Oration I Against the Arians 52–61

52. So here too, you Arians, this suspicion of yours has come to nothing, and you have alleged the words of the Scriptures in vain. For the Word of God is unchangeable, and is always the same, not in any ordinary way, but as the Father is. For how is he like the Father, if he is not so? Or how are “all things of the Father the Son's,” if he does not have the Father's unchangeableness and unalterableness too? He does not love one thing and hate the other as one subject to laws and able to incline either way, lest, choosing the one for fear of falling, he be brought in again as changeable in another way; but, being God and the Word of the Father, he is a just judge and a lover of virtue, or rather the supplier of virtue. Being righteous and holy by nature, then, he is therefore said to “love righteousness and hate iniquity,” which is the same as saying that he loves and takes to himself the virtuous, and turns away from and hates the unrighteous. For the divine Scriptures say the same of the Father: “The Lord is righteous and has loved righteousness,” and, “You have hated all who work lawlessness,” and, “He loves the gates of Zion, but does not greatly regard the dwellings of Jacob,” and, “Jacob he loved, but Esau he hated”; and according to Isaiah it is again the voice of God saying, “I am the Lord, who loves righteousness and hates robbery from iniquity.” So either let them take those words like these (for those too are written of the image of God), or, misunderstanding these like those, let them imagine the Father too to be changeable. But if even to hear others say this is not without danger, then we rightly understand God's being said to “love righteousness and hate robbery from iniquity,” not as though he could incline either way and were capable of the opposite, so as to choose this and not choose that (for this is proper to things originated), but that, as judge, he loves and takes to himself the righteous and stays far from the wicked. It would follow to think the same about the image of God, that he loves and hates in this way. For the nature of the image must be such as its Father is, even if the Arians, like blind men, see neither this nor anything else in the divine oracles. For having fallen away from the notions of their heart, or rather their delusions, they take refuge again in texts of the divine Scriptures; and in these too, being as usual without perception, they do not see the meaning in them. Rather, setting up their own impiety as a kind of rule, they twist all the divine oracles to fit it. Merely for uttering them they deserve to hear nothing else but, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.” And if they persist, they deserve to be put to shame again and to hear, “Give to man the things that are man's, and to God the things that are God's.”

53. They say, then, that it is written in the Proverbs, “The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways, for his works”; and in the letter to the Hebrews, where the apostle says, “having become so much better than the angels, as he has inherited a more excellent name than they”; and a little later, “Therefore, holy brothers, sharers in a heavenly calling, consider the apostle and high priest of our confession, Jesus, who was faithful to him who made him”; and in the Acts, “Let all the house of Israel therefore know that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” Bringing these texts up and down and going astray about their meaning, they have supposed from them that the Word of God is “a creature and a work and one of the things originated.” And so they deceive the thoughtless, putting forward the texts as a pretext, but sowing instead of the true meaning the poison of their own heresy. For “if they had known,” they would not have acted impiously toward “the Lord of glory,” nor misinterpreted what was well written. If, then, openly taking up the way of Caiaphas, they have decided to Judaize, so as not to know what is written, that “God will truly dwell on the earth,” let them not examine the apostolic words, for this is not the Jews' way. But if, mixing themselves with the godless Manichaeans, they deny that “the Word became flesh” and his coming in the flesh, let them not bring forward the Proverbs, for this too is foreign to the Manichaeans. But if, because of their position and the gain of avarice they have had from it, and because of their love of reputation, they do not dare to deny that “the Word became flesh,” since it is written, then either let them understand the words written about it rightly, of the Savior's coming in the body, or, if they deny the meaning, let them deny that the Lord became man at all. For it is unfitting to confess that “the Word became flesh” but to blush at what is written about him, and for that reason to corrupt its meaning.

54. For it is written, “having become so much better than the angels.” This must be examined first. And here, as it is fitting and necessary to do with all divine Scripture, one must faithfully take into account the time at which the apostle spoke, the person, and the matter about which he wrote, so that the reader, through ignorance of these or of anything else of the kind, may not fall outside the true meaning. The studious eunuch knew this when he asked Philip, “I beg you, about whom does the prophet say this? About himself or about someone else?” For he was afraid that, taking the reading of the wrong person, he might stray from the right meaning. And the disciples, wishing to learn the time of what was said, asked the Lord, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what is the sign of your coming?” Hearing from the Savior about the end, they wished to learn the time too, so that they themselves might not go astray and might be able to teach others. And having learned, they set right the Thessalonians, who were about to go astray. When, then, someone has a right knowledge of such things, he has a right and sound understanding of the faith; but if someone takes any of these wrongly, he at once falls into heresy. Thus Hymenaeus and Alexander and their followers erred about the time, “saying that the resurrection had already happened”; and the Galatians erred after the time, loving circumcision now. And the Jews have erred about the person, and still do, thinking that “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which means, God with us” is said of one of themselves; and when they think that “God will raise up a prophet for us” is said of one of the prophets; and when, not learning from Philip, they suppose that “He was led as a sheep to the slaughter” is said of Isaiah or of some other of the former prophets.

55. The fighters against Christ, having suffered the same thing, have fallen into a loathsome heresy. For if they had known the person, the matter, and the time of the apostle's saying, these senseless men would not have committed so great an impiety by taking what is human as referring to the Godhead. This can be seen if one takes the beginning of the passage rightly. For the apostle says, “Having spoken long ago to the fathers by the prophets in many parts and many ways, God has in these last days spoken to us by a Son”; then a little later he says, “having made purification for our sins by himself, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become so much better than the angels, as he has inherited a more excellent name than they.” So the apostle's saying refers to the time when “he spoke to us by a Son,” when also “purification of sins” took place. And when did he speak to us by a Son? And when did purification of sins take place? And when did he become man, but after the prophets, “in the last days”? Then, since his account concerns the economy on our behalf, and he is speaking of the last times, he consistently mentions that God was not silent toward men in the former times either; for he spoke to them “by the prophets.” And since the prophets ministered, and “the law was spoken through angels,” and the Son too came among us and “came to serve,” he necessarily added, “having become so much better than the angels,” wishing to show that, as far as a son differs from a servant, so far the Son's ministry has become better than the ministry of the servants. Distinguishing, then, the old ministry and the new, the apostle speaks boldly, writing to Jews and saying, “having become so much better than the angels.” For this reason he did not speak comparatively at all, saying “greater” or “more honored,” lest anyone think of him and them as of the same kind; but he said “better,” to make known the difference of the Son's nature from things begotten. We have the proof of this from the divine Scriptures, since David sings, “One day in your courts is better than thousands,” and Solomon cries out, “Take instruction and not silver, and knowledge rather than tested gold; for wisdom is better than precious stones, and nothing precious is worthy of her.” For how are wisdom and stones from the earth not of different substance and different in nature? What kinship is there between the heavenly courts and houses on earth? Or what likeness do temporal and mortal things have to eternal and spiritual ones? And this is what Isaiah says: “Thus says the Lord to the eunuchs, as many as keep my sabbaths and choose what I will and hold fast to my covenant: I will give them in my house and within my wall a named place; better than sons and daughters, I will give them an eternal name, and it will not fail.” So there is no kinship at all between the Son and the angels; and since there is no kinship, “better” was not said by way of comparison, but by way of distinction, because of the difference of his nature from theirs. And the apostle himself, interpreting “better,” places it in nothing else than the difference of the Son from things originated, saying that he is Son but they are servants; and he, as Son, “sits at the right hand” with the Father, while they, as servants, stand by and “are sent” and minister.

56. When these things are written in this way, you Arians, the Son is not signified by them as originated, but rather as other than things originated and proper to the Father, being in his bosom. For the word written here, “having become,” does not signify either that the Son is originated, as you think. If he had simply said “having become” and stopped, the Arians would have had a pretext. But since he had already spoken of the “Son,” having shown through the whole passage that he is other than things originated, he did not put “having become” by itself, but joined “better” to “having become.” For he considered the word indifferent, knowing that, in the case of one admitted to be a genuine Son, whoever says “having become” is saying the same as that he “has been” and that he is “better.” For with what is begotten it makes no difference whether one says “he has become” or “he has been made”; but things originated, being works of creation, cannot be called “begotten,” except that afterwards, having shared in the begotten Son, they too are said to have been begotten, not because of their own nature, but because of their participation in the Son in the Spirit. The divine Scripture knows this too. Of things originated it says, “All things came to be through him, and without him not one thing came to be,” and, “In wisdom you made all things”; but of sons who are begotten, “There came to be to Job seven sons and three daughters,” and, “Abraham was a hundred years old when Isaac his son came to be to him”; and Moses said, “If sons come to be to anyone.” So if the Son is other than things originated, and is the only proper offspring of the Father's substance, the Arians' pretext about “having become” has been made void. And if, put to shame on these points, they force themselves to say again that “the texts are spoken by way of comparison, and that therefore the things compared are of the same kind, so that the Son is of the nature of the angels,” they will be put to shame first of all for emulating and repeating the views of Valentinus, Carpocrates, and the other heretics, of whom the former said that the angels are of the same kind as Christ, and Carpocrates says that angels are the makers of the world. Perhaps these men too have learned from them to compare the Word of God with the angels.

57. But they will be put to shame for imagining such things by the hymn-writer, who says, “Who will be likened to the Lord among the sons of God?” and, “Who is like you among the gods, O Lord?” Yet let them hear, if even so they may learn, that comparisons are admittedly made between things of the same kind, and not between things of different kinds. No one would compare God with man, nor again man with irrational animals, nor wood with stones, because of the unlikeness of their nature; God is something beyond comparison, while man is compared with man, wood with wood, and stone with stone. And in such cases one would not say “better,” but “rather” and “more.” So Joseph was handsome rather than his brothers, and Rachel than Leah; and “star” is not “better” than “star,” but rather “differs in glory.” But in things of different kinds, when one sets them beside each other, then “better” is said to mark the difference, as was said about wisdom and stones. If, then, the apostle had said, “the Son surpasses the angels by so much more,” or, “is so much greater,” you would have had a pretext, as if the Son were being compared with the angels. But as it is, by saying that he is “better” and “differs as much” as a son stands apart from servants, he shows that he is other than the nature of the angels. And again, by saying that he is the one who “laid the foundation” of all things, he shows that he is other than all things originated. And since he is other and of a different substance from the nature of things originated, what comparison or likeness of his substance to things originated can there be? For if they should again think of anything of the kind, Paul will refute them, saying the same: “For to which of the angels did he ever say, ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you’? And of the angels he says, ‘Who makes his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.’”

58. See: of things originated he says “being made,” and that they are works; but to the Son he speaks not of making or of coming to be, but of eternity, kingship, and being creator, saying, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,” and, “You, Lord, in the beginning founded the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands. They will perish, but you remain.” From these words even they could see, if they wished, that the one who creates is one thing and the things created another; he is God, they are originated, made from nothing. For what is said now, “they will perish,” is not said as though the creation will come to destruction, but to show the nature of originated things from their end. For things that can perish, even if they do not perish because of the grace of their maker, have nevertheless come to be “from nothing,” and bear witness that they “once were not.” For this reason, since these have such a nature, “but you remain” is said of the Son, to show his eternity. For since he does not have the capacity to perish, as originated things have, but has always remaining, it is foreign to him to be called “he was not before he was begotten,” but proper to him to be always and to remain with the Father. If the apostle had not written these things in the letter to the Hebrews, then from his other letters and from all Scripture they would truly have been prevented from imagining any such thing about the Word. But since he himself wrote it, and it has been shown above that the Son is the offspring of the Father's substance; that he is creator, and other things are created by him; that he is the radiance, Word, image, and Wisdom of the Father, while things originated stand somewhere below the Trinity and serve; then the Son is of a different kind and a different substance from things originated, and is rather proper to the Father's substance and of one nature with it. For this reason the Son himself did not say, “My Father is better than I,” lest anyone suppose him foreign to his nature, but said “greater,” not in any size or in time, but because of his begetting from the Father himself; yet in saying “greater” he again showed that he is proper to his substance.

59. And the apostle himself, when he said, “having become so much better than the angels,” did not primarily wish to compare the substance of the Word with things originated, for it cannot be compared, or rather they are altogether different. But looking to the Word's coming in the flesh and the economy he then carried out, he wished to show that he was not like those who had come before, so that, as much as he differs in nature from those sent before him, so much more the grace that came from him and through him might be better than the ministry through angels. For it belonged to servants only to demand the fruits, but to the Son and master to forgive the debts and to transfer the vineyard. And what the apostle adds shows the difference of the Son from things originated, when he says: “Therefore we must pay closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away. For if the word spoken through angels proved firm, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty, how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? It was first spoken through the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard him.” But if the Son were one of the things originated, he would not have been “better” than them, nor would a greater punishment be laid up for “disobedience” because of him. For in the ministry of the angels there was no greater and lesser guilt for transgressors according to each angel; the law was one, and one the penalty against transgressors. But since the Word is not one of the things originated, but the Son of the Father, therefore, as much as he is better and what is done through him is better and different, so much worse would the punishment be. Let them look, then, at the grace given through the Son, and recognize that he is witnessed also by his works to be other than things originated, and alone true Son, “in the Father, and the Father in him.” The law “was spoken through angels” and “made no one perfect,” needing the coming of the Word, as Paul said; but the coming of the Word “completed the work” of the Father. And then “death reigned from Adam to Moses”; but the Word's coming “abolished death”; and no longer “in Adam do we all die,” but “in Christ we are all made alive.” And then the law was proclaimed from Dan to Beersheba, and “in Judea alone was God known”; but now “their voice has gone out into all the earth,” and “all the earth has been filled with the knowledge of God,” and the disciples “have made disciples of all nations,” and now what is written is fulfilled: “They shall all be taught by God.” And then what was shown was a type, but now the truth has been revealed. And the apostle himself explains this more clearly afterwards, saying, “By so much Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant”; and again, “But now he has obtained a more excellent ministry, as he is also mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises”; and, “For the law made nothing perfect, but a better hope was brought in.” And again he says, “It was necessary, then, for the copies of the things in heaven to be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.” So here and throughout he ascribes “better” to the Lord, who is better and other than things originated. For better is the sacrifice through him, better the hope in him, and the promises through him, not as great things compared with small ones, but as things different in nature from others, since the one who carried out this economy is better than things originated.

60. And the saying “he has become guarantor” again signifies the guarantee given by him on our behalf. For as, being the Word, he “became flesh,” and we attribute the “becoming” to the flesh (for it is originated and created), so here too we must take “he has become” in a secondary sense, because he became man. And let the contentious know that they fall away from this malicious idea of theirs as well. Let them hear that Paul, who knew him as Son, Wisdom, radiance, and image of the Father, does not signify that his substance came to be; here too he refers “becoming” to the ministry of the covenant, by which death, which once “reigned,” “was abolished.” For in this respect too the ministry through him has become better: “what the law could not do, because it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin: he condemned sin in the flesh,” removing from it the transgression by which it was always held captive, so that it could not receive the divine mind. And having made the flesh capable of receiving the Word, he has made us “no longer walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit,” and say again and again, “But we are not in the flesh but in the Spirit”; and that the Son of God came “into the world, not to judge the world, but” to redeem all, and “that the world might be saved through him.” For then the world, as liable, was judged by the law; but now the Word has taken the judgment on himself, and, having suffered in the body for all, has granted salvation to all. Seeing this, John cried out, “The law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” And grace is better than the law, and truth than the shadow.

61. So the “better,” as has been said, could not have come about through anyone else but the Son, “who sits at the right hand of the Father.” And what does this signify but the Son's genuineness, and that the Godhead of the Father is the Son's? For since the Son reigns with the Father's kingdom, he sits on the same throne as the Father; and being contemplated in the Father's Godhead, “the Word is God,” and “whoever sees the Son sees the Father”; and so there is one God. Sitting at the right hand, then, he does not make the Father left; but whatever is right and honorable in the Father, the Son also has, and he says, “All that the Father has is mine.” For this reason the Son, sitting at the right hand, also sees the Father at the right hand, even though, having become man, he says, “I saw the Lord always before me, for he is at my right hand, that I may not be shaken.” For in this too it is shown that the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son. For since the Father is on the right, the Son is on the right; and since the Son sits at the right hand, the Father is in the Son. And the angels minister, going up and coming down; but of the Son it says, “And let all the angels of God worship him.” And when angels minister, they say, “I was sent to you,” and, “The Lord commanded”; but the Son, even though he says in a human way, “I was sent,” and comes “to complete the work” and “to serve,” nevertheless says, as being Word and image, “I am in the Father, and the Father is in me,” and, “He who has seen me has seen the Father,” and, “The Father who dwells in me does the works”; for what one contemplates in this image are the works of the Father. These things are enough to shame those who fight against the truth itself. But if, because it is written “having become better,” they do not want to hear “having become,” said of a Son, as equal to “having been” and “is,” nor to take and understand “having become” of the better ministry that came about, as we have said, but think that by this word the Word is called originated, let them hear these things again briefly, since they have forgotten what has been said.