Panarion (Against Heresies) 1 part 57/82

So then, the Spirit is God from God, through which Holy Spirit we are called temples, if we cause his Spirit to dwell within us.

For the Spirit is the Spirit of Christ, proceeding from the Father and receiving from the Son, as the Only-begotten himself confesses.

All these things, then, we set forth in the aforementioned treatise on the Faith, which, as I said, was written for the regions of Pamphylia and Pisidia.

But here, since we have arrived at the subsequent phrases under examination, we have again been careful of necessity to recall the same things, so to speak, on account of the aforementioned heresiarch Arius and the Arians who follow him, in order that we might dissolve their wickedness, which turns sweet into bitter, and good into base, and light into darkness.

For upon such as these, the woe has been utterly determined by the Lord through the holy Isaiah -- upon those who turn good things into evil.

And God is nowhere the cause of such things; rather, each of these men, either through vainglory, or through preconceived bias, or through self-devised philosophy, or through demonic conceit, has fallen away from the truth, and has smuggled into the world affliction, namely his own wickedness.

Come then, let us examine through this expression, so that we may know the things spoken by the Lord, just as the holy apostle says: 'We also have the Spirit of God, that we may know the things graciously given to us by God' -- which things we also speak, and so on.

So then the Lord says, 'Grant them to have life in themselves.'

'And this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.'

But this Arius and his followers leap up in confusion, and they say:

'By the very fact that he prays at all to God, saying, "Father, grant them to have life in themselves," he is not equal to the one who supplies the life.'

'For if he were of the Father's essence, he himself would grant the life, and would not ask the Father to give, to those who receive, the things given by him through petitions.'

And those who have perverted their own understanding against themselves do not know that the Only-begotten came for all things, that he might become for us an example and salvation, standing in the midst of the world, like an athlete in an arena, dissolving everything that had risen up against the truth out of unbelief and slander and the deceit of the devil -- in one place through idolatry, in another through Jewish presumption, in another through unbelief, in another through the arrogance of human self-conceit -- in order to teach men to be humble-minded, that no one, being human, should think himself to be something, but should refer everything to the Father of all.

And for this reason, although he is life -- as he says, 'I am the life' -- and although able to supply life, he does not wish to disturb what is right; rather, since he came to gather together into one first principle, one Godhead, one truth, one concord, one doxology, both the salvation and the understanding of mankind, he asks the Father in the presence of his disciples.

Does he not ask of the Father? But what father does not give to his son? And what son turns out to be other than his father's nature? And for this reason the Only-begotten Son, from the Father, full of grace and truth, had no need of that fullness, not being deficient in truth, but full of grace and truth.

But he who is full both gives and is able to give;

yet he wishes to refer all things back to the Father.

For the Son glorifies the Father, and the Father glorifies the Only-begotten;

For 'I have glorified you on the earth,' said the Son to the Father; and the Father said to the Son, 'I have glorified you, and I will glorify you again.'

For there is no separation, no envy, in the Godhead.

'Grant them, then, to have life in themselves.'

He who is life wishes to receive life from the Father and give it to the disciples, even though he himself is life, so that he might not divide the Monad, and so that he might not become a stumbling-block to the Jews, and so that the Jews might hear him asking of the Father and giving to his own disciples.

How then does the Son ask the Father -- as one who does not possess, and so asks? Not so; rather, he signifies the unity of the Trinity, which perfectly supplies the gifts to the one who worthily receives them.

But in order to signify that the Godhead is one, again in another place he no longer asks, but gives, giving what is his own by his own authority, being a fountain from the Fountain, and God from God;

for he breathed upon their faces, and said:

'Receive the Holy Spirit'; and at another time he lifted up his hands and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit.'

And he has life in himself, so that he may give it to whomever he wills.

For as the Father has life in himself, so also the Son has life in himself.

And you see that it is for the sake of honor toward the Father, and for the sake of a single unity and a single doxology, and so that the disciples might not suppose that the Only-begotten came to turn the minds of believers away from the God of the Law and the Prophets -- for this reason, being God and foreknowing the wickedness of men, he directs his word as toward the Father and gives the glory, undiminished, to the Father, so that Mani might be put to shame for denying the Father, so that the disciples might learn that this same Godhead is in the Old and New Testaments, and so that the Jews might be confounded, knowing that the Only-begotten did not come to teach another God, but to reveal his own Godhead and that of his heavenly Father.

'Grant them, then, to have life in themselves' -- and yet he himself was proclaiming this very life.

How then did he ask the Father to give them what he himself was teaching and giving? For he afterward declared what life is, saying, 'This,' he says, 'is life: that they may know you, the only true God.'

Then Arius and his followers leap up because of this expression, as though they had found something against the truth, because he said, 'the only,' he says, 'true God.'

'You see, then, that the Father alone is the true one.'

But we in turn ask you: what then do you say? The Father alone is the true one -- but what then will the Son be? Is the Son not true? If the Son is not true, our faith is vain, and the preaching among us is vain; you will be found comparing the Son of God -- blaspheming against your own selves -- to the nameless and unlawful idols, of which the prophets spoke in the person of those who had been deceived, as each of the prophets recalled this expression, saying, 'And our fathers made for themselves false gods, and the hills became false.'

So then, according to you, the Only-begotten too is judged in this way, and so shamefully do you think concerning the one who redeemed you -- if indeed he did redeem you.

But you are no longer of his fold, since you deny your Savior and the one who purchased you.

For if he is not the true God, then he is not to be worshipped either; and if he is a creature, he is not God.

leading the peoples along, preparing them to serve an image rather than God and the truth.

And who else is true as the Son of God is? 'For who among the sons of God shall be equal to the Lord?' says the Scripture; 'and no other shall be reckoned alongside him.'

And of whom does it speak? -- that you may see that it speaks of the Son, it continues in order, saying: 'He found out every way of knowledge, and gave it to Jacob his servant, and to Israel his beloved.'

'And after this he appeared upon earth, and lived among men.' How then have these things not been truly spoken concerning him -- he who also says, 'I am the truth'?

How then did the Only-begotten, being true God, say, 'that they may know you, the only true God'? It was so that polytheism might not be supposed, and so that there might be no division of the life-giving knowledge. For if the Father alone is the true God, the Son too is true, having been truly begotten of the Father.

For in honoring the Father, and revealing him alone as the true God, he showed himself to be truly begotten of the Father.

For this reason the Father is true God, and the only-begotten Son is true God.

And from what must this be shown? But observe for me the wording here, how it here calls only the Father the true God—

while in the Gospel according to John it says, 'that was the true light.'

And what true light is this but the Only-begotten? And again, the Scriptures say of God that 'God is light,' but did not say 'God is the true light'—

whereas concerning the only-begotten Son of God it says that the Only-begotten is the true light.

And concerning the Father it says 'true God,' but did not say that God is 'true light'—

and concerning the Son it says 'God,' and in the case of 'the Son is God' it did not add 'true.'

And where it says 'God is light,' it did not add 'true light.'

What then shall we say concerning the Father? For God is indeed true light, and so we shall not make the Godhead deficient.

And since 'the true light' is not written of the Father, we would be sinning were we to say that he is not true light; and since it is written of the Son that he is God, and that the God was with the Father who truly is—for 'the Word was God,' and it did not say that the Word became God, but that he was God—from these two [statements] the equal balance will be shown.

From the fact that the Father is true God and the Son is true light, the equal weight of their dignity will appear; and from the fact that the Son is God and God is light, the equal balance of their glorification will be found.

And it will make no difference, nor could anyone gainsay the truth, but the Father is true God and the Only-begotten is true God.

But I am further compelled here to speak also concerning the Holy Spirit, lest by omitting anything I give occasion to those enemies who wish to gainsay, that they should have their pretext.

For thus also is the Holy Spirit, as the Lord himself testifies, saying 'the Spirit of truth,' 'the Spirit of the Father,' while the Apostle says 'the Spirit of Christ.'

Therefore the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth, the Spirit of God, even as he is true God, as he is true light, as he is the Spirit of the Father, as he is the Spirit of the Son.

For the Trinity is one, one is the glorification, one the Godhead, one the Lordship.

Holy Spirit, Holy Spirit—the Trinity is not a mere conflation, nor is it divided from its own unity, nor deficient in perfection, nor alien to its own distinct property, but altogether perfection: three perfect [persons], one Godhead.

And so the sword of those who stand in opposition has fallen.

For thus it is written: 'Their blows became as the arrow of babes.'

For indeed infants, even if they wish to take up arrows, are powerless, being unable to do anything with them in their hands.

And if the infants become agitated, they rather slay themselves and injure themselves, being unable to direct the effort of the arrow against others—just as these men too have marshaled their error against themselves, and shall inflict nothing upon the sons of truth.

But I shall now pass on again to other expressions devised by them.

And first of all, it is a matter of astonishment how they employ irony to deceive those who are simple and naturally guileless—

These men, when they wish to win someone over, first approach with many flatteries and lavish generosity and attentiveness, together with promises and, at the same time, threats—telling those unwilling to conform to their faith that they are opposing the imperial edicts and the wrath of the emperor Valens.

And what do they say? 'For what is it that we are saying? It is the very same faith—only that you are being vainglorious.' Let us then see whether it is indeed the same faith.

'We confess the Son begotten of the Father, and we do not deny it.'

'But we must,' he says, 'also confess him as a creature and a thing made.'

For everything that is created is not the same as that which is begotten, nor is that which is begotten the same as that which is created—especially with respect to that one pure and perfect essence.

For all things have been created by God, but the Son of God alone has been begotten, and the Holy Spirit alone has proceeded from the Father and has received of the Son.

But all other things are created, and they neither proceeded, having proceeded from the Father, nor do they receive from the Son in that sense, but rather are from the fullness of the Son, as it is written:

For by the word of God all things were established, and all their power by the breath of his mouth. But, he says, we must also confess him as a creature, since Scripture used the word "creature" in an even more figurative sense, just as it also used the word "offspring" figuratively.

For even if we say 'offspring,' we do not mean it as one of the ordinary begotten things.

Therefore, in saying 'offspring' while meaning that it is not truly offspring, they deceive the more guileless.

'And we also confess him as a creature,' they say.

For since Christ is also called a door, and a way, and a pillar, and a cloud, and a rock, and a lamb, and a sheep, and a torrent, and a calf, and a lion, and a fountain, and wisdom, and word, and son, and angel, and Christ, and savior, and lord, and man, and son of man, and cornerstone, and sun, and prophet, and bread, and king, and builder, and farmer, and shepherd, and vine, and all such things—

so also, they say, we call him a creature in a loose sense.

Alas for such wicked insinuation and cunning!

May the Lord not allow any of the sons of truth to be led astray by such irony, so that through such pretexts, having admitted the name 'creature' with reference to the Son of God, he should be persuaded to confess him thus as well.

For let them give us the use of this term and the account of their reasoning.

For all those names are spoken in a loose sense, and none of them intrude upon the Godhead of the Son, nor do they render deficient his essential being in relation to the Father.

Or if he is called 'door,' it is because through him we enter in; or 'way,' because through him we walk; or 'pillar,' because he himself is the foundation of the truth; or 'cloud,' because he overshadowed the sons of Israel; or again 'pillar,' on account of the brightness of the fire which gave light in the wilderness; or 'manna,' because they refused to acknowledge him as the bread from heaven; or 'bread,' because through him we are strengthened; or 'angel,' because he is 'the angel of great counsel'—for the name 'angel' is used equivocally—

For Rahab received the 'angels,' and those who were sent were not angels but rather those who brought a report about the place—

So too the Only-begotten, since he announced the Father's will to mankind, is 'the angel of great counsel,' proclaiming the great counsel in the world. And he is called 'stone'—not that the stone is insensate, but the name is used loosely, because he became a stumbling-block to the Jews, but to us a foundation of salvation; and 'cornerstone,' because he bound together the Old and New Testaments, circumcision and uncircumcision, into one union—

And he is 'lamb' on account of his innocence, and because through him sin has been abolished from among men, in that he was offered to the Father as 'a sheep for the slaughter,' since he—the impassible one—came to suffer on our behalf, that we might be saved. And whatever else, by the same sort of usage, contributes to the salvation of the sons of men, is applied to him from the divine Scripture in a loose sense.

...it makes use of these names for our salvation and for the enfleshed glorification and perfect Godhead of God the Word. What benefit is it to us to call him a creature? What does a creature accomplish for creatures? What benefit is a creature to creatures? And how did God create a son, giving him as God to be worshiped, when he says, 'You shall not make for yourself any likeness, either on earth or in heaven, and you shall not worship it'? How then did he create for himself a son and command him to be worshiped? Especially since the Apostle says, 'and they worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, and became fools.'

For it is foolish to deify a creature while setting aside the first commandment, which says, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.'

Therefore the holy Church of God does not worship a creature, but the begotten Son—the Father in the Son, the Son in the Father—together with the Holy Spirit.

'For if I do not say that he is a creature,' he says, 'I ascribe a diminishment to the Father.'

For that which is created does not diminish the one who created it, whereas that which is begotten by nature entails either contraction or expansion or diminution or division, or some such affection, attaching to the one who begot it.

But great is the folly of those who reason thus, wishing to imagine the divine after themselves and to attach to God the affections that pertain to themselves, seeing that God is entirely impassible both in begetting and in creating.

For just as we suffer some affection in begetting, since we are creatures, so too we grow weary in creating.

And if the Father suffers affection in begetting, then he must also grow weary in creating.

But how can one speak of affection concerning God, or of weariness, if indeed he creates? But he does not grow weary—far be it!

For Scripture says, 'He shall not grow weary.'

God, then, is spirit, and in a manner befitting spirit he begot the Son without beginning and without time—God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not created.

But I shall pass over this saying as well, and let us again apply ourselves to other matters, among those things said and chanted by them with evil insinuations, which I have set forth above.

For again, crudely misinterpreting it, they cite this saying: 'Receive your high priest, who was faithful to him who made him.'

And first of all, they reject this epistle—I mean the Epistle to the Hebrews—actually denying that it belongs to the Apostle, and saying that it is not by the same author.

Yet on account of their own disease, as I said before, they misconstrue the saying against themselves, allegedly introducing the notion of a creature from the phrase 'faithful to him who made him.'

But someone possessed of understanding might ask them—and they would be at a loss, having nothing to answer—when our Lord took upon himself the name 'high priest' to be called by. For nowhere before his fleshly coming did he have these names: to be called 'stone,' 'the sheep led to slaughter,' 'man' and 'son of man,' 'eagle' and 'lamb,' and all the other names which are applied to him after his fleshly coming—just as also his being called 'high priest,' in accordance with the matter which the Law proclaimed concerning him, that 'the Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet from among your brothers.'

Therefore the text clearly explains 'prophet' and 'high priest,' and what follows from these after his sojourn here, so that one can also see with certainty how, once again, the invincible power and foreknowledge of God, in order to stop every mouth that rises up against the truth, foreordained and secured everything beforehand with wonderful guidance.

For it says thus, in the same context: 'Every high priest taken from among men is appointed on behalf of men, to offer both gifts and sacrifices, being able to deal gently.'

For he is under obligation to offer also for his own sins; but he who has no sin offered himself to the Father.

And the phrase 'from among men' applies on account of his sojourn among us, while the fact that he is 'not from men' and 'has no sin' is on account of his Godhead.

And you see that all things concerning Christ are smooth, and nothing in them is knotted.

For the phrase 'high priest, faithful to him who made him' does not here narrate the very formation of the body, nor his becoming man; it does not speak of creation at all, but rather of the gift and office given after his sojourn among us regarding his dignity—

just as it is also said, 'He gave him a name which is above every name.'

And this was not fulfilled formerly in his Godhead, but in his present coming, inasmuch as his incarnation, the...

What, then, does 'he made him' mean? Let those who love contention learn from all that has been said above that nothing in this saying pertains to his Godhead, but rather to his fleshly coming; and that 'he made him' is spoken not with reference to making or creating, but with reference to his dignity after his coming.

For if someone were to ask a king concerning his own son, 'What is this one by nature to you?' he would hear from him, 'He is my son.'

'Is he then genuine to you, or illegitimate?' But he says:

'He is genuine, of me.' What then did you make him? 'I made him king.' It is clear that nothing has been altered from his father's dignity.

And it is not at all the case that, because he said 'I made him king,' he therefore created him, says the king.

For he did not deny the begetting, which he confessed, saying that he had begotten him, when he said 'I made'; rather, he clearly declared the begetting, while by 'I made' he indicated dignity.

So too the Son is undoubtedly believed and worshiped as Son of the Father by those who wish to secure life for themselves.

And that he became high priest is because in his body he offered himself to the Father on behalf of mankind — himself the priest, himself the victim:

He offered himself, acting as high priest on behalf of all creation, and having ascended spiritually and gloriously in that very body, he sat down at the right hand of the Father, having become high priest forever, and having passed through the heavens once for all, as the same holy apostle testifies concerning him in the words that follow.

And thus their pretextual disputation over this divine Scripture has again fallen through — Scripture being life-giving and containing nothing that could be a stumbling block to the faithful, or that could furnish a blasphemous diminishment of the Word.

Then again they cite another saying, how John, standing in the wilderness and seeing him coming, said, 'This is he of whom I said to you, "After me comes a man who has come to be before me, because he was before me."'

And first, as though their heads were heavy with drowsiness, they alter the very words in their understanding and say:

'How is this fulfilled in the incarnate coming, seeing that he was not conceived in Mary's womb before John?' But, as the evangelist says:

'And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent to a city of Galilee, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph.'

'And coming in to her he said:'

'Hail, favored one, the Lord is with you,' and the rest that follows.

So then, as the virgin was troubled at the greeting, he said to her:

'Behold, you will conceive in the womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. And behold, your kinswoman Elizabeth has also conceived a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren.'

And you see, he says, that six months before Mary received the good tidings, John already existed beforehand.

How then will 'he came before me' be fulfilled in the incarnate coming of Christ? And who among the simple, not yet clearly established in understanding, upon hearing this saying, would not be troubled? † For the necessary, sound, and life-giving words of divine Scripture appear all the more harmful to those who draw evils upon themselves, though the sayings are in every way illumined by the Holy Spirit.

For what has been left out of the saying for the sake of certainty? For behold, he says 'this is he,' indicating and pointing out to those who saw him the visible one, 'of whom I told you, "After me comes."'

Concerning Cerinthus and Merinthus and Ebion

But together with 'man,' it is altogether certain that the true faithful also know him as Lord, as John too testifies: 'That which we heard from the beginning' — meaning to say the one who is from the beginning, the invisible God the Word, whom we heard proclaimed in the divine Scriptures, announced by the prophets, hymned in heaven.

And for this reason, 'that which we heard from the beginning and beheld with our eyes' — so that 'having heard' might confess God from the beginning above, while 'having seen' might signify man, of whom John the Baptist also said, 'After me comes a man':

And 'our hands have handled' — so that it might signify God from above, and point out the visible man born of Mary and risen perfect from the dead, not casting off the holy vessel he assumed and his perfect becoming man, but through the handling of the side and the mark of the nails, confess these three unshakably.

So likewise here too understand that 'this is he of whom I told you, "after me comes a man"' is meant to signify the incarnate coming, and that 'he was before me' is meant to indicate the deity, in that 'he came to be before me.'

'For he was in the world,' says the holy Gospel, 'and the world came to be through him, and the world did not know him.'

If then he was in the world before John was born and conceived, he came to be in the world before him — signifying nothing about creation, nor about making, but according to the usage by which men are accustomed to speak in the same idiom:

'I came to be in Jerusalem,' 'I came to be in Babylon,' 'I came to be in Ethiopia,' 'I came to be in Alexandria' — not signifying creation here, but arrival and presence.

For what does 'I came to be in Babylon,' or in another place, signify, except that I came?

'He came to be before me,' therefore, in order to show the ever-continuing arrival of the Word upon the earth; and 'he was before me,' in order to show that his deity ever exists.

And 'coming after me,' in order to show the conception after John.

And for this reason: 'I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness' — a voice preparing the hearing of mankind.

For those who call out are accustomed first to utter an inarticulate but resonant sound, calling from afar those who have something to hear from them; and when those others have heard only the sound and have turned their mind to listen and have prepared their hearing, then the one who uttered the resonant sound thereupon articulates clearly the word that he wished to say.

So too John became a voice preparing the hearing of mankind.

For he himself was not the Word, but after him came the Word, for whose sake the preparing voice came to be.

And for this reason it says, 'A voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the ways of the Lord.'

For the voice prepares, but the Lord treads upon the ways that have been prepared.

And the voice speaks into the hearing:

But when the hearing has been made ready, then the Word is cast down into the hearing of those who receive it.

Nowhere, then, will Arius and his followers lay hold of God's truth, which ever illumines the hearts of the faithful so that they may not turn away from the salvation that is in the Word, the Son of God, in truth uncreated and unbegotten.

As we again make progress and proceed to what follows, we shall omit nothing of what was set forth above for resolution, but shall once more take up the sequence.

For again they allege another pretext, the saying spoken by the holy Peter in the Acts: 'Let it be known to you, all the house of Israel, that this Jesus whom you crucified, God has made both Lord and Christ.'

And again they say that here 'made' is written, and they do not perceive the saying; for the saying interprets itself: for 'this Jesus' is said in order to signify the incarnation of the Lord.

For from 'this Jesus whom you crucified' it is manifest that what they crucified was the flesh:

'...which I heard from my Father' — yet not thereby separating the deity from the becoming man.

For neither did the deity exist apart from the becoming man, at the time when he was about to suffer, nor was the incarnate presence abandoned by the Word in the suffering.

But neither did the impassible Word itself suffer, except insofar as he was in the flesh that suffered.

For the one name is true of both, both in the deity and in the becoming man.

For Christ is the Word himself become man, and Christ is Lord in that very incarnate coming.

But the suffering was in the flesh, as Peter said, 'Christ having suffered for us in the flesh,' so as to show the impassibility of the deity; and again, 'having died in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit.'

This Jesus, then, whom you crucified — so that the holy incarnate dispensation might not be sundered from the impassible and uncreated Word, but might be united above with the uncreated Word — for this reason God made both Lord and Christ that which was conceived of Mary, that which was united in deity:

For Mary is not God by nature; therefore it goes on to add 'made,' just as the angel Gabriel also says, when she asked, 'How shall this be, since I do not know a man?' — he said, 'The Spirit of the Lord will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.'

'Therefore also the one who is begotten shall be called holy, the Son of God.'