{"collection":"chr","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/chr/ecf/204/2040368.htm","path":"chr/ecf/204/2040368.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/204/2040368.htm","text":"Chapter XXI.\u2014Texts Explained; Sixthly, Proverbs viii. 22, Continued. Our Lord not said in Scripture to be \u2018created,\u2019 or the works to be \u2018begotten.\u2019 \u2018In the beginning\u2019 means in the case of the works \u2018from the beginning.\u2019 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 \u2018First-born of the dead;\u2019 of \u2018First-born among many brethren;\u2019 of \u2018First-born of all creation,\u2019 contrasted with \u2018Only-begotten.\u2019 Further interpretation of \u2018beginning of ways,\u2019 and \u2018for the works.\u2019 Why a creature could not redeem; why redemption was necessary at all. Texts which contrast the Word and the works.\n57. For had He been a creature, He had not said, \u2018He begets me,\u2019 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\u2019s Word and Only-begotten Son. For instance, Moses did not say of the creation, \u2018In the beginning He begat,\u2019 nor \u2018In the beginning was,\u2019 but \u2018In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth 2581 .\u2019 Nor did David say in the Psalm, \u2018Thy hands have \u201cbegotten me,\u201d\u2019 but \u2018made me and fashioned me 2582 ,\u2019 everywhere applying the word \u2018made\u2019 to the creatures. But to the Son contrariwise; for he has not said \u2018I made,\u2019 but \u2018I begat 2583 ,\u2019 and \u2018He begets me,\u2019 and \u2018My heart uttered a good Word 2584 .\u2019 And in the instance of the creation, \u2018In the beginning He made;\u2019 but in the instance of the Son, \u2018In the beginning was the Word 2585 .\u2019 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, \u2018In the beginning He made,\u2019 is as much as saying of them, \u2018From the beginning He made:\u2019\u2014as the Lord, knowing that which He had made, taught, when He silenced the Pharisees, with the words, \u2018He which made them from the beginning, made them male and female 2586 ;\u2019 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, \u2018Thou, Lord, at the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth 2587 ;\u2019 and again, \u2018O think upon Thy congregation which Thou hast purchased from the beginning 2588 ;\u2019 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 \u2018In the beginning He made,\u2019 from his saying \u2018made,\u2019 means \u2018began to make,\u2019 Moses himself shews by saying, after the completion of all things, \u2018And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because that in it He had rested from all His work which God began to make 2589 .\u2019 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 2590 , 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 beginning 2591 than the Father, whom 2592 they allow to be without beginning, so that He too exists without beginning in the Father, being His Offspring, not His creature.\np. 380 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 doctrine 2593 about the Son, and knowing the difference of the phrases, said not, \u2018In the beginning has become\u2019 or \u2018been made,\u2019 but \u2018In the beginning was the Word;\u2019 that we might understand \u2018Offspring\u2019 by \u2018was,\u2019 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 2594 against the Lord, saying that \u2018He is a work,\u2019 or \u2018creature,\u2019 or indeed \u2018offspring?\u2019 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, \u2018Is not He thy Father that bought thee? did He not make thee and create thee 2595 ?\u2019 And shortly after in the same Song he says, \u2018God that begat thee thou didst desert, and forgattest God that nourished thee 2596 .\u2019 Now the meaning conveyed in these passages is very remarkable; for he says not first \u2018He begat,\u2019 lest that term should be taken as indiscriminate with \u2018He made,\u2019 and these men should have a pretence for saying, \u2018Moses tells us indeed that God said from the beginning, \u201cLet Us make man 2597 ,\u201d\u2019 but he soon after says himself, \u2018God that begat thee thou didst desert,\u2019 as if the terms were indifferent; for offspring and work are the same. But after the words \u2018bought\u2019 and \u2018made,\u2019 he has added last of all \u2018begat,\u2019 that the sentence might carry its own interpretation; for in the word \u2018made\u2019 he accurately denotes what belongs to men by nature, to be works and things made; but in the word \u2018begat\u2019 he shews God\u2019s lovingkindness exercised towards men after He had created them. And since they have proved ungrateful upon this, thereupon Moses reproaches them, saying first, \u2018Do ye thus requite the Lord?\u2019 and then adds, \u2018Is not He thy Father that bought thee? Did He not make thee and create thee 2598 ?\u2019 And next he says, \u2018They 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 2599 .\u2019\n59. For God not only created them to be men, but called them to be sons, as having begotten them. For the term \u2018begat\u2019 is here as elsewhere expressive of a Son, as He says by the Prophet, \u2018I begat sons and exalted them;\u2019 and generally, when Scripture wishes to signify a son, it does so, not by the term \u2018created,\u2019 but undoubtedly by that of \u2018begat.\u2019 And this John seems to say, \u2018He 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 2600 .\u2019 And here too the cautious distinction 2601 is well kept up, for first he says \u2018become,\u2019 because they are not called sons by nature but by adoption; then he says \u2018were begotten,\u2019 because they too had received at any rate the name of son. But the People, as says the Prophet, \u2018despised\u2019 their Benefactor. But this is God\u2019s 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, \u2018the Spirit of His Son, crying, Abba, Father 2602 .\u2019 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, \u2018The Word became flesh,\u2019 that He might make man capable of Godhead. This same meaning may be gained also from the Prophet Malachi, who says, \u2018Hath not One God created us? Have we not all one Father 2603 ?\u2019 for first he puts \u2018created,\u2019 next \u2018Father,\u2019 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 \u2018Father\u2019 is proper to the Son; and not \u2018creature,\u2019 but \u2018Son\u2019 is proper to the Father. Accordingly this passage also proves, that we are not sons by nature, but the Son who is in us 2604 ; and again, that God is not our Father by nature, but of that Word in us, in whom and because of whom we \u2018cry, Abba, Father 2605 .\u2019 And so in like manner, the Father calls them sons in whomsoever He sees His own Son, and says, \u2018I begat;\u2019 since begetting is significant of a Son, and making is indicative of the works. And thus it is that we are not p. 381 begotten first, but made; for it is written, \u2018Let Us make man 2606 ;\u2019 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 \u2018He bought,\u2019 and afterwards \u2018He begat;\u2019 lest, hearing \u2018He begat,\u2019 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.\n60. 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, \u2018The Lord created me a beginning of His ways;\u2019 He has added, \u2018But before all the hills He begat me.\u2019 If then the Word were by nature and in His Essence 2607 a creature, and there were no difference between offspring and creature, He would not have added, \u2018He begat me,\u2019 but had been satisfied with \u2018He created,\u2019 as if that term implied \u2018He begat;\u2019 but, as it is, after saying, \u2018He created me a beginning of His ways for His works,\u2019 He has added, not simply \u2018begat me,\u2019 but with the connection of the conjunction \u2018But,\u2019 as guarding thereby the term \u2018created,\u2019 when he says, \u2018But before all the hills He begat me.\u2019 For \u2018begat me\u2019 succeeding in such close connection to \u2018created me,\u2019 makes the meaning one, and shews that \u2018created\u2019 is said with an object 2608 , but that \u2018begat me\u2019 is prior to \u2018created me.\u2019 For as, if He had said the reverse, \u2018The Lord begat me,\u2019 and went on, \u2018But before the hills He created me,\u2019 \u2018created\u2019 would certainly precede \u2018begat,\u2019 so having said first \u2018created,\u2019 and then added \u2018But before all the hills He begat me,\u2019 He necessarily shews that \u2018begat\u2019 preceded \u2018created.\u2019 For in saying, \u2018Before all He begat me,\u2019 He intimates that He is other than all things; it having been shewn to be true 2609 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 2610 . Therefore neither do the words which follow \u2018created,\u2019 also follow \u2018begat me;\u2019 but in the case of \u2018created\u2019 is added \u2018beginning of ways,\u2019 but of \u2018begat me,\u2019 He says not, \u2018He begat me as a beginning,\u2019 but \u2018before all He begat me.\u2019 But He who is before all is not a beginning of all, but is other than all 2611 ; but if other than all (in which \u2018all\u2019 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 \u2018a beginning of the ways for works,\u2019 because He became man, that, as the Apostle has said, He who is the \u2018Beginning\u2019 and \u2018First-born from the dead, in all things might have the preeminence 2612 .\u2019\n61. Such then being the difference between \u2018created\u2019 and \u2018begat me,\u2019 and between \u2018beginning of ways\u2019 and \u2018before all,\u2019 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, \u2018The Lord created me.\u2019 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 \u2018First-born 2613 .\u2019 For though it was after us 2614 that He was made man for us, and our brother by similitude of body, still He is therefore called and is the \u2018First-born\u2019 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\u2019s body 2615 ; 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, \u2018I am the way\u2019 and \u2018the door 2616 ,\u2019 and \u2018through Me all must enter.\u2019 Whence also is He said to be \u2018First-born from the dead 2617 ,\u2019 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.\np. 382 62. But if He is also called \u2018First-born of the creation 2618 ,\u2019 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 \u2018Only-begotten?\u2019), but it is because of the Word\u2019s condescension 2619 to the creatures, according to which He has become the \u2018Brother\u2019 of \u2018many.\u2019 For the term \u2018Only-begotten\u2019 is used where there are no brethren, but \u2018First-born 2620 \u2019 because of brethren. Accordingly it is nowhere written in the Scriptures, \u2018the first-born of God,\u2019 nor \u2018the creature of God;\u2019 but \u2018Only-begotten\u2019 and \u2018Son\u2019 and \u2018Word\u2019 and \u2018Wisdom,\u2019 refer to Him as proper to the Father 2621 . Thus, \u2018We have seen His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father 2622 ;\u2019 and \u2018God sent His Only-begotten Son 2623 ;\u2019 and \u2018O Lord, Thy Word endureth for ever 2624 ;\u2019 and \u2018In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God;\u2019 and \u2018Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of God 2625 ;\u2019 and \u2018This is My beloved Son;\u2019 and \u2018Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God 2626 .\u2019 But \u2018first-born\u2019 implied the descent to the creation 2627 ; for of it has He been called first-born; and \u2018He created\u2019 implies His grace towards the works, for for them is He created. If then He is Only-begotten, as indeed He is, \u2018First-born\u2019 needs some explanation; but if He be really First-born, then He is not Only-begotten 2628 . For the same cannot be both Only-begotten and First-born, except in different relations;\u2014that 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. Moreover 2629 , as was before 2630 said, not in connection with any reason, but absolutely 2631 it is said of Him, \u2018The Only-begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father 2632 ;\u2019 but the word \u2018First-born\u2019 has again the creation as a reason in connection with it, which Paul proceeds to say, \u2018for in Him all things were created 2633 .\u2019 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.\n63. Not then because He was from the Father was He called \u2018First-born,\u2019 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, \u2018If He is First-born of all creation, it is plain that He too is one of the creation.\u2019 Senseless men! if He is simply \u2018First-born 2634 of the whole creation,\u2019 then He is other than the whole creation; for he says not, \u2018He is First-born above the rest of the creatures,\u2019 lest He be reckoned to be as one of the creatures, but it is written, \u2018of the whole creation,\u2019 that He may appear other than the creation 2635 . Reuben, for instance, is not said to be first-born of all the children of Jacob 2636 , 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, \u2018that He may become First-born of p. 383 all,\u2019 lest He be thought to bear a body other than ours, but \u2018among many brethren 2637 ,\u2019 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 \u2018First-born of the whole creation 2638 ,\u2019 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 \u2018First-born among many brethren\u2019 because of the relationship of the flesh, and \u2018First-born from the dead,\u2019 because the resurrection of the dead is from Him and after Him; and \u2018First-born of the whole creation,\u2019 because of the Father\u2019s love to man, which brought it to pass that in His Word not only \u2018all things consist 2639 ,\u2019 but the creation itself, of which the Apostle speaks, \u2018waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God, shall be delivered\u2019 one time \u2018from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God 2640 .\u2019 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 abide 2641 , as depending on the Word as a beginning 2642 .\n64. 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 \u2018First-born of the whole creation\u2019 as in essence\u2014a 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 \u2018First-born\u2019 must be first indeed in point of time but only thus, and in kind and similitude 2643 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 \u2018First-born\u2019 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\u2019s love for man He had supported them and taken hold of them and brought them into existence 2644 ; and next, because, by this condescension of the Word, the creation too is made a son 2645 through Him, that He might be in all respects \u2018First-born\u2019 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, \u2018When He bringeth the First-born into the world, He saith, Let all the Angels of God worship Him 2646 .\u2019 Let Christ\u2019s enemies hear and tear themselves to pieces, because His coming into the world is what makes Him called \u2018First-born\u2019 of all; and thus the Son is the Father\u2019s \u2018Only-begotten,\u2019 because He alone is from Him, and He is the \u2018First-born of creation,\u2019 because of this adoption of all as sons 2647 . And as He is First-born among brethren and rose from the dead \u2018the first fruits of them that slept 2648 ;\u2019 so, since it became Him \u2018in all things to have the preeminence 2649 ,\u2019 therefore He is created \u2018a beginning of ways,\u2019 that we, walking along it and entering through Him who says, \u2018I am the Way\u2019 and \u2018the Door,\u2019 and partaking of the knowledge of the Father, may also hear the words, \u2018Blessed are the undefiled in the Way,\u2019 and \u2018Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God 2650 .\u2019\n65. 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 \u2018beginning of p. 384 ways.\u2019 For when the first way, which was through Adam, was lost, and in place of paradise we deviated unto death, and heard the words, \u2018Dust thou art, and unto dust 2651 shalt thou return,\u2019 therefore the Word of God, who loves man, puts on Him created flesh at the Father\u2019s will 2652 , that whereas the first man had made it dead through the transgression, He Himself might quicken it in the blood of His own body 2653 , and might open \u2018for us a way new and living,\u2019 as the Apostle says, \u2018through the veil, that is to say, His flesh 2654 ;\u2019 which he signifies elsewhere thus, \u2018Wherefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creation; old things are passed away, behold all things are become new 2655 .\u2019 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 \u2018beginning\u2019 of the new creation, is created as \u2018the Way,\u2019 and consistently says, \u2018The Lord created me a beginning of ways for His works;\u2019 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 \u2018a beginning of its ways,\u2019 we might follow Him henceforth, who says to us, \u2018I am the Way:\u2019\u2014as the blessed Apostle teaches in Colossians, saying, \u2018He 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.\u2019\n66. 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, \u2018He created me a beginning of ways,\u2019 is indicative not of His essence 2656 , but of His bodily presence. For to the body death was proper 2657 ; and in like manner to the bodily presence are the words proper, \u2018The Lord created me a beginning of His ways.\u2019 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, \u2018Let this be written for another generation, and the people that shall be created shall praise the Lord 2658 .\u2019 And again in the twenty-first Psalm, \u2018The generation to come shall declare unto the Lord, and they shall declare His righteousness, unto a people that shall be born whom the Lord made 2659 .\u2019 For we shall no more hear, \u2018In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die 2660 ,\u2019 but \u2018Where I am, there ye\u2019 shall \u2018be also;\u2019 so that we may say, \u2018We are His workmanship, created unto good works 2661 .\u2019 And again, since God\u2019s 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, \u2018Lord, Thou shalt requite for me; despise not then the works of Thine hands 2662 \u2019); therefore the perfect 2663 Word of God puts around Him an imperfect body, and is said to be created \u2018for the works;\u2019 that, paying the debt 2664 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, \u2018I glorified Thee on the earth, I perfected the work which Thou hast given Me to do 2665 ;\u2019 and again, \u2018The works which the Father hath given Me to perfect, the same works that I do, bear witness of Me;\u2019 but \u2018the works 2666 \u2019 He here says that the Father had given Him to perfect, are those for which He is created, saying in the Proverbs, \u2018The Lord created me a beginning of His ways, for His works;\u2019 for it is all one to say, \u2018The Father hath given me the works,\u2019 and \u2018The Lord created me for the works.\u2019\n67. When then received He the works to perfect, O God\u2019s enemies? for from this also \u2018He created\u2019 will be understood. If ye say, \u2018At the beginning when He brought them into being out of what was not,\u2019 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 p. 385 which preceded the Word\u2019s 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 \u2018He created\u2019 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, \u2018not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but holy and without blemish 2667 .\u2019 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 work 2668 ? or what succour had come from like to like, when one as well as other needed it 2669 ? And how, were the Word a creature, had He power to undo God\u2019s sentence, and to remit sin, whereas it is written in the Prophets, that this is God\u2019s doing? For \u2018who is a God like unto Thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by transgression 2670 ?\u2019 For whereas God has said, \u2018Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return 2671 ,\u2019 men have become mortal; how then could things originate undo sin? but the Lord is He who has undone it, as He says Himself, \u2018Unless the Son shall make you free 2672 ;\u2019 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\u2019s Essence, who at the beginning sentenced, and alone remitteth sins. For since it is said in the Word, \u2018Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return,\u2019 suitably through the Word Himself and in Him the freedom and the undoing of the condemnation has come to pass.\n68. \u2018Yet,\u2019 they say, \u2018though the Saviour were a creature, God was able to speak the word only and undo the curse.\u2019 And so another will tell them in like manner, \u2018Without His coming among us at all, God was able just to speak and undo the curse;\u2019 but we must consider what was expedient for mankind, and not what simply is possible with God 2673 . 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 \u2018at the fulness of the ages 2674 ,\u2019 and when sought for said, \u2018I am He 2675 .\u2019 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 provides 2676 . Accordingly He came, not \u2018that He might be ministered unto, but that He might minister 2677 ,\u2019 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 without 2678 , and not having it united to the body; (for he was such when he was placed in Paradise) nay, perhaps had become worse, p. 386 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 interminable 2679 , 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.\n69. 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 it 2680 ; nor would a portion of the creation have been the creation\u2019s 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 \u2018all died 2681 \u2019 in Christ), and all through Him might thereupon become free from sin and from the curse which came upon it, and might truly abide 2682 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 says 2683 , \u2018The prince of this world cometh, and findeth nothing in Me;\u2019 and \u2018For this end was He manifested,\u2019 as John has written, \u2018that He might destroy the works of the devil 2684 .\u2019 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, \u2018Get thee behind Me, Satan 2685 ,\u2019 and thus he is cast out of paradise into the eternal fire. Nor shall we have to watch against woman beguiling us, for \u2018in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the Angels 2686 ;\u2019 and in Christ Jesus it shall be \u2018a new creation,\u2019 and \u2018neither male nor female, but all and in all Christ 2687 ;\u2019 and where Christ is, what fear, what danger can still happen?\n70. 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 it 2688 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\u2019s 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 flesh 2689 of Mary Ever-Virgin 2690 ; for in neither case had it been of profit to us men, whether the Word were not true and naturally Son p. 387 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 rave 2691 ; and in that flesh has come to pass the beginning 2692 of our new creation, He being created man for our sake, and having made for us that new way, as has been said.\n71. 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, \u2018He created Me a work,\u2019 nor \u2018He made Me with the works,\u2019 lest He should appear to be in nature and essence 2693 a creature; nor, \u2018He created Me to make works,\u2019 lest, on the other hand, according to the perverseness of the irreligious, He should seem as an instrument 2694 made for our sake. Nor again has He declared, \u2018He created Me before the works,\u2019 lest, as He really is before all, as an Offspring, so, if created also before the works, He should give \u2018Offspring\u2019 and \u2018He created\u2019 the same meaning. But He has said with exact discrimination 2695 , \u2018for the works;\u2019 as much as to say, \u2018The Father has made Me, into flesh, that I might be man,\u2019 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 what 2696 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, \u2018My hand hath made all these things 2697 ;\u2019 and David says in the Psalm, \u2018And Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Thy hands 2698 ;\u2019 and again, in the hundred and forty-second Psalm, \u2018I do remember the time past, I muse upon all Thy works, yea I exercise myself in the works of Thy hands 2699 .\u2019 Therefore if by the Hand of God the works are wrought, and it is written that \u2018all things were made through the Word,\u2019 and \u2018without Him was not made one thing 2700 ,\u2019 and again, \u2018One Lord Jesus, through whom are all things 2701 ,\u2019 and \u2018in Him all things consist 2702 ,\u2019 it is very plain that the Son cannot be a work, but He is the Hand 2703 of God and the Wisdom. This knowing, the martyrs in Babylon, Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, arraign the Arian irreligion. For when they say, \u2018O all ye works of the Lord, bless ye the Lord,\u2019 they recount things in heaven, things on earth, and the whole creation, as works; but the Son they name not. For they say not, \u2018Bless, O Word, and praise, O Wisdom;\u2019 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 God 2704 , 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, \u2018the Word of the Lord is true, and all His works are faithful 2705 ;\u2019 as in another Psalm too He says, \u2018O Lord, how manifold are Thy works! in Wisdom hast Thou made them all 2706 .\u2019\n72. 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, \u2018The 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 account 2707 .\u2019 For behold he calls things originate \u2018creature;\u2019 but the Son he recognises as the Word of God, as if He were other than the creatures. And again saying, \u2018All things are naked and open to the eyes of Him with whom is our account,\u2019 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 p. 388 time 2708 , \u2018The 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 indeed 2709 ;\u2019 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 \u2018The Lord hath created me a beginning of the ways,\u2019 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.\nIn this passage \u2018was from the beginning\u2019 is made equivalent with \u2018was not before generation,\u2019 and both are contrasted with \u2018without beginning\u2019 or \u2018eternal;\u2019 vid. the bearing of this on Bishop Bull\u2019s explanation of the Nicene Anathema, supr. Exc. B, where this passage is quoted.\n380:2593 380:2594\nThe technical sense of \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03ad\u03b2\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, \u1f00\u03c3\u03ad\u03b2\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, pietas, impietas, for \u2018orthodoxy, heterodoxy,\u2019 has been noticed supr. p. 150, and derived from 1 Tim. iii. 16. The word is contrasted ch. iv. 8. with the (perhaps Gnostic) \u2018profane and old-wives fables,\u2019 and with \u2018bodily exercise.\u2019\n380:2595\nDeut. xxxii. 6. LXX.\n380:2596 380:2597 380:2598 380:2599 380:2600 380:2601 380:2602 380:2603 380:2604\n\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31& 231\u00b7\u03bd. vid. also supr. 10. circ. fin. 56. init. and \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd. 61. init. Also Orat. i. 50 fin. iii. 23\u201325. and de Decr. 31 fin. Or. i. 48, note 7, \u00a756, n. 5. infr. notes on 79.\n380:2605 381:2606 381:2607 381:2608 381:2609 381:2610 381:2611 381:2612 381:2613\nRom. viii. 29. Bishop Bull\u2019s hypothesis about the sense of \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u03cc\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 has been commented on supr. p. 347. As far as Athan.\u2019s discussion proceeds in this section, it only relates to \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u03cc\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 of men (i.e. from the dead), and is equivalent to the \u2018beginning of ways.\u2019\n381:2614\nMarcellus seems to have argued against Asterius from the same texts (Euseb. in Marc. p. 12), that, since Christ is called \u2018first-born from the dead,\u2019 though others had been recalled to life before Him, therefore He is called \u2018first-born of creation,\u2019 not in point of time, but of dignity. vid. Montacut. Not. p. 11. Yet Athan. argues contrariwise. Orat. iv. 29.\n381:2615\n\u00a710. n. 7; Orat. iii. 31. note.\n381:2616\nJohn xiv. 6; x. 9.\n381:2617 382:2618\nHere again, though speaking of the \u2018first-born of creation,\u2019 Athan. simply views the phrase as equivalent to \u2018first-born of the new creation or \u201cbrother\u201d of many;\u2019 and so infr. \u2018first-born because of the brotherhood He has made with many.\u2019\n382:2619\nBp. Bull considers \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 as equivalent to a figurative \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, an idea which (vid. supr. p. 346 sq.) seems quite foreign from Athan.\u2019s meaning. In Bull\u2019s 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. \u03a3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 occurs supr. 51 fin. of the Incarnation. What is meant by it will be found infr. 78\u201381. viz. that our Lord came \u2018to implant in the creatures a type and semblance of His Image;\u2019 which is just what is here maintained against Bull. The whole passage referred to is a comment on the word \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, and begins and ends with an introduction of that word. Vid. also c. Gent. 47.\n382:2620\nVid. Rom. viii. 29.\n382:2621\nThis 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 \u2018internal\u2019 to the Divine Nature, as Begotten, Word, Wisdom, Glory, Hand, &c., but (as he adds presently) the \u2018first-born,\u2019 like \u2018beginning of ways,\u2019 is relative to creation; and therefore cannot denote our Lord\u2019s essence or Divine subsistence, but something temporal, an office, character, or the like.\n382:2622 382:2623 382:2624 382:2625 382:2626\nMatt. iii. 17; xvi. 16.\n382:2627\nThis passage is imitated by Theodoret. in Coloss. i. 15, but the passages from the Fathers referable to these Orations are too many to enumerate.\n382:2628\nWe now come to a third and wider sense of \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, as found (not in Rom. 8:29, Col. 1:18, 15, where by \u2018creation\u2019 Athan. understands \u2018all things visible and invisible.\u2019 As then \u2018for the works\u2019 was just now taken to argue that \u2018created\u2019 was used in a relative and restricted sense, the same is shewn as regards \u2018first-born\u2019 by the words \u2018for in Him all things were created.\u2019\n382:2630 382:2631\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03c2; supr. i. 56, note 6, and \u00a7\u00a753, 56, and so \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 Theophylact to express the same distinction in loc. Coloss.\n382:2632 382:2633 382:2634\nIt would be perhaps better to translate \u2018first-born to the creature,\u2019 to give Athan.\u2019s idea; \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 not being a partitive genitive, or \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 a superlative (though he presently so considers it), but a simple appellative and \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c4. a common genitive of relation, as \u2018the king of a country,\u2019 \u2018the owner of a house.\u2019 \u2018First-born of creation\u2019 is like \u2018author, type, life of creation.\u2019 Hence S. Paul goes on at once to say, \u2018for in Him all things were made,\u2019 not simply \u2018by and for,\u2019 as at the end of the verse; or as Athan. says here, \u2018because in Him the creation came to be.\u2019 On the distinction of \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 and \u1f10\u03bd, referring respectively to the first and second creations, vid. In illud Omn. 2. (Supr. p. 88.)\n382:2635\nTo understand this passage, the Greek idiom must be kept in view. Cf. Milton\u2019s imitation \u2018the fairest of her daughters Eve.\u2019 Vid. as regards the very word \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, John i. 15; and supr. \u00a730, note 3, also \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u1f22 \u1f14\u03bc\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd 3 Maccab. 7, 21. Accordingly as in the comparative to obviate this exclusion, we put in the word \u2018other\u2019 (ante \u2018alios immanior omnes), so too in the Greek superlative, \u2018Socrates is wisest of \u201cother\u201d heathen.\u2019 Athanasius then says in this passage, that \u2018first-born of creatures\u2019 implies that our Lord was not a creature; whereas it is not said of Him \u2018first-born of brethren,\u2019 lest He should he excluded from men, but first-born \u201camong\u201d brethren,\u2019 where \u2018among\u2019 is equivalent to \u2018other.\u2019\n382:2636\nGen. xlix. 3, LXX. Vid. also contr. Gent. 41 sq. where the text Col. i. 15 is quoted.\n383:2637 383:2638 383:2639 383:2640\nRom. 8:19, 21. Thus there are two senses in which our Lord is \u2018first-born to the creation;\u2019 viz. in its first origin, and in its restoration after man\u2019s fall; as he says more clearly in the next section.\n383:2641 383:2642 383:2643 383:2644\nHe 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 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 supr.63, n. 1. vid. supr. de Decr. 19. 3. and Gent. 47. where the \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 is spoken of.\n383:2645\nAs God created Him, in that He created human nature in Him, so is He first-born, in that human nature is adopted in Him. Leo Serm. 63. 3.\n383:2646 383:2647\nThus he considers that \u2018first-born\u2019 is mainly a title, connected with the Incarnation, and also connected with our Lord\u2019s office at the creation (vid. parallel of Priesthood, \u00a78, 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 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03cd\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff7 contr.Apoll. ii. 5. And so again, \u1f21 \u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03b1 \u1f45\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03ae\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9. Clem. Strom. v. 3. \u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03b1\u03bd \u1f30\u03b4\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd \u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 Origen. contr. Cels. vi. 64. fin. \u2018Whatever 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.\u2019 August. in Psalm xliv. 5. He elsewhere calls the Son, \u2018ars qu\u00e6dam omnipotentis atque sapientis Dei, plena omnium rationum viventium incommutabilium.\u2019 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 \u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03b1, but the external minister of the Father\u2019s \u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03b1. de Eccl. Theol. pp. 164, 5. vid. supr. \u00a731, n. 7.\n383:2648 383:2649 383:2650 384:2651 384:2652 384:2653\nVid. Or. i. \u00a748, 7, i. 51, 5, supr. 56, 5. Iren\u00e6us, H\u00e6r. 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.\n384:2654 384:2655 384:2656 384:2657\nAthanasius here says that our Lord\u2019s body was subject to death; and so Incarn. 20, e. also 8, b. 18. init. Orat. iii. 56. And so \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1. Orat. iv. 33. And so S. Leo in his Tome lays down that in the Incarnation, suscepta est ab \u00e6ternitate 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 Aphthartodocet\u00e6), and held that our Lord\u2019s 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.\n384:2658 384:2659 384:2660 384:2661 384:2662 384:2663 384:2664\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u1fbd \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f40\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2, and so the Lord\u2019s death \u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd. Incarn. V.D. 25. \u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ac\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. Naz. Orat. 30, 20. fin. also supr. 9, 13, 14, 47, 55, 67. In Illud. Omn. 2 fin.\n384:2665 384:2666 385:2667 385:2668\nVid. de Decr. 10, 2. 4; Or. i. 49, \u00a716, n. 7. Iren. H\u00e6r. iii. 20.\n385:2669\nCf. 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.\n385:2670 385:2671 385:2672\nVid. John viii. 36.\n385:2673\nVid. 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.\n385:2674 385:2675 385:2676\n\u2018Was 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?\u2019 Chrysost. in Gen. Hom. 24, 7. He proceeds to apply this principle to the pardon of sin. On the subject of God\u2019s power as contrasted with His acts, Petavius brings together the statements of the Fathers, de Deo, v. 6.\n385:2677\nVid. Matt. xx. 28\n385:2678\nAthan. 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. \u00a776, note.\n386:2679 386:2680 386:2681 386:2682\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u00a763, n. 8; \u00a773, Gent. 41, Serm. Maj. de Fid. 5.\n386:2683\nJohn xiv. 30. \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 t. rec. \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9 Ath. et al.\n386:2684 386:2685 386:2686 386:2687\nGal. vi. 15; iii. 28.\n386:2688\n\u1f10\u03bd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u1fc3. supr. p. 65, note 5. vid. also ad Adelph. 4. a. Serap. i. 24, e. and \u00a756, 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 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f76 vid. Orat. iii. 25. \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd. Cyr. in Joan. p. 74. \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1. Orat. iii. 23, c. 41, a. 45 init. \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9. ibid. \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1. iii. 48 fin. 53. Theodor. H. E. i. p. 846. init.\n386:2689 386:2690\nVid. also Athan. in Luc. (Migne xxvii. 1393 c). This title, which is commonly applied to S. Mary by later writers, is found Epiph. H\u00e6r. 78, 5. Didym. Trin. i. 27. p. 84. Rufin. Fid. i. 43. Lepor. ap Cassian. Incarn. i. 5. Leon. Ep. 28, 2. C\u00e6sarius has \u1f00\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2. Qu. 20. On the doctrine itself vid. a letter of S. Ambrose and his brethren to Siricius, and the Pope\u2019s letter in response. (Coust. Ep. Pont. p. 669\u2013682.) Also Pearson On the Creed, Art. 3. [\u00a7\u00a79, 10, p. 267 in Bohn\u2019s ed.] He replies to the argument from \u2018until\u2019 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\u2019s 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 \u2018until\u2019 (which may be transferred to Matt. i. 25), is well brought out. \u2018He who is King before He subdued His enemies, how shall He not the rather be King, after He has got the mastery over them?\u2019\n387:2691 387:2692 387:2693 387:2694 387:2695 387:2696 387:2697 387:2698 387:2699 387:2700 387:2701 387:2702 387:2703 387:2704\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. 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. \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, In Illud. Omn. 6, contr. Sab. Greg. \u00a74, f.\n387:2705 387:2706 387:2707 388:2708 388:2709","title":"Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Ser. II, Vol. IV: Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.): 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.","type":"page"}