly, it is proved against them by the truth, that He is called 'First-born among many brethren?' because of the relationship of the flesh, and 'First-born from the dead,' because the resurrection of the dead is from Him and after Him; and 'First-born of the whole creation,' because of the Father's love to man, which brought it to pass that in His Word not only 'all things consist,' but the creation itself, of which the Apostle speaks, 'waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God, shall be delivered' one time 'from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.' Of this creation thus delivered, the Lord will be First-born, both of it and of all those who are made children, that by His being called first, those that come after Him may abide, as depending on the Word as a beginning.

I believe even those who oppose the faith will be ashamed of such a view. For if the situation is not as we have explained, but they insist that He is "First-born of the whole creation" in terms of His essential nature—a creature among creatures—then they should realize they are conceiving Him as brother and companion to things that lack reason and life. For these too are parts of the whole creation, and the "First-born" must indeed be first in time, but only in that way, and must be the same in kind and likeness with everything else. How then can they say this without going beyond all bounds of impiety? Who will tolerate them if this is what they are saying? Who can help but hate them for even imagining such things? It is clear to everyone that He has not been called "First-born" of creation either for His own sake as a creature, or because He has any connection according to essence with the whole creation. Rather, it is because the Word, when He formed the creatures in the beginning, condescended to created things so that it might be possible for them to come into being. For they could not have endured His nature, which was untempered splendor—even that of the Father—unless He had condescended through the Father's love for humanity and sustained them and took hold of them and brought them into existence. And furthermore, because through this condescension of the Word, the creation itself is also made a son through Him, so that He might be in all respects "First-born" of it, as has been said, both in creating and also in being brought into this very world for the sake of all. For it is written, "When He brings the First-born into the world, He says, Let all the Angels of God worship Him." Let Christ's enemies hear this and tear themselves apart, because His coming into the world is what causes Him to be called "First-born" of all. And so the Son is the Father's "Only-begotten" because He alone is from Him, and He is the "First-born of creation" because of this adoption of all as sons. And just as He is First-born among brethren and rose from the dead "the first fruits of them that slept," so, since it was fitting for Him "in all things to have the preeminence," He is therefore created "a beginning of ways," so that we, walking along it and entering through Him who says, "I am the Way" and "the Door," and sharing in the knowledge of the Father, may also hear the words, "Blessed are the undefiled in the Way," and "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God."

64. And I think that the irreligious men themselves will be shamed from such a thought; for if the case stands not as we have said, but they will rule it that He is 'First-born of the whole creation' as in essence — a creature among creatures, let them reflect that they will be conceiving Him as brother and fellow of the things without reason and life. For of the whole creation these also are parts; and the 'First-born' must be first indeed in point of time but only thus, and in kind and similitude must be the same with all. How then can they say this without exceeding all measures of irreligion? Or who will endure them, if this is their language? Or who can but hate them even imagining such things? For it is evident to all, that neither for Himself, as being a creature, nor as having any connection according to essence with the whole creation, has He been called 'First-born' of it: but because the Word, when at the beginning He framed the creatures, condescended to things originate, that it might be possible for them to come to be. For they could not have endured His nature, which was untempered splendour, even that of the Father, unless condescending by the Father's love for man He had supported them and taken hold of them and brought them into existence; and next, because, by this condescension of the Word, the creation too is made a son through Him, that He might be in all respects 'First-born' of it, as has been said, both in creating, and also in being brought for the sake of all into this very world. For so it is written, 'When He brings the First-born into the world, He says, Let all the Angels of God worship Him Hebrews 1:6.' Let Christ's enemies hear and tear themselves to pieces, because His coming into the world is what makes Him called 'First-born' of all; and thus the Son is the Father's 'Only-begotten,' because He alone is from Him, and He is the 'First-born of creation,' because of this adoption of all as sons. And as He is First-born among brethren and rose from the dead 'the first fruits of them that slept 1 Corinthians 15:20;' so, since it became Him 'in all things to have the preeminence Colossians 1:18,' therefore He is created 'a beginning of ways,' that we, walking along it and entering through Him who says, 'I am the Way' and 'the Door,' and partaking of the knowledge of the Father, may also hear the words, 'Blessed are the undefiled in the Way,' and 'Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. '

Since the truth declares that the Word is not by nature (physis) a creature, it is now fitting to explain in what sense He is "beginning of ways." When the first way, which was through Adam, was lost, and instead of paradise we strayed into death and heard the words "Dust you are, and to dust you shall return" (Genesis 3:19), the Word of God, who loves humanity, took on created flesh according to the Father's will. This was so that, whereas the first man had made it dead through transgression, He Himself might give it life in the blood of His own body and might open "for us a new and living way," as the Apostle says, "through the veil, that is to say, His flesh" (Hebrews 10:20). He indicates this elsewhere saying, "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away, behold all things have become new" (2 Corinthians 5:17). But if a new creation has come to pass, someone must be first of this creation. Now this could not be a man made of earth only, such as we have become from the transgression. For in the first creation, people had become unfaithful, and through them that first creation had been lost. There was need of someone else to renew the first creation and preserve the new one that had come to be. Therefore, out of love for humanity, none other than the Lord, the "beginning" of the new creation, is created as "the Way," and accordingly says, "The Lord created me a beginning of ways for His works." This is so that humanity might no longer walk according to that first creation, but there being, as it were, a beginning of a new creation, and with Christ "a beginning of its ways," we might henceforth follow Him, who says to us, "I am the Way"—as the blessed Apostle teaches in Colossians, saying, "He is the Head of the body, the Church, who is the Beginning, the First-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the preeminence."

65. And thus since the truth declares that the Word is not by nature a creature, it is fitting now to say, in what sense He is 'beginning of ways.' For when the first way, which was through Adam, was lost, and in place of paradise we deviated unto death, and heard the words, 'Dust you are, and unto dust Genesis 3:19 shall you return,' therefore the Word of God, who loves man, puts on Him created flesh at the Father's will, that whereas the first man had made it dead through the transgression, He Himself might quicken it in the blood of His own body, and might open 'for us a way new and living,' as the Apostle says, 'through the veil, that is to say, His flesh Hebrews 10:20;' which he signifies elsewhere thus, 'Wherefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creation; old things are passed away, behold all things have become new 2 Corinthians 5:17.' But if a new creation has come to pass, some one must be first of this creation; now a man, made of earth only, such as we have become from the transgression, he could not be. For in the first creation, men had become unfaithful, and through them that first creation had been lost; and there was need of some one else to renew the first creation, and preserve the new which had come to be. Therefore from love to man none other than the Lord, the 'beginning' of the new creation, is created as 'the Way,' and consistently says, 'The Lord created me a beginning of ways for His works;' that man might walk no longer according to that first creation, but there being as it were a beginning of a new creation, and with the Christ 'a beginning of its ways,' we might follow Him henceforth, who says to us, 'I am the Way:'– as the blessed Apostle teaches in Colossians, saying, 'He is the Head of the body, the Church, who is the Beginning, the First-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the preeminence.'

If, as has already been stated, He is called a beginning because of the resurrection from the dead, and if this resurrection took place when He bore our flesh and gave Himself to death for us, then it is clear that His words, "He created me a beginning of ways," refer not to His ousia but to His bodily presence. For death properly belongs to the body, and in the same way the words "The Lord created me a beginning of His ways" properly belong to His bodily presence. Since the Savior was thus created according to the flesh and became a beginning of the newly created things, and since He possessed our first fruits—that is, the human flesh He took to Himself—therefore after Him the people to come are also created, as is fitting. David says, "Let this be written for another generation, and the people that shall be created shall praise the Lord." And again in the twenty-first Psalm, "The generation to come shall declare unto the Lord, and they shall declare His righteousness, unto a people that shall be born whom the Lord made." For we shall no longer hear, "In the day that you eat thereof, you shall surely die," but "Where I am, there you shall be also," so that we may say, "We are His workmanship, created unto good works." Again, since God's work—that is, man—though created perfect, has become deficient through transgression and dead by sin, and since it was inappropriate for the work of God to remain imperfect (which is why all the saints were praying about this, for instance in the hundred and thirty-seventh Psalm, saying, "Lord, You shall requite for me; despise not then the works of Your hands"), therefore the perfect Word of God takes on an imperfect body and is said to be created "for the works." By paying the debt in our place, He might perfect in Himself what was lacking to man. Now what was lacking to man was immortality and the way to paradise. This is what the Savior means when He says, "I glorified You on the earth, I perfected the work which You have given Me to do," and again, "The works which the Father has given Me to perfect, the same works that I do, bear witness of Me." But the works He says the Father has given Him to perfect are those for which He is created, as He says in the Proverbs, "The Lord created me a beginning of His ways, for His works." For it is the same thing to say, "The Father has given me the works," and "The Lord created me for the works."

66. For if, as has been said, because of the resurrection from the dead He is called a beginning, and then a resurrection took place when He, bearing our flesh, had given Himself to death for us, it is evident that His words, 'He created me a beginning of ways,' is indicative not of His essence, but of His bodily presence. For to the body death was proper; and in like manner to the bodily presence are the words proper, 'The Lord created me a beginning of His ways.' For since the Saviour was thus created according to the flesh, and had become a beginning of things new created, and had our first fruits, viz. that human flesh which He took to Himself, therefore after Him, as is fit, is created also the people to come, David saying, 'Let this be written for another generation, and the people that shall be created shall praise the Lord.' And again in the twenty-first Psalm, 'The generation to come shall declare unto the Lord, and they shall declare His righteousness, unto a people that shall be born whom the Lord made.' For we shall no more hear, 'In the day that you eat thereof, you shall surely die Genesis 2:17,' but 'Where I am, there ye' shall 'be also;' so that we may say, 'We are His workmanship, created unto good works John 14:3; Ephesians 2:10.' And again, since God's work, that is, man, though created perfect, has become wanting through the transgression, and dead by sin, and it was unbecoming that the work of God should remain imperfect (wherefore all the saints were praying concerning this, for instance in the hundred and thirty-seventh Psalm, saying, 'Lord, You shall requite for me; despise not then the works of Your hands '); therefore the perfect Word of God puts around Him an imperfect body, and is said to be created 'for the works;' that, paying the debt in our stead, He might, by Himself, perfect what was wanting to man. Now immortality was wanting to him, and the way to paradise. This then is what the Saviour says, 'I glorified You on the earth, I perfected the work which You have given Me to do John 17:4;' and again, 'The works which the Father has given Me to perfect, the same works that I do, bear witness of Me;' but 'the works ' He here says that the Father had given Him to perfect, are those for which He is created, saying in the Proverbs, 'The Lord created me a beginning of His ways, for His works;' for it is all one to say, 'The Father has given me the works,' and 'The Lord created me for the works.'

When then did He receive the works to perfect, O enemies of God? For from this also "He created" will be understood. If you say, "At the beginning when He brought them into being out of what was not," this is untrue, for they were not yet made, whereas He appears to be speaking as if taking what was already in being. Nor is it right to refer to the time before the Word became flesh, lest His coming should then seem unnecessary, since it was for the sake of these works that this coming took place. Therefore it remains for us to say that when He became man, then He took the works. For then He perfected them, by healing our wounds and granting us resurrection from the dead. But if, when the Word became flesh, the works were then given to Him, clearly when He became man, then also is He created for the works. Not of His ousia then is "He created" indicative, as has been said many times, but of His bodily generation. For then, because the works had become imperfect and damaged from the transgression, He is said with respect to the body to be created, so that by perfecting them and making them whole, He might present the Church to the Father, as the Apostle says, "not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but holy and without blemish." Mankind then is perfected in Him and restored, as it was made at the beginning—indeed, with greater grace. For, on rising from the dead, we shall no longer fear death, but shall reign forever in Christ in the heavens. And this has been done, since the own Word of God Himself, who is from the Father, has put on the flesh and become man. For if, being a creature, He had become man, man would have remained just what he was, not joined to God; for how could a work be joined to the Creator by a work? Or what help could come from like to like, when both equally needed it? And how, if the Word were a creature, could He have power to undo God's sentence and to forgive sin, whereas it is written in the Prophets that this is God's doing? For "who is a God like You, that pardons iniquity, and passes by transgression?" For whereas God has said, "Dust you are, and to dust you shall return," men have become mortal; how then could things originate undo sin? But the Lord is He who has undone it, as He says Himself, "Unless the Son shall make you free"; and the Son, who made free, has shown in truth that He is no creature, nor one of things originate, but the proper Word and Image of the Father's Ousia, who at the beginning pronounced sentence, and alone forgives sins. For since it was said in the Word, "Dust you are, and to dust you shall return," fittingly through the Word Himself and in Him the freedom and the undoing of the condemnation has come to pass.

67. When then received He the works to perfect, O God's enemies? For from this also 'He created' will be understood. If you say, 'At the beginning when He brought them into being out of what was not,' it is an untruth; for they were not yet made; whereas He appears to speak as taking what was already in being. Nor is it pious to refer to the time which preceded the Word's becoming flesh, lest His coming should thereupon seem superfluous, since for the sake of these works that coming took place. Therefore it remains for us to say that when He has become man, then He took the works. For then He perfected them, by healing our wounds and vouchsafing to us the resurrection from the dead. But if, when the Word became flesh, then were given to Him the works, plainly when He became man, then also is He created for the works. Not of His essence then is 'He created' indicative, as has many times been said, but of His bodily generation. For then, because the works had become imperfect and mutilated from the transgression, He is said in respect to the body to be created; that by perfecting them and making them whole, He might present the Church unto the Father, as the Apostle says, 'not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but holy and without blemish Ephesians 5:27.' Mankind then is perfected in Him and restored, as it was made at the beginning, nay, with greater grace. For, on rising from the dead, we shall no longer fear death, but shall ever reign in Christ in the heavens. And this has been done, since the own Word of God Himself, who is from the Father, has put on the flesh, and become man. For if, being a creature, He had become man, man had remained just what he was, not joined to God; for how had a work been joined to the Creator by a work? Or what succour had come from like to like, when one as well as other needed it? And how, were the Word a creature, had He power to undo God's sentence, and to remit sin, whereas it is written in the Prophets, that this is God's doing? For 'who is a God like You, that pardons iniquity, and passes by transgression Micah 7:18?' For whereas God has said, 'Dust you are, and unto dust shall you return Genesis 3:19,' men have become mortal; how then could things originate undo sin? But the Lord is He who has undone it, as He says Himself, 'Unless the Son shall make you free;' and the Son, who made free, has shown in truth that He is no creature, nor one of things originate, but the proper Word and Image of the Father's Essence, who at the beginning sentenced, and alone remits sins. For since it is said in the Word, 'Dust you are, and unto dust you shall return,' suitably through the Word Himself and in Him the freedom and the undoing of the condemnation has come to pass.

Yet, they say, 'Even if the Savior were a creature, God was able to speak the word alone and undo the curse.' And so someone will tell them likewise, 'Without His coming among us at all, God was able simply to speak and undo the curse.' But we must consider what was expedient for humanity, not merely what is possible with God. He could have destroyed the transgressors before Noah's Ark, but He did it after the ark. He could also, without Moses, have spoken the word alone and brought the people out of Egypt, but it was profitable to do it through Moses. And God was able without the judges to save His people, but it was profitable for the people that for a time judges should be raised up for them. The Savior too might have come among us from the beginning, or when He came might not have been handed over to Pilate, but He came 'at the fullness of the ages' (Galatians 4:4), and when sought for said, 'I am He' (John 18:5). For what He does is profitable for humanity and could not be fitting in any other way, and what is profitable and fitting, that He provides. Accordingly He came 'not to be served but to serve' and to work our salvation. Certainly He was able to speak the Law from heaven, but He saw that it was expedient for humanity for Him to speak from Sinai, and He did this so that it might be possible for Moses to go up, and so that they, hearing the word near them, would be more likely to believe. Moreover, the good reason for what He did may be seen thus: if God had merely spoken, because it was in His power, and so the curse had been undone, the power of Him who gave the word would have been shown, but humanity would have become such as Adam was before the transgression, having received grace from outside and not having it united to the body (for he was such when he was placed in Paradise). Indeed, perhaps humanity would have become worse, because it had learned to transgress. Being in such a condition, if humanity had been seduced by the serpent, there would have been fresh need for God to give command and undo the curse, and thus the need would have become endless, and humanity would have remained under guilt no less than before, being enslaved to sin. And, ever sinning, they would have always needed someone to pardon them, and would never have become free, being in themselves flesh and always defeated by the Law because of the weakness of the flesh.

68. 'Yet,' they say, 'though the Saviour were a creature, God was able to speak the word only and undo the curse.' And so another will tell them in like manner, 'Without His coming among us at all, God was able just to speak and undo the curse.' but we must consider what was expedient for mankind, and not what simply is possible with God. He could have destroyed, before the Ark of Noah, the then transgressors; but He did it after the ark. He could too, without Moses, have spoken the word only and have brought the people out of Egypt; but it profited to do it through Moses. And God was able without the judges to save His people; but it was profitable for the people that for a season judges should be raised up to them. The Saviour too might have come among us from the beginning, or on His coming might not have been delivered to Pilate; but He came 'at the fullness of the ages Galatians 4:4,' and when sought for said, 'I am He John 18:5.' For what He does, that is profitable for men, and was not fitting in any other way; and what is profitable and fitting, for that He provides. Accordingly He came, not 'that He might be ministered unto, but that He might minister,' and might work our salvation. Certainly He was able to speak the Law from heaven, but He saw that it was expedient to men for Him to speak from Sinai; and that He has done, that it might be possible for Moses to go up, and for them hearing the word near them the rather to believe. Moreover, the good reason of what He did may be seen thus; if God had but spoken, because it was in His power, and so the curse had been undone, the power had been shown of Him who gave the word, but man had become such as Adam was before the transgression, having received grace from without, and not having it united to the body; (for he was such when he was placed in Paradise) nay, perhaps had become worse, because he had learned to transgress. Such then being his condition, had he been seduced by the serpent, there had been fresh need for God to give command and undo the curse; and thus the need had become interminable, and men had remained under guilt not less than before, as being enslaved to sin; and, ever sinning, would have ever needed one to pardon them, and had never become free, being in themselves flesh, and ever worsted by the Law because of the infirmity of the flesh.

Again, if the Son were a creature, humanity would have remained mortal as before, not being united to God. For a creature could not have joined creatures to God, since it would itself need someone to join it. Nor could a portion of creation have brought salvation to creation, since it would itself need salvation. To address this situation, God sends His own Son, who becomes Son of Man by taking created flesh. Since all were under sentence of death, He—being different from all of them—could offer His own body to death on behalf of all. In this way, as if all had died through Him, the words of that sentence would be fulfilled (for 'all died' in Christ), and all through Him could then become free from sin and from the curse that came with it, and could truly remain forever, risen from the dead and clothed in immortality and incorruption. For when the Word was clothed in flesh, as has been explained many times, every bite of the serpent began to be completely removed from it. Whatever evil sprang from the movements of the flesh was cut away, and along with these, death—the companion of sin—was also abolished. As the Lord Himself says, 'The prince of this world comes and finds nothing in Me,' and 'For this purpose He was manifested,' as John wrote, 'that He might destroy the works of the devil.' With these things destroyed from the flesh, we all were freed by our kinship with the flesh, and from then on we—even we—were joined to the Word. Being joined to God, we no longer remain on earth. As He Himself said, where He is, there we shall be also. From now on we no longer fear the serpent, for he was brought to nothing when he was confronted by the Savior in the flesh and heard Him say, 'Get behind Me, Satan,' and thus he is cast out of paradise into eternal fire. Nor do we need to guard against woman deceiving us, for 'in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the Angels,' and in Christ Jesus there shall be 'a new creation,' and 'neither male nor female, but all and in all Christ.' And where Christ is, what fear or danger can still occur?

69. Again, if the Son were a creature, man had remained mortal as before, not being joined to God; for a creature had not joined creatures to God, as seeking itself one to join it; nor would a portion of the creation have been the creation's salvation, as needing salvation itself. To provide against this also, He sends His own Son, and He becomes Son of Man, by taking created flesh; that, since all were under sentence of death, He, being other than them all, might Himself for all offer to death His own body; and that henceforth, as if all had died through Him, the word of that sentence might be accomplished (for 'all died 2 Corinthians 5:14 ' in Christ), and all through Him might thereupon become free from sin and from the curse which came upon it, and might truly abide for ever, risen from the dead and clothed in immortality and incorruption. For the Word being clothed in the flesh, as has many times been explained, every bite of the serpent began to be utterly staunched from out it; and whatever evil sprung from the motions of the flesh, to be cut away, and with these death also was abolished, the companion of sin, as the Lord Himself says, 'The prince of this world comes, and finds nothing in Me;' and 'For this end was He manifested,' as John has written, 'that He might destroy the works of the devil 1 John 3:8.' And these being destroyed from the flesh, we all were thus liberated by the kinship of the flesh, and for the future were joined, even we, to the Word. And being joined to God, no longer do we abide upon earth; but, as He Himself has said, where He is, there shall we be also; and henceforward we shall fear no longer the serpent, for he was brought to nought when he was assailed by the Saviour in the flesh, and heard Him say, 'Get behind Me, Satan Matthew 16:23,' and thus he is cast out of paradise into the eternal fire. Nor shall we have to watch against woman beguiling us, for 'in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the Angels Mark 12:25;' and in Christ Jesus it shall be 'a new creation,' and 'neither male nor female, but all and in all Christ;' and where Christ is, what fear, what danger can still happen?

But this would not have happened if the Word had been a creature. If He were a creature, the devil, who is himself a creature, would have continued the battle forever, and humanity, caught between the two, would have remained in constant danger of death, having no one in whom and through whom they could be joined to God and delivered from all fear. The truth shows us that the Word is not one of the created things, but is rather their Creator. This is why He took on a created human body—so that as its Creator, He might renew it and deify it in Himself, and in this way bring all of us into the kingdom of heaven according to His likeness. Humanity could not have been deified if joined to a creature, or unless the Son were truly God. Nor could humanity have been brought into the Father's presence unless He had been His natural and true Word who took on a body. Just as we would not have been delivered from sin and the curse unless it had been truly human flesh by nature that the Word took on (since we would have had nothing in common with something foreign to us), so also humanity could not have been deified unless the Word who became flesh had been by nature from the Father and truly proper to Him. This is why the union was of this kind—so that He might unite what is human by nature to Him who is divine by nature, and so that our salvation and deification might be secure. Therefore, let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to His ousia also deny that He took true human flesh from Mary Ever-Virgin. In neither case would it have benefited us if the Word were not truly and naturally the Son of God, or if the flesh He assumed were not real. But He did take true flesh, even though Valentinus raves otherwise. Yes, the Word was by nature truly God, even though the Arian maniacs rave otherwise. And in that flesh the beginning of our new creation has taken place, with Him being created as a human being for our sake and making for us that new way, as has been said.

70. But this would not have come to pass, had the Word been a creature; for with a creature, the devil, himself a creature, would have ever continued the battle, and man, being between the two, had been ever in peril of death, having none in whom and through whom he might be joined to God and delivered from all fear. Whence the truth shows us that the Word is not of things originate, but rather Himself their Framer. For therefore did He assume the body originate and human, that having renewed it as its Framer, He might deify it in Himself, and thus might introduce us all into the kingdom of heaven after His likeness. For man had not been deified if joined to a creature, or unless the Son were very God; nor had man been brought into the Father's presence, unless He had been His natural and true Word who had put on the body. And as we had not been delivered from sin and the curse, unless it had been by nature human flesh, which the Word put on (for we should have had nothing common with what was foreign), so also the man had not been deified, unless the Word who became flesh had been by nature from the Father and true and proper to Him. For therefore the union was of this kind, that He might unite what is man by nature to Him who is in the nature of the Godhead, and his salvation and deification might be sure. Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to His Essence, deny also that He took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin; for in neither case had it been of profit to us men, whether the Word were not true and naturally Son of God, or the flesh not true which He assumed. But surely He took true flesh, though Valentinus rave; yea the Word was by nature Very God, though Ario-maniacs rave; and in that flesh has come to pass the beginning of our new creation, He being created man for our sake, and having made for us that new way, as has been said.

The Word is neither a creature nor a work, for creature, thing made, and work all mean the same thing. If He were a creature and thing made, He would also be a work. Therefore, He did not say "He created Me as a work" or "He made Me with the works," to avoid appearing to be a creature by nature and ousia. Nor did He say "He created Me to make works," to prevent the irreligious from wrongly claiming He is merely an instrument made for our benefit. He also did not say "He created Me before the works," because although He truly exists before all things as an Offspring, if He had been created before the works, "Offspring" and "He created" would mean the same thing. Instead, He said with precise distinction "for the works," meaning "The Father has made Me into flesh so that I might be man," which again demonstrates that He is not a work but an offspring. Just as someone who enters a house is not part of the house but different from it, so He who is created for the works must by physis be different from the works. But if it were otherwise, as you Arians claim, and the Word of God were a work, by what Hand and Wisdom did He Himself come into being? For all things that came to be came by the Hand and Wisdom of God, who Himself says, "My hand has made all these things," and David says in the Psalm, "And You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands," and again in the one hundred forty-second Psalm, "I remember the time past, I meditate on all Your works, yes I reflect on the works of Your hands." Therefore, if the works are made by the Hand of God, and it is written that "all things were made through the Word," and "without Him was not made one thing," and again, "One Lord Jesus, through whom are all things," and "in Him all things consist," it is very clear that the Son cannot be a work, but He is the Hand of God and the Wisdom. Knowing this, the martyrs in Babylon—Ananias, Azarias, and Misael—condemn Arian irreligion. For when they say, "O all you works of the Lord, bless the Lord," they list things in heaven, things on earth, and the whole creation as works, but they do not name the Son. They do not say, "Bless, O Word, and praise, O Wisdom," to show that all other things both praise and are works, but the Word is not a work nor among those that praise. Rather, He is praised with the Father and worshipped and confessed as God, being His Word and Wisdom and the Maker of the works. The Spirit has declared this in the Psalms with a most fitting distinction: "the Word of the Lord is true, and all His works are faithful," and in another Psalm He says, "O Lord, how manifold are Your works! In Wisdom You have made them all."

71. The Word then is neither creature nor work; for creature, thing made, work, are all one; and were He creature and thing made, He would also be work. Accordingly He has not said, 'He created Me a work,' nor 'He made Me with the works,' lest He should appear to be in nature and essence a creature; nor, 'He created Me to make works,' lest, on the other hand, according to the perverseness of the irreligious, He should seem as an instrument made for our sake. Nor again has He declared, 'He created Me before the works,' lest, as He really is before all, as an Offspring, so, if created also before the works, He should give 'Offspring' and 'He created' the same meaning. But He has said with exact discrimination, 'for the works;' as much as to say, 'The Father has made Me, into flesh, that I might be man,' which again shows that He is not a work but an offspring. For as he who comes into a house, is not part of the house, but is other than the house, so He who is created for the works, must be by nature other than the works. But if otherwise, as you hold, O Arians, the Word of God be a work, by what Hand and Wisdom did He Himself come into being? For all things that came to be, came by the Hand and Wisdom of God, who Himself says, 'My hand has made all these things Isaiah 66:2;' and David says in the Psalm, 'And You, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands;' and again, in the hundred and forty-second Psalm, 'I do remember the time past, I muse upon all Your works, yea I exercise myself in the works of Your hands.' Therefore if by the Hand of God the works are wrought, and it is written that 'all things were made through the Word,' and 'without Him was not made one thing John 1:3,' and again, 'One Lord Jesus, through whom are all things 1 Corinthians 8:9,' and 'in Him all things consist Colossians 1:17,' it is very plain that the Son cannot be a work, but He is the Hand of God and the Wisdom. This knowing, the martyrs in Babylon, Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, arraign the Arian irreligion. For when they say, 'O all you works of the Lord, bless ye the Lord,' they recount things in heaven, things on earth, and the whole creation, as works; but the Son they name not. For they say not, 'Bless, O Word, and praise, O Wisdom;' to show that all other things are both praising and are works; but the Word is not a work nor of those that praise, but is praised with the Father and worshipped and confessed as God, being His Word and Wisdom, and of the works the Framer. This too the Spirit has declared in the Psalms with a most apposite distinction, 'the Word of the Lord is true, and all His works are faithful;' as in another Psalm too He says, 'O Lord, how manifold are Your works! In Wisdom have You made them all. '

But if the Word were a work, then He certainly would have been made in Wisdom just like everything else; nor would Scripture distinguish Him from the works, nor would it preach Him as Word and own Wisdom of God while calling the others works. But as it is, by distinguishing Him from the works, Scripture shows that Wisdom is the Maker of the works, not Himself a work. Paul also observes this distinction when writing to the Hebrews: "The Word of God is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, reaching even to the dividing of soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart, neither is there any creature hidden before Him, but all things are naked and open unto the eyes of Him with whom is our account." Notice that he calls created things "creature," but he recognizes the Son as the Word of God, as if He were different from the creatures. And when he says, "All things are naked and open to the eyes of Him with whom is our account," he indicates that He is different from all of them. For this is why He judges, while each created thing must give account to Him. Likewise, when the whole creation groans together with us in order to be set free from the bondage of corruption, the Son is shown to be different from the creatures. For if He were a creature, He too would be one of those who groan, and would need someone to bring adoption and deliverance to Himself as well as to others. But the whole creation groans together for freedom from the bondage of corruption, while the Son is not among those who groan or who need freedom. Rather, He is the one who gives sonship and freedom to all, saying to the Jews of His time, "The servant remains not in the house forever, but the Son remains forever; if then the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed." From these considerations it is clearer than light that the Word of God is not a creature but the true Son, genuine by nature, of the Father. Concerning "The Lord has created me a beginning of the ways," I think this is sufficient, though in few words, to provide material for the learned to frame fuller refutations of the Arian heresy.

72. But if the Word were a work, then certainly He as others had been made in Wisdom; nor would Scripture distinguish Him from the works, nor while it named them works, preach Him as Word and own Wisdom of God. But, as it is, distinguishing Him from the works, He shows that Wisdom is Framer of the works, and not a work. This distinction Paul also observes, writing to the Hebrews, 'The Word of God is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, reaching even to the dividing of soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart, neither is there any creature hidden before Him, but all things are naked and open unto the eyes of Him with whom is our account Hebrews 4:12-13.' For behold he calls things originate 'creature;' but the Son he recognises as the Word of God, as if He were other than the creatures. And again saying, 'All things are naked and open to the eyes of Him with whom is our account,' he signifies that He is other than all of them. For hence it is that He judges, but each of all things originate is bound to give account to Him. And so also, when the whole creation is groaning together with us in order to be set free from the bondage of corruption, the Son is thereby shown to be other than the creatures. For if He were creature, He too would be one of those who groan, and would need one who should bring adoption and deliverance to Himself as well as others. But if the whole creation groans together, for the sake of freedom from the bondage of corruption, whereas the Son is not of those that groan nor of those who need freedom, but He it is who gives sonship and freedom to all, saying to the Jews of His time, 'The servant remains not in the house for ever, but the Son remains for ever; if then the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed John 8:35-36;' it is clearer than the light from these considerations also, that the Word of God is not a creature but true Son, and by nature genuine, of the Father. Concerning then 'The Lord has created me a beginning of the ways,' this is sufficient, as I think, though in few words, to afford matter to the learned to frame more ample refutations of the Arian heresy.

Since the heretics read the next verse and take a distorted view of it as well—because it is written, "He founded me before the world" (Proverbs 8:23)—claiming that this refers to the Godhead of the Word and not to His incarnate presence, it is necessary to explain this verse also and expose their error.

But since the heretics, reading the next verse, take a perverse view of that also, because it is written, 'He founded me before the world Proverbs 8:23,' namely, that this is said of the Godhead of the Word and not of His incarnate Presence, it is necessary, explaining this verse also, to show their error.

It is written, "The Lord in Wisdom founded the earth" (Proverbs 3:19). If the earth is founded by Wisdom, how can the one who founds be himself founded? No, this too is said in the manner of proverbs, and we must investigate its meaning in the same way. We need to understand that while the Father frames and founds the earth to be firm and steadfast by Wisdom, Wisdom itself is founded for us so that it may become the beginning and foundation of our new creation and renewal. Therefore, here as before, he does not say, "Before the world he made me Word or Son," to avoid implying some kind of beginning to his making. We must seek this above all things—whether he is Son—and on this point especially search the Scriptures. This was the issue when the apostles were questioned and Peter answered, saying, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God" (Matthew 16:16). The father of the Arian heresy also asked this as one of his first questions: "If you are the Son of God" (Matthew 4:3), for he knew that this is the truth and the ruling principle of our faith. He knew that if Christ were himself the Son, the devil's tyranny would come to an end, but if he were a creature, he too would be one of those descended from the Adam whom the devil had deceived, and the devil would have no reason for concern. For the same reason the Jews of that day were angered because the Lord said he was Son of God and that God was his own Father. If he had called himself one of the creatures or said, "I am a work," they would not have been startled by this statement nor considered such words blasphemy, since they knew that even angels had come among their fathers. But because he called himself Son, they recognized that this was not the characteristic of a creature, but of Godhead and of the Father's nature (physis). The Arians then ought, even following the example of their own father the devil, to take special care on this point. If he had said, "He founded me to be Word or Son," then they could think as they do. But since he has not spoken this way, they should not invent for themselves what is not there.

73. It is written, 'The Lord in Wisdom founded the earth Proverbs 3:19;' if then by Wisdom the earth is founded, how can He who founds be founded? Nay, this too is said after the manner of proverbs, and we must in like manner investigate its sense; that we may know that, while by Wisdom the Father frames and founds the earth to be firm and steadfast, Wisdom Itself is founded for us, that It may become beginning and foundation of our new creation and renewal. Accordingly here as before, He says not, 'Before the world He has made me Word or Son,' lest there should be as it were a beginning of His making. For this we must seek before all things, whether He is Son, 'and on this point specially search the Scriptures;' for this it was, when the Apostles were questioned, that Peter answered, saying, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God Matthew 16:16.' This also the father of the Arian heresy asked as one of his first questions; 'If Thou be the Son of God Matthew 4:3;' for he knew that this is the truth and the sovereign principle of our faith; and that, if He were Himself the Son, the tyranny of the devil would have its end; but if He were a creature, He too was one of those descended from that Adam whom he deceived, and he had no cause for anxiety. For the same reason the Jews of the day were angered, because the Lord said that He was Son of God, and that God was His proper Father. For had He called Himself one of the creatures, or said, 'I am a work,' they had not been startled at the intelligence, nor thought such words blasphemy, knowing, as they did, that even Angels had come among their fathers; but since He called Himself Son, they perceived that such was not the note of a creature, but of Godhead and of the Father's nature. The Arians then ought, even in imitation of their own father the devil, to take some special pains on this point; and if He has said, 'He founded me to be Word or Son,' then to think as they do; but if He has not so spoken, not to invent for themselves what is not.

He does not say, "Before the world He founded me as Word or Son," but simply, "He founded me," to show again, as I have said, that He speaks here not for His own sake but for those who are built upon Him, in keeping with the way of proverbs. Understanding this, the Apostle also writes, "No one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ; but let everyone be careful how they build on it." The foundation must be suited to the things built upon it, so they can be properly joined together. Being the Word, He has no one like Himself who could be joined with Him as Word, for He is Only-begotten. But having become man, He has those who are like Him—namely, those whose flesh He has taken on. Therefore, according to His humanity He is founded, so that we, like precious stones, may be built upon Him and become a temple of the Holy Spirit who dwells in us. Just as He is a foundation and we are stones built upon Him, so He is a Vine and we are joined to Him as branches—not according to the essence of the Godhead, for this is surely impossible, but according to His humanity, for the branches must be like the vine, since we are like Him according to the flesh. Moreover, since the heretics have such human notions, we may fittingly refute them with human comparisons contained in the very matter they raise. Thus He does not say, "He made me a foundation," lest He might seem to be made and to have a beginning of existence, and they might find from this a shameless opportunity for irreligion. Instead, He says, "He founded me." Now what is founded is founded for the sake of the stones placed upon it. This is not a random process—first a stone is moved from the mountain and set down in the depths of the earth. While a stone is still in the mountain, it is not yet founded; but when the need arises and it is moved and laid in the depths of the earth, then immediately, if the stone could speak, it would say, "He has now founded me, who brought me here from the mountain." Therefore the Lord also did not receive a beginning of existence when He was founded, for He was the Word before that. But when He put on our body, which He took and separated from Mary, then He says, "He has founded me"—as if to say, "Me, being the Word, He has clothed in an earthly body." For He is founded in this way for our sake, taking on what is ours, so that we, being incorporated and joined together and united in Him through the likeness of the flesh, may reach full maturity as human beings and remain immortal and incorruptible.

74. For He says not, 'Before the world He founded me as Word or Son,' but simply, 'He founded me,' to show again, as I have said, that not for His own sake but for those who are built upon Him does He here also speak, after the way of proverbs. For this knowing, the Apostle also writes, 'Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ; but let every man take heed how he builds thereupon.' And it must be that the foundation should be such as the things built on it, that they may admit of being well compacted together. Being then the Word, He has not, as Word, any such as Himself, who may be compacted with Him; for He is Only-begotten; but having become man, He has the like of Him, those namely the likeness of whose flesh He has put on. Therefore according to His manhood He is founded, that we, as precious stones, may admit of building upon Him, and may become a temple of the Holy Ghost who dwells in us. And as He is a foundation, and we stones built upon Him, so again He is a Vine and we knit to Him as branches — not according to the Essence of the Godhead; for this surely is impossible; but according to His manhood, for the branches must be like the vine, since we are like Him according to the flesh. Moreover, since the heretics have such human notions, we may suitably confute them with human resemblances contained in the very matter they urge. Thus He says not, 'He made me a foundation,' lest He might seem to be made and to have a beginning of being, and they might thence find a shameless occasion of irreligion; but, 'He founded me.' Now what is founded is founded for the sake of the stones which are raised upon it; it is not a random process, but a stone is first transported from the mountain and set down in the depth of the earth. And while a stone is in the mountain, it is not yet founded; but when need demands, and it is transported, and laid in the depth of the earth, then immediately if the stone could speak, it would say, 'He now founded me, who brought me hither from the mountain.' Therefore the Lord also did not when founded take a beginning of existence; for He was the Word before that; but when He put on our body, which He severed and took from Mary, then He says 'He has founded me;' as much as to say, 'Me, being the Word, He has enveloped in a body of earth.' For so He is founded for our sakes, taking on Him what is ours, that we, as incorporated and compacted and bound together in Him through the likeness of the flesh, may attain unto a perfect man, and abide immortal and incorruptible.

Don't let the phrases "before the world" and "before He made the earth" and "before the mountains were settled" trouble anyone, for they fit perfectly well with "founded" and "created." Here again, reference is being made to the Economy according to the flesh. For although the grace that came to us from the Savior appeared, as the Apostle says, just recently and came when He dwelt among us, this grace had actually been prepared even before we came into existence—indeed, before the foundation of the world. The reason for this is both kind and wonderful. It would not have been fitting for God to make plans concerning us only afterward, or else He would appear ignorant of our destiny. The God of all, then—creating us by His own Word and knowing our destinies better than we do ourselves, and foreseeing that though made "good" we would eventually transgress the commandment and be cast out of paradise for disobedience—being loving and kind, prepared beforehand in His own Word (by whom He also created us) the Economy of our salvation. This was so that even though we fell from Him through the serpent's deception, we would not remain completely dead. Rather, having in the Word the redemption and salvation that was prepared for us ahead of time, we might rise again and remain immortal, when He should have been created for us as "a beginning of the ways," and He who was the "First-born of creation" should become "firstborn" of the "brethren," and again should rise as "first-fruits of the dead." Paul the blessed Apostle teaches this in his writings. As an interpretation of the words from Proverbs "before the world" and "before the earth was," he speaks to Timothy this way: "Be partaker of the afflictions of the Gospel according to the power of God, who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, but is now made manifest by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who has abolished death, and brought to light life." And to the Ephesians: "Blessed be God even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with all spiritual blessing in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, according as He has chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestinated us to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself."

75. Nor let the words 'before the world' and 'before He made the earth' and 'before the mountains were settled' disturb any one; for they very well accord with 'founded' and 'created;' for here again allusion is made to the Economy according to the flesh. For though the grace which came to us from the Saviour appeared, as the Apostle says, just now, and has come when He sojourned among us; yet this grace had been prepared even before we came into being, nay, before the foundation of the world, and the reason why is kindly and wonderful. It beseemed not that God should counsel concerning us afterwards, lest He should appear ignorant of our fate. The God of all then — creating us by His own Word, and knowing our destinies better than we, and foreseeing that, being made 'good Genesis 1:31,' we should in the event be transgressors of the commandment, and be thrust out of paradise for disobedience — being loving and kind, prepared beforehand in His own Word, by whom also He created us, the Economy of our salvation; that though by the serpent's deceit we fell from Him, we might not remain quite dead, but having in the Word the redemption and salvation which was afore prepared for us, we might rise again and abide immortal, what time He should have been created for us 'a beginning of the ways,' and He who was the 'First-born of creation' should become ' first-born ' of the 'brethren,' and again should rise ' first-fruits of the dead.' This Paul the blessed Apostle teaches in his writings; for, as interpreting the words of the Proverbs 'before the world' and 'before the earth was,' he thus speaks to Timothy; 'Be partaker of the afflictions of the Gospel according to the power of God, who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, but is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who has abolished death, and brought to light life 2 Timothy 1:8-10.' And to the Ephesians; 'Blessed be God even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with all spiritual blessing in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, according as He has chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestinated us to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself Ephesians 1:3-5.'

How then has He chosen us before we came into existence, except that, as he says himself, we were represented beforehand in Him? And how could He have predestined us to adoption before humans were created, except that the Son Himself was 'founded before the world,' taking upon Himself that economy which was for our sake? Or how, as the Apostle goes on to say, do we 'have an inheritance being predestined,' except that the Lord Himself was founded 'before the world,' since He had a purpose, for our sakes, to take upon Himself through the flesh all that inheritance of judgment which lay against us, and we thereafter were made sons in Him? And how did we receive it 'before the world was,' when we were not yet in being, but afterwards in time, except that the grace which has reached us was stored in Christ? Therefore also in the Judgment, when everyone shall receive according to his conduct, He says, 'Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.' How then, or in whom, was it prepared before we came to be, except in the Lord who 'before the world' was founded for this purpose—that we, as built upon Him, might partake, as well-fitted stones, the life and grace which is from Him? And this took place, as naturally suggests itself to the religious mind, so that, as I said, we, rising after our brief death, may be capable of an eternal life, of which we would not have been capable, humans as we are, formed of earth, except that 'before the world' there had been prepared for us in Christ the hope of life and salvation. Therefore there is reason that the Word, on coming into our flesh, and being created in it as 'a beginning of ways for His works,' is laid as a foundation according as the Father's will was in Him before the world, as has been said, and before land was, and before the mountains were settled, and before the fountains burst forth—so that, though the earth and the mountains and the shapes of visible nature pass away in the fullness of the present age, we on the contrary may not grow old after their pattern, but may be able to live after them, having the spiritual life and blessing which before these things have been prepared for us in the Word Himself according to election. For thus we shall be capable of a life not temporary, but ever afterwards abide and live in Christ; since even before this our life had been founded and prepared in Christ Jesus.

76. How then has He chosen us, before we came into existence, but that, as he says himself, in Him we were represented beforehand? And how at all, before men were created, did He predestinate us unto adoption, but that the Son Himself was 'founded before the world,' taking on Him that economy which was for our sake? Or how, as the Apostle goes on to say, have we 'an inheritance being predestinated,' but that the Lord Himself was founded 'before the world,' inasmuch as He had a purpose, for our sakes, to take on Him through the flesh all that inheritance of judgment which lay against us, and we henceforth were made sons in Him? And how did we receive it 'before the world was,' when we were not yet in being, but afterwards in time, but that in Christ was stored the grace which has reached us? Wherefore also in the Judgment, when every one shall receive according to his conduct, He says, 'Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world Matthew 25:34.' How then, or in whom, was it prepared before we came to be, save in the Lord who 'before the world' was founded for this purpose; that we, as built upon Him, might partake, as well-compacted stones, the life and grace which is from Him? And this took place, as naturally suggests itself to the religious mind, that, as I said, we, rising after our brief death, may be capable of an eternal life, of which we had not been capable, men as we are, formed of earth, but that 'before the world' there had been prepared for us in Christ the hope of life and salvation. Therefore reason is there that the Word, on coming into our flesh, and being created in it as 'a beginning of ways for His works,' is laid as a foundation according as the Father's will was in Him before the world, as has been said, and before land was, and before the mountains were settled, and before the fountains burst forth; that, though the earth and the mountains and the shapes of visible nature pass away in the fullness of the present age, we on the contrary may not grow old after their pattern, but may be able to live after them, having the spiritual life and blessing which before these things have been prepared for us in the Word Himself according to election. For thus we shall be capable of a life not temporary, but ever afterwards abide and live in Christ; since even before this our life had been founded and prepared in Christ Jesus.

Nor could our life have been established in any other way except in the Lord who exists before the ages, and through whom the ages came into being. This way, since our life was established in Him, we too can inherit eternal life. For God is good, and being always good, He willed this, knowing that our weak nature needed the help and salvation that comes from Him. Just as a wise architect planning to build a house also plans for its repair, should it ever become damaged after construction, and in planning for this prepares and provides materials for repair to the workers—so the means of repair are provided before the house itself—in the same way, the repair of our salvation was established in Christ before we existed, so that in Him we might be newly created. The will and purpose were made ready before the world, but they took effect when the need arose and the Savior came among us. For the Lord Himself will be everything we need in heaven when He receives us into eternal life. This is sufficient to prove that the Word of God is not a creature, and that the meaning of the passage is correct. But since that passage, when examined closely, has a right meaning from every perspective, it is worth explaining what that meaning is—perhaps many words will bring these foolish men to shame. Here I must return to what was said before, for what I have to say concerns the same proverb and the same Wisdom. The Word has not called Himself a creature by nature, but has said in proverbs, "The Lord created me," and He clearly indicates a meaning that is not stated plainly but is hidden, which we can discover by removing the veil from the proverb. For who, upon hearing from the creative Wisdom, "The Lord created me a beginning of His ways," does not immediately question the meaning, wondering how the creative Wisdom can be created? Who, upon hearing the Only-begotten Son of God say that He was created "a beginning of ways," does not investigate the meaning, wondering how the Only-begotten Son can become a beginning of many others? For it is a dark saying, but "a man of understanding," he says, "shall understand a proverb and the interpretation, the words of the wise and their dark sayings."

77. Nor in any other way was it fitting that our life should be founded, but in the Lord who is before the ages, and through whom the ages were brought to be; that, since it was in Him, we too might be able to inherit that everlasting life. For God is good; and being good always, He willed this, as knowing that our weak nature needed the succour and salvation which is from Him. And as a wise architect, proposing to build a house, consults also about repairing it, should it at any time become dilapidated after building, and, as counselling about this, makes preparation and gives to the workmen materials for a repair; and thus the means of the repair are provided before the house; in the same way prior to us is the repair of our salvation founded in Christ, that in Him we might even be new-created. And the will and the purpose were made ready 'before the world,' but have taken effect when the need required, and the Saviour came among us. For the Lord Himself will stand us in place of all things in the heavens, when He receives us into everlasting life. This then suffices to prove that the Word of God is not a creature, but that the sense of the passage is right. But since that passage, when scrutinized, has a right sense in every point of view, it may be well to state what it is; perhaps many words may bring these senseless men to shame. Now here I must recur to what has been said before, for what I have to say relates to the same proverb and the same Wisdom. The Word has not called Himself a creature by nature, but has said in proverbs, 'The Lord created me;' and He plainly indicates a sense not spoken 'plainly' but latent, such as we shall be able to find by taking away the veil from the proverb. For who, on hearing from the Framing Wisdom, 'The Lord created me a beginning of His ways,' does not at once question the meaning, reflecting how that creative Wisdom can be created? Who on hearing the Only-begotten Son of God say, that He was created 'a beginning of ways,' does not investigate the sense, wondering how the Only-begotten Son can become a Beginning of many others? For it is a dark saying; but 'a man of understanding,' says he, 'shall understand a proverb and the interpretation, the words of the wise and their dark sayings Proverbs 1:5-6.'

Now the Only-begotten and very Wisdom of God is Creator and Framer of all things. As Scripture says, "in Wisdom have You made them all," and "the earth is full of Your creation." But so that what came into being might not only exist but be good, it pleased God that His own Wisdom should condescend to the creatures in order to introduce an imprint and likeness of Its Image on all things in common and on each individually, so that what was made might be manifestly wise works and worthy of God. For just as our word is an image of the Son of God considered as the Word, so the wisdom that is implanted in us is an image of the same Son considered as Wisdom. In this wisdom we, having the power of knowledge and thought, become recipients of the All-framing Wisdom, and through It we are able to know Its Father. For as He says, "he who has the Son has the Father also," and "he that receives Me receives Him that sent Me." Since such an imprint of Wisdom is created in us and is in all the works, the true and framing Wisdom rightly takes to Itself what belongs to its own imprint and says, "The Lord created me for His works." For what the wisdom in us says, the Lord Himself speaks as if it were His own. And though He is not Himself created, being Creator, yet because of the image of Him created in the works, He says this as if of Himself. And just as the Lord Himself has said, "He that receives you receives Me," because His imprint is in us, so though He is not among the creatures, yet because His image and imprint is created in the works, He says as if in His own person, "The Lord created me a beginning of His ways for His works." And this is why this imprint of Wisdom in the works has been brought into being: so that, as I said before, the world might recognize in it its own Creator the Word, and through Him the Father. And this is what Paul said: "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has showed it unto them, for the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made." But if this is so, the Word is not a creature in essence. Rather, the wisdom which is in us and so called is what is spoken of in this passage in the Proverbs.

78. Now the Only-begotten and very Wisdom of God is Creator and Framer of all things; for 'in Wisdom have You made them all,' he says, and 'the earth is full of Your creation.' But that what came into being might not only be, but be good, it pleased God that His own Wisdom should condescend to the creatures, so as to introduce an impress and semblance of Its Image on all in common and on each, that what was made might be manifestly wise works and worthy of God. For as of the Son of God, considered as the Word, our word is an image, so of the same Son considered as Wisdom is the wisdom which is implanted in us an image; in which wisdom we, having the power of knowledge and thought, become recipients of the All-framing Wisdom; and through It we are able to know Its Father. 'For he who has the Son,' says He, 'has the Father also;' and 'he that receives Me, receives Him that sent Me.' Such an impress then of Wisdom being created in us, and being in all the works, with reason does the true and framing Wisdom take to Itself what belongs to its own impress, and say, 'The Lord created me for His works;' for what the wisdom in us says, that the Lord Himself speaks as if it were His own; and, whereas He is not Himself created, being Creator, yet because of the image of Him created in the works, He says this as if of Himself. And as the Lord Himself has said, 'He that receives you, receives Me Matthew 10:40,' because His impress is in us, so, though He be not among the creatures, yet because His image and impress is created in the works, He says, as if in His own person, 'The Lord created me a beginning of His ways for His works.' And therefore has this impress of Wisdom in the works been brought into being, that, as I said before, the world might recognise in it its own Creator the Word, and through Him the Father. And this is what Paul said, 'Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has showed it unto them: for the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made Romans 1:19-20.' But if so, the Word is not a creature in essence; but the wisdom which is in us and so called, is spoken of in this passage in the Proverbs.

If this still does not persuade them, let them answer this question themselves: is there wisdom in the creatures or not? If not, then how can the Apostle complain, "For after that in the Wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God"? And how, if there is no wisdom, does Scripture mention many wise men? For "a wise man fears and departs from evil," and "through wisdom is a house built," and the Preacher says, "A man's wisdom makes his face to shine." He also criticizes those who are reckless, saying, "Say not, what is the cause that the former days were better than these? For you do not inquire in wisdom concerning this." But if, as the Son of Sirach says, "He poured her out upon all His works; she is with all flesh according to His gift, and He has given her to them that love Him," and this pouring out refers not to the Essence of the Very Wisdom and Only-begotten, but to that wisdom which is imaged in the world, then why is it unbelievable that the All-framing and true Wisdom Itself, whose impress is the wisdom and knowledge poured out in the world, should say, as I have already explained, as if speaking of Itself, "The Lord created me for His works"? For the wisdom in the world is not creative, but is that which is created in the works, according to which "the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows His handywork." If people have this within them, they will acknowledge the true Wisdom of God and will know that they are truly made after God's Image. Suppose a king's son, when his father wanted to build a city, had his own name printed on each of the works being constructed, both to secure the works by displaying his name on everything and to make people remember him and his father through the name. After the city was finished, if someone asked how it was made, he would answer, "It is made securely, for according to my father's will, I am imaged in each work, for my name was made in the works." In saying this, he does not mean that his own essence is created, but that he impressed himself through his name. In the same way, to apply this illustration, when people admire the wisdom in the creatures, the true Wisdom answers, "The Lord created me for the works," for my impress is in them, and I have thus condescended for the framing of all things.

79. But if this too fails to persuade them, let them tell us themselves, whether there is any wisdom in the creatures or not? If not how is it that the Apostle complains, 'For after that in the Wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God 1 Corinthians 1:21?' or how is it if there is no wisdom, that a 'multitude of wise men ' are found in Scripture? For 'a wise man fears and departs from evil Proverbs 14:16;' and 'through wisdom is a house built;' and the Preacher says, 'A man's wisdom makes his face to shine;' and he blames those who are headstrong thus, 'Say not thou, what is the cause that the former days were better than these? For thou dost not inquire in wisdom concerning this.' But if, as the Son of Sirach says, 'He poured her out upon all His works; she is with all flesh according to His gift, and He has given her to them that love Him Sirach 1:9-10,' and this outpouring is a note, not of the Essence of the Very Wisdom and Only-begotten, but of that wisdom which is imaged in the world, how is it incredible that the All-framing and true Wisdom Itself, whose impress is the wisdom and knowledge poured out in the world, should say, as I have already explained, as if of Itself, 'The Lord created me for His works?' For the wisdom in the world is not creative, but is that which is created in the works, according to which 'the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows His handywork.' This if men have within them, they will acknowledge the true Wisdom of God; and will know that they are made really after God's Image. And, as some son of a king, when the father wished to build a city, might cause his own name to be printed upon each of the works that were rising, both to give security to them of the works remaining, by reason of the show of his name on everything, and also to make them remember him and his father from the name, and having finished the city might be asked concerning it, how it was made, and then would answer, 'It is made securely, for according to the will of my father, I am imaged in each work, for my name was made in the works;' but saying this, he does not signify that his own essence is created, but the impress of himself by means of his name; in the same manner, to apply the illustration, to those who admire the wisdom in the creatures, the true Wisdom makes answer, 'The Lord created me for the works,' for my impress is in them; and I have thus condescended for the framing of all things.

Moreover, that the Son should speak of the impress that is within us as if it were Himself should not startle anyone, considering (for we must not shrink from repetition) that when Saul was persecuting the Church, in which was His impress and image, He said, as if He Himself were under persecution, "Saul, why do you persecute Me?" Therefore (as has been said), just as if the impress itself of Wisdom which is in the works had said, "The Lord created me for the works," no one would have been startled, so if He, the True and Framing Wisdom, the Only-begotten Word of God, should use what belongs to His image as about Himself, namely, "The Lord created me for the works," let no one, overlooking the wisdom created in the world and in the works, think that "He created" refers to the ousia of the Very Wisdom itself, lest, diluting the wine with water, he be judged a defrauder of the truth. For It is Creative and Framer, but Its impress is created in the works, as the copy of the image. And He says, "Beginning of ways," since such wisdom becomes a sort of beginning and, as it were, rudiments of the knowledge of God. For a man entering, as it were, upon this way first and keeping it in the fear of God (as Solomon says, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom"), then advancing upward in his thoughts and perceiving the Framing Wisdom which is in the creation, will perceive in It also Its Father, as the Lord Himself has said, "He that has seen Me, has seen the Father," and as John writes, "He who acknowledges the Son, has the Father also." And He says, "Before the world He founded me," since in Its impress the works remain settled and eternal. Then, lest anyone, hearing concerning the wisdom thus created in the works, should think the true Wisdom, God's Son, to be by nature a creature, He has found it necessary to add, "Before the mountains, and before the earth, and before the waters, and before all hills He begets me," so that in saying, "before every creature" (for He includes all creation under these heads), He may show that He is not created together with the works according to ousia. For if He was created "for the works," yet is before them, it follows that He exists before He was created. He is not then a creature by nature and ousia, but as He Himself has added, an Offspring. But how a creature differs from an offspring, and how it is distinct by nature, has been shown in what has gone before.

80. Moreover, that the Son should be speaking of the impress that is within us as if it were Himself, should not startle any one, considering (for we must not shrink from repetition) that, when Saul was persecuting the Church, in which was His impress and image, He said, as if He were Himself under persecution, 'Saul, why do you persecute Me Acts 9:4?' Therefore (as has been said), as, supposing the impress itself of Wisdom which is in the works had said, 'The Lord created me for the works,' no one would have been startled, so, if He, the True and Framing Wisdom, the Only-begotten Word of God, should use what belongs to His image as about Himself, namely, 'The Lord created me for the works,' let no one, overlooking the wisdom created in the world and in the works, think that 'He created' is said of the Substance of the Very Wisdom, lest, diluting the wine with water, he be judged a defrauder of the truth. For It is Creative and Framer; but Its impress is created in the works, as the copy of the image. And He says, 'Beginning of ways,' since such wisdom becomes a sort of beginning. and, as it were, rudiments of the knowledge of God; for a man entering, as it were, upon this way first, and keeping it in the fear of God (as Solomon says, 'The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom'), then advancing upwards in his thoughts and perceiving the Framing Wisdom which is in the creation, will perceive in It also Its Father, as the Lord Himself has said, 'He that has seen Me, has seen the Father,' and as John writes, 'He who acknowledges the Son, has the Father also.' And He says, 'Before the world He founded me,' since in Its impress the works remain settled and eternal. Then, lest any, hearing concerning the wisdom thus created in the works, should think the true Wisdom, God's Son, to be by nature a creature, He has found it necessary to add, 'Before the mountains, and before the earth, and before the waters, and before all hills He begets me,' that in saying, 'before every creature' (for He includes all the creation under these heads), He may show that He is not created together with the works according to Essence. For if He was created 'for the works,' yet is before them, it follows that He is in being before He was created. He is not then a creature by nature and essence, but as He Himself has added, an Offspring. But in what differs a creature from an offspring, and how it is distinct by nature, has been shown in what has gone before.

But since He proceeds to say, "When He prepared the heaven, I was present with Him," we ought to know that He does not say this as if the Father prepared the heaven or the clouds above without Wisdom (for there is no room to doubt that all things are created in Wisdom, and without It not even one thing was made). Rather, this is what He is saying: "All things took place in Me and through Me, and when there was a need for Wisdom to be created in the works, I was with the Father in My ousia, but by condescending to created things, I was arranging My own impress over the works, so that the whole world, being in one body, might not be at variance but in harmony with itself." All those then who, with an upright understanding according to the wisdom given to them, come to contemplate the creatures are able to say for themselves, "By Your appointment all things continue." But those who make light of this must be told, "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools," for "that which may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has revealed it to them; for the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived by the things that are made, even His eternal Power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Because when they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, but served the creature more than the Creator of all, who is blessed forever. Amen." And they will surely be shamed at hearing, "For after the world, in the wisdom of God (in the mode we have explained above), did not know God by wisdom, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe." For no longer, as in former times, has God willed to be known by an image and shadow of wisdom—that is, the wisdom that is in the creatures—but He has made the true Wisdom Itself take flesh and become man and undergo the death of the cross, so that through faith in Him all who believe may henceforth obtain salvation. However, it is the same Wisdom of God which, through Its own Image in the creatures (which is why It is said to be created), first manifested Itself and through Itself Its own Father, and afterward, being Itself the Word, "became flesh," as John says, and after abolishing death and saving our race, revealed Himself even more fully, and through Him His own Father, saying, "Grant to them that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent."

81. But since He proceeds to say, 'When He prepared the heaven, I was present with Him,' we ought to know that He says not this as if without Wisdom the Father prepared the heaven or the clouds above (for there is no room to doubt that all things are created in Wisdom, and without It was made not even one John 1:3 thing); but this is what He says, 'All things took place in Me and through Me, and when there was need that Wisdom should be created in the works, in My Essence indeed I was with the Father, but by a condescension to things originate, I was disposing over the works My own impress, so that the whole world as being in one body, might not be at variance but in concord with itself.' All those then who with an upright understanding, according to the wisdom given unto them, come to contemplate the creatures, are able to say for themselves, 'By Your appointment all things continue;' but they who make light of this must be told, 'Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools;' for 'that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has revealed it unto them; for the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived by the things that are made, even His eternal Power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Because that when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, but served the creature more than the Creator of all, who is blessed forever. Amen.' And they will surely be shamed at hearing, 'For, after that in the wisdom of God (in the mode we have explained above), the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of the preaching to save them that believe 1 Corinthians 1:21.' For no longer, as in the former times, God has willed to be known by an image and shadow of wisdom, that namely which is in the creatures, but He has made the true Wisdom Itself to take flesh, and to become man, and to undergo the death of the cross; that by the faith in Him, henceforth all that believe may obtain salvation. However, it is the same Wisdom of God, which through Its own Image in the creatures (whence also It is said to be created), first manifested Itself, and through Itself Its own Father; and afterwards, being Itself the Word, has 'become flesh John 1:14,' as John says, and after abolishing death and saving our race, still more revealed Himself and through Him His own Father, saying, 'Grant unto them that they may know You the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. '

The entire earth is therefore filled with knowledge of Him, because the knowledge of the Father through the Son and of the Son from the Father is one and the same. The Father delights in Him, and the Son rejoices in the Father with the same joy, saying, "I was by Him, daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him." This again demonstrates that the Son is not foreign to the Father, but belongs to the Father's ousia. Look—He did not come into existence because of us, as the irreligious claim, nor is He out of nothing (for God did not obtain from outside Himself a cause for rejoicing). Rather, the words indicate what is His own and what is like Him. When was there ever a time when the Father did not rejoice? But if He always rejoiced, then the one in whom He rejoiced always existed. And in whom does the Father rejoice, except when seeing Himself in His own Image, which is His Word? And though He also delighted in the sons of men when He finished the world, as is written in these same Proverbs, even this has a consistent meaning. For even then He delighted not because joy was added to Him, but again because He saw the works made after His own Image—so that even this rejoicing of God is on account of His Image. And how does the Son have delight, except by seeing Himself in the Father? For this is the same as saying, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father," and "I am in the Father and the Father in Me." Your boasting is therefore useless, as is demonstrated from every angle, you enemies of Christ, and you paraded and circulated everywhere in vain your text, "The Lord created me a beginning of His ways," distorting its meaning and publishing not Solomon's meaning but your own interpretation. For look—your interpretation is proven to be merely a fantasy, but the passage in Proverbs, along with everything said above, proves that the Son is not a creature in nature and essence, but the proper Offspring of the Father, true Wisdom and Word, by whom "all things were made," and "without Him was made not one thing."

82. Hence the whole earth is filled with the knowledge of Him; for the knowledge of Father through Son and of Son from Father is one and the same, and the Father delights in Him, and in the same joy the Son rejoices in the Father, saying, 'I was by Him, daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him Proverbs 8:30.' And this again proves that the Son is not foreign, but proper to the Father's Essence. For behold, not because of us has He come to be, as the irreligious men say, nor is He out of nothing (for not from without did God procure for Himself a cause of rejoicing), but the words denote what is His own and like. When then was it, when the Father rejoiced not? But if He ever rejoiced, He was ever, in whom He rejoiced. And in whom does the Father rejoice, except as seeing Himself in His own Image, which is His Word? And though in sons of men also He had delight, on finishing the world, as it is written in these same Proverbs Proverbs 8:31, yet this too has a consistent sense. For even thus He had delight, not because joy was added to Him, but again on seeing the works made after His own Image; so that even this rejoicing of God is on account of His Image. And how too has the Son delight, except as seeing Himself in the Father? For this is the same as saying, 'He that has seen Me, has seen the Father,' and 'I am in the Father and the Father in Me John 14:9-10.' Vain then is your vaunt as is on all sides shown, O Christ's enemies, and vainly did ye parade and circulate everywhere your text, 'The Lord created me a beginning of His ways,' perverting its sense, and publishing, not Solomon's meaning, but your own comment. For behold your sense is proved to be but a fantasy; but the passage in the Proverbs, as well as all that is above said, proves that the Son is not a creature in nature and essence, but the proper Offspring of the Father, true Wisdom and Word, by whom 'all things were made,' and 'without Him was made not one thing. John 1:3 '

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

1. Of all other heresies which have departed from the truth it is acknowledged that they have but devised a madness, and their irreligiousness has long since become notorious to all men. For that their authors went out from us, it plainly follows, as the blessed John has written, that they never thought nor now think with us. Wherefore, as says the Saviour, in that they gather not with us, they scatter with the devil, and keep an eye on those who slumber, that, by this second sowing of their own mortal poison, they may have companions in death. But, whereas one heresy, and that the last, which has now risen as harbinger of Antichrist, the Arian, as it is called, considering that other heresies, her elder sisters, have been openly proscribed, in her craft and cunning, affects to array herself in Scripture language, like her father the devil, and is forcing her way back into the Church's paradise — that with the pretence of Christianity, her smooth sophistry (for reason she has none) may deceive men into wrong thoughts of Christ — nay, since she has already seduced certain of the foolish, not only to corrupt their ears, but even to take and eat with Eve, till in their ignorance which ensues they think bitter sweet, and admire this loathsome heresy, on this account I have thought it necessary, at your request, to unrip 'the folds of its breast-plate,' and to show the ill savour of its folly. So while those who are far from it may continue to shun it, those whom it has deceived may repent; and, opening the eyes of their heart, may understand that darkness is not light, nor falsehood truth, nor Arianism good; nay, that those who call these men Christians are in great and grievous error, as neither having studied Scripture, nor understanding Christianity at all, and the faith which it contains.

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

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

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

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

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

4. How then can they be Christians, who for Christians are Ario-maniacs? Or how are they of the Catholic Church, who have shaken off the Apostolical faith, and become authors of fresh evils? Who, after abandoning the oracles of divine Scripture, call Arius's Thaliæ a new wisdom? And with reason too, for they are announcing a new heresy. And hence a man may marvel, that, whereas many have written many treatises and abundant homilies upon the Old Testament and the New, yet in none of them is a Thalia found; nay nor among the more respectable of the Gentiles, but among those only who sing such strains over their cups, amid cheers and jokes, when men are merry, that the rest may laugh; till this marvellous Arius, taking no grave pattern, and ignorant even of what is respectable, while he stole largely from other heresies, would be original in the ludicrous, with none but Sotades for his rival. For what beseemed him more, when he would dance forth against the Saviour, than to throw his wretched words of irreligion into dissolute and loose metres? That, while 'a man,' as Wisdom says, 'is known from the utterance of his word,' so from those numbers should be seen the writer's effeminate soul and corruption of thought. In truth, that crafty one did not escape detection; but, for all his many writhings to and fro, like the serpent, he did but fall into the error of the Pharisees. They, that they might transgress the Law, pretended to be anxious for the words of the Law, and that they might deny the expected and then present Lord, were hypocritical with God's name, and were convicted of blaspheming when they said, 'Why do You, being a man, make Yourself God,' and say, 'I and the Father are one John 10:30?' And so too, this counterfeit and Sotadean Arius, feigns to speak of God, introducing Scripture language, but is on all sides recognised as godless Arius, denying the Son, and reckoning Him among the creatures.

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

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

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

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

The mockeries he utters in it are repulsive and utterly irreligious, such as these: "God was not always a Father," but "once God was alone and not yet a Father, but afterwards He became a Father." "The Son was not always," for since all things were made out of nothing, and all existing creatures and works were made, so the Word of God Himself was "made out of nothing," and "once He was not," and "He was not before His origination," but He like others "had an origin of creation." "For God," he says, "was alone, and the Word did not yet exist, nor the Wisdom. Then, wishing to form us, He made a certain one and named Him Word and Wisdom and Son, so that He might form us through Him." Accordingly, he says that there are two wisdoms: first, the attribute that co-exists with God, and second, that in this wisdom the Son was originated and was only named Wisdom and Word by participating in it. "For Wisdom," he says, "by the will of the wise God, had its existence in Wisdom." In the same way, he says there is another Word in God besides the Son, and that the Son again, by participating in it, is named Word and Son according to grace. And this too is an idea characteristic of their heresy, as shown in their other works: that there are many powers, one of which is God's own by nature and eternal, but Christ, on the other hand, is not the true power of God but, like the others, one of the so-called powers, one of which—namely the locust and the caterpillar—is called in Scripture not merely the power but the "great power." The others are many and are like the Son, and of them David speaks in the Psalms when he says "The Lord of hosts" or "powers." And by nature, like all the others, the Word Himself is alterable and remains good by His own free will while He chooses; however, when He wills, He can change as we can, since He has an alterable nature. For "therefore," he says, "because God foreknew that He would be good, He bestowed on Him in advance this glory, which afterwards, as man, He attained from virtue. Thus because of His works known beforehand, God brought it about that He, being such, should come to be."

And the mockeries which he utters in it, repulsive and most irreligious, are such as these:– 'God was not always a Father.' but 'once God was alone, and not yet a Father, but afterwards He became a Father.' 'The Son was not always;' for, whereas all things were made out of nothing, and all existing creatures and works were made, so the Word of God Himself was 'made out of nothing,' and 'once He was not,' and 'He was not before His origination,' but He as others 'had an origin of creation.' 'For God,' he says, 'was alone, and the Word as yet was not, nor the Wisdom. Then, wishing to form us, thereupon He made a certain one, and named Him Word and Wisdom and Son, that He might form us by means of Him.' Accordingly, he says that there are two wisdoms, first, the attribute co-existent with God, and next, that in this wisdom the Son was originated, and was only named Wisdom and Word as partaking of it. 'For Wisdom,' says he, 'by the will of the wise God, had its existence in Wisdom.' In like manner, he says, that there is another Word in God besides the Son, and that the Son again, as partaking of it, is named Word and Son according to grace. And this too is an idea proper to their heresy, as shown in other works of theirs, that there are many powers; one of which is God's own by nature and eternal; but that Christ, on the other hand, is not the true power of God; but, as others, one of the so-called powers, one of which, namely, the locust and the caterpillar, is called in Scripture, not merely the power, but the 'great power.' The others are many and are like the Son, and of them David speaks in the Psalms, when he says, 'The Lord of hosts' or 'powers.' And by nature, as all others, so the Word Himself is alterable, and remains good by His own free will, while He chooses; when, however, He wills, He can alter as we can, as being of an alterable nature. For 'therefore,' says he, 'as foreknowing that He would be good, did God by anticipation bestow on Him this glory, which afterwards, as man, He attained from virtue. Thus in consequence of His works fore- known, did God bring it to pass that He being such, should come to be.'

Furthermore, he has dared to say that 'the Word is not the very God.' 'Though He is called God, yet He is not very God,' but 'by participation of grace, He, as others, is God only in name.' And just as all beings are foreign and different from God in essence, so too is 'the Word alien and unlike in all things to the Father's essence and propriety,' but belongs to things originated and created, and is one of these. Afterwards, as if he had inherited the devil's recklessness, he has stated in his Thalia that 'even to the Son the Father is invisible,' and 'the Word cannot perfectly and exactly either see or know His own Father.' But even what He knows and what He sees, He knows and sees 'in proportion to His own measure,' just as we also know according to our own power. For he says the Son not only does not know the Father exactly, because He fails in comprehension, but 'He knows not even His own essence.' And he says that 'the essences of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are separate in nature, and estranged, and disconnected, and alien, and without participation of each other,' and in his own words, 'utterly unlike from each other in essence and glory, unto infinity.' Thus regarding 'likeness of glory and essence,' he says that the Word is entirely different from both the Father and the Holy Ghost. With such words has this irreligious man spoken, maintaining that the Son is distinct by Himself and in no respect a partaker of the Father. These are portions of Arius's fables as they occur in that frivolous composition.

6. Moreover he has dared to say, that 'the Word is not the very God;' 'though He is called God, yet He is not very God,' but 'by participation of grace, He, as others, is God only in name.' And, whereas all beings are foreign and different from God in essence, so too is 'the Word alien and unlike in all things to the Father's essence and propriety,' but belongs to things originated and created, and is one of these. Afterwards, as though he had succeeded to the devil's recklessness, he has stated in his Thalia, that 'even to the Son the Father is invisible,' and 'the Word cannot perfectly and exactly either see or know His own Father.' but even what He knows and what He sees, He knows and sees 'in proportion to His own measure,' as we also know according to our own power. For the Son, too, he says, not only knows not the Father exactly, for He fails in comprehension, but 'He knows not even His own essence;'– and that 'the essences of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, are separate in nature, and estranged, and disconnected, and alien, and without participation of each other;' and, in his own words, 'utterly unlike from each other in essence and glory, unto infinity.' Thus as to 'likeness of glory and essence,' he says that the Word is entirely diverse from both the Father and the Holy Ghost. With such words has the irreligious spoken; maintaining that the Son is distinct by Himself, and in no respect partaker of the Father. These are portions of Arius's fables as they occur in that jocose composition.

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

7. Who is there that hears all this, nay, the tune of the Thalia, but must hate, and justly hate, this Arius jesting on such matters as on a stage? Who but must regard him, when he pretends to name God and speak of God, but as the serpent counselling the woman? Who, on reading what follows in his work, but must discern in his irreligious doctrine that error, into which by his sophistries the serpent in the sequel seduced the woman? Who at such blasphemies is not transported? 'The heaven,' as the Prophet says, 'was astonished, and the earth shuddered Jeremiah 2:12 ' at the transgression of the Law. But the sun, with greater horror, impatient of the bodily contumelies, which the common Lord of all voluntarily endured for us, turned away, and recalling his rays made that day sunless. And shall not all human kind at Arius's blasphemies be struck speechless, and stop their ears, and shut their eyes, to escape hearing them or seeing their author? Rather, will not the Lord Himself have reason to denounce men so irreligious, nay, so unthankful, in the words which He has already uttered by the prophet Hosea, 'Woe unto them, for they have fled from Me; destruction upon them, for they have transgressed against Me; though I have redeemed them, yet they have spoken lies against Me Hosea 7:13.' And soon after, 'They imagine mischief against Me; they turn away to nothing.' For to turn away from the Word of God, which is, and to fashion to themselves one that is not, is to fall to what is nothing. For this was why the Ecumenical Council, when Arius thus spoke, cast him from the Church, and anathematized him, as impatient of such irreligion. And ever since has Arius's error been reckoned for a heresy more than ordinary, being known as Christ's foe, and harbinger of Antichrist. Though then so great a condemnation be itself of special weight to make men flee from that irreligious heresy, as I said above, yet since certain persons called Christian, either in ignorance or pretence, think it, as I then said, little different from the Truth, and call its professors Christians; proceed we to put some questions to them, according to our powers, thereby to expose the unscrupulousness of the heresy. Perhaps, when thus caught, they will be silenced, and flee from it, as from the sight of a serpent.

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

8. If then the use of certain phrases of divine Scripture changes, in their opinion, the blasphemy of the Thalia into reverent language, of course they ought also to deny Christ with the present Jews, when they see how they study the Law and the Prophets; perhaps too they will deny the Law and the Prophets like Manichees, because the latter read some portions of the Gospels. If such bewilderment and empty speaking be from ignorance, Scripture will teach them, that the devil, the author of heresies, because of the ill savour which attaches to evil, borrows Scripture language, as a cloak wherewith to sow the ground with his own poison also, and to seduce the simple. Thus he deceived Eve; thus he framed former heresies; thus he persuaded Arius at this time to make a show of speaking against those former ones, that he might introduce his own without observation. And yet, after all, the man of craft did not escape. For being irreligious towards the Word of God, he lost his all at once, and betrayed to all men his ignorance of other heresies too; and having not a particle of truth in his belief, does but pretend to it. For how can he speak truth concerning the Father, who denies the Son, that reveals concerning Him? Or how can he be orthodox concerning the Spirit, while he speaks profanely of the Word that supplies the Spirit? And who will trust him concerning the Resurrection, denying, as he does, Christ for us the first-begotten from the dead? And how shall he not err in respect to His incarnate presence, who is simply ignorant of the Son's genuine and true generation from the Father? For thus, the former Jews also, denying the Word, and saying, 'We have no king but Cæsar John 19:15,' were immediately stripped of all they had, and forfeited the light of the Lamp, the odour of ointment, knowledge of prophecy, and the Truth itself; till now they understand nothing, but are walking as in darkness. For who was ever yet a hearer of such a doctrine? Or whence or from whom did the abettors and hirelings of the heresy gain it? Who thus expounded to them when they were at school? Who told them, 'Abandon the worship of the creation, and then draw near and worship a creature and a work?' But if they themselves own that they have heard it now for the first time, how can they deny that this heresy is foreign, and not from our fathers? But what is not from our fathers, but has come to light in this day, how can it be but that of which the blessed Paul has foretold, that 'in the latter times some shall depart from the sound faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, in the hypocrisy of liars; cauterized in their own conscience, and turning from the truth?'

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

9. For, behold, we take divine Scripture, and thence discourse with freedom of the religious Faith, and set it up as a light upon its candlestick, saying:– Very Son of the Father, natural and genuine, proper to His essence, Wisdom Only-begotten, and Very and Only Word of God is He; not a creature or work, but an offspring proper to the Father's essence. Wherefore He is very God, existing one in essence with the very Father; while other beings, to whom He said, 'I said you are Gods,' had this grace from the Father, only by participation of the Word, through the Spirit. For He is the expression of the Father's Person, and Light from Light, and Power, and very Image of the Father's essence. For this too the Lord has said, 'He that has seen Me, has seen the Father John 14:9.' And He ever was and is and never was not. For the Father being everlasting, His Word and His Wisdom must be everlasting. On the other hand, what have these persons to show us from the infamous Thalia? Or, first of all, let them read it themselves, and copy the tone of the writer; at least the mockery which they will encounter from others may instruct them how low they have fallen; and then let them proceed to explain themselves. For what can they say from it, but that 'God was not always a Father, but became so afterwards; the Son was not always, for He was not before His generation; He is not from the Father, but He, as others, has come into subsistence out of nothing; He is not proper to the Father's essence, for He is a creature and work?' And 'Christ is not very God, but He, as others, was made God by participation; the Son has not exact knowledge of the Father, nor does the Word see the Father perfectly; and neither exactly understands nor knows the Father. He is not the very and only Word of the Father, but is in name only called Word and Wisdom, and is called by grace Son and Power. He is not unalterable, as the Father is, but alterable in nature, as the creatures, and He comes short of apprehending the perfect knowledge of the Father.' Wonderful this heresy, not plausible even, but making speculations against Him that is, that He be not, and everywhere putting forward blasphemy for reverent language! Were any one, after inquiring into both sides, to be asked, whether of the two he would follow in faith, or whether of the two spoke fitly of God — or rather let them say themselves, these abettors of irreligion, what, if a man be asked concerning God (for 'the Word was God?'), it were fit to answer. For from this one question the whole case on both sides may be determined, what is fitting to say — He was, or He was not; always, or before His birth; eternal, or from this and from then; true, or by adoption, and from participation and in idea; to call Him one of things originated, or to unite Him to the Father; to consider Him unlike the Father in essence, or like and proper to Him; a creature, or Him through whom the creatures were originated; that He is the Father's Word, or that there is another word beside Him, and that by this other He was originated, and by another wisdom; and that He is only named Wisdom and Word, and has become a partaker of this wisdom, and second to it?

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

10. Which of the two theologies sets forth our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Son of the Father, this which you vomited forth, or that which we have spoken and maintain from the Scriptures? If the Saviour be not God, nor Word, nor Son, you shall have leave to say what you will, and so shall the Gentiles, and the present Jews. But if He be Word of the Father and true Son, and God from God, and 'over all blessed for ever Romans 9:5,' is it not becoming to obliterate and blot out those other phrases and that Arian Thalia, as but a pattern of evil, a store of all irreligion, into which, whoever falls, ' knows not that giants perish with her, and reaches the depths of Hades?' This they know themselves, and in their craft they conceal it, not having the courage to speak out, but uttering something else. For if they speak, a condemnation will follow; and if they be suspected, proofs from Scripture will be cast at them from every side. Wherefore, in their craft, as children of this world, after feeding their so-called lamp from the wild olive, and fearing lest it should soon be quenched (for it is said, 'the light of the wicked shall be put out Job 18:5,') they hide it under the bushel of their hypocrisy, and make a different profession, and boast of patronage of friends and authority of Constantius, that what with their hypocrisy and their professions, those who come to them may be kept from seeing how foul their heresy is. Is it not detestable even in this, that it dares not speak out, but is kept hidden by its own friends, and fostered as serpents are? For from what sources have they got together these words? Or from whom have they received what they venture to say? Not any one man can they specify who has supplied it. For who is there in all mankind, Greek or Barbarian, who ventures to rank among creatures One whom he confesses the while to be God and says, that He was not till He was made? Or who is there, who to the God in whom he has put faith, refuses to give credit, when He says, 'This is My beloved Son Matthew 3:17,' on the pretence that He is not a Son, but a creature? Rather, such madness would rouse an universal indignation. Nor does Scripture afford them any pretext; for it has been often shown, and it shall be shown now, that their doctrine is alien to the divine oracles. Therefore, since all that remains is to say that from the devil came their mania (for of such opinions he alone is sower), proceed we to resist him — for with him is our real conflict, and they are but instruments — that, the Lord aiding us, and the enemy, as he is wont, being overcome with arguments, they may be put to shame, when they see him without resource who sowed this heresy in them, and may learn, though late, that, as being Arians, they are not Christians.

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

11. At his suggestion then you have maintained and you think, that 'there was once when the Son was not;' this is the first cloke of your views of doctrine which has to be stripped off. Say then what was once when the Son was not, O slanderous and irreligious men? If you say the Father, your blasphemy is but greater; for it is impious to say that He was 'once,' or to signify Him by the word 'once.' For He is ever, and is now, and as the Son is, so is He, and is Himself He that is, and Father of the Son. But if you say that the Son was once, when He Himself was not, the answer is foolish and unmeaning. For how could He both be and not be? In this difficulty, you can but answer, that there was a time when the Word was not; for your very adverb 'once' naturally signifies this. And your other, 'The Son was not before His generation,' is equivalent to saying, 'There was once when He was not,' for both the one and the other signify that there is a time before the Word. Whence then this your discovery? Why do you, as 'the heathen, rage, and imagine vain phrases against the Lord and against His Christ.' for no holy Scripture has used such language of the Saviour, but rather 'always' and ' eternal ' and 'coexistent always with the Father.' For, 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God John 1:1.' And in the Apocalypse he thus speaks; 'Who is and who was and who is to come.' Now who can rob 'who is' and 'who was' of eternity? This too in confutation of the Jews has Paul written in his Epistle to the Romans, 'Of whom as concerning the flesh is Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever Romans 9:5;' while silencing the Greeks, he has said, 'The visible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal Power and Godhead;' and what the Power of God is, he teaches us elsewhere himself, 'Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of God.' Surely in these words he does not designate the Father, as you often whisper one to another, affirming that the Father is 'His eternal power.' This is not so; for he says not, 'God Himself is the power,' but 'His is the power.' Very plain is it to all that 'His' is not 'He;' yet not something alien but rather proper to Him. Study too the context and 'turn to the Lord.' now 'the Lord is that Spirit;'and you will see that it is the Son who is signified.

After mentioning the creation, Paul naturally speaks of the Framer's Power as seen in it. This Power, I say, is the Word of God, by whom all things have been made. If the creation by itself were sufficient, without the Son, to make God known, then be careful not to think that it came into being without the Son. But if it came to be through the Son, and "in Him all things consist" (Colossians 1:17), then it must follow that whoever rightly contemplates creation is also contemplating the Word who framed it, and through Him begins to understand the Father. And if, as the Savior also says, "No one knows the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son reveals Him" (Matthew 11:27), and if when Philip asked, "Show us the Father," He did not say, "Look at the creation," but rather, "Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father" (John 14:8-9), then Paul reasonably accuses the Greeks of contemplating the harmony and order of creation without reflecting on the Framing Word within it (for the creatures witness to their own Framer) so as to apprehend the true God through creation and abandon their worship of it. He reasonably said, "His Eternal Power and Godhead" (Romans 1:20), thereby signifying the Son. And where the sacred writers say, "Who exists before the ages," and "By whom He made the ages" (Hebrews 1:2), they thereby clearly preach the eternal and everlasting being of the Son, even while they are speaking of God Himself. Thus, if Isaiah says, "The Everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth" (Isaiah 40:28), and Susanna said, "O Everlasting God," and Baruch wrote, "I will cry unto the Everlasting in my days," and shortly after, "My hope is in the Everlasting, that He will save you, and joy has come unto me from the Holy One," yet because the Apostle, writing to the Hebrews, says, "Who being the radiance of His glory and the Expression of His Person" (Hebrews 1:3), and David too in the eighty-ninth Psalm says, "And the brightness of the Lord be upon us," and, "In Your Light shall we see Light," who has so little sense as to doubt the eternity of the Son? For when did anyone see light without the brightness of its radiance, that he may say of the Son, "There was once when He was not," or "Before His generation He was not"? And the words addressed to the Son in the one hundred and forty-fourth Psalm, "Your kingdom is a kingdom of all ages," forbid anyone to imagine any interval at all in which the Word did not exist. For if every interval in the ages is measured, and the Word is King and Maker of all the ages, therefore, since no interval at all exists prior to Him, it would be madness to say, "There was once when the Everlasting was not," and "The Son is from nothing." And since the Lord Himself says, "I am the Truth," not "I became the Truth," but always, "I am"—"I am the Shepherd," "I am the Light"—and again, "Do you not call Me Lord and Master? And you call Me well, for so I am," who, hearing such language from God, and the Wisdom, and Word of the Father, speaking of Himself, will any longer hesitate about the truth, and not immediately believe that in the phrase "I am," is signified that the Son is eternal and without beginning?

12. For after making mention of the creation, he naturally speaks of the Framer's Power as seen in it, which Power, I say, is the Word of God, by whom all things have been made. If indeed the creation is sufficient of itself alone, without the Son, to make God known, see that you fall not, from thinking that without the Son it has come to be. But if through the Son it has come to be, and 'in Him all things consist Colossians 1:17,' it must follow that he who contemplates the creation rightly, is contemplating also the Word who framed it, and through Him begins to apprehend the Father. And if, as the Saviour also says, 'No one knows the Father, save the Son, and he to whom the Son shall reveal Him Matthew 11:27,' and if on Philip's asking, 'Show us the Father,' He said not, 'Behold the creation,' but, 'He that has seen Me, has seen the Father John 14:8-9,' reasonably does Paul — while accusing the Greeks of contemplating the harmony and order of the creation without reflecting on the Framing Word within it (for the creatures witness to their own Framer) so as through the creation to apprehend the true God, and abandon their worship of it — reasonably has he said, 'His Eternal Power and Godhead Romans 1:20,' thereby signifying the Son. And where the sacred writers say, 'Who exists before the ages,' and 'By whom He made the ages Hebrews 1:2,' they thereby as clearly preach the eternal and everlasting being of the Son, even while they are designating God Himself. Thus, if Isaiah says, 'The Everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth Isaiah 40:28;' and Susanna said, 'O Everlasting God;' and Baruch wrote, 'I will cry unto the Everlasting in my days,' and shortly after, 'My hope is in the Everlasting, that He will save you, and joy has come unto me from the Holy One;' yet forasmuch as the Apostle, writing to the Hebrews, says, 'Who being the radiance of His glory and the Expression of His Person Hebrews 1:3;' and David too in the eighty-ninth Psalm, 'And the brightness of the Lord be upon us,' and, 'In Your Light shall we see Light,' who has so little sense as to doubt of the eternity of the Son? For when did man see light without the brightness of its radiance, that he may say of the Son, 'There was once, when He was not,' or 'Before His generation He was not.' And the words addressed to the Son in the hundred and forty-fourth Psalm, 'Your kingdom is a kingdom of all ages,' forbid any one to imagine any interval at all in which the Word did not exist. For if every interval in the ages is measured, and of all the ages the Word is King and Maker, therefore, whereas no interval at all exists prior to Him, it were madness to say, 'There was once when the Everlasting was not,' and 'From nothing is the Son.' And whereas the Lord Himself says, 'I am the Truth,' not 'I became the Truth.' but always, 'I am — I am the Shepherd, — I am the Light,'– and again, 'Call Me not, Lord and Master? And you call Me well, for so I am,' who, hearing such language from God, and the Wisdom, and Word of the Father, speaking of Himself, will any longer hesitate about the truth, and not immediately believe that in the phrase 'I am,' is signified that the Son is eternal and without beginning?

It's clear from the passages above that the Scriptures declare the Son's eternity. It's equally clear from what follows that the Arian phrases "He was not," "before," and "when" are used in these same Scriptures for creatures. For example, Moses in his account of how our world came to be says, "And every plant of the field, before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew; for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground." In Deuteronomy it says, "When the Most High divided to the nations." The Lord said in His own Person, "If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said, I go unto the Father, for My Father is greater than I. And now I have told you before it come to pass, that when it has come to pass, you might believe." Concerning creation He says through Solomon, "Or ever the earth was, when there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills, was I brought forth." And, "Before Abraham was, I am." Concerning Jeremiah He says, "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you." David says in the Psalm, "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever the earth and the world were made, You are, God from everlasting and world without end." And in Daniel, "Susanna cried out with a loud voice and said, O everlasting God, that know the secrets, and know all things before they be." So it's clear that the phrases "once was not," "before it came to be," "when," and similar expressions belong to created things that come from nothing, but are foreign to the Word. If such terms are used in Scripture for created things, but "ever" is used for the Word, then it follows, you enemies of God, that the Son did not come from nothing, nor is He among created things at all, but is the Father's Image and Word who is eternal, never having not existed, but always existing as the eternal Radiance of a Light that is eternal. Why then do you imagine times before the Son? Why do you blaspheme the Word as coming after times, when He is the one through whom even the ages were made? How could time or age even exist when the Word, as you claim, had not yet appeared—He through whom all things have been made and without whom not one thing was made? Why, when you actually mean time, don't you plainly say "a time was when the Word was not"? You drop the word "time" to deceive simple people, but you don't hide your real meaning at all, and even if you did, you couldn't escape detection. You still clearly mean times when you say "There was when He was not" and "He was not before His generation."

13. It is plain then from the above that the Scriptures declare the Son's eternity; it is equally plain from what follows that the Arian phrases 'He was not,' and 'before' and 'when,' are in the same Scriptures predicated of creatures. Moses, for instance, in his account of the generation of our system, says, 'And every plant of the field, before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew; for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground Genesis 2:5.' And in Deuteronomy, 'When the Most High divided to the nations Deuteronomy 32:8.' And the Lord said in His own Person, 'If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said, I go unto the Father, for My Father is greater than I. And now I have told you before it come to pass, that when it has come to pass, you might believe John 14:28-29.' And concerning the creation He says by Solomon, 'Or ever the earth was, when there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills, was I brought forth Proverbs 8:23.' And, 'Before Abraham was, I am John 8:58.' And concerning Jeremiah He says, 'Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you Jeremiah 1:5.' And David in the Psalm says, 'Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever the earth and the world were made, You are, God from everlasting and world without end.' And in Daniel, 'Susanna cried out with a loud voice and said, O everlasting God, that know the secrets, and know all things before they be.' Thus it appears that the phrases 'once was not,' and 'before it came to be,' and 'when,' and the like, belong to things originate and creatures, which come out of nothing, but are alien to the Word. But if such terms are used in Scripture of things originate, but 'ever' of the Word, it follows, O you enemies of God, that the Son did not come out of nothing, nor is in the number of originated things at all, but is the Father's Image and Word eternal, never having not been, but being ever, as the eternal Radiance of a Light which is eternal. Why imagine then times before the Son? Or why blaspheme the Word as after times, by whom even the ages were made? For how did time or age at all subsist when the Word, as you say, had not appeared, 'through' whom 'all things have been made and without' whom 'not one thing was made John 1:3?' Or why, when you mean time, do you not plainly say, 'a time was when the Word was not?' But while you drop the word 'time' to deceive the simple, you do not at all conceal your own feeling, nor, even if you did, could you escape discovery. For you still simply mean times, when you say, 'There was when He was not,' and 'He was not before His generation.'

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

14. When these points are thus proved, their profaneness goes further. 'If there never was, when the Son was not,' say they, 'but He is eternal, and coexists with the Father, you call Him no more the Father's Son, but brother.' O insensate and contentious! For if we said only that He was eternally with the Father, and not His Son, their pretended scruple would have some plausibility; but if, while we say that He is eternal, we also confess Him to be Son from the Father, how can He that is begotten be considered brother of Him who begets? And if our faith is in Father and Son, what brotherhood is there between them? And how can the Word be called brother of Him whose Word He is? This is not an objection of men really ignorant, for they comprehend how the truth lies; but it is a Jewish pretence, and that from those who, in Solomon's words, 'through desire separate themselves Proverbs 18:1 ' from the truth. For the Father and the Son were not generated from some pre-existing origin, that we may account Them brothers, but the Father is the Origin of the Son and begot Him; and the Father is Father, and not born the Son of any; and the Son is Son, and not brother. Further, if He is called the eternal offspring of the Father, He is rightly so called. For never was the essence of the Father imperfect, that what is proper to it should be added afterwards; nor, as man from man, has the Son been begotten, so as to be later than His Father's existence, but He is God's offspring, and as being proper Son of God, who is ever, He exists eternally. For, whereas it is proper to men to beget in time, from the imperfection of their nature, God's offspring is eternal, for His nature is ever perfect. If then He is not a Son, but a work made out of nothing, they have but to prove it; and then they are at liberty, as if imagining about a creature, to cry out, 'There was once when He was not;' for things which are originated were not, and have come to be. But if He is Son, as the Father says, and the Scriptures proclaim, and 'Son' is nothing else than what is generated from the Father; and what is generated from the Father is His Word, and Wisdom, and Radiance; what is to be said but that, in maintaining 'Once the Son was not,' they rob God of His Word, like plunderers, and openly predicate of Him that He was once without His proper Word and Wisdom, and that the Light was once without radiance, and the Fountain was once barren and dry? For though they pretend alarm at the name of time, because of those who reproach them with it, and say, that He was before times, yet whereas they assign certain intervals, in which they imagine He was not, they are most irreligious still, as equally suggesting times, and imputing to God an absence of Reason.

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

15. But if on the other hand, while they acknowledge with us the name of 'Son,' from an unwillingness to be publicly and generally condemned, they deny that the Son is the proper offspring of the Father's essence, on the ground that this must imply parts and divisions; what is this but to deny that He is very Son, and only in name to call Him Son at all? And is it not a grievous error, to have material thoughts about what is immaterial, and because of the weakness of their proper nature to deny what is natural and proper to the Father? It does but remain, that they should deny Him also, because they understand not how God is, and what the Father is, now that, foolish men, they measure by themselves the Offspring of the Father. And persons in such a state of mind as to consider that there cannot be a Son of God, demand our pity; but they must be interrogated and exposed for the chance of bringing them to their senses. If then, as you say, 'the Son is from nothing,' and 'was not before His generation,' He, of course, as well as others, must be called Son and God and Wisdom only by participation; for thus all other creatures consist, and by sanctification are glorified. You have to tell us then, of what He is partaker. All other things partake of the Spirit, but He, according to you, of what is He partaker? Of the Spirit? Nay, rather the Spirit Himself takes from the Son, as He Himself says; and it is not reasonable to say that the latter is sanctified by the former. Therefore it is the Father that He partakes; for this only remains to say. But this, which is participated, what is it or whence? If it be something external provided by the Father, He will not now be partaker of the Father, but of what is external to Him; and no longer will He be even second after the Father, since He has before Him this other; nor can He be called Son of the Father, but of that, as partaking which He has been called Son and God. And if this be unseemly and irreligious, when the Father says, 'This is My Beloved Son Matthew 3:17,' and when the Son says that God is His own Father, it follows that what is partaken is not external, but from the essence of the Father. And as to this again, if it be other than the essence of the Son, an equal extravagance will meet us; there being in that case something between this that is from the Father and the essence of the Son, whatever that be.

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

16. Such thoughts then being evidently unseemly and untrue, we are driven to say that what is from the essence of the Father, and proper to Him, is entirely the Son; for it is all one to say that God is wholly participated, and that He begets; and what does begetting signify but a Son? And thus of the Son Himself, all things partake according to the grace of the Spirit coming from Him; and this shows that the Son Himself partakes of nothing, but what is partaken from the Father, is the Son; for, as partaking of the Son Himself, we are said to partake of God; and this is what Peter said 'that you may be partakers in a divine nature 2 Peter 1:4;' as says too the Apostle, 'Do you not know, that you are a temple of God.' and, 'We are the temple of a living God.' And beholding the Son, we see the Father; for the thought and comprehension of the Son, is knowledge concerning the Father, because He is His proper offspring from His essence. And since to be partaken no one of us would ever call affection or division of God's essence (for it has been shown and acknowledged that God is participated, and to be participated is the same thing as to beget); therefore that which is begotten is neither affection nor division of that blessed essence. Hence it is not incredible that God should have a Son, the Offspring of His own essence; nor do we imply affection or division of God's essence, when we speak of 'Son' and 'Offspring;' but rather, as acknowledging the genuine, and true, and Only-begotten of God, so we believe. If then, as we have stated and are showing, what is the Offspring of the Father's essence be the Son, we cannot hesitate, rather we must be certain, that the same is the Wisdom and Word of the Father, in and through whom He creates and makes all things; and His Brightness too, in whom He enlightens all things, and is revealed to whom He will; and His Expression and Image also, in whom He is contemplated and known, wherefore 'He and His Father are one John 10:30,' and whoever looks on Him looks on the Father; and the Christ, in whom all things are redeemed, and the new creation wrought afresh. And on the other hand, the Son being such Offspring, it is not fitting, rather it is full of peril, to say, that He is a work out of nothing, or that He was not before His generation. For he who thus speaks of that which is proper to the Father's essence, already blasphemes the Father Himself; since he really thinks of Him what he falsely imagines of His offspring.

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

17. This is of itself a sufficient refutation of the Arian heresy; however, its heterodoxy will appear also from the following:– If God be Maker and Creator, and create His works through the Son, and we cannot regard things which come to be, except as being through the Word, is it not blasphemous, God being Maker, to say, that His Framing Word and His Wisdom once was not? It is the same as saying, that God is not Maker, if He had not His proper Framing Word which is from Him, but that that by which He frames, accrues to Him from without, and is alien from Him, and unlike in essence. Next, let them tell us this — or rather learn from it how irreligious they are in saying, 'Once He was not,' and, 'He was not before His generation;'– for if the Word is not with the Father from everlasting, the Triad is not everlasting; but a Monad was first, and afterwards by addition it became a Triad; and so as time went on, it seems what we know concerning God grew and took shape. And further, if the Son is not proper offspring of the Father's essence, but of nothing has come to be, then of nothing the Triad consists, and once there was not a Triad, but a Monad; and a Triad once with deficiency, and then complete; deficient, before the Son was originated, complete when He had come to be; and henceforth a thing originated is reckoned with the Creator, and what once was not has divine worship and glory with Him who was ever. Nay, what is more serious still, the Triad is discovered to be unlike Itself, consisting of strange and alien natures and essences. And this, in other words, is saying, that the Triad has an originated consistence. What sort of a religion then is this, which is not even like itself, but is in process of completion as time goes on, and is now not thus, and then again thus? For probably it will receive some fresh accession, and so on without limit, since at first and at starting it took its consistence by way of accessions. And so undoubtedly it may decrease on the contrary, for what is added plainly admits of being subtracted.

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

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

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

19. If God be, and be called, the Fountain of wisdom and life — as He says by Jeremiah, 'They have forsaken Me the Fountain of living waters Jeremiah 2:13;' and again, 'A glorious high throne from the beginning, is the place of our sanctuary; O Lord, the Hope of Israel, all that forsake You shall be ashamed, and they that depart from Me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken the Lord, the Fountain of living waters;' and in the book of Baruch it is written, 'You have forsaken the Fountain of wisdom Baruch 3:12,'– this implies that life and wisdom are not foreign to the Essence of the Fountain, but are proper to It, nor were at any time without existence, but were always. Now the Son is all this, who says, 'I am the Life John 14:6,' and, 'I Wisdom dwell with prudence Proverbs 8:12.' Is it not then irreligious to say, 'Once the Son was not?' for it is all one with saying, 'Once the Fountain was dry, destitute of Life and Wisdom.' But a fountain it would then cease to be; for what begets not from itself, is not a fountain. What a load of extravagance! For God promises that those who do His will shall be as a fountain which the water fails not, saying by Isaiah the prophet, 'And the Lord shall satisfy your soul in drought, and make your bones fat; and you shall be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose waters fail not Isaiah 58:11.' And yet these, whereas God is called and is a Fountain of wisdom, dare to insult Him as barren and void of His proper Wisdom. But their doctrine is false; truth witnessing that God is the eternal Fountain of His proper Wisdom; and, if the Fountain be eternal, the Wisdom also must needs be eternal. For in It were all things made, as David says in the Psalm, 'In Wisdom have You made them all;' and Solomon says, 'The Lord by Wisdom has formed the earth, by understanding has He established the heavens Proverbs 3:19.' And this Wisdom is the Word, and by Him, as John says, 'all things were made,' and 'without Him was made not one thing.' And this Word is Christ; for 'there is One God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we for Him; and One Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through Him 1 Corinthians 8:6.' And if all things are through Him, He Himself is not to be reckoned with that 'all.' For he who dares to call Him, through whom are things, one of that 'all,' surely will have like speculations concerning God, from whom are all. But if he shrinks from this as unseemly, and excludes God from that all, it is but consistent that he should also exclude from that all the Only-Begotten Son, as being proper to the Father's essence. And, if He be not one of the all, it is sin to say concerning Him, 'He was not,' and 'He was not before His generation.' Such words may be used of the creatures; but as to the Son, He is such as the Father is, of whose essence He is proper Offspring, Word, and Wisdom. For this is proper to the Son, as regards the Father, and this shows that the Father is proper to the Son; that we may neither say that God was ever without Word, nor that the Son was non-existent. For wherefore a Son, if not from Him? Or wherefore Word and Wisdom, if not ever proper to Him?

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

20. When then was God without that which is proper to Him? Or how can a man consider that which is proper, as foreign and alien in essence? For other things, according to the nature of things originate, are without likeness in essence with the Maker; but are external to Him, made by the Word at His grace and will, and thus admit of ceasing to be, if it so pleases Him who made them; for such is the nature of things originate. But as to what is proper to the Father's essence (for this we have already found to be the Son), what daring is it in irreligion to say that 'This comes from nothing,' and that 'It was not before generation,' but was adventitious, and can at some time cease to be again? Let a person only dwell upon this thought, and he will discern how the perfection and the plenitude of the Father's essence is impaired by this heresy; however, he will see its unseemliness still more clearly, if he considers that the Son is the Image and Radiance of the Father, and Expression, and Truth. For if, when Light exists, there be withal its Image, viz. Radiance, and, a Subsistence existing, there be of it the entire Expression, and, a Father existing, there be His Truth (viz. the Son); let them consider what depths of irreligion they fall into, who make time the measure of the Image and Form of the Godhead. For if the Son was not before His generation, Truth was not always in God, which it were a sin to say; for, since the Father was, there was ever in Him the Truth, which is the Son, who says, 'I am the Truth John 14:6.' And the Subsistence existing, of course there was immediately its Expression and Image; for God's Image is not delineated from without, but God Himself has begotten it; in which seeing Himself, He has delight, as the Son Himself says, 'I was His delight Proverbs 8:30.' When then did the Father not see Himself in His own Image? Or when had He not delight, that a man should dare to say, 'the Image is out of nothing,' and 'The Father had not delight before the Image was originated?' and how should the Maker and Creator see Himself in a created and originated essence? For such as is the Father, such must be the Image.

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

21. Proceed we then to consider the attributes of the Father, and we shall come to know whether this Image is really His. The Father is eternal, immortal, powerful, light, King, Sovereign, God, Lord, Creator, and Maker. These attributes must be in the Image, to make it true that he 'that has seen' the Son 'has seen the Father John 14:9.' If the Son be not all this, but, as the Arians consider, originate, and not eternal, this is not a true Image of the Father, unless indeed they give up shame, and go on to say, that the title of Image, given to the Son, is not a token of a similar essence, but His name only. But this, on the other hand, O you enemies of Christ, is not an Image, nor is it an Expression. For what is the likeness of what is out of nothing to Him who brought what was nothing into being? Or how can that which is not, be like Him that is, being short of Him in once not being, and in its having its place among things originate? However, such the Arians wishing Him to be, devised for themselves arguments such as this –'If the Son is the Father's offspring and Image, and is like in all things to the Father, then it necessarily holds that as He is begotten, so He begets, and He too becomes father of a son. And again, he who is begotten from Him, begets in his turn, and so on without limit; for this is to make the Begotten like Him that begot Him.' Authors of blasphemy, verily, are these foes of God! Who, sooner than confess that the Son is the Father's Image, conceive material and earthly ideas concerning the Father Himself, ascribing to Him severings and effluences and influences. If then God be as man, let Him become also a parent as man, so that His Son should be father of another, and so in succession one from another, till the series they imagine grows into a multitude of gods. But if God be not as man, as He is not, we must not impute to Him the attributes of man. For brutes and men, after a Creator has begun them, are begotten by succession; and the son, having been begotten of a father who was a son, becomes accordingly in his turn a father to a son, in inheriting from his father that by which he himself has come to be. Hence in such instances there is not, properly speaking, either father or son, nor do the father and the son stay in their respective characters, for the son himself becomes a father, being son of his father, but father of his son. But it is not so in the Godhead; for not as man is God; for the Father is not from a father; therefore does He not beget one who shall become a father; nor is the Son from effluence of the Father, nor is He begotten from a father that was begotten; therefore neither is He begotten so as to beget. Thus it belongs to the Godhead alone, that the Father is properly father, and the Son properly son, and in Them, and Them only, does it hold that the Father is ever Father and the Son ever Son.

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

22. Therefore he who asks why the Son is not to beget a son, must inquire why the Father had not a father. But both suppositions are unseemly and full of impiety. For as the Father is ever Father and never could become Son, so the Son is ever Son and never could become Father. For in this rather is He shown to be the Father's Expression and Image, remaining what He is and not changing, but thus receiving from the Father to be one and the same. If then the Father change, let the Image change; for so is the Image and Radiance in its relation towards Him who begot It. But if the Father is unalterable, and what He is that He continues, necessarily does the Image also continue what He is, and will not alter. Now He is Son from the Father; therefore He will not become other than is proper to the Father's essence. Idly then have the foolish ones devised this objection also, wishing to separate the Image from the Father, that they might level the Son with things originated.

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

22 ( continued). Ranking Him among these, according to the teaching of Eusebius, and accounting Him such as the things which come into being through Him, Arius and his fellows revolted from the truth, and used, when they commenced this heresy, to go about with dishonest phrases which they had got together; nay, up to this time some of them, when they fall in with boys in the market-place, question them, not out of divine Scripture, but thus, as if bursting with 'the abundance of their heart Matthew 12:34;'– 'He who is, did He make him who was not, from that which was [not], or him who was? Therefore did He make the Son, whereas He was, or whereas He was not?' And again, 'Is the Unoriginate one or two?' and 'Has He free will, and yet does not alter at His own choice, as being of an alterable nature? For He is not as a stone to remain by Himself unmoveable.' Next they turn to silly women, and address them in turn in this womanish language; 'Had you a son before bearing? Now, as you had not, so neither was the Son of God before His generation.' In such language do the disgraceful men sport and revel, and liken God to men, pretending to be Christians, but changing God's glory 'into an image made like to corruptible man. '

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

23. Words so senseless and dull deserved no answer at all; however, lest their heresy appear to have any foundation, it may be right, though we go out of the way for it, to refute them even here, especially on account of the silly women who are so readily deceived by them. When they thus speak, they should have inquired of an architect, whether he can build without materials; and if he cannot, whether it follows that God could not make the universe without materials. Or they should have asked every man, whether he can be without place; and if he cannot, whether it follows that God is in place, that so they may be brought to shame even by their audience. Or why is it that, on hearing that God has a Son, they deny Him by the parallel of themselves; whereas, if they hear that He creates and makes, no longer do they object their human ideas? They ought in creation also to entertain the same, and to supply God with materials, and so deny Him to be Creator, till they end in grovelling with Manichees. But if the bare idea of God transcends such thoughts, and, on very first hearing, a man believes and knows that He is in being, not as we are, and yet in being as God, and creates not as man creates, but yet creates as God, it is plain that He begets also not as men beget, but begets as God. For God does not make man His pattern; but rather we men, for that God is properly, and alone truly, Father of His Son, are also called fathers of our own children; for of Him 'is every fatherhood in heaven and earth named Ephesians 3:15.' And their positions, while unscrutinized, have a show of sense; but if any one scrutinize them by reason, they will be found to incur much derision and mockery.

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

24. For first of all, as to their first question, which is such as this, how dull and vague it is! They do not explain who it is they ask about, so as to allow of an answer, but they say abstractedly, 'He who is,' 'him who is not.' Who then 'is,' and what 'are not,' O Arians? Or who 'is,' and who 'is not?' what are said 'to be,' what 'not to be?' for He that is, can make things which are not, and which are, and which were before. For instance, carpenter, and goldsmith, and potter, each, according to his own art, works upon materials previously existing, making what vessels he pleases; and the God of all Himself, having taken the dust of the earth existing and already brought to be, fashions man; that very earth, however, whereas it was not once, He has at one time made by His own Word. If then this is the meaning of their question, the creature on the one hand plainly was not before its origination, and men, on the other, work the existing material; and thus their reasoning is inconsequent, since both 'what is' becomes, and 'what is not' becomes, as these instances show. But if they speak concerning God and His Word, let them complete their question and then ask, Was the God, 'who is,' ever without Reason? And, whereas He is Light, was He ray-less? Or was He always Father of the Word? Or again in this manner. Has the Father 'who is' made the Word 'who is not,' or has He ever with Him His Word, as the proper offspring of His substance? This will show them that they do but presume and venture on sophisms about God and Him who is from Him. Who indeed can bear to hear them say that God was ever without Reason? This is what they fall into a second time, though endeavouring in vain to escape it and to hide it with their sophisms. Nay, one would fain not hear them disputing at all, that God was not always Father, but became so afterwards (which is necessary for their fantasy, that His Word once was not), considering the number of the proofs already adduced against them; while John besides says, 'The Word was John 1:1,' and Paul again writes, 'Who being the brightness of His glory Hebrews 1:3,' and, 'Who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen Romans 9:5.'

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

25. They had best have been silent; but since it is otherwise, it remains to meet their shameless question with a bold retort. Perhaps on seeing the counter absurdities which beset themselves, they may cease to fight against the truth. After many prayers then that God would be gracious to us, thus we might ask them in turn; God who is, has He so become, whereas He was not? Or is He also before His coming into being? Whereas He is, did He make Himself, or is He of nothing, and being nothing before, did He suddenly appear Himself? Unseemly is such an enquiry, both unseemly and very blasphemous, yet parallel with theirs; for the answer they make abounds in irreligion. But if it be blasphemous and utterly irreligious thus to inquire about God, it will be blasphemous too to make the like inquiries about His Word. However, by way of exposing a question so senseless and so dull, it is necessary to answer thus:– whereas God is, He was eternally; since then the Father is ever, His Radiance ever is, which is His Word. And again, God who is, has from Himself His Word who also is; and neither has the Word been added, whereas He was not before, nor was the Father once without Reason. For this assault upon the Son makes the blasphemy recoil upon the Father; as if He devised for Himself a Wisdom, and Word, and Son from without; for whichever of these titles you use, you denote the offspring from the Father, as has been said. So that this their objection does not hold; and naturally; for denying the Logos they in consequence ask questions which are illogical. As then if a person saw the sun, and then inquired concerning its radiance, and said, 'Did that which is make that which was, or that which was not,' he would be held not to reason sensibly, but to be utterly mazed, because he fancied what is from the Light to be external to it, and was raising questions, when and where and whether it were made; in like manner, thus to speculate concerning the Son and the Father and thus to inquire, is far greater madness, for it is to conceive of the Word of the Father as external to Him, and to idly call the natural offspring a work, with the avowal, 'He was not before His generation.' Nay, let them over and above take this answer to their question — The Father who was, made the Son who was, for 'the Word was made flesh John 1:14;' and, whereas He was Son of God, He made Him in consummation of the ages also Son of Man, unless forsooth, after the Samosatene, they affirm that He did not even exist at all, till He became man.

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

26. This is sufficient from us in answer to their first question. And now on your part, O Arians, remembering your own words, tell us whether He who was needed one who was not for the framing of the universe, or one who was? You said that He made for Himself His Son out of nothing, as an instrument whereby to make the universe. Which then is superior, that which needs or that which supplies the need? Or does not each supply the deficiency of the other? You rather prove the weakness of the Maker, if He had not power of Himself to make the universe, but provided for Himself an instrument from without, as carpenter might do or shipwright, unable to work anything without adze and saw! Can anything be more irreligious? Yet why should one dwell on its heinousness, when enough has gone before to show that their doctrine is a mere fantasy?

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

26. ( continued). Nor is answer needful to their other very simple and foolish inquiry, which they put to silly women; or none besides that which has been already given, namely, that it is not suitable to measure divine generation by the nature of men. However, that as before they may pass judgment on themselves, it is well to meet them on the same ground, thus:– Plainly, if they inquire of parents concerning their son, let them consider whence is the child which is begotten. For, granting the parent had not a son before his begetting, still, after having him, he had him, not as external or as foreign, but as from himself, and proper to his essence and his exact image, so that the former is beheld in the latter, and the latter is contemplated in the former. If then they assume from human examples that generation implies time, why not from the same infer that it implies the Natural and the Proper, instead of extracting serpent-like from the earth only what turns to poison? Those who ask of parents, and say, 'Had you a son before you begot him?' should add, 'And if you had a son, did you purchase him from without as a house or any other possession.' And then you would be answered, 'He is not from without, but from myself. For things which are from without are possessions, and pass from one to another; but my son is from me, proper and similar to my essence, not become mine from another, but begotten of me; wherefore I too am wholly in him, while I remain myself what I am.' For so it is; though the parent be distinct in time, as being man, who himself has come to be in time, yet he too would have had his child ever coexistent with him, but that his nature was a restraint and made it impossible. For Levi too was already in the loins of his great-grandfather, before his own actual generation, or that of his grandfather. When then the man comes to that age at which nature supplies the power, immediately, with nature, unrestrained, he becomes father of the son from himself.

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

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

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

28. As we said above, so now we repeat, that the divine generation must not be compared to the nature of men, nor the Son considered to be part of God, nor the generation to imply any passion whatever; God is not as man; for men beget passibly, having a transitive nature, which waits for periods by reason of its weakness. But with God this cannot be; for He is not composed of parts, but being impassible and simple, He is impassibly and indivisibly Father of the Son. This again is strongly evidenced and proved by divine Scripture. For the Word of God is His Son, and the Son is the Father's Word and Wisdom; and Word and Wisdom is neither creature nor part of Him whose Word He is, nor an offspring passibly begotten. Uniting then the two titles, Scripture speaks of 'Son,' in order to herald the natural and true offspring of His essence; and, on the other hand, that none may think of the Offspring humanly, while signifying His essence, it also calls Him Word, Wisdom, and Radiance; to teach us that the generation was impassible, and eternal, and worthy of God. What affection then, or what part of the Father is the Word and the Wisdom and the Radiance? So much may be impressed even on these men of folly; for as they asked women concerning God's Son, so let them inquire of men concerning the Word, and they will find that the word which they put forth is neither an affection of them nor a part of their mind. But if such be the word of men, who are passible and partitive, why speculate they about passions and parts in the instance of the immaterial and indivisible God, that under pretence of reverence they may deny the true and natural generation of the Son? Enough was said above to show that the offspring from God is not an affection; and now it has been shown in particular that the Word is not begotten according to affection. The same may be said of Wisdom; God is not as man; nor must they here think humanly of Him. For, whereas men are capable of wisdom, God partakes in nothing, but is Himself the Father of His own Wisdom, of which whoever partake are given the name of wise. And this Wisdom too is not a passion, nor a part, but an Offspring proper to the Father. Wherefore He is ever Father, nor is the character of Father adventitious to God, lest He seem alterable; for if it is good that He be Father, but has not ever been Father, then good has not ever been in Him.

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

29. But, observe, say they, God was always a Maker, nor is the power of framing adventitious to Him; does it follow then, that, because He is the Framer of all, therefore His works also are eternal, and is it wicked to say of them too, that they were not before origination? Senseless are these Arians; for what likeness is there between Son and work, that they should parallel a father's with a maker's function? How is it that, with that difference between offspring and work, which has been shown, they remain so ill-instructed? Let it be repeated then, that a work is external to the nature, but a son is the proper offspring of the essence; it follows that a work need not have been always, for the workman frames it when he will; but an offspring is not subject to will, but is proper to the essence. And a man may be and may be called Maker, though the works are not as yet; but father he cannot be called, nor can he be, unless a son exist. And if they curiously inquire why God, though always with the power to make, does not always make (though this also be the presumption of madmen, for 'who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been His Counsellor?' or how 'shall the thing formed say to' the potter, 'why did you make me thus?' however, not to leave even a weak argument unnoticed), they must be told, that although God always had the power to make, yet the things originated had not the power of being eternal. For they are out of nothing, and therefore were not before their origination; but things which were not before their origination, how could these coexist with the ever-existing God? Wherefore God, looking to what was good for them, then made them all when He saw that, when originated, they were able to abide. And as, though He was able, even from the beginning in the time of Adam, or Noah, or Moses, to send His own Word, yet He sent Him not until the consummation of the ages (for this He saw to be good for the whole creation), so also things originated did He make when He would, and as was good for them. But the Son, not being a work, but proper to the Father's offspring, always is; for, whereas the Father always is, so what is proper to His essence must always be; and this is His Word and His Wisdom. And that creatures should not be in existence, does not disparage the Maker; for He has the power of framing them, when He wills; but for the offspring not to be ever with the Father, is a disparagement of the perfection of His essence. Wherefore His works were framed, when He would, through His Word; but the Son is ever the proper offspring of the Father's essence.

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

30. These considerations encourage the faithful, and distress the heretical, perceiving, as they do, their heresy overthrown thereby. Moreover, their further question, 'whether the Unoriginate be one or two,' shows how false are their views, how treacherous and full of guile. Not for the Father's honour ask they this, but for the dishonour of the Word. Accordingly, should any one, not aware of their craft, answer, 'the Unoriginated is one,' immediately they spirit out their own venom, saying, 'Therefore the Son is among things originated,' and well have we said, 'He was not before His generation.' Thus they make any kind of disturbance and confusion, provided they can but separate the Son from the Father, and reckon the Framer of all among His works. Now first they may be convicted on this score, that, while blaming the Nicene Bishops for their use of phrases not in Scripture, though these not injurious, but subversive of their irreligion, they themselves went off upon the same fault, that is, using words not in Scripture, and those in contumely of the Lord, knowing 'neither what they say nor whereof they affirm 1 Timothy 1:7.' For instance, let them ask the Greeks, who have been their instructors (for it is a word of their invention, not Scripture), and when they have been instructed in its various significations, then they will discover that they cannot even question properly, on the subject which they have undertaken. For they have led me to ascertain that by 'unoriginate' is meant what has not yet come to be, but is possible to be, as wood which is not yet become, but is capable of becoming, a vessel; and again what neither has nor ever can come to be, as a triangle quadrangular, and an even number odd. For a triangle neither has nor ever can become quadrangular; nor has even ever, nor can ever, become odd. Moreover, by 'unoriginate' is meant, what exists, but has not come into being from any, nor having a father at all. Further, Asterius, the unprincipled sophist, the patron too of this heresy, has added in his own treatise, that what is not made, but is ever, is 'unoriginate.' They ought then, when they ask the question, to add in what sense they take the word 'unoriginate,' and then the parties questioned would be able to answer to the point.

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

31. But if they still are satisfied with merely asking, 'Is the Unoriginate one or two?' they must be told first of all, as ill- educated men, that many are such and nothing is such, many, which are capable of origination, and nothing, which is not capable, as has been said. But if they ask according as Asterius ruled it, as if 'what is not a work but was always' were unoriginate, then they must constantly be told that the Son as well as the Father must in this sense be called unoriginate. For He is neither in the number of things originated, nor a work, but has ever been with the Father, as has already been shown, in spite of their many variations for the sole sake of speaking against the Lord, 'He is of nothing' and 'He was not before His generation.' When then, after failing at every turn, they betake themselves to the other sense of the question, 'existing but not generated of any nor having a father,' we shall tell them that the unoriginate in this sense is only one, namely the Father; and they will gain nothing by their question. For to say that God is in this sense Unoriginate, does not show that the Son is a thing originated, it being evident from the above proofs that the Word is such as He is who begot Him. Therefore if God be unoriginate, His Image is not originated, but an Offspring, which is His Word and His Wisdom. For what likeness has the originated to the unoriginate? (one must not weary of using repetition;) for if they will have it that the one is like the other, so that he who sees the one beholds the other, they are like to say that the Unoriginate is the image of creatures; the end of which is a confusion of the whole subject, an equalling of things originated with the Unoriginate, and a denial of the Unoriginate by measuring Him with the works; and all to reduce the Son into their number.

However, I suppose even they will be unwilling to go this far if they follow Asterius the sophist. For he, though zealous in his defense of the Arian heresy and maintaining that the Unoriginate is one, contradicts them by saying that the Wisdom of God is also unoriginate and without beginning. Here is a passage from his work: 'The Blessed Paul did not say that he preached Christ the power of God or the wisdom of God, but, without the article, 'God's power and God's wisdom' (1 Corinthians 1:24); thus preaching that the proper power of God Himself, which is natural to Him and coexists with Him unoriginatedly, is something distinct.' And again, soon after: 'However, His eternal power and wisdom, which reason argues to be without beginning and unoriginate, must surely be one.' For though he misunderstood the Apostle's words and thought there were two wisdoms, yet by speaking of a wisdom coexisting with Him, he declares that the Unoriginate is not simply one, but that there is another Unoriginate with Him. For what is coexistent does not coexist with itself, but with another. So if they agree with Asterius, let them never ask again, 'Is the Unoriginate one or two,' or they will have to argue the point with him. If, on the other hand, they differ even from him, let them not rely on his treatise, lest 'biting one another, they be consumed one of another' (Galatians 5:15). So much for their ignorance; but who can adequately describe their crafty character? Who would not justly hate them while they are possessed by such madness? For when they were no longer allowed to say 'out of nothing' and 'He was not before His generation,' they seized upon this word 'unoriginate' so that, by saying among the simple that the Son was 'originate,' they might imply the very same phrases 'out of nothing' and 'He once was not'; for such phrases imply originated things and creatures.

32. However, I suppose even they will be unwilling to proceed to such lengths, if they follow Asterius the sophist. For he, earnest as he is in his advocacy of the Arian heresy, and maintaining that the Unoriginate is one, runs counter to them in saying, that the Wisdom of God is unoriginate and without beginning also. The following is a passage out of his work: 'The Blessed Paul said not that he preached Christ the power of God or the wisdom of God, but, without the article, 'God's power and God's wisdom 1 Corinthians 1:24;' thus preaching that the proper power of God Himself, which is natural to Him and co-existent with Him unoriginatedly, is something besides.' And again, soon after: 'However, His eternal power and wisdom, which truth argues to be without beginning and unoriginate; this must surely be one.' For though, misunderstanding the Apostle's words, he considered that there were two wisdoms; yet, by speaking still of a wisdom coexistent with Him, he declares that the Unoriginate is not simply one, but that there is another Unoriginate with Him. For what is coexistent, coexists not with itself, but with another. If then they agree with Asterius, let them never ask again, 'Is the Unoriginate one or two,' or they will have to contest the point with him; if, on the other hand, they differ even from him, let them not rely upon his treatise, lest, 'biting one another, they be consumed one of another Galatians 5:15.' So much on the point of their ignorance; but who can say enough on their crafty character? Who but would justly hate them while possessed by such a madness? For when they were no longer allowed to say 'out of nothing' and 'He was not before His generation,' they hit upon this word 'unoriginate,' that, by saying among the simple that the Son was 'originate,' they might imply the very same phrases 'out of nothing,' and 'He once was not;' for in such phrases things originated and creatures are implied.

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

33. If they have confidence in their own positions, they should stand to them, and not change about so variously; but this they will not, from an idea that success is easy, if they do but shelter their heresy under color of the word 'unoriginate.' Yet after all, this term is not used in contrast with the Son, clamour as they may, but with things originated; and the like may be found in the words 'Almighty,' and 'Lord of the Powers.' For if we say that the Father has power and mastery over all things by the Word, and the Son rules the Father's kingdom, and has the power of all, as His Word, and as the Image of the Father, it is quite plain that neither here is the Son reckoned among that all, nor is God called Almighty and Lord with reference to Him, but to those things which through the Son come to be, and over which He exercises power and mastery through the Word. And therefore the Unoriginate is specified not by contrast to the Son, but to the things which through the Son come to be. And excellently: since God is not as things originated, but is their Creator and Framer through the Son. And as the word 'Unoriginate' is specified relatively to things originated, so the word 'Father' is indicative of the Son. And he who names God Maker and Framer and Unoriginate, regards and apprehends things created and made; and he who calls God Father, thereby conceives and contemplates the Son. And hence one might marvel at the obstinacy which is added to their irreligion, that, whereas the term 'unoriginate' has the aforesaid good sense, and admits of being used religiously, they, in their own heresy, bring it forth for the dishonour of the Son, not having read that he who honours the Son honours the Father, and he who dishonours the Son, dishonours the Father. John 5:23 If they had any concern at all for reverent speaking and the honour due to the Father, it became them rather, and this were better and higher, to acknowledge and call God Father, than to give Him this name. For, in calling God unoriginate, they are, as I said before, calling Him from His works, and as Maker only and Framer, supposing that hence they may signify that the Word is a work after their own pleasure. But that he who calls God Father, signifies Him from the Son being well aware that if there be a Son, of necessity through that Son all things originate were created. And they, when they call Him Unoriginate, name Him only from His works, and know not the Son any more than the Greeks; but he who calls God Father, names Him from the Word; and knowing the Word, he acknowledges Him to be Framer of all, and understands that through Him all things have been made.

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

34. Therefore it is more pious and more accurate to signify God from the Son and call Him Father, than to name Him from His works only and call Him Unoriginate. For the latter title, as I have said, does nothing more than signify all the works, individually and collectively, which have come to be at the will of God through the Word; but the title Father has its significance and its bearing only from the Son. And, whereas the Word surpasses things originated, by so much and more does calling God Father surpass the calling Him Unoriginate. For the latter is unscriptural and suspicious, because it has various senses; so that, when a man is asked concerning it, his mind is carried about to many ideas; but the word Father is simple and scriptural, and more accurate, and only implies the Son. And 'Unoriginate' is a word of the Greeks, who know not the Son; but 'Father' has been acknowledged and vouchsafed by our Lord. For He, knowing Himself whose Son He was, said, 'I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me;' and, 'He that has seen Me, has seen the Father,' and 'I and the Father are One;' but nowhere is He found to call the Father Unoriginate. Moreover, when He teaches us to pray, He says not, 'When you pray, say, O God Unoriginate,' but rather, 'When you pray, say, Our Father, which art in heaven Luke 11:2.' And it was His will that the Summary of our faith should have the same bearing, in bidding us be baptized, not into the name of Unoriginate and originate, nor into the name of Creator and creature, but into the Name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. For with such an initiation we too, being numbered among works, are made sons, and using the name of the Father, acknowledge from that name the Word also in the Father Himself. A vain thing then is their argument about the term 'Unoriginate,' as is now proved, and nothing more than a fantasy.

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

35. As to their question whether the Word is alterable, it is superfluous to examine it; it is enough simply to write down what they say, and so to show its daring irreligion. How they trifle, appears from the following questions:– 'Has He free will, or has He not? Is He good from choice according to free will, and can He, if He will, alter, being of an alterable nature? Or, as wood or stone, has He not His choice free to be moved and incline hither and there?' It is but agreeable to their heresy thus to speak and think; for, when once they have framed to themselves a God out of nothing and a created Son, of course they also adopt such terms, as being suitable to a creature. However, when in their controversies with Churchmen they hear from them of the real and only Word of the Father, and yet venture thus to speak of Him, does not their doctrine then become the most loathsome that can be found? Is it not enough to distract a man on mere hearing, though unable to reply, and to make him stop his ears, from astonishment at the novelty of what he hears them say, which even to mention is to blaspheme? For if the Word be alterable and changing, where will He stay, and what will be the end of His development? How shall the alterable possibly be like the Unalterable? How should he who has seen the alterable, be considered to have seen the Unalterable? At what state must He arrive, for us to be able to behold in Him the Father? For it is plain that not at all times shall we see the Father in the Son, because the Son is ever altering, and is of changing nature. For the Father is unalterable and unchangeable, and is always in the same state and the same; but if, as they hold, the Son is alterable, and not always the same, but of an ever-changing nature, how can such a one be the Father's Image, not having the likeness of His unalterableness? How can He be really in the Father, if His purpose is indeterminate? Nay, perhaps, as being alterable, and advancing daily, He is not perfect yet. But away with such madness of the Arians, and let the truth shine out, and show that they are foolish. For must not He be perfect who is equal to God? And must not He be unalterable, who is one with the Father, and His Son proper to His essence? And the Father's essence being unalterable, unalterable must be also the proper Offspring from it. And if they slanderously impute alteration to the Word, let them learn how much their own reason is in peril; for from the fruit is the tree known. For this is why he who has seen the Son has seen the Father; and why the knowledge of the Son is knowledge of the Father.

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

36. Therefore the Image of the unalterable God must be unchangeable; for ' Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and for ever Hebrews 13:8.' And David in the Psalm says of Him, 'Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. They shall perish, but You remain; and they all shall wax old as does a garment. And as a vesture shall Thou fold them up, and they shall be changed, but You are the same, and Your years shall not fail.' And the Lord Himself says of Himself through the Prophet, 'See now that I, even I am He,' and 'I change not.' It may be said indeed that what is here signified relates to the Father; yet it suits the Son also to say this, specially because, when made man, He manifests His own identity and unalterableness to such as suppose that by reason of the flesh He is changed and become other than He was. More trustworthy are the saints, or rather the Lord, than the perversity of the irreligious. For Scripture, as in the above-cited passage of the Psalter, signifying under the name of heaven and earth, that the nature of all things originate and created is alterable and changeable, yet excepting the Son from these, shows us thereby that He is no wise a thing originate; nay teaches that He changes everything else, and is Himself not changed, in saying, 'You are the same, and Your years shall not fail Hebrews 1:12.' And with reason; for things originate, being from nothing, and not being before their origination, because, in truth, they come to be after not being, have a nature which is changeable; but the Son, being from the Father, and proper to His essence, is unchangeable and unalterable as the Father Himself. For it were sin to say that from that essence which is unalterable was begotten an alterable word and a changeable wisdom. For how is He longer the Word, if He be alterable? Or can that be Wisdom which is changeable? Unless perhaps, as accident in essence, so they would have it, viz. as in any particular essence, a certain grace and habit of virtue exists accidentally, which is called Word and Son and Wisdom, and admits of being taken from it and added to it. For they have often expressed this sentiment, but it is not the faith of Christians; as not declaring that He is truly Word and Son of God, or that the wisdom intended is true Wisdom. For what alters and changes, and has no stay in one and the same condition, how can that be true? Whereas the Lord says, 'I am the Truth John 14:6.' If then the Lord Himself speaks thus concerning Himself, and declares His unalterableness, and the Saints have learned and testify this, nay and our notions of God acknowledge it as religious, whence did these men of irreligion draw this novelty? From their heart as from a seat of corruption did they vomit it forth.

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

37. But since they allege the divine oracles and force on them a misinterpretation, according to their private sense, it becomes necessary to meet them just so far as to vindicate these passages, and to show that they bear an orthodox sense, and that our opponents are in error. They say then, that the Apostle writes, 'Wherefore God also has highly exalted Him, and given Him a Name which is above every name; that in the Name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things in earth and things under the earth Philippians 2:9-10;' and David, 'Wherefore God even Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness above Your fellows.' Then they urge, as something acute: 'If He was exalted and received grace, on a 'wherefore,' and on a 'wherefore' He was anointed, He received a reward of His purpose; but having acted from purpose, He is altogether of an alterable nature.' This is what Eusebius and Arius have dared to say, nay to write; while their partizans do not shrink from conversing about it in full market-place, not seeing how mad an argument they use. For if He received what He had as a reward of His purpose, and would not have had it, unless He had needed it, and had His work to show for it, then having gained it from virtue and promotion, with reason had He 'therefore' been called Son and God, without being very Son. For what is from another by nature, is a real offspring, as Isaac was to Abraham, and Joseph to Jacob, and the radiance to the sun; but the so called sons from virtue and grace, have but in place of nature a grace by acquisition, and are something else besides the gift itself; as the men who have received the Spirit by participation, concerning whom Scripture says, 'I begot and exalted children, and they rebelled against Me.' And of course, since they were not sons by nature, therefore, when they altered, the Spirit was taken away and they were disinherited; and again on their repentance that God who thus at the beginning gave them grace, will receive them, and give light, and call them sons again.

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

38. But if they say this of the Saviour also, it follows that He is neither very God nor very Son, nor like the Father, nor in any wise has God for a Father of His being according to essence, but of the mere grace given to Him, and for a Creator of His being according to essence, after the similitude of all others. And being such, as they maintain, it will be manifest further that He had not the name 'Son' from the first, if so be it was the prize of works done and of that very same advance which He made when He became man, and took the form of the servant; but then, when, after becoming ' obedient unto death,' He was, as the text says, 'highly exalted,' and received that 'Name' as a grace, 'that in the Name of Jesus every knee should bow Philippians 2:8.' What then was before this, if then He was exalted, and then began to be worshipped, and then was called Son, when He became man? For He seems Himself not to have promoted the flesh at all, but rather to have been Himself promoted through it, if, according to their perverseness, He was then exalted and called Son, when He became man. What then was before this? One must urge the question on them again, to make it understood what their irreligious doctrine results in. For if the Lord be God, Son, Word, yet was not all these before He became man, either He was something else beside these, and afterwards became partaker of them for His virtue's sake, as we have said; or they must adopt the alternative (may it return upon their heads!) that He was not before that time, but is wholly man by nature and nothing more. But this is no sentiment of the Church. but of the Samosatene and of the present Jews. Why then, if they think as Jews, are they not circumcised with them too, instead of pretending Christianity, while they are its foes? For if He was not, or was indeed, but afterwards was promoted, how were all things made by Him, or how in Him, were He not perfect, did the Father delight Proverbs 8:30? And He, on the other hand, if now promoted, how did He before rejoice in the presence of the Father? And, if He received His worship after dying, how is Abraham seen to worship Him in the tent, and Moses in the bush? And, as Daniel saw, myriads of myriads, and thousands of thousands were ministering unto Him? And if, as they say, He had His promotion now, how did the Son Himself make mention of that His glory before and above the world, when He said, 'Glorify Thou Me, O Father, with the glory which I had with You before the world was John 17:5.' If, as they say, He was then exalted, how did He before that 'bow the heavens and come down;' and again, 'The Highest gave His thunder?' Therefore, if, even before the world was made, the Son had that glory, and was Lord of glory and the Highest, and descended from heaven, and is ever to be worshipped, it follows that He had not promotion from His descent, but rather Himself promoted the things which needed promotion; and if He descended to effect their promotion, therefore He did not receive in reward the name of the Son and God, but rather He Himself has made us sons of the Father, and deified men by becoming Himself man.

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

39. Therefore He was not man, and then became God, but He was God, and then became man, and that to deify us. Since, if when He became man, only then He was called Son and God, but before He became man, God called the ancient people sons, and made Moses a god of Pharaoh (and Scripture says of many, 'God stands in the congregation of Gods '), it is plain that He is called Son and God later than they. How then are all things through Him, and He before all? Or how is He ' first-born of the whole creation,' if He has others before Him who are called sons and gods? And how is it that those first partakers do not partake of the Word? This opinion is not true; it is a device of our present Judaizers. For how in that case can any at all know God as their Father? For adoption there could not be apart from the real Son, who says, 'No one knows the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him Matthew 11:27.' And how can there be deifying apart from the Word and before Him? Yet, says He to their brethren the Jews, 'If He called them gods, unto whom the Word of God came John 10:35.' And if all that are called sons and gods, whether in earth or in heaven, were adopted and deified through the Word, and the Son Himself is the Word, it is plain that through Him are they all, and He Himself before all, or rather He Himself only is very Son, and He alone is very God from the very God, not receiving these prerogatives as a reward for His virtue, nor being another beside them, but being all these by nature and according to essence. For He is Offspring of the Father's essence, so that one cannot doubt that after the resemblance of the unalterable Father, the Word also is unalterable.

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

40. Hitherto we have met their irrational conceits with the true conceptions implied in the Word 'Son,' as the Lord Himself has given us. But it will be well next to cite the divine oracles, that the unalterableness of the Son and His unchangeable nature, which is the Father's, as well as their perverseness, may be still more fully proved. The Apostle then, writing to the Philippians, says, 'Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who, being in the form of God, thought it not a prize to be equal with God; but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men. And, being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient to death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also highly exalted Him, and gave Him a Name which is above every name; that in the Name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father Philippians 2:5-11.' Can anything be plainer and more express than this? He was not from a lower state promoted: but rather, existing as God, He took the form of a servant, and in taking it, was not promoted but humbled Himself. Where then is there here any reward of virtue, or what advancement and promotion in humiliation? For if, being God, He became man, and descending from on high He is still said to be exalted, where is He exalted, being God? This withal being plain, that, since God is highest of all, His Word must necessarily be highest also. Where then could He be exalted higher, who is in the Father and like the Father in all things? Therefore He is beyond the need of any addition; nor is such as the Arians think Him. For though the Word has descended in order to be exalted, and so it is written, yet what need was there that He should humble Himself, as if to seek that which He had already? And what grace did He receive who is the Giver of grace? Or how did He receive that Name for worship, who is always worshipped by His Name? Nay, certainly before He became man, the sacred writers invoke Him, 'Save me, O God, for Your Name's sake;'and again, 'Some put their trust in chariots, and some in horses, but we will remember the Name of the Lord our God.' And while He was worshipped by the Patriarchs, concerning the Angels it is written, 'Let all the Angels of God worship Him Hebrews 1:6.'

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

41. And if, as David says in the 71st Psalm, 'His Name remains before the sun, and before the moon, from one generation to another,' how did He receive what He had always, even before He now received it? Or how is He exalted, being before His exaltation the Most High? Or how did He receive the right of being worshipped, who before He now received it, was ever worshipped? It is not a dark saying but a divine mystery. 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;' but for our sakes afterwards the ' Word was made flesh.' And the term in question, 'highly exalted,' does not signify that the essence of the Word was exalted, for He was ever and is 'equal to God Philippians 2:6,' but the exaltation is of the manhood. Accordingly this is not said before the Word became flesh; that it might be plain that 'humbled' and 'exalted' are spoken of His human nature; for where there is humble estate, there too may be exaltation; and if because of His taking flesh 'humbled' is written, it is clear that 'highly exalted' is also said because of it. For of this was man's nature in want, because of the humble estate of the flesh and of death. Since then the Word, being the Image of the Father and immortal, took the form of the servant, and as man underwent for us death in His flesh, that thereby He might offer Himself for us through death to the Father; therefore also, as man, He is said because of us and for us to be highly exalted, that as by His death we all died in Christ, so again in the Christ Himself we might be highly exalted, being raised from the dead, and ascending into heaven, 'whither the forerunner Jesus is for us entered, not into the figures of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.' But if now for us the Christ is entered into heaven itself, though He was even before and always Lord and Framer of the heavens, for us therefore is that present exaltation written. And as He Himself, who sanctifies all, says also that He sanctifies Himself to the Father for our sakes, not that the Word may become holy, but that He Himself may in Himself sanctify all of us, in like manner we must take the present phrase, 'He highly exalted Him,' not that He Himself should be exalted, for He is the highest, but that He may become righteousness for us, and we may be exalted in Him, and that we may enter the gates of heaven, which He has also opened for us, the forerunners saying, 'Lift up your gates, O you rulers, and be lifted up, you everlasting doors, and the King of Glory shall come in.' For here also not on Him were shut the gates, as being Lord and Maker of all, but because of us is this too written, to whom the door of paradise was shut. And therefore in a human relation, because of the flesh which He bore, it is said of Him, 'Lift up your gates,' and 'shall come in,' as if a man were entering; but in a divine relation on the other hand it is said of Him, since 'the Word was God,' that He is the 'Lord' and the 'King of Glory.' Such our exaltation the Spirit foreannounced in the eighty-ninth Psalm, saying, 'And in Your righteousness shall they be exalted, for You are the glory of their strength.' And if the Son be Righteousness, then He is not exalted as being Himself in need, but it is we who are exalted in that Righteousness, which is He 1 Corinthians 1:30.

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

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

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

43. Behold then what men considered the foolishness of God because of the Cross, has become of all things most honoured. For our resurrection is stored up in it; and no longer Israel alone, but henceforth all the nations, as the Prophet has foretold, leave their idols and acknowledge the true God, the Father of the Christ. And the illusion of demons has come to nought, and He only who is really God is worshipped in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the fact that the Lord, even when come in human body and called Jesus, was worshipped and believed to be God's Son, and that through Him the Father was known, shows, as has been said, that not the Word, considered as the Word, received this so great grace, but we. For because of our relationship to His Body we too have become God's temple, and in consequence are made God's sons, so that even in us the Lord is now worshipped, and beholders report, as the Apostle says, that God is in them of a truth. As also John says in the Gospel, 'As many as received Him, to them gave He power to become children of God John 1:12;' and in his Epistle he writes, 'By this we know that He abides in us by His Spirit which He has given us 1 John 3:24.' And this too is an evidence of His goodness towards us that, while we were exalted because that the Highest Lord is in us, and on our account grace was given to Him, because that the Lord who supplies the grace has become a man like us, He on the other hand, the Saviour, humbled Himself in taking 'our body of humiliation Philippians 3:21,' and took a servant's form, putting on that flesh which was enslaved to sin. And He indeed has gained nothing from us for His own promotion: for the Word of God is without want and full; but rather we were promoted from Him; for He is the 'Light, which lightens every man, coming into the world John 1:9.' And in vain do the Arians lay stress upon the conjunction 'wherefore,' because Paul has said, 'Wherefore, has God highly exalted Him.' For in saying this he did not imply any prize of virtue, nor promotion from advance, but the cause why the exaltation was bestowed upon us. And what is this but that He who existed in form of God, the Son of a noble Father, humbled Himself and became a servant instead of us and in our behalf? For if the Lord had not become man, we had not been redeemed from sins, not raised from the dead, but remaining dead under the earth; not exalted into heaven, but lying in Hades. Because of us then and in our behalf are the words, 'highly exalted' and 'given.'

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

44. This then I consider the sense of this passage, and that, a very ecclesiastical sense. However, there is another way in which one might remark upon it, giving the same sense in a parallel way; viz. that, though it does not speak of the exaltation of the Word Himself, so far as He is Word (for He is, as was just now said, most high and like His Father), yet by reason of His becoming man it indicates His resurrection from the dead. For after saying, 'He has humbled Himself even unto death,' He immediately added, 'Wherefore He has highly exalted Him;' wishing to show, that, although as man He is said to have died, yet, as being Life, He was exalted on the resurrection; for 'He who descended, is the same also who rose again.' He descended in body, and He rose again because He was God Himself in the body. And this again is the reason why according to this meaning he brought in the conjunction 'Wherefore;' not as a reward of virtue nor of advancement, but to signify the cause why the resurrection took place; and why, while all other men from Adam down to this time have died and remained dead, He only rose in integrity from the dead. The cause is this, which He Himself has already taught us, that, being God, He has become man. For all other men, being merely born of Adam, died, and death reigned over them; but He, the Second Man, is from heaven, for 'the Word was made flesh John 1:14,' and this Man is said to be from heaven and heavenly, because the Word descended from heaven; wherefore He was not held under death. For though He humbled Himself, yielding His own Body to come unto death, in that it was capable of death, yet He was highly exalted from earth, because He was God's Son in a body. Accordingly what is here said, 'Wherefore God also has highly exalted Him,' answers to Peter's words in the Acts, 'Whom God raised up, having loosed the bonds of death, because it was not possible that He should be holden of it Acts 2:24.' For as Paul has written, 'Since being in form of God He became man, and humbled Himself unto death, therefore God also has highly exalted Him,' so also Peter says, 'Since, being God, He became man, and signs and wonders proved Him to beholders to be God, therefore it was not possible that He should be holden of death.' To man it was not possible to succeed in this; for death belongs to man; wherefore, the Word, being God, became flesh, that, being put to death in the flesh, He might quicken all men by His own power.

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

45. But since He Himself is said to be 'exalted,' and God 'gave' Him, and the heretics think this a defect or affection in the essence of the Word, it becomes necessary to explain how these words are used. He is said to be exalted from the lower parts of the earth, because death is ascribed even to Him. Both events are reckoned His, since it was His Body, and none other's, that was exalted from the dead and taken up into heaven. And again, the Body being His, and the Word not being external to it, it is natural that when the Body was exalted, He, as man, should, because of the body, be spoken of as exalted. If then He did not become man, let this not be said of Him: but if the Word became flesh, of necessity the resurrection and exaltation, as in the case of a man, must be ascribed to Him, that the death which is ascribed to Him may be a redemption of the sin of men and an abolition of death, and that the resurrection and exaltation may for His sake remain secure for us. In both respects he has said of Him, 'God has highly exalted Him,' and 'God has given to Him;' that herein moreover he may show that it is not the Father that has become flesh, but it is His Word, who has become man, and receives after the manner of men from the Father, and is exalted by Him, as has been said. And it is plain, nor would any one dispute it, that what the Father gives, He gives through. the Son. And it is marvellous and overwhelming verily; for the grace which the Son gives from the Father, that the Son Himself is said to receive; and the exaltation, which the Son bestows from the Father, with that the Son is Himself exalted. For He who is the Son of God, became Himself the Son of Man; and, as Word, He gives from the Father, for all things which the Father does and gives, He does and supplies through Him; and as the Son of Man, He Himself is said after the manner of men to receive what proceeds from Him, because His Body is none other than His, and is a natural recipient of grace, as has been said. For He received it as far as His man's nature was exalted; which exaltation was its being deified. But such an exaltation the Word Himself always had according to the Father's Godhead and perfection, which was His.

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

46. Such an explanation of the Apostle's words confutes the irreligious men; and what the sacred poet says admits also the same orthodox sense, which they misinterpret, but which in the Psalmist is manifestly religious. He says then, 'Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Your Kingdom. You have loved righteousness, and hated iniquity, therefore God, even Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness above Your fellows.' Behold, O you Arians, and acknowledge even hence the truth. The Singer speaks of us all as 'fellows' or 'partakers' of the Lord: but were He one of things which come out of nothing and of things originate, He Himself had been one of those who partake. But, since he hymned Him as the eternal God, saying, 'Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever,' and has declared that all other things partake of Him, what conclusion must we draw, but that He is distinct from originated things, and He only the Father's veritable Word, Radiance, and Wisdom, which all things originate partake, being sanctified by Him in the Spirit? And therefore He is here 'anointed,' not that He may become God, for He was so even before; nor that He may become King, for He had the Kingdom eternally, existing as God's Image, as the sacred Oracle shows; but in our behalf is this written, as before. For the Israelitish kings, upon their being anointed, then became kings, not being so before, as David, as Hezekiah, as Josiah, and the rest; but the Saviour on the contrary, being God, and ever ruling in the Father's Kingdom, and being Himself He that supplies the Holy Ghost, nevertheless is here said to be anointed, that, as before, being said as man to be anointed with the Spirit, He might provide for us men, not only exaltation and resurrection, but the indwelling and intimacy of the Spirit. And signifying this the Lord Himself has said by His own mouth in the Gospel according to John, 'I have sent them into the world, and for their sakes do I sanctify Myself, that they may be sanctified in the truth.' In saying this He has shown that He is not the sanctified, but the Sanctifier; for He is not sanctified by other, but Himself sanctifies Himself, that we may be sanctified in the truth. He who sanctifies Himself is Lord of sanctification. How then does this take place? What does He mean but this? 'I, being the Father's Word, I give to Myself, when becoming man, the Spirit; and Myself, become man, do I sanctify in Him, that henceforth in Me, who am Truth (for Your Word is Truth), all may be sanctified.'

If He sanctifies Himself for our sake, and does this when He has become man, it is very clear that the Spirit's descent on Him in Jordan was a descent upon us, because He was bearing our body. This did not happen to promote the Word, but again for our sanctification, so that we might share His anointing, and it might be said of us, "Do you not know that you are God's temple, and the Spirit of God dwells in you?" For when the Lord, as man, was washed in Jordan, it was we who were washed in Him and by Him. And when He received the Spirit, we were the ones who by Him were made recipients of It. Moreover, for this reason He was not anointed with oil as Aaron or David or the rest were, but in another way above all His fellows, "with the oil of gladness," which He Himself interprets to be the Spirit, saying through the Prophet, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because the Lord has anointed Me," as also the Apostle has said, "How God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit." When then were these things spoken of Him except when He came in the flesh and was baptized in Jordan, and the Spirit descended on Him? And indeed the Lord Himself said, "The Spirit shall take of Mine," and "I will send Him," and to His disciples, "Receive the Holy Spirit." And yet, He who, as the Word and Radiance of the Father, gives to others, is now said to be sanctified, because now He has become man, and the Body that is sanctified is His. From Him then we have begun to receive the anointing and the seal, John saying, "And you have an anointing from the Holy One," and the Apostle, "And you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise." Therefore because of us and for us are these words. What advance then of promotion, and reward of virtue or generally of conduct, is proved from this in our Lord's case? For if He was not God, and then had become God, if not being King He was promoted to the Kingdom, your reasoning would have had some slight plausibility. But if He is God and the throne of His kingdom is everlasting, in what way could God advance? Or what was lacking to Him who was sitting on His Father's throne? And if, as the Lord Himself has said, the Spirit is His, and takes from His, and He sends It, it is not the Word, considered as the Word and Wisdom, who is anointed with the Spirit which He Himself gives, but the flesh assumed by Him that is anointed in Him and by Him, so that the sanctification coming to the Lord as man may come to all men from Him. For the Spirit does not speak of Itself, He says, but the Word is He who gives It to the worthy. For this is like the passage considered above; for just as the Apostle has written, "Who existing in the form of God thought it not a prize to be equal with God, but emptied Himself, and took a servant's form," so David celebrates the Lord as the everlasting God and King, but sent to us and assuming our body which is mortal. For this is his meaning in the Psalm, "All your garments smell of myrrh, aloes, and cassia," and it is represented by Nicodemus and by Mary's company, when the one came bringing "a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds weight," and the others "the spices which they had prepared" for the burial of the Lord's body.

47. If then for our sake He sanctifies Himself, and does this when He has become man, it is very plain that the Spirit's descent on Him in Jordan was a descent upon us, because of His bearing our body. And it did not take place for promotion to the Word, but again for our sanctification, that we might share His anointing, and of us it might be said, 'Do you not know that you are God's Temple, and the Spirit of God dwells in you 1 Corinthians 3:16?' For when the Lord, as man, was washed in Jordan, it was we who were washed in Him and by Him. And when He received the Spirit, we it was who by Him were made recipients of It. And moreover for this reason, not as Aaron or David or the rest, was He anointed with oil, but in another way above all His fellows, 'with the oil of gladness,' which He Himself interprets to be the Spirit, saying by the Prophet, 'The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because the Lord has anointed Me Isaiah 61:1;' as also the Apostle has said, 'How God anointed Him with the Holy Ghost. Acts 10:38 ' When then were these things spoken of Him but when He came in the flesh and was baptized in Jordan, and the Spirit descended on Him? And indeed the Lord Himself said, 'The Spirit shall take of Mine;' and 'I will send Him;' and to His disciples, 'Receive the Holy Ghost.' And notwithstanding, He who, as the Word and Radiance of the Father, gives to others, now is said to be sanctified, because now He has become man, and the Body that is sanctified is His. From Him then we have begun to receive the unction and the seal, John saying, 'And you have an unction from the Holy One;' and the Apostle, 'And you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise.' Therefore because of us and for us are these words. What advance then of promotion, and reward of virtue or generally of conduct, is proved from this in our Lord's instance? For if He was not God, and then had become God, if not being King He was preferred to the Kingdom, your reasoning would have had some faint plausibility. But if He is God and the throne of His kingdom is everlasting, in what way could God advance? Or what was there wanting to Him who was sitting on His Father's throne? And if, as the Lord Himself has said, the Spirit is His, and takes of His, and He sends It, it is not the Word, considered as the Word and Wisdom, who is anointed with the Spirit which He Himself gives, but the flesh assumed by Him which is anointed in Him and by Him; that the sanctification coming to the Lord as man, may come to all men from Him. For not of Itself, says He, does the Spirit speak, but the Word is He who gives It to the worthy. For this is like the passage considered above; for as the Apostle has written, 'Who existing in form of God thought it not a prize to be equal with God, but emptied Himself, and took a servant's form,' so David celebrates the Lord, as the everlasting God and King, but sent to us and assuming our body which is mortal. For this is his meaning in the Psalm, 'All your garments smell of myrrh, aloes, and cassia;' and it is represented by Nicodemus and by Mary's company, when the one came bringing 'a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pounds weight;' and the others John 19:39; Luke 24:1 'the spices which they had prepared' for the burial of the Lord's body.

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

48. What advancement then was it to the Immortal to have assumed the mortal? Or what promotion is it to the Everlasting to have put on the temporal? What reward can be great to the Everlasting God and King in the bosom of the Father? See ye not, that this too was done and written because of us and for us, that us who are mortal and temporal, the Lord, become man, might make immortal, and bring into the everlasting kingdom of heaven? Blush ye not, speaking lies against the divine oracles? For when our Lord Jesus Christ had been among us, we indeed were promoted, as rescued from sin; but He is the same; nor did He alter, when He became man (to repeat what I have said), but, as has been written, 'The Word of God abides forever.' Surely as, before His becoming man, He, the Word, dispensed to the saints the Spirit as His own, so also when made man, He sanctifies all by the Spirit and says to His Disciples, 'Receive the Holy Ghost.' And He gave to Moses and the other seventy; and through Him David prayed to the Father, saying, 'Take not Your Holy Spirit from me.' On the other hand, when made man, He said, 'I will send to you the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth John 15:26;' and He sent Him, He, the Word of God, as being faithful. Therefore ' Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and for ever Hebrews 13:8,' remaining unalterable, and at once gives and receives, giving as God's Word, receiving as man. It is not the Word then, viewed as the Word, that is promoted; for He had all things and has them always; but men, who have in Him and through Him their origin of receiving them. For, when He is now said to be anointed in a human respect, we it is who in Him are anointed; since also when He is baptized, we it is who in Him are baptized. But on all these things the Saviour throws much light, when He says to the Father, 'And the glory which You gave Me, I have given to them, that they may be one, even as We are one John 17:22.' Because of us then He asked for glory, and the words occur, 'took' and 'gave' and 'highly exalted,' that we might take, and to us might be given, and we might be exalted in Him; as also for us He sanctifies Himself, that we might be sanctified in Him.

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

49. But if they take advantage of the word 'wherefore,' as connected with the passage in the Psalm, 'Wherefore God, even Your God, has anointed You,' for their own purposes, let these novices in Scripture and masters in irreligion know, that, as before, the word 'wherefore' does not imply reward of virtue or conduct in the Word, but the reason why He came down to us, and of the Spirit's anointing which took place in Him for our sakes. For He says not, 'Wherefore He anointed You in order to Your being God or King or Son or Word.' for so He was before and is for ever, as has been shown; but rather, 'Since You are God and King, therefore You were anointed, since none but You could unite man to the Holy Ghost, Thou the Image of the Father, in which we were made in the beginning; for Yours is even the Spirit.' For the nature of things originate could give no warranty for this, Angels having transgressed, and men disobeyed. Wherefore there was need of God and the Word is God; that those who had become under a curse, He Himself might set free. If then He was of nothing, He would not have been the Christ or Anointed, being one among others and having fellowship as the rest. But, whereas He is God, as being Son of God, and is everlasting King, and exists as Radiance and Expression Hebrews 1:3 of the Father, therefore fitly is He the expected Christ, whom the Father announces to mankind, by revelation to His holy Prophets; that as through Him we have come to be, so also in Him all men might be redeemed from their sins, and by Him all things might be ruled. And this is the cause of the anointing which took place in Him, and of the incarnate presence of the Word, which the Psalmist foreseeing, celebrates, first His Godhead and kingdom, which is the Father's, in these tones, 'Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Your Kingdom;' then announces His descent to us thus, 'Wherefore God, even Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness above Your fellows. '

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

50. What is there to wonder at, what to disbelieve, if the Lord who gives the Spirit, is here said Himself to be anointed with the Spirit, at a time when, necessity requiring it, He did not refuse in respect of His manhood to call Himself inferior to the Spirit? For the Jews saying that He cast out devils in Beelzebub, He answered and said to them, for the exposure of their blasphemy, 'But if I through the Spirit of God cast out demons Matthew 12:28.' Behold, the Giver of the Spirit here says that He cast out demons in the Spirit; but this is not said, except because of His flesh. For since man's nature is not equal of itself to casting out demons, but only in power of the Spirit, therefore as man He said, 'But if I through the Spirit of God cast out demons.' Of course too He signified that the blasphemy offered to the Holy Ghost is greater than that against His humanity, when He said, 'Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him;' such as were those who said, 'Is not this the carpenter's son?' but they who blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, and ascribe the deeds of the Word to the devil, shall have inevitable punishment. This is what the Lord spoke to the Jews, as man; but to the disciples showing His Godhead and His majesty, and intimating that He was not inferior but equal to the Spirit, He gave the Spirit and said, 'Receive the Holy Ghost,' and 'I send Him,' and 'He shall glorify Me,' and 'Whatsoever He hears, that He shall speak.' As then in this place the Lord Himself, the Giver of the Spirit, does not refuse to say that through the Spirit He casts out demons, as man; in like manner He the same, the Giver of the Spirit, refused not to say, 'The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me Isaiah 61:1,' in respect of His having become flesh, as John has said; that it might be shown in both these particulars, that we are they who need the Spirit's grace in our sanctification, and again who are unable to cast out demons without the Spirit's power. Through whom then and from whom behooved it that the Spirit should be given but through the Son, whose also the Spirit is? And when were we enabled to receive It, except when the Word became man? And, as the passage of the Apostle shows, that we had not been redeemed and highly exalted, had not He who exists in form of God taken a servant's form, so David also shows, that no otherwise should we have partaken the Spirit and been sanctified, but that the Giver of the Spirit, the Word Himself, hast spoken of Himself as anointed with the Spirit for us. And therefore have we securely received it, He being said to be anointed in the flesh; for the flesh being first sanctified in Him, and He being said, as man, to have received for its sake, we have the sequel of the Spirit grace, receiving 'out of His fullness John 1:16.'

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

51. Nor do the words, 'You have loved righteousness and hated iniquity,' which are added in the Psalm, show, as again you suppose, that the Nature of the Word is alterable, but rather by their very force signify His unalterableness. For since of things originate the nature is alterable, and the one portion had transgressed and the other disobeyed, as has been said, and it is not certain how they will act, but it often happens that he who is now good afterwards alters and becomes different, so that one who was but now righteous, soon is found unrighteous, wherefore there was here also need of one unalterable, that men might have the immutability of the righteousness of the Word as an image and type for virtue. And this thought commends itself strongly to the right-minded. For since the first man Adam altered, and through sin death came into the world, therefore it became the second Adam to be unalterable; that, should the Serpent again assault, even the Serpent's deceit might be baffled, and, the Lord being unalterable and unchangeable, the Serpent might become powerless in his assault against all. For as when Adam had transgressed, his sin reached unto all men, so, when the Lord had become man and had overthrown the Serpent, that so great strength of His is to extend through all men, so that each of us may say, 'For we are not ignorant of his devices. 2 Corinthians 2:11 ' Good reason then that the Lord, who ever is in nature unalterable, loving righteousness and hating iniquity, should be anointed and Himself sent, that, He, being and remaining the same, by taking this alterable flesh, 'might condemn sin in it,' and might secure its freedom, and its ability henceforth 'to fulfil the righteousness of the law?' in itself, so as to be able to say, 'But we are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwells in us Romans 8:9.'

The Arians have made this conjecture in vain and have wrongly appealed to the words of Scripture. For God's Word is unalterable and is always in one state, not as circumstances might dictate, but as the Father is. For how could He be like the Father unless this were so? Or how could all that belongs to the Father also belong to the Son, if He did not have the Father's unalterableness and unchangeableness? He does not love one thing and hate another as if subject to laws and pulled to one side, lest by choosing one through fear of falling away, we would have to admit that He is also alterable in other ways. Rather, as God and the Father's Word, He is a just judge and lover of virtue, or rather its giver. Therefore, being just and holy by nature (physis), He is said to love righteousness and hate iniquity. This is as much as saying that He loves and chooses the virtuous and rejects and hates the unrighteous. Divine Scripture says the same of the Father: "The Righteous Lord loves righteousness; You hate all them that work iniquity," and "The Lord loves the gates of Sion more than all the dwellings of Jacob," and "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated," and in Isaiah there is the voice of God again saying, "I the Lord love righteousness, and hate robbery of unrighteousness." Let them interpret those former words as these latter ones, for the former are also written of the Image of God. Otherwise, if they misinterpret these as they do those, they will conclude that the Father too is alterable. But since it is dangerous even to hear others say this, we do well to think that when God is said to love righteousness and to hate robbery of unrighteousness, it is not as if He is pulled to one side and capable of the contrary, so as to select one and not choose the other—for this belongs to created things—but rather that, as a judge, He loves and draws to Himself the righteous and withdraws from the bad. It follows then to think the same concerning the Image of God also, that He loves and hates in no other way than this. For the nature (physis) of the Image must be such as Its Father is, though the Arians in their blindness fail to see either that image or any other truth of the divine oracles. For being driven away from the conceptions—or rather misconceptions—of their own hearts, they fall back upon passages of divine Scripture, and here too from lack of understanding, as is their habit, they fail to grasp their meaning. Instead, laying down their own false religion as a kind of rule of interpretation, they twist the whole of the divine oracles to agree with it. And so on the bare mention of such doctrine, they deserve nothing but the reply, "You do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God," and if they persist in it, they must be silenced by the words, "Render to man the things that are man's, and to God the things that are God's."

52. Vainly then, here again, O Arians, have you made this conjecture, and vainly alleged the words of Scripture; for God's Word is unalterable, and is ever in one state, not as it may happen, but as the Father is; since how is He like the Father, unless He be thus? Or how is all that is the Father's the Son's also, if He has not the unalterableness and unchangeableness of the Father? Not as being subject to laws, and biassed to one side, does He love the one and hate the other, lest, if from fear of falling away He chooses the one, we admit that He is alterable otherwise also; but, as being God and the Father's Word, He is a just judge and lover of virtue, or rather its dispenser. Therefore being just and holy by nature, on this account He is said to love righteousness and to hate iniquity; as much as to say, that He loves and chooses the virtuous, and rejects and hates the unrighteous. And divine Scripture says the same of the Father; 'The Righteous Lord loves righteousness; Thou hate all them that work iniquity,' and 'The Lord loves the gates of Sion, more than all the dwellings of Jacob;' and, 'Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated Malachi 1:2-3;' and in Isaiah there is the voice of God again saying, 'I the Lord love righteousness, and hate robbery of unrighteousness Isaiah 61:8.' Let them then expound those former words as these latter; for the former also are written of the Image of God: else, misinterpreting these as those, they will conceive that the Father too is alterable. But since the very hearing others say this is not without peril, we do well to think that God is said to love righteousness and to hate robbery of unrighteousness, not as if biassed to one side, and capable of the contrary, so as to select the latter and not choose the former, for this belongs to things originated, but that, as a judge, He loves and takes to Him the righteous and withdraws from the bad. It follows then to think the same concerning the Image of God also, that He loves and hates no otherwise than thus. For such must be the nature of the Image as is Its Father, though the Arians in their blindness fail to see either that image or any other truth of the divine oracles. For being forced from the conceptions or rather misconceptions of their own hearts, they fall back upon passages of divine Scripture, and here too from want of understanding, according to their wont, they discern not their meaning; but laying down their own irreligion as a sort of canon of interpretation, they wrest the whole of the divine oracles into accordance with it. And so on the bare mention of such doctrine, they deserve nothing but the reply, 'You do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God Matthew 22:29;' and if they persist in it, they must be put to silence, by the words, 'Render to' man 'the things that are' man's, 'and to God the things that are' God's.

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

53. But it is written, say they, in the Proverbs, 'The Lord created me the beginning of His ways, for His Works;' and in the Epistle to the Hebrews the Apostle says, 'Being made so much better than the Angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent Name than they.' And soon after, 'Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus, who was faithful to Him that made Him.' And in the Acts, 'Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God has made that same Jesus whom you have crucified both Lord and Christ.' These passages they brought forward at every turn, mistaking their sense, under the idea that they proved that the Word of God was a creature and work and one of things originate; and thus they deceive the thoughtless, making the language of Scripture their pretence, but instead of the true sense sowing upon it the poison of their own heresy. For had they known, they would not have been irreligious against 'the Lord of glory 1 Corinthians 2:8,' nor have wrested the good words of Scripture. If then henceforward openly adopting Caiaphas's way, they have determined on judaizing, and are ignorant of the text, that verily God shall dwell upon the earth, let them not inquire into the Apostolical sayings; for this is not the manner of Jews. But if, mixing themselves up with the godless Manichees, they deny that 'the Word was made flesh,' and His Incarnate presence, then let them not bring forward the Proverbs, for this is out of place with the Manichees. But if for preferment-sake, and the lucre of avarice which follows, and the desire for good repute, they venture not on denying the text, 'The Word was made flesh,' since so it is written, either let them rightly interpret the words of Scripture, of the embodied presence of the Saviour, or, if they deny their sense, let them deny that the Lord became man at all. For it is unseemly, while confessing that 'the Word became flesh,' yet to be ashamed at what is written of Him, and on that account to corrupt the sense.

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

54. For it is written, 'So much better than the Angels.' let us then first examine this. Now it is right and necessary, as in all divine Scripture, so here, faithfully to expound the time of which the Apostle wrote, and the person, and the point; lest the reader, from ignorance missing either these or any similar particular, may be wide of the true sense. This understood that inquiring eunuch, when he thus besought Philip, 'I pray you, of whom does the Prophet speak this? Of himself, or of some other man Acts 8:34?' for he feared lest, expounding the lesson unsuitably to the person, he should wander from the right sense. And the disciples, wishing to learn the time of what was foretold, besought the Lord, 'Tell us,' said they, 'when shall these things be? And what is the sign of Your coming Matthew 24:3?' And again, hearing from the Saviour the events of the end, they desired to learn the time of it, that they might be kept from error themselves, and might be able to teach others; as, for instance, when they had learned, they set right the Thessalonians, who were going wrong. When then one knows properly these points, his understanding of the faith is right and healthy; but if he mistakes any such points, immediately he falls into heresy. Thus Hymenæus and Alexander and their fellows were beside the time, when they said that the resurrection had already been; and the Galatians were after the time, in making much of circumcision now. And to miss the person was the lot of the Jews, and is still, who think that of one of themselves is said, 'Behold, the Virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and they shall call his Name Emmanuel, which is being interpreted, God with us Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23;' and that, 'A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up to you Deuteronomy 18:15,' is spoken of one of the Prophets; and who, as to the words, 'He was led as a sheep to the slaughter Isaiah 53:7,' instead of learning from Philip, conjecture them spoken of Isaiah or some other of the former Prophets.

The enemies of Christ have fallen into their horrible heresy because of this state of mind. If they had understood the person being discussed, the subject matter, and the timing of the Apostle's words, they would not have interpreted what refers to Christ's humanity as if it referred to His divinity, nor would they have committed such a great act of irreligion in their foolishness. This will become clear if one properly explains the beginning of this passage. The Apostle says, "God who at sundry times and various manners spoke in times past unto the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken unto us by His Son." Then shortly after he says, "when He had by Himself purged our sins, He sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become so much better than the Angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent Name than they." It is clear that the Apostle's words refer to the time when God spoke to us through His Son and when the purging of sins took place. When did He speak to us through His Son, and when did the purging of sins happen? And when did He become man? It was after the Prophets, in the last days. Next, as he continues his account of the economy that concerns us and speaks of the last times, he naturally observes that God was not silent with people in former times either, but spoke to them through the Prophets. Since the prophets served as ministers, and the Law was spoken by Angels, while the Son also came to earth to minister, he had to add "become so much better than the Angels," wanting to show that just as much as a son surpasses a servant, so much more does the ministry of the Son surpass the ministry of servants. Contrasting the old ministry and the new, the Apostle speaks plainly to the Jews, writing "become so much better than the Angels." This is why throughout he uses no comparison such as "become greater" or "more honorable," so that we would not think of Him and them as being of the same kind. Instead his word is "better," which marks the difference between the Son's nature and created things. We have proof of this from divine Scripture. For example, David says in the Psalm, "One day in Your courts is better than a thousand," and Solomon cries out, "Receive my instruction and not silver, and knowledge rather than choice gold. For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it." Are not wisdom and earthly stones different in essence and separate in nature? Are heavenly courts at all similar to earthly houses? Or is there any resemblance between things eternal and spiritual and things temporal and mortal? This is what Isaiah says: "Thus says the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep My sabbaths, and choose the things that please Me, and take hold of My Covenant; even unto them will I give in Mine house, and within My walls, a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off." In the same way, there is nothing similar between the Son and the Angels. So the word "better" is not used to compare but to contrast, because of the difference of His nature from theirs. Therefore the Apostle himself, when he interprets the word "better," places its meaning in nothing less than the Son's excellence over created things, calling the one Son and the others servants; the one, as a Son with the Father, sitting on the right; and the others, as servants, standing before Him, being sent, and fulfilling tasks.

55. (3.) Such has been the state of mind under which Christ's enemies have fallen into their execrable heresy. For had they known the person, and the subject, and the season of the Apostle's words, they would not have expounded of Christ's divinity what belongs to His manhood, nor in their folly have committed so great an act of irreligion. Now this will be readily seen, if one expounds properly the beginning of this lection. For the Apostle says, 'God who at sundry times and various manners spoke in times past unto the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken unto us by His Son Hebrews 1:1-2;' then again shortly after he says, 'when He had by Himself purged our sins, He sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become so much better than the Angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent Name than they.' It appears then that the Apostle's words make mention of that time, when God spoke unto us by His Son, and when a purging of sins took place. Now when did He speak unto us by His Son, and when did purging of sins take place? And when did He become man? When, but subsequently to the Prophets in the last days? Next, proceeding with his account of the economy in which we were concerned, and speaking of the last times, he is naturally led to observe that not even in the former times was God silent with men, but spoke to them by the Prophets. And, whereas the prophets ministered, and the Law was spoken by Angels, while the Son too came on earth, and that in order to minister, he was forced to add, 'Become so much better than the Angels,' wishing to show that, as much as the son excels a servant, so much also the ministry of the Son is better than the ministry of servants. Contrasting then the old ministry and the new, the Apostle deals freely with the Jews, writing and saying, 'Become so much better than the Angels.' This is why throughout he uses no comparison, such as 'become greater,' or 'more honourable,' lest we should think of Him and them as one in kind, but 'better' is his word, by way of marking the difference of the Son's nature from things originated. And of this we have proof from divine Scripture; David, for instance, saying in the Psalm, 'One day in Your courts is better than a thousand:' and Solomon crying out, 'Receive my instruction and not silver, and knowledge rather than choice gold. For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it Proverbs 8:10-11.' Are not wisdom and stones of the earth different in essence and separate in nature? Are heavenly courts at all akin to earthly houses? Or is there any similarity between things eternal and spiritual, and things temporal and mortal? And this is what Isaiah says, 'Thus says the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep My sabbaths, and choose the things that please Me, and take hold of My Covenant; even unto them will I give in Mine house, and within My walls, a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off Isaiah 56:4-5.' In like manner there is nought akin between the Son and the Angels; so that the word 'better' is not used to compare but to contrast, because of the difference of His nature from them. And therefore the Apostle also himself, when he interprets the word 'better,' places its force in nothing short of the Son's excellence over things originated, calling the one Son, the other servants; the one, as a Son with the Father, sitting on the right; and the others, as servants, standing before Him, and being sent, and fulfilling offices.

Scripture, in speaking this way, implies—O Arians—not that the Son is originate, but rather that He is other than originate things and proper to the Father, being in His bosom. (4.) Nor does the expression "become," which appears here, show that the Son is originate, as you suppose. If the text simply said "become" and nothing more, the Arians might have a case. But since they are confronted throughout the passage with the word "Son," showing that He is other than originate things, the word "become" does not occur by itself—"better" is immediately added to it. The writer considered the expression unproblematic, knowing that in the case of one who is admittedly a genuine Son, to say "become" is the same as saying that He had been made and is "better." It makes no difference even if we speak of what is generate as "become" or "made." But by contrast, originate things cannot be called generate, being God's handiwork as they are, except insofar as after their making they partake of the generate Son, and are therefore said to have been generated also—not at all in their own nature, but because of their participation in the Son in the Spirit. Divine Scripture recognizes this again. It says in the case of originate things, "All things came to be through Him, and without Him nothing came to be" (John 1:3), and "In wisdom have You made them all." But in the case of sons who are generate, "To Job there came to be seven sons and three daughters" (Job 1:2), and "Abraham was a hundred years old when there came to be to him Isaac his son" (Genesis 21:5), and Moses said (Deuteronomy 21:15), "If to any one there come to be sons." Therefore, since the Son is other than originate things, being alone the proper offspring of the Father's essence, this argument of the Arians about the word "become" is worthless.

56. Scripture, in speaking thus, implies, O Arians, not that the Son is originate, but rather other than things originate, and proper to the Father, being in His bosom. (4.) Nor does even the expression 'become,' which here occurs, show that the Son is originate, as you suppose. If indeed it were simply 'become' and no more, a case might stand for the Arians; but, whereas they are forestalled with the word 'Son' throughout the passage, showing that He is other than things originate, so again not even the word 'become' occurs absolutely, but 'better' is immediately subjoined. For the writer thought the expression immaterial, knowing that in the case of one who was confessedly a genuine Son, to say 'become' is the same with saying that He had been made, and is, 'better.' For it matters not even if we speak of what is generate, as 'become' or 'made;' but on the contrary, things originate cannot be called generate, God's handiwork as they are, except so far as after their making they partake of the generate Son, and are therefore said to have been generated also, not at all in their own nature, but because of their participation of the Son in the Spirit. And this again divine Scripture recognises; for it says in the case of things originate, 'All things came to be through Him, and without Him nothing came to be John 1:3,' and, 'In wisdom have You made them all;' but in the case of sons which are generate, 'To Job there came to be seven sons and three daughters Job 1:2,' and, ' Abraham was an hundred years old when there came to be to him Isaac his son Genesis 21:5;' and Moses said Deuteronomy 21:15, 'If to any one there come to be sons.' Therefore since the Son is other than things originate, alone the proper offspring of the Father's essence, this plea of the Arians about the word 'become' is worth nothing.

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

(5.) If moreover, baffled so far, they should still violently insist that the language is that of comparison, and that comparison in consequence implies oneness of kind, so that the Son is of the nature of Angels, they will in the first place incur the disgrace of rivalling and repeating what Valentinus held, and Carpocrates, and those other heretics, of whom the former said that the Angels were one in kind with the Christ, and Carpocrates that Angels are framers of the world. Perchance it is under the instruction of these masters that they compare the Word of God with the Angels.

Though surely amid such speculations, they will be moved by the sacred poet, saying, "Who is he among the gods that shall be like the Lord," and, "Among the gods there is none like You, O Lord." However, they must be answered, with the chance of their profiting by it, that comparison admittedly does belong to subjects that are one in kind, not to those which differ. No one, for instance, would compare God with man, or again man with animals, nor wood with stone, because their natures are unlike. But God is beyond comparison, and man is compared to man, and wood to wood, and stone to stone. Now in such cases we should not speak of "better," but of "rather" and "more." Thus Joseph was comely rather than his brothers, and Rachel than Leah; star is not better than star, but is the rather excellent in glory. Whereas in bringing together things which differ in kind, then "better" is used to mark the difference, as has been said in the case of wisdom and jewels. If then the Apostle had said, "by so much has the Son precedence of the Angels," or "by so much greater," you would have had a case, as if the Son were compared with the Angels. But, as it is, in saying that He is "better," and differs as far as Son from servants, the Apostle shows that He is other than the Angels in nature.

57. Though surely amid such speculations, they will be moved by the sacred poet, saying, 'Who is he among the gods that shall be like the Lord,' and, 'Among the gods there is none like You, O Lord.' However, they must be answered, with the chance of their profiting by it, that comparison confessedly does belong to subjects one in kind, not to those which differ. No one, for instance, would compare God with man, or again man with brutes, nor wood with stone, because their natures are unlike; but God is beyond comparison, and man is compared to man, and wood to wood, and stone to stone. Now in such cases we should not speak of 'better,' but of 'rather' and 'more;' thus Joseph was comely rather than his brethren, and Rachel than Leah; star is not better than star, but is the rather excellent in glory; whereas in bringing together things which differ in kind, then 'better' is used to mark the difference, as has been said in the case of wisdom and jewels. Had then the Apostle said, 'by so much has the Son precedence of the Angels,' or 'by so much greater,' you would have had a plea, as if the Son were compared with the Angels; but, as it is, in saying that He is 'better,' and differs as far as Son from servants, the Apostle shows that He is other than the Angels in nature.

Furthermore, by saying that He is the one who has "laid the foundation of all things" (Hebrews 1:10), the author shows that He is other than all created things. But if He is other and different in ousia from their nature, what comparison of His ousia can there be, or what likeness to them? Though even if they have any such thoughts, Paul shall refute them, speaking directly to this point: "For unto which of the Angels said He at any time, You are My Son, this day have I begotten You? And of the Angels He says, Who makes His Angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire" (Hebrews 1:7).

(6.) Moreover by saying that He it is who has 'laid the foundation of all things Hebrews 1:10,' he shows that He is other than all things originate. But if He be other and different in essence from their nature, what comparison of His essence can there be, or what likeness to them? Though, even if they have any such thoughts, Paul shall refute them, who speaks to the very point, 'For unto which of the Angels said He at any time, You are My Son, this day have I begotten You? And of the Angels He says, Who makes His Angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire Hebrews 1:7.'

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

58. Observe here, the word 'made' belongs to things originate, and he calls them things made; but to the Son he speaks not of making, nor of becoming, but of eternity and kingship, and a Framer's office, exclaiming, 'Your Throne, O God, is for ever and ever;' and, 'Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of Your hands; they shall perish, but You remain.' From which words even they, were they but willing, might perceive that the Framer is other than things framed, the former God, the latter things originate, made out of nothing. For what has been said, 'They shall perish,' is said, not as if the creation were destined for destruction, but to express the nature of things originate by the issue to which they tend. For things which admit of perishing, though through the grace of their Maker they perish not, yet have come out of nothing, and themselves witness that they once were not. And on this account, since their nature is such, it is said of the Son, 'You remain,' to show His eternity; for not having the capacity of perishing, as things originate have, but having eternal duration, it is foreign to Him to have it said, 'He was not before His generation,' but proper to Him to be always, and to endure together with the Father. And though the Apostle had not thus written in his Epistle to the Hebrews, still his other Epistles, and the whole of Scripture, would certainly forbid their entertaining such notions concerning the Word. But since he has here expressly written it, and, as has been above shown, the Son is Offspring of the Father's essence, and He is Framer, and other things are framed by Him, and He is the Radiance and Word and Image and Wisdom of the Father, and things originate stand and serve in their place below the Triad, therefore the Son is different in kind and different in essence from things originate, and on the contrary is proper to the Father's essence and one in nature with it. And hence it is that the Son too says not, 'My Father is better than I John 14:28,' lest we should conceive Him to be foreign to His Nature, but 'greater,' not indeed in greatness, nor in time, but because of His generation from the Father Himself, nay, in saying 'greater' He again shows that He is proper to His essence.

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

59. (7). And the Apostle's own reason for saying, 'so much better than the Angels,' was not any wish in the first instance to compare the essence of the Word to things originate (for He cannot be compared, rather they are incommeasurable), but regarding the Word's visitation in the flesh, and the Economy which He then sustained, he wished to show that He was not like those who had gone before Him; so that, as much as He excelled in nature those who were sent afore by Him, by so much also the grace which came from and through Him was better than the ministry through Angels. For it is the function of servants, to demand the fruits and no more; but of the Son and Master to forgive the debts and to transfer the vineyard.

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

(8.) Certainly what the Apostle proceeds to say shows the excellence of the Son over things originate; 'Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip. For if the word spoken by Angels was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward; how shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard Him Hebrews 2:1-3.' But if the Son were in the number of things originate, He was not better than they, nor did disobedience involve increase of punishment because of Him; any more than in the Ministry of Angels there was not, according to each Angel, greater or less guilt in the transgressors, but the Law was one, and one was its vengeance on transgressors. But, whereas the Word is not in the number of originate things, but is Son of the Father, therefore, as He Himself is better and His acts better and transcendent, so also the punishment is worse. Let them contemplate then the grace which is through the Son, and let them acknowledge the witness which He gives even from His works, that He is other than things originated, and alone the very Son in the Father and the Father in Him. And the Law was spoken by Angels, and perfected no one Hebrews 7:19, needing the visitation of the Word, as Paul has said; but that visitation has perfected the work of the Father. And then, from Adam unto Moses death reigned Romans 5:14; but the presence of the Word abolished death. 2 Timothy 1:10 And no longer in Adam are we all dying 1 Corinthians 15:22; but in Christ we are all reviving. And then, from Dan to Beersheba was the Law proclaimed, and in Judæa only was God known; but now, unto all the earth has gone forth their voice, and all the earth has been filled with the knowledge of God, and the disciples have made disciples of all the nations Matthew 28:19, and now is fulfilled what is written, 'They shall be all taught of God John 6:45; Isaiah 54:13.' And then what was revealed was but a type; but now the truth has been manifested. And this again the Apostle himself describes afterwards more clearly, saying, 'By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament;' and again, 'But now has He obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also He is the Mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.' And, 'For the Law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did.' And again he says, 'It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.' Both in the verse before us, then, and throughout, does he ascribe the word 'better' to the Lord, who is better and other than originated things. For better is the sacrifice through Him, better the hope in Him; and also the promises through Him, not merely as great compared with small, but the one differing from the other in nature, because He who conducts this economy, is 'better' than things originated.

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

60. (9.) Moreover the words 'He has become surety' denote the pledge in our behalf which He has provided. For as, being the 'Word,' He 'became flesh John 1:14 ' and 'become' we ascribe to the flesh, for it is originated and created, so do we here the expression 'He has become,' expounding it according to a second sense, viz. because He has become man. And let these contentious men know, that they fail in this their perverse purpose; let them know that Paul does not signify that His essence has become, knowing, as he did, that He is Son and Wisdom and Radiance and Image of the Father; but here too he refers the word 'become' to the ministry of that covenant, in which death which once ruled is abolished. Since here also the ministry through Him has become better, in that 'what the Law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh Romans 8:3,' ridding it of the trespass, in which, being continually held captive, it admitted not the Divine mind. And having rendered the flesh capable of the Word, He made us walk, no longer according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit, and say again and again, 'But we are not in the flesh but in the Spirit,' and, 'For the Son of God came into the world, not to judge the world, but to redeem all men, and that the world might be saved through Him John 3:17.' Formerly the world, as guilty, was under judgment from the Law; but now the Word has taken on Himself the judgment, and having suffered in the body for all, has bestowed salvation to all. With a view to this has John exclaimed, 'The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ John 1:17.' Better is grace than the Law, and truth than the shadow.

"Better" then, as has already been said, could not have been brought about by anyone other than the Son, who sits at the right hand of the Father. And what does this indicate except the Son's genuine nature, and that the Godhead of the Father is the same as the Son's? Because the Son reigns in His Father's kingdom, is seated upon the same throne as the Father, and is contemplated in the Father's Godhead, therefore the Word is God, and whoever sees the Son sees the Father; and thus there is one God. Though sitting on the right, He does not place His Father on the left; instead, whatever is right and precious in the Father, the Son also has, and says, "All things that the Father has are Mine John 16:15." Therefore also the Son, though sitting on the right, also sees the Father on the right, though it is as one who has become man that He says, "I saw the Lord always before My face, for He is on My right hand, therefore I shall not fall." This moreover shows that the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son; for with the Father being on the right, the Son is on the right; and while the Son sits on the right of the Father, the Father is in the Son. And the Angels indeed minister by ascending and descending; but concerning the Son he says, "And let all the Angels of God worship Him Hebrews 1:6." And when Angels minister, they say, "I am sent unto you," and, "The Lord has commanded;" but the Son, though He says in human fashion, "I am sent," and comes to finish the work and to minister, nevertheless says, as being Word and Image, "I am in the Father, and the Father in Me;" and, "He that has seen Me, has seen the Father," and, "The Father that abides in Me, He does the works;" for what we see in that Image are the Father's works.

61. (10.) 'Better' then, as has been said, could not have been brought to pass by any other than the Son, who sits on the right hand of the Father. And what does this denote but the Son's genuineness, and that the Godhead of the Father is the same as the Son's? For in that the Son reigns in His Father's kingdom, is seated upon the same throne as the Father, and is contemplated in the Father's Godhead, therefore is the Word God, and whoever beholds the Son, beholds the Father; and thus there is one God. Sitting then on the right, yet He does not place His Father on the left; but whatever is right and precious in the Father, that also the Son has, and says, 'All things that the Father has are Mine John 16:15.' Wherefore also the Son, though sitting on the right, also sees the Father on the right, though it be as become man that He says, 'I saw the Lord always before My face, for He is on My right hand, therefore I shall not fall.' This shows moreover that the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son; for the Father being on the right, the Son is on the right; and while the Son sits on the right of the Father, the Father is in the Son. And the Angels indeed minister ascending and descending; but concerning the Son he says, 'And let all the Angels of God worship Him Hebrews 1:6.' And when Angels minister, they say, 'I am sent unto you,' and, 'The Lord has commanded;' but the Son, though He say in human fashion, 'I am sent,' and comes to finish the work and to minister, nevertheless says, as being Word and Image, 'I am in the Father, and the Father in Me;' and, 'He that has seen Me, has seen the Father.' and, 'The Father that abides in Me, He does the works;' for what we behold in that Image are the Father's works.

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

(11.) What has been already said ought to shame those persons who are fighting against the very truth; however, if, because it is written, 'become better,' they refuse to understand 'become,' as used of the Son, as 'has been and is;' or again as referring to the better covenant having come to be, as we have said, but consider from this expression that the Word is called originate, let them hear the same again in a concise form, since they have forgotten what has been said.

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

62. If the Son be in the number of the Angels, then let the word 'become' apply to Him as to them, and let Him not differ at all from them in nature; but be they either sons with Him, or be He an Angel with them; sit they one and all together on the right hand of the Father, or be the Son standing with them all as a ministering Spirit, sent forth to minister Himself as they are. But if on the other hand Paul distinguishes the Son from things originate, saying, 'To which of the Angels said He at any time, You are My Son.' and the one frames heaven and earth, but they are made by Him; and He sits with the Father, but they stand by ministering, who does not see that he has not used the word 'become' of the essence of the Word, but of the ministration come through Him? For as, being the 'Word,' He 'became flesh,' so when become man, He became by so much better in His ministry, than the ministry which came by the Angels, as Son excels servants and Framer things framed. Let them cease therefore to take the word 'become' of the substance of the Son, for He is not one of originated things; and let them acknowledge that it is indicative of His ministry and the Economy which came to pass.

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

(12.) But how He became better in His ministry, being better in nature than things originate, appears from what has been said before, which, I consider, is sufficient in itself to put them to shame. But if they carry on the contest, it will be proper upon their rash daring to close with them, and to oppose to them those similar expressions which are used concerning the Father Himself. This may serve to shame them to refrain their tongue from evil, or may teach them the depth of their folly. Now it is written, 'Become my strong rock and house of defense, that You may save me.' And again, 'The Lord became a defense for the oppressed,' and the like which are found in divine Scripture. If then they apply these passages to the Son, which perhaps is nearest to the truth, then let them acknowledge that the sacred writers ask Him, as not being originate, to become to them 'a strong rock and house of defense;' and for the future let them understand 'become,' and 'He made,' and 'He created,' of His incarnate presence. For then did He become 'a strong rock and house of defense,' when He bore our sins in His own body upon the tree, and said, 'Come unto Me, all you that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest Matthew 11:28.'

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

63. But if they refer these passages to the Father, will they, when it is here also written, 'Become' and 'He became,' venture so far as to affirm that God is originate? Yea, they will dare, as they thus argue concerning His Word; for the course of their argument carries them on to conjecture the same things concerning the Father, as they devise concerning His Word. But far be such a notion ever from the thoughts of all the faithful! For neither is the Son in the number of things originated, nor do the words of Scripture in question, 'Become,' and 'He became,' denote beginning of being, but that succour which was given to the needy. For God is always, and one and the same; but men have come to be afterwards through the Word, when the Father Himself willed it; and God is invisible and inaccessible to originated things, and especially to men upon earth. When then men in infirmity invoke Him, when in persecution they ask help, when under injuries they pray, then the Invisible, being a lover of man, shines forth upon them with His beneficence, which He exercises through and in His proper Word. And immediately the divine manifestation is made to every one according to his need, and is made to the weak health, and to the persecuted a 'refuge' and 'house of defense;' and to the injured He says, 'While you speak I will say, Here I am Isaiah 58:9.' Whatever defense then comes to each through the Son, that each says that God has come to be to himself, since succour comes from God Himself through the Word. Moreover the usage of men recognises this, and every one will confess its propriety. Often succour comes from man to man; one has undertaken toil for the injured, as Abraham for Lot; and another has opened his home to the persecuted, as Obadiah to the sons of the prophets; and another has entertained a stranger, as Lot the Angels; and another has supplied the needy, as Job those who begged of him. And then, should one and the other of these benefited persons say, 'Such a one became an assistance to me,' and another 'and to me a refuge,' and 'to another a supply,' yet in so saying would not be speaking of the original becoming or of the essence of their benefactors, but of the beneficence coming to themselves from them; so also when the saints say concerning God, 'He became' and 'become Thou,' they do not denote any original becoming, for God is without beginning and unoriginate, but the salvation which is made to be unto men from Him.

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

64. This being so understood, it is parallel also respecting the Son, that whatever, and however often, is said, such as, 'He became' and 'become,' should ever have the same sense: so that as, when we hear the words in question, 'become better than the Angels' and 'He became,' we should not conceive any original becoming of the Word, nor in any way fancy from such terms that He is originate; but should understand Paul's words of His ministry and Economy when He became man. For when 'the Word became flesh and dwelt among us John 1:14 ' and came to minister and to grant salvation to all, then He became to us salvation, and became life, and became propitiation; then His economy in our behalf became much better than the Angels, and He became the Way and became the Resurrection. And as the words 'Become my strong rock' do not denote that the essence of God Himself became, but His lovingkindness, as has been said, so also here the 'having become better than the Angels,' and, 'He became,' and, 'by so much is Jesus become a better surety,' do not signify that the essence of the Word is originate (perish the thought!), but the beneficence which towards us came to be through His becoming Man; unthankful though the heretics be, and obstinate in behalf of their irreligion.