Oration I Against the Arians 32–41

32. But I think that not even they will want to say such things any longer, if they listen to Asterius the sophist. For although he is eager to plead for the Arian heresy and says that “the unoriginate is one,” he says the opposite of this when he says that the wisdom of God too is unoriginate and without beginning. This is part of what he wrote: “The blessed Paul did not say that he preached Christ as ‘the’ power of God or ‘the’ wisdom of God, but, without the article, ‘God's power and God's wisdom,’ proclaiming that God's own power, which is innate in him and coexists with him unoriginately, is another.” And again, a little later: “Yet his eternal power and wisdom, which the reasonings of truth show to be without beginning and unoriginate, would surely be one.” For even if, misunderstanding the apostle's saying, he thought there were two wisdoms, yet in speaking of an unoriginate wisdom coexisting with God he no longer said that the unoriginate is one, but that there is another unoriginate with him. For what coexists does not coexist with itself but with another. So either let them follow Asterius and no longer ask, “Is the unoriginate one, or two?” so as not to fight against him by raising doubts; or, if they oppose him too, let them not lean on his little treatise, lest “biting one another they be consumed by one another.” Let this much be said briefly against their ignorance. But what could one say adequate to their crafty purpose? Who would not justly hate them for raving like this? For since they no longer have the boldness to say “from nothing” and “he was not before he was begotten,” they have devised for themselves the word “unoriginate,” so that by calling the Son originated among the simple they may signify again those very words, “from nothing” and “he once was not”; for by these, things originated and creatures are signified.

33. If, then, they are confident in what they say, they ought to stand by it, and not keep changing their shape in various ways. But they do not wish to, thinking that they can do anything easily if they hide their heresy under this name and put forward the word “unoriginate.” Yet the very word “unoriginate” does not have its meaning in relation to the Son, however they grumble, but in relation to things originated. And one may see something similar in “Almighty” and “Lord of the powers.” For if the Father rules and is lord over all things through the Word, and the Son reigns with the Father's kingdom and has power over all things, as the Word and image of the Father, it is quite clear that here too the Son is not counted with all things, and that God is not called Almighty and Lord on account of him, but on account of the things that came to be through the Son, over which he rules and is lord through the Word. So “unoriginate” too is used not on account of the Son but on account of the things that came to be through the Son; and rightly, since God is not like things originated, but is their creator and maker through the Son. And as “unoriginate” is said in relation to things originated, so “Father” points to the Son. Whoever names God maker and creator and unoriginate looks at and grasps the creatures and things originated; but whoever calls God Father at once thinks of and contemplates the Son. So one may well wonder at their contentiousness in impiety: although the name “unoriginate” has the good sense stated above and can be used with reverence, they bring it forward according to their own heresy to dishonor the Son, not having read that whoever honors the Son honors the Father, and “whoever dishonors the Son dishonors the Father.” For if they cared at all for reverent speech and for honoring the Father, they ought rather (and this would be better and greater) to know God and speak of him as “Father” than to name him in that way. For in calling God “unoriginate,” they speak of him, as has been said, from the works that came to be, as maker and creator only, thinking that from this they can signify the Word too as a work, as they please. But whoever calls God “Father” signifies him from the Son, knowing well that, since there is a Son, all originated things were necessarily created through the Son. And they, in saying “unoriginate,” signify him only from the works, and they themselves do not know the Son, just like the Greeks; but whoever calls God “Father” signifies him from the Word. And knowing the Word, he knows him to be creator, and understands that “through him all things came to be.”

34. So it would be more reverent and more true to signify God from the Son and call him “Father,” than to name him from his works only and call him “unoriginate.” For the latter, as I said, signifies only each of the works, and all of them together, that have come to be by God's will through the Word; but “Father” is said and stands fast only in relation to the Son. And as far as the Word surpasses things originated, so far and further would calling God “Father” surpass calling him “unoriginate.” For the latter is unscriptural and suspect, since it has various meanings, so that the mind of the one asked about it is carried round to many things; but “Father” is simple and scriptural, more true, and signifies the Son alone. And “unoriginate” was invented by the Greeks, who do not know the Son; but “Father” was made known and given to us by our Lord. For knowing whose Son he is, he said, “I am in the Father and the Father is in me,” and, “He who has seen me has seen the Father,” and, “I and the Father are one”; and nowhere does he himself appear calling the Father “unoriginate.” Rather, teaching us to pray, he did not say, “When you pray, say, O unoriginate God,” but rather, “When you pray, say, Our Father who art in heaven.” And he wished the sum of our faith to point to this, commanding us to be baptized, not into the name of unbegotten and originated, nor into the name of creator and creature, but “into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” For when we too are perfected in this way, though we are among the works, we are thereafter made sons; and when we say the name “Father,” we recognize from this name the Word also, who is in the Father himself. So their attempt concerning the word “unoriginate” has been shown to be vain, and to have nothing more than fantasy.

35. As for their asking whether “the Word is changeable,” it is superfluous to inquire into it; it is enough for me merely to write down what they say to show the daring of their impiety. For this is what they babble in the form of questions: “Is he free, or is he not? Is he good by choice, in accordance with his free will, and can he change if he wishes, being of a changeable nature? Or, like a stone or a piece of wood, does he not have a free choice to move and incline either way?” To say and think such things is not foreign to their heresy. For having once fashioned for themselves a god from nothing and a created son, they have consistently collected such phrases for themselves as fit a creature. But since, when they argue with members of the church and hear from them about the true and only Word of the Father, they dare to say such things about him, who could see a fouler doctrine than this? Who, merely hearing these things, even if he cannot answer, is not troubled and will not shut his ears, astonished at what they say and at hearing new words that carry blasphemy in their very utterance? For if the Word is changeable and altering, where will he stop, and what will be the end of his development? Or how can the changeable be like the unchangeable? How could anyone who “has seen” the changeable think that he has seen the unchangeable? In what condition must he come to be before one can see the Father in him? For it is clear that one will not always see the Father in him, because the Son is always changing and is of an altering nature. For the Father is unchangeable and unalterable, and is always the same and in the same state; but if the Son, according to them, is changeable, and not always the same, but of an ever-altering nature, how can such a one be the image of the Father, not having the likeness of his unchangeableness? And how is he “in the Father” at all, if his choice is uncertain? Perhaps too, being changeable and advancing daily, he is not yet complete. But let such madness of the Arians be gone, and let the truth shine and show them to be out of their minds. For how is he not complete who is equal to God? Or how is he not unchangeable who is one with the Father and is his Son, proper to his substance? And since the Father's substance is unchangeable, the proper offspring from it must also be unchangeable. But if, this being so, they falsely charge the Word with change, let them learn where their own reasoning is in danger; for “the tree is known by its fruit.” For this reason too “he who has seen the Son has seen the Father,” and the knowledge of the Son is knowledge of the Father.

36. So the image of the unchangeable God must be unalterable; for “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” And David, singing about him, says, “And you, Lord, in the beginning founded the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; and they will all grow old like a garment, and like a cloak you will roll them up, and they will be changed; but you are the same, and your years will not fail.” And the Lord himself says about himself through the prophet, “See me, see that I am,” and, “I have not changed.” Even if one can say that the meaning here refers to the Father, it also fits the Son to say this, especially because when he became man he shows his sameness and unchangeableness to those who think that because of the flesh he was altered and became something else. The saints, and still more the Lord, are more trustworthy than the malice of the impious. For in the passage of the hymn just quoted, Scripture, which says that the nature of all things originated and of the whole creation, signified by “heaven and earth,” is changeable and alterable, and excepts the Son from these, shows that he is in no way originated; indeed it teaches that he alters other things and is not himself altered, where it says, “But you are the same, and your years will not fail.” And rightly so. For things originated, being from nothing, and not existing before they come to be, have an altering nature, since they come to be when they were not; but the Son, being from the Father and proper to his substance, is unalterable and unchangeable, as the Father himself is. For it is not right to say that from the unchangeable substance a changeable word and an altering wisdom is begotten. For how is he still Word, if he is changeable? Or how is what alters still Wisdom? Unless, of course, they want him to be like an accident in a substance, as if in some particular substance a certain grace and habit of virtue had occurred, and this were so called Word and Son and Wisdom, so that it could be taken away from it and added to it. For they have often said such things, thinking in this way. But this is not the faith of Christians. For this does not show him to be truly the Word and Son of God, nor the wisdom to be true Wisdom. For how can what changes and alters, not standing fast in one and the same state, be true? But the Lord says, “I am the truth.” If, then, the Lord himself says this about himself and shows his unchangeableness, and the saints, having learned this, bear witness to it, and indeed our notions of God know this to be reverent, where did the impious devise these things? They vomited them out of their heart as out of corruption.

37. But since they allege the divine oracles as a pretext and force them into a false interpretation according to their own mind, it is necessary to answer them only so far as to vindicate the texts and to show that these have a right sense, while those men think wrongly. They say, then, that it is written in the apostle, “Therefore God also highly exalted him and granted him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth”; and in David, “Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your companions.” Then they add, as if saying something clever: “If he was exalted and received grace ‘therefore,’ and was anointed ‘therefore,’ he received a reward for his choice; and having acted by choice, he is certainly of a changeable nature.” Eusebius and Arius have dared not only to say but also to write these things, and their followers do not shrink from talking about them in the middle of the marketplace, not seeing what madness their argument contains. For if he received what he had as a reward for his choice, and would not have had it unless he had shown the work of one who needed it, then, having had these things from virtue and improvement, he was naturally called Son and God because of them, and is not a true Son. For what is from someone by nature is a true offspring, as Isaac was to Abraham, and Joseph to Jacob, and the radiance to the sun; but those so called from virtue and grace only have, instead of nature, the grace that comes from receiving, and are something other than what has been given them, like men who have received the Spirit by participation, about whom he also said, “I begot sons and raised them up, but they rejected me.” Of course, since they were not sons by nature, for that reason, when they changed, the Spirit was taken away and they were disowned; and again, when they repent, God, who gave them grace in this way at the beginning, will receive them, and giving them light will call them sons again.

38. If, then, they say this of the Savior too, he will be shown to be neither true, nor God, nor Son, nor like the Father, nor to have God at all as Father of his being according to substance, but only of the grace given him, while having God as creator of his being according to substance, like all things. And if he is such as they say, it will appear rather that he did not even have the name “Son” from the beginning, if indeed he had it as a prize for his works and his advance, and for no other advance than when he became man and took the form of a servant. For it is then, when “he became obedient to death,” that he is said to have been highly exalted and to have received the name as a grace, “so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow.” What, then, was he before this, if he was exalted only now, and only now began to be worshipped, and only now was called Son, when he became man? For he appears himself not to have improved the flesh at all, but rather to have been improved himself through it, if, according to their malice, he was exalted and called Son when he became man. What, then, was he before this? For one must ask them again, so that the end result of their impiety may be seen. For if the Lord is God, Son, Word, but was not these before he became man, then either he was something else besides these and later shared in them by virtue, as we have said; or, the other alternative (may it turn back on their own heads!), they must say that he did not even exist before this, but is wholly man by nature and nothing more. But this is not the mind of the church; it is the mind of the Samosatene and of the Jews of today. Why, then, if they think as they do, are they not circumcised like the Jews, instead of feigning Christianity and waging war on it? For if he was not, or was but was improved later, how did all things come to be through him? Or how did the Father delight in him, if he was not complete? And he himself, if he has been improved only now, how did he rejoice before this in the presence of the Father? And if he received worship after his death, how is Abraham seen worshipping him in the tent, and Moses in the bush? And, as Daniel saw, “ten thousand times ten thousands and thousands of thousands were serving him”? And if, according to them, he has received his improvement only now, how did the Son himself, recalling his glory before the world and above the world, say, “Glorify me, Father, with the glory that I had with you before the world existed”? If, according to them, he was exalted only now, how did he before this “bow the heavens and come down,” and again, “the Most High gave his voice”? So if the Son had glory even before the world came to be, and was “the Lord of glory” and Most High, and came down from heaven, and is always to be worshipped, then he was not improved by coming down, but rather he himself improved the things that needed improvement. And if he came down in order to improve them, he did not receive the title Son and God as a reward; rather he himself made us sons to the Father, and deified men by becoming man himself.

39. So he was not man first and later became God; but being God, he later became man, in order rather to deify us. For if he was called Son and God only when he became man, while before he became man God called the ancient peoples “sons,” and made Moses “god” to Pharaoh, and Scripture says of many, “God stood in the assembly of gods,” it is clear that he was called Son and God after them. How then are “all things through him,” and “he is before all things”? Or how is he “the firstborn of all creation,” if he has others called sons and gods before him? And how is it that the first sharers do not share in the Word? This opinion is not true; it is a pretext of the Judaizers of today. For how could anyone know God as Father at all? For there could be no adoption without the true Son, since he says, “No one knows the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son reveals him.” And how could there be deification without the Word and before him? Yet he said to their brothers the Jews, “If he called them gods to whom the Word of God came.” And if all who have been called sons and gods, whether on earth or in heaven, were adopted and deified through the Word, and the Son himself is the Word, it is clear that all are through him, but he himself is before all; or rather, he alone is true Son, and he alone is “true God from true God,” not having received these things as a reward for virtue, nor being something else besides them, but being these things by nature, according to substance. For he is the offspring of the Father's substance, so that no one can doubt that, in the likeness of the unchangeable Father, the Word too is unchangeable.

40. So far, using the conceptions that belong to the Son, we have met their irrational notions in the way the Lord himself has given us. But it is good next to set out the divine oracles as well, so that the Son's unchangeableness and his unalterable nature, which is the Father's, may be proved still further, and also their wrong-headedness. The apostle, then, writing to the Philippians, says: “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross. Therefore God also highly exalted him and granted him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” What could be clearer and more conclusive than this? He did not become better from a lower state; rather, “being” God, “he took the form of a servant,” and in taking it he was not improved, but “humbled himself.” Where, then, in these words is there a “reward of virtue,” or what advance and improvement is there in humbling oneself? For if, being God, he became man, and, having come down from on high, he is said to be “exalted,” where is he exalted, being God? It is clear again that, since God is Most High, his Word too must necessarily be most high. Where, then, could he be exalted further, he who is in the Father and “like the Father in all things”? So he has no need of any addition, and he is not as the Arians suppose. For if the Word came down in order to be exalted, and this is what is written, what need was there at all for him to humble himself, so as to seek to receive what he already had? And what grace did the giver of grace receive? Or how did he receive the name so as to be worshipped, he who is always worshipped in his name? Indeed, even before he became man, the saints call on him: “O God, save me by your name.” And again: “Some in chariots, and some in horses, but we will be magnified in the name of the Lord our God.” And he was worshipped by the patriarchs; and of the angels it is written, “And let all the angels of God worship him.”

41. And if, as David sings in the seventy-first psalm, “His name endures before the sun, and before the moon to generations of generations,” how did he receive what he always had, even before he now received it? Or how is he exalted who was most high even before he was exalted? Or how did he receive being worshipped, who was always worshipped even before he now received it? It is not a riddle, but a divine mystery. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”; but later, for our sakes, this “Word became flesh.” And what is now said, “he highly exalted,” does not signify that the substance of the Word is exalted, for he always was and is “equal to God”; the exaltation belongs to the humanity. These things are not said, then, before the Word became flesh, so that it may be clear that “he humbled” and “he highly exalted” are said of what is human. For what is humble is also what can be exalted; and if “he humbled” is written because of his taking of the flesh, it is clear that “he highly exalted” is because of it too. For man was in need of this, because of the lowliness of the flesh and of death. Since, then, the Word, being the image of the Father and immortal, “took the form of a servant,” and for our sake as man endured death in his own flesh, so that in this way he might offer himself for us through death to the Father, for this reason he is also said, as man, to be highly exalted because of us and for us, so that, just as by his death we all died in Christ, so in Christ himself we might in turn be highly exalted, being raised from the dead and going up into heaven, “where Jesus has entered as a forerunner on our behalf, not into copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.” And if Christ has now entered heaven itself for us, although even before this and always he was Lord and maker of the heavens, then the exaltation too is now written for us. And just as he who sanctifies all says again to the Father that he “sanctifies himself for us,” not so that the Word may become holy, but so that he himself in himself may sanctify all of us, so also what is now said, “he highly exalted him,” is not so that he himself may be exalted (for he is most high), but so that he may “become righteousness” for us, and we may be exalted in him and enter the gates of heaven, which he in turn opened for us, while those who run before him say, “Lift up your gates, you rulers, and be lifted up, you eternal gates, and the King of glory shall come in.” For here too the gates were not shut to him, who is Lord and maker of all things; this too is written because of us, to whom the door of paradise was shut. So in a human way, because of the flesh he bore, “Lift up the gates” and “shall come in” are said of him, as of a man entering; but in a divine way it is said of him in turn, since “the Word is God,” that he is the Lord and the King of glory. The Spirit foretold such an exaltation, happening to us, in the eighty-eighth psalm, saying, “And in your righteousness they will be exalted, for you are the boast of their strength.” And if the Son is righteousness, then it is not he who is exalted as being in need, but we who are exalted in the righteousness, which is he.