Oration II Against the Arians 51–60

And if they babble because he was called “servant” (child), let them know that Isaac too was named Abraham's “child,” and the Shunammite's son was called a “lad.” Knowingly, then, since we are servants, when he became like us he too calls the Father “Lord,” as we do; and he did this out of love for humankind, so that we too, being servants by nature and having received “the Spirit of the Son,” might dare to call him who is our Lord by nature “Father” by grace. But as we, calling the Lord “Father,” do not deny our natural servitude (for we are his works, and “he made us, and not we ourselves”), so when the Son, taking the form of the servant, says, “The Lord created me a beginning of his ways,” let them not deny the eternity of his Godhead, and that “in the beginning was the Word,” and “all things came into being through him,” and “in him all things were created.” The saying in the Proverbs, as I said before, signifies not the substance but the humanity of the Word; for if he says he was created “for works,” he evidently does not wish to signify his own substance, but the economy that came about for his works, which is secondary to being. For things that come into being and are created are made first of all in order to be and to exist, and secondarily they have the task of doing whatever the Word commands them, as one can see in every case. Adam was created not in order to work, but first to exist as a man; for afterwards he received the command to work. Noah was created not because of the ark, but first to exist and become a man; for afterwards he received the command to build the ark; and anyone who looked would find this in each case. The great Moses too first became a man, and secondly was entrusted with the leadership of the people. So here too one can understand the same; for you see that he is not created in order to be, but “in the beginning was the Word,” and afterwards he is sent for the works and their economy. For before the works came into being, the Son always was, but there was not yet any need for him to be created as well. But when the works had been created, and afterwards the need arose of the economy for their restoration, then indeed the Word gave himself to come down and be made like the works; which he has shown us through the word “he created,” and, wishing to signify the same through the prophet Isaiah, he says again: “And now thus says the Lord, who formed me from the womb as his own servant, to gather Jacob to him, and Israel; I shall be gathered and glorified before the Lord.”

See, here too he is not formed in order to be, but for the sake of “gathering” the tribes, which existed even before he was formed. For as there it was “he created,” so here “he formed”; and as there “for the works,” so here “to gather”; so that from every side it is evident that “he created” and “he formed” are said of what comes after the Word's being. For just as the tribes for whose sake he was formed existed before his forming, so the works too for which he was created evidently exist. When “in the beginning was the Word,” the works did not yet exist, as I said before; but when the works had come into being and need required it, then “he created” was said. It is as if a son, when his father's servants (his possessions) were being lost and were in enemy hands through their own carelessness, and need was pressing, were sent by his father to rescue and gather them; and in going he put on clothing like theirs and made himself look like them, so that their captors should not recognize him as master and flee, and he be prevented from going down to those they had hidden underground; and then, if anyone asked him why he did so, he would say, “My father formed and fitted me thus for his works.” And in saying so he does not mean that he is a servant or one of the works, nor does he speak of the beginning of his origin, but of the charge over the works given him later. In the same way the Lord too, having put on our flesh and “being found in fashion as a man,” if he were asked by those who saw him so and marveled, would say, “The Lord created me a beginning of his ways for his works,” and “He formed me to gather Israel.” The Spirit too, foretelling this in the Psalms, said, “You set him over the works of your hands”; and the Lord himself, indicating this of himself, says, “But I was appointed king by him on Zion his holy mountain.” And just as, when he shone forth bodily in Zion, he did not then begin to be or to reign, but being God's Word and eternal King he deigned to let his kingdom shine forth in human fashion in Zion too, so that, having redeemed them and us from the “sin” that “reigned” in them, he might bring them under his Father's kingdom; so, being appointed “for the works,” he is appointed not for things not yet existing but for things already existing and needing restoration.

So “he created,” “he formed,” and “he appointed,” having the same sense, show not the beginning of his being nor that his substance is created, but the renewal that came about for us through his beneficence. Even while saying these things, at any rate, he taught that he existed before them, when he said, “Before Abraham came to be, I am,” and “When he prepared the heaven, I was present with him,” and “I was beside him, harmonizing.” And as he was “before Abraham came to be,” while Israel came after Abraham, it is clear that, though pre-existing, he is afterwards “formed,” and the forming signifies not the beginning of his being but his becoming man, in which he also gathers the tribes of Israel; so, always being with the Father, he is himself creator of creation, and it is clear that the works are later than he, and “he created” makes known not a beginning of his being but the economy toward the works which he carried out in the flesh. For it was fitting that he, being other than the works and rather their creator, should also take their renewal upon himself, so that, as he is created for us, he might re-create all things in himself. For in saying “he created,” he at once added the reason, saying “the works,” so that “being created for the works” might show his becoming man for their renewal. And this is the custom of the divine Scripture: when it signifies the Word's origin according to the flesh, it adds the reason for which he became man; but when he himself speaks about his Godhead, or his servants proclaim it, everything is said in simple words and with an unqualified sense, and nothing is said with a reason attached. For he is the Father's radiance; and as the Father is not for any reason, so neither must one seek the reason for this radiance. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” it is written, and it has no “why”; but when “the Word became flesh,” then it also gives the reason why he became so, saying, “and dwelt among us.” And again the apostle, saying, “who, being in the form of God,” did not give the reason until “he took the form of the servant”; for then he adds, saying, “he humbled himself to death, even death on a cross”; for because of these things he both became flesh and took the form of a servant.

The Lord himself also spoke many things in proverbs; but when indicating things about himself he spoke without qualification: “I am in the Father and the Father in me,” and “I and the Father are one,” and “He who has seen me has seen the Father,” and “I am the light of the world,” and “I am the truth”; he did not add in each case the reason or the “why,” lest he should appear to be later than those for whose sake he came to be. For the reason must go before a thing that would not itself have come into being without it. Paul, at any rate, “set apart as an apostle for the gospel, which the Lord promised beforehand through the prophets,” had before himself the gospel, of which he also became “a minister”; and John, appointed to go before the Lord, had the Lord before himself. But the Lord, having no reason before himself for being Word, except only that he is the Father's offspring and only-begotten Wisdom, when he becomes man then also states the reason for which he is to bear flesh; for the need of human beings precedes his becoming man, and without it he would not have put on flesh. And what the need was for which he became man, the Lord himself indicated when he said: “I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that of all that he has given me I should lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” And again: “I have come as light into the world, so that everyone who believes in me may not remain in darkness.” And again he says, “For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth.” And John wrote, “For this the Son of God was manifested, to destroy the works of the devil.”

So the Saviour came to bear witness, and to undergo death for us, and to raise human beings, and “to destroy the works of the devil”; and this is the reason for his presence in the flesh. For otherwise there would have been no resurrection, had there been no death; and how could there have been death, had he not had a mortal body? The apostle, having learned this from him, said: “Since, then, the children share in blood and flesh, he himself likewise partook of the same, so that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, the devil, and set free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives”; and, “For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead also came through a man”; and again, “For what the law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” And John says, “For God did not send his Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him.” And again the Saviour said in his own person, “For judgment I came into this world, so that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.” So he came not for his own sake but for our salvation, and so that death might be destroyed, and sin condemned, and the blind see again, and all rise from the dead. And if he came not for his own sake but for ours, then it is not for his own sake but for ours that he is “created.” And if he is created not for his own sake but for ours, then he himself is not a creature, but says these things having put on our flesh. And that the Scriptures have this sense one can learn from the apostle; for he says in the letter to the Ephesians, “having broken down the dividing wall of the fence, the enmity, in his flesh, having abolished the law of commandments in ordinances, that he might create in himself the two into one new man, making peace.” And if the two are created in him, and they are in his body, then fittingly, bearing the two in himself, he is as though himself created; for he united in himself those who were created, and he was in them as they were. And since the two are thus created in him, he might fittingly say, “The Lord created me.” For just as, receiving our weaknesses, he is said to be weak himself, though he is not weak (for he is the power of God), and “became sin and a curse for us,” though he did not sin himself, but because he bore our sins and the curse, so, creating us in himself, let him say that “he created me for the works,” though he himself is not a creature.

For if, according to them, he says “The Lord created me” because the Word's substance is created, then, being a creature, he was not created for our sake. And if he was not created for our sake, we were not created “in him”; and not being created in him, we did not have him in ourselves but had him outside, as though we had received instruction from him as from a teacher. And if that were our state, sin would none the less have “reigned” in the flesh, remaining in it and not cast out of it. But the apostle contradicts them, saying a little before this, “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus.” And if we were created in Christ, then it is not he who is created, but we who are created in him; and the word “he created” is used for our sake. For because of our need, though the Word is creator, he submitted also to the language used of created things; and the word is not proper to him as Word, but the “he created” belongs to us who are created in him. And as, since the Father is always, his Word too is always, and, being always, says, “I was the one in whom he delighted, and daily I rejoiced before his face,” and “I am in the Father and the Father in me,” so when for our need he became man, he consistently says of himself what is ours, as we do: “The Lord created me”; so that, since he has dwelt in the flesh, sin might be completely driven out of the flesh, and we might have a free mind. What else should he have said when he became man? “In the beginning I was man”? But this neither befitted him nor was true; and as that was not fitting to say, so it is fitting and proper in the case of a man to say “he created” and “he made him.” That is why the reason for “he created” is added as well, namely the need of the works. And where the reason is added, the reason itself certainly resolves the reading well. For here too, with “he created,” he states the reason, “the works”; but when signifying his generation from the Father without qualification, he at once added, “And before all the hills he begets me.” He did not add a “why,” as with “he created me,” where he said “for works,” but said without qualification, “he begets me,” like “In the beginning was the Word.” For even if the works had not been created, the Word of God still was, “and the Word was God.” But his becoming man would not have happened, had not the need of human beings become the cause. So the Son is not a creature; for if he were a creature, he would not have said “he begets me”; because creatures are works of the maker, from outside him, while the offspring is not from outside, as a work, but is from the Father, proper to his substance. Therefore they are creatures, but he is the Word of God, the only-begotten Son.

Certainly, of creation Moses did not say, “In the beginning he begot,” nor “In the beginning was,” but “In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth”; nor did David sing, “Your hands begot me,” but “made me and fashioned me,” everywhere using “he made” of the creatures. But of the Son it is the reverse; for he did not say “I made,” but “I begot,” and “he begets me,” and “My heart has uttered a good Word”; and of creation, “In the beginning he made,” but of the Son, “In the beginning was the Word.” The difference is this: the creatures were made at a beginning and have a beginning of being that is separated by an interval; therefore what is said of them, “In the beginning he made,” is equal to saying of them, “From the beginning he made,” as the Lord, knowing what he had made, taught when he put the Pharisees to shame, saying, “But he who created them from the beginning made them male and female.” For originated things came into being and were created from some beginning, having once not been. The Holy Spirit too signified this in the Psalms, saying, “And you, Lord, in the beginning founded the earth,” and again, “Remember your congregation, which you acquired from the beginning.” It is clear that what comes to be “in the beginning” has a beginning of being created, and that God acquired the congregation from some beginning. And that “In the beginning he made,” in saying “he made,” means “he began to make,” Moses himself shows after the completion of all things, saying, “And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because on it he rested from all his works which God began to make.” So the creatures began to come into being; but the Word of God, having no beginning of being, fittingly did not begin to be, nor begin to come into being, but always was. The works have a beginning in their being made, and the beginning precedes the things that come into being; but the Word, not being among things that come into being, is rather himself the creator of the things that have a beginning. The being of originated things is measured by their coming into being, and from some beginning God begins to make them through the Word, so that it may be known that they did not exist before they came into being; but the Word has his being in no other beginning than in the Father, who even according to them is without beginning, so that he too exists without beginning in the Father, being his offspring and not his creature.

Thus the divine Scripture knows the difference between the offspring and the works: it shows the offspring as “Son,” not having begun from some beginning but eternal; while it signifies the work, which is a work of its maker from outside him, as having begun to come into being. So John too, speaking of the Son's divinity and knowing the difference between the words, did not say, “In the beginning he became,” or “was made,” but “In the beginning was the Word,” so that the offspring might be understood together with the “was,” and no one might reckon an interval, but might believe that the Son exists always and eternally. These things having been shown thus, how, you Arians, not understanding the sayings in Deuteronomy, have you dared in this too to commit impiety against the Lord, saying that he is “a work” or “a creature,” or else “an offspring,” meaning the same thing? For you claim that offspring and work mean the same; and from this too you will be known to be no less uneducated and impious. For the first saying is this: “Is not he himself your Father, who acquired you, and made you, and created you?” And a little later, in the same song, he says, “You forsook God who begot you, and forgot God who nourishes you.” The sense is quite wonderful. For he did not say “begot” first, lest the word be taken as no different from “made,” and these men find a pretext to say, “Moses said that in the beginning God said, ‘Let us make man,’ and he himself afterwards said, ‘You forsook God who begot you,’ as though the words were no different; for offspring and work are the same.” But after “acquired” and “made” he then added “begot” last, so that the passage might be seen to carry its own explanation. For by “made” he truly signifies what human beings are by nature, that they are works and things made; but by “begot” he shows the love for humankind that God showed to human beings after creating them; and since they became ungrateful for it, Moses, reproaching them, first says, “Do you repay the Lord thus?” and then adds, “Is not he himself your Father, who acquired you, and made you, and created you?” And secondly he says again, “They sacrificed to demons and not to God, to gods whom they did not know; new and recent ones came, whom their fathers did not know; you forsook God who begot you.”

For God not only created them as human beings, but also called them “sons,” as having begotten them. For here too “he begot” indicates a son; as he also says through the prophet, “I begot sons and raised them up”; and in general, when Scripture wishes to signify a son, it does so not by the word “I created” but always by “I begot.” And John evidently says this again: “He gave power to become children of God to those who believe in his name, who were born not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of a man, but of God”—and here too the precision is very fine. For he says “become” because they are called sons not by nature but by adoption, and he said “were born” because they too have received the name of son at all. But the people, as the prophet says, “set aside their benefactor.” This is God's love for humankind, that of those whose maker he is he later becomes Father too, by grace; and he becomes so when created human beings, as the apostle said, receive “into their hearts the Spirit of his Son, crying, Abba, Father.” These are all who, having received the Word, received power from him to become children of God; for otherwise, being creatures by nature, they could not become sons unless they received the Spirit of him who is by nature the true Son. That is why, so that this might happen, “the Word became flesh,” to make man capable of receiving Godhead. One can also learn this sense from Malachi the prophet, who says, “Did not one God create you? Is there not one Father of you all?” For here too he put “created” first and “Father” second, so that he too might show that from the beginning we are by nature creatures, and God is our creator through the Word, but afterwards we are made sons, and then God the creator becomes our Father too. So the name “Father” belongs properly to the Son, and what belongs properly to the Father is not “creature” but “Son.” So from this too it is shown that we are not sons by nature, but the Son who is in us; and again that God is not our Father by nature, but the Father of the Word in us, in whom and because of whom we cry, “Abba, Father.” And as this is so, the Father calls “sons” those in whom he sees his own Son, and says, “I begot”; since “begetting” indicates a son, while “making” indicates works. That is why we are not first begotten but made; for it is written, “Let us make man”; but afterwards, having received the grace of the Spirit, we are thereafter said to be begotten too. Indeed, in the song the great Moses, with fine insight, said “acquired” first and “begot” afterwards, so that, on hearing “begot,” they would not forget their original nature, but would know that from the beginning they are creatures, and that when they are said by grace to be “begotten” as sons, human beings are none the less by nature things made.

That creature and offspring are not the same, but differ from each other both in nature and in the meaning of the words, the Lord himself shows in the Proverbs themselves. For having said, “The Lord created me a beginning of his ways,” he added, “but before all the hills he begets me.” If, then, the Word were by nature and substance a creature, and there were no difference between offspring and creature, he would not have added “he begets me,” but would have been content with “he created,” as though this word meant “he begot.” But as it is, having said, “He created me a beginning of his ways for his works,” he added not simply “he begets me,” but joined it with the conjunction “but,” as though guarding the word “he created” by it, saying, “but before all the hills he begets me.” For “he begets me,” brought in joined to “he created,” makes one sense, and shows that “he created” is said for a particular reason, while “he begets me” is prior to “he created.” For just as, if he had said the reverse, “The Lord begets me,” and added, “but before all the hills he created me,” “he created” would surely have preceded “he begot”; so, having said “he created” first and then added, “but before all he begets me,” he necessarily shows that “he begot” precedes “he created.” For in saying “before all he begets me,” he signifies that he is other than all things, since the truth has shown in what went before that among the creatures none came into being before another, but all originated things came to subsist together, at once, by one and the same command. That is why what is said with “he created” is not also said with “he begets me”: with “he created” we have “beginning of ways,” but with “he begets me” he did not say, “he begets me as a beginning,” but “before all he begets me.” And he who is before all is not the beginning of all, but other than all. And if he is other than all, among which the beginning of all is also signified, it is clear that he is other than the creatures; and it is plainly established that the Word, being other than all and before all, is afterwards created “beginning of the ways for works” because of his becoming man, so that, as the apostle said, he “who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead,” might be “preeminent in all things.”