Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Texts Explained; Sixthly, Proverbs viii. 22, Continued. Our Lord not said in Scripture to be 'created,' or the works to be 'begotten.' 'In the beginning' means in the case of the works 'from the beginning.' Scripture passages explained. We are made by God first, begotten next; creatures by nature, sons by grace. Christ begotten first, made or created afterwards. Sense of 'First-born of the dead;' of 'First-born among many brethren;' of 'First-born of all creation,' contrasted with 'Only-begotten.' Further interpretation of 'beginning of ways,' and 'for the works.' Why a creature could not redeem; why redemption was necessary at all. Texts which contrast the Word and the works.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Chapter XXI.—Texts Explained;
Sixthly, Proverbs viii. 22, Continued.
Our Lord not said in Scripture to be ‘created,’ or the
works to be ‘begotten.’ ‘In the beginning’
means in the case of the works ‘from the beginning.’
Scripture passages explained. We are made by God first, begotten next;
creatures by nature, sons by grace. Christ begotten first, made or
created afterwards. Sense of ‘First-born of the dead;’ of
‘First-born among many brethren;’ of ‘First-born of
all creation,’ contrasted with ‘Only-begotten.’
Further interpretation of ‘beginning of ways,’ and
‘for the works.’ Why a creature could not redeem; why
redemption was necessary at all. Texts which contrast the Word and the
works.
57. For had He been a
creature, He had not said, ‘He begets me,’ for the
creatures are from without, and are works of the Maker; but the
Offspring is not from without nor a work, but from the Father, and
proper to His Essence. Wherefore they are creatures; this God’s
Word and Only-begotten Son. For instance, Moses did not say of the
creation, ‘In the beginning He begat,’ nor ‘In the
beginning was,’ but ‘In the beginning God created the
heaven and the earth2581
.’ Nor did
David say in the Psalm, ‘Thy hands have “begotten
me,”’ but ‘made me and fashioned me2582
,’ everywhere applying the word
‘made’ to the creatures. But to the Son contrariwise; for
he has not said ‘I made,’ but ‘I begat2583
,’ and ‘He begets me,’ and
‘My heart uttered a good Word2584
.’ And in
the instance of the creation, ‘In the beginning He made;’
but in the instance of the Son, ‘In the beginning was the Word2585
.’ And there is this difference, that
the creatures are made upon the beginning, and have a beginning of
existence connected with an interval; wherefore also what is said of
them, ‘In the beginning He made,’ is as much as saying of
them, ‘From the beginning He made:’—as the Lord,
knowing that which He had made, taught, when He silenced the Pharisees,
with the words, ‘He which made them from the beginning, made them
male and female2586
;’ for from
some beginning, when they were not yet, were originate things brought
into being and created. This too the Holy Spirit has signified in the
Psalms, saying, ‘Thou, Lord, at the beginning hast laid the
foundation of the earth2587
;’ and again,
‘O think upon Thy congregation which Thou hast purchased from the
beginning2588
;’ now it is plain that what
takes place at the beginning, has a beginning of creation, and that
from some beginning God purchased His congregation. And that ‘In
the beginning He made,’ from his saying ‘made,’ means
‘began to make,’ Moses himself shews by saying, after the
completion of all things, ‘And God blessed the seventh day and
sanctified it, because that in it He had rested from all His work which
God began to make2589
.’ Therefore
the creatures began to be made; but the Word of God, not having
beginning of being, certainly did not begin to be, nor begin to come to
be, but was ever. And the works have their beginning in their making,
and their beginning precedes their coming to be; but the Word, not
being of things which come to be, rather comes to be Himself the Framer
of those which have a beginning. And the being of things originate is
measured by their becoming2590
, and from some
beginning does God begin to make them through the Word, that it may be
known that they were not before their origination; but the Word has His
being, in no other beginning2591
| 2591 ἀρχῇ, vid. Orat. iv.
1. | than the Father,
whom2592
| 2592 In
this passage ‘was from the beginning’ is made equivalent
with ‘was not before generation,’ and both are contrasted
with ‘without beginning’ or ‘eternal;’ vid. the
bearing of this on Bishop Bull’s explanation of the Nicene
Anathema, supr. Exc. B, where this passage is quoted. | they allow to be without beginning, so that
He too exists without beginning in the Father, being His Offspring, not
His creature.
58. Thus does
divine Scripture recognise the difference between the Offspring and
things made, and shew that the Offspring is a Son, not begun from any
beginning, but eternal; but that the thing made, as an external work of
the Maker, began to come into being. John therefore delivering divine
doctrine2593
| 2593 θεολογῶν, vid. §71, note. | about the Son, and knowing the
difference of the phrases, said not, ‘In the beginning has
become’ or ‘been made,’ but ‘In the beginning
was the Word;’ that we might understand ‘Offspring’
by ‘was,’ and not account of Him by intervals, but believe
the Son always and eternally to exist. And with these proofs, how, O
Arians, misunderstanding the passage in Deuteronomy, did you venture a
fresh act of irreligion2594
| 2594 The
technical sense of εὐσέβεια,
ἀσέβεια,
pietas, impietas, for ‘orthodoxy, heterodoxy,’ has been
noticed supr. p. 150, and derived from 1 Tim. iii. 16. The word
is contrasted ch. iv. 8. with the (perhaps Gnostic) ‘profane and
old-wives fables,’ and with ‘bodily
exercise.’ | against the Lord,
saying that ‘He is a work,’ or ‘creature,’ or
indeed ‘offspring?’ for offspring and work you take to mean
the same thing; but here too you shall be shewn to be as unlearned as
you are irreligious. Your first passage is this, ‘Is not He thy
Father that bought thee? did He not make thee and create thee2595
?’ And shortly after in the same Song
he says, ‘God that begat thee thou didst desert, and forgattest
God that nourished thee2596
.’ Now the
meaning conveyed in these passages is very remarkable; for he says not
first ‘He begat,’ lest that term should be taken as
indiscriminate with ‘He made,’ and these men should have a
pretence for saying, ‘Moses tells us indeed that God said from
the beginning, “Let Us make man2597
,”’ but he soon after says
himself, ‘God that begat thee thou didst desert,’ as if the
terms were indifferent; for offspring and work are the same. But after
the words ‘bought’ and ‘made,’ he has added
last of all ‘begat,’ that the sentence might carry its own
interpretation; for in the word ‘made’ he accurately
denotes what belongs to men by nature, to be works and things made; but
in the word ‘begat’ he shews God’s lovingkindness
exercised towards men after He had created them. And since they have
proved ungrateful upon this, thereupon Moses reproaches them, saying
first, ‘Do ye thus requite the Lord?’ and then adds,
‘Is not He thy Father that bought thee? Did He not make thee and
create thee2598
?’ And next he says, ‘They
sacrificed unto devils, not to God, to gods whom they knew not. New
gods and strange came up, whom your fathers knew not; the God that
begat thee thou didst desert2599
.’
59. For God not only created them to be men, but
called them to be sons, as having begotten them. For the term
‘begat’ is here as elsewhere expressive of a Son, as He
says by the Prophet, ‘I begat sons and exalted them;’ and
generally, when Scripture wishes to signify a son, it does so, not by
the term ‘created,’ but undoubtedly by that of
‘begat.’ And this John seems to say, ‘He gave to them
power to become children of God, even to them that believe on His Name;
which were begotten not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of
the will of man, but of God2600
.’ And here
too the cautious distinction2601
| 2601 παρατηρήσεως, §12, note. | is well kept up,
for first he says ‘become,’ because they are not called
sons by nature but by adoption; then he says ‘were
begotten,’ because they too had received at any rate the name of
son. But the People, as says the Prophet, ‘despised’ their
Benefactor. But this is God’s kindness to man, that of whom He is
Maker, of them according to grace He afterwards becomes Father also;
becomes, that is, when men, His creatures, receive into their hearts,
as the Apostle says, ‘the Spirit of His Son, crying, Abba,
Father2602
.’ And these are they who, having
received the Word, gained power from Him to become sons of God; for
they could not become sons, being by nature creatures, otherwise than
by receiving the Spirit of the natural and true Son. Wherefore, that
this might be, ‘The Word became flesh,’ that He might make
man capable of Godhead. This same meaning may be gained also from the
Prophet Malachi, who says, ‘Hath not One God created us? Have we
not all one Father2603
?’ for first
he puts ‘created,’ next ‘Father,’ to shew, as
the other writers, that from the beginning we were creatures by nature,
and God is our Creator through the Word; but afterwards we were made
sons, and thenceforward God the Creator becomes our Father also.
Therefore ‘Father’ is proper to the Son; and not
‘creature,’ but ‘Son’ is proper to the Father.
Accordingly this passage also proves, that we are not sons by nature,
but the Son who is in us2604
| 2604 τὸν ἐν ἡμῖν
υἱ& 231·ν. vid. also
supr. 10. circ. fin. 56. init. and τὸν ἐν
αὐτοῖς
οἰκοῦντα
λόγον. 61. init. Also
Orat. i. 50 fin. iii. 23–25. and de Decr. 31 fin.
Or. i. 48, note 7, §56, n. 5. infr. notes on
79. | ; and again, that
God is not our Father by nature, but of that Word in us, in whom and
because of whom we ‘cry, Abba, Father2605
.’ And so in like manner, the Father
calls them sons in whomsoever He sees His own Son, and says, ‘I
begat;’ since begetting is significant of a Son, and making is
indicative of the works. And thus it is that we are not begotten first, but made; for it is written,
‘Let Us make man2606
;’ but
afterwards, on receiving the grace of the Spirit, we are said
thenceforth to be begotten also; just as the great Moses in his Song
with an apposite meaning says first ‘He bought,’ and
afterwards ‘He begat;’ lest, hearing ‘He
begat,’ they might forget their own original nature; but that
they might know that from the beginning they are creatures, but when
according to grace they are said to be begotten, as sons, still no less
than before are men works according to nature.
60. And that creature and offspring are not the
same, but differ from each other in nature and the signification of the
words, the Lord Himself shews even in the Proverbs. For having said,
‘The Lord created me a beginning of His ways;’ He has
added, ‘But before all the hills He begat me.’ If then the
Word were by nature and in His Essence2607
a
creature, and there were no difference between offspring and creature,
He would not have added, ‘He begat me,’ but had been
satisfied with ‘He created,’ as if that term implied
‘He begat;’ but, as it is, after saying, ‘He created
me a beginning of His ways for His works,’ He has added, not
simply ‘begat me,’ but with the connection of the
conjunction ‘But,’ as guarding thereby the term
‘created,’ when he says, ‘But before all the hills He
begat me.’ For ‘begat me’ succeeding in such close
connection to ‘created me,’ makes the meaning one, and
shews that ‘created’ is said with an object2608
, but that ‘begat me’ is prior to
‘created me.’ For as, if He had said the reverse,
‘The Lord begat me,’ and went on, ‘But before the
hills He created me,’ ‘created’ would certainly
precede ‘begat,’ so having said first
‘created,’ and then added ‘But before all the hills
He begat me,’ He necessarily shews that ‘begat’
preceded ‘created.’ For in saying, ‘Before all He
begat me,’ He intimates that He is other than all things; it
having been shewn to be true2609
in an earlier part
of this book, that no one creature was made before another, but all
things originate subsisted at once together upon one and the same
command2610
. Therefore neither do the words which
follow ‘created,’ also follow ‘begat me;’ but
in the case of ‘created’ is added ‘beginning of
ways,’ but of ‘begat me,’ He says not, ‘He
begat me as a beginning,’ but ‘before all He begat
me.’ But He who is before all is not a beginning of all, but is
other than all2611
; but if other than
all (in which ‘all’ the beginning of all is included), it
follows that He is other than the creatures; and it becomes a clear
point, that the Word, being other than all things and before all,
afterwards is created ‘a beginning of the ways for works,’
because He became man, that, as the Apostle has said, He who is the
‘Beginning’ and ‘First-born from the dead, in all
things might have the preeminence2612
.’
61. Such then being the difference between
‘created’ and ‘begat me,’ and between
‘beginning of ways’ and ‘before all,’ God,
being first Creator, next, as has been said, becomes Father of men,
because of His Word dwelling in them. But in the case of the Word the
reverse; for God, being His Father by nature, becomes afterwards both
His Creator and Maker, when the Word puts on that flesh which was
created and made, and becomes man. For, as men, receiving the Spirit of
the Son, become children through Him, so the Word of God, when He
Himself puts on the flesh of man, then is said both to be created and
to have been made. If then we are by nature sons, then is He by nature
creature and work; but if we become sons by adoption and grace, then
has the Word also, when in grace towards us He became man, said,
‘The Lord created me.’ And in the next place, when He put
on a created nature and became like us in body, reasonably was He
therefore called both our Brother and ‘First-born2613
| 2613 Rom. viii. 29. Bishop
Bull’s hypothesis about the sense of πρωτοτόκος
τῆς κτίσεως
has been commented on supr. p. 347. As far as
Athan.’s discussion proceeds in this section, it only relates
to πρωτοτόκος
of men (i.e. from the dead), and is equivalent
to the ‘beginning of ways.’ | .’ For though it was after us2614
| 2614 Marcellus seems to have argued against Asterius from the same
texts (Euseb. in Marc. p. 12), that, since Christ is called
‘first-born from the dead,’ though others had been recalled
to life before Him, therefore He is called ‘first-born of
creation,’ not in point of time, but of dignity. vid. Montacut.
Not. p. 11. Yet Athan. argues contrariwise. Orat. iv.
29. | that He was made man for us, and our brother
by similitude of body, still He is therefore called and is the
‘First-born’ of us, because, all men being lost, according
to the transgression of Adam, His flesh before all others was saved and
liberated, as being the Word’s body2615
| 2615 §10. n. 7; Orat. iii. 31. note. | ;
and henceforth we, becoming incorporate with It, are saved after Its
pattern. For in It the Lord becomes our guide to the Kingdom of Heaven
and to His own Father, saying, ‘I am the way’ and
‘the door2616
,’ and
‘through Me all must enter.’ Whence also is He said to be
‘First-born from the dead2617
,’ not
that He died before us, for we had died first; but because having
undergone death for us and abolished it, He was the first to rise, as
man, for our sakes raising His own Body. Henceforth He having risen, we
too from Him and because of Him rise in due course from the dead.
62. But if He
is also called ‘First-born of the creation2618
| 2618 Here
again, though speaking of the ‘first-born of creation,’
Athan. simply views the phrase as equivalent to ‘first-born of
the new creation or “brother” of many;’
and so infr. ‘first-born because of the brotherhood He has
made with many.’ | ,’ still this is not as if He were
levelled to the creatures, and only first of them in point of time (for
how should that be, since He is ‘Only-begotten?’), but it
is because of the Word’s condescension2619
| 2619 Bp.
Bull considers συγκατάβασις
as equivalent to a figurative γέννησις, an idea which (vid. supr. p. 346 sq.) seems
quite foreign from Athan.’s meaning. In Bull’s sense of the
word, Athan. could not have said that the senses of Only-begotten and
First-born were contrary to each other, Or. i. 28. Συγκαταβῆναι
occurs supr. 51 fin. of the Incarnation. What
is meant by it will be found infr. 78–81. viz. that our
Lord came ‘to implant in the creatures a type and semblance of
His Image;’ which is just what is here maintained against Bull.
The whole passage referred to is a comment on the word συγκατάβασις, and begins and ends with an introduction of that word.
Vid. also c. Gent. 47. | to
the creatures, according to which He has become the
‘Brother’ of ‘many.’ For the term
‘Only-begotten’ is used where there are no brethren, but
‘First-born2620
’ because of
brethren. Accordingly it is nowhere written in the Scriptures,
‘the first-born of God,’ nor ‘the creature of
God;’ but ‘Only-begotten’ and ‘Son’ and
‘Word’ and ‘Wisdom,’ refer to Him as proper to
the Father2621
| 2621 This
passage has been urged against Bull supr. Exc. B. All the words
(says Athan.) which are proper to the Son, and describe Him fitly, are
expressive of what is ‘internal’ to the Divine Nature, as
Begotten, Word, Wisdom, Glory, Hand, &c., but (as he adds
presently) the ‘first-born,’ like ‘beginning of
ways,’ is relative to creation; and therefore cannot denote our
Lord’s essence or Divine subsistence, but something temporal, an
office, character, or the like. | . Thus, ‘We have seen His glory,
the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father2622
;’ and ‘God sent His
Only-begotten Son2623
;’ and
‘O Lord, Thy Word endureth for ever2624
;’ and ‘In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God;’ and ‘Christ the Power of
God and the Wisdom of God2625
;’ and
‘This is My beloved Son;’ and ‘Thou art the Christ,
the Son of the Living God2626
.’ But
‘first-born’ implied the descent to the creation2627
| 2627 This
passage is imitated by Theodoret. in Coloss. i. 15, but the
passages from the Fathers referable to these Orations are too many to
enumerate. | ; for of it has He been called first-born;
and ‘He created’ implies His grace towards the works, for
for them is He created. If then He is Only-begotten, as indeed He is,
‘First-born’ needs some explanation; but if He be really
First-born, then He is not Only-begotten2628
| 2628 This
passage is imitated by Theodoret. in Coloss. i. 15, but the
passages from the Fathers referable to these Orations are too many to
enumerate. | .
For the same cannot be both Only-begotten and First-born, except in
different relations;—that is, Only-begotten, because of His
generation from the Father, as has been said; and First-born, because
of His condescension to the creation and His making the many His
brethren. Certainly, those two terms being inconsistent with each
other, one should say that the attribute of being Only-begotten has
justly the preference in the instance of the Word, in that there is no
other Word, or other Wisdom, but He alone is very Son of the Father.
Moreover2629
| 2629 We
now come to a third and wider sense of πρωτότοκος, as found (not in Rom. viii. 29, and Col. i. 18, but) in Col. i. 15, where by
‘creation’ Athan. understands ‘all things visible and
invisible.’ As then ‘for the works’ was just now
taken to argue that ‘created’ was used in a relative and
restricted sense, the same is shewn as regards ‘first-born’
by the words ‘for in Him all things were
created.’ | , as was before2630
said, not in connection with any reason, but absolutely2631
| 2631 ἀπολελυμένως; supr. i. 56, note 6, and §§53, 56, and
so ἀπολύτως Theophylact to express the same distinction in loc.
Coloss. | it is said of Him, ‘The Only-begotten
Son which is in the bosom of the Father2632
;’ but the word
‘First-born’ has again the creation as a reason in
connection with it, which Paul proceeds to say, ‘for in Him all
things were created2633
.’ But if all
the creatures were created in Him, He is other than the creatures, and
is not a creature, but the Creator of the creatures.
63. Not then because He was from the Father was
He called ‘First-born,’ but because in Him the creation
came to be; and as before the creation He was the Son, through whom was
the creation, so also before He was called the First-born of the whole
creation, not the less was the Word Himself with God and the Word was
God. But this also not understanding, these irreligious men go about
saying, ‘If He is First-born of all creation, it is plain that He
too is one of the creation.’ Senseless men! if He is simply
‘First-born2634
| 2634 It
would be perhaps better to translate ‘first-born to the
creature,’ to give Athan.’s idea; τῆς
κτίσεως not
being a partitive genitive, or πρωτότοκος
a superlative (though he presently so considers it),
but a simple appellative and τῆς κτ. a common
genitive of relation, as ‘the king of a country,’
‘the owner of a house.’ ‘First-born of
creation’ is like ‘author, type, life of creation.’
Hence S. Paul goes on at once to say, ‘for in Him all
things were made,’ not simply ‘by and for,’ as at the
end of the verse; or as Athan. says here, ‘because in Him the
creation came to be.’ On the distinction of διὰ and
ἐν, referring respectively to the
first and second creations, vid. In illud Omn. 2. (Supr.
p. 88.) | of the whole
creation,’ then He is other than the whole creation; for he says
not, ‘He is First-born above the rest of the creatures,’
lest He be reckoned to be as one of the creatures, but it is written,
‘of the whole creation,’ that He may appear other than the
creation2635
| 2635 To
understand this passage, the Greek idiom must be kept in view. Cf.
Milton’s imitation ‘the fairest of her daughters
Eve.’ Vid. as regards the very word πρῶτος, John i. 15; and supr. §30, note 3, also πλείστην
ἢ ἔμπροσθεν
3
Maccab. 7, 21. Accordingly as in the
comparative to obviate this exclusion, we put in the word
‘other’ (ante ‘alios immanior omnes), so too in the
Greek superlative, ‘Socrates is wisest of “other”
heathen.’ Athanasius then says in this passage, that
‘first-born of creatures’ implies that our Lord was not a
creature; whereas it is not said of Him ‘first-born of
brethren,’ lest He should he excluded from men, but first-born
“among” brethren,’ where ‘among’ is
equivalent to ‘other.’ | . Reuben, for instance, is not said to
be first-born of all the children of Jacob2636
,
but of Jacob himself and his brethren; lest he should be thought to be
some other beside the children of Jacob. Nay, even concerning the Lord
Himself the Apostle says not, ‘that He may become First-born of
all,’ lest He be thought to
bear a body other than ours, but ‘among many brethren2637
,’ because of the likeness of the
flesh. If then the Word also were one of the creatures, Scripture would
have said of Him also that He was First-born of other creatures; but in
fact, the saints saying that He is ‘First-born of the whole
creation2638
,’ the Son of God is plainly
shewn to be other than the whole creation and not a creature. For if He
is a creature, He will be First-born of Himself. How then is it
possible, O Arians, for Him to be before and after Himself? next, if He
is a creature, and the whole creation through Him came to be, and in
Him consists, how can He both create the creation and be one of the
things which consist in Him? Since then such a notion is in itself
unseemly, it is proved against them by the truth, that He is called
‘First-born among many brethren’ because of the
relationship of the flesh, and ‘First-born from the dead,’
because the resurrection of the dead is from Him and after Him; and
‘First-born of the whole creation,’ because of the
Father’s love to man, which brought it to pass that in His Word
not only ‘all things consist2639
,’ but
the creation itself, of which the Apostle speaks, ‘waiting for
the manifestation of the sons of God, shall be delivered’ one
time ‘from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of
the children of God2640
| 2640 Rom. viii. 19;
21.
Thus there are two senses in which our Lord is ‘first-born to the
creation;’ viz. in its first origin, and in its restoration after
man’s fall; as he says more clearly in the next
section. | .’ Of this
creation thus delivered, the Lord will be First-born, both of it and of
all those who are made children, that by His being called first, those
that come after Him may abide2641
, as depending on
the Word as a beginning2642
.
64. And I think that the irreligious men
themselves will be shamed from such a thought; for if the case stands
not as we have said, but they will rule it that He is ‘First-born
of the whole creation’ as in essence—a creature among
creatures, let them reflect that they will be conceiving Him as brother
and fellow of the things without reason and life. For of the whole
creation these also are parts; and the ‘First-born’ must be
first indeed in point of time but only thus, and in kind and
similitude2643
must be the same with all. How then
can they say this without exceeding all measures of irreligion? or who
will endure them, if this is their language? or who can but hate them
even imagining such things? For it is evident to all, that neither for
Himself, as being a creature, nor as having any connection according to
essence with the whole creation, has He been called
‘First-born’ of it: but because the Word, when at the
beginning He framed the creatures, condescended to things originate,
that it might be possible for them to come to be. For they could not
have endured His nature, which was untempered splendour, even that of
the Father, unless condescending by the Father’s love for man He
had supported them and taken hold of them and brought them into
existence2644
| 2644 He
does not here say with Asterius that God could not create man
immediately, for the Word is God, but that He did not create him
without at the same time infusing a grace or presence from Himself into
his created nature to enable it to endure His external plastic hand; in
other words, that he was created in Him, not as something
external to Him (in spite of the διὰ supr.63, n. 1. vid. supr. de
Decr. 19. 3. and Gent. 47. where the συγκατάβασις
is spoken of. | ; and next, because, by this
condescension of the Word, the creation too is made a son2645
through Him, that He might be in all
respects ‘First-born’ of it, as has been said, both in
creating, and also in being brought for the sake of all into this very
world. For so it is written, ‘When He bringeth the First-born
into the world, He saith, Let all the Angels of God worship Him2646
.’ Let Christ’s enemies hear and
tear themselves to pieces, because His coming into the world is what
makes Him called ‘First-born’ of all; and thus the Son is
the Father’s ‘Only-begotten,’ because He alone is
from Him, and He is the ‘First-born of creation,’ because
of this adoption of all as sons2647
| 2647 Thus
he considers that ‘first-born’ is mainly a title, connected
with the Incarnation, and also connected with our Lord’s office
at the creation (vid. parallel of Priesthood, §8, n. 4). In each
economy it has the same meaning; it belongs to Him as the type, idea,
or rule on which the creature was made or new-made, and the life by
which it is sustained. Both economies are mentioned Incarn. 13,
14. Orat. i. 51. iii. 20. infr. 76. init. He came
τὴν τοῦ
ἀρχετύπου
πλάσιν
ἀναστήσασθαι
ἑαυτῷ contr.Apoll. ii. 5. And so
again, ἡ ἰδέα ὅπερ
λόγον
εἰρήκασι. Clem. Strom. v. 3. ἰδέαν
ἰδεῶν καὶ
ἀρχὴν
λεκτέον τὸν
πρωτότοκον
πάσης
κτίσεως Origen. contr. Cels. vi. 64. fin. ‘Whatever
God was about to make in the creature, was already in the Word, nor
would be in the things, were it not in the Word.’ August. in
Psalm xliv. 5. He elsewhere calls the Son, ‘ars quædam
omnipotentis atque sapientis Dei, plena omnium rationum viventium
incommutabilium.’ de Trin. vi. 11. And so Athan.
infr. iii. 9. fin. Eusebius, in commenting on the very passage
which Athan. is discussing (Prov. viii.
22),
presents a remarkable contrast to these passages, as making the Son,
not the ἰδέα, but the external
minister of the Father’s ἰδέα. de Eccl.
Theol. pp. 164, 5. vid. supr. §31, n. 7. | . And as He is
First-born among brethren and rose from the dead ‘the first
fruits of them that slept2648
;’ so, since
it became Him ‘in all things to have the preeminence2649
,’ therefore He is created ‘a
beginning of ways,’ that we, walking along it and entering
through Him who says, ‘I am the Way’ and ‘the
Door,’ and partaking of the knowledge of the Father, may also
hear the words, ‘Blessed are the undefiled in the Way,’ and
‘Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God2650
.’
65. And thus since the truth declares that the
Word is not by nature a creature, it is fitting now to say, in what
sense He is ‘beginning of ways.’ For when the first way, which was
through Adam, was lost, and in place of paradise we deviated unto
death, and heard the words, ‘Dust thou art, and unto dust2651
shalt thou return,’ therefore the Word
of God, who loves man, puts on Him created flesh at the Father’s
will2652
, that whereas the first man had made it dead
through the transgression, He Himself might quicken it in the blood of
His own body2653
| 2653 Vid.
Or. i. §48, 7, i. 51, 5, supr. 56, 5. Irenæus,
Hær. iii. 19, n. 1. Cyril. in Joan. lib. ix. cir.
fin. This is the doctrine of S. Athanasius and S. Cyril, one may say,
passim. | , and might open ‘for us a way
new and living,’ as the Apostle says, ‘through the veil,
that is to say, His flesh2654
;’ which he
signifies elsewhere thus, ‘Wherefore, if any man be in Christ, he
is a new creation; old things are passed away, behold all things are
become new2655
.’ But if a new creation has come
to pass, some one must be first of this creation; now a man, made of
earth only, such as we are become from the transgression, he could not
be. For in the first creation, men had become unfaithful, and through
them that first creation had been lost; and there was need of some one
else to renew the first creation, and preserve the new which had come
to be. Therefore from love to man none other than the Lord, the
‘beginning’ of the new creation, is created as ‘the
Way,’ and consistently says, ‘The Lord created me a
beginning of ways for His works;’ that man might walk no longer
according to that first creation, but there being as it were a
beginning of a new creation, and with the Christ ‘a beginning of
its ways,’ we might follow Him henceforth, who says to us,
‘I am the Way:’—as the blessed Apostle teaches in
Colossians, saying, ‘He is the Head of the body, the Church, who
is the Beginning, the First-born from the dead, that in all things He
might have the preeminence.’
66. For if, as has been said, because of the
resurrection from the dead He is called a beginning, and then a
resurrection took place when He, bearing our flesh, had given Himself
to death for us, it is evident that His words, ‘He created me a
beginning of ways,’ is indicative not of His essence2656
, but of His bodily presence. For to the body
death was proper2657
| 2657 Athanasius here says that our Lord’s body was subject to
death; and so Incarn. 20, e. also 8, b. 18. init. Orat.
iii. 56. And so τὸν
ἄνθρωπον
σαθρωθέντα. Orat. iv. 33. And so S. Leo in his Tome lays down
that in the Incarnation, suscepta est ab æternitate mortalitas.
Ep. 28. 3. And S. Austin, Utique vulnerabile atque mortale
corpus habuit [Christus] contr. Faust. xiv. 2. A
Eutychian sect denied this doctrine (the Aphthartodocetæ), and
held that our Lord’s manhood was naturally indeed corrupt, but
became from its union with the Word incorrupt from the moment of
conception; and in consequence it held that our Lord did not suffer and
die, except by miracle. vid. Leont. c. Nest. ii. (Canis.
t. i. pp. 563, 4, 8.) vid. supr. i. 43 and 44, notes; also
infr. 76, note. And further, note on iii. 57. | ; and in like manner
to the bodily presence are the words proper, ‘The Lord created me
a beginning of His ways.’ For since the Saviour was thus created
according to the flesh, and had become a beginning of things new
created, and had our first fruits, viz. that human flesh which He took
to Himself, therefore after Him, as is fit, is created also the people
to come, David saying, ‘Let this be written for another
generation, and the people that shall be created shall praise the
Lord2658
.’ And again in the twenty-first Psalm,
‘The generation to come shall declare unto the Lord, and they
shall declare His righteousness, unto a people that shall be born whom
the Lord made2659
.’ For we
shall no more hear, ‘In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou
shalt surely die2660
,’ but
‘Where I am, there ye’ shall ‘be also;’ so that
we may say, ‘We are His workmanship, created unto good works2661
.’ And again, since God’s work,
that is, man, though created perfect, has become wanting through the
transgression, and dead by sin, and it was unbecoming that the work of
God should remain imperfect (wherefore all the saints were praying
concerning this, for instance in the hundred and thirty-seventh Psalm,
saying, ‘Lord, Thou shalt requite for me; despise not then the
works of Thine hands2662
’); therefore
the perfect2663
Word of God puts around Him an
imperfect body, and is said to be created ‘for the works;’
that, paying the debt2664
| 2664 ἀνθ᾽
ἡμῶν τὴν
ὀφειλὴν
ἀποδιδούς, and so the Lord’s death λύτρον
πάντων.
Incarn. V.D. 25. λύτρον
καθάρσιον. Naz. Orat. 30, 20. fin. also supr. 9, 13,
14, 47, 55, 67. In Illud. Omn. 2 fin. | in our stead, He
might, by Himself, perfect what was wanting to man. Now immortality was
wanting to him, and the way to paradise. This then is what the Saviour
says, ‘I glorified Thee on the earth, I perfected the work which
Thou hast given Me to do2665
;’ and again,
‘The works which the Father hath given Me to perfect, the same
works that I do, bear witness of Me;’ but ‘the works2666
’ He here says that the Father had
given Him to perfect, are those for which He is created, saying in the
Proverbs, ‘The Lord created me a beginning of His ways, for His
works;’ for it is all one to say, ‘The Father hath given me
the works,’ and ‘The Lord created me for the
works.’
67. When then received He the works to perfect, O
God’s enemies? for from this also ‘He created’ will
be understood. If ye say, ‘At the beginning when He brought them
into being out of what was not,’ it is an untruth; for they were
not yet made; whereas He appears to speak as taking what was already in
being. Nor is it pious to refer to the time which preceded the Word’s becoming flesh,
lest His coming should thereupon seem superfluous, since for the sake
of these works that coming took place. Therefore it remains for us to
say that when He has become man, then He took the works. For then He
perfected them, by healing our wounds and vouchsafing to us the
resurrection from the dead. But if, when the Word became flesh, then
were given to Him the works, plainly when He became man, then also is
He created for the works. Not of His essence then is ‘He
created’ indicative, as has many times been said, but of His
bodily generation. For then, because the works were become imperfect
and mutilated from the transgression, He is said in respect to the body
to be created; that by perfecting them and making them whole, He might
present the Church unto the Father, as the Apostle says, ‘not
having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but holy and without
blemish2667
.’ Mankind then is perfected in
Him and restored, as it was made at the beginning, nay, with greater
grace. For, on rising from the dead, we shall no longer fear death, but
shall ever reign in Christ in the heavens. And this has been done,
since the own Word of God Himself, who is from the Father, has put on
the flesh, and become man. For if, being a creature, He had become man,
man had remained just what he was, not joined to God; for how had a
work been joined to the Creator by a work2668
| 2668 Vid.
de Decr. 10, 2. 4; Or. i. 49, §16, n. 7. Iren.
Hær. iii. 20. | ?
or what succour had come from like to like, when one as well as other
needed it2669
| 2669 Cf.
infr. Orat. iv. 6. vid. also iii. 33 init. August. Trin. xiii.
18. Id. in Psalm 129, n. 12. Leon. Serm. 28, n. 3. Basil.
in Psalm 48, n. 4. Cyril. de rect. fid. p. 132. vid. also
Procl. Orat. i. p. 63. (ed. 1630.) Vigil. contr.
Eutych. v. p. 529, e. Greg. Moral. xxiv. init. Job.
ap. Phot. 222. p. 583. | ? And how, were the Word a creature,
had He power to undo God’s sentence, and to remit sin, whereas it
is written in the Prophets, that this is God’s doing? For
‘who is a God like unto Thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and
passeth by transgression2670
?’ For whereas
God has said, ‘Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return2671
,’ men have become mortal; how then
could things originate undo sin? but the Lord is He who has undone it,
as He says Himself, ‘Unless the Son shall make you free2672
;’ and the Son, who made free, has
shewn in truth that He is no creature, nor one of things originate, but
the proper Word and Image of the Father’s Essence, who at the
beginning sentenced, and alone remitteth sins. For since it is said in
the Word, ‘Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return,’
suitably through the Word Himself and in Him the freedom and the
undoing of the condemnation has come to pass.
68. ‘Yet,’ they say, ‘though
the Saviour were a creature, God was able to speak the word only and
undo the curse.’ And so another will tell them in like manner,
‘Without His coming among us at all, God was able just to speak
and undo the curse;’ but we must consider what was expedient for
mankind, and not what simply is possible with God2673
| 2673 Vid.
also Incarn. 44. In this statement Athan. is supported by Naz.
Orat. 19, 13. Theodor. adv. Gent. vi. p. 876, 7. August.
de Trin. xiii. 13. It is denied in a later age by S. Anselm, but
S. Thomas and the schoolmen side with the Fathers. vid. Petav.
Incarn. ii. 13. However, it will be observed from what follows
that Athan. thought the Incarnation still absolutely essential
for the renewal of human nature in holiness. Cf. de Incarn. 7.
That is, we might have been pardoned, we could not have been new-made,
without the Incarnation; and so supr. 67. | . He could have destroyed, before the ark of
Noah, the then transgressors; but He did it after the ark. He could
too, without Moses, have spoken the word only and have brought the
people out of Egypt; but it profited to do it through Moses. And God
was able without the judges to save His people; but it was profitable
for the people that for a season judges should be raised up to them.
The Saviour too might have come among us from the beginning, or on His
coming might not have been delivered to Pilate; but He came ‘at
the fulness of the ages2674
,’ and when
sought for said, ‘I am He2675
.’ For
what He does, that is profitable for men, and was not fitting in any
other way; and what is profitable and fitting, for that He provides2676
| 2676 ‘Was it not in His power, had He wished it, even in a day to
bring on the whole rain [of the deluge]? in a day, nay in a
moment?’ Chrysost. in Gen. Hom. 24, 7. He proceeds to
apply this principle to the pardon of sin. On the subject of
God’s power as contrasted with His acts, Petavius brings together
the statements of the Fathers, de Deo, v. 6. | . Accordingly He came, not ‘that He
might be ministered unto, but that He might minister2677
,’ and might work our salvation.
Certainly He was able to speak the Law from heaven, but He saw that it
was expedient to men for Him to speak from Sinai; and that He has done,
that it might be possible for Moses to go up, and for them hearing the
word near them the rather to believe. Moreover, the good reason of what
He did may be seen thus; if God had but spoken, because it was in His
power, and so the curse had been undone, the power had been shewn of
Him who gave the word, but man had become such as Adam was before the
transgression, having received grace from without2678
| 2678 Athan. here seems to say that Adam in a state of innocence had but
an external divine assistance, not an habitual grace; this, however, is
contrary to his own statements already referred to, and the general
doctrine of the fathers. vid. e.g. Cyril. in Joan. v. 2.
August. de Corr. et Grat. 31. vid also infr. §76,
note. | , and not having it united to the body; (for
he was such when he was placed in Paradise) nay, perhaps had become
worse, because he had learned to
transgress. Such then being his condition, had he been seduced by the
serpent, there had been fresh need for God to give command and undo the
curse; and thus the need had become interminable2679
| 2679 εἰς
ἄπειρον,
de Decr. 8. | , and men had remained under guilt not less
than before, as being enslaved to sin; and, ever sinning, would have
ever needed one to pardon them, and had never become free, being in
themselves flesh, and ever worsted by the Law because of the infirmity
of the flesh.
69. Again, if the Son were a creature, man had
remained mortal as before, not being joined to God; for a creature had
not joined creatures to God, as seeking itself one to join it2680
; nor would a portion of the creation have
been the creation’s salvation, as needing salvation itself. To
provide against this also, He sends His own Son, and He becomes Son of
Man, by taking created flesh; that, since all were under sentence of
death, He, being other than them all, might Himself for all offer to
death His own body; and that henceforth, as if all had died through
Him, the word of that sentence might be accomplished (for ‘all
died2681
’ in Christ), and all through Him might
thereupon become free from sin and from the curse which came upon it,
and might truly abide2682
| 2682 διαμείνωσιν, §63, n. 8; §73, Gent. 41, Serm. Maj.
de Fid. 5. | for ever, risen
from the dead and clothed in immortality and incorruption. For the Word
being clothed in the flesh, as has many times been explained, every
bite of the serpent began to be utterly staunched from out it; and
whatever evil sprung from the motions of the flesh, to be cut away, and
with these death also was abolished, the companion of sin, as the Lord
Himself says2683
, ‘The prince of this world
cometh, and findeth nothing in Me;’ and ‘For this end was
He manifested,’ as John has written, ‘that He might destroy
the works of the devil2684
.’ And these
being destroyed from the flesh, we all were thus liberated by the
kinship of the flesh, and for the future were joined, even we, to the
Word. And being joined to God, no longer do we abide upon earth; but,
as He Himself has said, where He is, there shall we be also; and
henceforward we shall fear no longer the serpent, for he was brought to
nought when he was assailed by the Saviour in the flesh, and heard Him
say, ‘Get thee behind Me, Satan2685
,’ and thus he is cast out of paradise
into the eternal fire. Nor shall we have to watch against woman
beguiling us, for ‘in the resurrection they neither marry nor are
given in marriage, but are as the Angels2686
;’ and in Christ Jesus it shall be
‘a new creation,’ and ‘neither male nor female, but
all and in all Christ2687
;’ and where
Christ is, what fear, what danger can still happen?
70. But this would not have come to pass, had the
Word been a creature; for with a creature, the devil, himself a
creature, would have ever continued the battle, and man, being between
the two, had been ever in peril of death, having none in whom and
through whom he might be joined to God and delivered from all fear.
Whence the truth shews us that the Word is not of things originate, but
rather Himself their Framer. For therefore did He assume the body
originate and human, that having renewed it as its Framer, He might
deify it2688
| 2688 ἐν
ἑαυτῷ
θεοποιήσῃ. supr. p. 65, note 5. vid. also ad Adelph. 4.
a. Serap. i. 24, e. and §56, note 5. and iii. 33. De
Decr. 14. Orat. i. 42. vid. also Orat. iii. 23. fin.
33. init. 34. fin. 38, b. 39, d. 48. fin. 53. For our becoming
θεοὶ vid. Orat. iii. 25. θεοὶ κατὰ
χάριν. Cyr. in
Joan. p. 74. θεοφορούμεθα. Orat. iii. 23, c. 41, a. 45 init. χριστόφοροι. ibid. θεούμεθα. iii. 48 fin. 53. Theodor. H. E. i. p. 846.
init. | in Himself, and thus might introduce
us all into the kingdom of heaven after His likeness. For man had not
been deified if joined to a creature, or unless the Son were very God;
nor had man been brought into the Father’s presence, unless He
had been His natural and true Word who had put on the body. And as we
had not been delivered from sin and the curse, unless it had been by
nature human flesh, which the Word put on (for we should have had
nothing common with what was foreign), so also the man had not been
deified, unless the Word who became flesh had been by nature from the
Father and true and proper to Him. For therefore the union was of this
kind, that He might unite what is man by nature to Him who is in the
nature of the Godhead, and his salvation and deification might be sure.
Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature
and proper to His Essence, deny also that He took true human flesh2689
of Mary Ever-Virgin2690
| 2690 Vid.
also Athan. in Luc. (Migne xxvii. 1393 c). This title, which is
commonly applied to S. Mary by later writers, is found Epiph.
Hær. 78, 5. Didym. Trin. i. 27. p. 84. Rufin.
Fid. i. 43. Lepor. ap Cassian. Incarn. i. 5. Leon.
Ep. 28, 2. Cæsarius has ἀειπαῖς.
Qu. 20. On the doctrine itself vid. a letter of S. Ambrose and
his brethren to Siricius, and the Pope’s letter in response.
(Coust. Ep. Pont. p. 669–682.) Also Pearson On the Creed,
Art. 3. [§§9, 10, p. 267 in Bohn’s ed.] He replies to
the argument from ‘until’ in Matt. i. 25, by referring
to Gen. xxviii 15; Deut. xxxiv. 6; 1 Sam. xv. 35; 2 Sam. vi. 23;
Matt. xxviii. 20. He might also have referred to Psalm cx. 1; 1 Cor. xv.
25.
which are the more remarkable, because they were urged by the school of
Marcellus as a proof that our Lord’s kingdom would have an end,
and are explained by Euseb. Eccl. Theol. iii. 13, 14. Vid. also
Cyr. Cat. 15, 29; where the true meaning of ‘until’
(which may be transferred to Matt. i. 25), is well brought
out. ‘He who is King before He subdued His enemies, how
shall He not the rather be King, after He has got the mastery
over them?’ | ;
for in neither case had it been of profit to us men, whether the Word
were not true and naturally Son of
God, or the flesh not true which He assumed. But surely He took true
flesh, though Valentinus rave; yea the Word was by nature Very God,
though Ario-maniacs rave2691
; and in that flesh
has come to pass the beginning2692
of our new
creation, He being created man for our sake, and having made for us
that new way, as has been said.
71. The Word then is neither creature nor work;
for creature, thing made, work, are all one; and were He creature and
thing made, He would also be work. Accordingly He has not said,
‘He created Me a work,’ nor ‘He made Me with the
works,’ lest He should appear to be in nature and essence2693
a creature; nor, ‘He created Me to
make works,’ lest, on the other hand, according to the
perverseness of the irreligious, He should seem as an instrument2694
| 2694 ὄργανον, note
on iii. 31. | made for our sake. Nor again has He
declared, ‘He created Me before the works,’ lest, as He
really is before all, as an Offspring, so, if created also before the
works, He should give ‘Offspring’ and ‘He
created’ the same meaning. But He has said with exact
discrimination2695
, ‘for the
works;’ as much as to say, ‘The Father has made Me, into
flesh, that I might be man,’ which again shews that He is not a
work but an offspring. For as he who comes into a house, is not part of
the house, but is other than the house, so He who is created for the
works, must be by nature other than the works. But if otherwise, as you
hold, O Arians, the Word of God be a work, by what2696
Hand and Wisdom did He Himself come into
being? for all things that came to be, came by the Hand and Wisdom of
God, who Himself says, ‘My hand hath made all these things2697
;’ and David says in the Psalm,
‘And Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundations of
the earth, and the heavens are the work of Thy hands2698
;’ and again, in the hundred and
forty-second Psalm, ‘I do remember the time past, I muse upon all
Thy works, yea I exercise myself in the works of Thy hands2699
.’ Therefore if by the Hand of God the
works are wrought, and it is written that ‘all things were made
through the Word,’ and ‘without Him was not made one
thing2700
,’ and again, ‘One Lord Jesus,
through whom are all things2701
,’ and
‘in Him all things consist2702
,’ it is
very plain that the Son cannot be a work, but He is the Hand2703
of God and the Wisdom. This knowing, the
martyrs in Babylon, Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, arraign the Arian
irreligion. For when they say, ‘O all ye works of the Lord, bless
ye the Lord,’ they recount things in heaven, things on earth, and
the whole creation, as works; but the Son they name not. For they say
not, ‘Bless, O Word, and praise, O Wisdom;’ to shew that
all other things are both praising and are works; but the Word is not a
work nor of those that praise, but is praised with the Father and
worshipped and confessed as God2704
| 2704 θεολογούμενος. vid. de Decr. 31, n. 5. also Incarn. c. Ar.
3. 19, Serap. i. 28. 29. 31. contr. Sab. Greg. and
passim ap. Euseb. contr. Marcell. e.g. p. 42, d. 86, a. 99, d.
122, c. 124, b. &c. κυριολογεῖν, In Illud. Omn. 6, contr. Sab. Greg.
§4, f. | , being His
Word and Wisdom, and of the works the Framer. This too the Spirit has
declared in the Psalms with a most apposite distinction, ‘the
Word of the Lord is true, and all His works are faithful2705
;’ as in another Psalm too He says,
‘O Lord, how manifold are Thy works! in Wisdom hast Thou made
them all2706
.’
72. But if the Word were a work, then certainly
He as others had been made in Wisdom; nor would Scripture distinguish
Him from the works, nor while it named them works, preach Him as Word
and own Wisdom of God. But, as it is, distinguishing Him from the
works, He shews that Wisdom is Framer of the works, and not a work.
This distinction Paul also observes, writing to the Hebrews, ‘The
Word of God is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged
sword, reaching even to the dividing of soul and spirit, joints and
marrow, and a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart,
neither is there any creature hidden before Him, but all things are
naked and open unto the eyes of Him with whom is our account2707
.’ For behold he calls things originate
‘creature;’ but the Son he recognises as the Word of God,
as if He were other than the creatures. And again saying, ‘All
things are naked and open to the eyes of Him with whom is our
account,’ he signifies that He is other than all of them. For
hence it is that He judges, but each of all things originate is bound
to give account to Him. And so also, when the whole creation is
groaning together with us in order to be set free from the bondage of
corruption, the Son is thereby shewn to be other than the creatures.
For if He were creature, He too would be one of those who groan, and
would need one who should bring adoption and deliverance to Himself as
well as others. But if the whole creation groans together, for the sake
of freedom from the bondage of corruption, whereas the Son is not of
those that groan nor of those who need freedom, but He it is who gives
sonship and freedom to all, saying to the Jews of His time2708
, ‘The servant
remains not in the house for ever, but the Son remaineth for ever; if
then the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed2709
;’ it is clearer than the light from
these considerations also, that the Word of God is not a creature but
true Son, and by nature genuine, of the Father. Concerning then
‘The Lord hath created me a beginning of the ways,’ this is
sufficient, as I think, though in few words, to afford matter to the
learned to frame more ample refutations of the Arian heresy.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
