Oration I Against the Arians 12–20

12. For having mentioned the creation, he consistently writes also of the Creator's power in the creation, which is the Word of God, through whom also “all things came to be.” If, then, the creation is sufficient of itself alone, without the Son, to make God known, take care not to fall into thinking that the creation too came to be without the Son. But if it came to be through the Son, “and in him all things hold together,” then necessarily whoever contemplates the creation rightly contemplates also the Word who fashioned it, and through him begins to understand the Father. And if, as the Savior says, “No one knows the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son reveals him,” and when Philip said, “Show us the Father,” he did not say, “Look at the creation,” but, “He who has seen me has seen the Father,” then Paul rightly, blaming the Greeks because, while contemplating the harmony and order of the creation, they do not reflect on the Creator Word within it (for the creatures point to their own Creator), so that through them they might understand the true God and stop worshipping the creatures, said, “both his eternal power and divinity,” to signify the Son. And when the saints say, “He who exists before the ages,” and “through whom he made the ages,” they proclaim none the less the eternity and everlastingness of the Son, and in these words they signify God himself. For Isaiah says, “The eternal God, who made the ends of the earth”; and Susanna said, “O eternal God”; and Baruch wrote, “I will cry to the Eternal in my days,” and a little later, “For I have hoped in the Eternal for your salvation, and joy has come to me from the Holy One.” But since the apostle too, writing to the Hebrews, says, “who, being the radiance of his glory and the exact imprint of his hypostasis,” and David sings in the eighty-ninth psalm, “And let the brightness of the Lord be upon us,” and, “In your light we shall see light,” who is so senseless as to doubt that the Son always is? For when did anyone see light without the brightness of its “radiance,” so as to say of the Son also, “there was once when he was not,” or that “he was not before he was begotten”? And what is said to the Son in the hundred and forty-fourth psalm, “Your kingdom is a kingdom of all the ages,” does not allow anyone to reckon even the slightest interval in which the Word did not exist. For if every interval is measured in the ages, and the Word is king and maker of all the ages, then, since not even the slightest interval exists before him, it is madness to say, “there was once when the Eternal was not,” and “the Son is from nothing.” And since the Lord himself says, “I am the truth,” and does not say, “I became the truth,” but always says “I am”: “I am the shepherd,” “I am the light,” and again, “Do you not call me Lord and Teacher? And you say well, for so I am”; who, hearing such a word from God, the Wisdom and Word of the Father, speaking about himself, would still hesitate about the truth, and not at once believe that in the “I am” the eternity of the Son and his being without beginning before every age is signified?

13. That the Scriptures speak of the Son's eternity is clear, then, from what has been said. And that the very words the Arians utter, “he was not,” and “before,” and “when,” are what the same Scriptures say about the creatures, what is about to be said will show in turn. For Moses, recounting the origin of our world, says, “and every green thing of the field before it came to be on the earth, and all the grass of the field before it sprang up; for God had not sent rain on the earth, and there was no man to work the earth”; and in Deuteronomy, “when the Most High divided the nations.” And the Lord said in his own person, “If you loved me, you would have rejoiced because I said, ‘I am going to the Father,’ for the Father is greater than I. And now I have told you before it happens, so that when it happens you may believe”; and about the creation he says through Solomon, “Before he made the earth, and before he made the depths, and before the springs of the waters came forth, and before the mountains were set in place, and before all the hills, he begets me”; and, “Before Abraham came to be, I am.” And about Jeremiah he says, “Before I formed you in the womb, I know you.” And David sings, “Lord, you have become our refuge in generation and generation; before the mountains came to be and the earth and the world were formed, from age to age you are.” And in Daniel, “Susanna cried out with a loud voice and said, O eternal God, who knows what is hidden, who knows all things before they come to be.” So “he once was not,” “before he came to be,” “when,” and all such little phrases are fitly said of things originated and creatures, which came to be from nothing, but are foreign to the Word. And if the Scriptures say these things of things originated, but “always” of the Son, then, you fighters against God, the Son did not come to be from nothing, nor is he at all one of the things originated; he is the Father's image and eternal Word, never not being but always being, as the eternal radiance of an eternal light. Why then do you imagine times before the Son? Or why do you blaspheme the Word as coming after times, the Word through whom the ages too came to be? For how could time or age have come to exist at all when, on your view, the Word had not yet appeared, the Word “through whom all things came to be, and without him not one thing came to be”? Or why, when you mean time, do you not say openly, “there was a time when the Word was not”? You hide the word “time” to deceive the simple, but you do not hide your mind at all; indeed, even if you hid it, you could not escape notice. For again you mean times when you say, “there was once when he was not,” and “he was not before he was begotten.”

14. When these things are shown in this way, they grow still more shameless, saying: “If there was not once when he was not, but the Son is eternal and coexists with the Father, you are saying that he is no longer the Father's Son but his brother.” Senseless and contentious men! If we said only that he exists eternally with the Father, and not that he is Son, their pretended scruple would have some plausibility. But if, in calling him eternal, we confess him to be Son from the Father, how can the one begotten be thought the “brother” of the one who begot him? And if our faith is in Father and Son, what brotherhood is there between them? Or how can the Word be called brother of him whose Word he is? This objection does not come from men who are ignorant, for they themselves see the truth; but it is a Jewish pretext, and that of men who, as Solomon said, wish “to separate themselves” from the truth. For the Father and the Son were not begotten from some pre-existing origin, so as to be thought brothers; but the Father is the origin of the Son and his begetter, and the Father is father and did not become son of anyone; and the Son is son and not brother. And if he is called the eternal offspring of the Father, he is rightly so called. For the Father's substance was never incomplete, so that what is proper to it should be added to it afterwards; nor has the Son been begotten as a man from a man, so as to come later than his Father's existence; but he is God's offspring, and being the proper Son of God, who always is, he exists eternally. For it is characteristic of men to beget in time, because of the incompleteness of their nature; but God's offspring is eternal, because his nature is always complete. If, then, he is not a Son but has come to be a work from nothing, let them first prove it, and then, imagining him to be a work, let them cry out, “there was once when he was not”; for things originated came to be when they were not. But if he is a Son (for the Father says so, and the Scriptures proclaim it), and “Son” is nothing other than what is begotten from the Father, and what is begotten from the Father is his Word, Wisdom, and radiance, what must one say but that, in saying “there was once when the Son was not,” they are like robbers stripping the Word away from God, and saying openly against him that he was once without his own Word and Wisdom, and that the light was once without its brightness, and the spring was barren and dry? For even if, pretending to fear the word “time” because of those who reproach them, they say that he was before times, still, because they posit certain intervals in which they imagine he did not exist, they none the less mean times, and by introducing irrationality into God they commit great impiety.

15. And if, again, they agree to the name “Son” because they do not wish to be openly condemned by everyone, but deny that he is the proper offspring of the Father's substance, on the grounds that this could not be without the idea of parts and divisions, they none the less deny that he is a true Son, calling him “son” in name only. And how are they not greatly mistaken, thinking the things of bodies about the incorporeal one, and, because of the weakness of their own nature, denying what is by nature proper to the Father? It is time for them, since they do not understand how God is or what sort the Father is, to deny him too, since these senseless men measure the Father's offspring by themselves. Those so disposed, who think there cannot be a Son of God, deserve pity; yet it is right to question and refute them, since perhaps in this way they may come to their senses. If, as you say, “the Son is from nothing, and was not before he was begotten,” then surely he too was called son and God and wisdom by participation; for this is how all other things too hold together and are glorified by being sanctified. You must say, then, in what he participates. All other things participate in the Spirit; in what, then, according to you, would he participate? In the Spirit? But the Spirit himself rather “receives from” the Son, as he himself has said, and it is absurd to say that the Son is sanctified by the Spirit. So he participates in the Father; for this is what remains, and one must say it. And what is this, then, and where is it from? If it is something external, devised by the Father, he would no longer be participating in the Father, but in what came to be outside him; and he will no longer be even second after the Father, having that thing before him; nor could he be called Son of the Father, but of that by participating in which he was called son and God. But if this is absurd and impious, since the Father says, “This is my beloved Son,” and the Son says that “God is his own Father,” it is clear that what is participated in is not external but is “from the substance of the Father.” And again, if this is something other than the substance of the Son, the same absurdity will confront us, since something will again be found in between, from the Father, and the substance of the Son, whatever that is.

16. Since, then, such reasonings are shown to be absurd and contrary to the truth, we must say that what is “from the substance of the Father,” and proper to him, is wholly the Son. For to say that God is wholly “participated” is the same as to say that he also begets; and what does “to beget” signify but a son? Indeed all things participate in the Son himself, according to the grace of the Spirit that comes from him; and from this it becomes clear that the Son himself participates in nothing, but what is participated from the Father is the Son. For by participating in the Son himself we are said to participate in God. And this is what Peter said, “that you may become partakers of the divine nature,” as the apostle too says, “Do you not know that you are God's temple?” and, “For we are the temple of the living God.” And when we look at the Son himself, we see the Father; for the thought and understanding of the Son is knowledge about the Father, because he is the proper offspring from his substance. And just as none of you would any longer call being participated a passion or a division of God's substance (for it has been shown and agreed that God is participated, and that to be participated and to beget are the same), so the offspring is neither a passion nor a division of that blessed substance. So it is not incredible that God has a Son, the offspring of his own substance; nor, when we say “Son” and “offspring,” do we signify a passion or a division of God's substance; rather, knowing the genuine, true, and only-begotten Son of God, so we believe. And since it has been declared and shown that the offspring from the Father's substance is the Son, no one can any longer doubt, but it should be quite clear, that this is the Wisdom and the Word of the Father, in whom and through whom he creates and makes all things; this is his radiance, in whom he enlightens all things and is revealed to whomever he will; this is his exact imprint and image, in whom he is contemplated and known; for this reason too “he and the Father are one,” for whoever sees him sees the Father also. This is the Christ, in whom all things have been redeemed, and who has in turn wrought the new creation. And since the Son is such, it is not fitting, but most dangerous, to say that he is “a work from nothing,” or that “he was not before he was begotten.” For whoever speaks so of what is proper to the Father's substance ends by blaspheming the Father himself, since he thinks of him the same things that he falsely imagines about the offspring from him.

17. This alone, then, is enough to overturn the Arian heresy; yet one may see its heterodoxy from this too. If God is maker and creator, and creates his works through the Son, and one cannot see the things that come to be otherwise than as coming to be through the Word, how is it not blasphemous, since God is maker, to say that his creative Word and Wisdom “once was not”? It is the same as saying that God is not even a maker, since he did not have his own creative Word from himself, but that the one in whom he creates is brought in from outside, is foreign to him, and is unlike him in substance. Next, let them tell us, or rather let them see even from this their impiety in saying “there was once when he was not” and “he was not before he was begotten.” For if the Word does not exist eternally with the Father, the Trinity is not eternal; but there was a unit first, and later it became a Trinity by addition; and as time went on, according to them, the knowledge of theology grew and took shape. And again, if the Son is not the proper offspring of the Father's substance, but came to be from nothing, then the Trinity is made up from nothing, and “there was once when” the Trinity “was not,” but a unit; and the Trinity was once incomplete and later complete: incomplete before the Son came to be, complete when he had come to be. And from then on the thing originated is counted with the Creator, and what once was not is worshipped as God and glorified together with him who always is. And, what is worse, the Trinity is found to be unlike itself, made up of strange and alien natures and substances. To say this is nothing other than to say that the constitution of the Trinity is originated. What sort of worship of God, then, is this, which is not even like itself, but is completed by additions over time, and is once not so and then so? For it is likely that it will receive a further addition, and so on to infinity, since once, at the beginning, it gained its constitution by addition. And there is no doubt that it could also be diminished; for it is clear that what is added can also be taken away.

18. But it is not so; far from it! The Trinity is not originated; there is an eternal and single Godhead in the Trinity, and one glory of the holy Trinity. And you dare to split it into different natures! Though the Father is eternal, you say of the Word who sits with him, “there was once when he was not”; and though the Son sits with the Father, you think to put him far from him. The Trinity is creator and maker; and you are not afraid to bring it down to things from nothing. You are not ashamed to make servile things equal to the nobility of the Trinity, and to rank the King, the Lord Sabaoth, with his subjects. Stop mixing what cannot be mixed, or rather things that are not with him who is. Those who say these things cannot bring glory and honor to the Lord, but dishonor and disgrace; for whoever dishonors the Son dishonors the Father. For if the knowledge of God is now complete in a Trinity, and this is the true and only godliness, and this is the good and the truth, it must always have been so, so that the good and the truth did not come later, nor the fullness of the knowledge of God come together by addition. It must, then, have been so eternally; and if it was not so eternally, it ought not to be so now either, but it ought to be as you suppose it was from the beginning, so that there is no Trinity even now. But no Christian would put up with such heretics. For these are the ideas of the Greeks: to introduce an originated triad and to make it equal with originated things; for it belongs to originated things to admit of deficiencies and additions. But the faith of Christians knows the blessed Trinity as unchangeable, complete, and always the same; it neither adds anything more to the Trinity, nor reckons that it was ever lacking, for each of these is impious. Therefore it knows it as unmixed with originated things, and it worships it, guarding the undivided unity of its Godhead; and it flees the blasphemies of the Arians, and confesses and knows that the Son always is. For he is eternal, as the Father is, whose eternal Word he is. And let us look at this point again.

19. If God is and is called the fountain of wisdom and life, as through Jeremiah, “They have forsaken me, the fountain of living water”; and again, “A throne of glory, exalted, is our sanctuary; O Lord, hope of Israel, let all who have forsaken you be put to shame; let those who have turned away be written on the earth, because they have forsaken the Lord, the fountain of life”; and in Baruch it is written, “You have forsaken the fountain of wisdom”; it would follow that life and wisdom are neither foreign to the substance of the “fountain,” but proper to it, nor ever without existence, but always exist. Now the Son is these, who says, “I am the life,” and, “I, Wisdom, have made counsel my dwelling.” How then is he not impious who says, “there was once when the Son was not”? For it is the same as saying, “there was once when the fountain was dry, without life and wisdom.” But such a thing would not be a fountain; for what does not beget from itself is not a fountain. How full of absurdity this is! God promises that those who do his will shall be like a fountain whose water does not fail, saying through Isaiah the prophet, “And you shall be filled as your soul desires, and your bones shall be made fat, and you shall be like a well-watered garden, and like a fountain whose water has not failed”; but these men dare to slander God, who is called and is the fountain of wisdom, as barren and as once lacking his own wisdom. But what these men say is falsehood; the truth bears witness that God is the eternal fountain of his own wisdom. And since the fountain is eternal, the Wisdom too must necessarily be eternal. For in it all things came to be, as David sings, “In wisdom you made all things,” and Solomon says, “God founded the earth by wisdom, and prepared the heavens by understanding.” And this Wisdom is the Word, and “through him,” as John says, “all things came to be, and without him not one thing came to be.” And he is the Christ; for “there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we for him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.” And if all things are through him, he himself would not be counted among the “all things.” For whoever dares to say that the one “through whom are all things” is one of the all things will surely think the same about God too, “from whom are all things.” But if anyone shuns this as absurd, and sets God apart as other than “all things,” it would follow that he should say that the only-begotten Son also, being proper to the Father's substance, is other than all things. And since he is not one of all things, it is not right to say of him, “there was once when he was not,” and “he was not before he was begotten.” For such expressions are fitly said of works; but the Son himself is such as the Father is, of whose substance he is the proper offspring, Word, and Wisdom. For this is proper to the Son in relation to the Father, and this shows the Father to be proper to the Son, so that we may neither say that God was ever without Word nor that the Son was ever without existence. For why is he Son, if not from him? Or why Word and Wisdom, if not always proper to him?

20. When, then, was God without what is proper to him? Or how can anyone reckon what is proper to him as foreign and of another substance? Other things, such as the things originated, have nothing like their maker in substance, but are outside him, having come to be through the Word by his grace and will, so that they can also cease to exist at some time, if their maker should so wish; for such is the nature of things originated. But as for what is proper to the Father's substance (for it has already been agreed that this is the Son), how is it not reckless and impious to say that it is “from nothing,” and that it “was not before it was begotten,” but was added on and can again at some time not be? Let anyone who merely thinks of this consider how the completeness and fullness of the Father's substance is taken away. For one may see the absurdity of the heresy still more clearly if one reflects that the Son is the “image” and “radiance of the Father,” and “exact imprint,” and “truth.” For if, when light exists, its radiance is its image, and when a hypostasis exists, its exact imprint is complete, and when the Father exists, the truth exists, then let those who measure the image and form of the Godhead by time consider into what a pit of impiety they fall. For if “the Son was not before he was begotten,” the truth was not always in God. But it is not right to say this. For since the Father exists, there was always in him the truth, which is the Son, who says, “I am the truth.” And since the hypostasis exists, its exact imprint and image must surely exist at once. For the image of God is not painted from outside; God himself is its begetter, and seeing himself in it he delights in it, as the Son himself says, “I was the one in whom he delighted.” When, then, did the Father not see himself in his own image? Or when did he not delight in it, that anyone should dare to say, “the image is from nothing,” and “the Father was not delighting before the image came to be”? And how could the maker and creator see himself in a created and originated substance? For the image must be such as its Father is.