Heresies:ARIANISM
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS
(WRITTEN BETWEEN 356 AND 360)
DISCOURSE III
CHAPTER XXIII. TEXTS EXPLAINED; SEVENTHLY, JOHN xiv. 10.
Introduction. The doctrine of the coinherence. The Father and the Son Each whole
and perfect God. They are in Each Other, because their Essence is One and the
Same. They are Each Perfect and have One Essence, because the Second Person is
the Son of the First. Asterius's evasive explanation of the text under review;
refuted. Since the Son has all that the Father has, He is His Image; and the
Father is the One God, because the Son is in the Father.
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 cometh into a depth of evils, he despiseth(1);'
for refutation does not stop them, nor perplexity abash them; but, as having 'a
whore's forehead,' they 'refuse to be ashamed(2)' before all men in their
irreligion. For whereas the passages which they alleged, 'The Lord created
me(3),' and 'Made better than the Angels(4),' and 'First-born(5),' and 'Faithful
to Him that made Him(6)' have a right sense(7), 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(8);' 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(9)?' 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 shew 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(10), 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(11). 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(12) of the Father is the Life, in which all things are both
quickened and consist; for the Life does not live in life(13), else it would not
be Life, but rather He gives life to all things.
2. But now let us see what Asterius the Sophist says, the retained pleader(1)
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(2), is the writer, what a serious
condemnation does he deserve! And does he not shew himself a stranger to the
Apostle(3), 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(4)? 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(5) man, that the Power of the Father receives power, that from this his
irreligion it may follow to say that in a son(6) 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(7),' and again Solomon(8),
'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 saith 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 thou mayest know that there
is a God in Israel(9),' 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.
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(1),
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(2), as radiance from light, and stream from fountain; so that whoso 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 whoso 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(3) 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(4).
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,(5)' by way of shewing the
identity(6) of Godhead and the unity of Essence. For they are one, not(7) 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(8);
but the nature is one; (for the offspring is not unlike(9) its parent, for it is
his image), and all that is the Father's, is the Son's(10). 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(1); 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(2), 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(3):--for instance(4), that He is God, 'And the Word was God(5);'
Almighty, 'Thus saith He which was and is and is to come, the Almighty(6);'
Lord, 'One Lord Jesus Christ(7);' that He is Light, 'I am the Light(8);' that He
wipes out sins, 'that ye may know,' He says, 'that the Son of man hath power
upon earth to forgive sins(9);' and so with other attributes. For 'all things,'
says the Son Himself, 'whatsoever the Father hath, are Mine(10);' and again,
'And Mine are Thine.'
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 ye may know that I am in the Father and the
Father in Me(1).' Moreover, He has added this again, 'He that hath seen Me, hath
seen the Father(2);' and there is one and the same sense in these three(3)
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 whoso enters into this, is
convinced that 'He that hath seen the Son, hath 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(4); 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(5). 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 thou seest in me,
that thou beholdest in him, and what thou hast seen in him, that thou holdest in
me(6).' Accordingly he who worships the image, in it worships the Emperor also;
for the image is his forth 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.
6. And this is what is said, 'Who being in the form of God(1),' and 'the Father
in Me.' Nor is this Form(2) of the Godhead partial merely, but the fulness 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(3), this is what He says, 'I in the Father.' Thus 'God was in
Christ reconciling the world unto Himself(4);' 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 shews 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, shews the Son in the Father, and His inseparability from Him; and whoso
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(5).' 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(6). 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(7) 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(8), and 'I am,' and
'beside Me there is no God,' and 'I the first and I the last(9),' this has a fit
meaning. For God is One and Only and First; but this is not said to the denial
of the Son(10), 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(11). This then is not said on His account, but to deny
that there is other such as the Father and His Word.
CHAPTER XXIV.
TEXTS EXPLAINED; EIGHTHLY, JOHN xvii. 3. AND THE LIKE.
Our Lord's divinity cannot interfere with His Father's prerogatives, as the One
God, which were so earnestly upheld by the Son. 'One' is used in contrast to
false gods and idols, not to the Son, through whom the Father spoke. Our Lord
adds His Name to the Father's, as included in Him. The Father the First, not as
if the Son were not First too, but as Origin.
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(1);"' 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(2). 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(3), 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
callest thou Me good? none is good save One, that is, God(4);' and to one who
asked, what was the great commandment in the Law, answering, 'Hear, O Israel,
the Lord our God is One Lords(5);' and saying to the multitudes, 'I came down
from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him that sent Me(6);' and
teaching the disciples, 'My Father is greater than I,' and 'He that honoureth
Me, honoureth Him that sent Me(7);' if the Son is such towards His own Father,
what is the difficulty(8), 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.
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 clay, 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(9) Jews add this too,
that He has not said this through His Word; but so hath He spoken, though they
rave, these followers of the devil(10). 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(11)
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 shewing 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(12), 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(13), 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.
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 Truths(1),' 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 Thou didst send(2).' 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 shewn 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(3), 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(4).' And when the Prophet says concerning the
creation, 'That stretcheth forth the heavens alone(5),' 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 defence of their
heresy, doth 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
shewn that He Himself precedes the works in time only(6); 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 lie 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(7) through the Son. For as the Father is First, so also is He both
First(8), 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.
CHAPTER XXV.
TEXTS EXPLAINED; NINTHLY, JOHN x. 30; xvii. 11, &c.
Arian explanation, that the Son is one with the Father in will and judgment; but
so are all good men, nay things inanimate; contrast of the Son. Oneness between
Them is in nature, because oneness in operation. Angels not objects of prayer,
because they do not work together with God, but the Son; texts quoted. Seeing an
Angel, is not seeing God. Arians in fact hold two Gods, and tend to Gentile
polytheism. Arian explanation that the Father and Son are one as we are one with
Christ, is put aside by the Regula Fidei, and shewn invalid by the usage of
Scripture in illustrations; the true force of the comparison; force of the terms
used. Force of 'in us; 'force of 'as; 'confirmed by S. John. In what sense we
are 'in God' and His 'sons.'
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(1). 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(2) 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(3). 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 forthwith(4) that the Angels(5)
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 art thou
fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning(6)?' 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(7),' and
observing the exhortation, 'Be ye therefore followers of God as dear children,
and walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us(8);' many too have become
followers of Paul as he also of Christ(8a). 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(9);' but
it is said of all of them, 'Who is like unto Thee among the gods, O Lord? and
who shall be likened to the Lord among the sons of Gods(10)?' 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(11), 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.
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(1), 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(2).' 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(3), and the Son
coming to the Saints, the Father is He who cometh in the Son(4), as He promised
when He said, 'I and My Father will come, and will make Our abode with hire(5);'
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(6),' 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 shew that the Father gives it through the Son;--at which
these irreligious ones will not blush, though they well might.
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 shews the oneness of the Father and the Son. No one, for
instance, would pray to receive from God and the Angels(1), or from any other
creature, nor would any one say, 'May God and the Angel give thee; '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(2),' 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 shewed 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 doth deliver. For knowing that He is also called the Father's 'Angel of
great Counsel(3),' 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 Thee go except Thou bless me(4)' (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 thee, to guard thee in all the way whither thou[5] goest;' and
it was no other than God whom lie 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[6];' for in conversation too with his wives he said, 'God hath not suffered
Laban to injure me.'
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, 0 Lord, from lying lips and from a deceitful
tongue[1].' 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 Thee, O Lord my
strength; the Lord is my strong rock and my defence and deliverer[2].' 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[3].' And none other than God blessed Abraham and Isaac; and Isaac praying
for Jacob, said, 'May God bless thee and increase thee and multiply thee, and
thou shall be for many companies of nations, and may He give thee the blessing
of Abraham my father[4].' 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[4a].' 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 yon in
Christ Jesus[5].' 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 lie is the Father's radiance; and thus the
Father and the Son are one.
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[1], 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[2],' 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[3]. 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 thy father, the God of Abraham
and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob[4],' 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[5]. 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 spake 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 hath 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.
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[6]. For, as the
illustration shows, we do not introduce three Origins or three Fathers, as the
followers of Marcion and Manich'us; 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[7], 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[8], 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[9] 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[10]. 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[11],, and many parts, to entertain a belief of
the One Godhead in a Triad.
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[1], 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[2]. And with such sentiments, they will certainly be going on to more
gods, for this will be the essay[3] 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[4], 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[5],' 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[6] with the Gentiles, hateful[7] 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[8] of the
Father. Being then such, the Saviour Himself troubled the Jews with these words,
'The Father Himself which hath sent Me, hath borne witness of Me; ye have
neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His Form; and ye have not His Word
abiding in you; for whom He hath sent, Him ye believe not[9].' Suitably has He
joined the 'Word' to the 'Form,' to shew 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[10].' And
This it was who said, 'He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father,' and, 'I in
the Father and the Father in Me,' and, 'I and the Father are one[11];' 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.
17. The Arians, however, not even thus abashed, reply, 'Not as you say, but as
we will[1];' 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 Thine own Name, those whom
Thou hast given Me, that they may be one, as We are[2].' And shortly after;
'Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on Me
through their Word; that they all may be one, as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I
in Thee, that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that Thou
hast sent Me. And the glory which Thou gavest Me I have given them, that they
may be one, even as We are one; I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be made
perfect in one, and that the world may know that Thou didst send Me[3].' Then,
as having found an evasion, these men of craft[4] 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[5] 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[6], 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[7]. And now
again bearing from the Saviour, 'that they may be one as We are[8],' 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[9],' which happened upon such an imagination.
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[1]. 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[2] though it be to refine upon[3] these passages, considering their so
clear and religious sense, and our own orthodox belief, yet that their
irreligion may be shewn here also, come let us shortly, as we have received from
the fathers, expose their heterodoxy from the passage. It is a custom[4] 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 shewn to be either bad or
righteous. For instance, in the case of the bad, as when it charges, 'Be ye not
like to horse and mule which have no understanding[5].' Or as when it says,
complaining of those who have become such, 'Man, being in honour, hath no
understanding, but is compared unto the beasts that perish.' And again, 'They
were as wanton horses[6].' And the Saviour to expose Herod said, 'Tell that
fox[7];' 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[8].' And He said this, not that we may become in nature beasts of
burden, or become serpents and doves; for He hath 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.
19. Again, taking patterns for man from divine subjects, the Saviour says; 'Be
ye merciful, as your Father which is in heaven is merciful[1];' and, 'Be ye
perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect[2].' 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 ye 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 ye 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 calleth, and
though we are men from the earth, are yet called gods[3], 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[4] 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 is come, and He hath 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[5]), 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 on His Name[6]), and therefore also He is the
Truth (saying, 'I am the Truth,' and in His address to His Father, He said,
'Sanctify them through Thy Truth, Thy Word is Truth[7]'); but we by imitation[8]
become virtuous[9] 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[10], who were as one.
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[1]; 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[2], 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[3],' 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.
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 Thee,' 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 ye may learn in us not to be
puffed up above that is written[1].' 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[2]; 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 walls;' and 'In Thee will we tread down our enemies[4].'
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 Thou gavest 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 Thee as I am,' but 'as We are;' now he who says 'as'[5],
signifies not identity, but an image and example of the matter in hand.
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 Thou 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[6], for He has put on our body. 'And Thou Father
in Me;' 'for I am Thy Word, and since Thou art in Me, because I am Thy Word, and
I in them because of the body, and because of Thee 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[7].' 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[8] 'that they may be one in Thee,' or 'that they and I may
be one in Thee,' 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 Thee, 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[9], but in nature only all things are far
from Him. And, as I said before, whose uses the particle 'as' implies, not
identity, nor equality, but a pattern of the matter in question, viewed in a
certain respect[10].
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[1].' 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 shews a certain kind[2] 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[3] 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[5].
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 Thee.' 'And when they shall be so perfected,' He says, 'then the world
knows that Thou hast 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[6]
Work Thou then in them, 0 Father, and as Thou hast given to Me to bear this,
grant to them Thy Spirit, that they too in It may become one, and may be
perfected in Me. For their perfecting shews that Thy Word has sojourned among
them; and the world seeing them perfect and full of God[7], will believe
altogether that Thou hast sent Me, and I have sojourned here. For whence is this
their perfecting, but that I, Thy Word, having borne their body, and become man,
have perfected the work, which Thou gavest Me, O Father? And the work is
perfected, because men, redeemed from sin, no longer remain dead; but being
deified[8], have in each other, by looking at Me, the bond of charity[9].'
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 shew 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 bow 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, 'Thou art a man
and not God,' and Stretch not thyself, being poor, beside a rich man[1].' John
then thus writes; 'Hereby know we that we dwell in Him and He in us, because He
hath given us of His Spirit[2].' Therefore because of the grace of the Spirit
which has been given to us, in Him we come to be, and He in us[3]; 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[4], 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 dwelleth in him and he in
Gods[5].' 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[6] 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 hath, He hath from[7] the
Word.
25. The Saviour, then, saying of us, 'As Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee,
that they too may be one in Us,' does not signify that we were to have identity
with Him; for this was shewn 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[1] 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[2]. For what the Word has by nature[3], 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[4].' It is the Spirit then which is in God, and not we viewed in our
own selves; and as we are sons and gods[5] because of the Word in us[6], 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[7]; 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[8]. 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 saith, 'does not understand knowledge'[9]) nor endure
religious words, but find them heavy even to hear.
CHAPTER XXVI.
INTRODUCTORY TO TEXTS FROM THE GOSPELS ON THE INCARNATION.
Enumeration of texts still to be explained. Arians compared to the Jews. We must
recur to the Regula Fidei. Our Lord did not come into, but became, man, and
therefore had the acts and affections of the flesh. The same works divine and
human. Thus the flesh was purified, and men were made immortal. Reference to I
Pet. iv. I.
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[1], they have utterly forgotten, like the Samosatene, the Son's paternal
Godhead[2], 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 judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment
unto the Son;' and 'The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into
His hand; he that believeth in the Son hath everlasting life;' and again, 'All
things were delivered unto Me of My Father, and no one knoweth the Father save
the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him;' and again, 'All that the
Father hath given unto Me, shall come to Me[3].' On this they observe, 'If He
was, as ye 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 Thy Name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both
glorified it, and will glorify it again[4].' 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[5].'" 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[6]?' In like manner, when He had come into the parts 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 have ye[7]? 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 ye think, who said upon the Cross 'My God, My God,
why hast Thou forsaken Me?' and before that had prayed, 'Glorify Thy Name,' and,
'O Father, glorify Thou Me with the glory which I had with Thee 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 knoweth no man, no, nor
the Angels, neither the Son[8].'" Upon this again say the miserable men, "If the
Son were, according to your interpretation[9], 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."
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[1]?' for this and the like the Jews then muttered when they
saw, and now the Ariomaniacs 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 saith,
Before Abraham was, I am, and I came down from heaven[2]?' the Arians on the
other hand make response[3] 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.
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[4], 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[5], put off Arius's madness,
and cleanse[6] 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 ye will no longer reproach us with holding two Eternals[7], but ye
will yourselves acknowledge that the Lord is God's true Son by nature, and not
as merely eternal[8], 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 ye rulers, and be ye lift up, ye
everlasting gates[9];' 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 lie
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 shew their misunderstanding of the passages they then alleged; and
that of what they now allege from the Gospels they certainly give an unsound
interpretation[10], we may easily see, if we now consider the scope[11] 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[12] on a stone of stumbling, thinking otherwise than they should think.
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 Fie was ever God, and
is the Son, being the Father's Word and Radiance and Wisdom[1]; and that
afterwards for us He took flesh of a Virgin, Mary Bearer of God[2], 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[3].' 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[4];' 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 Fathers[5];' 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[6].' Any one, beginning with these passages and going through the
whole of the Scripture upon the interpretation[7] 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[8];' but in fulness 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[9].'
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[1].' 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[10] 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 dost Thou, being a man, make
Thyself 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[2]. 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[3];'
for 'the Word,' as John says, 'became flesh' (it being the custom[4] 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 hath created the
heaven and the earth, and hath sovereignty over all flesh[5];' for both he and
Joel call mankind flesh).
31. Of old time He was wont to come to the Saints individually, and to hallow
those who rightly[6] 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[7], that it might be shewn,
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[8],
afterwards for our sakes He became man, and 'bodily[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[10], 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[11]. 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[12]. And well has the Prophet said 'carried[13];' 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 shewn 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[14] Himself by
'bearing our sins in His body on the tree,' as Peter speaks, we men were
redeemed from our own affections[15], and were filled with the righteousness[16]
of the Word.
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[1],' 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 ye may know that the Father is in He 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[2]. These things were so done, were so
manifested, because He had a body, not in appearance, but in truth[3]; 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[4], but to the Lord; that the grace also
may be from Him[5], and that we may become, not worshippers of any other, but
truly devout towards God, because we invoke no originate thing, no ordinary[6]
man, but the natural and true Son from God, who has become man, yet is not the
less Lord and God and Saviour.
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[1];
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 dean from all sin; nay,
Jeremiah was hallowed[2] even from the womb, and John, while yet in the womb,
leapt for joy at the voice of Mary Bearer of God[3]; nevertheless 'death reigned
from Adam to Moses, even over those that had not sinned after the similitude of
Adam's transgression[4];' 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[5] 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[6] 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[7] ever immortal and incorruptible. Whence also, whereas the
flesh is born of Mary Bearer of God[8], 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 carded 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[9], 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[10], by reason of God's Word who for our sake 'became flesh.'
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].' 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[2], 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[3]," 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 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[4] by these affections, but
rather obliterating and destroying them, men, their passions as if changed and
abolished[5] in the Impassible, henceforth become themselves also impassible and
free[6] 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[7].' 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.'
35. These points we have found it necessary first to examine, that, when we see
Him doing or saying aught divinely through the instrument[1] 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[2], we are
fight 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[3], mixing water
with the wine, shall account the Cross an offence, 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[4]
the origination of His body, and henceforth to rank themselves with
Manichees[5]. But for them, learn they, however tardily, that 'the Word became
flesh;' and let us, retaining the general scope[6] of the faith, acknowledge
that what they interpret ill, has a right interpretation[7].
CHAPTER XXVII.
TEXTS EXPLAINED; TENTHLY, MATTHEW XI. 27: JOHN III. 35, &C.
These texts intended to preclude the Sabellian notion of the Son; they fall in
with the Catholic doctrine concerning the Son; they are explained by 'so' in
John v. 26. (Anticipation of the next chapter.) Again they are used with
reference to our Lord's human nature; for our sake, that we might receive and
not lose, as receiving in Him. And consistently with other parts of Scripture,
which shew that He had the power, &c., before He received it. He was God and
man, and His actions are often at once divine and human.
35 (continued). For, 'The Father loveth the Son, and hath 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[8];' and the like passages do not shew
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 hath are Mine[1],' and what are Mine, are the
Father's? for if the things of the Father are the Son's and the Father hath them
ever, it is plain that what the Son hath, 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 hath eternally what He hath, yet He hath them from the Father.
36. For lest a man, perceiving that the Son has all that the Father hath, from
the exact likeness and identity of that He hath, 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[2],' only to
shew 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[3] the Godhead of
the Son, but rather shew Him to be truly[4] 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[5],' 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 shew 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 hath life in Himself, so hath He given also to the Son to have
life in Himself[6].' Now from the words 'Hath given,' He signifies that He is
not the Father; but in saying 'so,' He shews 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[7],' 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 hath 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[8] hath all things; and the Son having, still the Father hath them;
for the Son's Godhead is the Father's Godhead, and thus the Father in the Son
exercises His Providence[9] over all things.
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[1], or when He asks on coming into the parts of C'sarea, 'Whom
do men say that I am?' or, 'How many loaves have ye?' and, 'What will ye that I
shall do unto you[2]?, we may know, from what has been already said, the
right[3] 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 have ye?'
was not ignorant, for he says, 'And this He said to prove him, for He Himself
knew what He would do[4].' 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[5] 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[6],' 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.[7]'
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[1]; 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
shewed 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 defence, 'Power is given to Me,' and, 'Glorify Thy
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 shewn in the case of Adam, for he
received and he lost[2]), but that the grace may be irrevocable, and may be kept
sure[3] by men, therefore He Himself appropriates[4] 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 shew that He hath 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 hath become man, therefore He is said Himself to have
received.
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[1], 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 shewing
He seems rather to be Himself promoted because of the body[2], than the body
promoted because of Him. But this notion is Judaic. But if that He might redeem
mankind[3], 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[4].' 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[5].' 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[6];' for He had
that glory which He asked when He said, 'the glory which I had with Thee before
the world was[7].'
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 thee behind Me, Satan[1];' and to the disciples He gave the
power against him, when on their return He said, 'I beheld Satan, as lightning,
fall from heaven[2].' 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 un-binding 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, 'Thy sins be forgiven thee[3];' 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[4].' 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[5]; 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[6] surely for
us. For what is said by Peter, 'receiving from God honour and glory, Angels
being made subject unto Him[7],' 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.
41. Cease then, O abhorred of God[8], and degrade not the Word; nor detract from
His Godhead, which is the Father's[9], 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[10] 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 shewed that He bore a true body, and that it was
His own.
CHAPTER XXVIII.
TEXTS EXPLAINED; ELEVENTHLY, MARK XIII. 32 AND LUKE II. 52.
Arian explanation of the former text is against the Regula Fidei; and against
the context. Our Lord said He was ignorant of the Day, by reason of His human
nature. If the Holy Spirit knows the Day, therefore the Son knows; if the Son
knows the Father, therefore He knows the Day; if He has all that is the
Father's, therefore knowledge of the Day if in the Father, He knows the Day in
the Father; if He created and upholds all things, He knows when they will cease
to be. He knows not as Man, argued from Matt. xxiv. 42. As He asked about
Lazarus's grave, &c., yet knew, so He knows; as S. Paul says, 'whether in the
body I know not,' &c., yet knew, so He knows. He said He knew not for our
profit, that we be not curious (as in Acts i. 7, where on the contrary He did
not say He knew not). As the Almighty asks of Adam and of Cain, yet knew, so the
Son knows[as God]. Again, He advanced in wisdom also as man, else He made Angels
perfect before Himself. He advanced, in that the Godhead was manifested in Him
more fully as time went on.
42. These things being so, come let us now examine into 'But of that day and
that hour knoweth no man, neither the Angels of God, nor the Son[1];' for being
in great ignorance as regards these words, and being stupefied[2] 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 a
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 shews 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.
43. Now why it was that, though He knew, He did not tell His disciples plainly
at that time, no one may be curious[1] where He has been silent; for 'Who hath
known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been His counsellor[2]?' 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[3], but of that human
nature[4] whose property it is to be ignorant. And this again will be weIl 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[5],' nor before He became man did He say
it, but when 'the Word became flesh[6].' 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 is come, glorify Thy Son[7],' 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[8], 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[9], to say 'I know
not,' that He may shew that knowing as God, He is but ignorant according to the
flesh[10]. And therefore He said not, 'no, not the Son of God knows,' test the
Godhead should seem ignorant, but simply, 'no, not the Son,' that the ignorance
might be the Son's as born from among men.
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[1]; 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[2] 'No, not the Son
knows,' He yet shews 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, 'knoweth the Father save the Son[3].' 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[4], 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 bass 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[6] 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 Ariomaniacs, should have forced us to have recourse to so long a
defence. 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.
45. But for them, when they thus blaspheme the Spirit, they must expect no
remission ever of such irreligion, as the Lord has said[1]; 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 shewing His
manhood[2], in that to be ignorant is proper to man, and that He had put on
flesh that was ignorant[3], 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 ye know not in what hour your Lord doth come,' and again, 'In
such an hour as ye think not, the Son of man cometh[4].' 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 hath He not said; but by saying 'Ye 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(5).' 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 thy
house into the ark(6).' 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.
46. Moreover, after narrating the parable of the Virgins, again He shews more
clearly who they are who are ignorant of the day and the hour, saying, 'Watch
therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour(1).' He who said shortly
before, 'No one knoweth, 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 shew that, as man, He knows not; for ignorance is proper to
man(2). If however He is the Word, if it is He who is to come, He to be Judge,
He to be the Bridegroom, He knoweth when and in what hour He cometh, and when He
is to say, 'Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall
give thee light(3).' 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(4) 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 C'sarea, 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 s was the revelation, for 'No one knoweth the Son,' saith He,
'save the Father, neither the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son
will reveal Him(6).' 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 shew, 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.
47. This is sufficient to confute them; but to shew 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 knoweth(1).' 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, ye err
in the trespass(2) of the Phrygians(3), 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.
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 knoweth.'
Why then said He at that time 'I know not,' what He as Lord(1), knew? as we may
by searching conjecture, for our profit(2), 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(3),
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 knoweth;' 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 wilt Thou be
present?' He said to them more clearly, 'It is not for you to know the times or
the seasons which the Father hath put in His own power(4).' 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 hath put in His own power; but ye
shall receive Power(5).' And what is that Power of the Father but the Son? for
Christ is 'God's Power and God's Wisdom.'
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
knoweth,' 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(1). Therefore also has He been silent of the time when
each shall die, lest men, being elated on the ground of knowledge, should
forthwith neglect themselves for the greater part of their time. Both then, the
end of all things and the limit of each of us hath 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(2). 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 ye know not
what hour your Lord doth come;' and, 'In such an hour as ye think not, the Son
of man cometh(3).' 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
waft for Me, who am the Word of the Father.'
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(4)
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 art Thou(5)?' and He inquires of Cain also, 'Where is Abel
thy brother(6)?' 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, ye force yourselves to
say, that He asks knowing, what is there extravagant or strange in the doctrine,
that ye 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(7) the question then
put to Adam and all that you may give full plays to your perverseness. For being
exposed on all sides, you still make a whispering(9) 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(10) meaning may be shewn.
51. Now Luke says, 'And Jesus advanced in wisdom and stature, and in grace with
God and man(1).' 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(2) 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(3) 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?
52. For men, creatures as they are, are capable in a certain way of reachng
forward and advancing in virtue(1). Enoch, for instance, was thus translated,
and Moses increased and was perfected; and Isaac 'by advancing became great(2);'
and the Apostle said that he 'reached forth(3)' 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 abideth ever(3a).
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(4), who needs
nothing, nay brings forward others to an advance; but humanly is He here also
said to advance, since advance belongs to man(5). Hence the Evangelist, speaking
with cautious exactness(6), 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(7) 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(8) in it, He is confessed henceforth by Peter
first, then also by all, 'Truly this is the Son of God(9);' however wilfully the
Jews, both the ancient and these modern(10), 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 builded herself an house,' and in herself she gave the house
advancement.
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(1), 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(2) the Father's Light(3), which
is the Son, but that it still shews that the Word has become man, and bore true
flesh. And as we said(4) 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 s 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(6). 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(7) of Wisdom for the operation and the shining forth(8) 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.
CHAPTER XXIX.
TEXTS EXPLAINED; TWELFTHLY, MATTHEW xxvi. 39; JOHN xii. 27, &c.
Arian inferences are against the Regula Fidei, as before. He wept and the like,
as man. Other texts prove Him God. God could not fear. He feared because His
flesh feared.
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(1). For they, going
up and down(2), 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 hast Thou forsaken Me?' and He besought that the cup might
pass away(3). 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 4), If the
speaker is mere man, let him weep and fear death, as being man; but if He is the
Word in flesh(5) (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(6),' should He Himself fear? And how should He who said to Abraham,
'Fear not, for I am with thee,' and encouraged Moses against Pharaoh, and said
to the son of Nun, 'Be strong, and of a good courage(7),' 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(8)'), did He fear governors, mortal men? did He who Himself was 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(9)
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 taketh it from Me(10).'
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 vouch-safed sight to the man
born blind, and said, 'I and My Father are one(1).' 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(2) from heaven, wherefore not from His
divine works recognise the Word who is in the Father, and henceforward renounce
their self-willed(3) irreligion? For they are given to see, how He who did the
works is the same as He who shewed that His body was passible by His
permitting(4) it to weep and hunger, and to shew 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 shewed Himself the Word of God,
who had afterwards become man, saying, Though ye believe not Me, beholding Me
clad in a human body, yet believe the works, that ye may know that "I am in the
Father, and the Father in Me(5)" ' And Christ's enemies seem to me to shew plain
shamelessness and blasphemy; for, when they hear 'I and the Father are one(6),'
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.
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(1); 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 hast Thou forsaken Me?' are His, according to the
foregoing explanations (though He suffered nothing, for the Word was
impossible), 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(2) these very sufferings of the flesh, and free it from them(3).
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(4) and set open hell, and the graves did gape, and many bodies of the
saints arose and appeared to their own people(5). 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 hast Thou forsaken Me?'
the Father shewed that He was ever and even then in Him; for the earth knowing
its Lord s who spoke, straightway trembled, and the vail 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(7).'
57. And as to His saying, 'If it be possible, let the cup pass,' observe how,
though He thus spake, He rebuked(1) Peter, saying, 'Thou savourest not the
things that be of God, but those that be of men.' For He willed(2) 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 shew 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(3), that destroying this affection He might in turn make man undaunted
in face of death. hold then a thing strange indeed! He to whom Christ's enemies
impute words of terror, He by that so-called(4) 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(5).' 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 shewn, 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 hast Thou 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(6).' For to be
troubled was proper to the flesh, and to have power to lay down His life(7) 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, 'Thou shalt not leave My soul in
hades, neither shalt Thou suffer Thy Holy One to see corruption(8).' 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.
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(9), 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(10) incorruptible, as a temple of the Word(11). 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
CHAPTER XXX.
OBJECTIONS CONTINUED, AS IN CHAPTERS vii.--x.
Whether the Son is begotten of the Father's will? This virtually the same as
whether once He was not? and used by the Arians to introduce the latter
question. The Regula Fidei answers it at once in the negative by contrary texts.
The Arians follow the Valentinians in maintaining a precedent will; which really
is only exercised by God towards creatures. Instances from Scripture.
Inconsistency of Asterius. If the Son by will, there must be another Word before
Him. If God is good, or exist, by His will, then is the Son by His will. If He
willed to have reason or wisdom, then is His Word and Wisdom at His will. The
Son is the Living Will, and has all titles which denote connaturality. That will
which the Father has to the Son, the Son has to the Father. The Father wills the
Son and the Son wills the Father.
58. (continued). BUT(1), as it seems, a heretic is a wicked thing in truth, and
in every respect his heart is depraved(2) and irreligious. For behold, though
convicted on all points, and shewn 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(3) and hateful to God(4), as
hydras(5), 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 shew the rather that they are Christ's opponents in
all things.
59. After so many proofs against them, at which even the devil who is their
father(6) 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(7) 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(8) were to say this in simplicity, there would be no cause to be
suspicious of the expression, the right intention(9) prevailing over that
somewhat simple use of words(10). But since the phrase is from the heretics(11)
and the words of heretics are suspicious, and, as it is written, 'The wicked are
deceitful,' and 'The words of the wicked are deceit(12),' even though they but
make signs(13), 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(14), and to keep in mind their peculiar
heresy. For whence(15) 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 Thee is the well of life, and in Thy 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(16).'
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(1)' 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(2), 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(3), 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 hath 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(4).' 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 shews that these are thus brought into being. And Asterius,
the advocate(5) 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 l 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.
61. Therefore if He be other than all things, as has been above shewn(1), 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(2);' 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(3).' 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(3a), 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 begat He us with the Word of truth(4).'
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 Apostles 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 shewn 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.
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(1) 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(2). 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(3). 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.
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(1)!)--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 ye 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(2), 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(3) of will as
before Himself, since He is Himself the Father's Living Counsel(4), 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(5).' 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(6)), 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(7) Counsel of the Father; as we
have learned from the Prophet also, that He becomes 'the Angel of great
Counsel(8),' and was called the good pleasure of the Father; for thus we must
refute them, using human illustrations(9) concerning God.
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. 'Thou hast holden me by my right hand
Thou shall guide me with Thy Counsel(1).' 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(2). 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(3); 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(4) heresy
of the Atheists(5) is discovered to issue in polytheism(6) 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(7)? 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.
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(1).' 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(2), as if a habits(3), coming and going(4), 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(5);' 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
hath done whatsoever pleased Him.' And as the Apostle writes to Thessalonians,
'the will of God is in Christ Jesus(6).' 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(7); 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(8), but of His Essence(9) Itself, saying,
'Who being the Radiance of His glory and the Expression of His Subsistence(10).'
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.'
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 loveth the Son,
and sheweth Him all things(1).' 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(2) 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(3) 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 begat 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.
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(4).' 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(5) 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 shewn. And I
could wish that the irreligious men, having fallen into such want of reason(6)
as to be considering about will, would now ask their childbearing women no more,
whom they used to ask, 'Hadst thou a son before conceiving him(7)?' 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(8)?' that, even from fathers
they may learn shame, from whom they assumed this proposition(9) 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(10), 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(11), 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(12), 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
shewn 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 ye may know
that. "I am in the Father and the Father in Me," and "I and the Father are one,"
and "He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father(13)."' But the Lord according to
His wont is loving to man, and would fain 'help them that are fallen,' as the
praise of David(14) 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.