Oration II Against the Arians

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.

If it has been shown that even if someone says “he made” of the Word himself, he says it instead of “he begot,” what further device of ill will can they find for this, when the argument, having cleared the saying from every side, has shown that the Son is not a work, but in substance the offspring of the Father, while in the economy, according to the Father's good pleasure, he was made and constituted man for our sake? And this, then, is why it is said by the apostle, “being faithful to him who made him,” and in the Proverbs, “to be created.” For so long as it is acknowledged that he “became man,” it makes no difference, as was said before, whether one says “he came to be,” or “he has been made,” or “he has been created,” or “he has been formed,” or “servant,” or “son of a handmaid,” or “son of man,” or “he was appointed,” or “he went abroad,” or “bridegroom,” or “kinsman,” or “brother.” For all these little words belong to the makeup of human beings; and such words signify not the substance of the Word but that he has become man. The saying of Peter in the Acts, which they again put forward, has the same sense: “that God made this Jesus, whom you crucified, Lord and Christ.” For here too it is not written, “he made for himself a Son,” or “he made for himself a Word,” that they should imagine such things. If, then, they have not forgotten that they are speaking about the Son of God, let them search whether it is anywhere written, “God made for himself a Son,” or “he created for himself a Word,” or again whether it is anywhere written plainly, “the Word is a work or a creature”; and then let them put it forward, so that even so the fools may be refuted. But if they find nothing of the kind, and only hunt for places where “he made” and “has been made” is written, I fear that before long, hearing “In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth,” and “he made the sun and the moon,” and “he made the sea,” they will say that he is the heaven, and that he is the light that came to be on the first day, and that he is the earth and each of the things made, and so end by resembling the so-called Stoics too. For they extend God himself into all things, while these rank the Word of God with each of the works—though they have already said much the same thing, saying that he is one of the works.

But let them hear the same things again, and learn first that the Word is Son, as has also been said earlier, and not a work, and that one must not take such expressions as referring to his divinity, but search why and how they were written; and the human economy which he undertook for our sake will certainly meet those who search. For Peter, having said, “He made him Lord and Christ,” at once added, “this Jesus whom you crucified”; and it has become plain to all (and would be to these too, if they kept to the sequence) that he said he had been made not with respect to the substance of the Word but with respect to his humanity. For what was crucified, if not the body? And how could he signify what belongs to the Word's body except by saying “he made”? Besides, the “he made” spoken here has a correct sense. For he did not say, as I said before, “he made him Word,” but “made him Lord”; and not simply, but “to you” and “made in your midst,” which is equal to saying “he displayed.” Peter himself, at the start of this first great teaching, marked this very thing carefully when he said to them, “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man displayed by God to you by mighty works and wonders and signs, which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know.” So what he says toward the end as “he made,” he said at the beginning as “he displayed”; for from the signs and the marvels the Lord was doing he was shown to be not simply a man but God in a body, and himself Lord, being the Christ. Of the same kind is what John says in the Gospels: “For this reason, then, the Jews persecuted him all the more, because he was not only breaking the Sabbath but was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God.” For the Lord was not then fashioning himself into God; there is no such thing as a God who is made; but he was displaying himself through his works, saying, “Even if you do not believe me, believe my works, so that you may know that I am in the Father and the Father in me.” In this way, then, the Father has made him Lord and King in our midst and toward us who formerly disobeyed. And it is clear that he who is now displayed as Lord and King does not then begin to become King and Lord, but begins to show his lordship and to extend it even to those who had disobeyed.

If, then, they think that the Saviour was not Lord and King before he became man and endured the cross, but only then began to be Lord, let them know that they are openly uttering again the words of the Samosatene. But if, as we read and said before in the earlier discourse, he is eternal Lord and King (Abraham worshipping him as Lord, Moses saying, “And the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven,” and David singing, “The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand,” and “Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom,” and “Your kingdom is a kingdom of all the ages”), it is clear that even before he became man he was eternal King and Lord, being the Father's image and Word. And since the Word is eternal Lord and King, it is again evident that Peter did not say that the Son's substance had been made, but his lordship toward us, which came about when he became man and, having redeemed all by the cross, became Lord and King of all. And if they quarrel because it is written “he made,” not wanting “he made” to be taken as equal to “he displayed,” whether because they do not understand or because of their Christ-fighting purpose, let them hear that even so Peter's words have a correct sense. For one who becomes lord of certain people acquires under himself those who already exist; and if the Lord is creator of all and eternal King, and when he became man he then acquired us, it would be clear on this count too that what Peter said does not signify, even so, that the substance of the Word is a work, but the subjection of all things that came afterwards and the Saviour's lordship that came about over all. And this is like what went before. For as there we cited the sayings, “Become for me a God who protects,” and “The Lord became a refuge for the poor,” and the argument showed that these do not show God as having come into being, but the benefit that comes from him to each, so too Peter's saying has the same sense.

For the Son of God himself, being Word, is Lord of all; but we were formerly subject, from the beginning, to “the slavery of corruption” and “the curse of the law,” and then, little by little fashioning for ourselves things that are not, “we served,” as the blessed apostle said, “beings that by nature are not gods”; we did not know the true God, but preferred things that are not to the truth. But later, as the people of old groaned when oppressed in Egypt, so we too, having the implanted law, and interceding with “the unutterable groanings of the Spirit,” and saying, “O Lord our God, acquire us,” he became our Lord, just as he became “a house of refuge” and “a God who protects.” And it was not he who then began to be; rather, we then began to have him as our Lord. For thereafter God, being good, and being Father of the Lord, having had mercy and wishing to be known by all, makes his own Son put on a human body and become man, and be called Jesus, so that, offering himself in this body for all, he might free all from error about God and from corruption, and himself become Lord and King of all. His becoming Lord and King in this way, then, is what Peter meant: “he made him Lord, and sent him as Christ”; which is equal to saying that the Father made him man as well; for to be made is proper to human beings. And he did not simply make him man, but made him so that he might be Lord of all and sanctify all through the anointing. For although the Word, who “was in the form of God, took the form of a servant,” the taking of the flesh did not make a servant of the Word, who is by nature Lord; rather, it was the liberation of all humanity, accomplished by the Word; and the Word himself, Lord by nature, having also been made man, has been made Lord of all and Christ through the form of the servant, that is, so as to sanctify all by the Spirit. And just as God, when he becomes “a God who protects” and says, “I will be their God,” does not then become God any more than before, nor then begin to become God, but what he always is he also becomes to those who need him, when he pleases; so too Christ, being by nature Lord and eternal King, does not become more Lord when he is sent, nor then begin to be Lord and King; but what he always is, this he has then also been made according to the flesh, and having redeemed all, he thus becomes Lord of the living and the dead; for thereafter all things serve him. And this is what David sings: “The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.” For it was not fitting that the redemption should come about through another, but through him who is by nature Lord, so that we should not be created through the Son and yet name another as Lord, and fall into the folly of the Arians and the Greeks, serving the creature rather than God who created all things.

This, at least in my poor judgment, is the sense of the saying. For such words of Peter to the Jews have a true and good reason. The Jews, having strayed from the truth, expect the Christ to come, but do not think that he will also undergo suffering, saying what they do not understand: “We know that when the Christ comes, he remains for ever; and how do you say that he must be lifted up?” And then they suppose that he comes not as the Word in flesh, but as a mere man, as all the kings have been. So the Lord, putting Cleopas and his companion to shame, taught that the Christ must first suffer; and he taught the other Jews that God had come to dwell among them, saying, “If he called them gods to whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken, do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?”

Peter, then, having learned these things from the Saviour, corrects the Jews on both counts and says: “O Jews, the divine Scriptures announce that the Christ is coming, and you think him a mere man, one of David's descendants. But what is written about him does not signify him to be such as you say; rather it announces him as Lord and God, immortal, and giver of life. For Moses said, ‘You will see your life hanging before your eyes’; and David in the hundred and ninth psalm, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet’; and in the fifteenth, ‘You will not abandon my soul to Hades, nor let your holy one see corruption.’ That such sayings do not refer to David he himself bears witness, saying that the one who is coming is ‘his own Lord’; and you yourselves see that he died, and his remains are among you. That the Christ must be such as the Scriptures say he is, you too will surely agree; for the words were spoken by God, and there can be no falsehood in them. If, then, you can say that such a one has come before, and can show that he is God from the signs and wonders he did, you have good reason to fight us; but if you cannot show that he has come, and are still expecting such a one, recognize the time from Daniel; for what he said reaches to the present time. And if the present time is the one foretold long ago, and you have seen what has now taken place among us, know that this Jesus, whom you crucified, is the Christ who is expected. For David and all the prophets died, and the tombs of all of them are among you; but the resurrection that has now taken place has shown that what is written refers to him. His being crucified shows the ‘you will see your life hanging’; the wounding of his side with the spear fulfills ‘He was led like a sheep to the slaughter’; and his not only rising again himself but also raising the dead of old from their tombs (for most of you have seen them) is the ‘You will not abandon my soul to Hades,’ and ‘Death in its strength swallowed up,’ and again, ‘God has taken away.’ And his doing such signs as have been done shows that the one in the body is God, and that he himself is the life and Lord of death. For it was fitting that the Christ, who gives life to others, should not himself be held by death; and this could not have happened if, as you think, the Christ were a mere man. But in fact he is the Son of God; for all human beings are subject to death. So let no one doubt any longer, but let all the house of Israel know assuredly that this Jesus, whom you saw in form a man doing such signs and such works as no one has ever done, is himself the Christ and Lord of all. For even having become man and been called Jesus, as we said earlier, he was not diminished by the human passion, but rather, even in being made man, he is displayed as Lord of the living and the dead.” For as the apostle said, “since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know God, God was pleased through the foolishness of the preaching to save those who believe”; so too, since we human beings were not willing to recognize God through his Word and to serve the Word of God, our Master by nature, God was pleased to show his own lordship in a man and to draw all to himself. But to do this through a mere man was unfitting, lest, having a man as Lord, we should become worshippers of a man; therefore the Word himself became flesh, and the Father called his name Jesus, and so made him Lord and Christ, which is equal to saying, “he made him so as to be Lord and to reign, so that in the name of Jesus, whom you crucified, as every knee bows, so we may acknowledge the Son himself as Lord and King, and through him the Father.”

Most of the Jews, then, hearing these things, were put to shame and thereafter acknowledged the Christ, as is written in the Acts; but since the Ariomaniacs choose to remain Jews and to fight with Peter, come, let us set before them similar expressions; perhaps even so they may be put to shame, once they learn the usage of divine Scripture. That Christ is eternal Lord and King has become clear from what has been said, and there is no one who doubts it. For being Son of God he would be like him; and being like him, he is surely both Lord and King; for he himself says, “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” And that the saying of Peter taken by itself, “He made him Lord and Christ,” does not signify that the Son is a work, can be seen from the blessing of Isaac, even if this illustration is somewhat faint in relation to the matter at hand. He said to Jacob, “Be lord of your brother,” and to Esau, “See, I have made him your lord.” If, then, “I made” signified the substance of Jacob and the beginning of his coming into being, not even so ought they to entertain such thoughts about the Word of God, for the Son of God is not a work, as Jacob is; yet on inquiring they might somehow stop raving. But if they do not take these words of his substance, or of the beginning of his coming into being, although Jacob is by nature a creature and a work, how are they not madder than the devil, if what they do not dare to attach, on the strength of similar expressions, even to those who are begotten by nature, they fasten on the Son of God, saying that he is a work? For Isaac said “be” and “I have made” signifying neither the beginning of Jacob's coming into being nor his substance, since he said these things thirty and more years after his birth, but his authority over his brother, which came about afterwards.

Much more, then, did Peter say these things without signifying that the substance of the Word is a work, for he knew him to be Son of God, having confessed, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”; he signified rather his kingship and lordship toward us, which was made and came about by grace. For in saying these things he did not keep silent about the eternal divinity of the Son of God, which is the Father's; he had said before that he poured out the Spirit on us. To give the Spirit with authority belongs not to a creature or a work; it is a gift of God. For creatures are sanctified by the Holy Spirit; but the Son, not being sanctified by the Spirit but rather himself giving it to all, is shown to be not a creature but the Father's true Son. Yet the one who gives the Spirit is the same who is said to have been made: made Lord among us because of his humanity, but giving the Spirit because he is the Word of God. For he always was and is, as Son, so also Lord and universal King of all things, being like the Father in all things and having all that is the Father's, as he himself said. Come now, let us consider the saying in the Proverbs itself, “The Lord created me a beginning of his ways, for his works”; although, once it was shown that the Word is not a work, it has in fact been shown that he is not a creature either. For to say “work” and “creature” is the same thing; so that the proof that he is not a work is the same as the proof that he is not a creature. One may well wonder, then, at their devising pretexts for impiety for themselves and not being ashamed at the refutations that have met them on each point. First they thought to deceive by asking simple people, “Did he who is make out of what was not him who was not, or him who was?” and, “Did you have a son before you begot?” When this was shown to be rotten, they invented the question, “Is the unoriginate one, or two?” Then, refuted on this, they at once added, “Has he free will, and is he of a changeable nature?” When this too was thrown out, they invented again, “Having become so much better than the angels.” And when the truth refuted this too, now at last, collecting all those together, they think to establish their heresy by means of “work and creature.” For they mean those same things again, and do not depart from their own ill will, changing and twisting the same things in various ways, so that perhaps by the variety they may deceive some. Although, then, what has already been said shows this device of theirs too to be vain, nevertheless, since they have trumpeted the saying from the Proverbs everywhere, and seem to many who do not know the Christians' faith to be saying something, it is necessary to examine this saying, “he created,” by itself too, as we did “being faithful to him who made him,” so that, as in all the rest, in this too they may be shown to have nothing more than a fancy.

First, let us see what they submitted at the beginning, when the heresy was being fashioned by them, to Alexander of blessed memory. They wrote as follows: “He is 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.” Let everyone observe the craft and deceit of this heresy: knowing the bitterness of its own evil-mindedness, it strains to adorn itself with plausible words. It says what it thinks, that “he is a creature,” but supposes it can hide itself by saying, “but not as one of the creatures.” Rather, by writing thus they have exposed their impiety all the more. For if on your view he is a creature at all, how do you play the hypocrite by saying, “but not as one of the creatures”? And if he is a work at all, how is he “not as one of the works”? In these words one can see the poison of the heresy too. For by saying “an offspring, but not as one of the offsprings,” they rank many sons together and lay down that the Lord is one of them; so that on their view he is no longer only-begotten, but one out of many brothers, and he too is called offspring and Son. What need, then, of pretense, to call him a creature and yet say he is not a creature? For even if you say “not as one of the creatures,” this sophism of yours will be shown to be senseless; for again you say he is one of the creatures; and such things as one might say about the other creatures, you think about the Son too, truly “fools and blind.” For what creature is such as another has come to be, that you should say this of the Son as something exceptional? The whole visible creation came to be in six days: on the first the light, which he called day; on the second the firmament; on the third, gathering the waters, he showed the dry land and brought forth the various fruits in it; on the fourth he made the sun and the moon and the whole chorus of stars; on the fifth he created the living things in the sea and the birds in the air; on the sixth he made the four-footed animals on the earth, and finally man. “His invisible things from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made”; and neither is the light as the night, nor the sun as the moon, nor the irrational animals as rational man; nor are the angels as the thrones, nor the thrones as the powers; but all are creatures, and each of the things that came to be is and remains, “according to its kind,” in its own substance, as it was made.

Either, then, let the Word be excepted from the works, and be assigned to the Father as creator, and be acknowledged Son by nature; or, if he is a creature at all, let it be acknowledged that he has the same rank as the others have toward one another, and let each of them too be called “a creature, but not as one of the creatures; an offspring or a work, but not as one of the works or offsprings.” For you have said that offspring and work are the same, writing “begotten or made”; for even if the Son surpasses the others by comparison, he is none the less a creature, as they are; for even among things that are by nature creatures one can find some surpassing others. “Star differs from star in glory,” at any rate, and all the rest differ from one another by comparison; yet not for that reason are some lords while others serve the better ones, nor are some productive causes while others come to be from them; but all have the nature of coming to be and being created, confessing through themselves their own creator, as David sings, “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament proclaims the work of his hands”; as Zerubbabel the wise also says, “All the earth calls upon truth, and the heaven blesses her, and all the works shake and tremble.” If, then, all the earth hymns and blesses its creator and the truth, and trembles, and the Word is its creator, and he himself says, “I am the truth,” then the Word is not a creature, but alone proper to the Father, in whom all things have been harmonized, and he himself is hymned by all as creator; for, as he himself says, “I was beside him, harmonizing”; and “My Father is working until now, and I am working.” The “until now” shows that he exists eternally, as Word, in the Father; for it is proper to the Word to work the works of the Father and not to be outside him.

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.

But the mind of truth must not keep silent; rather it is especially fitting to proclaim it aloud. The Word of God did not come into being for our sake; rather we came into being for his sake, and “in him all things were created.” Nor was it because of our weakness that he, being able, came into being from the Father alone, so that God might craft us through him as through an instrument—God forbid! it is not so. For even if God had resolved not to make originated things, the Word would nonetheless have been “with God,” and the Father in him. But the originated things could not come into being without the Word; that is how they came into being through him, and fittingly. For since the Son is the Word proper by nature to the substance of God, and is from him and “in him,” as he himself said, the things crafted could not come into being except through him. For as light illuminates all things by its radiance, and without the radiance nothing could be illuminated, so too the Father worked all things in the Word, as by a hand, and makes nothing without him. God said, at any rate, as Moses records, “Let there be light,” and “Let the water be gathered,” and “Let the earth bring forth,” and “Let us make man”; as holy David also sings, “He spoke, and they came to be; he commanded, and they were created.” And he spoke, not so that, as with human beings, some assistant should hear and, having learned the will of the speaker, go off and do the work. This is proper to creatures, but it is unfitting to think or say it of the Word. For the Word of God is creator and maker, and he himself is the Father's counsel. That is why the divine Scripture did not say that the one who heard heard and answered how or what kind of things he wanted to come to be; but God only said, “Let there be,” and it added, “And it was so.” For what was resolved and willed was at once done and completed by the Word. When God gives commands to others, or to angels, or converses with Moses, or makes a promise to Abraham, then the one who hears answers; one says, “By what shall I know?” and another, “Appoint someone else”; and again, “If they ask me, What is his name? what shall I say to them?” And the angel said to Zechariah, “Thus says the Lord,” but asked the Lord, “O Lord Almighty, how long will you not have mercy on Jerusalem?” and waits to hear good and comforting words. For each of these has the Word as mediator, and the Wisdom of God who makes known the Father's will. But when the Word himself works and creates, there is no question and answer there; for the Father is in him, and the Word in the Father; willing suffices, and the work is done; so that the “he said” is a sign of the will, for our sake, and the “and it was so” signifies the work done through the Word and the Wisdom, in whom also the Father's will is. And the very “God said” is made known in the Word; for “you made all things in wisdom,” it says, and “By the Word of the Lord the heavens were established,” and “one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.”

From these things it can be seen that the Arians' fight over their heresy is not with us; they make a show of fighting us, but they are fighting against the Godhead itself. For if the voice that says, “This is my Son,” were ours, our censure would matter little to them; but if the voice is the Father's, and the disciples heard it, and the Son himself says of himself, “Before all the hills he begets me,” how are they not now fighting against God like the giants of the myths, having, as the psalmist said, “their tongue a sharp sword” for impiety? For they neither feared the voice of the Father nor reverenced the words of the Saviour; nor were they persuaded by the saints: by the one who writes, “who, being the radiance of his glory and the impress of his subsistence,” and “Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God”; by the one who sings, “For with you is the fountain of life; in your light we shall see light,” and “You made all things in wisdom”; by the prophets who say, “And the word of the Lord came to me”; by John, “In the beginning was the Word”; and by Luke, “as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word handed them down to us”; as David too says again, “He sent his Word and healed them.” All these everywhere pillory the Arian heresy and signify the eternity of the Word, and that he is not foreign to the Father's substance but proper to it. For when has anyone seen light without its radiance? Or who dares to say that the impress is alien to the subsistence? Or how is one not even more mad who so much as imagines that God was ever without Word and without wisdom? For Scripture has set down such examples and such images so that, since human nature is incapable of comprehending God, we may be able to think of him from these at least in some small and faint way, as far as is attainable. And just as creation suffices for knowledge that God is and that there is providence—“for from the greatness and beauty of creatures their author is correspondingly perceived”—and we learn not by demanding voices from creatures, but hearing the Scriptures we believe, and contemplating the very order and harmony of all things we recognize that he is maker and Master and God of all, and we grasp his wonderful providence and governance over all; in the same way, since the sayings cited above suffice concerning the Son's divinity, it is superfluous, or rather beyond madness, to doubt and to ask in heretical fashion, “How then can the Son be eternally? Or how can he be from the Father's substance and not be a part? For what is said to be from something is a part of it; and what is divided is not whole.”

These are the clever mischiefs of the heterodox. And although we have already refuted their empty talk on these points in what went before, nevertheless the precision of these sayings and the sense of the examples refute the shadow-painting of their foul doctrine. For we see that a word is always present, is from him whose word it is, and is proper to his substance, and has no before and after. We see too that the radiance from the sun is proper to it, and that the sun's substance is neither divided nor diminished, but is itself whole, and the radiance perfect and whole, not diminishing the substance of the light, but being its true offspring from it. We perceive likewise that the Son is begotten not from outside but “from the Father,” and that the Father remains whole, while the impress of his subsistence always exists and keeps an exact resemblance and unvarying image of the Father, so that whoever sees him sees in him also the subsistence of which he is the impress. And from the activity of the impress we understand the true divinity of the subsistence; for this is what the Saviour himself taught when he said, “He who abides in me, he does the works that I do,” and “I and the Father are one,” and “I am in the Father and the Father in me.” So let the Christ-fighting heresy first try to divide the examples found in originated things and say, “There was once when the sun was without its radiance,” or that “this is not proper to the substance of the light,” or “it is proper, but it is a part of the light by division”; and again let it divide the word and say that it is foreign to the mind, or that “once it was not,” or “it is not proper to its substance,” or “it is a part of it by division.” And let it divide the impress, the light, and the power in the same way as the word and the radiance; and then let it fancy whatever it pleases. But if they cannot dare even this in those cases, how are they not greatly mad, vainly stretching themselves toward what lies beyond originated things and beyond their own nature, and attempting impossibilities?

For if even among these originated and bodily things offspring are found not to be “parts of the substances from which they are,” nor to “come to subsist by way of passion,” nor to “diminish the substances of their parents,” how again are they not mad, looking for and suspecting parts and passions in the case of the incorporeal and true God, and attaching divisions to the impassible and unchangeable God, so as to trouble the ears of simpler people with these things and turn them away from the truth? For who, hearing “son,” does not think of what is proper to the father's substance? And who, when he was first instructed and heard that “God has a Son, and has made all things by his own Word,” did not receive it in his mind as we now think? Who, when the foul heresy of the Arians arose, was not at once startled on hearing what they say, as men saying alien things and sowing over the word sown from the beginning a seed contrary to it? For what is sown from the beginning in every soul is that God has a Son, the Word, the Wisdom, the Power, and that these are his image and radiance; and from what has been said there spring at once the “always,” the “from the Father,” the “like,” the “eternal” of the offspring of the substance; and in these there is no thought of “creature” or “work.” But when “an enemy” sowed, while people slept, the “creature,” and the “there was once when he was not,” and the “how then can it be?”, then the wicked heresy of the Christ-fighters came up like a tare; and at once, as men bereft of all right understanding, they busy themselves like robbers and dare to say, “How then can the Son coexist eternally with the Father? For human beings become sons from human beings after a time; the father is thirty years old, while the son begins then, having been begotten; and in general every son of man was not before he was begotten.” And again they whisper, “How can the Son be Word, or the Word be the image of God? For the word of human beings, composed of syllables, only signifies the will of the speaker, and at once ceases and vanishes.”

They, then, as though forgetting the refutations already made against them, “pierce themselves” again with such bonds of impiety, and reason in this way; but the word of truth refutes them thus. If they are reasoning about some man, let them think in human terms about his word and his son; but if about God, who created human beings, let them no longer think in human terms, but otherwise, beyond human nature. For of whatever kind the begetter is, such must the offspring be; and of whatever kind the Father of the Word is, such also would his Word be. Man, then, being begotten in time, himself also begets his child in time; and since he came into being from what is not, his word too ceases and does not remain. But “God is not as man”—for this is what Scripture said—but he “is,” and is always; therefore his Word too “is,” and is eternally with the Father, as the radiance of light. The word of human beings is composed of syllables, and neither lives nor effects anything, but only signifies the mind of the speaker; it merely went out and passed by, no longer to be seen, since it did not exist at all before it was spoken; therefore the word of human beings neither lives nor effects anything, nor is it a man at all. It undergoes this, as I said before, because the man who begets it also has his nature from what is not. But the Word of God is not, as one might say, a word uttered, nor a sound of speech; nor is “the Son” God's commanding; but as the radiance of light, so he is perfect offspring from perfect. Therefore he is also God, being the image of God; for “the Word,” it says, “was God.” The words of human beings are of no effect for working; that is why a man works not by words but by his hands, because these exist, while his word does not subsist. But as for the Word of God, as the apostle said, “The Word of God is living and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart; and no creature is hidden before him, but all things are naked and laid bare to his eyes, to whom we must give account.” He is creator, then, and “without him not one thing came into being,” nor can anything come into being without him.

One must not ask, “Why is God's Word not such as ours is?”, since God is not such as we are, as was said before; nor is it fitting to ask, “How is the Word from God?” or “How is he the radiance of God?” or “How does God beget, and what is the manner of God's begetting?” For one would be mad to dare such things, since he demands that a thing ineffable and proper to God's nature, known to him alone and to the Son, be explained in words; for it is the same as for such people to ask, “Where is God, and how is God, and of what sort is the Father?” But as it is impious to ask such things, and belongs to those who do not know God, so too it is not right to dare such things about the begetting of the Son of God, nor to measure God and his Wisdom by their own nature and weakness. Nor on that account is it fitting to think contrary to the truth; nor, if someone is at a loss when he inquires about these things, ought he therefore to disbelieve what is written. For it is better, when at a loss, to be silent and believe than to disbelieve because one is at a loss; for the one who is at a loss may somehow have pardon, since, having inquired, he at least came to rest; but the one who because of his perplexity devises for himself what he should not, and utters things unworthy of God, incurs for his daring a penalty without pardon. For one can find some consolation even in such perplexities from the divine Scriptures, so as to take rightly what is written and to think of our own word as an example: that as this is proper to us and from us, and not a work outside us, so too the Word of God is proper to him and from him, and is not a work; nor is he like the word of human beings, since then one would have to think of God as a man. For see again: many and various words of human beings pass by every day, because the first do not remain but vanish. This happens, again, because those who father them, being men, have ages that pass and thoughts that come upon them one after another; and as they reason and reason further, so they speak; so that they have many words, and after the many, none of them at all; for the speaker has stopped, and the word is at once used up. But the Word of God is one and the same, and, as it is written, “The Word of God abides for ever,” not changing, nor first or second to another, but always being the same. For it was fitting, since God is one, that his image too should be one, and his Word one, and his Wisdom one.

So I wonder how, though God is one, these men according to their own notions bring in many images and wisdoms and words, and say that the Father's proper and natural Word is another, in whom he also made the Son, while the one who is truly Son is only notionally called “Word,” as he is called “vine,” and “way,” and “door,” and “tree of life.” And they say that he is called “Wisdom” in name, but that the Father's proper and true Wisdom is another, which coexists with him unbegottenly, in which he made the Son too and named him “wisdom” by participation in that one. These things have not stopped with them at the level of talk: Arius composed them in his Thalia, and the sophist Asterius wrote what we cited in the earlier discourse too, as follows: “Blessed Paul did not say that he preaches Christ as the power of God or the wisdom of God, but without the addition of the article, ‘God's power and God's wisdom’; proclaiming that God's own proper power, which is innate in him and coexists with him unbegottenly, is another—generative, clearly, of Christ, and creative of the whole world—about which he teaches in the letter to the Romans, saying, ‘For his invisible things from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, both his eternal power and divinity.’ For just as no one would say that the divinity mentioned there is Christ, but that it is the Father himself, so, I think, his eternal power and divinity is not the only-begotten Son but the Father who begot him. But he teaches that there is another power and wisdom of God, which is shown through Christ.” And a little after, the same Asterius says: “And yet his eternal power and wisdom, which the reasonings of truth declare to be without beginning and unbegotten, would surely be one and the same; but those created by him individually are many, of which Christ is the firstborn and only-begotten; all of them, however, depend alike on their possessor, and all are rightly called powers of him who created and uses them; as the prophet says that the locust, sent by God as a penalty for human sins, is called by God himself not only ‘power’ but ‘great power’; and blessed David in many of the psalms bids not only angels but also powers to praise God.”

Having uttered even this much, how are they not deserving of all hatred? For if, as they suppose, he is Son not because of his generation from the Father and his being proper to the Father's substance, but is called Word because of rational beings, Wisdom because of those made wise, and Power because of those empowered, then surely he was called Son because of those made sons; and perhaps he has even his being only notionally, because of the things that are. What then is he himself, after all? He would himself be none of these, if these are only his names and he has only an appearance of being, adorned with these names for our sake. But this is rather a devilish madness, and perhaps worse, that they want themselves to subsist truly, but think that the Word of God exists in name only. And how is this too not a monstrous tale of theirs: to speak of a Wisdom coexisting with the Father, but not to say that this is the Christ, and instead to say that there are many created powers and wisdoms, and that the Lord is one of them—he whom they compare with the caterpillar and the locust? And how are they not knaves, since when they hear from us that the Word coexists with the Father they grumble at once, saying, “So you say there are two unoriginates?”, while they themselves, saying “his unoriginate wisdom,” do not see that the vain censure they allege comes back on themselves? And how is that idea of theirs too not utterly foolish, to say that the unoriginate Wisdom coexisting with God is God himself? For what coexists coexists not with itself but with something else, as the evangelists say of the Lord that he was with the disciples; for he was with the disciples, not with himself. Unless indeed they would say that God is composite, having a wisdom interwoven with his substance or completing it, itself unoriginate, which they also bring in instead as creator of the world, so that they may take away from the Son even his creating. For they will say anything rather than think truly about the Lord.

For where at all did they find it said in the divine Scripture, or from whom did they hear, that there is another Word and another Wisdom besides this Son, that they should fashion such things for themselves? It is written indeed, “Are not my words like fire, or like an axe splitting rock?” and in the Proverbs, “I will teach you my words.” But these are commandments and precepts which God has spoken to the saints through his own and only true Word, about which the psalmist said, “I have kept my feet from every evil way, that I may keep your words.” The Saviour, at any rate, indicating that such words are other than himself, said in his own person, “the words that I have spoken to you.” For such words are not offspring or sons; nor are there so many creating words, nor so many images of the one God, nor so many who have become men for us; nor is the one who, according to John, became flesh one out of many such; but as the only Word of God he was proclaimed by John: “The Word became flesh,” and “all things came into being through him.” That is why the testimonies are written and shown about him alone, our Lord Jesus Christ, and about his unity with the Father: the Father indicating that the Son is one, and the saints, having learned this, saying that the Word is one and that he is only-begotten; and the works done through him are shown, for “all things,” visible and “invisible,” “came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being.” But of any other, different Word they have no notion; and yet they fashion for themselves words or wisdoms whose name and work Scripture nowhere indicates, and which are named by these men alone. For it is their invention and Christ-fighting surmise; they misuse the name of the Word and of Wisdom, and fashioning others for themselves they deny the true Word of God and the real and only Wisdom of the Father; and so the wretches now imitate the Manichees. For they too, seeing the works of God, deny him who alone is and is true God, and fashion for themselves another, whose work and any testimony they cannot show from the divine oracles.

If, then, no other wisdom besides this Son is found in the divine oracles, and we have heard nothing of the kind from the fathers, while these men acknowledge and have written that the wisdom coexists unoriginately with the Father, is proper to him, and is creator of the world, then this would be the Son himself, who even on their view coexists eternally with the Father. For he is also creator, as it is written, “You made all things in wisdom.” Indeed Asterius himself, as though forgetting what he wrote before, later, like Caiaphas, unwillingly, when he himself was opposing the Greeks, no longer names many wisdoms nor the caterpillar, but now confesses one, writing thus: “God the Word is one, but rational things are many; and the substance and nature of Wisdom is one, but wise and beautiful things are many.” And a little after he says again: “Who might those be whom they think fit to call children of God? For they will not say that these too are words, nor will they say that there are more wisdoms. For it is not possible, since the Word is one and Wisdom has been shown to be one, to distribute the substance of the Word to the multitude of children and to bestow on them the name of Wisdom.” It is no wonder, then, that the Arians fight against the truth, when they stumble even over their own writings and clash with one another, now saying there are many wisdoms, now declaring there is one; now joining Wisdom with the caterpillar, now saying it coexists with the Father and is proper to him; at one time saying the Father alone is unoriginate, at another that his wisdom and power too are unoriginate. They fight with us for saying that “the Word of God is always,” but when they themselves say that “wisdom coexists unoriginately with God,” they forget their own words. So they are dizzy about everything, denying the true Wisdom and inventing one that does not exist, like the Manichees, who fashion for themselves another god and deny the God who is.

But let the other heresies and the Manichees hear that the Father of Christ is one, the Master and Maker of creation through his own Word; and let the Ariomaniacs in particular hear that the Word of God is one, being the only Son proper and genuine from his substance, and having an inseparable unity of Godhead with his own Father, as we have often said, having learned it from the Saviour himself. For if it is not so, why does the Father “create through him,” and “reveal himself” in him to whomever he wills, and enlighten them? Or why, in the completion of baptism too, is the Son named together with the Father? For if the Father is not sufficient, the statement is impious; but if he is sufficient (for this is what it is right to say), what need is there of the Son either for creation or for the holy washing? For what fellowship has the creature with the creator? Or why is the thing made numbered together with its maker for the completion of all? Or why, on your view, is faith handed down in one creator and one creature? For if it is so that we may be joined to the Godhead, what need is there of the creature? And if it is so that we may be united to the Son, who is a creature, then on your view the naming of the Son in baptism is superfluous; for God, who made him a son, is able to make us sons too. Besides, if the Son is a creature, then, since the nature of rational creatures is one, no help will come to creatures from a creature, because all need grace from God. We said a little earlier, in passing, how fittingly “all things came into being through him”; but since the course of the argument has made us mention holy baptism too, it is necessary to say, as I understand and have believed, that the Son is not named with the Father as though the Father were not sufficient, nor simply and at random; but since he is the Word of God and his own Wisdom, and being his radiance is always with the Father, therefore, when the Father bestows grace, it cannot be given otherwise than in the Son; for the Son is in the Father as the radiance is in the light. For not as one in need, but as Father, God “founded the earth by his own Wisdom,” and “made all things” by the “Word” that is from him, and he confirms the holy washing in the Son. For where the Father is, there the Son is too, as where the light is, there is the radiance too. And as what the Father works he works through the Son, and the Lord himself says, “What I see the Father doing, these things I also do,” so too when baptism is given, whom the Father baptizes, him the Son baptizes; and whom the Son baptizes, he is perfected in the Holy Spirit. And again, as when the sun shines one would say that the radiance too illuminates, for the light is one and cannot be divided or split off, so again, where the Father is or is named, there the Son surely is too; and the Father is named in baptism; so the Son must be named together with him.

That is why, when he made promises to the saints, he spoke thus: “I and the Father will come and make our dwelling with him,” and again, “that as I and you are one, so they too may be one in us.” And the grace given is one, given from the Father in the Son, as Paul writes in every letter: “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” For the light must be with its beam, and the radiance be seen together with its own light. Hence the Jews, along with these men, “denying the Son, do not have the Father either”; for “having forsaken the fountain of wisdom,” as Baruch said in reproach of them, they cast away from themselves also the Wisdom that is from it, our Lord Jesus Christ—for “Christ,” says the apostle, “is the power of God and the wisdom of God”—saying, “We have no king but Caesar.” The Jews, then, have the wages of their denial in their punishment; for together with their city they have lost their reason too. But these men are now in danger even concerning the very fullness of the mystery, I mean baptism. For if the completion is given into the name of the Father and of the Son, and they do not speak of a true Father, because they deny what is from him and like his substance, and they deny the true Son too, and fashioning for themselves another, created from nothing, they name him, how is what they give not entirely empty and unprofitable, having a pretense but in truth no help toward godliness? For the Arians do not give baptism “into the Father and the Son,” but into a creator and a creature, and into a maker and a work. And as a creature is other than the Son, so what they think they give would be other than the truth, even if they pretend to name the name of the Father and the Son because it is written. For it is not the one who simply says “Lord” who gives, but the one who along with the name also has the right faith. That is why the Saviour did not simply command them to baptize, but first says, “Make disciples,” and then, “baptize into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” so that from the learning faith might become right, and with faith the completion of baptism might be added.

Many other heresies too, at any rate, which say the names only but do not think rightly, as has been said, nor hold the sound faith, have the water they give unprofitable as well, since it lacks godliness; so that the one sprinkled by them is defiled in impiety rather than redeemed. So too the Greeks, though they say “God” with their lips, bear the charge of atheism, because they do not know the one who really is and is true God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; so too the Manichees and the Phrygians and the disciples of the Samosatene, though they say the names, are none the less heretics; and so, in turn, those who hold the views of Arius, even if they read what is written and say the names, are themselves mocking those who receive baptism from them, being more impious than the other heresies, gradually going beyond them, and making them look righteous by their own unbridled tongue. For those others lie against the truth on some point: either they err about the body, saying that the Lord did not have flesh from Mary, or that there was no death at all, or that he did not become man at all but only appeared, and was not truly so, and seemed to have a body though he had none, and seemed to appear as a man, as in the fancy of a dream. But these men openly commit impiety against the Father himself. For hearing from the Scriptures that his Godhead is attested in the Son as in an image, they blaspheme, saying that it is a creature, and everywhere they carry this little phrase “he was not” about with them, like mud in a bag, and throw it out as a serpent throws its venom. Then, since their doctrine is nauseating to all, they at once put forward human patronage as a prop for their tottering heresy, so that the simpler person, seeing it, or else from fear, may not perceive the harm of their evil-mindedness. How then is it not right to pity those deceived by them? Or how is it not fitting to weep over them, because for the fancy of the moment, for the sake of pleasures, they betray their own good and fall away from the hope to come? For thinking to receive baptism into one who does not exist, they will have received nothing; and ranked with a creature, they will have no help from the creation. And believing in one unlike and foreign in substance to the Father, they will not be joined to the Father, since they do not have his own Son, by nature from him, who “is in the Father, and in whom the Father is,” as he himself said; but led astray by these men, the wretches remain thereafter destitute and bare of the Godhead. For the fancy of earthly things will not follow them when they die; nor, when they see the Lord whom they denied sitting on the throne of his Father and judging the living and the dead, will anyone be able to call on any of those who now deceived them for help; for they will see them too being judged and repenting of the wrongs and impieties they committed.

These things we have set out meanwhile, before coming to the saying of the Proverbs, in opposition to the irrational fictions that come from their own hearts, so that, knowing that it is not fitting to call the Son of God “a creature,” they too may learn to read rightly the saying in the Proverbs, which itself also has a correct sense. For it is written, “The Lord created me a beginning of his ways for his works”; but since these are proverbs, and it was said in proverbial fashion, one must not simply take the obvious wording as it stands, but seek the person, and so, with piety, fit the sense to that person. For what is said in proverbs is not said openly but is announced in a hidden way, as the Lord himself taught in the Gospel according to John, saying, “These things I have spoken to you in proverbs; but the hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in proverbs, but plainly.” So one must uncover the sense of the saying, and seek it as something hidden, and not simply take it as spoken plainly, lest by misinterpreting we stray from the truth. If, then, what is written is about an angel or some other originated being, as about one of us who are works, let “he created me” be taken so; but if it is the Wisdom of God, in which all originated things have been crafted, that speaks about itself, what must we understand but that in saying “he created” it says nothing contrary to “he begot”? Nor, as though forgetting that it is creator and craftsman, or not knowing the difference between the creator and the creatures, does it number itself among the creatures; but it signifies a certain sense, as in proverbs, not plainly but hidden, which it inspired the saints to prophesy; and a little later, signifying “he created” in parallel in other words, it says itself, “Wisdom has built herself a house.” And it is clear that Wisdom's house is our body, which he took up and so became man; and fittingly it is said by John, “The Word became flesh,” while through Solomon Wisdom says of itself, with care, not “I am a creature,” but only “The Lord created me a beginning of his ways for his works”—not “he created me so that I might be,” nor “I have the beginning and origin of a creature.”

For here too the Word, speaking through Solomon, is not signifying the substance of his Godhead, nor his eternal and genuine generation from the Father, but again his humanity and his economy toward us. That is why, as I said before, he did not say “I am a creature,” or “I became a creature,” but only “he created.” For “creatures,” having a created substance, are among originated things, and are said to be created, and a creature is certainly created; but the word “he created,” said by itself, does not necessarily signify the substance or the generation, but indicates that something else comes about concerning the one of whom it speaks; and what is said to be created is not necessarily, by that fact, a creature in nature and substance. The divine Scripture knows this difference, saying of the creatures, “The earth was filled with your creation,” and “Creation itself groans together and travails together”; and in the Revelation it says, “And a third of the creatures in the sea, those that had souls, died”; as Paul too says, “Every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving”; and in Wisdom it is written, “And by your Wisdom you formed man, to have dominion over the creatures made by you.” And that it says that these, being creatures, are created, one can hear again from the Lord, who says, “But he who created from the beginning made them male and female”; from Moses, writing in the song, “Ask of the days that were before you, from the day on which God created man upon the earth, and to the end of heaven”; and from Paul, who says in the letter to the Colossians, “who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him all things were created in the heavens and on the earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities; all things were created through him and for him, and he is before all.”

That things which by nature have a created substance are called creatures and are created, these examples suffice as a reminder, since Scripture is full of them. But that the word “he created,” said by itself, does not necessarily signify the substance and the origin, David sings: “Let this be written for another generation, and a people that is being created will praise the Lord,” and again, “Create in me a clean heart, O God”; and Paul says in the letter to the Ephesians, “having abolished the law of commandments in ordinances, that he might create in himself the two into one new man,” and again, “Put on the new man, created according to God in righteousness and holiness of the truth.” For neither did David speak of a people being created in substance, nor did he pray to receive another heart besides the one he had; he meant the renewal and renovation according to God. Nor did Paul indicate two persons being created in substance in the Lord, nor did he advise us to put on some other man; by the man according to God he meant the life of virtue, and by those created in Christ he meant the two peoples renewed in him. Such too is what is said in Jeremiah: “The Lord created a new salvation for planting, in which salvation men shall go about”; in saying this he does not signify some substance of a creature, but prophesies the salvation renewed among human beings, which came to us in Christ. Since, then, there is such a difference between the creatures and the bare expression “he created,” if you find the Lord anywhere called “a creature” in the divine Scripture, show it and fight; but if it is nowhere written that he is a creature, and he himself says of himself in the Proverbs, “The Lord created me,” be put to shame by the difference just stated and by what is said in proverbial fashion; and from now on do not hear “he created” as “creature,” but as referring to the humanity that came about in him; for to be created is proper to this. For how are you not unjust, that when you hear “he created” from David and Paul you do not understand the substance and the origin but the renewal, while when you hear “he created” from the Lord, you number his substance with the creatures? And again, hearing, “Wisdom has built herself a house and set up seven pillars,” you take the “house” allegorically, but taking “he created” literally you turn it into a creature; and neither did his being creator make you ashamed, nor did you fear his being the only proper offspring of the Father; but simply, as if you had signed on against him, you fight, and you think less of him than of human beings.

For the saying itself shows that calling the Lord a creature is your own invention. For the Lord, knowing his own substance to be the only-begotten Wisdom and offspring of the Father, other than originated things and things that are creatures by nature, now says out of love for humankind, “The Lord created me a beginning of his ways,” which is equal to saying, “The Father prepared a body for me, and created me for human beings, for the salvation of human beings.” For just as, hearing from John, “The Word became flesh,” we do not think that the Word himself is wholly flesh, but that he put on flesh and became man; and hearing, “Christ became a curse for us,” and “He made him who knew no sin to be sin for us,” we do not think that he became wholly this, a curse and sin, but that he took upon himself the curse that lay on us (as the apostle said, “he redeemed us from the curse”), and “our sins,” as Isaiah said, “he bore,” and as Peter wrote, “he carried them up in his body onto the tree”; so if we hear “he created” in the Proverbs, we must not think the Word wholly a creature by nature, but that he put on a created body, and God created him for our sake, preparing for him for us that created thing, “a body,” as it is written, so that in him we might be able to be renewed and deified. What, then, deceived you, you senseless ones, into calling the creator “a creature”? Or where did you buy this new idea for yourselves, that you parade in it? For the Proverbs say “he created,” but they do not call the Son “a creature,” but offspring; and according to the distinction drawn above from the Scriptures—I mean between “he created” and “creature”—they recognize what is proper by nature to the Son, that he is only-begotten Wisdom and creator of the creatures; and when they say “he created,” they do not say it of his substance, but signify that he becomes “a beginning of” many “ways,” so that “he created” stands over against “offspring,” and the phrase “beginning of ways” over against his being the only-begotten Word.

For if he is offspring, how do you call him a creature? No one says he begets what he creates, nor calls his own offspring creatures. And again, if he is only-begotten, how does he become “beginning of the ways”? For if he was created as beginning of all things, he would necessarily no longer be alone, having those who came into being after him. Reuben too, having become “the beginning of the children,” was not only-begotten, but was first in time, while in nature and kinship he was one of those after him. So if the Word too is “beginning of the ways,” he would be of the same kind as the ways, and the ways of the same kind as the Word, even if he is created first of them in time. For the beginning of a city too is of the same kind as the other parts of the city, and the parts, joined to the beginning, make up the city whole and one, like the many members of one body; one part of it is not among the makers and another among the things made, subject to the other part, but the whole city equally receives care from him who made it and is held together by him. If, then, the Lord too is created in this way as beginning of all, he must with all make up one creation, and neither differ from the others, even if he became the beginning of all, nor be Lord of the other parts of creation, even if he happens to be older in time; for he too, with all, has one principle of creation and one Master. And how at all, if he is a creature on your view, can he be created alone and first, so as to be the beginning of all, when it is clear from what was said earlier that among the creatures nothing exists that abides by itself and was made first, but each has its origin together with all, even if it “differs in glory” from the others? For of the stars, or of the great lights, one did not appear first and another second, but on one day and by the same command they were all called into being. So too the origin of four-footed beasts, birds, swimming things, cattle, and plants was fashioned; so too the race of human beings, made after the image, came to be; for even if Adam alone was fashioned from earth, yet in him were the principles of succession of the whole race.

From the visible creation of the world “we clearly see his invisible things, understood by the things made,” because there too we do not see them one by one, nor one first and another second, but all came to subsist together according to their kinds. For the apostle did not enumerate them one by one, so as to say, “whether an angel, or a throne, or a dominion, and an authority,” but he speaks of all together according to their order: “whether angels, or archangels, or principalities”; for such is the origin of creatures. If, then, as I said before, the Word were a creature, he would have had to come into being not first but together with the other powers, even if he surpassed the others in glory; for so one can find with the others too, that they came into being together, and there is no first or second, but they differ from one another in glory, some on the right, some round about, others on the left, and all together hymn and stand ministering to the Lord. So if the Word is a creature, he would not be first, nor the beginning of the others; but if he is “before all,” as indeed he is, and he alone is first and Son, then neither is he in substance the “beginning of all”; for the beginning of all is numbered among all. And if he is not a beginning, he is not a creature either; but it would be very clear that in substance and nature he stands apart from the creatures and is other than they, and is the likeness and image of the only and true God, being himself also alone. That is why the Scriptures do not rank him with the creatures; but David rebukes those who dare even to think him such, saying, “Who is like you among the gods, O Lord?” and “Who shall be likened to the Lord among the sons of God?” And Baruch says, “This is our God; no other shall be reckoned beside him.” For he creates, and they are created; and he is the Word and Wisdom proper to the Father's substance, while the things that came into being, not having existed before, have been made through this Word.

So the saying you have trumpeted so much, “The Son is a creature,” is not true, but only your fancy; and you stand accused by Solomon, because you have often lied against him. For he did not call him a creature but offspring and Wisdom of God, saying, “God by wisdom founded the earth,” and “Wisdom has built herself a house.” And the saying itself, when examined, refutes your impiety; for it is written, “The Lord created me a beginning of his ways for his works.” If, then, he himself is before all things, and yet he says “he created me,” not “so that I might make the works,” but “for the works,” then either “he created” comes later than he himself, or he will appear to be later than the works, finding them, when he is created, already existing before him—the works for which he also comes to be. And if so, how is he still “before all”? And how did “all things come into being through him,” and how do they “hold together in him”? For see, on your view the works had been established even before him, the works for which he is created and sent. But it is not so—God forbid!—the heretics' thinking is false. For the Word of God is not a creature but creator; and he says in proverbial fashion “he created me” at the time when he put on the created flesh. And this again can be understood from the saying itself. For being Son and having God as Father (for he is his own offspring), he nevertheless now names the Father “Lord”—not because he was a servant, but because he “took the form of the servant.” For it was fitting that, as being Word from the Father, he should call God “Father,” for this is proper to a son toward a father; and likewise that, having come “to accomplish the work” and having taken the form of a servant, he should name the Father “Lord.” He himself taught this difference with a fine distinction, saying in the Gospels, “I thank you, Father,” and then, “Lord of heaven and earth.” For he says that God is his own Father, but names him “Lord” of the creatures; so that it is clearly shown from this that when he put on what is created, then he calls the Father “Lord.” In David's prayer too the Holy Spirit signifies the same difference, saying through the Psalms, “Give your strength to your servant, and save the son of your handmaid.” For the one who is by nature and truly God's Child is one thing, and the children of the handmaid, who is the nature of originated things, are another. That is why the one, as Son, has the Father's strength, while the others need salvation.

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.”

Since, then, there is such a difference between “he created” and “he begets me,” and between “beginning of ways” and “before all,” God, being the creator of human beings, thus, as has been said, becomes afterwards their Father too, because of his Word dwelling in them. But with the Word it is the reverse: God, being his Father by nature, afterwards becomes also his creator and maker, when the Word puts on the flesh that was created and made, and becomes man. For just as human beings, receiving “the Spirit of the Son,” become children through him, so the Word of God, when he himself put on human flesh, is then said to be created and made. If, then, we are sons by nature, clearly he too is by nature a creature and a work; but if we become sons by adoption and by grace, clearly the Word too, having become man because of the grace toward us, said, “The Lord created me.” Then, since, having put on what is created, he became like us in body, he was fittingly called our “brother” and “firstborn.” For even though he became man after us and for our sake, and our brother by the likeness of the body, yet in this too he is called and is our “firstborn,” because, when all human beings were perishing through the transgression of Adam, his flesh was saved and set free before all others, having become the body of the Word himself; and thereafter we, being “of the same body,” are saved according to it. For in it the Lord becomes our guide into the kingdom of heaven and to his own Father, saying, “I am the way” and “the door,” and “through me all must enter.” Hence he is also called “firstborn from the dead,” not because he died before us—for we had died before him—but because, having undergone death for us and “destroyed” it, he rose first, as man, raising his own body for our sake. For since he has risen, we too thereafter in turn are raised from the dead, from him and because of him.

And if he is also called “firstborn of creation,” he is not called firstborn as being put on a level with the creatures and first of them in time (for how could that be, when he is “only-begotten”?), but because of the Word's condescension to the creatures, by which he has also become “brother” of “many.” For the only-begotten is only-begotten because there are no other brothers; but the firstborn is called firstborn because of the other brothers. That is why nowhere in the Scriptures is it said, “the firstborn of God,” nor “the creature of God”; but “only-begotten,” and “Son,” and “Word,” and “Wisdom” have their reference to the Father and express what is proper to him: “For we beheld his glory, glory as of the only-begotten from the Father,” and “God sent his only-begotten Son,” and “For ever, O Lord, your Word abides,” and “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,” and “Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God,” and “This is my beloved Son,” and “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” But “firstborn” refers to his condescension to creation; for it is of creation that he was called “firstborn.” And “he created” refers to his grace toward the works; for it is for them that he is created. If, then, he is only-begotten, as indeed he is, let “firstborn” be interpreted; but if he is firstborn, then let him not be only-begotten. For the same one cannot be both only-begotten and firstborn, except in different respects: only-begotten because of his generation from the Father, as has been said, and firstborn because of his condescension to creation and his making many into brothers. Indeed, since these two sayings stand over against each other, one would rightly say that the property of being only-begotten prevails in the case of the Word, because there is no other Word nor other Wisdom, but he alone is the Father's true Son. And indeed, as was said before, “the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father,” is said of him not with any reason attached but without qualification; but “firstborn” again has the reason attached, namely creation, which Paul added, saying, “for in him all things were created.” And if all creatures were created in him, he is other than the creatures, and is not a creature but the creator of creatures.

So he was called “firstborn” not because he is from the Father, but because creation came to be in him. And just as the Son himself, through whom creation came to be, was before creation, so too, before he was called “firstborn of all creation,” he was none the less himself “the Word with God, and the Word was God.” But the impious, not understanding this either, go around saying, “If he is firstborn of all creation, clearly he too is one of the creation.” Fools! If he is firstborn of all creation at all, then he is other than all creation. For it did not say, “He is firstborn of the other creatures,” lest he be thought to be one of the creatures; but it is written “of all creation,” so that he might be shown to be other than creation. Reuben, at any rate, is not called firstborn of all the children of Jacob, but of Jacob himself and of his brothers, lest he be thought other than Jacob's children. And of the Lord himself the apostle did not say, “that he might become firstborn of all,” lest he be thought to bear a body other than ours, but “among many brothers,” because of the likeness of the flesh. If, then, the Word too were one of the creatures, Scripture would have said of him too that “he is firstborn of the other creatures”; but as it is, since the saints say that “he is firstborn of all creation,” the Son of God is shown outright to be other than all creation, and not a creature. For if he is a creature, he will be firstborn of himself. How then, Arians, can he be both first and second to himself? Then, if he is a creature, and all creation came to be through him and holds together in him, how can he both create creation and be one of the things that hold together in him? Since such a notion of theirs appears absurd, they are refuted by the truth: he was called “firstborn among many brothers” because of kinship of the flesh; “firstborn from the dead” because the resurrection of the dead is from him and after him; and “firstborn of all creation” because of the Father's love for humankind, because of which not only do all things hold together in his Word, but creation itself too, of which the apostle said that it “awaits the revelation of the sons of God,” will one day “be set free from the bondage of corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.” And when it is thus set free, the Lord will be firstborn of it too and of all who have been made children, so that, by his being called “first,” the things after him may abide, joined to the Word as to a beginning.

I think that even the impious themselves will be put to shame by such an understanding. For if it is not as we have said, but they will have him be “firstborn of all creation” as a creature in substance among creatures, let them consider that they will be supposing him to be brother and like even to irrational and lifeless things. For these too are parts of all creation; and the firstborn must be first only in time, but the same in kind and likeness with all. How then, in saying this too, do they not exceed all impiety? Or who will bear them saying such things? Or who would not hate them for merely thinking such things? For it is clear to all that he was called its “firstborn” neither for his own sake, as being a creature, nor because he has some kinship in substance with all creation; but because, when at the beginning the Word was crafting the creatures, he condescended to originated things, so that they might be able to come into being. For they could not have borne his nature, which is untempered and the Father's own splendor, had he not condescended with the Father's love for humankind and taken hold of them, and, holding them fast, brought them into being. And secondly, because when the Word condescended, creation itself too is made a son through him, so that he might become its “firstborn” in every respect, as has been said, both in creating it and in being brought into the world itself for the sake of all. For so it is written: “And when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, And let all the angels of God worship him.” Let the Christ-fighters hear and tear themselves, that his coming into the world made him also be called “firstborn” of all; so that the Son is only-begotten of the Father, because he alone is from him, but “firstborn” of creation because all are made sons. And as he is firstborn among brothers and rose from the dead as “the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep,” so, since it was fitting that “he should be preeminent in all things,” therefore he is also “created a beginning of ways,” so that, walking on this way and entering through him who says, “I am the way and the door,” and sharing in the knowledge of the Father, we too may hear, “Blessed are the blameless in the way,” and “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.”

Since the truth has shown that the Word is not a creature by nature, it follows now to say how he is also called “beginning of the ways.” For since the first way, the one through Adam, was lost, and instead of paradise we turned aside into death, and heard, “You are earth, and to earth you shall return,” therefore the Word of God, who loves humankind, by the will of the Father puts on the created flesh, so that the flesh which the first man had made dead through the transgression he himself might make alive in the blood of his own body, and might open “for us a new and living way,” as the apostle said, “through the veil, that is, through his flesh.” Indicating this elsewhere too, he says, “So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation; the old things have passed away; see, all things have become new.” And if a new creation has come about, there had to be someone first of this creation; but a mere man, only “earthy,” such as we have become through the transgression, could not be this. For in the first creation too human beings proved unfaithful, and through them the first creation was lost; and there was need of another, who would renew the first and preserve the new one that had come to be. So in his love for humankind no one else but the Lord is created as beginning of the new creation, as the way, and fittingly he says, “The Lord created me a beginning of his ways for his works,” so that man might no longer live according to that first creation, but, since there is a beginning of a new creation, and we have Christ as the “beginning of the ways” of it, we may henceforth follow him who says, “I am the way.” For the blessed apostle too, teaching this in the letter to the Colossians, said, “He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he might be preeminent.”

For if, as has been said, he is called “beginning” because of the resurrection from the dead, and the resurrection happened when, bearing our flesh, he gave himself up to death for us, it would be evident that what he says, “He created me a beginning of ways,” signifies not his substance but his presence in the body. For death was proper to the body; and as death is proper to the body, so what is said, “The Lord created me a beginning of his ways,” would be proper to the bodily presence. For since the Saviour was thus created according to the flesh and became the beginning of those being re-created, having as our firstfruits the human flesh which he took, the people to come is consequently also created after him, as David says, “Let this be written for another generation, and a people that is being created will praise the Lord,” and again in the twenty-first psalm, “The generation to come will be told of the Lord, and they will proclaim his righteousness to a people that shall be born, which the Lord has made.” For we shall no longer hear, “In the day you eat of it, you shall surely die,” but “Where I am, you too shall be”; so that we may say, “For we are his workmanship, created for good works.” And again, since God's “work,” that is, man, though created perfect, became deficient through the transgression and became dead by sin, and it was unfitting that the work of God should remain incomplete (which is why all the saints prayed about this, saying in the hundred and thirty-seventh psalm, “Lord, you will repay on my behalf; Lord, do not overlook the works of your hands”), therefore the perfect Word of God puts on the incomplete body and is said to be “created for the works,” so that, paying the debt in our place, he might through himself complete what was lacking to man. And what man lacked was immortality and the way to paradise. And this is what the Saviour says: “I glorified you on the earth; I completed the work which you gave me to do”; and again, “The works which the Father has given me to complete, these very works which I do bear witness about me.” And the works which he here says the Father gave him to complete are those for which he is created, as he says in the Proverbs, “The Lord created me a beginning of his ways for his works”; for it is the same to say, “The Father gave me the works,” and “The Lord created me for works.”

When, then, did he receive the works to complete them, you fighters against God? For from this “he created” too will be understood. If you say, “At the beginning, when he made them out of what was not into being,” it is false; for they had not yet come into being, whereas he evidently speaks as one receiving things that already existed. Nor is it reverent to name the time before the Word became flesh, lest his coming should then appear superfluous; for it was for the sake of these works that the coming took place. So it remains to say that when he became man, then he received the works; for then he also completed them, healing our wounds and granting us the resurrection from the dead. And if the works were given to him when the Word became flesh, it is clear that when he became man, then too he is “created for the works.” So “he created” signifies not his substance, as has often been said, but his bodily origin. For then, because the works had become incomplete and lame through the transgression, he is said in a bodily sense to be “created,” so that, having completed them and made them whole, he might present the church to the Father, as the apostle said, “not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it might be holy and blameless.” So the human race has been perfected in him and restored, as it was when made at the beginning, and indeed with greater “grace”; for having risen from the dead we no longer fear death, but in Christ we shall reign for ever in the heavens. And this has happened because the Word of God himself, who is proper to the Father and from him, put on the flesh and became man. For if he had become man while being a creature, man would have remained none the less as he was, not joined to God. For how, being a work, could he join a work to the creator? Or what help could come from like to like, when they themselves need the same help? And how, if the Word were a creature, could he have undone God's sentence and forgiven sin, when it is written in the prophets that this belongs to God? “For who is a God like you, taking away sins and passing over iniquities?” For God said, “You are earth, and to earth you shall return”; and human beings became mortal. How then could sin be undone by originated beings? But the Lord himself undid it, as he himself said, “If the Son sets you free”; and the Son who set them free truly showed that he is not a creature, nor one of the originated beings, but the proper Word and image of the Father's substance, of him who at the beginning pronounced the sentence and who “alone forgives sins.” For since it was said in the Word, “You are earth, and to earth you shall return,” it followed that through the Word himself and in him the freedom and the undoing of the condemnation came about.

“But,” they say, “even if the Saviour were a creature, God could simply have spoken and undone the curse.” They might hear the same thing from someone else who says, “Even if he had not come at all, God could simply have spoken and undone the curse.” But one must consider what is profitable to human beings, and not reckon in every case what is possible to God. For he could have destroyed the transgressors of that time even before Noah's ark, but he did it after the ark. He could have brought the people out of Egypt without Moses, simply by speaking, but it was expedient to do it through Moses. God could have saved the people without the judges, but it was expedient for the peoples that a judge be raised up for them from time to time. The Saviour could have come at the beginning, or, having come, not have been handed over to Pilate; but he came “at the consummation of the ages,” and when he was sought he said, “I am he.” For what he does is what is expedient for human beings, and it was not fitting that it should happen otherwise; and for what is expedient and fitting he makes provision. He came, at any rate, “not to be served but to serve,” and to work our salvation. Certainly, though he could have spoken the law from heaven, he saw that it was profitable to human beings to speak it from Sinai; and he did so, so that Moses might be able to go up, and they, hearing the word from close by, might be better able to believe. Besides, one can see the reasonableness of what happened from this: if he had spoken because he had the power, and the curse had been undone, the power of him who commanded would have been displayed, but man would have become such as Adam was before the transgression, having received grace from outside and not having it fitted to the body; for that is how he was when he was placed in paradise; and perhaps he would even have become worse, because he had learned to transgress. Being such, then, if he had again been led astray by the serpent, there would again have been need “for God to command and undo the curse”; and so the need would have gone on without end, and human beings would none the less have remained liable, serving sin; always sinning, they would always have needed someone to pardon them, and would never have been set free, being flesh in themselves and always worsted by the law because of the weakness of the flesh.

Again, if the Son were a creature, man would have remained none the less mortal, not being joined to God; for a creature would not join creatures to God, since it too seeks one to join it; nor could a part of creation be the salvation of creation, since it too needs salvation. So that this too should not happen, he sends his own Son, and he becomes son of man, taking the created flesh; so that, since all are liable to death, he, being other than all, might himself offer his own body to death for all; and thereafter, as though all had died through him, the word of the sentence might be fulfilled (“for all died in Christ”), and all through him might thereafter become free from sin and from the curse that came through it, and might truly abide for ever, risen from the dead and clothed with immortality and incorruption. For when the Word put on the flesh, as has often been shown, every bite of the serpent was entirely quenched in it; whatever evil sprang up from the impulses of the flesh was cut off, and together with these the death that follows sin was destroyed, as the Lord himself says, “The ruler of this world is coming, and finds nothing in me,” and “For this he was manifested,” as John wrote, “to destroy the works of the devil.” And these having been destroyed from the flesh, we were all thus set free by kinship of the flesh, and thereafter we too were joined to the Word. And being joined to God, we no longer remain on earth, but, as he himself said, “Where he is, we too shall be”; and thereafter we shall no longer fear the serpent; for he was brought to nothing, driven out in the flesh by the Saviour and hearing, “Get behind me, Satan”; and so he is cast out of paradise into the eternal fire. Nor shall we have to guard against a woman who leads astray; for “in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as angels”; and in Christ Jesus there will be “a new creation,” and “neither male nor female,” but Christ will be “all and in all.” And where Christ is, what fear or what danger will there be any longer?

But this would not have happened if the Word were a creature. For the devil, being himself a creature, would always have kept up the fight with a creature; and man, being in the middle, would always have been exposed to death, not having one in whom and through whom he might be joined to God and become free of all fear. Hence the truth shows that the Word is not among originated things, but rather their creator; for this is how he also took the originated, human body, so that, having renewed it as creator, he might deify it in himself, and so bring us all into the kingdom of heaven after its likeness. But man would not have been deified by being joined to a creature, had the Son not been true God; nor would man have been brought into the Father's presence, had the one who put on the body not been his natural and true Word. And just as we would not have been set free from sin and the curse had the flesh which the Word put on not been human by nature (for we would have had nothing in common with what was foreign to us), so man would not have been deified had the Word who became flesh not been by nature from the Father, true, and proper to him. For this is why such a union took place: that he might join what is by nature man to what is by nature Godhead, and that man's salvation and deification might be secure. So let those who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his substance deny also that he took true human flesh from Mary ever-virgin. For there would have been no further gain for us human beings if either the Word were not true and natural Son of God, or the flesh which he assumed were not true. But he did take true flesh, even if Valentinus rages; for the Word was by nature and truly God, even if the Ariomaniacs rage; and in that flesh the beginning of our new creation came about, he having been created man for us and having opened for us that way, as has been said.

So the Word is neither a creature nor a work; for creature, thing made, and work are the same; and if he were a creature and a thing made, he would also be a work. That is why he did not say, “He created me a work,” nor “He made me with the works,” lest he seem to be a creature in nature and substance; nor “He created me so that I might make works,” lest again, according to the ill will of the impious, he be thought to have come into being for our sake as an instrument; nor did he announce, “He created me before the works,” lest, as he is offspring before all, so, being also created before the works, he should cause “offspring” and “he created” to be thought the same. But with precise care he said, “for works,” which is equal to saying, “The Father made me into flesh, to become man”; so that from this too it is again shown that he is not a work but offspring. For as one who enters a house is not part of the house but other than the house, so one who is created for the works would be other in nature than the works. For if, as you say, Arians, the Word of God is a work, by what hand and in what wisdom did he himself come into being? For all things that came into being came into being by the hand and in the wisdom of God, as God himself says, “My hand made all these things,” and David sings, “And you, Lord, in the beginning founded the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands,” and again in the hundred and forty-second psalm, “I remembered the days of old, and I meditated on all your works; I meditated on the works of your hands.” If, then, the things made were wrought by the hand of God, and it is written that “all things came into being through the Word, and without him not one thing came into being,” and again, “one Lord Jesus, through whom are all things,” and that “in him all things hold together,” it is very clear that the Son would not be a work, but that he himself is the hand of God and his wisdom. Knowing this, the martyrs in Babylon, Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, refute the Arian impiety. For saying, “Bless the Lord, all you works of the Lord,” they listed the things in heaven and on earth and all creation as works; but they did not name the Son; for they did not say, “Bless, O Word, and praise, O Wisdom,” so as to show that all the others are praising and are works, while the Word is not a work nor one of those who praise, but is praised together with the Father, and worshipped, and confessed as God, being his Word and Wisdom and the creator of the works. The Spirit too said this in the Psalms with a most beautiful distinction: “The Word of the Lord is upright, and all his works are in faithfulness”; as it says in another place too, “How great are your works, O Lord! In wisdom you have made them all.”

If the Word were a work, he too would certainly have come into being “in wisdom,” and Scripture would neither have distinguished him from the works, nor named them “works” while proclaiming him as “Word and God's own Wisdom.” But as it is, by distinguishing him from the works, Scripture shows that Wisdom is the creator of the works and not a work. Paul too uses this distinction, writing to the Hebrews: “For the Word of God is living and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart; and no creature is hidden before him, but all are naked and laid bare to his eyes, to whom we must give account.” See, he named originated things “creature,” but knows the Son to be the Word of God, as being other than the creatures. And again, in saying, “but all are naked and laid bare to his eyes, to whom we must give account,” he signifies that he is other than all. For this is why he judges, while each of all originated things is answerable to give account to him. So too, when “the whole creation groans together with us to be set free from the bondage of corruption,” the Son is shown to be other than the creatures. For if he were a creature, he too would be one of those who groan, and would need one to make him a son and set him free along with all. But if the whole creation groans together for the sake of freedom from the bondage of corruption, while the Son is not one of those who groan, nor of those who need freedom, but is himself the one who makes all things sons and sets them free, saying to the Jews of that time, “The slave does not remain in the house for ever; the son remains for ever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed,” then it is shown from these words too, more brightly than light, that the Word of God is not a creature but the true Son of the Father, genuine by nature. About “The Lord created me a beginning of ways,” then, though in few words, these things are sufficient, as I think, to give the more learned occasion to construct more arguments for the overthrow of the Arian heresy. But since the heretics, reading the next verse too and thinking wrongly about it, suppose, because it is written, “Before the age he founded me,” that these words too are said of the Godhead of the Word and not of his presence in the flesh, it is necessary to explain this verse as well and show their error.

It is written, “God by Wisdom founded the earth.” If, then, the earth has been founded by Wisdom, how is the one who founds it himself founded? But this too is said in proverbial fashion, and we must seek its sense too, so that we may know that by Wisdom the Father creates and founds the earth, so that it may be firm and endure, while Wisdom herself was founded for us, so that she might become the beginning and foundation of our new creation and renewal. At any rate, not even here did he say, “Before the age he made me Word or Son,” lest he should seem to have a beginning of being made. For this above all must be asked, whether he is Son, and the Scriptures must be searched first of all about this. For this is what Peter answered when the apostles were asked, saying, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”; and this is what the father of the Arian heresy asked among the first things: “If you are the Son of God”; for he knew that this is the truth and the sovereign point of our faith; and that, if he is the Son, the devil's tyranny will have an end; but if he is a creature, he too is one of those descended from Adam, whom the devil had deceived, and he need have no concern about him. That is why the Jews of that time too were indignant, because the Lord said that he was Son of God and that God was “his own Father.” For if he had said that he was one of the creatures, or “I am a work,” they would not have been startled on hearing it, nor would they have thought such words blasphemy, knowing that angels too had come to the fathers; but since he called himself Son, they perceived that such a mark belongs not to a creature but to Godhead and the Father's nature.

The Arians, then, even while imitating their father the devil, ought to have examined the matter: if he had said, “He founded me as Word or Son,” they might think as they do; but if he did not say so, they should not invent for themselves things that are not. For he did not say, “Before the age he founded me as Word or Son,” but simply, “He founded me,” so as to show again, as I said, that he says this too in proverbial fashion, not for his own sake but for the sake of those who are built upon him. Knowing this, the apostle too writes, “For no one can lay another foundation than the one that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. But let each one take care how he builds upon it.” And the foundation must be of the same kind as what is built upon it, so that it can be fitted together with it. As Word, then, insofar as he is Word, he has none like himself to be fitted together with him; for he is only-begotten; but having become man, he has those who are like him, whose like flesh he also put on. So it is according to his humanity that he “is founded,” so that we too may be built upon him as “precious stones,” and become “a temple of the Holy Spirit who dwells in us.” And as he is the foundation, and we the stones built upon him, so again he is the “vine,” and we are joined to him as branches, not according to the substance of the Godhead (for that is impossible), but again according to his humanity; for the branches must be like the vine, since we too are like him according to the flesh. Besides, since the heretics think in human terms, it is fitting to refute them with human examples, in their own terms. He did not say, then, “He made me a foundation,” lest, as though he were a thing made with a beginning of coming to be, they should find even in this a shameless pretext for impiety; but “He founded me.” What is founded is founded for the sake of the stones laid upon it; and it does not become so simply, but when a stone is moved from a mountain and set down in the depth of the earth. As long as the stone is in the mountain, it has not yet been founded; but when need requires, and it is moved and the depth of the earth surrounds it, then, if the stone could speak, it would say, “Now he has founded me, he who moved me here from the mountain.” So the Lord too did not begin to be when he was founded (for he was Word even before this); but when he put on our body, which he took, cut from Mary, then he says, “He founded me,” which is equal to saying, “He clothed me, who am Word, with an earthly body.” For so he is founded for our sake, taking on what is ours, so that we, being fitted together as one body and bound together in him through the likeness of the flesh, may attain “to a perfect man” and abide immortal and incorruptible.

And let no one be troubled by “before the age,” and “before he made the earth,” and “before the mountains were settled”; for this too he joined very well to “he founded” and “he created,” since this again concerns the economy in the flesh. For the “grace” that has come to us from the Saviour has only now “appeared,” as the apostle said, and came about when he came to dwell among us; but it had been prepared even before we came into being, or rather even before the foundation of the world; and the reason is kind and wonderful. It was not fitting for God to deliberate about us afterwards, lest he should appear ignorant of what concerns us. The God of all, then, creating us through his own Word, and knowing our affairs better than we do, and foreknowing that, having been made “good,” we would afterwards become transgressors of the commandment and be cast out of paradise for disobedience, being loving toward humankind and good, prepares beforehand in his own Word, through whom he also created us, the economy for our salvation, so that, even if we fell, deceived by the serpent, we should not remain utterly dead, but, having in the Word the redemption and salvation prepared for us beforehand, might rise again and abide immortal, when he for our sake should be “created a beginning of the ways,” and the “firstborn of creation” should become “firstborn of brothers,” and himself rise as “firstfruits of the dead.” Paul the blessed apostle teaches this in his writing; for, interpreting “before the age” and “before the earth came to be” in the Proverbs, he says to Timothy: “Share in suffering for the gospel, according to the power of God, who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before eternal times, but has now been manifested through the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who abolished death and brought life to light.” And to the Ephesians: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, just as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him in love, having predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to himself.”

How, then, did he choose us before we came into being, unless, as he himself has said, we were prefigured in him? And how at all, before human beings were created, did he “predestine us for adoption,” unless the Son himself had been founded before the age, having undertaken the economy on our behalf? Or how, as the apostle goes on to say, “were we given an inheritance, having been predestined,” unless the Lord himself had been founded before the age, so that he had the purpose, on our behalf, to take upon himself through the flesh the whole sentence of judgment that lay against us, and thereafter we might be made sons in him? And how did we receive grace “before eternal times,” when we had not yet come into being but came into being in time, unless the grace that reaches us had been laid up in Christ? That is why at the judgment too, when each receives “according to his deeds,” he says, “Come, you who are blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” How then, or in whom, was it prepared before we came into being, unless in the Lord, who was founded for this before the age, so that we, as built upon him, might partake, as well-fitted stones, of the life and grace that come from him? And this has happened, as one may piously understand in some measure, so that, as I said before, rising from our brief death, we might be able to live eternally; which we could not have done, being men from the earth, had not the hope of life and salvation been prepared for us in Christ before the age. So, fittingly, the Word, entering our flesh and in it “created a beginning of ways for his works,” is founded in this way, as the Father's will was in him, as has been said, “before the age,” and “before the earth came to be,” and “before the mountains were settled,” and “before the springs came forth”; so that even if “the earth,” and the mountains, and the forms of visible things “pass away” at the consummation of the present age, we should not “grow old” with them, but might be able to live even after them, having the life and spiritual blessing prepared for us before them in the Word himself, according to election. For so we shall be able to have not a temporary life, but to abide living afterwards in Christ, since even before these things our life had been founded and prepared in Christ Jesus.

For it was not fitting that our life should be founded in any other than the Lord, who is before the ages, “through whom” the ages too came into being, so that, since it is in him, we too might be able to inherit eternal life. For God is good; and being always good, he willed this, knowing that our weak nature needs help and salvation from him. And as a wise architect, intending to build a house, plans at the same time that if it should ever be ruined after it is built he may renew it, and planning this makes preparation beforehand, and gives the builder the provision for renewal, so that the preparation for renewal comes about before the house; in the same way, before us, the renewal of our salvation is founded in Christ, so that in him we might also be re-created. The counsel and the purpose were prepared before the age; but the work came about when need required it and the Saviour came. For the Lord himself will be all things to us in the heavens, receiving us into eternal life. These things, then, would suffice to prove that the Word of God is not a creature, and that the sense of the saying is correct. But since the saying, when searched, has a correct sense from every side, it follows that this sense too should be stated; perhaps the senseless may be put to shame by many arguments. And there is need again of what was said before; for the matter at hand concerns the same proverb and the same Wisdom. The Word did not say that he is by nature a creature, but said in proverbs, “The Lord created me”; and it is clear that he signifies a certain sense, not plainly but hidden, which we too can find if we “remove the veil” of the proverb. For who, hearing the creating Wisdom say, “The Lord created me a beginning of his ways,” does not at once seek the meaning, reasoning how the one who creates can be created? Who, hearing the only-begotten Son of God say that he is created “a beginning of ways,” does not search out the sense, wondering how the only-begotten Son can become the beginning of many others? It is a riddle; but “the man of understanding,” it says, “will understand a parable and a dark word, the sayings of the wise and their riddles.”

The only-begotten, very Wisdom of God is the creator and craftsman of all things; for “You made all things in wisdom,” it says, and “the earth was filled with your creation.” But so that the things that came into being might not only exist but exist well, God was pleased that his own Wisdom should come down to the creatures, so as to set a certain impress and semblance of its image in all in common and in each, so that the things made might be shown to be wise and works worthy of God. For as our word is an image of the Son of God, who is Word, so again the wisdom that has come to be in us is an image of him, who is Wisdom; having in it the power to know and understand, we become capable of receiving the creating Wisdom, and through it we can know its Father. For “he who has the Son,” it says, “has the Father too”; and “he who receives me receives him who sent me.” Since, then, such an impress of Wisdom has been created in us and is in all the works, fittingly the true and creating Wisdom, taking to itself what belongs to its own impress, says, “The Lord created me for his works.” For what the wisdom in us says, the Lord himself says as his own; and he is not himself created, being creator, but because of his image created in the works he says these things as of himself. And as the Lord himself said, “He who receives you receives me,” because his impress is in us, so, though he is not among the things created, yet because his image and impress is created in the works, he says, as though it were himself, “The Lord created me a beginning of his ways for his works.” And the impress of Wisdom has come to be in the works for this reason: that, as I said before, the world might in it know its own creating Word, and through him the Father. And this is what Paul said: “For what can be known of God is plain to them, for God has shown it to them; for his invisible things from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made.” So the Word is not a creature in substance; the saying in the Proverbs concerns the wisdom that is in us and is so called.

And if they disbelieve even these things, let them tell us themselves whether there is any wisdom in the creatures or not. If there is not, how does the apostle complain, saying, “For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not know God”? Or how, if there is no wisdom, is “a multitude of wise men” found in Scripture? And, “A wise man fears and turns away from evil,” and “By wisdom a house is built.” And Ecclesiastes says, “A man's wisdom will light up his face,” and rebukes the rash, saying, “Do not say, What has happened, that the former days were better than these? For you have not inquired wisely about this.” But if there is, as the son of Sirach too says—“He poured her out upon all his works, with all flesh according to his gift, and supplied her to those who love him”—and such a pouring out is a mark not of the substance of the very, only-begotten Wisdom, but of the wisdom imaged in the world, what is incredible if the creating and true Wisdom itself, of which the wisdom and knowledge poured out in the world is an impress, speaks, as I said before, as though about itself, saying, “The Lord created me for his works”? For the wisdom in the world is not the one that creates, but the one that is created in the works, according to which “the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament proclaims the work of his hands.” And human beings, if they bear this wisdom in themselves, will recognize the true Wisdom of God, and will know that they have truly been made in the image of God. It is as if a king's son, when his father wished to build a city, had his own name inscribed on each of the works as they were made, both for the security of the works, so that they might endure because of the representation of his name on each, and so that from the name people might be able to remember him and his father; and having finished, if he were asked about the city, how it had been made, he would say, “It has been made secure; for according to my father's will I was imaged in each work; for my name was created in the works.” And in saying this he signifies not that his own substance was created, but his impress, through his name. In the same way, by the likeness of the example, the true Wisdom answers those who marvel at the wisdom in the creatures: “The Lord created me for works; for the impress in them is mine; and so I came down to the work of creation.”

Again, one must not be startled that the Son speaks of the impress that is in us as though of himself, since (for one must not shrink from saying the same thing) when Saul was persecuting the church, in which was his impress and image, he spoke as if he himself were persecuted: “Saul, why are you persecuting me?” So, as has been said, if the impress of Wisdom that is in the works had itself said, “The Lord created me for works,” no one would have been startled; so too, if the true and creating Wisdom itself, the only-begotten Word of God, speaks what belongs to his image as though of himself, “The Lord created me for works,” let no one pass over the wisdom created in the world and in the works and think that “he created” is said of the substance of very Wisdom, lest, “mixing the wine with water,” he be seen to steal the truth. For she is the one who creates and crafts; but her impress is created in the works, as the “according to the image” is created from the image. And he says “beginning of ways” because such wisdom becomes a sort of beginning and, as it were, a first lesson in the knowledge of God. For one who has first set foot, as it were, on this way, and keeps it in the fear of God (as Solomon said, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom”), then ascending in thought and perceiving the creating Wisdom in creation, will perceive in her also her Father, as the Lord himself said, “He who has seen me has seen the Father,” and as John writes, “He who confesses the Son has the Father also.” And he says, “Before the age he founded me,” because in her impress the works remain firm and endure for ever. Then, lest anyone, hearing of the wisdom thus created in the works, should think the true Wisdom, the Son of God, to be by nature a creature, he necessarily added, “before the mountains,” and “before the earth,” and “before the waters,” and “before all the hills he begets me,” so that by saying “before all creation” (for in these he indicated the whole of creation) he might show that he was not created in substance together with the works. For if he was created “for the works,” but is before the works, it is clear that he exists even before he was created. So he is not a creature in nature and substance, but, as he himself added, he is offspring. And how a creature differs from an offspring, and how they are distinct in nature, has been shown earlier.

And since she goes on to say, “When he prepared the heaven, I was present with him,” one must know that she says this not as though the Father prepared the heaven or the clouds above without her (for there is no doubt that all things were created in Wisdom, and “without her not one thing came into being”); but this is what she says: “All things came into being in me and through me; but since there was need for wisdom to be created in the works, in substance I was with the Father, but by my condescension to originated things I was harmonizing my impress to the works, so that the whole world, as one body, might not be at strife but in concord with itself.” All who, with right understanding, according to the wisdom given them, become contemplators of the creatures can themselves say, “By your ordinance all things continue”; but those who have neglected this will hear, “Claiming to be wise, they became fools; for what can be known of God is plain to them, for God has shown it to them; for his invisible things from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, both his eternal power and divinity, so that they are without excuse; because, knowing God, they did not glorify him as God, but served the creature rather than him who created all things, who is blessed for ever. Amen.” And they will be put to shame on hearing, “For since, in the wisdom of God,” in the manner described above, “the world through its wisdom did not know God, God was pleased through the foolishness of the preaching to save those who believe.” For no longer, as in earlier times, did God will to be known through an image and shadow of Wisdom, the one that is in the creatures; but he made the true Wisdom itself take flesh and become man and endure the death of the cross, so that through faith in him all who believe might thereafter be saved. It is, however, the same Wisdom of God who earlier, through her image in the creatures (because of which she is also said to be “created”), made herself manifest, and through herself her Father; and afterwards, being Word, she herself “became flesh,” as John said, and after “destroying death” and saving our race, revealed still more both himself and, through himself, his own Father, saying, “Grant them to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.”

The whole earth, at any rate, has been filled with the knowledge of him; for the knowledge of the Father through the Son and of the Son from the Father is one, and the Father rejoices in this; and in this joy the Son delights in the Father, saying, “I was the one in whom he delighted, and daily I rejoiced before his face.” And this again shows that the Son is not foreign but proper to the Father's substance. For see, he did not come into being for our sake, as the impious say, nor is he at all “from things that are not” (for God did not procure for himself from outside something to give him joy); rather, what is said is the mark of one who is proper and like. When, then, was there a time when the Father did not rejoice? And if he always rejoiced, there always was the one in whom he rejoiced. And in whom does the Father rejoice, if not in seeing himself in his own image, which is his Word? And if he also “rejoiced in the sons of men, having completed the world,” as is written in the Proverbs themselves, this too has the same sense. For he rejoiced in this way too not because joy was added to him, but again because he saw the works made after his own image; so that even this rejoicing of God has his image as its reason. And how does the Son delight, except in seeing himself in the Father? For this too is equal to saying, “He who has seen me has seen the Father,” and “I am in the Father and the Father in me.” So your boast has been shown on every side to be empty, you Christ-fighters, and in vain have you paraded and trumpeted everywhere “The Lord created me a beginning of his ways,” misinterpreting its sense and proclaiming your own notion rather than the mind of Solomon. For see, your thinking has been shown to be mere fancy; but the saying in the Proverbs, and all that has been said before, show that the Son is not in nature and substance a creature, but the proper offspring of the Father, true Wisdom and Word, “through whom all things came into being, and without him not one thing came into being.”