Oration II Against the Arians 1–10

I for my part supposed that the play-actors of Arius's madness would be satisfied with the refutations set out against them before this, and with the demonstrations concerning the truth, and that they would at last stop and repent of what they had wickedly thought and said about the Saviour. But they, I do not know how, do not shrink back even so; like swine and dogs wallowing about “their own vomit” and their own “mire,” they rather invent for themselves fresh devices for impiety. Not understanding what is written in the Proverbs, “The Lord created me a beginning of his ways for his works,” or what was said by the apostle, “being faithful to him who made him,” they simply contend, saying that the Son of God is “a work and a creature.” From what was said before they ought to have been able to see, unless they have completely lost even their senses, that, as the truth bears witness, the Son is not from things that are not, nor at all among things that have come into being; for being God, he cannot be a work, nor is it right to call him a creature. For it is proper to creatures and works to be spoken of as “from things that are not” and “he was not before he was begotten.” But since, as if afraid to depart from their own myth-making, they habitually put forward the sayings of the divine Scriptures mentioned above, which are well written but have been twisted by them, come, let us take up again the sense of those passages, to remind the faithful and to show these men from each of them that they do not know Christianity at all. For if they knew it, they would not “shut themselves up” in the unbelief of the Jews of today, but would ask and learn that “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”; and that when, the Father being well pleased, the Word himself became man, then it was fittingly said of him by John, “The Word became flesh,” and by Peter, “He made him Lord and Christ,” and through Solomon, as from the Lord himself, “The Lord created me a beginning of his ways for his works,” and by Paul, “having become so much better than the angels,” and again, “he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant,” and once more, “Therefore, holy brothers, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider the apostle and high priest of our confession, Jesus, being faithful to him who made him.” All such sayings have the same force and a sense that looks to piety, showing both the divinity of the Word and the things said of him in human fashion because he has also become son of man. And although these things are enough to prove the case against them, nevertheless, since they do not understand what the apostle says (to mention this first) and think that the Word of God is one of the works because it is written, “being faithful to him who made him,” I have thought it necessary to put them to shame once more for saying this, as we did also in what went before, taking the premise from them.

If, then, he is not Son, let him be called a work too; let everything that is predicated of works be predicated of him as well; and let him alone not be called Son, not Word, not Wisdom; and let God himself not be called Father, but only maker and creator of the things made by him. Let creation be the image and impress of his creative will, while he himself, as they would have it, is not of a begetting nature, so that there is neither Word nor Wisdom nor any image at all of his own substance. For if there is no Son, there is no image either. But if there is no Son, how then do you say that God is creator, since all things that come into being come into being “through the Word” and “in wisdom,” and without him nothing could come into being, and yet according to you he does not have that in which and through which he makes all things? And if the divine substance itself is not fruitful but barren, as they hold, like a light that does not shine and a dried-up spring, how are they not ashamed to say that he has creative energy? And when they do away with what is by nature, how do they not blush to want what is by will to take precedence? If he creates things that are outside him and did not exist before, by willing them to be, and becomes their maker, much more would he first be Father of an offspring from his own substance. For if they grant to God the willing of things that are not, why do they not acknowledge in God what lies above will? And it surpasses will that he is by nature, and is, Father of his own Word. If, then, the prior, which is by nature, did not exist, as their folly holds, how could the second, which is by will, come to be? The Word is prior, and creation second. But the Word exists, however much more the impious may dare; for creation came into being “through him”; and it would be clear that God, being a maker, has his creative Word also not from outside but as his own; for the same thing must be said again. If he has the power of willing, and his will is productive, and his will suffices to establish the things that come to be, and the Word is his productive agent and craftsman, there is no doubt that he is the living counsel of the Father, and the substantial energy, and the true Word, in whom all things both hold together and are well governed. No one would even doubt that the one who harmonizes comes before the harmony and the things harmonized. And, as I said before, God's creating is second to his begetting. For the Son is proper to that blessed and ever-existing substance and truly from it; but the things that come from its will are established from outside and are crafted through the offspring that is its own and from it.

Therefore, since the argument shows great absurdity against those who say that the Son of God is not Son but a work, we must now agree that the Lord is Son. And if he is Son, as indeed he is, and it is agreed that a son is not from outside but from the one who begets, let them not quarrel over words, as I said before, if in the case of the Word himself the saints use “to him who made” instead of “to him who begot,” as though the word were indifferent in such cases, so long as what is by nature is acknowledged. For words do not take away the nature; rather the nature draws the words to itself and changes them. Words are not prior to substances; the substances come first and the words second. Therefore, when the substance is a work or a creature, then “he made,” “it came to be,” and “he created” are said of such things in the proper sense and signify the work. But when the substance is an offspring and a son, then “he made,” “it came to be,” and “he created” are no longer used of him in the proper sense, nor do they signify a work; rather one uses the word “he made” indifferently in place of “he begot.” Fathers, at any rate, often call the sons born of them their “servants” and do not deny the genuineness of their nature; and often, being affectionate toward their own servants, they call them “children” and do not conceal how they first acquired them; the one they say with authority, as fathers, the other they say out of kindness. Sarah, for instance, “called Abraham lord,” though she was not a servant but a wife; the apostle joined Onesimus the servant to Philemon, his owner, as a “brother”; and Bathsheba, though she was his mother, called her son a “servant,” saying to his father, “your servant Solomon”; then Nathan the prophet came in and said the same thing to David as she had, “Solomon your servant.” And it did not trouble them to call the son a “servant”; for David, hearing it, recognized the nature, and they in speaking so were not ignorant of his genuineness. Indeed they asked that the one they called a servant should become his father's heir; for he was by nature David's son.

As, then, when we read these things we understand them rightly, and on hearing Solomon called “servant” we do not think that he is a servant but a genuine son by nature, so too, if the saints say of the Saviour, who is truly acknowledged to be Son and is Word by nature, “being faithful to him who made him,” or if he says of himself, “The Lord created me,” and “I am your servant and the son of your handmaid,” and the like, let no one on that account deny that he is proper to the Father and from him; but, as with Solomon and David, let them think rightly about the Father and the Son. Otherwise, if when they hear Solomon called “servant” they acknowledge him as son, how do they not deserve to perish many times over, since they do not keep the same understanding in the case of the Lord? When they hear “offspring,” and “Word,” and “Wisdom,” they strain to misinterpret and deny the Son's natural and genuine generation from the Father; but when they hear words and expressions about a “work,” they are at once carried away into thinking that the Son is by nature a work, and they deny the Word, though they could refer all such expressions to his humanity, because he has become man. How then are they too not shown to be “an abomination” to the Lord, keeping “double weights” with them, reckoning in one way in the one case and blaspheming the Lord in the other? But perhaps they allow that “servant” is said by way of a relationship, not of nature, but hold on to “to him who made” as some great support for their heresy. Yet this prop too is a broken reed for them; for they will at once condemn themselves if they learn the idiom of Scripture. For just as Solomon is called “servant” though he is a son, so, to repeat what was said earlier, even if parents speak of the sons who spring from them as “made,” “created,” and “come to be,” they no less do not deny their nature. Hezekiah, at any rate, as is written in Isaiah, said in his prayer, “For from this day I will make children, who will declare your righteousness, O Lord of my salvation.” He said, “I will make”; but the prophet, both in that very book and in the fourth book of Kingdoms, speaks thus: “and your sons, who will come forth from you.” So he said “I will make” instead of “I will beget,” and speaks of those who spring from him as made. And no one disputes that the word concerns natural offspring. Eve too, when she bore Cain, said, “I have acquired a man through God.” So she too said “I have acquired” instead of “I have borne.” For she first saw the birth and afterwards said “I have acquired.” And no one would suppose, because of “I have acquired,” that Cain was bought from outside and not born from her. The patriarch Jacob also said to Joseph, “Now then, your two sons who came to be to you in Egypt before I came to you into Egypt are mine, Ephraim and Manasseh.” And Scripture says of Job, “There came to be to him seven sons and three daughters,” just as Moses too said in the law, “If sons come to be to anyone,” and, “if he makes a son.”

See again how they have spoken of those who were begotten as “come to be” and “made,” knowing that so long as they are acknowledged to be sons, it makes no difference whether one says “they came to be,” or “I acquired,” or “I made.” For the nature and the truth draw the meaning to themselves. Therefore, with those who ask whether the Lord is a creature and a work, one must first ask whether he is Son, and Word, and Wisdom. For once these are proved, the suspicion of a work and a creature is at once thrown out and ceases; for a work could not be Son and Word, nor could the Son be a work. And since this is so, the proof is plain to all that the expression “to him who made him” is of no help to their heresy but rather condemns it. For it has been shown that the expression “he made” is used in the divine Scripture even of genuine children, children by nature; hence, since the Lord is proved to be by nature the genuine Son, Word, and Wisdom of the Father, even if “he made” or “he came to be” is said of him, it is not said as though he were a work, but the saints use the word indifferently, as in the case of Solomon and of Hezekiah's children. For though these too were begotten from their parents themselves, it is written “I made,” and “I acquired,” and “came to be.” Therefore the fighters against God, who have so often put forward such little phrases as a pretext, ought even at this late hour, in view of what has been said, to put away their impious thinking and to think of the Lord that he is true Son, Word and Wisdom of the Father, not a work, not a creature. For if the Son is a work, in what word and in what wisdom did he himself come to be? For all the works came to be through the Word and the Wisdom, as it is written, “In wisdom you made all things,” and “All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being.” But if he himself is the Word and the Wisdom in which all things come to be, then he is not among the things made, nor at all among things that have come into being, but is the Father's offspring.

Consider how great a fall there is in calling the Word of God a work. Solomon says somewhere in Ecclesiastes that “God will bring every work into judgment, with every overlooked thing, whether good or evil.” If, then, the Word is a work, will he too, on your view, be brought into judgment? And where then is the judgment, if the judge is being judged? Who will give the blessings to the righteous and the penalties to the unworthy, if on your view the Lord stands in judgment with everyone else? And by what law will the lawgiver himself be judged? These things are proper to works: to be judged, to be blessed and rebuked by the Son. Fear the judge, then, and be persuaded by what Solomon says. For if God will bring every work into judgment, and the Son is not among those who are judged but is rather himself the judge of all the works, how is it not shown more brightly than the sun that the Son is not a work but the Father's Word, in whom the works both come to be and are judged? But if, because it is written “being faithful,” they are troubled again, thinking that “faithful” is said of him as of everyone, namely that by believing he awaits the reward of faith, it is time on that account to accuse Moses too, who says, “God is faithful and true,” and Paul, who writes, “God is faithful, who will not let you be tempted beyond what you are able.” But when the saints said these things they did not think of God in a human way; they knew that “faithful” has a twofold sense in Scripture: the one, believing; the other, trustworthy; and that the one fits human beings, the other God. Abraham, at any rate, is faithful because he believed God when he spoke; but God is faithful because, as David sings, “The Lord is faithful in all his words,” and he is trustworthy, and “it is impossible for him to lie.” And “if any faithful woman has widows,” she is called faithful because she believes rightly. But “the saying is faithful” because what it has said ought to be believed; for it is true and not otherwise. So too, that it is written, “being faithful to him who made him,” does not imply likeness to others, nor that by believing he became well-pleasing, but that, being Son of the true God, he too is faithful and ought to be believed in whatever he says and does, himself remaining unchangeable and not altered in the human economy and the presence in the flesh.

In this way, then, meeting their shamelessness, one can refute them even from the single expression “he made,” as they err in thinking that the Word of God is a work. But since the sense of what is written is also correct, showing when and for what purpose the expression “he made” is used, it is necessary to show the senselessness of the heretics from that too, especially if, as we said earlier, we grasp the occasion and the purpose of this passage too. The apostle did not say these things when narrating what was before creation, but of when “the Word became flesh”; for it is written thus: “Therefore, holy brothers, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider the apostle and high priest of our confession, Jesus, being faithful to him who made him.” When, then, was he sent, if not when he put on our flesh? And when did he become “high priest of our confession,” if not when, having offered himself for us, he raised the body from the dead, and now himself brings near and presents to the Father those who approach him in faith, redeeming all and making propitiation for all in the things that pertain to God? So it was not to signify the substance of the Word, or his natural generation from the Father, that the apostle said, “being faithful to him who made him” (God forbid! for the Word is the maker, not himself made), but to signify his descent to human beings and the high priesthood that came about, which one may see clearly from the account of Aaron in the law. Aaron was not born high priest but a man, and after a time, when God willed, he became high priest; and he became so not simply, nor recognized by his ordinary clothes, but by putting on over them the ephod, the breastpiece, and the long robe, which the women made at God's command; wearing these he entered the holy place and offered the sacrifice for the people; and in these he mediated, as it were, between the vision of God and the sacrifices of men. So too the Lord: “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”; but when the Father willed that a ransom be given for all and grace be granted to all, then indeed the Word, as Aaron took the long robe, himself took flesh from the earth, having Mary as mother of his body in place of the untilled earth, so that, having in himself what was to be offered, he might as high priest offer himself to the Father, cleanse us all from sins by his own blood, and raise us from the dead.

For the things of old were a shadow of this; and what the Saviour did when he came, Aaron sketched in outline according to the law. As, then, Aaron, remaining the same, was not changed when he put on the high-priestly vesture, but remaining the same was only covered; and if someone who saw him offering said, “See, Aaron has become high priest today,” he did not mean that he had then become a man (for he was a man even before he became high priest), but that he had been made high priest by his ministry, having put on the garments made and prepared for the high priesthood; in the same way it is possible to understand rightly in the case of the Lord too that he did not become someone else by taking the flesh, but, being the same, was covered with it; and “he became” and “he has been made” must not be taken to mean that the Word, as Word, has been made, but that the Word, being the craftsman, was afterwards made high priest, having put on a body that came into being and was made, which he could also offer for us; that is why he is said to have been made. If, then, the Lord did not become man, let the Arians fight; but if “the Word became flesh,” what should have been said of one who had become man except “being faithful to him who made him”? For as it is proper to say of the Word, “In the beginning was the Word,” so it is proper to human beings to come to be and to be made. Who, seeing the Lord walking about as a man and shown to be God by his works, would not have asked, “Who made this man?” And who again, asked this, would not have answered, “The Father made him man and sent him to us as high priest”? This sense, and the occasion, and the person, the apostle himself who wrote “being faithful to him who made him” is better able to make plain, if we take what comes before; for it is one continuous passage, and the reading concerns the same person. He writes in the letter to the Hebrews as follows: “Since, then, the children share in blood and flesh, he himself likewise partook of the same things, so that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and set free all those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives. For surely it is not angels that he takes hold of, but he takes hold of the seed of Abraham. Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the things that pertain to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted. Therefore, holy brothers, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider the apostle and high priest of our confession, Jesus, being faithful to him who made him.”

Who, reading this whole passage, does not condemn the Arians and admire the blessed apostle for having spoken well? For when was he “made,” and when did he become “apostle,” if not when “he likewise partook with us of blood and flesh”? And when did he become “a merciful and faithful high priest,” if not when “he was made like his brothers in every respect”? He was made like them then, when he became man, putting on our flesh. So Paul, writing about the Word's economy as man, said “being faithful to him who made him,” and not about the substance of the Word. Stop raving, then, and saying that the Word of God is a work. For he is by nature the only-begotten Son. He had brothers then, when he put on flesh like ours; offering this himself, through himself, he was named high priest and became merciful and faithful: merciful, because by offering himself for us he had mercy on us; faithful, not as sharing in faith or believing in someone as we do, but as one who ought to be believed in whatever he says and does, and because he offers a faithful sacrifice, one that abides and does not fail. For the sacrifices offered according to the law did not have this faithfulness, since they passed away day by day and needed cleansing again; but the Saviour's sacrifice, made once, “has perfected” everything and has become faithful, abiding for ever. Aaron had successors, and in general the priesthood under the law passed the earlier holders by through time and death; but the Lord, having a high priesthood “that does not pass away” and “has no successor,” has become a faithful high priest, remaining for ever, and has become faithful to his promise, so as to hear and not to mislead those who come to him. This can be learned again from the letter of the great Peter, who says, “So let those also who suffer according to the will of God entrust their souls to a faithful creator.” For he is faithful, not changing but abiding for ever, and rendering what he has promised.

The so-called gods of the Greeks, falsely named, are faithful neither in their being nor in their promises; for they are not the same everywhere, but even the local ones perish with time and waste away of themselves; that is why the word cries out against them that “faith has not prevailed” among them, and “they are deceitful water,” and “there is no faith in them.” But the God of all, who alone truly and really is, and is true, is faithful, being the same and saying, “See me, see that I am,” and “I have not changed.” Therefore his Son too is faithful, being for ever and not changing, nor proving false either in his being or in his promising, as again the apostle, writing to the Thessalonians, says, “Faithful is he who calls you, who will also do it”; for in doing what he promises he is faithful to what he says. And to the Hebrews, concerning the fact that this word also means unchangeableness, he writes thus: “If we are faithless, he remains faithful; he cannot deny himself.” So it is fitting that the apostle, narrating the bodily presence of the Word, says “apostle and being faithful to him who made him,” showing that even having become man, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever,” unchangeable. And as the apostle in writing mentions his becoming man by way of the high priesthood, so again he did not keep silent long, but at once mentions his divinity, everywhere guarding against error, especially where he names what is lowly, so that we may at once recognize his loftiness and his Father's majesty. He says, at any rate, “Moses was a servant, but Christ a Son; and the one was faithful in the house, but this one over the house,” as having himself built it, being its Lord and craftsman, and as God sanctifying it. For Moses, being by nature a man, became faithful by believing God, who spoke to him through the Word; but the Word was not in a body as one of the things that have come into being, nor as a creature among creatures, but as God in the flesh, and craftsman, and builder in what he himself had built. Human beings have been clothed with flesh in order to exist and subsist; but the Word of God became man in order to sanctify the flesh; and being Lord, he was in the form of a servant; for the whole creation, which came to be and was made by him, is the Word's servant. From this it is established that what is said by the apostle, “he made,” does not show the Word as made, but the body like ours which he took; that is why he was called our brother, having become man.