t Two ends of our Lord’s Incarnation are here mentioned; that He might die for us, and that He might renew us, answering nearly to those specified in Rom. iv. 25. ‘who was delivered for our offences and raised again for our justification.’ The general object of His coming, including both of these, is treated of in Incarn. esp. §§ 4—20. and in the two bcoks against Apollinaris. Vid. supr. §8. § 9. Also zz/r. Orat. iv. 6. And Theodoret, Evan. iii. p. 196, 7. Vigil. Thaps. contr. Eutych. 1. p. 496. (B. P. ed. 1624.) and S. Leo speaks of the whole course of redemption, i.e. incarnation, atonement, regeneration, justification, &c., as one sacrament, not drawing the line distinctly between the several agents, elements, or stages in it, but considering it to lie in the intercommunion of Christ’s and our persons. Se772. 63. 14. He speaks of His fortifying us against our passions and infirmities, both sacramento susceptionis and exemplo. Serm. 65, 2. and of a duplex remedium cujus aliud in sacyvamento, aliud in exemplo. Serm. 67, 5. also 69, 5. The tone of his teaching is throughout characteristic of the Fathers, and very like that of S. Athanasius, ts a; a man, so making peace?.’ But if in Him the twain are created, and these are in His body, reasonably then, bearing the twain in Himself, He is as if Himself created; for those who were created in Himself He made one, and He was in them, as they. And thus, the two being created in Him, He may say suitably, ‘The Lord created me.’ For as by receiving our infirmities, He is said to be infirm Himself, though not Himself infirm, for He 1s the Power of God, and He became sin for us and a curse, though not having sinned Himself, but because He Himself bare our sins and our curse, so 8, by creating us in Him, let Him say, ‘He created me for the works,’ though not Himself a creature.
56. For if, as they hold, the Essence of the Word being of created nature, therefore He says, ‘The Lord created me,’ being a creature, He was not created for us; but if He was not created for us, we are not created in Him; and, if not created in Him, we have Him not in ourselves but externally; as, for instance, as receiving instruction from Him as from a teacher?. And it being so with us, sin has not lost its reign over the flesh, being inherent and not cast out of it. But the Apostle opposes such a doctrine a little before, when he says, ‘For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus?;’? and if in Christ we are created, then it is not He who is created, but we in Him; and thus the words ‘ He created’ are for our sake. For because of our need, the Word, though being Creator, endured words which are used of creatures; which are not proper to Him, as being the Word, but are ours who are created in Him. And as, since the Father is always, so is His Word, and always being, always says ‘1 was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him 3,’ and ‘1 am in the Father and the Father in Me+;’ so, when for our need He became man, consistently does He use language, as ourselves, ‘The Lord hath created Me,’ that, by His dwelling in the flesh, sin might perfectly be expelled from the flesh, and we might have a free minds. For what ought He, when made 8 The word avzas, ‘Himself,’ is all along used, where a later writer would have said ‘His Person;’ vid. sudr. § 45, n. 23 still there is more to be explained in this passage, which, taken in the letter, would speak a language very different from Athan.’s, as if the infirmities or the created nature of the Word were not more real than His imputed sinfulness. (vid. on the other hand 7/. iii. 31—35). But nothing is more common in theology than comparisons which are only parallel to a certain point as regards the matter in hand, especially since many doctrines do not admit of exact illustrations. Our Lord’s real manhood and imputed sinfulness were alike adjuncts to His Divine Person, which was of an Eternal and Infinite Nature; and therefore His Manhood may be compared to an Attribute, or to an accident, without meaning that it really was either. 1 Note on iii. 19.
2 Eph. il. x0. 3 Prov. viii. 30. 4 John xiv, xo.
5 éAcvOcpov 7d ppdvnuo. vid. also beginning of the paragraph, where sanctification is contrasted to teaching. vid. also note on 79, | infr. Contr, Apoll, i. 20. fin. ibid. ii. 6, also Orat. iii. 33, wherevid.
man, to say? ‘In the beginning 1 was man?’ this were neither suitable to Him nor true; and as it beseemed not to say this, so it 1s natural and proper in the case of man to say, ‘He created’ and ‘He made’ Him. On this account then the reason of ‘ He created’ is added, namely, the need of the works; and where the reason is added, surely the reason rightly explains the lection. Thus here, when He says ‘ He created,’ He sets down the cause, ‘the works; on the other hand, when He signifies absolutely the generation from the Father, straightway He adds, ‘Before all the hills He begets me®; but He does not add the ‘ wherefore,’ as in the case of ‘He created,’ saying, ‘for the works,’ but absolutely, ‘He begets me,’ as in the text, ‘In the beginning was the Word?.’ For, though no works had been created, still ‘the Word’ of God ‘was,’ and ‘the Word was God.’ And His becoming man would not have taken place, had not the need of men become a cause. ‘The Son then is not a creature.
CHAPTER XXI.
Texts EXPLAINED; SIXTHLY, PROVERBS Vill. 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 earth*.’ Nor did David say in the Psalm, ‘Thy hands have “begotten me,”’ but ‘made me and fashioned note, and 34. vid. tor apx7, Ovat.i. 48, note 7. Also vid. infr. Orat. iii. 56, a. iv. 33, a. Naz. HAp. ad Cled. 1. and 2. (x01, 102. Eid. Ben.) Nyssen. ad Theoph. in Apoll. p.696. Leo, Serm. 26, 2, Serm. 72,2. vid. Serm. 22, 2. ut corpus regenerati fiat caro Crucifixi. Ser. 63, 6. Hzc est nativitas nova dum homo nascitur in Deo; in quo homine Deus natus est, carne antiqui seminis suscepta, sine semine antiquo, ut illam novo semine, id est, spiritualiter, reformaret, exclusis antiquitatis sordibus expiatam. Tertull. de Carn. Christ. 17. vid. supr. i. 51, note 5. and note on 64 infr. 65 and 7o. and on ili. 34.
DISCOURSE. II.
me?,’ everywhere applying the word ‘made’ to the creatures. But to the Son contrariwise; for he has not said ‘I made,’ but ‘I begat 3,’ and ‘He begets me,’ and ‘My heart uttered a good Word4.’ And in the instance of the creation, ‘In the beginning He made;’ but in the instance of the Son, ‘In the beginning was the Word5.’ 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 female®;’ 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 earth?;? and again, ‘O think upon Thy congregation which Thou hast purchased from the beginning*; 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 make?.’
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 becoming %°, and from some beginning does God begin to make them through the Word, that it may be known that they were not betore their origination; but the Word has His being, in no other beginning *™ than the Father, whom” they allow to be without beginning, so that He too exists without beginning in the Father, being His Offspring, not His creature.
11 Gpyf, vid. Orat. iv. x. Ese. ‘ 12 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, sufr. Lx. B, where this passage 1s quoted.
38. 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 doctrine™ 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 irreligion? 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 thee3? And shortly after in the same Song he says, ‘God that begat thee thou didst desert, and forgattest God that nourished thee+.” 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 man5,” 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 thee®?’ 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 desert 7.’
I Meodoyer, vid. § 71, note.
2 The technical sense of edaéBevn, dcéBeva, pietas, impietas, for ‘orthodoxy, heterodoxy,’ has been noticed supr. p. 150, and derived from x Tim. iii. 16. The word is contrasted ch. iv. 8. with the (perhaps Gnostic) ‘profane and old-wives fables,’ and so. 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 God?’ And here too the cautious distinction? 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, Father3.’ 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 Father+?’ 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 us5; 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, Father®.’
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 3 De Decr.31 fin. | al. ii. ro. , 5, Tov év nuty vidv. vid. also supr. xo. circ. fin. 56. init. and rav €v ayrois olkovyTa Adyov. 6x. init. Also Ovat. i. 50 fin. iii. 23—25. and de Decr. 3x fin, Or. i. 48, note 7, § 56, n. 5. 2/y. notes on 79.
DISCOURSE II, gS ee lla an begotten first, but made; for it is written, ‘Let Us make man7;’ 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 Essence? 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 object?, 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.’ Jor in saying, ‘Before all He begat me,’ He intimates that He is other than all things; it having been shewn to be true? 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 command‘. 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 all5; 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 preeminence®,’ 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 nexty place) pwhens Hie) put on ay created nature and became like us in body, reasonably was He therefore called both our Brother and ‘ First-bornt.’ For though it was after us? 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 body; 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 door #4,’ and ‘through Me all must enter.’ Whence also is He said to be ‘ First-born from the dead 5,’ 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 msen, we too from Him and because of Him rise in due course from the dead.
x Rom. viii. 29. Bishop Bull’s hypothesis about the sense of mpwroToKos THS KTiTews has been commented on sufr. p. 347-As far as Athan.’s discussion proceeds in this section, it only relates to mpwrtordkos of men (i.e. from the dead), and is equivalent to the ‘ beginning of ways.’, 2 Marcellus seems to have argued against Asterius from the same texts (Eusch. zz Mure. 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 ‘fivst-born of creation,’ not in point of time, but of dignity. vid. Montacut. (ot. p. 11. ieE Athan, argues contrariwise. Ovat. iv. 29. 3 § 10, n. 7: Orat. ill. 31. note. 4 John xiv. 6; x. 9. 5 Rev. i. 5.
ey = 38 FOUR DISCO URSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
62. But if He is also called ‘first-born of the creation?,’ 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 condescension? 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-born 3’ 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 Father*. Thus, ‘We have seen His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Fathers;’ and ‘God sent His Only-begotten Son®;’ and ‘QO Lord, chy Word endureth for ever7;’ and ‘In the be-| ginning 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 ‘Thou art the Christ, | the Son of the Living God®.’ But ‘first-born’ implied the descent to the creation ’®; 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-begotten*. 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 1 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 ‘‘ drother” of many;’ and so infr. ‘ first-born because of the brotherhood He has made with many.’
2 Bp. Bull considers ovyxardBaors as equivalent to a figurative yévynots, an idea which (vid. sawpv. p. 346 sg.) 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, Ov. i. 28. SuyxaraByvae occurs sf. 51 fin. of the Incarnation. What is meant by it will be found infr. 78—8r. 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 ovy«ataBacts, ancl begins and ends with an introduction of that word. Vid. also c. Gent. 47.
3 Vid. Rom. viii. 29.
4 This passage has been urged against Bull sxfr. 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 dencte our Lord’s essence or Divine subsistence, but some:hing temporal, an office, character, or the like. 5 John i, rq.
to This passage is imitated by Theodoret. 7 Codoss. i. 15, but the passages from the Fathers referable to these Orations are too many to enumerate.
‘the Word, in that there is no other Word, or other Wisdom, but He alone is very Son of the Father. Moreover?, as was before” said, not in connection with any reason, but absolutely *3 it is said of Him, ‘The Only-begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father™;’ 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 created 5,’ 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-born* of the whole creation,’ then He is other than the whole creation; for he says not, ‘ He is Firstborn 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 creation? Reuben, for instance, is not said to be first-born of all the children of Jacob 3, 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 Ir We now come toa third and wider sense of mpwtétoxKos, 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.’ 12 i, 52, 13 aro\chupevws; supr. i. 56, note 6, and §§ 53, 56, and so amoAvtTws Theophylact to express the same distinction 27 doc. Coloss. 14 Johni. 18. ¥5 (Colon. 265 t It would be perhaps better to translate ‘first-born zo the creature,’ to give Athan,’s idea; ris xticews not being a partitive genitive, or mpwrdtokos a superlative (though he presently so considers it), but a simple appellative and rjs er. 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 7 Him all things were made,’ not simply ‘ by and for,’ as at the end of the verse 5 or as Athan. says here, ‘ because in Him the creation came to be.’ On the distinction of éca and év, referring respectively to the first and second creations, vid. J illud Omn. 2. (Supr. p. 88.)