Oration II Against the Arians 21–30

If what the Father works the Son also works, and what the Son creates are the Father's creatures, and yet the Son is a work and creature of the Father, then either he will work himself and be creating himself (since what the Father works are also the Son's works), which would be absurd and impossible; or, creating and working the Father's things, he would not himself be a work or a creature, lest, being himself the productive cause, he be found among the things made, making what he himself became—or rather, lest he be found unable to make at all. For if on your view “he came into being from things that are not,” how is he able to craft things that are not into being? And if, being a creature, he too crafts a creature, the same will be understood of each creature, so that they too can craft. And if you would have it so, what need is there of the Word, since lower things could come to be from higher ones? Or indeed, each of the things that came into being could at the beginning have heard from God, “Come to be,” and “Be made,” and so each would have been crafted. But this is not written, nor was it possible. For none of the things that come into being is a productive cause; for “all things came into being through the Word,” who would not have worked all things if the Word himself were one of the creatures. For not even angels will be able to create, since they too are creatures (even if Valentinus, Marcion, and Basilides think such things, and you are their imitators); nor will the sun, being a creature, ever make what is not into being; nor will a man fashion a man, nor a stone devise a stone, nor a tree make a tree grow. It is God who “fashions man in the womb,” and sets the mountains, and makes the tree grow tall; man, being capable of knowledge, puts this material together and reshapes it, and works on things that exist, as he has learned; and he is content simply to have come into being; and recognizing his own nature, if he needs anything, he knows to ask God.

If, then, God too works and composes out of matter, the idea is a Greek one, and God would be called a craftsman, not a maker. Yet even so, let the Word work the matter in this way, at God's command and in God's service. But if he calls things that are not into being through his own Word, the Word is not among the things that are not and are called, lest we look for yet another Word through whom this one too was called; for by a Word the things that are not came into being. And if he creates and makes through him, he himself is not among the things created and made; rather he is the Word of the creating God, who is known also from the works of the Father, which the Word himself works, to be in the Father, and the Father in him, and he who has seen him has seen the Father, because the Son is proper to the Father's substance and like him in all things. How, then, does God create through him, unless he is his Word and Wisdom? And how would he be Word and Wisdom, unless he were the proper offspring of his substance, rather than having himself come into being from things that are not? And if all things are from nothing and are creatures, and the Son, according to them, is one of the creatures and of the things that once were not, how does he alone reveal the Father, and how does no one else but he alone know the Father? For if it were possible for him, being a work, to know the Father, let the Father be known by all as well, in proportion to each one's measure; for all are works, as he is. But if it is not possible for things that have come into being either to see or to know him, but the sight and the knowledge of him surpass all—for God himself said, “No one shall see my face and live,” and the Son said, “No one knows the Father except the Son”—then the Word would be other than the things that have come into being, alone knowing and alone seeing the Father, as he said, “Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from the Father,” and “No one knows the Father except the Son,” even if Arius does not like it. How then did he alone know him, unless he alone was proper to him? And how would he be proper to him if he were a creature and not true Son from him? (For one must not shrink from saying the same things often about piety.) It is impious, then, to think that the Son is one of all things; and it is blasphemous and senseless to say “a creature, but not as one of the creatures; a work, but not as one of the works; an offspring, but not as one of the offsprings.” For how is he not as one of these, if according to them “he was not before he was begotten”? For it is proper to creatures and works not to be before they come to be, and to subsist from things that are not, even if one surpasses the others in glory; for this will be found in all the other creatures too, which differ among themselves, as what we see shows.

But if, as the heretics say, he was “a creature or a work, but not as one of the creatures,” because he differs from them in glory, Scripture ought to have signified and shown him by comparison with the other works as the better one; it ought, for example, to have called him greater than the archangels, more honored than the thrones, brighter than sun and moon, and greater than the heavens. But in fact he is not signified in this way; the Father shows him to be his own and only Son, saying, “You are my Son,” and “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” That is why “angels were ministering to him,” as to one other than themselves; and he is worshipped by them, not as greater in glory, but as being other than all the creatures and than them, and alone the Father's own Son by substance. For if he were worshipped as surpassing in glory, each of the lower beings would have to worship the one that surpasses it. But it is not so; for creature does not worship creature, but servant worships master, and creature worships God. Peter the apostle, then, stops Cornelius when he wants to worship him, saying, “I too am a man”; and an angel in the Revelation stops John when he wants to worship him, saying, “See that you do not; I am your fellow servant and of your brothers the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book; worship God.” So to be worshipped belongs to God alone; and the angels themselves know this, that even if they surpass others in glory, they are all creatures, and are not among those who are worshipped but among those who worship the Master. Manoah, Samson's father, at any rate, wanted to offer sacrifice to the angel, and the angel stopped him, saying, “Not to me, but offer it to God.” But the Lord is worshipped even by angels; for it is written, “And let all the angels of God worship him”; and by all the nations, as Isaiah says, “Egypt has labored, and the merchandise of the Ethiopians, and the Sabeans, men of stature, will come over to you and be your servants”; and then next, “And they will worship you and make supplication in you, because God is in you, and there is no God besides you.” And he accepts the disciples' worship and assures them who he is, saying, “Do you not call me the Lord and the Teacher? And you say well, for so I am.” And when Thomas says to him, “My Lord and my God,” he allows him to say it, or rather accepts it, and does not stop him. For he is, as the other prophets say and David sings, “the Lord of powers,” “the Lord Sabaoth,” which is interpreted “the Lord of armies,” and true God and almighty, even if the Arians burst themselves with rage at this.

Nor would he himself have been worshipped, nor would these things have been said of him, if he were one of the creatures at all. But as it is, since he is not a creature but the proper offspring of the substance of the God who is worshipped, and is Son by nature, therefore he is worshipped, and believed to be God, and is Lord of armies, and ruler, and almighty, as the Father is; for he himself said, “All that the Father has is mine.” For it is proper to the Son to have what is the Father's, and to be such that the Father is seen in him, and that all things were made through him, and that the salvation of all comes about and is established in him. Indeed, it is well to ask them this too, so that the refutation of their heresy may appear still more clearly: why, if all things are creatures and all have their existence from what is not, and the Son too is on your view a creature and a work and one of the things that once were not, has God made all things through him alone, and “without him not one thing came into being”? Or why, when “all things” is said, does no one think that the Son is signified among all things, but only the things that have come into being; whereas when the Scriptures speak of the Word, they do not take him to be one of all things, but rank him with the Father, as the one in whom the Father works and effects the providence and salvation of all—especially since all things could have come into being by the same command by which he too came into being from God alone? For God does not grow weary in commanding, nor is he too weak for the working of all things, that he should create the Son alone by himself alone, but need the Son as an assistant and helper for crafting the rest. For he does not even delay whatever he wills to come to be; he only willed, and all things came to subsist, and “no one has resisted his will.” Why, then, did all things not come into being from God alone by the command by which the Son too came into being? Or why did all things come into being through him, though he too happens to be something that came into being? Let them tell us. There is every kind of unreason among them; yet about this they say that “God, wishing to create the originated nature, since he saw that it could not bear the untempered hand of the Father and creation by him, makes and creates first, alone, one alone, and calls him Son and Word, so that, he having become a mediator, all things might thereafter be able to come into being through him.” These things Eusebius and Arius and Asterius, who sacrificed, have not only said but have even dared to write.

How, then, could anyone fail to condemn them utterly, from these words, for the impiety which they have mixed for themselves with much folly, and do not blush, being so drunk against the truth? For if they say that he made the Son alone because God grew weary in working the rest, all creation will cry out against them for uttering things unworthy of God, and Isaiah says in writing, “The eternal God, who prepared the ends of the earth, will not hunger nor grow weary, and there is no searching out of his understanding.” But if God made the Son alone as disdaining to work the rest, and entrusted the rest to the Son as a helper, this too is unworthy of God, for there is no pride in God; yet the Lord will put them to shame, saying, “Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground without your Father in heaven.” And again: “Do not be anxious for your life, what you will eat, nor for your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? And which of you by being anxious can add one cubit to his stature? And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin. But I tell you that not even Solomon in all his glory was clothed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, you of little faith?” For if it is not unworthy of God to exercise providence even down to things so small—a hair of the head, a sparrow, the grass of the field—neither was it unworthy of him to make them. For of the things for which he provides he is also the maker, through his own Word. Besides, a greater absurdity meets those who say this: they divide the creatures and the work of creation, and assign one work to the Father and the rest to the Son; whereas either all things must come to be from the Father together with the Son, or, if all things that come into being come into being through the Son, one must not say that he is one of the things that have come into being.

Then again, one might refute their senselessness in this way as well. If the Word too is of the originated nature, how, when that nature cannot bear God's own direct working, was he alone of all able to come into being from the unoriginate and utterly pure substance of God, as you say? For it follows necessarily either that, if he could, the whole of that nature could; or, if the whole of it cannot, the Word cannot either, for on your view he too is one of the originated things. Again, if a mediator was needed because the originated nature cannot partake of God's direct working, then it follows of necessity, since the Word is originated and a creature, that a mediator is needed for his crafting as well, because he too is one of the originated nature, which cannot partake of the working that comes from God but needs a mediator. And if a mediator is found for him, there is need again of another mediator for that one; and so, going up and searching it out by reasoning, one will find a great crowd of mediators streaming in, and thus creation could never come to subsist, since it always needs the mediator, and the mediator cannot come into being without another mediator, because all are of the originated nature, which cannot partake of the working that comes from God alone, as you say. How full of folly they are, then, that because of it they think that things which have already come into being cannot come into being! Or perhaps they imagine that these have not even come into being, since they are still looking for the mediator. For on their so impious and foolish reasoning the things that exist would never have come to subsist, since the mediator is not found.

But they say this: “See, through Moses too he led the people out of Egypt, and through him he gave the law, although he too was a man; so it is possible for like things to come about through one who is like them.” They ought to have covered their faces when saying this, so as not to bring great shame on themselves. For Moses was not sent to create, nor to call things that are not into being and fashion men like himself, but only to minister words to the people and to Pharaoh the king. And there is a great difference here: to minister belongs to originated beings, as servants; but to craft and create belongs to God alone, and to his own Word and Wisdom. That is why, where creating is concerned, one would find no one else but the Word of God alone; for all things came to be “in wisdom,” and “without the Word not one thing came into being.” But for ministries there is not one, but many, from all ranks, whomever the Lord wishes to send. For there are many archangels, many “thrones and authorities and dominions,” and “thousands of thousands and ten thousands of ten thousands” stand by, ministering and ready to be sent. And there are many prophets, and twelve apostles, and Paul; and Moses himself was not alone, but Aaron was with him, and afterwards seventy others were filled with the Holy Spirit; Joshua son of Nun succeeded Moses, the judges succeeded him, and not one but very many kings succeeded them. If, then, the Son were a creature and one of the originated, there would have had to be many such sons, so that God might have many such ministers, just as there is a multitude of the others. But if this is not to be seen, but the creatures are many while the Word is one, who does not see from this too that the Son stands apart from all things and has no equality with the creatures, but a propriety to the Father? Hence there are not many Words, but one sole Word of the one Father, and one image of the one God. “But see,” they say, “the sun too is one alone, and the earth one.” Let the fools say that water too is one and fire one, so that they may hear that each of the things that came to be is one in its own substance, but that for the ministry and service entrusted to it no one of them is sufficient or self-sufficient alone. For God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to give light on the earth and to divide between the day and the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and for years.” Then he says, “And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night, and the stars; and he set them in the firmament of heaven to shine on the earth and to rule the day and the night.”

See: many lights, not the sun alone nor the moon alone; each is one in substance, but the service of all is one and common; what each lacks is filled up by another, and the need for light is met by all. The sun, at any rate, has authority to shine only during the day, and the moon at night; the stars with them bring about the seasons and years, and each serves as a sign according to the need that calls for it. So too the earth is not for everything, but only for fruits and to be a base for the living things upon it; the firmament is “to divide between water and water,” and the lights are set in it; so too fire and water, with all the others, have come to be for the composition of bodies; and in general, not one alone, but each of the things that came to be, being as it were “members of one another,” together make up the world like “one body.” If, then, they suppose the Son to be like this, let them be pelted by everyone, since they think that the Word is a part of all things, and a part that is not sufficient without the others for the service entrusted to him. But if this is plainly impious, let them recognize that the Word is not among the originated things, but is the only Word proper to the Father, and the creator of originated things. But they have said, “He is a creature and one of the originated things; but he learned to create as from a teacher and craftsman, and so served God who taught him.” For Asterius the sophist, as one who has learned to deny the Lord, has dared to write this, not seeing the unreason that follows from it. For if creating can be taught, let them take care not to say that God himself too is creator not by nature but by knowledge, so that he could even lose it. Then, if the Wisdom of God acquired creating from teaching, how is it still wisdom, when it needs lessons? And what was it before it learned? It was not wisdom, since it lacked teaching. It was then something empty, and not substantial wisdom; it got the name of wisdom by progress, and will be wisdom only as long as it keeps what it learned. For what comes to someone not by nature but by learning can also be unlearned at some time. To say such things about the Word of God belongs not to Christians but to Greeks.

For if the power to create comes to anyone by teaching, the fools bring envy and weakness into God: envy, because he did not teach many to create, so that, as there are many archangels and angels, there might also be many creators around him; weakness, because he was not able to make things alone but needed a fellow worker or assistant; although it has been shown that the originated nature can come into being from God alone, if indeed, according to them, the Son, being originated, could come into being from God alone. But God lacks nothing—God forbid!—for he himself said, “I am full.” Nor did the Word become creator by teaching; but being the image and wisdom of the Father, he works the Father's works. Nor did God make the Son for the sake of working the originated things; for see, even now that the Son exists, the Father is seen working still, as the Lord himself says, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.” But if, on your view, the Son came into being for this, to work the things after him, and the Father is seen working even after the Son, then on your view the making of such a Son is superfluous on this count too. Besides, why at all, when he wishes to create us, does he seek a mediator, as though his will were not sufficient to establish whatever he pleases? Yet the Scriptures say, “Whatever he willed he did,” and “For who has resisted his will?” And if his will alone suffices for the crafting of all things, then again, on your view, the need of a mediator is superfluous. Your example of Moses and of the sun and moon has also been shown to be rotten. And this too will put you to shame. If God, wishing to create the originated nature and having deliberated about it, devises and creates the Son, on your view, so that he might craft us through him, consider what great impiety you have dared to utter.

First, the Son himself appears rather to have come into being for our sake, and not we for his; for we were not created for his sake, but he was made for ours; so that he owes thanks to us rather than we to him, as the woman does to the man. For “man was not created,” says Scripture, “for the woman, but the woman for the man.” Is it, then, that just as “the man is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man,” so we are the image of God and have come to be for his glory, while the Son is our image and came to subsist for our glory? And we came to be in order to exist; but the Word of God, on your view, was made not in order to exist but for our need, as an instrument; so that it is not we who are established from him, but he from our need. How do those who so much as think these things not surpass all folly? For if the Word came into being for our sake, he is not even prior to us with God. For it is not that, having him in himself, God deliberates about us; rather, having us in himself, he deliberates, as they say, about his own Word. And if this is so, perhaps the Father did not want the Son at all; for he did not create him because he wanted him, but because he wanted us he crafted him for our sake; for he thought of him after us; so that, according to the impious, the Son who came into being as an instrument is thereafter superfluous, once the things for whose sake he was created have come into being. And if the Son, as able, came into being alone from God alone, while we, as unable, came into being from the Word, why does God not deliberate first about him, as being able, rather than about us? Or why does he not prefer the able one to the weak? Or why, making him first, does he not also deliberate first about him? Or why, deliberating first about us, does he not make us first, since his will suffices to establish all things? But he creates that one first, yet deliberates first about us, and wills us before the mediator; and us, whom he wishes to create and about whom he deliberates, he calls creatures; but that one, whom he crafts for our sake, he calls Son and his own heir. Yet we, for whose sake he makes this one, ought rather to be called sons; or else, clearly, since this one is Son, it is he whom God first thinks of and wills, and for whose sake he also makes us all. These, then, are the vomitings and nausea of the heretics.